zlacker

>>mmaria+(OP)
Basically every new law, piece of news or media I see coming from the UK paints a picture of a beat-down, cynical & scared society that's complacent to or in support of increasing surveillance and control by the government. Like maybe Adolescence or basically any mention of the NHS. The crimes they cite like child grooming or terrorism/hate being incited sound pretty terrible too, but I wonder why the UK specifically is taking action - is the issue bigger there, or are they just more aware of and willing to act on it.

>>zapthe+zf
> I wonder why the UK specifically is taking action - is the issue bigger there, or are they just more aware of and willing to act on it.

Other countries are moving in the same direction. The EU has repeatedly tried to push things like on device scanning or banning encryption.

> Basically every new law, piece of news or media I see coming from the UK paints a picture of a beat-down, cynical & scared society that's complacent to or in support of increasing surveillance and control by the government.

Mostly a failure of democracy - we have two major parties that are hard to tell apart.

They are both cynical and scared, and have for decades believed the future of Britain is managed decline. They also strongly believe the hoi polloi have to be forced to do what is good for them - e.g. the sugar tax and other "nudge politics", or the currently Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill which is basically about imposing central policy on how children are brought up and educated.

>>graeme+b51
The sugar tax is a strange example to pick as an example of British decline.

As of 2022, the WHO reported on SSB (sugar-sweetened beverages):

> Currently, at least 85 countries implement some type of SBB taxation.

It feels to me like this was a rare step in the opposite direction - recognising that industry is the driving cynical force and pushing back on its over reach where it has failed. Most manufacturers reformulated their drinks immediately to avoid the tax, with what net loss? (The class-targeting comments were a straw man)

https://www.who.int/news/item/13-12-2022-who-calls-on-countr...

>>tweetl+c81
In principle I support taxes that disincentivise production of negative externalities (in this case, adverse health effects).

However the way this works out in practice is a reduction in consumer choice, one that I'm reminded of every time I walk into a shop.

> Most manufacturers reformulated their drinks immediately

This is the problem, really. Rather than adding new "low sugar" product lines, in most instances they're modifying existing ones to replace the sugar with artificial sweeteners. The "original recipe" is often no longer available to consumers at any price.

As someone who struggles to consume enough calories to stay healthy, this sucks! (Mostly unrelated to pricing, just as a matter of practicality)

Cigarette smokers for example can still walk into just about any shop and purchase their favourite cigarettes, they just have to pay more for them - this seems fine.

Overall I'm quite on the fence about the whole thing, but on a purely emotional level it feels like an instance of government overreach.

>>Retr0i+nc1
Personally, I enjoy an energy drink here and there. But I loathe sugar in my drinks.

However, sugar sweatened energy drinks are much more available.

So I share your frustration in the opposite direction.

The said. Taxation is not for the individual but the society.

Whilr I am sorry to hear that you have issue getting enough calories, that is simply a non concern for the society.

So this seems to be a good use of tax for incentivizing.