Show the Working

Strengthen and expand public NHS services

Green · what the evidence says

An independent, source-checked look at Green’s policy “Strengthen and expand public NHS services” — what it would actually do across the things that affect your life. Every claim below quotes the source behind it. How this works.

Public finances & the next generation — Hurts

major · moderate confidence

This policy commits to very large additional NHS spending — up to £28bn a year plus £20bn in capital — but names no funding source, which would worsen the public debt path unless offset elsewhere. Capital investment in hospitals could improve long-run value, but the bulk is recurring revenue spending with no identified financing.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether the party pairs these commitments with tax rises or savings of equivalent scale — if fully funded, the verdict would change; the policy text is silent on this.

Our reading: The policy commits to NHS revenue spending rising to £28bn per year by 2030, plus £3bn/year for dentistry and £1.5bn immediately for public health — totalling well over £30bn in additional annual current spending — on top of £20bn in capital over five years. The policy text names no funding instrument: no tax, no borrowing rule, no offset. Absent an identified funding source, recurring revenue spending of this scale would be financed by borrowing, worsening the debt path. The OBR and IFS projections (both forecast/projected tier) contextualise the scale: healthcare spending is already projected to rise substantially under existing trajectories, and this policy would add significantly on top. The capital element (£20bn over five years, roughly doubling recent averages from £8bn/year per E9) is more defensible under O12 criteria — borrowing to invest in productive assets can improve long-run sustainability, and the evidence confirms the maintenance backlog is severe at £15.9bn and that deferred capital raises future costs. However, capital is the minority of the total fiscal commitment; the dominant component is recurring revenue spending. No mechanism is cited to show this is net-funded. On a dual-horizon read: near-term and within-parliament, the debt path worsens as large unfunded current spending is added. Long-term, if the capital investment genuinely reduces the backlog and raises productivity, there is a partial offset — but this is at best a partial mitigation of a major near-term worsening. Confidence is moderate because the policy's funding counterpart is simply absent from the evidence provided, and a fully funded version of the same policy would have a very different verdict.

Healthcare — Helps

major · moderate confidence

This policy promises very large increases in NHS spending, more GPs, guaranteed same-day urgent GP access, and restored dental and mental health services — all targeting areas where the evidence shows severe and worsening access problems. The main risk is that stated spending commitments do not automatically translate into delivered capacity, and a major structural reorganisation of the NHS could itself disrupt care.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether the scale of funding translates into actual delivered capacity — staff, infrastructure, and services — rather than being absorbed by pay, inflation, or reorganisation costs.

Our reading: The evidence paints a picture of an NHS under severe and worsening strain across every dimension this policy targets: a 7.22 million-case waiting list, an 18-week target unmet since 2016, catastrophic dental access failure (79.5% of those seeking appointments turned away), a 15% fall in GP numbers per capita, a crumbling estate with a £15.9bn maintenance backlog, hollowed-out public health budgets, and a 1.7 million-strong mental health waiting list where delays routinely cause crises. The policy's stated commitments — £28bn in additional annual revenue spending, £20bn capital, £3bn for dentistry, restored public health budgets, 28-day mental health therapy guarantees — are directly targeted at these documented failures. The scale of the spending commitment is broadly consistent with what the IFS and Health Foundation estimate is needed to modernise or even maintain the NHS, lending credibility to the stated ambitions. The direction of effect is clearly positive for O3. The magnitude is assessed as major because the policy addresses access, capital, workforce pay, prevention, cancer, dentistry, and mental health simultaneously, in a context of severe baseline underperformance. However, confidence is moderate rather than high because: (1) the trade-off between pay rises and waiting list reduction (E4) means that the fair-wage commitment, while positive for retention (E5), competes with capacity expansion; (2) the NHS Reinstatement Bill reorganisation could disrupt care during transition (E64); and (3) government projections and funding commitments are 'projected' — past NHS investment announcements have not always delivered proportionate capacity gains. The time horizon is long-term because capital spending, workforce training, and structural change take years to translate into patient-facing improvements.

Good work & fair pay — Helps

minor · moderate confidence

The policy commits to immediate pay rises for NHS staff and capital investment that could improve working conditions, which evidence links to better retention and workforce stability. However, the pay trade-off between staff wages and waiting list recovery means real-world gains depend heavily on how additional funding is allocated.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether the additional NHS funding is large enough to deliver both fair pay settlements and waiting list recovery simultaneously, given NHS England's own estimate that every 0.5% above budgeted pay costs ~£700m equivalent to 300,000 fewer patients treated.

Our reading: The policy's most direct relevance to O4 is its commitment to fair wage settlements for NHS staff and capital investment in hospital infrastructure. The evidence shows a clear workforce crisis: high staff turnover intention, rota gaps, and poor working conditions rooted partly in a maintenance backlog of nearly £16 billion. Two-thirds of NHS staff link pay to retention, and poor working environments demonstrably worsen conditions for remaining workers. The £20bn capital commitment, if delivered, would address a real and growing deficit — NHS capital averaged only £3bn annually 2010-2019 and the maintenance backlog has doubled. However, the improvement is constrained by a genuine trade-off: NHS England itself estimates that above-budgeted pay rises cost roughly £700m per 0.5% increment, resources that would otherwise reduce waiting lists. Better pay for NHS workers is a clear gain for those workers (a population of over 1 million), improving job security and real wages. But the magnitude is 'minor' at the O4 level because: (a) this policy applies to a specific workforce subset rather than workers broadly; (b) the pay-vs-capacity trade-off limits net benefit; and (c) the commitment uses no specific pay uplift figure beyond 'fair', making precise effect uncertain. The capital investment plausibly improves working conditions, but is a slower-burn effect. Absent the policy, the evidence suggests continued workforce attrition and deteriorating physical infrastructure — so additional investment is genuinely additive. Confidence is moderate because the pay commitment is real but unquantified, and the allocation choices between pay and throughput remain unresolved.

Education & opportunity — Little effect

minor · low confidence

This policy is fundamentally an NHS expansion plan, but it does commit to placing trained counsellors in every primary and secondary school, which could reduce mental-health barriers to learning. However, none of the provided evidence links school-based counselling to improvements in educational attainment, school standards, or the attainment gap at population scale.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether in-school counsellors would materially improve educational outcomes (attainment, attendance, the disadvantage gap) rather than simply improving children's mental health access, which is primarily an O3 effect.

Our reading: The policy's only direct touchpoint with O7 (Education & opportunity) is its commitment to place trained counsellors in every primary and secondary school. The baseline evidence confirms a serious and growing unmet mental health need among children: 255,000 on waiting lists, demand having risen fivefold since 2016, and over a quarter waiting more than 18 weeks. In-school counsellors could plausibly reduce access barriers and support pupil wellbeing, which in turn could reduce mental-health-related barriers to learning. However, the critical weakness is that none of the provided evidence connects school-based counselling to the O7 indicators this rubric requires — school standards, the attainment gap, FE/skills funding, or apprenticeship starts. The mechanism from better mental health access to improved educational attainment is plausible, but plausibility alone is not sufficient under the threshold discipline: there is no cited evidence it fires at population scale on educational outcomes. The policy's main substance — NHS spending, GP access, cancer plans, dentistry — does not engage O7 at all. The single concrete O7-adjacent element (school counsellors) is real and specific, but without evidence linking it to educational attainment or the disadvantage gap, a verdict of 'improves' on O7 would rely purely on an ungrounded mechanism rather than demonstrated effect. The direction is therefore negligible for O7 purposes, even though the same commitment may register as a genuine improvement on O3 (healthcare).

Compare all parties on public finances & the next generation →Compare all parties on healthcare →Compare all parties on good work & fair pay →Compare all parties on education & opportunity →Open this in the interactive comparison →← Show the Working home