Your statistics show an actual fall in the past 10 years. It's worse than that because the true picture needs to factor in local government spending now.
If we pretend there's been steady investment, and imagine stable demand, the same thing can cost more than it did before.
But irl, budgets have collapsed, demand is soaring and costs have already risen and are about to explode due to fuel-driven inflation.
So no, starved on three counts. The baseline cost is deviating from the investment. And yes, there are many, many elements to why.
>>Your statistics show an actual fall in the past 10 years.
From 22.79% of GDP in 2010, to 21.49% in 2016 (the last year provided). This is after an increase from 10.44% to 1964 to 22.79% in 2010. The big picture is a massive multi-generational increase in social welfare spending, interspersed with tiny downward fluctuations over a small proportion of the years covered.
>>It's worse than that because the true picture needs to factor in local government spending now.
This is aggregate public spending, so it should already be factoring in local government spending.
>>If we pretend there's been steady investment, and imagine stable demand, the same thing can cost more than it did before.
Per capita GDP has increased in inflation-adjusted terms, so when social welfare spending as a percentage of GDP increases, that means a real (inflation-adjusted) increase in per capita social welfare spending.
The only possible way this leads to less support for citizens in need is growing mismanagement of the funds by the social welfare programmes.
You asked how this amounted to Tory penny pinching in another stub but you're answering it. Since Tories came to power in 2010, a 1.3% fall in all social spending in an economy that has grown slower than inflation means an actual terms cut.
It's important to note that social welfare also covers housing, unemployment and other things not care in the same sense as being discussed. Housing costs have exploded in price so even more of that stagnant budget has been diverted away from care.
Once you allow for inflation, there is a growing underspend in care. A starvation. Yes, generations of growth, but not finding it appropriately now (and for a decade) means it's being starved.
I'm leaving it with the Health Foundation, there. I'd suggest you read that if you really want an appreciation of how budgets and inflation work together but if you just want to tell me "they have more money, so it's being wasted more" you don't understand how money works; I can't help you.
And if you're reading around, be wary of COVID era numbers as they include boosts for testing and extraordinary measures. Nothing that increases provisionable service.
If spending was the issue, the doubling of social welfare spending's share of GDP would have provided such a massive amount of resources to these programs that a 1.3 percent drop in relative spending wouldn't lead to the dire outcomes this article references.
And if you call the Tories reducing spending by 1.3 percent of GDP, what do you call a doubling of spending as a share of GDP? The Big Picture here is massive spending growth over the long run, that totally eclipses this minute drop.
>>Once you allow for inflation, there is a growing underspend in care
Wrong. The UK has seen significant per capita GDP growth, after accounting for inflation.
So rising social spending as a percentage of GDP means rapidly rising inflation-adjusted spending per capita.
If those social welfare programs are mismanaging those funds, that's an entirely different argument than arguing it's "starved".