Can we celebrate? Not yet....

Do we celebrate? Not yet.... This week, in curious synchrony, the government wavered on the regulation of two out of control industries in Britain, the newspaper industry and the drinks industry. The former of the two, whilst rotten to the core, has yet to prevent itself as a major public health hazard, the latter, statistics show, certainly is. Part of the art of politics is giving the appearance of action, and in relation to the alcohol trade, David Cameron has excelled. He has imposed a minimum pricing of 45p per unit on alcoholic drinks, evidently having been shown evidence-based research that shows a clear causal link between cut price alcohol and crime. The fact that this is an initiative from the Home Office makes the government's concerns all the clearer, the cost of disorder in our towns and cities is huge, and many people have been denied the right to enjoy public places of an evening, as they have become drunken battlefields, all in the name of brewery profits. When the matter was left in the hands of former Health Secretary Andrew Lansley, the minister acted less like a man charged with the nation's well-being and more like a front man for corporate interests. He announced that he was not interested in regulation, but in working with the drinks industry to find an answer. In effect, he proposed self-regulation for an out of control industry, sound familiar? Self-regulation, as we all know is a code for 'let them do what they want and when there is a real problem, refer to an obscure industry code', but clearly in the eyes of the PM, determined to cut public spending, something further had to be done. The eye watering sums that the public purse now has to pay to police Britain's alcohol problem, and the crippling effect on the NHS, not to mention the countless cases of personal misery and the estimated 20,000 death toll every year seems to have prompted Cameron to partially act. The word partially is used here because one statistic the Prime Minister and Home Secretary would have been given whilst deliberating on this issue, again drawn from evidence-based research, is the recommended minimum price of 65p per unit, which campaigners and researchers all argue would make a considerable dent in the crime and death rates caused by drinking. This is not to say that the 45p minimum pricing is unwelcome, all moves towards a sensible and more humane way of dealing with alcohol have to start somewhere, but the question of where it goes from here is pertinent. Minimum pricing can either stay at the rather modest 45p while drinks companies find a way to undermine it or challenge it in the courts, and it might be the temptation of ministers eventually to kick the legislation into the long grass and for a future government to quietly dismantle it. If the people whose lives have been ruined by cut price booze, who's communities are unrecognisable, or who are simple just tired of indirectly subsidizing vast multinational enterprises by paying for the clean-up job after the profits of drinking have been privatised and the costs have been socialised, if these people continue to doggedly demand change, we may make it to 65p yet. Here's a final question: Why do drinks manufacturers and retailers object to minimum pricing? Won't this put up profits? Petrol companies and utilities continually rub their hands with glee when the minimum commodity price for fuel inches up every year. Drink is not like any other product, even though this issue is skirted over, it is highly addictive, and whilst this or next year’s profits for brewers and distillers might be unaffected, the steady disincentive over time to drink excessively, will eventually lead to less excessive drinkers, where the lion’s share of alcohol profits come from. The problem drinker is the mark in this particular game and the drinks industry knows it, we have scored a paper thin victory this week towards protecting that drinker, but don't be fooled, this is just the beginning of a long journey, not in any sense a destination.