New Labour Leader

[Nik Vawn 342]

7 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

All a bit nanny state isn’t it? What’s classed as junk food anyway? Takeaways? Crisps? Breakfast cereals that contain too much sugar? I’ll have a wager now this will have absolutely no effect on the nation’s waistline 

Nanny state isn’t always a bad thing. There is no point in trying to fix the NHS if your population, particularly your younger population, continues to get less healthy. As with any health promotion intervention it is always easy to pick holes in the detail, for me it’s not about the detail but about a genuine recognition in government that they need to act to help improve the health of the nation, and good on them.

[sonyc 6,076]

27 minutes ago, Nik Vawn said:

Nanny state isn’t always a bad thing. There is no point in trying to fix the NHS if your population, particularly your younger population, continues to get less healthy. As with any health promotion intervention it is always easy to pick holes in the detail, for me it’s not about the detail but about a genuine recognition in government that they need to act to help improve the health of the nation, and good on them.

Spot on. If you have a thing such as a national health service I've always thought that it must be in the basis of a kind of contract (not a formal one) that if you use a service for free then you give something back by trying to stay as fit as you can, for as long as you can. That means you obtain what your ideal weight should be, body mass and so on (it's all available on the internet) and you try all you can to get to those numbers. Obesity is a significant problem for the NHS because of so many linked conditions. I realise such words make me sound a na zi but I'm often amazed and saddened to see so many younger people very overweight. You can even see it in (our own) extended families.

Look at much video tape footage of the 1970s and even 80's and bigger folk were a rarer sight. We seem to just follow the US in many ways. Fast food must be one factor. Plus, it's a challenge every day not to have stuff because the choice is huge as are the opportunities when out and about. 

Labelling has helped and you can see how just one pizza is so calorific, or most stuff from Greggs (and I would love all that stuff). 

I'm of the view that the so-called nanny state is just a trope used by people who are of the freedom to do what you want brigade. I would like to see more public information films (on all kinds of health issues...they used to do it with Aids and Covid so why not with weight?). I know there's been healthy eating messages for a good few decades but not on the specific focus required. 'You cannot outrun your fork' is one saying that crosses my mind. The messaging ought not to castigate or belittle people but to simply inform so that we all can make a choice - or realise  at least any future consequences. Surely, for an effective NHS we have to play our part?

Anyway, too long a post but the 3 prong strategy (transition to care from hospital, analogue to digital and prevention) seem spot on to me. I realise I sound very right wing in suggesting people have to take responsibility for themselves (a bit like saying folk have to take responsibility to find work and better themselves and not expect the state to pick it all up for you) ...and just get on with it ....might disappoint the left of centre folk in the forum but that is my view I'm afraid. I would even set up get fit camps everywhere. I would also want a nation as fit as possible for any future war if I was in charge of it all! Good health must be part of our culture.

Here endeth the lesson 😏 (and apologies in advance for being so preachy). But maybe there's one or two or might agree with some of the sentiments at least.

 

[PurpleCanary 6,211]

4 hours ago, Herman said:

I was listening to a sensible debate on healthy eating, on LBC, the other day and every ad break featured one or two Macdonalds ads. They don't spend literally billions on advertising for no reason. A good step in the right direction by the government. 

I came across this stat. In the US 30 per cent of all food is either unsold or uneaten.

[A Load of Squit 6,054]

5 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

All a bit nanny state isn’t it? What’s classed as junk food anyway? Takeaways? Crisps? Breakfast cereals that contain too much sugar? I’ll have a wager now this will have absolutely no effect on the nation’s waistline 

No. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Obviously as all those people arriving in small boats are already obese and when they've eaten all of the nations pets they'll be even fatter.

[Herman 10,958]

20 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

I came across this stat. In the US 30 per cent of all food is either unsold or uneaten.

Most of that waste is European tourists overwhelmed by their ridiculous portion sizes. 😁

[Nik Vawn 342]

5 hours ago, Herman said:

Most of that waste is European tourists overwhelmed by their ridiculous portion sizes. 😁

I have long been convinced that some of our American cousins have evolved to develop a reticulum,  a second stomach, which sits below the first and is often seen dangling over the belt area, a sure way to stop anything going to waste.

[Fen Canary 1,383]

20 hours ago, Nik Vawn said:

Nanny state isn’t always a bad thing. There is no point in trying to fix the NHS if your population, particularly your younger population, continues to get less healthy. As with any health promotion intervention it is always easy to pick holes in the detail, for me it’s not about the detail but about a genuine recognition in government that they need to act to help improve the health of the nation, and good on them.

So if in 5 years childhood obesity hasn’t substantially decreased can we accept the law is a failure and repeal it?

[DraytonBoy 231]

Improving the nation's health is the best way to reduce the cost of the NHS but will require a massive culture change. The general public will have to stop eating junk food and exercise more, there is a huge economic price to that and it will take years to have much of an effect yet it's the only way to ensure a functioning and viable health service in the future.

[A Load of Squit 6,054]

3 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

So if in 5 years childhood obesity hasn’t substantially decreased can we accept the law is a failure and repeal it?

Why should it have to have 'substantially decreased', it may take five years just to slow the increase. You are grossly underestimating the scale of the problem, that's been the issue for the last 14 years, just kick the can down the road, someone else can sort out the mess being made. 

[Herman 10,958]

I think the ban on cigarette advertising helped curb the bad habit but it was aided by good health messaging and nagging. It is a useful tool but is part of larger strategy. 

Personally I would ban drive throughs. Or at least start fining some of the companies for the amount of litter that is generated. 

[Fen Canary 1,383]

1 hour ago, A Load of Squit said:

Why should it have to have 'substantially decreased', it may take five years just to slow the increase. You are grossly underestimating the scale of the problem, that's been the issue for the last 14 years, just kick the can down the road, someone else can sort out the mess being made. 

I’m not, but I just think banning the advertising is a completely empty gesture, designed to fool the gullible while achieving absolutely nothing.

There were 12.1 billion High in Fat, Sugar and Salt (HFSS) ad views in 2005. In 2009, after HFSS advertising was banned on children’s television, this fell to 7.7 billion. By 2017, it had fallen to 3.6 billion, of which only 2.6 billion were before 9pm. 

Did rates of obesity among children decline as a result of their exposure to HFSS food advertising falling by more than two-thirds? Of course it didn’t. The only notable consequence of the ban was that Children’s ITV closed down.

We also know it won’t end there. Once this policy proves to be completely ineffective the busybodies will be demanding ever more stringent rules to control how people live. The draconian new laws on smoking are just a foretaste of what’s to come if you give the Puritans any power

[Mello Yello 2,507]

21 hours ago, A Load of Squit said:

No. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Obviously as all those people arriving in small boats are already obese and when they've eaten all of the nations pets they'll be even fatter.

Hot dogs....

[DraytonBoy 231]

1 hour ago, Fen Canary said:

Once this policy proves to be completely ineffective the busybodies will be demanding ever more stringent rules to control how people live

Something has to change, the NHS spends a fair chunk of it's budget treating not curing the effects of obesity and poor diets. A recent study by the University of York has projected that over the next 25 years the NHS will be spending 17% of it's annual budget on treating diabetes and by 2036 nearly 10% of the population will have the disease. If people cannot or will not change their eating habits then the government has to step in to protect the healthcare system as we know it today.

[A Load of Squit 6,054]

2 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

I’m not, but I just think banning the advertising is a completely empty gesture, designed to fool the gullible while achieving absolutely nothing.

There were 12.1 billion High in Fat, Sugar and Salt (HFSS) ad views in 2005. In 2009, after HFSS advertising was banned on children’s television, this fell to 7.7 billion. By 2017, it had fallen to 3.6 billion, of which only 2.6 billion were before 9pm. 

Did rates of obesity among children decline as a result of their exposure to HFSS food advertising falling by more than two-thirds? Of course it didn’t. The only notable consequence of the ban was that Children’s ITV closed down.

We also know it won’t end there. Once this policy proves to be completely ineffective the busybodies will be demanding ever more stringent rules to control how people live. The draconian new laws on smoking are just a foretaste of what’s to come if you give the Puritans any power

 

That's hilarious and it's even funnier that you believe it.

[Nik Vawn 342]

14 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

So if in 5 years childhood obesity hasn’t substantially decreased can we accept the law is a failure and repeal it?

Absolutely not, in those circumstance more draconian measures will be called for in addition, and rightly so!

Edited September 14 by Nik Vawn

[Fen Canary 1,383]

5 hours ago, A Load of Squit said:

That's hilarious and it's even funnier that you believe it.

Why is it? We’ve already seen minimum pricing introduced on alcohol in Scotland (which had no effect on problem drinkers), we’ve got the sugar tax (which has proven to be ineffective) we’ve now got a ban on so called junk food advertising (which will have no effect as I’ve shown above). Ever increasing restrictions and regulations on various treats in life that certain groups seem to be problematic. 

As we see with smoking (which I’ve never done) they never stop until they get things banned, which we’ll now have with the ridiculous laws increasing the age you can buy tobacco each year. The NHS is there to serve us, not the other way around. 

[Fen Canary 1,383]

6 hours ago, DraytonBoy said:

Something has to change, the NHS spends a fair chunk of it's budget treating not curing the effects of obesity and poor diets. A recent study by the University of York has projected that over the next 25 years the NHS will be spending 17% of it's annual budget on treating diabetes and by 2036 nearly 10% of the population will have the disease. If people cannot or will not change their eating habits then the government has to step in to protect the healthcare system as we know it today.

That’s more because of an ageing population though, diabetes increase with age. Unless you’re going to start culling pensioners then it’s something we’ll have to live with. There are going to be some tough choices to be made in regards to the health system in the future, in that it’s going to require ever higher levels of funding or it’s going to have to cut back some services it provides

[A Load of Squit 6,054]

9 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

Why is it? We’ve already seen minimum pricing introduced on alcohol in Scotland (which had no effect on problem drinkers), we’ve got the sugar tax (which has proven to be ineffective) we’ve now got a ban on so called junk food advertising (which will have no effect as I’ve shown above). Ever increasing restrictions and regulations on various treats in life that certain groups seem to be problematic. 

As we see with smoking (which I’ve never done) they never stop until they get things banned, which we’ll now have with the ridiculous laws increasing the age you can buy tobacco each year. The NHS is there to serve us, not the other way around. 

Yes, let's go back to the days when Doctors advertised cigarettes as a cure for asthma, when getting drunk was fun, and obesity was just a bit of a laugh.

They should put the cocaine back in coca-cola. 

P.S. The graduated age laws on tobacco was Rishi's plan, he's not PM anymore, it was in the news, I surprised you missed it.

The bit in bold is just b0ll0cks.

[Fen Canary 1,383]

45 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

Yes, let's go back to the days when Doctors advertised cigarettes as a cure for asthma, when getting drunk was fun, and obesity was just a bit of a laugh.

They should put the cocaine back in coca-cola. 

P.S. The graduated age laws on tobacco was Rishi's plan, he's not PM anymore, it was in the news, I surprised you missed it.

The bit in bold is just b0ll0cks.

Cocaine is illegal, so we can’t put it back into fizzy drinks, and doctors no longer give out fags for asthma because research shows that wouldn’t work, in much the same way we no longer use leeches for numerous ailments so that’s too very weak examples. Getting drunk is also still quite fun, although no doubt that will be next on the chopping block for the public health brigade.

I’m also well aware that the tobacco laws were from Sunak, I fail to see how that is relevant. Starmer has gladly carried it on (plus added a ban on smoking outside seemingly) so he’s apparently even more authoritarian on the matter.

I fail to see how staring the health service is there to serve us rather than the other way around is b0ll0cks. How many millions is spent every weekend treating various sports injuries? In your eyes should we ban football/rugby/netball as they place undue strain on the health service? 

[Aggy 931]

On 13/09/2024 at 08:44, Nik Vawn said:

Nanny state isn’t always a bad thing. There is no point in trying to fix the NHS if your population, particularly your younger population, continues to get less healthy. As with any health promotion intervention it is always easy to pick holes in the detail, for me it’s not about the detail but about a genuine recognition in government that they need to act to help improve the health of the nation, and good on them.

Is it correct that the younger generations are getting less healthy?

More obese than older generations were at their age possibly yes, although I suspect obesity in the middle aged and above is higher than those who are younger. And I would have thought the older generations had (still have?) proportionately a lot more smokers and heavy drinkers.

The biggest “problem” is still that old people keep living longer.
 

[Aggy 931]

On 13/09/2024 at 08:44, Yellow Fever said:

I'd love to add a gambling add ban too!

Perhaps an alcohol ad ban as well?

Taking into account the cost of policing etc as well as the cost to the nhs, alcohol now costs the country about 27bn a year.

https://britishlivertrust.org.uk/27-4-billion-cost-of-alcohol-harm-in-england-every-year/

(And of course obesity - which along with food related health issues cost the nhs slightly more than alcohol related health issues - is not helped by drinking hundreds of extra calories in alcoholic drinks…)

Edited September 14 by Aggy

[Nik Vawn 342]

1 hour ago, Aggy said:

Is it correct that the younger generations are getting less healthy?

More obese than older generations were at their age possibly yes, although I suspect obesity in the middle aged and above is higher than those who are younger. And I would have thought the older generations had (still have?) proportionately a lot more smokers and heavy drinkers.

The biggest “problem” is still that old people keep living longer.
 

My post was not about which problem is biggest, the issue is the health of the nation as whole, all the major issues across the demographics need to be addressed, but this policy is a welcome start.

[Fen Canary 1,383]

It’s just a sop to the gullible to give the appearance of trying to fix a failing healthcare system.

Rather than undertake structural reform, increasing hospital capacity, taking on the BMA to remove the ridiculous cap on training doctors and nurses, improving the failing IT systems, fixing the lack of social care etc they instead trot out meaningless policies such as these

[Herman 10,958]

8 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

It’s just a sop to the gullible to give the appearance of trying to fix a failing healthcare system.

Rather than undertake structural reform, increasing hospital capacity, taking on the BMA to remove the ridiculous cap on training doctors and nurses, improving the failing IT systems, fixing the lack of social care etc they instead trot out meaningless policies such as these

Although he is a marmite politician, Streeting has been talking about the other stuff regularly too. This idea isn't overriding all the other changes that need doing. 

[KiwiScot 1,660]

Ah no matter the goverment the problems soon start adding up.

Pensioners to die after cancellation of WFA.

Labour MP is Slum landlord.

Freed prisoner sexually assaults women on day of release.

England banned if football regulator setup.

Starmer makes late declartion of donations.

She is watching Sir Kier-

Edited September 15 by KiwiScot

[Herman 10,958]

Did anyone make this much of a fuss when they were cutting everyone else's benefits? Or stagnating worker's wages? Or flatlining people's savings? 

[TheGunnShow 7,093]

23 hours ago, DraytonBoy said:

Improving the nation's health is the best way to reduce the cost of the NHS but will require a massive culture change. The general public will have to stop eating junk food and exercise more, there is a huge economic price to that and it will take years to have much of an effect yet it's the only way to ensure a functioning and viable health service in the future.

Exactly this. A much more preventative approach is required, and the UK really does have an obesity problem. Alcohol's correctly getting the spotlight on it, but I'd like to see more focus on these large coffee shop chains and their often ridiculously sugared drinks. Talk about a load of empty calories.

Then again, I don't smoke, have never been drunk in my life and am in the gym on average three or four times a week. I'm hardly super-fit, but compared to far too many my age I seem to be in far better shape - and that's literally due to the three things I mentioned.

[Fen Canary 1,383]

18 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Exactly this. A much more preventative approach is required, and the UK really does have an obesity problem. Alcohol's correctly getting the spotlight on it, but I'd like to see more focus on these large coffee shop chains and their often ridiculously sugared drinks. Talk about a load of empty calories.

Then again, I don't smoke, have never been drunk in my life and am in the gym on average three or four times a week. I'm hardly super-fit, but compared to far too many my age I seem to be in far better shape - and that's literally due to the three things I mentioned.

So you’ll probably end up costing the state much more in the long run than a portly smoker or drinker?

You’ll likely receive many more years of pension payments than them, living to an older age will mean you’re Monteiths likely to develop dementia and other age illnesses that increase substantially in old age, not to mention basic old age care.

In comparison the reprobate will die younger saving pension costs and old age care, and will likely have contributed thousands of pounds extra to the Treasury in the form of alcohol/tobacco duties.

Each to their own but I’d much rather have a few less years but more treats along the way, even if it isn’t exactly good for me.

[TheGunnShow 7,093]

8 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

So you’ll probably end up costing the state much more in the long run than a portly smoker or drinker?

You’ll likely receive many more years of pension payments than them, living to an older age will mean you’re Monteiths likely to develop dementia and other age illnesses that increase substantially in old age, not to mention basic old age care.

In comparison the reprobate will die younger saving pension costs and old age care, and will likely have contributed thousands of pounds extra to the Treasury in the form of alcohol/tobacco duties.

Each to their own but I’d much rather have a few less years but more treats along the way, even if it isn’t exactly good for me.

Or I stay healthier into an old age because I look after myself. How many of those age illnesses are basically down to poor lifestyle decisions over a prolonged period of time? And pension payments are something I've already paid into anyway. They are not a benefit.

Not to mention, the "reprobate" will also cause plenty of healthcare costs through their own bad choices. Far more hospital visits, far more check-ups. They might put more tax/duties in, but as someone pointed out with a link earlier, the costs of alcohol are not remotely outweighed by the additional taxes on it so even if they put twice as much in, they probably take three or four times as much out.

No-one said you can't have more treats along the way. They're just saying that if you're doing that, you're going to have to be responsible for it.

Edited September 15 by TheGunnShow

[DraytonBoy 231]

13 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

That’s more because of an ageing population though, diabetes increase with age. Unless you’re going to start culling pensioners then it’s something we’ll have to live with.

You need to look at the stats, in the year 2022/23 nearly 50% of those diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes were aged between 40 and 64 and there has been a steady increase in those under 18 being affected by the disease over the last 10 years.