[Oldmanmatt]

Honestly though Pete, I think you’re quite nihilistic sometimes.
 It still makes me smile that you think everyone commenting is “Left wing” (especially me) as if not supporting the latest bunch of tossers to take office is somehow silly or to be despised.
I honestly don’t think you realise how far to the right you seem to be.

(The current government are pretty damn extreme by UK norms. Simply put, the Tories are our “normal” ruling party. However, rarely have they been as socially reactionary as they have been over the last decade. They appear to be moving further that way too).

Being socially liberal, doesn’t make you “Left wing”, it just means you’re not some right wing zealot or religious nutter.
Pretending that all is right with the world, simply because government policy hasn’t yet impacted you (Anybody) too negatively In your particular socioeconomic/ethnic grouping; doesn’t mean you should stay quiet when see it occurring elsewhere.

And, ultimately, many a revolution began in after dinner, middle class, conversation.

Who knows what might or might not spark change?

The difference is, I will happily tell people I think they are wrong, I would never tell them they shouldn’t have or express an opinion; which is what you do.
As you keep saying, you don’t come to offer counter argument, you only slip in to mock.

[ali k]

I'm not here to give you examples of anything - I didn't offer any view on Patel or my perception of her competence. I said this thread is like the online version of listening to dour, world-weary and bitter old men who've been beaten by life, grumbling amongst themselves about how shit they think the world is. This thread could be re-titled from 'politics 2020' to 'middle-aged left-wing men despairing at the state of the world 2020'. Fair enough, I should just ignore the thread and I mostly do, but every now and then I just wonder what you gain from bouncing pessimism and despair back and forth between the same regular 4 or 5 people. I wonder the same about some of my facebook 'friends' - you know the ones who regularly share, unsolicited, their despairing views of the state of the world.

OMM pretty much summed up my thoughts on your contribution. You’re like a climate change denier clicking on a thread titled ‘Environment 2020’ and then posting “Jesus, why is everyone so glum on here”.

If you have something worthwhile to contribute or feel like defending this government or the general direction of travel of politics either in the UK or around the world and see it as a force for good then do it. I for one don’t want this just to be an echo chamber and value hearing counter arguments. But you don’t come across well just making snide comments from the sidelines.

[petejh]

Fair enough Mat and Ali, except I'd never think or tell anyone that they shouldn't express their views - that's what we're doing here right. I'm sincerely all for free expression - including telling someone I think they're wasting their breath.
I just think it's a pointless exercise in pissing in the wind to post your politics in an echo chamber online which is exactly what this thread is - there aren't the numbers of people with opposing political views to make it anything but an echo chamber.. a few people poke their heads above the parapet every once in a while and they quickly realise it's futile to bother posting views counter to the vocal majority on these sorts of threads.
That's social media all over really: online debate doesn't work well for politics or other emotive topics where people have ideological views, because people generally go into silos where they feel safe.
I haven't commented specifically on you being left wing Mat to my knowledge? However this site and this thread I think reflects a left-wing bias. I don't even use left-wing as a pejorative label as you seem to be assuming I am either - according to every 'political compass' type thing I've ever done I'm actually mid left on an economic scale and extremely libertarian on the social scale; don't let brexit fool you into thinking I'm a natural toryboy!

Speaking of which, it should be round about now that all those people who so stridently proclaimed we'd enter an economic recession upon leaving the EU are proven correct no? Slackline et al. I'm wondering if he or anyone else will have the humility to ever admit they were wrong. Time yet of course, and a broken clock is right twice a day.

Carry on in your online political silo.

[Will Hunt]

If you actually read the thread, Pete, you'll see that there has been disagreement on this thread - in particular about the direction of the Labour party. These views may be "left" but they're different within that label.
There are occasions in the forum where debate can happen. A recent example being "why is privatisation/nationalisation necessarily good/bad". I value your input but your last few posts have just been "what's the point of discussing anything".

On your point about recession, I believe the point was that Remainers argued that the economy would be weakened. We can't know for sure what the economy would be like now, but the government's own calculations estimate 3% knocked off? What's that if not a downside?

[petejh]

No, there was definitely a pretty widespread and clearly stated belief on here (and just about every social media echo-chamber) in the dire economic forecasts of a recession if we left the EU.
This claim was used over and over, in the lead-up and aftermath of the referendum, as a hammer to hit leave voters with. When a recession continually failed to materialise in the 2 years following June 2016 the line was 'we haven't left yet, just wait'. Like I said plenty of time for one yet, but it was supposed to be on leaving the EU. I'll wait to see, if we don't enter recession in 2020, if any one of those forecasters revisits their 2016 forecasts and has the humility to admit they were wrong.

Same for some of the posters on the ukb brexit thread, I'm <only slightly> interested to see if any of you have the flexibility and humility to admit you might have been wrong to put your trust, in the run up to and aftermath of a pivotal point in UK history, in ideologically-motivated forecasters who were forecasting a recession which ever so conveniently lined up with their ideological beliefs. I predict many here will have switched to a different rationale for not wanting to leave which is understandable if sincere, or convenient if not.

[mrjonathanr]

As far as I understand things, recession was/is deemed to be a consequence of different trading conditions as a result of the status quo of agreements with the EU being overturned.

When that happens, I’ll judge its consequences. Until then, I can’t see any sense in claiming its outcome either proven or disproven. 

[gme]

That’s a ludicrous point. A few fireworks and a sing song is not us leaving the EU. We have not changed anything economically yet.
 
I am not making comment on what effect it will have but we won’t know until after the trade deals are done.

I feel you know that and are trolling for some reason.

[petejh]

Funny.. that's what you were saying in 2016.

So GME now you're waiting for post-2021? And you're taking about ludicrous points... How often do you reckon recessions come along on average? It'd be more improbable if there wasn't a recession at some point in the 5 years post 2021!




edit: grammar

[Oldmanmatt]

Funny.. that's what you were saying in 2016.

So GME now you're waiting for post-2021? And you're taking about ludicrous points... How long do you reckon recessions come along on average? It'd be more improbable if there wasn't a recession at some point in the 5 years post 2021!

I’m sorry, are you claiming that everything is just peachy or are you just being pedantic by trying to imply that no negative consequences have/will occurred/occur because (as yet) the worst case predictions have not materialised?
You know, the ones that were predicated on a “no deal” departure, that hasn’t happened (yet) and were based on that departure happening many months ago (when far less preparation had been made) and yet persist as very credible “worst case” scenarios for a similarly disorganised departure a little less than a year from now (mitigated by the transition period (that was not a certainty and has yet to actually prove it’s worth)?
Predictions that ranged from dire recessions through marked economic decline, to gradual degradation of living standards and a failure of growth?
Many of the lesser, apparently occurring already?

Lesser, of course, not meaning unimportant, just less dire (after all, having your eye poked out by flying debris during a minor road accident, whilst better than burning alive after ploughing into a petrol tanker; is still pretty friggin unpleasant and disabling.
Stretching that analogy, you might learn to cope without that eye, you might even return to a productive lifestyle; however, you were still better off when you had both eyes and you lost ground whilst you recovered).

[petejh]

I think Matt that anyone reading what I wrote can see quite clearly I haven't said 'things are quite peachy'. They can also read that I said that many people predicted dire economic consequences - a recession no less - in the event of choosing to leave and that hasn't yet happened. On the contrary, various things have occurred that run counter to the narrative predicted by many of dire economic consequences  Make of that what you will.

[Oldmanmatt]

I think Matt that anyone reading what I wrote can see quite clearly I haven't said 'things are quite peachy'. They can also read that I said that many people predicted dire economic consequences - a recession no less - in the event of choosing to leave and that hasn't yet happened. On the contrary, various things have occurred that run counter to the narrative predicted by many of dire economic consequences  Make of that what you will.

Back to my analogy there Pete.

I watched an Ice berg bump up against the dock at Narsarsuaq once.
The dock had been well built, for just such an occurrence, anyway, the draft at the dock and for several tens of meters into the fjord, was only about 5 meters (too shallow for a really big berg to threaten the dock).

This berg, though, was made up of several thousand smaller bergs, that had been pushed up against the far cliffs of the fjord for several months, in almost constant shadow, by an unusually long period of consistently easterly winds.

The wind shifted.

At first, it seemed clear that the dock was robust enough. All the small vessels inside that used it as a harbour wall, were left in place. Our vessel, too big to shelter inside, had slipped and we had, easily, sailed around the berg to anchor clear and watch the show (dodging bergs and flows was a normal day, relaxation was rare, except in Nuuk or Qaaqortoq, which were good harbours). Sat like that for a few days.

The crack, deafening, abrupt, shocking, when it came, signalled the first failure of the concrete and steel edifice.
It wasn’t a huge bit, 5%, maybe? Pushed up a couple of tens of centimetres. Maybe 3m³ ish.
But it was just the first.
By the next day, it was four or five places.

And so on, for two or three more days.

Dock was a right bloody mess by the time the flow retreated.

It was late August. By September the weather was closing in and winter was bearing down on those latitudes, long before repairs could be made.

We couldn’t return to the dock. No chance any significant ship could.
Narsarsuaq Is the principle airport for the entire country of Greenland. You can only reach it by sea, domestically. It was a year before that dock could be used again.

Amazing really. It was bright sunshine the day the berg first kissed the dock. Winds were light. Didn’t look that alarming to us. We carried on taking a tender to shore and heading to the airport to get pissed in the bar. The locals were concerned. This was something new. But...

Resilience.

Thats the thing.

Weaken a thing, you reduce it’s resilience to shocks and pressures.

They don’t always come in crashing waves, some times they come in groups of small shoves and bumps. Sometimes, it takes time for the cracks to show.

So, no, I don’t feel much like applauding your sage shrugging of possible consequence. Ask me again in a decade.
Ask me again this time next year.
Ask me again when we know the shape all this will finally take.

But, for fucks sake, the main assertion that Remainers made, is that you should never have had to ask in the first place and that every answer, will be “things are worse than they should have been”.

[petejh]

You're not expecting anyone to read that are you? I didn't. I've no doubt you've good intentions but I'm not interested in reading novellas about icebergs.

[Oldmanmatt]

You're not expecting anyone to read that are you? I didn't. I've no doubt you've good intentions but I'm not interested in reading novellas about icebergs.

And there in lies your problem.

Short version: wrong question Pete. Back around.

Of course, being a leave supporter you’re not much for detail or anything longer than a sound bite...

[ali k]

When a recession continually failed to materialise in the 2 years following June 2016 the line was 'we haven't left yet, just wait'. Like I said plenty of time for one yet, but it was supposed to be on leaving the EU. I'll wait to see, if we don't enter recession in 2020, if any one of those forecasters revisits their 2016 forecasts and has the humility to admit they were wrong.

By your simplistic argument, and as you seem to want immediate consequences on leaving the EU despite no material changes in trade or immigration conditions yet, I could ask why hasn’t the NHS started getting its promised £350million/wk extra yet?

[Oldmanmatt]

When a recession continually failed to materialise in the 2 years following June 2016 the line was 'we haven't left yet, just wait'. Like I said plenty of time for one yet, but it was supposed to be on leaving the EU. I'll wait to see, if we don't enter recession in 2020, if any one of those forecasters revisits their 2016 forecasts and has the humility to admit they were wrong.

By your simplistic argument, and as you seem to want immediate consequences on leaving the EU despite no material changes in trade or immigration conditions yet, I could ask why hasn’t the NHS started getting its promised £350million/wk extra yet?

Yes, however, the question is more disingenuous than that. An actual reduction in the economy is just the “worst case” and Pete is correct, in that such an event is both likely at moderately rhythmic intervals and probable with the next five to ten years, regardless of the Brexit situation.

That’s, ultimately, the gist of the iceberg analogy. Regardless of whether Brexit directly precipitates a recession (a far from dodged bullet, yet) it has most assuredly weakened our economy and reduced it’s resilience to external shock.
Pete, is the first to criticise a sweeping statement , or extreme prediction, yet fails to see his dismissal of any prediction of dire consequences; as an equal and opposite sweeping statement and extreme prediction.

To the “weakening” assertion, I’ll cite a fact check of a “Remainer” claim. Estimates, of course, being estimates, but the inference is reasonable.
https://fullfact.org/europe/online-cost-brexit-net-contributions/

[TobyD]

Tangible negative effects of the Brexit process so far: the significant depreciation of sterling value against particularly the euro since the vote; the departure of large numbers of care workers from agencies and homes as they're sick of being abused and told to go back to where they came from,  and because sterling is increasingly not worth earning to send abroad. The gradual rise in companies moving premises to European countries or farther afield (HSBC as one example) to guard against the potential for regulatory barriers. 

Pete, you are coming across like an angry Twitter troll. I struggle to see why; if you have a point of view why not put it?

[petejh]

Pete, is the first to criticise a sweeping statement , or extreme prediction, yet fails to see his dismissal of any prediction of dire consequences; as an equal and opposite sweeping statement and extreme prediction.

Quickly, as I'm heading out: your characterisation would be true if that's what I said, ever. (Or even if that's what I thought but never expressed, although not sure how you'd know my mind in that case).

I haven't.

Show me where I've dismissed *any* prediction of negative economic impact of brexit. I haven't, and you're wrong. I've always expressed that I believe brexit will have negative effects on the economy. Just not as negative as the ideologically-influenced rhetorical devices economic forecasts which the majority of economists pre and post-referendum were making.

Ali: in line with above, show me (tip - you won't find any evidence anywhere) where I've ever said or implied that I believe in the *£350m NHS figure. I don't, and I didn't on the day it was released. If you'd like me to articulate my reasons for voting to leave the EU I will happily.

Toby: I typed a long post in reply but it boils down to: homogeneous silos aren't very creative places.


* (There *is* a figure, but that's not as interesting as a big accounting-sheet lie on the side of a campaign bus. In fact I'd place the big accounting-sheet lie of the £350m NHS figure, in a roughly similar bracket as the big economic-forecast lie of imminent recession upon brexit that was written on the side of the metaphorical 'economic expert's campaign bus' ). 

[seankenny]

 I've always expressed I believe brexit will have negative effects on the economy. Just not as negative as the ideologically-influenced rhetorical devices economic forecasts which the majority of economists pre and post-referendum were making.

I think Pete is being a little disingenuous here. I clearly remembering him getting quite excited about a report on Brexit which predicted no future serious hit on the economy, until it was pointed out to him that, modelling issues aside, the report got its results by making assumptions that included running the NHS into the ground.

As for the second part of the quote above, below is an article from the FT's chief economics writer, dated March 2019, reviewing the Brexit predictions and the outcomes.
(If you've got FT access it's here: https://www.ft.com/content/3a6c470e-048c-11ea-9afa-d9e2401fa7ca)

tl;dr - mostly pretty accurate.

And yes, the pre-referendum forecasts of an immediate recession were wrong. Many models assumed voters would spend less in the expectation that they would soon be poorer. A good proportion simply don't believe that, so spending didn't tank. Those short term forecasts were always very contingent upon unpredictable political events, so hard to get right, however let's remember that we've had a quarter of negative growth and have bumped along close to zero growth for some time. That's not great, and it is a direct result of Brexit.

I saw quite a few people - many of them anti-Brexit - saying that of course Brexit would be bad in the short term but who could say what would happen in the long term. I think that got it almost completely wrong: there is inevitable long term pain, very well expressed in the piece below when it talks of lost opportunities. There's no way one can make the very small advantages of leaving the EU make up for the losses, and the only way that's been done is to ignore everything we know about the way the world actually works.

Which is what the pro-Brexit forecasters did and which most Brexit supporters are totally fine about. Ignoring any evidence when making policy is a recipe for disaster, and mainstreaming the stupidity which has always been there in some corners of public life is really damaging.

Still, sovereignty eh.






Politics is failing on Brexit but economics has been on the money

   For those in despair with Britain’s political class, I bring good news. Its top economists, those without a political axe to grind, made excellent Brexit forecasts both before and shortly after the June 2016 referendum. Politics might be in meltdown, but economics (this time) has been on the money.

A few days before the vote, three of the UK’s most reputable economic institutions — the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics wrote a short joint statement under the heading: “Leaving the EU would almost certainly damage our economic prospects”.

In it, they predicted the economy would be between 1 per cent and 3 per cent smaller by 2020 than if the UK stayed in the bloc. Further hits would come thereafter, they said, with the severity depending on the type of Brexit chosen. The pound would fall, real wages would be lower, public borrowing would therefore be higher and unemployment would rise.

Apart from predicting an unemployment rise — its absence is part of a longer UK puzzle of disappointing productivity growth amid strong employment gains — the outlook was remarkably accurate. The economy is now 1.5 per cent smaller than the Bank of England forecast in May 2016 while the world economy has been stronger than expected. Compared with similar advanced economies, studies estimate the UK Brexit hit to be 2.3 per cent.

After the referendum, mainstream forecasters were even more accurate. The Office for Budget Responsibility got the size of the economy at the end of 2018 almost spot on. Its error was within 0.1 per cent. In contrast, the pro-Brexit lobby group, Economists for Free Trade, was far too optimistic and George Osborne’s Treasury short-term shock scenario was much too pessimistic. They made opposite errors some 25 times larger than the OBR.

    Brexit is a deliberate decision to miss out on economic progress. It is a slow drip of lost opportunities, activity moved elsewhere and income disappointments

The lesson is simple: listen to economists, but not to those peddling a political line. With such a good record over the first two-and-a-half years of the Brexit saga, it is not surprising the mainstream is still singing a similar tune about the long-term Brexit effects as they were three years ago. It will hurt, they say, potentially quite a lot.

We need to think clearly about the nature of the pain. Rather than making us poorer than in the past, Brexit is a deliberate decision to miss out on economic progress. It is not empty shelves and huge job losses, but a slow drip of lost opportunities, activity moved elsewhere and income disappointments. The correct analogy is Britain’s slow, 30-year, relative decline from victor in the second world war to the sick man of Europe, not the immediate pain of a recession or a financial crisis.

A no-deal Brexit could impose an additional short, sharp, shock, and its severity would be entirely in the gift of Brussels. With the ability to control transport and financial services, the EU27 will be able to choose how tight to turn the screw. In any negotiated and smooth Brexit, NIESR concluded in a recent study that “the losses . . . are larger the more distant the relationship with the EU that is established”. No deal is the worst outcome; staying in the EU is best. Putting magnitudes on these general predictions, NIESR estimates the UK would miss out on a further 2.8 per cent of national income with a close relationship, rising to 5.5 per cent in a reasonably orderly no-deal scenario. These are noticeable losses.

Good economics cannot tell us the right decision for Britain in these febrile times. But it has demonstrated that the vote to leave was bad for living standards. It predicts more of the same once Brexit happens. No one need follow the advice of economists, but we do need to face facts. Michael Gove was wrong, the experts were right and we should never get tired of listening to them.

[petejh]

Which all sounds very intelligent Sean. Until you reflect that beyond a certain point in time it will become impossible to differentiate the economic effect of brexit from the background noise of the world turning as it does, opportunities or not opportunities branching off at every moment into an unknowable future. Your forecasters struggle beyond 3 years. And my point is that, like the big misleading fact of the £350m beinf used by leavers for justification, the misleading fact of a recession was front and centre in economic reasons for staying. I'm interested in neither because they were clearly rhetorical rubbish.

[Oldmanmatt]

Which all sounds very intelligent Sean. Until you reflect that beyond a certain point in time it will become impossible to differentiate the economic effect of brexit from the background noise of the world turning as it does, opportunities or not opportunities branching off at every moment into an unknowable future. Your forecasters struggle beyond 3 years. And my point is that, like the big misleading fact of the £350m beinf used by leavers for justification, the misleading fact of a recession was front and centre in economic reasons for staying. I'm interested in neither because they were clearly rhetorical rubbish.

Translated: This disagrees with my deeply held conviction, therefore I can dismiss it and substitute my instinct for the best derived predictions of people who study this every day, for whole careers.


When you do this, Pete, I jist hear the typical conversation I’m still have with all my kids.

Me: FFS, get down off that bloody wall, can’t you see how far you’re going to fall if you slip?

Kid: I’m not going to slip.

Me: I said get down.

Kid gets down.

Me: Can you really not see that you might have fallen?
What that might have meant?

Kid: Yeah, but I didn’t.

Me: *grits teeth*

[seankenny]

Which all sounds very intelligent Sean. Until you reflect that beyond a certain point in time it will become impossible to differentiate the economic effect of brexit from the background noise of the world turning as it does, opportunities or not opportunities branching off at every moment into an unknowable future. Your forecasters struggle beyond 3 years. And my point is that, like the big misleading fact of the £350m beinf used by leavers for justification, the misleading fact of a recession was front and centre in economic reasons for staying. I'm interested in neither because they were clearly rhetorical rubbish.

The problem for this line of argument is that it ignores the fact that lots of macroeconomic variables have pretty well defined trend rates that are surprisingly persistent. But not completely persistent: it appears, for example, that there's a possibility that the growth rate trend was pushed downwards after the crash. This is not entirely certain (there are a bunch of technical issues even around measuring trend rates) but there are really good reasons to think that Brexit is another event that will push us off one fairly clearly defined trend and onto another, lower growth trend, that will be a pretty persistent path for the UK economy regardless of what else happens. This isn't a matter of forecasting, but rather looking back over the data we already have and trying to work out what happened.

The suggestion that the UK would take a short-term economic hit was not rhetorical rubbish, but a well worked out attempt at making a guess at the unknowable future. On some bits it was wrong, but on lots the forecasts were pretty accurate. But let's ignore the accuracy and look at it from an epistemological point of view: do we think the recession forecasts and the £350m Brexit bonus for the NHS are the same type of claim, the same type of knowledge?

You clearly do, and so do many Brexiters. This is one of the biggest dangers of Brexit, because you are dead, dead wrong.

[petejh]

No, one is the twisting of a figure (UK EU contributions, net of concessions) to make it sound like we could have £350m more to spend, when we couldn’t. The other is what I’d classify as using an appeal to authority to attempt to persuade people to focus on the various different *possible* negative consequence of a decision. Note I’ve never denied the potential for negative consequences, just their severity and lasting effect.
One is a form of lie. The other is a form of persuasion. Both are rhetorical devices.

As for the future I still think beyond a certain time point you or I have very little evidence for either your or mine beliefs.


You aren’t adding much of value to this discussion OMM, you just don’t like having it pointed out that you were wrong.

[Offwidth]

My concerns with this government are much bigger than my concerns with brexit. The most important factor for me is that the typical erosion of democracy and freedoms (that occurs with monotonous regularity in popularist governments) has already started, as we have policy based partly on blatant lies and to help with this a denigration of critical experts and strict managing (even manipulating in the case of the BBC) of the press and attacks on the judiciary; also diluting traditional checks and balances in power in our cabinet based government, aided by the promotion of incompetant loadspeakers like Patel to major ministerial roles. It's like a virus has infected  the UK's best minds and that even the too few who are aware lack the antibodies to resist. Truth simply used to be more important before Boris. It's also why I'm so annoyed with progressives who attack the northern working class voters who backed Boris (he told them what they wanted to hear) , when this only happened due to progressive failures to stop Boris earlier. A country simply cannot be run well when its prime purpose is to pander to the ego of its leader and with any major challenge to that silenced.

[Oldmanmatt]

You aren’t adding much of value to this discussion OMM, you just don’t like having it pointed out that you were wrong.

I must have missed your evidence then, Pete.
Must have been a short paragraph somewhere in your baseless assertions.
Perhaps you could point me towards it?
Happy to admit I’m wrong when you are able to do more than insist that I am, because you say so.

I spent the week in meetings and dinners and lunches, with MOD and RN, specifically looking at Fisheries protection.
The briefing notes are a little more bleak, the budgetary pressure a little higher, potential flash points more volatile, than you seem to think.
It’s difficult to be so confident in it all as you.

On a plane to Glasgow in a couple of hours, as things are developing rapidly (by MOD standards), just training stuff, but, do you not think pulling personnel out of retirement is a bit odd; if all is well?

It turns out, that I should do rather well out of Brexit, personally.

For the record, though, there’s plenty of evidence linked to in my posts. Far more than you bothered to contribute. I value your input and enjoy the argument, I always have.
However, even when someone like Sean presents you with well reasoned argument, you still insist you are right and everyone else wrong.

Also, I make these post as long as possible, because...

But then, you’ll never read this far, will you.

Kidding aside, Brexit is not a good move. It might not be an abject disaster for all, but it probably will be for some. It might not precipitate a deep recession, but it almost certainly will be a massive drag on growth for decades to come. I think your arguing against demonstrable trends is  weak. Your position on the forecasts, pedantic and you seem to assume that current forecasts are the same ones made in 2016. Despite Sean making a very lucid and compelling explanation.

Still, you might be aware, I haven’t shut up because you told me to.

[A Jooser]

...I could ask why hasn’t the NHS started getting its promised £350million/wk extra yet?

Why? Hasn't it? 

This from Theresa May's speech as Prime Minister on the NHS: 18 June 2018

...As the NHS approaches its 70th birthday, it is the right moment to look again at how we secure the future of the NHS: now and for generations to come... Let me start with funding... we will do more than simply give the NHS a one-off injection of cash.

Under our plan, NHS funding will grow on average by 3.4 per cent in real terms each year from 2019/20 to 2023/24. We will also provide an additional £1.25 billion each year to cover a specific pensions pressure.

By 2023/24 the NHS England budget will increase by £20.5 billion in real terms compared with today. That means it will be £394 million a week higher in real terms.

Additionally, in August 2019, Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced an extra £1.8 billion for NHS frontline services

The £1.8 billion funding is in addition to the extra £33.9 billion, in cash terms, the NHS is set to receive every year by 2023/24 through the Long Term Plan agreed last year.