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 balan…

Keir Starmer has a lot to offer

The Labour Party is in the process of making a decision that will decide whether it can recover from the defeat in 2019 General Election.  All the candidates have much to offer and are making their case well.

No doubt for some the decision will be difficult.  Others may well have made up their minds on the simple binary of Left-wing-Right-wing.

The choice should be whoever is best placed to pull the party together.  Someone who can form a front bench of all talents and across the spectrum in the party.

That is what Harold Wilson did in the 1960s.  His government included Roy Jenkins on the right and Barbar Castle on the left; it included Crossman and Crossland, and Tony Benn with Jim Callaghan.  It presented a formidable team.

Keir Starmer brings to the top table a formidable career outside politics, having been a human rights lawyer and then Director of Public Prosecutions.   He is a man of integrity and commitment who believes in a fairer society where opportunities are more widel…

No evidence for vaccine link with autism

Public health bodies are worried that an alarming drop in childhood vaccinations is leading to a resurgence of diseases in childhood that we had all but eradicated.  Misinformation and scare stories about the harmful effects of vaccines abound on the internet and in social media.  Where they are based on 'science', it is highly selective, and often reliance is placed on falsehoods. 
Conspiracy theories also abound - cover-ups, deception, lies. As a result, too many parents are shunning vaccinations for their children.  So, what does the published, peer-reviewed literature tell us about vaccincations? Are they safe and effective, or are there long term harmful effects? 
A new report now provides some of the answers.

New evidence published in the Cochrane Library today finds MMR, MMRV, and MMR+V vaccines are effective and that they are not associated with increased risk of autism.

Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (also known as chickenpox) are infectious diseases caused by …