Jump to content

Judith Collins: "Obesity is a personal choice"


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, erice said:

If you are talking "meals ready to eat" maybe

But if you're talking a loaf of bread, fresh seasonal fruit or a bag of vegetables, then no it's not

Rubbish.

A large bag of chips $1.50, now see how many pieces of fruit you can get for $1.50. Maybe 1 apple. A bag of chips will shut 2 kids up for lunch, half an apple wont.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 37
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

For the ones I know, they are working two tenuous minimum wage jobs, living in a house that earns more than they do each year.  The couple pass like ships in the night - he works nightshift and runs a

Personal choice.  This is about more than just obesity. This hits at health measures to curb obesity, it means they consider drug addiction also a personal choice, it puts the blame for poverty firmly

Generally speaking, sh*t quality food is cheaper than fresh fruit and vegetables. People gotta eat. Calories are cheap.

Posted Images

59 minutes ago, tuffyluffy said:

1kg of carrots for $1.67

Sounds like horse food?

But really, is this topic the best the opposition has? Fat shaming? Has Judith given up on the mantra that National are best for the economy? House prices? Relationship with China? Border policy? Allowing in cheap migrant labour?

Health Spending?

Defense?

Energy strategy?

Serious question, what does it mean for a Political party when this is the main message? Several minor parties have a better message than this. Is National going to be a minor party?

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Fish said:

Sounds like horse food?

But really, is this topic the best the opposition has? Fat shaming? Has Judith given up on the mantra that National are best for the economy? House prices? Relationship with China? Border policy? Allowing in cheap migrant labour?

Health Spending?

Defense?

Energy strategy?

Serious question, what does it mean for a Political party when this is the main message? Several minor parties have a better message than this. Is National going to be a minor party?

She is screwed and desparate.

I've listened to several of her interviews over the last few days - ZB, RNZ, etc.  JC seems incapable of switching from attack dog mode to statesperson setting out policy.  I'm none the wiser on National's position except that they want to roll back employment, environment tenant and consumer protection while fatshaming and handing out temporary tax reductions except to the people who might spend them locally. 

Her attacks on Labour over possible new wealth tax relies on National having a history of not adding in taxes after promising not to.  Unfortunately, they don't have that history.  Her attacks on the government's COVID responses have been disarmed by the demonstrable outcomes for the country and by her walking a line between "government should be small" and "JA is responsible for day to day activity across the country".

By making personal attacks on a wildly popular PM, she has only made herself look petty.  Even if she is correct.

I'm sure she is going down well with the Party Faithful, but in reality she is presenting us with 1990 revisited - possibly the Grandmother of all budgets?

Roll on Sunday morning.  I'm over this election business.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Fish said:

Rubbish.

A large bag of chips $1.50, now see how many pieces of fruit you can get for $1.50. Maybe 1 apple. A bag of chips will shut 2 kids up for lunch, half an apple wont.

If you are going to the trouble of tracking down a 200gm? Pack of crisps for $1.50 you can certainly track down 500gm of seasonal fruit for same

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheapest large bag of chips at my local market today $2, basket of fruit at the door free for kids to eat while your shopping, its not that hard.

Must be pretty flash apples if your paying $1.50 each. They did have tomatoes for $12.99 kg if thats more your style.

We get to have personal choice over eating refined sugar products and other junk food or not but can't pick our choice of recreational drugs.

I have made a personal educated guess not scientifically verified as to which one has a bigger cost to our societies health and healthcare.

Pretty sure it isn't the drugs, didn't see a tick box on the form that mentioned junk food or sugar, go figure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personal choice.  This is about more than just obesity. This hits at health measures to curb obesity, it means they consider drug addiction also a personal choice, it puts the blame for poverty firmly on those in poverty. It appeals to National's core voters who are, to be honest, often out of touch with reality. The first cry i hear from the right is that "they should have thought a bit more before having kids" which is not only post fact, but verging on invasion of privacy at the least, and at the worst on a level of authoritarian interference in private lives that we as a society should roundly shun. People in poverty have poorer access to reproductive health - so you gonna tell them not to have sex? Often, religious groups (including those on the far right) champion the policy of having more kids, and catholics are not supposed to use birth control. 

Like poverty is a personal choice also?

I propose an exercise. Draw up a realistic budget for a family of six, including two teenagers. Mum n Dad working minimum wage. Living and working in Auckland, Include rent, transport, clothing, food, electricity and all the other things. Make some assumptions about where the family lives, and where the parents work. Also consider things like no freezer, because there's nowhere to put one / no money to buy one. etc.

Now show me how they can get enough calories without buying low quality processed food. Remember, fruit and veggies are low on calories compared to potato chips. 

And show me how they can spend enough quality time with their kids. 

I'm serious.

I challenged someone to this about a year ago, and their answer was that mum should be working 60h a week and Dad 80h... They were serious, they thought that that was a legitimate answer - not sure who was supposed to look after the kids... or when the parents were supposed to sleep. 

 

Here are some numbers to get you started. You guys can fill in the rest.

He's a construction labourer getting $25/h, 40h a week. 790.33 a week after PAYE and kiwisaver.

She's an office cleaner working 30h a week on minimum, 18.90 an hour. 471.73 a week as above. 

       So he's driving to Long Bay everyday to work on houses being built there: 80km a day, 400km week

       She's driving to the city 40km a day, 200km a week. Their schedules don't allow them to share a vehicle - or evenings.

 

Rent: 580 a week in Manurewa

640 left ---

Cars and petrol ?? let's say an old corolla ('95, 6.5L per 100km - 30 bucks a week) and a hiace van (mid 90s diesel, 8.6l/100km, $42+$30.4RUC). 540 left. Maintenance? Depreciation?

Electricity ?? 23kWh per day at 28c per unit + daily connection (30c) = 47 per week. 493 left... 

Phone/s?

Insurance?

Clothes ?

School stuff?

Shoes?

Dental?

Food and toiletries and cleaning stuff...

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...