Live healthy or lose out?

9th January, 2013 10:46 am

Last week Westminster council and LGiU hit the headlines for a report about the role of local government in public health. Amongst a number of proposed innovations, the report looks at how councils could use incentives and rewards to encourage residents to lead healthier lifestyles. The report suggests that supplementing existing benefits to incentivise healthy behaviour could be a way of reducing the chronic illnesses that are so expensive to treat.

There has been mixed reaction to this idea from across the political spectrum, and the report gained a lot of publicity. Questions were raised about the focus on obese people; what about smokers and drinkers, for example? What about non-benefit claimants? Would some councils go further by penalising people who refuse exercise? Much of the publicity was inaccurate, LGiU were not suggesting reducing people’s benefits if they did not exercise.

I, like many, would not advocate penalties if a person encouraged to exercise refused to do so. Incentivising individuals with extra benefits to encourage exercise as LGiU suggested, is a different proposition. Wherever you sit in the debate, it has opened up discussions about the role of the state in individual choices about health and behaviour. Critically though, it reinforces the significant challenge ahead that needs to be addressed. The demand for public services is rising and in health, those at the acute or chronic end of the spectrum are costly to treat. Coupled with this however, public finances now and in the future will struggle to cope with these growing demands.

This leaves Labour with stark and urgent choices about how to close this gap. This weekend we saw Andy Burnham urge the government to consider introducing legal limits on salt, sugar and fat contents in food. There is a compelling argument for this sort of approach; but localised responses must also be part of the solution, given the significant role of councils in public health. This could involve, for instance, reductions in the cost of providing services through making efficiencies; reducing the demand for services; or rationing services through means testing.

These choices may be unpalatable for many on the Left and may bring uncomfortable tensions for councils; but they will increasingly become a reality. Fairness is at the heart of the Labour movement and we want to support the most vulnerable through a set of core, universal services. However, we will only be able to provide them if savings can be made elsewhere. But it is in how Labour councils make these savings that is the crucial question.

Making efficiencies is already a necessity for all councils, and the solution needs to go beyond this. Many would argue that a sensible way to manage this could be to reduce demand for the most expensive services. In some areas Labour will have to think about how to move people away from service dependency to self-support. Investing in prevention to save later could be part of this – although this is a challenge when councils are being charged with making budget cuts upfront. The other risk is that the state gets trapped in a vicious circle of cost where trying to reduce demand on expensive services itself costs too much money and increases demand in the system elsewhere.

If Labour is to deliver on the fairness agenda and ensure that universal services are available we need to find a way to reduce demand in the most costly service areas. Helping people choose healthier lifestyles and investing in prevention will be part of the solution; but moving towards self-support is where the real savings could come in. Crucially however, Labour needs to do this in a way that protects the most vulnerable.

Laura Wilkes is a Policy Manager at Local Government Information Unit. She writes here in a personal capacity

  • Quiet_Sceptic

    Councils have got to prove themselves as guardians of public health, Jamie Oliver and his school meals campaign showed that many councils had little innate concern for good diet. The idea of establishing healthy eating habits in childhood wasn’t even on their radar.

    Just last year we saw a council banning a school girl for daring to scrutinise the unhealthy food it served up to pupils. Perhaps they should get their own house in order before we let them start scrutinising the rest of us.

  • MrSauce

    I was trying to be more positive in my posts but this resolution is already collapsing, and we’re only in January.

    The idea of legal limits on fat, sugar and salt content in food is clearly nonsense.
    How do we deal with foodstuffs such as ‘salt’, ‘sugar’ and olive oil (i.e. ‘fat’)?
    Do we ban dairy produce such as butter, cream and cheese?
    Will honey be criminalised?
    Dried fruit only available in the dark corners of nightclubs?
    Chocolate only available for research?
    Sniffer dogs hunting-out salty snacks brought in from overseas?

    Also, the adverb is ‘healthily’. It is sometimes hard to believe that we are 142 years on from the first Education Act.

Latest

  • Featured News Labour is in “mortal danger” – “we need to save it again”, says Peter Mandelson

    Labour is in “mortal danger” – “we need to save it again”, says Peter Mandelson

    Peter Mandelson has argued that Labour is in “mortal danger” . In an article in the Financial Times (£), the former cabinet minister and Labour campaigns director has warned against a Jeremy Corbyn victory. If the Islington North MP wins the leadership election, “that would be a very bad outcome for anyone who cares about fairness in our society or Britain’s place in the world”, Mandelson writes. Mandelson has called for a tightening of the rules over the leadership election […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Attracting people who didn’t vote at the last election is key to winning in 2020, say LabourList readers

    Attracting people who didn’t vote at the last election is key to winning in 2020, say LabourList readers

    In recent weeks there has been building concern from some over who has been deemed eligible to vote in the leadership election. Under new rules, members of the public can sign up as party ‘supporters’ for £3, this buys them a vote in the leadership election. However, it’s been reported that some Conservative and other non-Labour supporters have been given a vote. Labour say they have a vigorous vetting process to weed such people out. Yet some Labour supporters and […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Jeremy Corbyn dismisses “hysteria” over his policies and says he’ll defeat the Tories in 2020 with “people’s politics”

    Jeremy Corbyn dismisses “hysteria” over his policies and says he’ll defeat the Tories in 2020 with “people’s politics”

    Jeremy Corbyn has dismissed the “hysteria” and “deliberate misrepresentation” of his campaign’s policies and said that he is committed to ensuring that the Labour party defeat the Tories in 2020 with “people’s politics”. The leadership candidate has argued that despite attacks directed at his campaigns policies, the message his team are sending out is “resonating”. In an article in The Times (£), Corbyn has brushed off the idea that his policies are “extreme”, which has been suggested by some Labour […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Four things Labour’s moderates need to do before the next leadership election

    Four things Labour’s moderates need to do before the next leadership election

    Whatever the outcome of the Labour leadership election one thing is clear, we moderates in the party were smashed. This may have been easier to stomach if the candidate or campaign had been rubbish – they weren’t. They were actually quite good. But as Lynton Crosby says “you can’t fatten a pig on market day” and it is clear now the moderate wing of the party’s campaign infrastructure is sorely lacking. There are some noble reasons for this. But that […]

    Read more →
  • News How do you get a title? Cameron and Clegg dish out honours to their advisers

    How do you get a title? Cameron and Clegg dish out honours to their advisers

    How do you get a title these days? The latest batch dissolution honours and peerages seem to suggest something of a theme. Of the 82 handed out today, 30 have been given to people who have worked for senior Tory and Lib Dem politicians in some way, while 4 recipients are former Lib Dem MPs who were voted out this May. New titles have been handed to 20 people who are or have been senior advisers in the Government, while […]

    Read more →
Share with your friends










Submit