st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
The chief medical officer and government advisor on health issues Sir Liam Donaldson will today recommend the introduction of a minimum price for alcohol in a bid to tackle binge drinking.
His plan to charge at least 50p per unit of alcohol contained in drinks would mean every can of beer costing at least £1 and a bottle of wine a minimum of £4.50.
The price of four cans of K cider would increase 136% from £3.13 to £7.40, Blended Scotch Whisky M&S would jump 40% from £9.99 to £14.00 and a bottle of Villa Pendio Pinot Grigio Sainsbury's would go up 13% from £3.99 to £4.50.
However, despite binge drinking costing the NHS around £3bn a year, the government looks set to ignore the advice of its most senior health adviser.
A source close to Prime Minister Gordon Brown, said: "I do not think this is where we are going. The majority of sensible drinkers should not have to pay the price for the irresponsible and excessive drinking of a small minority."
This message was echoed by work and pensions secretary James Purnell, who told BBC One's 'The Politics Show': "Clearly we will look at Liam Donaldson's proposals; he's a very eminent person in his field. But we are very clear we don't want to punish the majority for the sins of the minority. I think certainly at a time of economic difficulty that looks like it would be the effect."
The Portman Group, which represents drinks companies, urged the government to reject the proposals claiming that it would "hit the pockets of hardworking families already struggling to make ends meet".
The Conservatives are also opposed to the plans. Andrew Lansley, shadow health secretary said that Conservative proposals, which include measures to tackle loss-leader promotions and higher taxes on high-alcohol drinks aimed at young people, would address binge drinking without penalising the majority of moderate drinkers.
Donaldson's call for a ban on smoking in public places was initially rejected by ministers before being introduced two years ago.
Earlier this month the SNP government in Scotland announced that it planned to fix a minimum price per unit and to ban discount deals on alcohol.
Comments
So despite it costing £3bn a year the Govt still don't have the bottle to go for the advise of their most senior expert. Instead they'll try to look friendly and just stealth tax the alcohol with higher duty. Responsible drinker or not, it is probably true to say we could all benefit from drinking a little less.
Why can I buy Jaguar lager cheaper than bottled water or Fruit Shoot?
Something's not right.
The something that's not right is that supermarkets continue to sell alcohol as a loss leader, hence a can of lager is cheaper than a bottle of water or carton of juice.
the pub trade can't compete, hence 6 pubs close every day in the UK - somewhere where people can enjoy a sensible \(arguably) drink in a licensed premise.
Introducing a minimum price for alcohol makes some sense - pubs already follow this by default, and it would be positive for the pub trade if supermarkets had to up their pricing. More to the point, it might do something good for the health of the nation.
Wouldn't be popular for labour though if in a recession they upped the price of booze.
We used to have something called 'joined-up thinking'. Ignoring the advice of your senior health advisor just to buy votes is senseless. True, sensible drinkers already pay for the irresponsible and excessive drinking of a small minority - in crime, violence and inevitable strain on the NHS. However, failure to price out a few of the extreme drinkers will inevitably lead to the majority paying more in the end. Making alcohol more expensive has to be better, as long as it is part of a joined-up process on alcohol which links everything from supermarket prices to pub closures. This government has apologised for not regulating enough on finance. Now it is showing its lack of teeth on regulating when advised to on alcohol. Or is the government's real worry that pricing alcohol out of the reach of younger people will only make other drugs more attractive?
CF - 16/03/2009
I agree with Jonathan above - if you regularly drink a large amount of high strength booze, maybe spending a bit extra might be an effective deterrent. Spending and extra £4 on a bottle of scotch should only be a problem if you're getting through a few every week. When a bottle of pop costs more than booze that's a bit of a bizarre situation.
Why don't they introduce a lump tax of £1,000 + damages for violent abusive offenders who constantly pester the police and hospitals and disrupt other people's nights out on a Friday and Saturday night, and leave the rest of the public alone. if offenders do not have money, they cannot drink, or drug, and at least they pay for it rather than the rest of the public at large. I'd even let pubs allow smokers back in. This is what has really trashed the pub trade, and now the government prefers to pollute the atmosphere. Although I do not smoke myself, I can understand how hard done by the smoker feels that he or she cannot even sit inside a dirty old pub and smoke to their heart's content. The humiliation of having to stand in the street like a naughty schoolchild is quite ridiculous, and even accentuates a rebelliousness that previously was non-existent.
£3 billion a year seems a small amount relative to the £10 billion or so that tax on alcohol raises each year.
Comments
Jonathan Godson - 16/03/2009
So despite it costing £3bn a year the Govt still don't have the bottle to go for the advise of their most senior expert. Instead they'll try to look friendly and just stealth tax the alcohol with higher duty. Responsible drinker or not, it is probably true to say we could all benefit from drinking a little less. Why can I buy Jaguar lager cheaper than bottled water or Fruit Shoot? Something's not right.
Oliver Gandy - 16/03/2009
The something that's not right is that supermarkets continue to sell alcohol as a loss leader, hence a can of lager is cheaper than a bottle of water or carton of juice. the pub trade can't compete, hence 6 pubs close every day in the UK - somewhere where people can enjoy a sensible \(arguably) drink in a licensed premise. Introducing a minimum price for alcohol makes some sense - pubs already follow this by default, and it would be positive for the pub trade if supermarkets had to up their pricing. More to the point, it might do something good for the health of the nation. Wouldn't be popular for labour though if in a recession they upped the price of booze.
Mark Griffiths - 16/03/2009
We used to have something called 'joined-up thinking'. Ignoring the advice of your senior health advisor just to buy votes is senseless. True, sensible drinkers already pay for the irresponsible and excessive drinking of a small minority - in crime, violence and inevitable strain on the NHS. However, failure to price out a few of the extreme drinkers will inevitably lead to the majority paying more in the end. Making alcohol more expensive has to be better, as long as it is part of a joined-up process on alcohol which links everything from supermarket prices to pub closures. This government has apologised for not regulating enough on finance. Now it is showing its lack of teeth on regulating when advised to on alcohol. Or is the government's real worry that pricing alcohol out of the reach of younger people will only make other drugs more attractive?
CF - 16/03/2009
I agree with Jonathan above - if you regularly drink a large amount of high strength booze, maybe spending a bit extra might be an effective deterrent. Spending and extra £4 on a bottle of scotch should only be a problem if you're getting through a few every week. When a bottle of pop costs more than booze that's a bit of a bizarre situation.
Kevin Gordon - 16/03/2009
Why don't they introduce a lump tax of £1,000 + damages for violent abusive offenders who constantly pester the police and hospitals and disrupt other people's nights out on a Friday and Saturday night, and leave the rest of the public alone. if offenders do not have money, they cannot drink, or drug, and at least they pay for it rather than the rest of the public at large. I'd even let pubs allow smokers back in. This is what has really trashed the pub trade, and now the government prefers to pollute the atmosphere. Although I do not smoke myself, I can understand how hard done by the smoker feels that he or she cannot even sit inside a dirty old pub and smoke to their heart's content. The humiliation of having to stand in the street like a naughty schoolchild is quite ridiculous, and even accentuates a rebelliousness that previously was non-existent.
Alan Malarkey - 16/03/2009
£3 billion a year seems a small amount relative to the £10 billion or so that tax on alcohol raises each year.