The Fecking Naany State

[St.Ricky]

BAZL SAID:

As I said, we tackle it with education and incentives for better eating, not by saying 'we know best, we're going to take all this off you because it's bad for you' That is punishing the many for the acts of the few. Not a majority of people are obese so I don't see how you can deny that. The SNP are pushing a number of unpopular mandates and as can be seen are getting backlash for it. Again I am not saying rightly or wrongly, it is simply fact that some people will associate this to the SNP and use it as a means not to vote for them. You again continue to go on as if I'm defending this viewpoint as my own. Yet again I am simply pointing out this is the wrong way to tackle it because some groups will see it as wrong and it will impact voting. As for Council tax being unpopular, what about the Poll tax? They shifted pretty quickly after that. 

There seem to be a couple of basic points:

1 The SNP is  acting in a politically naive way as you suggest and risk losing some popularity and surrendering control without attaining the outcomes they wish.

Or

2 They are a Party with a Vision for a Healthy, Vibrant, Thriving Country and be considered BRAVE through administering a Tough Love Agenda. 

BRAVE is not a word beloved of politicians as this indicates political risk.

The basic point is that there is no disagreement on the benefits of healthier eating and healthier lifestyles. 

The discussion is on how to bring about the change and the role which government should play.

For myself, I welcome a Bold Approach where Taxes and Subsidies if need be are used alongside education and promotion to bring about lasting change.

 

 

Edited October 5, 2018 by St.Ricky

[bazil85]

1 minute ago, DougJamie said:

Baz I can read......................

The Council Tax is the Poll tax................ It was introduced in 1989. The Tories lost power in 1997 ....

However one thing I do agree with is, the SNP are pushing mandates, and as far as I can see none of them are bad for Scotland. With 63% of the popular vote, the SNPs wont lose power, well not the wee bit of power the 38% Tory Gov allow them to have .

 

You said "This is not an issue on people dying, it's an issue on punishing the many for the actions of the few and that's the way some people will see it, whether you think they're wrong or not. "

Thats what I take issue with, and bud anyone who thinks this, are not socialists, just self serving. Just wait till they need emergency surgery and the hospitals are over run with over eating ailments.

As for Scots, the only bit of truth in Braveheart was that the Scots cant agree on the colour of shite.................... so maybe our Goverment should eh Govern ?

 

The Poll tax was probably the main reason in the change of PM in the 90s after a vote of no confidence. They snuck through the general election in 1992 and lost the next one in 1997. Peoples opinion does impact party popularity. 

The way voting is set up in Scotland they have already lost their majority and are in grave danger of losing even further ground in Scottish government where these policies are being discussed. 

You say you can read but again you go back to it as if I'm making these points. I'm simply pointing out they will be unpopular and I therefore think it's a terrible approach. This has absolutely nothing to do with my opinions on obesity and how we tackle it. I know it's a massive issue and needs treated. I'm saying this isn't the way to treat it because it'll lose them popularity. That's it. To go from that to assume my political views is simply wrong.

If I said 'obesity isn't an issue of people dying' fine go nuts, I'm NOT saying that. I'm saying levies on junk food and banning junk food offers is NOT an issue on people dying. It does NOT tackle the issue for me.  Do you think obese people are going to stop getting Chinese takeaways because of this and start eating carrots? Doubtful 

[bazil85]

9 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:

BAZL SAID:

As I said, we tackle it with education and incentives for better eating, not by saying 'we know best, we're going to take all this off you because it's bad for you' That is punishing the many for the acts of the few. Not a majority of people are obese so I don't see how you can deny that. The SNP are pushing a number of unpopular mandates and as can be seen are getting backlash for it. Again I am not saying rightly or wrongly, it is simply fact that some people will associate this to the SNP and use it as a means not to vote for them. You again continue to go on as if I'm defending this viewpoint as my own. Yet again I am simply pointing out this is the wrong way to tackle it because some groups will see it as wrong and it will impact voting. As for Council tax being unpopular, what about the Poll tax? They shifted pretty quickly after that. 

There seem to be a couple of basic points:

1 The SNP is  acting in a politically naive way as you suggest and risk losing some popularity and surrendering control without attaining the outcomes they wish.

Or

2 They are a Party with a Vision for a Healthy, Vibrant, Thriving Country and be considered BRAVE through administering a Tough Love Agenda. 

BRAVE is not a word beloved of politicians as this indicates political risk.

The basic point is that there is no disagreement on the benefits of healthier eating and healthier lifestyles. 

The discussion is on how to bring about the change and the role which government should play.

For myself, I welcome a Bold Approach where Taxes and Subsidies if need be are used alongside education and promotion to bring about lasting change.

 

 

My whole point is you'll have a group of people that see it as your point 2... But you'll also get people that see it as point 1. 

The issue the SNP will face is, both viewpoints get the same right to vote. 

[St.Ricky]

1 minute ago, bazil85 said:

My whole point is you'll have a group of people that see it as your point 2... But you'll also get people that see it as point 1. 

The issue the SNP will face is, both viewpoints get the same right to vote. 

Exactly BAZL....Which is what makes it Politically a Very Brave thing to do.

[bazil85]

Just now, St.Ricky said:

Exactly BAZL....Which is what makes it Politically a Very Brave thing to do.

Or... very stupid 

[St.Ricky]

1 minute ago, bazil85 said:

Or... very stupid 

Alternative words for BRAVE in this sense might be naive, stupid, suicidal. They are certainly higher risk strategies when combined with education.

But I admire the commitment to the greater good...not everyone will agree whether or not they support the SNP as a party.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

My opinion is people will find this approach unpopular and unpopularity contributes to a loss in votes for a party. I take that opinion because of many threads like this and conversations on social media. Maybe you disagree in the correlation between both, that's up to you 
I'm not sure what evidence you're using for minimum pricing on alcohol being all positive. I certainly don't think it is and I specifically know people that won't vote SNP again because of that stupid law. It's another point on nanny state laws and one again that punishes the many (and only Scottish) because of the few. Regarding drugs, that's very generic. Although there is an argument for legalising drugs, I'm not opening up that can of worms. 
I think you are kind of getting that I'm making general points now but the last point on it just being about prawn crackers makes me doubt that [emoji38]

I was against minimum pricing for alcohol, however expert study suggests its a good thing and since its introduction there has been positive feedback.
Some people may be so against it that they refuse to vote for the party that introduced it, however they are definitely in the minority.
I think there are a lot of parallels with that and the proposed obesity junk food plan however I suspect there would be more backlash with this which was what my point regarding prawn crackers was alluding to.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

I don't know that I would agree with that 100% , Tony. I think there is the convenience of junk food as it is far easier to stick a pie in the oven than prepare a meal from scratch . Certainly , places like McD*nalds are fairly cheap but it is arguable whether that stuff is even food. Traditionally , Scots don't eat a lot of fruit and veg and possibly people aren't aware of recipes for healthy eating and it is definitely less time consuming to stick a ready meal (that might be full of chemicals) in a microwave than work out what you are going to make , make it and then cook it in a conventional oven .

Yes convenience certainly a factor as well.

[St.Ricky]

5 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

29 minutes ago, saintnextlifetime said:

I don't know that I would agree with that 100% , Tony. I think there is the convenience of junk food as it is far easier to stick a pie in the oven than prepare a meal from scratch . Certainly , places like McD*nalds are fairly cheap but it is arguable whether that stuff is even food. Traditionally , Scots don't eat a lot of fruit and veg and possibly people aren't aware of recipes for healthy eating and it is definitely less time consuming to stick a ready meal (that might be full of chemicals) in a microwave than work out what you are going to make , make it and then cook it in a conventional oven .

Yes convenience certainly a factor as well.

Illness and early death are inconvenient.

But .. I take your point.

[saintnextlifetime]

5 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:

Illness and early death are inconvenient.

But .. I take your point.

Yeah but many young people either think they are invincible or don't give a f**k , and when it comes down to top Sky pakage or eating properly which one do you think wins. .

 

But .. I take your point.

[DougJamie]

37 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

 Do you think obese people are going to stop getting Chinese takeaways because of this and start eating carrots? Doubtful 

No- However they will be a tremendous strain on public resources and eventually very heavy coffins

[bazil85]

18 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

I was against minimum pricing for alcohol, however expert study suggests its a good thing and since its introduction there has been positive feedback.
Some people may be so against it that they refuse to vote for the party that introduced it, however they are definitely in the minority.
I think there are a lot of parallels with that and the proposed obesity junk food plan however I suspect there would be more backlash with this which was what my point regarding prawn crackers was alluding to.

There has also been a lot of negative feedback and it will have cost them votes. Might of gained some as well but I would be surprised if it gained them more from say unionist parties than they lost. When you break it down, it's a law that disadvantages and even to an extent criminalises Scottish people in consumption of alcohol. I've never seen an impartial study suggesting charging more money to Scottish people than the rest of the Uk for products is a good thing either TBH. I've also seen no hint that it's tackled any alcohol problems.  

I personally am dead against the alcohol pricing and some of these other nanny state laws. It puts me in a difficult position. I believe the Scottish people are entitled to another independence referendum (not sure how exactly I would vote due to all the nonsense right now around Brexit but that's another story) due to the lies that surrounded the last one but I am very against so much else the SNP are doing. 

Rest assured if we get Indyref2 before the next GE, SNP will never see another vote from me again (and I have always voted for them) and I know I'm not the only one. If it's likely we would get one after the next GE then that's the only situation I would vote for them again. Should Scotland end up independent, I will also never vote SNP again. 

As for saying this is a minority view, it might be but SNP are wagering it's a minority that won't impact their number of seats. We've seen the potential for this not to be true in last years GE. 

[bazil85]

Just now, DougJamie said:

No- However they will be a tremendous strain on public resources and eventually very heavy coffins

They will be indeed, regardless if they get prawn crackers with their chicken balls or not... Very heavy coffins = some good weight training at funerals. Every cloud and all that.

[St.Ricky]

3 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

There has also been a lot of negative feedback and it will have cost them votes. Might of gained some as well but I would be surprised if it gained them more from say unionist parties than they lost. When you break it down, it's a law that disadvantages and even to an extent criminalises Scottish people in consumption of alcohol. I've never seen an impartial study suggesting charging more money to Scottish people than the rest of the Uk for products is a good thing either TBH. I've also seen no hint that it's tackled any alcohol problems.  

I personally am dead against the alcohol pricing and some of these other nanny state laws. It puts me in a difficult position. I believe the Scottish people are entitled to another independence referendum (not sure how exactly I would vote due to all the nonsense right now around Brexit but that's another story) due to the lies that surrounded the last one but I am very against so much else the SNP are doing. 

Rest assured if we get Indyref2 before the next GE, SNP will never see another vote from me again (and I have always voted for them) and I know I'm not the only one. If it's likely we would get one after the next GE then that's the only situation I would vote for them again. Should Scotland end up independent, I will also never vote SNP again. 

As for saying this is a minority view, it might be but SNP are wagering it's a minority that won't impact their number of seats. We've seen the potential for this not to be true in last years GE. 

Again - Very Brave - Few Parties would take the risk. i commend them

[Guest TPAFKATS]

There has also been a lot of negative feedback and it will have cost them votes. Might of gained some as well but I would be surprised if it gained them more from say unionist parties than they lost. When you break it down, it's a law that disadvantages and even to an extent criminalises Scottish people in consumption of alcohol. I've never seen an impartial study suggesting charging more money to Scottish people than the rest of the Uk for products is a good thing either TBH. I've also seen no hint that it's tackled any alcohol problems.  
I personally am dead against the alcohol pricing and some of these other nanny state laws. It puts me in a difficult position. I believe the Scottish people are entitled to another independence referendum (not sure how exactly I would vote due to all the nonsense right now around Brexit but that's another story) due to the lies that surrounded the last one but I am very against so much else the SNP are doing. 
Rest assured if we get Indyref2 before the next GE, SNP will never see another vote from me again (and I have always voted for them) and I know I'm not the only one. If it's likely we would get one after the next GE then that's the only situation I would vote for them again. Should Scotland end up independent, I will also never vote SNP again. 
As for saying this is a minority view, it might be but SNP are wagering it's a minority that won't impact their number of seats. We've seen the potential for this not to be true in last years GE. 

The negative feedback has been from the Scotch Whisky Association and individual consumers who liked paying 3 quid for a bottle of wine and getting multipacks of beer for less than 50p a can.
All feedback from medical profession, those who work in addiction services and other experts suggests its positive initiative and will reduce alcohol related health issues.
I would expect similar views in relation to any food 'tax' just as there was with the sugar tax on soft drinks.

Bigger issue though is the growing number of poor people who can't afford to spend any more money on food.

[bazil85]

4 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:

Again - Very Brave - Few Parties would take the risk. i commend them

There's a thin line between brave and stupid unfortunately.

I think they're doing such unnecessarily as the outcomes they may want to achieve will 1. not likely be achieved by this means. They aren't tackling the route cause of the problem, they're just punishing people for the way they want to live their life and in turn increasing tax income 2. If current trends continue they won't be in power long enough to actually implement anything that will cause REAL change. 

Nothing brave or commendable in this approach IMO> 

[St.Ricky]

2 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

There's a thin line between brave and stupid unfortunately.

I think they're doing such unnecessarily as the outcomes they may want to achieve will 1. not likely be achieved by this means. They aren't tackling the route cause of the problem, they're just punishing people for the way they want to live their life and in turn increasing tax income 2. If current trends continue they won't be in power long enough to actually implement anything that will cause REAL change. 

Nothing brave or commendable in this approach IMO> 

Content to disagree with you.

A whole range of measures are needed and planned including education.

Brave - Not Stupid - But - Time Will Tell

[bazil85]

2 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

The negative feedback has been from the Scotch Whisky Association and individual consumers who liked paying 3 quid for a bottle of wine and getting multipacks of beer for less than 50p a can.
All feedback from medical profession, those who work in addiction services and other experts suggests its positive initiative and will reduce alcohol related health issues.
I would expect similar views in relation to any food 'tax' just as there was with the sugar tax on soft drinks.

Bigger issue though is the growing number of poor people who can't afford to spend any more money on food.

The individual consumers all get a vote in the next GE and SE. 

Medical experts have been able to put out positive feedback? I'm assuming this isn't backed with statistics or facts though, how could it possibly be in such a short period of time after implementation? Did the Monday after see a big drop in AA meeting attendance numbers? Drop in A&E numbers on Saturday nights in Glasgow? Drop in obesity, cancer, heart and liver conditions linked to alcohol right away? No. All 'positive feedback at this time is purely speculation.

The alcohol tax without any foundation is not going to stop Joe Bloggs getting hammered at the weekend as he always has. And there actually is specific research that has shown as a country we aren't doing enough in the education of alcohol abuse. A recent one for example showed that over 50% of tested alcoholic drink labels did not contain up to date health warnings on alcohol consumption. 

Yep and poor people and alcohol abuse are linked. Putting up prices is that likely for the poor to go 'Oh I'll just stop drinking all together' or more likely to result in even less money for food... Food that will likely be getting more expensive as well with the nanny state laws on junk food which is also linked to low income. All this stuff without education is simply the SNP squeezing the most vulnerable for more money. Very socialist party indeed... 

[bazil85]

3 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:

Content to disagree with you.

A whole range of measures are needed and planned including education.

Brave - Not Stupid - But - Time Will Tell

Planned but not implemented, as I've just said on my last post. Making things the poorest use in their everyday life more expensive without a long-term, ongoing education plan before hand only causes more hardship, less money for them, more tax income for the government and individuals to lose faith in SNP as we've seen to the tune of 13% between 2015 & 2017 

[St.Ricky]

1 minute ago, bazil85 said:

The individual consumers all get a vote in the next GE and SE. 

Medical experts have been able to put out positive feedback? I'm assuming this isn't backed with statistics or facts though, how could it possibly be in such a short period of time after implementation? Did the Monday after see a big drop in AA meeting attendance numbers? Drop in A&E numbers on Saturday nights in Glasgow? Drop in obesity, cancer, heart and liver conditions linked to alcohol right away? No. All 'positive feedback at this time is purely speculation.

The alcohol tax without any foundation is not going to stop Joe Bloggs getting hammered at the weekend as he always has. And there actually is specific research that has shown as a country we aren't doing enough in the education of alcohol abuse. A recent one for example showed that over 50% of tested alcoholic drink labels did not contain up to date health warnings on alcohol consumption. 

Yep and poor people and alcohol abuse are linked. Putting up prices is that likely for the poor to go 'Oh I'll just stop drinking all together' or more likely to result in even less money for food... Food that will likely be getting more expensive as well with the nanny state laws on junk food which is also linked to low income. All this stuff without education is simply the SNP squeezing the most vulnerable for more money. Very socialist party indeed... 

Why pick on Joe Bloggs?

[St.Ricky]

1 minute ago, bazil85 said:

Planned but not implemented, as I've just said on my last post. Making things the poorest use in their everyday life more expensive without a long-term, ongoing education plan before hand only causes more hardship, less money for them, more tax income for the government and individuals to lose faith in SNP as we've seen to the tune of 13% between 2015 & 2017 

You appear to be conflating issues whilst singling this policy out.

 

[bazil85]

Just now, St.Ricky said:

You appear to be conflating issues whilst singling this policy out.

 

This policy is the one the thread is about. For me it links into other nanny state laws as well, everything from alcohol pricing to smacking kids. 

[St.Ricky]

4 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

This policy is the one the thread is about. For me it links into other nanny state laws as well, everything from alcohol pricing to smacking kids. 

The discussion was focussed on healthy living but hey thats ok.

Meanwhile its a bit like trying to nail jelly to the ceiling.

[bazil85]

Just now, St.Ricky said:

The discussion was focussed on healthy living but hey thats ok.

Meanwhile its a bit like trying to nail jelly to the ceiling.

Absolutely, I'm not trying to change your views, simply giving mine. My overarching point is whether people think it' justifiable or not, groups of people WILL see this as nanny state and it WILL be used as a reason not to vote for SNP in the future. 

As honest as their intentions are (for me I highly doubt they are for good, it's to raise tax income from the most needy in our society but like I say that's my view) they're still opening themselves up to potentially losing a lot of support from the working class, some of who have supported them religiously. 

I could be wrong but I'm certainly one voter they have lost and from social media and my friends circle, I ain't the only one 

[St.Ricky]

1 minute ago, bazil85 said:

Absolutely, I'm not trying to change your views, simply giving mine. My overarching point is whether people think it' justifiable or not, groups of people WILL see this as nanny state and it WILL be used as a reason not to vote for SNP in the future. 

As honest as their intentions are (for me I highly doubt they are for good, it's to raise tax income from the most needy in our society but like I say that's my view) they're still opening themselves up to potentially losing a lot of support from the working class, some of who have supported them religiously. 

I could be wrong but I'm certainly one voter they have lost and from social media and my friends circle, I ain't the only one 

But -- They will also have gained others. Thats politics - Real Politics if you like.

Great to exchange thoughts