I never thought I'd say this....

[Rolling Thunder]

But hurrah for Mr Gordon Brown. Hooray for him. Praise be to his name. For Mr Brown, as bilious and bear-like as he may appear, has finally recognised that his duty is not to serve the whining, moralistic idiocy of the middle classes, but to serve the whole and fullness of the British people. And for this act, I thank him.

http://living.aol.co.uk/health/health-fitness-news/brown-dismisses-booze-price-plan/article/20090316073609990001


The proposed tax would have, quite literally, made enjoying a few drinks in britain, an already ludicrously expensive prospect, quite literally, impossible. So thank god for Mister Brown, and may this absurd notion be laid to rest with a cheer and a round of beer for all.

 

[the_tramp]

The plan was to set a minimum 50p per unit on alcohol... which isn't that much if you think about it. The only thing it would affect harshly is the white lightning et al brands out there.

Although I do agree with you in commending Mr. Brown in not listening to the whiny 'experts'.

 

[Inverse Skies]

Trust me, people complain for a while and then they get over it, because to a lot of people drinking is more important than money. I work in a bottleshop, and here in Aus a few months ago we had a 70% tax hike on pre-mix drinks (about a dollar a can roughly) which changed slab prices from 80 to over $100 Aus, and 6 packs from 19 to about $24-25. People went nuts at first... but now they just pay up, because really there's nothing else they can do.

 

[Booze Zombie]

A tax increase on booze in the middle of a recession would've never worked, anyway.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

1. This would be a disasterous move. It would create cost-push inflation during the midst of an economic collapse, thus resulting in falling income and rising prices! Now, tell me, is it just me or is that a fucking bad thing!

 

[Volucer]

Let's celebrate with a piss up

 

[fix-the-spade]

He's only done this because he's a whisky powered tank.

The amount of Tax on alcohol is enormous anyway, introducing a minimum price wouldn't have had that much affect from the taxman's perspective.

 

[scarbunny]

I think the main flaw in the plan is the majority of "binge drinking yobs" that this is aimed at mainly get hammered in pubs and clubs where you already pay a hell of a lot more than 50p a unit, so there would be no impact on the target group.

The other complaint you hear from the govenment is that drinking related illness costs the NHS around £3bn a year. They fail to mention however that they make around £11bn on duty imposed, now my maths may not be the best but even I can see that this is a £8bn net gain for the economy. If the only downside of the additional £8bn in the treasury is that people with out enough sense to stop drinking when they have had enough die a slow painful self inflicted death then boo fucking hoo.

 

[Danarok]

But hurrah for Mr Gordon Brown. Hooray for him. Praise be to his name. For Mr Brown, as bilious and bear-like as he may appear, has finally recognised that his duty is not to serve the whining, moralistic idiocy of the middle classes, but to serve the whole and fullness of the British people. And for this act, I thank him.

http://living.aol.co.uk/health/health-fitness-news/brown-dismisses-booze-price-plan/article/20090316073609990001

The proposed tax would have, quite literally, made enjoying a few drinks in britain, an already ludicrously expensive prospect, quite literally, impossible. So thank god for Mister Brown, and may this absurd notion be laid to rest with a cheer and a round of beer for all.

I for one am unable to think of any pub, bar or club near me where it's possible to buy a drink for less than 50p/unit. For the most part it would have no effect on the price of alcohol at all. Certainly it would have no influence on your "rounds of beer". And since this appears to be your only concern, I can't find any solid foundation for debate in your post.

You do however appear to try and claim this as a victory chalked up for the oppressed masses, over the evil menace of middle-classdom. While I do not doubt that many of the "middle classes" would agree with the idea, there are many aspects to concider that could well concern the entire cross-section of society. For example, one is the further imposition of legislative restrictions into daily life. But I digress.

The aspect which you have swept under the carpet is the primary aim of reducing the quantity of cheap alcohol getting into the hands of youths (eg white-label supermarket spirits), the effect of which has been tied by experts and police alike to a great number of incidents of anti-social behavior and crimes such as damage to property and vandalism. Does this not hold any concern you at all? Or do you believe that the facts are incorrect and that this is a non-issue somehow? Mr Fondant, Now that we have effectively discounted your only stated objection to the scheme, would you be willing to open your mind to the idea that Mr Brown may have done the nation a disservice and concider the wider implications to the proposal?

(And yes to some extent I am playing devil's advocate here. It's an interesting topic that deserves some debate.)

 

[Zykon TheLich]

Trust me, people complain for a while and then they get over it, because to a lot of people drinking is more important than money. I work in a bottleshop, and here in Aus a few months ago we had a 70% tax hike on pre-mix drinks (about a dollar a can roughly) which changed slab prices from 80 to over $100 Aus, and 6 packs from 19 to about $24-25. People went nuts at first... but now they just pay up, because really there's nothing else they can do.

Well, there's always heroin...*ahem*...seriously now, there are a lot of ways to get fucked off your face and the more expensive the legal ones get the more attractive it is to go for the other options, and then the taxman doesn't get a thing. But yes, essentially I agree with you.

 

[Puppeteer Putin]

But hurrah for Mr Gordon Brown. Hooray for him. Praise be to his name. For Mr Brown, as bilious and bear-like as he may appear, has finally recognised that his duty is not to serve the whining, moralistic idiocy of the middle classes, but to serve the whole and fullness of the British people. And for this act, I thank him.

http://living.aol.co.uk/health/health-fitness-news/brown-dismisses-booze-price-plan/article/20090316073609990001

The proposed tax would have, quite literally, made enjoying a few drinks in britain, an already ludicrously expensive prospect, quite literally, impossible. So thank god for Mister Brown, and may this absurd notion be laid to rest with a cheer and a round of beer for all.

I for one am unable to think of any pub, bar or club near me where it's possible to buy a drink for less than 50p/unit. For the most part it would have no effect on the price of alcohol at all. Certainly it would have no influence on your "rounds of beer". And since this appears to be your only concern, I can't find any solid foundation for debate in your post.

You do however appear to try and claim this as a victory chalked up for the oppressed masses, over the evil menace of middle-classdom. While I do not doubt that many of the "middle classes" would agree with the idea, there are many aspects to concider that could well concern the entire cross-section of society. For example, one is the further imposition of legislative restrictions into daily life. But I digress.

The aspect which you have swept under the carpet is the primary aim of reducing the quantity of cheap alcohol getting into the hands of youths, the effect of which has been tied by experts and police alike to a great number of incidents of anti-social behavior and crimes such as damage to property and vandalism. Does this not hold any concern you at all? Or do you believe that the facts are incorrect and that this is a non-issue somehow? Mr Fondant, Now that we have effectively discounted your only stated objection to the scheme, would you be willing to open your mind to the idea that Mr Brown may have done the nation a disservice and concider the wider implications to the proposal?

Those "youngins" won't have any issue paying the extra 50p per unit. Most of these youthful idiots are willing to jump through fire to get their hands on alcohol. It won't affect the binge drinkers or the addicted because, they're addicted. Inflation isn't a variable for them, they'll pay up whatever the cost. Those seeking an escape won't care about an extra couple of pounds.

In the end it would only hurt those who enjoy the occasional drink. Alcohol comsumption is not a bad thing. What's needed is better education. Start it far earlier than it already is perhaps? Or ban drinking in public places. I went and worked in London recently and could not BELIEVE the amount of youths in Trafalgar Square drinking themselves stupid. The cops should get their arses off the street. Yes it may cause a slight row but it'll disipate as cope presence and enforcment becomes regular.

Addressing OP's post

I agree! Good on Gordon for telling the Expert to go shove it. If experts were to have their way with everything, which they have, the world would be a over politicised, politically correct place - and that distrubes me to the core. Yes an experts opinion should always be sought but not always directly implemented.

 

[sky14kemea]

Let's celebrate with a piss up

woohoo!

making alcohol more expensive during a recession would be chaos XD

 

[Rolling Thunder]

I for one am unable to think of any pub, bar or club near me where it's possible to buy a drink for less than 50p/unit. For the most part it would have no effect on the price of alcohol at all. Certainly it would have no influence on your "rounds of beer". And since this appears to be your only concern, I can't find any solid foundation for debate in your post.

You do however appear to try and claim this as a victory chalked up for the oppressed masses, over the evil menace of middle-classdom. While I do not doubt that many of the "middle classes" would agree with the idea, there are many aspects to concider that could well concern the entire cross-section of society. For example, one is the further imposition of legislative restrictions into daily life. But I digress.

The aspect which you have swept under the carpet is the primary aim of reducing the quantity of cheap alcohol getting into the hands of youths (eg white-label supermarket spirits), the effect of which has been tied by experts and police alike to a great number of incidents of anti-social behavior and crimes such as damage to property and vandalism. Does this not hold any concern you at all? Or do you believe that the facts are incorrect and that this is a non-issue somehow? Mr Fondant, Now that we have effectively discounted your only stated objection to the scheme, would you be willing to open your mind to the idea that Mr Brown may have done the nation a disservice and concider the wider implications to the proposal?

(And yes to some extent I am playing devil's advocate here. It's an interesting topic that deserves some debate.)

Your points seem to consist of:

1. Instead of heavily punishing criminals, we should punish everyone mildly. I'm sorry, but that sticks in my throat. I would be damned for a frenchman before I get punished because a bunch of chavs get drunk and like vandalise people.

"Those who are willing to sacrifice their liberty for security deserve neither".

My point is that there are millions who enjoy cheap alcohol, and yet only a few who commit offences against person or property, and yet it is not those who are to be punished by public whippings, being placed in the stocks or simple imprisonment, but the great mass of lawabiding individuals. My point, sir, is that this is not a matter for the state, but for the judiciary and the police.

2. The facts are a non-issue.

 

[Danarok]

Your points seem to consist of:

1. Instead of heavily punishing criminals, we should punish everyone mildly. I'm sorry, but that sticks in my throat. I would be damned for a frenchman before I get punished because a bunch of chavs get drunk and like vandalise people.

"Those who are willing to sacrifice their liberty for security deserve neither".

My point is that there are millions who enjoy cheap alcohol, and yet only a few who commit offences against person or property, and yet it is not those who are to be punished by public whippings, being placed in the stocks or simple imprisonment, but the great mass of lawabiding individuals. My point, sir, is that this is not a matter for the state, but for the judiciary and the police.

2. The facts are a non-issue.

I completely agree. And is quite a change of position from your previous view, simply that:
"The proposed tax would have, quite literally, made enjoying a few drinks in britain, an already ludicrously expensive prospect, quite literally[sic:repetition], impossible."

I'll refer to something I touched upon in my previous post, I wholeheartedly obhor the concept of government making sweeping changes to aspects of daily life, however minor, based on singular issues. This is indeed far too similar to the idea of legislating computer game sales based on real life incidents of violence for comfort.

Indeed since the increase (if any) is marginal even at the lowest extreme ie, a 40% vol lite of gin will have a minimum threshold price of £16 (32 units @50p each), I can't see the increase as a particularly effective form of deterrent. And those that buy from pubs or clubs, or obtain alcohol elsewhere at a price greater than that already will remain unaffected.

Puppeteer Putin's post suggests an approach based on education. I remain intrigued as to whether he has any ideas about such an education system's implimentation? I am lead to believe that the target group in question is notoriously difficult to get though to.

 

[GyroCaptain]

Well, there goes my plan to smuggle Kentucky/North Carolina moonshine into the country.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Well, there goes my plan to smuggle Kentucky/North Carolina moonshine into the country.

Why?

Oh, and more Labour-government excellence.

http://money.aol.co.uk/credit-card-debt-temptation-blitz/article/2009031700394571215167

 

[cuddly_tomato]

But hurrah for Mr Gordon Brown. Hooray for him. Praise be to his name. For Mr Brown, as bilious and bear-like as he may appear, has finally recognised that his duty is not to serve the whining, moralistic idiocy of the middle classes, but to serve the whole and fullness of the British people. And for this act, I thank him.

http://living.aol.co.uk/health/health-fitness-news/brown-dismisses-booze-price-plan/article/20090316073609990001


The proposed tax would have, quite literally, made enjoying a few drinks in britain, an already ludicrously expensive prospect, quite literally, impossible. So thank god for Mister Brown, and may this absurd notion be laid to rest with a cheer and a round of beer for all.

Thank fuck for that. Among other things, if I don't drink vodka I drink cheap high-strength cider because it gets me potted cheaply and quickly.

Also it isn't the governments business to tell us how to live our lives. I didn't like the way things were going.

 

[vfaulkon]

Trust me, people complain for a while and then they get over it...

This applies to a lot of things in life, doesn't it? ^_^;

It is because of this I also sing the praises of Mr. Brown, even though I'm nowhere near living in the UK. A leader with a little common sense and some balls - very refreshing to see.

 

[Stakhanov]

1. This would be a disasterous move. It would create cost-push inflation during the midst of an economic collapse, thus resulting in falling income and rising prices! Now, tell me, is it just me or is that a fucking bad thing!

Well said sir! Always refreshing to hear that someone's been reading their economics.

 

[Jharry5]

I thought it had been implimented in Scotland on a trial basis.
But the fact that Brown's distanced himself from it is a good thing. Is it enough to stop the issue all together though? I thought it would still be possible for it to be brought in (the Health Minister said he'll fight to see it made law...) I don't know though; politics isn't a strong point of mine.

In the mean time though, cheers. *raises glass*...