Wednesday, 17 July 2013

The Public Overwhelmingly Reject Minimum Alcohol Pricing Too

While the faux outrage about some irrelevant strategy consultant for the Tories still rumbles on, the Home Office released its report on the Alcohol Strategy consultation today, hence more reports about how minimum alcohol pricing has been scrapped ... which we already knew from last week.

Some of you may remember an article here going through the consultation questions at the time, and many of you took part in the exercise. It panned out quite nicely, so time for more happy graphs.

The Home Office received 1,145 answers to the silly question as to whether minimum pricing is a good idea, and the majority again rejected a nanny state initiative by a comfortable margin.


And if you thought 56% against and only 34% in favour was a good result, wait till you see the pie once business organisations, NGOs and other assorted vested interests were stripped out.

Responses from ordinary members of the public - such as we jewel robbers, for example - opposed minimum pricing by a factor of three to one! 


Now that's what I call a real thrashing!

Perhaps Labour should re-consider nailing their colours to this wrecked mast, for two reasons. Firstly, it is indisputable that the policy would have harmed those with less money - that's what regressive laws do, and Labour so hate regressive laws, don't they - and, secondly, just look at those numbers! 

Are they really prepared to go to the country advocating a Soviet style price fixing policy which three quarters of the public oppose? 

Good luck with that whole biting voters' hands thang, comrades, but today should really be the last we see of the abomination. 



13 comments:

Simon Cooke said...

Pat yourself on the back, Dick!


Next battle is a little harder - about licensing and giving local public health fussbuckets rights to oppose renewal or grants of premises licences.

Mark.S said...

Ah a fair bit of good news this week, some cricket to look forward too as well.

Dick_Puddlecote said...

Oh yes. :)

What's more, today was last PMQs before the summer recess so there are few for the puritans to bully from now on. They'll be seething over their qinoa smoothie at the health spa right through to September. ;)

Dick_Puddlecote said...

Yes, it's a problem. But how to tackle it nationally? There will be fantastic stories of local idiocy for the likes of the Daily Mail, that's for sure. :)

Simon Cooke said...

It all seems so reasonable - we already have the problem of the police opposing licences on a routine basis, adding 'doctors' would be a nightmare

nisakiman said...

I note this morning in the Daily Telegraph that there are two separate stories; one about Cameron being accused of being persuaded to drop plain packaging by Crosby; the other about Public Health officials resigning in protest over the non-introduction of minimum pricing. For some reason, unusually for the DT, both these articles have comments disabled. Now why should that be, do you think?

Sackerson said...

I'm holding out for "drunk for a penny, dead drunk for twopence".

Kit Fell said...

But are we to see anything beneficial in the Lobbyist Bill that would put these pseudo-charidees on the back foot?

Ivan D said...

Let's hope the government has the good sense not to replace any public health industry scroungers who resign over it acting on behalf of the majority for once. Only a foolish blinkered zealot could still cling to the notion that MUP is a good idea. Step forward Sarah Wollaston, a wonderful example of why doctors should stick to practicing medicine.

Chalcedon said...

These clap trap ideas should be put to a referendum since they affect everyone with the result being legally binding. Because you can bet that some anti democratic public health drongo will try it again in a year or two, regardless of the fact that alcohol consumption per capita is falling in the UK.

Dick_Puddlecote said...

I would be amazed if there was. You can bet no professional state-funded advocate lost their parliamentary pass in the recent cull.

Dick_Puddlecote said...

They should indeed, but when even consultations of the government's choosing carry a disclaimer that huge majorities of responses will not be respected either way, you know there's nil chance of that.

Referenda are only offered if the government is sure it will win, hence why we haven't had one on EU membership since 1975.

Chalcedon said...

This is sadly true in the UK. That's why I like the Swiss model. It is more democratic. These idot politicians are still supposed to 'represent' us and referenda are good ways to find out what the public mood is like. I will not be holding my breath though. BTW, I did send my tuppence worth in over this one and the plain packs nonsense.