New health secretary Therese Coffey

[joebassman]

What are people's opinions on the new health secretary. Can a person who is obese and regularly smokes cigars be considered as fit for a role that involves the nations health?

Are people comfortable with the fact she called for a review of the smoking ban in private members clubs, voted against banning smoking in cars containing children and received gifts and hospitality from a tabacco company?

New Deputy Prime Minister Therese Coffey has taken a long-held stance against anti-tobacco legislation and supported a motion calling for a review of its impact on private members’ clubs

The best pal of new PM Liz Truss also in 2011 opposed a ban on smoking in vehicles where there are children present.

That year she received £1,100 in gifts and hospitality from Gallaher Ltd, a multi-national multi-billion pound tobacco company

New Health Secretary Therese Coffey voted to repeal the smoking ban

New Deputy Prime Minister Therese Coffey has taken a long-held stance against anti-tobacco legislation and supported a motion calling for a review of its impact on private members’ clubs

www.mirror.co.uk

 

[jfollows]

My opinion: she comes across to me as bossy and - what's the word? - preachy, self-opinionated. So my initial reaction to her is a negative one, she reminds me of a bad type of school teacher.

However she is supposed to be competent in terms of running things, she actually seems to be able to get on with the job.

I don't think her health and habits prevent her from running the Health service, as long as she's not hypocritical as well, we'll see.

Personally I found it amusing also that The Times reported that she was following in Margaret Thatcher's footsteps at Somerville College, Oxford, but forgot to mention that she failed her exams and ended up at UCL in London. That's of interest to me because I went to Lincoln College, Oxford, and failed my exams and ended up at Imperial College in London. In her case she was more interested in rowing that working, apparently, whereas in my case I was more interested in music than working.

Her voting history is not in her favour, I agree.

 

[Lost property]

When you think Esther McVey set an abysmally low standard at the DWP, and she surpassed this, that's all you need to know. With such a callous disregard " business as usual" when the UC £20 was removed, then she's now perfectly positioned to expand people's misery away from those who are already suffering due to her former Dept's vindictive policies.

Has been compared to Grandma from the late, great "Giles " cartoons Giles cartoons were probably the only decent commentary the Express has ever printed

 

[joebassman]

I don't believe that people should be descriminated against because of their weight and I definitly think its wrong to insult people because of that. When has calling someone fat ever helped?

But I don't see how the government will be able to claim they are attempting to tackle an obseity crisis where 28% of adults are considered obese, a further 36% are overweight, 14% 4-5 yo are obese and 25% of 10-11 yo and yet the health secetary is herself obese. Maybe if she said yes she is but she is looking to live a more healthy lifestyle than fair enough. But all she says is that she isn't a great role model to follow.

Despite what some in the fat proud movement may claim, its common sense that the more weight the body carries the more strain it will place on it. The body is a biological machine and like any machine it only has a limited shelf life. Like any component the more work it has to do the quicker it will wear out.

 

[MotCO]

It's early days, so I would give her the benefit of the doubt. If she becomes an effective Health Secretary (cutting waiting lists, improving available staff, making GP services more effective, cutting bureaucracy etc), then her personal health becomes an irrelevance. If she fails, then the barbed comments will flow.

 

[pdeaves]

Maybe, just maybe, an 'unhealthy' (use whatever parameter you want) health Secretary will actually use and experience the system they need to make decisions on. Knowing something about the system can only help.

Or maybe the poor personal health choices will guide poor policy, I don't know.

 

[joebassman]

Maybe, just maybe, an 'unhealthy' (use whatever parameter you want) health Secretary will actually use and experience the system they need to make decisions on. Knowing something about the system can only help.

Or maybe the poor personal health choices will guide poor policy, I don't know.

We can only hope but so did BJ use it.

 

[MattA7]

Truss herself was one of only two cabinet ministers to oppose the plain cigarette packaging law back in 2015 so that could be why she doesn’t see a heavy smoking health secretary as a major deal.

 

[johntea]

To be honest the NHS has far bigger problems than a new Health Secretary!

Either way it seems like the vast majority only last 2-3 years anyway before being replaced (Jeremy Hunt being the exception)

 

[Typhoon]

My problem with her is that she appeared to show zero drive, zero initiative, zero innovation, zero imagination at the DWP and has moved to a job where she will need all four. Her qualifications for the job appear to be that she was Truss' campaign manager for the leadership election.
Oh, and she claims to like music. Really, then why massacre a decent song? (And what's all this 'In the house' rubbish, who honestly still says that?)

 

[JamesT]

She’s been quoted in an interview that she doesn’t see herself as a role model health wise does suggest a level of awareness that policy won’t be based on her personal choices - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...mits-not-role-model-questions-smoking-weight/

 

[Busaholic]

Ken Clarke was the first Secretary of State for Health, appointed by Margaret Thatcher in 1988. He was an obese cigar smoker who'd long had ties with BAT (British American Tobacco) and became its Deputy Chairman a decade later. The most criticism I remember of his lifestyle came from his own Under-Secretary, one Mrs Edwina Currie, a case of a pot calling the kettle black if ever there was! The contaminated blood scandal that still resonates today happened under his watch, but he always managed to avoid the bad press accorded to so many of his colleagues, possibly because his 'easy' style of speech and disinclination to offer a hint of personal attacks on colleagues he disagreed with led them to underestimate his political savvy. Overall, I'd say Baron Clarke led and leads a charmed life. Perhaps Therese Coffey might be studying his career for pointers to the future.

 

[Typhoon]

Ken Clarke was the first Secretary of State for Health, appointed by Margaret Thatcher in 1988. He was an obese cigar smoker who'd long had ties with BAT (British American Tobacco) and became its Deputy Chairman a decade later. The most criticism I remember of his lifestyle came from his own Under-Secretary, one Mrs Edwina Currie, a case of a pot calling the kettle black if ever there was! The contaminated blood scandal that still resonates today happened under his watch, but he always managed to avoid the bad press accorded to so many of his colleagues, possibly because his 'easy' style of speech and disinclination to offer a hint of personal attacks on colleagues he disagreed with led them to underestimate his political savvy. Overall, I'd say Baron Clarke led and leads a charmed life. Perhaps Therese Coffey might be studying his career for pointers to the future.

Clarke was a true 'One Nation Conservative' (not one 'in name only' like our former PM) who held a range of high-ranking ministerial posts under Thatcher, Major and Cameron. At Health, he directed the course of government policy away from the 'private medical insurance' model preferred by his predecessor. for which we must be grateful. He was not perfect - as you say, his response to contaminated blood scandal, another one of his inheritances, was poor and should have been dealt with much, much earlier. He still pops up from time to time, largely talking sense. Examples (from a Guardian interview on 21st August https://www.theguardian.com/politi...-tax-cuts-growth-conservative-tory-leadership) follow:

The government shouldn’t be asking themselves, what is the Daily Mail going to be saying tomorrow but what is the economy going to look like in a couple of years’ time when we have an election?

The simplistic idea that tax cuts will automatically produce growth is nonsense. Everybody would do it if that worked. There’s a slight touch of the Argentinian or Venezuelan government about it.

On Johnson -

He purged the party of some of its very best future leading figures and put Brexiteer yes men and women in the cabinet to largely disastrous effect.

If she is half as good as Clarke, she'll be fine (provided the 'half' is not a reluctance to admit to being wrong) but, on past record, the omens are not good.

 

[nw1]

My problem with her is that she appeared to show zero drive, zero initiative, zero innovation, zero imagination at the DWP and has moved to a job where she will need all four. Her qualifications for the job appear to be that she was Truss' campaign manager for the leadership election.
Oh, and she claims to like music. Really, then why massacre a decent song? (And what's all this 'In the house' rubbish, who honestly still says that?)

"In the house"? Is she trying to be some kind of late 80s/early 90s DJ or rapper?

Maybe we could have a duo, again in the style of that era. "Lizzie-T and Tessie-C".

 

[joebassman]

Health

Plans to scrap England’s anti-obesity measures ‘a national scandal’​

Abandoning policies to tackle obesity would be “dangerous for the public’s health” and lead to people eating even more unhealthy food, a senior doctor and leading campaigner has warned.

ministers have instigated a review of strategies which are either already being used or are due to be implemented in England to address the obesity crisis.
Whitehall sources say that Liz Truss is minded to abandon all the existing policies, including bans on “buy one get one free” type multibuy offers, displays of sweet treats at supermarket checkouts and adverts for junk food being shown on TV before the 9pm watershed.

Public health and medical groups fear that the review’s “internal” nature may means they cannot make representations.

Plans to scrap England’s anti-obesity measures ‘a national scandal’

Some have warned plans to abandon policies are ‘dangerous’, while others welcome reversal amid rising costs

www.theguardian.com

 

[MikeWM]

Sounds good to me - none of those things are anything that the Government ought to be involved with in the first place. We need to start taking responsibility for our own choices rather than expecting government to dictate the minutiae of our lives.

 

[najaB]

We need to start taking responsibility for our own choices rather than expecting government to dictate the minutiae of our lives.

As long as "taking responsibility for our own choices" also means not placing demands on the NHS as a result of those choices then I'm all for it. However, I expect that the people who end up with diabetes, heart conditions, lung cancer or strokes due to their unhealthy lifestyle choices will be the first to complain about NHS waiting lists or rationing of care.

 

[MikeWM]

As long as "taking responsibility for our own choices" also means not placing demands on the NHS as a result of those choices then I'm all for it. However, I expect that the people who end up with diabetes, heart conditions, lung cancer or strokes due to their unhealthy lifestyle choices will be the first to complain about NHS waiting lists or rationing of care.

After the last few years, I have to say that the argument that we need the government to interfere in pretty much every aspect of our lives in order 'to save the NHS' really doesn't cut it with me anymore.

The NHS has to be able to cope with people making less-than-perfect lifestyle choices, and if it can't, we need to being discussing that, not going down the absurd route of government passing laws to tell retailers how they are allowed to display and sell their products.

 

[jfollows]

How does this work with the law limiting the amount of paracetamol or ibuprofen you can buy at one time?
On the face of it, it's trivial, you just go back and buy two packets every time you visit the shop, or you go to a different shop to buy more.
But deaths from overdose fell by 43% because of this, it's reported (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21370910).
Maybe interfering to save our lives is OK?
I certainly can't stand the mantra of "save the NHS" and never could, but on the face of the evidence do you ban all interference or just some?

 

[Busaholic]

Clarke was a true 'One Nation Conservative' (not one 'in name only' like our former PM) who held a range of high-ranking ministerial posts under Thatcher, Major and Cameron. At Health, he directed the course of government policy away from the 'private medical insurance' model preferred by his predecessor. for which we must be grateful. He was not perfect - as you say, his response to contaminated blood scandal, another one of his inheritances, was poor and should have been dealt with much, much earlier. He still pops up from time to time, largely talking sense. Examples (from a Guardian interview on 21st August https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/21/ken-clarke-tax-cuts-growth-conservative-tory-leadership) follow:


On Johnson -


If she is half as good as Clarke, she'll be fine (provided the 'half' is not a reluctance to admit to being wrong) but, on past record, the omens are not good.

Clarke was apparently also the first one to tell Thatcher that her time as PM was up, a story which has never been seriously refuted iirc. He and Heseltine provided an important counterbalance to the Tebbits, Parkinsons and Ridleys. I cannot see Elizabeth Trump tolerating such 'different' views, or even emphases, in her Cabinet. Thatcher's first Home Secretary, and Deputy Prime Minister, was Willie Whitelaw: I can't imagine a more different politician to him than Priti Patel or Suella Braverman.

 

[MikeWM]

How does this work with the law limiting the amount of paracetamol or ibuprofen you can buy at one time?
On the face of it, it's trivial, you just go back and buy two packets every time you visit the shop, or you go to a different shop to buy more.
But deaths from overdose fell by 43% because of this, it's reported (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21370910).
Maybe interfering to save our lives is OK?
I certainly can't stand the mantra of "save the NHS" and never could, but on the face of the evidence do you ban all interference or just some?

I've not really looked into the stats for this until now, but I note that article quotes one doctor as saying "While some of this effect could have been due to improved hospital management of paracetamol overdoses, we believe that this has in large part been due to the introduction of the legislation." and the attached graph makes it look rather more due to the former than the latter to me, else it seems there should be a big instant drop when the law came in as opposed rather than a gradual fall over some years as the graph shows. 'We believe' isn't much of a recommendation, we've seen enough of that sort of thing recently from medical professionals saying all sorts of abject nonsense.

 

[Scotrail12]

I care less about her weight than I do the fact that she's a smoker. There's a fine line for me and smoking crosses it, it's so unhealthy, I can't imagine anyone who does it being able to advise on health.

 

[MattA7]

Does anyone have access to this news article regarding the new health minister. I cannot access it due to the paywall.

Ministers signal end of ‘nanny state’ as Therese Coffey sets out health priorities

Health Secretary vows to ‘stand up for patients’ but admits she ‘may not be the role model’ for the country

www.telegraph.co.uk

One thing that is interesting is rumors of the PMs plan to abolish sugar tax which I always believed was counterproductive anyway as it caused drinks manufacturers to move to aspartame a artificial sweetener some believe to be carcinogenic.

 

[najaB]

I always believed was counterproductive anyway as it caused drinks manufacturers to move to aspartame a artificial sweetener some believe to be carcinogenic.

Some may believe that, but it is not.

Cancer myths

www.cancerresearchuk.org

 

[nw1]

Some may believe that, but it is not.

Cancer myths

www.cancerresearchuk.org

Aspartame is I believe a methylated dipeptide (basically two amino acids joined together, with one of them containing an extra methyl group, for those that ever did any organic chemistry). Basically a slightly-modified tiny protein.

While I can't be sure, and may be completely wrong, I would be surprised if it had ill effects.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

I care less about her weight than I do the fact that she's a smoker. There's a fine line for me and smoking crosses it, it's so unhealthy, I can't imagine anyone who does it being able to advise on health.

Is she just an occasional cigar smoker?
..
I favor restrictions on smoking and on alcohol, both cause great damage to people who do not smoke or drink. Children of smokers and drinkers for example.

I was the victim of an unprovoked attack by a drunk. In a park by a river, I thought he wanted to throw me in.

Yes, restrictions on alcohol and tobacco, later complete bans. Who should I vote for?

 

[joebassman]

As long as "taking responsibility for our own choices" also means not placing demands on the NHS as a result of those choices then I'm all for it. However, I expect that the people who end up with diabetes, heart conditions, lung cancer or strokes due to their unhealthy lifestyle choices will be the first to complain about NHS waiting lists or rationing of care.

Considering I saw an article of one women complaining that airlines should make their seats bigger because she can not fit on one seat and that anyone who complains because she takes up half their seat is 'fatphobic' and another woman who at 250lbs was refused to be allowed to ride a horse for being too heavy so made a video complaining on her social media page resulting in hundreds of yelp negative reviews of the ranch by her followers, potentially ruining the companies reputation, I think your assesment is pretty accurate.

 

[DarloRich]

i am hardly one out talk about weight and appearance so i wont. Instead i will focus on one thing: She is a chuffing Tory.

 

[MikeWM]

One thing that is interesting is rumors of the PMs plan to abolish sugar tax which I always believed was counterproductive anyway as it caused drinks manufacturers to move to aspartame a artificial sweetener some believe to be carcinogenic.

It may be a topic for a different thread, but I have significant doubts about aspartame too, and avoid it whenever possible. There's some very suspicious stuff that happened with how aspartame was approved, after being banned for a while - and Donald Rumsfeld was deeply involved in the process, in a way that if you were being polite you would call a 'conflict of interest', which should ring alarm bells with anyone.

See this article, for example, which is an intriguing read:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-rumsfeld-and-the-s_b_805581

Donald Rumsfeld and the Strange History of Aspartame

...

In 1985, Monsanto purchased G.D. Searle, the chemical company that held the patent to aspartame, the active ingredient in NutraSweet. Monsanto was apparently untroubled by aspartame's clouded past, including the report of a 1980 FDA Board of Inquiry, comprised of three independent scientists, which confirmed that it "might induce brain tumors." The FDA had previously banned aspartame based on this finding, only to have then-Searle Chairman Donald Rumsfeld vow to "call in his markers," to get it approved. Here's how it happened:

Ronald Reagan was sworn in as president January 21, 1981. Rumsfeld, while still CEO at Searle, was part of Reagan's transition team. This team hand-picked Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes, Jr., to be the new FDA commissioner. Dr. Hayes, a pharmacologist, had no previous experience with food additives before being appointed director of the FDA. On January 21, 1981, the day after Ronald Reagan's inauguration, Reagan issued an executive order eliminating the FDA commissioners' authority to take action and Searle re-applied to the FDA for approval to use aspartame in food sweetener. Hayes, Reagan's new FDA commissioner, appointed a 5-person Scientific Commission to review the board of inquiry's decision. It soon became clear that the panel would uphold the ban by a 3-2 decision. So Hayes installed a sixth member on the commission, and the vote became deadlocked. He then personally broke the tie in aspartame's favor.

 

[brad465]

Sounds good to me - none of those things are anything that the Government ought to be involved with in the first place. We need to start taking responsibility for our own choices rather than expecting government to dictate the minutiae of our lives.

Provided there is effective education of healthy lifestyle choices in the first place. No-one is born with knowledge of personal responsibility, they have to be taught it.

I do also think that there are corporate interests that would rather nothing was done about obesity because it suits their profits. Fast food chains obviously profit from unhealthy populations, as do private medical insurers/pharmaceutical firms. Then there's car usage over walking and cycling, electronic device entertainment rather than sports/physical activities. All of these often come with effective advertising that manipulates a critical mass of the population who are also not taught critical thinking. Therefore, I think there are systemic causes of obesity, not just some who genuinely don't care.