General Election 2017 - Health & Social Care: Voters ousting Jeremy Hunt would send the Conservatives a very strong message

Health and social care in Britain is under tremendous strain and more Tory cuts won't help.

One of the biggest questions hanging over the 2017 general election is the future of funding for health services in Britain. The Conservatives have overseen one crisis after another over the last seven years.

There is a clear distinction to be made between progressives and Conservatives on how to address them. Under the Conservatives their are going to be more cuts, while the progressive parties have pledged to raise more money.

And this election even offers a symbolic way to reject the Tory approach to healthcare. Dr Louise Irvine - who previously took the government to court and won over the cutting of casualty and maternity services Lewisham Hospital closure - is standing against Health Minister Jeremy Hunt in the South West Surrey constituency.

Tactical Voting

On behalf of the National Health Action Party, Dr Irvine is standing against Jeremy Hunt and the field has been cleared. Local members of the Liberal Democrats and Labour have agreed not to campaign and the Green Party withdrew its own candidate.

The various progressive alliance movements have all offered their endorsement, including Compass - the most well known pressure group for a new more pluralism politics.

Let's be realistic: it would be a huge upset for Dr Irvine to defeat Jeremy Hunt. Last time he took 34,000 votes (with UKIP on 5,600), while Irvine took just under 5,000. However, support for the Conservatives is not innate.

Through the 1990s and into the 2000s, the Conservative-progressive split (led by the Lib Dems) averaged out at 26,000 to 26,000. Only since 2010 has Hunt opened up a significant majority. And now he's among the most well known ministers - for all the wrong reasons.

Voters in Surrey have a chance to reject Hunt's management of the NHS and the air of conflict he has created with doctors. Members and campaigners for the progressive parties have already thrown in their backing for Irvine. Now it's down to voters.

Health in Crisis

And there are a lot of reasons voters can be dissatisfied with Hunt. From strikes, to closures, to year and after year cuts to funding, Britain's healthcare system faces some dire years ahead if the Tories remain in power.

Hunt caused plenty of controversy by deciding to go toe and to toe with junior doctors over new contracts and casting them as unreasonable people taking unnecessary action. Fortunately, the public was having none of it: polls showed the public consistently behind the doctors.

The strike action over contracts goes hand in hand with discontent at the ongoing public sector pay capped, limited to a 1% rise. The policy has led to distress particularly among NHS staff, with pay not rising along with prices and the general cost of living.

Hunt's management of the NHS has also antagonised patients. One in six A&E departments across the country face closure under the Tory drive to find £22bn in cuts from the health budget in the next few years. These emergency units have been under severe strain, with waiting times targets consistently missed.

The problems with healthcare in Britain stretch beyond the Health Secretary to his party's wider approach.

One place from where extra pressure is being exerted on the NHS is social care. With no where to go, thanks to a shortage of places, hospital beds are remaining full. Elder patients are finding themselves stuck in hospitals, unable to be discharged because the social care system is at capacity.

That is in part thanks to Conservative cuts to local government funding, that has seen billions cut from social care budgets - with only token efforts to restore minimal amounts, mostly to be raised by local councils themselves, a move that is clearly punitive to poorer communities.

This failure to display compassion has overtaken welfare too. From cuts to disability benefits to attempts, appallingly, to dismiss the needs of those with mental illnesses. In an effort to cut spending on welfare, Tory policy chief George Freeman said the party wants welfare to go only to the "really disabled".

All of fronts, there appears to more concern about producing an immaculate looking balance sheet, than about the comprehensive quality service that balance sheet is supposed to be providing.

Progressive Pitch

The progressive parties are calling for a change in direction and both Labour and the Liberal Democrats have pledged more funding - and not just for the NHS itself. Both parties are calling for more to be restored to the social care system and for health and social care to be seen and treated as a joined-up service.

Labour have pledged to raise around £6 billion a year extra for the NHS, from higher taxes on the wealthy. They accompany that with investment from their proposed National Transformation Fund to upgrade hospitals and their equipment.

The Liberal Democrats go a step further. They plan to add a penny in the pound to tax, affecting all earners - but hitting the richest hardest - specifically to support the NHS and social care.

Both of these plans are a pragmatic step towards addressing the problems in the healthcare system. So would lowering stress for public sector workers by lifting the pay cap, to which both parties have committed.

Labour and the Lib Dems are also pledging to do away with some of the Conservatives more heinous welfare cuts, particularly those affecting people with disabilities.

Stand up for Healthcare

The idea of a progressive alliance is a rejection of the gerrymandering system that forces people to divide according to tribal loyalties. To bring people together who support common values and work together to ensure better representation.

In this election, the progressive alliance movement has brought parts of the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens together around the common values - for which they have stood in most past elections.

But standing aside for National Health Action and their candidate Dr Louise Irvine shows something more: a willingness to put aside narrow interest to fight for something larger. To put a candidate into office who has fought long and hard for the NHS.

Voters have to do two things. To vote for the candidates that stand for their values - not just for a specific party - and they need to be vocal about what is moving them. Healthcare always tops the list of people's concerns in Britain.

Jeremy Hunt has mismanaged the National Health Service. His party in government has sewn division and lacked compassion. Even if you usually vote Conservative, especially if you normally vote Conservative, rejecting Hunt and electing Dr Louise Irvine would be a strong statement.

Choosing Dr Louise Irvine would be a symbolic defence of the NHS and of the principles of compassionate universal care. But it would also put into office a tireless and independent minded local campaigner - who beat the government in the courts to stop closures and isn't afraid to call out any of the parties on their record.

Where is there left to go when politics breaks down into stark and implacable camps? The hidden peril of conflict

The latest junior doctors' strikes breached a controversial threshold when it withdrew emergency care. Ahead of the two days scheduled for the strikes, scare stories circulated talk of the NHS creaking - maybe encouraged by how the polls had previously suggested that public support would weaken.

In the event, support for the strike action actually remained in the majority with only a small percentage fall from before emergency care was withdrawn, with the public still largely seeing the government as culpable, and the NHS appeared to cope with the strain (Triggle, 2016; Broomfield, 2016).

The emergency threshold was breached and support for the strikers remained. That would seem to put matters in favour of the junior doctors. But the big question is - did the full strike change anything?

The short answer is... probably very little.

For those familiar with how things are actually achieved in politics - that is, usually through some kind of compromise - that shouldn't come as a huge shock. What the emergency strikes have not altered are the fundamental positions on either side of the divide.

The government didn't see the weakening of public support for which it might have hoped. And, short of those in other professions walking out in support, more akin to a general strike, the withdrawal of emergency care is as far as the strikers can escalate.

The doctor's duty of care means there are limits to the withdrawal of labour - unless a lingering rumour of mass resignations by doctors has any truth in it (Campbell, 2016). At this point, breaking the deadlock may require different kinds of resignations.

Not least forth in the queue for an exit has to the Health Secretary himself Jeremy Hunt, whose belligerence has allowed and encouraged the escalation of the dispute. The BMA - the British Medical Association, the doctor's union - has also firmly staked out a position specifically counter to that of the Health Secretary due to what they felt was a pointed threat to impose new contracts without negotiation.

On both sides, it seems only a toppling of their respective leaderships could allow for a change of direction while, as is often a priority in politics, saving face. The sides have so committed themselves to their respective courses, enough as to become completely entrenched, that it is hard to envision either being able to back down.

Therein lies the peril of competition and confrontation. Whatever can be said about the American, deeply partisan, political system, it is not a place where things are getting done. Instead, these grand monolithic forces butt heads, shaking the landscape and leaving people divided.

And that is the value of, not only compromise, but of cooperation. The ability to work with others is more than just cutting crude and dissatisfying compromises. It is also about creating a mutual respect that allows for healthy discussion, debate and an arena for grievance with effective means of redress.

A society at odds with itself would have a hard time finding resolutions in which all parts of society feel themselves to have a stake - which, in politics, is the short and medium term aim. Feeling represented is an important aspect of building engagement on the part of the public with the complexity of the challenges that their communities, their societies, face and the trust and comprehension of the outcomes.

That, more than anything else, puts Jeremy Hunt's name at the head of any list of those who need to resign. He has escalated and divided, an we are poorer for it: we have less cooperation, less engagement and less chance of an outcome in which all parts of society feel they are represented.

The Junior Doctors strikes are escalating, largely thanks to Jeremy Hunt's stubborn belligerence as deadlock goes unbroken

At the core of the junior doctors' argument has been that doctor's need to have safe schedules so that they can keep patients safe.

The next round of strikes by the junior doctor's are imminent, set to start Tuesday morning. They will run from 8am through 5pm, rather than the 24 or 48 hours time frame of other strikes, because the strike, in an historic first for the NHS, will withdraw emergency services (Triggle, 2016).

In previous polls, the possibility of the withdrawal of emergency services reduced, substantially, the support for the striking doctors from 59% down to 45% (Broomfield, 2016). Seemingly sensing an opportunity, the government side has been laying the scare factor on thick.

Stories of the apparent dangers posed by the strike have been coming thick and fast. Hunt's spokesperson has said that the strikes are disproportionate, will be damaging and come with huge risks (BBC, 2016), while Bruce Keogh, medical director of the NHS in England, has said that withdrawing emergency services crosses a line that will damage trust (Keogh, 2016).

This was followed by the General Medical Council warning that hospitals may struggle (Triggle, 2016{2}) and junior Health Minister Ben Gummer saying that patients are being put in harms way and the government is being held hostage (BBC, 2016{2}). Analysis has suggested that there are adequate measures in place, however, to ensure no one is endangered (Triggle, 2016).

The present stand-off is a result of, consistent with Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt's escalatory tactics so far, and despite now admitting no such power in the face of legal action, a threat to impose contracts on junior doctors rather than honour the negotiation process (Campbell, 2016).

Thanks to these clear misjudgements on his part, support for striking junior doctors may be reinforced by the fact that it is Jeremy Hunt who is being seen as obstructive. On Sunday, he rejected a cross-party proposal to introduce his new contract first only as a limited trial, subject to independent review, to determine its affects and suitability (Campbell, 2016{2}) - which will only further antagonise the public.

Hunt is reported to have argued that "further delay just means we will take longer to eliminate the weekend effect" (BBC, 2016{3}). A frankly preposterous position considering the very basis for his 'weekend effect' argument has been demonstrated to be without basis (Cooper, 2015), that he appallingly continues to be allowed use as justification.

Whatever the faults of Jeremy Hunt and the deficiencies in his method, the latest strike will regardless test the limits of public patience. How long can public servants push strike action before public sympathy wanes? Taking with it the essential power behind any strike or protest movement - solidarity.

The NHS has proven itself to be a special case, ensuring broad public support afforded to these public servants that has been more difficult to raise in other parts of the public sector. But this latest escalation is entering new territory. Who will be most affected by the strike and resultant cancellations.

If there is anything that defines British politics it is the resilience of the status quo to anything but meagre and gradual reforms. But right now, the status quo needs to be altered to break to end a stubborn deadlock. It is to be hoped that the impending strike, or the strike itself, restores some sense to the negotiations. Yet the most likely outcome seems to be more deadlock, followed by more escalation, unless the government backs down in the only way it really can - by removing Jeremy Hunt.

Jeremy Hunt is playing dangerously with escalation in dispute with Doctors over future of NHS as he imposes contracts

Junior doctors and supporters gathered outside the Manchester Royal Infirmary on 10th February, during the latest 24 hour junior doctors strike.

After months of wrangling, Jeremy Hunt has decided to impose contracts on junior doctors (Tran & Campbell, 2016). Hunt's decision came just an hour after the second major strike by Junior doctors, where strikers walked out for 24 hours in protest against extension of hours across the weekend (Triggle, 2016).

Negotiations have been ongoing for months, but had broken down on Tuesday after what Hunt, the Conservative Health Secretary, called his 'final offer' had been rejected (Campbell, 2016). Accusations were also flying that all parties had agreed an alternative deal in principle, only for Hunt to veto it (Stone, 2016).

Imposing the contract could easily further inflame an already controversial situation. Public opinion has been firmly on the side of the junior doctors strikes (Stone, 2016{2}), with Hunt being seen as personally culpable for the ongoing action called by the BMA - the British Medical Association, the doctor's trade union.

What Hunt may be counting on is that, in the initial phase, doctor's will have little choice but to put up and begrudgingly acquiesce. Then, to simply let the matter to blow over with time - gambling on the public having a short memory.

Yet the move could instead lead to escalation. So far the strikes have been 24 hours in duration and left emergency care intact. This move by the Health Secretary could push the opposition to longer strikes, with Healthcare provision reduced to a minimum, other medical professions walking in solidarity and larger public protests.

There have also been reports that the numbers of medical trainees have been dropping and that trained medical professionals have been moving abroad (El Sheika, 2016; Johnson, 2016). The BMA has been using these facts during the negotiations as leverage - and warning of a further exodus if unsafe conditions are extended.

However Hunt's move has called out doctors, expecting them to grumble but ultimately comply. Or may be for them to move into the private sector. There have been doubts about Hunt's commitment to a public, tax-funded NHS - the Health Secretary was a contributor to a book calling for a privatised health market in the UK (Stone, 2016{3}; El Gingihy, 2015).

The general feeling amongst Conservatives seems to be favourable towards a long term future of private sector solutions to social security. Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith won some agreement from Prime Minister David Cameron for the idea of, in essence, privatising sick pay and unemployment benefits by forcing people to pay into savings accounts or to buy social insurance as cover (Mason, 2015).

Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt has risked escalation with his latest move. The BMA says it will consider all options to continue the fight, against changes it believes to be dangerous to public health (Triggle, 2016{2}). Who blinks first matters. Most outcomes could likely be considered a win of some sort for the Conservatives - which shows the cleverness of the game they're playing.

But the game they're playing gambles with social security, the safety net that ensures the common good. In this big moment in the future of the NHS, the Conservatives are showing a ruthless side by pitting the NHS's future against the interests of medical professionals. Its a reckless game in pursuit of prices and profits, but which ignores value - and the fundamental social justice of universal public healthcare.