Skip to main content

As much about the NHS as Brexit.

It isn't difficult to see that the NHS is struggling because it has been starved of adequate funding. £22 bn of so-called 'efficiency savings' have ripped it apart.

The Tories claim that funding has increased over the last decade. Of course, that is strictly true. But in real terms per capita, this is not so.

The population has increased by 6%, and the proportion of older people has also increased.   In future years, the UK population is set to grow further still.

The projected population surpasses 70 million in 2029 and reaches 72.9 million by 2041 – increases of 6.1% and 10.4%, respectively, from 2017 (figures from ONS).

As the population increases, so will the demands on health and care services.  A negligent government misunderstands that remorseless relationship.

The last Labour government pushed up spending on the NHS as a percentage of GDP following the commitment to raise the level to the average of European countries.   This saw waiting lists and times fall dramatically and improvements in delivery.

Historically, spending on the NHS has increased by 4% per year.   The Tories reduced this to barely 1%, far short of the funding needed to keep pace with rising demand.

The Nuffield Trust calculates that to put funding back to the level in 2010 would require increases of at least 4% per year.

So who do you trust on the NHS: The Tories, who have slashed per capita funding over the last decade and seen increased waiting lists and times and the collapse of in-house services, or Labour with its history of making NHS funding a priority.

Spending on Health is not a luxury we can't afford.   It is a necessary investment and part of our economic infrastructure.   A healthy population is a more productive one and less dependent on overstretched care services.

Brexit won't rescue the NHS. On the contrary, it puts it in jeopardy.   We need a government with the right priorities.





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