« John Reid | Main | Eppur Si Muove »
May 09, 2006
The Problem with Politicians
This is one of the problems with politicians. If you create a new level of them then they’ll insist on finding something to do with their time. Might be useful, but given the paucity of talent available, it probably won’t be:
The Scottish Executive is apparently planning to ban pies and chips from pubs. In future, it seems, Scottish landlords renewing their licences will be required to submit “healthy eating” menus for political approval.
Yup, pub menus to be vetted.
To steal a thought from PJ O’Rourke, at some point we’ll all admit that we’ve got enough government, have enough laws and simply don’t need any more. I’d submit that Scotland has already passed that point?
May 9, 2006 in Health Nazis | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c2d3e53ef00d834be3e9669e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Problem with Politicians:
Comments
But you don't understand... Because of the NHS the state now claims to own your body.
We can't have the workers dying off before they've paid the states pension bill now can we?
Posted by: AntiCitizenOne | May 9, 2006 10:25:10 AM
Reached the limit? Don't you believe it laddie. If the NuLabour project is all about nationalizing the people through social engineering nothing could appeal more to the puckered-bum pursed-lip brigade of disapproving scottish calvanists. Besides who would you vote for if you want less government in scotland? The tories? Puh-lease.
Posted by: Harry Powell | May 9, 2006 10:34:57 AM
It's a symbiotic relationship: the Scots love governing and love being governed - for their own good, of course.
What I'd like to know about is whether the Scottish Executive has any intentions relating to that famous Scottish delicacy, the fried, battered Mars Bar, which, by many reports, some Fish 'n' Chip emporia in Scotland retain as a regular item on their menus.
Posted by: Bob B | May 9, 2006 12:25:29 PM
Ten seconds' research finds that this story is wrong.
From the Herald on Friday: "Although fears have been raised that the move is aimed at banning meals such as pie beans and chips from being served, industry figures have said there are no plans to restrict the type of food pubs can sell."
But that was ten seconds more research than you were willing to do.
You made an easily-avoided mistake because you were sloppy.
Again.
Posted by: ajay | May 9, 2006 3:26:41 PM
So, ajay, you can think of no instance in which a pettifogging little law or directive, introduced with no doubt the best of intentions, has been extended beyond its original remit to cause us all embuggerance and aggravation? What a sweet, touching faith in the beneficence of government you have, and what a thundering lack of any notion of Public Choice Theory, rent-seeking or regulatory capture.
Needless to say, it doesn't seem to occur to you that any regulatory interference in the menu of a private enterprise catering to sovereign individuals (beyond, perhaps, minimalist standards of hygiene) is an imposition that should not even be contemplated.
Posted by: David Gillies | May 9, 2006 6:36:28 PM
But the plans *don't involve* any regulatory interference in the menu. That's Ajay's point, as you'd know if you'd bothered to do ten seconds' research. Or even just read his comment.
Posted by: john b | May 9, 2006 6:38:47 PM
According to this story in the Evening Times http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/hi/news/5051743.html 'owners will be asked to provide "sensible eating' policies as a condition of their licences'. Sounds like interference to me, even if it's not by primary legislation.
Posted by: Harry Powell | May 9, 2006 7:57:05 PM
According to this story in the Evening Times http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/hi/news/5051743.html 'owners will be asked to provide "sensible eating' policies as a condition of their licences'. Sounds like interference to me, even if it's not by primary legislation.
Posted by: Harry Powell | May 9, 2006 7:59:19 PM
But the plans *do involve* regulatory interference in the menu. That's Tim's point, as you'd know if you'd bothered to do ten seconds' research. Or even just read his post. Or the piece in Morning Advertiser. Or think about what "regulatory interference" means.
Posted by: Squander Two | May 10, 2006 9:14:34 AM
Can I point out as well that "industry figures have said there are no plans to restrict the type of food pubs can sell" is essentially meaningless, since it's not industry figures who get to decide this, and it's not industry figures' plans that are being discussed? Industry figures may continue to have no plans to restrict their own menus for many years after the Government have made all pubs salad-only.
In other news, neither Ford nor the RAC have any plans to introduce a national speed limit.
Posted by: Squander Two | May 10, 2006 9:28:46 AM
