The Disraeli Room

The Disraeli Room

Blog Post

Cancer – a rare area of political convergence?

24th April 2015

So manifestos are out and for those working on charities’ general election campaigns, the anxious wait is over.

Of course we know that, even in a typical election, manifestos are only really of interest to policy wonks and the likelihood of a further coalition in May makes them less significant still. Any policies may be tinkered with, watered down or dropped entirely in the tumult of coalition horse-trading.

However, they do provide the clearest mandate and sense of direction for the next government, whatever the complexity of its makeup. For example, the Conservatives’ 2010 manifesto set out their commitment to introduce a cancer drugs fund, something that they of course followed through in coalition.

So, how did cancer do? Pretty well, all things considered. Cancer was mentioned in all three of the main parties’ manifestos, and by the Greens. This was far from certain a few months ago, with parties suggesting this was going to be the ‘mental health election’ and that, anyway, the economy rather than health would be the focus of manifestos.

Macmillan Cancer Support has been campaigning for a year for parties to include three commitments that people affected by cancer told us mattered most to them. These are: cancer outcomes matching the best in Europe, dignity and respect for all patients, and free social care support to enable more people to die in a place of their choosing. So we were delighted to see each of these in the main parties’ manifestos, in some form or another.

Labour committed to best cancer outcomes in Europe, the Conservatives to world class cancer care, and Liberal Democrats to setting ambitious outcomes for cancer. All parties pledged they would do more to address the factors underpinning our poor outcomes in this country, such as late diagnosis (Labour and Conservatives), access to treatments (same), and after care (Lib Dems).

On dignity and respect, the Conservatives said they would ensure hospital and GP surgeries are places where you are treated with dignity and respect, Labour said they would support NHS staff to deliver the ambition that all patients are treated with the highest levels of dignity and respect, and the Lib Dems said they would set the highest standards in care.

Finally, on end of life care, the Lib Dems pledged to increase choice at the end of life and provide free social care support for those on end of life registers, if it proves affordable, the Conservatives said they would support commissioners to combine health and social care services for the terminally ill, so that more people are able to die in a place of their choice, and Labour said they would support those who are terminally ill to remain at home with home care provided by the NHS.

There were many further commitments that would impact on the lives people affected by cancer, for example, Labour’s one week wait for cancer tests, the Conservatives’ commitment to deliver the cancer strategy, and Lib Dems’ improved support for carers and legal duty on the NHS to identify them (something Macmillan has been told by cancer carers would make a particular difference to them). All parties made commitments on health system and welfare reform.

All in all there was much to be welcomed, and perhaps an indication of the cross-consensus on health that organisations like the British Medical Association have been calling for, and that could make Simon Stevens, CEO, NHS England’s life a whole lot easier.

Perhaps.

In addition to the impact of a minority or coalition arrangement, there may be other factors that mean that people affected by cancer do not see the rapid implementation of the changes they need, come 8th May.

It is a question of priorities. The Conservatives under David Cameron have been committed to the NHS. But unless they win an outright majority, his leadership could be threatened and a new leader could have very different priorities. Added to this, there is the distraction of an in/out referendum on the EU. Labour is said to be drafting a bill to repeal parts of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which would be introduced in their first 100 days. Could this detract political energy and capital away from frontline improvements? Finally, the Lib Dems will be keen to make their presence felt in any further coalition government, and reforms to mental health are likely to be a red line for them. Indeed they have repeatedly cited cancer care as benchmark for improvements in mental health, suggesting that they believe it is already ‘fixed’.

But cancer is not fixed. By the end of the Parliament in 2020, 3 million people will be living with cancer. Sadly, already too many people are dying too soon, not being treated with dignity, and being denied a good death. If the system is not coping now, how will it support this growing population?

So despite welcome commitments in manifestos, Macmillan and every single person who cares about cancer will continue to call for urgent action to improve cancer care and services. We will be demanding that whoever forms the next government makes an early announcement of a timetable for implementation of their commitments.

For the one in two of us who will soon face cancer in our lifetime, it is now time to deliver.


1 comment on “Cancer – a rare area of political convergence?”

  1. Anonymous says:

    The author writes: “There Conservatives under David Cameron have been committed to the NHS. But unless they win an outright majority, his leadership could be threatened and a new leader could have very different priorities.”

    I would argue quite the converse. The Conservative work since 2010 has at it’s heart a strong commitment to increased competition and a diversification of the supplier base in the health sector. The truth is that by doing this third sector and / or private providers are encouraged to compete with and / or take over from NHS delivery. The delivery itself of course for now remains free at the point of use. Anyhow, what is clear is that the author’s opinion here is something to challenge (perhaps on point of fact). Cameron’s government have been committed to a more diversified supplier base rather than being committed to it’s existing suppliers (NHS organisations)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.

COVID-19: Are we truly free or merely enslaved to ourselves?

‘Through discipline comes freedom’. Over two thousand years ago Aristotle warned that freedom means more than just “doing as one likes”. Ancient Greek societies survived...

Airtight on Asbestos – A campaign to save our future

On the 24th of November 1999, the United Kingdom banned the use of asbestos. Twenty years later and this toxic mineral still plagues public health,...

Rationality & Regionality: A more effective way to dealing with climate change | by Hamza King

Liberalism relies heavily on certain assumptions about the human condition, particularly, about our ability to act rationally. John Rawls defines a rational person as one...

The Disraeli Room
What are the Implications of proroguing Parliament?

During his campaign, Boris Johnson made it very clear that when it comes to proroguing Parliament, he is “not going to take anything off the...

ResPublica’s submission to CMA

Download the full text of the submission On 3rd July 2019, the CMA launched a market study into online platforms and the digital advertising market...

The Disraeli Room
Productive Places | WSP and ResPublica

On Wednesday 31st October ResPublica and WSP hosted a panel discussion in Parliament to launch WSP’s Productive Places paper and debate its findings. The report...

ResPublica’s Response to the Autumn Budget 2018

The 2018 Budget delivered by Philip Hammond was the first since 1962 to be delivered on a day other than a Wednesday, and was moved...

ResPublica Response to changes to the National Planning Policy Framework

The Government’s housing announcements on the 5th March were the first substantial change to the planning system since the Coalition reforms six years ago. The...

Food poverty: Time to lift the veil?

A century on from Charles Booth’s famous Poverty Map of London, accurate information on poverty has never been more important. So the findings of...