Cameron does something good? Really? Maybe!

29 Dec 2011 1 Comment

by representingthemambo in Current Affairs, Opinions, Politics

DC in his younger days. Ruggedly good looking, I'm sure you'll agree.

I have remarked before that I feel as if I plough an at times lonely furrow in this world. Poor Mr Mambo.

For example, it feels like I’m the only person who thinks that Cameron’s decision to instruct his officials to draw up proposals for a minimum price for alcohol, possibly similar to the type being mooted by the Scottish parliament, is a great one. And a surprising one, given the government’s normal commitment to doing exactly as their corporate paymasters desire.

Cameron is prepared to slap down his cabinet colleagues who want a voluntary code of practice (for now at least). Yes that old one again.  A voluntary code of practice. The political equivalent of rearranging the deckchairs on the titanic. They all know it’s nonsense. It’s a shame that he Cameron doesn’t take this newfound enthusiasm for state action and apply it elsewhere to government policy……..

It reminded me somewhat of Gordon Brown putting the kibosh on super casinos a few years ago. Another rare beacon of light in an otherwise abysmal set of social policies pursued by the last two governments. Policies designed to satiate the corporate interests that have so actively cultivated the support of the main political parties, and done so very well from their efforts.

From the point of view of Conservative Party politics Cameron’s decision to stick his neck out over this is probably foolish. Many of his perpetually restless MPs are up in arms about the decision. (All the more reason for us to support it, surely?)

This, contrary to what many of my chums on the left think, is not a matter of individual liberty. To get to the heart of the issue of excessive boozing and the problems it causes one has to, as usual, follow the money. See who benefits from the maintenance of the status quo and the liberalising of the licensing laws under the last Labour government.  

Deaths directly attributable to alcohol consumption are in the region of 9000 a year and the social costs (which of course, will disproportionately affect those on lower incomes) are huge. Lives and families are ruined, and the number of people in hospital every year with health problems either exacerbated or caused by alcohol abuse is colossal. To be honest the raw numbers of deaths don’t do justice to the scale of the problem.

We have a generation of binge drinkers that are doing permanent damage to their livers. Between 1997-98 and 2006-07 the figures for young people (18-40) admitted to hospital with alcohol-induced liver disease well over doubled. The idea that the liberalising of the licensing laws would in fact decrease binge drinking has proven to be a total fallacy. If it was going to have the effect of reducing consumption, encouraging people to stagger their drinking and establishing a ‘café culture’ in the UK then why did the drinks industry lobby in favour of it? Surely they don’t want longer opening hours, if they have to pay their staff for more hours work and sell the same or maybe even less alcohol. From a commercial point of view it would make no sense…….

Of course they were in favour of it because they stood to make more money from 24 hour drinking. People will drink and have drunk more if pubs are open longer. They will consume more if the price is lower, as repeated studies have shown. That is why the supermarkets use of alcohol as a loss-leader is so dangerous and insidious. Pubs and supermarkets don’t care about the increase in crime and hospital admissions that have followed liberalization and lower prices. It is all about the profits. And their bag-carriers in the Labour government were all about the profits too. But not Cameron, this at time at least, surprisingly……

So to try and dress up a what amounts to a neoliberal free for all when it comes to alcohol consumption in some sort of libertarian or left-wing garb is facile. A couple of the comments in the discussion below the recent Guardian poll on the subject are illustrative:

“No. Very nanny state, very Guardian / Daily Mail”

“Typical conservatives. Decrease regulation for the banks and corporations, but increase the regulations on any other part of our lives!”

I’m not sure what Cameron’s motives are for taking a stand on this. Maybe it is Daily Mail style social authoritarianism. But the effect of an increase in prices would be positive. Lives would be saved and consumption of alcohol would reduce.

Would the left object if a Conservative government decided to do something about the strip clubs springing up all over our cities?

Obviously there are class issues and base political calculation at play and any minimum price would affect working class people disproportionately, but the solution is obvious. Drink less. The left shouldn’t be encouraging heavy alcohol consumption and siding with the drinks companies and their socially destructive agenda.