Have our leaders been drinking?

Ask yourself the following question: if you discovered that a sector of the economy had been colluding with one another to agree a minimum price for a good, rather than competing with one another, would you not be angry? Would you not accusing them of “price gouging” their customers? Would this not be a flagrant violation of competition law that ought to be investigated by the competition authorities?

Of course. It hardly takes a degree in economics or a sharp eye for injustice to see that.

Unless, apparently, the good is alcoholic. Then, apparently, the customer can go to hell, because what our beloved political masters want to intervene to raise the prices of alcohol.

And which political party is in the forefront of this paternalistic policy. I can barely bring myself to say it!

The Liberal Democrats have brought out an utterly illiberal policy that includes a proposal that we “Stop irresponsible drink promotions by introducing a minimum price for alcohol.”

Now price controls are a particularly pernicious tool with which to shape drinking policy. It is not, note, an increase in the cost of alcohol. Oh no! There will be no need for our beloved leaders to pay any extra for a bottle of Chateau Neuf de Pap. They can quaff all the Isle of Islay they like as they fashion ever-more-restrictive policies for the hoi polloi. Indeed, one has to wonder if they had consumed one too many bottles of Verve Clicquot before stumbling stupidly on this particular policy.

Because price controls will only affect those buying cheap alcohol. It is a policy deliberately targeted at the poor drinker; s/he who feels the need to avail him/herself of the three-bottles-of-white-for-ten-pounds offer at the local corner store, or those who cannot afford to drink anywhere except The Goose or a Westherspoon.

This policy means only one thing: to our political masters, it is poor people who are the problem. The wealthier classes never get drunk and cause criminal damage.

And it is not just some poor people. After all, if it were just some poor people that were causing the problem, the solution would be to target criminals and those who behave anti-socially. Price controls target everybody. The responsible father of two who wants to pop into the local for a swift pint on his way home to (Oh, lets rub this in!) cook a dinner for his hard-working wife and loving children will have to pay (Extra salt into wound!) more of his minimum wage income to unwind a little after his hard day.

But it’s good for him, right? After all, these poor people need nice, high-minded politicians to make moral judgements for them, to cajole them into behaving responsibly. It’s for their own good.

Frankly, it’s enough to drive one to drink!

The unbelievable hubris of the bien-pensant classes

According to the latest edition of Children Now,

The Institute of Public Policy Research think-tank has called for the compulsory introduction of smart cards for 18-year-olds that would restrict the amount of alcohol they can buy.

Those of you interested to learn more may purchase a copy (for the free exchange of ideas is not universal within the left-leaning Institute) of the article that Jasper Gerard penned for Public Policy Research. Those for whom US$ 39.00 is better spent elsewhere (anywhere!) may welcome a summary:

[T]he UK has ‘lost the plot’ when it comes to regulating alcohol. [Gerard] proposes raising the drinking age to 21 or requiring 18-year-olds to carry smart cards which record how much they have drunk each night and restrict under-21s to three units of alcohol.

Words can barely express my contempt for this execrable suggestion.

18 year olds, one might remind “New Labour’s favourite think tank” (as The Economist likes to style them), are adults capable of making decisions for themselves. They are considered old enough to have sex with whomever they wish, vote in parliamentary elections, and brave death in the service of Her Majesty. They may drive cars, pay taxes and – not insignificantly – serve in the legislature which would need to enact Mr. Gerard’s idiotic proposal.

Of course, the idea that individuals may exercise their freedom in a manner which is unpalatable to others is no more popular with the new-wave of C21st dirigistes than it was with their Syndicalist authoritarian forbears. The sense of illiberal state planning is reinforced by Gerard’s other suggestions

· increasing the number of prosecutions and the level of fines on retailers selling alcohol to minors

At what point did we start planning for the number of prosecutions so as to achieve social ends? I thought prosecutions were a response to infractions of the law!

· increasing taxes on drinks targeted at young people, such as alcopops

Young people tend to have low incomes, and like all intelligent consumers they will adjust their consumption habits to reflect price-signals.

· restricting advertising of drinks aimed at youngsters

This makes sense if aimed at the under-18s, though many parents will allow their children to stay up after the “Watershed”. There is no way to avoid the “targeting” of 18-21 year olds as they will watch many of the same programmes as 21-30 year olds.

· allowing 16 and 17-year-olds limited amounts of alcohol in pubs, bars and
restaurants when consumed with a full meal and accompanied by someone over 21.

I understood that even younger children were allowed to drink with a meal. This is a sensible proposal, allowing a gradual introduction to alcohol in a controlled environment in an attempt to demystify it. As such it seems to fly in the face of Mr. Gerard’s other policies, and would be better as advice to parents than recommended legislation.

I have argued before that we need a consistent and logical approach to ages of consent in this country. It makes no sense that we allow a 16 year old to breed but not to vote, a 17 year old to drive a car but not buy a drink, we expect 16 year olds to pay taxes but not influence how they are set or spent, and allow them to join the army but not to fight.

Mr. Gerard’s proposals fly in the face of this logic. They demonstrate the classic meddling instinct of those uncomfortable with the consequences of freedom. There are a raft of sensible policies that might be introduced to cope with the negative impact of excessive alcohol consumption in the UK, but forbidding a portion of the adult population their freedom simply on account of their age is not among them.

Gerard’s article in Public Policy Research is endemic of a belief that well-intentioned people are better placed to make decisions about how individuals lead their lives than those individuals themselves. It shows appalling arrogance.

Mouths are for drinking, not just for ranting

Lib Dem bloggrr and conference virgin Alexander Kemp has raised the spectre of "bloggers drinks" at conference. "It would be nice to put a face to the rants, so to speak :o)" he comments.

I've heard of worse suggestions (such as the Together We Can Cut Crime policy paper!).

I shall probe my source and see what's planned.

Time, Gentlemen, please!

The sound of screeching tyres can be heard again as another government U-turn beckons. Not surprisingly, it is a liberalising measure from which they have decided to back away.

The new licensing laws have been in force for barely a year, having come into force on 24 November 2005. Yet already the Government is backtracking. This is partly the result of an apparent rise in alcohol related diseases since 2002-3, though most of this occurred before the new licensing laws came into effect.

While the government has a duty to consider public health problems, there is no excuse for curbing the freedom of everybody, simply because a few – even a significant few – are unable to control themselves. The same is true of the new gaming laws: the fact that some are unable to control their gambling habits is no reason why others should not be allowed to gamble, or that businesses should not be allowed to cater for responsible gamers.

Indeed, I have argued for some time that it is not the role of government to protect individuals from their own mistakes. Unless people cause harm to others, the government should leave well alone.

Nonetheless, we need to be realistic. The mood of the public is unsympathetic to the sensible gambler or the recreational drinker (unless the latter is attending a dinner party in Islington or enjoying a pint at the village local). Furthermore, there is real concern about public health impact of drinking.

Thus other measures must be considered. I would suggest that a leaf might be taken out of the ASBO book. Rather than re-imposing wartime era licensing laws and limiting the freedom of responsible adults to enjoy themselves as they see fit, the authorities should concentrate on those who are irresponsible and cannot control their own behaviour. Individuals who cause sub-criminal disturbances, including rows outside pubs, urinating and vomiting in the streets, arguments with officers, or who become unable to walk or look after themselves, should be issued with a banning order forbidding them to enter licensed premises. This may be a ban at certain times (after 10pm, on Fridays) or a blanket ban. It should be limited, so that they can ‘serve their sentence’. If breached, it should lead to prosecution .

The alternative is to treat the whole issue of the public consumption of alcohol as though it were a morally corrupt practice over which that a paternalistic government should be allowed to legislate. That would constrain the freedom of sensible, fun-loving people.

Ages of consent

The new year is clearly upon us. I’ve just watched the news and it’s full of substance, rather than the Christmas fluff that has predominated over the last week. Two stories struck me particularly: the accession of two new countries to the EU and Government plans to change the legal age of smoking.

I’m fairly agnostic about what the legal age for smoking should be. The precise point at which one becomes an adult, trusted to make decisions for oneself, is one I would be happy to debate, but it’s not going to fire my blood. However, it does raise two very interesting issues.

The first is the fact that the Government is moving the goalposts for existing smokers. There are people who are able at present to buy and smoke cigarettes, but who will shortly be temporarily banned from doing so, before they again become old enough. While I can see why the government may want to protect future seventeen year olds from nicotine – a policy which can only be justified by arguing that they are unable to make rational decisions for themselves, which is debatable that that age – changing the rules so that existing smokers are now forbidden to buy cigarettes until another year or two has passed seems arbitrary.

The second issue is the long overdue need to harmonise the various ages of consent. It makes no sense to me that a 16 year old may have sex but not buy alcohol; that a 17 year old can drive a car but not smoke a cigarette; that either can pay taxes but not decide how those taxes are spent; or that at 18 one can chose a representative in Parliament but may not stand for parliament oneself.

The only reason for having any age limits in society is to protect children (and sometimes ourselves) by restricting certain decisions to those who are mature enough to take responsible decisions in their own and others’ interests. In reality adulthood neither comes at a definable moment, nor does that transition occur at the same for all, but that level of nuance is probably beyond the law. The law will need to distinguish in manner. I believe that instead of randomly applying legal age limits to various activities, we should decide at what point a person legally becomes an adult and empower them at that point with complete freedom.