Scotch politics

kalmar · **Posted:** Thu Nov 26, 2009 17:02

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8379574.stm

Quote:

Controversial legislation to bring in minimum-pricing for alcohol in Scotland will be defeated by opposition parties.

Good thing? Bad thing?

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49232

Social policy through pricing controls has never worked.

markg · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 16575

Really? Because I've certainly known people who have cited the amount of money they'll save as one of the main reasons to quit smoking.

kalmar · **Posted:** Thu Nov 26, 2009 17:07

Yeah, I was just going to say that. And alcohol pricing certainly worked for reducing alcoholism in various Scandinavian countries. Since when has it never worked?

Grim... · **Posted:** Thu Nov 26, 2009 17:08

I'm glad I'm rich enough to drink and smoke when I want to.
And I'm doubly glad that I won't have to share the pub with the fucking working class any more.

MrChris · **Joined:** 1st Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 30498

kalmar wrote:

. And alcohol pricing certainly worked for reducing alcoholism in various Scandinavian countries.

Has it? I thought it meant they all ended up fucking off over to the neigbouring one to buy cheap booze.

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49232

Did they stop for any of the huge price rises that have happened over the last ten years?

Price doesn't make you stop smoking, wanting to stop does. That you'll save money is a nice bonus.

Cavey · **Posted:** Thu Nov 26, 2009 17:11

... is shit. OHO. :hat:

Grim... · **Posted:** Thu Nov 26, 2009 17:12

Captain Caveman wrote:

... is shit. OHO. :hat:

Are you drunk, Cavey?

kalmar · **Posted:** Thu Nov 26, 2009 17:13

Mr Kissyfur wrote:

kalmar wrote:

. And alcohol pricing certainly worked for reducing alcoholism in various Scandinavian countries.

Has it? I thought it meant they all ended up fucking off over to the neigbouring one to buy cheap booze.

It worked. The only problem is, after a while people start saying "there is no alcohol problem, why are prices so high" and some political party jumps on it as a populist vote getting thing.

Wullie · **Joined:** 27th Jun, 2008 **Posts:** 6183

Thing is, it's no exactly cheap to go for a pint or two the noo. Yet you see the same folk absolutely trashed every weekend.

It'll maybe sort out some of the poorer boozers, but that's little use when you've some cunt earning a small fortune trying to pick a fight wi' you.

markg · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 16575

Craster wrote:

Did they stop for any of the huge price rises that have happened over the last ten years?

Price doesn't make you stop smoking, wanting to stop does. That you'll save money is a nice bonus.

But "wanting to stop" is something that comes from a variety of factors, including social acceptability, long term health, the health of others and for many, with the current price of cigarettes, financial concerns. I'm not sure how you can so boldly decree that being hundreds of pounds a month better off is never in itself a powerful incentive to quit.

Grim... · **Posted:** Thu Nov 26, 2009 17:18

Because you're not. When I stopped smoking my wallet didn't notice at all. When I stopped drinking it noticed a little bit, but not as much as it should.

sdg · **Posted:** Thu Nov 26, 2009 17:18

We have had a few mentions of this in briefings at work and it is the main story in the industry weekly bulletin I just received, I'll copy and paste their view...(I haven't read it yet)

ZOMG Spoiler! Click here to view!

Plans to set a minimum price for alcohol may be blocked by the Scottish Labour Party, which claims the policy is "untried, untested, unworkable and possibly illegal".

The Scottish Government is today (26 November) publishing its long-awaited Alcohol Bill, which includes powers for ministers to set a minimum price for alcohol.

The Scottish Labour however, has argued against the move, which has the backing of health groups and pub trade representatives.

"We're not going to support minimum units pricing…firstly because it seems to us a policy to increase the profits of Tesco and Asda and they make quite enough money already," a spokesperson for Scottish Labour told just-drinks.

"Partly because its legality has been called into question by the European Court, and the (majority) Scottish National Party has refused to share the legal advice with us. If they're not willing to share such basic information, that raises serious questions about their genuine desire to build a consensus."

In September, the Scottish Government ignored advice from competition officials and said it would press ahead with its plan to set a minimum price on alcoholic drinks, claiming the policy could save hundreds of lives every year.

However, the Labour spokesperson said that the fact the Scottish Government has not been clear on what level the minimum pricing will be set has raised questions.

"The SNP has refused to set that out, so when you put all that together, it seems that we've got a policy that is untried, untested, unworkable and possibly illegal," the spokesperson said. "That's not to say however, that we don't recognise the severity of the problem."

The party said it had set up a commission to "go away and look at alternatives" and "alternative price mechanisms".

"We're not rejecting the premise that there is a relationship between price, consumption and harm. What we are rejecting is the specific policy that the SNP has come forward with to deal with it," the spokesperson added.

The Wine and Spirit Trade Association (WSTA) also condemned the Scottish Government today over the alcohol plans, accusing it of "punishing Scottish consumers and businesses" with the Bill, "whilst doing little to tackle the root causes of alcohol misuse".

"Despite the fact that the Government's own figures show overall alcohol consumption in Scotland is falling, Ministers seem determined to pursue proposals which will hit innocent Scottish consumers and businesses," said Jeremy Beadles, chief executive of the WSTA. "Scotland deserves better than a piece of legislation which fails to focus on the real issue."

Beadles said it was willing to work with the Government and other stakeholders to develop policies that "address the problem of alcohol misuse, including rigorous enforcement of existing legislation, systematic education in schools and widespread introduction of Community Alcohol Partnerships proven to deliver results".

I figure that maybe that is reporting from a different angle than the news media and so may be of some interest.

Cavey · **Posted:** Thu Nov 26, 2009 17:19

Grim... wrote:

Captain Caveman wrote:

... is shit. OHO. :hat:

Are you drunk, Cavey?

Sadly not mate; just a lame attempt at humour:

'Scotch politics' [thread title] ... is shit (attempted humourous dig @ Scots' propensity for left wing politics etc.)

I admit though, it was pretty shit as jokes go!

In other news, looks like Brown is now saying that extended/24-hour drinking licences have turned out to be pretty shit - quelle surprize eh. (I remember us all having a bust up over this at WoS meh).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... Brown.html

Grim... · **Posted:** Thu Nov 26, 2009 17:20

Got you. I thought you were replying to Craster.

Wullie · **Joined:** 27th Jun, 2008 **Posts:** 6183

superdupergill wrote:

said Jeremy Beadles, chief executive of the WSTA.

MrChris · **Joined:** 1st Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 30498

Isn't that link just Brown's opinion on 24 hour boozing? And he's a puritan.

kalmar · **Posted:** Thu Nov 26, 2009 17:23

WTF is a Community Alcohol Partnership?

Is that where several people know the location of the still?

kalmar · **Posted:** Thu Nov 26, 2009 17:24

Captain Caveman wrote:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... Brown.html

DM;dr

Wullie · **Joined:** 27th Jun, 2008 **Posts:** 6183

Broon in the Daily Mail wrote:

It's not true in all parts of the the country, but where there is a problem, I think we have got to give the local authority the power to rescind 24-hour licensing.

If they've got the power to grant 24-hour licenses, how the hell don't they have the power to remove/restrict them. Bloody eejits.

Curiosity · **Posted:** Thu Nov 26, 2009 17:28

Depends where they set the minimum price limits, really, but I think on principal it's a very bad idea.

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49232

Wullie wrote:

Broon in the Daily Mail wrote:

It's not true in all parts of the the country, but where there is a problem, I think we have got to give the local authority the power to rescind 24-hour licensing.

If they've got the power to grant 24-hour licenses, how the hell don't they have the power to remove/restrict them. Bloody eejits.

I don't think he means "revoke the license for the Dog and Buggery", I think he means "Rescind permission for anyone in Fuckington Under Wassock to have a 24hr license" (because they're all rich Labour voters).

sinister agent · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 7046

markg wrote:

Really? Because I've certainly known people who have cited the amount of money they'll save as one of the main reasons to quit smoking.

I don't care if it works. It's immoral. It's basically pricing poor people out of something that is totally harmless, and arguably beneficial, in appropriate quantities.

Besides, if booze is forced to be even more expensive, people will just nick it instead.

Cavey · **Posted:** Thu Nov 26, 2009 17:32

Mr Kissyfur wrote:

Isn't that link just Brown's opinion on 24 hour boozing? And he's a puritan.

Well yes, but I can't imagine it would come particularly easy to him admitting failure, so I guess there must be some empirical basis for such an opinion? Mind you, then again...

Anyway, I don't want to hijack Kalmar's thread here.

Personally, I think some form of price controls (i.e. premiums) on alcohol - particularly from supermarkets and off licences - are both inevitable and desirable, from a public health perspective.

Wullie · **Joined:** 27th Jun, 2008 **Posts:** 6183

@Craster; Surely the local cooncils licensing authority already has that power or is it totally different Doon Sooth?

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49232

They have the power to rescind an establishment's license for cause. I don't think they have the power to say "We won't have late licenses in this district", in a federal stylee.

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49232

Captain Caveman wrote:

Personally, I think some form of price controls (i.e. premiums) on alcohol - particularly from supermarkets and off licences - are both inevitable and desirable, from a public health perspective.

Can you hear that noise? That's the free market disowning you, right there. Disgraceful.

Pricing controls?

MrChris · **Joined:** 1st Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 30498

Cras, they also have the power not to grant the fecking licence in the first place.

This is the councils' responsibility, and their fault if it causes problems. Inappropriate licensing hours for an area have got next to fuck all to do with pricing.

sinister agent · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 7046

kalmar wrote:

Captain Caveman wrote:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... Brown.html

DM;dr

Quite. Need we be reminded of this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/18/bad-science-cancer-jabs-daily-mail

Summary: Daily Mail in England makes false claims that a 'jab' pushed by the government has been harming people. At the same time, the Daily Mail in Ireland makes the exact opposite claim, because it'll sell more papers there.

The Daily Mail is absolutely made of lies, to an ever greater extent than any other publicaton in Britain.

Wullie · **Joined:** 27th Jun, 2008 **Posts:** 6183

Craster wrote:

They have the power to rescind an establishment's license for cause. I don't think they have the power to say "We won't have late licenses in this district", in a federal stylee.

Aye, but Broon says he wants it for areas where there's a problem, so surely that's cause enough.

"Yies act like a bunch of fannies when ye get a drink in yies, so ye can sing for it. Ya jakey bastards."

Mr Kissyfur wrote:

Cras, they also have the power not to grant the fecking licence in the first place.

they don't have to renew them with the same terms either.

kalmar · **Posted:** Thu Nov 26, 2009 17:39

Craster wrote:

Captain Caveman wrote:

Personally, I think some form of price controls (i.e. premiums) on alcohol - particularly from supermarkets and off licences - are both inevitable and desirable, from a public health perspective.

Can you hear that noise? That's the free market disowning you, right there. Disgraceful.

Pricing controls?

Whut? Surely the "free market" price controls the hell out of most things apart from raw commodities anyway?

Also, LOL at tory-pwning Cavey

sinister agent · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 7046

Wullie wrote:

Craster wrote:

They have the power to rescind an establishment's license for cause. I don't think they have the power to say "We won't have late licenses in this district", in a federal stylee.

Aye, but Broon says he wants it for areas where there's a problem, so surely that's cause enough.

"Yies act like a bunch of fannies when ye get a drink in yies, so ye can sing for it. Ya jakey bastards."

Well, it seems only fair to me that we should enforce minimum prices for whatever it is that Brown shovels down his fat fucking face.

Cavey · **Posted:** Thu Nov 26, 2009 17:41

Craster wrote:

Captain Caveman wrote:

Personally, I think some form of price controls (i.e. premiums) on alcohol - particularly from supermarkets and off licences - are both inevitable and desirable, from a public health perspective.

Can you hear that noise? That's the free market disowning you, right there. Disgraceful.

Pricing controls?

Heh. I am no fundamentalist, Craster old chap. I believe in the free market up to a point, incidentally much less of a point than I used to, say, two years ago, but not at the expense of many people's wellbeing and health. Supermarkets knocking crates of beer out at 20p/bottle isn't going to do much to encourage drinking in moderation for many. Alcohol is addictive for many people, and demonstrably harmful to health even in quite moderate quantities, let alone to gross excess. We don't allow cigarettes to be sold at 'free market prices', ostensibly at least for the same reason.

MrChris · **Joined:** 1st Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 30498

Captain Caveman wrote:

. We don't allow cigarettes to be sold at 'free market prices', ostensibly at least for the same reason.

It's for the tax. Absolutely 100% for the tax. No "ostensibly" anything.

kalmar · **Posted:** Thu Nov 26, 2009 17:48

Mr Kissyfur wrote:

Captain Caveman wrote:

. We don't allow cigarettes to be sold at 'free market prices', ostensibly at least for the same reason.

It's for the tax. Absolutely 100% for the tax. No "ostensibly" anything.

Well, no, it is ostensibly for health benefits.

Cavey · **Posted:** Thu Nov 26, 2009 17:50

Mr Kissyfur wrote:

Captain Caveman wrote:

. We don't allow cigarettes to be sold at 'free market prices', ostensibly at least for the same reason.

It's for the tax. Absolutely 100% for the tax. No "ostensibly" anything.

No, I believe the justification given for the huge taxation of cigarettes, as opposed to any other 'regular' consumable, is to (supposedly) discourage their consumption.

(Being a cynic, I've no doubt that you are partially right concerning the real reason for the punitive taxation of smokers - they are hapless drug addicts and will pay whatever they need to pay, within reason, to fund their drug addiction, and HM Treasury knows this. But that's another matter...).

Edit: hi5 Kalmar!

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49232

Captain Caveman wrote:

they are hapless drug addicts and will pay whatever they need to pay, within reason, to fund their drug addiction.

Absolutely. See: Alcoholics, and hence why this is a disastrous idea.

MrChris · **Joined:** 1st Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 30498

If it were just to discourage smokers, then they could set a minimum price the sellers were allowed to charge, and just charge VAT on that and allow the baccy companies to keep the rest as revenue - rather than adding every penny of the price increase as duty.

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49232

Or they could put something really poisonous in them, or something.

Wait.

MrChris · **Joined:** 1st Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 30498

Craster wrote:

Or they could put something really poisonous in them, or something.

Wait.

Heh.

What *would* they have to put in cigarettes to get you to stop smoking them? Vegetarian sausages?

Cavey · **Posted:** Thu Nov 26, 2009 17:55

Craster wrote:

Captain Caveman wrote:

they are hapless drug addicts and will pay whatever they need to pay, within reason, to fund their drug addiction.

Absolutely. See: Alcoholics, and hence why this is a disastrous idea.

I disagree. If you make something that's attractive yet harmful ludicrously cheap and endlessly available, it's much more likely to be consumed in excess, by more people, than if it was more expensive and less readily available (e.g. through more restrictive hours for selling alcohol products). Seems like common sense to me?

kalmar · **Posted:** Thu Nov 26, 2009 17:55

Alcohol would probably do it.

devilman · **Posted:** Thu Nov 26, 2009 17:56

Mr Kissyfur wrote:

Craster wrote:

Or they could put something really poisonous in them, or something.

Wait.

Heh.

What *would* they have to put in cigarettes to get you to stop smoking them? Vegetarian sausages?

They should make cigarettes play 'Greensleeves' as you smoke them.

Curiosity · **Posted:** Thu Nov 26, 2009 18:09

If it's a minimum price, who gets the money? Does the Government say, "We're taking the first 50p for every unit of alcohol sold" and the manufacturers and sellers have to start from that playing field? Or will they (unlikely) stipulate that a certain amount has to go to the producers, etc?

Given that certain brands have a selling point of price and only price, I can see this closing down a lot of operations, which isn't a great thing, economically. Still, at least all those made redundant can have a... oh.

Also, I'd imagine that it would be used as an excuse to bump up the prices of premium brands. So everyone who likes a drink loses, and the money goes off to bomb some people in the Middle East or pay for a duck pond. Niiiiiice.

Wullie · **Joined:** 27th Jun, 2008 **Posts:** 6183

Captain Caveman wrote:

I disagree. If you make something that's harmful ludicrously cheap and endlessly available, it's much more likely to be consumed in excess, by more people, than if it was more expensive and less readily available (e.g. through more restrictive hours for selling alcohol products).

You mean like drugs? Cheaper than alcohol, easily acquired, some are arguably safer than booze & yet they're only consumed by a third of the folk I know. Compared to 80-90% who take a drink.

On top of that there's a greater ratio of my pals that regularly drink to excess than consume a silly amount of drugs.

Obviously this is all anecdotal & means fuck all* really, but it's something to think about.

*myp lives in Nottingham so 99% of the folk he knows could be spaced out druggy hoodlums & Malc lives in the Westcountry where everyone is a zoider drinker

Cavey · **Posted:** Thu Nov 26, 2009 18:24

Mr Kissyfur wrote:

If it were just to discourage smokers, then they could set a minimum price the sellers were allowed to charge, and just charge VAT on that and allow the baccy companies to keep the rest as revenue - rather than adding every penny of the price increase as duty.

I don't really see what difference this makes. Either something is disproportionately and punitively taxed in comparison to other 'luxury goods' - and in which case, there must be a supposed justification for this - or it isn't.

MrChris · **Joined:** 1st Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 30498

Captain Caveman wrote:

Mr Kissyfur wrote:

If it were just to discourage smokers, then they could set a minimum price the sellers were allowed to charge, and just charge VAT on that and allow the baccy companies to keep the rest as revenue - rather than adding every penny of the price increase as duty.

I don't really see what difference this makes. Either something is disproportionately and punitively taxed in comparison to other 'luxury goods' - and in which case, there must be a supposed justification for this - or it isn't.

I'l try again - either the government wants the price to be high to dissuade people from buying it, in which case it doesn't matter who gets to keep that extra money and it may as well all go to the manufacturer, or they want the price high to make money off it because a lot of people will buy it come what may, in which case the government gets it all as duty.

Oh.

Cavey · **Posted:** Thu Nov 26, 2009 18:30

Mr Kissyfur wrote:

Captain Caveman wrote:

Mr Kissyfur wrote:

If it were just to discourage smokers, then they could set a minimum price the sellers were allowed to charge, and just charge VAT on that and allow the baccy companies to keep the rest as revenue - rather than adding every penny of the price increase as duty.

I don't really see what difference this makes. Either something is disproportionately and punitively taxed in comparison to other 'luxury goods' - and in which case, there must be a supposed justification for this - or it isn't.

I'l try again - either the government wants the price to be high to dissuade people from buying it, in which case it doesn't matter who gets to keep that extra money and it may as well all go to the manufacturer, or they want the price high to make money off it because a lot of people will buy it come what may, in which case the government gets it all as duty.

Oh.

Hmm, still don't get it. Obviously, the government cannot create a cartel of cigarette manufacturers 'forced' to sell at grossly inflated profit margins! It has to be done via the taxation route.

Anonymous X · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 2046

Captain Caveman wrote:

Alcohol is addictive for many people, and demonstrably harmful to health even in quite moderate quantities, let alone to gross excess. We don't allow cigarettes to be sold at 'free market prices', ostensibly at least for the same reason.

That's it, pretty much.

Still, the issue government regulation of prices and taxation an soforth is only part of the problem, really. The main issue is the 'Anglo Saxon' drinking culture. That's where things are massively screwed-up. And I can't possibly think of a way to 'fix' it, and even so, it would take a generation.

Be Excellent To Each Other

Scotch politics

Who is online