-
Also can't help note that Streeting's stance on puberty blockers for kids ('Not enough research! Ban it!') is in stark contrast to his stance on giving weight loss drugs to the poor ('Absolutely zero research! It's a great idea!')
Not that it's surprising, of course, because Streeting is a vile little goblin who functions mostly on a diet of malice, but nonetheless....
-
Wasn't this the announcement of a trial though? Despite how it may have been presented as a nationwide solution it is limited five year trial in an area of Manchester.
I'm not sure if it's a plan that's going to work but some of the outrage around it seems a little manufactured. Obesity is a significant problem for the country and trialling a possible solution such as this seems sensible.
Saying that, I think they did go too heavy on the return to work element rather than the health benefit.
-
it's consistent from the view point that streeting is a parternalistic person. the what and why is window dressing to him ultimately believing people do not know what's best for them (the state/capital) and it should be chosen for them. it's why the messaging is so focused on punishing poors (as liz kendall is atm). it's an inherently protestant, misanthropic position.
it doesn't suprise me at all that someone who operates on this principle would be on the back foot of progressive thought.
i think a lot of people read wesleys earlier work on trans healthcare as a single issue based on sterile evidence, but trans people were consistent in saying this is actually an attack on informed consent healthcare. here we see what that looks like when applied more broardly. this paternalistic approach has generally poor outcomes for all involved, especially marginalised people.
as an aside labours support of the ongoing genocide is disgusting, both thornberry and lammy have had explicitly disgusting comments in recent days. starmer himself is beyond reporoach. no different from thatcher and the tory parties comments on the south african aparthied.