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

To report anything from the comment section, please e-mail [email protected]
  • 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 Featured Richard Burgon: In defence of Labour Party members

    Richard Burgon: In defence of Labour Party members

    Abusive and threatening behaviour online and misogyny are serious societal problems that urgently need tackling. The leader of the Labour Party has made it clear that abusive and threatening behaviour, misogynistic or otherwise, is completely unacceptable. Our party has formal disciplinary procedures for members found to be perpetrators of this kind of behaviour. If abusive and threatening behaviour amounts to a criminal act, then those on the receiving end can – and should be encouraged to – report the matter to the police. The leader […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Public prefer Smith to Corbyn for Prime Minister, new poll shows

    Public prefer Smith to Corbyn for Prime Minister, new poll shows

    Owen Smith would make a better choice Prime Minister than Jeremy Corbyn, according to a new poll. More than half – 57 per cent – of people prefer Smith, while only 43 per cent backed Corbyn, the survey of voters from across the general public reveals. Voters were also asked who they would prefer to see as Labour leader, which inspired exactly the same result. The Evening Standard/BMG poll is the latest in a series raising questions about Labour’s popularity with […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured High Court’s Corbyn ruling has staved off a fresh Labour crisis – but this row was a problem of the party’s own making

    High Court’s Corbyn ruling has staved off a fresh Labour crisis – but this row was a problem of the party’s own making

    The Labour Party can now release a collective sigh of relief. It’s hard to conceive how much worse Labour’s current internal warring could be, but those limits of imagination would have been robustly tested had the High Court ruled against the NEC’s decision to put Corbyn on the leadership ballot automatically. Calling it a factional dispute would not even begin to cover the scale of the prospective horror show. The party’s rules about whether or not an incumbent leader needs […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Corbyn confirmed on the ballot as judge rejects challenge

    Corbyn confirmed on the ballot as judge rejects challenge

    Jeremy Corbyn will remain on the leadership ballot, a judge has ruled today. A High Court judge concluded the NEC had been “correct in law” to allow Corbyn to appear on the leadership ballot automatically. The ruling means the incumbent will not now need to gain nominations from 51 MPs and MEPs, as his challenger Owen Smith has done, and the leadership contest will not be restarted. The case, brought by large Labour donor Michael Foster, claimed the NEC decision – made at a marathon […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured It is time to talk to the SNP about how we would make a minority Labour government work

    It is time to talk to the SNP about how we would make a minority Labour government work

    Labour’s showing in the 2016 elections was terrible, but not bad enough to precipitate a change of leadership and direction, and nothing like good enough to offer any hope of winning a general election outright. There are two hard lessons for Labour from these results: 1. To have an outside chance of forming a government to replace the present reactionary and incompetent Conservatives, Labour has no choice but to construct a loose informal alliance with other progressive parties. The only alternative is permanent opposition and indefinite […]

    Read more →
x

LabourList Daily Email

Everything Labour. Every weekday morning

Share with your friends










Submit