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

  • Comment Working parents can’t rely on a government that gives with one hand and takes with the other

    Working parents can’t rely on a government that gives with one hand and takes with the other

    Ask any working parent about the challenges they face in managing work and family life and childcare is often the first thing they mention. The availability and crippling cost of childcare is a huge barrier to working families, and over the last five years the situation’s gotten worse. On David Cameron’s watch, registered childcare places have fallen by more than 40,000, and the cost of a nursery place for children over two has risen by more than a third. That’s […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured Let’s get started – join me on Thursday

    Let’s get started – join me on Thursday

    Labour’s ground campaign in the lead-up to May 7th was bigger than ever before, with our activists engaging with over 5million people in the lead-up to May 7th. However, we now know that simply having those conversations wasn’t enough to deliver an overall Labour victory. While questions need to be asked about the national campaign, from the leadership down, it’s imperative that the​ voices of candidates and organisers in target seats​ ​are​ heard in our ongoing debate. The experience and knowledge of our people on […]

    Read more →
  • News “Wanting to make a profit doesn’t make you evil” – Stella Creasy, deputy leader hopeful, speaks on Labour and business

    “Wanting to make a profit doesn’t make you evil” – Stella Creasy, deputy leader hopeful, speaks on Labour and business

    Stella Creasy, deputy leadership candidate, has argued that Labour doesn’t just need to be pro-business, they need to be “of business.” She has said that to do this the party must have “more candidates and activists at all levels [of the party] with direct experience of business both big and small.” Creasy cited the likes of Labour MPs Toby Perkins, who was previously director of a social enterprise, and Victoria Groulef, who’s been described as a “self-made business woman”, as examples of the […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Who’s backing who and who did endorsers vote to be leader in 2010?

    Who’s backing who and who did endorsers vote to be leader in 2010?

    Leadership candidates need the backing of 35 MPs to make it onto the ballot paper. Andy Burham has secured more than the number needed. Yvette Cooper isn’t far behind him and Liz Kendall looks set to reach this threshold too.  Meanwhile, Mary Creagh is hovering under the 10 mark at the moment. This means we’ll definitely have three candidates in the race. But whose support have they secured so far? And if they were MPs in 2010, who did those […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Labour must offer popular, big-tent politics to reach out to voters in 2020

    Labour must offer popular, big-tent politics to reach out to voters in 2020

    Victory for the Labour party in 2020 is going to be more than twice as difficult to achieve as in 2015, according to new research published by the Fabian Society today. The society has looked at the likely effects of scheduled boundary changes and concluded that Labour will need to win at least 106 seats to secure a majority. Worse still, the electoral swing required in the decisive marginal seats will be over twice that which Labour needed for victory in 2015. […]

    Read more →
Share with your friends










Submit