It’s clear that campaigning on the NHS did not have the desired effect in the 2015 General Election.  A majority of voters said that the NHS was a very important issue to them, but voters in Conservative areas were clearly not convinced by the arguments put forward which centred around the dangers of privatisation.  We in the SHA were successful in getting most of our policy proposals adopted by the Labour Party, but those proposals were not highlighted in the election campaign, which, as far as the NHS was concerned, centred on policies put forward by both Labour and Conservative parties, which, to an informed audience, lacked credibility.

We now have time to think about the next stage of our work. We need to be in the forefront of developing what we already have to be a credible but radical alternative to what the Tories will be doing.

The core purpose of the SHA remains developing policies, influencing those that can implement these policies ie Labour to which we remain affiliated. There are a number of things we can do to raise our profile and develop coherent radical policies.


As far as practical activity goes, our website is still busy. It’s had more than a million hits. We need to boost its reputation as a place where interesting and useful material about health and politics, both current and historical can be found.  It contains our policies, but it also hosts discussion from other parties, and perhaps we should encourage more contributions from other parties.  Our Twitter feed has nearly 4,500 followers.  How much political impact it has is difficult to say, but it probably helps to raise our profile.

Monitoring developments in health and social care.

It’s clear there is a lot going on. The Vanguard Programme and DevoManc appear to propose to subvert the rules of the regulatory regime. The traditional boundaries between primary and secondary care, and between health and social care are being eroded.  We can monitor developments remotely, but far more effective is a place based approach like the excellent “Winning the Best Community Care for Lewisham” report, which involved a thorough investigation of the reality of service provision in the area.

Policy based seminars. 

These would be meetings to discuss policy perhaps with the shadow health team and others. These could, for instance, include discussions with KONP and the Greens. There is clearly still a place for such events, but they will need external financial support, if only by the provision of a venue.

 Informal discussions:

– over dinner, usually – can be a very effective way of raising our profile. They don’t need to lead to a direct policy input, but they can inform subsequent policy debates both locally and nationally. Local councillors may well have a bigger role than they have had in the past and we can help educate them into the mysteries of the NHS and help them to build up relationships with providers and activists.

 A national and local presence.

We want the SHA to be seen as a place where intelligent, well-informed discussion takes place at a national and local level. We see policy seminars and articles as having a national impact. Local meetings, based initially through branches, could focus on more regional matters, but inform policy development at the same time.


The SHA has not been a grass-roots campaigning organisation for some time. However, we can support others’ campaigns on the ground.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  1. The real priority is whether the SHA is really about saving the NHS or that it supports the privatisation agenda?

    If the SHA truly want to save the NHS then it must come out and unequivocally support the 2015 Reinstatement bill.

    It must also recognise that the Neo-Liberal agenda has been to deliberately undermine public services by underfunding, using the deficit lie as the basis for this policy.

    It is a fact that we do have the money to pay for our public services, that any politician that tells you otherwise, is actually lying to you.

    Ed Balls has just admitted in the guardian that, he thought the reason that Labour lost in the election was; Quote: Asked about Labour’s campaign, Balls said: “I think I wanted to be more pro-business but I also backed Ed Miliband 100%.”

    This statement along with his record of liberalisation of the City of London prior to the crash proves that their Neo-Liberal agenda was paramount.

    Clearly socialism is not about enhancing the rights and privileges of businesses at the expense of public services, and the SHA need to heed the real message that the electorate delivered to labour.

    Labour has lost it’s core support, and will continue to decline unless it goes back to it’s roots.

  2. I have to say Shibley, that when Martin visited Gloucester a year or so ago, he deeply offended NHS activists by insinuating that the NHS had always had private sector input.

    The inference being that a supplier of specialist equipment or needles was the same thing as having a knee operation in a private hospital.

    We need real campaigners in SHA that really understand meaning of the NHS. As Dr Alyson Pollock makes perfectly clear, the NHS is all about structure, the simple format created by Nye Bevan was as applicable to today as it was in his day, The nightmare created by Lansley is recipe for disaster and the private sector doesn’t deliver.

    Lovely to hear from you Shibley.


Comments are closed.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 827 other subscribers.

Follow us on Twitter