Timings.

It would appear the timing of the minimum pricing of alcohol was a little odd. Perhaps they didn't want the main attention over the weekend for the government to be on the granny tax and supporting the very rich.

I don't think Cameron and Osborne really expected quite such negative press, they even reverted to trying to blame the lib dems at one point.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Nobody on this thread has said that the investment by GSK, or more jobs in general, is a bad thing. Regardless of their political stance.

The minimum price announcement was brought forward to Friday for precisely that reason. Yvette Cooper accused Cameron & Gideon of using Theresa May as a human shield to deflect attention away from the budget. Fortunately it appears to have had only a limited mitigating effect and most commentators are still referencing the "granny tax"

Channel 4's Factcheck makes an interesting analysis of rlthe effects of alcohol minimum pricing on healthrl

There were three points raised during the Jeremy Vine show yesterday, and whilst its often "Outraged of The Mail" who calls in to that show I did find myself agreeing with all of them...

1. Beers that are retailed today have a higher alcohol content than, say, 30 years ago, mild beers are non existant outside of individual micro-brewers.

2. 5pm opening and 11pm closing times actually did limit alcohol consumption and while you'd get one in when last orders were called and maybe finish with a spirit, generally speaking there wasn't a culture of getting as much beer down your neck as possible because they are closing at 11pm - borne out by the fact that NO pubs had the need for doormen when I was 30 years old.

3. Alcohol in the home was for polite sipping when your auntie came around and if you were going out on a Saturday it would be early sat evening (not 10pm) and you wouldn't "load up" on wine and spirits BEFORE you went out.


If making alcohol more expensive prevents (3) from happening then maybe it will do some good, (1) and (2) can only be solved by legislation.

We could help by not paying alcoholics extra benefits for being on long term sick, it only goes on more White Lightening, or they move up the quality scale a bit.

It strikes me that the government want the prices to increase due to............................More VAT.
as an example.
20% on a £1 can of beer is 20p
20% on a £2 can of beer is 40p

Why not just charge those who get took to A and E for Alcholic tratment, mainly the weekend town nutters. After all you get charged for an ambulance in a car crash.

Its a slightly different scenario - the car crash ambulance charges are only made because insurers are usually involved and where there is a company accepting liability then there are charges.

In the case of an individuals health choices you could make the same argument for so many extremes and abuses, cigarettes, diet, sports, etc, etc and the counter argument is that we've already paid for the NHS, you can't charge us again for using what we've already insured against (thats why its call National Insurance).

Take that on board mate. Next time Im at the Dentist and Opticians ill tell them Ive paid for the treatment in my NI.

In the case of my waste of space nephew and his fellow alky scrotebag mates, none of them have done a days work in their lives, but have been on expensive rehab treatments and within days are back on the pi$$. He received a nice increase in his benefits not so long back as his consultant said he was never likely to be fit enough to work and the DSS doctor agreed. The last thing he needs is more bloody money to kill himself with.

Theres no way a minimum price imposition for any goods including alcohol would be legal under EU law. It's entirely anti competitive. The only legal way they could increase the price across the board would be imposition of a duty per unit.

They tried that on me when I was injured in an RTA a few years ago. I flat out refused to pay and in the end they gave up.