A Cadbury's Cream Egg question

Here’s a question, perhaps someone out there can answer it? Are Cadbury’s cream eggs getting pointier?

Once upon a time they seem bigger, these days they seem to be shrinking, the circumference at the widest point seems to be much the same, but the pointy end now seems much thinner.

Is this a way of reducing global obesity, or merely a way of ripping off the consumer?

Another ridiculous idea!

So, it’s official, the government are going to tackle the obesity epidemic and are contributing a massive $2 million to the fight. So, what will they spend their money on I hear you say? Surely, lots of public information campaign using the best brains from the media agencies? Maybe a mass education of families to ensure they have access to home prepared, healthier food? How about funding for sports, so people are more active? A crack team of nutrition advisers working with disadvantaged communities?

Wrong, wrong and wrong again! The $2 million is being spent on ‘increasing surgery’ for the morbidly obese. That’s right, a grand total of 300 operations.

Don’t get me wrong, these people deserve treatment, but why not spend the money STOPPING them from eating themselves to death; why not invest in proper education, stop every corner having a McDonald’s, a KFC or similar on it. From my office window I can see the queue at the drive through at 9am, and they are doing a roaring trade every day.

Want to fund these operations – then slap a burger tax on every burger sold – you’ll soon raise $2 million (and then some). It will also act as a deterrent, encouraging people to actually think about what they eat and penalising them for unhealthy choices. The evidence shows that the biggest influence of change in smokers is increased taxation.

The Nanny State?

Who needs remote control
From the Civic Hall
Push a button
Activate
You gotta work an' you're late

The words of Joe Strummer – in a recent blog I considered was NZ too democratic for its own good. Now, having had the chance to reflect on that, the outcomes of the local body elections and the political context of New Zealand (as we seeing Rortney Hide going toe to toe with the Maori Party over access to beaches), it would be good to discuss the concept of the ‘Nanny State’.

Returning to the lyrics of the song above – who exactly needs ‘control’? Do we leave ourselves open to be ‘controlled’, do our ‘leaders’ need to have ‘control’ in order to maintain their status and the general equilibrium of society (NB according to Thatcher there is no such thing as society, yet she was one of the most controlling politicians ever!)

 

There is a very interesting and understandable explanation of how politics became ‘left’ or ‘right’ here. What is less well defined is the concept of ‘nanny state’

It is interesting to see how it has been identified as a force for good; in my musings earlier this week I mentioned obesity, tobacco and other harmful things (gambling springs to mind). Anyway, is a government who has ‘controls’ to prevent harm coming to various members of its population actually a nanny state? Some examples

• Having speed limits on roads
• Increasing taxation on harmful substances
• Preventing children from being smacked
• Banning smoking in public places

All four have been contentious issues in New Zealand, generally within the last Labour led administration, and they are arguably one of the reason Labour were voted out. However, whilst exerting ‘control’ all four do exactly what governments are elected to do – to ensure the safety and well being of the population of the country.

Speed limits are there to ensure safety, reduce accidents, minimise wear and tear on roads and structures. Taxation on say Tobacco products increases revenue to assist in treating the ailments cause by that addiction, but also acts as a barrier to taking up smoking. Harming children is just bad – normalising violence is not good (in any case the right did not really explain what the repeal of section 59 was actually for). Same with banning smoking in bars – in prevents the exposure to smoke for those who want a smoke free environment.

None of these are nanny state. So why are the National government afraid to act on our obesity epidemic, our excessive drinking culture and most importantly, ignoring the evidence that drink driving kills? Thinking back to when I studied social policy, rather than taking a pluralist approach, the current government are only really interested in business; their view is self determination, do what suits you, minimise state intervention.

Looking at the second image all I can say is how irrational is that!! Is it time to tell the world about how irrational behaviour will, in the long run, cost the control more than just dollars and cents?