Lansley unveils Tory proposals on health
Wednesday, January 13, 2010 Further to yesterday's post about Conservative policy on obesity, smoking and alcohol, shadow health spokesman Andrew Lansley will today unveil new proposals designed to help people control their alcohol consumption.
Speaking on the Today programme this morning, Lansley said: "What I'm publishing today is a public health Green Paper that sets out a broader strategy. Alcohol and the abuse of alcohol and the deaths that are associated with it and the £20 billion cost to society of the misuse of alcohol is clearly a very significant public health challenge."
This morning Lansley is giving a speech at an event organised by 2020health, a centre right think tank.
More information to follow.
Simon Clark
Here are some excerpts from the press release just received:
A Conservative Government will work with business to draw up new 'responsibility deals' designed to prevent irresponsible activities and extend restrictions on
unsuitable marketing to children throughout the media. We will introduce a clearer system of alcohol labelling which allows people to compare the amount they drink
with other people, mandate the display of 'guideline daily amounts' on food packaging, and encourage restaurants and bars to publish more dietary information for their customers.
We will introduce a focus on public health throughout government, led by the Secretary of State for Public Health, with a series of measures including extra Sure
Start health visitors, a school sports Olympics, better maternity care, and tough measures - including a tax on super-strength drinks - to curb binge-drinking.
The Department of Health will be renamed and refocused, becoming the Department of Public Health, with a stronger remit for preventing disease, rather than just its
cure. Whenever possible, we will ensure that national public health initiatives funded by public money are focused wholly on behaviour change and paid for on the
basis of the results they achieve.
We will extend voluntary restrictions on marketing to children to all media, including online advertising, and support industry-led initiatives to promote better health, such as reducing food portion sizes.
We will also work with business to encourage the publication of dietary information in fast-food outlets, restaurants, cafes and bars, and improve the clarity of information on food packaging by supporting EU proposals for mandatory publication of 'guideline daily amounts' on food packaging.
To tackle the specific problem of binge-drinking, there will be a ban on cheap alcohol used as a loss leader in shops and supermarkets, and problem drinks like alcopops and super-strength beers will be taxed more heavily. A tougher licensing regime will also be introduced to tackle irresponsible bars.
There is no direct mention of smoking in the press release but in his speech this morning Lansley said:
We will invest to save by prioritising public health. There is a vast human and financial cost associated with problems like obesity, sexually transmitted diseases and infectious diseases.
Preventing them makes good economic sense and good public health sense. Obesity costs the NHS £4.2 billion alone. Smoking is responsible for around 84,000 deaths a year.
We are seeing a rising rate of alcohol and drug problems. And there's been a three-fold increase since 1998 in the number of young people diagnosed with HIV. We have to get to grips with the real drivers of demand on our NHS now.
Make of that what you will.
Simon Clark
"Is this the second longest suicide note in history?" comments Rick S. "Don't the Tories know that people are sick of this stuff and just want to be left alone?"
What the Tories have to get across - fast - is the extent to which these measures are going to be enforced: nanny state or bully state? I understand the need to keep NHS costs in check but government has to acknowledge that smokers (for example) pay a huge sum of money into the public purse (in addition to income tax etc). If anyone is entitled to treatment on the NHS, it's smokers.
Properly targetted, these policies may do some good. What politicians must not do is target and stigmatise everyone who smokes, gets "drunk" or is overweight.
Reader Comments (32)
Maybe i'm wrong, but it seems if the Tories get in we are out of the frying pan and into the proverbial fire.There is something to be said by better the devil you know than the devil you dont.
Quote: "To tackle the specific problem of binge-drinking, there will be a ban on cheap alcohol used as a loss leader in shops and supermarkets."
Well at least it will dispell the myth that cheap alchohol is the main cause for pub closure. That's if there are any left at all then.
Quote: "We will ensure that national public health initiatives funded by public money."
Oh you mean more busy body parasites shafting me for taxes. Yea right.
Is this the second longest suicide note in history? Don't the Tories know that people are sick of this stuff and just want to be left alone?
The one thing you can say for them is that at least they are being honest up front about extending the frontiers of the Bully State, in contrast to Labour who reneged on their 2005 manifesto statements about the smoking ban.
UKIP it is, then.
If "loss leading" is banned (which I interpret as selling a product for less than the wholesale price at which you bought it) I would expect to see remarkably little difference – those keen prices are generally the result of driving hard bargains with suppliers. And what do you do with surplus or short-dated stock – pour it down the drain?
'Whenever possible, we will ensure that national public health initiatives funded by public money are focused wholly on behaviour change and paid for on the basis of the results they achieve.'
I do not want any more politicians telling me to change my behaviour to suit them. Who decides what is the correct behaviour? Thieving politicians or their unelected advisors have no right how to tell me how to live. Tories and Labour seem one and the same to me.
Yes there is definately a law for them and a law for us.
Go on lead by example then.
Let's start with no stealing.
Or perhaps no lying.
Or no sleaze.
Pathetic.
My comments on the previous thread apply here also.
Now will the ardent Tories among you finally accept that a Tory vote is a wasted vote in the quest for tolerance, fair play and choice?
It is the first time in probably 100 years that we have a viable new party which is completely relevant to the modern age, democractic, and growing from the bottom up?
Will you honestly risk missing the chance to make real change at the next election? If the Tories win, this cause is finished. They will break us to ensure we don't spoil their chances for a second term.
One shot, one election, no other opportunity ever to amend this spiteful ban. Is a Tory govt that will be exactly the same as Lab really worth your support?
To me it is a bit like saying we will clamp down on those who drop sweet wrappers to change their behaviour so that they do not go on to fly tip! What about those already fly tipping?
So, with the drinking, those of us who enjoy an odd glass of wine will soon have to pay even more for that privilege (I buy the small bottles so as not to waste what doesn't keep for a week or so) because some who drink do not know when to stop?
So far, unlike smoking, they are not mentioning the 'ban' word, but with the way things have gone in the past few years I can see any pubs and clubs that are still in business turning into 'Soda Fountains' as they will have nothing much else left to legally sell!
This nonsense has to stop now before we find that all of life's little pleasures are banned forever - unless you have access to Palaces and you are an MP!
I agree with Rick S.
R.I.P. The Conservative Party
I will not vote for 'more of the same'.
Do the Conservatives really think people want this ?
We are sick fed up to the back teeth of it all.
Cameron cow towing to one of THE CONTROLLERS
http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2010/01/04/david-cameron-talks-exclusively-to-cancer-research-uk-ceo-harpal-kumar/
Dos anyone know what links/consultancy work any of the Con MPs do with health or pharmaceutical companies?
Bearing in mind that Nanny Hewitt was in the pay of drug companies when she imposed the blanket smoking ban to get us all running for NRT, it certainly is a point to consider.
Pathetic- both this and the cameron link. Really how in hell do they think itll play in their hands??
They have totally lost the plot. What Lansley and Cameron are proposing certainly isn't Conservative in my opinion.
They'll never get my vote with policies like this. Have they been brainwashed by nanny as well? I doubt it. They're just following the money like the rest of them.
They'll probably win the next election, but I don't think they'll get a second term when the electorate realise they're more of the same.
I have been getting nostalgic about the 1970s lately. OK, we paid more tax, had 3 day weeks, power cuts, winter of discontent etc etc but the governments, whatever their hue, did the job of controlling the infrastructure and providing a country for us to live in in whichever way we chose, as long as we were not harming other people.
I had a new year message from an old friend I have known since 1972. He sid that we had known each other for nearly 40 years, hasn't a lot changed!
For all those who like to throw the cat in amongst the pigeons, and cast dispersions upon the Conservatives. This is the result of the poll recently held by Conservativehome.
Private clubs should be allowed to have smoking rooms:
Agree 73%
Disagree 19%
Well, that's the Tories losing my vote then.
The results of the consultation with Tory members is encouraging but what it does show is the serious disconnect between the Tory membership and the leadership. However, the Conservative party, unlike Labour, has a relatively simple proecure to follow in order to change its leader, something Cameron should bear in mind. Many may vote tactically, first to get the unelected lunatic Brown out, then once the Tories are in supporting any measure to lose Cameron.
Both look increasingly likely if they continue to parrot such New-Labour, Big State, nannying idiocy.
Mr A seems to think that 73% of Conservative voting for more freedom to smoke, at least in private clubs, is somehow "parroting New-Labour, Big State, nannying idiocy"
Please explain to me, Mr A, how on earth you worked that one out?
What use is a poll when those in charge are going to ignore it anyway? As I said before it is not just the smoking ban but the Tories seem intent on continuing to interfere in the private lives of the country.
Labour had nothing in their manifesto about a total ban but introduced one anyway. Why should we believe the Tories will be any different when the two speeches above do parrot contnued Nannyism?
Of course you are right Michael, polls are absolutely no use at all are they. Neither is voting, or even standing up and stating your case, as we all know, as you so rightly put it, that "those in charge are going to ignore it anyway"
With this type of reasoning, what on earth is anyone worried about? After all, if we all know that all politicians are as bad as each other, and that they all lie, then we have nothing to fear do we, because what is come is surely inevitable, or so you seem to be saying.
The poll that I mentioned Michael, was taken by Conservativehome, which is a respected site, and one which I am assured is read by the Tory hierarchy, and one which is also largely taken notice of by the top team in the Conservative Party. But of course, if you prefer not to ever believe anyone ever again, just because Labour lied to us, then that, rightly or wrongly, is your prerogative.
The results of this poll have only been released today, do you honestly think that Cameron will read them this morning, as if this is the be and end all of everything, and change Conservative policies within the hour?
Don't believe the Conservatives will run our country better than Labour, give Labour another chance, I mean, they deserve it don't they, and after all it will only be another 5 years. And at least we will all still have something to moan about every day on here won't we?
Peter. I do despair about politicians of all parties for their continued encroachment into our private lives. From what I can see from the tone of the two speeches above this will continue unabated under the Tories and Cameron actually seems to be very enthusiastic about hiring more nannies and his health spokesman boasts of policies 'focused wholly on behaviour change'.
I want that from no party but policies like this are totally unconservative and just Nu Labour with a posher voice.
Peter -
For God's sake !
The Conservative LEADERSHIP is NOT the Conservative ELECTORATE.
That's the bloody problem (or 'challenge' - in HR-Speak).
And I think our (hitherto) Labour- and Liberal-supporting friends on this site have long identified this as THE central problem with our Faux-Democratic system of governance.
To put it bluntly - and to borrow a phrase from Margaret Thatcher - Cameron is NOT ONE OF US.
He's ONE OF THEM.
And I - for one - have had a BELLY-FULL of Them.
Ditto Little Andrew Lansley (and Wee Georgie Osborne etc etc etc).
If you doubt me - just accept this challenge: WHICH part of the above excerpted passage could NOT have been written by a New Labour Drone ?
Or a card-carrying Marxist, come to that ?
And - since Individual Liberty is clearly NOT an 'issue' warranting any serious consideration these days - if they want to 'save money', here's an idea:
How about withdrawing our valiant troops from Afghanistan and Iraq - instead of sending them to bleed and die in pursuit of some Bogus Objective(s) which can NEVER be fulfilled (I do not refer, naturally, to the REAL 'objectives', which seem to have escaped the attention of the Minsistry of Truth - aka 'the BBC') ?
As Chesterton said: the ONLY defensible war is a War of Defence.
And anyone who believes that we are engaged in THAT badly needs some education. Fast.
But WHO - among our Politcal Warriors - will now defend US in the War on Freedom ?
Now that IS a genuine war.
And WE are losing.......................
Martin, if you genuinely believe, as you state in your post that you cannot find anyone among our Political Warriors - who will now defend us in the War on Freedom, and that you believe this to be a genuine war, which we are losing, then surely, as I have said time after time, that it is up to us to stand and fight, not just moan about politicians?
As I said on another thread, even OAPs stand up for themselves, and shout their cases outside parliament. Likewise in other countries, they stand up for their rights. In New York they are now ignoring the ban, the same in Paris and Berlin. Meanwhile, what do we do here? We moan about our politicians.
You know who politicians take the most notice of? People who shout the loudest!
If there is a disconnect between the Tory electorate and leadership why don't those who have a Tory MP write to advise that their vote will go elsewhere unless there is evidence that the leadership abandons social engineering?
@Joyce
You took the words right out of my mouth. It is interesting to read tht 73% of Tories want smoking to be back in private clubs and 76% of Tories think that energy prices are more important than "climate change."
In the link below, I was at that event last night and the vast majority feeling in the room was man made climate change scepticism and I am more interested in my gas bill attitude.
The Tories as I have intimated before are not trying to appeal to its core vote but attract the Guardianistas, Lib Dems and labour voters. This is why they are toeing the PC line.
I will join you in being disappointing at some of the headline pronouncements.
As someone who does have an insight into where the Conservatives will go if elected, I would look at Margaret Thatcher in the sense that she was constrained at the start of her tenure by the "wets", but quickly got the policies she wanted as time went by.
ConservativeHome for us libertarian and conviction Tories is absolutely outstanding and very influential. As it is read by all senior Tories and post election if we are not happy the restrained language might give way to something a little stronger.
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2010/01/75-of-tory-members-urge-cameron-to-focus-on-energy-bills-not-climate-change.html
They are having a debate on this at Conservative Home and all the comments bar a couple including "Resident Leftie" say that minimum alcohol pricing is wrong.
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2010/01/cheap-booze-is-only-part-of-the-problem.html#comment-6a00d83451b31c69e2012876d5792c970c
@ Peter.
I'm really tearing up to not be voting Tory this time. I have had discussions with my Tory PCC about the issue (who is a non-smoker, hates smoke, yet hates the smoking ban and also doesn't believe the rubbish over SHS. He is a great guy).
My problem is though that he is very honest with me, and although he agrees with the ban being amended, he cannot see the tories ever doing this.
He knows he has has lost my vote as a result of this, but we still remain friendly.
To those who state that the smoking ban should not be 'the be and all end all' of how you you vote, I disagree.
The ban hits so many buttons - the economy, crime, communities, health, to mention just a few. One tiny amendment would get our country moving in a positive direction in each of these areas.
Peter -
You must allow me the occasional rhetorical flourish !
I did not actually 'state' anything about the apparent lack of ANY freedom-fighters among our Political Class, however.
I'm well aware of the fact that there ARE a few souls brave and principled enough to stand aside from the rest of the bleating flock. But, they are SO 'few'.
Let us hope that changes in time.
Sadly, you are correct about the potency of Megaphone Diplomacy.
Perhaps the question is therefore: how can WE shout more loudly than you-know-who ?
We can't, of course.
But what we CAN do is deafen them with our silence at the ballot box.
Arguably, that is now the ONLY way to go - once all other possibilities have been exhausted.
My first sentence was perhaps confusing if you assumed I was talking about the poll rather than Cameron's stated policy of ignoring the smoking issue (and Lansley, too - only seconds before I'd been reading about Lansley's latest plans for victimising smokers so that was still on my mind - hence the possible confusion). The Tory leadership seems hell-bent on following Labour's dictatorial Nanny policies regardless of what its members want.
However, the rest of the post makes it clear that I support the 73% of Tory members who want smoking rooms - hence my comments about the disconnect between membership and leadership. The members clearly want less Nannying, less Government interference and more individual responsibilities. Cameron and Lansley however have time and time again demonstrated that they intend to follow Labour's line in thinking that they should shape society rather than represent it.
THAT is why they've lost my vote - just more of the same from them regardless of what the members want. Sorry - should have been clearer - that's what you get from bouncing from one blog story (the one about Lansley planning to harrass smokers when he gets in) to another.
Dave A -
I take your point about Margaret Thatcher and her struggles with the Wets.
But that IS the point, surely ?
In the weeks and months leading up to the 1979 Election, most people had a pretty good idea of what the lady thought on many key issues: defence, the Soviet Union, hanging, exchange control and other manifestations of WW2 Socialism, the more repressive aspects of trade unionism, immigration etc.
I don't believe that ANY of us - and we seem to be a pretty observant bunch - has any REAL idea of what Cameron stands for.
Assuming he stands for anything, that is.
When what we NEED right now is a Rebel With A Cause - not a Dedicated Follower Of Fashion.
Someone who is brave enough to challenge the consensus among the coterie of Idiots Savants who are currently running this world, and wise enough to give voice to the REAL consensus among the disenfranchised millions of 'ordinary' people.
Someone, you might say, who is ROMANTIC enough to mourn what we have lost - and are in the process of losing - but PRAGMATIC enough to bring about the changes that many of us regard as essential.
All I know is that a Conservative Leader who seeks to woo the Munchkins of Medialand, whilst sneering at the readership of the 'Daily Mail' is a VERY odd 'conservative' indeed.
In fact - a decidely 'wet' one.
And one Ted Heath per lifetime is QUITE enough, thank you.................
Ah, there's where the confusion comes in. I was responding to Simon's original post about Lansley in my first sentence ("They've lost my vote") then referring to the news of the Tory poll in the rest. Looking at it now I can see where the confusion comes from.
That said, as the actual thread was about Tory nannying it does actually make sense. Perhaps Peter should spend a bit more time actually reading posts before slinging that most hideous and disgusting of insults at someone - that of being an anti.
I may well be right off track here, but reading these posts it occurred to me that if Conservativehome is read by so many senior conservatives, perhaps, instead of just asking for some hope on an amendment of the smoking ban, we should, en masse, remind these politicians that in fact when and if they are voted in, it is to be our servants and not our masters. They work for us, as essentially we are the Country - without us there would be nothing to govern.
Possibly a naive thought that just maybe this might get them to think again about all this social engineering they are on about?