Prompted by comments on the Pedant General’s blog and again over at the Devil’s Kitchen, I wanted to discuss the matter of Jamie Oliver (must I? Yes, I must, I’m afraid) and his ongoing crusade for more healthy school meals. I don’t have a problem with Mr Oliver mounting his campaign – after all, I believe in the right to free expression and he has every right to express his disdain for the food being served up to school children. And, indeed, what he is saying is pretty much sensible stuff. So, no, I have no problem with him voicing an opinion – apart that is, from the matter of him being probably the second most irritating man on television (the first being Graham Norton by a league and a half) making me change channels the minute his smug fizzog starts to spout his pukka wisdom. No, it is what the PG mentions later in his post that bothers me:
But there is a darker side. Whatever one may think about the eponymous (he must be nearly eponymous by now) Mr Oliver and whatever one may think about the importance and soundness of his cause, he is a walking demonstration of the massive structural faults in our system of government. Mr Oliver is a little short of a single issue terrorist who has inflicted the most insidious form of “blackmail by television” upon the current administration.
Yes… that bothers me greatly. When, exactly, did we elect Mr Oliver to make government policy? Ah, yes, of course… we didn’t. The PG goes on:
No politician – of any stripe – is going to declare on television that such an eminently sensible solution to an undoubtedly serious issue should not receive money when such money is demanded. What Jamie Oliver has done is to demonstrate exactly how to extort taxpayers cash for any given pet project. In a world of limited resources, especially if one desires that government resources NEED to be limited, all requests for such resources have to be balanced. Availability of a charismatic celebrity ought not to be one of the criteria for setting such a balance. I struggle to see how, in a liberal pluralist democracy with a strong and free press, such blackmail can be resisted.
Blackmail. It’s an ugly word, but that’s what is happening here and the majority will go along with it precisely because in this case, the cause is a just one. However, despite this, some are standing their ground and rebelling against the new regime in the name of choice:
A group of mothers has started delivering fast food through a school’s fence in protest at the campaign for healthier school meals.
The parents claim they are taking action because pupils are turning up their noses at what they describe as “overpriced, low-fat rubbish”.
Four of them are using a supermarket trolley to make daily runs with fish and chips, pies, burgers, sandwiches and fizzy drinks from local takeaways.
While it may seem contrary to admire a rebellion against common sense, I do admire them, because they are rebelling against the puritanical restriction on their right to choose and if there is any doubt about the justness of their cause, it is underlined by the response to their protest:
Staff at Rawmarsh Comprehensive School, near Rotherham, South Yorkshire, have called in environmental health and education officials. They are looking into whether the women are allowed to sell food without an operating licence and whether they are covered by food hygiene regulations.
Ah, yes, that bastion of the prissy, puritanical bully, the “it’s-health-and-safety-innit?” argument. Allow me to digress for a moment if you will. I have some experience of health and safety management – I also have some experience of training in this subject. As a consequence, I view with contempt the ignorant who use it as a means to stop people doing things of which they disapprove; as a tool for oppression, a stick to beat those who dare to voice opposition to the accepted wisdom. Indeed, so absloute is my contempt that when some tedious little jobsworth comes out with the phrase “well, it’s elfansafety, innit?” I have this overwhelming urge to tear their head from their neck and vomit in the resultant cavity. If only… :dry:
Good health and safety management (and the same principle applies to environmental management) is about analysing and managing risk. What risk, exactly is being imported to the school by these parents? Will the children all die of food poisoning because their parents collected the food rather than collecting it themselves? How likely is this? The risk is miniscule. If the children are fed an exclusive diet of pie and chips, their long term health will suffer, but there is no indication here that this will happen. What is happening is merely a short term backlash – its very nature means that it will die a natural death. This is a protest about choice. There is no significant health and safety risk and talk of operating licenses and food hygiene regulations is massive overkill. But, then, that’s what bullies do when faced with opposition.
Back on subject… the reason I am so concerned about blackmail by slebs on a mission such as Jamie Oliver is that there is no stopping them. Having achieved one aim; getting school meals in place that meet his approval in this instance; Mr Oliver has turned his sights on those who have the effrontery to opt out:
Jamie Oliver, the television chef famous for his crusade to improve school dinners, has lashed out at parents over the food they give to their children.
He said 70 per cent of packed lunches in the country were “disgraceful” and he would like to see them banned.
There you go. Not satisfied with achieving his goal regarding school lunches, he immediately sets about trying to get the alternative banned. Banned because he does not approve and having given into him once, how will government be able to refuse a second time?
How, exactly, does Mr Oliver know that 70% of packed lunches are “disgraceful”? How many has he checked? This is a wild, unsubstantiated assertion – and on the basis of that assertion, he wants government to act and ban packed lunches. He seeks to deny parents the right to choose, to opt out of the school lunch system should they so wish. His vision is right and everyone must fall into line – or else.
He added: “Packed lunches are a problem. Most of them, whatever anyone says, aren’t appropriate.”
No, they are not a problem – until he has proved otherwise. It is time, perhaps, for Mr Oliver to return to his kitchen and keep his nose out of other peoples’ business (and preferably off our television screens as well :dry: ).
Update: For a slightly more colourful take on this see Carpsio. Warning – lots of swearing. He says about Oliver what I think.
Longrider,
Many thanks for the link. I thought that might appeal to you…
I, however, have a mildly less objectivist stance on this.
“However, despite this, some are standing their ground and rebelling against the new regime in the name of choice:”
Not quite. i suspect that what is actually happening here is that these parents are caving in to the demands of their children. This is not good. There is no doubt that Mr Oliver, TV blackmailer extraordinaire that he may be, is correct on this issue. In the first series he demonstrated quite clearly the relationship between junk food and behaviour, concentration levels and the effectiveness of the teaching environment.
I shall post again on this topic because I think it merits a proper post. In short, replace “healthy food” with “maths lessons” and the concept of the children’s rights becomes a little blurred. Which is worse: denying choice by insisting that they eat healthy food or holding a child against his will in a maths lesson?
I have said before that I believe parents require to be authoritarian with regard to their children in order that those children can grow up to be proper classical liberal adults.
It’s all rather tricky….
PG
It is indeed. The obvious virtue of the cause hides the underlying difficulty one faces when arguing the principle; that policy should not be conducted by celebs on a mission.
It’s difficult to be absolutely sure whether the parents in this case were submitting to pester power or making a principled stand. Either way, it ain’t going to last as they will tire of traipsing out every lunchtime to the chip shop. That they made the stand for whatever reason is a good thing. People need to make a protest and be heard – even if; should your analysis be correct; they are doing the right thing for the wrong reason. Now there’s a valuable lesson for future classical liberals.
Incidentally, my concern for the right to choose, was that of the parents – particularly as Jamie Oliver would like to remove parents’ rights to provide a packed lunch for their offspring. He assumes, in his arrogance, that parents are incapable of providing a healthy balanced diet. That he is right in some cases does not justify a blanket ban affecting everyone.
Given that I absolutely abhorred maths and was useless at it, I might have a biased opinion on your choice of example… :devil: