HOMEPAGE BUTTON 999 BLOG DONATE flickr_256 facebook-icon-copy twitterICON
CORPORATE WELFARE

1. IT'S NOT WORKING

2. Breaking the myths

4. Corporate Welfare

Hung up as they all are on outdated economic myths and being labelled as the party of “tax and spend” all the three main parties’ 2017 Manifestos fail to provide enough NHS and social care funding to pull the NHS and social care out of their current crisis.

 

The urgent need is to provide enough funding so that the NHS survives as a health service that is free at the point of need provides the full range of care and treatments to everyone, based on their clinical need. This has ceased to be the case as a result of successive governments’ underfunding of the NHS since 2010.

 

Social care should also be fully publicly funded and provided and available to all who need it in order to live independent decent lives - not just as a means-tested, privatised, residual service for those with “substantial” needs.

 

This requires adequate funding. But none of the three main parties’ 2017 Manifestos commits to this.

 

Given their “austerity” record over the last two Parliaments, it’s not surprising that the Conservative and LibDem manifestos offer little in the way of increased NHS and social care funding.

 

The Conservatives commit to an extra £8bn in real terms (ie protected against inflation) in 2022/23 than is planned in 2017/18, although doctors and Sally Gainsbury, senior policy analyst at the Nuffield Trust, point out this figure is reached through the deployment of smoke and mirrors. SMOKE & MIRRORS

 

The LibDems commit to £6bn more than current plans for health and social care in 2019/20. WHO IS MOST GENEREOUS?

 

However, it’s disappointing that Labour have also failed to commit to enough NHS and social care funding to pull the services out of crisis.

READ MORE READ MORE
READ MORE

The Labour Party manifesto commits to an extra £30bn NHS funding - more than current (Conservative) plans over five years, or £6 billion a year up to 2020/1.

MAIN PAGE kitty DL NHS BILL COVER

The way the Health Foundation analyses it even though the Labour party’s commitment is the most generous:

 

“all three parties’ funding plans fall significantly short of the anticipated spending pressures. This will leave a funding gap, which will need to be filled either by a continuation of the drive for very high rates of efficiency and productivity growth in the NHS, or by scaling back what the NHS delivers.”

 

None of the Manifestos confess to scaling back on what the NHS delivers. So the assumption has to be that they all believe that the NHS will have to fill the funding gap by so-called “efficiency savings” that are at the same kind of level as required by the 5 Year Forward View Plan. For Labour the funding gap by 2022/3 would be £17bn, for the Tories it would be £22bn. Ok it's less but it's still the same philosophy - CUTS.

 

It looks like the more things change, the more they stay the same.

SMOKE & MIRRORS NHS BILL

However, it’s disappointing that Labour have also failed to commit to enough NHS and social care funding to pull the services out of crisis.

There is no sense of politicians thinking of the option of a renationalised NHS that was proven over and over again in globl surveys to the be most cost-effective and efficient health service in the world. Instead politicians are locked into the Austerity-driven negative mindset that "it is unsustainable and we can't afford it".

 

It looks like the more things change, the more they stay the same.

AUsterity DL AUsterity DL 2

All 3 main parties fail the NHS & social care funding test

The Conservatives commit to an extra £8bn in real terms (ie protected against inflation) in 2022/23 than is planned in 2017/18, although doctors and Sally Gainsbury, senior policy analyst at the Nuffield Trust, point out this figure is reached through the deployment of smoke and mirrors.

The LibDems commit to £6bn more than current plans for health and social care in 2019/20. WHO IS MOST GENEREOUS?

WHO IS GENEROUS? Screen Shot 2017-06-20 at 12.32.17 MANIFESTOS?

Do Manifestos

mean anything?

All 3 main parties make similarly inadequate funding commitments for social care

The Centre for Health and the Public Interest 2017 Election briefing note on Social care funding manifesto commitments finds that all 3 parties are proposing policies that won’t alleviate the social care crisis but will potentially benefit around 100K people, all with significant assets. And their social care manifesto commitments won’t do anything to alleviate the pressures on the NHS which arise because of a lack of adequate social care.

 

The CHPI Election briefing note points out that a substantial amount of public funding is needed for social care to: “become a service which enhances the lives and independence of our older people.”

 

But:  “The 3 main parties are committed to keeping social care as a residual service for only those with substantial needs.”

 

This is despite the fact that reducing social care to a minimal service is:

 

“...a major reason why hospital A&E departments are regularly overwhelmed and why hospital beds cannot be freed up..”

 

All three main parties have responded to the social care crisis with Manifesto commitments to:

 

“provide some additional funds to just about maintain a highly restrictive service, and protecting the assets and wealth of a small number of richer older people.”

CHANG AUSTERITY