Britons are less satisfied with NHS than at any time on record
Public satisfaction with the NHS has dropped to the lowest level on record, according to findings from a long-running poll.
Just 24% of people said they were satisfied with the health service in 2023, with poor access to GPs and long wait times for hospital treatment the main reasons for dissatisfaction.
More than 3,000 people across England, Scotland and Wales were surveyed for the British Social Attitudes poll, which is seen as a reliable barometer for how people feel about the NHS.
Satisfaction levels were down five percentage points from the year before – falling to the lowest level since records began in 1983.
From A&E to dentistry, satisfaction with every service is at or near historic lows. Results for social care were even worse, where just 13% were happy.
When asked what the most important priorities for the NHS should be, 52% said making it easier to get a GP appointment and 51% said increasing staff numbers.
Improving waiting times in A&E and for planned operations closely followed – chosen by 47% and 45% of people respectively.
Crucially however, support for the founding principles behind the NHS – free at the point of use, available to everyone and primarily funded through taxes – has remained constant.
This indicates the public do not want a change to the NHS – they just want the model they have got to work, a report analysing the poll said.
Read more:
‘Doctors leaving Wales in their droves’
Health workers to receive one-off payments
Doctors whose lives were devastated by long COVID to sue NHS
‘Continual state of crisis’
Satisfaction with the NHS peaked 14 years ago in 2010, when 70% of people were satisfied with the health service. But since 2020, levels have dropped by 29 percentage points.
“A decade of squeezed funding and chronic workforce shortages followed by a global pandemic has left the NHS in a continual state of crisis,” the report said.
When it comes to funding a whopping 84% of people polled said they thought the NHS had a severe problem, with 48% voting that ministers should increase taxes and spend more on the health service.
It was people with the most monthly income that were more likely to choose “increase taxes and spend more on the NHS” than keep taxes the same or reduce them.
Dan Wellings, a senior fellow at the King’s Fund – which sponsors health and care questions in the poll – said political leaders should “take note” of how far satisfaction levels have fallen ahead of the upcoming general election.
Click to subscribe to the Sky News Daily wherever you get your podcasts
Professor Pat Cullen, general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, added that any party wanting to be in Downing Street in a year “must demonstrate clear intent” of investing in nursing to improve pay conditions and stabilise the workforce.
A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Social Care said it was “fully committed” to a “faster, simpler and fairer NHS” and has seen “good progress” in cutting waiting lists in England.
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
“We are providing the NHS with record funding of nearly £165bn a year by the end of this Parliament, an increase of 13% in real terms compared to 2019,” they said.
“Overall NHS waiting lists have decreased for the fourth month in a row and we’ve delivered on our commitment to provide an extra 50 million GP appointments months ahead of schedule.”
Strategy’s Michael Saylor and BitMine’s Tom Lee are among 18 industry leaders who will look at ways to pass the BITCOIN Act and enable budget-neutral ways to buy Bitcoin.
The Fellowship PAC, launched in August, said it had “over $100 million” from unnamed sources to support the White House’s digital asset strategy.
Politics
Starmer was aware of the risks of appointing the ‘Prince of Darkness’ as his man in Washington – to an extent
It was a prescient and – as it turned out – incredibly optimistic sign off from Peter Mandelson after eight years as Chancellor of Manchester Metropolitan University.
“I hope I survive in my next job for at least half that period”, the Financial Times reported him as saying – with a smile.
As something of a serial sackee from government posts, we know Sir Keir Starmer was, to an extent, aware of the risks of appointing the ‘Prince of Darkness’ as his man in Washington.
But in his first interview since he gave the ambassador his marching orders, the prime minister said if he had “known then what I know now” then he would not have given him the job.
For many Labour MPs, this will do little to answer questions about the slips in political judgement that led Downing Street down this disastrous alleyway.
Like the rest of the world, Sir Keir Starmer did know of Lord Mandelson’s friendship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein when he sent him to Washington.
The business secretary spelt out the reasoning for that over the weekend saying that the government judged it “worth the risk”.
Keir Starmer welcomes Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte to Downing Street.
Pic: PA
This is somewhat problematic.
As you now have a government which – after being elected on the promise to restore high standards – appears to be admitting that previous indiscretions can be overlooked if the cause is important enough.
Package that up with other scandals that have resulted in departures – Louise Haigh, Tulip Siddiq, Angela Rayner – and you start to get a stink that becomes hard to shift.
But more than that, the events of the last week again demonstrate an apparent lack of ability in government to see round corners and deal with crises before they start knocking lumps out of the Prime Minister.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
‘Had I known then, what I know now, I’d have never appointed him’ Starmer said.
Remember, for many the cardinal sin here was not necessarily the original appointment of Mandelson (while eyebrows were raised at the time, there was nowhere near the scale of outrage we’ve had in the last week with many career diplomats even agreeing the with logic of the choice) but the fact that Sir Keir walked into PMQs and gave the ambassador his full throated backing when it was becoming clear to many around Westminster that he simply wouldn’t be able to stay in post.
The explanation from Downing Street is essentially that a process was playing out, and you shouldn’t sack an ambassador based on a media enquiry alone.
But good process doesn’t always align with good politics.
Something this barrister-turned-politician may now be finding out the hard way.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports2 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment11 months agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024