Labour could propose a tax to save the NHS and people would pay it. So what's the problem?
Labour could propose a tax to save the NHS and people would pay it. So what’s the problem?
What is there to be hopeful about in 2014 Britain? What is there to be proud of?
These aren’t easy questions to answer. Britain today is a place where living standards are falling and secure and decently-paid jobs are harder to come by; where for many the chance of securing a decent home – be it social housing or mortgaged housing – is diminishing; where the NHS is slowly disintegrating and where we and our relatives face a frightening and expensive old age ‘cared’ for by underpaid and often resentful staff.
It’s almost a cliché to observe that mainstream politics has so far failed to provide any kind of light at the end of the tunnel, with nothing on offer but the Tories’ brutal austerity or Labour’s austerity-lite.
As many have pointed out, this lack of hope fosters the darker side of nationalism and the politics of hate pedalled by UKIP.
But it doesn’t have to be like this. In the NHS, Labour has a chance to inspire hope and to markedly improve people’s lives.
When asked what makes us proud to be British, one of the most common responses is ‘the NHS’. An Ipsos Mori poll commissioned by Channel 4 in 2012, for example, asked people to pick from a list the two or three things that made them most proud to be British: the NHS came second, after ‘our history’. In 2013, the NHS topped a poll of icons that make people proud to be British.
And we are right to be proud, not just because it’s morally right that healthcare shouldn’t be the preserve of the well-off but also because, for the moment anyway, the NHS is one of, if not the, best healthcare system in the world in terms of quality, access and efficiency.
In particular the difference between the NHS and the privatised US healthcare system is striking: on average each American spends two and a half times as much on healthcare as those in the UK yet US citizens have a significantly lower life expectancy.
But the NHS faces unprecedented challenges. These are well known. We have an ageing society where people live longer, work – and thus pay tax – for a smaller portion of their lives and require more care. Instead of meeting those challenges, the coalition has cut the number of qualified nurses, spent £3 billion on an unnecessary reorganisation and enforced £20 billion of ‘efficiency savings’ over four years which has left many hospitals facing financial crisis.
The effects? A survey in February found that 57 per cent of nurses believe that wards are ‘dangerously understaffed’. In 2013 the BBC reported that A&E departments are understaffed by an average of 10 per cent. In April Britain’s leading obstetrician said that it was legitimate to ask whether understaffing of maternity wards was contributing to current rates of baby death and brain damage.
Labour’s proposed solution is a mansion tax, a new tobacco levy and a tax avoidance clamp-down. These measures are projected to raise £2.5 billion in their first year and that wouldn’t even be the first year of a Labour Parliament. Compare this with the £30 billion deficit that NHS England is forecasting by 2020.
There is a further problem with the mansion tax: by definition it only raises money from the wealthy, and that money is earmarked for the NHS (it’s irrelevant that money is fungible, it’s the spin and public perception that matter.)
Given the movement towards taking the poor out of earnings-related tax altogether (while off-setting gains with cuts to benefits, of course), Labour risks giving the right the political space to argue that ‘hardworking taxpayers’ (i.e. the rich) pay a disproportionate amount for a health service that everyone can use but to which a decreasing number of people contribute.
The public want a world-class health system that is free at the point of entry and they are willing to pay for it. A recent poll by ComRes found that 49 per cent of people would pay more tax to help fund the NHS, 33 per cent would not be ready to do so and 18 per cent did not know. This willingness to contribute more to the health service is the highest in ten years.
Given the need for funds and the public willingness – desire, even – to pay, it would be extraordinary if Labour didn’t propose a tax to save the NHS.
And yet this is exactly what Ed Balls has refused to do, stating last month that “I want to do whatever it takes to save the NHS under a Labour government, but I am not proposing any tax rises”.
The naysayers will balk at the prospect of Labour discussing a tax rise, but if Labour cannot propose and promote a small increase in contributions to save a national icon, the party is no longer fit for purpose.
The rhetoric needed to rouse and enhance support for this policy almost writes itself. In 1945, the British public gave their support for a national health service free at the point of use that would be funded by the British people. For over 65 years that service has been world-class.
We now find ourselves in a similar position to the British public after World War II. The needs of our changing society are such that we have to be as pioneering as we were in 1945.
That will involve innovation, for example by bringing together health and social care, but it will also need the support and contribution of the public. Not much extra, just a little bit each, but that little bit from everyone means that we can once again be proud of creating a world-class health service that we all own and all benefit from.
Annie Powell is a contributing editor to Left Foot Forward
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
69 Responses to “Forging a new NHS from the ashes: Labour’s chance to rebuild a British icon”
sarntcrip
.UKIP VOTERS WHO DON’T WANT MEDICAL BILLS THEY NEED TO CHANGE WHO THEY SUPPORT UKIP DEPUTY LEADER ADVOCATES ‘ULTRA-MARKETISATION OF THE NHS ”LONG HAND FOR PRIVATISATION
dodgydosser
The idea that the Tories could argue that they pay too much in tax is not tenable. These are the people who benefit the most from the way society is organised and have since the ’80s been benefiting hand over fist. Surely those who benefit most from society should pay the most.
Actually Labour would not need to increase taxes. All they have to do is collect 10-20% of the £119 billion in uncollected tax, making sure the likes of Vodaphone and Google pay their taxes (I’m sure the vast majority would agree that this should happen) and it’s problem solved.
The counter argument to winging Tories is; is it right that people should die (and this is what’s going to happen if they get away with privatising the NHS) in order for the richest to be able to afford private jets?
Julia
I only wish I could believe it possible!
Watching the continued march to the right gives me doubt.
Joff
Why is the idea we pay too much tax not tenable? Over 20% of my pay goes to the state in direct taxation. Then there are all the indirect taxes that are taken from me throughout the year. Simply, I pay too much tax. To argue that the highest income earners don’t pay the most means you don’t know the facts. The top 0.1% of income earners pay more income tax than the bottom 50% = they pay the most.
Vodafone and Google pay tax – what you want is to change the law to make them pay more tax. That as an opinion is fine, but don’t argue that they don’t pay their taxes because under the law they do.
For arguments sake lets say you are right that this government is privatising the NHS. How does that mean “that people die in order for the richest to be able to afford private jets”? People have died while being cared for by the NHS for decades, long before Gordon Brown and Ed Balls introduced massive private contracts to provide services within the NHS.
blarg1987
I think on the first point what they are getting at is that if you include all tax takes. While it may be true (I do not know the figures) the top 0.1% may pay the most income tax, when you take other taxes into account etc, things may be different through tax schemes for example buying a car through a holding company means VAT does not need to be paid etc compared to the everyday joe who is unable to do such things.
What we need to do is look at the total tax take and who pays what, not only specific areas such as income tax or VAT.
The argument of Vodafone and Google is the intent rather then the law, for example if someone wanted something for their own house but was told they could not have it as it only applied to businesses, they then decide to register their business at home to qualify for their own personal gain. Most people including yourselves would probably be miffed but because they are within the letter of the law it is legal. even though the intent is not.