Jamie Oliver’s Socialism Going Too Far

we've all heard of Jamie Oliver one of the most famous chefs in the UK and also one of the most well known socialist Warriors that we have in this country a few years ago err an anti freedom and pro socialist mentality began in the West in general and is now taking over the whole political narrative including our Conservative government Jamie Oliver started his campaign by fighting to introduce a sugar tax on fizzy drinks and when we complain saying one there's absolutely no evidence that this has ever worked in any country that's been introduced but – this could go too far if we give that much power to be government I'm we were told that we were scare mongering and it couldn't go too far and that's just where they gonna stop eventually the government chooses the bill and throughs amay made that one of her flagship policies this I believe will travel to Canada Australia all all these week you know we want to get Prime Minister's we want them to grow some balls and start doing stuff that actually affects child health I think today is profound it's about getting your hands around big business and caring like a parent not a politician so yeah but all sorts of parent Jaime I mean do you feel I mean there are a lot of other we're just talking about drinks through a lot of other ways that children in particular ingest huge amounts of sugar and I'm thinking of milkshakes and fruit juices in particular would you like to see this extended to them I think we could have gone into milk I need to sort of I've been so excited that I haven't been had to unpack it and really interrogate it I think we should have any milk products we've added sugar should have been in the same bundle in my opinion now what resume being in power she began to introduce more limitations over our individual liberties over the last couple of years with more proposals coming forward including extra tax on milkshakes removing cotton characters on cereal boxes reducing Pizza sizes and pizza toppings and so on but first let's start with the evidence according to Daniel Pryor of the Adam Smith Institute none of this justifies measures like this sugary drinks tax most people simply pay up or sue to other high-calorie drinks by their sugary drinks from elsewhere or downgrade to less expensive own brands this is exactly what happened across the United States when soda taxes were introduced with no evidence that their implementation in Mexico or Chile budged overall calorie consumption any minuscule reductions are poorly targeted the Institute for Fiscal Studies has pointed out that those who consume the most sugar are the least likely to change their behavior in response to the tax this is why we move on to behavioral change as for behavioral change this is usually small to non-existent because the products being taxed are price inelastic soft drink taxes have remarkably little impact on soft drink consumption let alone calorie consumption and have never reduce obesity anywhere ever alcohol taxes have little impact on the heavy drinkers and alcoholics whose health is realistic at risk and tobacco taxes have to be sky-high before they have the kind of effect campaigners expect at a huge cost to those of us who choose to smoke and that's the whole point for example in this country in the UK we've seen a huge reduction in terms of smoking rate and surprisingly had nothing to do with taxes on cigarettes because that's been going on for a longer time the two main reasons that we've seen the smoking rate going down is one the cultural change in the country and the mentality of children growing up in the UK and to the introduction of vaping oh wait so that means the free market already found a solution to smoking hmm but going back to the issue of giving power to the nanny state and big government telling us what to do because we're stupid apparently there is a huge issue with the poor getting hit harder than anyone else according to the Adam Smith Institute being a consumption tax it will hit the poorest the hardest the poorest 10% of the UK households pay over 20 percent of their income on v80 and duties over double the average the introduction of a sugar tax will mostly affect the poor changing the habits of the wealthy very little same taxes are a higher proportion of low incomes than they are of high incomes that makes them regressive taxes there's nothing more to it also sin taxes hit moderate and heavy users alike research has shown that previous rises in cigarette tax have made only 2.3 percent of smokers quit with the other 97.7% just paying more in tax now no one here is actually advocating for some sort of lawless anarchy society where no one cares about anyone but the solutions that we are being introduced to by socialists which are now being adopted by tourism aides conservative governments have never worked in the past aren't working now and will never work in the future this is why we are in serious need of politicians who are pro-freedom who are pro logic and rational discussion when it comes to policy and luckily we have a conservative candidate who you could be our next I'm in astir Boris Johnson saying this obesity is a huge public health challenge probably art now our number one public health charge across the NHS absolutely billions we've got to to deal with obesity but we've got to do it in a way that is evidence-based and what I want to see is evidence actual evidence that new taxes on this will that item of food and taxes which fall disproportionately on poorer families actually stop people from being so fat alright that's that that's if I can put it that way you've got to make sure that it's discouraging people from consuming what they're doing whether it's just a bit of a bit of a gesture now everybody struggles with their their weight how everyone and me know they're less than anybody else and we all know what the issues are but my question is is it really sensible to put a new tax on milkshakes which will be paid disproportionately by poorer families when the evidence seems to be at the moment ambiguous about whether those taxes actually reduce consumption and help people with their obesity so that's the that's the issue now thank God for politicians like Boris Johnson who are standing of ordinary people and logic this in contrast to some depressing comments made by Jeremy hungry cently who seems to think it is his job to threaten businesses into forcing artificial sweeteners on consumers the quickest way to deal with this crisis is for the people who manufacture milkshakes and other products to reduce the levels of sugar in those products so that the taste doesn't change very much but they are much healthier so you threaten them you say we have been prepared to legislate if you won't play ball but in my experience if you make that threat you don't need to follow through with the dreaded milkshake tax Wow 1984 called and they want a big brother back so let's hope that Boris Johnson becomes our next prime minister and stop this madness and this fight on personal liberty and logic thanks again for watching as usual if you want to support this channel make sure you check out the cabinet club the link is in the description as usual and don't forget to subscribe and click on notification bill next to it and I'll see you next week with a new video you

  1. You just seem lost on what to target next.
    No tax, less to spend. I’m all for taxing items that are bad for health on an overdose basis.
    Sugar and salt are put into processed foods without any need other than preservatives.

    Boris Johnson is a Tory that won’t change things to serve working classes. Lies his arse off. Made up quotes while acting as a journalist and sacked for it. Conspired on a violent crime and dodges real questions on brexit.
    Pretty sure this channel is subversive when led advocating leaving the EU and promoting a clown for an MP.

  2. Never mind lazy and bad parenting, no competitive games in primary schools and a general lack of exercise….. let's have a go at the business who can't force you to buy their products and add extra tax and make things worse for everyone… even those who do everything right from choice

  3. Locally to me in 'leafy overcrowded Surrey' there is a large black market in cigarettes bought in from the EU and at £4.00 a pack this guy has a lucrative market & repeat business is good for him with prices of 15 yrs ago, It's not only gov taxes on cigs. the tobacco companies are very greedy too, a top brand of cigs is now over £10.00 for 20. No wonder our fag man is doing so well!

  4. The trouble is people like you are just fascists in another form. Huge global companies making millions out of cheap sugar ensuring that people die younger poorer and in pain. Idiots

  5. Sorry but obeseity cost lives and money bogs down the NHS with direct and indirect health problems for the sake of the nation health a little bit fo nanny state does have some affect be it small. That small bit saves lives. This nonesence new body image mantra is crap overweight people are killing themselves.

  6. Jamie why don't you preach to the parents to take responsibility for their actions to parent that's their job.🙄.

    How I hate left who want to remove our own personal responsibility for our actions and informing ourselves.😐

  7. It seems to me the only people who ever give advice on how to make the country / world a better place, are the people who don’t have to worry about money, the ones that say the most/loudest are usually the ones that actually do the least !!!

  8. Jamie Oliver is a self serving twat. He made millions selling his cook books, telling people what to eat, and none of the early ones were "healthy". Now he jumps on the bandwagon telling everyone to eat more healthy, whilst selling more cookbooks on the subject. Fuck off to North Korea or China you left wing puppet!

  9. Oliver didn't invent food, Oliver isn't the only person to have a family, Oliver needs to concentrate on his failing business venture instead of telling other people what to do, Like Gary Lineker he's a complete arsehole & should fuck off out of the country, we don't need them.

  10. I always like this guy but now he is turning into a leftist prick take your soap box somewhere else and look after your own company which is going slowly down the drain leave other folk alone and look after your own you are a cook stick to it and leave the rest to people who know nobody wants to know what you think

  11. The sugar tax resulted in drinks manufacturers and others adding poisonous aspartame and other artificial sweeteners to drinks and foods. Great result! So children are exposed to even worse things. Well done those stupid campaigners and politicians! Huh!!!

  12. jamie oliver .. a chef.. sorry chefs but you cook stuff., it’s not a big fucking deal.. i can live in pot noodles

  13. Seriously, why is this even being debated?
    It's nothing to do wth reducing consumption, it's about making money for the government via taxes.

  14. Smoking was in steep decline BEFORE vaping appeared. Vaping is not an example of the market solving the problem of smoking.

  15. There is a bigger conclusion to be drawn. If a tax on sugar means the people eat less sugar, then a tax on wages results in fewer jobs and a tax on goods and services results in the purchase of fewer goods and services. Yet most public revenue is paid for by taxes on wages, goods and services.Then we are worried about joblessness and failure of the economy to grow.

    Most of the tax system is designed to damage the economy, yet politicians across the entire spectrum fail to acknowledge what should be obvious – that the tax system needs root and branch reform.

  16. Jamie Oliver’s children’s food recipe books contain massive amounts of sugar with single portions exceeding recommended daily intake.

  17. People by their very nature are behavioural and will do whatever they deem necessary to get around these restrictions. So, it doesn't really matter how much tax they put on certain products, as most will find some way to circumnavigate it. They'll drink the cheaper versions which are even more unhealthy than the ones that the government have decided as worthy of being taxed! Very healthy(!)

    Jamie Oliver, of course, has already made his money out of the system and can afford to be picky when it comes to his own choices of food. Whereas, those who have to get by the best way they can, (what with not being millionaire chefs), find the idea of having to pay more for simple food items an attack on their financial status. Rather than putting a levy on unhealthy food, why don't they reduce the prices of food that's healthy, to encourage more people to eat it? We already know the answer to that one. There's zero profit in it. Whereas, putting an additional tax on cheaper food items not only rakes in additional revenue, but also stretches the budgets of those who can ill afford any niceties as it is.

    The ruling elites can't possibly allow poor people to have that, can they? Reminds me of the Beagle from Oliver Twist declaring that the reason the errant orphan reacted in such a way, when fostered out by a cruel family, was because they gave him meat to eat. You have to keep the Plebs energy low if you want to control them.

  18. Oh my oliver perhaps concentrate on running your chain of overpriced eateries and stop thinking you have a god given right to tell the world how to live their life. It's ironic because of seen a vast amount of obese people waddle into your eateries that shouldn't of got served based on your view. Hypocrite. You Mockney prick get lost

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *