Blair and his nanny state

here we go again, Tony Blair and his nanny state have now apointed a "minister for fitness" link given all of the problems we have in the uk is there nothing better this man can waste the publics taxes on?

[edit on 23-8-2006 by solidshot]

Interesting topic solidshot.

I can't help but see this in the same way as the parental classes this government offered.

Large parts of our society tut and comment about unfit or clueless parents and yet when the government sets up parenting classes to advise and help where there is such an obvious need out come the 'nanny state' complaints.

Ditto with the obvious problem of obesity and a lack of fitness so widespread in our society.

I suppose it comes down to what we expect from government.

They are in any case only advising, no-one is being forced to do anything.

Adults can eat and drink themselves to death as much as they like and will still be able to do so.

But when it comes down to it there is one group where it is wholly appropriate to treat like children; children.

If children are being failed by their families, schools and society generally and they are facing such a genuine risk to the quality of their lives and particularly their later lives then IMO it is totally within the remit of government to act to try and stop that completely avoidable tragedy.

It is undeniable that obesity (particularly amongst the young) is a very real problem.

One might say that some of the root of this problem lies in the selling off of school playing fields to business but that is a little like crying over spilt milk now (and it was almost all done by a previous - tory - government).

IMO we certainly should not just walk away and abdicate all sense of social responsibility to 'the market' because without regulation and controls they would have us all as little sedentary consumption units.

It's not like we can't already see where that will lead us to.

since you brought up parenting classes what good are they when the goverment has effectively outlawed the ability to discapline your kids? and the point i was trying to make was that there are far more important issues in our country that need fixing before the goverment goes frittering away the tax payers money on issues such as this which are very unlikely to work (anyone remember the drugs czar?)

Well if all you're just going to do is take a scatter-gun approach then I'm sure you'll be a while till you run out of subjects to complaint about.
It's a horribly imperfect world out there.

(and let's stick to the facts, 'they' didn't outlaw the ability to discipline......and in any case parenting revolves around a lot more than simply the issue of discipline, whichever method one prefers .

The fact is parents in the UK have not been 'banned' from physically punishing their children anyway.
It is anyone other than a parent that has been banned from beating or hitting children.

For the long-term effects of banning physical punishment we must look to other countries where it has already been banned - but that is another debate.)

The fact remains that obesity is a major problem right now and it's getting worse, particularly amongst children.
Doing nothing is, IMO, not an option.

We as a society have a right to petition our political representatives to act and help us deal with this genuine and serious problem
(and I note that even the tory party have not dismissed this outright - even if they are making their usual 'all things to all men' witterings).

This is a perfectly proper response to a medically informed public demand 'from the ground up', not a 'top-down order' from a 'nanny state'.

As for the cost?
Surely it is better to spend a little now in trying to stop the growth of this issue than be so short-sighted as to wait until we face the far larger 'bill' for tackling the unavoidable and absolutely certain health outcomes if we don't?

I note that you preferred not to comment on this arising out of a clear and deeply obvious need nor that if there is one group that (being failed by wider society) our government has a right to step in and treat as children it is our children.

Either way there will be a cost, the choice 'we' have to make as a society is whether we face and deal with the much lesser cost of prevention rather than the grossly more expensive cost of accommodation, treatment or, if lucky, in some cases maybe even a cure of obesity.

....and as for drugs?
Like many other areas of gov work the spotlight is not on that right now, if it were I'm sure you'd be hearing a lot more about it as the work is on-going.


[edit on 23-8-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

I know how this fitness minister should kick of their career…
I'm not the greatest expert but there's bucket loads of chemical filth that goes into our food: www.vitalearth.org...

What really gets me is cancer causing hydrogenated fat really.
www.vitalearth.org...
www.askdrsears.com...

It’s in nearly everything biscuit, crisp and even cake wise.

You have to ask: “Is it really voluntary that we these “contaminants” (additives)?”
In supermarkets food tends to fall into two categories: natural and processed. Most natural products have pesticides; furthermore nearly everything available comes in limited ranges. We have green and red apples for example but very few people are aware there are seven main types of apples: www.tooter4kids.com...
And over 80 varieties: comevisit.com...

This is just an example; the same is true for virtually every vegetable as well as most types of fruit. Obviously legislating to improve variety would contradict some very sound free market logic; and risk becoming a bit too bureaucratic (think of the waste if people don’t want to buy it?).
Instead: Why not ban buckets loads of chemical food that goes into our food? We then face two options: Ether our taste buds start tell us that something terrible tastes like garbage so people buy other things (hence pushing up variety). Or the processed food (somehow) become healthier and so too does the public (the last is guaranteed).

Of course the main reason this fitness instructor minister would have been appointed is not because the British people are unhealthy but because many are Oh-Beast. So I understand that so far someone might say my beliefs fall out of fitness minister’s area of responsibility. Ok; what about MSG?

Here’s 32 associated side effects www.msgmyth.com...
A bit about it: chinesefood.about.com...

Rest Assured…
There is of course a corporate PR campaign to reassure the public MSG is safe (point 2). www.msgmyth.com...
Here is an example of their public lobbying…
www.msgfacts.com...
www.msg.org.au...
Ah that made me feel better!!! Apparently MSG has been used for about 100 years (though it was only patented in 1908) which of course delays mass production, especially as processed food was barely around even 40 years ago.
But then… I thought of the corporate PR campaign for smoking which was going strong until the lawsuits of the early 90’s. Hay they would even employ scientists to dispute the fact it caused cancer. Does history repeat itself?

Science To The Rescue…
However MSG causes obesity www.msgtruth.org...
Now you would have thought that was kind of obvious because it was a flavour enhancer. However read that link and it may increase appetite by about 40%. It also effects respiration.

The Big Question…
Never mind about hydrogenated c**p; shouldn’t MSG be banned (AT LEAST)? The Oh-Beast people who swamp our streets, and make the crisp sections of our supermarkets smell like urinals are always saying “it’s not their fault” (that they consist of mostly fat). Well with MSG making food addictive, and hydrogenated fat entering the cell membrane where there should be none; maybe some of them have a point?

I have no idea what the special powers this fitness minister will be given. Maybe do an exercise demonstration before PM Q’s?
However she says something about “coordinating strategy across different departments” well you have the health department, and you have acts of parliament, could she; maybe, coordinate that?
I Mean She Should Shouldn’t She ATS?

Because if not it’s a "publicity state" and not a "nanny state" we are really living.
And aren’t nanny’s fine as long as they protect you against big industries?

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]