Save us from the fat tax

THE Government is worried that we are all becoming too fat.

Indeed, it is thinking of increasing tax on fatty foods in order to interpose a stern nanny's discipline between the British people and their natural appetites. But, as so often with New Labour, it may well be the wrong nanny and the wrong targets.

Look at Tony Blair, for instance. It is a long time since anyone called him Bambi.

Indeed, the Prime Minister's appearance is not only catching up with his age; it is rapidly overtaking it. Reports from a number of those who have dined at close quarters with the Blairs in recent months, all agree: the PM is looking strained and grey and gaunt.

Nor is the explanation hard to find. The poor fellow hardly eats. At best, he toys with his food in a distracted fashion. As for alcohol, the stuff rarely passes his lips - and never Cherie's at all.

Add to that a rigorous exercise regimen, and no wonder he looks so unhealthy. If Tony Blair was a teenage girl, his anxious parents would already be whispering "anorexia" at each other. He does not need a nanny to impose a higher tax on the fatty foods which he ought to be eating. He needs a nanny who will feed him up and force him to clean his plate.

When the Prime Minister is thin, anxious and half-starved, no wonder the rest of the Government is faltering. Far too many of Mr Blair's ministers follow their leader's unhealthy diet. There are heroic exceptions, of course, especially Charles Clarke and John Prescott. It is no accident that Messrs Clarke and Prescott have retained their political self-confidence, when most of those around them have lost theirs. Lord Falconer is half the man he was since he turned from an amiable fatty into a much reduced figure.

In his dietary inadequacy, poor Mr Blair is only the latest victim of a new masochistic quasi-religious cult; let us call it maso- puritanism.

Throughout history, most peeople have made the assumption that a little bit - or even quite a lot- of what they fancied would do them good.

Now, that comfortable, rotund approach to life is under threat from a thinlipped, self-punishing joyless-ness. The maso-puritans, who can quickly turn into sadopuritans in their dealings with others, have convinced themselves that anything they enjoy is bad for them. Sometimes it seems as if the only form of enjoyment they permit themselves is to persecute others.

CHARLES Kennedy was a recent and improbable victim of such persecution; no one could ever describe him as a puritan. But at the recent Brit awards, even he was too embarrassed to take his pleasure in public.

Mr Kennedy felt like a fag.

But he decided he dared not light up in the hall. So he slunk off to the lavatories.

Smoking in the bogs is common enough behaviour among schoolchildren. It seems pathetic that a grownup party leader should behave in such a way. Who would have thought that Charlie Kennedy would lose his bottle?

There is one point which public figures who feel tempted to intrude on private pleasures should always keep in mind. Free peoples have an inalienable right to enjoy themselves. Even if their chosen enjoyments are not always the healthiest available, they are unlikely to be impressed by lectures from politicians.

They are much more likely to recommend that the politicians should mind their own business.

It is not as if anyone in Britain needs to go short of advice on dietary matters.

These days, it is impossible to open a newspaper without coming across pages of material discussing every known dietary method. Anyone who wants information about what they should eat can already find it in unlimited quantities.

Those who have chosen to ignore the advice available are unlikely to be persuaded otherwise by a Government minister.

It must be admitted that some of us are a little too rounded; I refrain from personal comments. After the New Year, I myself even decided that a stint on the Atkins Diet could be undertaken without shocking the world with an excessively svelte Anderson. On the basis of my initial experience, I have to report that under Atkins, the ounces fall away more rapidly than the tons.

YET there seems to be no doubt that Atkins could work, with enough selfdiscipline. But that could cause a problem for the fat-tax advocates.

Meat, cheese, eggs and cream would all presumably be penalised: all essential Atkins ingredients. In some Indian states, it used to be the case that anyone who wanted to buy a drink had to sign up as a registered alcoholic. It could be that under a fat tax, we Atkinsites would have to register as fat addicts, in order to continue to consume the essential ingredients of our moderate and healthy diet.

The Internationale, that great socialist anthem, begins with the immortal line: "Arise ye starvelings from your slumber." These days, the New Labourites no longer sing those verses. Indeed, they seem to be guilty of a profound misreading of their socialist heritage. They seem to believe that being a "starveling" is a good idea.

You cannot emancipate mankind if you are also trying to emaciate it. You cannot run a government on watercress and thin gruel.

The diet which Tony Blair follows does not seem to be doing him much good.

But that is his business. If he chooses to undereat and underdrink, that is his right, and nobody else is entitled to interfere.

But he does not have the right to impose his lifestyle choices on others.

Were he to attempt to do so, many voters might well conclude that the Government was merely trying to divert attention from its failures in other areas.

A tax on fat is a tax too far, and the public will never stand for it. A tax on fat is a tax on freedom.

(c)2004. Associated Newspapers Ltd.. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.