 |
By *urve Ball OP Woman
over a year ago
North London |
A couple of things I didn't realise about these 20 billion, when it was announced, but that were elaborated on on Sunday politics and Andrew Marr this morning:
1. It's for England only (I guess Wales, Scotland and N.I. can go whistle)
2. It's conditional. They'll only get it if they provide a detailed 10-year plan in the next 6 months on how they intend to meet the criteria set by the government (and if you hear/read the criteria, to me at least, they sound as if they're asking them to build a fully working car using matchsticks!)
Thank God for the small print, hey? 
As for the "brexit dividend", nothing more than part of an announcement serving a political purpose, as opposed to genuinely wanting to help the NHS. Almost everyone that was asked about it, rubbished if (in not so many words ). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"A couple of things I didn't realise about these 20 billion, when it was announced, but that were elaborated on on Sunday politics and Andrew Marr this morning:
1. It's for England only (I guess Wales, Scotland and N.I. can go whistle)
2. It's conditional. They'll only get it if they provide a detailed 10-year plan in the next 6 months on how they intend to meet the criteria set by the government (and if you hear/read the criteria, to me at least, they sound as if they're asking them to build a fully working car using matchsticks!)
Thank God for the small print, hey?
As for the "brexit dividend", nothing more than part of an announcement serving a political purpose, as opposed to genuinely wanting to help the NHS. Almost everyone that was asked about it, rubbished if (in not so many words ). "
What’s wrong with small print? And how much are prescriptions in Scotland? And parking in Wales? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"A couple of things I didn't realise about these 20 billion, when it was announced, but that were elaborated on on Sunday politics and Andrew Marr this morning:
1. It's for England only (I guess Wales, Scotland and N.I. can go whistle)
2. It's conditional. They'll only get it if they provide a detailed 10-year plan in the next 6 months on how they intend to meet the criteria set by the government (and if you hear/read the criteria, to me at least, they sound as if they're asking them to build a fully working car using matchsticks!)
Thank God for the small print, hey?
As for the "brexit dividend", nothing more than part of an announcement serving a political purpose, as opposed to genuinely wanting to help the NHS. Almost everyone that was asked about it, rubbished if (in not so many words ). "
the reason why the nhs money is for england only is that wales, scotland and northern ireland will get the equivilant extra money cascaded down to them via the barnett formula as health is devolved, so it is up to those devolved administrations to decide what they want to do with the money given, so if they have other priorities they can use that money how they wish |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
1. It's for England only (I guess Wales, Scotland and N.I. can go whistle
------------------------------------
Whenever the UK Government announces a spending increase in an area that is devolved elsewhere, a formula kicks in.
Scotland will get an extra £2bn or so, though it is not obliged to spend it on the NHS.
I don't know the formula for other nations. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"
1. It's for England only (I guess Wales, Scotland and N.I. can go whistle
------------------------------------
Whenever the UK Government announces a spending increase in an area that is devolved elsewhere, a formula kicks in.
Scotland will get an extra £2bn or so, though it is not obliged to spend it on the NHS.
I don't know the formula for other nations."
---------------------------------------
the last set of figures i could find were 15/16... but the principle applies..
for every £8,816 per head of the population spent on someone living in england:
wales got £9,996
scotland got £10,536
northern ireland got £10,983 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *urve Ball OP Woman
over a year ago
North London |
"
1. It's for England only (I guess Wales, Scotland and N.I. can go whistle
------------------------------------
Whenever the UK Government announces a spending increase in an area that is devolved elsewhere, a formula kicks in.
Scotland will get an extra £2bn or so, though it is not obliged to spend it on the NHS.
I don't know the formula for other nations."
So the 20 billion, is not really 20 but 20+whatever the other countries will get? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"
1. It's for England only (I guess Wales, Scotland and N.I. can go whistle
------------------------------------
Whenever the UK Government announces a spending increase in an area that is devolved elsewhere, a formula kicks in.
Scotland will get an extra £2bn or so, though it is not obliged to spend it on the NHS.
I don't know the formula for other nations.
So the 20 billion, is not really 20 but 20+whatever the other countries will get? "
basically yes..... 20 billion for NHS England plus extra barnett formula money for scotland, wales and northern ireland |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *urve Ball OP Woman
over a year ago
North London |
"
1. It's for England only (I guess Wales, Scotland and N.I. can go whistle
------------------------------------
Whenever the UK Government announces a spending increase in an area that is devolved elsewhere, a formula kicks in.
Scotland will get an extra £2bn or so, though it is not obliged to spend it on the NHS.
I don't know the formula for other nations.
So the 20 billion, is not really 20 but 20+whatever the other countries will get?
basically yes..... 20 billion for NHS England plus extra barnett formula money for scotland, wales and northern ireland"
In that case, it's even worse! A. Because it means way more taxes, B. Because the nhs of the other countries will have to prepare their own 10 year plan in order to get their money (or is that all centralised when it comes to management?). What if one of their plans doesn't meet the criteria? Do all 4 countries lose the money then? and C. isn't devolution after Brexit an issue? Wasn't that why the SNP walked out from PMQs? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Expect this money - if it's achieved - to be announced multiple times over, as if the government is giving funding increases many, many times.
As the Conservative government has cut funding to the NHS since 2010 in real terms, some of this money is needed just for catching up. And not all of the £20 billion comes now, it's in a prolonged phased approach over years. The NHS needs greater levels of investment now, as well as increased funding over subsequent years, compared to this somewhat insignificant amount.
Notwithstanding all of this, the conservative government lied pre-election, in their pledge for "no more top-down reorganisations" In his 2006 Conservative conference speech, he said: "So I make this commitment to the NHS and all who work in it. No more pointless reorganisations." The coalition went on to launch the biggest top-down reorganisation of the service in its history. This reorganisation cost the UK and the NHS several £billions: that was money that could have been invested in services and thus is a debt to the NHS and voters/tax payers (though voters who voted for conservatives after the reorganisation was undertaken, could arguably be viewed as complicit in the fraud and cuts to services. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
On LBC - JRM announced that the funding would come from tax CUTS.
His argument is that lower taxes generate more revenue and therefore tax increases would probably not be needed.
I am really not at all sure about that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
"
In that case, it's even worse! A. Because it means way more taxes, B. Because the nhs of the other countries will have to prepare their own 10 year plan in order to get their money (or is that all centralised when it comes to management?). What if one of their plans doesn't meet the criteria? Do all 4 countries lose the money then? and C. isn't devolution after Brexit an issue? Wasn't that why the SNP walked out from PMQs?"
Taxes in Scotland - for the better paid, anyway - have just gone up to pay for more money for the NHS.
This extra comes from a different pot of money.
The Scottish Parliament is not obliged to spend the additional money from the Barnett consequentials on the NHS.
That is a political choice.
Ruth Davidson, who argued strongly against the recent Scottish tax rise, now says there needs to be a UK tax rise to pay for the NHS extra money.
NHS Scotland is autonomous - Jeremy Hunt is not the responsible minister. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
