First we have the story in the Mail, Guardian Telegraph and over 200 other news sources that Blair will be pilloried by Chilcott. No mention by the Beeb.
Then we have "NHS funds moved to richer areas, Labour says Labour is accusing the government of moving NHS spending in England away from poorer areas towards richer parts of the country."
Except of course no money is being taken away from anywhere. Everywhere is getting at least a 2.2% increase. Remember GDP was up by only 0.2% on the last quarter so that is a higher proportion of GDP as well as a real-terms increase - everywhere.
Some places are getting more than that. The highest seems to be Derby with 4.4%, but most places get less than 3%. Sure enough some places that are relatively prosperous get a higher percentage increase in funding, but they are starting from a lower per capita base. For all I know a 2.2% increase in a "poor" community still represents more cash than a 3% increase in a rich community because the "poor" community already gets 50% more funding per capita.
And yes, Tower Hamlets does get considerably more funding per capita than SUrrey for just about every public service, and believe it or not the population is increasing in prosperous areas and decreasing in areeas where there is less employment.
So there is no substance in the Labour claims, but that doesn't stop the BBC printing them verbatim.
2 comments:
There is another small point. I live in a so-called "rich" area. As well as a number of better off people there are still very many who are poor. According to the stats' the poor tend to need more medical assistance than the rich because one reason they are poor is because of health problems.
It isn't just poor people who fall ill. Old people (& others do too). They all deserve equal treatment under the NHS. The percentage of old people in the population is rising everywhere, so there should be a rebalancing of resources.
Post a Comment