Minimum pricing: punishing many for the sins of the few
Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 7:48 Lots of comment, as you might expect, on minimum pricing.
Dr Eamonn Butler, director of the Adam Smith Institute, has described the measure as "another illiberal policy, pushed on politicians by pious interest groups who think they know how to run our lives better than we do".
Writing for Forest's Free Society website, Eamonn said:
Setting a minimum price for alcohol punishes the many for the sins of the few. The people who would be most affected would be people on low or fixed incomes – lower income families and pensioners, who may drink perfectly responsibly, but would be priced out of this modest pleasure.
Yes, people can do without alcohol, but what right has government to take that decision for them, and deny them the health and happiness benefits of moderate drinking?
Overall consumption might fall a bit, but heavy problem drinkers are not likely to be put off their excessive consumption just because the price rises. They will just spend less on other things to feed their compulsion.
The other group that the health lobbyists have in their sights is of course young people. They cite evidence of teenagers getting legless in our city centres on a Friday and Saturday night. But most of those young people staggering down the pavement would not actually be hit by the minimum price rule. They are buying their drinks in bars and clubs where the price is far more than 50p a shot.
Full article: Punishing the poor, the moderate and the sensible.
Chris Snowdon is equally outspoken. On Monday, on his blog, he wrote Minimal evidence for minimum pricing, and yesterday he posted this on the ASI blog: Six reasons to reject minimum alcohol pricing. Worth reading.
Two very quick observations:
One, my wife and I were talking about this last night and we agreed that minimum pricing will have very little impact on us because every drop of alcohol we currently consume is already well above the minimum price.
In that respect we are no different to millions of people throughout Britain, the vast majority of whom will pay little heed to this latest attempt by government to dictate how we live.
And that, in a nutshell, is the problem. Like the smoking ban, which adversely affected only a minority of the population, the majority ultimately don't care because it doesn't affect them directly.
This is called tyranny of the majority and at some stage we are all guilty of it of acquiescing to it.
Two, Simon Heffer, a writer I have a lot of time for, today writes A nanny state that dictates what we drink will soon be telling us how to think .
He's absolutely right. The irony is, having been against the smoking ban, Heffer later changed his tune despite the fact that many of us were saying it was only a matter of time before politicians and campaigners moved from tobacco to alcohol.
So to all those champions of the smoking ban who are now whingeing about minimum pricing, you only have yourselves to blame.
Simon Clark
I am writing this in the cafe at 4 Millbank, close to Parliament Square, where the BBC, ITV and Sky all have studios.
A seasonal soundtrack fills the room (which overlooks the Thames). 'Winter Wonderland', 'Frosty the Snowman', Bing Crosby singing 'Happy Holidays' – making me feel quite Christmassy.
Just as well because my colleague Angela Harbutt and I are about to spend the day signing one thousand Forest Christmas cards.
I'll reveal all later.
Update: I have now heard the same songs – which are on a continuous loop – at least four times each. Feeling just a bit less Christmassy ...
Reader Comments (6)
Schadenfreude is not a noble thought, but now I hope the rest of the population will wake up to the nanny state. They are indeed next. Whatever hot air, expense and time is generated in Parliament the EU just won't wear it. Italy Spain and Bulgaria have already lodged objections with the EU Commission.
In Scotland Nicola Sturgeon was told as early as December 2011 by The Law Society of Scotland – they even cited the case of European Commission v France, Austria, and Ireland (C197-08, C198/08 and C221/08) where those Member States fixed minimum retail prices for cigarettes. The Court held that the legislation in France, Austria, and Ireland, fixing minimum retail prices for cigarettes, infringed European Union Law.
It won't happen but this is a gift to the pro choice smoking lobbies.
Except that health professionals - such as the doctor who wants to deny smokers, drinkers and fat people medical care to save the NHS money - are now saying openly that the ban was not about health but marginalising people who smoke.
He said so openly in my radio interview - and Amanda Sandford said so last year in a radio debate with me.
Had they been honest and said from the start that the ban was not about health but the beginning of a hate campaign to deliberately stigmatise people and cause them to be shunned and avoided in their communities, they would never have got it. Only now - almost 6 years on - are they beginning to tell the truth after encouraging the wider public to embrace hatred and abuse against lifestyle groups as the new "normal" behaviour.
As for min pricing. It won't affect me. I drink a bottle of wine about every few months and we brew our own. But I once lived with a violent alcoholic. Min Pricing back then would have meant that he would have just beaten me up more for more of the housekeeping so he could go to the pub.
I may have avoided that humiliation if cheap supermarket beer had been about then - but it would have got worse as Govt made beer in pubs unaffordable for the worse off too. I guess they just want to price poor people out of places they want for themselves condemning the poor to drown their sorrows while looking at the bottom of a glass of tap water.
I do believe that women in a violent relationship trap today will be crying and in fear thanks to min pricing but the snobs won't care as long as they are not affected and they can ease their conscience by not seeing it on the street an therefore kid themselves that it isn't happening and lo and behold - they've saved the world.
In addition to all the common sense points so far, minimum pricing is illegal under EU trading laws.
Has anyone thought of the possibility that Cameron's enthusiasm is just a political trick? Suppose for a moment that he wants to take on the EU on some particular matter which he has been told by 'the experts' is the fully supported by 70% of the people, such as, perhaps, minimum pricing. And suppose that he has been told by these 'experts' that he will hold the moral high ground. So he uses minimum pricing of alcohol as a vote winner, by using it to convince the Tory voters that he is taking on the EU.
Why else would he knowingly promote a measure which he knows is contrary to the EU constitution in the most basic of ways?
Why is this measure being promoted by the Home Office and not the Health Dept? We know that there is a law and order aspect, but is not the whole thing supposed to be about heath? That in itself shows that there is trickery going on.
How can one avoid detesting these people?
Yes the Simon Heffer article is very good, shame he completely spoiled it by supporting the governments actions on smoking and then having a go at everything else. Selective nannying isn't an option.
Looking forward to MPs announcing that they will forego their cheap booze in taxpayer-subsidised HOC bars.