In an article in the Times this morning we learn that alcohol-related deaths in Britain have more than doubled, from fewer than 4,000 a year to more than 8,700.
We also learn that Gordon Brown is ?lukewarm? on proposals to introduce a minimum pricing strategy to curb alcohol, even though he knows, because the Chief Medical Officer has told him, that the statistics show overwhelmingly that putting up prices would dramatically cut the number of alcohol-related deaths.
We know also that the government is considering cutting the speed limit on thousands of rural roads to 50mph because research has shown that the change would save up to 250 lives a year.
Funny old world.
|
Putting up alcohol prices might reduce consumption and would thus, probably, reduce the tax income and the Chancellor couldn't cope with that! BTW - who is the Chancellor? Gordon or the bod with the funny eyebrows? Gordon seems to do all the financial briefings and chat, perhaps in recognition of the fact that we are where where we are due his incompetence over the last 10 years.
I don't really understand how research can be conducted and show that a reduction of the rural speed limit would reduce road deaths. It is likely that there would be a reducution but who can say that it would be uo to 250 lives a year with any degree of certainty?
|
You're quite right AS, any reduction in alcohol consumption would threaten revenues.
Whereas increased enforcement of lowered speed limits would generate new revenues.
Our rulers stink to high heaven.
|
Some canned beer/lager is somewhere between 1 and 2 units - will there be a pro-rata charge? If not would the brewers just up the alcohol to 2 units to make the £1 (50p per unit presumption) more palletable? It isn't difficult to find branded beers for well under £1 a can.
Anyway off-topic so I'll keep quiet now!
|
|
|
|
I don't really understand how research can be conducted and show that a reduction of the rural speed limit would reduce road deaths.
The same way all research of that kind is conducted. By making some assumptions - reasonable ones where possible, some more arbitrary where necessary - and documenting them.
In defence of the researchers, it is more than likely that they are well aware of and entirely comfortable with the concept that their conclusions are dependent on their assumptions and that if an assumption is changed or later found to be invalid then the conclusions might no longer hold. However, it is not usually in the interests of those whose case the headline conclusions support to point out that fact.
|
a bit like 30% of all accidents are to do with speed.....
as in going too fast for conditions (which can be 10mph in an icy or foggy 30mph limit for example) and other thigns like that to bump up the actual statistic of speeeding being the cause for 5% or 10% of accidents i think it is. Manys the time i've crept over 71mph on the motorway without the car suddenly exploding and killing everyone within 5 miles....
|
Many's the time i've crept over 71mph on the motorway without the car suddenly exploding and killing everyone within 5 miles....
This remark is so blatantly half-witted it doesn't deserve a comment. I hope it was TiC...
|
|
yeah it was, although technically it's still true lol.
|
|
|
|
Armitage
It is likely that there would be a reducution but who can say that it would be up to 250 lives a year with any degree of certainty?
Good question! The ONS is expert at this. Give them a target and they'll produce the statistics.
Of course we could always go down the really weird route of policing the anti-social behaviour rather than embarking on more social engineering in the blind hope it'll produce the results we want.
When 250 lives have been saved, does anyone genuinely think that the CMO will stop there? Just for the record, I don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Putting up alcohol prices won't have much effect on the amount consumed by heavy drinkers, binge drinkers or alcoholics. Anyone who really needs alcohol will get the money by hook or by crook, just as drug addicts do. They'll beg, borrow or steal.
Edited by L'escargot on 17/03/2009 at 09:53
|
Very true L?escargot.
But it would have a significant effect on the majority of people who drink moderately and who can moderate their consumption in relation to price.
And that would reduce tax revenues.
|
I wish the government would stop messing about with alchohol taxes but then the UK is thick. Sadly I think that booze in supermarkets is too cheap as people are mis using it, I think drinks like cheap cider should be banned.
With regard to drink driving I don't know what the answer is.
|
If this goes thru I can see a major increase in trips to Calais. Some drinks firms will pay for your ferry if you spend £250+. I think that the Government's unstated aim is to tax almost anything pleasant or pleasurable and bad for us, to the maximum and then hope that we die before drawing our pathetic Retirement Pension. Legalise drugs and tax them to the hilt could be a good earner too. In these difficult times they need to maximise tax income overall, not increase taxes and depress sales.
|
AS, so desperate are they now for any revenue - having wrecked the economy - that it would be no surprise at all if they legislated to outlaw the booze cruise, or otherwise made it prohibitively expensive or inconvenient.
On health grounds, naturally.
|
|
|
|
It is clear to me that Liam Donaldson's proposals are logical. It is also clear that G.Brown et al want to be seen defending the rights of the hard-drinking working class (have I got that right?) so that when they grudgingly give in later no-one will blame them for not trying.
Personally my wallet would only be slightly affected by the proposals. But I don't see a better way of targeting binge-drinkers without hitting everyone. It could be argued that provided everyone is aware of the future damage they may be doing themselves, it doesn't really matter how much they drink - as long as they don't drive or pick fights I suppose.
|
I don't know about others here, but I don't think anything I drink (except the occasional risky belt of poteen or native gin) costs less than 50p a unit. Quite a bit more usually.
The stuff whose price is going to be raised will usually be toxic or semi-toxic 'beer' or 'vodka' or 'wine'. Through the stench of sweat and vomit, I smell, er, rising profits.
|
How can reducing the spped limit in rural areas be policed? There are nowhere near enough road patrols for this, and I can't believe they will actually install yet more scameras in the middle of the countryside. Even if they do, it will locals who will vandalise them and it will be weeks if not months before the vandalism is spotted.
What's the point?
Real Muppets in the government would do a better job than these muppets.
|
|
|
|
