Minimum pricing for alcohol

(227 Posts)
juneau Wed 13-Mar-13 14:02:23

A good idea or yet another example of the nanny state?

It's both, I suppose, but as someone who only ever drinks moderately and who thinks the cost of alcohol in this country is already ridiculous, thanks to all the duty slapped on by the chancellor, I resent the idea that I'll have to pay more for my modest intake just because others can't control themselves. The rebel in me is getting pretty fed up with being told what I can and can't do too, as a tax-paying, consenting, adult.

I also question whether it will have much, if any, impact. After all, if you're an alcoholic, is a modest price increase really going to make you stop drinking?

Oodsigma Wed 13-Mar-13 14:13:02

As far as I could see the price increase wouldn't affect wine/beer much, more the large bottles of cider/lager/alcopops. I've not looked at it much

scaevola Wed 13-Mar-13 14:16:13

There's now Canadian data which shows that consumption has decreased, so it becomes harder tosa a there is no evidence his will work.

The propsed unit price still leaves booze cheaper (in relation to earnings) than it was in the 1980s.

And it's still going ahead in Scotland.

juneau Wed 13-Mar-13 14:57:52

And it's still going ahead in Scotland.

I know this is Scotland's intention, but when I was listening to Radio 4 at lunchtime it sounds like the Scottish government is tied up in wrangles with various alcohol producing bodies (The Scottish Whiskey Association, and wine producers in other EU countries were mentioned), who are fighting it.

scaevola Wed 13-Mar-13 15:01:20
HillBilly76 Wed 13-Mar-13 16:25:18

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

HillBilly76 Wed 13-Mar-13 16:26:00

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

I really hope this goes through. It'll make it harder for kids to get hold of alcohol - when you can buy a 2l bottle of cider from the supermarket for a quid, anyone can afford it. All underage drinkers need to do is find someone willing to buy it for them, and they're away. Round my way, you see 15-year-olds in the park off their faces, and this wouldn't happen so much if you could price them out of the market.

But then, I can be more objective about this because I don't drink. A lot of people can't disconnect and get away from how much extra this will cost them, which is probably why it's struggling in parliament. But we do have a massive issue with alcohol in this country, and it needs dealing with.
Still can't believe I actually agree with the PM on this one issue grin

msrisotto Thu 14-Mar-13 07:43:37

I'd be happy for it but if only they'd use the extra income to fund relevant services like addiction rehab centres etc. but they never ever do. It's crap.

CogitoErgoSometimes Thu 14-Mar-13 07:54:46

As the cheap alcohol problem seems confined to supermarkets wouldn't it be easier to rope in the Retail Consortium (or similar) and agree various minimum or floor prices for formats... a can of beer, a bottle of wine, a litre of spirits etc? Rather than the awkward 'pence per unit' the floor prices would be relatively easy to monitor and could go up each Budget. Then again, sky-high cigarette prices don't seem to have had much impact on smoking levels. Banning smoking in public places was far more effective.

lrichmondgabber Thu 14-Mar-13 11:17:25

Governments wont take on big smarket chains. They could just stop them selling alcohol altogether if they wanted to. But they wont. The Brewers win against governemnts too

IntheFrame Thu 14-Mar-13 11:37:18

I drink loads. I don't understand why they don't just raise the duty on off license sales and reduce it for on the premises consumption.

It'll stop people buying drinking at home where no one is watching and enable local pubs to thrive and breweries and wine growers to stay in production. Where's the problem?

gabsid Thu 14-Mar-13 11:39:44

Personally it doesn't bother me, making alcohol less affordable might be a good idea to contribute to curbing this binge drinking culture in this country. Its horrible and embarrassing, so many people here go out to get drunk, throw up all over the place and then claim to have had a great night out confused. I enjoy having a drink, but never considered being completely wasted as 'fun', just embarrasing.

Good way to make irresponsible drinkers pay for the nuisance they cause, e.g. ambulance, police, street cleaners.

Myliferocks Thu 14-Mar-13 11:42:04

Alcohol is a lot cheaper in some other European countries yet they don't seem to have the problems we do.

TheFallenNinja Thu 14-Mar-13 11:43:54

Bad idea. I'm an infrequent and responsible drinker. Why should I pay more for others stupidity?

juneau Thu 14-Mar-13 11:51:54

Yes, I agree that the supermarkets are to blame and that nobody benefits from cheap cider and lager.

intheframe the government will never pass a law like that because I'm guessing that a huge proportion of their voters do the vast majority of their drinking at home. They're the middle class wine drinkers and gin and tonic before dinner brigade.

It's the same reason they're chary about abolishing the benefits for wealthier older people like winter fuel allowance, free bus passes and TV licences - a huge proportion of Conservative voters are pensioners and pensioners, even the well-off ones, are already feeling squeezed because of super low interest rates.

IntheFrame Thu 14-Mar-13 11:59:53

TheFallenNinja because it won't make any difference to you if you hardly ever drink. If you don't want to pay an extra 50p or whatever for a glass of wine you won't because you aren't bothered.

If you have a problem and drink too much you'll notice it.

Personally I brought tonnes of wine at Christmas as the offers were so good. What should have lasted months really just made it in to January because it was there and so cheap I didn't worry. I still have champagne because that was over £10 a bottle so I won't just neck it hopefully.

IntheFrame Thu 14-Mar-13 12:07:49

I mention the pubs because it's really noticeable that only the middle classes drink in them now. We have no "rough" pubs in our town because we aren't big enough for the cheap Weatherspoons etc.

All the working class pubs have been turned into apartments and the others are all wine bars and gastro pubs. I think the middle classes are doing alright.
Interestingly you never see underage kids in the pubs like in my day now, as they can't afford £4.50+ a pint.

ppeatfruit Thu 14-Mar-13 12:12:31

Myliferocks The Danish other northern countries have horrific problems (sorry no links) with alcohol and their booze is MUCH more expensive than ours.

cumfy Thu 14-Mar-13 12:13:54

Why don't they just put alcohol duty up ?

At least that will generate revenue, and doesn't require policing/monitoring.

Alcohol costs UK society £20,000,000,000 a year, it needs to be controlled somehow.

MoreBeta Thu 14-Mar-13 12:41:51

I am not keen on a minimum alcohol price as the supermarkets will gather the extra profits form higher prices. However, I am keen on a unified per unit alcohol duty. At least the Govt will get the money to reduce public debt.

I simply cannot understand why Osborne has not pushed for a unified per unit alcohol duty. It is a no brainer as it is easy to implement and has the same effect as a minimum price.

The per unit alcohol duty would just charge the same price per unit alcohol regardless of what the drink was. Hence if the unit alcohol tax was £0.25 per unit a bottle of strong wine (12% alcohol) would have a duty of about £2.50 per bottle. Beer at 4% woudl have a duty of about 50p per pint and spirits obviously a lot more duty per bottle but the same per unit duty.

It woudl be a fair tax in the sense that no alcohol type woudl be discrinated against. Alcohol is alchol no matter how it is drunk.

Historically though beer was always seen as the working mans drink and taxed a lot less per unit than wine and spirits. Politicians were always frightened of taxing beer at the same rate as say whisky which was seen as the 'rich mans' drink.

Equalising alcohol duty rates would be a very good starting point and actually receive reasonable support I think. It would be seen as 'fair'.

MoreBeta Thu 14-Mar-13 12:44:49

Stopping supermarkets selling alcohol woudl also be a very good starting point for controlling consumption as well as requiring all alcohol to be paid for by credit card as then it would guarantee no one under 18 could buy it.

Myliferocks Thu 14-Mar-13 12:47:58

MoreBeta Not everybody has a credit card.

claig Thu 14-Mar-13 12:51:14

'Bad idea. I'm an infrequent and responsible drinker. Why should I pay more for others stupidity?'

Spot on FallenNinja, and that is why this policy looks like it is on its last legs.

The Tories are now worried that they will lose the next election, the progressives in the Cabinet with their New Labour nanny state ways do not have popular support for nanny state policies and some Tory MPs oppose the progressive policies. Now the Tories have to listen to the people in a bid not to harm their election chances.

Progressives penalising ordinbary people is now passe because the election is on the way.

The people are asking why the progressives are penalising ordinary people instead of solving major issues such as the economy and growth. If they keep gazing at their navels and penalising responsible people, they will lose teh election to the other group of progressives called New Lasbour.

claig Thu 14-Mar-13 12:53:15

If they carry on as they are, I wouldn't be surprised if they bring back New Labour's progressive bin fines. If they don't change their policies and if they don't concentrate all their resources on solving economic problems, they will lose public confidence and lose the election.

RobotHamster Thu 14-Mar-13 12:54:06

I think the supermarkets should be stopped from selling huge amounts of beer at discount prices (2 x 20 cans at £12 - that sort of thing). It should cost the same per can/bottle regardless of whether you buy 4 or 40. It just encourages people to buy more

You can't do promotional offers on cigarettes can you? Why is it allowed for alcohol?

Bridgetbidet Thu 14-Mar-13 12:56:47

It's just another tax on the poor.

It won't affect middle class drinkers who can already afford to buy bottles of wine at a £20 a pop. But it will affect low income families who maybe have a bottle of cheap plonk at the weekend or a few cans of Stella but will be priced out of the market.

It's just an example of wealthier people feeling that the poor need to be controlled and dictated to and prevented from doing things that the wealthier are able to do freely because somehow they equate having more money to deserving more freedom and autonomy over their lives.

Somehow people seem to see it as less morally 'wrong' for a doctor to sink a bottle of wine at the weekend than a chav.

It's interesting because people who consider themselves left wing would say they were strongly against taxes which hit the poor hardest but still seem to be delighted about tax on booze, junk food etc which are just a way of taxing the poor whilst claiming to have the moral highground. Sneaky if you ask me.

against as imo it just encourgages drug taking, esp amoungst teens

claig Thu 14-Mar-13 13:01:38

'It's just another tax on the poor.'

Exactly. But fortunately there are Tories and the Daily Mail etc. whoi oppose these progressive nanny state taxes on the poor. I think the fear of losing popular support has forced this change.

'It's interesting because people who consider themselves left wing would say they were strongly against taxes which hit the poor hardest but still seem to be delighted about tax on booze, junk food etc which are just a way of taxing the poor whilst claiming to have the moral highground.'

It's about freedom. The progressives are nanny stat know-alls, they want to tell ordinary people what to do. But the Tories who oppoose this want to let the people be.

TheFallenNinja Thu 14-Mar-13 13:02:42

But where does it stop? It's not a case of not noticing or it barely affecting, it's a case of bearing the responsibility and punitive measure for idiots that drink to excess.

So I still oppose it and have to ask, why should I and other responsible drinkers be penalised?

Other areas where additional taxes are being discussed to curb the actions of the few are becoming more common, when does the cumulative barely noticeable price become noticeable?

I like sugar in my coffee. I chose to have one per cup, I also like the occasional fizzy drink and god help me I also occasionally choke down the odd kebab. All in the firing line under the auspices of saving lives when, lets face it, it is a revenue generator. I also exercise and stay within the healthy BMI.

If I am being responsible, I don't care if they propose putting tuppence on whatever it is they don't like this week, it is wrong because I am taking responsibility for others choices over which I have no control.

cumfy Thu 14-Mar-13 13:03:05

In order to obtain a revenue neutral scenario and balance total costs of alcohol of £20bn against the duty revenues (which are currently about £15bn), there would need to be a 33% increase in duty/VAT.

Really we should be looking to get revenues 20% above this so that alcohol is on a level playing field with zero-risk items.

That would imply a ~65% increase in alcohol duty/VAT.

Pan Thu 14-Mar-13 13:06:38

Ninja/claig - I don't think the reaons this idea is on it's last legs is anything to do with sensible drinkers paying more - it will be to do with the supermarket and brewery lobbies exacting effective pressure on vulnerable political points.

A 50p unit minimum means a mininum £4.22 for a bottle of wine. Big deal?

There seems to be a Tory apprach approach that says " we could save thousands of lives and save the public purse a whole heap of money. But....they are poor people and unlikely to vote for us, and it would mean a less of a tax take over all. Best find any excuse, no matter how thin and unconvincing( flying in the face of evidence) to draw back from this pledge, and instead make some vague noide about dealing with alcohol".

Pan Thu 14-Mar-13 13:08:05

or a vague noise as well....

cumfy Thu 14-Mar-13 13:08:36

One difficulty Ninja is that almost all alcohol users will claim they are responsible.

Revenue has to be obtained from somewhere to pay for the negative effects of alcohol, and it seems significantly fairer that it comes from alcohol duty rather than the only apparent alternative, general taxation.

ppeatfruit Thu 14-Mar-13 13:11:20

whiteandyellowiris alcohol IS a drug BTW and worse in its effect,esp. it's addictive efffect, than some illegal ones. Apparently the reason Keith Richards is still alive after the excesses of the 60s is due to his not knocking back whiskey with his heroin grin.

claig Thu 14-Mar-13 13:13:53

Pan, some Tories in the Cabinet and some Tory MPs appear to have raised their heads above the parapet. They know that these policies have no public support outside of some progressive newspapers, think tanks, bigwigs and TV stations who push these messages.

I wonder what UKIP policy is on this. Can you imagine who voters, who are alrready disaffected and concerned about the economy, will vote for? People who want to penalise them by increasing the price of their alcohol or people who believe in free markets and keeping prices down.

Progressive policies are unpopular; some Tory MPs know that and they don't want to lose the election by being on the side of the progressives and not the side of the people.

When the people are told of teh price of alcohol in the House of Commons' bars and when they hear of the expenses that progresives receive and then look at their own supermarket alcohol bills, they will start to ask what the priorities of teh progressives really are.

oh yeah alchol is a drug but at least you know whats in it

teens could be taking anything, i find that more worrying, and they might just do it because they want to get feel out of control.like when people want to get drunk, they want to loose up and let themselves go

and they may end up taking goodnesss knows what if alchol is too dear

sleepyhead Thu 14-Mar-13 13:17:23

The whisky lobby are being particularly disengenious - it won't affect prices of what most people would see as the "whisky industry" at all, but these companies are neck deep in the one-step-up-from-meths products which cause a lot of damage to communities.

ppeatfruit Thu 14-Mar-13 13:22:29

Well that 's not what the kids who have rhohypnol [sp.] 'slipped ' into their drinks found out grin

claig Thu 14-Mar-13 13:25:16

Labour are right that this is a humiliation for Cameron. He is increasingly fighting the wrong battles, making stands on issues that do not have public support and is therefore starting to lose credibility. Even parts of his party are losing faith in him. Who is advising him? UKIP beat the Tories in Eastleigh and if he doesn't concentrate on real issues and sort out the economy, UKIP will take lots of disaffected Tory votes - people who are not progressives - and it will be curtains for the Tories.

claig Thu 14-Mar-13 13:27:56

It's as if the economy is too tough to solve, so the progressives want to sort out alcohol pricing instead. But that is like waving the white flag and giving up hope and it is a red flag to the public who do not appreciate nanny state policies that affect them and not the House of Commons bar.

ppeatfruit Thu 14-Mar-13 13:28:07

yes sleepyhead I agree, IMO it's a cultural thing and is quite a dangerous one.We live in 50% of the time in Fr. which doesn't seem to have the same type of youth culture as us with the "going out just to get pissed" thing BUT so many working blokes are pissed ALL the time. sad

claig Thu 14-Mar-13 13:48:49

'David Cameron is this week expected to press ahead with controversial plans for a crackdown on cheap booze – despite claims that most of his Cabinet oppose it.

But the crackdown, which has already been postponed once, is being fiercely opposed by many of Mr Cameron’s Cabinet colleagues, who fear it will hit those on low incomes without making any real difference to problem drinking.'

Why? Is there nothing more important to concentrate on? Which progressive is whispering in his ear? Of the impending election does he have no fear? Shouldn't he keep his eye on the ball, pursue policies popular with all if he wants to do well in the polls?

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2238048/Cameron-ignores-Cabinet-warnings-forge-ahead-ban-cheap-alcohol.html#ixzz2NWQEggao
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2238048/Cameron-ignores-Cabinet-warnings-forge-ahead-ban-cheap-alcohol.html

JustWannaDrinkAndDance Thu 14-Mar-13 14:03:32

Can I just add my experience of cheap booze from about 12 years ago?

I don't drink anymore, I had my first night out in 2 years the there other night. I binged. I probably won't go out again for another 2 years and i don't have children.

When I was 16/17 and in 6th form, the local club had 'student night' wednesday (no local uni's, not student ID required) so basically, a cheap night.

It was 1p to get in and 2 flavours of VK alcopop and 1 bottled beer would be 50p for the night, all other drinks £1 or £2.

I went out every Wednesday and got hammered with my mates for a fiver each. Fine, except I had double A-Level physics after lunch on a Thursday. I frequently didn't make it.

I never finished my A-levels (Maths and Physics) because I got too far behind and am 29 with the earning power of about £12-13k a year.

If prices were then what they are now, and some minimum was set, I wouldn't have been able to afford that sort of night out every single week, I wouldn't have spent every thursday too hungover to work and might have had a better education (who knows?)

I think it is always a good idea. If you only drink occasionally you will hardly notice the change.
It probably won't stop alcoholics and abusers of alcohol but it might prevent a future generation of them.

pompompom Thu 14-Mar-13 14:06:56

The minimum levels aren't that low though are they (apologies if I've missed them upthread?) - so a bottle of wine would still be about a fiver? Standard lager/cider would still be similar prices? What wouldn't be about is the gut-rot, cheap, disgusting stuff and nobody should be drinking that shite anyway wink

claig Thu 14-Mar-13 14:12:35

'Plans for a minimum price on alcohol are expected to be ditched in the face of a Cabinet revolt.
David Cameron has insisted on pressing ahead with proposals to outlaw selling alcohol at less than 45p a unit in England and Wales.
But sources say the idea appears ‘dead in the water’, thanks to opposition from ministers. Economists predict the plans could push the average family drinks bill up by almost £100 a year.
One minister said such a rise would be ‘inconceivable’ when cost of living is expected to be an issue at the next election. The minister added: ‘It would be political suicide and it will have to be abandoned.’

This is political suicide. If it does happen, then it is over for the Tories. The public is prepared to accept austerity, but there is only so much that they will take. They can't vote New Labour either, because they know they are just the same, so they just won't vote at all or they will vote UKIP. It is suicide for the Tories. But, who knows, maybe in their progressive puritanical zeal they will go ahead and do it. If so, it will just show that they have run out of ideas and teh public will kick them out.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2286904/Camerons-minimum-alcohol-price-plans-outlaw-cheap-drinks-dead-water.html

KateShrub Thu 14-Mar-13 14:23:57

Booze is dirt cheap in Belgium, France, Germany, etc.

curryeater Thu 14-Mar-13 15:17:52

45p a unit isn't a lot - aren't most wines already priced at more like at least £1 a unit? Maybe gin is about 45p a unit in a supermarket already. If gin goes up, it won't be by much.

I don't think this will affect drinkers of anything but the drinks which are already considered declassé, like Polaris*. So in other words, if you are a £6 a bottle Chardonnay drinker, carry on, darling, carry on.

I oppose this because:

a. regressive tax, innit
b. I thought all the surveys were showing that it's more MC drinking that is getting out of control
c. only the drinkers of polaris will be deterred by this, and they are addicts who will now die, frothing and writhing in the streets. I don't want to have to see this and step over their bodies

*white cider, 7.5%, sold in 3 litre bottles for a few quid

curryeater Thu 14-Mar-13 15:20:11

oh sorry x-post with pompompom - wasting my time researching polaris. (on my little journey around the internet I found an image of Sainsbury's Value cider, which almost, but not quite, has the strapline "tastes vile, still gets you blootered")

flatpackhamster Thu 14-Mar-13 15:26:14

cumfy

In order to obtain a revenue neutral scenario and balance total costs of alcohol of £20bn against the duty revenues (which are currently about £15bn), there would need to be a 33% increase in duty/VAT.

Really we should be looking to get revenues 20% above this so that alcohol is on a level playing field with zero-risk items.

That would imply a ~65% increase in alcohol duty/VAT.

Could you show me the calculations that indicate a £20Bn cost from alcohol consumption? I'd be fascinated to see how it's calculated.

I don't mean a press release, I mean the actual figures that were used to calculate this plucked-from-the-air claim.

fuzzpig Thu 14-Mar-13 15:35:59

It wouldn't bother me as I rarely drink (not through any moral or willpower particularly, I just don't like wine, beer etc) but I don't really see it making a difference.

I do agree with what was said upthread about the special offers in supermarkets, it makes you feel like you are missing out if you don't take advantage of all the extra cans/bottles for a low price, and then you are bound to end up consuming more of them rather than leaving the extras to save you buying again next week.

pompompom Thu 14-Mar-13 15:36:08

God, Polaris sounds vile.

CredulousThicko Thu 14-Mar-13 15:54:29

shock OK, I just typed 'Sainsbury's Basics Cider' into google images, wtf is going on with that vile photo (6th image along on the top line)?!?!

Anyway, no I don't want to see an increase in prices, I'm a moderate wine drinker and don't cause any trouble to anyone (glass of wine at home in the evening, tucked up on the sofa type of thing) and I don't see why I should pay for other people's mistakes.

Never tried Polaris, but curious now...

caughtinagiggleloop Thu 14-Mar-13 16:03:44

I think it's a good idea. If you drink moderately, it's not going to affect you that much. Booze in supermarkets is too cheap and when I think of the number of "happy hours" and promotional nights I patronised as a youngster, I think it's way too easy to drink yourself into an early grave. I know somebody who started having heart problems about a month after he turned 30. He ended up after 12 months of issues, losing his job and was too ill to look for another one so was signed off and claiming incapacity benefit for a year. Now, 6 years later, he is married and has a child but still has issues and essentially is still here through luck. His life before was the same as countless other people in their 20s; binge drinking and just taking good health for granted.

One of the things people don't think about is the toll that binge drinking takes on your heart. Your liver can take a battering for years before you develop problems but heart problems caused by drink are a lot more common than people think. All of this takes its toll on the NHS. In fact drunk people in general cost us millions because of the damage they cause breaking things, getting into fights, vomiting and urinating all over the streets. I'm not generally a fan of stealth taxes but I can see absolutely no down side to this one. If I have to pay a little bit more to enjoy a drink, so be it. It'll probably encourage me to cut down which can't be a bad thing.

Pan Thu 14-Mar-13 16:08:33

Yes, caught, can we bust this stuf fabout the 'moderate/nice wine' drinker being affected by a unit price of 45p. Essentially Cameron has crumbled due to lobbying and fear of losing party sponsors. They'd much prefer to people die.

MoreBeta Thu 14-Mar-13 16:14:35

Coming back to the idea of making alcohol duty equal per unit of alcohol. There is stil significant disparity between duty rate son different types of alcohol.

From the HMRC page on Alcohol Duty the rate for spirist is £26.81 per litre pure alcohol and only £19.51 for beer and about £20 for normal 12.5% strength wine. Cider I believe is even less taxed than beer but th etax on cider is very complicated.

The beer and wine and cider duty SHOULD logically be raised to equalise with spirits.

pompompom Thu 14-Mar-13 16:17:53

"Anyway, no I don't want to see an increase in prices, I'm a moderate wine drinker and don't cause any trouble to anyone (glass of wine at home in the evening, tucked up on the sofa type of thing) and I don't see why I should pay for other people's mistakes."

Unless you drink really cheap shitty wine, then it won't even affect you. Most wine is a minimum of £5 a bottle, so would already be above the minimum price per unit proposed.

NorthernAnnie Thu 14-Mar-13 16:26:51

They should just put the drinking age up to 21, I imagine the largest proportion of 'problem' drinkers are under 21.

SqueakyCleanNameChange Thu 14-Mar-13 16:32:01

I agree with MoreBeta that whether we do it by minimum unit pricing or rebasing the tax system, the price of alcohol needs to be more closely aligned to how many units are in it. If you increase the minimum price of an average unit then the rich will still be able to drink themselves to death, which is sad, but unavoidable. Hopeless alcoholics with a source of income will spend more of it on booze and less on food which is sad but unavoidable.

But street drinkers will take longer to drink themselves to death, which will give a few of them one final chance to escape. Teenagers (and pre-teens) will no longer be able to drink themselves unconscious for two quid, so maybe less likely to get run over or become the street drinkers of the future. And supermarkets will have a huge incentive to supply a range of slightly lower alcohol wines and beers for their cost conscious "responsible drinkers". An army of MNers switching from 14% wine to 11% wine in order to keep their cost below four quid will give measurable decreases in breast cancer, bowel cancer and dementia rates.

pompompom Thu 14-Mar-13 16:33:12

And supermarkets will have a huge incentive to supply a range of slightly lower alcohol wines and beers for their cost conscious "responsible drinkers". An army of MNers switching from 14% wine to 11% wine in order to keep their cost below four quid will give measurable decreases in breast cancer, bowel cancer and dementia rate

Excellent point, very well made.

claig Thu 14-Mar-13 16:53:57

'Officials in Brussels told Scottish ministers they had to withdraw legislation to impose a 50p-per-unit price on alcohol because it was ‘not compatible’ with the EU Treaty.'

'Eurocrats have now ordered Westminster to wade in to review the Scots’ proposals, as Britain - rather than Scotland alone - is a member state of the EU.

But the verdict also deals a devastating blow to the Prime Minister’s own aim to curb the drinking habits of English and Welsh residents.

Despite being repeatedly warned that the proposals could break EU law, Mr Cameron has always insisted he was confident of passing the legislation.'

Maybe this is Cameron's plan to make the EU more popular and to stop UKIP in their tracks.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2209692/Camerons-plan-minimum-alcohol-prices-left-tatters-EU-legal-threat.html

claig Thu 14-Mar-13 17:00:40

For the examples the Mail takes, cider would double in price and beer would go up by about 15 %

It won't affect the teetotallers in parliament, but it will create some discontented voters. This has own goal written all over it, and all the spinning on TV news channels won't assuage the voters when they look at their beer bill while reclining on the sofa watching the match.

Also what will it do to inflation figures?

www.dailymail.co.uk/money/bills/article-2119111/Booze-prices-rise-Cameron-calls-time-cheap-alcohol-minimum-price-unit.html

claig Thu 14-Mar-13 17:08:05

And all this from a Tory government, not the nanny state New Labour ninnies.

It's such a seemingly small thing, but it's a bit like chaos theory, the the flap of a butterfly's wings is the final straw and the public will show the Tories the door. 1 - 0 to Labour and Miliband is the one to score, that's why all his progressives are urging Cameron to go for broke and up the prize on booze for working class folk.

claig Thu 14-Mar-13 17:17:14

I bet the Guardian is right behind Cameron; he'll have the vote of every progressive in the land, but the good working class people will fail to understand why they yet again pay the price for what the toffs call a vice, when the champagne socialists and toffs quash their fine wines and champagne and show not an ounce of shame.

claig Thu 14-Mar-13 17:24:58

The workers would love to afford the wines and whiskeys that the Bullingdon Club members drink neat, but they can only afford cheap cider. The toffs say that these people are "off their face" and "off their head" on cheap cider and it has to stop and so the pleasure gap between the workers and the social nobility grows ever wider.

claig Thu 14-Mar-13 17:31:12

sorry, important correction, that should have been

"The workers would love to afford the wines and whiskeys that the Bullingdon Club members drink neat, but they can only afford cheap cider, not Chateau Lafitte"

caughtinagiggleloop Thu 14-Mar-13 17:33:09

Interesting points, claig. Just to throw a spanner in the works (and I apologise in advance if I sound really self-righteous), if someone is that hard up, why are they spending money on alcohol? It's not an essential. My husband and I are broke at the moment due to me being on mat leave and him being out of work. He got a bottle of whisky for his birthday and a friend bought us a bottle of gin as a thank you for letting him stay over when he had to catch an early morning flight once (we live near the airport). This is what we drink if we fancy something. The rest of the time, it's a luxury we can live without.

SugarMouse1 Thu 14-Mar-13 17:35:57

Well, can't people see that this won't work?

In Norway alcohol is really, really expensive, yet people still binge drink!

They just save up and go on a big bender every week/two weeks.

Plus it might encourage people to distill their own- which is dangerous- there is already fake alcohol being sold in shops.

claig Thu 14-Mar-13 17:38:16

' if someone is that hard up, why are they spending money on alcohol?'

because if it's good enough for the toffs in their mansions, it's good enough for ordinary working people who work 12 hour shifts in all weathers for little pay. They deserve whatever pleasures they desire and can afford, and to see their masters raise the price of what they call working class vice makes their blood turn to ice.

ppeatfruit Thu 14-Mar-13 17:42:19

sugarmouse I said the same upthread. about the Northern Europeans it seems some people just need to get out of their heads one way or another and not much is going too stop them sadly. IMO distilled booze is not much worse than any high proof spirits. Amy Winehouse died after 2 bottles of vodka it can all kill you.

claig Thu 14-Mar-13 17:42:19

'The rest of the time, it's a luxury we can live without.

But different people have different luxuries and they should be free to make their choice. It is not for toffs, champagne socialists and progressives to artificially raise the price of things that ordinary people enjoy. Tories are supposed to believe in the free market and getting off people's backs, but the toffs only do that when it suits them.

claig Thu 14-Mar-13 17:51:30

What will these people raise the price of next - cakes and then children's sweets? - while they can spend their millions on as many of them as they like.

Will they tell us on their TV channels that they have raised the price of cakes and sweets in order to save 5000 lives a year and to stop people getting 'off their face' on cake?

claig Thu 14-Mar-13 17:54:40

They are raising the price on rents for some peoplke who have empty bedrooms, they are raising the price on fuel, energy and water and rail prices are going through the roof, they raised VAT and now they want to raise teh price on cheap booze. If they carry on penalising poor people they are going to lose.

jesuswhatnext Thu 14-Mar-13 18:03:14

best laugh of the day? claig thinking that there are 'teetotallers in parliament! grin

claig Thu 14-Mar-13 18:05:14

Instead of raising prices on goods that ordinary people can afford and enjoy, why don't they sort out the hospitals, sack bigwigs who preside over failure, sort out the justice system so that people like the one we read about today, who stamp on people's heads and try to gouge out the eyes of police are sent to jail for long periods instead of avoiding jail. Why don't they invest their energy in sorting out the economy and making sure that banks lend to businesses so that people can be employed?

Why do they demonise the poor and say that people who can only afford cheap booze are "off their face", why don't they start serving the people who put them in? The way they are going, they don't deserve to win.

RabidCarrot Thu 14-Mar-13 18:06:38

It is a stupid idea, people who abuse alcohol will still do so, just like people who beat their kids will do so even if smacking is against the law, junkies will always take class A drugs and I don't see why everyone else should suffer because of some worthless alcoholic.
Normal people do not abuse alcohol so why the hell should I have to pay a stupid amount for a bottle of wine in an attempt to stop people who over do it buying wine, if a drinker wants a bottle of wine then they will pay £3.00 or £30 just means they buy less food for their kids

claig Thu 14-Mar-13 18:08:44

jesuswhatnext, they had the progressive Hillary Benn on the Daily Politics the other day, and he is a teetotaller and Andrew Neil said that the price increase on booze would not affect him. They also had a Tory on with him, and of course he supported the price increase too.

Isn't it time we had people in parliament who really represented ordinary people, understood and listened to their needs?

These people live in expensive homes and are so divorced from ordinary people and their lives that it is beyond a joke.

jesuswhatnext Thu 14-Mar-13 18:12:08

claig, i wasnt taking the piss - i am an alcoholic, thankfully i have never reached a point where i drank extra strong lager or frosty jacks from the bottle, but i have seen the terrible damage those cheap drinks have helped cause - i dont pretend to know what the answer is, what i do think is that you never see a 'down and out' slugging down a bottle of chardonnay!

claig Thu 14-Mar-13 18:19:04

The subplot to the whole thing is the usual one of downgrading the poor.

The message is that people who can only afford cheap booze and cheap cider are feckless and reckless and drink to excess, they are "off their face". They don't respect ordinary people, they think they are shirkers and feckless and drunk binge drinkers.

These price rises don't affect rich wasters who are pissed from daybreak to midnight because they don't even need to work for a living. The price rises only affect ordinary people who can only afford cheap booze.

In their eyes, the problem drinkers are the poor.

claig Thu 14-Mar-13 18:20:47

'what i do think is that you never see a 'down and out' slugging down a bottle of chardonnay!'

Have you been to the House of Commons bar?

jesuswhatnext Thu 14-Mar-13 18:27:32

yes claig i have, many times! and tbh, your last post kind of makes you look like you have a large chip on your shoulder.

i agree that many of those in power have no idea of how life is for huge swathes of our population, i still am yet to meet those 'rich wasters' who dont have to work though!

claig Thu 14-Mar-13 18:29:00

They say that people are 'off their face' in town centres, tanked up on cheap booze. Well if that is the case, arrest them for being drunk and disorderly and fine them for antisocial behaviour, but don't force every poor responsible drinker who wishes to have some alcohol with their meal to pay more for that pleasure.

Don't stop people buying 3 for 2 deals so that they can save some of their hard-earned money. These people don't get expenses for bath plugs, they can't flip their homes. Give them a break.

claig Thu 14-Mar-13 18:32:23

And their other message is that they want to stop us buying 3 for 2 deals because we are so irresponsible that we will down all three crates in one night. That's not why we do it. We buy 3 for 2 to save money and we save the drink for another day.

Don't the toffs have cellars stocked full of wine? Well why can't we store 3 packs for the price of 2? Why do they want us to pay more? We are already paying for the bankers' bonuses and the NHS Trust bosses salaries and the MPs' bath plugs, why do we have to pay even more?

Bunfags Thu 14-Mar-13 18:32:51

I agree with you OP. From what I understand, a heroin habit is expensive, but that doesn't stop addicts. If alcohol becomes more expensive, won't addicts just end up turning to crime to pay for their booze?

What happened to personal responsibility? Seeing as how most people aren't alcoholics, I don't see why they should hike the price of alcohol for the masses.

Bunfags Thu 14-Mar-13 18:35:20

In their eyes, the problem drinkers are the poor.

Yes, how dare they have any respite from the drudgery. They should stick to stale bread and water and show some bloody gratitudet!

claig Thu 14-Mar-13 18:36:15

' i still am yet to meet those 'rich wasters' who dont have to work though!'

That's because they live in Mayfair and Chelsea so we don't bump into them.
It's not their fault that they are wasters. I don't want anyone to be a waster, but we read about some rich people who fritter their life away and die early. Just because they are rich, doesn't mean they are different to any of us. We are all human and all have problems. But there are as many rich alcoholics and drug addicts as there are poor, possibly even more as they can afford it.

jesuswhatnext Thu 14-Mar-13 18:36:26

i think we have more of a social responsibility towards people though than to keep arresting them, if they are using and causing anti-social behaviour, making themselves very ill, blighting their own lives and perhaps that of their families i think we have a moral duty to try and do something, if that is putting up the price of gut rot cider then so be it!

i would like to see proper funding for real, workable rehabs, more help for people in dispair!

jesuswhatnext Thu 14-Mar-13 18:40:04

'toffs'!! im off!

caughtinagiggleloop Thu 14-Mar-13 18:45:50

It's already been mentioned up the thread that it isn't going to impact moderate drinkers that much. It's an assumption that poorer people who want to enjoy drink will only buy cheap crap. I would hazard a guess that nobody who buys shitty cider does so because they enjoy the taste and are having the odd drink at home.

I'm not advocating a "nanny state" but at the same time, if we're already paying millions cleaning up the mess of a binge drinking culture and treating health ailments brought about by excessive drinking, maybe the burden should be put on those who drink excessively. It is true that rich people will carry that burden more easily, but that's the same with everything isn't it? Unless you suggest a Marxist revolution by the proletariat to bring down the bourgeoisie and make everyone equal.

claig Thu 14-Mar-13 18:46:12

' i think we have a moral duty to try and do something'

The number one moral duty of the government is not to make life harder by increasing costs for ordinary hard-working people who are already paying through the nose for bankers' bonuses, NHS Trust bosses salaries and bath plugs for toffs who went to Eton and are millionaires.

claig Thu 14-Mar-13 18:54:07

'Unless you suggest a Marxist revolution by the proletariat to bring down the bourgeoisie and make everyone equal.'

No I believe in treating people with respect and not thinking that poor people are irresponsible. The majority of the country is poor and many are on benefits of one kind or another. Millions of these people enjoy a drink and they buy what they can afford. There is nothing wrong with cheap cider.

I am against any increase in teh cost of living on poor people. They are already facing the brunt of the austerity and have already bailed out the bankers.

'if we're already paying millions cleaning up the mess of a binge drinking culture and treating health ailments brought about by excessive drinking'

That cost is dwarfed by the billions that we paid to clean up the mess of the binge gamblers in the banking casinos.

Most people are not binge drinkers and therefore they should not pay anything extra for booze. If it is really about cost, which I do not believe, then let's impose a windfall tax on the bankers, that will more than pay for the cost of binge drinking.

claig Thu 14-Mar-13 19:03:55

To stop people on a budget from buying 3 for 2 deals on alcohol which they may want over Christmas is scandalous in my opinion. And this is imposed by people who don't even count the cost, some of whom don't even know what the price of milk and bread is.

My nan used to love her brandy and beer and she lived in a council house and saved every penny, and to think that some millionaire toffs would increase the cost of her small pleasures in life while we all pay for their bath plugs, is disgraceful.

Wishihadabs Thu 14-Mar-13 19:35:05

I think this policy really isn't about denying anyone small pleasures. This is about public health. As a nation we drink too much, more than is good for us. The average alcohol consumption has risen as prices fall. I think large sections of society are in denial about the reality of their alcohol consumption (baby boomers I am looking at you).

In real terms prices have fallen rapidly and social change is slower.So effectively we have a culture which evolved with alcohol being a rare treat in which alcohol is freely available and relatively inexpensive.

Southern Europe is culturally different, wine is always taken with a meal and children are "taught" to drink moderately ata 'relatively young age. In fact in much of southern Europe the younger generation drink very little believing it be old fashioned and getting drunk is shameful.

Wishihadabs Thu 14-Mar-13 19:38:43

Claig this isn't about class as I said this public health. As a nation we are all drinking too much we need to take collective responsibility for this.

claig Thu 14-Mar-13 19:45:50

'The average alcohol consumption has risen as prices fall. I think large sections of society are in denial about the reality of their alcohol consumption'

That's wrong. Average alcohol consumption has fallen.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12397254

This is a punitive policy that prevents people on tight budgets from economising by taking advantage of bargains of 3 for 2. All it means is that the price of alcohol increases for ordinary people.

Fortunately, the Tories are not in the main progressives and therefore many of them are rebelling about this policy. They do not believe it is fair to penalise responsible people in their millions for the excesses of the few, unlike the progressives. People are right to say tha the parties are all the same, but on this issue, real conservatives differ from progressives.

claig Thu 14-Mar-13 19:52:54

'Claig this isn't about class as I said this public health.'

Haven't you learned from all their spin?
Was the Iraq war about WMDs?
Are the carbon footprint taxes about saving the planet?
Was 'light touch regulation' good for the country?
Were the projected costs of the Olympics correct?
Were the NHS Trust bosses the best people to run our NHS and provide good patient care?
Was the target culture good for patient care?
Were gagging clauses helpful?
etc. etc. the list goes on an on

caughtinagiggleloop Thu 14-Mar-13 20:09:27

As countless people have said, it won't impact those who are moderate drinkers that much. Guidelines for healthy amounts of alcohol are currently 10 units per week. At 50p a unit, this is £5 per week. And this isn't going to be an additional £5, as I understand it, it's going to be making what tax you're already paying on alcohol up to £5 per week. Even on benefits, this isn't a huge amount to pay for a treat when you think of the cost of other treats you could have.

Yes, there are a lot of things wrong in this country, but surely improving health by making people physically aware of how much their drinking and reducing the numbers of people in A&E (of all classes) on a Saturday night is a step in the right direction.

claig Thu 14-Mar-13 20:10:18

Do you really believe that at Christmas time people will buy less alcohol for their celebrations and parties? They will buy the same amount of alcohol as before. But the free market will have been interfered with bu "Tories" to make sure that they are not allowed to take advantage of 3 for 2 deals in order to save money. They will still buy the same amount of alcohol but they will just have to pay more for it - more of their earnings gone.

Bring back Thatcher to tell the nanny state ninnies to listen to the people.

claig Thu 14-Mar-13 20:16:58

caughtinagiggleloop, the Mail examples showed that it is a 100% increase in cider prices and a 15% increase in beer prices. On top of all the 10% fuel and water increases and everything else this is a huge increase.

You may not think it is a huge increae, but the wiser heads in the Tory party realise that it is "political suicide" and that is why it will not happen. They have already done lots of u-turns and I don't hold that againstthem, because if they get things wrong, then they are prepared to change things. But even I, a Daily Mail voting Tory, am beginning to lose faith in them now, because they are making more u-turns than a teenage joyrider makes handbrake turns and it does not inspire confidence that they know what they are doing or that they are in tune with ordinary people.

The bookies have already written them off for teh next election and this progressive policy which does not have public support is just the nail in the coffin.

claig Thu 14-Mar-13 20:34:41

This policy is in large part aimed at younsters "off their face" in town centres on cheap booze. By the way they are not just increasing cider prices, but the minimum price per unit on all booze.

This policy is like saying that millions of responsible drivers need to pay more for petrol because of some irresponsible boy racers who have car crashes. The argument is that paying more for petrol will save lives.

People won't buy it, some Tories are saying that it is "political suicide", and it looks like people are challenging Cameron over it.

IntheFrame Thu 14-Mar-13 21:02:35

Well isn't that a reason that tax and fuel duty went up - to save the planet. i'm sure I remember it being part of a green policy. Added to which it is an essential. Without fuel everything grinds to a halt and yet everyone accepts the relentless creep in prices.

We don't need booze on any level and it's killing us.Why not make it the treat it should be and not expectation of a good weekend.

I agree pubs and breweries are a vital part of our British economy though. Make drinking in pubs cheaper and off license including wine merchants as well Morrisons more expensive.

claig Thu 14-Mar-13 21:13:49

Yes, "save the planet" is their favourite refrain. But who believes that apart from progressives?

'We don't need booze on any level and it's killing us'

We don't need cake, but it is a pleasure, as is booze.
We are adults who can decide what we want to do. I think some of teh additives they put in our food are worse than booze, but they don't stop those.
We have been drinking booze for centuries and even have songs about it. It is part of our culture. In fact doctors say that a glass of wine is good for our health.

'Why not make it the treat'

We are not children who are told what our treats are. This increasein prices will have minimal effect on the rich, but as always is targetted at poor people who will have to pay more for their pleasures.

claig Thu 14-Mar-13 21:18:46

Made me laugh when I saw that Cameron's former director of strategy and 'green guru' has doubts about climate change, and I think he was a progressive - though I'm not sure.

'Steve Hilton, the Prime Minister’s director of strategy and ‘green guru’, is the latest person to admit to doubts about climate change.

‘I’m not sure I believe in it,’ he announced at a meeting of the Energy Department, prompting one aide to blurt out: ‘Did I just hear that correctly?’

You can just picture the aids choking on their ciabatta. grin

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2066720/David-Camerons-green-guru-Steve-Hilton-reveals-doubts-global-warming.html

IntheFrame Thu 14-Mar-13 21:19:05

EVERYTHING has a minimal impact on the rich! that's not an argument!

Booze is now a problem. It wasn't always. Now it is, something needs to be done. Any suggestions.....

IntheFrame Thu 14-Mar-13 21:26:01

And cake is a problem. Most of that problem is because it's cheaper than buying fruit in our 24 hour supermarkets.

Cake wasn't an issue when we all just made our own. Booze wasn't a problem when we expected to go out for a pint or a glass of wine. Now we sit in with girls and drink a bottle each or have a glass or two most nights. And we are really cross if that's taken away apparently..

claig Thu 14-Mar-13 21:27:43

'EVERYTHING has a minimal impact on the rich! that's not an argument! '

But we don't need new policies that continue along that path, brought in by the rich and targetting the poor.

'Booze is now a problem. It wasn't always. Now it is'

Average alcohol consumption has fallen.

There are much more important problems in thsi country than booze and targetting of poor people is not the solution. Not unnecessarily increasing the cost burden on the public is the number one duty of the government now alongside getting the economy moving. Taking more money out of people's pockets is wrong and has been described as 'political suicide' by some Tories.

However much progressives wish it would happen, I think as a Daily Mail article headline said 'it is dead in the water' and I and millions of others will drink to that. wine

Viviennemary Thu 14-Mar-13 21:28:41

I don't agree with minimum price. They could put a limit on the amount of alcohol bought at one transaction. Like they do with paracetemol. But that probably wouldn't go down very well with some folk.

claig Thu 14-Mar-13 21:29:56

'And we are really cross if that's taken away apparently.. '

Too right.
Oliver Cromwell and the puritans are gone. OK the "save the planet" doom mongers and puritans are back, but they've been rumbled and their game is up. wine

claig Thu 14-Mar-13 21:32:35

Blimey, it's already wine o'clock already. Excuse me while I fill my glass. wine

IntheFrame Thu 14-Mar-13 21:35:48

Average alcohol consumption has fallen fallen from what and when? When I looked at the stats it was all from the very high levels in the early 2000's.

And could it have anything to do with the soaring cost of drinking out in normal pubs and the recession meaning alcohol is more expensive ?

claig Thu 14-Mar-13 21:46:30

'Men and women of all ages are slowly curbing their excesses and drinking in moderation, according to the annual survey from the Office for National Statistics, which covers England, Scotland and Wales.

It suggests that heavy drinking is falling, abstinence is rising, and young people are leading the drive towards healthier drinking.

The decrease among some groups even pre-dates 2002, with men aged 16-24 drinking 26 units a week on average in 1999 and just 15 units a week in 2009, according to the ONS figures.'

'"In reality, we see a fairly deep-rooted decline in alcohol consumption which dates back to 2004. That's not something you see acknowledged in the media."

It's frustrating that the true story is not getting out there, says David Poley, chief executive of the Portman Group, an association of drinks producers in the UK.

"With newspapers, the headline is always the same: 'Shock rise in binge drinking'. But you look at the figures, and you see alcohol sales are declining.

"It's a myth that we need to make alcohol more expensive [to stop people drinking]. These trends are being reversed on their own."


The answer is obvious. How are they going to tax you more if they tell you the truth? It's the same with teh climate change mongers, but fortunately even Cameron's ex green guru was starting to have doubts about it.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12397254

The progressives can pull the wool over people's eyes for a while, but it won't last forever. wine

sleepdodger Thu 14-Mar-13 21:56:37

I'm bemused that the gov can set minimum pricing yet if ssupermarkets did it independently it would be called price fixing and would be heavily fined
I think it's cape goating the lowest common denominator
Having had a night out in Durham when pregnant I was sober and scares at how much people were drinking at 10pm- girls barely able To speak still being served shots of multiple rounds... This strikes far more of a binge drink cord that upping the cost of vodka in a supermarket...

claig Thu 14-Mar-13 21:59:31

Exactly. We have licensing laws about not serving people when they are drunk.

LadyBeagleEyes Thu 14-Mar-13 22:00:06

It is going ahead in Scotland, and I don't mind the couple of pounds a week extra it will cost me on wine, which is all I really drink.
My ds will be 18 this year and will soon be at university.
I know students drink and get cheap booze in Union bars, but I would prefer that he would look twice at the prices of booze in the supermarket, and refrain.

claig Thu 14-Mar-13 22:02:42

'It is going ahead in Scotland'

I think the EU are challenging it and I read somewhere that the only argument the Scottish parliament may be able to use is a public health issue. But goiod luck with that when France, Spain, Italy and Germany don't have it.

claig Thu 14-Mar-13 22:09:22

People are going to start toasting the EU at this rate.
That's the little people, the ones penalised by these policies.

claig Thu 14-Mar-13 22:13:17

The old line "we want to set our own laws" risks not going down too well in this case. People may say "no, we prefer EU laws on this one".

PurpleStorm Thu 14-Mar-13 22:27:10

I think minimum pricing of alcohol is a good idea. I think it's very disappointing that Cameron's backing down on this.

You can get ridiculously cheap alcohol in supermarkets and off-licences, and there's a problem with binge drinking in this country. This policy might help address that. Agree it won't stop alcoholics drinking, but it might make it harder for teenagers, for instance, to get into the habit of drinking stupid amounts of booze just to get drunk. So might possibly help to stop people becoming alcoholics in the first place.

And it'll be better for pubs than raising overall duty as well, as a minimum price per unit would reduce the price differences between pub and supermarket alcohol.

claig Thu 14-Mar-13 22:35:01

We are not here to subsidise publicans profits. People should be able to decide where they drink without any artificial price fixing in the market that favours publicans. If people want to party in their gardens and hold barbecues that is their business.

claig Thu 14-Mar-13 22:40:00

They say it is about health, but the loaded bankers can drink as much as they like either in pubs (at higher prices) or at home.

It is the poor that are affected by this. Bullingdon Club members can carry on getting as pissed as they like. They can get "off their face" but Cameron won't make speeches about them.

Smudging Thu 14-Mar-13 23:28:00

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

claig Thu 14-Mar-13 23:32:23

Nope, none of those.

LadyBeagleEyes Thu 14-Mar-13 23:32:47

Claig is actually David Icke.

expatinscotland Thu 14-Mar-13 23:33:46

I agree with claig.

claig Thu 14-Mar-13 23:35:29

Thanks, expat. I was beginning to think that everyone on this thread was a progressive.

Smudging Thu 14-Mar-13 23:35:55

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Smudging Thu 14-Mar-13 23:37:56

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

claig Thu 14-Mar-13 23:42:42

'I met David Icke once, he was carrying a huge crucifix with a wheel on.'

Smudging, tell us more, please.

Startail Thu 14-Mar-13 23:53:01

We weren't off our heads in the park on cider at 15 because the pub would serve us. WE could only afford one or two drinks at pub prices, never got drunk, kept warm and the older Rugby club lads and various older siblings kept an eye on us.

Way better than pretending teens don't drink.

jesuswhatnext Fri 15-Mar-13 00:00:11

i just dont get your reasoning claig - i think you are actually an inverted snob - what is all this crap about 'poor people'? do you really think that just because a person is hard up that they will buy cans of super strength lager or huge bottles of revolting cider? they are hard up, not alcohol dependent! we are talking about the price per unit, so far as i can see a bottle of reasonable wine would go up by about 50p, so 'poor people' could possibly afford one now and again, those without a drink problem that is!

claig Fri 15-Mar-13 00:08:16

'what is all this crap about 'poor people'?'

I am not a snob of any sort. I don't look down on cider and call it "revolting", I like it and I drink it. Not everybody likes wine. Some people prefer cider and prefer beer. These are precisely the drinks that will rise in price.

I am for freedom and not for a nanny state. I don't want elites to interfere in the lives of ordinary people and to raise their cost of living in any way.

I, along with millions of others, vote Tory precisely because they are not progressive nanny staters, and then to witness them being more progressive than the ninnies, is disappointing. Fortunately, we do have some Tory MPs who are rebelling on this issue too.

jesuswhatnext Fri 15-Mar-13 00:16:48

oh come on!! you know perfectly well (or do you? hmm) we are not talking about a lovely bottle of premium chilled cider! we are talking about the huge bottles of nasty, cheap, pile 'em high, sell them to kids/drunks/winos shit that most supermarkets stock, the range of 'get pissed quick' super strength lager that is the preferred choice of the street drinker - this is bugger all to do with being 'progressive' (whatever that means) and everything to with promoting sensible, enjoyable, sociable drinking!

claig Fri 15-Mar-13 00:18:59

'i just dont get your reasoning claig'

Can you really not understand the other point of view. I understand teh progressives and their nanny state views on public health etc., but I disagree with them.

On 'This Week' just now the ex LibDem adviser Miranda Green just said why woukd Cameron propose a policy that a large section of the libertarian right in his party would not agree with. Can you not understand that they don't agree with artificial price fixing of markets, of social engineering which affects the lives of people. This sort of nanny state nincompoopery is not something that most Tories agree with. It is an own goal and will put Tory voters off their own party. It goes against the fundamental beliefs and principles of most Tories who believe that elites should get off the backs of the people. That's why we turned out in great numbers at polling booths to vote New Labour out.

claig Fri 15-Mar-13 00:22:34

'we are not talking about a lovely bottle of premium chilled cider! we are talking about the huge bottles of nasty, cheap, pile 'em high, sell them to kids/drunks/winos shit that most supermarkets stock, the range of 'get pissed quick' super strength lager that is the preferred choice of the street drinker'

I have worked in jobs for minimum wage and jobs that pay high salaries, and when I was on minimum wage I had to cut my cloth accordingly. I was pleased that there was cheap booze and I don't appreciate millionaires with expenses for bath plugs telling me what is good for me and telling me that I am not allowed to buy 3 for 2 of anything I like. This is not the Soviet Union, this is not a progressive paradise, this is Great Britain.

jesuswhatnext Fri 15-Mar-13 00:25:10

im going to bed! grin i rest my case after your last almost incomprehensible post!

jesuswhatnext Fri 15-Mar-13 00:26:53

btw - i think UKIP might be the way forward for you! wink

PurpleStorm Fri 15-Mar-13 00:29:15

Does the existing system of having duty on fuel, tobacco, alcohol and gambling machines, not count as artificial price fixing of markets, or as social engineering which affects the lives of people?

The Tories don't seem too keen on abolishing those.

claig Fri 15-Mar-13 00:30:41

'i think UKIP might be the way forward for you'

I'll vote for any party that keeps the nanny state progressives out wine

claig Fri 15-Mar-13 00:33:28

Most Tories want these taxes reduced. We want lower taxes for people and a lower cost of living. We don't want a big state taxing us and charging us and telling us what is good for us. We believe that people are adults and are responsible people who have the right to choose what they want to do without the state taxing them at every turn.

claig Fri 15-Mar-13 00:36:05

We don't believe that the state should tell us that we can't buy 3 for 2 packs of anything. We are not children. We voted these people in and that is what we get for it.

claig Fri 15-Mar-13 00:38:31

What will they do next? Tell us we can't buy 3 for 2 chocolate bars and maxi bags of crisps because of the strain it puts on the health service? That is New Labour, that is not what we voted Tory for,

claig Fri 15-Mar-13 00:42:47

Andrew Neil said to Miranda Green on This Week that it seems that Cameron shoots from teh hip and doesn't think things through. There is opposition to his alcohol policy from within his own party and lots of Tory voters will be against it and yet he still insists he wants to go ahead with it. Instead of sorting out the dire economy, this is what he insists on doing.

PurpleStorm Fri 15-Mar-13 00:45:36

"What will they do next? Tell us we can't buy 3 for 2 chocolate bars and maxi bags of crisps because of the strain it puts on the health service?"

Completely off-topic, but have you seen the recent think tank idea? DM article

This think tank is suggesting that people who have a healthy lifestyle and eat lots of fruit and veg should get to queue jump NHS waiting lists. Slightly different to banning 3 for 2 chocolate bars and giant bags of crisps, but same ballpark.

claig Fri 15-Mar-13 00:53:25

I agree and of course these things are coming. I disagree with them and so do many Tories, but the progressive think tanks paid for by someone think these things up for ordinary people. Together Labour and the Tories created workfare and welfare cuts and pension age increases and so on and of course they will do what their think tanks are saying. But most Tories disagree with their carrot and stick social engineering nanny state control policies. But what can we do? Whoever you vote for, a progressive always gets in.

claig Fri 15-Mar-13 00:57:09

This is teh second highest rated comment on the Mail for that article

'Are we now to expect the government to vet our shopping bills? Whatever next! And will they follow us everywhere to make sure we are all taking our daily jog? Get lost, for Heavens' sakes.'

That is what most Tories think, but what can we do? They do as they please. They take our votes and then ignore us.

claig Fri 15-Mar-13 01:25:25

Just looked at who the think tank that produced that report was, and it is Demos. No surprise there. This is what wikipedia says about Demos

'Demos was founded in 1993 by former Marxism Today editor Martin Jacques, and Geoff Mulgan, who became its first director. It was formed in response to what Mulgan, Jacques and others saw as a crisis in politics in Britain, with voter engagement in decline and political institutions unable in their view to adapt to major social changes. Demos was conceived as a network of networks which could draw together different sources of ideas and expertise to improve public policy.[1]

In the run up to the 1997 general election it was seen as being close to the Labour Party, in particular its then leader Tony Blair. It defines itself, however, as independent of any political party.[2] Geoff Mulgan went on to work inside Downing Street in 1997. At that time Demos was seen as central to New Labour's vision for Britain.[3]'

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demos_(UK_think_tank)

It sounds pretty progressive to me, and here is something on 'The Progressive Conservatism Project' from their website. In my opinion 'progressive conservatism' is an oxymoron, but whoever you vote for, a progressive always gets in, so I guess that is what we will one day have to look forward to.

www.demos.co.uk/projects/progressiveconservatism

MoreBeta Fri 15-Mar-13 08:20:22

"An army of MNers switching from 14% wine to 11% wine in order to keep their cost below four quid will give measurable decreases in breast cancer, bowel cancer and dementia rates."

I drink a fair bit of wine, never beer or spirits so would welcome lower alcohol strength wine at a lower duty rate.

To be honest in recent years wine producers have upped alcohol content to 'improve' favaour but I prefer lower alcohol wines as more every day drinkable. Simple country wines at 8% alcohol like you can buy in mainland Europe have 1/3 less alcohol but just as enjoyable with a lunch time meal in my view.

MoreBeta Fri 15-Mar-13 08:32:29

By the way the issue of 'toffs' quaffing wine while the poor pay more for their beer is not quite the biggest scandal.

What is more shocking is the number of bars, cafes and restaurants in the Houses of Parliament with heavily subsidised food and drink prices for all MPs and Lords of all parties. This is hardly going to touch MPs and Lords.

Our lawmakers should not be getting subsidised food and drink while the rest of us pay ever more. No wonder they dont care about the rising cost of living an dtaxes. They never see the impact.

A long running campaign by Guido Fawkes has exposed the amount of subsidy there is on food and drink in the Houses of Parliament.

claig Fri 15-Mar-13 09:21:55

'Everyone was just saying is it Joycey, is it Joycey?'

It seems that it was indeed 'Joycey'

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2293616/MP-Eric-Joyce-arrested-following-late-night-altercation-House-Commons-bar.html

I wonder if he treated different to ordinary members of the public?

Kendodd Fri 15-Mar-13 09:29:24

Most Tories want these taxes reduced. (duty on fuel, tobacco, alcohol and gambling machines) We want lower taxes for people and a lower cost of living. We don't want a big state taxing us and charging us and telling us what is good for us. We believe that people are adults and are responsible people who have the right to choose what they want to do without the state taxing them at every turn.

Why don't they legalize drugs then? A lot of illegal drugs seem to do a lot less harm than the legal ones.

expatinscotland Fri 15-Mar-13 09:29:30

'What is more shocking is the number of bars, cafes and restaurants in the Houses of Parliament with heavily subsidised food and drink prices for all MPs and Lords of all parties. This is hardly going to touch MPs and Lords.

Our lawmakers should not be getting subsidised food and drink while the rest of us pay ever more. No wonder they dont care about the rising cost of living an dtaxes. They never see the impact.'

EXACTLY!

Kendodd Fri 15-Mar-13 09:33:36

My point is that social engineering what we can and can't/should and shouldn't do based on what's good for us or not does take place, and I'm all for it.

claig Fri 15-Mar-13 09:34:46

'Why don't they legalize drugs then? A lot of illegal drugs seem to do a lot less harm than the legal ones.'

Because the majority of Daily Mail reading Tories do not believe that alcohol is more dangerous than Ecstasy tablets and drugs, so the progressives can't legalise drugs (however much they would love to) without a Daily Mail backlash from ordinary people.

Kendodd Fri 15-Mar-13 09:37:14

We believe that people are adults and are responsible people who have the right to choose what they want to do without the state taxing them at every turn.

What about them people beaten up in the street or DV victims beaten up by someone pissed? What about their right to choose?

That argument sounds to me very much like the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument of the American right.

claig Fri 15-Mar-13 09:37:52

'Disgraced MP Eric Joyce has set an extraordinary new record by claiming more than £200,000 expenses in a single year.'

Is it 'Joycey'? It seems that it is 'Joycey'

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1362365/Disgraced-MP-Eric-Joyce-claim-200k-expenses-1-year.html

Kendodd Fri 15-Mar-13 09:38:59

I know these problems won't go away but (I think) price increases is one way to reduce them.

claig Fri 15-Mar-13 09:41:40

'What about them people beaten up in the street or DV victims beaten up by someone pissed? What about their right to choose?'

Us Tories believe in locking people up who have committed violent crimes.
We believe in tougher sentences, even for 'Joycey' if he is found guilty of violence. We don't care if they are MPs, we believe in one law for all.

But we don't believe in increasing alcohol prices for millions of hard-working, honest people (who can't claim £200,000 expenses in one year) just because there are some violent people who beat people up. What we believe is in locking them up.

claig Fri 15-Mar-13 09:45:43

We're Tories, not progressives and we are sick of their stories and their penalisation of law-abiding, decent, hard-working people while feeling sympathy for violent thugs.

flatpackhamster Fri 15-Mar-13 09:46:42

Kendodd

I know these problems won't go away but (I think) price increases is one way to reduce them.

It's a possibility. It's also a possibility that the whole boozing culture isn't really a problem, and that an aggressive and relatively covert temperance movement is receiving government funding to push out spurious reports which back its position.

Oh wait, who's this? [[http://fakecharities.org/2009/05/charity-291705/ And at least 60% funded by the taxpayer?

Wishihadabs Fri 15-Mar-13 19:10:34

Claig sorry not to get back to you last night. When I spoke about consumption rising I was referring to a generational shift. People in their 30's, 40's,50's and 60's drink far more than their parents did at the same age.

This has significant consequences for their health (particularly rates of dementia and cancer as well as liver disease) This affects all sections of society. The evidence for a moderate (1-2 units a week) being beneficial has loads of confounding factors and is not considered terribly robust.

However that would cost you about £2 a week (£4-8 in a pub).

claig Fri 15-Mar-13 19:29:25

Wish, we are wealthier as a society than we were 30 years ago, so we can choose to drink if we want to.

I don't believe the government has any place in artificially fixing floor prices of alcohol to stop hard-working people buying 3 for 2 deals on any product they like. I believe people have a right to choose how to spend their money free of any manipulation from government.

I don't believe that planners and bigwigs and progressives should tell people on minimum wage that they can't buy 3 for 2 packs of beer, while these people drink in subsidised House of Commons bars and claim expenses from the people who earn minimum wage.

Apparently, 'Joycey' claimed around £200,000 in one year in expenses and we know that he occasionally frequents the subsidised House of Commons bar. Hard-working people often work 12 hour shifts and face enormous stress in these difficult times, and to have bigwigs and progressives tell them that they can't economise by buying 3 for 2 deals on alcohol because their drinking is affecting the costs of the NHS is outrageous.

What is teh cost of policing the House of Commons bars on karaoke nights, what is treh cost of all their expenses. If we want to cut costs why don't we shut down all their subsidised bars and make them pay what we have to pay.

It is disgraceful. But the Daily Mail will see to it that it goes no further. If there is one thing the progressives fear it is the people who have been woken up by the Daily Mail.

claig Fri 15-Mar-13 19:36:51

If I want to buy 3 for 2 tarasamalata or 6 for 4 Heineken it has nothing to do with the progressives in the House of Commons bars.

This is what the Mail now says price rises could be. We are talking double digit price increases.

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2290290/Alcohol-price-hike-unfairly-impact-middle-class-women-drink-responsibly.html

claig Fri 15-Mar-13 19:39:39

'Responsible women such as mothers and hardworking professionals who drink responsibly will be punished unfairly should the government's plans succeed'

That is what the Mail says. It is political suicide. Why on earth would Cameron do this and go against much of his own party and millions of Tory voters as well as millions of non-Tory voters?

claig Fri 15-Mar-13 19:42:00

Voters forget about the MPs and their expenses in their subsidised bars, they forget about all the things they dislike about those who rule us, but one thing they never forget is the cost of living and the value of the pound in their pocket.

Wishihadabs Fri 15-Mar-13 19:53:13

Claig sorry not to get back to you last night. When I spoke about consumption rising I was referring to a generational shift. People in their 30's, 40's,50's and 60's drink far more than their parents did at the same age.

This has significant consequences for their health (particularly rates of dementia and cancer as well as liver disease) This affects all sections of society. The evidence for a moderate (1-2 units a week) being beneficial has loads of confounding factors and is not considered terribly robust.

However that would cost you about £2 a week (£4-8 in a pub).

Wishihadabs Fri 15-Mar-13 19:57:46

Sorry double post. So Claig if I want to spend my hard earned cash on firearms or class A drugs should I be able.to do so ? No one is suggesting prohibition. Very few people who wish to won't be able to drink a few units a week.

Wishihadabs Fri 15-Mar-13 19:58:32

Please define responsible drinking.

claig Fri 15-Mar-13 20:03:48

' if I want to spend my hard earned cash on firearms or class A drugs should I be able.to do so ? '

They are against the law, They are not for sale on supermarket shelves or down the corner shop.

Drink is legal and 'Joycey' and other MPs partake in House of Commons bars.

'Please define responsible drinking.'

My guess is that it is possibly less than 'Joycey' knocks back.

claig Fri 15-Mar-13 20:06:37

And these progressive lying spin doctors are pulling their tricks on the public by pretending that buying 3 for 2 packs means that irresponsible drinking is going on. How do they know how much hard-working people are drinking per evening. Are they counting the number of bottles consumed within each pack.

They haven't got a clue, but then we all knew that already.

PurpleStorm Fri 15-Mar-13 20:16:12

3 for 2 offers are far more about shops tempting shoppers into buying more of a product than they might have planned to, than they are about helping hard working people save money.

And if people have more wine, chocolates, crisps, whatever, at home than they'd originally been planning on buying, they're more likely to consume more than they originally intended as well. Although I agree this doesn't automatically mean that they're going to eat and drink everything in one sitting.

claig Fri 15-Mar-13 20:49:44

'3 for 2 offers are far more about shops tempting shoppers into buying more of a product than they might have planned to'

It is not for the nanny state to tell its children what to do and to imply that they are not adults but grandchildren who are not capable of making rational decisions.

The whole idea of these schemes is to price alcohol out of teh reach of the poor to force them to drink less. It won't affect 'Joycey' and the rest of the metropolitan elite, but it will affect some of the voters in Falkirk who we saw intervirewed on TV today.

It is a punitive measure by a metropolitan elite nanny state.

Would it be j=legal for the nanny state to outlaw 3 for 2 deals on chocolate nbars or cornflakes packets. I doubt it. I bet the companies, backed by their thousands of hard-working employees, would challenge it in court under EU competition rules. Who would foot the legal bill for teh government side? It would be the taxpayer again. How much would it cost us?

It seems that the EU may challenge this alcohol measure. How much will it cost us? Will they increase our taxes to pay for it? Will they pay for it in their House of Commons bars or will they be performing karaoke, pretending they are stars?

Wishihadabs Fri 15-Mar-13 20:57:01

How much do you drink Claig ? I think only someone who had an unhealthy relationship with alcohol could be so against these measures ?

Wishihadabs Fri 15-Mar-13 21:00:12

Just because it's legal doesn't make it harmless the licencing laws were brought in for a reason.

claig Fri 15-Mar-13 21:03:42

'Although I agree this doesn't automatically mean that they're going to eat and drink everything in one sitting.'

But that is the whole thrust of the progressive propaganda. That we are all binge-drinking maniacs, legless on cheap booze and it has to end. That's what they say in the House of Commons bars as they sink another pint.

What if we are ordering 3 for 2 packs because we believe in the Big Society, what if we are holding parties, where we share our 3 for 2 packs among many, to dispel the gloom we see on the news and the gloom we feel when we see how they fail to sort out the economy and the health service and all the other services that we all pay for.

What if we are trying to lift our spirits by drinking the odd spirit?

We are not binge drinkers, we're not legless on booze. We don't drink on the scale that Alastair Campbell did. We can't afford it, we don't get paid what he got paid.

We don't get in the scrapes that 'Joycey' does. We buy 3 for 2, we save every penny, we don't get the expenses that the MPs get.

news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/front_page/newsid_9696000/9696398.stm

claig Fri 15-Mar-13 21:04:59

'How much do you drink Claig?'

Not enough, I can't afford it, I don't get paid what 'Joycey' does.

Wishihadabs Fri 15-Mar-13 21:05:18

Who in all honesty is not going to be able to afford a couple of drinks ?

Wishihadabs Fri 15-Mar-13 21:08:14

Also you don't have to be throwing up all over A&E or being anti-social to endanger your health (both physical and mental)

claig Fri 15-Mar-13 21:10:13

'I think only someone who had an unhealthy relationship with alcohol could be so against these measures ?'

Wish, I think am in tune with the public on this and you aren't. That is why some Tories have said it is 'political suicide'. They know what will happen when the Mail steps up its reporting on this. They know what the public will say. There will be a report about 'Joycey' on the same page as one about responsible drinkers being penalised in order to prevent the excesses of the few.

The public will not be amused.

Wishihadabs Fri 15-Mar-13 21:17:24

I couldn't give a flying fig whether this idea is popular. The OP asked if it was a good idea, I think it is for the reasons I have stated. I am obviously far to the left of you idealogically being in favour of other nanny state interventions like free healthcare, education and sure start.

claig Fri 15-Mar-13 21:25:38

'Also you don't have to be throwing up all over A&E or being anti-social to endanger your health'

Can't you understand teh stress that they are putting people under with their bedroom tax and their ATOS interviews. Imagine how that stress is affecting people's health as they call people shirkers and make them worry about benefits they will lose. A 3 for 2 pack of beer is nothing compared to the stress that they are under.

Here is just one example of the stress that they have put someone under. Why don't they start to worry about that instead of increasing the price on cheap booze?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2293974/Blind-eye-partially-deaf-facing-major-spinal-surgery-Thalidomide-mother-STILL-fit-work.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

While they are singing karaoke, this is what is happening in our country

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2293754/Dementia-suffering-mother-75-turned-living-skeleton-just-weeks-care-home-stay-cost-HER-1-500.html

They need to get their priorities right. They need to shut down their karaoke machines and step out of their House of Commons bars and see what is going on and start doing somnething about it.

expatinscotland Fri 15-Mar-13 21:26:07

'I think only someone who had an unhealthy relationship with alcohol could be so against these measures ?'

I'm against it and so is my teetotal husband. Why? Because it's another example of one rule for them - those in power with their huge expenses and massively subsidised bars - and one rule for all the rest of us plebs. More nanny-state bullshit, more tax, to punish everyone for the few. It smacks of 'you plebs can't police yourselves, so we'll ding your wallets even more, what do we care, we get you to pay for ours.'

claig Fri 15-Mar-13 21:31:41

'other nanny state interventions like free healthcare, education and sure start'

That is not nanny state, those are services that we all pay for.

Nanny state is them telling us we can't buy 3 for 2 packs of beer or cider.

claig Fri 15-Mar-13 21:35:48

Exactly, expatinscotland, and the people have had enough of it. We pay their expenses, subsidise their bars, vote them in, and instead of sorting out our health service, firing managers who preside over failure, jailing bankers, locking up people who stamp on their girlfriends' heads and try to gouge the eyes out of a policeman and getting people back to work, instead they want to punish us even more by raising the price of one of the few pleasures we still have left.

They are out of touch and it is starting to look like they deserve to be out of power too.

claig Fri 15-Mar-13 21:47:23

'instead they want to punish us even more by raising the price of one of the few pleasures we still have left.'

Oh and to top it all, they say they are doing it for our health.

'A Thalidomide victim who is blind in one eye, partially deaf and can barely walk is being stripped of welfare payments - because officials say she is not 'disabled' enough to be out of work.
Martine White, 50, was left severely disabled after her mother took the anti-sickness drug while pregnant with her during the 1960s.
She can barely dress herself or even brush her hair, uses a wheelchair and will undergo spinal surgery later this year.

But despite her disabilities the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) has written to Mrs White saying she will lose her her £110 a week Employment and Support Allowance as she cannot prove she is unfit to work.
The former care assistant from Burnley, Lancashire, has now been served with court papers and must attend a tribunal where she will have to prove her disabilities to a judge.'

Have they thought of the stress that this woman is going through and how that is affecting her health? Thank God the Mail published her story, maybe someone in the House of Commons bar will do something about it. Maybe some people will feel shame.

PurpleStorm Fri 15-Mar-13 21:49:42

I still think minimum alcohol pricing is a good idea. I agree with Wishihadabs reasoning on this.

claig Fri 15-Mar-13 21:51:15

Cameron agrees with you too.

We will have to see whether he will go ahead with it.

expatinscotland Fri 15-Mar-13 23:41:10

Reason? The reason behind it is premise that adults can't police themselves, so they need another stealth tax to teach them a lesson. Is rising inflation teaching them not to eat so much good, too? Or an increased fuel duty so the cost of everyone's food rises, too? Oh, it's an obese nation, after all. Or artificially low interest rates to prop up the housing so-called market, so why save, fuck it, you won't get any interest, anyhow, and best of luck buying your own place if you're a FTB with the lending restrictions?

You think this is good, for the government to police what you put in your mouth or don't? Whilst the ones in the power get pissed as farts at your expense and expense £100+/week on their food whilst you go Aldi for your lentils?

You either want a small state or you don't, and all that comes with it.

This is a tax, on everyone, under the pretense of health whilst your food bill soars and more and more struggle to heat their homes. And the Victorians didn't cope! They died in droves.

expatinscotland Fri 15-Mar-13 23:45:03

Exactly, claig! 'Home expenses' for them. Heavily subsided bars, canteens and travel to and from work. A grocery budget. And a salary on top of that, with the 12 weeks off, of course.

But you need to pay more duty on that bottle of cider! And so does the publican who serves it to you. If they lose trade, well, just another small business.

PurpleStorm Sat 16-Mar-13 10:44:16

Minimum alcohol pricing isn't a tax on everyone. Buying alcohol is entirely optional. It's not like cutting back on alcohol means you'd risk starving or freezing.

Unlike fuel duty. That's a tax on everyone.

flatpackhamster Sat 16-Mar-13 15:49:34

Wishihadabs
Just because it's legal doesn't make it harmless the licencing laws were brought in for a reason.

Do you know why they were brought in? Because we were at war with Germany and the government wanted to reduce the amount of time factory workers could spend in the pub.

flatpackhamster Sat 16-Mar-13 15:54:31

Wishihadabs

I couldn't give a flying fig whether this idea is popular. The OP asked if it was a good idea, I think it is for the reasons I have stated.

You haven't stated any reasons beyond 'People are stupid and ignorant and I know better than them what's good for them'. The rallying cry of the Guardianista down the ages.

I am obviously far to the left of you idealogically being in favour of other nanny state interventions like free healthcare, education and sure start.

You don't have to be a left-winger to be a bullying authoritarian who won't butt out of people's lives when they want a beer.

Wishihadabs Sat 16-Mar-13 16:37:36

As I have said cancer, liver disease and dementia. You have an increased chance of getting these if you drink more than 10 units a week (if you are female). 10 units is one bottle of wine or about 3 pints of beer or cider

Wishihadabs Sat 16-Mar-13 16:46:26

That's ignoring mental health issues, the impact of heavy alcohol use on families of heavy drinkers. Heavy drinking (more than 10 units a week for women 20 for blokes) has a detrimental effect on your health, your wealth and on those around you. A minimum price would 'nt stop anyone having the odd drink. It might encourage people to think about what and how much they are drinking though

Wishihadabs Sat 16-Mar-13 17:04:31

licensing laws were introduced in the 18th century. With the industrial revolution came urbanization and the gin shops. Previously alcohol (mainly beer and cider) were in short supply for much of the year in the largely agricultural society.

flatpackhamster Sat 16-Mar-13 17:12:44

Wishihadabs

As I have said cancer, liver disease and dementia. You have an increased chance of getting these if you drink more than 10 units a week (if you are female). 10 units is one bottle of wine or about 3 pints of beer or cider

These figures you're quoting. Where do they come from? Who produced them? What survey method did they use and how did they calculate this?

Wishihadabs Sat 16-Mar-13 16:46:26

That's ignoring mental health issues, the impact of heavy alcohol use on families of heavy drinkers. Heavy drinking (more than 10 units a week for women 20 for blokes) has a detrimental effect on your health, your wealth and on those around you.

If you're targetting heavy drinkers, then target heavy drinkers. Your proposal will affect everyone. It is bullying authoritarianism.

A minimum price would 'nt stop anyone having the odd drink.

In your view. You have no evidence to back this up.

It might encourage people to think about what and how much they are drinking though

Or it might encourage people to think that the temperance movement should bugger off and leave them alone.

licensing laws were introduced in the 18th century. With the industrial revolution came urbanization and the gin shops. Previously alcohol (mainly beer and cider) were in short supply for much of the year in the largely agricultural society.

Well done, you found Wikipedia. Since you're on it why not take a look at the clauses in the Defence of the Realm act which changed the licencing laws.

Alcohol was not in short supply. Everyone drank beer because the water was undrinkable. Beer was the normal drink.

Wishihadabs Sat 16-Mar-13 17:23:12

Temperance movement ? Actually those figure came from a department of health leaflet I picked up at the dentist. I will try to find it..Mead which was drunk in the middle ages was 1-2% hardly special brew

Wishihadabs Sat 16-Mar-13 17:26:34

Go on Google licencing laws those words are my own. I did check because I thought laws were introduced earlier but wanted to check. My dad was a liscesing officer which is why I knew a bit about it but wanted to check

Wishihadabs Sat 16-Mar-13 17:31:34

I do drink. My paternal grandmother died at 59 she was a heavy drinker, my bf' s dad and one of dh's closet friends are functioning alcoholics, life is horrible for those that love them. I have also worked in health care for many years and seen the misery heavy alcohol use can cause.

Wishihadabs Sat 16-Mar-13 17:43:46

Same information on the change for life website. Why would they lie ? Although upper limit for women is given as 14 units not 10

SqueakyCleanNameChange Sat 16-Mar-13 18:05:40
Wishihadabs Sat 16-Mar-13 18:10:00

Thanks squeaky

Wishihadabs Sat 16-Mar-13 18:21:04

Well cancer research are a bunch of communists who want to destroy ordinary people's lives everyone knows that.

claig Sat 16-Mar-13 20:11:52

Russia has higher per capita alcohol consumption than us and lower cancer mortality rates.
China has lower per capita alcohol consumption than us and higher cancer mortality rates.

Don't believe all of the figures used by health campaigners.

We have seen that the NHS did not give accurate mortality figures in some hospital trusts. We have seen thousands of people dying unnecessarily due to poor treatemnt and wehave heard Hunt say that if figures on mortality are figured that health bosses could face jail.

Don't believe every figure used in marketing campaigns.

I looked up Change4Life and its websote strikes me as infantlising adults with its bright cartoon characters and simple slogans which only give teh usual avoid fat, sugar and salt type messages but don't mention aspartame.

I wondered who runs it and who set it ip and what it costs, and it seems that it cost in the region of £250 million over 3 years and it looks like that is public taxpayer money.

Who set it up? - the New Labour progressives - no surprise there.

Lots of the money is spent on advertising and supermarkets and Pepsi are partners and celebs seem to do advertising too. Lots of public money going to private companies.

Fortunately the Coalition has cut some of these costs in order to save public money that the progressives had signed off.

This is from the Guardian

Little benefit to consumers
The three-year £250m Change4Life initiative was launched by Labour in 2009, but has been mired in controversy Last year the coalition government said it was axing its £75m advertising budget and would invite the food and drink industry – including major players such as Kellogg's and Nestlé – to help promote it.

Christine Haigh of the Children's Food Campaign said the scheme was insulting to consumers. "This analysis exposes the 'Great Swapathon' for what it really is – a great marketing opportunity for the companies involved but of little benefit to consumers pockets or health

www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/jan/14/change4life-campaign-insulting

Diane Abbott has also called the Coalition's advertising spend on some of these adverts insulting and I agree with her.

These type of adverts treat us as children and nanny state uses cartoon like characters and chirpy, cheery voices to teach us children what to do, and we pay for it out of our taxes, and doubtless some people are earning large salaries running it. But it is progressive.

This is what Diane said

‘This £2million that Tory Ministers are spending is an insult to hard-pressed British families, when record numbers of people are relying on food banks, and the government’s own policies to tackle obesity are proving to be a disaster,' she said.

‘We need more than half-baked corporate responsibility deal schemes, because the government has a growing crisis on its hands.

'So it’s not right that the government is blowing money on advertising annual supermarkets discounts, and glossing over the serious problems British families are being pushed towards.’

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2258393/Diane-Abbott-MP-calls-money-spent-Change4Life-food-campaign-insult-hard-pressed-British-families.html

I wonder in part whether some of these initiatives are to try to convince us that the progressives care about us while people were dying on hospital wards, drinking from vases and lying in their faeces and targets were set.

claig Sat 16-Mar-13 20:19:38

With the amount of public money that is wasted in the biggest financial crisis since the 1930s, no wonder New Labour's Liam Byrne left a note saying something like "there's no money left".

Instead of wasting taxpayer money on chirpy cartoons to teach adults to eat five-a-day and instead of paying advertisers to create them and celebs to make voiceovers for them, start creating real employment and stop hassling thalidomide victims in wheelchairs who are facing major spinal surgey by stopping their benefits and saying they are fit for work.

Insulting is not nearly strong enough for the waste of public funds involved.

Wishihadabs Sat 16-Mar-13 20:25:44

Claig I am realy struggling to keep up with all your prejudices and agendas. My understanding is that too much alcohol is bad for you. My personal experience is that heavy drinking destroys lives. Do I support an initiative to increase awareness and discourage heavy drinking ? yes. What this has to do with MPs expenses or thalidomide victims is beyond me.

claig Sat 16-Mar-13 20:30:30

What is it with supermarkets and government. They seem to be in partnership.

We have workfare where the unemployed stack supermarket shelves, we have partnerships and promotion of food to buy, and now we have minimum alcohol prices that it seems won't even benefit the taxpayer, but will go to supermarkets. And all this in a time when ordinary people are facing the toughest times we have ever seen.

Are the supermarkets progressives too?

claig Sat 16-Mar-13 20:32:12

Are some of the karaoke singers in House of Commons bars who were voted out of office when the public kicked the progressives out, now consultants, directors or board members of supermarkets?

claig Sat 16-Mar-13 20:35:50

'What this has to do with MPs expenses or thalidomide victims is beyond me.'

Because it is millions of public taxpayer money being wasted and as Diane Abbott rightly said

This £2million that Tory Ministers are spending is an insult to hard-pressed British families'

Wish, you said you are a healthworker.
Are you involved in these campaigns, are you employed by them?

claig Sat 16-Mar-13 20:39:09

They are spending money on cartoons and paying actors to make adverts to teach adults to drink coffe or teas instread of alcohol, and at the same time people are being told that they will lose their disability benefits in order to save money.

It is disgraceful. There is a boom for the advertising industry, the actors with the chirpy voices and the NHS executives who run these schemes, while ordinary people are suffering like they never have before.

expatinscotland Sat 16-Mar-13 21:11:02

'My understanding is that too much alcohol is bad for you. My personal experience is that heavy drinking destroys lives. Do I support an initiative to increase awareness and discourage heavy drinking ?'

And you honestly believe that complete line of utter spin that that is what this is about? PMSL! It's about more money in their coffers, and at the expense of even more small businesses, as if times aren't enough, when their trade is hit by this.

'Well cancer research are a bunch of communists who want to destroy ordinary people's lives everyone knows that.'

Oh, no, I think they are an organisation who really need to rename themselves what they really are: Breast Cancer Research UK, because that is where most of the money their pull in goes to, and who produce misleading advertisements like the one that states that nowawaday, 8 out of 10 children with leukaemia survive. BULLSHIT! There are 2 types of leukaemia, you have the misfortune of developing the non-childhood one, your odds are more like 5 out of 10. At best.

expatinscotland Sat 16-Mar-13 21:13:19

They donate less than 5% of what they pull in towards research into childhood cancers that are killing children left and right. I will never donate a penny to them in my life for peddling outright lies.

expatinscotland Sat 16-Mar-13 21:17:30

'My understanding is that too much alcohol is bad for you.'

Not enough money to eat or heat your home because a French company paid billions of our monies said you aren't disabled anymore and cut off your benefits is very bad for you.

But let's pussyfoot around and make it all about 'units' of booze.

It's another wag the dog tactic from a wasteful government.

claig Sat 16-Mar-13 21:27:44

Exactly, expat, this is wag the dog

I never realised that, but that is what it is. They are pretending they care, they pay our money to put cartoons on television to show us how concerned they are for our health, and meanwhile people die in hospitals of dehydration, figures on mortality are fiddled, NHS trust managers earn 6 figure salaries and very few of them are ever sacked when scandals are finally revealed.

No one is ever responsible. But us, the people, are irresponsible with our drinking, so they will make us pay more while telling us they only do it because they care.

claig Sat 16-Mar-13 21:33:11

And why is this happening, why do so many of them work for charities and trusts when they are kicked out of office by the people? Because they are divorced from the people. They get taxis and expenses and have often never had a real job, so they don't know how real people live, and that is why they think we are irresponsible and children to their nanny state.

One in seven MPs have never had a proper job, according to research.
And in addition to those who have absolutely no experience of working in the real world, many more have served only brief stints as lobbyists or public relations advisers before entering politics full-time.

The trend is led by Labour, which has twice as many MPs who have never worked outside politics as either the Conservatives or Liberal Democrats.

The study also reveals that working class MPs, who played a key role in the politics of the last century, have become an endangered species.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2175695/One-seven-MPs-real-job.html

claig Sat 16-Mar-13 21:48:44

'The study also reveals that working class MPs, who played a key role in the politics of the last century, have become an endangered species.'

And they tell us that they are our representatives?
Who the milionaires from Eton?

And we are irresponsible and need to be taught a lesson. They will stop us buying 3 for 2 of cheap booze.

Meanwhile they will dine in expensive restaurants, sometimes travel first class and drink as much expensive booze as they damn well like.

claig Sat 16-Mar-13 21:52:08

And for the plebs, they'll pay for piss-taking cartoons with chirpy voices. That'll convince the plebs that they care.

nicg123 Sat 16-Mar-13 23:33:20

Don't the toffs have cellars stocked full of wine? Well why can't we store 3 packs for the price of 2? Why do they want us to pay more? We are already paying for the bankers' bonuses and the NHS Trust bosses salaries and the MPs' bath plugs, why do we have to pay even more?
I really don't mind paying a few quid extra for luxuries in life - alcohol is not an essential after all but an added extra for those who've earned it! If I didn't work and money was tight, I certainly wouldn't EXPECT alcohol to be cheap in order for me to function. What an effing liberty! Bankers are over paid, agreed. I'm not sure about NHS bosses or MPs bath plugs but maybe these were once news stories which I missed. I do know that if a person has desire enough to have a decent quality of life, regardless of their background, they do not need cheap alcohol to do so. The uplifted price will hopefully deter people from mindlessly drinking and hopefully encourage them to spend their hard earned cash more wisely - on their families, their health/wellbeing, fun activities, healthy foods, etc etc whether they be toffs, mcp's, wcp's, homeless or bums. Whatever small amount is left could be put towards an alcoholic drink or two - cheap booze shouldn't be at the forefront of your life agenda - EVER!!

flatpackhamster Mon 18-Mar-13 07:46:15

Wishihadab

Temperance movement ?

Yes. Have you heard of Alcohol Concern? I linked to them earlier. Alcohol Concern is the Temperance Movement rebranded. It receives most of its funding from the Department of Health. What we have here is a political lobby group, who are using charitable status to give themselves a veneer of respectability, and who are being funded entirely through government grants. The grants go to this political lobby group, which then produces 'research' to back up or generate government policy in a particular field.

It's been happening for the last decade or so and there are a huge range of fake charities which create government policy.

Actually those figure came from a department of health leaflet I picked up at the dentist. I will try to find it..

Please do. And if you can find out what the source was of their figures, then all the better, because unsourced figures have little value.

Mead which was drunk in the middle ages was 1-2% hardly special brew

So you do admit, then, that alcohol was not 'in short supply' which was the claim you made earlier? Ordinary people would have drunk beer (at varying strengths) rather than mead, btw.

RussiansOnTheSpree Wed 20-Mar-13 08:59:31

nicg123 cheap booze shouldn't be at the forefront of your life agenda - EVER!!

Well said. I think everyone on this thread who has been kicking up a big old fuss about this needs to take a long hard look at themselves and their lives.

theboob Wed 20-Mar-13 09:09:48

I'm at student nurse and spent some time with the public health officer that is in charge on this campaign in our area .From what I understand this won't have a big affect on occasional drinkers and that only the cheap alcohol that causes the most damage will go up in price , when I am on the pc I will link the information he used to explain it to me .I was of the same opinion of others before I had it all explained to me

theboob Wed 20-Mar-13 09:15:09
boxershorts Wed 20-Mar-13 11:37:48

there is a close relationship between brewers supermarkets and governments. \We are being had

flatpackhamster Wed 20-Mar-13 15:29:37

It will still have an effect though, on 'occasional drinkers'. And when the 50p per unit doesn't miraculously stop people buying cheap alcohol, what will happen? The temperance movement and the bullying public health officials and the nanny staters and all the people who like to sneer at the dreadful poor working classes for drinking too much will all get together and say "Oh, 50p a unit isn't enough, let's raise it to 60p. How about 75p? Why not £1 a unit?"

This is one of the problems with a state-funded healthcare system. If the state provides all the healthcare, then suddenly your body isn't your own, because if you're ill through your own actions you cost the taxpayer money. So the state has an interest in your health, and under a government with a statist or totalitarian bent (such as Labour 1997-2010) that 'interest' becomes a compulsion to intervene and interfere.

As an aside, I wonder if any consideration has been put towards people who like to make their own infusions, such as sloe gin. When I make infusions I tend to buy the cheapest vodka or gin or whatever. Suddenly, it's going to have its price put up. I recognise that there aren't many people who do what I do, and I also recognise that there's no real interest in the actual effects this policy is going to have because its true bent is ideological rather than health-based.

theboob Wed 20-Mar-13 20:21:42

It is a perfect example of utilitarianism, the greater good for the greater number and with all public health campaigns it will not suit or please everybody. Yes it will put money out of peoples pockets and into the pot , but if you look at the evidence alcohol related illness or injury costs the NHS more

cumfy Wed 20-Mar-13 22:50:33

www.minimumpricing.info is pretty pathetic.

Whilst I agree drink duties should increase, this site does little to advocate, because of poor layout.

1. Unclear who has written the site.

2. Referencing looks like an 11 year old's.

Apparently This site is also endorsed by the Royal College of Physicians..

Really ?

cumfy Thu 04-Apr-13 13:45:32

Update:

I emailled Royal College of Physicians to clarify whether they actually endorsed minimumpricing.info.

They do not

RCP emailled me:

The RCP has not formally endorsed minimumpricing.info and I have asked for this statement to be removed.

specialsubject Thu 04-Apr-13 17:53:41

I don't drink and never have - don't like the stuff. But I don't support the proposal to raise the price of alcohol. The kiddy guzzlers all have enough to throw away £50 a night on booze as it is, and it will make no difference. The alcoholics will do it anyway. Those who like a glass of wine with their meal and can (shock horror) drink the £3 a bottle which is the cheapest you can now get, will be the ones who will notice.

too much booze leaves you vomiting in the gutter and with a memory loss due to brain damage. Yet the kids still keep doing it. You can't legislate to improve intelligence or understanding of cause and effect. Getting this drunk needs to be seen as disgusting, not fun

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now