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…

@EasternStandard I think your comment is tone deaf tbh and comes from a position of privilege. State dependency is actually pretty rare if you mean generations of families never working. Both the Labour and Conservative governments have pretty much stamped that out. Have you read about the ridiculous and draconian sanctions enforced on job seekers nowadays ? Let me guess that you don’t know any poor or unemployed people.
If you mean ordinary hard working people on NMW and dependent on benefits well yes you have a point. Most benefit claimants are working or pensioners. That the state has to prop up the wages of people not being paid enough is the big problem. That the state has to pay housing benefits to millions because there’s no reasonably priced housing and no council houses is another issue.

Exactly. From the ONS :

“In FYE 2022, 53.8% of all UK individuals were net recipients (living in households receiving more in benefits than they paid in taxes)”

At what level does this become unsustainable? Arguably it already is. It might sound good politically, but we cannot just keep saying that we will increase state funding by increasing taxes on “the rich”. Everyone has a breaking point. There comes a point where people will say enough is enough and leave the country. I’m already strongly suggesting to my children that they seriously consider leaving this country when they are old enough. Unless something radical changes, I can’t see why hard working people will want to stay here.

No I mean state dependency as per ONS definition as in @Another76543 post

On an economic level it’s not sustainable to grow it

@Another76543 so poor but hardworking folk who require state funds to live, what’s your opinion ? Or deprived left behind areas that need investment in infrastructure ?

My logic is that no government is the magic pill and things were not necessary better under labour either.

I think the entire system needs tweaking and improving, not democracy or voting parties in but ring fencing certain areas like the NHS

@EasternStandard what’s your answer though ? Do you agree that we need well funded public services that serve everyone ? A functioning NHS and social care, decent schools, better criminal justice system with rehabilitation. All those things will eventually filter through and improve life for everyone. Yes it costs but other western nations manage it.

We also urgently need access to solicitors for many things eg just knowing which form to fill out, courts staff won't help.
Citizens advice are quite useless.

We need these things but the first question should always be who will pay?

And will any policy increase state dependency as we’re on the red line already and likely to be in a very bad place if it gets higher

I’m all for increasing tax receipts to pay for stuff but that is not always intuitive for the public. Look at ROI it decreased corporation tax and benefitted hugely

My one ask is think of behaviour when creating policy - who it drives away (probably people we need to fund stuff as in this case with Labour) and which section it grows (higher dependency is not going to work ditto)

TLDR - always look at behaviour

@RejuvenatedJJanuary So we stick with this lot (who’ve had 13 years to prove themselves) rather than give someone else a chance ? This ‘well labour were worse Schtick’ is becoming tiresome and minimising the absolute mess the tories have made of things. No surprise that some have done well under them and they’ll steadfastly ignore the state of the country to justify voting for them.

I can’t see any answer other than a 2 tier system. A basic model for those unable to pay insurance, and a sort of premium one for those who can. However - before I’m accused of elitism or something - the basic model would actually be better than the one we all use now, so it would only be lesser by comparison to the bells-and-whistles private one. Surely what matters is good healthcare and that can’t happen using the current model.

You have no idea who I will vote for, I'm just saying unfortunately Labour isn't a magic pill and they still have a way to go.

Everyone knows Labour suffered with the world wide credit crunch towards the end of their tenure, just as people recognise the lib dem coalition and the conversatives have suffered with the credit crisis, a global pandemic and war in Ukraine directly having an impact on energy leading to a cost of living crisis and so on.

I do not know what the answer is. The answer is certainly not taxing “the rich” more though. It won’t solve the problems. It’s certainly not sustainable for the net contributor figure to keep decreasing. As a country, we need to ask ourselves why the figures are where they are. Admittedly pensioners make up a proportion of this figure, but that isn’t the whole reason. We need to look at the causes rather than the symptoms. Politicians need to be looking at what we can do to ensure that more people become net contributors. I’m including all politicians in this, not just one party. Do we need to look into proper investment in the more deprived areas? Is our housing policy contributing to problems? Is every family making the most of the educational opportunities they have? If not, why not? I haven’t heard anything from any party about how they intend to tackle the problems in this country. Far too many seem to think that it’s just a matter of chucking more money at the problems. It’s far more complicated than that. I 100% agree that the state should provide a safety net for those in genuine need. I do think though that not everyone sees it as a safety net any more, but more as a right.

I agree on taxing the middle rich, I know one very wealthy family who skirt our tax laws by being domiciled elsewhere. I'm happy for them to be taxed more because they can certainly take it.

However friends who have done well don't earn enough over the 40% to be "wealthy" and have a huge amount of money taken from them.

@EasternStandard at some point your own children will be affected by the state of the country. Or yourself. Or your elderly parents. Or your grandchildren. Whether it’s regarding being able to buy a reasonably priced home, access to medical care, access to social care. I think your tune will change when you are directly affected. Get cancer, lose your job. Parent gets dementia, can’t afford quality social care. Child has mental health issues, waiting list for 4 years. These things all cost money, need investment. The money’s there but the mantra is we aren’t worth it.

Yes of course which is why economic reality and ONS figures are relevant to me.

If we unbalance too much it won’t work at all.

Effie my major perosnal issues kicked in towards the end of labours long government and I and my family faced some of the issues you raised above and the services were beyond shocking then.
Where was the investment and money then?

Unbalance what ? Depends who you listen to regards ‘economic reality’. Osborne told us austerity was the answer and that didn’t work out. Well, for a large section of the country anyway. And then led to even more self harm with Brexit when the consequences of slashing local government funding kicked in and people voted to give Cameron a bloody nose.

@RejuvenatedJJanuary have the tories done a good job ? Are you pleased with them ? If so, fair enough, vote away for them. That’s all I can say.

I agree. The plans have not been costed out properly at all.

No way will all the non domains stay for starters and we will lose the tax that they currently do pay, which will cancel out a proportion of the new tax revenue.

The private school tax will actually end up costing money. This is not a revenue stream.

The plans require a massive recruitment drive in occupations that we do not have a surplus of people qualified in. We can train people, but it will take many years.

Soundbites.

Having read the plan, I note that my dc were born in the 90s and dd needed mh care and support in about 2015.

The plan emphasises health visitors and camhs. The quality of my health visitors and the CAMHs MH nurses was woeful and I don't think that arises from which political system was in when. It is a very worrying issue.

I have concerns with MH counsellors and MH care being associated with schools. I firmly believe our young people are entitled to privacy in relation to their healthcare whilst still keeping two way channels of communication open.

Breakfast clubs and free breakfasts. It's OK in principle but when things are free parents lose control in relation to quality and standards. It aligns with FSM for all Infant classes. I recall when my DC were at school the quality of school lunches was dreadful. If I paid, I had a say in relation to what was provided, if I didn't I couldn't really have an opinion. My DC had packed lunches - a high quality healthy lunch cost more than a state school lunch. It aligns with an NHS delivered free at the point of delivery. We have all been told for decades how grateful we should be for sub optimal clinical and pastoral hospital care because it's free. Except it isn't.

Dentistry - should be free for all children but again I query the quality of NHS dentistry. It isn't really good enough and never has been.

I'd like to see much more public information around resilience and young people being fit and ready for work, able to manage finances and supported intellectually and emotionally in relation to family planning and the practical costs of raising children.

Young people's health would be supported very greatly if the education system were sorted out. If the emphasis shifted from qualifications to a rounded education and if this nation shifted the emphasis from academic to technical and vocational qualifications and valued more greatly the trades: hairdressing, mechanics, electricians, plumbers, builders, etc. It is the biggest issue we have and has a direct impact on the MH of our young people.

I cannot support Labour at the next election and am not inclined to support the Conservatives. Neither am I a natural Liberal.

We need a new party, similar to the old SDP.

Unbalance what

The number of people paying in v paying out:

I’d say that ONS figure is red line already and growing the latter and decreasing the former is a very bad idea

I like the plan but i think it needs more detail on where the staff are coming from and some timescales. Its not just how it would be funded.
It will take a long time to train the levels of staff needed in mental health services for instance.

@Spendonsend

There are quite a few course in fe relating to these areas so in a few years they could have more numbers.

I think the funding is just labeled so they can say they have it, but could really come from other budgets. Employing all the extra highly trained health professionals seems unlikely. The breakfast club thing is great though. Currently hungry children are going to be distracted in lessons all morning before they get fed. Then only a couple of lessons they can concentrate on before going home. It really helps people who work at 9 too, as most will be able to get to work by then.

24/7 NHS stood out for me. Have they asked how that's going to work. This has been an objective for years ..... 10 year plan? You can have all the plans in the world, but that doesn't mean it will magically happen.