In a spirit of rough and ready critical discourse analysis,\nit is worth considering the language of the news report. Damien Gayle and Kevin Rawlinson wrote that\nmany people they interviewed were \u2018hopeful that the new restaurant would give\nthe town\u2019s young people somewhere to go<\/em>\nand create local jobs\u2019 (my italics), and \u2018[p]arents \u2026 said they would welcome\nnot having to drive<\/em> to neighbouring\ncounties to \u201ctreat\u201d their children to McDonald\u2019s food\u2019 (my italics again). <\/p>\n\n\n\n So this is what market fundamentalism hath wrought, and obeisance before the deity of (private sector) job creation is only part of the picture. Silly me; I would never have thought of McDonald\u2019s on a list of places for young people to go. Oakham\u2019s library is still functioning, unlike the 343 libraries across the UK that closed between 2010 and 2015<\/a>, although admittedly it is only open during the day Monday to Saturday<\/a>. Rutland County\u2019s web site offers numerous links to parking information, but no mention of parks; I\u2019m not certain what to make of that. And these are strange days indeed when parents feel compelled to drive substantial to feed their children a McDonald\u2019s meal. The industry, of course, is not just a passive bystander<\/a>. It targets children in its advertising<\/a>, as McDonald\u2019s did in Chile; this was pointed out in the web summary of a September 2011 Euromonitor report that is no longer online, but I have it on file. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2018<\/p>\n\n\n\n It\u2019s as if no one had heard of the epidemic\nof child and adolescent obesity<\/a>, or the massive revenues, profits\nand marketing budgets<\/a> of the ultra-processed\nfood<\/a> and fast food industries that contribute to it. Encouragingly, the public health community is\nslowly coming to grips with the importance of commercial determinants\nof health<\/a>, but it will be a long hard slog, with deep-pocketed adversaries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On, then, to the second news item of the day. Short-haul airline Flybe, which serves\n56 locations<\/a> in the UK and continental Europe, received a bailout\nfrom its major shareholders that may be accompanied by sweeteners\nfrom the magic public money tree<\/a> including deferred tax payments and\na reduction in air passenger duty on domestic flights. Entirely understandable expressions of\noutrage, not least from its commercial competitors, seem likely to have no\neffect, yet as Nils\nPratley pointed out<\/a> in The\nGuardian<\/em>: \u2018Increased trading losses? Higher fuel costs after sterling\u2019s\ndecline last summer? Brexit uncertainty?\n None of those risks were unimaginable 12\nmonths ago\u2019. This is a case of bad management, or more accurately\nbad accounting, pure and simple. Management\nis surely what was lacking. <\/p>\n\n\n\n It\u2019s as if no one had heard of climate change, or the\naviation industry\u2019s contribution to greenhouse gas emissions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Many forms of infrastructure are essential for modern life, and in the UK many have been dismembered by a decade of austerity. In a carbon-conscious age when, as economists never cease to remind us, resources are limited, a failing regional airline is not one of those essentials. The idea of letting markets work never seems to play very well in the commercial aviation industry, or with its political protectors.\u00a0 <\/p>\n\n\n\n Now, please don\u2019t take what I am about to write the wrong\nway. All of us concerned with health\ninequalities recognise that governments must get in the way of markets, in all\nkinds of ways and for all kinds of reasons. \nBut here are two modest proposals, with apologies to Jonathan Swift, for\nhow a creative, environment- and health-friendly government might use markets\nto move towards a healthier, less inequitable and greener world. <\/p>\n\n\n\n First: let airlines, like your local drycleaner, price their\nservices at a level that will ensure an adequate return on investment, whatever\nthat may be, or go bust. By all means\nsubsidise transport, but concentrate on options that generate the fewest\nnegative health impacts: low-carbon rail\nand bus services, active transport, and reducing the need for travel. Conversely, massively dis-incentivise\npolluting and carbon-intensive transport. \nThe British Heart Foundation have just launched an\nimportant campaign<\/a> on air pollution, as\nhas The Times<\/em><\/a>; more power to them\nboth, even though The Times\u2019s<\/em>\nproposals are modest, perhaps in deference to its Range Rover readership.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Second: if planning\npermission for fast food franchises must be allowed, why can\u2019t central\ngovernment legislate a quota of such permissions for the entire country, or for\neach region (say, in the English case, each NHS\nfootprint area<\/a>); auction opportunities to apply for them to the\nhighest bidders, with periodic renewal required; and gradually shrink the quota\nat each successive auction? The tidy bit\nof revenue generated could be ring-fenced to reopen libraries and activity\ncentres, restore parks, use traffic calming to improve the activity-friendliness\nof neighbourhoods, and perhaps subsidise the cost of healthy food. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Just asking \u2026 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The news of the day sometimes throws up events that combine to highlight the absurdity, and the perversity, of today\u2019s policies of selective market fundamentalism. Tuesday, 14 January was one of those days. The Guardian reported that councillors in the … Continue reading ![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/theodoreschrecker\/files\/2020\/01\/TMI_1578-1024x685.jpg\")