OK, Jacques, so you can't answer the question I asked earlier. Do you have a problem with freedom of choice? Like someone else to make decisions for you, do you?
Mcquade, no you're wrong. It's not my business if someone chooses to drink themself to death. I'm a heavy smoker, I know there's a good chance my habit will kill me, but that's my decision. Sure, I'm addicted to it: but I've enjoyed every fag I've ever lit. But I'm sure you know better than me how I should live.

Philiprealfood, you do less you don't get so hungry. Have you very done a manual job?

Mcquade, by your logic we should legislate to stop people hillwalking or playing football, or having unprotected sex. All that public money spent on those needless broken ankles and chlamydia....

Jacques, you did imply that the state should limit food choice and make people more active, didn't you? And you didn't really try to explain how that's possible, or even desirable. Don't worry about that, though-we all say stupid things sometimes.

And thanks: I thoroughly enjoyed the fag I've just finished, after my meal of red meat and stodgy carbohydrates. Fortunately I've got enough self-respect to stop pigging out if I feel that I'm eating too much. How about you? You've clearly got a modicum of intelligence-enough to grasp the concept of cause and effect. But perhaps you think that obese people are too dim to make the connection between too much food and rolls of fat, or lack the self-discipline to turn that awareness into action. Without someone like you to tell them what to do, that is.

And why is alcohol taxed?

@swatantra: agree that self-regulation is a non-starter. As the piece says, it didn't work for press or the City, so why should it work here?

@Lox, @Fraziel1: that's right, shout at people, "you're fat and it's all your fault". That'll work.

@JacquesOuze: nice observation. The problem is the same, just that poorer people tend to be overweight rather than skinny nowadays.

@Lox: it's ironic. You speak like freedom of the individual and low taxation were the main basis for your argument. But we are all paying for obesity in increased health costs, like we will probably pay for your medical care when you get sick from smoking. Not a good result, really, is it? This "freedom" has pa price, doesn't it?

Rob, you won't pay for my healthcare. After smoking for thirty years, I've paid a massive amount in extra tax. Also, since I doubt I'll be claiming a state pension for very long, there's another benefit to you. No need to thank me.
And nowhere have I mentioned low taxation: but you're right about freedom of the individual. You refer in your last paragraph to a Tory coercive, do as I say approach to obesity. But you appear to believe that the problem should be addressed by government edict. What form will that take? An increased tax on fatty foods? People on low incomes will be very grateful, I'm sure, that they have nice middle class people like you taking the hard decisions for them.
Of course freedom has a price. It's responsibility for your own fate, and I wonder if you have a problem with that.

I didn't think it was that cryptic, but well done for decoding. In addition to reducing pollution in central London by a fragment, the congestion charge has got a lot of people taking public transport and walking and cycling to work. The health benefits will be relatively small, but this is the kind of social consequence of public policy that is likely to have an impact on obesity in the medium to long term.

The rest of your argument is truly bizarre and I don't even know where to begin with it. And as I'm off on holiday for a week, it will have to wait.

Lox has raised a good point (no really) about individual freedom. Obviously most of us understand that in practice such freedom has to be compromised for a greater good and a lot of politics is about deciding where the line is drawn. I would have less of a problem if the government came out and said that individual freedom was paramount and if the price of that is rampant obesity, diabetes, smoking, drinking and carnage on the roads then so be it. At least that would be honest and they would get voted out pretty quickly. Instead they're showing the same kind of dissembling and spinelessness that Labour did in office by mouthing cheap platitudes whilst avoiding doing anything material to tackle the problem. The differences between this and whatever a Labour govermnemt would have concocted is marginal.

But addressing Lox's point head on: I believe it's right to tackle obesity for the greater good and that individual freedom should give way to that goal. The only way to achieve that is a long-term programme of behaviour change that includes legislation to restrict the availability of certain types of food and which makes people take more exercise as part of daily life.

Unless people are prepared to grasp these nettles, they have no business hand wringing about the problem of obesity.

Sometimes the simplest solutions are the best. And don't wrap it up in any psuedo-psycho-socio-jargon.
Andt requires Govt regulation; voluntary and self-regulation never works. Half a plate more fruit and veg and less meat, less fat sugar and salt. People like Jamie Oliver and nutritionists have been knocking their heads against a brick wall, and its not fair. Cut out the mumbo-jumbo; tell them, tax those foods. Years of education campaigns have failed, in drugs smoking acohol and food. Its time to get real.

For a considered analysis of why it is that people don't always choose to eat the right kind of food, it's worth going back to The Road to Wigan Pier. The issues of obesity were not the same, but Orwell's analysis of what influences people's food choices is intelligent, nuanced and precient. He's particularly good on the influence of class on motivation and decisions.

On the strength of this we can say that certainly since the 30s, poor people tended to make poor food choices. The only thing that has really changed is the type and volume of food available and the amount of activity that people have to do. By refusing to legislate, the goverment is refusing to tackle either of these key variables. The consequences are entirely predictable.

Jacques, how should the government legislate? You describe two key variables-food choice and people's activity. So do you think that the government should legislate to reduce choice and to make people move around more? Seriously?

Lox is again on the money in terms of the motivations of the pivate sector - its raison d'etre is profit and not with the social consequences of

that unless its compelled to do so. Historically, there's plenty of evidence of where this leads without adequate mandatory regulation, but obesity is one that has emerged recently. In terms of the food industry, you need to read Fast Food Nation to see where things are heading. That's why nudging and social responsibility deals are such arrant nonsense.

The problem for people like Lox with a simplistic libertarian worldview is that their arguments plays straight into the hands of these commercial

interests (as I think Philip pointed out), which is why they are so happy to support and propagate these views.

But the thing about public health is that it is a numbers game. It's OK if a a relatively small number of people like Lox smoke themselves to an early grave, so long as enough people don't. And with obesity, we can tollerate a few Eric Pickles or Nigel Lawsons (in terms of size not personality) so long as the social impact is contained. So as a society we can tollerate a certain amound of individual freedom, but there comes a point when society has to concern itself with controlling the more extreme social consequences of profit in the best interests of the majority rather than pandering to narrow commercial intersts to extreme libertarians.

I could respond at length to Lox's question about how to legislate to encourage physical activity, but I'll just say congestion charge to start with.

"If you choose to drink yourself to death, then again that's your business. Not mine"

But it is your concern considering the amount of public money spent treating these people.

The author this kneejerk blog tells us he or she went to a comprehensive school. It shows.

It really is depressing to read comments by the likes of Ian, Fraziel1 and Lox. Eat less, do more doesn't work - you do more you get hungry, you eat less, you get hungry and hunger is one of the most powerful drives a human experiences. And even if you could live with constant hunger, the science is so so clear that your body will adjust - if you eat less and do more, it will shut down doing key jobs like repairing cells, or building bone density and you won't have the energy to do as much. And by the way Lox, where is your evidence about fresh fruit and veg being good for you - surely everyone knows that the 5 a day mantra was a marketing exercise based on no scientific evidence whatsoever...

@Flashbuck. Thank you for your thoughtless snobbery. For the record, I went to an excellent comprehensive school although, unlike you, I prefer not to judge people for better or worse on which school they attended.

Not something I'd normally mention but, for the record, I also have a Masters from Oxford, another from London and an MBA from IESE, Barcelona.

@everyone else: thanks vm for your comments. Will come back to you tomorrow morning.

Here we go again. Tory policy, how can we describe it?

DO IT YOURSELF.

1. How will you reduce immigration Cameron?
Cameron Answers; I will impose a cap and limit student and workers visa's. Oops, That is not working. My policies are actually incresing immigration. Oh sud it. You do it yourself. You go and look for the Illegal Immigrants.

2. Cameron, what are you going to do about the predatory practices of the energy companies.
Cameron answers; Well as you know, I simply cannot be seen to be telling the 1% to reduce their prices and stop their predatory practices. You do it yourself. You look for bargains because we, the rich are alright Jack. You make sure you switch off your lights. yes Cameron, we will switch off and wears two layers of woolies.

3. Cameron what are you going to do about Obesity?
Cameron; Stop eating.

4. Cameron, what should we do about the economy?
Cameron's answers; Those bloody Europeans should do you do something about economy. We are too busy looking for someone to blame.

We are the 'do nothing' government, friends of the 1%.

GET IT. NOW SUD OFF. OUR LOBBYIST ARE WAITING FOR US.

Well Lox, I can see it might be a bit controversial give the success we've had cutting smoking by avoiding any nasty legislation, maintaining freedom of choice and working with our partners in the tobacco industry on voluntary responsibility deals.