Once again, we find ourselves in a bad winter for the National Health Service. The NHS has recently announced that ‘all non-urgent operations are to be cancelled this month’, which, whilst not an unusual move for the service, is far short of ideal. In fact, it suggests that the issues surrounding the NHS that have caused similar announcements in the past are showing no signs of abating, and in fact are only getting worse. The Tories blame mismanagement and economic irresponsibility on the part of the NHS bosses for this crisis, whilst Labour blame (or will do so, predictably) any problem with the health service on a lack of funding. As usual, they are both wrong.
On the issue of mismanagement, I must concede that the Tories are not totally wrong. It’s a well-publicised axiom that those who manage the NHS are, in general, not up to the task, and that there are several layers of middle-management that could be totally removed without affecting the outputs. The untruth in this narrative is the assertion that by replacing a few senior managers or sacking the bureaucrats beneath them, we will free-up enough money to properly fund the service and everything will be rosy. Again, with this argument the Tories find themselves falling into Labour’s trap; attributing the NHS’ 21st century crisis to a lack of funding.
And the Labour Party are essentially peddling the same argument, just in a more overt manner. They cite a lack of funding (from a Tory government) as the root cause of all the problems currently facing the Health Service, and demand that it simply be given more money, which they believe will fix the problem. But again, they’re trying to cure a problem that simply isn’t there. Indeed, NHS spending has increased both numerically and in real terms pretty much every year for the past 20 years. In fact, the current Tory government has spent more in real terms on the NHS than any Labour government since the institution’s inception in 1948. It is simply false to suggest that this very recent crisis has been brought about by ‘Tory cuts’ that, in reality, don’t exist.
Of course, it would be rather too optimistic to expect a post-modern political elite to identify a problem that isn’t money-related. To them, both on the left and right, money is the nostrum for every occasion; decline in educational standards? Throw more money at teachers! A rise in crime? Give more money to impoverished communities! And an NHS crisis? Of course, to them the answer is more money. But more money is not always the right answer. If a system is operating on fundamentally flawed principles, no amount of money can save it in the long run. This is certainly the case with the NHS, for which higher funding would buy nothing but time before its inevitable collapse.
The real problems are of a social nature, and they all centre around demographics. The most obvious, overbearing problem is of course the overpopulation of our island nation, which is now home to upwards of 66 million people – making England the most densely populated nation in all of Europe, with over 400 people per square kilometre. This presents a plethora of issues to the health authorities, as the extra 500,000 people added to the population each year require GP appointments, vaccinations for their children, treatment for existing health problems and emergency care on demand. We simply do not have either the space or human resource to accommodate such numbers.
Then the really contentious issue that merits a mention here is, of course, the quality of people we’re bringing into our society. It is quite clearly demonstrable, through various studies and data sets, that the migrants and their offspring from the third world who come to Britain are A) less likely to contribute to the NHS than their native counterparts, and B) more likely to use the service than their native counterparts. This clearly creates an unsustainable situation, whereby the balance of the NHS’ collection and distribution mechanism is tipped heavily toward expenditure. Because, after all, that’s what socialised healthcare is; the redistribution of accrued wealth in an organised fashion which provides for everyone. But if what’s required dramatically outweighs what is available for collection, we have a chronic problem.
Yes, this does stray back toward the financial debate to a degree, but the answer here is clearly not more money. Awarding more money to an institution that distributes disproportionately more service to a certain, unproductive foreign community is in effect forcing ordinary Brits to pay a “native tax”, that punishes them financially simply for being born in their ancestral homeland. Therefore, this cannot be the answer, for it goes against all notions of justice and the egalitarian principles that underpin the NHS.
This leads us rather neatly to the question; what is the answer? Clearly, depopulation. A reduction in the population to 50,000,000 or below is necessary to ease the strain on the NHS – and other public services for that matter – but immediately any liberal reading this will jump to the incorrect conclusion that I’m advocating the genocide of minorities. Quite the contrary; we must identify the foreign communities who contribute nothing but take everything – one thinks broadly of the Pakistani, African, Bangladeshi and Gypsy communities – and halt any further inflow therefrom. People of those backgrounds already here should be incentivized to leave, vis a vis a certain Mr Powell’s vision for voluntary repatriation.
However, there are certain foreign communities in Britain that contribute more than they take, or in any case they produce a disproportionately high number of Doctors and Nurses relative to their percentage share of the overall population – here I’m thinking broadly of certain Sikh communities, the Hindu community and the East Asian/Oriental communities. It would be detrimental to the future of our health service should these people leave and take their valuable contributions with them.
Finally, sections of the native community which consistently take more than they contribute, should be heavily discouraged from procreation. Perhaps a system could be operated whereby a citizen’s contributions and consumption to and from the healthcare budget could be demonstrated, and those with a negative balance required to pay full price for any healthcare relating to reproduction. Alternatively, a punitive tax could be placed on people from said communities who have more than 2 children, or child benefit could be stopped for those with a negative welfare balance. Of course, such methods would only be necessary until the population is corrected to a sustainable level, then draconian policies such as these – which I recognise are antithetical to the ethos of the NHS – could be lifted, never to return again.
Yet this is a mere ideological exercise, for we all know that no mainstream politician is willing to identify overpopulation as the root cause of the problem. To do so would be political suicide, especially for an outsider. It would take somebody brave within the present establishment – that is, a member of the parliamentary Labour or Conservative Parties – to carry the flag forward on this issue, something that is less likely than the sight of pigs flying unassisted through the night sky.