Another Tory ‘promise’ broken – there will be NO NEW MONEY for the NHS

A gurning Theresa May stumbles over her explanation of how a future Conservative government will NON-fund the National Health Service.

Theresa May promised us £8 billion more, every year, for the NHS in ‘her’ manifesto. In fact, she is providing no extra money at all.

The game was given away by Damian Green on yesterday’s (May 21) Andrew Marr show. He said the money would be found by redirecting funds that were already within the NHS:

And Mrs May herself confirmed the truth in a say-everything-you-can-to-hide-it interview with Andrew Neil:

So now you know. Simon Stevens, head of the NHS, asked for between £8 billion and £20 billion per year – the difference being that between a health service that is ‘Just About Managing’ (to steal a slogan from Mrs May) and one that is performing well.

The Tories originally promised £9 billion. In their manifesto, they cut it to the bare minimum of £8 billion.

But they will actually provide nothing at all.

Do you honestly think your health is safe with the Conservatives?

Or perhaps you agree with this:

Remember – if the Conservatives are returned to office on June 9, they will close 24 Accident and Emergency departments immediately.

Where will you go then, if you need life-saving treatment? A private hospital?

Can you afford to put your life in the hands of the Tories?

Or will you choose sanity, and vote for Labour on June 8?

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.

The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

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:


15 thoughts on “Another Tory ‘promise’ broken – there will be NO NEW MONEY for the NHS

  1. Dez

    I guess if you are a kamikaze party you really do not give a toss if you lie as they have absolutely no integrity and regard telling the plebs the truth as a weakness and not worth the effort….as they know whats best…they’re politicians.. Why has this country been left with these lame brain Hoorays who have no common sense or sense of duty or integrity. Surely there must be more intelligent people in the UK capable of doing a much better job than this lot. As for letting them lead the EU negotiations because they are strong and stable…rubbish.

  2. joanna

    Well listening to her droning on about nothing, I nearly passed out with boredom!! Also there’s 30 minutes I will Never get back!!
    I cannot beLIEve anyone could fall for that drivel!!!!

    Please Jeremy Corbyn, Rescue us from Tory Tyranny!!!

  3. Zippi

    “Our economic credibility is not in doubt…” No, it is non-existent! Why do people still believe that the the country’s finances are safe in Tory hands?

  4. John

    This evil woman is stepping into the very shoes of Adolf Hittler, my way or the highway springs to mind 🙁 a true meglomaniac, evil to the core.

  5. Jeffrey Davies

    See atos maxiimus crapita virgin health servco and many more who suck on this teat the NHS

  6. NMac

    I really don’t know why some people still think the Nasty party is at all interested in the NHS. They should just look at the basics, ie…The Tory Party can’t make money out of the NHS, therefore they don’t like or want it.

    1. Christine Shepherd

      You are joking aren’t you, do you not know what’s going on, why do you think Jeremy hunt was in america, and do you not know there all shareholders, it did not belong to them. Do you not know they get more than there fair share of money + more in there wages & bonus’s, ripping the guts out of it till there is nothing left, then they will start on a new project, and over and over again, profit & profit, pure greed. And a hate. For normal people.

  7. Liz Douglas

    Before paying attention to what the Tories say or do prefix it with Capitalism it’s beyond me why people feel they need to educate them on the consequences of their policies when they are fully studied prior to roll out. Capitalism requires suspension of compassion, empathy or any consideration of the effects of their policies it is financial gain by any and all means necessary and acceptance of collateral damage as necessary to the goal. If you have to fight them to make them stop hurting people then it is their agenda. They are doing to the welfare state exactly what they did to the NHS it’s interesting to note that all countries using austerity such as Australia are going through all of the same cuts and policies. In Australia there are welfare cards you can only buy from those contracted by the government no alcohol, no local business, no markets no shopping around and now they are bringing in mandatory vaccination and drugs testing along with workfare etc to get benefits along with workfare etc. While they make it almost impossible to work through the system to get that benefit as with WTC ESA and the rest they are also targeting the disabled, dying, working and unemployed poor = Capitalism = Globalism

  8. Barry Davies

    Well he is right about doing things better unfortunately when it comes tot he NHS the tories inevitably make things worse, the only time they got something right was when they abolished the area health authorities since then they have cost more for management and got less.

  9. Jan Dodds

    I noticed that you have highlighted a couple of Damien Green’s comments in red and they make much more sense when placed within the context of The Naylor Report.
    … “a lot of it is retargeting money from within the system” & “well from various parts of the NHS” …
    The following is a copy of a post I put up on FB a couple of days ago, (not being lazy, just a pragmatic use of time! Oh, & I have edited it for bit of bad language!)
    Excuse the ‘shouting’ but THIS IS HUGE!!! Theresa May is planning to SELL OFF the CAPITAL ASSETS of the NHS for £10bn! Does that figure sound familiar? It should do because that’s the EXACT figure she quoted to Andrew Neil as being the new investment for the NHS
    Everything is falling into place now. This is why they brought in the Health & Social Care Act 2012; to remove the Duty of the Secretary of State to Provide; abolish SHAs & PCTs; to give them the power to split off the NHS Buildings & Land (NHS Property Services Ltd); to give them the power to set up the STPs (Sustainability & Transformation Plans)
    The Naylor Report recommends accelerating the rate at which NHS assets are being sold off. Not only that, but it also suggests … “that HMT should provide additional funding to incentivise land disposals through a 2 for 1 offer in which public funds match disposal receipts.” .. so NHS assets will be sold as a BOGOFF.
    NHS Property Services has two people on the management team, one of which is Simon Stevens (also CE of NHS England) – his appointment caused quite a bit of disquiet because of his links with United Healthcare.
    If a hospital owns land & buildings that haven’t been transferred to NHS Property Services, the DoH charges it 3.5% of the value of the estate annually. The Naylor Report says that if these assets are not included in STPs then that hospital … “would not be eligible to access public capital funding” … So basically that hospital would be forced to sell off their assets in order to provide new equipment & consumables!
    Obviously, what I’ve written is a great deal simpler than the reality so, please watch the video & do your own research. WE HAVE GOT TO STOP THIS! Jan” …

    Link to Chris Holden’s vlog/youtube …

    1. Dez

      Good background information… really shows that they are taking a mercenary viking approach to the NHS ie get in there, start slash ‘n burn, and then like good vikings you burn your boats so there is absolutely no return…the hospitals will be flogged off like everything else they have got rid off to save their backsides from their financial disastrous term of office. What sort of note will the hoorays leave in the Treasury when they leave.. “ thought you had left us a large debt last time you were in office well we the Tories return the compliment by leaving you nothing in the kitty and a debt twice as large as your debt…..that’s how to properly screw up a country. “

    2. Dez

      In 2015 Labour issued its 10 year plan for Health Care which included mention of £7.5bn worth of surplus sites. It is obvious the Cons are all for implementing
      the Naylor Report which has little public knowledge and understanding.. Does anyone understand what Labours thoughts and aspirations are on the Naylor report going forward under the Labour banner?

      1. Mike Sivier Post author

        Looking at Labour’s plans, I think it’s clear that the party doesn’t support that report.

  10. Liz Douglas

    AM: Damian Green welcome. Thanks for coming in. Do you
    recognise this document?
    DG: I do.
    AM: Who produced it?
    DG: The Conservative Party.
    AM: And what does it contain?
    DG: It contains a very forensic dissection of the fact that –
    AM: Detailed costings we could say?
    DG: The way Labour approaches any problem is to say there is a
    magic money tree. All we need to do, we don’t need to reform
    anything, we don’t need to change anything, we just need to take
    money off businesses and people and that solves the problem. We
    know – because you and I remember the 1970s. That is what this
    would refer to.
    AM: You agree this is very detailed costing?
    DG: I would agree this exposes the Labour Manifesto for being
    just a charade.
    AM: So here’s another document. Why does this have no detailed
    costing at all? Why is this an uncosted document?
    DG: Because the difference between the Conservative Party and
    the Labour Party is that we produce realistic policies to deal with
    the real problems of this country, some of which raise money or
    some of which –
    AM: Isn’t that just double standards?
    DG: No. Some of our pledges are to spend less money or to move
    money around so that – you know it’s spent in the right places.
    It’s spent supporting people not just saying, oh well, the only
    solution to everything is more money and we’re going to do that
    by taxing British business. You know people – you were talking
    about this overexcited weekend we’re having at the moment. I
    think this will focus people’s minds on the fact that in less than a
    month’s time Jeremy Corbyn could be leading the Brexit
    negotiations and given Labour’s complete lack of credibility,
    nonsensical economic policy, as well as their other policies,
    nobody surely wants that.
    AM: So you mock them for the money tree and all the rest of it,
    they have given us quite detailed accounts of how much tax they’d
    raise and from whom. You haven’t. Let me talk, if I may, about
    the black holes in your Manifesto. You say that you’re going to
    spend another £8 billion on the National Health Service. Where is
    that money coming from?
    DG: That money is there, you will see it because we produced –
    AM: It’s not, it’s extra money.
    DG: – we produced a budget a few months ago so all the detailed
    costings for Conservative policies are already there.
    AM: This is extra money for the NHS. I’m just asking you where it
    comes from. It can come from extra taxes, extra borrowing or cuts
    somewhere else. So which of these is it?
    DG: A lot of it is retargeting money from within the system
    because we know we can do things better. It’s how we can
    promise more support for mental health for instance.
    AM: Okay, how much from where?
    DG: Well from various parts of the NHS and the other parts of the
    public sector, for example one of the things you’ve been talking
    about earlier, about social care.
    AM: Michael Fallon in this programme last week said there was
    going to be an extra billion pounds for the armed forces in this
    Manifesto, where does that money come from?
    DG: Well I was about to give you an example of one of the things
    you were talking about earlier where we are now going to target
    Winter Fuel payments on those who really need them and that
    money, the money that we save from that, can be targeted to the
    health and social care system. That seems to us a sensible way of
    dealing with one of the big issues facing the country.
    AM: How much money are you going to raise from cutting Winter
    Fuel payments?
    DG: Well, it depends where we set the level.
    AM: Now, I’m asking you.
    DG: We’ve said we’ll consult on that.
    AM: Roughly how much?
    DG: About 2 billion.
    AM: So most of that 2 billion?
    DG: Well we’ll see because we haven’t, as you know, set the level.
    AM: Well exactly. It’s an uncosted black hole document.
    DG: It’s not uncosted because haven’t, we haven’t said we are
    going to spend X billion extra. We are saying that the money we
    save on the Winter Fuel payments going to Mick Jagger and
    Bernie Ecclestone and indeed John McDonnell, that will be better
    spent on the social care system which needs more money.
    Everyone agrees that.
    AM: Lots of people watching this programme are not Mick Jagger
    or indeed very, very wealthy, they are pensioners wondering at
    what level they’re going to lose their Winter Fuel payments.
    DG: Well that’s why we’ve said in the Manifesto –
    AM: And they’re very concerned, and you’re not going to tell
    DG: – that we will consult so that everyone who is in genuine need
    of the Winter Fuel payment will still get it, but we think the money
    that’s currently being spent on people who need it less, many of
    whom have come up to said to me over the years, ‘really should I
    be getting this?’ That money is better spent in a social care system
    that we all agree is one of the great challenges facing our country.
    The difference between our document and the Labour document
    is that we actually deal with the big challenges facing this country.
    Theirs is just a wish list.
    AM: Can I put it to you, the difference between the two
    documents is that you have got teams of clever people trawling
    through the Labour Party promises and costing every single one of
    them and telling people what it might cost and where it’s going to
    come from and your document, those clever people, are saying
    nothing to pensioners watching this programme who need to
    know before voting day whether they’re going to lose their Winter
    Fuel payment or not. Do they not deserve that information?
    DG: Well they will know that are if they are in genuine need of the
    Winter Fuel payment they will still get that. We are going to set
    that at a level after consultation.
    AM: What does a genuine need mean?
    DG: Well, that’s what we’re going to consult on after the election
    because that’s the sensible way to do it. That’s the way a grownup
    government will operate. We’ll say is our Manifesto, here’s our
    broad proposal, a proposal which causes interest among
    commentators –
    AM: It’s not commentators who are interested about this, it is
    pensioners watching this programme wondering if I vote
    Conservative on June 8th, does that mean that on June 15th I lose
    my Winter Fuel payment, yes or no? And lots of them need to
    know that. It’s not commentators.
    DG: And they will be able to contribute to the consultation. But
    they will know, those pensioners will know that we have massively
    reduced pensioner poverty, one of the proudest things that
    successive governments have done is that in the 70s and 80s
    pensioner poverty was 40% of pensioners, we’ve now got that
    down to 14%. I’m really proud that we’ve introduced the autoenrolment
    system that means that 7 million more people are now
    saving for a pension so that we’ll be able to provide more security
    and dignity in old age for more people through the generations.
    We’re looking ahead. We’re not just looking at the election, we’re
    thinking long term about the big challenges.
    AM: We have somehow slipped sideways away from Winter Fuel
    payments. Can I put it to you that you start by cutting this, you’re
    going to take it away from virtually everybody and the reasons
    you’re going to take it away from virtually everybody is you need
    that money and one David Cameron said at the time of the last
    election – he’s talking about the then Labour policy to take Winter
    Fuel payments away, only from the top 5%: “By restricting these
    benefits aggressively or abolishing them altogether is the only way
    you make big savings,” And he went on: “Once they have started
    chipping away at these benefits, believe me before long they’ll
    start getting rid of them altogether and we’ll be back where we
    were the people who have worked hard all their lives being written
    off and forgotten about.”
    DG: Well we’ve identified social care as one of the big issues that
    both old people obviously care about, but also their children,
    younger generations as well and we think that restricting Winter
    Fuel payments to those who genuinely need it and we –
    AM: Whoever they may be.
    DG: – we as a country will decide what that is in a proper
    consultation which is the way governments should operate. But
    actually releasing that money –
    AM: You’ll decide but you won’t tell people now.
    DG: – releasing that money for use in the social care system is
    absolutely a good way forward to start improving our social care
    system which is vital for so many people. At the same time as
    allowing them to keep their home, allowing them to know they
    can pass on £100,000 to their children.
    AM: You’ve mentioned social care a lot, so let’s turn to social care.
    Can you remind those people watching what the Conservative
    policy was in 2015 on social care? How was it going to be paid
    DG: The social care policy was broadly speaking to continue
    what’s happened before –
    AM: There was a cap, wasn’t there?
    DG: Well it was the Dilnot Proposals.
    AM: The cap was?
    DG: The cap, well the amount people could save was 23,000.
    AM: What was the cap on how much …
    DG: the cap was going to be about 72,000 I think.
    AM: – exactly and that was the policy.
    DG: Well, yes but the policy as it is I think needs to be changed
    for two reasons. First of all we know that there are going to be
    two million more over 75s in ten years’ time, which is great, we’re
    all living longer, that’s good.
    AM: You knew that in 2015, but you have broken that promise.
    DG: Well let’s talk about the 2017 Manifesto. We haven’t broken
    that promise because what we’ve done is devised a better system.
    The idea that the only thing people could pass on was 23,000 has
    now been replaced with our idea in the Manifesto that they’ll be
    able to pass on a 100,000. That’s four times as good.
    AM: It is except that the crucial difference is that the value of their
    house if they’re being cared for at home is now taken into account
    as an asset. Now taking a constituency at random – let’s think of
    Ashford in Kent where the average value of a house is £240,000.
    If there is a widow, a Mrs Smith living in an average house in
    Ashford under the new policy how much extra might she have to
    DG: Well she won’t – if she’s living on her own then she will be
    able to stay in her house throughout her lifetime. If she’s not a
    widow, if she’s married her spouse will be able to stay in their
    house for their lifetime.
    AM: But if she’s a widow there isn’t a spouse.
    DG: No, no, but clearly it’s extending it, there will be other people
    who are –
    AM: She’s got dementia, poor woman, she’s being looked after in
    her own home in Ashford, an average priced home in Ashford,
    how much extra is she going to have to pay under your policy?
    DG: Well she won’t be paying anyway until –
    AM: She will. Her estate will be.
    DG: Yeah well, exactly. So she won’t be paying anything.
    AM: Ah, okay.
    DG: She can stay at home. If she is able to be cared for at home
    then quite rightly she will be able to stay there.
    AM: How much extra does the estate have to pay?
    DG: Well it will depend on what the other costs are. But what her
    children can know, or whoever she wants to leave money to, is
    that whereas before –
    AM: You will have guessed that I have the answer for you. She’s
    going to pay an extra £70,000, twice what she would have been
    paying under the previous policy. Why should she possibly vote
    DG: Well I suspect that that figure required some heroic
    AM: It doesn’t.
    DG: She should vote Conservative and her children should vote
    Conservative because they will know that whatever level of care
    she needs, so this removes that terrible decision of how long
    should you try and keep someone at home or maybe put them
    into residential care, which is a real decision that many families
    deal with. That decision needn’t be influenced by financial
    considerations anymore, everyone can be confident that they will
    be able to have –
    AM: – money from the estate in due course?
    DG: No, precisely not. Let them inherit a £100,000 as opposed to
    the £23,000 that was there before. That’s a much better system.
    It’s a much fairer system.
    AM: Let us talk then about inheritance and cascading wealth
    through generations and take a different example. This time
    Twickenham which is a seat where Vince Cable for the Liberal
    Democrats is fighting you very, very hard. An average house there
    costs £545,000. And again we take a couple, the chap’s got early
    onset dementia, he’s being cared for in his home and they’ve got
    a little bit of money in the bank but not much. Under your
    proposals they could lose virtually everything. Their children and
    their grandchildren who were hoping to inherit some of that
    wealth won’t be able to.
    DG: Well when you say virtually everything –
    AM: What is Conservative about that? It was going to be 500 and
    it’s now 100.
    DG: A £100,000 is –
    AM: Among five children.
    DG: – is a reasonable inheritance to have and people who are
    lucky enough to have had great rises in property value will still I
    think decide that £100,000 is a better way of doing it. But this has
    got to be put in the context of this is funding the social care
    AM: Of course, I understand there is a problem but I’m just asking
    you about your answers to it.
    DG: Our answers to that problem mean that more money goes
    into the social care system. Everyone knows that there will be a
    decent inheritance for them. Nobody will have to lose their home
    during their lifetime or the lifetime of their surviving spouse. This
    is a much fairer system and it’s a much more stable system.
    AM: The Conservatives used to believe in inheritance. This is a
    vast secret inheritance tax.
    DG: No, it’s not.
    AM: Yes it is. You’re a member of the Bow Group, you’re a
    member of the Bow Group.
    DG: Am I?
    AM: Yes, well you’ve written stuff for the Bow Group for many,
    many years.
    DG: A long time ago. I haven’t written for the Bow Group for a
    long time.
    AM: You’re a kind of Bow Group guy.
    DG: No I’m not. You don’t know the Bow Group now. The Bow
    Group has gone off on a journey.
    AM: The Bow Group says this is the biggest stealth tax in history.
    DG: And Bow Group is wrong. We are saying that everyone can
    inherit £100,000. Regardless of the costs that the state and
    therefore the taxpayer has paid to them. One of the big issues
    that’s facing this country is intergenerational fairness, so we’ve –
    the system is fair –
    AM: But the resource and the fairness about the lottery –
    DG: – fair to older people and let me finish this. You’ve also got to
    be fair to people working now and paying taxes that is the only
    other way to pay for the care system. So this system we are
    proposing is fair both to pensioners and particularly that minority
    of pensioners that may need long term care, but also to working
    tax payers and that’s the question you want to ask John
    McDonnell. How can we justify –
    AM: Okay, I’ll ask him the questions I want to ask him.
    Life is unfair generally. It’s very unfair that some people get
    dementia and some people don’t. Under the original Dilnot system
    we pooled the risk in society after a certain threshold and spread
    out the unfairness. If you are very unlucky and you get a terrible
    disease that means you’re being looked after at home, maybe a
    stroke where you don’t return to work or whatever it might be,
    and you’re being looked after at home then the rest of society will
    come in and help. You don’t have to pay again. Under the new
    proposals you are basically on your own for most of it. Here is
    what Sir Andrew Dilnot himself has said:
    “People will be left helpless knowing that if they’re unlucky enough
    to suffer the need for care they will be entirely on their own until
    they’re down to the last £100,000 of all their wealth, including
    their house.” He was right last time and he’s right now.
    DG: No I think there are two problems with what Andrew Dilnot
    proposed and it was a serious set of proposals. One is that the
    social insurance he proposed as a way of doing it, there are no
    products there for it, that market doesn’t exist. And the other of
    course is that his problem of as it were setting a cap rather than a
    floor meant that the distribution of the benefits became wildly
    uneven. You know we are a party that – Theresa May wants a
    country that works for everyone, so it’s got to work for people not
    just in Ashford, though clearly I care about them and
    Twickenham, but also in Hartlepool and in North Wales and in
    Scotland and so on, allowing everyone to know that there is this
    flat figure of £100,000 is fair to everyone.
    AM: Very briefly, in Ashford and Twickenham and Scotland and
    lots of other places people hate this policy and it makes them
    very, very nervous indeed. Is there any chance at all you’re going
    to look at it again?
    DG: No. What we said in the Manifesto incidentally just to put that
    no in context, is that we have set out this policy which we’re not
    going to look at again, there will be a green paper covering both
    social care and health coming out in the summer, because we all
    know that the long term solution to the social care crisis is better
    integration of the NHS and social care. That’s the aim of our
    policy. This is the first step along that road.
    AM: I know you’re coming back to discuss this more later in the
    programme but for now Damian Green thank you very much
    indeed for joining us.

Comments are closed.