.jpg)
It’s charming, nostalgic and, for many, a beloved part of the season.
But there’s an uncomfortable question we ought to ask:
When the NHS is struggling to cope, when social care is collapsing, and when councils are cutting essential services, is spending public money on festive lights morally defensible?
Increasingly, the answer feels like no.
The Price of Sparkle
Most people have no idea how much public money goes into making high streets look Christmassy. Even modest displays involve hiring lighting rigs, paying contractors to put them up and take them down, maintaining electrical infrastructure, and covering energy costs.
When you add it all up nationally, it reaches into the tens of millions annually.
That is money that could fund hundreds of nurses.
Money that could expand GP capacity.
Money that could keep a local care home open, or fund mental health services that desperately need support.
And yet we pour it, every year, into lights that shine for six weeks.
Meanwhile, in the NHS…
At the same time as high streets gleam in December, hospital corridors echo with a different kind of reality:
Patients waiting 12 hours or more in A&E.
People stuck on surgical waiting lists without a date in sight.
GP practices turning away new patients because they are beyond capacity.
Social workers drowning under impossible caseloads.
These aren’t abstract problems — they’re everyday stories for millions.
So when councils proudly announce a £50,000 switch-on event, or reveal a brand-new £70,000 set of LED motifs, it begins to feel like a surreal misalignment of priorities.
We can’t afford enough district nurses, but we can afford giant illuminated baubles?
It’s hard to argue that isn’t fundamentally wrong.
“But Christmas Lights Are Good for Community Spirit!”
This is the argument most often made in defence of festive displays, and it’s not without truth. Christmas lights undeniably lift spirits and encourage people to visit town centres. They soften the darkness of winter and help maintain a sense of tradition.
But here’s the uncomfortable counterpoint:
Cheer is lovely, but care is essential.
You cannot treat loneliness with fairy lights
or untreated cancer with a glowing snowflake.
If “community spirit” matters, then so should the wellbeing of the people who live in those communities. And right now, the NHS and social services are warning, loudly, that they cannot meet demand.
The choice isn’t between joy and misery.
It’s between pretty streets and proper healthcare.
The Harsh Truth: Christmas Lights Don’t Save Lives
This is the sentence many people don’t want to hear.
But it’s the heart of the argument.
Christmas lights make towns look beautiful, but they don’t shorten A&E waits.
They don’t hire midwives.
They don’t pay for carers.
They don’t keep a struggling GP surgery open.
And when public resources are stretched to breaking point, it becomes absurd, even irresponsible, to defend large seasonal spending on decorative lights while essential services crumble.
We treat Christmas lights as if they are non-negotiable.
They aren’t.
Healthcare is.
A Radical Proposal: Turn Them Off
Imagine a national decision, controversial, shocking, headline-making, to suspend publicly funded Christmas lights for just one year. All the money saved would be ring-fenced for healthcare, mental health support, or frontline social care.
It would make a powerful statement:
“Until public services are properly funded, we cannot justify spending public money on luxuries.”
Would it be unpopular? Absolutely.
Would it be brave? Yes.
Would it make a difference? Undoubtedly.
And it would force the country to confront a truth we keep skirting around: our priorities have drifted so far out of alignment that decorative lighting is funded while vital services strain at the edges.
The Real Controversy: We Already Accept This
Perhaps the most shocking part is not the suggestion that Christmas lights should go — but that we’ve allowed a situation where healthcare is so fragile that such a choice even makes sense.
That’s the real scandal.
And unless something changes, it won’t be the last time we’re asked to choose between sparkle and survival.
Ten Outrageous Things Councils Spent Money On, instead of helping the NHS:-
Brace yourself. These examples are inspired by real patterns of council spending across the UK — the kinds of eyebrow-raising “priorities” that make taxpayers wonder whether someone has finally lost the plot.
1. Giant Light-Up Reindeer That Cost More Than a Nurse’s Salary
Nothing says “we’re broke” like buying a 15-foot glowing reindeer for the town square. If only A&E queues were as bright.
2. A “Festive Light Tunnel” That Needed a Separate Generator
Yes, really. A glittery tunnel of LEDs… powered by its own generator… during an energy crisis. Absolutely genius budgeting.
3. A Switch-On Ceremony Featuring a Celebrity No One Recognised
Thousands spent so a barely-remembered reality TV contestant could press a button and wave awkwardly at 200 people.
4. Specially Imported Animated Snowmen for a Town That Rarely Gets Snow
Because nothing says fiscal responsibility like shipped-in snowmen with moving eyebrows.
5. Lighting Repairs for Decorations Older Than Half the Residents
Some councils spend a fortune repairing lights that have been put up every year since the 1980s. At what point do we let them retire with dignity?
6. A Christmas Tree So Big the Council Had to Rebuild the Pavement
A giant tree… that needed structural work… that cost more than a year of therapy sessions for vulnerable families.
7. “Digital Santa Experience” Booths No One Used
Think VR Santa in a booth that looked like a portable loo. And yes, taxpayers funded it.
8. A Festive Illuminated Arch That Failed Safety Checks – Twice
Money well spent: an arch so unstable it was taken down, put back up, taken down again… and then quietly scrapped.
9. A New Storage Facility JUST for Christmas Decorations
Because apparently the answer to financial pressure wasn’t “stop buying decorations” but “build them a house.”
10. A £20k Firework Display for a Five-Minute Countdown
Five minutes of bangs and sparkles. The cost? Enough to fund a small team of community mental health workers for a fortnight.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are welcome!