report calls for an experimental 20% tax on all sugary soft drinks

[mertle]

Originally Posted by Mr_love_monkey

I drink nothing but beer

you lucky begger used to be cider drinker younger.

doc says got be teatotal

Originally Posted by danielf

Funny that, I was going to call it a right-wing fascist authoritarian policy

(I guess that's why there's two dimensions in the political compass...)

Fascism is an extreme form of authoritarian socialism. It's only the Left that likes to pretend otherwise.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Chris

Fascism is an extreme form of authoritarian socialism. It's only the Left that likes to pretend otherwise.

That, and Wikipedia...

Fascism (pron.: /ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of far-right[1] authoritarian nationalism

Well, if it's in a user-edited encyclopaedia, it must be true ...

</sarcasm>



"We are Socialists, we are enemies of the capitalistic economic system for exploitation of the economically weak…" - Adolf Hitler, 1st May 1927.

Hitler was apparently a bit of an enthusiast for National Socialism.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Chris

"We are Socialists, we are enemies of the capitalistic economic system for exploitation of the economically weak…" - Adolf Hitler, 1st May 1927.

Hitler was apparently a bit of an enthusiast for National Socialism.

Yes, but the fact that they called the movement Nationalsozialismus doesn't mean they weren't right wing.

Nazism, or National Socialism (German: Nationalsozialismus) in full, was the ideology of the Nazi Party in Germany and related movements outside Germany.[1][2][3][4][5] It is a variety of fascism that incorporates biological racism and antisemitism.[6] Nazism developed in Germany from the influence of the far-right racist Völkisch German nationalist movement and the anti-communist Freikorps paramilitary culture which fought against the communists in post-World War I Germany.[7] The German Nazi Party and its affiliates in Germanic states supported pan-Germanicism.[8] It was designed to draw workers away from communism and into völkisch nationalism.[9] Major elements of Nazism have been described as far-right, such as allowing domination of society by people deemed racially superior, while purging society of people declared inferior, who were said to be a threat to national survival.[10][11]

Originally Posted by danielf

Yes, but the fact that they called the movement Nationalsozialismus doesn't mean they weren't right wing.

Yes, and the fact that Wikipedia insists National Socialism isn't socialism, doesn't mean it isn't. To be honest it has the same ring to it as all the hoary old Communists who still insist that Communism does work, it's just that in all the places it's been tried, they didn't do it properly.

American author John T Flynn observed: "The line between fascism and Fabian socialism is very thin. Fabian socialism is the dream. Fascism is Fabian socialism plus the inevitable dictator."

And earlier this week, Dan Hannan blogged on this very subject:

I am a Socialist,' Hitler told Otto Strasser in 1930, 'and a very different kind of Socialist from your rich friend, Count Reventlow'.

No one at the time would have regarded it as a controversial statement. The Nazis could hardly have been more open in their socialism, describing themselves with the same terminology as our own SWP: National Socialist German Workers' Party.

Almost everyone in those days accepted that fascism had emerged from the revolutionary Left. Its militants marched on May Day under red flags. Its leaders stood for collectivism, state control of industry, high tariffs, workers' councils. Around Europe, fascists were convinced that, as Hitler told an enthusiastic Mussolini in 1934, 'capitalism has run its course'.

One of the most stunning achievements of the modern Left is to have created a cultural climate where simply to recite these facts is jarring. History is reinterpreted, and it is taken as axiomatic that fascism must have been Right-wing, the logic seemingly being that Left-wing means compassionate and Right-wing means nasty and fascists were nasty.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/da...ts-of-fascism/

It's well worth reading the whole article.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Chris

Yes, and the fact that Wikipedia insists National Socialism isn't socialism, doesn't mean it isn't. To be honest it has the same ring to it as all the hoary old Communists who still insist that Communism does work, it's just that in all the places it's been tried, they didn't do it properly.

American author John T Flynn observed: "The line between fascism and Fabian socialism is very thin. Fabian socialism is the dream. Fascism is Fabian socialism plus the inevitable dictator."

And earlier this week, Dan Hannan blogged on this very subject:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/da...ts-of-fascism/

It's well worth reading the whole article.

There's no doubting that Nazi/Fascist ideology captured both left and right wing elements. As is stated on wiki (which I consider a more impartial source than Daniel Hannan).

Fascism was founded during World War I by Italian national syndicalists who combined left-wing and right-wing political views.[16][17] Fascists have commonly opposed having a firm association with any section of the left-right spectrum, considering it inadequate to describe their beliefs,[18][19] though fascism's goal to promote the rule of people deemed innately superior while seeking to purge society of people deemed innately inferior is identified as a prominent far-right theme.[20]

And plenty other examples on wikipedia.

However, that doesn't alter the fact that they are best known for their right wing policies and therefore seen as right wing. As Hannan puts: Coincidence of policy does not establish consanguinity of doctrine. And that cuts both ways

To get back to the topic I'm wondering what they think of low calorie fizzy drinks using sweeteners.Do they regard them as being bad for us too?

Originally Posted by danielf

There's no doubting that Nazi/Fascist ideology captured both left and right wing elements. As is stated on wiki (which I consider a more impartial source than Daniel Hannan).



And plenty other examples on wikipedia.

However, that doesn't alter the fact that they are best known for their right wing policies and therefore seen as right wing. As Hannan puts: Coincidence of policy does not establish consanguinity of doctrine. And that cuts both ways

In political commentary and analysis there is no such thing as 'impartial'. And as Hannan also says,

I just hope that Lefties who have read this far will have a sense of how conservatives feel when fascism is declared to be simply a point further along the spectrum from them. Whenever anyone points to the socialist roots of fascism, there are howls of outrage.

Your Wikipedia quote points out the elements of both left and right, but then concludes the paragraph by choosing to emphasise an aspect commonly attributed to the right. That is an editorial choice on the part of the Wikipeda editor(s) and, I suggest, not an impartial one.

Anyway, to return to the point ... I still think that, especially in a modern British context, the the idea that you should use the tax system to effect social change is a left-wing preoccupation.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Chris

In political commentary and analysis there is no such thing as 'impartial'. And as Hannan also says,

Your Wikipedia quote points out the elements of both left and right, but then concludes the paragraph by choosing to emphasise an aspect commonly attributed to the right. That is an editorial choice on the part of the Wikipeda editor(s) and, I suggest, not an impartial one.

No doubt you'll have noticed that I said 'more impartial' rather than impartial. Wikipedia entries are not (usually) written by one person. Texts like these are discussed between editors until they are in agreement it's a fairly balanced. Anyone disagreeing is free to chip in. That doesn't mean there is no bias, but the likelihood of extensive bias is considerably lower than with one bloke writing a blog for the Telegraph.

Anyway, to return to the point ... I still think that, especially in a modern British context, the the idea that you should use the tax system to effect social change is a left-wing preoccupation.

Tax system as a whole, yes. In terms of using a levy to deter unwanted behaviour I'm not so sure. What was that Bedroom 'tax' again?

Incidentally, I'm not so sure how obesity relates to 'social change'

[Osem]

Originally Posted by danielf

No doubt you'll have noticed that I said 'more impartial' rather than impartial. Wikipedia entries are not (usually) written by one person. Texts like these are discussed between editors until they are in agreement it's a fairly balanced. Anyone disagreeing is free to chip in. That doesn't mean there is no bias, but the likelihood of extensive bias is considerably lower than with one bloke writing a blog for the Telegraph.



Tax system as a whole, yes. In terms of using a levy to deter unwanted behaviour I'm not so sure. What was that Bedroom 'tax' again?

Incidentally, I'm not so sure how obesity relates to 'social change'

They're gonna tax bedroom antics now are they?

You know if you were a hack phoning the DWP and you asked about 'bedroom tax' they wouldn't even discuss the housing benefit rule change with you? The point being, there is no tax; what there is, is a campaign to try to link the rule change with the poll tax in the popular consciousness. That's a flawed notion for any number of reasons, but I'll not go into them here as it has its own thread already.

The housing benefit rule change is a partial withdrawl of a benefit which the government believes has, by its existence, resulted in unwanted behaviour. Removing it, in the government's view, redresses an artificial imbalance. I'm not saying that tax is left wing. I'm saying that applying tax in order to change behaviour, as opposed to applying tax in order to pay for the State to operate effectively, is left wing.

[danielf]

I know it isn't a tax. Hence the apostrophes in Bedroom 'tax'. My comment was partly in jest, indicating that the withdrawal of this benefit (i.e. reduction in income i.e. penalty to those affected) is as much about effecting a change in attitude in those on benefits as it is a cost saving. At least, that's what they would have you believe.

Originally Posted by danielf

I know it isn't a tax. Hence the apostrophes in Bedroom 'tax'. My comment was partly in jest, indicating that the withdrawal of this benefit (i.e. reduction in income i.e. penalty to those affected) is as much about effecting a change in attitude in those on benefits as it is a cost saving. At least, that's what they would have you believe.

I know - but my point is, there is a fundamental ideological difference between reducing State intervention, whether by tax or by benefit, and increasing it. In very simple terms, the more State a government creates, the more Left that government is. Hence my contention that taxing a food or drink not because it is inherently harmful, but because of a belief that certain people can't be trusted not to harm themselves with it, is essentially a nannying, leftist position.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Chris

I know - but my point is, there is a fundamental ideological difference between reducing State intervention, whether by tax or by benefit, and increasing it. In very simple terms, the more State a government creates, the more Left that government is. Hence my contention that taxing a food or drink not because it is inherently harmful, but because of a belief that certain people can't be trusted not to harm themselves with it, is essentially a nannying, leftist position.

Well, a bigger state may be leftist, but I'm simply not convinced that that 'the left' is more nannying than 'the right'.

Nanny away, Dave:

Ministers are proposing a minimum price of 45p a unit for the sale of alcohol in England and Wales as part of a drive to tackle problem drinking.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20515918

UK could introduce 'fat tax', says David Cameron
Prime minister says 'fat tax' could help prevent health costs soaring and life expectancy falling

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...-david-cameron