Monday 29 October 2012

In The Naughty Corner With You, Says Oliver

Some years ago, I found myself being invited to a Conservative Party fund-raising dinner. I'd never been a member of the party so it was something that came right out of left field.

It turns out that a letter I'd had printed in a local newspaper, in conjunction with an e-mail I sent to a Tory PPC, was the reason for my inclusion on the guest list barely two days before the event. I'm still at a loss as to why they made this offer, but as it was usually £50 per head and I was getting nosebag for free, who was I to grumble? Especially since the guest speaker was Oliver Letwin - one of the composers of the Tory manifesto - and a post-dinner question & answer session was promised. Ideal for getting my gobby self close enough to quiz a high profile politician at first hand, I thought.


Come the Q&A, there wasn't much chance of my hand being ignored as I held it up constantly through three long answers to previous questions. I think it was rather off-putting to Letwin as he kept firing a sideways glance to see if it was still there. As a result, I was handed the microphone soon after.

My question, as you might have guessed, was that Labour had aggressively attacked the lifestyles of working people with restrictions on what we consume, and did his party intend to get off of our backs and reverse some of these policies.

His answer was long-winded to say the least. Typically for a politician, he ran through many of Labour's illiberal measures, with reference to the European arrest warrant, detention without trial etc, and eventually - after two or three minutes - tacked on a sparse few seconds about the nanny state before declaring that "yes, we will roll back laws to afford more freedoms to the public.".

Of course, we've since seen that if there were ever any plans to give us back any freedoms, they must have been in those papers he was chucking in a park bin last year. We've seen nothing of the sort.

Now, the very same guy is saying stuff like this.
Oliver Letwin MP, minister or government policy, has described minimum unit pricing as “one of trying to affect behaviour” with regards anti-social drinking habits.
Yet another, then, who doesn't actually believe you should have any freedoms at all. Well, not unless they are those politicians have decided are in accord with their own personal preferences, anyway.
He stressed that in no way did the government wish to “eliminate people ever drinking again,” ...
Oh how very generous of you, Oliver. However, that this should even need to be stated is proof that these people have gone too far. Of course government should not be wanting to eliminate drinking, they are our servants, not our masters, have they forgotten?
... but also added that it was extremely difficult for an administration to hit upon the right solution.
The solution is to ignore the incessant and shrill wailing of tax-sponging lobby groups and professional prohibitionists, and instead mould the state round how we taxpayers - who fund it, remember - wish to live. I know that would involve being brave and saying no to a few entrenched civil servants, but that's what a spine is for.
He continued that on the one side it was necessary that those selling and promoting alcohol were doing so responsibly but he also stressed the need to have a population that “of its own free will, will choose to behave in a responsible way”.
Responsible according to whom? Well, the government, of course. So, just to translate, Letwin is saying that he wants us to enjoy our own free will as long as it is in a way that he and his chums have decided that we should.
“We can’t use ‘blunt’ legislative action to restrict the amount people are consuming. We can’t introduce the ‘Alcohol In Moderation Bill’ it’s just not practical."
... Yet.
“How can you adjust attitudes? That’s why it’s a field of experimentation. We could, in theory, raise the minimum price to a level which makes it impossible for any but the extraordinarily rich to buy but people would find a way round it. 
“Similarly, it can’t be too low as it wouldn’t have any effect. Minimum pricing is an effort to achieve a subtle behavioural effect."
Here's a radical idea. You could always try to just do nothing and let the market - that is, us the public, remember us? - decide what prices are acceptable and what aren't. You see, Oliver, as one of the aforementioned 'extraordinarily rich', you couldn't give a monkey's bawbag either way, could you? So you should have absolutely nothing to do with dictating the prices that the rest of us have to pay (in another account of his speech, he declared that he wanted plebs' drinks to be "unpleasantly expensive"). Just stick to your state-funded high quality wine and champagne and leave us to decide if the price of a slab of Carling is acceptable or not, OK?
He even suggested that it would be possible to “adjust policy as evidence emerges as to the effects” on how successful they are proving."
Yes, yes. We've known for a long time that the price level set for minimum pricing will be ratcheted rapidly upwards once you lot forever burden us with it. But thanks for the further confirmation.

The election rhetoric of 2010 is almost a lifetime away, isn't it? Change? What change?


22 comments:

bella gerens said...

'he also stressed the need to have a population that “of its own free will, will choose to behave in a responsible way”'

Let me repeat that.

'he also stressed the need to have a population that'

Once more, for effect:

'he also stressed the need to have a population that'



Dafuq? Where does this cracker get off telling us what kind of population he needs to have?

Sam Duncan said...

“I'm still at a loss as to why they made this offer.”

Desperation. They're haemorraging members. I've never been one either, but back in the early '90s they treated me like I was. Seriously: I was on the local association's mailing and 'phone lists, got invited to meetings, not just social dos, and even ended up shoving leaflets through letterboxes and hanging around the election office on polling day '92. Never gave them a penny, never had a membership card. I can only imagine that after anothe 20 years (Christ... can it be?) of lying through their teeth like Letwin the situation is even worse.

Clarissa said...

This'll be the Oliver Letwin who is (was?) in charge the of 'nudge' unit? No surprises there then.

ivandenisovich said...

Not only does this man insult all notion of liberalism and freedom of the individual with this arrogant authoritarianism, he also insults the intelligence of those he allegedly represents. Who is he to think that he can so easily manipulate people? His high handed hubris should be justly rewarded.

Dick_Puddlecote said...

I don't think he's alone. It's the trendy political view of our our age, sadly.

Dick_Puddlecote said...

That's a good call. It didn't work, and my e-mail of thanks after the event was met with muted response. Funnily enough, the same happened while I was asking the question as a few people around the other tables dropped their heads almost in embarrassment when I mentioned controls on alcohol and tobacco.


Tories and their innate authoritarian streak, eh?

Dick_Puddlecote said...

Indeed. This event was prior to that but when he was announced thus it did ring some alarms in Puddlecoteville. ;)

Dick_Puddlecote said...

You're over-thinking things, I reckon. He's just a career politician who is pretending to care about others. It does kinda put paid to any claim that Tories are somehow different from other parties and the guardians of personal responsibility, though.

david said...

Ok, he shrouds his alcohol stance on 'anti social behaviour' but he knows it's pandering to the overall Healthist agenda. Besides, he would be advised to lose a few pounds, sorry stones, before he starts pontificating about others' lifestyles . After all, by government standards he is definitely obese and therefore a potential burden on the NHS. Perhaps he'd argue it's none of my concern, not least because his private health insurance would cover the cost of any fat related illness. I guess this also applies to the other, more famous, obese Oliver.

ivandenisovich said...

You are probably right Dick.Career politicians insult to our intelligence in many ways. They buy in to the repressive healthist agenda because they think that it is a "safe" way of appearing to be actually doing something. very few people appreciate that the receptive audience is tiny and the MSM seem keen to maintain the illusion.

JonathanBagley said...

What shits. Drink will never be unpleasantly expensive for MPs and Doctors and their ability to afford it is deemed acceptable. BTW, take a look at Letwin's pot belly. He seems to be cruising into the the outskirts of Diabetes City. Bring on the Hobnob tax ASAP.

Lyn Ladds said...

With regards to his pot, bet he won't be too quick to up the prices of those fattening foods! Then again, of course, no matter the price, he can afford it!

Lyn Ladds said...

Whoever thought that the Tories would be different to any other party? As far as I can see, all 3 main parties are pretty much the same! No point voting for any of these 3 if we want any chance of some positive changes to our freedom of choice

Dave said...

I once held my hand up for hours at a public event SNP cunt Alex Salmon was speaking.
Got my tricky question bullshited

Junican said...

Galli thought that it would be political suicide to try to lgalise snus. Why? I suppose because health lobby is so powerful that he would have been slaughtered mecilessly.
I suspect that the same applies in this country. It may be some time before the politicians realise that it is their collective interests to get these people off their backs.

Dick_Puddlecote said...

It's telling that another quote in that article completely ignored the public.

There needed to be “conscious experimentation” he said adding that there exists a “dynamic between the government and the media which reduces everything to a level of crudity whereby experimentation is limited.



So he is worried about the media (and the health groups that bombard them), but not particularly the public, who are very much opposed or ambivalent about minimum pricing.


Says it all about the state of democracy and the nannying we see so regularly now, doesn't it?

Dick_Puddlecote said...

Yes, there's something about the name Oliver which keeps it cropping up here. ;)

Dick_Puddlecote said...

He'd only put it on expenses like for his leaky tennis court.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5305385/Oliver-Letwins-tennis-court-repairs-MPs-expenses.html

Dick_Puddlecote said...

Bullshitting is their job, sadly.

John Pickworth said...

If Oliver Letwin is so keen on experimentation, might I suggest they start with raising the prices in the Westminster bar to £53 a pint... you know, just to see what happens before they spring it on the general public.

John Pickworth said...

If Oliver Letwin is so keen on experimentation, might I suggest they start with raising the prices in the Westminster bar to £53 a pint... you know, just to see what happens before they spring it on the general public.

John Pickworth said...

If Oliver Letwin is so keen on experimentation, might I suggest they start with raising the prices in the Westminster bar to £53 a pint... you know, just to see what happens before they spring it on the general public.