Friday, 23 March 2012

Minimum Pricing for Alcohol is both wrong and stupid...

****

Over the past year or so I've posted a few pieces about minimum pricing for alcohol - on the day when a Tory government announces plans to do this, I have gathered some of them together:

There's no evidence that it works but let's put up booze prices anyway!

Anyone know how to make moonshine? Thoughts on the economics of minimum booze prices.

Hands off my beer, Mr Cameron

Why minimum pricing for alcohol is a really stupid idea...

Making alcohol is easy...

But drink is so cheap?

A lesson from Sid...

The most risible part of Cameron's claim - apart from the lies about drink being cheaper than water - is the claim that it will cut crime. It won't - the policy is a gift to organised criminals and smugglers:

The Mafia would like to thank health campaigners and social activists for making them even richer!

"Brandy for the Parson, 'Baccy for the Clerk."

If we want to help people with a drink problem, let's help people with a drink problem. This policy punishes people for the sin of being poor, judges the behaviour of others and plays to a ghastly, puritanical denormalisation campaign. 

 

I find it very hard to believe that a Conservative government has proposed this idea - it is illiberal, insulting to the less well off and really stupid.

....

 

5 comments:

Henry Crun said...

The police already have sufficient powers to deal with the drunk and disorderly. They just choos not to use them.

I for one, will be sending by Conservative Membership card in the post to No.10. I will never vote Conservative until this nannying and interference in our lives stops.

Anonymous said...

"I find it very hard to believe that a Conservative government has proposed this idea - it is illiberal, insulting to the less well off and really stupid."

I quite agree.


It would be difficult to blame any prudent shopper for going elsewhere.
A small donation to funds is one thing,but why should anyone expect to be routinely overcharged?


Rose

Anonymous said...

*I find it very hard to believe that a Conservative government has proposed this idea*

Why?

This is par for the course for Cameron.

The question I keep asking of conservatives, is how does someone like Cameron get to be the conservative representative, without representing most conservatives.

Unless of course he does.

Anonymous said...

and this is the political party that you belong to and keep defending?
Is it really their goal to alienate everyone? because that's what they're doing..............

Anonymous said...

I think things would have been very different if David Davis had been elected rather than the "Heir to Blair"