Off Topic Politics Thread

I see your graph conveniently fails to take sales into account.

 

I would suggest this is about added sugar and natural sugar.

An orange drink will contain a certain amount of natural sugars. The tax is on added sugar.

 

I agree with Beefy that the Sugar Tax has been brought in to be be a talking point and distract from other areas of the Budget.

If it is about health, why has the Sugar Tax been restricted to just drinks?
What about breakfast cereals?
And why not have a Salt Tax?
Too much salt is also a major health issue, causing high blood pressure, strokes, heart and kidney problems.

 

Ooh, a conspiracy theory

It's a socialist policy and whether it stays at drinks or this is just the beginning remains to be seen.

 

This is how I feel about it.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...rsonal-freedom-and-it-wont-work-a6934346.html

 

Remember there being a few NHS posts on here not so long ago. Well, today I saw this status on Facebook.

It comes from a long-time family friend, who is battling cancer through chemotherapy. He's also had swine flu recently, among other things.

He's an American who lives in the UK.

Here is his post...


I have to give the highest praise to all the doctors and nurses who have worked so hard to get me better. The NHS doesn't always get it right, but that's because they are understaffed and overworked. The answer to this problem is to throw a few 6 or 7 figure chiefs to see how they can get more out of the Indians that are breaking their backs to make this the best health service in the world. There's a real simple answer: sack the Chiefs and hire more Indians.

 

The article derides the sugar tax because it will decrease calorie intake by a mere 15 calories a day. Well, I'll put the author right on one thing. That's not a small decrease. Sounds it but it isn't.

There are 3,600 calories in a pound of fat. Overeat by 3,600 calories and, all other things being equal, your body will store it as a pound of fat. Undereat by the same amount and a pound of fat in your body stores will be burned.

Reduce your daily intake of calories by 15 calories and it's 5,475 calories a year. Almost exactly 1.5lb of fat. So over ten years it's just over a stone in weight. Thus, on the basis of effect on weight, this looks quite a decent policy.

I happen to agree with the author about personal choice but I also admit that it doesn't work when sugar is being smuggled past people (particularly kids) on a daily basis.

I have no doubt at all that the media outlets attacking this policy would be running articles about how a heartless chancellor had missed the chance to improve people's health with a sugar tax.

Vin

PS. Beefy, I've tried to make it clear that this is a rebuttal of the article to which you link - I know you don't like my style of argument but it's not aimed at you.

 

By the way, it's only a couple of weeks since the Government was being accused of "wickedness" in here for, amongst other things, not taxing sugar.

February 27th:

And later

There really is no way to please all the people. Or pretty much any of them in this thread if your political colours are wrong.

By all means criticise the government but it would be nice to see a little credit when it's due.

Vin

 

Data, statistics, analysis, targets, regulation.

The world has become addicted to numbers in a computer age created by people who were obsessed by numbers.

The reasons for this are well intentioned. We want to make sure what we eat and drink is safe, we want to know if schools and hospitals are performing to acceptable standards etc

The trouble is that collecting and analysing that data is a huge industry in itself.

To go slightly off topic to football, you only have to see the size of southamptons analytical department today to know how these things can spiral and the same thing is happening in our government departments.

 

Vin is quite right. If you criticise a policy that you agree with simply because it was proposed by someone you don't, then you just end up tying yourself in knots. Politicians have been stealing each other's clothes for years. The Tories opposed the setting up of the NHS and said that it wouldn't work. Eventually a concensus appears about the long term stuff. Who thought of the idea in the first place becomes less important.

 

Exactly right, as pretty much any NHS Healthcare professional will agree.

 

The article is a little crazy in places. But it also gets the points across I think are true. It will basically do nothing apart from raising a very small amount of money.

All it will do is give the huge companies another reason to raise prices (more then they should to cover the tax). That or they will make the drink smaller, but keep the price as it was and say "we are thinking of our customers health" or some other crap.

What this tax does is effect the small guy yet again. I would rather they go after the big sugar drinks (and others) companies to get them to sort their product out.

To end I have no problem in trying to get people to stop drinking/eating unhealthy. I see the results a hell of a lot being a Personal Trainer. I just feel this is the wrong way of going about it.

 

And I still stand by it. This is a sugar tax by name only.. fizzy drinks only. If it raises the issue into public awareness so that sugar content across the board can be addressed then all well and good. I suspect though, it is a smokescreen. The caring side of Mr Osborn that costs nothing and means little.

 

Hopefully all the stories about some Tories revolting against the benefits cuts are true.

 

Well said .

 

If the facts your guy is spouting are true (the tax will decrease calorie intake by15 calories a day) then people will weigh over a stone less on average after ten years of this tax. So it will do something. Don't let preconceptions affect judgment of facts. My signature isn't just words. It's a logical way to decide what makes sense and what doesn't. I'm afraid what you've said doesn't fit with the article you quoted.

Vin

 

My final word (again)*.

This thread's only benefit is that at least it moves the mindless "on principle the Government can never do anything good and nothing they ever do will ever, under any circumstances get even a single hand clap from me" tripe into its own thread.

I really do give up. I'll ignore this thread from now on and you can all pat one another's backs about how awful everything is that the wicked, in-hock-to-big-business, vile and nasty Tories do. Yes, the Tories who have fooled the sheep that make up the electorate. They really are scum, these Tories. All of them. And everyone who supports them is an idiot.

Vin



*And this time I really mean it.

 

The most tiring assumption built into these policies and campaigns is that freewill is a dead. However unfashionable, individual responsibility remains the cornerstone of a healthy lifestyle.

Exactly what I have been on about. The tax will not stop people drinking as many sugar drinks as they want. It will instead just cost more to buy the drink.

It isn't educating people of the risks of drinking high in sugar products to excess. It's simply just saying we think this is bad for you so it will cost more.

This won't stop people from still living unhealthy lifestyles.

Just because I have read the article differently then you doesn't mean I am wrong. You say people are only having a go at the budget because it is the Tories. But then I could say you are only defending it because it is the Tories.

I shall leave it there though because clearly our views our very different. It's why politics is such a crazy subject.

 

Oh Jesus. The article you introduced as reflecting how you felt ("This is how I feel about it.") said it WOULD make people ingest fewer calories: I quote: "This tax would lead people to consume, on average, 15 fewer calories a day." Make your mind up.

Vin

PS That's it.