Guns, goths and the welfare state

****

It is always depressing when an individual case is used to justify changes to laws, rules or policies. We know from bitter experience that those extreme cases are never a good basis for change even when our instant reaction is "something must be done".

So the presumption in the Daily Mail that the killing of six children in the deliberate burning of a house is somehow the consequence of "the welfare state" suffers from precisely this problem. It is a matter of undeniable fact that most people who benefit from the welfare state do not set fire to their children so as to protect all or part of that benefice.

So on this basis I'm prepared to accept the argument that blaming welfare for Mick Philpott is like blaming the NHS for Harold Shipman - rather overstating the point. Which isn't to say we should debate whether a family as dangerously dysfunctional as Philpott's isn't made more possible by welfare but to say that welfare didn't make Philpott a callous sociopath.

But those who share this view might like to consider a little consistency. Next time there is a murder involving guns perhaps such folk might like to consider that perhaps it's the person rather than the gun who is responsible for the murder. And that without the motive of the murderer that gun would lie there benign and unused.

And perhaps those people might also care to stop trying to parcel up 'hate' into convenient little categories - the latest being Greater Manchester Police's nonsensical categorisation of "sub-cultures" as subject to the thing called "hate crime". Are goths and emos more subject to attack than supporters of one or other football team? Or tramps? Or, indeed, any number of 'groups' that are targeted for their difference by the sad and inadequate. Again we let one tragic case guide policy-making - it won't benefit the putative victims one jot to know, as the boot slams into their head, that this crime will be categorised differently.

By looking for simple answers - for the single culprit for a terrible crime - we fall into to the trap of seeking something other than human failing. For sure other factors are there too, but most often it's not guns or goths or the welfare state. It's an evil man.

....

A good day for organised crime...

Over in the secret hideaways of the organised crime bosses, cognac glasses are chinking, cigars are being lit - the toast is; "David Cameron and the Coalition Government".

Never before has there been a government that cared so much for the interests of the organised criminal. And today was a red letter day for those Dons, drug lords and criminal masterminds:

...minimum unit pricing, ensuring for the first time that alcohol can only be sold at a sensible and appropriate price

Sold at those prices by the legitimate trader. But sold at way below those prices by the smuggler or the moonshine merchant. The man with the van is rubbing his hand with profitable glee as he eyes up the chance to sell cheap booze to kids. The drug smugglers are looking at vodka as a kinder, less judged import. And the big crime lords are grinning from ear to ear and ordering the new yacht.

And then:

The government is to change the law to allow restrictions to be imposed on the interest rates charged for so-called "payday loans".

Honest Joe has got his baseball bat out from the cupboard and it treating it with linseed oil. All those poor folk refused loans by Wonga or Provident present a renewed sales opportunity. These legal lenders had killed his business but no more - now he can go back to lending cash and demanding repayment with menaces! And smashing the occasional kneecap - well it goes with the game.

A good day for organised crime - soon to be followed by plain packs for fags and a new smuggling and counterfeiting cash windfall!

Well done Dave!

....

Cash, crime and the dodging of taxes

****

We've become pretty judging of others - and especially businesses - for what we see as the dodging of taxes. Yet, a few saints and cabinet ministers aside, we all contribute to the informal economy - paying for stuff in cash knowing that half goes in the tradesman's back pocket being the obvious (but not exclusive) example.

Community Links have been doing a sterling job trying to unpick the informal economy, to build our understanding and to direct our attention to creating a pathway to what they term "formality":

It is important to note that the rationale for working informally and barriers to formalisation vary, therefore different policy measures are required for different types of informal entrepreneur. The report sets out some suggestions for policy responses which are suitable for differing types of informal entrepreneur, yet it is recognised that there is no ‘quick fix’ solution and there is a need to involve a wider range of stakeholders in attempting to develop bespoke policy solutions.

The premise for this argument is, of course, that the formalising of informal businesses is ipso facto a desirable thing. And the only reason for that desire is, of course, that informal business is untaxed. Indeed, Community Links rejects a laissez faire approach that says "so what":

From the evaluation of policy approaches provided in the literature review, it is obvious that neither a ‘laissez-faire’ approach nor a ‘de-regulationist’ approach should be pursued due to the negative overall impacts on the economic landscape. 

However the key argument presented against a deregulatory approach appears to be an very odd one:

In sum, even if de-regulation was to reduce the magnitude of informality, the impact would be to widen inequalities and reduce working conditions compared with more regulated states.

You will, of course have noted the contradiction in this statement. If someone is better off in a formal, regulated state then that is what he will choose, surely? Why operate outside that status if there is no advantage? Once again we are seeing the innate prejudice against free markets that is built into so many studies of these sort. Commissioned by governments and those who serve the cause of governments, there can be no place for independence of spirit. Rather we must create means by which formalisation can take place - without removing the obvious financial advantage of 'the black': you don't pay taxes.

Equally weirdly, the conclusion of the authors in this case argues for formalisation because people are "social actors":

In this report, we define ‘formalisation’ simply as the process by which informal work becomes compliant with employment, tax and benefit laws This views individuals not as ‘rational economic actors’ but as ‘social actors’ who are ordinarily inclined to comply with the law, partly because of their belief in the rule of law, and partly as a matter of long-term self-interest (Murphy, 2005).

While I don't wish to wander off down one of the by-ways of sociology by discussing rational behaviour and the utter nonsense of arguments claiming some different (and presumably irrational) social behaviour, it does seem to me that most actors in an informal market see little point or purpose in the "long-term". Like that famous economist they know - better than most - that in the long-term they are dead.

At the heart of informality is arbitrage - exploiting the gap existing between the formal economy and the black. An obvious example can be seen in the smuggling of booze and fags (or indeed cheese). Since government chooses to regulate the price of these desirable products - and indeed to constrain who I can sell them too - there is a wonderful arbitrage opportunity. And the bigger the regulatory gap, the bigger the opportunity and the greater the profit. It is no surprise that of the top twenty "tax dodgers", half are cigarette smugglers.

When we get to the prescription from the Community Links authors, we get a delightful - almost sweet - naivety and sense that they don't have the first clue how the bounds between crime and 'informality' are blurred. They propose measures like:

...offering amnesties on either a societal or individual level to informal entrepreneurs who put their affairs in order; offering business advisory and support services to those formalising their business ventures; and providing a range of targeted direct or indirect tax incentives encouraging customers to use formal rather than informal enterprises

Since we are speaking of a cash economy here - with no duty, no taxes and no questions asked - what makes anyone think that "amnesties" are any use? Think of the jobbing builder - the local handyman, if you will. He's playing the game of 'one pound for the books, one for my pocket'. The only risk is that the revenue will investigate and end up doing what? Giving him a tax bill that he'll pay off across two years by agreement.

For the proper criminal - the one gaming the gap between duty in Turkey and duty in the UK - no amnesty on earth will work since it implies taking his business away. More to the point, this smuggler knows the down side risk is a jail sentence. But right now he's making a packet and even with the 'Proceeds of Crime Act' the cops will never track all that money. Assuming, of course, they catch him (what's the extradition treaty like with Turkey?).

Finally our Community Links writers fall into the fault of moralising - as if this with attract anything more than a snort and a snigger as the man on 'the black' carries on:

Such measures include tax education and awareness campaigns about the benefits of declared work, and the pursuit of perceived tax fairness, procedural justice and redistributive justice.

Given who we are dealing with, this appeal to some collectivist morality seems beyond parody. Our criminal tax dodger simply isn't going to play. Why on earth should he? He'll listen to your lecture, smile, pour himself a large one and toast the naivety of the government.

In the end, setting up a new quango (as our authors suggest) may be good business for them and great business for Community Links but it fails entirely as a strategy - assuming that we actually need such a strategy. We've known for years that there's a pretty big gap between reported income and reported expenditure - especially at the lower end of the socio-economic scale - that can't be wholly explained away by levels of borrowing. Indeed the very fact of the informal - often criminal - economy says that this gap must exist. Just take estimates of the illegal drugs market:

An online report published by the Home Office in 2006 has estimated the UK drugs market to be worth £4.645bn in 2003/4^[8], with a margin of error of +/- £1.154bn. 

Do our authors really think that this market - or the growing market for smugged fags and illegal vodka - is going to go away because of "tax education" or some sort of "tax incentive" to customers?

In the end those working in the cash economy - whether they're declaring some income or pretending to be out-of-work - aren't going to regularise their circumstances unless you either make it worth their while doing so (which means lower taxes and duties) or remove the opportunity for arbitrage (which means lower taxes and duties).

Always and everywhere, the black economy is a consequence or crime or high taxes - or both. Pretending otherwise or that we can change the ways of these people by lecturing them about fairness and redistribution is ridiculous.

...

Cheese smuggling or Why criminals like protectionism

A few of you, on hearing this story, will have grinned a little. Maybe even guffawed. After all cheese smuggling is funny, no?

Canadian authorities say two police constables helped smuggle more than $200,000 worth of cheaper U.S. cheeses and other foods across the border from Buffalo to sell to pizzerias and restaurants.

The Niagara Regional Police Service announced today that the pair, one of whom has been fired, were arrested and charged, along with a third man. Charges against the three, all from Fort Erie, Ontario, include smuggling and other customs violations.

The point, however, is that with a very long and pretty open border, the Canadians are daft to impose huge tariffs on imported dairy produce as well as a range of permits, licences and rules (not just on imports but on selling dairy in a different province). All to "protect" the dairy industry (at the expense of the consumer).

And, as this story shoes us, the big winners aren't the cowherds and milkmaids of Canada but a bunch of criminals (helped in this case by a pair of corrupt cops). Protectionism sounds good when politicians promise it to one or other special interest or in a sort of populist, "keep out the foreigners" campaign but when it's introduced it acts as a tax on consumers to the benefit of smugglers.

And you don't need to protect the dairy industry. Go look at New Zealand and learn.

 ....

Now about that cigarette smuggling

****

It seems that it's getting worse and this is before the nannying fussbuckets make it even easier for the smugglers by introducing plain packaging for fags:

The survey in Birmingham by MS Intelligence, a Swiss-based brand protection company, found that 30.9 per cent of packets were either bogus or purchased abroad.

A similar study conducted last year found the proportion was only 14.1 per cent - indicating that the number of illicit cigarettes smoked in Britain's second-largest city has more than doubled in 12 months. 

Even accounting for the limitations of this study, these figures demonstrate that there is a point at which sticking the price up every year stops working. And we have crossed that point - the criminals are switching from high risk heroin ans cocaine to low risk booze and fags:

Profit margins are said to be just as high because of the scale of the operation, but detection rates are lower and punishment less severe.

Recently, heroin and cigarettes have been smuggled together.

'Bring a container of cigarettes into this country and you're talking a £1.5 million profit,' said Mr O'Reilly. 'Organised crime is all over it.

'After a number of years in decline, there has been a sharp rise in illicit cigarettes.

'That's partly down to the economy - people can't afford the real product - and it is easier for counterfeiters to copy the packets.

'Plans for plain packaging are simply playing into the hands of organised criminals and counterfeiters because it will be so much easier to make copies.'

Perhaps we need to change our attitude to smoking. Rather than the abstain or nothing approach coupled with ever more draconian price and distribution controls, we should maybe consider treating adults like, well, grown ups. Setting the facts out before them, providing support for quitters and encouraging less harmful smoking options such as water pipes and e-cigarettes.

Not going to happen though is it! The fussbuckets just plan to shout louder, ban more and control more.

....

More livelihoods that plain packs will destroy...

****

Corner shops are going to close and people who work in corner shops are going to lose their jobs if the nannying fussbuckets get their way:

Almost one in 12 independent corner shops could be at risk of closure or reducing staff due to tobacco smuggling and cross-border shopping, a survey revealed today.

The findings, published by the Tobacco Retailers Alliance (TRA), show that almost eight per cent of shop owners were considering ceasing trading directly due to a rise in the sale of illegal and counterfeit cigarettes.

A further 26 per cent of the businesses questioned in Yorkshire and Humber admitted they were contemplating cutting staff as a result of a decline in tobacco sales.

But I guess the New Puritans and prohibitionists don't care. They will crow and cheer at the demise of these jobs and the closure of these businesses. Another nail in the coffin of community banged in by the righteous and their desire to pass judgement on our personal choices.

It won't stop the smoking of course. That'll carry on, supplied by the man with a van. Unlicensed, unregulated, unchecked and uncaring. He's there already - nearly half of the top twenty "tax dodgers" named by the Mirror are wanted for dodging duty - millions of pounds of duty - on cigarettes. And just as we won't be winning the war on drugs any time soon, we won't be stopping the man with the van selling smuggled fags and illicit booze. It's only a matter of time before he's selling burgers I guess!

....

It's for the kids...

****

“This is not about curbing the freedoms of existing adult smokers; it’s about giving kids one less reason to start smoking in the first place.” 

...the ones whose Dad's are going to lose their jobs no doubt:


...or the ones shot and killed in the turf wars of smugglers and counterfeiters

If you get a chance before Friday tell the government that the police, business and the unions oppose plain packs, that there's no evidence at all to support their introduction and that the idea won't stop one single "kid" from taking up smoking.

The consultation is here.

...

The police, the unions, business and the public think it daft. Can we ditch the idea of plain packs for fags now?

It seems that everyone bar the paid lackeys of The Churchof Public Health is against the idea of plain packaging for cigarettes.

The police:

Health Secretary Andrew ­Lansley’s plans to force ­cigarettes to be sold in plain packets have been blasted by police.

Nearly nine out of 10 officers – 86 per cent – believe the move will lead to a rise in smuggling and sales of fake ­cigarettes, a poll claimed yesterday.

The findings also show that six out of 10 believe that the clampdown would drive teenagers towards illegal ­cigarette suppliers where they could buy counterfeit branded packs.

And senior officers make clear the problem – 24 of them wrote to the Times about it:

Sir, Plain packaging risks fuelling tobacco smuggling. We are concerned at the possibility of the Government introducing standardised packaging of tobacco products. We do not wish to get involved in the public health debate. However, our concern is very much on the impact that it could have on crime and in particular on serious organised criminals who are the target of the major law enforcement agencies.

Tobacco products are relatively small, high-value items and are smuggled in extremely large quantities, depriving the Treasury of billions of pounds in tax revenues. Those who smuggle tobacco products are often involved in other forms of serious criminality. The introduction of standardised packaging would make it even easier for criminals to copy and sell these products to the unsuspecting public, including children. This would place further pressure on already stretched law enforcement agencies and at a time when the Government needs to secure much needed tax revenues.

To my thinking that ought to be enough but we can add trade union opposition – they’re worried about jobs (like I am since 1000 of those jobs are in Bradford):

The FDT National Committee has serious concerns that these measures are ill-thought through and not evidence based, and in some parts of our sector, particularly tobacco and alcohol, could simply make it much easier for criminals to sell (unregulated and untaxed) counterfeit and smuggled goods and thus have flow-on affects such as a significant impact on jobs in our sector.

And the packaging industry agrees:

A considerable amount of the business of both Weidenhammer and Chesapeake involves the printing of cigarette cartons for the export trade. At Wiedenhammer’s Bradford site a large proportion of the work involves the production of drums for loose tobacco and, if this business disappeared, then it is estimated that turnover would decrease by at least a third. The threat to the business is, therefore, very real and...there would be major implications for investment, jobs and the tobacco packaging supply chain across the UK. 

So the police think it will increase crime and make it easier for children to get hold of tobacco; the unions and industry think it will result in job losses and the public? Well they think it’s a daft idea too:

72% of those questioned in Populus poll today say that #plainpacks will cause people to turn to the black market http://ow.ly/cqEgr

So there you have it folks – the police, the unions, business and the public all think plain packaging for cigarettes is a daft and counterproductive idea. Can we dump the idea now?

....

Police, crime and public honesty - a statistical lesson

****

It is pretty clear that rates of crime don’t correspond to any of things we’re always calling for – more coppers (on the beat of course), tougher sentencing, bigger prisons, capital punishment or flogging in the public square.

Recorded crime...fell by 4%, continuing the long downward trend in crime since 1995, and dropping below 4m offences for the first time in 23 years.

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) said violent crime had fallen by 7%, including a 2% fall in robberies.

We’d also been told – mostly by chief constables protecting their empires – that reductions in police spending during a recession would result in a surge of crime:

Acting Chief Constable Chris Weigh of the Lancashire force said the loss of front line officers had resulted in an “inevitable” increase in the number of offences being committed.

Seems this top copper was wrong! The real problem is that – because we’ve focused on police, punishment, prisons and probation – we don’t really understand why crime has fallen so rapidly over the past 20 years. Or indeed whether it will continue to fall. What we will be able to say is that the overall funding of policing and economic recession does not lead to more crime.

So what are those factors? Well it seems that simple economics is a factor – stealing stuff is harder and selling it on is more difficult (as well as less lucrative). So professional thieves have shifted to other crimes:

...with significant rises recorded in the last two years in metal thefts triggered by soaring commodity prices

While the opportunist has taken to nicking bikes and lawnmowers from sheds.

However, the truth may be that we’re really a lot more honest than the authorities give us credit:

Mobile phones deliberately left in pubs and clubs by Sussex Police to catch thieves were all returned.
 

Officers planted phones fitted with tracking devices in nine clubs and pubs in Hastings and St Leonards as part of Operation Mobli on Saturday night.
 

However the phones were handed in at the bar or security staff and not one was stolen.

...

Crime is the criminal's fault - why the left should listen more to what the right says

****

I guess we need to start at the beginning with crime. With where the blame lies. With the criminal.

Too often we are enjoined to find excuses – explanations in society – for crime. Psychologists tell us to look into the criminals upbringing, sociologists point to the environment in which the offender has lived, anthropologists mutter about peer pressure and some economists point the finger at the perverse incentives that come from inequality or financial failure.

Is all this wrong? Or should we seek a simpler explanation, one rooted in the idea of personal responsibility – crime is the fault of the criminal. Nobody makes the burglar burgle, the robber rob or the rapist rape. They do it themselves by their own choice and their upbringing, the urgings of peers or the porn movie they’ve just watched are of no consequence in all this – those things did not make the criminal a criminal. I know this to be true because other people have a similar deprived (or depraved) upbringing and do not burgle, others resist the lure of the gang and plenty watch porn without becoming rapists.

This view of crime is most commonly associated – in every case but rape – with conservatives and, more particularly with the right of the conservative party. Here’s Michael Howard back in 2004:

As a society we are in danger of being overrun by values which eat away at people's respect for themselves, each other, their homes and their neighbourhood.

Most damaging of all has been the dramatic decline in personal responsibility.

Many people now believe that they are no longer wholly responsible for their actions.

It's someone else's, or something else's fault - the environment, society, the Government.

In the case of rape Howard and the conservative right are joined – for this crime only it seems at times – by the left, something that is a cause for celebration since it shows that with the right conditions, these people can be persuaded that criminality is a matter of personal choice not an inevitable consequence of poverty, inequality or some other of society’s ailments. The individual – and how refreshing it is that some on the left are willing to acknowledge choice – does not have to commit crime, there is no inevitability.

So having got that clear – crime is always, without exception, the fault of the criminal – we should consider the more nuanced, even vexed, question that crime exists. That some circumstances put us at greater risk of being a victim and that there are things that we can do (or that others can do) to reduce this risk.

At the neighbourhood forums in our village, the police now attend (they call them “Partners & Communities Together” meetings, an especially annoying term) to listen to local concerns, update us on crime and provide advice. This advice, most commonly, takes the form of reminding us to lock doors, close windows and make other precautions against the criminal – we’re warned of “Hanoi” burglaries, told how easy it is to break the locks of plastic doors and reminded that garden sheds are also a target. All good stuff and welcome.

And when our sons and daughters are first going out in an evening, we worry about getting that late night call from the hospital. So we give good advice – don’t drink too much, stay together, don’t go off with strangers, make sure you have enough money to get home. We’ll sometimes tell our sons or daughters to avoid certain places – perhaps a particular pub or maybe a certain location – because we know they’re more dangerous.

All of this advice – not to mention the fretting and worrying – is intended to reduce the risk of being a victim. It doesn’t contradict the responsibility of the criminal for his or her crime – the burglary is still the fault of the burglar, the mugging is the fault of the mugger and the rape is the fault of the rapist.

But, however much we may wish it otherwise, there are burglars, there are robbers and there are rapists. So reducing our personal risk makes sense – reclaiming the night may be a desirable and laudable aim but until it is reclaimed that personal risk remains. So if going to a certain place increases that risk it is foolish to go there, if not securing our house increases that risk then we should secure our house and if staying in well lit, patrolled areas keeps us safe we should try to stay in those areas.

The same goes for wider social interventions – if reducing poverty (or aborting baby boys as has been observed) reduces the number of criminals that is good but not why we should try to reduce poverty. If fewer single parent families reduces crime that is also good but not why we should consider the social impact of single parenthood. And if better schools mean fewer crimes that is wonderful but not why we should want better schools.

Some people simply make the choice to be criminals – to steal, to assault, to kill, to rape. And they must not be allowed to use the Randy’s response:

"I'm depraved on account of I'm deprived"

Crime is the fault of the criminal. But that doesn’t mean we – as individuals and as a society – shouldn’t try to make things safer for the law abiding. And it certainly means we shouldn't act to make it less safe for people.

....

Who was it said booze was too cheap?

****

Not cheap enough for some, it seems:

Unregulated and potentially dangerous fake alcohol has been found for sale in Bradford, West Yorkshire Trading Standards has warned.

Senior trading standards officer David Lodge said they had seen an increase in the availability of bogus booze over the last 12 months – with some bottles containing traces of chemicals suggesting the alcohol has been through an industrial process.

You see the duty is high enough to make it worthwhile to risk criminal charges for dodging that duty - making and importing booze now falls into the same category as drug smuggling.

And, for this we have to thank the New Puritan, anti-alcohol idiots. When someone dies because of this bad booze, the blood will be on the hands of Alcohol Concern, the British Medical Association and others campaigning for booze to be more expensive.

...

Consultation on plain packaging for cigarettes - what you need to tell the government

****

The government has launched a consultation on the introduction of plain packaging for tobacco products - be warned the questions are loaded and partisan. However, you do get the chance to make your comments. My advice - be moderate in your comments, provide evidence where you can and stick to the core objections:

1. The proposals fail to understand the role of brands:

"Branding fulfils many significant and positive functions for both consumers and markets. Take it away and consumers lose out and markets become commoditised, with price rather than quality being the influencing factor. As well as calling on Government to consider carefully whether plain packaging will yield any positive impact in practice, we will also encourage it to look at all the possible negative impacts."

2. Plain packaging makes counterfeiting and illicit sale of cigarettes more likely:

BASCAP (Business Action to Stop Counterfeiting and Piracy) is concerned that plain packaging requirements would increase the prevalence of counterfeit goods in the market and reduce brand owners' ability to take action against such activity, besides undermining the ability of consumers to make informed purchasing decisions. Trademarks serve these important functions in the market for all branded goods. Plain packaging [is] likely to increase rather than decrease burdens on already overstretched public agencies working to enforce intellectual property protections in the face of escalating counterfeiting and piracy in the United Kingdom and worldwide."

3. Plain packaging threatens jobs:

Mr Barber said: “These proposals could have serious implications for our business as tobacco packaging is vital to our turnover. It could cost up to 50 per cent of the jobs here."

4. The proposals will damage businesses:

...a report from Deloitte titled “Potential impact on retailers from the introduction of plain tobacco packaging”, February 2011, states that the operator of a service station can expect to incur additional staff costs of between A$9,000 and A$34,000 due to the extra work that would be required to handle plain packaged tobacco products.

I'll leave you to add your comments on how the proposals are illiberal, anti-business and based on the flimsiest of evidence. I would also urge - as well as responding to the consultation - for you to write to your MP making the above points - this is an unjustified idea without evidence that will destroy jobs, promote crime and damage personal liberty.

The consultation is here - be prepared to give an hour of your time.

http://consultations.dh.gov.uk/tobacco/standardised-packaging-of-tobacco-products/consult_view


And just for the record, I am a non-smoker.
....

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.

....

 

"Brandy for the Parson, 'Baccy for the Clerk." - A budget for smugglers

Five and twenty ponies,
Trotting through the dark -
Brandy for the Parson, 'Baccy for the Clerk.
Them that asks no questions isn't told a lie -
Watch the wall my darling while the Gentlemen go by !

The decision of the Chancellor to raise duties on alcohol and tobacco is, yet again, a great gift to Britain’s smugglers. With each rise in duty, with each imposed cost increase, the damage to legitimate business – pubs, corner shops, small brewers and such all dying, strangled by an unholy alliance between the New Puritan, the treasury mandarin and the criminal.

Last year, Brian Lenihan, then Irish Finance Minister explained all this:

I have decided not to make any changes to excise on tobacco in this Budget because I believe the high price is now giving rise to massive cigarette smuggling. My responsibility as Minister for Finance is to protect the tax base. I have full confidence in the effectiveness of the current multi agency approach but early in the New Year I want to explore what further measures we may need to stem the illegal flow of cigarettes into this country.

But let’s explore a little further and remember that this isn’t just about cigarettes but, in the UK, concerns beer as well. Pete Brown, beer writer extraordinaire, wrote today about the problems with beer and observed that people have shifted from fine ale to cheap wine and cheaper spirits:

Liver disease is increasing because people are switching from beer to stronger drinks.  We already know this though, because this has been true of every major alcoholism epidemic in history.  In the gin epidemic of the eighteenth century, beer was part of the solution, not the problem, as the immortal cartoons by Hogarth show.  It should be seen as that today.

But why is this? And why has the big drop in alcohol consumption been in on-sales – drinking in the pub – rather than off-sales – drinking at home? Firstly, the big brewers have shifted their attention from the boozer to the fridge – their volume now comes from people buying boxes of 24 bottles rather than going to the pub and drinking six pints.

Secondly, the smoking ban – people have started drinking at home or at a pre-arranged ‘smoky-drinky’ in some friend’s garage.

And thirdly, the price of booze makes smuggling and illegal production worthwhile – and you’re not going to get those products in the pub. And, if you’re smuggling, it makes sense to concentrate on the strong stuff which means wine and spirits rather than beer. The shift from beer to stronger drinks isn’t simply down to choice, it’s down to an ever larger chunk of the market being in the hands of criminals.

Kipling’s poem rather romanticises the smuggler but the true picture isn’t like that at all. These smugglers are the same sort who’ve been in the illegal import game for years, they already operate and control a multi-billion pound business doing just that:

An online report published by the Home Office in 2006 has estimated the UK drugs market to be worth £4.645bn in 2003/4^[8], with a margin of error of +/- £1.154bn.

And, as we know, the people who run this smuggling business are prepared to use murder as a business tool.

So tell me New Puritans, would you prefer your daughter to get cigarettes from the corner shop or from the same man who sells cocaine, heroin and crack?

....