Pathetic move which will only encourage criminals and the black market economy. Typical politico’s and their ‘Ban it all’ lapdogs,

But when will the good people of this country stop voting for the so called 3 main parties who are all corrupt and rotten to the core. Maybe next time a good few MP’s from the smaller parties will shake the incumbent fools up. Also 2 terms only to end career politicians would be a right move,

The trouble with Camo and his bunch of crooks is just like the previous bunch of crooks he and thay were all born upside down,

“there is less likelihood for a working class person to aspire to be an MP through the union route too.”

Dunno if this is correct but I sincerely hope it is.

@caster rob wrote:

“there is less likelihood for a working class person to aspire to be an MP through the union route too.”

Dunno if this is correct but I sincerely hope it is.

do you mean blair and his fleecing wife still costing this country millions in security every year plus her rip of structure in the courts shame ukip isnt a stronger party we need to be like the french , revolution clear the decks and start again

It’s just a ruse to put more money in to the pockets of rich men.

Really, it is an attempt to restrict drink to the wealthy. We can’t have the poor enjoying themselves can we, it’s time they went back to drinking meths.

That’s why we voted Cam. in isn’t it? :p :p :p :p

Everyone drink plenty get bladderd and have fun and pretend we are all happy and aint bothered ……

Now that will really piss the millionaires that are in power off ! 😉 😀

Shuks ……

That will make the rich bastards even richer !!!!! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

@One Out of the Frame wrote:

Rob: The gap between the top 5% and the populous has never been greater.

Fuel price increases are unlikely to affect them whilst the normal person is increasingly being priced off the road and making a stark choice between eating or heating their house.

We are being forced to work longer for less money and now this assault on those not lucky enough to be opening a couple of bottles of Dom Perignon to celebrate getting home earlier as the working class weren’t clogging up the roads as they either couldn’t afford it or were working without being paid!

Surely you can’t agree with this situation?

Mark, the “gap” (wealth I presume) grew faster under labour than at any time in our history.

You’ll have to quantify the longer for less money bit. Do you mean weekly or up to retirement age?

@stevied wrote:

It’s just a ruse to put more money in to the pockets of rich men.

Really, it is an attempt to restrict drink to the wealthy. We can’t have the poor enjoying themselves can we, it’s time they went back to drinking meths.

That’s why we voted Cam. in isn’t it? :p :p :p :p

Drinking meths?

Reports suggest that if implemented, the 40p rule will raise the minimum price of a bottle of wine to £3.60p.

Chuffing hell.

If you buy wine for less than about £7 or £8 a bottle you’d be better advised to stick to the meths, or pour the “wine” on your chips.

@proper tidal boy wrote:

@caster rob wrote:

“there is less likelihood for a working class person to aspire to be an MP through the union route too.”

Dunno if this is correct but I sincerely hope it is.

do you mean blair and his fleecing wife still costing this country millions in security every year plus her rip of structure in the courts shame ukip isnt a stronger party we need to be like the french , revolution clear the decks and start again

Much as I abhor Bliar and Lucrecia I was thinking, in this instance, of lard Prescott.

When trade unions sponsor potential “bright young things” to become MPs, he’s what you get.

I don’t want any more arriving through this route, he was quite enough, thanks.

.

Oh well back to the home brew!.

,

Who was that MP who got pissed up and head butted someone in the houses of parliment recently?. Thats what happens when you drink cheap beer.

Subsidised by the cash cow taxpayer. The MP trash have no shame or morals so why should anyone else. Take a leaf out of our armed forces book and lead by example,

I don’t think 99% of us will be paying for this. Few of us drink the cheapest forms of alcohol so the effect is only felt by the people who do.

Like a lot of the posters on this thread I am worried about what the treasury will do with the money, but, and it is a big BUT, a minimum price for alchohol will save lives.

Also just where will the ‘Black Market’ booze come from or who will make it. I recall just recently that some morons blew themselves up making illegal booze. Idiotic move by a morally bankrupt and impotent government,

Yes not a good week for this inept government …….

With them all being millionaires and public schoolboys one would think they would be much brighter ? :rolleyes: 😀

@Dodge wrote:

Yes not a good week for this inept government …….

With them all being millionaires and public schoolboys one would think they would be much brighter ? :rolleyes: 😀

Having spent most of my life living in Cambridge, you unavoidably come in to contact with many along those lines from the collages/university. One of the first thing most people see upon that contact is intelligence is a VERY different thing to common sense, and a good many of them only have the first 🙂

@One Out of the Frame wrote:

If you read the White Paper regarding the reasons for introducing this strategy then you will see that it is, primarily, to combat violence and unsociable behaviour as a result of “free loading” (drinking cheap alcohol from supermarkets) before going off clubbing Where drinks used to be TWICE the price of the pubs I frequented back in the early ’80’s).

I’m not out “clubbing” anyway and don’t you think that the type of people who are likely to be brawling after a couple of shandies or attending A & E for whatever reason following a binge are more likely than me (as a parent of fairly young children) to know someone who would be able to obtain ‘black market’ booze than I would?

So, in effect, the very people that this action is attempting to effect will side step it, probably carry on with their current antisocial activities, buy from the black market but nolonger contribute to the very same organisations that this strategy is attempting to save!

Retailers won’t sell as much, producers will face less demand but the black market will flourish….. That means, bottom line, no economical growth. more redundancies and a probable increase in crime. Doesn’t sound good to me.

The effect of pricing is measured not only in terms of sales, but also by health outcomes, which suggests that the black market doesn’t replace legitimate sales by a great deal:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22330223
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19149811

@One Out of the Frame wrote:

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/taxonomy/index.html?nscl=Health+and+Social+Care

The Office of National Statistics figures seem to demonstrate that people are drinking less anyway!

Looks like you’ve been looking at similar reports to me!

Alcohol consumption patterns are complex and difficult to interpret. Its true that people from professional and managerial groups drink more often, but drinking above recommended limits is equally patterned across the socio-economic groups (http://www.ic.nhs.uk/webfiles/publications/alcoholeng2007/Statistics%20on%20Alcohol-England%202007v6.pdf).

Average consumption data mask trends withing specific groups. The largest rises in alcohol consumption are among the old and among young people, where price rises will have an effect. In addition, cancer and liver disease incidence is increasing in younger groups, ie the young middle-aged, reflecting earlier cumulative years of risk.

@One Out of the Frame wrote:

lol pr@ngler! I’ve spent a morning on this when I could have been doing something more productive but having read that report earlier in the day, I thought that I would look at statistics with regards to what the spend on alcohol is if it is costing the NHS £1.7bn:

And in 2009 household spending on alcohol was down 5% to £37bn from £39bn, retail spending was down 6.6% to £12.8bn with restaurants and hotels showing a 4.2% decrease to £24.6bn.

Lies, damned lies and statistics, as Disralli would have said.

Counts as work for me. I’ll put it in lectures. We’re citing a minimum price for alcohol as an example of health promotion.

My wife drinks too much red wine, will putting the price up stop her i think not.
However it may stop her banging on about a lean too (conservatory) because we wont be able to afford it.
Result!!

My question is as follow:

If a cheap bottle of cider currently sells for £3, and the new minimum price is set at £5, who gets to keep the extra £2 of the wino’s money?

Tesco et al must be rubbing their hands with glee – they will massively increase their profit margins on low priced alcohol. Unless, of course, all of the winos start buying Chateauneuf du Pape instead…

Mark, I had understood that it was a minimum price (with the extra profit going to the retailer) rather than a tax (with the extra cash going to the government), hence my post above. Please correct me if I have misunderstood.

I cannot imagine any wine that sells for £3.33 a bottle being drinkable, let alone passing for a treat!

Average consumption trends mask data withing specific groups. The largest increases in alcohol consumption are among the elderly and youth, where price increases have an effect.

Data is only as good as the people paying for it and can easily be massaged to show anything.

Mark, you are 26p over budget!

@piperpilot wrote:

Data is only as good as the people paying for it and can easily be massaged to show anything.

I have found that training and expertise are helpful in interpreting health-related data