Booze Britain: The Alcohol #MUP Debate?

There is no doubt about it, we have to call time on the Booze Britain Culture however; the arguments around how best to tackle the issue rumble on ad infinitum. I suspect that will still be the case for many more years to come…

I don’t think many right-minded people would disagree, the negatives of excessive drinking are having a profound impact on our society. Our NHS see the impacts, our police and other emergency services are in constant combat against it and ultimately, many members of our society are suffering from it. The health and anti-social behaviour issues are myriad.

Nevertheless, some of the figures being bandied about on all sides of the arguments are not always what they seem. Take for instance the £2.7 billion price tag impact for the NHS in 2012, claimed by David Cameron as fact but found to be questionable (see Full Fact).

When the Government published their Alcohol Strategy, they emphasised the drain of alcohol abuse on our society. Central to that argument was the “overall cost of alcohol-related harm” which they placed at a staggering £21 billion a year to the UK economy.

Was that right? Investigations into the claim found that “Neither the Home Office nor the Department of Health were able to explain properly where the figures were from, and there is no obvious single point of contact to verify the original calculations” (see Full Fact).

Political spin on statistics aside. in the blog Representing the Mambo a self-professed ‘leftie’ alluded to her support for the MUP policy. A policy that was being put forward in 2011/12, but now appears now to have been shelved by David Cameron.

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…(Supporting the Mambo)

In March this year there was a political U-Turn on the previous rhetoric and David Cameron wobbled on his minimum price for alcohol pledge. Despite the recent adoption of a similar policy in Scotland last year, the legality of the process is having a difficult birth due to an objection from Europe about its legality.

What about the costs/benefits analysis surrounding Minimum Alcohol Pricing?

The Full Fact website responded to the very same question (see here) however; there is also a growing body of research and evidence which suggests, many of the claims made in the past are simply tosh. Despite all the rhetoric from politicians, who want to be seen as proactive about the Booze Britain issue, the proposals for Minimum Unit Pricing won’t actually achieve the desired results it sets out to do.

The Government wants to set higher prices for alcohol. We think this will punish the responsible majority. Why should responsible drinkers pay more? (www.whyshouldwepaymore.co.uk)

Despite the Why Should We Pay More campaign actually being ‘the voice’ of the Wine & Spirit Trade Association, who obviously have a vested commercial interest in the matter, there are also a number of valid reasons why Government-set higher prices aren’t likely to cure the Booze Britain problem (see here).

SABMiller, one of the largest brewing organisations in the world (another vested interest), have also released poll results from YouGov which show that, contrary to the Government’s claims of a boost to the industry, a 45p minimum price for alcohol will turn people away from pubs (Download YouGov report PDF -0.48Mb).

The Institute for Fiscal Studies have also examined the significance of a minimum unit price for alcohol, especially relating to on and off-licence sales and concluded; “ it is unlikely that a minimum price would have much direct impact for on-licence (pub) prices” (see here).

It’s a valid factor that could have influenced a decisions by the chief executives of 12 pub chains, nightclub groups and brewers; they recently wrote to The Daily Telegraph, urging the Prime Minister to “stick to his guns”, saying that the proposed (MUP) measure would “save lives and protect great British pubs” (see here).

Despite all the UK-wide calls for minimum pricing by many politicians, medical professionals, health campaigners and people from both inside and outside the industry, it appears the battle over alcohol pricing is set to continue for some time yet. With all the controversy and divided opinion, the minimum unit pricing policy could be dropped all together!

But what of my views and opinions?

Those who’ve been here before may already know some of the answer to that question, at least in part. With upwards of forty years ‘booze’ experience, firstly as a purveyor, secondly as an enforcer and latterly as a purveyor again but throughout, always a fan of the enjoyment obtained from sensible drinking, I think you could say I’m more than qualified to comment.

The first observation is; the ‘Booze Britain’ problems we face today are as a direct result of the changing attitudes now imbedded in our society over several generations. Getting off your head on alcohol is no longer the side-effect of having a good time, it is the sole intention of many who drink, in particular our younger citizens.

The second major impact on the issue is this; with the advent of and predominance of pub-chain conglomerates within the licensed trade, provision of alcoholic beverages has become a major commercial concern. It is no longer the ‘cottage industry’ it once was, the halcyon days when pubs were the hub of our communities and also, the actual home of the majority of licensees and their families. And all that before we even start to consider the impacts of loss-leader booze sales in our supermarkets.

The final negative impact is this; for several decades we have seen a decline in any realistic proactive enforcement of our licensing laws. Add to that a (mostly) ineffective reactive response to today’s anti-social behavior, resulting from the after effects of too much alcohol, and we have some serious problems. Issues which then have a profoundly negative impact upon crime statistics and our health services.

It’s unlikely there will be a sea-change in any of these factors overnight, despite what politicians may think or desire. Although MUP may seem a sensible measure at face value, it is a facile and inadequate solution. It is also unlikely to ever result in the aims it is designed to achieve.

The price of booze isn’t the problem here, or the route cause of the issues we face. It’s the predominant public perception of the rights and wrongs of getting off your head, that and a devil-may-care attitude to the impacts of the aftermath on others.

There is no singular ‘quick fix’ for the ‘Booze Britain’ problems we now face, MUP certainly isn’t the magic key. Any return to the erstwhile era of simply enjoying a night out, without all the negative impacts, is likely to take a generation or more to fix!

Related articles

• David Cameron abandons plans for minimum alcohol price (telegraph.co.uk)
• Pubs demand minimum alcohol price (telegraph.co.uk)
• Minimum alcohol pricing could just work. It should be given a chance (guardian.co.uk)
• Government to shelve plans for minimum price on alcohol (independent.co.uk)
• David Cameron ‘ignoring compelling evidence’ that dearer alcohol would save lives (independent.co.uk)
• Calling time on the Booze Britain culture? (bankbabble.wordpress.com)
• Poll: Should there be a minimum price per unit of alcohol? (eadt.co.uk)
• Is cheaper beer a sign of muddled thinking? (bbc.co.uk)

Young Drivers and Road Safety – The long and winding road

After a lifetime of promoting safe riding/driving, enforcement of traffic related legislation and unfortunately, dealing with the aftermath and human tragedy of road collisions, I have more than a passing interest in road safety matters…

There is a long history of road safety education and publicity campaigns in Great Britain (see here) but, despite the best efforts of those road safety professionals and organisations, attempting to supplement government action/inaction on the subject, there are still far too many people killed and seriously injured on our roads

We may not suffer the KSI levels experienced by some of our European counterparts (see here) but even the current government’s policy - Making Roads Safer – acknowledges the fact that, despite the UK having one of the best road safety records in the world; more can be done to prevent deaths and serious injuries.

This week the British media reported that “young drivers could face a curfew as part of government efforts to prevent accidents” and reduce “sky-high” insurance premiums (BBC News).

It is alarming that a fifth of people killed or seriously injured on our roads in 2011 were involved in a collision where at least one driver was aged 17 to 24… Improving the safety of our young drivers is therefore a real priority…(Patrick McLoughlin MP – Transport Secretary)

Responding to the above news, The Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM) expectedly delivered an opinion on the matter (see here). The IAM director of policy and research Neil Greig welcomed the Green Paper saying it was; “a once in a generation opportunity to help new drivers survive the crucial first six months of driving.” 

Each day, nearly 3,500 people die on the roads. Tens of thousands more are injured. Families are broken apart. The futures of young people are dashed. Road accidents have become the leading cause of death for people aged 15 to 29…(European Youth Forum for Road Safety)

There may have been 100,000 lives saved during last 10 years as a direct/indirect result of European Commission action on road safety however; as the EYFRS have said “this is an unacceptable price to pay for mobility” and I would say now is not the time to be complacent. I don’t expect many would disagree with that.

As a driver foremost but also as a member of the IAM, I agree that many of the Young Driver KSI problem surround the need for ”a system that embeds continuous learning for all new drivers.”

When we all first learn to drive we’re actually learning how to pass the driving test, but there’s so much more that you can achieve in your car…(IAM)

Basic driving skills can actually be learned in a relatively short period of time, you can be taught how to pass your driving test however; the necessary skills required for continued safe driving after that basic training are ongoing life-skills.

Australia…

USA…

As the above video clips show, the United Kingdom is not alone with acknowledging there is a massive problem with our young (and/or newly qualified) drivers being injured and killed on the road. Who (if any of us) will end up being succesful in addressing or eradicating the problem still remains to be seen.

The Government’s THINK! campaign which provides road safety information for road users, along with resources for road safety professionals, aims to; ”encourage safer behaviour to reduce the number of people killed and injured on our roads every year.”

The human and social costs of road accidents are immeasurable, and with the price of each fatal casualty on the road estimated to be £1.7 million, it makes no financial sense to cut campaigns…(Dr Alistair Cheyne OBE – IAM Chairman)

At the risk of using business-speak which I abhor; this particular problem (and road safety in general) requires a totally holistic approach to treat the causation factors behind collisions. Vehicles may now be more inherently safe than ever before however; any sustainable improvement in road safety also involves dealing with the human factor. One which will always require a combination of education, practical training, assessment and enforcement action when applicable.

That said, with all the government austerity measures, many public agencies and local authorities are now facing reduced funding. With the expectation of even further cuts probably just over the horizon, there are severe implications for the future of proactive road safety initiatives.

The 20% cuts to police budgets over the next four years will also have a profound impact upon the availability of police resources. The officers once engaged in road safety, the enforcement of traffic legislation, road collision investigation and the influencing of driver behaviour are already in almost terminal decline.

With an 80% reduction of funding for road safety campaigning (in real terms) over recent years, many motoring organisations like the RAC and the IAM, along with Royal Society for Prevention of Accidents have condemned government plans and are worried for the future. Road safety may be public safety function but it’s not one immune to the HM Treasury axe. 

This reduction of road safety resources has compounded the poor safety legacy of an inadequately and poorly maintained road network, an infrastructure which has not received the investment it once enjoyed for many years now. Even the The Road Safety Observatory, which provides independent research and information for anyone working in road safety, shows a cover image depicting a long and winding road.

There are those that argue our older drivers are just as much of a problem to road safety. They use the adage of the elderly driver talking to a young driver who says; “I’ve been driving for fifty years and never had an accident” to which the listener replies; “ok, but I’m sure you’ve caused hundreds” but that’s another story for another day.

Without some tangible reversal of policy, and a little increased funding for the future which is highly unlikely, things don’t look very good for road safety improvements any time soon - despite all the government PR and rhetoric!

More Road Safety campaign clips…

Related articles

• New drivers may face night-time curfew (guardian.co.uk)
• L-drivers face ‘minimum learning period’ in radical overhaul of driving test rules (independent.co.uk)
• Young drivers ‘could face curfew’ (bbc.co.uk)
• Young drivers ‘could have to take motorway lessons’ (telegraph.co.uk)

Guest Blog: Mrs Grumpy isn’t happy!

Yesterday evening my wife was watching the news, she heard an item where President Obama was insisting that the ‘minimum wage‘ had to increase to help kick-start the USA economy.

“That’s not such a bad idea, it’s fairly simple” says she and then went off on one questioning why politicians always had to bloody complicate things? In many ways I would have to agree with her, so I suggested she write a few words for the blog explaining how she saw things – here it is…

The state of the Country as I see it… We have a deficit – this I understand and it has to be addressed but why do they have to go about it in such a bloody complicated way? I don’t understand.

It would be easier to kick-start the economy if the average person, the worker on the ground at the bottom of the pile (like me) had more money. I don’t have savings yet have worked in the public sector (mostly policing) nearly all of my working life, I have worked my little arse off to serve and protect others!

The minimum wage for starters is a joke! How can a family be expected to live on it? The minimum wage should be at least £10 per hour for a start. The people targeted to make savings should be the people at the top of the scale. The heads of Council, the Bankers etc. Why should they be on salaries so far above what they need to be comfortable? Their salaries should be capped not the workers on the ground. Without the actual workers they would have nothing to take the credit for in the first place!

Why should bankers get more money for doing their jobs? I don’t! I regularly go above and beyond the call of duty for no extra remuneration, no financial incentive? So how is that fair?

I appreciate it is difficult to control salaries in the private sector but in the public sector it should be possible? Why for example can’t there be a system where no job pays more than say £80,000? Across the entire country that is fairer for all. Fair, across the entire Country, if you have a minimum wage you should also have a maximum one. No MP should be paid above that either perhaps the Prime Minister can have £100,000 for their extra responsibilities?

Everything seems to be so over complicated when it doesn’t need to be. With all the cuts the only people affected are the people at the bottom. The working class, who work hard and long hours, for very little money, are suffering. There are more and more in danger of loosing their homes or unable to afford a home.

The people at the top of the scale are not affected at all due to the fact they have more than enough money to live on, savings, holidays and so forth. Give them a cap on their earnings and all that would happen is that they can only have 3 holidays instead of 4! They would not starve or have their homes re-possessed. I suppose they may have to sell one!

Putting this Country back on its feet would be simple if not for greed…

We need the workers on the ground. The nurses, the Police officers, our military why reduce them in numbers? There is no need! There was no need for all the redundancies! The misery and heartbreak not to mention financial stress and strain that caused! I should know I was one of them! They are a necessity! Keep them and put them on a bigger salary. Up the minimum wage and start at the top not the bottom with the savings.

If the little people at the bottom had more money it would go back into the economy and kick-start it. People may have a chance of saving for deposits for homes. They may have a chance of having one holiday a year and some standard of living instead of being totally demoralised.

Too many people are involved in the running of the country and we all know “too many cooks spoil the broth”! It is all far too over complicated when the solution is simple! It should be kept simple and the little people who work hard for a living should be paid appropriately for their hard work instead of working for peanuts.

Would David Cameron work for the minimum wage I wonder?

Had the Government increased the minimum wage by pounds and not pence we would not be here now! I would imagine they got more than pence in their pay rises? And why should those below say £30,000 be refused pay increments? No matter what profession the cuts should have hit the people at the top of the pay scales and not the bottom. Top of scale earners do not notice! Working class where every penny counts do! It’s not rocket science but an overly complicated antiquated system that protects the rich and demoralise the poor.

I have worked my whole life and been self-sufficient throughout but I am now at a stage where it feels I have worked my entire life for nothing. Nothing to show for it and struggling to make ends meet due to low salaries brought about by the introduction of such a ridiculously low minimum wages. If there can be a minimum wage then why not a maximum? Funny I have never heard of the maximum wage!

The way the Country is run should be transparent. It should make sense in every way. It should not protect the rich! Hit them with higher taxes but cap the capacity of earnings in the public sector to make the savings. Big mistake to cut the “Indians” who do all the actual work and know how to do the job and what is required. We have lost so much experience with redundancy at what cost I ask myself?

If you asked a housewife to make cuts to her budget would she cut out the food, the heating and the lighting first? No, these are the basics required to sustain her family. She would cut back on the non essentials like holidays, new cars and new designer clothes. She would start at the top looking at the non essentials - Not at the bottom!

I don’t see any change to our country and it’s all up side down? I see those that are already suffering seeing things actually getting even worse for them every day! But who would listen to someone like me?

Despite it being so bloody cold and barren perhaps a move north would be a good idea? After all, the Icelandic people seem to have had some success in sorting many of these problems out…

She has some valid points – Perhaps a far more simplistic approach to so many things would actually be of benefit to our society?

Related articles

• UK workers suffer sharpest wage fall of any developed country (thisismoney.co.uk)
• Austerity and the Threat to Democracy Around the World (truthdig.com)
• The Gender Wage Gap Is Getting Worse (thinkprogress.org)
• Budget 2013: reaction (telegraph.co.uk)
• A Druid economy (druidlife.wordpress.com)
• 56% of Lib Dem members suggest: no-one on minimum wage pays any income tax (libdemvoice.org)
• House of Commons barista earns more than a policeman (metro.co.uk)