WHETHER your political dreams have come true or been depressingly dashed, the fact of the matter is that we have a new ‘boss’ for the next five years.

For me, a Labour government feels solid, traditional, even parental. And that’s not a necessarily bad thing. The antics and relay race of the last five Prime Ministers in Westminster, and almost as many in Holyrood, have left a legacy of chaos, lack of growth and poor health.

The buzz words, ‘change’, ‘renewal’ and ‘growth’ are worth aiming for, but where’s the strategy? Which sector will be prioritised and who will ‘carry the load’?

In my mind, it is our young people who need to be at the heart of the decisions made. It makes sense from a political point of view. They are the voters of the future and any government would be wise to skew decisions in their favour.

Providing more money for the health service is welcome but, unless the environment our young people grow up in is not irrevocably changed, the demands on the health service will only increase.

In 2005, the Labour Government introduced the first anti-smoking legislation, which has now, 20 years later, successfully changed attitudes to smoking and decreased significantly tobacco-induced deaths. The SNP similarly has introduced legislation and taxation inexorably moving us away from the use of alcohol.

Now is the time to seriously challenge the relentless promotion and sale of ultra-processed foods and dangerous food additives, and move to a real food supply. The large food conglomerates and pharmaceuticals survive by keeping us addicted. We know ultra-processed foods, sugar, sugar substitutes and nitrates increase risk of obesity and cancers. We need bold policies to protect us from these addictive poisons.

Taxes raised could directly subsidise supplies of local, fresh foods. Similar policies in Japan and Finland have already created real improvements in the wellbeing and longevity of their population, reducing dependence on health services.

Our youth would embrace the changes. They know what is good for them. They just can’t afford it.