Cutting the NHS to fund defence is bad politics and bad policy

Raiding £500m from the health and schools budgets to fund defence might please Tory MPs but the voters won't like it.

David Cameron and George Osborne have long rejected calls from figures such as Vince Cable and Liam Fox to end the protection of health spending in order to limit cuts elsewhere. But the NHS ring-fence is looking less secure today. Ahead of June's Spending Review, the Telegraph reports that Philip Hammond is in talks with the Treasury about transferring up to £500m from the health and schools budgets to reduce the expected cuts to defence. The Defence Secretary, you'll recall, has previously publicly demanded that welfare is cut again to protect the MoD. But with the Lib Dems vetoing any further cuts to welfare (bar those to pensioner benefits, which David Cameron has pledged to protect), Hammond has been forced to look elsewhere. 

Cameron has already demonstrated his willingess to raid other departments' budgets to fund defence by suggesting that aid spending could be used to meet the cost of peacekeeping and other defence-related projects. It's thought that the government would justify any decision to divert resources from health and education to defence by pointing to the hundreds of millions of pounds a year the MoD spends on health care for armed forces personnel and the education of their children. But while the move will prove popular with Tory MPs, who are furious that defence is being cut by 7.5 per cent, while aid is being increased by 37 per cent, it is likely to be judged less favourably by the public. 

As a ComRes/ITV News poll published in February showed, health and education are the two most popular spending areas, with defence trailing in sixth place (behind police and law enforcement, welfare and transport). It was partly for this reason that Cameron and Osborne chose to ring-fence the NHS and schools budgets. At last week's PMQs, Cameron made much of his commitment to protect health spending, contrasting it with Labour's decision not to pledge to do so before the 2010 election. "The right hon. Gentleman’s answer is to cut NHS spending, whereas we are investing in it," he declared. A decision to now do otherwise would offer Labour an easy political hit. 

It is also doubtful whether the NHS, which is already required to make unprecedented efficiency savings of £20bn over four years, should be cut for the purpose of reducing cuts to defence. The above-average levels of inflation in the health service mean that it requires real-term increases in spending just to stand still. But under pressure from his recalcitrant backbenchers and the National Union of Ministers, Cameron may yet give away. 

David Cameron with British soldiers based at Lashkar Gah in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Labour's dilemma: which voters should it try to add to its 2017 coalition?

Should the party try to win over 2017 Conservatives, or people who didn't vote?

Momentum’s latest political advert is causing a splash on the left and the right.

One of the underreported trends of 2016 was that British political parties learnt how to make high-quality videos at low-cost, and Momentum have been right at the front of that trend.

This advert is no exception: an attack that captures and defines its target and hits it expertly. The big difference is that this video doesn't attack the Conservative Party – it attacks people who voted for the Conservative Party.

Although this is unusual in political advertising, it is fairly common in regular advertising. The reason why so many supermarket adverts tend to feature a feckless dad, an annoying clutch of children and a switched-on mother is that these companies believe that their target customer is not the feckless father or the children, but the mother.

The British electorate could, similarly, be thought of as a family. What happened at the last election is that Labour won votes of the mum, who flipped from Conservative to Labour, got two of the children to vote for the first time (but the third stayed home), but fell short because the dad, three of the grandparents, and an aunt backed the Conservatives. (The fourth, disgusted by the dementia tax, decided to stay at home.)

So the question for the party is how do they do better next time. Do they try to flip the votes of Dad and the grandparents? Or do they focus on turning out that third child?

What Momentum are doing in this video is reinforcing the opinions of the voters Labour got last time by mocking the comments they’ll hear round the dinner table when they go to visit their parents and grandparents. Their hope is that this gets that third child out and voting next time. For a bonus, perhaps that aunt will sympathise with the fact her nieces and nephews, working in the same job, in the same town, cannot hope to get on the housing ladder as she did and will switch her vote from Tory to Labour. 

(This is why, if, as Toby Young and Dan Hodges do, you see the video as “attacking Labour voters”, you haven’t quite got the target of the advert or who exactly voted Labour last time.)

That could be how messages like this work for Labour at the next election. But the risk is that Mum decides she quite likes Dad and switches back to the Conservatives – or  that the second child is turned off by the negativity. And don’t forget the lingering threat that now the dementia tax is dead and gone, all four grandparents will turn out for the Conservatives next time. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.