10 comments on “Timmy elsewhere

  1. Minimum alcohol pricing is a good example of who really rules Britain. Cameron might have nearly won an election, but the bureaucrats want this law. Presumably because there is a lot of money in alcohol and they want to shake the industry down. Once they start tougher regulation, they will get invited to all sort of junkets and given jobs on boards when they retire and so on.

    So it doesn’t matter who is in power. The apparatchiks want what they want. I expect they will get it in the end. The question of what bogus justification they eventually discover is not really that interesting.

  2. If it is illegal under EU law why talk about it? Of course if it is illegal under EU it does show that we are not an independent country.

  3. SMFS-

    It’s nothing to do with money (or little to do with it). It’s just plain Puritanism. Sometimes people need to be a bit less cynical. The people trying to prohibit tobacco, alcohol, page 3 and sugary cakes are doing so not for the money (though there is money in campaigning). They do so because they hate tobacco, alcohol, page 3 and cakes.

    They really are what they claim to be. They’re Puritans. These things are what Puritans believe, and trying to prohibit them is what Puritans do.

  4. What Ian B said.

    Puritanism of course, like Presbyterianism, is the terrible nagging fear that somebody, somewhere, might be enjoying themselves.

  5. If you have a serious alcohol dependency problem, then ‘cutting down’ is a non-starter. If you don’t, then you don’t need to be browbeaten into cutting down. So this policy is either futile or superfluous. But Ian is right; this is all about the exercise of control by people who think they know better, despite being for the most part of very limited intellect. It’s a huge army of Richard Murphys intent on foisting themselves on us.

  6. I guess what they really want to have is unregistered and unregulated pubs and speakeasy. Newsflash, where there is a will to drink, there will be people willing to supply it at a reasonable price.

  7. Also it is debateable to what degree you can be a Puritan if you don’t practice what you preach. How many of that crew are abstainers, teetotallers, sex-free, slender etc?.

    “He who would a meddler be
    Let him come measure
    Cut off his dick and see
    An end to pleasure

    There’s no John Courage meant
    To make him pissed and then-t
    Spend up all his rent
    And be a shilled-grim

    Then fine food fly away
    He’ll eat what shit you say
    Obese he’ll never stay
    And be a shilled-grim”

  8. Minimum pricing is illegal under EU law.
    The only way left is to increase the tax across the board.
    But that won’t happen as it would increase the cost of wines which would make the Champagne Socialists (i.e. most MPs) unhappy. Gideon’s not that daft.

  9. I think people are misunderstanding what the word ‘illegal’ means. For Progressives there is no such thing as illegality in the sense most would understand.

  10. Ian B – “It’s nothing to do with money (or little to do with it). It’s just plain Puritanism. Sometimes people need to be a bit less cynical.”

    I am not cynical. I agree that co-operation with the puritans makes for an easy in for the bureaucrats, but that is not the prime mover. It is the same with regulating blogs. They last proposed this in 2008. We had a different political party in office, but it was the same set of bureaucrats. They do not want to go after Guido and Tim because they publish porn. They do it because it is a growing sector of the economy and so the internet just obviously needs their guidance. Hysterical mothers help them, but they would go after the internet anyway. Because they can. Because the industry has money and influence. Because it is the nature of the beast.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.