Re: I thought the Conservatives wanted to roll back the Stat : Wed Nov 28, 2012 10:45 pm  

I don't see how this will affect pubs, since most charge well over the 45p per unit that would be set as the minimum.

What it may stop is people getting blasted off their tits on cheap premium strength beer. No one buys this sort of stuff because they actually enjoy the taste, or think they are drinking a quality product.

It serves as a sort of quasi-medicine to try and relieve them of the day-to-day 'pain' of their poop lives.

That said, Saturday night in most UK city centres is absolute carnage.

Re: I thought the Conservatives wanted to roll back the Stat : Wed Nov 28, 2012 11:15 pm  

The Video Ref wrote:

I don't see how this will affect pubs, since most charge well over the 45p per unit that would be set as the minimum.

What it may stop is people getting blasted off their tits on cheap premium strength beer. No one buys this sort of stuff because they actually enjoy the taste, or think they are drinking a quality product.

It serves as a sort of quasi-medicine to try and relieve them of the day-to-day 'pain' of their poop lives.

That said, Saturday night in most UK city centres is absolute carnage.

No one has said it will affect pubs, it's not aimed at pubs, it's aimed at the off-sales retail market.

Re: I thought the Conservatives wanted to roll back the Stat : Wed Nov 28, 2012 11:17 pm  

Maybe it will make people start appreciating real ale and traditional beverages where time and effort has gone in to making a good brew with a unique taste (and hence it costs a bit more) rather than the dominance of produce at the lowest cost to get bladdered 'fizzy pop'.

Re: I thought the Conservatives wanted to roll back the Stat : Wed Nov 28, 2012 11:25 pm  

DaveO wrote:

Well I am not sure how this will affect prices of mainstream beers and larger's much at all and I don't see how its going to deter anyone even when it does affect the price of cheap booze.

Stella Artois is 4.8% and Tesco sell a pack for four 440ml cans for £4.29. The number of units in a 440ml can is 4.8 * 440 / 1000 so that is about 2.1 units per can.

So 95p a can and given this isn't a tax so the wholesale price and the exchequers cut will be unchanged (bar a tiny increase in VAT) why would the price of this go up?

They sell 8 cans of Abbott Strong Ale for on special offer at £9. They are 500ml cans and its 5% so that would go up to £9.04. Wow.

OK there is a lot of own brand cheapo stuff out there. Tesco's cheapest own bitter is £1 for a four pack but its only 2.1% anyway. So its just less than a unit per can so this would go up to £2.

Their cheapest 2 litre bottle of 5% cider would go from £2.09 to £4.50.

I don't see even these mark ups as deterrent level prices for the determined binge drinker. Get them to a level that would deter and all you get then is smuggling and criminality. Prohibition anyone?

I do see the fact the less well off responsible drinker who might have to go for the cheaper stuff is going to be shafted in the pocket by a policy that probably isn't going to work anyway.

Lidl sell Grafenwalder, a german lager that is brewed under the Reinheitsgebot (German purity laws), at a current price of 85p per 500ml can of 4.8% (2.4 units). So if this law is enacted, it will mean drinkers will be forced to pay more for a quality product than they will for a chemically enhanced can of piss like Stella or Carling, when previously the superior product could be purchased for less (excluding any promotions).

It will be interesting to see how they propose to control the artisanal cider makers that populate many country lanes in Worcestershire & the South West

Re: I thought the Conservatives wanted to roll back the Stat : Thu Nov 29, 2012 1:49 am  

Ronald Reagan once said, "If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals — if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories."

Reagan is often glorified by the GOP as a champion of old school libertarianism. Indeed, Jeb Bush recently claimed that if Reagan were alive today he'd struggle to attract votes in today's ultra-conservative Republican party. But Reagan was never conservative in the traditional sense. Sure, he slashed spending on welfare and such - not to mention widespread de-regulation (which mustn't be ignored in relation to the sub-prime catastrophe). But any money saved was spent five times over on a quasi-socialist model of defence subsidies such as SDI, the B1 Bomber, MX missiles etc., massive expansion of the military and the CIA coupled with a radical interventionist policy abroad (Nicaragua, Grenada, Afghanistan etc.), profligate spending on new prisons and so forth. By the time Reagan (and Bush Snr.) had finished the US deficit had swollen to the point of bursting.

If Reagan was anything he was a radical whose policies leaned more toward corporate big-state socialism than anything else. You certainly can't begin to compare him to the likes of Richard Nixon or (better still) Barry Goldwater - two traditional conservatives who really would stand no chance whatsoever in the modern Republican party. This seismic shift in politics coincides with the (relative) decline in power of the long-established East Coast oligarchs (the Mellons, Morgans, Stanleys and, especially, Rockerfellers) who were more inclined toward a smaller state, less intervention abroad, detente with the Communists etc., and the growing influence of "New Money" in the southern states closely tied in with the burgeoning arms trade which necessitated greater state spending on defence. Both Reagan (who beat out Nelson Rockefeller before he defeated Carter) and Bush (to a lesser extent) were heavily indebted to the latter.

There are some interesting parallels here with the Roman Republic which, after years of stability under the senate and its entrenched group of conservative oligarchs (or optimates), was ultimately undone by a deadly combination of expansionism and militarism. The existing power structure simply couldn't compete with the the new breed of political interlopers - Roman consuls they themselves had appointed - who were not only rich beyond measure through conquest and plunder but could also lead an army on the city (as Sulla and later Julius Caeser did) when money alone wasn't enough.

In terms of politics I think we are 20 years behind the Americans with Blair - kind of - assuming the mantle of radical Reaganism. The Tories, after realising they were flogging a dead horse with the more traditional policies of Hague and IDS (especially), have now got with the program and redefined "Conservatism" along similar lines to the American corporate socialist model. Not that either side has much choice. Britain, like just about every nation with the possible exception of China and/or a united Europe (when is THAT likely to happen?), is wholly subservient to the now Imperial US and its political decrees. Indeed, I think David Cameron's power as Prime Minister of Britain is now no greater than a client king or provincial roman governor overseeing the former superpower of ancient Greece. Barring revolution I expect both parties will take it in turns to jump a smidgen further beyond the other toward the (probably cataclysmic) logical conclusion of such a progression.

Re: I thought the Conservatives wanted to roll back the Stat : Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:28 am  

Mugwump wrote:

Ronald Reagan once said, "If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals — if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories."

Reagan is often glorified by the GOP as a champion of old school libertarianism. Indeed, Jeb Bush recently claimed that if Reagan were alive today he'd struggle to attract votes in today's ultra-conservative Republican party. But Reagan was never conservative in the traditional sense. Sure, he slashed spending on welfare and such - not to mention widespread de-regulation (which mustn't be ignored in relation to the sub-prime catastrophe). But any money saved was spent five times over on a quasi-socialist model of defence subsidies such as SDI, the B1 Bomber, MX missiles etc., massive expansion of the military and the CIA coupled with a radical interventionist policy abroad (Nicaragua, Grenada, Afghanistan etc.), profligate spending on new prisons and so forth. By the time Reagan (and Bush Snr.) had finished the US deficit had swollen to the point of bursting.

If Reagan was anything he was a radical whose policies leaned more toward corporate big-state socialism than anything else. You certainly can't begin to compare him to the likes of Richard Nixon or (better still) Barry Goldwater - two traditional conservatives who really would stand no chance whatsoever in the modern Republican party. This seismic shift in politics coincides with the (relative) decline in power of the long-established East Coast oligarchs (the Mellons, Morgans, Stanleys and, especially, Rockerfellers) who were more inclined toward a smaller state, less intervention abroad, detente with the Communists etc., and the growing influence of "New Money" in the southern states closely tied in with the burgeoning arms trade which necessitated greater state spending on defence. Both Reagan (who beat out Nelson Rockefeller before he defeated Carter) and Bush (to a lesser extent) were heavily indebted to the latter.

There are some interesting parallels here with the Roman Republic which, after years of stability under the senate and its entrenched group of conservative oligarchs (or optimates), was ultimately undone by a deadly combination of expansionism and militarism. The existing power structure simply couldn't compete with the the new breed of political interlopers - Roman consuls they themselves had appointed - who were not only rich beyond measure through conquest and plunder but could also lead an army on the city (as Sulla and later Julius Caeser did) when money alone wasn't enough.

In terms of politics I think we are 20 years behind the Americans with Blair - kind of - assuming the mantle of radical Reaganism. The Tories, after realising they were flogging a dead horse with the more traditional policies of Hague and IDS (especially), have now got with the program and redefined "Conservatism" along similar lines to the American corporate socialist model. Not that either side has much choice. Britain, like just about every nation with the possible exception of China and/or a united Europe (when is THAT likely to happen?), is wholly subservient to the now Imperial US and its political decrees. Indeed, I think David Cameron's power as Prime Minister of Britain is now no greater than a client king or provincial roman governor overseeing the former superpower of ancient Greece. Barring revolution I expect both parties will take it in turns to jump a smidgen further beyond the other toward the (probably cataclysmic) logical conclusion of such a progression.

Not sure where that came from. Possibly your American Politics tutor at university?

[DaveO]

Re: I thought the Conservatives wanted to roll back the Stat : Thu Nov 29, 2012 9:36 am  

cod'ead wrote:

Lidl sell Grafenwalder, a german lager that is brewed under the Reinheitsgebot (German purity laws), at a current price of 85p per 500ml can of 4.8% (2.4 units). So if this law is enacted, it will mean drinkers will be forced to pay more for a quality product than they will for a chemically enhanced can of piss like Stella or Carling, when previously the superior product could be purchased for less (excluding any promotions).

It will be interesting to see how they propose to control the artisanal cider makers that populate many country lanes in Worcestershire & the South West

The other thing that will go up is cheap wine. Bye-bye to the £2.99 bottle of plonk.

I don't understand why anyone thinks this will work including the loonies at Sheffield Uni who "suggest" what the effect will be on consumption (which includes an acknowledgement that some of the decrease they predict will come from on-binge drinkers cutting consumption).

I don't think they understand what is going on anyway. My son went to Uni this year to the same place I did 30 years ago, Aberystwyth and it's interesting walking round the town looking at how the pubs have changed. When I was there they were just pubs and marketing to students and young people was non-existent. Now many of them have blackboards outside offering "free shots" and various other special offers clearly targeted at the young end of the market.

When I was a student "shots" didn't exist and spirits were more expensive than beer. Going on a binge if you wanted to required a concerted effort to sink numerous pints and it wasn't cheap! These days you can be "fuelled up" in less than an hour for not much outlay. This pre-loading the government goes on about on cheap supermarket booze doesn't need to happen given the shot prices and the way the pubs market to young people means its cheap to get a lot of alcohol consumed in a short time.

The only way this will work is if the unit price was much higher at which point all that will do is work like prohibition did in the US decades ago where people turn to the black market and where possible people go off on booze cruises to Europe.

Even if they introduce as it is at 45p the fact they aren't doing it by raising duty is nuts. All setting a base price does is gift the supermarkets a higher profit because you can bet your life they have worked out sales will be mostly unaffected hence the support of Tesco. If you are going to increase the price then at least get some more revenue for HMRC.

Of course if duty went up then that would affect already expensive items such as premium whisky which is no doubt partly why, given the policy originated in Scotland, it is a base price and not a duty rise. I mean Alex Salmond wouldn't want to hurt his precious whisky industry would he?

Re: I thought the Conservatives wanted to roll back the Stat : Thu Nov 29, 2012 11:55 am  

I reckon Tesco will already have decided to use the extra profit on the naff stuff to improve the competitive price of the higher-priced stuff, hoping to take market share away from other supermarkets.

Actually, what is needed is a naff-stuff-czar who will use their wisdom and judgement to decide which rubbish should be taxed heavily.
I think I am the perfect person for that job.

No-one would be allowed to buy alcohol until they have passed the Barbudo licence test which will involve a written examination about units, malt, barley, Rheinheitsgebot, yeast, fermentation etc etc.
Getting served will not be tested by the age of the purchaser but by what they try to order.
Trying to order anything blue or tasting of bubblegum would add two penalty points to their drinker's licence.
Anyone found incapable through drink would get six penalty points.
Accumulation of twelve penalty points would revoke their licence for one year.

My decision would be final.

Oh, and Christmas would be banned.
Bah.

Re: I thought the Conservatives wanted to roll back the Stat : Thu Nov 29, 2012 12:30 pm  

You've got my vote.

Re: I thought the Conservatives wanted to roll back the Stat : Thu Nov 29, 2012 12:44 pm  

The Video Ref wrote:

Not sure where that came from. Possibly your American Politics tutor at university?

I didn't take American politics at university. I have, however, read the complete works of the American political historian Chalmers Johnston - "Keeping Faith" & "The White House Diaries" by Jimmy Carter, a good deal of Richard Nixon's Memoirs (highly recommended), two books on Reagan, various books by Noam Chomsky, Molly Ivins, Michael Pareniti & Jonathan Kwityny. On top of this I've worked my way through the excellent entire Roman and Greek histories offered by the Teaching Company in the US (Famous Romans by Rufus Fears, the History of Ancient Rome and Emperors of Rome by Professor Garrett M. Fagan & Rome & The Barbarians by Kenneth Harl) & sections of Gibbon's Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire. Add to the list several works on English politics whose names I can provide on request.

So - what are you bringing to this discussion?