Gordon Brown quietly slashed by a third this year’s hospital building and equipment budget in one of his last acts as chancellor. Prompted by the tightness of the public finances, the new prime minister, who has placed the NHS as his “immediate priority”, cut the capital budget of the English NHS for 2007-08 from £6.2bn to £4.2bn. The move could delay the government’s hospital building and reconfiguration programme in England. However, Mr Brown avoided equivalent cuts to the Scottish and Welsh NHS budgets even though the funding formula for the UK nations suggests they should have shared the pain. That decision leaves him open to criticism that he favoured patients in his home country.
The Treasury Friday night confirmed the NHS capital budget had been “adjusted”. But it indicated that, although it was not yet published, it would allocate the missing £2bn to spend to English hospitals over three years from 2008-09. No published health spending plans exist for these years yet, so hospitals will not be able to verify that the money is additional.
What an astonshing tale...
46 comments:
Also in yesterday's Sunday Times
This was also on your Blog Iain - in the second comment by Ex-Labour on Friday.
But your right it deserves a very high profile. ( As does the article in this weeks Economist on Debt in the UK which suggests the burden is the highest since the afternoon that interest rates went to 15% that Labour keep crowing on about. )
We have to remind people that this is all Gordon Brown's doing.
Also English schools are being told to cut back - just at the time that English tax payers money is being sprayed around by the devolved Scottish executive that Gordon Brown helped to campaign for and set up.
The position of Scotland is key to Brown his plans for PR and everything he does.
This story shows the lengths he will go to .Brown is essentially buying votes with his enemies money. A neat demonstration of how the conceopt of democracy does not work once a perceived unitary demos fragments .
man in a shed - Agree with all you say
Health and Education are devolved.
The article goes on to warn that in the next spending review, the money will no doubt be put back in, allowing Brown/Darling to announce that the capital budget has been increased by 50%!!!
The end of spin? Not quite yet.
This is my point about why osbourne needs to be moved. He hasnt made the case that the economy is in ruins and that when government spending has to be reduced (which is now) it will implode. The only thing keeping the economy afloat in the past 3 years has been massive government spending- this is obvious to anu O'Level economics student. Coupled with unsustainable debt at both government and private levels we are destined for disaster. We must make this case in order to pin the blame firmly on the idiot responsible - McBroon.
Iain, you need to be clear about what your point is here. Do you geniunely believe that Brown has a secret anti-English agenda that will always see his first loyalty go north of the border, at the expense of most British people? Or do you think that this is a situation which is happening for other reasons which, nonetheless, looks very very bad?
The second would be reasonable and mature. The first is knee-jerk and very very petty.
Health and Education are devolved.
Meaning that the Scottish budget can't be cut even if total spending has to fall!?!?
Which means that a yet further disparity between English spending and Scottish spending, but who is providing the tax income?? It's certainly not the tiny number of people in Scotland who make a net contribution to the UK's public finances.
Do you geniunely believe that Brown has a secret anti-English agenda that will always see his first loyalty go north of the border, at the expense of most British people?
Well he did sign that oath of Scottish allegiance...
Chancellor balances books shock! Would never have happened under the Tories...
Pin the blame on Gordy Brun?
Don't be daft, having claimed to be the architect of 10 years of economic growth, when it all goes tits up, he will will blame global economic forces.
Za-Nu Labor will not take responsibility for anything negative.
Is Yesterday now the 29th June? What happened to Saturday and Sunday? Is this a return to the three-day-week-ification of the traditional week?!
On the substance ... considering we are well into the year in question (2007-08) this looks to me like a reflection of slippage in programmes for some major projects - which obviously gets reflected in payment programmes - rather than a cut. It is prudent accountancy. Is it not?
On Man in a Shed's comment about debt in the UK is this story complete? If we do have the greatest debt since Black Wednesday or whatever is this in anyway related to our increased wealth and turnover as a nation with more in jobs etc, and to the change in the value of money these last 15 years or whatever.
Is it per head debt and index linked?
And does it reveal the balance between "cash flow" debt falling within the free 40 days or otherwise short term and hard debt that is a struggle?
gus-abram - they are devolved matters - but funding is supposed to change in proportion for Scotland and Wales - how they spend it is up to the various executives.
dougal - Gordon Brown has sworn to put Scottish interests first in signing the 1988 claim of right.
So far he's done just that.
Seems like people are not 'appreciating' the Broon, the 'Viceroy' of England, er i mean the 'Regions'.
Dont like it?, tough!, you cant vote him out!.
So Brown, both Prime Minister and Chancellor, wielding his axe on English budgets. Has he done so in Scotland and/or Wales?
And Dougal, is there any evidence that Brown does not have 'a secret anti English agenda? What are these 'other' reasons for this partiality then? Let's not do what Brown so frequently and conveniently does by confusing England with Britain.
As to reasonableness and maturity, has the knee-jerk and petty Brown ever shown any? This is the man who is notorious for holding long-standing grudges, for plotting and scheming and for never being around to accept responsibilites for his own misdeeds - suddenly arranging to be elsewhere.
I guess that you and Florence regard him as a model of probity and integrity. Those of us who are not on the Roundabout might take a very different view.
DOUGAL
Brown has an anti English agenda for very obvious reasons . He knows he cannot win an election in England and so the threat of Scottish Nationalism is fatal for the Labour`s Plan to rule forever . For this reason he is likely to offer a deal on PR to the Lib Dems under a system of PR that favours the Labour Party . His mandate to do this will be “interesting”. It is highly unlikely , Brown being Brown, that he will be frank about his intentions after the election but the Liberals will know.. On the other front he is desperate to thwart and delay the Scottish Nationalists and is more than prepared to use English money to do it . This is of course the reason for his new interest in “Britain” which personally I find laughable.
As the damage he has done to the economy and the debt he has run up start to bite I feel confident that he will try a lot more of this sort of thing . The timing is instructive if his fingers were not in the sweety jar then he wouldn’t be hiding.
Its odd that Brown gets away with this claim to have delivered growth . Our growth is the slowest in the Anglosphere and only appears healthy compared to the sclerotic Europeans slave states he wants us to become. Growth is delivered by efficiency , market knowledge client acquisition good products and so on .The government does none of this it is not possible for a Government o promote growth other than by getting out of the way .
For all these reasons by the way I think an early election is highly likely. If it wasn`t for the shambles the Labour Party is in I would be certain of it . Brown is in a far weaker position than it temporarily appears .
The English are not worthy of the NHS or a proper education, it's best not to waste the money to begin with.
Where is David?
Victor
Can you ranting Tories please make up your minds?
Tory proposition 1
Public spending as a percentage of GDP should be cut, and if need be in absolute terms, to leave scope for the private sector and money in the citizen's pocket.
Tory proposition/observation 2
Public spending under Labour has risen
Tory proposition 3
Cuts in public spending are bad where Engalnd is concerned.
I mean, really!
Brown will mince you and here in Scotland Salmond already has.
I fail to see the point of this.
GB has NO control over how the Scots spend the money allocated to them..
By all means campaign to change the Barnett formula but as this does not appear to be Conservative policy (if indeed there is any?) why bother.
The West Lothian question has to be resolved some day but the Conservative Party so far is a bit short of ideas on this ...
Well said madasafish - this is a scare story designed to hurt Brown, but along the way giving succour and faux-justification to the idiots, some of who hang around in the comments here Iain, who use this sort of thing as an opportunity to stir-up hatred of the Scots and Scotland.
Encouraging this sort of unthinking, uninformed animosity might get you a few more votes in England in the short term Iain, but it will ensure the break-up of the United Kingdom in due course.
You might of course want that, but if you do, please say so - so that we know that you understand the consequences of what you say - this Scot, who is proud to be British, and who has lived in England for more than twenty years (and is bringing up his children who regard themselves as English), is getting tired of the abuse and bigotry being shown to the Scots and Scotland for the actions of a government that was mostly elected in England.
Please remember:
"England has the Labour government that England voted for!"
Labour had a majority of 47 MPs in England at the last General Election - you might not like it, I certainly don't, but if the English elecotrate vote in such a way as to put and keep Labour in power it's a bit rich to blame other people for the current government.
(P.S. Some pedant-twat will now pop-up and say that the Tories got 60,000 more votes in England than Labour did. All well and good, but 60,000 votes in the wrong place under a first-past-the-post system matters bugger all. If you want those votes to mean anything then you want Proportional Representation, and if you get PR you ain't gonna get a right-of-centre government ever again - at the last election in England the Conservatives got 35.7% of the votes, Labour 35.4, LimpDums 22.9%, Sundry others 6%).
I want it, as soon as possible.
Sink or Swim time bonny Scotland...
Read on oh ungrateful little Englanders...
Secret papers show oil cash fears
Official papers which were previously secret have shown how ministers were advised to delay devolution to maintain control of North Sea oil revenues.
The 1970s documents warned that if devolution increased calls for independence, the loss of oil income might leave the UK virtually bankrupt.
...read the rest, then read this blog entry from the well respected Evan Davis:
The Scottish Gamble, in which he points out:
"As it happens, the choice is a fairly balanced one at the moment. The oil money Westminster takes, more or less pays for the "extra" public spending Scotland enjoys."
Independence for Scotland wouldn't be the bum deal for the Scots that you think it might be. While I'm happy and proud to be Scottish and British, I could be just as happily be Scottish in the unlikely event that either the little Englanders or the SNP get their way.
Why does the Scottish debate always have to be about money?
What happened to the ideal of self-determination? I am a little Englander? What does that make Salmond?
I presume you would also prefer Ireland, Zimbabwe, Canada, etc. to still be part of the never-ending British Empire?
Ed: "Why does the Scottish debate always have to be about money?"
Iain's post, on which you're commenting, is about money.
Ed: "What happened to the ideal of self-determination? I am a little Englander? What does that make Salmond?"
As for Salmond, he's an idiot too! :-)
As we established the other day, you'd like independence for the South East from the rest of England too.
At what point do you stop slicing off bits of Britain until you get the election result and government you want? Wouldn't it be quicker for you to just campaign for Independence for Edland?
Again, why does it always have to be about "The Tories" wanting a result?
I want England to be an independent, strong nation. What is wrong with that?
Yes Iain's post was about money. Well spotted. You said that those who wanted independence for England should say so. I want independence for England. I want independence for England. I want independence for England.
As for being an idiot for wanting independence for England, which part of that is "idiotic"?
True Brit
You are ignoring the elephant in the Living room. At no point has nationalistic separatism been stirred up by the Conservative Party or the English and if you feel ill treated just imagine how the non stop bile unjustifiably poured onto the English feels to us .You have comparatively little to complain about . Conservative English voters are alarmed that the Scots have been given devolved power without any adjustment on the English side and suspicious of gerrymandering The injustice runs deeper though. The Conservative party have been slowly killed off in Scotland largely because if Anti English or UK sentiment with which Margaret Thatcher specifically was associated. The Labour Party have therefore benefited hugely from the slipping off from the so called Celtic fringe .
The Conservatives are effectively competing in England against votes both in this country and votes imported from what is now a politically foreign country. The Scots Parliament only expresses a situation that had been evolving from the 50s and the Labour Party use the revenues they collect in England to shore up their own later challenge from Nationalism. This is why funds being diverted to Scotland is so sensitive.
English Nationalism used to be expressed as UK nationalism but the UK is now only a Political convenience to the Labour party in England having little support in either country. The English wish to treated fairly and do not want another five years of Socialism voted for by a country that has nothing to do with the English two Party system and wishes to be entirely separate . It is this interaction of the break up of the Union and the factions in England that produces the outrageous position we are now in . While there is no doubt a lot of nostalgic sentiment for the Great British Past, to cling to it now is as anachronistic as the tired old buffers who droned on about the Empre right up tot the 1960s.
You may be aware that the Labour Party is planning a PR system precisely because it sees the impossibility of maintaining the current imposture .Whether Liberals can survive a political climate where a Liberal vote is literally a Labour vote I am not so sure. Perhaps not all of them would wish to bulwark a Socialist uber Party
Madasafish you`ve missed the point.
Ed: "As for being an idiot for wanting independence for England, which part of that is 'idiotic'?"
That was a cheeky riposte to your own question of "what does that make Salmond"... as indicated by the :-) on the end...
Wanting Independence for England is fine, but by the time you've knocked off all the bits of the UK that you don't like (Scotland, Wales, NI, Cornwall, the North East, the North West, etc. etc. - you did say before that you want indepence for the South East, didn't you???) I doubt you'll have much public support for the idea - unless it's independence for Edland.
So one should never campaign for anything unless it's already popular? No wonder people are cynical about politics.
Britain now can't go back to being a politically homogenous nation, and the solution to the West Lothian question is either an English parliament (which doesn't work for all the reasons that Blair gave us) or Regional government which is a) not wanted b) akin to the breakup of England you say I want (which I don't even if I may have posted it jokingly on a previous thread). English votes for English matters in Westminster would probably be a nightmare.
By the way, why don't you have the courage of your convictions and post under your real name?
This is nonsense.
Of course he hasn't cut the Scottish NHS spending & you know why Iain.
Scotland has a devolved government. We get a set amount under the Barnett formula (granted somewhat to high an amount but that is not what you are arguing) & the Scottish Parliament decides where it wil be spent.
I think most Tories would actually approve of a greater degree of independence in health planning rather than having everything centrally planned.
Either the Scots are going to make better decisions & thereby provide a valuable lesson to the UK as a whole or they are going to make worse (again I will grant that when ruled by Scottish Labour/LibDems we generally chose worse) & provide an 'orrible warning to London.
Either way devolution is a worthwhile experiment but devolution requires that the Westminster PM doesn't make all the decisions.
newmania: "the English side and [are?] suspicious of gerrymandering"
The boundaries commission is beholden to be independent - if you have the slightest suspicion of gerrymandering do please alert the media and take the matter for jucidial review!
newmania: "The Conservative party have been slowly killed off in Scotland largely because if [of?] Anti English or UK sentiment with which Margaret Thatcher specifically was associated."
Sadly it is true that the Conservative name has been badly tarnished in Scotland, largely down to the Great Leader as you point out, but it wasn't down to anti-English sentiment - there is a lot less anti-English sentiment in Scotland than you suppose (and a lot more unmerited anti-Scots sentiment being stirred up in England than you're prepared to admit to too, but that's another story).
Perhaps if Thatcher had gone for devolution we wouldn't be where we are now - but then what about all that oil revenue that kept UK plc afloat throughout the 1980s? Decisions, decisions.
But who's to blame if Thatcher didn't sell well in Scotland? You can't blame the voters - we live in a democracy after all. Two alternative ideas: 1) Maybe Thatcher is to blame; 2) Maybe the media, specifically the BBC, is to blame - see Robin Aitken's book on how the closure of Linwood was portrayed, for example).
The point that I really want you guys to appreciate and take on board is that the current unsatisfactory constitutional situation is no more the fault of Scotland than it is of England - and it serves none of us to blame the Scots or blame the English - it is the fault of The Labour Party (and those who vote for them, and those elected by them) - no one else (contrary to your suspicions, there was no 'f*** the English' box on the ballot in Scotland).
As for Labour and PR plans, believe it when you see it - Labour turkeys will never vote for a LibDum Christmas (nor a BNP/Green/far left/fringe party Christmas either).
'Ed': "...why don't you have the courage of your convictions and post under your real name?"
Like 'Ed' is a real name! You could be Lord Lucan for all that 'Ed' tells us!
As it is, I'm using a consistent name, and have stated that I'm a Scot (brought up in both England and Scotland), living in England since going to university 20 odd years ago, and am bringing up children who consider themselves to be English.
Now that I've looked I see that your blog is Edland - I thought Edland was a poor attempt at humour on my part - but now that I've read some of it I see it's a poor attempt at humour on your part too! :-) [This last bit is a joke Ed, in case you've got your high and mighty blinkers on still!]
And besides, with even just a few Scots-haters appearing here (see Reinhard Dickhead on a previous thread), am I likely to want to give out my phone number?
"If you want those votes to mean anything then you want Proportional Representation, and if you get PR you ain't gonna get a right-of-centre government ever again - at the last election in England the Conservatives got 35.7% of the votes, Labour 35.4, LimpDums 22.9%, Sundry others 6%)."
That's not true, people vote differently under PR, and most Western countries with a PR system end up with a Conservative government - France, Oz - and the Tories are made not to agitate for PR.
anon: "That's not true, people vote differently under PR"
They do indeed - but the 2005 election with the 60,000 votes that some people wrongly interpret as being so significant, wasn't fought under PR, was it.
anon: "and most Western countries with a PR system end up with a Conservative government - France, Oz"
That's highly debatable, unless you add: "except when they get a left of centre government", as they all do from time to time. Just as we do here under first past the post, even in England, as is currently the case!
anon: "and the Tories are made not to agitate for PR"
From a party-self preservation POV, they'd be mad to open themselves up to such competition - if they did we could have alternative right-of-centre parties that aren't tied up with all the Conservative baggage and all those grandees and lawyers and barristers and other people who've never had 'real' jobs or businesses of their own!
As an aside, supposing we do have PR and consequently we do have umpteen viable political parties, as Al Murray would say, "Where would we be? Italy!".
Barnett is a convergence formula, which allocates resources to Scotland as an ever decreasing percentage of what gets spent in England.
Brown has no locus over how the Scottish Government spends its block grant. However, if spending is cut or reduced in England, this feeds automatically into the amounts Scotland receives in subsequent years. It's a lousy system, which does little to encourage fiscal responsibility in Scotland, leads to ill-informed moaning elsewhere, and means there's seldom such a thing as an 'English only' issue at Westminster.
Scrap Barnett to break the link between English and Scottish spending, then make Holyrood responsible for collecting all taxes in Scotland. That way, you could ban Scottish MPs from certain votes in the commons, and no-one in Scotland could have any reasonable complaint about it.
Like 'Ed' is a real name! You could be Lord Lucan for all that 'Ed' tells us!
You got me! Given that you have clicked my link already, you will be able to find all sorts of information about me on my page. Why? Because I am not ashamed of my opinions! The name I used for commenting is, err, the same as the one I use for signing cheques, passing through border controls and, err, the one on my birth certificate. But don't let that spoil your amusement!
I'm glad I caught you out at last, 'Ed' - it's been a struggle. The problem with this Internet malarkey is that unless one is quite careful then any old nutter can track you down and abuse you personally (See Rachel North London's blog for example).
Anyway, I've done some Googling, and I think this must be you: Mister Ed ...so I might pop round to say "Hay, nice St. George's Cross blanket you got there Ed!", unless you say "Neigh, I'm busy brushing my mane that day".
If you want, we could clear out the SFA trophy room for you - that way you'd get a nice cabinet (unused) for your hay, and a nice bit of tartan carpet for your stable :-)
Well luckily the only "nutter" who has taken the slightest bit of interest in my opinion is...
You!
And besides, with even just a few Scots-haters appearing here
I don't hate Scots, I just want decisions to be made by people I can vote out if I don't like them.
True Brit
Boudaries Commission-Oh don’t be such a smart arse TB .I was referring to double counting Scottish votes. It is true the Conservatives are due 20 to 30 seats and this will continue as those who attain independent sufficiency continue to leave the urban benefits wasteland . This is why they have to cheat with Scottish votes . Incidentally the Balls affair and the delays the Labour Party have caused are themselves highly pertinent to the timing of an election so they are doing their best the cheat
what about all that oil revenue that kept UK plc -
According to Andrew Marr you mean and it was as if it suddenly ceased to appear in the Blair period . The net worth of Scotland is however a different question and the cost of it dwarfs the revenues to the treasury. The Conservatives were Unionists and to read history backwards as you attempt to swivel eyed nonsense . The absence of Oil revenue is more likely to have deepened the Thatcher revolution than stopped it .
see Robin Aitken's book -( I have just read that excellent book). No you are wrong if you chart the disenchantment of Scotland with the UK it follows an evenish curve back to the 50s . The arrival of the first barrel certainly accelerated the process. Good Old Scots
current unsatisfactory constitutional situation is no more the fault of …-
Nothing is in a sense anyone’s fault however currently we are obliged to put up with not only an infantile victim complex as well as London Scottish ruling cadre while itchy Pictish fingers remain firmly in our pockets. Naturally as this is driven by anti English sentiment and ad hoc grasping one becomes somewhat resentful. Like many Constitutional issues , Europe for example or Capital punishment , there is no clear outlet in mainstream politics . To imagine that a democracy is a perfect expression of aggregate wishes is childish and if you think that English Nationalism is a mean and spiteful as its Northern equivalent I suggest you browse a few Scottish Nationalist sites and compare them with the English equivalent . For all of these reason there is actually more support for Scottish devolution in England than there is in Scotland currently . I agree with your remarks on PR but the Labour Party are likely to have no choice. This is what is informing everything the Scotsman does and this is why Iains blog is so apposite at this time.
BTW - The Mr. Ed stuff. I`d keep that silly mummy material for the Grandchildren if I were you. Its a bit embarrassing for grown ups . Seriously ..not in public. Not ever
I thought it was quite funny - reminds me of pre-school days.
Ed: "I don't hate Scots"
I wasn't thinking of you Ed - there's not just the two of us here y'know! I was thinking of some of the other people Iain tolerates - people like Reinhard Dickhead (see earlier thread), who think it's okay to refer to me and my compatriots as 'jockroaches' etc. just because of where we are born, regardless of where we live or pay taxes or how we voted.
Ed: "I just want decisions to be made by people I can vote out if I don't like them"
We don't have a presidential system (even if TB thought otherwise). Until then we have to live with a system where we elect representatives who in turn elect a leader who then appoints a cabinet - if only we could get England to stop electing a majority of Labour MPs then we could get rid of the Labour government.
It is the Labour Party and the people who vote for them (English and Scottish) who are the problem and who are to blame for the constitutional issues we need to resolve - not the Scots or Scotland.
yes this is another case of blame the Jocks. However, with regard to the funding arrangements the key point is this.
Throughout the 1980s when oil money was really starting to flow Scotland was contributing far more to the Exchequer than it was receiving back in public expenditure which i suppose in the terms of the zero-sum game English Democrat wing of the Tory Party would now be termed a "subsidy". For this reason the population figure in the Barnett Formula equation was not updated in order to keep pace with Scotland's falling proportion of the UK population as this would have increased the net transfer to the UK exchequer. As oil revenue has declined this has menat the "subsidy" has reversed. However the population figure was updated in 2000 and since then the rate of public spending increase in Scotland has been 18% whilst it has been 21% in England. An astonishing tale?
Furthermore, ed the claim in the Sunday Times i think it was that Scotland only has a tiny number of net taxpayers has been refuted with evidence that the number of net tax contributors in Scotland exceeds the per head number South of the Border.
Finally, when asseritng that scotland has higher public expenditure than England it should be borne in mind that Scotland has a higher rate of business rates than England and this has raised a 10 figure (billion) sum since the rate divergence began at devolution. One can only begin to imagine the foaming at the mouth that would have ensued had this discrepancy been the other way round.
Post a Comment