Of course we need to tackle food poverty - it is an obscenity that a supposedly first-world country has people who cannot afford basic foodstuffs.
But the obesity issue is far more complex and trying to medicate our way out of it isn't just lazy but short-sighted. The real issue is that there is a large swathe of the population who have no understanding of nutrition and who cannot cook. A quick fix solution may be possible - community kitchens where people can be taught how to prepare food, batch-cooking to save on fuel, etc. But we must aim for a long term solution where all of the population is capable of feeding itself in a healthy way. Enriching drug companies is not an acceptable choice.
Whether a Minister should write for the Telegraph is a different question.
On the contrary, it's an entirely related question. The reason for using outlets like the Telegraph is the hope that you'll benefit from their framing. It's of a piece with that Sun article bylined to Starmer talking about 'net zero extremists'.
I can find no fault with that.
It's important to review the entire study; but unless they tackle issues like food poverty it's going to be disciplinary rather than preventative.
Have you read what Streeting wrote? It is literally what a Secretary of State for Health should be saying. It is scientifically sound, it talks about benefits for the individual and value for money for the tax payer. It is a sound public health message. There is literally no stick in there. It is a study into better treatment for obesity. With the rational expectation that healthier people will have fewer sick days and be more likely to be part of the workforce.
Moreover, he also placed it in the context of a broader government strategy on healthy eating, including a ban on junk food advertising.
You said:
And Wes Streeting's [plan] is a plan to get the unemployed moving by giving them weight loss drugs:
That is in no way supported by the piece that he wrote. Nor by the policy he is describing. (I had already heard about the study and Lily's involvement elsewhere).
So is your argument that Streeting must have meant something different to what he actually said because he must have know how the Telegraph would spin it?
I get that you might not trust Steeting (I do not know if I do or not at the moment) but you are either claiming he said something he actually didn't or that in a fit of machiavellian cunning he published a piece in the Telegraph in order that their misrepresentation of what he actually said could convey what he actually means...
Ok, fine. But the actual policy he's advocating and introducing here is consistent with what he said not what the Telegraph reported.
As I said, a deeply distorting lens. OTOH, you have managed to move me from neutral/concerned about what Streeting may have said to totally in favour of what he actually said...
But the obesity issue is far more complex and trying to medicate our way out of it isn't just lazy but short-sighted.
No one is advocating that. But I promise you that there is overwhelming evidence that treating obesity (as opposed to simply being overweight) without medical (or even surgical) treatments simply does not work.
Obviously, if a drug company is providing some money, they are expecting to sell some medicines but obesity care is already a multifaceted, multidisciplinary team approach. What possible objection can there be to a partnership between life sciences and the NHS for an in depth study into maximising care for this condition?
Trauma is also a massive factor in long term obesity, plus genetics explain some of the variability in body weight - it very much not the case that just telling people what they need to do will work.
How you cook is not what gets you overweight, it’s being in a calorie surplus. If it is very hard for you to lose weight for genetic and psychological reasons, making it as easy as possible to generate a calorie deficit (appetite suppression, food options that do not require you to cook from scratch etc) are helpful.
It is a sound public health message. There is literally no stick in there.
Of course there is; you see it in comments like "The NHS can’t be expected to always pick up the tab for unhealthy lifestyles"
Moreover, he also placed it in the context of a broader government strategy on healthy eating, including a ban on junk food advertising.
A big factor in people resorting to pre-packaged food is poverty and relatedly lack of time (often down to poor pay), there is no government strategy to address these things positively.
You said:
And Wes Streeting's [plan] is a plan to get the unemployed moving by giving them weight loss drugs:
That is in no way supported by the piece that he wrote. Nor by the policy he is describing. (I had already heard about the study and Lily's involvement elsewhere).
So is your argument that Streeting must have meant something different to what he actually said because he must have know how the Telegraph would spin it?
No, I expect that he knew the Telegraph would then want comment on his column which gives him the opportunity to trot out the line about the unemployed. Which the PM then re-iterates to the BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjd54zd0ezjo
It is a sound public health message. There is literally no stick in there.
Of course there is; you see it in comments like "The NHS can’t be expected to always pick up the tab for unhealthy lifestyles"
Moreover, he also placed it in the context of a broader government strategy on healthy eating, including a ban on junk food advertising.
A big factor in people resorting to pre-packaged food is poverty and relatedly lack of time (often down to poor pay), there is no government strategy to address these things positively.
You said:
And Wes Streeting's [plan] is a plan to get the unemployed moving by giving them weight loss drugs:
That is in no way supported by the piece that he wrote. Nor by the policy he is describing. (I had already heard about the study and Lily's involvement elsewhere).
So is your argument that Streeting must have meant something different to what he actually said because he must have know how the Telegraph would spin it?
No, I expect that he knew the Telegraph would then want comment on his column which gives him the opportunity to trot out the line about the unemployed. Which the PM then re-iterates to the BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjd54zd0ezjo
Again, you are presenting me with the spin. There is no direct quote in that piece from either Starmer or Streeting referring to the unemployed.
It is true that there are economically inactive people who want to work but can't due to health conditions. What is objectionable about the government helping them to do so?
It's a fact that there are a large number of economically inactive people who are willing to work, and often have important skills to offer an employer, but who are prevented from doing so by ill health. Where access to appropriate medical treatment can improve their health that should be available, especially where that would remove a barrier to entering the work force. That would, of course, require significant investment across the entire health service without neglecting mental health services (because mental health issues are a major issue, which can contribute to other conditions such as obesity).
Quite why that whole area of health care improvements has been condensed down to offering weight loss medication is something I don't understand.
It is a sound public health message. There is literally no stick in there.
Of course there is; you see it in comments like "The NHS can’t be expected to always pick up the tab for unhealthy lifestyles"
Moreover, he also placed it in the context of a broader government strategy on healthy eating, including a ban on junk food advertising.
A big factor in people resorting to pre-packaged food is poverty and relatedly lack of time (often down to poor pay), there is no government strategy to address these things positively.
You said:
And Wes Streeting's [plan] is a plan to get the unemployed moving by giving them weight loss drugs:
That is in no way supported by the piece that he wrote. Nor by the policy he is describing. (I had already heard about the study and Lily's involvement elsewhere).
So is your argument that Streeting must have meant something different to what he actually said because he must have know how the Telegraph would spin it?
No, I expect that he knew the Telegraph would then want comment on his column which gives him the opportunity to trot out the line about the unemployed. Which the PM then re-iterates to the BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjd54zd0ezjo
It is true that there are economically inactive people who want to work but can't due to health conditions. What is objectionable about the government helping them to do so?
If it remains purely voluntaristic there would be nothing wrong with it as long it was accompanied by a number of other measures (of which there is no sign). The indication given is that it won't be, you are welcome to argue that this is purely spin on the part of the Telegraph, Guardian and BBC (although I wonder what your reaction to people expressing that level of scepticism about the media would have been just a few years ago).
It is a sound public health message. There is literally no stick in there.
Of course there is; you see it in comments like "The NHS can’t be expected to always pick up the tab for unhealthy lifestyles"
Moreover, he also placed it in the context of a broader government strategy on healthy eating, including a ban on junk food advertising.
A big factor in people resorting to pre-packaged food is poverty and relatedly lack of time (often down to poor pay), there is no government strategy to address these things positively.
You said:
And Wes Streeting's [plan] is a plan to get the unemployed moving by giving them weight loss drugs:
That is in no way supported by the piece that he wrote. Nor by the policy he is describing. (I had already heard about the study and Lily's involvement elsewhere).
So is your argument that Streeting must have meant something different to what he actually said because he must have know how the Telegraph would spin it?
No, I expect that he knew the Telegraph would then want comment on his column which gives him the opportunity to trot out the line about the unemployed. Which the PM then re-iterates to the BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjd54zd0ezjo
It is true that there are economically inactive people who want to work but can't due to health conditions. What is objectionable about the government helping them to do so?
If it remains purely voluntaristic there would be nothing wrong with it as long it was accompanied by a number of other measures (of which there is no sign). The indication given is that it won't be, you are welcome to argue that this is purely spin on the part of the Telegraph, Guardian and BBC (although I wonder what your reaction to people expressing that level of scepticism about the media would have been just a few years ago).
Obesity is a personal topic for many here, and consequently belongs in Epiphanies. If you wish to keep discussing it, please start a new thread over there, with a suitable OP.
Back to other issues around the Labour government.
...
That would, of course, require significant investment across the entire health service without neglecting mental health services (because mental health issues are a major issue, which can contribute to other conditions such as obesity).
Quite why that whole area of health care improvements has been condensed down to offering weight loss medication is something I don't understand.
I just wanted to pick up on this without running afoul of @la vie en rouge's hostly warning. I am conscious that we are close to other areas that would merit a similar instruction.
The answer to your specific question here Alan is that it hasn't. The reason that Streeting wrote his opinion piece is because of the announcement of the study into obesity treatment 'in the real world' ran by Manchester University and with significant funding from Lilly. It would be unfair to characterise it as condensing anything. It's an announcement about a specific thing. You have probably gathered by now that the thing in question is something I am in favour of. It is good science and may indeed result in better care for people with a specific need.
Now here's an interesting dichotomy. Alan correctly raised the fact that mental health care is a huge issue that keeps people from working. Conversely, much of the criticism aimed at the government is certainly correct in stating that many in-patients are not anywhere near being ready for work and this could easily be further commodification of people and demonising the sick.
So I did some digging. There is not a government Green or White Paper or anything official I could find, so I do not know the details yet. However, I found a little bit more.
Labour’s plan comes as it seeks to cut public spending and boost growth, and follows an NHS pilot scheme through which 40,000 people with mental health problems accessed employment support.
Norman Lamb, the chair of South London and Maudsley NHS foundation trust, told the Times, which first reported the plans, that “every clinical team across the country [should be] thinking employment is a legitimate and important goal of recovery for people”.
Lamb said the scheme was “not about forcing people into employment or doing anything that’s not right for them”, but about “recognising the importance to people of the dignity and self-worth that employment brings”, and in the process reducing “the burden on the NHS”.
We are Work Well
We are a network of nine South London and Maudsley employment support teams that work with Trust service users to help them achieve their career goals.
Research shows that good quality, secure jobs are beneficial to our mental health, while poor work environments and long periods of unemployment can be harmful.
All of that is true. I would particularly like to see their own outcome data on improving health and employment rates. However, they are clear and categorical about confidentiality and the voluntary nature of their services.
Hence, if the Government policy really is about rolling out this service nationally, then I am in favour of it (assuming that they have good audit data to show they are achieving what they are meant to).
Which brings me back to my theme.
I do not know what I think about this government policy. I am definitely against the policy described by The Mirror and others but the evidence I have found thus far suggests what they are describing is not the policy the government are putting forward. Hence I do not trust the media lens being used here. (In this case it's left wing rather than right wing criticism).
The point is that - as noted by the Maudsley team - secure and rewarding employment is really important for mental health and so any serious attempt to treat mental health must be holistic and include such a service. One could argue that this is what the government is proposing nationally and they're being slammed for doing so. (I don't yet know if that's my argument, because I don't have enough information to form a judgment).
As someone who is classed as obese and works on a busy fast moving job where you are on your feet all day never stopping apart from your breaks. I would say using drugs to get people who are unemployed and over weight to get back to work is insulting. It paints over weight people as lazy. Most of us don’t sit around watching day time telly. We work as hard as any thin person who can eat the highest calorie diet and stay thin. I also dance some what and used to be competitive ballroom dancer and taught it for a while. This is fat shaming nothing more nothing less.
If this was Hell there would be some choice words.
Given the Hostly warning, I cannot reply here. If you wish to continue this conversation further, I am happy to do so elsewhere. I understand why you feel strongly.
I will say this though, as I have spelt out above in several detailed posts, you are attacking a Strawman here. Which feeds a broader and important point about the government, relevant to this thread.
I get that many people are disappointed that the government is not more to the left of centre. They are definitely not as left as me. However, attacking false premises helps no one.
Given the Hostly warning, I cannot reply here. If you wish to continue this conversation further, I am happy to do so elsewhere. I understand why you feel strongly.
I will say this though, as I have spelt out above in several detailed posts, you are attacking a Strawman here. Which feeds a broader and important point about the government, relevant to this thread.
I get that many people are disappointed that the government is not more to the left of centre. They are definitely not as left as me. However, attacking false premises helps no one.
AFZ
I think you read a bit much into my last post. Something I can be prone to do myself. I was only talking about the individual idea of giving big people out of work pills to get them to lose weight. I was not talking about the government as a whole. I would react the same way if The Green Party or Lib Dem’s proposed the same thing.
BTW, The Government has appointed David Gauke to do an in-depth review into sentencing guidelines with a particular focus on the potential for using more non-custodial sentences.
This is a first step in the right direction. Only a first step but a really good one. Politically this is risky but it's the right thing to do. I find this deeply encouraging.
BTW, The Government has appointed David Gauke to do an in-depth review into sentencing guidelines with a particular focus on the potential for using more non-custodial sentences.
This is a first step in the right direction. Only a first step but a really good one. Politically this is risky but it's the right thing to do. I find this deeply encouraging.
AFZ
There is certainly a place for non custodial sentences. The problem comes when the offender fails to comply with the sentence.
Officials and industry are concerned that the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority has stopped or slowed deals, denting Britain’s reputation overseas, and making the government appear “anti-tech”.
So basically a pro-big tech/big business agenda.
Ah, the white heat of technology strikes again. Over 60 years of Labouring on.
BTW, The Government has appointed David Gauke to do an in-depth review into sentencing guidelines with a particular focus on the potential for using more non-custodial sentences.
This is a first step in the right direction. Only a first step but a really good one. Politically this is risky but it's the right thing to do. I find this deeply encouraging.
AFZ
There is certainly a place for non custodial sentences. The problem comes when the offender fails to comply with the sentence.
To give custodial sentences by default, even when a non-custodial sentence would be more suitable, because of the chance that the offender won't comply is simply stupid. Yes, if it's a repeat offender who has consistently failed to comply with terms of non-custodial sentences then a custodial sentence may be appropriate. Otherwise, give the non-custodial sentence and only up that to a custodial alternative if they don't comply.
One of the big issues with the system is at the other end, when prisoners are released (usually on parole, without serving their full custodial sentence - which includes the various people released early recently). When people are released from prison they invariably need support, including help to actually comply with the terms of early release (eg: these will often include having a fixed place of residence) and often they'll end up back in prison because of circumstances outwith their control (eg: not being able to find somewhere to live and sleeping on the street or a homeless shelter, or even sofa surfing with mates). That support is especially important where people come out of prison with issues of addiction (where they either became hooked in prison, or were addicted before and not helped off in prison) or issues with mental health (and, prison is not an environment conducive to helping people get well). The prison population is currently larger than it need be because people released are offered practically no support to find housing, a job, kicking a habit or managing their health.
The same lack of support for offenders probably extends to those issued a non-custodial sentence as well, which would contribute to non-compliance with the conditions of those.
Basically, prisons are part of a much larger criminal justice system which needs more than just building new prisons (and, staffing them at least adequately) or issuing more non-custodial sentences to fix. It needs more to be done to address poverty and social disadvantage that contribute to people committing crimes in the first place, support for mental health and addiction services, addressing the quantity and quality of genuinely affordable housing, education etc.
BTW, The Government has appointed David Gauke to do an in-depth review into sentencing guidelines with a particular focus on the potential for using more non-custodial sentences.
This is a first step in the right direction. Only a first step but a really good one. Politically this is risky but it's the right thing to do. I find this deeply encouraging.
AFZ
There is certainly a place for non custodial sentences. The problem comes when the offender fails to comply with the sentence.
To give custodial sentences by default, even when a non-custodial sentence would be more suitable, because of the chance that the offender won't comply is simply stupid.
I agree and that's why I never suggested it.
Yes, if it's a repeat offender who has consistently failed to comply with terms of non-custodial sentences then a custodial sentence may be appropriate. Otherwise, give the non-custodial sentence and only up that to a custodial alternative if they don't comply.
Officials and industry are concerned that the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority has stopped or slowed deals, denting Britain’s reputation overseas, and making the government appear “anti-tech”.
So basically a pro-big tech/big business agenda.
Ah, the white heat of technology strikes again. Over 60 years of Labouring on.
This is entirely focused on reducing legislation, there's very little in the way of actual UK based technology.
Treating people fairly has a cost. Well, of course; people treat others unfairly for profit in the first place.
Both employers and employees should be treated fairly. I accept that everyone should be able to have a normal contract if they want one but I don't agree with everything.
Treating people fairly has a cost. Well, of course; people treat others unfairly for profit in the first place.
Both employers and employees should be treated fairly. I accept that everyone should be able to have a normal contract if they want one but I don't agree with everything.
I thought that this government wanted growth ???
If you read the report properly it says 'upto' and 'likely to be offset' but don't let facts worry you
Treating people fairly has a cost. Well, of course; people treat others unfairly for profit in the first place.
Both employers and employees should be treated fairly. I accept that everyone should be able to have a normal contract if they want one but I don't agree with everything.
I thought that this government wanted growth ???
If you read the report properly it says 'upto' and 'likely to be offset' but don't let facts worry you
Treating people fairly has a cost. Well, of course; people treat others unfairly for profit in the first place.
Both employers and employees should be treated fairly. I accept that everyone should be able to have a normal contract if they want one but I don't agree with everything.
I thought that this government wanted growth ???
If you read the report properly it says 'upto' and 'likely to be offset' but don't let facts worry you
Treating people fairly has a cost. Well, of course; people treat others unfairly for profit in the first place.
Both employers and employees should be treated fairly. I accept that everyone should be able to have a normal contract if they want one but I don't agree with everything.
I thought that this government wanted growth ???
If you read the report properly it says 'upto' and 'likely to be offset' but don't let facts worry you
Which part of my post was inaccurate ?
The implication that this would harm growth.
That was not said in my original post but I do believe that if you discourage employers from taking on new staff, it will not enourage growth.
Treating people fairly has a cost. Well, of course; people treat others unfairly for profit in the first place.
Both employers and employees should be treated fairly. I accept that everyone should be able to have a normal contract if they want one but I don't agree with everything.
I thought that this government wanted growth ???
If you read the report properly it says 'upto' and 'likely to be offset' but don't let facts worry you
Which part of my post was inaccurate ?
The implication that this would harm growth.
It is well known, for example, that the economic multiplier for low-paid workers is greater than 1. Put simply, if you give poor people more money, they spend it, and that spending in turn generates more economic activity.
BTW, The Government has appointed David Gauke to do an in-depth review into sentencing guidelines with a particular focus on the potential for using more non-custodial sentences.
This is a first step in the right direction. Only a first step but a really good one. Politically this is risky but it's the right thing to do. I find this deeply encouraging
AFZ
A bigger step in the right direction would be to look at youth offending, because if you can tackle that successfully then the long-term benefits would lessen the need for prison places in the future.
BTW, The Government has appointed David Gauke to do an in-depth review into sentencing guidelines with a particular focus on the potential for using more non-custodial sentences.
This is a first step in the right direction. Only a first step but a really good one. Politically this is risky but it's the right thing to do. I find this deeply encouraging
AFZ
A bigger step in the right direction would be to look at youth offending, because if you can tackle that successfully then the long-term benefits would lessen the need for prison places in the future.
Bloody hell.
This speaks to the deeper problem so well.
Here is a concrete example of the government adopting a policy approach that is good policy and politically brave. And still there's nit-picking. Where is the celebration of the simple fact that this is a revelation and fantastic change from the just lock 'em up for longer approach that has failed us for a very long time.
As a country we have spent so long stagnating and gong backwards. Realising this, and therefore the distance we have to travel to get anywhere good or sustainable, is making some people panic. Doing anything different from the repressive, hyper-punitive norm we have become accustomed to is also challenging to the authoritarian mindset which has become the accepted norm.
BTW, The Government has appointed David Gauke to do an in-depth review into sentencing guidelines with a particular focus on the potential for using more non-custodial sentences.
This is a first step in the right direction. Only a first step but a really good one. Politically this is risky but it's the right thing to do. I find this deeply encouraging
AFZ
A bigger step in the right direction would be to look at youth offending, because if you can tackle that successfully then the long-term benefits would lessen the need for prison places in the future.
Bloody hell.
This speaks to the deeper problem so well.
Here is a concrete example of the government adopting a policy approach that is good policy and politically brave. And still there's nit-picking. Where is the celebration of the simple fact that this is a revelation and fantastic change from the just lock 'em up for longer approach that has failed us for a very long time.
AFZ
I'm not nit-picking - far from it. I hope Mr Gauke's review will be the first step in a forensic review of all the various types of sentencing and incarceration. As you say, the lock 'em up and throw away the key approach is pointless, as well as expensive, and, frankly an affront to decency.
As a country we have spent so long stagnating and gong backwards.
And a large part of that is going to consist of admitting how much harm both the coalition and 2015 Cameron governments did.
Exactly, which Starmer is unwilling to do because his Centrist instincts loved that government. Or at least, that is my feeling, based on the fact that he now refuses to do anything to undo its legacy so far, or to do anything notably to the left of the previous government.
We will have to see how the employment rights and building standards questions are resolved, and indeed monitor future progress, to see what happens. We can't have client govt, in the pocket of their "hero voters". That's not government - it's perpetual, bullshit electioneering. We had enough of this from Sunak and his predecessors.
We will have to see how the employment rights and building standards questions are resolved, and indeed monitor future progress, to see what happens. We can't have client govt, in the pocket of their "hero voters". That's not government - it's perpetual, bullshit electioneering. We had enough of this from Sunak and his predecessors.
The building standards question remains open but you can read all about the employment rights...
In PMQs today, Ms Raynor was unable to say what a working person was.
Oliver Dowden was effective with that as an opening question.
I thought he was and he didn't want to waste all of his questions trying to get a proper answer.
She was far more comfortable when she could read a prepared answer from her sheet of paper.
Which, in fairness, is what PMQs has long been about - guess what the opposition will ask and give a prepared answer (in some cases regardless of the question). Short-circuiting that piece of theatre with an unexpected question is, I think, a good thing.
In PMQs today, Ms Raynor was unable to say what a working person was.
Oliver Dowden was effective with that as an opening question.
I thought he was and he didn't want to waste all of his questions trying to get a proper answer.
She was far more comfortable when she could read a prepared answer from her sheet of paper.
Which, in fairness, is what PMQs has long been about - guess what the opposition will ask and give a prepared answer (in some cases regardless of the question). Short-circuiting that piece of theatre with an unexpected question is, I think, a good thing.
This - I’d actually go back to a presumption against notes in the chamber, but recognise that privileged people that either really knew what they were talking about and/or could think on their feet. Though I’m not encouraged by the current position where for all we know most members might struggle with either.
"Short-circuiting that piece of theatre with an unexpected question" is a different form of theatre. Questions submitted in advance with prepared answers are very informative, or at least should be. If the purpose is to get answers to questions about what the government position is on an issue, what they're planning to do etc then prepared answers to questions that are known to be coming are good. Written questions with written answers work very well for that as well.
The theatre of just finding our how well a minister can think on their feet, or their ability to fill in time answering a question with meaningless verbiage that sounds good but doesn't answer the question, simply doesn't interest me. Much better for a minister to consult with people who are experts (even if they themselves are expert in their portfolio, it's good to consult) taking their time to give a proper answer to questions than someone who can make things up on the spot so they look good, only to then be held to positions that they hadn't really thought through.
In PMQs today, Ms Raynor was unable to say what a working person was.
Oliver Dowden was effective with that as an opening question.
I thought he was and he didn't want to waste all of his questions trying to get a proper answer.
She was far more comfortable when she could read a prepared answer from her sheet of paper.
Which, in fairness, is what PMQs has long been about - guess what the opposition will ask and give a prepared answer (in some cases regardless of the question). Short-circuiting that piece of theatre with an unexpected question is, I think, a good thing.
This - I’d actually go back to a presumption against notes in the chamber, but recognise that privileged people that either really knew what they were talking about and/or could think on their feet. Though I’m not encouraged by the current position where for all we know most members might struggle with either.
I don't think the clock can be turned back - if you exclude notes it would only be fair to exclude cameras and microphones too. It's not reasonable, or even sensible, to judge either the PM or their deputy on the amount of information they have memorised or the ability to compose definitions on demand. That performance is not a matter of policy or competence, it's a theatrical trick that privileges the wafflers and bullshitters of the world.
Also the Deputy/PM have to be careful when defining things. It becomes a stick to beat them with. Thinking back to the Millennium Dome. The minister at the time did not give definite numbers expected. He did however give a vague number. When the numbers didn’t reach that it was branded as a failure by the press. The current government in opposition used similar tactics too. It is common
In PMQs today, Ms Raynor was unable to say what a working person was.
Oliver Dowden was effective with that as an opening question.
I thought he was and he didn't want to waste all of his questions trying to get a proper answer.
She was far more comfortable when she could read a prepared answer from her sheet of paper.
Which, in fairness, is what PMQs has long been about - guess what the opposition will ask and give a prepared answer (in some cases regardless of the question). Short-circuiting that piece of theatre with an unexpected question is, I think, a good thing.
Defining what a worker is should not have been difficult.
In PMQs today, Ms Raynor was unable to say what a working person was.
Oliver Dowden was effective with that as an opening question.
I thought he was and he didn't want to waste all of his questions trying to get a proper answer.
She was far more comfortable when she could read a prepared answer from her sheet of paper.
Which, in fairness, is what PMQs has long been about - guess what the opposition will ask and give a prepared answer (in some cases regardless of the question). Short-circuiting that piece of theatre with an unexpected question is, I think, a good thing.
Defining what a worker is should not have been difficult.
Defining anything in a way that doesn't immediately invite quibbling and exceptions is difficult, doubly so when it's not the sort of thing you're expecting to be asked to do. Legislation ends up having to use a lot of words to define things that should be straightforward because "straightforward" definitions often lead to perverse results.
You worked as a police officer for many years. I think if you were unexpectedly put on the spot and asked to define a police officer you would struggle, even though you know full well what one is.
Given that it's looking more and more likely that anyone who this government doesn't consider to be a "working person" is going to be hit with tax rises in the budget, I'd say that asking them to explain what they mean by "working person" is perfectly reasonable.
That they're refusing to do so suggests to me that they're trying to work out how far down the salary scales the line has to be placed in order to raise the taxes they want. I fully expect them to come out with "you're not a 'working person' if you have income of more than £Xk a year" in the next few weeks.
You worked as a police officer for many years. I think if you were unexpectedly put on the spot and asked to define a police officer you would struggle, even though you know full well what one is.
When I was at training school we had to learn about 110 legal definitions and be able to quote them. One of them was the definition of a Police officer. I cannot be sure of the exact wording but it something very close to this. A Police officer is a citizen locally appointed but having authority under the Crown for the protection of life and property, maintenance of order, prevention and detection of crime and prosecution of offenders against the peace.
Some time ago the ability to prosecute was given to the CPS
That they're refusing to do so suggests to me that they're trying to work out how far down the salary scales the line has to be placed in order to raise the taxes they want.
All indications are that’s it’s more likely to consist of rises to taxes other than income (ie capital gains and so on)
Sure, and if I wanted to I could pick at that, ask whether power of arrest is inherent to the definition as well, whether PCSOs would actually fall under that definition and so on and so forth. It was a bad example on my part as I wasn't aware there was an official definition given to officers, but I hope you can imagine it would be hard to come up with those words off the cuff.
In PMQs today, Ms Raynor was unable to say what a working person was.
Oliver Dowden was effective with that as an opening question.
I thought he was and he didn't want to waste all of his questions trying to get a proper answer.
She was far more comfortable when she could read a prepared answer from her sheet of paper.
Which, in fairness, is what PMQs has long been about - guess what the opposition will ask and give a prepared answer (in some cases regardless of the question). Short-circuiting that piece of theatre with an unexpected question is, I think, a good thing.
Defining what a worker is should not have been difficult.
Of course it isn't. It's a rhetorical trap. Which is why he asked it.
Comments
But the obesity issue is far more complex and trying to medicate our way out of it isn't just lazy but short-sighted. The real issue is that there is a large swathe of the population who have no understanding of nutrition and who cannot cook. A quick fix solution may be possible - community kitchens where people can be taught how to prepare food, batch-cooking to save on fuel, etc. But we must aim for a long term solution where all of the population is capable of feeding itself in a healthy way. Enriching drug companies is not an acceptable choice.
Have you read what Streeting wrote? It is literally what a Secretary of State for Health should be saying. It is scientifically sound, it talks about benefits for the individual and value for money for the tax payer. It is a sound public health message. There is literally no stick in there. It is a study into better treatment for obesity. With the rational expectation that healthier people will have fewer sick days and be more likely to be part of the workforce.
Moreover, he also placed it in the context of a broader government strategy on healthy eating, including a ban on junk food advertising.
You said:
That is in no way supported by the piece that he wrote. Nor by the policy he is describing. (I had already heard about the study and Lily's involvement elsewhere).
So is your argument that Streeting must have meant something different to what he actually said because he must have know how the Telegraph would spin it?
I get that you might not trust Steeting (I do not know if I do or not at the moment) but you are either claiming he said something he actually didn't or that in a fit of machiavellian cunning he published a piece in the Telegraph in order that their misrepresentation of what he actually said could convey what he actually means...
Ok, fine. But the actual policy he's advocating and introducing here is consistent with what he said not what the Telegraph reported.
As I said, a deeply distorting lens. OTOH, you have managed to move me from neutral/concerned about what Streeting may have said to totally in favour of what he actually said...
No one is advocating that. But I promise you that there is overwhelming evidence that treating obesity (as opposed to simply being overweight) without medical (or even surgical) treatments simply does not work.
Obviously, if a drug company is providing some money, they are expecting to sell some medicines but obesity care is already a multifaceted, multidisciplinary team approach. What possible objection can there be to a partnership between life sciences and the NHS for an in depth study into maximising care for this condition?
This is the University of Manchester's announcement about the study in question:
https://www.manchester.ac.uk/about/news/new-study-to-deepen-understanding-of-a-weight-loss-medication/
AFZ
How you cook is not what gets you overweight, it’s being in a calorie surplus. If it is very hard for you to lose weight for genetic and psychological reasons, making it as easy as possible to generate a calorie deficit (appetite suppression, food options that do not require you to cook from scratch etc) are helpful.
Of course there is; you see it in comments like "The NHS can’t be expected to always pick up the tab for unhealthy lifestyles"
A big factor in people resorting to pre-packaged food is poverty and relatedly lack of time (often down to poor pay), there is no government strategy to address these things positively.
No, I expect that he knew the Telegraph would then want comment on his column which gives him the opportunity to trot out the line about the unemployed. Which the PM then re-iterates to the BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjd54zd0ezjo
Again, you are presenting me with the spin. There is no direct quote in that piece from either Starmer or Streeting referring to the unemployed.
It is true that there are economically inactive people who want to work but can't due to health conditions. What is objectionable about the government helping them to do so?
Quite why that whole area of health care improvements has been condensed down to offering weight loss medication is something I don't understand.
If it remains purely voluntaristic there would be nothing wrong with it as long it was accompanied by a number of other measures (of which there is no sign). The indication given is that it won't be, you are welcome to argue that this is purely spin on the part of the Telegraph, Guardian and BBC (although I wonder what your reaction to people expressing that level of scepticism about the media would have been just a few years ago).
What indications?
Obesity is a personal topic for many here, and consequently belongs in Epiphanies. If you wish to keep discussing it, please start a new thread over there, with a suitable OP.
Back to other issues around the Labour government.
Hostly beret off
la vie en rouge, Purgatory host
I just wanted to pick up on this without running afoul of @la vie en rouge's hostly warning. I am conscious that we are close to other areas that would merit a similar instruction.
The answer to your specific question here Alan is that it hasn't. The reason that Streeting wrote his opinion piece is because of the announcement of the study into obesity treatment 'in the real world' ran by Manchester University and with significant funding from Lilly. It would be unfair to characterise it as condensing anything. It's an announcement about a specific thing. You have probably gathered by now that the thing in question is something I am in favour of. It is good science and may indeed result in better care for people with a specific need.
On the subject of mental health, there is a lot of criticism in the media and on social media about the potential for 'work advisors' to be 'sent to psychiatric hospitals'
for example: The Mirror: DWP to send job coaches to visit 'seriously' ill people on mental health wards.
Now here's an interesting dichotomy. Alan correctly raised the fact that mental health care is a huge issue that keeps people from working. Conversely, much of the criticism aimed at the government is certainly correct in stating that many in-patients are not anywhere near being ready for work and this could easily be further commodification of people and demonising the sick.
So I did some digging. There is not a government Green or White Paper or anything official I could find, so I do not know the details yet. However, I found a little bit more.
Firstly, this piece in the Guardian is very balanced: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/oct/03/job-advisers-nhs-hospitals-long-term-sick-back-to-work
So I went and found the South London and Maudsley NHS Trust site.
Here is the most relevant page: https://slam.nhs.uk/work-well-information-for-service-users
This is from a different page on the website:
All of that is true. I would particularly like to see their own outcome data on improving health and employment rates. However, they are clear and categorical about confidentiality and the voluntary nature of their services.
Hence, if the Government policy really is about rolling out this service nationally, then I am in favour of it (assuming that they have good audit data to show they are achieving what they are meant to).
Which brings me back to my theme.
I do not know what I think about this government policy. I am definitely against the policy described by The Mirror and others but the evidence I have found thus far suggests what they are describing is not the policy the government are putting forward. Hence I do not trust the media lens being used here. (In this case it's left wing rather than right wing criticism).
The point is that - as noted by the Maudsley team - secure and rewarding employment is really important for mental health and so any serious attempt to treat mental health must be holistic and include such a service. One could argue that this is what the government is proposing nationally and they're being slammed for doing so. (I don't yet know if that's my argument, because I don't have enough information to form a judgment).
AFZ
If this was Hell there would be some choice words.
Given the Hostly warning, I cannot reply here. If you wish to continue this conversation further, I am happy to do so elsewhere. I understand why you feel strongly.
I will say this though, as I have spelt out above in several detailed posts, you are attacking a Strawman here. Which feeds a broader and important point about the government, relevant to this thread.
I get that many people are disappointed that the government is not more to the left of centre. They are definitely not as left as me. However, attacking false premises helps no one.
AFZ
I think you read a bit much into my last post. Something I can be prone to do myself. I was only talking about the individual idea of giving big people out of work pills to get them to lose weight. I was not talking about the government as a whole. I would react the same way if The Green Party or Lib Dem’s proposed the same thing.
This is a first step in the right direction. Only a first step but a really good one. Politically this is risky but it's the right thing to do. I find this deeply encouraging.
AFZ
There is certainly a place for non custodial sentences. The problem comes when the offender fails to comply with the sentence.
Ah, the white heat of technology strikes again. Over 60 years of Labouring on.
One of the big issues with the system is at the other end, when prisoners are released (usually on parole, without serving their full custodial sentence - which includes the various people released early recently). When people are released from prison they invariably need support, including help to actually comply with the terms of early release (eg: these will often include having a fixed place of residence) and often they'll end up back in prison because of circumstances outwith their control (eg: not being able to find somewhere to live and sleeping on the street or a homeless shelter, or even sofa surfing with mates). That support is especially important where people come out of prison with issues of addiction (where they either became hooked in prison, or were addicted before and not helped off in prison) or issues with mental health (and, prison is not an environment conducive to helping people get well). The prison population is currently larger than it need be because people released are offered practically no support to find housing, a job, kicking a habit or managing their health.
The same lack of support for offenders probably extends to those issued a non-custodial sentence as well, which would contribute to non-compliance with the conditions of those.
Basically, prisons are part of a much larger criminal justice system which needs more than just building new prisons (and, staffing them at least adequately) or issuing more non-custodial sentences to fix. It needs more to be done to address poverty and social disadvantage that contribute to people committing crimes in the first place, support for mental health and addiction services, addressing the quantity and quality of genuinely affordable housing, education etc.
This is entirely focused on reducing legislation, there's very little in the way of actual UK based technology.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/employment-rights-bill-workers-business-costs-b2632873.html
Treating people fairly has a cost. Well, of course; people treat others unfairly for profit in the first place.
Both employers and employees should be treated fairly. I accept that everyone should be able to have a normal contract if they want one but I don't agree with everything.
I thought that this government wanted growth ???
If you read the report properly it says 'upto' and 'likely to be offset' but don't let facts worry you
Which part of my post was inaccurate ?
The implication that this would harm growth.
That was not said in my original post but I do believe that if you discourage employers from taking on new staff, it will not enourage growth.
It is well known, for example, that the economic multiplier for low-paid workers is greater than 1. Put simply, if you give poor people more money, they spend it, and that spending in turn generates more economic activity.
A bigger step in the right direction would be to look at youth offending, because if you can tackle that successfully then the long-term benefits would lessen the need for prison places in the future.
Bloody hell.
This speaks to the deeper problem so well.
Here is a concrete example of the government adopting a policy approach that is good policy and politically brave. And still there's nit-picking. Where is the celebration of the simple fact that this is a revelation and fantastic change from the just lock 'em up for longer approach that has failed us for a very long time.
AFZ
I'm not nit-picking - far from it. I hope Mr Gauke's review will be the first step in a forensic review of all the various types of sentencing and incarceration. As you say, the lock 'em up and throw away the key approach is pointless, as well as expensive, and, frankly an affront to decency.
And a large part of that is going to consist of admitting how much harm both the coalition and 2015 Cameron governments did.
Exactly, which Starmer is unwilling to do because his Centrist instincts loved that government. Or at least, that is my feeling, based on the fact that he now refuses to do anything to undo its legacy so far, or to do anything notably to the left of the previous government.
We will have to see how the employment rights and building standards questions are resolved, and indeed monitor future progress, to see what happens. We can't have client govt, in the pocket of their "hero voters". That's not government - it's perpetual, bullshit electioneering. We had enough of this from Sunak and his predecessors.
Oliver Dowden was effective with that as an opening question.
The building standards question remains open but you can read all about the employment rights...
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3737
She was far more comfortable when she could read a prepared answer from her sheet of paper.
Which, in fairness, is what PMQs has long been about - guess what the opposition will ask and give a prepared answer (in some cases regardless of the question). Short-circuiting that piece of theatre with an unexpected question is, I think, a good thing.
This - I’d actually go back to a presumption against notes in the chamber, but recognise that privileged people that either really knew what they were talking about and/or could think on their feet. Though I’m not encouraged by the current position where for all we know most members might struggle with either.
The theatre of just finding our how well a minister can think on their feet, or their ability to fill in time answering a question with meaningless verbiage that sounds good but doesn't answer the question, simply doesn't interest me. Much better for a minister to consult with people who are experts (even if they themselves are expert in their portfolio, it's good to consult) taking their time to give a proper answer to questions than someone who can make things up on the spot so they look good, only to then be held to positions that they hadn't really thought through.
I don't think the clock can be turned back - if you exclude notes it would only be fair to exclude cameras and microphones too. It's not reasonable, or even sensible, to judge either the PM or their deputy on the amount of information they have memorised or the ability to compose definitions on demand. That performance is not a matter of policy or competence, it's a theatrical trick that privileges the wafflers and bullshitters of the world.
Defining what a worker is should not have been difficult.
Defining anything in a way that doesn't immediately invite quibbling and exceptions is difficult, doubly so when it's not the sort of thing you're expecting to be asked to do. Legislation ends up having to use a lot of words to define things that should be straightforward because "straightforward" definitions often lead to perverse results.
You worked as a police officer for many years. I think if you were unexpectedly put on the spot and asked to define a police officer you would struggle, even though you know full well what one is.
That they're refusing to do so suggests to me that they're trying to work out how far down the salary scales the line has to be placed in order to raise the taxes they want. I fully expect them to come out with "you're not a 'working person' if you have income of more than £Xk a year" in the next few weeks.
A Police officer is a citizen locally appointed but having authority under the Crown for the protection of life and property, maintenance of order, prevention and detection of crime and prosecution of offenders against the peace.
Some time ago the ability to prosecute was given to the CPS
All indications are that’s it’s more likely to consist of rises to taxes other than income (ie capital gains and so on)
Of course it isn't. It's a rhetorical trap. Which is why he asked it.