BBC BLOGS - Nick Robinson's Newslog
« Previous | Main | Next »

Decision time on Britain's booze culture

Nick Robinson | 16:20 UK time, Wednesday, 27 January 2010

It's decision time on Britain's booze culture. Alcohol abuse is costing the country billions of pounds and robbing young people of their lives and their futures.

person drinking beerThe reason, say campaigners, is that it's so cheap. You can buy two litres of cider, equivalent to a bottle of wine, for little more than a pound.

The answer, they say, is to force shops to charge a minimum price for alcohol. The Scottish government has tried and, so far, failed to promote the idea. Labour are examining it. The Tories have argued for minimum pricing for a limited range of super strength drinks.

The problem with the idea, some argue, is that it would punish the moderate majority for the sins of the few and, worse, might not really deal with the problem.

Tonight on Radio 4's Decision Time you can hear something rather extraordinary - Frank Dobson and John Redwood talking as if they were members of the same government about how this idea might or might not make its way through the corridors of power in Whitehall and Westminster

The former health secretary and the former head of the No 10 policy unit discuss, with the businessman who until last year was the head of the government's Better Regulation Executive, the potential obstacles and how to overcome them.

Along with a lobbyist and a fellow political hack we examine the lessons of Holyrood's failure to legislate for minimum pricing.

Decision Time is on Radio 4 at 2000 GMT tonight - 27 January 2010.

PS You will also hear Frank Dobson recall the memorable moment when Tony Blair's chief of staff rang to tell him that Bernie Ecclestone had given Labour £1m at the very time Formula One was to be exempted from the government's ban on tobacco sponsorship.

Comments

Page 1 of 2

  • Comment number 1.

    The booze culture is a symptom and if society just treats the symptom then it will mask it for a time and in certain circumstances. It will not solve the problem.

    Why is there a booze culture? is a good question.

    Why are town planners at liberty to segregate different activities in towns so that you get all the clubs together and all the supermarkets together with no-one living and working within a ten minute walk?

    These thoughts might inform the debate for if living, work, leisure and shopping were all intermixed geographically some of the booze culture simply could not happen.

    Changing the price of booze will do little. Changing the way we live and relate would.

  • Comment number 2.

    As usual in this country the "experts" promote their own agendas without looking anywhere except their navels.
    There are plenty of countries in Europe with cheaper alcohol than we have. Where are the binge fuelled problems in France for example?
    Far better to examine society first, but this would reveal too many home truths for both Labour and Conservative politicians.

  • Comment number 3.

    Why on earth does this government think that the answer to everything is to introduce new laws? There is absolutely no need for new laws to tackle the binge drinking culture. All we need is for the existing ones to be enforced.

    A couple of examples:

    It's already illegal for a pub to serve alcohol to someone who is obviously drunk

    It's already illegal to be drunk and disorderly in a public place.

    Start enforcing the laws we already have, and there is no need for new ones. Simples!

  • Comment number 4.

    Of course minimum pricing will not tackle the problem!!

    It will reduce overall consumption but not from the sectors of the population that cause the problems related to alcohol abuse!

    Scotland drinks 25% per head more than its neighbours but price is the same so obviously, price is not the determining factor!

  • Comment number 5.

    "PS You will also hear Frank Dobson recall the memorable moment when Tony Blair's chief of staff rang to tell him that Bernie Ecclestone had given Labour £1m at the very time Formula One was to be exempted from the government's ban on tobacco sponsorship."

    A moment comparable in its poignancy, one feels, with Alonso being told that Nelson Piquet Jr. had sung like a canary.

    F1 is a sport that goes with the British political class like foxhunting goes with the aristocracy.

  • Comment number 6.

    To solve the booze problem is simple: bring back the Licensing Magistrates with the local police as their agents on the ground.

    Once upon a time if licensed premises required the regular attention of the constabulary then they lost their license. If off-licence premises provided drink to the under-aged then they lost their license also. The police could turn up on any of those premises at any time. To lose your license was commercial suicide.

    There was no binge drinking culture in this country until governments began to discriminate against pubs who actually kept drinking in check and then allowed the supermarkets to sell alcohol to all comers at all hours at prices no public house could compete with.

  • Comment number 7.

    On the main topic, I have tears of emotion welling in my eyes at the thought of the Dobson and Redwood entente-cordiale. I'm putting the BBC up for the Nobel Peace Prize.

    The show sounds like a discussion on how to re-programme the satnav as the runaway car approaches the edge of the cliff.

  • Comment number 8.

    Shame that it took us so long to realise that we drink like Anglo-Saxons and not like Mediterranean people... and that you can't change the habits of a millenium by tinkering with the licensing laws.

  • Comment number 9.

    Ban all supermarkets and corner shops from selling alcohol. Bit drastic I know,but something needs to be done to control it. It is ridiculous that 6 cans of lager can cost less than 6 cans of soft drinks.

  • Comment number 10.

    Minimum pricing will make no difference. The true alcoholic will find the money somehow, and the binge drinker will have 14 instead of 15 pints.

    An end to happy hours and all-u-can-drink promotions does make sense, and I'd also favour health warnings like those on cigarette packets - graphic pictures showing people how their health could be damaged. And display the calorie content in huge letters.


  • Comment number 11.

    Why should responsible drinkers be penalised by a mindless minority who go mad at weekends?

    It is obvious that Blair's "Education, Education, Education" battlecry has fallen on deaf ears, parents have shunned responsibility with the resultant broken society.

    Not only should these individuals be severely dealt with my the Police and Court system so should irresponsible landlords, bar and club owners. Someone is serving these drinks to people who clearly have already had enough. Revoke licenses and penalised those assisting and causing the problem.

  • Comment number 12.

    I'm actually lost for words if they think this would solve a drink problem...

  • Comment number 13.

    We are heading for a tax hike on booze and a "winter sherry payment" for pensioners so they dont loss out and still vote!

  • Comment number 14.

    I would strongly support a minimum price per unit of alcohol.

    We need to stop supermarkets and others selling it so cheaply that too many people can blithely affordably drink irresponsibly.

    We should also encourage people to drink in pubs, i.e. socially, where the publican can also keep a weather eye and stop matters getting out of hand, than privately in the hidden corners of sink estates.

    I would therefore support a higher minimum price for alcohol sold to be consumed privately than that sold in a pub. Who knows, this might even rescue a British tradition and support jobs at the same time?

  • Comment number 15.

    Pathetic.

    How nice and easy it is to create a parity between social disorder and alcoholism.

    This is just another pathetic attempt by Labour to control our lives and further erode our freedoms through control by concern.

    This is exactly how they approached the smoking issue and are pursuing the same agenda now with alcohol - and the sad saps of the UK blindly believe the propoganda that they are being fed.

    I have an old bottle of wine that I have kept for a special occasion, it says this bottle contains 6.5 units of alcohol in it. The same bottle in a supermarket today with exactly the same % proof, now has 14 'UK' Units printed on it.

    Exactly the same tactic was devised with Tar levels on cigarette branding. Next will come the pictures of livers soaked in 100% alcohol to be printed on cans of Lager.

    I am going to open my bottle of wine and celebrate the demise of Labour on the 6th May 2010 and toast the end of the nanny state. I only hope that the Tories don't go down the same purtian route - my fear is that they will.

    Why are these sad 'non-representative'parties the only choice we have?

    Why is smoking and alcohol abuse so important?

    Because our government has thrown £bns at the NHS so that their quangos and consultants can absorb the money and come up with cheaper alternatives to building more hospitals and offering better health care to meet our expanding population.

    Ask yourself this - how many more hospitals have been built under Labour?

    Answer - Net loss of 4 across the UK!

    So instead, we have to work longer hours, suffer greater stress, cope with higher mortgages, care for our own loved ones and then be forced down some guilt trip when we finally get to kick off our shoes and have a small glass at the end of the day.

    And then pay more for the privilege.

    Call a dietician!

  • Comment number 16.

    I'm all in favour of minimum prices.

    The price level they're talking about (50p per unit I think) means it will only effect the budget cheap terrible immitation of alcohol.

    No more whiskey that tastes like paint-stripper, no more wine that tastes like fermented vineger, no more beer corrosive enough to eat it's way through the can if you leave it for a couple of months.

    The cheap stuff will stay (Carling, Bells, Grouse etc..) but the worst budget own-brand will go.

    Don't think of it as a minimum price, more of a minimum quality control threshold.

  • Comment number 17.

    We need to raise tax, so tax it. Preferably in a way to help the producer of traditional (and not too strong) ale.

  • Comment number 18.

    3. At 4:43pm on 27 Jan 2010, DisgustedOfMitcham2 wrote:
    Why on earth does this government think that the answer to everything is to introduce new laws? There is absolutely no need for new laws to tackle the binge drinking culture. All we need is for the existing ones to be enforced.

    A couple of examples:

    It's already illegal for a pub to serve alcohol to someone who is obviously drunk

    It's already illegal to be drunk and disorderly in a public place.

    Start enforcing the laws we already have, and there is no need for new ones. Simples!
    ===============================================

    Spot on. However for the large pub chains that frequently have the daftest promotions, instead of prosecuting the bar manager the authorities should go for the Chief Execs/Chairmen etc. When these sort of people face the possibility of jail time they back down pretty quickly!

    For all the MPs that are lawyers or Queens Counsel their actual knowledge of the law and enforcing it could be written on the back of a postage stamp. Drinking in a public place should be curbed - in west London it is common to see young people drinking a can of beer as it were water or a Coca Cola, at any hour of the day. London's pubs used to close at 10:30 pm now some pubs stay open to 3am as nightclubs Monday through to Sunday!

    Upping the price will simply drive more business to Calais, and you cannot ban that can you? What is more deserving of attention is the alcoholic strength which has increased quite steeply over the last 25 years or so. Beer from 3 percent to 6/7 percent whilst the volume imbibed remains the same; wine from 12 percent to 16 percent etc.

  • Comment number 19.

    another advertorial and nothing political from chilcott to report today

  • Comment number 20.

    whom introduced 24 hrs drinking ? and what effect has that had ?

  • Comment number 21.

    Do the Channel Ferry companies have anything to do with this idea?

    They must be lobbying very hard for minimum pricing as it is the one sure-fire way to reintroduce the value of the cross-channel "cheap booze trips"

    ..... best I get myself a few discounted ferry tickets in advance of the ferry ticket price rises!

  • Comment number 22.

    The bit that made me laugh was where Nick mentions a "fellow political hack". I've heard of not doing yourself down, but, if the cap fits...

    Anyway.

    Back on topic. Its a combination of two things. Cultural - the original intention to imitate the french/italian cafe style society was laudable, but unfortunately, it didnt take into account the people who would take advantage of such a move. Culturally, the italians and the french have a different attitude to booze that the Brits, unfortunately dont. Secondly, following on from the first point, the law of unintended consequences... the ones who have taken the biggest hit, who have been indulging in the binge drinking that has had the effect that it has, have been the underclass.

    And, as the underclass has burgeoned under New Labour, as social mobility has gone down, more economically inactive, where do you think most of this supermarket high strength stuff has gone? Into Middle England?

    Nope.

    The underclass.

    Taxing it to the max wont change it, as they have found out with cigarettes, it just means the booze cruises will come back and there will be problems with smuggling. The only answer is education and as a previous contributor has said, enforcing the laws you've already got. Cultural change is going to be much much slower, if it ever happens.

  • Comment number 23.

    Is this not just another example of the Broken Society

  • Comment number 24.

    Amazing how Labour IN Scot opposes minimum pricing and Labour outwith PROPOSES minimum pricing. Will minimum pricing FIX it? Of course not but it is certainly a step in the right direction.

  • Comment number 25.

    A minimum price for alcohol... sounds more practical than 24hr drinking licences. What was the thinking behind that? Oh yes, we'll become a café society.
    Another reason why I can't take this government too seriously.


    PS.
    That was his first big pork pie, wasn't it?

  • Comment number 26.

    The government is concerned about the well-being of its citizens!!! What that really means is that the government is short of funds and is looking for any place to increase a tax. Let's ban all motor vehicles and save lives and prevent injuries and clean up the air....or as the government would view..raise taxes on motor vehicles. People wash themsevles too much, tax water and soap....it is all for the well-being of the people you understand. We wouldn't want to tax the bankers as they have been reduced in bonuses to a mere million per year, it wouldn't be good for the people, even though the bankers have done more harm than drink and may be the cause of why people are turning to drink..that and the governments inept attempts to do anything about the economy...but they did save the banks...nothing else.

  • Comment number 27.

    #24

    Labour in Scotland only oppose minimum pricing because it was the SNP's idea.

    BTW - I see the SNP have succeeded in bringing in new laws to end the open display of tobacco in shops in Scotland, banned cigarette vending machines and introduce a registration scheme for retailers.

    That's excellent news.

  • Comment number 28.

    sircomespect @ 15

    "Why is smoking and alcohol abuse so important?"

    A good question, Sir ... a philosophical question, no less. Why is anything important? Beats me.

    Hey, but don't open that "special" bottle of yours on 6th May. You'll just be toasting the final episode of The Bill, or something. You need to control yourself for a while longer. Not long ... another 28 days.

  • Comment number 29.

    Once again, the many will be penalised to pay for the misdemeanours of the few. It's like banning wallets so the dippers can't pick your pocket.How about just doing something about the drunken trash that cause the problem ? Empty their pockets when they overdo the booze so they can't afford the indulgence for a week or two. Put them in holding tanks to sober up and let them pay for the privilege of being kept in a safe place over the weekend. No doubt this would infringe their rights, and god forbid this should happen!

  • Comment number 30.

    I prefer tax to minimum pricing - but I like neither. I agree with Bill that it's a cultural thing, but I DON'T agree it's confined to - dislike the word - the underclass. When someone says that, they mean "chavs" and it's "Stereotype City, Here We Come!". Plenty of unpleasant, out of control, binge drinking in the City - can tell you that from personal experience. Of observing it, I mean, before you say anything! Plenty of binge drinking amongst many different types of people. All income groups, all classes, both genders, all ages. The over 8s and the under 80s, anyway. Only common link is that they're all White British. In this country, I mean. In Spain and Greece too, come to think of it. But not in Finland or Russia. They have a lot of binge drinking, and that's not the Brits. Further research required. My hunch, for what it's worth, is it's something to do with Instant Gratification (need for). That - and allied to it, the Get Rich Quick ethos - is the root of many of our ills. But let's not get too down about it. Our ills are far outweighed by our blessings & qualities. Last point ... 24 Hour drinking, forget this as being any big part of the problem - red herring. We don't have 24 hour drinking, not in practice. The current (liberalised) system is fine, no need to reverse it.

  • Comment number 31.

    Robinson tells us that the Scottish Government (at least he got the name right this time) has failed to ,"promote," the idea of minimum pricing.

    Given that the heads of every health board in Scotland, the police, the BMA and even Tennants brewery all support the scheme it is not the promotion that is at fault.
    Rather it is the hypocrisy of the unionist parties who all oppose the scheme while their parties at westminster just produced a report supporting minimum pricing.

    Also the BBBC in Scotland is running its own propaganda exercise. Witness the Buckfast shockumentary last week.



  • Comment number 32.

    Perry is right to point to the cultural differences between the British and Continental attitudes to alcohol. It is completely acceptable for British men and (more recently) women to talk proudly about how drunk they have been, or plan to get. It isn't the same in most other countries.

    The introduction of 24-hour licencing was an attempt to shift our drinking culture towards the European model, and prevent the rapid binge drinking which tended to happen just before time was called at 11pm. Also, for the sake of policing, they wanted to avoid the uniform kicking-out time. It was probably worth a try, and it would seem odd to return to stricter licencing laws now.

    I think different tactics are needed to tackle different aspects of the problem.

    Minimum pricing obviously makes sense. Beer can be cheaper than water in some supermarkets. A lot of young people drink large quantities of cheap alcohol before going out, so are paralytic by late evening.

    Pubs and bars should refuse to serve people who appear drunk. They don't, mainly because it is socially acceptable - a bit of a laugh in fact - to be drunk. But it often turns violent after kicking-out time. Why not make pubs and bars responsible for footing the policing bill in those parts of town? That would sharpen their minds.

    There is a role for education and advertising. It can change attitudes. It made a difference with smoking and drink-driving.

    Special offers based on increased consumption should be banned - so 'buy 12 for the price of 6' in a supermarket or 'three cocktails for the price of two' at a bar. I'd also do away with happy hours as these encourage people to drink faster and earlier.

    Parents should stop their teenage children getting drunk.

  • Comment number 33.

    Tonight's discussion appears to be just another self-important pontification by an assembly of the 'usual suspects,' although what relevance Frank 'what's-is-name' has to today's political arena eacapes me.

    However, to cut to the chase, the four essential elements necessary to rid ourselves of today's binge and alcohol-obsessed culture are as follows:

    1 Ban 24-hour licensing - revert to the 11.0pm closing time and 10.30 on Sundays. Afternoon alcohol sales to be available only to restaurant diners.

    2 Minimum age to buy alcohol 'off-sales' (ie. supermarkets) to be 21 with defaulters losing their alcohol sales licence.

    3 Mimimum unit price of alcohol to be set at poimt of sale.

    4 Mandatory custodial sentence for anyone found guilty of a public order offence where the excess consumption of alcohol is a found to be acontributory factor.

    Any government brave and sensible enough to introduce the above would largely solve the problem overnight but, of course, most administrations are seriously in hock to the booze lobby and would never dare risk the benefit of their connections. In the meantime, the rest of us have to bear the burden of extra costs in terms of policing, additional NHS expenditure, the Courts, family deterioration and the overall negative effects on Britain's social and cultural life.

  • Comment number 34.

    Hiking prices on cigarettes has actually worked well on cutting smoking in general - why wont it work for booze?

    I am a non drinker and am horrified by the way heavy drinking is lionised in this country as being somehow 'fun'. How about some role models who can have 'fun' without getting smashed?

    Sorry - silly suggestion.

  • Comment number 35.

    Yet again another debate about minimum pricing. Minimum pricing won't happen for the simple reason that it's illegal under EU law - article 28 of the (EC) Treaty.

    Please, when are the MSM and politicians going to start being honest with us and tell us straight that the EU dictates that this policy can never happen?

  • Comment number 36.

    32 pd65

    I blame the system not the youth, coming fom the 70's era of students who firstly did not have the means to support a drink habit and secondly were restrained to pubs closing at 10.30 and the infrequent weekend club, I would say we got away lightly. We were no better than today's youth we just had fewer options.

    This appears to be a north european problem - the simplistic answer is to limit the opening hours but I would guess that boat has sailed.

  • Comment number 37.

    OK, so you want sobriety...

    Recipe:

    1. No low lighting levels in bars - bright lights only using a single bright bulb per room.

    2. No music at all.

    3. No singing/dancing or raised voices - all patrons to remain seated unless entering/leaving or going to and from the loo.

    4. Waitress/waiter Service only.

    5. Serve all alcohol in only very small measures - one to be ordered at a time for each person in a party no more than three orders per hour and only then with food.

    I think that should unglamorourise booze sufficiently!

    Of course, you would bankrupt pubs and bars, but hey what is breaking a few eggs to enforce sobriety!!!!! But the streets of our cities would be entirely empty of drunken yobs and yobesses.

    They would just be lying in the gutters outside their homes instead!!!

  • Comment number 38.

    So that's it on binge drinking, is it? Clearly not a topic that floats too many boats. Was expecting far more blaming it on Gordon Brown ... Broken Britain type stuff ... but instead of that we get a raft of (on the whole) sensible and very sober sounding proposals. Which is appropriate, I suppose.

  • Comment number 39.

    I wager that many voted to join the Common Market as it was then for cheep booze and fags.

    What have we never got ? Cheap booze and fags.

    Even worse, despite being threatened with all kinds of penalties by the European Commission our Customs still persist in penalizing those who bring cheap booze and Tobacco from over the water.

    I am with the many above who say sort out the miscreants by using the already adequate law and do not make already vastly overpriced products, due to tax, even more expensive for the majority who do not abuse it.

  • Comment number 40.

    31 July 1869, Charles Dicken's published a work containing his comment on the Temperance Societies attempting to ban alcohol.

    "Since some abuse, none shall use"

    he wasn't in favour, obviously.

  • Comment number 41.

    The problem with alcoholic drinks is the amount of alcohol contained within them because that is what has the adverse effects on drinkers.

    Increasing the price does not deter hardened drinkers, who will find some way to get their alcohol.

    To reduce the harmful effects of alcoholic drinks you have to either reduce the amount of drinks consumed or reduce its availability, which also has an adverse knock on effect to brewers, pubs, off-licenses etc through reduced sales or reduce the amount of alcohol in drinks.

    You can get rid of binge drinking by imposing massive £1000 fines for being drunk and disorderly in the street, with the fine being incremented for every subsequent offence and if necessary by compulsory attendence at Alcoholics Anonymous, rehab or short-term imprisonment.

    Given the technology today it should be possible to create so-called alcoholic drinks with all the taste and flavour of the best beers etc but without the alcoholic content.

    In that way social drinkers and binge drinkers alike can enjoy a drink without the harmful side-effects to their health or indeed to the health of others such as the victims of drink driving or those affected by anti-social behaviour.

  • Comment number 42.

    #28 Saga

    Another 28 Days!!?? - Oh please don't say that, I feel as if I have the Sword of Damocles hanging over me!

    What will be my fate? lack lustre Tories or Lord Helmet Brown and his thought police?

    What a choice!

    Almost makes me want to turn to drink.

  • Comment number 43.

    Tun @ 39

    "I wager that many voted to join the Common Market as it was then for cheap booze and fags."

    What, you think it was more that - cheap beer & ciggies - than anything to do with playing our part in the creation of a unified Europe based on common values of liberal democracy, social justice and freedom of the individual?

  • Comment number 44.

    'spect @ 42

    "Lord Helmet Brown"

    You'll miss him when he's gone.

    Always the way.

  • Comment number 45.

    43#

    "What, you think it was more that - cheap beer & ciggies - than anything to do with playing our part in the creation of a unified Europe based on common values of liberal democracy, social justice and freedom of the individual?"

    Thats just the spin. When the UK joined it was the EEC - the European Economic Community. So yes, the initial emphasis was on trade.

    Nothing about federalism or shared values of social justice and all that twaddle. It was meant to stop France and Germany ever going to war again for one thing.

    Then the apparatchiks knew a gravy train when they saw one....

    Miss Brown when he's gone? In the same way I miss the Ayatollah Khomeini, Pol Pot and Iron Feliks Dzerzhinsky. Not in the slightest.

  • Comment number 46.

    43 & 44 sagamix,

    brightened up my morning! It's the way you tell 'em!

    In return I'll brightenup yours,


    "I blame Brown for turning us all to drink"

  • Comment number 47.

    as this programme was trialered by a advertotial by NR i did indeed
    listen.

    what I got from this was not so much a debate on the binge drinking solution but about Frank dobson, a nice man like that Frank field, and the choas at the centre of governement for the last 13 years where decent labour MP's have been trappelled on by a few. Were is there backbone to get ride of the NU_labour rubbish

    if labour had more like him than brown and blair and balls and harman I might vote for them (sagamix chokes on his cornfalkes ) , he oppossed the 24 drinking laws

  • Comment number 48.

    DA @ 46

    :-) - if we all went around brightening up each other's morning, imagine how incredibly bright all of our mornings would be - the world would be a far better place, wouldn't it?

  • Comment number 49.

    To help combat the booze culture why not as follows.
    1,Raise the minimum drinking age to 21 for starters.
    2,Ban the sale of alcohol in supermarkets and corner stores and confine the outlets to liqour stores,or the old style off licences.
    3,Remove the 24 hour drinking licences.
    4,Increase the fines for drunk and disorderly conduct.
    5,Charge drunk people for the cost of calling an ambulance and the cost of any medical attention,also charge them for the cost of the police's time in dealing with drunk people.
    6,Mandatory 3 year ban for drunk drivers and re taking of the driving test.
    7,Legalise cannabis.
    8,Place a tax on the cannabis to compensate for the lost revenues from alcohol.
    9.As the number of alcohol users decline and the number of cannabis users increase,reduce the numbers of police used in controlling drunken behaviour as there wont be any police called out to cannabis related incidents.
    10,Wake me up from my dream.

  • Comment number 50.

    While I have no personal objections to "minimum pricing" it can only work if people - specifically those determined or prone to binge drink - buy less of the stuff, which in turn will reduce the amount of money going into government coffers. Given that these appear to have developed an alarming leak resulting in a serious debt problem any action that reduces the flow of money into the Treasury seems improbable at best. As others have pointed out there are existing laws that can be and should be applied with rigour; come to think about it they should be applied irrespective of the actual price paid for the alcohol that stirred up any trouble in the first place.

    And where applicable a bill for running repairs at the local A & E might make some think twice about repeating the exercise.

  • Comment number 51.

    The scale of the problem (as some have already posted there has always been a problem so it's a question of how big we allow the problem to become) has been exacerbated by:

    (1) 24 hour licensing and the associated drink promotions aimed at getting the footflow needed to pay the increased overheads of staying open longer

    (2) Supermarkets using booze as a loss leader - again as a wheeze to increase footflow

    The solution is simple if you buy into my reasoning: reduce licencing hours and prohibit drink promotions.

    We should also increase the tax on booze to help defray the policing and NHS costs associated with the booze culture.

    For the record, I await the sun going over the yardarm as much as the next man - but I'm willing to pay the cost of getting the drunken yobs off the streets.

  • Comment number 52.

    @46

    Not to mention the effect on global warming...

  • Comment number 53.

    "Alcohol abuse is costing the country billions of pounds and robbing young people of their lives and their futures."

    What a fatuous statement. Try replacing the word Alcohol with the word Monetary. It works just as well.

  • Comment number 54.

    41. newshounduk

    "Given the technology today it should be possible to create so-called alcoholic drinks with all the taste and flavour of the best beers etc but without the alcoholic content.

    In that way social drinkers and binge drinkers alike can enjoy a drink without the harmful side-effects to their health or indeed to the health of others such as the victims of drink driving or those affected by anti-social behaviour."


    Binge drinkers set out to get hammered. It's just not about the enjoyment of a few drinks. I agree with some posters that the consequences should be made more sobering. Perhaps compulsory street clean-ups, cleaning out public toilets and A&E wards, etc. for public disorder offenders. (Redecorate your home, not public spaces) It requires a real effort from those who profit from drunkeness for things to change.

  • Comment number 55.

    The newlabour apologists have gone very quiet about the 'British Social Attitudes Survey' ... described in the Guardian this morning as like 'walking through a David Cameron dreamscape'.

    Basically we've turned tory. For the first time in twenty years those who believe themselves to be conservative outnumber those who believe themselves to be labour.

    Bad news for Harriet Harman too. Only 38% believe in a more equal society down from 51% in 1994 and despite the fact that we have become even more unequal under newlabour. We appear to quite like it.

    So it seems no surprise at all tha newlabour is picking a fresh minority interest per day to try and prize their way back into our affections; an equality agenda today; a trip abroad tomorrow, all a last minute dash to identify themselves with something successful. All to no end as the nation has turned tory.

    It also goes some way to explaining why the newlabour apologists on these posts have decided to turn all reasonable recently. Like, I'm prepared to listen to yoru argument for a short while rather than blether on about 'the right thing to do'.. like 'I'm one of a team not a team of one' from the Dear Leader... Of course, none of it will work, it's far too late and the public have made their minds up before the election begins.

    We're all tory now.

    So let's call that election please.

  • Comment number 56.

    Angel_in_Transit @ 53: Not sure what you are trying to say here; two wrongs make a right, maybe? Or that the damage caused by monetary abuse is so great that alcohol abuse doesn't matter?

    You might not like the comment upon which you remarked but that does not make it "fatuous".

  • Comment number 57.

    First they came for the smokers, and I did not speak out—because I was not a smoker;
    Then they came for the drinkers, and I did not speak out—because I was not a drinker;
    Then they came for the obese, and I did not speak out—because I was not obese;
    Then they came for me—but I was such a docile, boring goody-two-shoes they just patted me on the head and went after anybody who was left that appeared to be actually enjoying themselves.

  • Comment number 58.

    Forgot to add the most wonderful quote from the article about British socail attitudes survey...

    "Never mind the stats for the minute, the overall point is that Labour is toast"

    In the Guardian? Laugh? I nearly cried.

    Come on the tory cuts, we're all tories now.

    Call an election

  • Comment number 59.

    It isn't so much the booze culture, but how it is dealt with. Please don't penalise us 'normal' people, whatever that is!
    My stepfather was an alcoholic and died. We couldn't get him any treatment (a drug addict is afforded more assistance and what they do is illegal!!)...after numerous hospital overnight stays with no more than a fortifying vitamin injection he was released into society again. We recommended sectioning him for enforced therapy, but they wouldn't do it. Until GPs have a better, more proactive stance this will always be the case. It is a disease, and should be better treated, not hiking prices as that will not help - believe me.

  • Comment number 60.

    They say there's 24hr drinking in the UK but that's simply not true. There are 2 issues here, the availability of absurdly cheap alcohol from supermarkets and the methods of kicking people out of pubs at closing time. The length of time between last orders and kicking out should be extended to a period long enough to drink a pint without being given the choice of "neck it or lose it" and kicking out from adjacent pubs should be staggered. The biggest pub in my town has a preponderance of absurdly young looking people drinking in it and I am personally aquainted with 3 people who have been stabbed outside it, 2 of whom don't drink at all. There may be a racial explanation for it, but coincidence? I don't think so.

  • Comment number 61.

    Oh please can we all try to help with this extreme problem of alcohol. It's not just the immediate damage of illness, death and violence but "accidents" caused by the tipsy or downright sozzled, emotional violence inflicted on families - children abused this way suffer long term, indeed everyone who comes in contact with a drinker, who typically is not proccessing emotion but repressing everything by numbing the heart with drink, is being hurt to some extent. I cried for years after stopping drinking. We do it out of fear, social unease, pain, terror, horror at this world of cruelty we grow up in. Oh of course it was meant to just be "fun" at first - they laugh about drunkeness and say it's good for you. They lie.

  • Comment number 62.

    #57 they came for the father too, but we put on the lyrca but nobody would listen but FUBAR_SNAFU_NU_LIEBOUR saw us as threat, so they sent us to gail in politcal show trails.

    does this remind you of anywhere last century


    like 1930 germany and another dear leader that new it all

  • Comment number 63.

    My solution would be to simply charge those who use the health and legal systems while drunk for the cost to society. Get drunk, get in a fight and get arrested: you get charged for police time, tests, and the time spent in the cells. Fall over and hurt yourself: get charged for the cost of treatment. That way the moderate drinkers don't have to worry about having to pay for the raucous few and those who binge drink and cause a cost to society have to cover it themselves. As someone who's had to wait in A&E on a Friday night with a seriously ill family member (with a potentially fatal condition, it later turned out) because idiotic drunks kept coming in after falling over or punching glass doors, I have zero sympathy for anyone who injures themselves while drunk.

  • Comment number 64.

    In the nearest city to where I live the Labour controlled council took a decision to develop a "night time economy". There are now around 360 pubs, clubs and other outfits serving booze well into the night. The bright sparks that took this decision then wonder why there is a problem with both drunks and druggies.

  • Comment number 65.

    I like a drink as much as the next man.




    Particularly if the next man is Willie Hague.

  • Comment number 66.

    Been said elsewhere we don't need more legislation. There is too much poorly drafted legislation already. Enforce the laws we have that is all.

    The powers that be could also do with using some thought and planning. Instead of nearly policemen wandering the streets let's have real ones please.

    Was in Ealing yesterday at about 13.30 and saw 7 PCSO's or whatever they are called all standing outside a shop. Walked 100yds and there was the Police Station. All hanging about to go and knock off. Must be the same from about 21.30 until say 22.30. Closing time is not far away.

    So at a guess that from around 21.00 till 23.30 time there will not be a lot of PCSO's on the street. We know there are few enough policement. Drunken behaiour can be described as an accident waiting to happen.

  • Comment number 67.

    @55 & 58

    Well, if we are ALL tories, we don't need an election do we? The King is dead, long live the King, and all that.

  • Comment number 68.

    67.

    Ha ha.. but we do because the Dear Leader has yet to be deposed.

    Call an election

  • Comment number 69.

    Wasn't the proposal to have minimum pricing driven by health concerns? Most alcohol abuse in terms of having a long term detrimental affect on the body is taking place at home drinking cheap booze from the supermarket. I'm fully in favour of minimum pricing to moderate the amount of alcohol consumption for health reasons alone.

    Another and more selfish reason for backing minimum pricing is that I like to do my drinking away from my house in the pub. This might be the only thing that can stop pubs closing at their current rate.

    Drinking at home is a much easier route into alcoholism than going to the pub in full public view.

  • Comment number 70.

    #68

    Then you countenance treason? You devil!

    Call Guy Fawkes, that is what I say....

  • Comment number 71.

    rr7 @ 55

    "Only 38% believe in a more equal society down from 51% in 1994 and despite the fact that we have become even more unequal under newlabour. We appear to quite like it."

    Speak for yourself, Robin. Only thing those numbers show is that support for Labour is lower than it was in 94 - when Blair had just burst on the scene. The correlation between liking Labour and belief in a fairer society is positive and almost total. The fact that they've have disappointed - rather badly - on this illustrates what a tough nut it is to crack, here in the age of rampant global capitalism. This will start to change in the light of the banking meltdown. Change for the better. The Tories are set dead against the prevailing wind - they may luck in on June 3rd (we'll see) but it'll be a one term gig, with the crowd leaving early and demanding their money back. Then no more comebacks for this group - The Dinosaurs - no more dragging the old bones back out on the Road. Be a relief for them, in many ways, if they're honest.

  • Comment number 72.

    Robin

    I don't want to spoil the party, but it seems pretty obvious to me that we're only 'all Tory' now because David Cameron is New Labour through and through.

    That's why you don't like him. Remember?

  • Comment number 73.

    poprishchin @ 57

    That's quite funny ... gets a :-)

    coats @ 52

    "Not to mention the effect on global warming ..."

    Best not mention that on the AN blog!

  • Comment number 74.

    I certainly agree that a large part of Europe has cheaper alcohol than we do. They also do not have the alcohol abuse that we do. Frenace has had its problems in times gone by, but they appear to be long gone.

    I put the blame firmly on the alcohol sales outlets. When I was of an age to go out drinking in earnest, publicans would not serve you if you were drunk. If you were roudy and drunk then you would be sent out of the pub. A publican could lose his license for serving obviously drunk customers. As far as I am aware the licensing rules are still the same.

    One of the trends responsible for these problems is that pubs are increasingly owned by large chains with managers that are business mabagers rather than proper publicans. A traditional publican would not risk his license by having happy hopur and low price promotions that cause over drinking. The government needs to lean on these large pub companies and get a more community friendly business model.

    It is also an offence to be drunk in a public place. What has happened to that particular law? Serving alcohol to underage customers is also a problem, whether it is in a pub or in a shop. The penalties for committing such an offence need to be severe.

    We have adequate laws to cope with the problems already. Why can't we enforce them?

  • Comment number 75.

    PD @ 72

    Gotcha ... you said you were off to "do some work" but you've just flipped blogs!

  • Comment number 76.

    53. At 10:47am on 28 Jan 2010, Angel_in_Transit wrote:
    "Alcohol abuse is costing the country billions of pounds and robbing young people of their lives and their futures."

    What a fatuous statement. Try replacing the word Alcohol with the word Monetary. It works just as well.

    =====================================================================

    Go back 50 years or so, and replace the word Alcohol with Self. It works just as well.

  • Comment number 77.

    sagamix

    Newlabour is toast... not my comment. the Guardian's.

  • Comment number 78.

    Minimum pricing will not put anybody off, see the numbers of young people with fags for a classic example. Let's not be fooled, it's a tax issue, just not as stealthy as the usual ones. Why not ban cheap cars, that way only big ones (therefore safer and not available to those on limited means) in lesser numbers will be on the roads, obviously saving lives and NHS costs.
    Another example of the cretinous metropolitan (Islington) mindset being rolled out to the rest of the country. Yes, so pubs are open longer. Good, I don't like being kicked out into the cold just because world war 1 workers were needed in the munitions factories. One of the few good things the government has done in many years.
    Where are the police who have all the neccessary power they need to stop anti-social behaviour? And also don't forget that vast sums are already paid in tax and duty on alcohol, never mind the thousands of jobs it sustains. Way more than enough to pay for the medical costs and such.
    If I really want to drink cheap booze till it kills me then no amount of nannying by the state will change me, probably quite the opposite.
    In northern europe we never had and never will have a cafe culture, it seems to have something to do with the weather, give me a warming drink over overpriced frothy 'coffee' any day. Plus we have a tradition of working during the day.
    As another poster said, time to get ready for the booze cruises to start again. Funny how I don't trip over hordes of drunken French in the gutter with their cheap booze in Calais?

  • Comment number 79.

    Perhaps if we could get rid of this illegal-war mongering, morally corrupt, class-obsessed, over-taxing, self-interested, dishonest, sorry excuse for a government, people wouldn't want to drink so much!

    Simples.

  • Comment number 80.

    All you moaning Minnies who think that all our drink problems belong to the Lower classes and as such would be affected by minimum pricing should read this on the BBC health pages

    https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8485122.stm

    Consumption is falling already!!

    The worst offenders are the middle income earners not those chavs on benefits you usually decry!!

    Problem has been blown out of all proportion by the media, as per usual!!

  • Comment number 81.

    @ 77

    Yes Robin, as I keep telling you, a shift Left and then another 25 years - after the possible brief distraction (2010 to 2012?) of an out of time, out of its depth Conservative Administration. The last one.

  • Comment number 82.

    It is common sense.

    Firstly, there is an excess - yes EXCESS - of disposable income which allows people to OD on not only booze but food (look at the obesity around us compared to the 40s 50s and 60s.

    Actually making booze more expensive won't work. They will find the money somehow, possibly by cutting out on more important things like a good diet.

    If an age of austerity is to come that should do it.

    However, coupled with less disposable income there needs to be a rise in self esteem. Self esteem has plummeted since all the mothers have gone out to work putting the children second and many of the dads (if indeed they were around anyway) have gone off radar.

    The greatest gift parents can give to their children is their TIME. Time is worth far more than money - and it works, it never fails when the parent decides to put other things aside and give the child their undivided attention on a regular basis making the child feel valued.

    So, austerity, parent actually addressing their responsibilities for a chnage and also if and when they go to university those establishments should not actively ENCOURAGE them to get legless almost for free.

    Universities have got a lot to answer for and nobody EVER mentions them now do they?

    Where there is a genuine alcoholic - usually an older drinker - it is a sad fact that the problem, like depression, runs in their blood families. Therefore identifying and connecting these facts would be forewarned and forearmed for those who are going to have to help these people.

  • Comment number 83.

    @ 80

    "The worst offenders are the middle income earners not those chavs on benefits you usually decry!"

    "Chavs" - just a stereotype, isn't it? Not helpful.

  • Comment number 84.

    If New Labour is toast and the Tories are last year's inedible sandwich, does that mean that the Guardian is backing the Lib Dems, yet again?

  • Comment number 85.

    Robin @ 55 wrote:
    So it seems no surprise at all tha newlabour is picking a fresh minority interest per day to try and prize their way back into our affections; an equality agenda today; a trip abroad tomorrow


    >>

    When I wrote 72, I hadn't seen the report in the Guardian about the importance of teaching gay equality in schools. Another pathetic attempt by New Labour to prise their way back etc etc? No, it was a set-piece speech by David Cameron.

    I wonder where he'll go for his trip abroad tomorrow.

    Perhaps the new labour song has ended, but the melody lingers on. Blair's legacy that, shifting the whole debate to the centre.

  • Comment number 86.

    I have just noticed some new figures on alcohol related deaths within the U.K,up from roughly 8000 to just over 9000,what a load of rubbish,who on earth is supplying these figures,the drinks industry? or do these figures relate to what is entered in the cause of death section on the death certificate.
    My father in law,after a 3 day drinking binge died when his lungs filled with fluid,cause of death was not listed as alcohol related...my ex wife,following 40 years of drinking developed cancer in her neck,cause of death was not listed as alcohol related..my ex brother in law died from loss of blood due to a vein in his neck bursting following years of drinking,cause of death on the death certificate was listed as alcoholism,my ex sister in law insisted this was changed to heart failure so as not to upset the kids.
    And that's just 3 cases I have the time to list,I was told that almost half the people in hospitals are there with alcohol related illnesses and more than half of the police's time is taken up with alcohol related incidents.
    The alcohol related deaths in this country are closer to 100,000 and probably much higher than that if the truth was known.
    And by the way,deaths from smoking cannabis are still static at ..zero.

  • Comment number 87.

    Why is it that the beer in, say, Belgium is much stronger than the beer in Britain, but there's much less of a problem of drunkenness there?

    Is it that the Brits have a dominant aggression gene?

  • Comment number 88.

    pdavies...

    Er... and Thatcher's legacay was newlabour. Check mate.

    Call an election

  • Comment number 89.

    Anything aimed at controlling behaviour makes me extremely uncomfortable. It is not the right of any man to tell me how I want to abuse my health.

    Laws should be there insofar as they are needed to protect 3rd persons. Arrest drunk and dissorderly's, restric their ability to buy alcohol by all means. But the person quietly drinking too much by himself should be left to get on with it.

  • Comment number 90.

    # 83 Sagamix
    "Chavs" - just a stereotype, isn't it? Not helpful.

    I agree entirely.

    It is offencive to me but it is a term understood and used by the Little Englanders on HYS and according to them "the Chavs" are the cause of all the UKs problems!

    Not according to that link they're not!

  • Comment number 91.

    The problem with booze is that for a while it tends to make you gain weight, and then, when your liver starts to collapse, your weight may go either way - bit like too much processed food really. So is the real villain of the piece all those corporates with huge disposable incomes to lavish on advertisements for our life style choices?

    I worry about the many otherwise decent law abiding (with disposable incomes) who choose cocaine as their poison too. We seem to have a penchant in this country for spoiling things that can be fun. Having a bit of extra cash can be fun, but it makes life pretty darned boring if you have it all the time. I think Confucius may have first noted that, or was it Aristotle, or some other philosophical nerd?

  • Comment number 92.

    DisgustedOfMitcham2 wrote:
    "Start enforcing the laws we already have, and there is no need for new ones. Simples!"

    Another good post DOM2, I couldn't agree more.

    I just don't see the point of creating new laws when we fail to enforce the ones we already have, unfortunately the UK government (regardless of the party in power) seems to think the only solutions to our problems is to create new laws that punish the majority for the actions of a tiny minority.

  • Comment number 93.

    Robin @ 88

    Adding "checkmate" to your own points? Always a bit of a last resort, don't you think?

    There are parallels between Thatcher and Blair in terms of leadership style - notably a contempt for consensus. But broadly speaking, it's Blair's political parameters that have prevailed.

    Which means that, as a Blairite, I'd view a Cameron victory as a disappointing result but not a disaster.

    A bit like the Reserves beating the First Team.

  • Comment number 94.

    I have to ask myself how has our Alcohol drinking habits changed over around the last 100 Years, for my late Father started Work at 14 Years of Age in 1920 Working for Whitbreads in South London, and needless to say my Mother also Worked for a rival Brewery upon leaving School also at 14.

    My Father once told me that back in those Days [ when there was upon the Market Real Ale to drink, and not all the Chemical rubbish that we all seem to be drinking these Days ], for during my Fathers working Day he would deliver Ales in both North and South London using a team of Shire Horses to transport the Goods [ Mainly - Cooper Barrels, and Caskets.].

    During my Fathers visit at each Pub/Tavern the Landlords of these establishments would offer the Draymen a Pint on the House, as this was standard practise, therefore on a good Day my Father while he was working would consume anything from 8 to 10 Pints of Ale BOTH Day in and Day out, but remember here that my Father like many other Brewery Draymen were only about 14 Years in Age.

    Now however, down the Years todate along with the rubbish Chemical Beer that we are ALL drinking these Days laced with Alcohol of many strengths, the Age of Drinking in Pubs has risen to 18 Yrs of Age, and perhap if the do-gooders get their way to will rise yet further to 21 Yrs of Age.

    I suppose you can follow the trend in Alcohol constumption in line with the Age that "Children" these Days leave Education [ or, should that be the lack of Education ], whereby by stepping - up both the School leaving Age, and the drinking Age limit in Pubs does this make our younger Generation "Act" more responsible for their Age.

    Clearly, the Answer to this Question appears to be - NO.

    So therefore, Firstly - Why have we moved the Age of responsibility over the past 100 Years for Drinkers from 14 - 18, and what might well soon be 21 Years of Age.

    And secondly, Why do our Younger Generation today allow themselves to get completely slooshed-out on the Chemical rubbish, that they today call Beer?

    And Oh' Yes - My Father lived to 83 Years of Age, and NO before anyone ask, he DID NOT finally Die from any Alcohol related Illness'.

  • Comment number 95.

    84

    the Guardian has realised that the party it backs has ruined the economy, is speaking a language no-one understands anymore, has done nothing to improve public services at enormous expense and has become an embarrasment to itself. Obsessing on minority issues and governemnt by hand out it fails to lead and fails to govern.

    Just like the tory press deserted the Major government of the nineties because of his dismal failures, they fear that worse will be revealed once newlabour are ejected from office as it always is. Think of John Major's 'Back to basics' relaunch which could have been renamed 'Back to Edwina's' had only we known at the time.

    Time for newlabour to pack their bags.

    Call an election

  • Comment number 96.

    losticini wrote:
    "F1 is a sport that goes with the British political class like foxhunting goes with the aristocracy."

    That's a rather sweeping statement.
    Max Mosley, the previous President of the FIA, may be the son of the infamous Oswald Mosley but that's about it as far as modern F1 is concerned.
    Almost everyone else involved in the sport during the last 20-30 years has come from relatively modest backgrounds with few, if any political association. Even Bernie Ecclestone is the son of a trawler man, last time I checked that doesn't make you part of the political class and with the exception of his activities relating to F1 he doesn't really get involved with politics.

    Go to the British GP and you'll find people from every part of our society who are passionate F1 fans, look inside the teams and you find that most of the employees come from working class backgrounds and have come into the sport through engineering, design & IT.

    Your point may have been true 20 or 30 years ago but it isn't today. Most people within F1 these days are far too focused on the sports internal politics to get involved with real politics, other than where it directly affects the sport.

  • Comment number 97.

    #86

    Indeed you have a point that in many cases alchol is not directly noted as a contributory cause or even the main one in chronic illnesses.
    I can also give examples of a parental friend who was an longtime alcholic but commited suicide in the end, alcohol was directly linked but certificate says other.
    Alcohol in many cases is far more dangerous than believed and responsible for more lost time at work and illness than is accounted for.

    However in the same deaths where cannabis is contributory are also not recorded e.g. where it can be related to smoking related diseases such as cancer, suicides related to mental health triggered in susceptible people which can be linked to cannabis. It may not be as generally dangerous as drink but it is not 100% safe as you imply - people are different and whilst its a cliche - one mans meat really is anothers poison.
    There is a report in New Scientist you should read if you haven;t already from last weeks issue.

  • Comment number 98.

    Action plan for drinking problems:

    1. Build large "holding centres" consisting of very many single prison cells with bunk and slop bucket in each cell.
    2. Arrest anybody judged (by a policeman) as drunk and disorderly and take them to a holding centre.
    3. Blood-test arrested person and confine them for period dependent on alcohol level.
    4. Retest them after said period and release them if blood level reaches defined low-level. Otherwise, return to cell for additional period.
    5. When blood/alcohol level is low enough, person has to slop-out, and clean cell before release.
    6. Upon release, fine is issued. Amount of fine is proportional to length of stay (like a hotel bill).

    I would not expect to want to go through this experience more than once, I think.

  • Comment number 99.

    I don't want a party a want me dinner.

  • Comment number 100.

    48. At 09:18am on 28 Jan 2010, sagamix wrote:
    DA @ 46

    :-) - if we all went around brightening up each other's morning, imagine how incredibly bright all of our mornings would be - the world would be a far better place, wouldn't it?

    =========

    It would indeed.

 

Page 1 of 2

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.