Obesity epidemic not helped by supermarket pricing

Whilst getting a cup of coffee at a service station recently during a long drive I was given first hand experience of one of the reasons why we have an obesity epidemic in this country - pricing.

I was at the checkout of a supermarket-owned establishment with my cup of coffee and I thought 'ooh, I'll have a Mars Bar too'. Before I had even put the chocolate bar on the counter the extremely nice lady behind the counter said. 'Honey, they're 69p each but you can get a pack of four over there for just £1.'

I replied, 'Thanks for pointing that out, but if I buy four I'll more than likely eat four.' In a way I felt 'stupid' for turning the offer down and I could hear groans of disbelief from the customers immediately behind me.

From the counter back to the car it got me thinking, how the hell do obese people or say kids for example have the fortitude to turn down these offers? 69p for one or £1 for four is a no-brianer if you're a kid, especially if at the counter the amazing deal is reinforced by the very helpful staff.

And how can supermarkets price one item up for 69p and a four of the same item for £1? In a way they're forcing people, whether they're buying for just themselves, themsleves and their partners or a big family, to buy the four instead of the one. With foods like junk food it should be priced in a similar way to alcohol in that it should be unitised and there should be a minimum price for the unit to stop deals like four for £1.

Is a coincidence that coincidental? The case of the unfavoured Frenchman in New York

I've been thinking a lot about a certain incident that at the time got the alarm bells ringing in my head. I may be a million miles away with my thoughts on this incident but here goes.

Mr X is from Country A, but lives and works in country B.

Country A is lauded as being the 'closest ally' to the world's biggest power Country B by Country B's President himself.

The leader of Country A is concerned of Mr X's potential as an opponent in Country A's next general election.

Not long after announcements of his possible candidacy in Country A's general election Mr X is arrested for rape in Country B.

I do like a good conspiracy and I would glean from this run of events that there is indeed something fishy about the entire situation. Be interesting to see how this thing unfolds.

The Lib Dems secret weapon in the AV debate - Floella Benjamin!!!!

And through the round window......

Once upon a time I signed up to receive Lib Dem updates via email. Not that they've had much to shout about and by chance the email always ends up in my junk folder - think Hotmail is a good judge. So imgaine my suprise when I checked out my junk folder to find their latest bit of AV literature, which starts:

Dear Friend,Today I launched the Liberal Democrats' Yes! To Fairer Votes campaign in Manchester, along with over 100 of our local members and supporters.

We heard speeches from Floella Benjamin, Simon Hughes MP, John Leech MP and Gordon Birtwistle MP on how incredibly important it is that we win the Fairer Votes referendum.

Now I'm not sure who writes these emails (the guys who write Harry Hills' TV Burp?), but if the best they can muster is Floella Benjamin (not that there's anything wrong with the Playschool lovely) then they're in big trouble. Mind you she'll have more to say than the ever wet Simon Hughes, while I struggle to picture John Leech and Gordon Birtwhistle.

The Lib Dems are quickly beginning to become a parody of themselves and I personally am having to remember that we've actually got a coalition government (are you?).

Failed British Diplomacy: would it have been more effective in safari suits?

Is is just me or is the thought of a bunch of SAS and MI6 operatives roaming around your backyard a scary thought? Now, take your backyard to Libya and it is a very threatening thought. These guys are meant to be able to blend into the background but I'm pretty sure they'd stick out like sore thumbs in a country which is basically in the middle of a civil war. It also seems to me that this kind of 'mission' was wholly unnecessary, that's if the initial reason given by the Foreign Office is to be believed. The reason given was they wanted to make contact with those leading the rebel movement, which to me has a certain whiff about it. In today's modern age of social media and amazing telecommunications it seems somewhat barbaric to send our best thugs in there in such a manner.

Next time a situation like this occurs we should, without sounding condescending, send in the safari suits on a camel train to make contact. Picture the signature scene from Lawrence Of Arabia mixed with Death On The Nile and you have and idea of what I'm thinking. Get the likes of James Fox and Maggie Smith on the Foreign Office payroll and send them in. Bloody magic!

'I say old chap................' - far less confrontational.

Found: The Liberal Democrat message

A lot of talk has been of whether or not the Liberal Democrat message has been lost in the melle of the coalition. But fear not, as I have found it! It's been in the JUNK folder in my inbox all this time!

Prisoners' rights to vote - a very touchy subject clouded by compensation culture!

The argument surrounding prisoners' rights to vote has been provoking all manner of disgusted responses from members of the public and politicians alike. Both seem clouded by utter contempt that I think they have lost sight of the bigger picture and although I regard myself as centre-right you might be surprised to hear me say that I think prisoners should have a right to vote (gasp :0).

From an ethical point of view it strikes me as one of the few fundamental human rights that you should be able to affect the political process. Now many have pointed out that certain crimes should do and certain crimes should not entitle someone to vote, but starting to make judgements based on crimes committed is a tricky game. Someone behind bars for a murder committed in one nanosecond of clouded judgement isn't necessarily more evil and less worthy of a vote than say a career conman who has spent his life conning OAPs out of their savings. In my opinion anyone in prison is a 'criminal' and hence entitled to a vote, it just so happens some of them will be a 'criminal' for longer than others. 

This ethical standpoint of the 'criminal' issue also makes sense economically. Once you start saying which 'criminals' can and can't vote then you have to spend money to put the systems in place to make sure it happens.

The issue which probably clouds this debate the most is that if rulings go against the government they could be liable to pay somewhere in the region of £100m in damages. This is the one thing that sticks in my throat as this issue has been created and led by people who I believe are economically motivated and not by prisoners who are deeply concerned about their human rights. In fact I'd go so far as to say I reckon that if you take the money out of this debate that 99% of prisoners couldn't give a shit.This raises two questions which I'll leave you with.

Firstly, if there wasn't the issue of paying these 'criminals' £100m would the government and public line be different? Just say the government said 'OK we believe they should have the vote, which we'll now give them, but we're not paying them the £100m', would the public be more willing to accept this issue?

Secondly, if rulings do go against the government and they have to pay these damages, how many 'criminals' given the choice would opt to forgo the payments in return for a personal apology from the PM? Or just say they were given the theoretical option of 'we'll double the compensation payment you are owed but you have to forgo the right to vote', how many of them would opt to take up the offer? (BTW I reckon it would be a very large percentage.)

Discuss (that means please leave a comment - go on you know you want to ;))

Poll: Why do you think politicians go into politics?

Just put this poll together to see whether my own feelings are echoed by you guys. Should give me some qualitative data to base future posts on.


LOOK LEFT


While you're there why not become a FOLLOWER? Don't worry it's not in some kind of cult way, just means you occasionally find my ramblings entertaining (I did say occasionally). Look into my eyes.............

Is Andy Burnham a robot?

Anyone who missed Andy 'The Robot' Burnham's appearance on Question Time last night missed a gem. Never before have I seen politician so in love with himself, whose demeanor and answers so woodenly overplayed and coached.

Click on the link below to watch again on BBC iPlayer and see if you can hear the voice inside Burnham's head saying 'Andy, you are so da man!' . I .....am.....a......robot.......

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00y9332/Question_Time_03_02_2011/

Petrol: Rewarding consumer loyalty? Or should we subsidise 4x4 ownership?

Why should someone who has to drive 40 miles to work pay the same price for petrol as someone who only does a couple of school runs a few miles down the road? The answer is they shouldn't.

Petrol should be treated any other product and the government like an other consumer good company. Consumer loyalty is a massive thing in the world of supermarkets for example, and this loyalty is rewarded heavily. This should be the case for petrol and the only way that can really be done is through a new pricing model.

In essence, the technology is there to enable authorities to determine an individual's petrol usage. Those who don't use much petrol should pay more per litre than someone who uses a lot of it. Obviously this couldn't be applied to the likes of disabled drivers or those stuck out in the sticks, and no doubt a few more exceptions. That doesn't mean people who drive more pay less than the current price of petrol, just that those who don't use as much should pay more than the current price of petrol.

If maximising tax revenues is the aim of the petrol question then why not subsidise 4x4 ownership? Get more people driving 4x4s and the injection of tax from petrol will rise.

Makes me think that tackling road congestion, for environmental reasons or other, isn't a big issue for this or any government. Just think how much less tax revenue from petrol we'd have if we'd all use 1/2 a litre less petrol per day!

Plan B proving very popular!

Apparentely needed by David Cameron's coalition government. I'm sure the three-time Brit Award nominated rapper/singer will be flattered! Or maybe not.