There is a short circuit in the way we are talking about obesity. Why is the obesity epidemic being reported and discussed as a largely political story? When a growing number of people choose to over eat, why are the men with cameras going to Downing Street to ask their questions there? Why is the House of Commons health committee reacting to obesity by questioning government policy, rather than asking people why they are eating more?
We are reaching a stage where the majority of people are overweight. The solution to that is only going to come from them altering their behaviour. It is an individual choice made within the culture of the day. There is a limited role for government to regulate, but what is ultimately needed is a cultural shift like the one that made racism or homophobia taboo in sitcoms, or round most dinner tables; like the one that frowned on drink driving or the soft social ban on smoking in others’ houses that is now default, unless stated otherwise.
Putting the problem wholly at the feet of the government infantilises the nation. If I return to the freezer for more ice cream, or dodge the salad again, it is not the Rt Hon John Reid’s fault – I wish it were – sadly it is mine. Effective change can come only from an analysis of the situation that reflects this, not one that seeks a proxy to blame and a proxy to provide the solution.
So why are ministers picking up this hot potato? Terrified of sounding callous or out of touch, they pick up responsibility for a situation over which they have no direct control. Getting between people and their appetites is not easy. Ever since holiness made its first appearance, men and women have been cajoled, begged, threatened and commanded to regulate their sex lives according to abstract principles. The results – so far – have been negligible. What makes ministers think they will have any more luck getting between a man and his pie?
But like the Tsar in 1915, taking personal command of a doomed campaign to shore up his prestige, ministers risk setting themselves up for disappointment and ridicule. Sometimes it is necessary to say: ‘sorry, but it is up to you.’ Government can spell out the public consequences of the public’s decision to bury their faces in a nosebag. They can say: ‘if you all do this you will die young, and our NHS bill will double’. But ultimately it is up to each of us.
Of course, the current mania in the media for treating every story as a political story does not make it easier for government to keep to its own limits. On the 24 hour news channels, in particular, the pantheon of health, diplomatic, regional, crime and other correspondents has been rudely telescoped into a few harassed looking political hacks standing outside Downing Street. Every story therefore, becomes a political story, just as to someone who only has a hammer, every problem can be solved with a quick bash. Before long, natural disasters will be covered by a political correspondent. And now over to Downing Street: ‘do you think that the after shocks of the Shanghai earthquake will shake the Prime Minister?’ It is cheap TV. But governments must resist taking responsibility for everything – however unloved and unimportant they sometimes feel. After all, part of the process of rebuilding trust is admitting what you cannot do, as well as promising what you can.
Canute never claimed to turn back the tide. He demonstrated that he could not do it. It is unhealthy to fixate on government for all social and individual problems. Government can deliver enormous goods and ills. It can deliver public services, justice, ensure opportunity. However, there are vast areas of our shared cultural life that take place outside the remit of government. The diminishing of mainstream racism has been a cultural shift. ‘Political correctness’, for example, is nothing of the sort. It is a cultural correctness, enforced by shame not law. Similarly the rise of intolerance towards asylum seekers has been outside the government’s control. Not all roads lead to Downing Street.
That leaves it up to the rest of us to resile from advertising that sells food in narcotic terms – you need it, you deserve it, you must have it, it is so, so wrong but so, so good! To find a way of promoting a more Mediterranean or Japanese, say, way of eating. And to socialise around exercise as well as eating and drinking. But most of all to take responsibility for ourselves.