Thursday, 14 January 2010

Tories will change the nanny state...

Oh, no. Someone's having fun!

...for the worse.

The Tory health spokesman, Andy Landy, has decided he wants to change the 'units' on booze to 'centilitres (10 ml) of pure alcohol' because he thinks we are 'all confused by units'.

The plan drew protests from alcohol experts last night, who pointed out that using 'centilitres of pure alcohol' would confuse most drinkers.

Put whatever you want on there. Most of us don't read them at all and those who do, only do so because they're competing to see who can drink the most and you're giving them a handy way to keep score. It doesn't matter what the units are defined as, as long as they can be added up on a scorecard. And you silly sods still don't realise that, do you?

Harmless bit of political stupidity, really. Like putting a coal miner's lung or a set of juvenile sweet-rotted teeth on cigarette packs. Stick what you want on the packs and the bottles. We really don't care. You can stick a photo of Bernard Manning on every pack of burgers and they'll sell just the same. If you really want to stop the sale of something, write 'Government approved' on it.

This is, unfortunately, merely the tip of the heavily submerged Tory nanny-monster that will come to the surface as soon as Smooth Forehead replaces Crinkly Face in number ten. For the Tory nannying machine is only just firing up.


The row eclipsed the unveiling of the party's public health strategy, which was pitched as a war on binge Britain.

They aren't even in power yet and they have declared war on their own people. Not going well, Dave, not well at all.

Mr Lansley confirmed plans to increase taxes on super-strength drinks and said he would if necessary introduce legislation to ban cut-price supermarket deals on alcohol.

The Tories will set State approved pricing structures on private businesses. Are you sure your name is Cameron, Dave? Are you sure it's not Stalin?

He pledged to toughen up the licensing regime to make it easier to close down noisy or irresponsible bars and clubs.

Noisy bars? Where? Nobody will be allowed more than five units a month by the time you've finished. Those bars aren't likely to be noisy. They're more likely to be sullen. And empty. And closed. Good way to support small businesses, Mr. Alleged Tory.

But he rejected calls from the chief medical officer and the Commons health select committee to set a minimum price on all alcohol - claiming it would penalise moderate drinkers.

Oh, a spark of light in the man's brain at last. For now. We all know those medicos love to get their way and they'll make up any old number to do it. This policy will change. Not before the election, mind. The day after.

Mr Lansley's public health strategy also contained plans to tackle obesity by working with fast-food restaurants and bars to publicise calorie contents of their meals, and to reduce the sizes of portions.

The Tories will dictate portion sizes and recipes to private businesses. I have to ask about that name again, Dave. There's also the 'calorie content'. Who remembers when tobacco products had to display 'tar content'? Do you recall where that innocent little label led?

He said he wanted food packaging to show daily guideline amounts of fat, sugar and salt, and called for further restrictions on the marketing of unhealthy foods to children.

The Tories will dictate what food you and your children can and cannot buy. Certain foods will be age restricted and you will have to show ID to get them. You will not be able to buy them when your child is with you in case you're buying them for an under-age Mars bar muncher. They will have guideline daily amounts of food components. Like they now have guideline daily amounts of alcohol. Daily amounts they are to legislate to enforce. See where it's going? It's going in the same direction it always goes. Total control. For no reason other than total control.

There is absolutely nothing Tory in any of this. Where is the 'personal responsibility'? Where is the 'supporting small businesses'? This is pure far-left Brownian extreme socialism. If you vote Tory you might as well vote Labour because this manifesto is exactly the damn same. Whichever one of them gets in, it will make absolutely no difference to the rapid erosion of every right anyone in the country ever held. We will march ever onwards to a country in which every waking act is directed by the State and deviation will be punished.

Now come on, Davidovitch Stalin, you've been rumbled. When did you change your name to Cameron? Your party is about as Tory as Chairman Mao's. Your policies must be making the Brown Gorgon laugh harder than Mandelson's French Tickler. You are proposing things he hasn't managed to get away with himself yet.

The big story for the papers is none of the control freakery above. It's whether boozers should keep score in units or millilitres. That's the big issue here because...

One unit of alcohol is defined as one centilitre of pure alcohol anyway - so all that would change is the name.

Sigh. What's the point? The boozers won't even have to print new scorecards.

They're not finished yet:

Andrew Lansley yesterday promised 'a substantial sum of money' for the best suggestions on ways to tackle obesity, binge drinking, teenage pregnancy and other social problems.

Not content with all the controls they already plan, they want ideas for more. And they'll pay the Righteous for them. With our taxes. Once more, we'll all be paying people to order us around and abuse us if we don't comply with their idea of how we should live our lives.

Don't vote Tory. Please.

Vote Libertarian or UKIP or Independent or anything but don't vote Tory, Labour or Lib Dem.

They all have to go. There is no other way out of this.


John Pickworth said...

"Not content with all the controls they already plan, they want ideas for more. And they'll pay the Righteous for them..."

Its worse than that...

Headline from the Mail: Dying patients are denied drugs but the obese get £425 from the NHS to diet

[Beware: article contains images of fatties]

"The size of the reward grows as the targets become more challenging.

Participants could win £70 if they lose 15lb, a further £90 for losing 30lb and another £265 to shed 50lbs - a total of £425."

I'm going to apply for this. Just hope they don't pay out in coins because I'm not sure my new super slim 6st frame will manage to carry my winnings away.

You gotta laugh though don't you?

Leg-iron said...

I read that one. I'm stuffing myself with burgers and pies so I can qualify for this easy money.

Food bills will be minimal as I head back to normal weight too. If they put me on an NHS diet and provide the food, and pay the money on top - result!

Once I get the money I'll invest in more pies and go round again.

They won't have thought of that, I'll bet.

Their patients already have, though.

subrosa said...

If I'd read this in a novel 10 years ago I would have laughed. It'll come to pass though - just wait.

The Righteous are all lined up to give CallMeDave their advice.

Stewart Cowan said...

As a former alcoholic (never cured, so they say, no matter how many years dry), I am against a minimum price.

In previous harsh winters, I risked hypothermia because the choice was drink or 50p's in the meter.

An untreated alcoholic must drink. At times all I could afford was the strong mind-and-gut-rot white cider. Sometimes even supermarket own-brand whisky and vodka were out of reach a couple of days into a giro.

We have a huge problem with alcohol abuse in this country, but a good place to start dealing with it properly would be for the law to deal appropriately with bad behaviour rather than everyone being spitefully punished with price rises.

Lib/Lab/Con are the same. Rotten to the core.

Leg-iron said...

Subrosa - The Righteous are all lined up to give CallMeDave their advice.

Worse, is that Dai Stalin is planning to pay them for it. He hasn't realised yet that they are all too keen to give that advice for free.

Stewart - the 'problem drinker' these days is the one who drinks more than the randomly-defined approved amounts. Really, the 'problem drinker' should be the one who causes trouble to others but those people are risky to catch. It's easier to go for the soft targets.

So the problem of rowdy violent drunks on Saturday nights will not go away. the problem of the granny who likes a sherry before bedtime will be dealt with instead.

I see you've had a go at Norman Clegg's latest attempt to grab the gay vote - without realising how many religious votes he's just blown. I hope to get to that tomorrow. It's a bit late for another rant tonight.

banned said...

As a formelry active alcoholic I agree with what Stewart Cowan has to say; price has little to do with it and I stopped being active when I decided that I didn't want to be an alcoholic anymore, not because of something that the government said or did.

About a year ago I joked that within my lifetime we would have personal alcohol allowances backed up with all manner of draconian state powers; now it becomes clear that this is likely during the next Parliament as dippy Dave outmanouvres deranged Brown in his control freakery.

Having already decided not to vote tory there is little I can do about this at the polls but at least we will be able to smoke in th new generation of speakeasys and if that means lining the pockets of east European gangsters and drug dealers then so be it.

JuliaM said...

"There is absolutely nothing Tory in any of this. "

Why should there be? There's nothing Tory about the Tory party, any more...

JuliaM said...

"We have a huge problem with alcohol abuse in this country, but a good place to start dealing with it properly would be for the law to deal appropriately with bad behaviour rather than everyone being spitefully punished with price rises."

You know, you could replace the words 'alcohol abuse' and 'price rises' with...well, just about anything, and this sentence would fit most of our problems today, wouldn't it?

Furor Teutonicus said...

I did not realise HOW good it was here.

We do NOT have endless hours of crap on T.V telling the wee bastards to brush their teeth, or learn to swim, or not smoke, or...or....or....

I was here when the wall fell over. Trouble is, I think those that had kept it standing for 40 years were taken on as ministry "officials", and "Government" advisors on the French Islands. (Britain to some), and their instruction manual was written by George Orwell.

Furor Teutonicus said...

JuliaM said...

"We have a huge problem with alcohol abuse in this country, but a good place to start dealing with it properly would be for the law to deal appropriately with bad behaviour rather than everyone being spitefully punished with price rises."

You know, you could replace the words 'alcohol abuse' and 'price rises' with...well, just about anything, and this sentence would fit most of our problems today, wouldn't it?

Aye. But show me the politician that will replace 'alcohol abuse' with "uncontroled immigration, P.C and pathetic twat communist "leaders", and he will get the vote EVERY time.

Furor Teutonicus said...

Oh go on, you can tell US. You are really "Old Holburn" right=?

If not, he has cut and pasted your whole article to his site.

banned said...

FT, Leg_Iron is a guest contributor on OHs site and though I did not se his 'signature' it is obvious who wrote it.

Letters From A Tory said...

Lansley is dead wood and will be kicked out soon after a Conservative government comes in.

He is a truly useless Shadow cabinet member.

Pogo said...

"Centilitres of alcohol"... What a fucking waste of time. As LI so rightly says, the only ones who'll read the "advice" (assuming they're actually 1.capable of reading, and 2.would not be in the position of nat being able to recognise a centilitre if it bit them in the arse) are the ones who're "totting up" to see who can drink the most.

As for the rest of us, I somehow doubt that we'll see much of the "I think I'll give the '82 Chambertin a miss in favour of a bottle of Tesco's Lambrini as it has less units...".

I reckon Cameron is in increasing danger of splitting the Tory vote and letting Labour back in - or at "best" a hung parliament with the Lib Dums holding the balance. I suppose it might be possible that Cameron doesn't want to win the election because of the utterly fucked state of the country he would inherit. He's certainly going about it the right way.

none of the above said...

LIb, Lab, Con, SNP. All wasted votes. All believe in the man made global warming scam, more immigration and the EU.

moriarty said...

Actually, I think that the 'centilitres of pure alcohol' way of measuring is a step forward - after all, it's an undisputable amount for each drink, and not some made-up-number that the health freaks can change at whim.

Although as a weights & measures reactionary I'd introduce 'fluid ounces of pure alcohol', natch.

Furor Teutonicus said...

moriarty said...

Actually, I think that the 'centilitres of pure alcohol' way of measuring is a step forward -

But that is why you have the percentages on the bottles and cans.

This is just ANOTHER politician throwing money to fix something that is not broken.

Anonymous said...

FT - I was starting to think it was just me that could do basic maths!

PT Barnum said...

Wouldn't it be more efficient (and in keeping with our current style of health facism) to fine fat bastards per pound over guidelines? That way they would have less money to spend on food anyway.

In the tax v health costs equation the fat contribute least and cost most. Could it be the preponderence of overweight MPs which is preventing them really going after those who just take up too much damn room?

WV = quitym (no thanks)

Weekend Yachtsman said...

iDave hasn't stopped short of imposing minimum pricing because he's got a grain of truth in his head; he stopped short of it because it's against EU law.

That's the EU law which has been set in stone by the Lisbon treaty - yes the very same one that iDave was going to give us a referendum on, you must remember that cast-iron promise, surely? Do try to keep up.

And thanks to said treaty, EU law takes precedence over our little local rules, so he can't do minimum pricing. Period.

As for centilitres, Jeez. And cl of pure alcohol to boot. Is there anybody who can relate that to anything meaningful? I'm a chemist and I am still trying to work out how many centilitres it takes to get me tired and emotional on a Friday night; let's see, around two bottles of wine, or about 1500ml of wine, and its (say) 13% so that's about - no, no, it's too much arithmetic even when sober. They really have taken leave of their senses, haven't they.

Weekend Yachtsman said...


1500ml of wine at 13% is 19.5 centilitres.

I think. Thank you, Windows Calculator.

Thought it might be 1.95, or maybe 195. God knows what it is in feet and inches.

I'm none the wiser, though; they are still idiots.

John Pickworth said...

Is this is? The Shadow Minister for Quackery has had months, years even, to think up some election winning policy and we get another raft of bannables!

This is week two of the big build-up to election day and both have been enormous fails for the Tory Party.

Come on guys, shape up.

Fausty said...

So many important issues Lansley could have tackled and he chooses these?

He urged Labour to have schools implement a swine flu vaccination programme.

I don't think the 'liberalisation' of Britain is an accident - and neither does Russian defector Golitsyn.

Voting Conservative will be a vote for progress down the road to world communism, via 'harmonisation.

Monckton says so, too.

I hope conservatives wake up and see that voting Conservative is not the same as voting conservative. Most of them are in denial.

Cameron supporters will be as disappointed as Obama supporters, should Cameron win the GE with a large majority.

John Pickworth said...

"Cameron supporters will be as disappointed as Obama supporters, should Cameron win the GE with a large majority."

A sentiment that echoes my own and one which I fear will become all too true post election.

In fairness, Cameron has an unenviable job. It won't be a comfortable time for whomever wins the next GE. Cameron would struggle to match expectation if he tried... the worry, the scarily worrying, concern is that Cameron and his party aren't even attempting to try.

paulo said...

It's no wonder the Tories are tinkering round the edges. Since Lisbon all the real decisions are taken in Brussels. In other words there's nothing for them to do and nobody and I mean nobody (present company excepted) really wants to hear about the financial armageddon that must come.

So la di da, la di lah land continues. A bit of nanny state interference to make it look as if they're doing something.



Leg-iron said...

LFAT - he's doing the damage now. After the election is too late. If these are not Tory policies, then the party needs to make it absolutely clear before they sink in to the voters' heads.

If he's still spouting this stuff on the way to the election, he might as well stamp 'Vote UKIP' on his head.

Young Mr. Brown said...

And now for some humour: a quote from a Conservative Party document (in this case their Schools Policy Paper - Raising the Bar, Closing the Gap.

"Conservatives have always believed that if you trust people, they will tend to do the right thing. That if you give people more responsibility, they will behave more responsibly. That if you give people more power and control over their lives, they will make better decisions than those the state would make on their behalf."

And when you've finished laughing at the fact that David Cameron's Conservative Party can say such things with a straight face, you can then study the grammar of the 'sentences' in what is a document on education policy.

Junican said...

The more one reads about 'obesity epidemics', 'alcohol abuse epidemics', 'smoking related diseases epidemics', 'gobal warming projections' the more one realises that EXAGERATION AND HYSTERIA are the name of the game in today's world.
I have been reading in the Daily Telegraph, the reporting of the first few months of WW2 - how the war was reported, on a day-by-day basis, by the DT at the time. It is noticable how restrained the reporting was; how factual the statements were. Of course, there was an amount of 'feel-good' in the reporting, but no exageration.

One wonders therefore how much this 'alcohol abuse in town centres' is real. A few years ago, I used to go clubbing (by which I mean going to discos until about 2am on Wednesdays, Fridays and Saturdays). Over a period of several years, I could count on one hand the number of fights or disturbances I observed. They were few and far between. The actuality was that almost everyone emerging from clubs at about 2am was 'merry' and amused and went their way troublefree.
The same is true of the so-called obesity epidemic. How many people does one see on the streets who are grossly fat? In my experience, there are very few. I see more grossly obese people in one week in Majorca than I see in the streets of Bolton (Lancs) in a year.
[I have a theory about this Majorca thing. The reason that a few people become grossly obese is that they do not walk about on the streets. Instead, they sit at home, watching TV and stuffing their faces with jam butties. They do this because they do not know what else to do and are intensely unhappy, without realising it. Once a year, they stir themselves to board a plane and go to Majorca and stuff themselves a bit more].
Of course, there is no 'smoking disease related' epidemic.

What I do not understand is why politicians fall for this hysteria. Is it because they like to be seen to be 'doing something' and therefore a vote winning ploy?
Perhaps there ought to be a serious survey of obesity. But, the question arises of what constitutes obesity. Here we go into 'body/mass ratio. But who decides what is a correct body/mass ratio? Which leads one to the thought: Who decided the 'alcohol units per day'? Who was responsible for the definition? Try as I might, I cannot find out. And, who decided on 'five portions (of fruit and veg) per day? Who said so? Who decided? My opinion is that, as carnivors, we can get everything our bodies need (apart from sunshine) from eating meat.

In my opinion, HYSTERIA and EXAGERATION are enemies of the people. HYSTERIA and EXAGERATION enable 'big pharm' to make millions out of us - not because we willingly pay but because our Government pays out of our taxes.

It is so sad that this Conservative Shadow Health Sec (what's his name, Andy Burnham?) has fallen for the Big Con once again.

Furor Teutonicus said...

Fausty said...
He urged Labour to have schools implement a swine flu vaccination programme.

Whilst Germany and France are returning their vaccines to the makers, who, not knowing what to do with them, are selling them to the third world as... (???) na, hair die, or eye shadow, or something.

I thought it was bid flu that was going to kill us all any way....or was that "global warming"?

I dunno. They have tried to scare us with so much that has never matarialised, one looses track.

opinions powered by