Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: Viking Don on March 13, 2013, 10:27:37 pm
-
Nanny state finally gets too greedy to prevent the NHS bill major supermarkets create by their cheapo cider?
I'm all in favour me, I hate this nanny state type shit. But what I hate even more is rich t**ts wanting the price of alcohol increasing so only they can afford it, thereby reducing the NHS bill.
Please Cam mate, I love a drink, but will you please charge me a lot more for it so I can't afford it so I don't type such tripe on a Rovers forum late at night, I'd rather be tucked up in bed on diazapam cos that's what the doctor ordered.
-
Strange innit? this Government don`t do U-turns they keep telling us, now the Home Secretary has opened her gob and destabilised the PM all of a sudden U-turns are ok
-
Isn't this illegal under some kind of EU competition law?
-
Sounds like price fixing to me
-
Strange innit? this Government don`t do U-turns they keep telling us, now the Home Secretary has opened her gob and destabilised the PM all of a sudden U-turns are ok
The most sickening part of this is that the reason they say they oppose it is that it will 'hit the poorest'...yet not a peep out of them about rocketing food, fuel or rent costs while holding benefits at a level that means real-term cuts in income for the poorest.
My cynical side says that they are really torpedoing this because they have personal links (ie taking backhanders...sorry, 'accepting consultancy fees') to the drinks industry rather than any altruistic intent.
-
The notion that minimum unit pricing would reduce consumption is also based on some flimsy evidence:
http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/liberty-justice/the-minimal-evidence-for-minimum-pricing
Summary below:
1. The Conservative Party and the Scottish National Party have both stated their intention of introducing a minimum floor price for alcohol, levied at around 50p per unit. Advocates of minimum pricing claim that the policy will significantly reduce alcohol consumption and the problems associated with hazardous drinking.
2. Estimates of how minimum pricing will affect health outcomes have overwhelmingly come from a single computer model—the Sheffield Alcohol Policy Model. This paper argues that the model is based on unreasonable assumptions which render its figures meaningless.
3. Amongst the problems with the Sheffield model is its false assumption that heavy drinkers are more likely to reduce their consumption of alcohol as a result of a price rise. Its calculations are based on controversial beliefs about the relationship between per capita alcohol consumption and rates of alcoholrelated harm. Its assumptions about the relationship between price and consumption have frequently been refuted by real world evidence.
4. The Sheffield model provides figures without estimates of error and ignores statistical error in the alcohol-harm relationship. Data is drawn from different populations and applied to England and Scotland as if patterns of consumption and harm are the same in all countries. When data is not available, the model resorts to what is essentially numerology. Insufficient data is provided for the model to be recreated and tested by third parties.
5. The model ignores the likely effects of minimum pricing on the illicit alcohol trade, it disregards the health benefits of moderate drinking and fails to take account of the secondary poverty created by regressive price rises. The decline in alcohol consumption seen in Britain in recent years has not led to the outcomes predicted by the model.
6. We conclude that predictions based on the Sheffield Alcohol Policy Model are entirely speculative and do not deserve the exalted status they have been afforded in the policy debate