In the coalition agreement, outlining its programme for the current Parliament, the Government made a clear an unambiguous case for tackling health inequalities, arguing on page 28 of the document:

"We will investigate ways of improving access to preventative healthcare for those in disadvantaged areas to help tackle health inequalities."

The pledge then was both laudable and above all essential given the ongoing health crisis facing Northern England. Take for example the problem of alcohol abuse, highlighted so clearly in a recent report by the NHS information centre which showed:

Adults were more likely to exceed 4/3 units of alcohol on their heaviest drinking days in Yorkshire and the Humber (45% of men and 37% of women) and in the North East (45% of men and 36% of women).

Almost one in four Local Authorities (LAs) were estimated to have significantly higher proportions of adults drinking more than 8/6 units on at least one day in the previous week than England as a whole. These were highly concentrated in the North with 98% of these LAs located in three GORs; North East, North West and Yorkshire and the Humber.

63% of young people in the North East were thought to have tried alcohol, the highest proportion of any region in the country.

The North East and North West had some of the highest rates of alcohol-related admissions to hospital, standing at 2,406 and 2,295 per 100,000 respectively.

In its most recent data, the Health Protection Agency highlights that the North East, between 2009 and 2010 saw one of the largest increases in the number of people contracting a sexually transmitted infection, increasing by 2%. And in February, the NHS information concluded, that "there is clearly a north-south divide with northern England having higher obesity prevalence rates than southern England."

So what does it prove? That the north has greater health needs than the south - a statement of the obvious, perhaps. But it is because of this that the issue of health spending is so important, and why this week's suggestions that poorer areas are likely to lose out on health funding to the more affluent south are such a concern.

Labour's case is based on funding changes that will mean less weight being given to public health within the overall health budgets, disadvantaging mainly poorer areas.

Looking across the north, the Yorkshire Post reported that the Yorkshire and Humber Region faced more than £100 million being cut from its health budget. In the North East, the Journal put the figure of cuts at £74 million, whilst in the North West, writing for the Manchester Evening News' blog, David Ottewell concludes:

So, after a two weeks' amnesty in which they united around a common enemy – journalists – the nation's politicians are finally back at each other's throats.

Good. Phone hacking is bad, but it isn't a matter of life or death. The NHS – now that's a matter of life or death. And arguing about how our health service is funded, and whether it is giving all taxpayers' a fair deal, is exactly the kind of thing most right-thinking people think most right-thinking politicians should be doing, most of the time.

At stake? The fact the NHS funding has been tweaked to lessen the weighting given to areas with generally poor health. For obvious reasons, those tend to be in more deprived communities.

According to experts at Public Health Manchester, the shift will cost primary care trusts in places like Manchester and Liverpool tens of millions of pounds. More affluent areas, meanwhile, will experience relative 'gains'.

In its response to Labour's claims, a spokesperson for the Conservatives sought to argue that it represented an "own goal", with Labour, if it had won, likely to have been cutting £28 billion from the NHS budget across the country. N.B interesting to note that the Conservatives are able to say how much Labour would cut whilst also arguing the opposition don't have any spending plans. But that aside, the spokesperson continued:

This Government is increasing spending on the NHS in real terms over this parliament, and every region of the country will receive more money as a result of this investment.

Yet despite the Government's attempts to brush aside Labour's case as a political smoke screen, from the reaction obtained by the Northerner, it is clear that the health community across the North has serious concerns.

Take Kathy Parker for example, Acting Director for the Royal College of Nursing in the North West who told us:

At the Royal College of Nursing, we do have concerns generally about the prospects of funding for public health promotion being protected against the severe financial pressures that are causing NHS trusts and local authorities in the region to cut jobs and services.

In our response to the public health white paper we have cautioned against the application of a funding formula that rewards authorities for improvement in the health of local people but doesn't make an allowance for those authorities that are serving people in greatest need and poorest health and living in areas where improvements are harder to achieve. We believe that would not be a fair system.

Nurses are at the forefront when it comes to supporting people to stay healthy or manage their long-term health conditions, whether it's school nursing, smoking cessation or weight management, and it would be a tragedy if the healthcare services they help to deliver across the North West were not proportionate to the needs of our local communities in the future."

For Martin Rathfelder meanwhile, Director of the Manchester based, Labour-affiliated Socialist Health Association, the issue at stake is that under both Labour and now the coalition, the way money has been spent, or not spent as the case may be, has simply been ineffective in improving public health and tackling health inequalities. Speaking to the Northerner he argued:

Balancing the demands of treatment against those of prevention has always been a problem for the NHS. You can't buy health. You can only buy treatment. Labour poured money into deprived areas hoping that this would reduce health inequality, but the results were disappointing. Most of the money designed for public health measures was used to pay for urgent hospital treatment. It did reach the poor, because poor people are admitted to hospital through the A&E, not through the waiting list, but it didn't do much to reduce health inequality.

This government are shifting funds from the poor to treat richer older people. At the same time most of their programme will increase economic and health inequalities. Responsibilities for public health are shifting, rightly, to local authorities, but authorities in deprived areas have no resources. Although Andrew Lansley claimed that he wanted to be the minister for Public Health he has done nothing about problems which need to be tackled nationally like alcohol pricing, transport or food policy.

In an exclusive article for the Northerner , David Buck, Senior Fellow in Public Health at the respect health think tank, Kings Fund argues that in the battle over health spending, both Labour and the Conservatives have sort of got the number's right. He argues:

Both sides in this debate are right on the numbers, sort of. However, the impact on local budgets is probably less important than the wider message this sends about the government's priorities and how it sees the roles of the NHS and local authorities in the future.

The decision to downgrade the weighting given to health inequalities in the [spending allocation] formula does send a worrying signal about the government's view on what the NHS should be focussing on. The Department of Health's own work shows that what will narrow inequalities fastest is good, systematic health prevention work undertaken by the NHS. This must not be forgotten as responsibility for public health is transferred to local authorities - the NHS still has a vital contribution to make to reducing health inequalities in all communities, be they in the north or the south.

What do you think? Is the North being treated fairly when it comes to health spending? How do we tackle health inequalities and improve public health?

Ed Jacobs is a political consultant at the Leeds-based Public Affairs Company and devolution correspondent for the centre-left political and policy blog, Left Foot Forward.