top of page

NHS Wins Gold

Stephen Hornsby-Smith

NHS Wins Gold, a victory in austerity and in the best of times: For sane and sense the NHS is a common wealth best spent.

The NHS has been the embodiment of the 'War spirit' as a part of healing process between loss of an Empire and a gaining of a commonwealth on all sorts of levels. Unlike the failed Nationalization programme rolled-out by the Attlee government of 1945, the NHS is now seen as part of the establishment that isn't reliant on stock and sale price or over-unionization or ideology or blind economics; the state of the NHS does vary from one era to another but it is always revered as a formidable British statement whose work force are undeniably absolutely loyal to it. This 'British public ownership at its best' and is seen as a beacon of non for profit making at its most endurable. It is as essential as the Brown governments' saving the Banks in 2007-8, yet as contrasting in viability when compared with the nationalized shibbeleths that have subsequently been put into private hands.

But here are some layers of information that you yourselves must interpret - my job here is to only put the information out there: - Why do the individuals who fork-out most of the taxation money that pays for the NHS not the most avid supporters? -Why aren't they represented in all the major parties? -Why is there always open competition in Cabinet to get the best budget deal when the priority of the NHS is so necessary? -Why do we place all our eggs in one or two corporate trade unions when self-evidently they don't represent all the staff committed to the service? -Is the NHS a derivative principle from 'Depression years' in America? _If that is so ,why don't political historians acknowledge that fact? --Was the creation of the NHS a post-imperial and not a Socialist policy? -Was the NHS drawn into a unhelpful debate over across the board nationalization programme of the 45's government, notably that Labour asset stripped vast areas of the economy to further their ideological agenda. -Do we still fail to distinguish between the NHS and industrial output? -Did the Attlee government want to stage its own laissez-faire policy(turning a cynical Socialist blind eye) to political minds that saw the NHS differently from both the public sector and the private? -Is it our very British form of national service? -Did the 45 government provoke the backlash against nationalized industries and their unions by 1979? -Why did we not analyse that the NHS might suffer in the fall-out of the spat between Thatcher and the Left? -Can we say that by association that the NHS was dragged into a political brawl that was really about 'how to recover from the end of the Empire '? -Can we now say that the 'sick-man' of Europe had nothing to do with the NHS, but about over-unionization and absence of deregulation that not only benefitted Britain's economy but helped to destabilize the sickness of Soviet desparation? Ironically, when Russia ditched Marx for The Wealth of Nations, Thatcher has more influence in todays Russia than she has in todays Britain? -Does the NHS heal even more outstanding inner-city urban Dickensian problems from the 19th century than any environment secretary of state ever has? -Has the NHS prospered under the aegis of 'non-political' ring fenced issues? -If so who politicizes the NHS? Tory or Labour? The 'NHS is in Crisis' or the NHS is value for money and so it should remain'?

bottom of page