I
have a confession to make. Throughout my adult life I have voted for the
Conservative Party on all but one occasion. That occasion was an episode in my
teens in Kent when, in a rebellious streak, I voted for the local Liberal
candidate. In retrospect, I suspect that was more because I had a soft spot for
an old primary school friend, the Hon. Victoria Lubbock, (daughter of the
former Liberal MP for Orpington, Eric Lubbock - now Lord Avebury) than the
holding of any real political conviction. However, from thereon I politically
turned from yellow to blue, and had seen no convincing reason to rekindle my
chameleon activities until the past few years, when I became a sort of bland
neutral in response to the growing conviction that nobody in Westminster really
seems to know what they are doing with our country.
That
was all before Andy Burnham’s speech to the influential King’s Fund last week.
For those readers who are too politically fatigued to care anymore (and I don’t
blame you), Andy Burnham MP is Labour’s shadow Health Secretary, and The King’s
Fund is a renowned, apolitical, high quality ‘think tank’ for debating new
ideas in healthcare delivery.
In
his speech, delivered to a silent and intently listening audience, Mr Burnham
outlined the contents of his Green Paper on how the Labour Party, if elected to
Government in 2015, would rescue the remnants of our National Health Service
from its current fragmented state on Death Row. What materialised was a breath of
fresh air in political thinking in the way we need to tackle the growing crisis
of care for an increasingly elderly population, and how to manage the shrinking
financial pot with which to tackle that crisis. I say ‘political breath of
fresh air’ as many of us outside of national politics but inside local health
and social systems have long been convinced of the sensible way forward. That
is, the abolition of the artificial divide between ‘health services’ and
‘social services’ in terms of funding, management and provision. The important
word here is ‘integration’; an integrated system that can deal with a person’s
entire health and social needs without recourse to cross-departmental or
cross-organisational politics, policies and funding. Essentially, one organisation
would take control of the lot, with specialist advisers (for example, doctors
in respect to healthcare) to keep the system balanced. For once, ‘whole-person
care’ will be the responsibility of one organisation. Just how sensible is
that?
As
I listened to Andy Burnham from my beleaguered bunker as a GP in primary care,
I began to sense another colour change materialising. For once, a political
agenda was being proposed that I could warm to with heartfelt conviction. It
was a policy that was actually saying ‘we understand and genuinely care for the
plight of those with health and social needs in our society – and we want to
provide a system that can comprehensively help them’. ‘Hallelujah’ was my
response, as I psychologically crossed the floor of the House of Commons. Now,
I wonder if my constituency Labour party needs an experienced doctor and health
manager to stand as their candidate in 2015?
(First
published in the Scunthorpe Telegraph,
Thursday 7th February 2013)
No comments:
Post a Comment