Is it not clear yet that the Tories are starving the health service of cash so they can introduce charges?

Last Updated: May 23, 2016By
The last attempt to make long-term plans for the NHS had ‘floundered after just one year’, said Cipfa’s chief [Image: Graeme Robertson for the Guardian].

The last attempt to make long-term plans for the NHS had ‘floundered after just one year’, said Cipfa’s chief [Image: Graeme Robertson for the Guardian].

The solution put forward here by Cipfa is to link NHS spending to GDP, although this creates problems of its own if the economy goes into recession.

But the real problem is not addressed. It is the unwillingness of the Conservative Government to pay for a high-quality public service that takes paying patients away from the private health companies in which so many MPs have a financial interest.

Looking at it that way, it is clear that these people should not be making decisions on the NHS at all. Apparently the Parliamentary standards watchdog has a blind eye when it comes to such matters.

Meanwhile, as someone pointed out on Twitter, George Osborne is still prattling on about his “long-term economic plan” doing great things.

No it isn’t, George.

If it was, the NHS would be stronger than it was in 2010 when the Tories took over, and it isn’t.

Perhaps we should use it as a yardstick to judge Tory success from now on.

Let’s demand a huge improvement in the NHS by 2020, as a minimum standard for the Tories to reach.

That would really stick a scalpel in their nervous system.

The long-term financial plan for the NHS is already outdated and the health service is facing a £10bn black hole by 2020, according to a report.

Analysis by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (Cipfa) suggests the NHS will exceed its budget by £10bn a year in four years’ time as it struggles to make £22bn in planned efficiency savings.

The quality of care could suffer and costs will be higher if the funding gap is not filled, said the professional body’s chief executive, Rob Whiteman.

New charges or rationing of care would have to be introduced or else the government would have to raise taxes to make up for the shortfall, Cipfa said.

Source: NHS faces £10bn-a-year deficit by 2020, says report | Politics | The Guardian


Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:



  1. mrmarcpc May 23, 2016 at 2:59 pm - Reply

    They will be.

  2. hayfords May 23, 2016 at 10:12 pm - Reply

    I think that it is very unlikely that charges will be brought in unfortunately. Means tested charges for everything would be a good thing, but only for higher paid people. In the UK we have an obsession with ‘free at the point of delivery’ and we imagine that our NHS is something special. I have travelled to many countries and I have not seen evidence that we are even in the to 20 and haven’t been for at least 50 years.

    • Mike Sivier May 24, 2016 at 12:27 am - Reply

      We were right at the very top around 2010-11, but then the Tory-led Coalition started making its malign influence felt.
      There was an international survey or some such. Maybe I’ll see if I can dig it out tomorrow.

  3. Daniel May 24, 2016 at 8:25 am - Reply

    Interesting that the report suggests charges or new taxes to pay for the funding shortfall in the NHS, yet such things were not required to put financial support to the City in the midst of the 2008 crisis, nor for the £375bn+ in QE since.

    Looks like if it’s in the interest of the majority of the country, financial support “must be paid for” (to encourage the belief that maybe we don’t need it that much, maybe?) but if it’s in the interest of just the few, we can print the required funds, does it not?

Leave A Comment