Tories forced to admit NHS spending has fallen after official warning

The Conservatives quietly update their website after the UK Statistics Authority orders a correction.

Last week, the Conservatives were rebuked by the chair of the UK Statistics Authority, Andrew Dilnot, for falsely claiming to have increased real-terms spending on the NHS "in each of the last two years". In response to a complaint from the shadow health secretary, Andy Burnham, Dilnot stated that, contrary to recent Conservative statements, "expenditure on the NHS in real terms was lower in 2011-12 than it was in 2009-10". The most recent Treasury figures show that while real-terms spending rose by 0.09 per cent between 2010-11 and 2011-12, it fell by 0.84 per cent between 2009-10 and 2010-11. A significant cut followed by a paltry increase means that spending in 2011-12 (£104.3bn) was lower in real-terms (and in cash-terms) than in 2009-10 (£105.1bn).

Nonetheless, at PMQs the following day, David Cameron refused to concede that there had been any inaccuracy. "It is a very simple point. The spending figures for 2010 were set by the last Labour government. Those are the figures we inherited. All the right hon. Gentleman [Ed Miliband] is doing is proving that his government were planning for an NHS cut," he said.

But while Cameron publicly insists that nothing has changed, the Tories have quietly updated their website to reflect Dilnot's letter. Having previously claimed to have "increased the NHS budget in real terms in each of the last two years", the health section of the site now states, "we have increased NHS spending in real terms since 2010-11 and will continue doing so."

Before

After

Burnham is set to ask the Speaker to bring Jeremy Hunt to the Commons on Wednesday to correct the record in person.

David Cameron makes a speech to doctors and nurses on NHS reform in 2011. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Voters are turning against Brexit but the Lib Dems aren't benefiting

Labour's pro-Brexit stance is not preventing it from winning the support of Remainers. Will that change?

More than a year after the UK voted for Brexit, there has been little sign of buyer's remorse. The public, including around a third of Remainers, are largely of the view that the government should "get on with it".

But as real wages are squeezed (owing to the Brexit-linked inflationary spike) there are tentative signs that the mood is changing. In the event of a second referendum, an Opinium/Observer poll found, 47 per cent would vote Remain, compared to 44 per cent for Leave. Support for a repeat vote is also increasing. Forty one per cent of the public now favour a second referendum (with 48 per cent opposed), compared to 33 per cent last December. 

The Liberal Democrats have made halting Brexit their raison d'être. But as public opinion turns, there is no sign they are benefiting. Since the election, Vince Cable's party has yet to exceed single figures in the polls, scoring a lowly 6 per cent in the Opinium survey (down from 7.4 per cent at the election). 

What accounts for this disparity? After their near-extinction in 2015, the Lib Dems remain either toxic or irrelevant to many voters. Labour, by contrast, despite its pro-Brexit stance, has hoovered up Remainers (55 per cent back Jeremy Corbyn's party). 

In some cases, this reflects voters' other priorities. Remainers are prepared to support Labour on account of the party's stances on austerity, housing and education. Corbyn, meanwhile, is a eurosceptic whose internationalism and pro-migration reputation endear him to EU supporters. Other Remainers rewarded Labour MPs who voted against Article 50, rebelling against the leadership's stance. 

But the trend also partly reflects ignorance. By saying little on the subject of Brexit, Corbyn and Labour allowed Remainers to assume the best. Though there is little evidence that voters will abandon Corbyn over his EU stance, the potential exists.

For this reason, the proposal of a new party will continue to recur. By challenging Labour over Brexit, without the toxicity of Lib Dems, it would sharpen the choice before voters. Though it would not win an election, a new party could force Corbyn to soften his stance on Brexit or to offer a second referendum (mirroring Ukip's effect on the Conservatives).

The greatest problem for the project is that it lacks support where it counts: among MPs. For reasons of tribalism and strategy, there is no emergent "Gang of Four" ready to helm a new party. In the absence of a new convulsion, the UK may turn against Brexit without the anti-Brexiteers benefiting. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.