Monday, July 09, 2007

Drink: now the Tories say, "no".

Some years ago, before the man became the leader of the Tories, my father went to see Iain Duncan Smith speak out against the EU; his subsequent failure as "the quiet man" of British politics ensured that my father was somewhat disappointed in IDS.

Still, one can hardly be surprised when a previously anti-EU man becomes the leader of the Conservatives and suddenly becomes... well... somewhat pro-EU. After all, it was the Conservatives that took us into the EEC in the first place; it was the Conservatives who rammed the Maastricht Treaty through parliament without a referendum and it was the Conservatives who were all set to take us into the Euro without a referendum too.

In fact, the one thing that we can be pretty bloody sure about is that the Conservatives are pro-EU and their present calls for a referendum on the EU Constitution Treaty are only being voiced because they know that it will not happen.

Readers may recall that I sent Oliver Letwin an email on this subject a couple of weeks ago. I have now had a reply from the poor research monkey—an Angela Charles—who has been tasked with answering this particular missive, because Ollie can't be arsed (this is standard practice, as anyone who has emailed an MP will know. The MP does not answer, although he will see both question and answer; some poor fucking researcher gets lumped with doing it. This allows MPs to gloss over any kind of criticism because they are lazy, corrupt fucks who should be strung up from lamp-posts. But then, we knew that).
Thank you for your e-mail.

My colleagues and I on the Conservative benches are calling, and will continue to call for a referendum on the new treaty – which is the constitution in all but name.

It is a travesty for Gordon Brown to wander around talking about power to the people and then to deny the people a referendum on this issue, especially when a referendum on the constitution was guaranteed by him and by Mr Blair at the last election.

We must campaign for the voice of the people to be heard.

Best wishes.

OLIVER LETWIN

Now, I'm an old-fashioned sort of a guy; if you haven't written the fucking email—if you haven't even bothered to hide the fact that you didn't write the email—don't bother fucking signing it, you stupid fucking cunt. Seriously, can anything more graphically illustrate the contempt that our "elected representatives" have for us than this sheer discourtesy?

Anyway, this is all shit; the fucking Tories are happy to swan around demanding a referendum that they don't really want because they know that it won't happen.

I mean, if they were serious, perhaps they'd like to introduce a private member's Bill? Or possibly even support Lord Pearson's Bill calling for a cost/benefit analysis? No, neither. Whilst they are happy to sit at home and watch Maclean's Bill for hiding their massive fucking expenses go through, these cunts are "calling for a referendum." They know as well as we do that there are effective ways and means to get this referendum on the agenda but they don't really want a referendum and they certainly don't want the people to turn around and give "the wrong answer".

What a bunch of cheap-ass fucking whores. Any Conservative government would be no better than NuLabour, and all of the indications so far are that they would be worse. To return to IDS, let us take the recommendations of the Quiet Man's latest report.

The first thing that the report recommends is that cannabis be reclassified as a Class B drug. Well, I'll pass you over to Master Worstall for a comment on that.
The health risks of cannabis are so great that it should now be reclassified as a class B drug, carrying much greater penalties for possession and trafficking,......For years people have been allowed to get away with this rather loose and wishy-washy idea that in the Sixties we took it and it didn't matter. But in the Sixties it was a much less potent drug, and now they have this stuff that is home-grown, which is at least 12 times more powerful.'

And why was skunk developed? Because it's home grown, it doesn't have the import problems that are associated with trying to bring in tonnes of a Class B drug. So our reaction to the rise of the answer to cannabis being a Class B drug is that we'll make it a Class B drug again.

What would actually be a sensible answer is to make it legal, to have it sold in tobacconists, where the manufacturers will be really rather careful about variability in strength as will consumers.

But that of course might mean people actually being allowed t enjoy themselves, something that would never do now would it?

Quite. Educate.

Legalise.

Regulate.

Tax to pay for the externalities of those who become addicted or who have a ngative impact on society.

And this brings me onto another recommendation in the report.
One of the key measures will be a new 'treatment tax' on drink which would be used to provide an increase of £400m on the amount spent on treatment and recovery programmes for both alcoholics and addicts. The tax - which could see an increase of around three per cent on alcohol, adding 25p to the cost of a bottle of whisky - would not go straight into the Treasury as VAT and excise duty does, but would instead be set aside for medical treatment.

What.

The.

Fuck?

As has already been pointed out in this post (and thanks to Mark), duties from alcohol are already running at about £7.8 billion. Yes, that is seven point eight billion fucking quid.

We do talk about large numbers here, so let's do some mathematics, for illustrative purposes. The median wage in this country [PDF] (thanks to Chris Dillow) is approximately £22,326. If that is take-home pay, the average person will have to work for 44.7 years to earn £1 million. £1 billion is 1,000 million and so the ordinary guy earning the median wage will take nearly 44,791 years to earn one billion pounds.

And that means that our man on the median wage will take 394,368.5 years to earn what the government makes in booze duty every, single fucking year. Human history, as we know it, covers about 2,000 years. So, is anyone seeing the fucking problem here?

The Tories have issued a report recommending that we put yet more tax on alcohol, that we punish the average guy in the street, in order to increase the 394,368.5 years worth of his work that they receive in alcohol duty, in order to pay for treatment.

Is the £7.8 billion that you already take not enough? Even if we believed that you would ring-fence this tax—which we don't, you thieving, lying scum—you want to take more?

Fuck you and your "families". Fuck you and your "broken society". Fuck off, you double-dyed cunts. You are just out to make as much out of us poor fucking taxpayers as you possibly can, you corrupt fuckwits.

The Tories maintain that they cannot commit to tax cuts; but it seems as though slapping more tax on our pleasures is absolutely fucking fine by this bunch of authoritarian freaks. Fuck you Spam. Fuck you, Letwin. And fuck you IDS.

All of you, go fuck yourselves; you fucking politicians are nothing more than a bunch of extorting cunts with no priorities apart from your own cunting pleasure and your own bastard bank accounts. You lying sacks of shit.

4 comments:

Harry Hook said...

No problem ...here at Rorke's Drift Motors we run our vehicles, drivers and passengers on ethanol (Potcheen SupaUnleaded *****), making it cost effective and good for the environment.

Roger Thornhill said...

7p on a pint. 70p per binge? Yeh, right, that is REALLY going to stop people who are quite happy to spend £5 on a kebab only to retch it into a gutter moments later.

The suggestion is irrational, pure and simple.

If you want to spend £400m out of the EXISTING £7.8bln, spend it on mobile overnight lock-ups for rowdy yobs and overtime for Magistrates to see them next morning. Lets have £1000 fines for starters - that, or 1 week in solitary (in same basic lock-ups). Solitary is necessary as you do not want them learning anything from the other scrotes or actually having any social life while inside.

Mark Wadsworth said...

What Roger says. Seventy pence is hardly going to change anything, except for the worse.

s_weitz said...

Oh come on. You may not like this idea (and judging by how quickly it was dropped, neither did anyone else), but working out the booze tax paid by 60 million of us in average-bloke wages only gives you a figure which is

a) inevitably extremely large - you've lumped a whole country's tax burden on one poor bugger

and

b) completely and utterly meaningless

You can do better than this.