From the BBC:
Local government is due to take charge of schemes to tackle lifestyle problems like obesity and excess drinking from 2013 under the shake-up of the NHS... But the Health Committee said there was a risk councils would play the system and use the funds for other purposes - something denied by town hall bosses...
But within two years more than 150 directors of public health will move into local government, taking a pot of money - widely expected to be about £4bn* - with them. To ensure it is spent on health-related projects, the government has agreed to ring-fence the money.
But the report by the cross-party group of MPs said there was a risk councils - which are facing budget cuts of over a quarter in the next four years - would play the system. The MPs said they could redesignate services like filling in potholes and gritting the roads when it is icy as a public health measure, arguing they helped to reduce hospital admissions.
Good stuff so far, instead of employing bansturbators, they'll be filling in potholes and gritting the roads, this is what local councils are for, n'est-ce pas?
But committee chairman Stephen Dorrell said it would not be an effective use of the money.
Words fail.
* Yes, that's £4,000 million pounds a year to be spent on "tackling lifestyle problems", a programme which was announced at around the same time that the Lib-Cons hiked tuition fees by £6,000 a year, a measure which is hoped will raise about £4,000 million a year. I'm not sure that subsidising Higher Education is the best use of public money, but it's hardly on the same level as "tackling lifestyle problems".
Forbidden Bible Verses — Genesis 42:18-28
39 minutes ago
12 comments:
It will not be any bad thing if the money is used for more useful things like filling pot holes. It's not for government or local government to take awat personal responsibilities and make them public ones. The five a dayers and the like should all be sent to the council waste dump where they belong.
Why is everyone dropping into French today?
Anti, wrong, filling in potholes is NOT an effective use of taxpayers' money. Allegedly.
JH, je ne sais pas!
Actually, councils are more likely to use money from road maintenance to advance social engineering like this.
Dealing with dog merde is a health issue.
"Anti, wrong, filling in potholes is NOT an effective use of taxpayers' money. Allegedly"
It was Stephen Dorrell who said that. He is the Bansturbator-General, so of course HE doesn't think it's an effective use of public money. An effective use of public money as far as he's concerned is spending it on the Bansturbation Army.
Speaking of filling holes, what will they do with those 150 directors?
filling in potholes and de-icing roads and pavements presumably does contribute to a lowering of accidents and hospital admissions, plus it helps make everyone's lives that little bit better when they know that the stretch of road they are driving along doesn't have an obstacle course of suspension knackering, wheel bursting and potentially dangerous accident causing craters, and that pedestrians probably feel happier walking along streets free of ice and snow, which probably explains why when the streets are covered in snow and ice, fewer people go out to the shops and provide a stimulus to the demand lead economy we have, because they fear going A over T and ending up in A and E assuming there is one still ...
R, maybe, maybe not.
D, don't you mean "merde de chien"?
B, aka "Bansturbulary", or is the "Bansturbation Army" the Christian wing which does the nice brass concerts at Xmas?
AKH, they'll pop up in a new job with the council, having banked a £300k compensation package for the loss of their old one.
Anon, yes of course, but you are applying "common sense" which is a bit out of place here. Allegedly.
"Directors of public health"
They can fuck fuckety right off.
I drink more than the 'safe limit', I have more than 6g of salt a day and sometimes eat 'bad food' ... but I go to the gym & my health is good (weight, BP, blood works) for an old dude.
Do I get "healthy person's" council tax rebate?
D'accord.
Hi Mark, it's been a while.
The only way to guarantee the best possible use of public money is to allow taxpayers to directly allocate their taxes. This will force them to consider the opportunity costs of their tax allocation decisions.
Whether a consumer spends their money on a new TV or makes a donation to UNICEF...they implicitly understand that the money they spent can't be used on the other goods that they value. This realization forces them to prioritize their spending. Every single consumer prioritizing their spending leads to the efficient allocation of private goods.
It would be absurd if we all had to purchase the exact same private goods yet nobody thinks it's absurd that we all have to purchase the exact same public goods.
What we all need is a good dose of political tolerance. You allocate your taxes to the public goods that you value and I'll allocate my taxes to the public goods that I value.
Post a Comment