Denying denial.

Not quite back to full speed but the healing qualities of the fry-up are starting to kick in. Good thing it's not taxed yet.

It won't be long. France now has a 'fat tax' on fizzy drinks which contain no fat. The tax is on the sugar. Oh, but it's just the fizzy drinks, nothing else, It's just a little bit of tax, you'll hardly notice it and it'll never increase, oh, no, and it won't spread to other foods, of course not.

Will it affect how fat people get? Of course not. If it did then the banmeisters' work would be finished and they wouldn't be able to say "It didn't go far enough. Next we have to..."

This is that one smoking carriage on the train. Those seatbelts that had to be fitted but wearing them was optional until every car had them. The first round of the ever-decreasing 'weekly permitted booze allocation'. It's a beginning, it is certainly not an end.

Look at that smoking ban. "Just in enclosed public spaces. We wouldn't extend it to outside, that would be silly".

"Just outside areas where children go."

"Just outside areas where children might go."

"Just outside areas. You're okay to smoke in your car."

"Just in cars with children, just in cars, never in your own home, but maybe in rented accomodation, and maybe we'll make it impossible for you to sell a house if you smoke..."

It never ends. They never stop. Nothing is ever enough. This little tax will grow and spread like ringworm right across the food industry.

I think though, this time, one company has finally worked out how the template functions.

Earlier this year Coca-Cola Enterprises slammed the tax proposal by suspending plans for a 17million euro investment at a plant in the south of France. 

 Not quite the usual roll-over-and-accept-it that the banmeisters are used to. Big Cola are going to be villified for it but I hope they stick to their guns. Even though I never drink the crap they sell, other people still have the right to buy it.

The normal rules apply here. Remember how, if you argued that you smoked because you liked it, you were 'in denial'? The Righteous don't like it therefore nobody could possibly like it therefore smokers only do it because they are addicted.

Then booze. In the habit of having a sherry once a day? You're addicted. Try claiming you just enjoy a sherry once a day and you are 'in denial'.

And now fat. The Righteous say you're fat. If you say you're not, there's nothing wrong with you, guess what? 

You will be told this through a smug grin by politicians, medics and fake-charity workers who are fatter than you because you're buying all their food. They will not realise the irony because these rules are for you, not them.

The worst part of the whole charade is that the Government is itself in denial. Denial that these taxes are for any other reason than to take more money from us. Petrol, booze, tobacco, food, they say they want us to moderate our use but if we all did that, their tax take would plummet. Really, they want the likes of ASH promoting smoking every day, the BMA drawing attention to those burgers and chips we might otherwise have overlooked, the Liver Lot telling us there's no point cutting back on the booze in January because the government needs the duty, and so on. Keep it in the public's mind so when they see it in the shops, they'll try it to see what the fuss is about.

Smoking rates were in decline before the current antsimoker frenzy. The surge in activity wasn't to finish off smoking, which was going out of fashion all on its own, but to boost its appeal.

You'll see occasional stories in the news about marijuana or cocaine or heroin but these are illegal, and attract no tax. You'll find three or four stories a week telling you how rebellious and anti-establishment smoking is and you will note that the term 'legal product' appears in every one. ASH didn't ban tobacco advertising. They took it over. The baccy income was in decline and they had to do something about that.

As with tobacco, petrol and booze, once the food-tax flow starts the government will not want it to stop. If everyone stopped drinking the fizz, the tax would move to crisps (fat and salt, so they're done for anyway) and while there will be fake-charities aplenty to tell us we shouldn't have these things, bans on when and where they can be consumed, plain packaging and warnings and an immense cupboard behind every shop counter with everything in it, nothing that is taxed will be formally banned. We'll just be paying extra tax to fund those who beat us up when we leave the shop.

It's all about keeping the tax flow going to fund the anti-everything brigade.

If they tell you any different, just tell them they're in denial.