People sometimes ask us for our definition of socialism. Of course our members will have different views about what they individually mean, but essentially we are in the reformist tradition. We are not planning to organise a revolution.

Tony Crosland‘s famous book The Future of Socialism is probably the best exposition of this position. As Ed Miliband explains “Crosland goes through five basic socialist aspirations: Protest against poverty, wider concern for social welfare in the interests of the disadvantaged, a belief in equality, a rejection of competitive antagonism and a protest against the inefficiencies of capitalism. He then looks at the world and concludes that the two that seem most relevant to the circumstances of the 1950s are first, social welfare and secondly, social equality and the ‘classless society’.”


Our relationship to the Labour Party

The SHA as a socialist society affiliated to the Labour Party naturally wants the party to be in power. We want the party in power so that it can implement the policies which the SHA advocates. That does not mean that we are not critical of the decisions made by Labour ministers and the Departments of Health. But when the criticism is too strident and destructive this only helps the Tories. In practice it is only when the argument gets heated that it gets reported at all, and in a negative way. We still believe that the best way forward is to support our views with reasoned argument and evidence rather than anger.

We pay affiliation fees to the Labour Party which entitle us to attend Party events and put our point of view. Many, but not all, of our members are individually members of the Party.

Some members would like the SHA to adopt other agendas, outside the field of health policy, and to make statements about foreign policy, the London Mayor, transport, or the behaviour of ministers. Some hold very strong views and criticise the SHA for not supporting them 100 per cent. With a large membership with varying views on particular topics it is not possible to obtain unanimous agreement on everything. For some years we have confined ourselves to issues which relate directly to health and health care in the UK because we simply do not have the resources of time or money to cover anything more.

Gavin Ross produced a limerick for the New Statesman some years ago on the subject of “The Broad Church of the Labour Party”:

Friends, Comrades, we urgently need
To unite in our socialist creed.
How the term is defined
We really don’t mind;
It’s the one thing on which we’re agreed!

Raymond Williams in “Keywords” has a long essay on the various uses of terms like Socialism, society and social democracy. He distinguishes several ways in which socialism is contrasted with other ‘isms’, in particular Capitalism and Individualism. With regard to Capitalism we are in the economic and industrial field, collective action of workers and obtaining the fruits of labour, state ownership of the commanding heights etc. With regard to Individualism we are concerned with shared provision of welfare, education and pooled benefits through general taxation, co-operation and redistribution of wealth. To our opponents the word Socialism is used to imply state control of all our lives, dull uniformity and stifling of enterprise, high taxes and poor public services. New Labour is so afraid of the right-wing use and abuse of the term that they have removed it from their vocabulary, but we should not be afraid to re-affirm its positive meaning.

Bread and Roses

So we are the Socialist Health Association because we believe that we all have a duty to each other, however well or badly endowed with wealth, education, genes or physique. The alternatives to universal provision, free at the point of need and paid for out of general taxation, is a multi-tiered service that gives access to the richest, insurance to the middle classes and charity to the deserving poor and neglect of everyone else. The US system leads to specialised hospitals for curable diseases and neglect of the incurable, to litigation against doctors when a rich person dies, to stigmatising those who are deemed to cause their ill-health (through their life-styles, addictions, sporting activities or diets), and a political reluctance to raise taxes to alleviate suffering.

Outsourcing the state: A less uniform approach

Feasible Socialism – The National Health Service, past, present & future

Bread and Roses is included by kind permission of Mikron .  Annie Dearman is the vocalist and the pianist is Rebekah Hughes.

How We Live and How We Might Live By William Morris


  1. A very Impressive site, just love thesong & singer,what are it’s origins?
    Was a hospital Socia lWorker for many from 70s-90’s.
    Now living old disgracefully in the voluntary service of Southampton Labour Party!

    1. Dear Eileen
      Just seen you email to SHA – thanks for your interest in my song – you can find out more about us and our music at and
      best wishes
      Annie Dearman

  2. socadmin says:

    Its sung by Annie Dearman who is the partner of Prof Steve Harrison – whose work you can find at various places on this site such as

  3. The US system leads to:

    specialized hospitals for curable diseases – is that a bad thing? Concentration of knowledge in a small area for the improvement of something isn’t bad.

    and neglect of the incurable – This is basically saying “the US triages the incurable and lets them die”. If this were true, then the US would have the lowest healthcare premiums in the world. As this site constantly points out, it doesn’t. So which is it?

    litigation against doctors when a rich person dies – Not true again. With the number of lawyers in the US any time a doctor commits malpractice you can find a lawyer willing to take the case. If a doctor doesn’t commit malpractice no amount of lawyering is going to create a cause out of thin air. This is why malpractice ins is so expensive in the US, EVERYONE can sue.

    to stigmatizing those who are deemed to cause their ill-health (through their life-styles, addictions, sporting activities or diets) – So…..medical professionals shouldn’t discourage people from engaging in harmful behavior? That’s almost like giving people free will, you sure that needs to be on this site?

    and a political reluctance to raise taxes to alleviate suffering – right, but more money is ALWAYS the answer

  4. Tony Crosland, eh? Perhaps not. Fortunately, it was all laid out properly, here:

    1. Martin Rathfelder says:

      Would like to do us a summary of Tawney’s lessons for today?

What do you think?

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

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