Did Sarah Wollaston Lie To The House Today?

Resident Tory cuckoo, Sarah Wollaston - a one trick pony alcohol prohibitionist - was in Westminster today to push the cause of minimum alcohol pricing amongst other dictatorial junk.

Did she lie? Well, we won't know for sure until the transcript is available, but unless she is incredibly stupid and being manipulated by others who are very happy to do so, she did in her article at Politics Home this morning.

Wade through it to find your personal favourite Alcohol Concern-founded sleight of hand stat, but her financial reasoning is extremely easy to debunk. Incontrovertibly.

The fact is that when alcohol is too cheap, more people die or wreak havoc on those around them and the rest of society picks up the tab.

This was as true for gin pricing in Hogarth’s Britain as it is with pocket money alcohol today at around 17p per unit.

She is very much against this, natch, and wants to match or beat the Scottish, as she tweeted earlier today.


She then goes on to say that this is nothing to be worried about. Oh no, this will cost responsible drinkers the square root of peanuts, so it will.

[...] even if the minimum unit price was set at 50p, would only increase the bill for moderate drinkers by £12 per year.

OK, we have the figures as stated by Wollaston, let's now do the maths.

I can't find the product which sells at 17p per unit, but then Wollaston is pretty vague about it too. So let's go for the cheapest supermarket product at mysupermarket.co.uk, Tesco's Value range ant's piss lager, currently selling at 70p for four 440ml cans (at a mind-bending 2% ABV).

This works out at 3.52 units, at an individual price of 19.88p per unit. Sticking rigidly to the government's absurdly low weekly limits - surely the epitome of a 'moderate' drinker - would see an intake of 21 units.

Currently, that would cost a low income family (after all, who else would drink the stuff) £4.17. Under Wollaston's plan, it would be £10.50. Now, last time I looked there were 52 weeks in the year, which would mean an increase - just for one adult member of the family - of £329.16!

Hey! I'm using Sarah's chosen examples, remember. No cherry-picking here.

Not convinced? How about something more realistic, then? Tesco also do a 4% own brand at £5.94 for twelve 500ml cans. This is 24 units, only a tad over the strict individual limits, and would result in a yearly addition to a single man's domestic shopping bill of £6.06 per week, or £315.12 per year.

So, two adults, drinking within government guidelines, would be penalised to the tune of £500-£600 by Wollaston's personal crusade. Far in excess of any annual increase in energy bills advanced by even the most pessimistic of sources in recent months.

Of course, there is one way that Wollaston's figures could add up. That being if she wasn't comparing like with like at all. Even remotely.

The only explanation is that she is using an example of the stuff poor people drink to come up with the 'shocking' 17p per unit, while reverting to what people actually drink - if they have the money - for the nice, calm, £12 increase in annual cost. In which case, there isn't much of a problem to begin with.

Unless her definition of 'moderate' really is less than one unit per week, or half a pint of Carlsberg ... between a married couple!

A Tory MP lying to parliament - or at the very least being a sad sock puppet - and severely punishing lower paid 'hard-working families' should have lefties occupying Twitter for quite some time. But then, they quite like the idea of the control minimum alcohol pricing gives them if they get back into power, so they won't.

If you're a man/woman on modest means - even if adhering obediently to the state's arbitrary guidelines on alcohol - you're in for a financial punishment no matter the colour of the governing party's literature.

Wollaston And The UK Nine Year Recession

By way of update to yesterday's piece on non-conservative Conservative MP Sarah Wollaston, I mentioned that she has been preaching to the bansturbatorily converted over at the Guardian.

It's a work of art. She manages to squeeze just about every currently circulated anti-alcohol soundbite from the full range of professionally vested interests. Of course, her moral panicking should all fall down if she is forced to admit that rates of alcohol consumption are decreasing. Which they are.

However, just to show how incredibly bankrupt her kind are when it comes to evidence bases driving policy, she glosses over the one fact that is most salient.

The recent fall in alcohol consumption mirrors the relative change in alcohol affordability during the recession.

That's it! Falls in consumption are entirely to do with the recession. Nothing else.

You know, that recession which has been going on for nine years now.

ONS General Lifestyle Survey 2008:

Following an increase between 1998 and 2000, there has been a decline since 2002 in the proportion of men drinking more than 21 units a week, on average, and in the proportion of women drinking more than 14 units.

ONS General Lifestyle Survey 2009:

This trend seems to be continuing under the new methodology; between 2006 and 2009 the proportion of men drinking more than 21 units a week fell from 31 per cent to 26 per cent and the proportion of women drinking more than 14 units a week fell from 20 per cent to 18 per cent.

The latter document even provides a handy graph for Dr Wollaston to look at.

OK, she might have missed that study, but for someone who is so energised about alcohol issues, she couldn't have failed to have seen the BBC's analysis of the situation. Complete with graphic that illustrates exactly the same trend.

Now, I know she's a doctor, and therefore not too adept at economics, but she is an MP. And surely an MP should be aware that the recession didn't begin in 2002? And surely an MP who has set her stall out to commit a disproportionate amount of her time talking about alcohol consumption, should be well aware that her 'problem' is abating rather than becoming urgent.

That's not all either. Did you note carefully Wollaston's use of the word 'affordability'? You should do, because this has been a central plank of anti-alcohol's drive to massively ramp up prices of beer, wines and spirits. Y'see, despite the fact that alcohol is now more expensive in real terms than it was 30 years ago ...

Between 1980 and 2008, the price of alcohol increased by 283.3%. After considering inflation (at 21.3%), alcohol prices increased by 19.3% over the period.

... those who are paid to rail against it continually harp on about how it is actually - when you twist the figures enough - cheaper.

Alcohol Concern provide just one example of the very many I could have chosen.

The real price of alcohol has declined steadily over the past fifty years relative to income; alcohol was 69% more affordable in 2007 than in 1980.

It just doesn't stack up, does it?

Affordability due to recession - according to Wollaston - is the reason for declining alcohol consumption, despite a whopping majority of the period of decline being recession-free.

Meanwhile, government-funded fake charity bosses - and others - cite affordability as justification for urgent action on alcohol, despite the fact that consumption has been constently declining all the while they were banging on about affordability being a driver.

Look guys and girls of the puritan persuasion, you're starting to sound like the criminal duo being interviewed by police and coming up with differing accounts of the crime.

Affordability, it would seem, increases urgency of a problem even when prevalence is waning; while simultaneously being an excuse when the pre-conceived goal is being compromised by annoying things like facts.

If alcohol is becoming more affordable, it's clear that - in the past decade most definitely - it has a negative correlation with consumption.

And if the recession is the only factor - as Wollaston claims - in affordability being compromised, why did the decline start six years before a recession kicked in?

Oh hold on, I've just been unnecessarily frying my brain trying to work out the contorted logic. I forgot that they're just obsessives who make up any old shit as they go along to fit with their prejudices.

The Laughable Delusion Of Sarah Wollaston MP

Apparently, the government shelving minimum alcohol pricing is not because it's a ridiculous idea; is deeply unpopular across party voter preferences; would effectively tax the poor; and is backed by the worst junk science imaginable. No, according to Sarah Wollaston MP, it is a conspiracy, no less, facilitated by hiding crucial data.

Why on earth then did Sheffield University agree to delay the publication of the important research which so clearly set out that a ban on below-cost selling of alcohol would have a meaningless impact compared with a modest minimum price of 45p per unit? Why for that matter were they asked to do so in the first place?

It comes on a day when, coincidentally, a load of alcohol prohibitionists wrote a letter to the same newspaper condemning the government's "deplorable practices". And, you know, I think she was fully aware of that and was helping to create an angry smoke screen.

It's the usual desperate stuff from public health bullies. File junk science and hope politicians will roll over but, if they don't, resort to plan B and accuse them of being a shill for Big [insert popular consumer industry here].

The result has been a cacophony of ignorance from gulled newspaper journos and the faux outraged on Twitter. Predictably, the Bad Science guy again lined up to defend the honour of, err, bad scientists.

Fab piece from @drwollastonmp on how gov research into effects of minimum pricing for alcohol were suppressed http://t.co/Tx97XrRDXg
— ben goldacre (@bengoldacre) January 8, 2014

Why Goldacre would want to identify himself with government-funded junk science designed exclusively to promote a particular policy is anyone's guess. I thought he didn't like that sort of corruption of data for a pre-conceived ends, as described by licensing law expert Stephen McGowan in 2009 and again in 2012.

The Government seeks to implement policy based on facts; but the Sheffield research is not positivism or empiricism, it is speculation.  It is also a re-hash of their previous statements commissioned by Westminster and published in December 2008. I have some difficulty with Holyrood’s decision to instruct Sheffield University when they already knew what the results were going to be. 

[...]  

The results of the Sheffield research are, after all, a totem carved from conjecture and guesswork (something which the authors of the report have themselves point out).

But then, I don't understand Wollaston's gripe either. You see, she knows very well that the Sheffield 'research' was available - yes, open access - for years before July 2013. I know this because I read it in full at the start of 2012.

What she is now complaining about is the delayed publication of these updated figures. I don't see why seeing as they were far less compelling than the nonsense the Home Office were already aware of.

2009: 45p minimum price would cut consumption by 4.3%
2013: 45p minimum price would cut consumption by 1.6%  

2009: It would save 344 lives in year 1 and 2,040 lives a year by year 10
2013: It would save 123 lives in year 1 and 624 lives a year by year 10  

2009: Alcohol admissions would be down by 66,200
2013: Alcohol admissions would be down by 23,700  

2009: Year one direct health savings of £58.6m and cumulative ten year saving of £1,074m
2013: Year one direct health savings of £25.3m and cumulative ten year saving of £417.2m  

2009: Total societal value of harm reduction £6.6bn
2013: Total societal value of harm reduction £3.4bn

The Sheffield University report was, in itself, already policy-led rubbish, but when a BBC Panorama episode had to be pulled from iPlayer last year, the incompetence of the temperance lobby's lead researchers was laid brutally open to ridicule.

The School of Health and Related Research at the University of Sheffield has confirmed to Panorama that unfortunately, due to human error, figures they produced specifically for the programme Old, Drunk and Disorderly?  broadcast on 10th September 2012 were incorrect.  The figures are in fact 4-5 times lower than those originally given to Panorama. The University emphasised the human error was wholly on their part and has apologised unreservedly to the BBC.

Then came the news that the level of reduction in consumption predicted by Sheffield is being exceeded by the drinks industry's responsibility deal without any need for regulation.

Support from public health's usual stalwarts then dried up as Left Foot Forward took the unusual step of agreeing with Boris Johnson that evidence for minimum pricing is a nonsense, quickly followed by the lefty New Statesman agreeing that it is a fact that it would have "a disproportionate effect on the poorest".

As if that wasn't enough, Sheffield were then forced to revise their predictions embarrassingly downward and spirit the previous guff - which the Home Office had access to for around four years - off the internet.

Now, I don't know about you, but I'd say the government probably took all that into account and decided that they couldn't propose a policy based on deliberately contrived fake science; written by a university team which has been proven to be woefully incompetent; which has already been rendered irrelevant by intervening events; which is most likely illegal under EU law; and which will undoubtedly tie up taxpayer cash in straitened times defending damages claims from justifiably aggrieved legal businesses.

It is astonishingly delusional of Wollaston to believe anything else. But then she's not averse to talking arse-biscuits in parliament too when she feels like it, so what else is new.

Wollaston pretends to be a Tory, but if you want to know what a real one looks like do read our esteemed mascot giving her a kicking on minimum pricing here, here and here.

Mascot Watch 16 - Fighting The Fake Tory ... Again

Despite the cuddly picture appended to the piece, our esteemed mascot has again been snarling at fake Tory Sarah Wollaston over her absurd and illiberal minimum alcohol pricing proposals, this time at the Centre for Policy Studies website.

It's becoming quite a regular event, for previous episodes see here and here.

Wollaston regurgitates the usual lame justifications - and the £20bn cost lie - including this self-defeating nonsense.

I'm backing minimum pricing because it works and would save lives without hitting those on low incomes.

I think you can see the contradiction there, but our Phil explains it for those, like Wollaston, who seem to think making things more expensive doesn't affect people with not a lot of money.

Sarah tries to have the argument both ways, either the price rises are such that they will barely make a difference to the family budget, or they are large enough that they will deter people from buying alcohol and combat binge drinking. If the former is true, then why impose a nominal price rise which will only serve to exact a further toll on the family budget – given every study has shown that only extreme price rises would deter the heaviest drinkers? Or if the latter is true and alcohol would become much less affordable, then a minimum unit price is opportunistic and is going to hit those on the lowest incomes the most. Either way it simply cannot be argued that a minimum unit price would be both effective whilst at the same time being non-regressive - and I maintain it would be neither!

Well, quite.

You can read both sides of the debate, along with rebuttals, here, with comments welcome. And if you're on Facebook, you might like to back our guy up in this poll.

This Is What Passes For A Tory These Days?

It's becoming crystal clear that the Conservative party's experiment in open primaries - interesting as it was - has a major flaw. It doesn't produce conservative politicians.

Well, not if Totnes is anything to go by, anyway. Instead, the result is anti-alcohol stooge and all-round nag, Dr Sarah Wollaston.

You may remember her from previous posts here as the member (an apt term, in this case) who introduced a ten minute rule bill - valiantly countered by our Phil - to ban alcohol advertising.

Her most adventurous move yet, though, must surely be an attack on MPs and their natural enjoyment of alcohol. The problem being for Sarah that they're allowed to do so*

It's a serious issue, and it has been an issue in Westminster for some years.

Presumably, since Sarah was only elected in May last year, this is not an opinion which has been fostered from experience. Fortunately for her, though, there would have been any number of season ticket holding medical righteous and fake charity lobbyists on hand to point Sarah 'special interest in reducing alcohol related problems' Wollaston in the right direction upon her arrival.

The fact is that if you take an area like medicine [...] you'd be horrified if you rocked up to your surgeon or your doctor and they'd been drinking up to a bottle of wine or equivalent at lunchtime.

Having compared apples with angle-grinders, she continued ...

I think there is an issue [...] what is the acceptable amount that you should be drinking when you're at work?

I have many an answer, but I'm sure you can fill this part in yourselves.

And the reason I think this is particularly important is we're coming up to deciding on our alcohol strategy, and I think if there's a tendency to minimise what the effect of drinking is within Westminster, I think that's why for decades politicians haven't seriously addressed the issues we have with drinking culture nationally.

I think this one thinks too much about what she thinks. And also uses the word 'issue' too much about something that - quite frankly - isn't.

We have a really serious issue with alcohol in this country.

Indeed. We're reducing our alcohol intake year on year - as detailed extensively by the ONS - and the number of teetotallers is increasingly worrying.

Still. Despite departing from statistical fact, she warms to her task, throws in some righteous-supplied soundbites (alcohol costing between £25bn and £55bn per year was hilarious), and finally lands the blow she was primed for.

If politicians don't take drinking seriously [...] maybe that's why we're not seeing enough action.

No dear. The reason that we're not seeing action is that there is no particular British problem in your chosen hobby horse. We are firmly mid-table as far as per capita consumption of alcohol is concerned in the EU. The trend is downwards, and only someone who is under the thumb of the temperance industry believes hysterical Daily Mail photo-journalism would believe otherwise.

Personally, I think it's more of an 'issue' that Sarah Wollaston is entrusted with part of the UK's steering wheel when intoxicated with false facts and dodgy logic, while allowing hare-brained lunatics to drive from the back seats.

In times past, I'd be convinced that Cameron's idiots had been punked by a campaign to install a right-on quisling by way of allowing voters of any persuasion to decide their safe seat candidate.

But then, with this Tory party being less blue and more an odd shade of mauve, you just never know.

* Only available for a day or so from 28:40 to 32:30 (and if someone can record and URL it, I'd be grateful)

UPDATE: As if to prove my point, I see she has even taken to writing for the 'progressive' audience at the Guardian.

Our Boy Done Good!

Yesterday I pondered if Sarah 'one trick pony' Wollaston was going to present her cherry-picked figures to the House.

Well, there was certainly an echo of her Politics Home piece, in the form of the gem we keep hearing, ad nauseam, from anti-alcohol campaigners.

[...] the Sheffield study showed that minimum pricing at 50p per unit would only add an extra £12 a year to the cost for moderate drinkers.

This being one tiny number in a table on page 140 of this 570 page report (the actual figure is £11.81).

Though she was hampered, for at least a while, by a certain (teetotal) esteemed blog mascot of ours. Here are a few highlights.

As a libertarian and a believer in individual freedoms, I had hoped that the country had escaped from the nanny-state health police with the end of the previous Labour Government but, sadly, I was clearly naive in that thought.

[...]

The very principle of minimum pricing goes against all my Conservative instincts and beliefs—the free market and freedom of choice.

(NB, this is in opposition to a fellow Tory!)

Minimum pricing treats all drinkers the same, and penalises—financially and practically—the overwhelming majority of adults, all those people who drink alcohol responsibly and in a socially acceptable way, causing harm neither to themselves nor to others.

[...]

... people should be free to spend their own money as they so wish, without having to obtain the permission of my hon. Friend before they decide how to live their life, in particular if no one else is affected; it is their responsibility.

[...]

The Institute for Fiscal Studies produced a report on minimum pricing that found that poorer households, compared with richer households, on average pay less for a unit of off-sale alcohol. ... As a result, a minimum price of 40p or 45p per unit would have a larger impact on poorer households and virtually no impact on richer ones.

[...]

I worry where this will stop. Will my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes return to the House in a few months’ time and urge us to ban the advertising of cream cakes, pizzas, chocolate, fish and chips or curry, because they are all bad for us if eaten to excess? This is a slippery slope, and certainly not one that I am prepared to support.

Bravo! That dig must have been memorable too, considering this Twitter exchange between the two last night.


Our boy also made a very sage prediction.

I will not give way, because plenty of other people want to speak and time is pressing. I will happily debate with him [Lib Dem John Pugh] in the Tea Room or at some other point, although I am the only one arguing from this perspective, I suspect.

Bang on! If you read the whole debate, it was one pompous arse after another rising to honk like seals at the prospect of inflicting extra cost on every low-paid adult who enjoys alcohol, while increasing - according to the same page of the same Sheffield report Wollaston refers to - income to the off-trade by around £225m.

Where on Earth are Labour on this? Where is the outrage? Well, actually, there was one who was clever enough to have worked it out.

Eric Joyce (Falkirk, Labour): It is all very well for those who are not affected by it, but essentially [minimum pricing] is aimed at the least well-off, who may continue to spend the same amount on alcohol, or more, because it will be more expensive for them, and spend less elsewhere.

And in quickly spotting Caroline Lucas's clever sleight of hand, he had this to say.

The hon. Lady has switched from white cider to wine, the implication being that people who drink moderately drink wine. In fact, she is arguing that less well-off people should pay more and middle-class people should pay the same. That identifies that the problem is only with less well-off people.

Yup.

Of course, other Labour contributions were sadly ignorant of their voters' interests. Diane Abbott - despite facts showing otherwise - claimed alcohol consumption is on the up, while Valerie Vaz would have had Alcohol Concern doing backflips with this supreme example of self-righteous paternalism.

There should be a change in licensing hours and pubs should shut at 10pm again.

Crikey! How does that grab you, CAMRA? You really are backing the wrong horses, you know.

Mascot Watch (12) - Tory vs Tories Edition

Our esteemed mascot, Philip Davies MP, has been busy on our behalf this week.

In case you missed it, he rose in the commons on Wednesday to rebut Sarah Wollaston's draconian 10 minute rule bill to introduce bans on the majority of alcohol marketing. Below is a teaser, his full speech can be read here.

It will come as no surprise to my hon. Friend Dr Wollaston that I object to the Bill in principle and in practice. Despite her best efforts to suggest otherwise, it is clearly an attempted extension of the nanny state, of which we have had far too much already. It is gesture politics to try to appease the health zealots in this country, most of whom cannot be appeased anyway.

Our Phil also popped up at Conservative Home yesterday to comment on the upcoming ban on tobacco displays. It's another recommended read.

There are many products that are bad for us if taken to excess, including alcohol and fatty foods. Is the Government going to ban these products from display as well? It is difficult to stomach seeing the nanny state alive and well with a so-called Conservative Secretary of State for Health – in fact, can anyone spot the difference between this Government and the last lot?

In light of the fact that his reply the day before was to a fellow Tory, we can only answer firmly in the negative, more's the pity.

Keep up the good work, old chum.

Government Stumbles Upon A Guaranteed Winner

I knew 2014 couldn't be worse than an intensely problematic 2013 for Puddlectote Inc, but I didn't expect it to bring such joy so early.

Today we've seen the launch of Action on Sugar, a body which has proven every slippery slope prediction ever made by any freedom-minded blogger or activist in the area of social liberalism true. Not only does it prove comprehensively that Simon Chapman is a weapons grade fool ...

Simon Chapman in the 1990s claiming that the slippery slope is an industry lie. #sugaristhenewtobacco pic.twitter.com/EqbKmQrvBD
— Christopher Snowdon (@cjsnowdon) January 9, 2014

... but it also shows those of us who have been warning of comprehensive control of everyone's lives via a tobacco control template as having been 100% correct. Yes. They really are going after doughnuts now, as Farage mentioned in Stony Stratford that glorious but wet day in 2011.

This, on top of public health making utter fools of themselves - to the condemnation of just about everyone - over minimum alcohol pricing. To paraphrase Belloc, "when you have lost your Guardian readers drown your empty selves, for you will have lost the last of public health".

Just check out the universal condemnation under the line at yesterday's pitiful CiF article attempting to buy into Sarah Wollaston's gob-smacking delusion and the BMJ's ridiculous conspiracy theory.

Who is minimum pricing aimed at? It wouldn't be the Working Class by any chance? Those poor benighted souls who aren't able to make their own life choices and need to have decisions imposed upon them by a benificient authority figure who went to a good school! 

It's an obviously daft idea. All it would do is squeeze more money out of poor, vulnerable people. The fact that an element of the medical profession is pushing it raises real concerns about the calibre of the people who are becoming doctors these days. 

It's not sensible. What's sensible about increasing my cost of living right now? How about the state shuts the hell up telling adults how to live their lives (within legal bounds). The arrogance and condescension is unbounded. 

I think it's more the power of public opinion and democracy in action. Most people I come across do not want the price of alcohol increased. The move for a minimum price came from campaigning by a very narrow lobby of unelected "experts". 

As others mention, it's a stupid idea, promulgated to appease the middle class at the expense of the poor. 

Setting aside for a moment the shrill, moralising aspect that has become so pervasive in recent years, such a policy will quite clearly disproportionately affect those on lower incomes. And not just alcoholics - everyone who fancies a few drinks now and again. I don't understand why the Guardian would consistently come out in support of such a regressive policy.

And my personal favourite.

How about an article criticising the power of the public health lobby, who repeatedly trade on the public's trust in doctors, but with no consideration given to issues of the wider economy, cost of living and personal freedom - works both ways you know.

Quite.

Public health have pissed off hundreds of thousands of vapers recently, but their politically-illiterate insistence on escalating the minimum alcohol price debate against many millions more happy drinkers - especially in such an absurd and fundamentally flawed manner - is an exercise in stupid self-humiliation. I almost feel offended that they're doing my job for me, to whom should I complain?

You see, there has been a crescendo of silence from politicians in support. Wollaston and her tiny band of alcohol prohibitionists have totally misjudged the mood. They saw others being listened to and, for some strange reason only they will understand, have decided to go 'all in' on minimum pricing like a drunk poker player in a hurry for a piss but only holding a pair of twos.

Does the government feel threatened? Not at all. They will know very well that the policy is a cast iron vote loser and are sitting smugly waiting for Labour to ally themselves with public health as they always do. It's almost like a double dare. But even Labour politicians are not taking the bait as far as I can see.

It seems that, like Guardian readers, no-one is biting, no-one is fooled.

When the cabinet sits down to pick through the policies they are being pressured to support at the start of this new year, rejecting minimum pricing will be one of the easiest things they have to do, it's a no-brainer.

It's not often politics is that simple, but when presented with a deeply regressive policy even Mad Tories and illiberal Lib Dems can recognise that in rejecting minimum pricing they've stumbled upon a flawless winner.

Carry on 2014, I'm loving you so far!

Give A Good Guy A Seasonal Pat On The Back

As we wind down for Christmas, you might like to consider doing something modest to pat a good man on the back for protecting our interests in 2012.

If you look to the sidebar on the right, you'll see that our esteemed mascot is described as Spectator Readers' Representative of the Year 2011. This accolade was awarded to our Phil last December after we pointed out his outstanding efforts in the previous twelve months.

It was described by Conservative Home as "a very good choice" at the time. That's handy, because I think he'd make a very good choice for Con Home's Conservative Parliamentarian of the Year Award 2012 too. So I have nominated him and hope some of you may see your way to doing the same.


As if you needed any justification, our Phil has been just as principled and busy this year as in 2011 hence why I reckon he deserves more encouragement.

He appeared in many articles opposing minimum alcohol pricing as the consultation was announced, and got in early with his condemnation of the policy when opposing arch-alcohol prohibitionist Sarah Wollaston in the Spring.

He was also prominent in the debate against plain packaging, with quotes of his being picked up by the BBC and a number of other media outlets. Six months ago, he was also front and centre in a collective letter to Andrew Lansley slamming the idea and expressing "serious concerns".

He has continued his insistence that the UK should be given a referendum on the EU, and for the second year in succession called for a cut in the EU budget. It's interesting to note that last year he was one of 37 MPs who did so, while this year it was 51 with others feeling emboldened by the courage of those like our Mr D.

In September he also put his name to a bill designed to cut to the heart of the EU problem by repealing the European Communities Act 1972. It is partly through action such as this that yesterday saw David Cameron claiming that a Tory eurosceptic stance is back on the agenda.

And as if that wasn't enough, he also called for expenses cheat Denis MacShane to face criminal charges; defended the press against state intrusion; gave the BBC's Lord Patten a torrid going-over in committee, resulting in his being called 'impertinent' for having the cheek to ask how our money is spent; described George Orwell's 1984 as a book that "best sums up 'now'", and still had time to express his wish to be a Gruffalo.

How can it possibly be anyone else, eh?

If you have a moment spare, you can nominate by clicking this Con Home article and simply adding your choice, and reason behind it, to the comments.

"Come Back Here, I'll Bite Your Legs Off!"

Over at VGIF, Snowdon has been describing ASH's reaction to a report he has written on plain packaging for the ASI.

For a fake charity so used to declaring that 'the debate is over' - even when it's not by any means - feeling compelled to answer a full house of well-constructed arguments, while having very little in their hand except a pair of twos, must be quite daunting. Which is probably why the response is laugh-out-loud inept.

After Snowdon describes, in five heavily-referenced pages, the fact that there is no plausible evidence to justify plain packaging, ASH responds.

Firstly, there is now a large body of evidence to show that plain packaging will be effective.

La, la, la, not listening, la, la, la.

And on the idea that counterfeiters will no doubt be very pleased to only have to fake one packet design rather than dozens, they fire back thus.

Secondly, there is no evidence that plain packaging will lead to an increase in tobacco smuggling.

Probably because it hasn't been tried before ... which is precisely the reason there isn't any evidence that it will work as intended. Oddly enough, one lack of evidence is enough to require urgent action according to ASH, the other is to be ignored. Hypocrisy doesn't get much more stark than that.

In fact - perhaps because presumably, as these things tend to work, she would have heard about the report over the weekend and been startled into hurriedly spewing something out - Amanda Sandford submits a performance not unlike that of the Black Knight in The Holy Grail. Having been savaged by Snowdon's critique, all Sandford can do is cry 'tis just a flesh wound' before bleeding, pathetically, a load of already debunked nonsense by return, and shouting "come back here, I'll bite your legs off" as Snowdon strolls off unperturbed into the distance.

But surely the the most hilarious part of her response was kept till last. A denouement so jaw-droppingly laughable that it wouldn't look out of place at The Comedy Store.

Thirdly, the “domino theory” i.e. that once a measure has been applied to tobacco it will be applied to other products is patently false. The same argument was used against the ban on tobacco advertising, but 9 years after the tobacco ban in the UK, alcohol advertising is still permitted with no sign of it being prohibited.

"No sign of it being prohibited"? Has she just returned from Panama after faking her own death in a canoe, or something? Thereby missing articles in obscure organs such as, err, the BBC?

There should be a ban on all alcohol advertising, including sports and music sponsorship, doctors say. The British Medical Association said the crackdown on marketing was needed, along with an end to cut-price deals, to stop rising rates of consumption.

Or, as discussed in low-profile venues such as the House of Commons by powerless non-entities like Howard Stoate MP?

The only sure way to tackle the problem is removing the alcohol industry's ability to target young people in that way. Banning alcohol advertising and sponsorship from events that are attended by children and young people, or watched by them on TV, is one way to enable young people to develop a healthier relationship with alcohol.

At the same debate, here's another small-time bit player, Stephen Hesford MP.

[...] the death rate from tobacco-related illness was 120,000 a year when the Government decided to take action to ban the advertising of tobacco products. The death rate from alcohol-related diseases is now about 40,000. Would the tipping point be 80,000 or 100,000? Is it only at that point that the Government would want to act? I would like to ask the House and the Minister to reflect, as we might prefer action sooner than that [...]

Did he just compare alcohol with tobacco there and suggest that - to use Sandford's terminology - "a measure [that] has been applied to tobacco" should "be applied to other products"? Yes, I think he did.

As did Sarah Wollaston MP in her ten minute rule bill of March last year proposing various bans and restrictions on alcohol advertising.

The industry will claim that these measures will kill off sport and culture, and that advertising is designed only to persuade people to switch brands. The same claim was made before the tobacco advertising ban.

But if Sandford really did miss all the above, there's always the chance of watching Panorama tonight where Gerard Hastings will talk about alcohol advertising and what he thinks should be done about it, as if we don't know.

Moreover, it's not just alcohol we're talking here. The bloated ranks of tax-funded public health advocates are falling over themselves to gain publicity (and thereby justify their salaries) by declaring their particular area to be 'the new tobacco'.

Obesity expert wants fatty foods tax in Wales

[Dr Haboubi said] "Why don't we put tax on unhealthy food? Like the way we do on cigarettes and alcohol."

And one from earlier this month.

Sugar 'is toxic and must be regulated just like cigarettes', claim scientists

If that's not evidence of a 'domino effect', perhaps Amanda got confused between dominoes and pontefract cakes.

She's not on very solid ground with this claim, either.

Tobacco is a uniquely dangerous consumer product which is why there is a WHO health treaty (the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control) to regulate tobacco use.

Yes Amanda, but we do already have a 'Framework for alcohol policy in the WHO region' which is much the same thing (plus, incidentally, also contains talk of banning advertising), and there are indeed moves afoot to install a full Framework Convention for alcohol. Can you guess where they got the idea from, Amanda?

Spurred by the creation of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, there have been increasing calls for the adoption of a similar agreement for alcohol, usually termed a “Framework Convention on Alcohol Control” (FCAC).

That's a hell of a lot of dominoes, I'd say.

ASH's problem, I fear, is that they're already fully set up with their paltry evidence, and being comprehensively shot down so near to the launch of the consultation leaves them no time to fabricate anything new. As such, we're going to hear much more of this discredited guff in coming weeks unless they can think up even dafter barrel-scraping logic.

Should be fun.

Conservative Home has more on this, where you can comment.

Please do go and sign up against extremism here.

Politicians: Please Lie Responsibly

I know it's not an earth-shattering revelation, but a Cabinet minister has been caught lying.

Desperately trying to justify poking her nose in where it has no business, Theresa May came out with this whopper yesterday.

But the Home Secretary Theresa May said: 'Alcohol-fuelled harm costs taxpayers £21 billion a year. It is therefore right that the alcohol industry is taking action to help reduce this burden, without penalising those that drink responsibly.'

Except it doesn't cost the taxpayer that amount at all, nor anything even close to it as Snowdon pointed out when Sarah Wollaston told this particular lie to the House in 2012.

This would be a reference to the British Cabinet Office report of 2003 which found a total social cost of around £18-20 billion. 

Of these costs, £4.7 billion were intangible costs (ie. they are hypothetical - they do not need to be paid by anyone, let alone the taxpayer). 

A further £5.5 billion were lost productivity costs which, again, do not represent a bill that needs to be paid. 

A further £5.1 billion were private costs related to crime which, once again, do not need to be recouped through the tax system, and the author of the report stressed repeatedly that these costs were at the absolute top end of any realistic estimate. 

The only costs which can be considered as "to the taxpayer" are £1.7 billion in healthcare and £2.2 billion in crime and punishment, but since the exchequer receives £9 billion a year in alcohol duty, that hardly makes a compelling case for a compensatory sin tax, does it?

Indeed. And it also doesn't make much of a case for a Tory-led government to applaud choice being restricted for the entire population, on the back of selective lies and a booze epidemic that quite simply isn't happening.

As he has admirably done before, our esteemed blog knight Philip Davies stuck up for common sense over puritanical finger-wagging from his own party, but what good will this petty tinkering do anyway? As was discovered when nicotine was reduced in tobacco, smokers simply smoked more to achieve the same level in their blood. So why would drinkers not react in the same way? Drinkers will self-administer just as smokers do and will simply drink more wine to reach their preferred level of intoxication - whether that be mild, merry, wobbly, shit-faced or comatose.

What I find far more worrying from a societal perspective, is why politicians are so lethally addicted to binge-lying in order to interfere in our personal choices. Perhaps we need a pressure group to wean them off this damaging behaviour by urging them to lie responsibly with a view to quitting the filthy habit altogether.

H/T RooBeeDoo via Frank Davis

Be Afraid, Drinks Industry, Very Afraid

When Harriet Harman spoke of contract law judgements spanning centuries being swept away by 'the court of public opinion', she was roundly condemned as being, well, a bit mad. Her uncontrollable anger led to an outburst which was rightly ridiculed as a temper tantrum in contravention of controls nurtured by this country against heavy-handed corporations and state totalitarianism.

Her colleague and hideous health bully, Kevin Barron, has been spouting equally dangerous ideologies - but oddly, this time no-one really turns much of a hair (emphases mine).

The revelation that the campaign [against a government ban on cigarette displays in shops] was funded by BAT is significant. Under international guidelines, the UK government is obliged to ensure the drafting of all legislation is free from tobacco industry influence. Now, the fact some MPs may have been unaware the campaign was backed by tobacco money has angered anti-smoking groups.

BAT's admission has prompted Barron to write to the health secretary, Andrew Lansley, warning the government's commitment to tobacco control "is being undermined by covert lobbying by the tobacco industry".

The 'guidelines' being referenced here are specifically Article 5.3 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which states:

In setting and implementing their public health policies with respect to tobacco control, Parties shall act to protect these policies from commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry in accordance with national law.

Just to translate, this means that when governments pass tobacco control laws, any opposition must be ignored or silenced at all costs. It matters not that the company is a legal tax-paying entity, that the product is legal and that its customers are themselves eye-wateringly taxed, and within their rights to consume it. No lobbying or representations of any kind are allowed.

Remember that the WHO is entirely unelected, so what we have here is Barron actively promoting a body no-one voted for, over and above convention - cultivated by the British people, parliament, and judiciary for over a millennium - which naturally entitles a legal industry to lobby and argue in defence of their business, their retailers, and their customers.

He was, however, hypocritically quiet when his government nodded through the regulations concerned thanks to quite shocking misdirection of parliament which, of course, is a punishable crime under real laws, passed by real UK democratically-elected politicians.

Barron doesn't seem to be as energised over that, though.

Because where tobacco is concerned we are living in a post-legal and post-democratic age. Harman's fantasy of acting on whatever whim a self-regarding MP cares to choose is already here. In anti-tobacco circles, even widespread price-fixing cartels - illegal in every jurisdiction throughout the civilised world - are actively, and openly, encouraged by the very bodies which usually abhor them.

Kevin Barron finds nothing wrong with this. After all, he was the MP who in 2009 decided that none of you were worth listening to anyway.

"We are the state's representative in our constituencies and we should not be frightened of taking decisions on behalf of our constituents, because that is to the general good."

The idea that his employers - the public - might have their own ideas about how to live their lives is alien to this guy. What he says goes, and that's that.

The drinks industry should be very afraid of this man. Not only does he believe that the British people have no right in determining their own lives and that it's scandalous for businesses to stand up for themselves (though perfectly acceptable for parliament to be illegally influenced by lies from fake charities), but he also has the same treatment lined up for alcohol.

He was an enthusiastic booster for Sarah Wollaston's plan to prohibit alcohol advertising, for example, and he believes that a bottle of spirits should cost between £38.60 and £62.

Considering the fact that he finds democratic process and the rights of producers to defend themselves so very tiresome, he'll surely not balk at denying the drinks industry's right to lobby just as he hysterically jumps up and down at BAT for having the temerity to disagree with his righteous pronouncements.

He has the same supranational, unelected backing in that as well. You see, the WHO also have a Framework Policy for Alcohol Control, complete with a clause they have effortlessly picked up from the successful campaign against tobacco. You might recognise this bit (page 19).

Public health policies concerning alcohol need to be formulated by public health interests, without interference from commercial interests.

The tobacco control template strikes again.

It's not going to be long before Barron is ignoring the public's free will on alcohol, and condemning Guinness, Diageo, Punch Taverns (if they still exist by then) etc as evil entities who have no right to comment on laws being passed against them.

Because there's nothing a petty, self-important, dictatorial bully despises more than open democratic accountability and transparent debate. Oh no, that way opens the door to far too much common sense and compromise, and that just won't do at all.

Alcohol guys, I'd start making extremely loud noises now if I were you. Backsliding and appeasement are simply not an option anymore.

It Had To Be Done

The Spectator is seeking nominations for their parliamentarian of the year awards. Some geezer called Philip Davies deserved a shout, I thought.

When first elected to the House of Commons in 2005, Philip Davies captured the former Labour seat of Shipley by a margin of just 422 votes. Following his first term, his majority was transformed into just under 10,000 in May 2010. It’s not hard to understand why.

In an era where the electorate has become accustomed to politicians promoting policies based on the consensus of cliquey lobbyists, quangoes, and unelected supranational organizations, Davies has consistently reflected the concerns of the people parliamentarians regularly forget – that is, the public they are elected to serve.

In the last year he has carried on in the same vein. Despite a massive whipping campaign, Davies was one of 37 MPs to vote on cutting the UK’s contribution to the EU, thereby endorsing the opinion of a majority of the public instead of the insular view prevalent in Westminster.

In serving electors rather than adhering to party dogma, he spoke out against Conservative Sarah Wollaston’s ten minute rule motion on banning alcohol advertising, as well as tackling Labour’s Alex Cunningham on the issue of smoking in private cars.

Despite the predictable controversy, in June he was also not afraid to voice concerns raised over the minimum wage and its potential for denying employment to the disabled.

In the current environment of general derision and mistrust of politicians, Davies is a parliamentarian who understands his electorate, is trusted by them, and has been outstanding in the last twelve months speaking out on their behalf.

Little or no chance of his being short-listed, of course - acting as a champion of ordinary people isn't a valued quality these days, sadly - but you've got to be in it to win it, as they say.

It would be nice if someone who isn't slate grey righteous was on the ballot though, don't you think? So, do go and chip in with your own choice more nominations for our Phil.

I can hear the tutting of the Speccie judging panel already.

Delusions Of Respect

You're kidding, right?

Conservative MP Sarah Wollaston said Ms Dorries should resign, telling the BBC: "I was horrified, frankly. I think it just makes her look ridiculous and it brings politics into disrepute."

Err, to bring something into disrepute, shouldn't some good repute actually exist in order for it to be dissed?

Drafting An Alcohol Strategy Consultation Response

Last year, I posted a guide to questions contained in the plain packaging consultation along with some suggested responses.

This was partly because some fellow jewel thieves had mentioned that they found such procedures daunting or unfamiliar, but also due to others sharing their submitted responses with me prior to my writing it. The article encouraged more to send their personal efforts my way, all of which were very welcome and now reside in a folder set up specifically for the purpose on the Puddlecote Towers IT system.

So let's repeat the process, shall we, with the Home Office's alcohol strategy consultation which contains the daft proposal to install a minimum unit price for alcohol. I do hope you can set aside some time to respond - if you don't try, they will just do it anyway as you will note from the way the questions are posed. You have until Wednesday 6th of February to do so if you choose.

You can access it at this page, where you should scroll to the link for the online form unless you'd prefer to fire off a stiffly-worded e-mail to public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk or make them open a letter addressed thus:

Home Office
Direct Communications Unit
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF

Now, it's important to point out some stark differences between this consultation and the plain packs one. Firstly, this is far more wide-ranging than the single issue plain packaging effort. You may wish to respond to the whole thing, or just select the issues of minimum pricing and the equally silly proposed ban on multi-buy discounts. You are able to pick and choose the elements you wish to comment on - small mercies, and all that - but for this guide we'll just run through the questions for minimum pricing and multi-buy promotions (there are actually some decent suggestions for reducing licensing red tape in later sections)

Secondly, it's not being handled by the Department of Health, which you'd assume would be the case. Instead, the Home Office has bagged the gig for reasons which become obvious when the slippery nature of government is taken into account.

You see, the Scottish parliament has already been rapped on the knuckles by the EU for pursuing the absurd idea of minimum alcohol pricing as a health issue, and is currently being challenged in court by the Scotch Whisky Association. It's pretty clear that if minimum pricing for tobacco can be rejected as illegal, then the same for alcohol has no chance whatso-pigging-ever on health grounds.

Hence the decision that the Home Office are to lead on it based on the dodgy premise that it will deter or prevent public order offences. Yes, that's right, the government is trying to say that increasing the price of supermarket brand cheap fizz will stop late-night brawls outside town centre pubs serving a bottle of Bud for £4 and shots for £3 a pop.

The shift from the DoH to the Home Office also proves that minimum alcohol pricing is a policy which the coalition is deadly determined to drive through on the say-so of, err, Cameron and Cameron alone (actually, he will no doubt enjoy some backing from Sarah "one trick pony" Wollaston and her made-up stats).

The questions, and available answers, in the consultation only emphasise that further. All of which makes it even more important that you stick your oar into their puritan outboard motor if you can possibly do so.

So here is a plan on how I intend to respond before the closing date of 6th February, two short weeks away.

The impact of minimum unit pricing will depend on the price per unit of alcohol. The government wants to ensure that the chosen price level is targeted and proportionate, whilst achieving a significant reduction of harm. The government is therefore consulting on the introduction of a recommended minimum unit price of 45p. 

The government estimates a reduction in consumption across all product types of 3.3 per cent, a reduction in crime of 5,240 per year, a reduction in 24,600 alcohol-related hospital admissions and 714 fewer deaths per year after ten years. 

Do you agree that this minimum unit price level would achieve these aims? 

Yes
No
Don't know

Well, that's a slam dunk no, isn't it?

The question contains the answer in quoting figures advanced by the appalling 'evidence' from Sheffield University. Their 'research' is deliberately flawed and is advanced by a team who are so lax that they didn't bother checking their figures before the BBC's Panorama was forced to apologise for their shortcomings.

There is a text box beneath that question ... you might want to remind the Home Office that their source is quite pathetic and funded to come to a pre-determined conclusion.

Should other factors or evidence be considered when setting a minimum unit price for alcohol? 

Please select one option. 

 Yes
No
Don't know

Note the absence of an option saying that minimum pricing should be rejected entirely? I suggest answering no and using the explanation box to say that it shouldn't be considered at all. As evidence, just reiterate that Sheffield's analysis is bollocks (but in finer vernacular, perhaps).

Hey, it gets worse, believe me! Question 3.

The government wishes to maintain the effectiveness of minimum unit pricing and is therefore proposing to adjust the minimum unit price level over time. 

How do you think the level of minimum unit price set by the government should be adjusted over time? 

Please select one option. 

 Do nothing - the minimum unit price should not be adjusted 

The minimum unit price should automatically be updated in line with inflation each year 

The minimum unit price should be reviewed after a set period Don't know

"Select one option"? None apply, since they all accept that minimum pricing is a given. There is no box allowing the option to object to the policy.

It is now becoming clear that this is designed exclusively to invite miserable scaremongery from state-funded finger-waggers.

I suggest selecting "don't know" and using the text box to explain that the proposal shouldn't even be on the table, let alone ramped up every time the Chancellor stands up to deliver his bloody budget (alcohol free these days, you may have noticed). 

Next.

The aim of minimum unit pricing is to reduce the consumption of harmful and hazardous drinkers, while minimising the impact on responsible drinkers. 

Do you think that there are any other people, organisations or groups that could be particularly affected by a minimum unit price for alcohol? 

Please select one option. 

Yes
No
Don't know

Well, of course yes.

It is a policy deliberately designed to punish the poor, from a Prime Minister who is pretty confident that none of his millionaire mates will ever have to fork out an extra penny. It is deeply regressive - the Institute of Fiscal Studies has estimated that it will remove £700million from the pockets of the less well off and deliver it straight into bank accounts of already wealthy corporations - and the policy should have no place in a society claiming to be fair, which is supposed to be a buzzword with modern political rank and file.

Now for multi-buy promotions.

Do you think there should be a ban on multi-buy promotions involving alcohol in the off-trade? 

Please select one option. 

Yes
No
Don't know

Err, emphatically no. Why? Because it has been widely reported to have failed dramatically in Scotland, in fact it may may have even increased sales, and its unintended consequences have led to prohibitionists to call for even more intrusions on the law-abiding, non-problem drinker.

Should other factors or evidence be taken into account when considering a ban on multi-buy promotions? 

Please select one option. 

Yes
No
Don't know

Apart from it not working, d'you mean? Well, how about 650 in parliament having a fucking cheek placing themselves between businesses who want to sell legal products at market rates and around 44 million potential customers who are quite happy to buy (or not) at those rates?

The aim of a ban on multi-buy promotions is to stop promotions that encourage people to buy more than they otherwise would, helping people to be aware of how much they drink, and to tackle irresponsible alcohol sales. 

Do you think that there are any other groups that could be particularly affected by a ban on multi-buy promotions? 

Please select one option. 

Yes
No
Don't know

Difficult one, this. It is tempting to say no, but yes is the answer.

We are constantly told that 'pocket money prices' are a problem with alcohol sales, yet banning multi-buy promotions - as proven in Scotland - will merely bring the cost of single units down. And how is this supposed to help people "be aware of how much they drink"? If they buy slabs of Carling, they will continue to do so. If they buy single units, they'll carry on doing that too, but for less money. Politicians are so wrapped up in their own procedures and self-importance that it seems they never really think anything through before wasting our taxes on twaddle.

That is about it for minimum pricing and multi-buys, though the rest is quite funny too, in places, if you intend to respond further than the above.

I found it particularly amusing, for example, that Westminster is wasting its time suggesting mandatory licence conditions such as providing "free water on request to customers" and banning "dispensing alcohol by one person directly into the mouth of another". It's hard to decide if they belong in the script of an inept minister in The Thick Of It or a Monty Python satire.

And as for putting public health in charge of deciding new licence applications (yes, that's there too), they may as well ask vegans how many butchers are allowed on the High Street.

Do go have a look around and have your say. You don't have to give your name and you may qualify for a community action reward ... or a slim chance of not being treated forever like a child by dull-minded, shitstick politicians, anyway. 

Link Tank 20/07

Summertime, and the linking is easy.

Britain’s gone from nanny state to naggy state

On Sarah Wollaston's crusade to deprive drinkers of their eyesight

The New Puritans: When did liberals become so uptight?

Robots are starting to take over fast food jobs

The unscientific assault on sugar-free soda

Tackling the problem of pressure-group politics

Porn is everywhere - but that’s not what’s killing marriage

French court bans Ricard Facebook campaign

Malaysian fatwa committee bans shisha for Muslims

"When an Englishman is embarrassed by the prospect of thumping the Australians he has lost his moral compass"

Head-butting dinosaurs

Another Sunday, Another Department Of Health Stitch-Up

I suppose it wouldn't be Sunday without some form prohibitionist effluence being thrown in our general direction to ruin the relaxation, and it wouldn't be the prohibition industry if they weren't still sticking to their tobacco template.

The alcohol industry is in the "last chance saloon" and should face heavier regulation if it does not take action to discourage dangerous drinking, a report by MPs will warn.

Is that a threat? Of course it is. Exactly the same threat used by the tobacco control industry in 2007. "Do everything we demand, or we'll come at you with the might of taxpayer funds poor saps unknowingly gave to us for the purpose".

Despite foolishly playing the appeasement game, the drinks industry have patently failed to halt the production lines, sack their entire staff, close up shop and hand the keys to Barratt so they can build affordable homes on the land.

Nothing short of this was ever going to be acceptable to unproductive, tax-leeching career nags - you know, the type whose BMW 5 series has a sticker in the back window saying "my other car is a broom" - because, you see, they're the ones 'advising' MPs with a such a sorry grasp of reality that they believe someone whose bank balance depends on ever increasing regulation.

There are some corkers in the Telegraph article, and it starts from para 2 with the biggest lie sold to the public in recent years.

MPs will say that a "Responsibility Deal" agreed between the Coalition and the food and drink industry has not curbed the excesses of the industry, which has done little to reduce discounted drinking which means beer can be bought more cheaply than water.

See links above for why this is quite demonstrably untrue on a plethora of different levels, but still it gets trotted out.

If this is the kind of casual lying the state is happy to indulge in for consumer goods with which the public is very familiar, the mind boggles as to the huge whoppers they must be telling us daily on matters which are more complicated. On this evidence, there is - quite simply - nothing at all we should believe from anyone who has anything to do with Westminster. Not a word. If government tell you that it's Tuesday, check the calendar. And if that still tells you it's Tuesday, take the calendar back to the shop and ask for a refund as you've been sold a shoddy rip-off from Hong Kong.

Remember the alcohol cheaper than water lie, by the way, because it will be relevant later on.

The Commons health select committee is expected to call for a statutory price limit for alcohol, at between 40 pence and 50 pence a unit.

Because they're fucking idiots and they hate the poor. It's all too predictable, isn't it?

The inquiry is expected to call for major changes to tackle Britain's culture of binge drinking, and to persuade those who regularly drink more than recommended limits to cut down.

By 'cut down', they mean stop entirely and go teetotal. Because, as Snowdon points out today yet again, the limits are quite ludicrous.

"Binge drinking" is defined as having more than 6 units for a woman and more than 8 units for a man on one or more occasions in a week, ie. four or more average drinks in an evening would do the trick for both genders. That is not "binge drinking", that is "drinking".

Or, for a wider weekly view, here's my take on it from 2010.

General Household Survey data from 2006 show that 31 per cent. of men are drinking hazardously, consuming more than 21 units per week

So, drink more than 8 cans of Stella per week, for example, and you must be tackled. You're hazardous.

With such paltry 'limits', set by government's temperance pals remember, there will never be a time when you are behaving as the government wishes you to. This hectoring will end only when the four horsemen come galloping up to claim your soul for eternity. Even then, the BMA's Vivienne Nathanson will probably still be wagging her finger as they sweep her up and throw her into the abyss.

During hearings, MPs were sceptical about examples given by the drinks industry of progress made since the deal, such as plans by one company to reduce the strength of a premium lager by 0.2 per cent.

MPs said a person would need to drink 25 pints before the change made any impact to the number of units that they drank.

This is by far the most baffling stanza in the whole piece. 25 pints? Why 25 pints? However much I play around with this, there is no reference point, they may as well say reducing by 0.2% won't do anything to help paint Emperor penguins blue by 2015.

And if we are fiddling around with small amounts of alcohol and playing the dick-waggling game, why does this belong in the same article as one which pumps out the old lie of getting drunk on lager which is cheaper than water?

Eagle-eyed readers will have spotted something about the own-brand lager—it is piss-weak (2% ABV). Frankly, you might as well drink the water. 4 cans of this stuff equates to about a can and a half of Stella. Hardly enough to get "drunk for £1"

These hideous freaks work exclusively on canards. While we have Sarah Wollaston lying about the cost to moderate drinkers of minimum pricing - which is only apparently £12 per year but will save over 2,000 deaths - small margins the other way are dismissed as useless.

No. The only response to a non-existent problem is whatever government have paid their stooges for, coupled with a steady withdrawal of alcohol companies from the UK market.

There is, after all, no safe level of alcohol consumption and, as such, someday the government will have to declare that the drinks industry is not welcome.

Perhaps some dangerously hypnotised fuckwit might term it something like this.

"We don't want to work in partnership with the drinks companies because we are trying to arrive at a point where they have no business in this country,"

Still, we're not at that point just yet. Because, you see, there is no precedent for ridiculous hysteria in one area to seep into another. We know this thanks to those fine, upstanding, honest people in the tobacco control industry.

The “domino theory” i.e. that once a measure has been applied to tobacco it will be applied to other products is patently false. The same argument was used against the ban on tobacco advertising, but 9 years after the tobacco ban in the UK, alcohol advertising is still permitted with no sign of it being prohibited."

Deborah Arnott said that in February, and she's "an 'expert', Dave". So this part of today's article is quite obviously a fabrication.

In evidence submitted to the inquiry, 30 leading medical bodies and charities also called for a total ban on advertising for alcohol on television.

The groups said Britain's "alcohol problem" has become so entrenched that drastic action – which would also include an end to sponsorship of sporting events – is required to protect children and teenagers.

Worry not, though. Just let them have that, and minimum pricing, and early morning restriction orders, and late night levies, and pubs shutting at 10pm, and graphic warnings on alcohol, and plain packaging, and they might, just might shut up and allow us a relaxing beer of a weekend.

Perhaps.