NOW HEALTH FASCISTS GET TO WORK ON ALCOHOL.

Today's news carries the bad news that the 'health fascists' appear to have won the argument over minimum pricing for alcohol. It seems that the government is to publish a consultation paper on the matter, which normally means it's made up its mind and is now simply going through the motions of pretending to listen to the views of interested parties.

 

No one can be in any doubt that there are people in our society who drink from too young an age and / or drink excessively; some drink to such excess that it results in anti-social behaviour as well as causing serious damage to their health. However, introducing a minimum price for all sales of alcohol is simply using a paper sledgehammer to crack a nut.

 

Most people do not drink to excess, they actually drink fairly responsibly; these people will be equally affected by the proposed legislation. Whether they get through one bottle of wine a week or one bottle of gin a month, they may well find themselves paying much more than now for their tipple. In round figures, a minimum price of 45p per unit would see a fairly standard bottle of wine, say at a strength of 12%, having to cost at least £4.05, while it would be illegal to sell a standard bottle of spirits for less than £12.60. Beers that are often sold in supermarkets for around £1.50 would suddenly rise in price to £1.80 or more.

 

Many questions arise.

Are things really as bad as the government claims, both in terms of public disorder and health consequences ?

Is it reasonable to try to control a tiny minority of the population by imposing price controls on us all ?

Will introducing minimum prices actually have the desired effect ? What is the real evidence ? Alcohol is not a product like furniture or electrical goods; it is more like mobile 'phones, designer clothing and cigarettes. The price / demand curve may act anomalously.

Is it right that the government, any government, controls the price of any product in a free society ? (We all know what happened in the USA when they tried to outlaw the sale of alcohol in the 1920s).

How will the minimum price be obtained ? Will it be through higher duties and VAT, or will the retailers simply make a greater profit ?

How will pricing be monitored ? Will we have yet another government watchdog, OFHOL perhaps, set up and run at enormous cost to the public purse, and with its snoopers around every corner ?

 

Accepting that there is a problem with some people in some areas, why on earth doesn't the government address these people and areas directly, rather than trying to impose draconian legislation on the whole nation ? If there are people who cause disruption in towns either by the irresponible sale or consumption of alcohol, deal with them. Close down retailers who sell to underage drinkers and give the weekend town centre louts proper punishments, but do not take this fascist approach of trying to regiment the whole of our society - it will not work and will end in tears.

 

With cigarettes, successive governments have increased the duty until prices are now at a ridiculous level, and yet still many people smoke and more start every day, including many who are far too young to buy cigarettes for themselves. They have banned smoking in many places and yet still smokers carry on; they're in the process of banning displays of cigarettes and yet still new smokers appear. Presumably, this is the pattern that will now follow for alcohol. When minimim pricing doesn't have the desired effect, the BMA and other fascist groups will demand further action. No drinking in public places, then restrictions on sales outlets and hidden displays - this may seem impossible, but it will happen.

 

Responsible drinkers must join the fight now or face a future in which there won't even be a single glass of wine with their dinner, or a single beer with their pals in the pub.

LEVESON DESERVES RESPECT EVEN IF HIS VIEWS AREN'T FLAVOUR OF THE MONTH.

In the wake of the scandal over telephone-hacking by the media, the Government asked a senior legal figure, Lord Justice Leveson, to lead an inquiry and make recommendations for the future governance of the press. Now, it seems  that the Government is less than eager to hear what the honorable Lord has to say.

 

It is being reported that poor Leveson is expected to make a variety of recommendations which leading political figures are unlikely to find in favour of. Indeed, some senior Government figures, notable Michael Gove, have even been pouring scorn on what Leveson is believed to be going to suggest, making mockery of the Judge's position and attitudes. Perhaps unsurprisingly, there has also been a sustained attack on the Judge's likely recommendations in various branches of the media but it is the pre-emptive strike by politicians that is the more worrying.

 

This seems to be a blatant example of Government failing to achieve the result they wanted and, therefore, simply setting about making the actual result appear to be stupid, uneducated, irrational and so on. Notwithstanding that Lord Justice leveson was appointed by the Government, they are being only too quick to distance themselves from his findings.

 

Whether the findings of his review are what the Government expected or not, the eminent Judge deserves to be treated with respect and not with the disdain that is currently being heaped upon him. People such as Gove bring ignominy and disrepute to themselves by acting in this way.

TIME FOR BRITAIN TO STOP THE GRAVY TRAIN.

Why the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union is a mystery to me.

 

In order to join this largely socialist, and even communist, organisation, the UK was required to cut most of its trading links with its Commonwealth allies, including Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Instead, we were tied to a union which imposed ridiculous trading arrangements on its members and which has continuously expanded its sphere of operations, not to mention the extent of its bureaucracy.

 

Today, the European Union is a bloated and vastly inefficient organisation dedicated to imposing its socialist philosophy across the continent. Its policies are largely backward-looking, maintaining highly unprofitable practices in farming and fisheries at the expense of developing new tecnologies, and promoting the most damaging of employment policies in pursuit of a socialist utopia that never did and never will exist.

 

The UK's interests are not well met by those of the countries of continental Europe and certainly not by those of the more easterly nations. In fact, the UK's interests have been positively damaged by the vast influx of migrant workers from those eastern European countries and more are soon to follow as the next tranche, from Bulgaria and Romania, will be able to come here unfettered, from January 2014. Many of those who have already come here have taken jobs previously carried out by British workers, have enjoyed the same state benefits as thos paid to workers who have lived here all of their lives, and have sent many thousands of pounds back to their own countries, thus stripping resources out of the British economy. This cannot possibly be in the UK's best interests and it is time we stopped it.

 

It seems to me that the current impasse over the EU's grossly extravagant budget demands is a perfect opportunity for Britian and others to impose some order in the chaos that is the EU. The UK is one of only 7 or so countries which are net contributors to the EU's financial pot, while around 20 countries are net recipients of funds. Inevitably, this latter group are in favour of an increased budget, meaning more money for themselves, while the former are less enthusiastic. The French, in typical fashion are both in favour and opposed, depending on which specific elements of the budget are under discussion; they favour a budget cut but want their own farming subsidies protected, while demanding a cut in the UK's rebate. All very messy.

 

More and more, the UK finds itself at odds with the demands of the EU, the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights, discrete organisations that feed off of one another in their attempts to impose outdated socialist philosophies on all of their member states. More and more, we are left in a state of impotence as ludicrous judgements are handed down or rules imposed; our own government and courts are no longer supreme but are subservient to their masters in Brussels and Strasbourg. This has to stop and the budget stalemate points the way out.

 

If David Cameron has any balls, he would tell his 'colleagues' in the EU that enough is enough; the UK is cancelling all of its contributions to the Union with immediate effect and until they come to their senses, meaning until they produce a properly audited set of accounts for the last 20 years and until they bring their practices up to date. Furthermore, he should be telling the ECHR that the UK will, in future, look upon its judgements as no more than advisory and that the UK Parliament will be the final arbiter in all matters affecting the UK. In the event that these positions prove to be unacceptable to the other member nations of the relevant organisations, Cameron should give notice of the UK's withdrawal from membership within 12 months but, of course, he will do none of this; he will, instead, be another Neville Chamberlain, eventually returning from some meeting in Brussels waving a meaningless and useless piece of paper while his opponents celebrate.

 

Michael Fabricant, a Tory MP, has suggested that Cameron should attempt to forge an alliance with UKIP in advance of the next General election, an alliance which would see UKIP candidates standing aside in marginal seats in return for a guarantee of a refendum on EU membership; Nigel Farage, for UKIP, has put up 2 metaphorical fingers to this idea, rightly so in my opinion. The Tories have already reneged on one promise to hold such a referendum and there is no reason why they would not do so again; UKIP would have nothing to gain and everything to lose from such an arrangement. The people of Britain would also lose the ability to vote for the only party which stands four-square in its opposition to the assorted European insitutions.

 

UKIP is a far from perfect organisation but is the only real hope of salvation for the people of the UK. It is UKIP that we should all vote for whenever the opportunity arises and, in particular, in the elections to the European Parliament in 2014; a resounding vote for UKIP then would set alarm bells ringing throughout the corridors of Brussels and Strasbourg.

DORRIES IS NO CELEBRITY, BUT WILL BE GOT OUT.

I've often felt that members of Parliament were little removed from the entertainment industry and recent events have proved me to be correct in this belief.

 

The Conservative MP for somewhere in Bedfordshire, Nadine Dorries, has decided that, rather than do her day job of representing her constituents, she will instead take a month's holiday in Australia while participating in an appalling 'reality' TV show, "I'm a celebrity, get me out of here". That she is a member of Parliament and not a 'celebrity' seems to have passed her by, as does the fact that she is forsaking both those who elected her and her Party.

 

Ms Dorries has a track record of being something of a maverick and her Party has reacted, as might have been expected, by withdrawing the 'Whip' from her, effectively suspending her from Party membership. One imagines that, in due course, her constituents will do rather more and withdraw her Parliamentary seat.

 

It seems that Ms Dorries has decided that politics is not, after all, for her and a career in the entertainment world is more to her liking. In doing this she is following the examples of several others; Neil Hamilton who lost his seat and then, with his wife, took to the chat show circuit; the unlamented Lembit Opik, who gave up his Commons seat to pursue a career as a stand-up comedian, something which many probably felt he'd always been; and George Galloway, whose dreadful antics on "Big Brother" plunged new depths of political desperation. Others, Brian Walden and Mathew Parris spring to mind, have also followed a political career with one in the media, though these have nearly always been what might be called 'respectable'. It is also the case that none of these felt it right to leave the country for a protracted period in order to pursue their alternative careers while also still being a Member of Parliament.

 

Ms Dorries apparently failed to even tell her Party managers of her intentions, no doubt being aware of the reception she would receive, and so no arrangements were put in place for either the temporary representation of her constituents or for 'pairing' in the event of votes in the House of Commons. It's been reported that the Conservative Chief Whip, George Younger, is expecting Ms Dorries to present herself before him on her return. No doubt the reception will be frosty and the meeting painful.

 

If I were Ms Dorries, I think I'd resign now and stay in Australia. That, of course, would entail her giving up her Parliamentary salary and the assorted perks which go with the job so, presumably, she'll hang on until her constituency kicks her out, which will not be before the next election in 2015. If ever there was an argument for being able to expel recalcitrant MPs from Parliament, surely this is it.