Tell me about the National Health Service

andy

Worrying.

Nah it's bollox.

It's based on applying the average real terms cut (nominal increase) in total public spending in the last budget to health spending. But it's pretty obvious that health is going to be protected and that cuts will fall more heavily elsewhere, whoever gets in.
Did you hear Osbourne on the radio this morning? He made an unambiguous commitment to increasing health spending in real terms. Can you imagine Labour not matching that going into the election?

More worrying is where else will be cut to make up for it, although I reckon either side would actually put up taxes (probably VAT if the conservatives).

They mentioned cutting provision for homeopathy and IVF to make up the shortfall. Ok, great, where do I sign?

what's wrong with ivf? i don't read the papers.

makes more children, children who need to be cared for by the nhs, care costs money etc.

Jamie, are you sure it was Osbourne and not Andrew Lansley, who appeared to have dropped a clanger?

yea if it was the today prog, i don't think it was osborne, grogggy though i was when i heard it.

Sorry! Brain-ache. Yes it was Lansley!

Was it a clanger? Have they retracted it? In which case restore your worry.

humphrys was like RLY???

I still think it's convincing that health, education, maybe defence will all be prioritised, and they'll slash social services or whatever.

I took that as Humphrys trying to get an admission of where they're going to cut elsewhere, but it was early ...

From the beeb:

Shadow Health Secretary Andrew Lansley said: "We are committed to real terms increases in spending on the NHS because as our population ages demand will increase."

the guy was out of his element talking about the budget for 2013, really. there will be labour cuts across the board after 2011, is the message coming down, eg to universities.

the tory pledge is a bit like zanu-liebour's pledge to stick to tory limits in 1997-99, though personally i think this is all bollocks and both parties will impose nhs cuts.

But then:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2009/jun/10/tory-spending-cuts-10

Ha, didn't see your link, Matt!

Sorry.

But the "clarification" is over the cuts elsewhere, no? They haven't retracted the "commitment" to increase health spending in real terms?

Nah I think Lansley was just dropping a bit of party line that maybe he wasn't meant to. I knew that real-terms spending increases on the NHS and international development were Tory policy for the medium-term at least. 10% cuts elsewhere they probably didn't want us to know about - that's almost certainly a fuckup, but not one they won't be able to get around by going "look at Labour's debt crisis".

I'd argue that NHS cuts are probably electoral kryptonite right now though for either party. Cameron has almost certainly learned the lesson of what underfunding the NHS did to Thatcher and Major and regardless of ideology I don't think he's stupid enough to fall into that one.

^in his 'defense' Cameron has maximum experience of the NHS through his son's illness and recent death which is classic depiction of 'coldblooded conservative with hot-button personal issue'.

10% is a lot, yeah, and i don't think they'd mentioned it before. both parties want to dissemble about that. i don't know where the country is.

to an extent conservativehome etc won't face up to, the 'public sector' is a major source of income, one way or another, for the 'private sector', as a contractor, etc etc.

cuts hurt the economy as much as help it... unless you're the fucking zorro of budget cuts and manage to 'trim the fat' (i'm bound to say: like the fucking consultants) without damaging 'front-line staff'.

i suppose i'm using the irony there, but there's something in it, it isn't a total fantasy. there have been collosal fuck-up, especially in commissioning and the absolutely ridiculous pay-rise given to gps. however, those arguments should have been deployed in the fat years.