A wringing of hands on Newsnight a couple of days ago, as projections are released that show that Britain will be bankrupt by 2040. That’s pretty grim news, but it’s not like being diagnosed with terminal cancer, although all the commentators seemed to think it was. You have to get a grip. Plenty of the workforce of 2040 haven’t even been born yet, so imagining that they won’t be able to do something about the economy looks to me like defeatist rubbish.
It is sad, if not pathetic, that Britain’s leaders have no vision for the future apart from cutting costs. There was much talk of how everyone’s lives are going to be less comfortable in the future. Nigel Lawson (as if we’d be interested in hearing what the ex-flabby chancellor had to say) spoke airily of increasing the retirement age to 70, now that we are all going to live so much longer. Someone ought to tell Nigel that only politicians and journalists are still employable at 70. Try to get a job these days if you are coming up to 50 and you’ll find your CV is quickly filed vertically in the bin. So that really amounts to the government paying more unemployment benefit and less pension. I wonder where the cost saving is in that.
You could, of course, think to yourself that if the country set out to have the best education in the world, fostered entrepreneurship and created the infrastructure that the working population requires, got behind the green economy and stopped exporting all jobs to China and other far away places, the future might look very different. But bean counters always prefer the cost-cutting option because it requires no imagination or creativity. It comes as no surprise that the imagination of professional politicians, who have never done anything much apart from swim in paper, seems stretched if asked to do anything more than create a fatuous soundbite.
There was much lamenting the fact that Britain wouldn’t be able to afford the National Health Service and you can see where this one is heading. Parroting the worn-out mantra that privatisation is the saviour of all aspects of government service, politicians are slowly thinking of dismantling the thing, bit by bit, doctor by doctor. In a decade or two’s time we will be told that it just isn’t possible to maintain it and it will be replaced by some private health insurance scheme.
Governments only have one source of revenue and that’s tax, so if they are strapped for cash, there is only one place to look for it. Recent talk has centred around a possible mansion tax on the buildings of the wealthy, but frankly, that ain’t gonna change the ball game.
I have a much better idea.
If Britain is becoming increasingly obese, and the BBC says that 61% of adults and 31% of children are overweight, then the health costs engendered by fat are rising. Indeed the Beeb quotes “experts” (ah, the famous experts) who think that in 10 to 15 years, 75% of the population will suffer health problems from being overweight.
We could just roll over (ho! ho!) and let it happen, or the government could do something about it. So far, their action has amounted to telling us to eat a balanced diet and getting Jamie Oliver to try and change a few school menus. Result: diddly squat. If the problem is increasing, then their “action” must be having no effect. After all, anyone who has seriously tried to do something about their weight sees results in a few weeks, so you have to think that the nation isn’t collectively doing anything at all about its.
Let me then add my voice to the other two people who are arguing for a fat tax. The idea is laughably simple: put a tax on processed, non-healthy foods. Use the proceeds to fund the NHS. You can’t lose. If it has no effect on behaviour (unlikely) then all the people stuffing their faces with pies, cakes, biscuits, chocolate bars, crisps and Fanta will finance the treatment of the future problems that their over-eating will cause. If they change their behaviour and become thin through avoiding all the heart-clogging goodies, the government may have less of a contribution to the Health Service but will have a lot fewer patients to treat. How can this not be a good plan?
There are those who see this sort of thing as the thin end of the wedge (of pizza). Why should the government meddle in your daily life and influence what you eat? This is a facile piece of non-reasoning. The government already makes it compulsory for you to wear seatbelts and crash helmets for your own good because otherwise you’d be so stupid as not to do so. Alcohol and cigarettes, neither of which do your health any real favours, are taxed. Drugs like weed, speed, ecstasy and cocaine are banned because of the harm they are deemed to cause you.
But drug taking is small beer compared to cakes, it now appears, when it comes to the nation’s health.
You might get the impression that I don’t like cakes, biscuits and crisps. You’d be wrong, though I hardly ever buy any. There are entire supermarket aisles that I just don’t ever visit. I don’t buy them because I know that if I did, I’d get fat, and I’d sooner be a thinnish and marginally frustrated non-cake-eater than a bloated biscuit nibbler.
Whilst I was about it, I’d tax ready meals too, since then the unsatisfying and salt-laden concoctions would become even more exorbitant with the result that the nation might even start cooking again. “Oh I don’t have the time,” people wail. Not strictly true that, is it? People have the time to Twitter incessantly and be on Facebook for hours, but not to chop up an onion. Whereas, if you did chop up a couple of onions and do a wee bit of cooking, you could invite a few Facebook friends around to eat it with you and have a real conversation without saying “lol” once. Hell, you could even laugh and joke without having to type ;)
Maybe the government could go one further and actually subsidise locally grown fresh produce, though it has to be said that parsnips, carrots and cabbages (and onions) don’t actually break the bank. It can’t be a problem of cash anyway. The reason people are fat is that they can afford to be fat. Calories are now cheap. Never have people spent so small a proportion of their income on food and they are still ballooning up.
People also like to indulge the fantasy that their size isn’t their fault. It’s glands, it’s a compensation for being miserable, it’s the pernicious advertising. It would be interesting to see how these excuses would stack up in a world where Coke cost £4 a litre (like beer).
There have been mutterings about a “Fat Tax” but if you call it that, it won’t ever happen. Fat people have a tough time as it is, they say (all 20 million of them) without taxing them into the bargain. So call it the Health Service Levy. But for God’s sake stop wringing your blubbery mitts and actually do something.
I leave you with Ricky Gervais saying what needs to be said.