Having taken a small interest in the way Labour face our so called alcohol problem, I was directed to a debate on 10th March in the House. Quite interesting actually, when you actually comprehend what they are babbling about in such pompous tones-US!
We have someone called Stoate blathering on about a committee report stating that alcohol causes 40,000 deaths per year and something needs to be done-now!
Hang on a minute, last year we were saving 40,000 lives per annum thanks to the smoke ban! Popular figure then, this 40 grand!
Up steps Mr Philip Davies MP (Shipley, Cons) and wades in like a good'un. Bless him, he's already had a bollocking for joining the debate late but says he's watched on the monitor-fair play to him for that. he states:-
"The report is certainly a useful contribution to the debate on addiction-not, unfortunately, on addiction to alcohol, but on this Government's and the Health Committee's addiction to the nanny state. They have already helped to dismantle the pub and club industry with their smoking ban. Pubs are closing at the rate of 50 a week-many because of the ban on smoking in public places-and the same fate is being felt by many clubs, such as working men's clubs. It seems that the Health Committee, not satisfied with dismantling the pub and club industry, now wishes to direct its fire in other areas, such as at cinemas and commercial broadcasters, to try to close down those industries. Many sports will also be adversely affected if its recommendations are introduced."
My new hero in a suit!
He is absolutely right of course. Labours new strategy is to destroy anything that may cost the NHS more than 1 shilling and 6pence per person so alcohol comes very high on the list. he further says:-
"All that would not be so bad if I thought that, in the end, if after all the Committee's recommendations were introduced, its members would say that they were satisfied. The problem, however, as with all these matters, is that the report panders to the zealots in society who are never satisfied. I guarantee that if all the recommendations were introduced, Committee members would, within a few months at most, come back with further recommendations because the previous ones had not gone far enough. This lobby is impossible to satisfy."
This lobby is impossible to satisfy
Well, of course, our new hero is absolutely spot on because it appears that the health lobby are never satisfied; in fact they never will be!
He further goes onto 'happyslap' his opponents with:-
"The problem with the political classes generally, particularly in this House, is that when they are faced with a problem-there is no doubt that there is a problem with excessive drinking of alcohol-the solution that they propose has to be constituted of two particular themes. The first ingredient in any solution that politicians propose is that it must show that they are doing something; they have to be seen to be doing something. The second ingredient, which we always see, is that the proposal must not offend anyone and must be superficially popular. Once again, that approach applies to many of the recommendations, most of which would not make a blind bit of difference to excessive or under-age alcohol consumption.
I was particularly struck by the speech of Pete Wishart, who made the best speech that I have ever heard in support of a Scottish Parliament. I have never been particularly in favour of it in the past, but now that I have heard that there are so many sensible people in the Scottish Parliament who oppose his zealous drive for minimum pricing, I think that is a strong argument for it. Perhaps if the Scottish Parliament were closed down, however, we could have some of those people down here and then we might have a more sensible debate."
I am truly beginning to admire this Shipley Stoker of fires.
James McGovern (Dundee West, Labour)decides to weigh in:-
"The hon. Gentleman mentioned the nanny state earlier, but Scotland is becoming something of a dictatorial state. Is he aware that the Scottish Executive are now saying that cigarettes cannot be advertised or put on the counter and even that sweets cannot be put on the counter because they might damage children's teeth? How much of a nanny state, or a dictatorial state, is that?"
Aha! so the state is protecting teeth as well now-OMG, where will this lunacy end?
Our man Philip Davies retorts with:-
"I agree with the hon. Gentleman. My problem is that those are the sort of measures that his Government are keen to introduce as well. We appear to have a Dutch auction between the Scottish Executive and the Westminster Government as to who can introduce the biggest nanny state of all. I am afraid that both are going in completely the wrong direction. I agree with the sentiment behind his point, but I do not think that his Government are any less guilty than the Scottish Executive."
Correct - the biggest nanny state of all - what a pathetic title to 'win'!
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North, Labour) decides to put the government side forward with this gem:-
"It is clear that the hon. Gentleman and I come from polar opposite positions, but he is making the classic freedom speech. He is saying that we have the freedom to do what we want, without intervention from the state."
So we can take it from Mr Hopkins that labour ARE against freedom of speech, freedom of choice, freedom of actions, freedom of enjoyment, freedom of expression, freedom of thinking for ourselves, freedom from.....everything!
I can see another SCOTH Committee being formed only this one will be called SCAIH (Select Committee on Alcohol Injury & Health). We already know by the SCOTH committee shambles of mistruth that SCAIH will present a case where drinking alcohol will be considered more dangerous than necking arsenic!
The minimum pricing structure is already being considered, this debate proves that much. What bothers me is that these numpties in parliament can only see that increasing unit price will affect the millions of low paid workers who simply enjoy a drink. It will not affect the hardened 'Diamond White' substitute crap who will simply pay the extra to get pissed as newts. Yet again, the health Lobby have a one track mind, but with alcohol they dare not ban it-could you imagine the uproar? So, what will happen is simple folks. The Health Lobby will make all the representations they can possibly make, they will spend £millions on public awareness adverts etc and will force more businesses out......of business!
It seems that the cost in benefits to this government matter not one iota compared to the wishes of the Health Lobby. Our new friend, Philip Davies has already pointed out the obvious to the House but it seems opposition is rife to his ideas.
I mentioned freedom of choice earlier. When election time comes, please don't hesitate, exercise your freedom of choice and vote this shower of lillylivered shite out of power. If you don't, the Health Lobby will be running the unhappyest country in the western world!