I thought that having a UK celebrity chef tell us that our kids are too fat and that anyone against a sugar tax deserves a slap would have gone down as well as a sous vide burger.

I was wrong.

Celebrity chef and sugar tax activist Jamie Oliver reckons it is a ‘bloody disgrace’ no one from National turned up to a conference advocating for a sugar tax. And he has been applauded by some New Zealanders for giving us the kick-up-the-backside we all needed.

“This is not regressive this is progressive,” he says of the tax. Why? Because you can spend the money on kids for sport and food education.

Here, Jamie Oliver sounds a bit like a Nigerian prince email scam: “Politicians in the room, activists, come together. Come together, this is new money! This is new money for the children of New Zealand.”

After all, what monster would be against new money for children?

Here is the problem: the tax is still regressive. Taking money out of poor peoples’ pockets to spend on kids does not change the fact they will spend more of their incomes on the tax than richer people.

Besides, if investing in sports and food education were really such important initiatives, the government could do so without raising extra revenue. But when there are families struggling to keep a roof over their heads and their bellies full, teaching kids that cake is a ‘sometimes food’ hardly seems like the most pressing issue.

And then comes the kicker.

Jamie Oliver proudly announces: “And here is the genius, it was never about the sugary drinks tax, it is not just about that.” A sugar tax is purely a symbol “that government will step in when things go wrong.”

I suppose that is genius if you have never heard of a Trojan horse or Overton window before.

And I guess that is genius if you believe people should get a pat on the back for fat shaming and making poor people poorer. Simply as a symbolic gesture that the government cares.

While I can hardly admonish a celebrity chef for not understanding economics and public policy when I can barely poach an egg, it would be a bloody disgrace to let his thinking influence our policy.

Like an email scam, if it sounds too good to be true (health and prosperity for all at a low cost), then it probably is.