As both candidates for the leadership of the Conservative Party, and country, trot around throwing out promises and cash, Boris Johnson has finally come up with a genuinely Conservative policy. He says that he will initiate a review of the so-called 'sin taxes' and launch an assault on the 'nanny state'.
Under successive governments, the state has taken an ever-increasing stranglehold on everyday life. Driven by the fanatics of the health lobby, itself led by the likes of Chief Medical Officer Sally Davies, vacillating Member of Parliament Sarah Wollaston and celebrity chef Jamie Oliver, government has been pressured to increase existing taxes and increase existing ones on a variety of supposedly unhealthy foodstuffs in an effort to 'encourage' us all to change our naughty ways. This is, of course, intended to 'help' us to live better, healthier and longer lives, whether we want to or not.
Undoubtedly, some foods are unhealthy and eating too much of them is bad for us, but is taxation the right way to 'encourage' us to avoid some tid-bits ? The cynics among us might well, and rightly, imagine that a state looking to raise as much money as it can to fritter away on its pet projects will happily tax anything if it can find a reasonable excuse so to do. Dressing such taxation up as being a good thing is simply being deceitful. To me, the whole notion of the state trying to influence my personal choices and behaviour through taxation is wrong.
Of course things that are clearly bad or dangerous should be discouraged, but through education, peer pressure and the instilling of sound values, not by the blunt and frankly disingenuous method of taxation. Things that are seriously bad should either be restricted or banned altogether - personally, I'd have no problem if every KFC, McDonalds, Subway and the rest disappeared overnight; what they produce is unhealthy rubbish that should never have been allowed to infiltrate our shores in the first place.
Where there is too much salt or sugar in food items, the level should be reduced, not allowed IF a suitable level of tax can be levied. How long will it be before the health fanatics decide that 'unhealthy' white bread should be taxed more than 'healthy' brown bread ? How long before sausages are taxed on the basis of the amount of fat they contain ? How long before the culinary delights of pork belly or lamb shoulder are denied to us simply because some official in Whitehall considers them to be 'unhealthy' ?
Where is the justice in this ? There is none, it is simply one small group of fascists telling the rest of us what we can and cannot do because, Nanny-like, they know best, but we must never forget that Nanny has not always been right in the past. There have been many occasions when people have been encouraged to follow guidance issued by experts, only to find that the guidance wasn't so good after all - thalidomide, Librium and Valium, steroids of all sorts, cigarettes (believe it or not !), saccharin and aspartame, artificial sweeteners with chequered histories, and many more.
Even now, there seem to be differing opinions about the efficacy, or otherwise of some alcohol products, particularly red wine. Generally, 'experts' are like economists - you'll get as many opinions from them as there are bodies present.
As a final thought, there is the question of what is better - a long, boring, 'healthy' and ultimately pathetic life, doubly incontinent and receiving constant care, but living to 120, or a shorter, happier one, enjoying some of the naughty pleasures and popping your clogs at 80 ? I know which I choose.
No comments:
Post a Comment