The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Syndicate contentRSS

Cameron's NHS spending pledge is worthless

The PM claims that spending will rise but the figures show that it will be frozen or even cut.

One of David Cameron's "five guarantees" on the NHS is that spending on the health service will rise "in real terms" over the course of this Parliament. In his speech on the NHS today, the PM boasted that there would be "£11.5 billion more in cash for the NHS in 2015 than in 2010". He added: "We are not cutting the NHS. In fact, we are spending more on it."

Cameron is referring to the fact that spending on the NHS, which currently stands at £102.9 bn, will rise to £114.4bn by 2014-15, a cash increase of £11.5bn. But what he ignores is that all of this increase will be swallowed up by inflation. The purchasing power of the NHS will be progressively reduced as the price of drugs and equipment continues to rise.

Once we take inflation into account, health spending will be frozen or even cut. As Professor John Appleby, chief economist at the King's Fund, writes in the latest edition of the British Medical Journal, "by 2014-15 the amount of money the NHS has to spend in real terms, its purchasing power, will have gone down by 0.9%." Thus, not only will Cameron fail to meet his flagship pledge to increase spending on the NHS "in real terms", he will fail to even protect it from the cuts.

Of course, George Osborne could announce an inflation-busting increase in health spending to ensure the government keeps its pledge (although that would mean even larger cuts elsewhere). But for now, it's simply dishonest of Cameron to claim that he is raising spending on the NHS. Without any new money, his "spending guarantee" is worthless.

6 comments

Kippers's picture

So spending will rise but the objective of the reforms is to contain costs!

If Cameron were honest he would say where he expects costs to rise (due for example to people living longer) and where he expects to make savings. We might then be able to see how the so-called reforms fit in (though I expect that we would see that they don't).

Toque's picture

The above article discusses the English NHS, as does Cameron's speech (not that either the PM or New Statesman see fit to mention it).

Due to devolution and the existence of divergent national health services in Scotland, Wales and Niorthern Ireland the UK Government only directly controls health spending in England.

Reginald-Fah-fah's picture

I'm a top Tory and think Prime Minister David Cameron is the greatest Statesman in British History!!!!

I don't like Gordon Brown and never will!!! But the one thing Brown did get right was the hospitals!!!

Blair got them wrong and I hope the PM gets a new Health Minister!!!!!

From life experiences, hospitals now are really bad!!!!

hugh markey's picture

Radio 4 on blood donation. Young people do not have the time or the inclination. When the nationalised industries came into being the number of blood donors rose dramatically. Kept on rising! The whole public sector environment helped and donors attended hospitals in droves. Of course , these donors were allowed to do so during working hours. Personnel arranged the whole thing.
Now private firms, from small businesses to large corporations, contend that 'blood donation' is an individual matter and giving this precious fluid must be done outside working hours. No routine! No tradition!
In her time, Mrs T sold off some of these free donations to foreign nations. Money for old rope! Then along came CJD and other delightful problems thanks to Mrs T's shrinking of the public sector - government veterinary services being amongst this Tory annihilation of public services.

Needled

Suzanne's picture

It's a fair point to make, that this concerns only the English NHS. I for one am glad that it's not happening up here. Despite Cameron or Clegg might say these reforms are a significant step in the direction of a privatisation of sorts.
Whilst in the short term this doesn't affect the devolved nations it might in the long term. Provided the independence referendum isn't successful (though I hope it is) and the English NHS is further attacked it will mean intolerable pressure being placed on the devolved nations under an equality of disadvantage argument. Why should they get it when we don't?
Those opposing it have done a good job so far and they should not let up despite any supposed assurances offered by Cameron and Clegg.

Mike Watkins's picture

Yes, this affects only the NHS in England, but the legislation has been approved in the Commons by MPs including those from the devolved nations.

Latest tweets