Labour’s child health action plan. What do you think?

[Naptrappedmummy]

https://labour.org.uk/updates/stories/labours-child-health-action-plan-will-create-the-healthiest-generation-of-children-ever/

It looks good to me (and just to disclose I will, in a ‘there’s nobody better right now’ way, be voting Labour at the next GE) but this is mumsnet so just wondered what you all thought…

I don’t think anyone is arguing that the current state of affairs isn’t bad. What people are pointing out is that the Labour Party should stop pretending that they are going to solve all the current problems simply by taxing non doms and private school parents. Thinking that the NHS and state education system can be fixed easily with these two tax policies is misleading and deluded. What we need (from all political parties) is a bit of honesty and detailed plans about how things are going to be improved, not populist wishy washy soundbites.

Yes, both of mine had to have a toothbrush at nursery. Not necessary in their case but if it helps to catch some kids whose parents don’t bother it’s a good idea.

I’m too old for GCSEs, I have O Levels, but there was an element of economics in my degree. You’re the one embarrassing yourself. Read the link I sent by a respected industry professional about how rubbish Tories are with the economy.
Yes, governments can afford what they want. Look up FDR’s New Deal. Look at how there’s no money but then we can afford covid, or wars, or tax cuts. It’s all political decisions.

There's the rub though. The rich are getting twitchy.

You really are rude.

They aren’t saying it’ll be easy. Those things will provide some money. As I keep saying, governments aren’t constrained in the way households are. Plus we are in the shit at least in part because of low growth caused by Tory mismanagement. If that perks up there’s suddenly loads more tax - but that’s not a necessary condition for some spending. Austerity doesn’t work. Countries that didn’t employ it after the crash did much better than we did.

Yes it’s difficult when debt servicing is incredibly high

Smokers cost the NHS 2.5 bn but what do they cost extra in benefits and things also ? I am a benefits advisor and go round helping people to complete disability benefit forms, often people in their fifties with smoking related emphysema, COPD, throat cancer etc. The flats/ houses reek of cigarette smoke such that it clings to my clothing , hair etc. Then there's partner who can't work either usually as they are caring for the disabled person. Large amounts of benefits going on for years and years, mobility cars etc. the cost is a lot more than just NHS costs. People do live with these chronic conditions for years on end. The vast majority of my clients are alcoholics and heavy smokers. It's not just the NHS costs but benefits, loss of tax revenue from people not working for years on end etc.

Lets play top trumps.

I have an A level ,a BSc and an MSc in pure Economics... now hit me with rhythm stick..

I don't need to read a link posted by you, of the Economist which I've subscribed to since the last 20 yrs

The element of economics in your degree isn't obviously enough if you don't understand that governments have do raise debt to spend money and they aim to pay this debt back by taxation. Its a vicious cycle of payment made worse in an environment of high interest rates.

And I'm not here to educate you.

I'm just trying to stop making stupid statements that make no sense.

I'm just fed up of the Labour massive thinking they can say any non sensical stuff and get hoorayed for it.

But thank you

@Another76543 spot on.

If you want to raise money the easiest and cheapest way is to stick a penny on income tax. Wealth taxes could also be looked at (but harder to implement); however, Starmer knows if he does that he may lose. Brits want better services, but we all feel other people should pay for them. By 2027 it is forecast 25% of teachers will be higher rate tax payers.

So there are very limited ways Labour raise money which effect not too many people and these policies hit people who can’t vote/may vote Tory anyway. The country is broken and has huge debts.

Before people go on about Tories paying their friends (not saying they didn’t), but huge sums were paid out on the furlough scheme and bounce back loans. We have saddled our children and grandchildren with huge amounts of debt.

Sunak - for all his issues -has an economically sensible policy and the economy is slowly moving in the right direction. Unfortunately, Starmer won’t be in the situation Blair was in when there was a lot more money. He also doesn’t have the social issues (gay marriage) that Blair had to make real changes.

And the Tories don't do that?

You were the one who mentioned exams, not me.
My link isn't from The Economist, so you haven’t even read the link itself, never mind the webpage it connects to (and even if it had been that wouldn’t mean it was irrelevant).
I’m not asking you to educate me, not least because parroting Thatcher isn’t education. It’s widely accepted to be wrong. Why have co7 tries who didn’t pursue austerity done better than us? Why did FDR’s New Deal rescue the USA?

Edit: maybe applied economics would be more useful here…

I won't mention Liz Truss then

Oh absolutely. I’m not saying that stopping people smoking is a bad thing. It’s obviously not, as there are other costs to society. Health benefits can’t be quantified. We should all strive for a healthier society. From a purely financial cost point of view though, it’s not as straightforward as it’s sometimes portrayed.

Absolutely. There is no way that a huge overhaul of the NHS and education system can be funded by a tiny minority of the population. It’s not politically popular to say that everyone has to pay their share in some way though.

Particularly when the proposals will change behaviour as a few pp have talked about

The funding side of things worries me. We all talk about needing a long term plan but frankly would the public accept an even worse quality of life for 20+ years to get us back on an even keel? Because that’s what it would mean. I feel I could take some hits as an adult but children shouldn’t pay the price for our mistakes

Do you worry about how the Tories fund things? Or is it just Labour funding you worry about?

I’m in my 40s and remember tooth brushing in schools. They did supervised brushing in my kids’ nurseries too. It’s relatively low cost, low time & will save money in the long run.

I think the emphasis on prevention is absolutely right. I’d definitely be in favour of more PE time on the National curriculum and I think mental health workers in schools is excellent & important.

Aside from it being morally right, we can’t afford not to do a lot of this as it will cost the economy much, much more if our unhealthy kids grow into unhealthy adults.

They won’t need new schools for private school kids. We have used a private school. 95% could easily afford the VAT. They might have to downgrade their next car, take one less holiday a year or may be air b&b one of their properties. But they can afford it.

Isn't this more about improving parent awareness, health education for children should be directed at parent

All great ideas but what about child deaths from pollution. What about climate change. The most important thing for this generation is limiting the worst impacts of the climate emergency. I will await their policy on that I think. Mind you, no idea who to vote for on that count. No Green Party option here.

Labour’s Green New Deal is pretty well publicised I think. They’ve said they’ll implement it more slowly than they’d like because of the dire state of finances - and purely because there are too many people who have been brainwashed into thinking everything has to be budgeted for.

It is important to achieve parent awareness but much, much harder. Children are there in school & can be reached directly.