# Liz Truss could scrap anti-obesity strategy in drive to cut red tape



## Northerner (Sep 14, 2022)

The UK government could scrap its entire anti-obesity strategy after ministers ordered an official review of measures designed to deter people from eating junk food, the Guardian can reveal.

The review could pave the way for Liz Truss to lift the ban on sugary products being displayed at checkouts as well as “buy one get one free” multi-buy deals in shops. The restrictions on advertising certain products on TV before the 9pm watershed could also be ditched.

The review – which was ordered by the Treasury – is seen as part of the prime minister’s drive to cut burdens on business and help consumers through the cost of living crisis.

Whitehall sources said the review was “deregulatory in focus” and is expected to lead to the new government jettisoning a raft of anti-obesity policies inherited from Boris Johnson, Truss’s predecessor in Downing Street.









						Liz Truss could scrap anti-obesity strategy in drive to cut red tape
					

Exclusive: Health officials ‘aghast’ as review launched of measures to deter people from eating junk food




					www.theguardian.com
				




Whilst it was a pretty toothless strategy, I'm wondering if this paves the way for a more wide-ranging scrapping of standards and protections - and chlorinated chicken will soon be hitting the shelves


----------



## Drummer (Sep 14, 2022)

Maybe - just maybe - there is growing realisation that the advice to reduce sugar is not going to help in any way. 
It has always been ineffectual, but it was always the patient's fault for doing it wrong and putting on weight eating all those 'healthy' starchy foods.


----------



## MikeyBikey (Sep 14, 2022)

Probably because her obese friend now heads up Health! It took decades for the message about smoking to get through so we should not give up. Anyway Truss only wants the money to pay for tax cuts for the rich. Don't Trust Truss!


----------



## mikeyB (Sep 14, 2022)

I fail to see how this will help either business or the people who are struggling in the heat or eat. Will Coke return to the high sugar recipe? That will cost them money to reset their production. It makes no difference to whether supermarkets put their displays of sweets at the checkout or in the shop. Bogof offers only help those with storage space or freezers.

And the ban of advertising junk food before 9.00pm will only benefit the producers of that food, and have not a trace of benefit for parents with demanding kids.

If Northerner thought was a toothless policy, just wait till they start banning holiday pay, maternity pay, and all those things that cost business money.


----------



## travellor (Sep 14, 2022)

Bogoff offers only help those that have enough spare cash to buy the large pack, or buy the two to get the third one free.
It's a completely unfair system, whereas a price reduction would benefit everyone equally, not just the ones that least need it.

But not on sweets for anyone.
The reintroduction of a wholesale push for sugar may well end up as a "toothless" policy indeed.


----------



## Northerner (Sep 15, 2022)

mikeyB said:


> If Northerner thought was a toothless policy, just wait till they start banning holiday pay, maternity pay, and all those things that cost business money.


'Toothless' because Johnson only implemented one of the recommendations from his strategy  I agree with everything you say, she has already stated a desire to clamp down on worker's rights and union power  The example from the past 30 years is clear - we are considered a 'wealthy' or 'strong' economy, but all that 'strength' accrues to the already wealthy, and increasingly so. Growth and GDP cannot be the only measure of a country's wealth when there are such huge inequalities  Has Truss been asleep all these years? Trickle-don has blatantly failed the majority of people


----------



## nonethewiser (Sep 15, 2022)

Was there evidence that those measures worked anyway, regardless if sweets are at checkout or in aisle people will buy it if they want some.


----------



## travellor (Sep 15, 2022)

nonethewiser said:


> Was there evidence that those measures worked anyway, regardless if sweets are at checkout or in aisle people will buy it if they want some.



Checkout worked for me. 
I never went down the sweet aisle.
I definitely bought on impulse waiting to be scanned though.
Same with the kids.
All pre agreed treats suddenly grow arms and legs when confronted by the display in the queue.
Very bad move.


----------



## nonethewiser (Sep 16, 2022)

travellor said:


> Checkout worked for me.
> I never went down the sweet aisle.
> I definitely bought on impulse waiting to be scanned though.
> Same with the kids.
> ...



More widescale than individual accounts.

Personally if I want something it makes no difference where item is in store, maybe impulse buyers benefit from it not being at checkouts.


----------



## travellor (Sep 16, 2022)

nonethewiser said:


> More widescale than individual accounts.
> 
> Personally if I want something it makes no difference where item is in store, maybe impulse buyers benefit from it not being at checkouts.



I agree, it makes no difference if I want it.
But I defy anyone to say they never came out with something that wasn't on their list.
Be it a reduced yellow label, a bogof, or even something they forgot to put on in the first place


----------



## MikeyBikey (Sep 16, 2022)

Truss is worrying! Now she wants to scrap the cap on bankers' bonuses, the very people that caused the 2008 collapse and years of unnecessary austerity. Let's think more about getting manufacturing on the up instead of importing carp from China!


----------



## Northerner (Sep 17, 2022)

MikeyBikey said:


> Truss is worrying! Now she wants to scrap the cap on bankers' bonuses, the very people that caused the 2008 collapse and years of unnecessary austerity. Let's think more about getting manufacturing on the up instead of importing carp from China!


All part of 'growth at all costs'. She wants to claim that we have a high-growth economy, but if that ignores the fact that most people are not benefitting from that growth, then it is going to be meaningless to most people - other than the fact that we'll all see the obscenely rich getting even richer. In my opinion the Tories have spent the past 40 years degrading the country, destroying manufacturing, diminishing worker's rights, selling off publicly-owned assets, cutting public services, starving the NHS and education of funding, with Brexit being the latest hammer blow. This will be the endgame - a low-wage, low standards, low status economy, that is insular rather than global in outlook


----------



## Abi (Sep 17, 2022)

Welcome to the 51st state of the USA. 
They say when America sneezes, Britain catches a cold...


----------



## MikeyBikey (Sep 17, 2022)

Another one for Truss to explain how this came about and fix for her mini (make the rich richer) budget!


----------



## mikeyB (Sep 17, 2022)

And as the power companies are foreign owned, they see the UK as a soft touch for raising their prices up as high as they like, because they know that the price cap won't affect them. Our current PM will ensure that they receive the difference out of taxpayers money, and their profits will be guaranteed.

That means we are paying shareholders in France out of our tax. Or now that EDF is government owned, we are paying French tax.


The sooner we get the energy companies nationalised the better, and, of course, water as well. In Scotland water has never been privatised. It's too valuable to be subject to private business. When we lived on the Isle of Mull water and sewage charges were included in the council tax, as they are all over Scotland. That's why there are no tales of leaking pipes in Scotland. The councils are responsible for decent supplies to their citizens.

Since privatisation of water companies in England no new reservoirs have been built to supply its increasing population. They don't need any new reservoirs in Scotland, nature does that. They are called Lochs.  Loch Lomond is the largest body of fresh water in the mainland UK, and though it's just a few miles north of Glasgow, Glasgow gets all its water needs from Loch Katrine. Which never dries up. It rains a lot in Scotland.


----------



## travellor (Sep 17, 2022)

mikeyB said:


> And as the power companies are foreign owned, they see the UK as a soft touch for raising their prices up as high as they like, because they know that the price cap won't affect them. Our current PM will ensure that they receive the difference out of taxpayers money, and their profits will be guaranteed.
> 
> That means we are paying shareholders in France out of our tax. Or now that EDF is government owned, we are paying French tax.
> 
> ...



Well, EDF may be nationalised, at a cost to the tax payer of 10 billion euros.
For that they are buying a debt of 37 billion  euros.
The dividend is being paid by issuing new shares, so no real cash, just robbing themselves and making each share worth a little bit less.
EDF is actually suing the French government for a loss of 8.3 billion euros.
So that's a total of 55.3 billion euros.

There is no magic involved, it's simply going on the National debt, and everyone in France will be paying more, for generations to come.
Much the same as here, the cost is the cost, same for everyone, just deferred for the kids, and their kids to pay.

As to  Scottish water and sewage

"Since May this year, 49 of the 87 designated bathing waters around the country have recorded levels of faecal bacteria that could endanger the health of swimmers, surfers and paddlers.......Campaigners expressed concern about the pollution and urged increased investment to upgrade Victorian sewers. They called for monitoring of sewage overflows to be increased"

"A water shortage warning has been issued in Scotland after the UK's record-breaking heatwave. A report by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) published on Friday notes that many parts of the country remain at an increased risk of water scarcity.

The agency urged businesses that use water in moderate scarcity areas to limit use to when "absolutely necessary". Most of the east coast has been issued an alert or a moderate scarcity warning, including the Don, the Dee, Ythan, the Firth of Tay, Firth of Forth, Almond and Tyne catchments."

No magic there either.


----------



## 42istheanswer (Sep 19, 2022)

I saw a claim from someone in France a couple of months ago (I think in a newspaper letter column) that part of the reason their price rise is lower is that EDF is using British profits to subsidise


----------



## travellor (Sep 19, 2022)

42istheanswer said:


> I saw a claim from someone in France a couple of months ago (I think in a newspaper letter column) that part of the reason their price rise is lower is that EDF is using British profits to subsidise



It was a contract signed by EDF to sell energy to sub suppliers at a fixed price.
They are still obliged to do that, hence they are making a massive loss.
They have also suffered from less generation from nuclear plants, due to ongoing maintenance recently, but have still had the cost rises from the global increase in fossil fuel.

"EDF booked a net loss of 5.29 billion euros in the first half after a profit of 4.17 billion a year earlier"

And very similar to all our energy suppliers that simply went bankrupt, (like Bulb, which was nationalised to maintain supply), it looks like the government will be picking up the tab.

So, do we pay slightly more now, (since it has been capped, and the rebate is being paid) then taxed to cover the difference later, or the French way, where the government pay more now, then raise tax to pay off the bigger debt later?

Possibly we should be looking closer to home, and asking why our own producers are increasing costs for nuclear, wind, and hydro electric generation, and increasing the daily standing cost.
None of these have increased in cost, it's only fossil fuel users that have had higher costs, and the standing charge pays for generation costs and distribution, which hasn't changed greatly.


----------



## 42istheanswer (Sep 19, 2022)

I understood that the way UK energy prices are set currently, the highest price point of the energy in use at a time is paid. So if any fossil fuel electricity is being used, then the price paid by the supplier companies is that price, even though some of the producer companies are producing fuel cheaper. I.e. we would only pay the hydroelectric/wind price for hours where they supply all the needs of the whole country. 

I'm a little more hazy on how that filters into consumer price, and who gets the profits from wind/hydroelectric/nuclear being paid for at the same rate as fossil fuel - whether it is the electricity producing companies who are producing the cheaper energy or somehow spread between producing and supplying companies


----------



## MikeyBikey (Sep 19, 2022)

The fact that prices increases in the UK have been many many times higher than those in France and Germany says there is something seriously amiss in the UK model. I suspect like Ofcom Ofgem are not fit for purpose!


----------



## 42istheanswer (Sep 19, 2022)

I don't disagree that the model is wrong. IMO it would be much fairer to pay the actual cost (averaged between types of fuel used to generate the electricity). And I am inclined to agree that Ofgem are not fit for purpose - I think it's something to do with them that we have the current model...


----------



## travellor (Sep 19, 2022)

42istheanswer said:


> I understood that the way UK energy prices are set currently, the highest price point of the energy in use at a time is paid. So if any fossil fuel electricity is being used, then the price paid by the supplier companies is that price, even though some of the producer companies are producing fuel cheaper. I.e. we would only pay the hydroelectric/wind price for hours where they supply all the needs of the whole country.
> 
> I'm a little more hazy on how that filters into consumer price, and who gets the profits from wind/hydroelectric/nuclear being paid for at the same rate as fossil fuel - whether it is the electricity producing companies who are producing the cheaper energy or somehow spread between producing and supplying companies



Ofgem sets the price based on cost of fossil fuel to the generating company.
The wholesale cost of electricity is paid by supply companies.
So, the supply companies should make a small profit, depending on the contract they have negotiated with generating companies. 
At the start of this, a lot of supply companies had fixed price contracts with consumers, but bought off the generating companies on the spot market.
As the cost to generate went up, these companies couldn't afford the cost to buy electricity, and folded.
The bigger supply companies had longer contracts with generating companies, so weathered the initial phase, they moved onto variable contracts with consumers.
So Ofgem allowed them to stay in business by making a small profit.
Fossil fuel reliant generating companies are paying out for high cost fossil fuel, eco friendly or nuclear aren't.
Ideally, fossil fuel generators should be the ones changing supply as required to fill the gaps left by nuclear and the rest.
The winners are the gas and oil companies selling fossil fuel to the highest bidders, which they have to, the market sets the price, and the non fossil fuel generating companies profiting from the increase in wholesale electric price.


----------



## travellor (Sep 19, 2022)

MikeyBikey said:


> The fact that prices increases in the UK have been many many times higher than those in France and Germany says there is something seriously amiss in the UK model. I suspect like Ofcom Ofgem are not fit for purpose!




Wholesale price

UK £299.63
France £300.65
Germany £318.93

There isn't any clever model to make cheap electricity.
(We are the cheapest of the three to generate it though though)

The choice is whether it's discounted more now, and the governments are hoping for a fall in wholesale prices to pay back in the future,  by allowing the suppliers to keep prices higher longer than they should be to make more profits in the future to cover suppliers losses now.
Or the UK model to set prices lower than cost now, and pay back by tax increases in the future, with the backstop of Ofgem ensuring falling prices will be passed on.

Either way, the electricity will be paid for by consumers.


----------



## travellor (Sep 21, 2022)

Just listening to radio two.
Some people may be in for a shock.
After hearing the £2500 price cap, apparently everything is going back on, as no matter what they use, that's the cap they'll have to pay, nothing more.
I could actually imagine people running the heating with the windows open, just "to teach the greedy electric companies a lesson"


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Sep 22, 2022)

travellor said:


> Just listening to radio two.
> Some people may be in for a shock.
> After hearing the £2500 price cap, apparently everything is going back on, as no matter what they use, that's the cap they'll have to pay, nothing more.
> I could actually imagine people running the heating with the windows open, just "to teach the greedy electric companies a lesson"



The price cap is simply NEVER properly explained. what it was originally for, what it currently means, and the fact that you could pay more (or less) on your own bill. It’s complete un-information in the way it has been used recently.

I am also bewildered by the whole wholesale price set-up. And how we *have* to pay Putin Prices for our own North Sea gas, and vastly elevated wholesale costs for solar/wind/nuclear whose costs have not risen. The model seems utterly broken to me, and the idea of ‘having to pay’ the extra via taxes for generations, while the companies are wallowing in unexpected hugely inflated profits just utterly stinks.


----------



## nonethewiser (Sep 22, 2022)

travellor said:


> Just listening to radio two.
> Some people may be in for a shock.
> After hearing the £2500 price cap, apparently everything is going back on, as no matter what they use, that's the cap they'll have to pay, nothing more.
> I could actually imagine people running the heating with the windows open, just "to teach the greedy electric companies a lesson"



It's not cap as such, if they waste more they will be charged & in for one big shock.


----------



## travellor (Sep 22, 2022)

everydayupsanddowns said:


> The price cap is simply NEVER properly explained. what it was originally for, what it currently means, and the fact that you could pay more (or less) on your own bill. It’s complete un-information in the way it has been used recently.
> 
> I am also bewildered by the whole wholesale price set-up. And how we *have* to pay Putin Prices for our own North Sea gas, and vastly elevated wholesale costs for solar/wind/nuclear whose costs have not risen. The model seems utterly broken to me, and the idea of ‘having to pay’ the extra via taxes for generations, while the companies are wallowing in unexpected hugely inflated profits just utterly stinks.



Yes, fossil fuel accounted for only 35% of electricity generated last year.
The rest was nuclear and renewables, whose costs have only risen on par with inflation.


----------



## travellor (Sep 22, 2022)

everydayupsanddowns said:


> The price cap is simply NEVER properly explained. what it was originally for, what it currently means, and the fact that you could pay more (or less) on your own bill. It’s complete un-information in the way it has been used recently.
> 
> I am also bewildered by the whole wholesale price set-up. And how we *have* to pay Putin Prices for our own North Sea gas, and vastly elevated wholesale costs for solar/wind/nuclear whose costs have not risen. The model seems utterly broken to me, and the idea of ‘having to pay’ the extra via taxes for generations, while the companies are wallowing in unexpected hugely inflated profits just utterly stinks.



The gas will be an interesting thing.
Since Putin limited supplies, America has completely reversed it's green policy, and started massive exports to the EU.
The push to export is beginning to push prices up in America.
On top of that, new terminals are being built, and possibly won't even be finished until after the war is over, but then will have an operating life of decades.
So, is America going to succeed in pushing back the switch to green energy in the USA and the EU, or is it a massive overreach by gas companies there that will come back to bankrupt them?


----------

