My regard for Scottish Labour has sunk even lower this morning with the news that they won't be backing the SNP's plans for minimum pricing on alcohol to help solve our £2bn addiction to booze.
The Lib Dems and the Tories should not be absolved from blame here but Iain Gray's explanations on Good Morning Scotland this morning as to why his party won't come onboard are lamentable.
Iain worries that supermarkets will get rich which is a clear contradiction to their claim that jobs will be lost. Speaking of jobs, there is surely no coincidence that Jackie Baillie was recently installed as Shadow Health Secretary and contains the Chivas Regal bottling plant in her constituency.
Labour completely miss the point in focussing on any extra revenue that Tesco and Sainsbury's make, crassly trying to use the massive profits that the supermarkets make as some sort of justification for suggesting they should not get more. In The Scotsman today, Richard Simpson says: "Tesco and Asda already make enough money from the sale of alcohol. The SNP's scheme would increase those profits still further, and there is no opportunity to target the extra revenue raised at alcohol education or treatment, or additional police for enforcement activity."
However, the increase in price is to deter binge drinkers from having that extra bottle or those extra cans so whether supermarkets make a profit or loss is not guaranteed. The key factor is that you can no longer get alcohol at deeply-discounted prices. In Dublin it costs a small fortune for a pint, as it does in Sweden. Does it matter whether the money goes to the Government or the retailer? Not at all I would argue, having responsible drinkers is the key aim.
I think the most regrettable element to this story is the news that Labour will set up their own commission to look at price mechanism on alcohol. The party is embarking down the same road as the SNP and given that the police, the BMA and the Chief Medical Officer all already agree with minimum pricing, one has to assume that Labour's own commission will come to the same conclusion.
Party politics is getting in the way of addressing Scotland's public health concerns and that is beyond depressing.
Labour are happy to go on about broken promises and ripping up manifestoes but it's blatantly not enough to say the SNP Government hasn't done enough simply because you've voted down every half-decent policy that gets put in front of you.
There is a danger that this four year parliamentary term will go down as something of a missed opportunity; a missed opportunity on tackling alcohol, on fixing Council Tax and on addressing PFI. The spirit of consensus is long gone but if Oppositions start to take turns of 'I'm not backing your bill because you didn't back mine' then Scotland could be in desperate trouble.
The cost of alcohol to our country and citizens needs addressed, urgently, but you simply can't fix the problem from the long grass.
Salmond vs Trump
11 minutes ago
36 comments:
Maybe if the Scottish Parliament had full tax raising and tax collecting powers, then the extra money from minimum pricing could be directed towards rehabilitation schemes.
Will Labour support that?
You have encapsulated the problem with Labour extremely well in this piece. For it is now abundantly clear that they have a strategy of opposing everything the SNP try to do no matter how good it may be for Scotland, in the hope that the voters will become disenchanted with a SNP government that appears to achieve little or nothing whilst in power.
The SNP government must make a full frontal assault on Labour's negativity exposing their duplicity of putting party politics above what is best for Scotland otherwise the seeds of doubt that Labour are trying to sow will endure.
Gray/Labour getting PASTED at the moment on the Radio Scotland phone-in programme.
Jack Law (the expert on alcohol abuse) also scathing.
The medical profession in favour of the SNP's Bill--ditto the pub trade and the police.
This could be as big an error for the 3 unionist parties as voting FOR the Edinburgh tram line
i agree with your analysis here. But it is labour who will take a pasting on this one - political opportunist nobbled by the drinks industry.
a real shame though in terms of tackling the problem of course
Personally, I think minimum pricing is a load of mince. I live in Spain where booze is really cheap and people don't get drunk here. That says it all really.
As to the substantive point about Labour causing trouble wherever it can, I couldn't agree more:
The SNP should be pushing the line that devolution is failing because Labour simply wants to disrupt legislation for partisan reasons.
The line should be 'If Labour continue to destroy devolution then Scots needs to turn to independence if they want responsible politics'.
With respect Alex, far from saying 'it all', it says nothing except Scottish problems may not need Spanish solutions.
We can't keep tip-toeing around a £2bn issue for fear of upsetting people and hope it just goes away.
Most foreigners see Scots as the hard drinking jannie from The Simpsons. I'd like to see that myth blown out of the water and this policy would help do that.
We can't sit around and wait for Glasgow to somehow morph into Barcelona.
Jeff
Good article, and highlights just how negative the other partys are to any initiative from the SNP.
As bad as Labour are over this the other two partys are just as bad.
It now appears to be a lifetime ago that antie Bella was trying to bring the torys back to life by backing proposals that on the whole were beneficial to Scotland. That policy has now been changed to opposition for opposition sake, similar to Labour. The hand of Micheal Forsyth in there maybe?
Does anyone really know if the Lib Dems stand for anything?
I agree with anonymous when he says this could come back, like the trams to haunt these partys. Every incident where cheap booze is involved the SNP should shout,
"We started to try and fix this problem on the streets of Scotland but were voted down by the other partys"
Aye, and it's the same Liberal Democrats that are pushing for minimum pricing at Westminster; makes no sense!
From what I gather Iain Gray doesn't think that pushing the price up will help, as it'll negatively affect the drinks industry. So he'd rather have a local tax which would, er, put the price up??
It really would be shockingly amusing, if it wasn't so tragic, real and putting lives in danger.
Anyone with half a brain can see that minimum pricing for alcohol is a major step towards reducing the scourge of alcohol abuse in Scotland. By voting against the SNP government's proposal Labour appears more interested in propping up its core vote of winos and benefit junkies instead - after all who else would vote Labour?
M,
you raise a good point about an SNP full frontal assault on the negativity. It must be difficult to do with such a frustrating media to work with. I believe the Daily Record's headline today was something like 'Labour sink SNP's flawed alcohol plan'.
How can you work with that kind of extended opposition...?
I fear the more valid an SNP press release is, the less likely it will make it out of journo's inboxes as the election gets closer.
The GE 2010 and even 2011 probably rests on an awesome doorknocking and telecanvassing campaign where the old media outlets are circumvented and voters can be talked to directly.
"With respect Alex, far from saying 'it all', it says nothing except Scottish problems may not need Spanish solutions."
Hey Jeff, I'm no feart of criticism!
I think your counter-crit continues to make my point. This is a cultural problem not an economic one.
Alcohal abuse goes with things like obesity and other forms of cultural self-loathing. When people feel better about themselves they don't indulge so much in escapism.
Prices will change nothing. I mean, I remember my Swedish friend telling me young people dip tampons in vodka and put it up where the sun don't shine. The booze goes straight into the blood stream. Very cheap and of course even more dangerous. People will get round this and it may cause more problems.
Then there is the argument that the government shouldn't really be getting involved in fixing consumer prices. I'm fed up with this idea that politicians and 'experts' who think they know what's best for us. I especially disliked the middle-class patronising me and fellow schemies. Benevolent dictators are the problem in places like Glasgow North-East. I'd rather solve that problem!
Well, whatever - I think it's a major distraction and profoundly mistaken in all sorts of ways.
I accept that I can be wrong - it's happened before so good luck with it..
"I live in Spain where booze is really cheap and people don't get drunk here. That says it all really."
That's a lot of mince!
In my visits to Spain I've seen plenty of drunkeness and not just limited to British holiday makers.
In Barcelona I've witnessed some pretty nasty Spanish drunks causing chaos, but pretending it isn't a problem elsewhere adds nothing to the Scottish debate.
Excessive alcohol consumption leads to irresponsible behaviour - That's an irrefutable fact. The ready availability of cheap alcohol is a significant factor and I, for one, am delighted that someone somewhere is willing to address the problem and start somewhere. I don't think it's any sort of panacea, but it's a start and should be applauded.
Gray's explanation of this betrayal is shocking.Shocking in its stupidity.
A local sales tax would NOT stop supermarkets selling booze at pocket money prices as the big retailers can well afford to absorb a sales tax whereas smaller independent retailers can't. It is likely that supermarkets, if faced with a local sales tax, would simply drop their prices further as they would know that smaller retailers could not compete. So smaller retailers would lose out - and possibly go out of husiness altogether - while the big supermarkets cement their dominance of the market. And there would be nothing to stop them selling bottles of vodka for a fiver if they were so minded, they are not far off that now.
I get tired of saying how stupid Gray is. Anyone who would give Jackie Baillie the health brief needs their head examined for a start and she is the one responsible for this.
I would hope that at least some of the Labour MSPs who have previously supported minimum pricing will grow a backbone and that the Health Committee does its job properly rather than voting on party lines.
Jim,
I've lived in Madrid for 4 years. I can tell assure you that drunkeness is not a problem like it is in Britain. People don't vomit everywhere on main streets at the weekend and I've not seen a single fight or felt threatened by drunken idiots the way I've felt in London or in Glasgow.
There may be the odd example to the contrary but that is all it is - an exception.
I'm not arguing that drunkeness is not a problem just that minimum pricing is not the solution.
Jings, see what happens when you dare vere from the party line ;)
Alex
If I'd lived in Newton Mearns or the Grange for the last 4 years, I dare say I could have a similar experience to you.
I don't think minimum pricing is the solution either, but I think it's an important step. I haven't seen or heard anyone, anywhere give a clear example of why it might be a regressive step either - which might give some a reason to actually oppose the idea.
As it stands, the policy is supported by the Police, the BMA, the chief medical officer and any number of academic studies you care to mention,so rather than stick with any particular party line, I'm willing to run with the experts on the matter, particularly as most would appear not to have any particular vested interest in alcohol sales.
Jim
"Prices will change nothing. I mean, I remember my Swedish friend telling me young people dip tampons in vodka and put it up where the sun don't shine. The booze goes straight into the blood stream. Very cheap and of course even more dangerous. People will get round this and it may cause more problems."
Anecdotes are fun to listen to, and often entertaining, but they are no substitute for cold, hard, facts, and the cold, hard fact is that per capita alcohol consumption in Sweden, based on sales, is half that of the UK has a whole.
I live in Norway. The cheapest pint I've ever bought here cost around £5. Not even the Hilton at West End in Edinburgh, which has lovely table service, charges that much in the hotel bar. Buying anything other than a can of lager requires getting home early from work to go to the state alcohol monopoly before it closes at five o'clock.
To add my own lovely anecdote, I'll remark that I was once at a party here and one guest commented that I must really beer, since I'd had three cans, and that's "a lot". Yeah, a viking told me that.
Price changes culture.
According to Mr Murphy it's Labours patriotic duty to forestall, delay or prevent any acts of nationalism proposed by the SNP.
Yet again we have party and Westminster interest placed ahead of Scotland.
Obviously they've been re-activated from the two year coma and are now, fudld an half asleep, searching for their teeth.
Pathetic, time wasting free loaders.
I think you make statistics fit your case. I mean how do the police or the health authorities suddenly become experts in supply/demand of consumption? They don't.
The point of my anecdote is that if people want a way round things they'll find one. What about prohibition?
Scandinavians have the best standard of living in the world and Scotland some of the worst in Europe.
Places were cultures are oppressed the most have the worst alcohal problems. Take for example native American Indians or Australian aboriginals. There is a certain nihilism there which causes people to drink excessively.
In Spain, it doesn't matter where you go, people will not get agressive when they are drunk and they are seldom drunk. Is being drunk a problem or is being drunk and abusive the problem? Lot's of questions..
I think the assumptions in this debate are bizarre. Controlling every aspect of people's lives is what 'experts' live for and that's why so many people are now dying of flu vaccines. I want politicians out of my life. I don't want cctv cameras, I don't want ID cards and generally I'm fed up being told that I am not the expert on my own life. What this kind of legislation engenders is the sense that big brother knows best and that we should relinquish control of our lives to the 'experts' meaning middle-class kids who need to justify the expense of their degrees.
I'm for the independence of Scots and for myself. Some things the government is good at. For me, it has to be proven beyond doubt that its powers are justified. Fixing market prices is not one of those things.
The war on terror was about the government taking more power over citizens.
This has the same feel to it. It feels New Labour to me and that's not what 'independence' means to me.
"Controlling every aspect of people's lives is what 'experts' live for and that's why so many people are now dying of flu vaccines"
?? That's a strange one, but in response to your 'free market' sentiments.
Not having this kind of legislation means that we should
allow the vested interests of companies which manufacture and market an addictive and potentially dangerous substance unrestricted access to an impressionable and occasionally vulnerable market.
Jim,
Do you want to abolish the market all together?
"we should
allow the vested interests of companies which manufacture and market an addictive and potentially dangerous substance"
Every product sold has 'vested interests'. Big government has a 'vested interest' in controlling us too, no?
This potentially dangerous substance was manufactured and marketed long before we had a welfare state.
As the bard said: "Freedom and Whiskey gang thegither"
If I like a good bevvy that's really none of your business.
No, this kind of thing is not about independence. It smacks of partisan politics and social control.
The SNP should be about extending our liberties not telling us what to eat and drink. In the land of credit cards and CCTV cameras, it seems, that taboids and focus groups run amok.
I think this whole thing is a loss of perspective.
Oh, and Jim
I was referring to reports that a lot of Canadians have died from taking the flu vaccine.
That's what happens when people give up their personal sovereignty to experts.
You mentioned my 'free market' ideas. Mixing the government and industry is what's happening here. That's what happened with Brown pumping 'stimulus' into the economy and it has been a total disaster.
His meddling has caused mayhem. Big government in the US has led to wars as Cheney got up close to public office. Wars happen when the government gets too involved in the economy. The merger of economic and government interest happens it's called fascism.
If I need guidance on my consumption, I can go to a priest or a councillor.
You talk about the 'vulnerable'. Have I to lose my liberties because some people are vulnerable?
There's no end to the questions this kind of thing throws up.
Personally, I think the independence community should be concentrating on talking about poltical and economic independence and not about a political dogfight over what people eat and drink..
"If I like a good bevvy that's really none of your business."
I don't think these measures are being put in place to stifle your enjoyment of a drink Alex. However, they are measures being taken because the excessive consumption of alcohol has become a social problem.
You've already said yourself that you've "felt threatened by drunken idiots" in Glasgow and London. So, these idiots 'enjoying a good bevvy' became your business, whether you liked it or not.
You may well argue that minimum pricing is not the solution - but where's your alternative?
As for the free market... well, we've seen what happens when the market is given it's freedom.
It is not the absolute price of drink that is the problem. In the supermarkets they go in for bogofs and cheap loss leading deals. Now I throw the extra pizza and the apples away when I don't use them, but that is not the case with liquor. We don't have a problem with landfill of full drink containers.
The minimum price is a great idea. Its not a tax - which if it was would still not prevent the bogofs - it is a legal minimum which will stop the bogof.
We have a serious problem with alcohol in Scotland. I binge myself, and I know its dumb. I have seen lots of pissheads in Finland btw, and they go in for that Argos approach too.
As to comments about Spain, wiki per capita alcohol consumption. They drink more than we do.
On a wider point, the SNP are very poor at getting their message across. I frequently hear them losing debating points on the radio because they don't fight their corner. BBC journos are really bad for manipulating stories. Fight back!
Alex
Flu vaccine?? Have you compared the deaths associated with the flu vaccine with the lives saved?
Try weighing it up sensibly - a bit like the minimum pricing argument. A minimum price on alcohol hardly constitutes a loss of your liberties.
Like it or not, there are vulnerable people out there, part of the community. Their behaviour directly affects everyone's quality of life. You may stick your head in the lovely Madrid sand, whilst we continue to have our lives blighted by it, but if we're going to have a government, let's have one that has a vision of the kind of Scotland we'd like to be and one which makes the moves to get us there.
Jim
The police and health authorities are not experts in supply and demand but they are experts in the consequences of excessive alcohol intake.
The issues of supply/demand/pricing and its effect on health and crime are addressed by looking at the actual amounts of alcohol bought and drunk over time. A lot of work has been done on this which is all available in various academic and government publications. I think the most recent study on mimimum pricing - which was commissioned by Labour in London - was the Sheffield University study.
But statistics just back up what I think most of us know anyway.
Those who question the link between price and alcohol consumption ask us to believe that it is a complete coincidence that as the retail price of alcohol has become relatively much cheaper consumption has increased dramatically.
We are now in the situation where enough alcohol was sold in Scotland in each of the last three recorded years to enable every single man and woman over 16 to exceed the sensible male weekly guideline each and every week. Alcohol deaths have more than doubled since the early 1990s. Alcohol is a contributory factor in 1 in 20 deaths in Scotland with a quarter of male deaths and a fifth of female deaths in the 35 to 44 year old age group being alcohol attributable. Scotland has one of the fastest growing rates of chronic liver disease and cirrhosis in the world with those in deprived communities are around five to six times more likely to be admitted to hospital (and to die) due to alcohol misuse than those from the most affluent areas. That is only some of the health issues. If we look at the criminal justice issues and the social work issues the picture just gets bleaker and bleaker.
In other words we have an extremely serious - and worsening - problem. Scotland has not always been like that and we do not have to be like that now. Taking action is not nanny statism. What we are seeing with these ultra cheap booze deals is the dark side of capitalism, the side that does not give a toss about the consequences of the free market and resists any kind of regulation with every sinew. They need to be brought into line before matters get any worse.
"I don't think these measures are being put in place to stifle your enjoyment of a drink Alex."
Well, the idea is that the price becomes prohibative - that certainly stifles my liberties each and every time I wish to exercise them. That's MY money their taking!
Yes, I felt threatened by Glasgow drunks. Some people are nice with drink and some not - that depends on their character which is affected by underlying social problems. Those problems need addressing. We are confusing problem with symptom here!
The reason I'm comparing this to vaccines is because of the argument which I think is nonsensical in relation to 'experts'. Clearly, as I demonstrated, experts get it badly wrong. Science has become a tool of dicatorship. The nazis called eugenics science.. I think you'll find my comparison is logically sound.
The solution? The solution is economic. When we stop meddling in people's lives and allow them economic opportunity they'll fix their own problems. We need more understanding and less reactionary legislation.
I don't know what you mean by leaving things to the free market. If you're talking about the financial crisis, that was caused by governments interfering with interest rates which allowed excess liquidity to flood the market and create bubbles. They are now trying to fix the problem of too much credit/debt by creating more and that will end in disaster.
No, far too many myths out there about what government and the economy is all about! These myths have lead to economic stagnation and those in turn have caused social problems. Rather than fix the causes the governments encouraged by business starts to blame us for the problems they create..
I understand that there are vulnerable people out there. One reason for that is that they are educated into believing that government knows best. They stop being able to think for themselves and lose control of their behaviour.
The micro-management of everyone's lives is anathema to me. I do not like authoritarian governments, left or right and I don't think it's in the Scottish nature to give up our free spirit to be directed in every aspect of our lives by politicians..
I want to live freely.
Indy,
Some excellent points. I think that there is a dark side of capitalism involved here but not quite like you say.
Government has been under heavy influence by the banks. Banks sell debt so they want people to be in debt. Debt causes people to look for the cheapest possible products such as junk food and cheap booze. Debt also causes stress and a breakdown in family life, dysfunction etc.
By encouraging a debt driven consumer economy (which involves exporting manufacturing jobs) we have driven people into cr&p jobs and forced people into bank serfdom.
UK credit card debt is worse than the rest of the EU put together.
When you add these factors to factors such as the suppression of cultural expression you force people into behaviour which is self-destructive.
Really, telling people off is going to make things worse and minimum pricing is a form of collective punishment so you can add guilt to poverty.
I think what we need to focus on is allowing our economy to correct itself, massively reduce the banks ability to put the population into debt and you'll find that social problems will go away.
Like I said before, this is reacting to symptoms not fixing a problem. It might go down well with reactionary tories and win votes in rural Aberdeenshire or play to the Daily Retard but it ain't gonnie fix a problem which at root is about the economy.
I don't like authoritarian legislation or politicians behaving like religeous ministers. They're job is to protect our freedoms not save us from ourselves.
For me this is not an image of an independent Scotland that I want!
"Well, the idea is that the price becomes prohibative"
Alex, have you even read the policy?
Prices won't become prohibitive at all. It is the cheapest of the cheap drinks we're talking about here. The fact that Buckfast won't even be affected goes to show what sort of prices we're talking about here.
I'm all for free markets most of the time (though working for the state-sponsored HBOS I guess I have my limits!). On this one, I'm more than willing to give minimum pricing a shot and see what happens. Let's be honest, precious little else has helped to solve the health and crime stats in the past few decades.
"Clearly, as I demonstrated, experts get it badly wrong."
Err! Just where is it that you think you've demonstrated anything?
You've babbled at quite some length on your economic theories, all very nice and pleasant but lacking a hint of self awareness when you decry 'experts' in other fields.
Now, back in Scotland where thousands of kids are being offered alcopops at pocket money prices by supermarkets and multi-National drinks conglomerates no more interested in people's health issues than they are in a fair distribution of wealth.
These measures are specifically aimed at that low end of the market where problem drinkers and youngsters are likely to find themselves. They are part of a package of measures aimed at addressing the drink problem this country faces.
Sure I dream of an independent Scotland and personal freedoms, but not one which is based on survival of the fittest and which ignores those less fortunate than me.
Jeff,
Read the policy? No, I just don't see the logic in the government price-fixing. I kind of see that as a rabbit hole..
Jim,
You've been pretty scathing for no apparent reason. Once the government gets into this area there's no end to it. Next we'll be getting accused of killing kids because we didn't set the limit high enough etc.
Freedoms: "but not one which is based on survival of the fittest and which ignores those less fortunate than me."
I explained that 'experts' are used and abused by politicians. They are used to stop us thinking for ourselves. Like climate change - turns out there was no academic consensus after all. E.g. I don't need a scientist to tell me my body needs air, if I try to stop breathing I'll get the idea quickly enough..
This a problem of economics. It is about poverty. By playing with the symptoms rather than the problems brought about by excessive credit and debt then you really are pandering to those who do believe in survival of the fittest.
This all needs thought through more. Nothing I've read assures me that anyone has got to the bottom of this subject at all, hence some emotional outbursts and claims of moral highground without anything approaching cogent or decisive arguments.
Our society is in a mess - that is a broad philosophical problem demanding a broad view of our nation. Price fixing doesn't get anywhere close and throws up many problems of its own. You won't solve binge drinking till you solve the credit/debt problem IMHO. You can throw teenage pregnancy, infant mortality, life expectancy, general health, social mobility, violent crime and lots of other things on there too. These are all symptoms of the same economic policies. Minimum prices is like putting a sandbag in front of a tsunami i.e. it misses the point, a lot!
Let's see what happens..
Alex, I'm afraid I think that you talk in circles.
Your constant theme is that the UK is suffering from an excessive credit / debt problem.
I believe that is the case too, but I believe it is the case because government failed to properly regulate the financial institutions, allowing banks to dress up turds as AAA rated investment opportunities didn't help much either, yet these things are directly the result of the lack of regulation which you so oppose...
Allowing those with a vested interest to control the market led to the market's demise.
No Jim,
Regulating the market i.e. making sure it is fair for all players and not uncompetative is one thing but meddling in the market is another.
There were laws in place which stopped bad practise and I agree with them. The real problem though was that the government sets out monetary policy i.e. sets interest rates. They reduced them and that flooded the market with liquidity which then caused bubbles in the economy.
You are talking about two different things - no circles here.
I can explain it better but no time right now.
I'm thinking about writing this up on my blog maybe.
I'm not going to be behind this legislation and I really hope the SNP doesn't indulge in this kind of politics anymore - cause we'll get no-where and need another independence movement..
"The real problem though was that the government sets out monetary policy i.e. sets interest rates. "
I honestly thought that Gordon Brown had handed control of that over to the Bank of England, free from government intervention - apart from the stipulations on inflation.
Your trust in the market is all very well and for items that don't have such devastating social impacts I mainly agree with you, however for alcohol, tobacco or drugs where an impressionable young person may become hooked on a substance before they have matured enough to make a rational decision on consumption, then I strongly believe we need to protect our young from themselves.
As far as addictive substances are concerned, there can be no free market.
Mmm,
There is political control over the Bank of England and that has got worse. Check out all the new legislation recently.
The problem is that all the speculation created funny money and that flooded into the treasury from taxes on the finance sector. It made Britain look rich (an illusion) and Brown bought into it hook, line and sinker. It was all debt and credit. It drove up asset prices and wages and made Labour and industry to expensive and so the real jobs went overseas.
Now that the banks have had their way with us thanks to Broon all that's left is debt and no manufacturing jobs. So no way to the pay the debt off. You think Glasgow North-East is poor - just wait and see how this pans out. Broon is trying to reinflate the bubble to get us back to where we were. That will fail and mean more and more debt. I think it will end in war and certainly extreme poverty the likes of which you couldn't imagine and not just for little bits of Glasgow either..
The problem for me is that when the government gets involved in the economy it becomes corrupted by special interests.
The banks and government are now pretty much one and the same. Debt is the way of controlling people and a very small oligarchy in charge - just like in feudal times.
If you want to fix these social problems stop the bail-outs, stop the money printing and stimulus. Stop the banks controlling our government.. Minimum pricing is like giving an aspirin to a cancer patient (which may end up happening btw).
We have entered Alice in Wonderland territory here, methinks.
PS Alex, it has been very interesting reading your views on this subject and I will definitely look out for your blog on the matter. I do consider myself principally in favour of a free market, I just don't think it is suitable for all things nor that it should be the only thing worth striving for.
Jim,
Good debate. I just think if we are going to have some kind of market then it should be free. Governments get corrupted and Britain is utterly corrupted now as is AMerica and both on the verge of collapse. All because we let greedy b%st&rds exert too much influence. I mean Dick Cheney is evil and was planning a war in Iraq long before Sept 11. The insurance companies, banks and arms industries control the Whitehouse and Congress and the US government is bigger than it has ever been..
Letting government into our lives is the road to ruin IMHO.
We both want protections for the people and so I guess debating the best way forward is what it's all about. The debate in Scotland has to often been hijacked by a partisan and corporate media with many dody agendas. It's good that blogs like Jeff's gives us the chance to think about our future!
I look forward to our next crossing of swords :O)
Alex
Post a Comment