Skip to main content

BMA: 'Shameful' Budget does nothing for NHS shortfall


Calling today's budget presented by the Chancellor 'shameful' the BMA has condemned it for doing nothing to address the NHS funding shortfall. 

Responding to the Budget today Dr Mark Porter, Chair of BMA Council says

“Despite claiming the economy is on the up, today's budget does nothing to address the crippling funding shortfall in the NHS.

"While the Government claims the NHS budget is protected, in reality it's suffered £20bn of cuts, billions of which have come from a sustained attack on staff pay.

"If growth forecasts are rising it’s even more shameful that the Government won’t even agree to a 1 per cent uplift, as recommended by an independent pay review body, for all front-line NHS staff.

"Doctors and other staff face increasingly challenging, high pressured and stressful work environments. Cuts to budgets and rising workloads are leading to a recruitment and retention crisis in many parts of the NHS, and we're already seeing the effect of this on emergency medicine. The announcement by the Chancellor to continue with pay restraint and more public sector cuts, if re-elected in the next parliament, will only compound this.

"If, as the Chancellor has said, growth is higher than expected then the Government needs to consider additional funding for the NHS. Without the investment needed to meet rising patient demand and put the NHS on a sustainable financial footing the Government need to face up to the reality that patient care, and indeed the very future of the NHS, will be at risk."

Commenting on tobacco and alcohol duty Professor Sheila Hollins, Chair of the BMA's Board of Science, said:

“The Government is giving with one hand and taking with another, with a step forward on measures to reduce smoking but backward on tackling alcohol related harm.

“The announcement to extend the tobacco escalator is an important and welcome one. It will reduce the affordability of cigarettes, which is key to deterring children from starting to smoke. With half of smokers dying from a smoking related disease anything that makes it less attractive is a step in the right direction.

"Scrapping the alcohol escalator and reducing beer duty, coupled with the Government's U-turn on plans to introduce a minimum unit price, shows the Government has abandoned any serious efforts to tackle alcohol related harm.

"With the costs of alcohol related harm estimated at £20bn in England alone, of which £2bn is on healthcare, there is a clear economic as well as a public health case for why urgent action is needed.

"The BMA will continue to call on the Government to introduce a minimum unit price. We know that minimum pricing reduces alcohol related harm amongst the heaviest drinkers while leaving responsible drinkers largely unaffected. This is because virtually all pub drinks, as well as the majority of shop-bought beers, wines and spirits would not be affected by a proposed 50p threshold.”

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As