Title

The latest social campaign from central government is little more than state-sponsored stalking and scaremongering, claims Claire Fox. Fred Goodwin and his £16m RBS pension epitomised the scandal of inflated bonuses for City types. The national fury directed at Sir Fred focused on what was perceived as an irresponsible squandering of public funds on private sector fat cats. But before we get too indignant, the public sector also knows a thing or two about wasting money. I'm not talking about salaries and bonuses, but rather costly, ridiculous, counter-productive initiatives. Is it acceptable – just as the recession started to bite in January – to spend £375m of public funds on one new campaign that insultingly patronises parents while sending them on a guilt trip? Is it justifiable to pour millions of pounds into stoking families' anxieties just when the spectre of unemployment is worrying enough? That is precisely what the new Change4Life campaign does. Launched by the Department of Health, with cross-departmental support, this latest weapon in the war on obesity aims to sign-up councils as local partners to roll out its message. It describes itself as ‘a nationwide movement…to help you and your family eat better, move more and live longer'. What could be wrong with that? Well, – in the patronising tone of the Change4Life website – get comfortable, listen carefully and I'll explain: 1) It treats adults like children. When I first checked the website I thought I had landed on the Cbeebies' homepage or a section aimed at under-sevens. It's all primary colours. Check it out and see how the blue character waves at you, and in a speech bubble asks: ‘Hi. How are the kids?' The red character offers a cheery greeting: ‘Good to see you… shall we get started?' Honestly – even TV's Blue Peter presenters don't talk down to their viewers like that. The condescension doesn't end there: ‘Join now… and get the chance to create your very own Change4Life character'. 2)It is intrusive. Over the past few weeks, a yellow questionnaire asking intimate details about a family's daily routine was delivered to every parent via primary pupils' book-bags. These questions delve into the private sphere shamelessly. To give you a flavour, having given your name, address, e-mail and ages of your children, question 1 asks: What did your children do this morning after they got up? * Watch TV * Sit at computer/video game… * Ran about or played in an active way * Read books or * Played with toys'. Question 12 inquires: Was your meal this evening: * Home-cooked? * A takeaway? * A ready meal from the shop? * At a café/restaurant?' Why do the authorities want to know such detail? This is no anonymous Q&A session. We are all offered a free personalised action plan so we can change our family's lifestyle and behaviour to fit the officially sanctioned model. 3) It is relentless. Don't think you can escape. Under the heading ‘Where shall I find Change4Life?' we are told: ‘In a word, everywhere'. It gleefully boasts: ‘We're going to talk to you through your telly, your radio, your parks, your local halls, your supermarkets, in your children's schools and with any luck – in your home too – and that's just for starters'. In my book that's official stalking and can only intensify parents' anxieties about rearing their children. 4) It is scaremongering. For all the ‘matey' rhetoric, the opening statement of the questionnaire proclaims: ‘If things go on as they are, nine out of 10 of our kids will grow up to have dangerous levels of fat in their bodies'. Ninety per cent? This is not only medically illiterate, it inevitably places an illegitimate burden on parents, falsely implying that if they don't make their children follow a tightly prescribed regime of exercise and nutritional correctness, they will face ‘an increased risk of diabetes, cancer, heart disease and depression in later life'. One campaign advert, featuring a little boy playing on a computer game, is captioned ‘Risk an early death, Just do nothing'. This has created outrage in the gaming industry. It should cause outrage in public sector circles too. Paying social marketers to terrorise blameless parents is far more scandalous than one banker's pension. At a time when the LGA reports there is intense pressure on councils for new initiatives to ameliorate the impact of the downturn on families, maybe it's time to reassess funding priorities. Most parents are worried about having enough money to put food on the table. If all public policy is interested in is what food, don't expect mass campaigns to defend public sector funding when the axe inevitably falls. Claire Fox is director of the Institute of Ideas

Title

WHITEHALL

Wheeling out the unpalatable

SUBSCRIBE TO CONTINUE READING