Wednesday, 28 December 2011

Jumping on the wagon

The Daily Telegraph reports today that Call Me Dave is actively looking into the introduction of a minimum unit price for alcohol. I’ve gone through the arguments against this at length in the past – it is wrong in principle, even on its own terms it won’t work, and it is against EU competition law anyway. Several other bloggers have criticised the plan this morning – I thought Cranmer (not one of my usual sidebar links) offered one of the best summaries.

Perhaps part of Cameron’s thinking is to pick a fight with the EU, although it is unlikely that many of his natural supporters will be with him on this one, and ironically it would give UKIP the opportunity to open up some more clear blue water.

And can we expect Labour, which historically has claimed to be the champion of the poor, to fight him on this? I strongly suspect they will do so just as strongly as they stood up for working-class pubs and clubs in 2007. Mind you, it’s unlikely to affect the price of Chianti, is it?

Edit: and I see the Telegraph in its editorial column is not at all keen. Could this be the Coalition equivalent of Blair’s “marching yobs to the cashpoint”?


  1. Hmmm. Well I actually hope that Labour do exactly like they did in 2007. That is reflect the majority opinion of their members. However you want to twist it, there's nowt wrong with that.

  2. 'Members' or Voters?
    If you are in all seriousness saying that a majority of Labour voters were in favour of the blanket ban, you're living in cloud cuckoo land. (The same place that a lot of Labour party
    MEMBERS exist.

  3. There are millions like the cap
    doffing appeasers,if their Fabian Masters say a turd is tasty,they'll chew it and
    say how tasty it was.
    There are plenty of State School
    educated backstabbers ,preaching
    well rehearsed lines like "the ban is here FOR EVER,FOR ETERNITY,as if such controls are sent from the GODS.These cringing Judases have their pieces of silver ,today,
    but tomorrow beckons the leafless tree ,the rope of reckoning.
    Ther will be no hiding place
    They will be found

    The Ticking Clock

  4. Ahhh more government support for the black market. White van prices set to rise because of demand m'thinks :)

  5. Anon

    I clearly said "members". No organisation can do more than reflect its member's wishes-for better or worse. The fact that you and others on here don't like that is neither here nor there. Somehow I have the strange feeling that if their members had been against the ban, you would have a differnt oponion on the matter. Funny that...

  6. 1st anon: Tyson clearly wrote 'members', and as he is an articulate chap with a good command of the English language, then that's what he meant.

    2nd anon: your village just phoned - they're sending someone to collect you.

  7. But Labour have only ever got themselves elected to power by (to a greater or lesser extent) ignoring the wishes of their members. If Labour wish to put forward a manifesto based on the collective wisdom of their membership, then I would confidently forecast a repeat of 1983.

  8. Mudge, can see what your trying to say with regards to Labour and their members.

    Its worth it however, to distinguish between activists and members.

    Inactive members (i.e. the majority of Labour members)have traditionally been far more moderate than regular activists.

    This arguably explains why Kinnock, Blair et. al. were so keen to actually empower individual members re: candidate selection and so forth.

    It's a distinction worth making.


Comments, especially on older posts, may require prior approval by the blog owner. See here for details of my comment policy.

Please register an account to comment. To combat persistent trolling, unregistered comments are liable to be deleted unless I recognise the author. If you intend to make more than the occasional comment using an unregistered ID, you will need to tell me something about yourself.