Roger Daltrey Warns Reeves’s Budget Could Be Catastrophic for Vital Health Charities

[Social Media]

 

Roger Daltrey, singer for The Who and honorary patron of the Teenage Cancer Trust, has expressed grave concerns over the impact of Rachel Reeves’s recent Budget on health charities that provide essential services. Daltrey warns that the Budget’s decision to increase employers’ National Insurance contributions without exempting charities could be disastrous for organizations like Teenage Cancer Trust, which depend on public donations to fund their services. Daltrey argues that the government’s approach demonstrates a lack of understanding of the essential support charities provide to the healthcare system.

 

Daltrey’s Teenage Cancer Trust has raised approximately £34 million over the past 24 years, funding specialized hospital wards and covering the salaries of nurses and youth workers who support 2,000 young people annually. This charity, along with Alzheimer’s Research UK, the Army Benevolent Fund, and Humanity & Inclusion, has been selected for *The Telegraph*'s 2024 Christmas Charity Appeal. However, the financial challenges posed by the National Insurance hike could force charities to divert funds from essential services to cover new costs, potentially totaling £1.4 billion annually.

 

Daltrey is highly critical of the government’s decision, describing the rise in National Insurance as thoughtless. “If we can’t raise more money, we will have to lay people off,” Daltrey said, highlighting the threat to Teenage Cancer Trust’s specialist nurses. “The most amazing thing about this whole National Insurance increase is the ignorance from the Government,” he added, emphasizing how charities relieve pressure on the NHS. According to Daltrey, the government’s strategy of pumping funds into the NHS without recognizing the crucial role of health charities shows an unrealistic approach. "Have these politicians got no idea how much charitable work is carried out within the NHS? Charities take an awful lot of burden off the NHS, not just Teenage Cancer Trust but Marie Curie Hospices, Macmillan nurses – then the Government goes and kicks you in the balls.”

 

Raising funds for lesser-known health charities, Daltrey remarked, is "really hard graft," as many people assume the government funds healthcare charities entirely. However, Teenage Cancer Trust, which received no government grant funding, operates solely on donations. Its entire income last year stood at £16.1 million, and it faced a £5 million deficit due to the rising cost of living. The Trust currently employs 175 people, mostly nurses and support workers, who could lose their jobs if the charity fails to make up for the increase in National Insurance costs.

 

Daltrey also pointed out that while businesses may be able to offset extra expenses by increasing prices, charities lack that option. Instead, they would need to raise additional funds or reduce costs, meaning that essential staff might be lost. “It would be heartbreaking,” Daltrey said, adding that while businesses have flexibility, charities face an ultimatum to survive.

 

As the Trust tries to cope with rising financial demands, Daltrey has taken it upon himself to advocate directly. He has written to Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, inviting him to visit one of the charity’s 28 specialist units to see firsthand the indispensable work done by charities in healthcare. When asked what he might say to Rachel Reeves, Daltrey said he would suggest she “go and get a lesson in economics.”

 

Throughout his career, Daltrey has raised millions for numerous causes, including AIDS research, breast cancer, and Parkinson’s disease, in addition to his enduring commitment to Teenage Cancer Trust. His frustration with the government’s budget reflects a broader concern that without changes, critical health charities could face severe setbacks, jeopardizing support for vulnerable patients across the UK.

 

Based on a report by Daily Telegraph 2024-11-06

 

 

 

[JonnyF]

It's catastrophic for everyone.

 

Reeves lied about there being no need to raise taxes then raised them by 40 Billion. She is a liar.

[andersonat]

4 hours ago, JonnyF said:

It's catastrophic for everyone.

 

Reeves lied about there being no need to raise taxes then raised them by 40 Billion. She is a liar.

 

 

 -- Was there actually a "Black-Hole" left behind from the previous Government ... or not ? 

 

[JonnyF]

Just now, andersonat said:

 

 

 -- Was there actually a "Black-Hole" left behind from the previous Government ... or not ? 

 

 

No, they made it up to justify their lies about what they would/wouldn't do.

 

[WorriedNoodle]

5 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

No, they made it up to justify their lies about what they would/wouldn't do.

And you know this how?

[andersonat]

5 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

No, they made it up to justify their lies about what they would/wouldn't do.

 

 

The OBR and the IFS  -  both Right-Leaning organisations  -  disagree with you.

 

[Watawattana]

4 hours ago, andersonat said:

No, they made it up to justify their lies about what they would/wouldn't do.

Yes there was, but it was not £40b.

[youreavinalaff]

4 hours ago, andersonat said:

 

The OBR and the IFS  -  both Right-Leaning organisations  -  disagree with you.

 

They disagree with Reeves and Starmer. 

 

No one at anytime has actually confirmed nor proved the £22b black hole. The nearest they've got is £9.5b and that included some of the payrises made since Labour got into power.

[chiang mai]

5 hours ago, andersonat said:

 

 

 -- Was there actually a "Black-Hole" left behind from the previous Government ... or not ? 

 

When the Conservative-led coalition came to power in May 2010, the UK's national debt was £1.03 trillion. 

 

As of the end of 2023/24, the UK's public sector net debt was £2.690 billion, or 98% of GDP. This is equivalent to around £37,900 per person in the UK. 

 

And separately, below:

 

https://fullfact.org/economy/labour-and-conservative-records-national-debt/

 

 

 

Edited 9 hours ago by chiang mai

[andersonat]

1 hour ago, youreavinalaff said:

They disagree with Reeves and Starmer. 

 

No one at anytime has actually confirmed nor proved the £22b black hole. The nearest they've got is £9.5b and that included some of the payrises made since Labour got into power.

 

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2e12j4gz0o

 

"  .....  Prof Stephen Millard from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research think tank told BBC Verify: "The 'political' question is whether you would count this as part of the fiscal black hole or not. If you do, then you get to the £22bn figure; if not, then you’re left with around £12.5bn to £13.5bn."

 

 

[JonnyF]

8 hours ago, WorriedNoodle said:

And you know this how?

Because when asked for details, they admitted they didn't have any.

[andersonat]

41 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Because when asked for details, they admitted they didn't have any.

 

Please provide a reference-source for this statement please, JF.

 

[andersonat]

4 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

They disagree with Reeves and Starmer. 

 

No one at anytime has actually confirmed nor proved the £22b black hole. The nearest they've got is £9.5b and that included some of the payrises made since Labour got into power.

 

And another one -----> 

 

https://ifs.org.uk/articles/ps22bn-black-hole-was-obvious-anyone-who-dared-look

 

"The £22bn ‘black hole’ was obvious to anyone who dared to look."

 

 

[Patong2021]

The UK voters put Labour into office. They were warned and ignored the warnings. perhaps voters were too focused on retribution and/or the  Conservatives too repugnant, but  the UK picked Labour and will  enjoy Labour government for 4 years. It is foolish to whinge now.

[youreavinalaff]

17 minutes ago, andersonat said:

 

And another one -----> 

 

https://ifs.org.uk/articles/ps22bn-black-hole-was-obvious-anyone-who-dared-look

 

"The £22bn ‘black hole’ was obvious to anyone who dared to look."

 

 

You've posted 2 opinions. No proof.

 

As I said, no one hasbprived more than £9.5b, which included some of the payrises.

[andersonat]

7 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

You've posted 2 opinions. No proof.

 

As I said, no one hasbprived more than £9.5b, which included some of the payrises.

 

Proof ?  ...  In-the-name-of-Dog  ... 

Do you *know* what The IFS *is* ?

 

https://ifs.org.uk/about

 

"The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) is the UK’s leading independent economics research institute."

 

 

  -  *Their* Economists *knew* about a £22B shortfall, *in-advance*.

What kind of "Proof" can an Economist provide ?  ...  Proof of their Knowledge ?  

 

*

 

I've quoted 2 *credible* (right-leaning) sources, which is more than anyone else in this thread.

 

  ... Whereas, on-the-*other*-hand, ... 

 

So don't hesitate to jump in with "Proof" of "No-one has actually confirmed ... "

  -  Are you waiting for a Report from the Accountants/Auditors ?  ... *Next* year ? 

 

 

[Lancelot01]

19 hours ago, Social Media said:

 

Roger Daltrey, singer for The Who and honorary patron of the Teenage Cancer Trust, has expressed grave concerns over the impact of Rachel Reeves’s recent Budget on health charities that provide essential services. Daltrey warns that the Budget’s decision to increase employers’ National Insurance contributions without exempting charities could be disastrous for organizations like Teenage Cancer Trust, which depend on public donations to fund their services. Daltrey argues that the government’s approach demonstrates a lack of understanding of the essential support charities provide to the healthcare system.

 

Daltrey’s Teenage Cancer Trust has raised approximately £34 million over the past 24 years, funding specialized hospital wards and covering the salaries of nurses and youth workers who support 2,000 young people annually. This charity, along with Alzheimer’s Research UK, the Army Benevolent Fund, and Humanity & Inclusion, has been selected for *The Telegraph*'s 2024 Christmas Charity Appeal. However, the financial challenges posed by the National Insurance hike could force charities to divert funds from essential services to cover new costs, potentially totaling £1.4 billion annually.

 

Daltrey is highly critical of the government’s decision, describing the rise in National Insurance as thoughtless. “If we can’t raise more money, we will have to lay people off,” Daltrey said, highlighting the threat to Teenage Cancer Trust’s specialist nurses. “The most amazing thing about this whole National Insurance increase is the ignorance from the Government,” he added, emphasizing how charities relieve pressure on the NHS. According to Daltrey, the government’s strategy of pumping funds into the NHS without recognizing the crucial role of health charities shows an unrealistic approach. "Have these politicians got no idea how much charitable work is carried out within the NHS? Charities take an awful lot of burden off the NHS, not just Teenage Cancer Trust but Marie Curie Hospices, Macmillan nurses – then the Government goes and kicks you in the balls.”

 

 

Raising funds for lesser-known health charities, Daltrey remarked, is "really hard graft," as many people assume the government funds healthcare charities entirely. However, Teenage Cancer Trust, which received no government grant funding, operates solely on donations. Its entire income last year stood at £16.1 million, and it faced a £5 million deficit due to the rising cost of living. The Trust currently employs 175 people, mostly nurses and support workers, who could lose their jobs if the charity fails to make up for the increase in National Insurance costs.

 

Daltrey also pointed out that while businesses may be able to offset extra expenses by increasing prices, charities lack that option. Instead, they would need to raise additional funds or reduce costs, meaning that essential staff might be lost. “It would be heartbreaking,” Daltrey said, adding that while businesses have flexibility, charities face an ultimatum to survive.

 

As the Trust tries to cope with rising financial demands, Daltrey has taken it upon himself to advocate directly. He has written to Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, inviting him to visit one of the charity’s 28 specialist units to see firsthand the indispensable work done by charities in healthcare. When asked what he might say to Rachel Reeves, Daltrey said he would suggest she “go and get a lesson in economics.”

 

Throughout his career, Daltrey has raised millions for numerous causes, including AIDS research, breast cancer, and Parkinson’s disease, in addition to his enduring commitment to Teenage Cancer Trust. His frustration with the government’s budget reflects a broader concern that without changes, critical health charities could face severe setbacks, jeopardizing support for vulnerable patients across the UK.

 

Based on a report by Daily Telegraph 2024-11-06

 

 

 

Roger,don't get fooled again.

[youreavinalaff]

1 hour ago, andersonat said:

 

Proof ?  ...  In-the-name-of-Dog  ... 

Do you *know* what The IFS *is* ?

 

https://ifs.org.uk/about

 

"The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) is the UK’s leading independent economics research institute."

 

 

  -  *Their* Economists *knew* about a £22B shortfall, *in-advance*.

What kind of "Proof" can an Economist provide ?  ...  Proof of their Knowledge ?  

 

*

 

I've quoted 2 *credible* (right-leaning) sources, which is more than anyone else in this thread.

 

  ... Whereas, on-the-*other*-hand, ... 

 

So don't hesitate to jump in with "Proof" of "No-one has actually confirmed ... "

  -  Are you waiting for a Report from the Accountants/Auditors ?  ... *Next* year ? 

 

 

You seem confused. The two links you published were opinions. No proof has been posted about a £22bn black hole, as claimed by Reeves.

 

You say dome economists knew "in advance". In advance of what?

Edited 2 hours ago by youreavinalaff

[andersonat]

Just now, youreavinalaff said:

You seem confused. The two links you published were opinions. No proof has been posted about a £22bn black hole.

 

I'm tapping out here.

 

Neither you, nor JonnyF, have provided *any* support for your positions.

 

In future, if either of you choose to engage with me, please be prepared to provide *support* for your positions.

  --  Both of you are merely Time-wasters, and *my* time is valuable.

 

 

[youreavinalaff]

20 minutes ago, andersonat said:

 

I'm tapping out here.

 

Neither you, nor JonnyF, have provided *any* support for your positions.

 

In future, if either of you choose to engage with me, please be prepared to provide *support* for your positions.

  --  Both of you are merely Time-wasters, and *my* time is valuable.

 

 

How can I possibly show proof of something that doesn't exist?

 

Surely, it up to those who think it's there to prove it's there?

 

Go on. Give it a try.

 

Oh, by the way. I didn't engage with you. I posted a comment on a public forum.

Edited 1 hour ago by youreavinalaff