Breaking news ... London man set to lose job due to minimum pricing ...

"Re-shuffle, what re-shuffle?"

If there's one job loss that I shan't mourn brought on by this administration's disconnected, disjointed and misinformed Alcohol Strategy it will be that of the Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley.

As reported in the redoubtable Independent Lansley is said "to be furious that David Cameron has overruled his concerns over the legality, morality and effectiveness of the proposal designed to tackle Britain's binge-drinking culture. It left Mr Lansley looking isolated and sparked suggestions he will lose his job in the next reshuffle."


Let's just analyse some keywords in that report:

Legality ... I am sure that 'Europe' will have something to say about minimum pricing at some point ... good job the Treasury has all that above inflation alcohol duty escalator money to burn when they appoint a veritable army of high-paid lawyers to defend its decision when it is challenged in the courts.

Morality ... allowing (along with the previous administration) certain elements of the off-trade to continually flout the principle of "responsible retailing" and the four licensing objectives in the Licensing Act, then take it out on the majority of consumers who "drink responsibly" especially those on low incomes ... but let's face it the 'undeserving poor' don't deserve a pint at the end of a hard days graft.

Effectiveness ... unless the minimum unit price is set well above the currently mooted level of 40p it just won't work. Put it to something like £1.20 a unit and the disparity between off-trade pricing and on-trade pricing would all but disappear. There would be no incentive to drink at home when the price one pays in the supermarket is the same as in the pub ... the latter of which, of course, on the whole provides a safe controlled environment for social drinking. (Note to Georgie Porgie ... here's a bit of joined up thinking ... think of the increased corporation tax and VAT this would generate ... gotta pay for all those lawyers!)

Designed ... this implies some sort of intelligence and forethought, something that is clearly not evident in the Alcohol Strategy, unless it has been a carefully crafted 'knee-jerk reaction' to certain reports about the rise in liver disease or hospital admissions .

Isolated ... this will be the feeling a lot of publicans get when the staff and customers have all departed for the night and the long dark night of the soul is upon them. A little reported consequence of this administration's mismanagement of the alcohol has been to further diminish the sustainability of thousands of tied community pubs by steadfastly defying the 'will of parliament' over regulation of the pubcos. As more and more pubs go to the wall, less and less 'safe places' are available for 'responsible drinking' ... let alone the costs in terms of ruined lives and increased benefit costs. Isolated? That'll be the solitary ounce of common sense the Cabinet share between them.

So don't spare a thought for Lansley, it would seem the majority in the NHS won't, he'll be fine with a couple of well paid directorships in the health provision industry ... save your compassion for the ordinary folk of this country who are just trying to make a living and have a pint and a natter come knocking off time.

P.S. Note to picture editor of the Independent - how about using a bottle of wine or spirits next time you run a piece on alcohol and save the images of beer for beer related stories - you lazy git!

Lies Damned Lies and Statistics, Part 3 or

Minimum Unit Price … MUP … a MUPpet initiative from a Muppet Administration.

 

(SEPARATED AT BIRTH?) 

Well the media has had a field day with David Cameron's announcement of minimum pricing for alcohol, whipped into a frenzy by the likes of Theresa May's pathetic attempt to divert attention from the Budget and divert the news cycle away from the Granny Grab tax changes.

A Department of Health Press release for the day estimated that reducing the number of units of alcohol sold by 1 billion would save a 1,000 lives a year and the Health Secretary announced that 

“Last year there were 1.2 million admissions to hospital associated with alcohol.”

HMG's pincer movement in the battle against alcohol abuse of the MUP (at a stupidly low level of 40p … see my earlier thoughts) and the Public Health Responsibility Deal an arrangement with the big drinks manufacturers to cut the strength of various lines of beer, wine and cider is typical of the the disjointed thinking of this administration. 

The press release came with a plethora of headline grabbing statistics pointing to or further alerting us to the demon drink … but is this the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Andrew Lansley's quote is a classic piece of political spin 1.2 million hospital admissions doesn’t mean that the same number of people are in A&E etc because of alcohol, as anyone who has been admitted to hospital whilst managing a health problem several times means the absolute number of patients will always be less than the number of recorded admissions.

You also have to take into account the way that admissions are recorded and the way that NHS statisticians manipulate these figures anecdotal evidence collected by FactCheck suggests that "analysts decided that a certain fraction of people who, say, fall over and twist their ankle, do so because they are drunk."

They go on to say "what the analysts do next is to assign a value based on the estimated likelihood of a certain percentage of injuries or illnesses being caused or exacerbated by alcohol to every patient. So if you fall over and twist your ankle for whatever reason you become a fraction – 0.22 per cent of a single drunk patient. And that number is then multiplied by all the people admitted to hospital for falls. It follows that, if the total number of patients admitted to hospital goes up, then the portion of those admissions theoretically attributed to alcohol automatically goes up too."

Since when does this equate to 1.2 million admissions related to alcohol? They don't as the NHS has stated that only 25% of "alcohol related admissions" were "wholly attributable to alcohol consumption". In the 2010 figures this meant 265,000 not 1.2 million! Further NHS reports also show that only of these admissions only 25% of those were attributed to a "primary diagnosis" as an alcohol specific condition. (For those of you without a calculator to hand this is just over 68,000).

Having looked at these figures I have decided that the rest of HMG's claims about fewer deaths probably won't stand up either, no so no need to spend hour upon hour trawling the net.  

What I did look at is the Introduction to the Government's Alcohol Strategy as it claims this startling piece of information:

but hides the Office of National Statistics reported change in alcohol consumption (or "clearances" as it calls them) in the UK as percentage changes recently: 2005/06 -2%, 2006/07 -1.3%, 2007/08 +1.2% and finally 2008/09 -7.2%.

So starting from a base point in 2005 alcohol consumption over the period to 2009 actually fell by a cumulative figure of 9.16% … okay so we pissed it up since the fifties but consumption in this country is falling.

Don't be fooled by the New Puritans or their political mouth-pieces and make sure you tell your customers the truth when they discuss it with you … as they surely will.

In the interim did you know that you can apply for a free £85 worth of resources, including a natty "Unit Measure Cup" to illustrate to your staff and customers what different drinks equate to in layperson's terms?


Go to DrinkAware to take up this offer get more information that will help you be a more responsible retailer than you probably are already.

Finally a huge thank you to Patrick Worral (Fact Check) for putting this train of thought in motion.


Now if Waldorf and Statler  (Cameron and Clegg) can just provide me with another opportunity to reference them as Muppets ... still that shouldn't be too long, should it eh?