Sunday 4 May 2014

Back To The Future With Grant Shapps

I'm sure most of you will have seen the Mail on Sunday's big scoop today.
Labour's nanny state plan for drinkers, smokers and 'unhealthy' eaters sparks revolt in party: Red Ed says we will FORCE you to get fit (so that's no Frosties, fags or 'pre-loading' booze)
It perfectly illustrates that Labour are no longer interested in defending the working man/woman - preferring instead to kowtow to middle class quango lobbyists - and deserves fisking at some point, but the response from Grant Shapps is most intriguing to me at the moment.
He said: "They claim they're worried about prices - but want to put up the cost of a drink. 
"Not only would that make a drink after work more expensive, it would hit pubs hard, putting many out of business."
Minimum pricing, as it is currently being touted, wouldn't hit pubs at all of course. But it will do in the future, because the Sheffield University policy-based evidence behind minimum pricing plans for the same idea for pubs too [page 6].
Differential minimum pricing for on-trade and off-trade leads to more substantial reductions in consumption (30p off-trade together with an 80p on-trade minimum price -2.1% versus -0.6% for 30p only; 40p together with 100p -5.4% compared to -2.6% for 40p only). This is firstly because much of the consumption by younger and hazardous drinking groups (including those at increased risk of criminal offending due to high intake on a particular day) occurs in the on-trade. It is also because increasing prices of cheaper alcohol in the on-trade dampens down the behaviour switching effects when off-trade prices are increased.
I'm absolutely certain, though, that Shapps was blissfully unaware of that. His comment was undoubtedly a result of being asked to gush forth at short notice on something about which he has no clue (that, or he uses a Tardis of a weekend).

Still, he should mothball that reply as it will be a brilliant put-down in around three to five years' time when minimum pricing for off-sales doesn't work (because it can't) and 'public health' moves onto their - already planned - next logical step.


Sam Duncan said...

Well, the Court of Session gave the Scotch Whisky Association and others leave to take their case against MUP to the European Court of Justice this week, after an appeal. So by the time Ed's mob gets any chance to implement it, we should know for certain whether it's legal or not.

Could be fun if the ECJ's decides against it during the election campaign. Not only would it hole the policy itself under the waterline, but the EUnionists will have a hard time arguing that we haven't lost any sovereignty. (Which is why it's had to go this far already. Everyone's 99% certain that it isn't legal, but the political class flatly refuses to admit that there's anything it's not allowed to do by the real government in Brussels.)

Legiron said...

King Moribund of Ed really doesn't want us to vote for him, does he?

One crying in the wilderness said...

A choice is now obvious,Westminster or Democracy,The Commons or Liberty,
The Establishment or Freedom. Time after time the London Liberal Elite treat the people with contempt,pass laws without mandate,restriction without consent,continuous disregard for the will of the common man.
I recognise ONE PARTY STATES,I endured one first hand, they parade oppression under silky banners of enlightenment,they profess welfare for the
masses yet stifle the cries of the downtrodden
Candy coloured dictatorship with a compliant media silenced by ample advertising reward
Talk is just appeasement,chattering just base cowardice,a billion Twitters
Sadly next year a majority will vote for more bars on their cell windows

c777 said...

Same ol'e Liebour, utter control freaks.
Along with their economically destructive client state, who keep putting the ghastly b*ggers in.

Ivan D said...

You assume that we won't have strung the public health parasites up in 4 years time?Metaphorically speaking of course but there is only so much tolerance for professional lying in any given society beyond which the liars are normally forced to at least pretend to obtain a democratic mandate.

harleyrider1989 said...

Its simply backdoor prohibition just like the smoking bans and weve seen the worldwide blackmarket take over on that one. Ive already read moonshine is making a real comeback in the states and around the globe. Bath tub Gin,Green Beer, Soon the legal stuff will be more illegal than the illegal drugs if this keeps pace. Legal tobacco is already the main source of revenue for the drug traffickers anymore. But then when you have the routes and connections already made its easy to add a new product to the line ehh!

harleyrider1989 said...

If your thinking this announcement is a political strategy Id say your right. Something is up..............It just really isn't dawning on me quite yet.

Dick_Puddlecote said...

I wish I shared your optimism.