With a new Labour government, many were expecting a new approach to the NHS, as Labour have traditionally favoured comprehensive spending on public services coupled with increased taxation on the rich. While Labour’s manifesto made some of the right commitments in regard to the NHS, such as increasing the number of appointments, reducing waiting times and expanding the workforce, it did not detail any spending increases in order to reach those targets. So far, the only spending commitment to the NHS was the £22.6 billion increase set out in the October budget, which will be enough to temporarily sustain the service, but certainly will not address the long term challenges it faces.
On paper, Labour’s recent decision to scrap NHS England seems like a good way to avoid the issue of having to spend money altogether. By simply reducing the bureaucracy and duplicative functions within the NHS, the government aims to spend hundreds of millions annually. However, in the context of the £22.6 billion figure that the NHS needs to continue running at a minimum, a few hundred million pounds is a drop in the ocean, so is this really worth the logistic overhaul and job losses that such a policy would entail? In order for this policy to have any long-term benefit, it must come alongside radical increases in funding.
On paper, Labour’s recent decision to scrap NHS England seems like a good way to avoid the issue of having to spend money altogether.
So why don’t Labour just do so? Polling consistently shows that there is an enormous public demand for a political programme of high spending on the NHS, funded by tax rises on the rich. The general media narrative is that Starmer and his government are simply too cautious, not wanting to be smeared by the right-wing press as reckless spenders. This is only partly true. The fact is that this Labour government is subject to exactly the same corporate interests as the Tories, having received millions of pounds from big business and private health companies. In 2023 the Labour party received £13 million from private donors, a record for the Labour party from such sources, while the Health Secretary Wes Streeting has accepted £175,000 from donors associated with private health firms, and the frontbench collectively have received £650,000 in the same way.
Labour’s manifesto targets can only be met one of two ways, by increasing spending or by introducing further privatisation to the NHS. Due to the government’s financial interests, as well as their current track record of measly spending, it is evident that privatisation is much more likely.