May finds £400m extra in weekly NHS spending, from where exactly?

 It has become a norm for UK politicians whose party is in trouble to promise more money for the NHS

Despite almost exactly a year ago telling nurses “there is no magic money tree” to increase their pay as living costs continue to rise.Theresa May’s latest promise of £400m extra in weekly NHS spending within five years has been overshadowed by scepticism among experts and her own backbenchers over her claim it can be financed through a windfall delivered by Brexit.

In June 2017  Prime Minister was responding to a member of the audience at an election special of BBC Question Time, who asked: 

“My wage slips from 2009 reflect exactly what I'm earning today. How can that be fair, in the light of the job that we do?“

Another nurse said the 1 per cent cap on annual public sector pay rises had meant a real-terms decrease in his salary of 14 per cent since 2010, adding: “So don't tell us we're getting a pay rise.”

The Prime Minister said she recognised the job done by NHS staff but that “hard choices” had to be made across the public sector.

"We did that because of the decisions we had to take to bring public spending under control, because it wasn't under control under the last Labour government," she added.

"And I'm being honest with you in terms of saying that we will put more money into the NHS, but there isn't a magic money tree that we can shake that suddenly provides for everything that people want."

Ms May repeated the phrase, which was also used by Amber Rudd when she represented the Tories in a previous BBC debate, when challenged on the issue


Theresa May’s promise of £400m extra in weekly NHS spending within five years has been overshadowed by scepticism among experts and her own backbenchers over her claim it can be financed through a windfall delivered by Brexit.

Where have we heard that before

Ahead of a major speech by the prime minister in which she will pledge a £20bn annual real-terms NHS funding increase by 2023-24, May was ridiculed for arguing that some of the money would come from a so-called Brexit dividend.


“At the moment, as a member of the European Union, every year we spend significant amounts of money on our subscription, if you like, to the EU,” she said in an interview on BBC One’s Andrew Marr show.

“When we leave we won’t be doing that. It’s right that we use that money to spend on our priorities, and the NHS is our number-one priority.”

The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) said, however, that even the government had accepted the idea of an immediate post-Brexit boost to coffers would not happen.

Though I doubt if you see  them admitting it .

Of course Mrs May could send the money that the UK stops sending to the EU but we  still will have to pay a divorce bill  y Bruegel, a Brussels-based thinktank, estimates  range from €24bn (£21bn) to €65bn. The top figure is a reference point used by EU diplomats in the past, who have talked of a Brexit bill of €60-65bn. 

Downing Street has dismissed reports that the UK has agreed to pay €55bn. British officials think the EU have hugely over-egged their demands and say they will fight hard to reduce the bill.

References to sums in excess of €100bn, or £88bn, are based on gross calculations: the maximum gross sum is €113.7bn, according to Bruegel, but this falls significantly when taking into account the UK share of EU assets, such as buildings and cash, as well as the British rebate being taken off the total.

Mrs May appears to be  spending the supposed "Windfall"  before it paid of its existing commitments.

 Even her own MPs are sceptical
One Tory MP was particularly scathing in her assessment, labelling the claim "tosh".
Sarah Wollaston, who is chair of the health and social care select committee and a former GP, said it "treats the public as fools".


She added:

 "Sad to see Govt slide to populist arguments rather than evidence on such an important issue.
"This will make it harder to have a rational debate about the 'who & how' of funding & sharing this fairly."

 It is bad enough that governments and opposition parties think that they can make up for other disastrous policies  with promises of extra money for the NHS  without saying how it will be spent, but its even worse when they cant tell us where the momey is coming from .

Even the NHS cannot be sustained by "Robbing Peter to pay Paul" but its even worse when it is promised money that isnt even there.