Tuesday
Nov302010
Nudge, nudge, wink, wink
Tuesday, November 30, 2010 Department of Health to publish public health white paper today ... Should give an indication of the direction the Coalition Government is taking us. Watch this space.
Update on Tuesday, November 30, 2010 by
Simon Clark
Simon Clark
Just been listening to Julian Le Grand, former senior policy advisor to Tony Blair now Professor of Social Policy at the London School of Economics, on the Today programme. Le Grand is an enthusiastic supporter of plain packaging and a display ban.
Le Grand is the man who suggested that smokers be forced to apply for and purchase a license to smoke, which he seemed to think was quite a libertarian idea, despite letting it slip that the forms should be as complicated as possible.
Reader Comments (19)
Whether we like it or not..
Welcome to Kalifornia.
The devil no doubt will be in the detail, I also read he was party going to delegate this to local councils see link below. My analysis is that Lansley knows he is on a hiding to nothing on lifestyle choices. Bullied by 'Sir Humphey,' ASH, Alcohol Concern etc on the one hand he also knows that electorate are sick and tired of nannying and bullying from the state on the other. Over at Conservative Home they are doing a survey and it would not suprise me if Lansley gets marked down, he was mid table for the last one.
It seems passing it down to local councils gets him off the hook.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-11866031
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2010/11/would-you-like-the-conservatives-to-govern-on-their-own-after-the-next-general-election-or-in-contin.html
I was getting quite excited when I started to read Lansley's gospel of change until I came to the end of the ladder of his more direct interventions, like increasing taxes on smoking and drinking.
In my opinion its just another PR stunt to fool the little people all over again.
Let the people think there's a softening and less intrusion into their lives while promoting the 'I'm all right Jack' attitude among people and put the screws on the dirty smokers and iresponsible drinkers again.
My immediate thought was ok, now they are going to make smoking and drinking more local and more personal. If councils do not or cannot coerce enough people into giving up then no doubt there will be penalties and these will then be laid at the doors of the smokers and drinkers who will be become double pariahs within their community! Great - I am just starting to come out the other side of the depression the initial ban caused I really do not need this to deal with now as well!
The additional taxes on smoking and drinking would come about anyway and that will just mean more people buying abroad, legally and others buying on the black market, never really being sure if what they are buying is the real thing or not.
" so that healthier choices are easier for people to make."
Like, er:
Lean meat - as opposed to fatty meat ?
Lower ABV drinks - as opposed to higher ABV drinks ?
Filter cigarettes - as opposed to non-filtered ?
Fluoridate water - as opposed to non-fluoridated (only jokin', Andrew) ?
How COULD it be 'easier' to choose ? And while we're speaking of 'choice'...........
The Nuffield Ladder of Interventions explained
http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/public-health/public-health-ethical-framework
Hopefully he'll be sacked soon as the Tories realise he's a Labour stooge (the only reasonable explanation as this list is pure Labour nannyism - hasn't anyone in the Conservatives noticed?)
"So flirting with such ideas as a new alcohol labelling system, changing local infrastructure so that we are encouraged (forced?) to walk more frequently, inviting problem gamblers to ban themselves from certain gambling haunts, and offering cash bonuses for healthy behaviour, the nudge unit aims to transform us through some Derren Brown-style mind trickery into the kind of people Cameron might like to hang out with: thin, sober, fit, responsible, boring, braindead." ("Spiked", A message to the Illiberal Nudge Industry: push off, 1/11/10)
"Loved" the bias on The Today show this morning. It was taken as read (and stated as an indisputable fact by the "journalist") that the Smoking Ban was incredibly popular and that plain packets reduced smoking. In fact, Lansley, despite spouting a load of nannying nonsense (and speaking rubbish himself, such as there being no evidence about hiding fag displays in other countries) was actually left on the defensive by the overt bias of the Beeboid reporter! And this with his following ASH's blueprint almost to the letter!
God help any politician who states the facts (such as, yes - the ban is so popular that when people have a choice (such as going or not going to the pub) many millions choose not to go - hence the thirtyfold increase in pub closures. Yep - that's how popular it is. The fact that he was in full-on nannying mode and STILL got a hardtime from the BBC just shows how incredibly biased they are and what an uphill struggle someone saying, "Nah, it's up to adults to decide - we've educated people and we've disincentivised them with extortionate taxes. Anything else is not needed" would get.
Cries of "Mass murderer!!" from our Independent State broadcaster, no doubt....
Quote:- "Mr Lansley said the Government's strategy was intended to improve the health of the nation and reduce health inequalities"...this is priceless for if althy and lives to be centanarians the 'Winter Fuel Allowance' alone will bankrupt (finally) this now idiotic nannyist state we live in. This is just another 'blind' for increasing tax rates on certain items as the government is floundering to appease the health lobby. I don't go down the pub anymore as it's now a lifeless mausoleum but I certainly don't feel any healthier! Anybody else the same?
Lansley has made it perfectly clear that smokers will get more than a nudge.
My MP has stated that 'upto 3.4 million people over 65 suffer a fall each year - that's a massive one in three in that age group'.
I hope that Lansley doesn't give the elderly a nudge as it could be very dangerous and expensive to the NHS.
Perhaps over 65s will be banned from going out in future, Chas?
In my opinion Cameron should have a cull of the Councils like he did with some of the quangos.
But hey, have the culled ones of the quangos been reinstalled in the Councils.
It certainly looks like it, the way their fingerprints are all over this new white paper.
Has anyone checked out what became of the 400 culled quango workers.
Where are they now?
My guess is they're alive and well working away on the Councils or merged happily into the remaining 800 quangos doing the governments work for them as per usual.
As is always the case, its the little people get made redundant in the scheme of things.
No change there then.
Thanks for thus update, Mr Clark. A good deal of reading to be done. Very useful. From the Secretary for Health's tone of voice, one guesses he is not in fact a willing participant in the micro-management of other people's health by another lot of people who happen to be in government, local or otherwise, but none the less is being swept along.
The Government will take a "less intrusive" approach to public health - nudging people rather than restricting their choices"
Restoring the choices that its predecessors unfairly took away would be a very good place to start !
Mr Lansley will say today that the "old ways" of tackling public health issues have not led to improvements.
No because we are not interested in being bullied by the State, We will make our own decisions, Thank you.
How long before the state decrees that we are all blond haired and blue eyes, weigh at the most 12stone, do exercises before the working day starts, and that anyone going against their norm is undermensh.
Yes it has happened before if it sounds familiar
Very good point, Tony! The trouble is, the minds of the perpetrators themselves are deceived; they actually think that ordering people about for the benefit of their, the people's, health is good, righteous. Further, some orders from government, in the area of the public health, ARE required. For example, compulsory immunisation against a new, deadly virus would be an act of good government. This is the trouble, and why arguing against stopping people eating, say, junk food is difficult and requires a razor-sharp mind. Discerning the difference between required interference, where no other option exists, and gratuitous interference, where plenty of other options exist which do not interfere (including the option of doing nothing) but which will address an issue (or simply leave it be, even if harm results), requires debate, and debate at length. Rigorous, moral thinking in modern politics is no longer the norm, however; open debate has been rendered second to diktat. The minister knows this (the White Paper expressly refers to 'nannying'); but his reaction has been limp, so far. What has preceded him is strong, virtually embedded and has its roots not in the last administration, but decades ago.