A 44 Year Monopoly

Via this blog's esteemed mascot, it has been revealed that ASH has yet again been thrown a wad of our taxes with which to bully smokers and generally be a right royal anti-social and destructive pain in the arse.

The figure this year - a regular annual occurrence since ASH's inception in 1972 - is £160,000.

You can view the award letter below.

ASH Grant Award Letter 2016-17

As usual there are a couple of laughable clauses in the document, most notably ... (emphases mine)

This award has been made under the provisions of Section 64 and may not be used for lobbying or to fund original research and consultancy services must not be offered under this grant. ASH has confirmed that the grant will only ever be used for tobacco control delivery and not for any activity that could be considered as lobbying, nor will it be used to fund research or provide consultancy services.

This is political sophistry of the first water! An organisation like ASH does very little else but lobby, it is exactly what officials and staff at the Department of Health set it up to do in the early 1970s.

This was most evident recently with the monumental lobbying effort Deborah Arnott and her fellow tax-spongers put in to convince politicians to bring in the pointless tobacco control gravy train-perpetuating plain packaging policy. They were in and out of Westminster tapping up MPs so often that they would have felt less exhausted if they'd pitched tents and sleeping bags in committee rooms instead of commuting!

It will also come as a hell of a surprise to vapers that ASH don't involve themselves in lobbying considering the extraordinary and sustained lobbying campaign they have directed towards first trying to get e-cigs banned, and then ensuring Article 20 of the TPD was rammed through in the face of perfectly logical and entirely reasonable objections.

Quite simply, if ASH didn't lobby, there would be no need for them to exist.

You might also be amused to read this condition of the award.

[T]he Department [of Health] has no commitment to renew financial support after the term of the grant;

Well, erm, considering this is the 44th year in a row that ASH has received free cash from taxpayers - without any kind of competitive tendering process as is supposedly required for all government-awarded contracts - we can take that one with a pinch of salt, can't we?

You may have noticed a familiar name signing off the award letter too, that of Jeremy Mean, the former head of pharma-funded MHRA who so nearly succeeded in strangling vaping at birth. Perhaps, then, this part of ASH's grant application appealed strongly to him and his former associates.

"Identify and communicate opportunities for local enforcement to support the effective implementation of the TPD including Article 20 on electronic cigarettes."

Yep, if you thought common sense and a new direction from PHE & RCP towards harm reduction might lead to a blind eye being turned towards the daft TPD regulations, think again. ASH is there to make damn sure any transgressions are properly punished, and promised to do exactly so when they were holding out the begging bowl.

Additionally, since Mean is now Deputy Director of Tobacco Control at the DoH, he could feasibly form part of the UK's delegation to the similarly pharma-funded WHO's COP7 jamboree in Delhi in November. You know, the organisation which currently wants to see e-cigs banned worldwide. Nothing like being given another bite of the cherry, now is there Jeremy?

There really is no other racket quite as blatant as the 'public health' racket.

Italy To Propose Tax On E-Cigs By The End Of The Week?

Following swiftly on from yesterday's article about how Italian MEP Giancarlo Scottà has been floating the idea of sin taxes on e-cigs, comes this from German news source Südtirol Online.

(I'll try my own paraphrasing as Google translate comes out like something from the Swedish Chef)

Tax on E-Cigarettes looming

The Italian Treasury is now targeting electronic cigarettes 

The Letta government wants to tax them in the economic measures decree that should be adopted by the end of this week, this is expected to raise 14 million euros for ailing state coffers in this year alone. 

Next year it could be up to 50 million euros. The state wishes to make up for the losses in tobacco tax revenue. 

The state complains that, due to the increasing success of electronic cigarettes ... tobacco sales are declining by 80 million euros with negative effects on treasury coffers. 

[...] 

The extension of tobacco tax to e-cigarettes would mean that they would equate with normal cigarettes.

Idle rumour? Well, it's possible since this is a regional German operation reporting it, but there seems to be a fair amount of detail. It would be interesting if any Europeans have seen the report elsewhere.

But after reading of an MEP - out of 27 nations to choose from - from the very same country raising exactly the same proposals with the EU just a couple of weeks ago, it's one hell of a coincidence doncha think?

H/T Jens Mellin in yesterday's comments

We're Losing Revenue! Quick, Let's Tax E-Cigs!

Could this be what it's really all about?

Italian MEP Giancarlo Scottà tabled this extraordinary written question a couple of weeks ago.

I wish to put a question to the Council regarding an issue which has recently been attracting a great deal of interest, but which has never been addressed from the point of view set out below. 

I am referring to ‘electronic cigarettes’, devices considered to be ‘nicotine-containing products’ which therefore fall within Article 18 of the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products (COM(2012)0788 — 2012/0366 (COD)).
The consumption of traditional cigarettes provides the Member States with sizeable revenues, as a result of the substantial taxes to which they are subject. 

According to a recent report by ANSA (Italian news agency) of 21 April 2013, in the first two months of 2013 alone, Italy’s coffers registered a loss of EUR 132 million, corresponding to a fall in revenue from duty on tobacco of approximately 7.6%. Of course, this shortfall cannot be completely blamed on the increasing use of electronic cigarettes, but it is certainly partly responsible. 

In light of the above, can the Council state what action it intends to take to address the differences in tax revenue materialising in State coffers following the proliferation of electronic cigarettes, which currently appear to be free from any form of duty?

Now, just pause for a moment and digest that.

He seems very upset that Italians are stopping smoking at such a rate that it is depriving his government of moolah. This, from someone in a profession of which approximately 100% claim that they would be delighted if everyone in the world quit smoking immediately.

What a surprise, then, that he is hinting at taxes being applied to e-cigs for the sole reason that they are stopping people from smoking and, therefore, reducing Italian government receipts.

Looks very much like that is the gist of it, eh?

Now, it's easy to condemn Scottà for his absurdly hypocritical concern but you can bet your house that more politically astute MEPs have had this very same thought bouncing around their heads ever since the e-cig revolution burst on the scene and disturbed their comfy status quo.

It dovetails nicely into the fears of the tobacco control industry too, doesn't it? You see, they're desperately constructing a damage limitation exercise while e-cigs continue to soar in popularity and show up their movement as being laughably ineffective, wedded to corporate pharma interests and - the best bit - not as interested in health as their prior emotional string-pulling has led the world to believe.

We seem, then, to be witnessing an unholy alliance of grasping state representatives weeping as their budgets decline, while simultaneously an unwanted guest - in the form of e-cigs - breezes in and smashes the sound system at tobacco control's carefully crafted mood music party.

Legislators want the money, obsessive anti-smokers want the decades-long ego-stroking to continue (as well as the cash it affords them too, natch). And they all hate e-cigs for fucking it up.

It would neatly explain why Linda McAvan - the most dangerous European alive today - and her junk scientist chums are endorsing utter garbage as fact during internet televised kangaroo 'workshops.  We've seen the same behaviour before, and I've written about it, but never has it been displayed so honestly in the public domain.

It also proves that - at the highest level - the ability of e-cigs to aid smoking cessation is accepted no matter how much tobacco control circle their wagons and try to deny it.

If it was truly about health, furrow-browed politicians who harangue us relentlessly to abandon tobacco - and the lucrative industry which has profited by producing ever more imaginative but ineffectual wheezes to bully smokers into submission - would be welcoming the advent of the e-cig and allowing them to be advertised as smoking cessation devices.

Like I said, that would be if it were truly about health which, of course, it has never been.

Nice of Signor Scottà to admit it.

H/T Rursus via e-mail

"We're Broke!", Cries Miliband

When, soon after the last election, Liam Byrne left a note to his successor declaring that "there is no money", there was much astonishment from public and commentators alike. It seemed unimaginable that a politician could be so honest, even in jest, about the lack of funds at his disposal. Almost an admission of failure.

No-one should have been too surprised, though, seeing as politicians openly tell us all how broke and financially incompetent they are on a regular basis. In fact, Ed Miliband has done exactly that today.

Ed Miliband has unveiled plans to deliver a "living wage" of at least £7.45 per hour for millions of people, if Labour wins the next election. 

Whitehall contracts would only go to firms paying the living wage, while those who paid less could be "named and shamed", said the Labour leader.

For a dedicated believer in the power of the state, it should be simple for Ed to just come out with a scheme whereby the government guarantees that level of income through, say, tax credits or threshold increases, shouldn't it?

Well, no. Because, you see, he knows all too well that the state wouldn't even dare contemplate any such thing. To coin a phrase "there is no money" with which Ed can be able to do that. So his bribe to the electorate - which, in the grubby tradition of politics, this is - involves bragging about how much of other people's money he will be spending instead, if elected.

The truth is that, in the past twenty years or more, government has created imaginary new taxes along with other more innovative ways of taking cash off of the public, all to continue spending on their pet schemes while still being in a position to offer bribes come election time. These bribes, in the past, were in the form of tax cuts (Conservative, generally) or benefit increases (Labour, generally). However, despite us now paying - amongst others - things like insurance premium tax and airport tax which didn't exist 30 years ago, along with eye-watering sin taxes, incrementally increased VAT, and other schemes such as locally-administered parking regulations to help councils with their finances, the state finds it almost impossible to fleece us directly for any more.

Well, they could, but politicians know that there is a certain level of spending as a percentage of GDP - and taxation to facilitate it - which renders political parties liable for electoral defeat, and that just wouldn't do for your average, self-serving politico.

We've been on or around that level for quite a few years now, which is why we've seen the bribes change from taxation-funded giveaways to the generous spending of funds generated by businesses. Think, for example, extensions to maternity pay entitlement, the creation of paternity pay as a concept, and the national minimum wage, which cost the state nothing (or very little) as the cost is borne by others.

Politicians can preen and bask in how caring and generous they are being to the public, but each time they come out with these bribes they may as well be declaring to the world exactly what Liam Byrne did. "We're broke, there is no money left, we're not going to reduce the size of government, so we're bribing you in another way".

With regard the living wage, much of the emphasis today has been on how it is just a voluntary thing; how "responsible" employers will be happy to pay it; how it is the right thing to do; and how it will 'boost morale'. However, we've seen those arguments for a long time now - the living wage is not a new idea, the foundation to promote it was set up over a decade ago. What has changed is Miliband's new, more sinister, tack of 'naming and shaming' companies which don't (or, more likely, can't) pay it, and demanding it be a requirement for any firm bidding on public sector contracts.

Y'see, despite the living wage apparently being a wonderful "idea whose time has come", according to David Cameron, even someone as big a fan as Miliband knows it will be disastrous for business and the economy right now, or he'd be promising to make it mandatory. So today we've just seen the first little baby steps of what will be a future requisition of private assets for political electioneering when things pick up (and the roof can again be left unfixed while the sun is shining).

A perfect example of how this will work can be seen in a history of statutory sick pay (SSP) - it is also an illustration of both the dwindling disposable income of the state in the past 30 years and the bribe mentality not being shy of encumbering private and public sector alike and, by extension, consumers and taxpayers who would suffer the passing on of costs.

Introduced in 1983, SSP guaranteed a certain level of sick pay for employees but it could be reclaimed 100% by businesses, therefore it was funded by the state out of tax receipts. In 1991, government found that they couldn't afford this so reduced the amount claimable to 80%. This 80% was later removed almost entirely in 1994 and, hey presto, benevolent government was treating employees without cost to any of their ever-expanding spending plans. They couldn't afford it any more, they were broke.

See? Liam Byrne wasn't the first, politicians have been telling us there's no money left for a long time, you just have to listen carefully. How honest of Ed to emphasise it yet again, eh?

Rolling Out The BS

I really want to like this 'Big Society' thing, truly I do.

If I understand it correctly, the BS (oh dear, that's an unfortunate acronym, isn't it?) is libertarian by its very nature. A reduction of public reliance on the state is very long overdue after the country has, over decades, allowed itself to be seduced into believing that any problem - however inconsequential or unrelated to the original role of government - can only be solved by a larger state, unsustainable expenditure, and higher taxes to pay for it.

I'm sure we can all point to tasks which are currently undertaken by the state, or local authorities, which shouldn't be their concern and can, and arguably should, be handled by the public or by community associations. Better not go there or we'll be listing them all night.

Community can only benefit by a greater contribution from citizens, rather than just expecting someone else to do it on their behalf ... hand-in-hand with the inflated cost in taxes that involving the public sector brings. Plus, people always, but always, do things better than anything which gets within an inch of authority.

It all sounds so good, doesn't it?

Except that I can't quite get past this bit without feeling a trifle irked.

Also announcing plans to use dormant bank accounts to fund projects, Mr Cameron said [...]

Err, sorry, I wasn't hearing what he said after that. Because isn't this, as Longrider calls it, theft? And, as others have mentioned, if not theft, how is this different from taxation?

It's not government's money, every penny of it belongs to an individual. The banks have the investors' names - God knows they make damn sure of that - and even if addresses have changed, with modern technology it's easily possible to allow them the opportunity to reclaim it, though I don't see anything here which mentions such a thing.

If the account holder has been pushing up daisies for decades, there will still be a value which could come in very handy (especially with compound interest added) for their next of kin, and it should be returned there. Good for a re-energising of the economy, no?

Even if - and I certainly don't subscribe to this view - you believe that one loses the right to claim your money after a certain period of inaction, why is this liquidity to be taken away from the banks?

Horace Arkwright's nest egg of £8 10s 6d which he invested with the National Provincial Bank in 1951, before dying of a stroke whilst 'on the job' with Maud from the baker's, has been pinging around the system for so long, it's now quite a tidy sum. It's probably overnighted so many times that Horace would be applauding jealously from his cloud, and each investment by the bank grew his contribution to the financial sector's reservoir of ... lending cash.

Add these little pots together and you have a great big financial monster bucket of cash to lend to, well, those who are crying out for ... more lending in a recession. Horace may have once dreamt of buying a new pigeon loft, but his dormant money has probably helped facilitate any number of newly-wed love nests over the years, and maybe even a few business start-ups too.

Cameron says this isn't a clever way of disguising cuts. I believe him. Instead, it's a clever way of redirecting privately-held money into a new state-administered 'Big Society Bank'. And that is quite obviously nothing to worry about at all, is it? No, not in the slightest. None would ever be so cynical as to suggest such a thing, eh?

Well, maybe one.

- The Big Society Bank will of course be controlled by the politicians, or their chosen appointees.

I wonder if the government will be able to keep their sticky little fingers off the millions that will be hoovered up by the Big Society Bank?

Hmmm, whaddya think?

There was someone talking perfect, and incontrovertible, sense today though.

Shadow Cabinet Office minister Tessa Jowell called Mr Cameron's speech "a brass-necked rebranding of programmes already put in place by a Labour government".

Yep. Can't argue with that.

It was the Labour government, while Gordon was scrabbling around squeezing every possible financial lime till its pips squeaked to pay for his excesses, who introduced the legislation which allows Cameron to steal other people's money.

We'll Have Some Of That

Labour never miss a trick when it comes to imaginative new tax-raising opportunities.

A revaluation of business rates from next April is set to hit the sites of car boot sales, including pub car parks, ministers confirmed.

Barbara Follett, the Communities Minister, confirmed the plans in a written answer to shadow communities secretary Caroline Spelman, saying: ''Where a property is used entirely, or on occasion, as a car boot sale site, its rateable value for the 2010 revaluation should reflect any rental enhancement attributable to that use.''

The Tories don't seem to be highlighting this in the way I would, though.

Mrs Spelman accused Gordon Brown of a ''tax assault'' on those who wanted to use car boot sales to kit out their homes during the recession.

Well, that's one way of looking at it but, where I live at least, car boot sales are almost exclusively held by voluntary organisations, local charities, or non profit-making enterprises like amateur football clubs etc.

If the land they rent for holding such events is subject to more tax to the owner, he will, unless he/she is very generous, charge more rent accordingly. The end loser then, is the fund-raiser as they will no doubt see a drop in income by either swallowing the extra cost, or by passing it on and risking the loss of stall-holders ... which amounts to the same thing.

Labour may argue that this is a 'local' tax so not their fault, but considering the government funds most of council spending via the block grant which can (and most often is) manipulated to the government's advantage, I think we know where the extra money is likely to end up. I'd be more generous in my summation of a Labour administration's intentions if they hadn't gone about being a bunch of shifty, lying, money-grabbing fuckers for the past 13 years, of course.

So, a better headline for this story could well have read "Labour Raise Taxes on Local Charities and Voluntary Organisations".

Which is the end result once you cut out all the spin.

How Do Labour Hate Pubs? Let Me Count The Ways*

Like a drink in your local, do you? If so, Labour have declared war on your sort, you dirty anti-social bastards, you.

April 2008: Duty increased 6% above inflation.

Excise duty on alcohol is to rise by six percentage points above inflation from midnight on Sunday in a bold effort to curb Britain's steadily creeping drinking habit, the chancellor revealed today.

November 2008: Duty increased by 8%.

The pub trade was angered last night by the news that alcohol duty will rise by 8 per cent on Monday, offsetting the cut in VAT.

April 2009: Duty increased by 2% above RPI.

Chancellor Alistair Darling announced that the Government will go ahead with an increase in alcohol duty of 2 per cent.

Still to come: In January 2010, VAT will be increased by 2.5%.

There are at present no plans to reverse this increase when the VAT rates are increased from 1 January 2010.

When you add it all up, this means that since Alistair Darling's first budget 15 months ago, the price of your pint, merely due to government intervention, has increased by over 19%.

Actually, no. It's more than that, as this exchange in the commons yesterday points out.

Greg Hands (Shadow Minister, Treasury; Hammersmith & Fulham, Conservative)

Can the Minister explain how the Government's escalator currently works? Is it still based on RPI plus 2 per cent.? If so, at a time when RPI is negative, why was the increase in beer duty nevertheless 2 per cent.?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry (Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury; Portsmouth North, Labour)

Because we work on a zero base. It is an increase of 2 per cent. on zero, and it would not go back below that figure even though inflation is negative, so it is staying at 2 per cent.

The alcohol duty escalator, of which Darling is so fond, stated that duty was to be increased year on year by 2% above the Retail Prices Index. Except when the RPI dips into the negative, it would seem. When that happens, the Treasury mysteriously misplaces its calculator and can't seem to figure out what RPI plus 2% should actually be.

Or maybe doesn't want to. What do you reckon?

RPI was running at -1.1% at last count, according to National Statistics.


So make that an increase, in tax terms, to your pub visit, of around 20%.

The reasoning, as usual with Labour, is to protect your health whether you like it or not. But in the very same debate yesterday, a salient point was admitted which shows all this up as a sham of the highest order.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry (Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury; Portsmouth North, Labour)

In the Treasury Committee on 28 April, a member of the experts' panel, Mr. Weale from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, said:

"with beer...All the evidence is that"

it is

"not terribly price sensitive."

Just a thought here, but if the aim of these duty increases is truly to reduce drinking for the good of our health, and the government are fully aware that beer is price-insensitive. Does one Labour hand have a clue as to what the other is doing?

Alternatively ... isn't this just a massive tax designed to raise income and (like other Labour puritan measures) nothing what-so-fucking-ever to do with health?

Where are the BBPA and CAMRA attack dogs on this? Still enjoying having your tums tickled, are you?

* Title nod to Elizabeth Barrett Browning

The Only Way Is Up

Travellers are set to face an inflation-busting increase in passport fees. The cost of a passport is set to rise to £77.50 - an increase of 7 per cent, the Home Office admitted last night.

Fewer Britons are going abroad as families tighten their belts in the recession, meaning applications for passports have fallen 400,000 below the expected level.

The service's income, which is entirely dependent on fees, has subsequently been left with a £32million black hole.

As a result, officials say fees have had to be raised to make the books balance.

That's OK. Once the economy recovers and more people need passports again, the price will, without doubt, be reduced accordingly.

What are you sniggering at? Was it something I said?

You've Got To Speculate To Accumulate

Labourites may outwardly frown on Capitalist methods, but this administration tends to show signs which bear an uncanny resemblance when it comes to tax collection.

Speeding tickets are earning the Treasury £250,000 every day and the number issued each year has doubled under Labour

Meanwhile, The Telegraph can reveal that the number of speed cameras across Britain is about to soar further.

At least six new designs, which will take digital pictures and link to a control centre wirelessly, are set to be approved by the Home Office within months.

I do believe that businesses term such behaviour as investing resources to achieve the economic principle of maximising profit.

The next generation of cameras, set to be approved by ministers, will be far cheaper to run because they are digital and wireless - removing the need to rely on film which has to be collected by traffic officers.

Isn't that a reduction in labour overheads so despised by idealistic lefties?

A Department for Transport spokeswoman said: “Safety cameras are there to save lives, not make money. Independent research has shown there are 1,745 fewer deaths and serious injuries at camera sites each year ..."

There is so much wrong with this piece of spin. Independent research (which is, no doubt, considering this government's track record, nothing of the sort) says that each accident is costing drivers, collectively, over £50,000.

There is no stark figure of deaths prevented. It is lumped in with injuries, which sort of suggests that the figure for deaths wasn't scary enough for repeating again and again.

There is also no mention of what difference there would be in these statistics if alternative forms of policing were employed instead. It is an absolute figure, designed to dog whistle to the easily-panicked, in order to convince us that there isn't another option.

Other options, though, are more fair, and don't result in an income to government of £88m per annum. Other options would also not punish poorer drivers more than those who are minted, as penalty charge notices do, but why should a socialist government worry about such inequality?

"... and local authorities use them where they believe they are the best way to tackle local safety problems."

Just as Swindon council did last year when they roundly rejected the practice of maintaining speed cameras which they were required to pay for, but for which they received marginal revenue.

But Swindon councillors decided the £320,000 it puts into the partnership would be better spent on other safety measures like warning signs and street lighting.

They said the number of people killed or seriously injured on Swindon's roads had begun to rise in the last two years and new strategies were needed.

See? Once we take the lure of income out of the equation, other ways of minimising danger become more attractive. Labour seem to have forgotten that in their adoption of capitalist principles.

There is also no mention of the potential danger (marginal, yes, but must be considered) of drivers worrying about speed in the shadow of a speed camera, instead of concentrating on the circumstances around them, as highlighted by the Devil.

As for this fantasy ...

"The government is clear that the best safety camera is the one which takes no fines at all, but succeeds in deterring drivers from speeding.”

So, if there wasn't a single fine issued, the outlay on cameras would continue? With all due respect. Bollocks!

The capitalist will always look for ways to increase income, and Jack Straw has already identified a novel way of adding another 25% to the stealth taxing of motorists in the form of a £15 victim surcharge.

You've got to be in it to win it. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. You've got to speculate to accumulate. Labour seem very conversant with capitalist practices.

Kerching!

But Where Is The Victim?

Labour never miss a trick in raising a buck, do they?

Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, is considering extending a £15 surcharge for victims to those handed on-the-spot fines and fixed penalties.

We have seen this scam before. Introduction of a stream of revenue for a defined purpose, only to change the rules once it has been embedded ... like National Insurance.

The victim surcharge was an idea that had a beginning and an end. Those who inflict damage on victims should be made to pay. Unfortunately, the victim bit looks like being airbrushed out of the equation. Not so much a charge, then, but a new tax (on top of the VAT already included in PCNs).

So, if this is enacted, drop a crisp packet resulting in a fine and you will be paying £51 to the local authority, but £24 directly to government (more when VAT goes back to 17.5%).

Sometimes one has to just step back and admire the sheer, corrupt nerve of the modern political class.

Fooled Again?

Al-Jahom, on his excellent blog, has spotted that the Conservative James Brokenshire (pictured) seems to be making progress in the party hierarchy. Today he was wheeled out as spokesman on Home Affairs.

James Brokenshire, a Conservative home affairs spokesman who received the figures under freedom of information laws, said: “Knife crime is a scourge which claims too many lives and ruins countless others.

Yet under Labour it has soared. The Government’s only response is short-term, ad hoc police operations, the results of which they spin and manipulate anyway to try to get a good story.”

I make him right. Knee-jerk policy just doesn't cut it.

But is this the same James Brokenshire who was advocating short-term, ad hoc, and totally unnecessary, responses to combat binge-drinking? Which largely involved punishing the law-abiding for the excesses of just a few trouble-makers? I think it is you know.

"... the social and health costs linked to binge drinking mean that we just can’t ignore the pricing and promotion of alcohol. Drink being sold as a ‘loss leader’ at prices virtually cheaper than water isn’t right and it isn’t responsible. That’s why we would legislate to ban below-costs sales and target alcohol duty on those products most closely linked to binge boozing.

But we’ve also got to challenge attitudes on excessive alcohol consumption. We would encourage locally-based programmes which combine education with enforcement, prevention with punishment."

Note the words "ban", "enforcement" and "punishment", without any nod to the fact that laws already exist to deal with the exaggerated binge-drinking problem. All the Tories have to do is make sure these laws are enforced more rigorously. Not collectively punish all of us, like schoolkids, for the actions of a small minority.

Nanny is alive and well in the Conservatives, and has just been promoted, it would seem.

If they are all like Brokenshire, changing the Government could just prove to us that The Who were on the right lines.

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss