A growing minority of young people are losing faith in capitalism altogether, which makes sense when you consider that most of them are being directly rinsed by a capitalist on a monthly basis. Combine that with stagnating wages, increasingly insecure employment terms and the looming threat of climate apocalypse, and can you blame anyone for wanting large-scale change?
I don't want to be rude, but most people growing up from about 1950 to about 1990 had things rougher.
Essentially, the top decile drink *pretty much all* the alcohol, at an average of 74 drinks. These are your problem drinkers. The ninth decile don't even come close at 15 drinks.
People who are drinking 74 drinks a week are unlikely to cut down in any meaningful way.Let's say they cut down by 10% as a result of the introduction minimum pricing - they're still way over the healthy 'limit'.
All the minimum price on alcohol does is punish _poor_ problem drinkers who, as I say, will like as not either a) not cut down enough to make a difference or b) cut down elsewhere, buying cheaper food, etc, to maintain their habit.
I don't think that follows, because if you zoom in on the top decile it is itself a spectrum. 74 drinks a week looks a lot but its less than 2 bottles of wine a day, and there are a lot of people by whose standards that is almost teetotal. So there are people in the decile drinking less than 74 drinks a week, and the most price-sensitive of that subset are highly likely to be susceptible to pricing pressure to the extent of moderating (even if only slightly) their intake.
The problem with this is the people most likely to be price sensitive are the people who can take it or leave it, the people who aren't problem drinkers in the first place.
One can assume two different demand-vs-price graphs for problem vs non problem drinkers, the first being highly elastic while the second being highly inelastic.
In other words the only people this stupid nannying law will have any impact on are poor people who like a drink now and again but can take it leave it, who will be deprived an occasional pleasure. The seriously addicted will do what addicts always do - find a way to pay for their addiction. And the rich will carry on regardless. So what is the point of this law?
It's on a par with Swedish state shops for alcohol. Supermarkets in Sweden are allowed to sell weak beer only. The Swedish state operates a chain of shops selling spirits and wine at rip-off prices - ~3x the price of booze in Germany - in an attempt to keep people off the demon drink.
Also Swedish local authorities can pass near-prohibition laws if they wish. The only drink on sale would then be weak beer.
I'd vote for a moderate Labour Party (anything right of Miliband) over the current Tories. And I'm sure there are nominal Labour supporters who would vote for an unashamedly Cameroon Tory Party over current Labour.
The electorate is frozen by the current polarisation* of the main parties, with moderates/floaters on both sides afraid to vote for a minor party for fear of it letting their particular bête noire get into power**.
*frozen, polarisation, geddit? **or into meaningful power in the Tory case.
I don’t see there being that much of Labour’s coalition that would vote for a Cameroon Tory party.
The very fact somebody says they would vote moderate Labour rather than present Tories would seem to suggest there will people who would do the reverse, vote for a more liberal seeming Tory party than the present Labour party. Why would that be a surprise? Even if we accept the public prefer the parties to be more extreme, we know floaters exist, which mean there will be people who are currently voting one way but would happily switch if the other way altered a bit.
I don’t see how one person being willingly to vote for a moderate Labour Party means that there must be many other Labour supporters who’d vote for a Cameroon style party. I get the feeling that there’s a small but significant minority of Tory supporters unhappy with the Conservative party at the moment. I don’t get the impression that is the case for Labour, with Labour supporters seemingly much more enthusiastic about Corbyn than Conservatives are about May.
Re floaters - well that’s a different matter from Labour supporters.
You referred to the Labour coalition, which I would take to include people currently supporting them, but not necessarily firm in that support. Nor did I say it would be many.
As for the logic behind it, it seems nonsensical to me that if people presently supporting the Tories right now as they find Labour too extreme might change their minds were Labour less extreme, that there would not be people who would move in the other direction. An argument is to be made Labour have the greater opportunity in such a situation, but I wasn't saying the two effects would be equal, but that it makes no sense for there to be one, without the other.
UK Parliamentarians who have tried their luck with the odd coup-all useless-could learn a lot from Zimbabwe as a case study.It's effective,bloodless and totalitarianism in action,not a sniff of democracy. Zimbabwe workers in the UK are having to send their old folk paracetamol back home as the collapse in healthcare means no care at all,not even 2 paracetamol.
Mnangagwa is obviously a
If Grant Shapps commanded the army, he'd launch a coup, tell them all to say they were French and then turn up wearing a kilt and swigging neat whisky and shouting 'Och aye, hoots!' to try and maintain that deception.
Key rule of thumb with dictators is once the army gives up on them they're finished. There may be a few exceptions but dictators rule by force and when the last comes to last force is the army - wasn't it Mao who said 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun?'
I recall reading a lot of tyrants deliberately .
The Byzantines followed that strategy I believe (although Morris Dancer would know more about it than me).
But actually I
I think that not quite true of the Great Terror. While the higher levels of the army were heavily purged, most were fired or exiled rather than executed. Many were reinstated even before the war.
Figures from Simon Sebag Montefiore, for executions:
3 of the 5 Marshals 15 of 17 Major Generals 60 of 67 corps commanders The entirety of the commissars.
At the very senior levels there were executions, but from Soviet archives:
So in 1937–39 a total of 36,898 officers were dismissed; 9,579 (26 per cent) of them were arrested, and 1,457 (3.9 per cent of all dismissed, 15.2 per cent of those arrested) were reinstated during 1939. In addition 19,106 were dismissed on political grounds but not arrested, 14,968 of them for being ‘connected with conspirators’, and the other 4,138 under Voroshilov’s June 1938 Directive that officers of ‘unreliable nationalities’ (e.g. Polish, German, Romanian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Estonian, Finnish and Korean) were to be discharged immediately. 38 By the end of 1939 no fewer than 7,486 (50 per cent) of the former and 1,919 (46.3 per cent) of the latter had been reinstated.39 "
from the fairly well sourced" " Triumph of the Red Army, Stalingrad to Kursk" by Gepffrey Jukes.
The references are in Russian, so I have not gone to the primary sources.
All very disruptive of course, particularly as the Red Army tripled in size over the period and completely changed doctine in terms of combined arms.
Sprinklers, or lack of them, and not wanting Westminster to pay for them. If your spouse is a multimillionaire involved in a hedgefund with massive interests in off shore banks, it really doesn't matter how many times you go to church on a Sunday to enjoy a life, when others die because of your decisions......
A growing minority of young people are losing faith in capitalism altogether, which makes sense when you consider that most of them are being directly rinsed by a capitalist on a monthly basis. Combine that with stagnating wages, increasingly insecure employment terms and the looming threat of climate apocalypse, and can you blame anyone for wanting large-scale change?
I don't want to be rude, but most people growing up from about 1950 to about 1990 had things rougher.
A big problem with the rise of social media, it has the totally skewed expectations and what is perceived as the “norm”.
Sprinklers, or lack of them, and not wanting Westminster to pay for them. If your spouse is a multimillionaire involved in a hedgefund with massive interests in off shore banks, it really doesn't matter how many times you go to church on a Sunday to enjoy a life, when others die because of your decisions......
I don't think that follows, because if you zoom in on the top decile it is itself a spectrum. 74 drinks a week looks a lot but its less than 2 bottles of wine a day, and there are a lot of people by whose standards that is almost teetotal. So there are people in the decile drinking less than 74 drinks a week, and the most price-sensitive of that subset are highly likely to be susceptible to pricing pressure to the extent of moderating (even if only slightly) their intake.
The problem with this is the people most likely to be price sensitive are the people who can take it or leave it, the people who aren't problem drinkers in the first place.
One can assume two different demand-vs-price graphs for problem vs non problem drinkers, the first being highly elastic while the second being highly inelastic.
In other words the only people this stupid nannying law will have any impact on are poor people who like a drink now and again but can take it leave it, who will be deprived an occasional pleasure. The seriously addicted will do what addicts always do - find a way to pay for their addiction. And the rich will carry on regardless. So what is the point of this law?
Well, speaking as a reasonably well-heeled ex-drunk, I'd say that "rich" and "addicted" are spectra like everything else (and that price-sensitivity is a third spectrum in its own right, not an inverse proxy for rich). Somewhere, for someone, this works as intended, although it may be the case that unintended consequences elsewhere mean that it is not net beneficial.
Indeed, it will be a spectrum - although I suspect the people it will have the most influence on are the people who least need help. And it is a thoroughly regressive tax that will target the poorest and most vulnerable in society.
What baffles me the most though, is why set a 'minimum price' that puts the money directly into the brewer's pocket, rather than raise duty to give more money for the government to spend on healthcare, to treat alcohol related issues, to fund treatment programmes, etc. To me it's utterly baffling that of all the options available, this is the one they've chosen.
A growing minority of young people are losing faith in capitalism altogether, which makes sense when you consider that most of them are being directly rinsed by a capitalist on a monthly basis. Combine that with stagnating wages, increasingly insecure employment terms and the looming threat of climate apocalypse, and can you blame anyone for wanting large-scale change?
I don't want to be rude, but most people growing up from about 1950 to about 1990 had things rougher.
Just checked all her articles for the Grauniad. Precisely zero require her to live in London. She could move out and save herself a fortune in rent
The border regions of Scotland and Wales will have a bumper time unless England follows
We really shouldn't encourage alcoholics road trips.
In pracice it is only the cheap gutrot that will be affected, the 8 Ace.
It will be interesting to see the effect on public health.
It was the Scots Whisky Assoc who took it to the high court.
And you will not stop anyone seeking a bargain by moralising
And it is suggested a rise of £4 on a bottle of spirits
The rise is only afecting the bottom end. Better whisky will be the same price.
Not strictly true. Morrisons has a two for £22 offer on at the moment. If one was to fulfill it with 2 bottles of Bacardi then that is 525 ml of alcohol which will have a minimum price of £26.25 under Scottish proposals
Interesting definition of whisky you've got there
Named Bacardi because I had a bottle to hand the offer can also be done with he famous Grouse
Fair enough, I was being a bit cheeky.
Sure my point is supermarket promotions already beat he 50p rule. Whether the local lushes north of Berwick work that out is another matter. I'd have thought offices near the border would either just stock high end booze or more likely give up their leases
The biggest hit will be on the cases of beer offered in the supermarkets. 24 cans of 500ml of 5% beer will have a minimum price of £30.
What makes a change is that this won't remotely affect pubs. There's no way of getting a pint for less than the minimum anywhere.
SNP drink drive limit of 50 mg is putting paid to those I think
An excellent policy but bad news for pubs
Pubs make way more profit on a pint of lemonade than they do on a pint of beer! Whatever happened to car sharing, that’s what my friends all used to do a couple of decades ago. Remember the “I’ll Be Des” campaign?
1p cost for a pint of Coca-Cola, price £2 plus..... Soft drinks in bottles, 5p, price £1.50.
Essentially, the top decile drink *pretty much all* the alcohol, at an average of 74 drinks. These are your problem drinkers. The ninth decile don't even come close at 15 drinks.
People who are drinking 74 drinks a week are unlikely to cut down in any meaningful way.Let's say they cut down by 10% as a result of the introduction minimum pricing - they're still way over the healthy 'limit'.
All the minimum price on alcohol does is punish _poor_ problem drinkers who, as I say, will like as not either a) not cut down enough to make a difference or b) cut down elsewhere, buying cheaper food, etc, to maintain their habit.
I don't think that follows, because if you zoom in on the top decile it is itself a spectrum. 74 drinks a week looks a lot but its less than 2 bottles of wine a day, and there are a lot of people by whose standards that is almost teetotal. So there are people in the decile drinking less than 74 drinks a week, and the most price-sensitive of that subset are highly likely to be susceptible to pricing pressure to the extent of moderating (even if only slightly) their intake.
The problem with this is the people most likely to be price sensitive are the people who can take it or leave it, the people who aren't problem drinkers in the first place.
One can assume two different demand-vs-price graphs for problem vs non problem drinkers, the first being highly elastic while the second being highly inelastic.
In other words the only people this stupid nannying law will have any impact on are poor people who like a drink now and again but can take it leave it, who will be deprived an occasional pleasure. The seriously addicted will do what addicts always do - find a way to pay for their addiction. And the rich will carry on regardless. So what is the point of this law?
I am not an advocate of the law, as I suspect price elasticity for alcoholics is limited.
Its effects will probably be at the margin, on those shifting into problem behavior.
Perhaps the most interesting effect will be if brewers and vinters return to the strengths sold decades ago, with beer and cider at 3-4% and wine around 9- 10%, compared to currently being about 50% stronger than that.
A beer or a bottle of wine could remain an affordable pleasure if it was weaker.
If I were a Tory, and a Leaver, the following graphic would scare the shit out of me:
Bearing in mind that people don't like to believe they were wrong, the most likely reaction of Leavers to a bad economic outcome of Brexit would be "It was the execution that screwed it up, not the idea." That is - blame whoever was in power and actioned Brexit.
So, in the short and medium term, it's the Tories who should be scared.
However, the Remainers will consider themselves completely confirmed by events. When you have generational differences in political viewpoints, it can be one of two things: 1 - Ageing differences. That is - as you age, your opinion changes (cf the Tories being third amongst young voters in the early Seventies, and well into absolute majority leads amongst the same cohort in the latest elections) 2 - Cohort differences. That is, each generation has different views, which they maintain as they age (eg gay marriage).
Given the very human tendency to dig in on one's opinions whenever there's conflict between opinions, and the size of the disagreement and ongoing conflict, I think this looks to be
Uh no. First diehard Remainers warned we were heading for Great Depression 2 after a Leave vote, they were proved completely wrong, now again they warn we are heading for Great Depression 2 after Brexit. Again no we are heading for a transition period and then a Canada style FTA.
Most Leavers also voted to restore sovereignty and end free movement, both of which will be achieved once Brexit is delivered. Finally of course more than 80% oppose the Euro so not only are we unlikely to ever rejoin the EU we are even more unlikely to ever join the Eurozone
For the Brexiter side, you'd better be right that there won't be any issues. You've all basically gone all-in on it going well.
Depends how you define going badly? For most Leavers that means staying in the EU, failing to regain sovereignty and leaving free movement unchecked.
For most Remainers it is the economy going badly but a FTA will ease those concerns, only a minority of Remainers are ideologically committed to the EU or EEA.
I think that may well be your view as a Leaver, but that graph shows that most of those who voted Leave don't expect any economic pain. If it goes badly economically - which many signs indicate it will - that will cause the angst I fear.
The guy sounds like a right charmer, but I do worry, 6+ years ago he said this stuff.
Edit...
How long ago is the cut off time before somebodies previous behaviour is forgiven? 6-7 years is longer than a lot of people get for genuine serious crimes.
I really worry some kid tweets some crap when they are 17 and 20 years later they lose their job because they were a knob back then.
I agree - any reasonable philosophy needs to allow for change and maturing,but the unforgiving nature of internet records is that you can be haunted by something you said a decade ago.
It raises reasonable questions and you can ask someone if they agree with their former selves or not, but in the absence of recent examples of obnoiousness, it's probably reasonable to hope they've grown out of it. Come to that, how many of us have *never* said anything stupid?
A growing minority of young people are losing faith in capitalism altogether, which makes sense when you consider that most of them are being directly rinsed by a capitalist on a monthly basis. Combine that with stagnating wages, increasingly insecure employment terms and the looming threat of climate apocalypse, and can you blame anyone for wanting large-scale change?
I don't want to be rude, but most people growing up from about 1950 to about 1990 had things rougher.
I got married in 1962 and lived in rented accomodation before buying a house in 1963. My grandson, marrying next year, is having things a lot tougher. For a start my mortgage was calculated on, and needed only, my salary. His requires both his and his fiancée’s. He is a teacher; my wife was, when we got married. Like her he teaches in a primary school Her work-life balance was much better than his. I get the very strong impression too that the professional life of a newly qualified pharmacist is much more difficult today than it was for me in 1962.
The border regions of Scotland and Wales will have a bumper time unless England follows
We really shouldn't encourage alcoholics road trips.
In pracice it is only the cheap gutrot that will be affected, the 8 Ace.
It will be interesting to see the effect on public health.
It was the Scots Whisky Assoc who took it to the high court.
And you will not stop anyone seeking a bargain by moralising
And it is suggested a rise of £4 on a bottle of spirits
The rise is only afecting the bottom end. Better whisky will be the same price.
Not strictly true. Morrisons has a two for £22 offer on at the moment. If one was to fulfill it with 2 bottles of Bacardi then that is 525 ml of alcohol which will have a minimum price of £26.25 under Scottish proposals
Interesting definition of whisky you've got there
Named Bacardi because I had a bottle to hand the offer can also be done with he famous Grouse
Fair enough, I was being a bit cheeky.
Sure my point is
What makes a change is that this won't remotely affect pubs. There's no way of getting a pint for less than the minimum anywhere.
SNP drink drive limit of 50 mg is putting paid to those I think
An excellent policy but bad news for pubs
Pubs make way more profit on a pint of lemonade than they do on a pint of beer! Whatever happened to car sharing, that’s what my friends all used to do a couple of decades ago. Remember the “I’ll Be Des” campaign?
1p cost for a pint of Coca-Cola, price £2 plus..... Soft drinks in bottles, 5p, price £1.50.
You could say the same of coffee shops. The retail price includes rental of table and chairs as well as a congenial atmosphere.
I don't think that follows, because if you zoom in on the top decile it is itself a spectrum. 74 drinks a week looks a lot but its less than 2 bottles of wine a day, and there are a lot of people by whose standards that is almost teetotal. So there are people in the decile drinking less than 74 drinks a week, and the most price-sensitive of that subset are highly likely to be susceptible to pricing pressure to the extent of moderating (even if only slightly) their intake.
The problem with this is the people most likely to be price sensitive are the people who can take it or leave it, the people who aren't problem drinkers in the first place.
One can assume two different demand-vs-price graphs for problem vs non problem drinkers, the first being highly elastic while the second being highly inelastic.
In other words the only people this stupid nannying law will have any impact on are poor people who like a drink now and again but can take it leave it, who will be deprived an occasional pleasure. The seriously addicted will do what addicts always do - find a way to pay for their addiction. And the rich will carry on regardless. So what is the point of this law?
I am not an advocate of the law, as I suspect price elasticity for alcoholics is limited.
Its effects will probably be at the margin, on those shifting into problem behavior.
Perhaps the most interesting effect will be if brewers and vinters return to the strengths sold decades ago, with beer and cider at 3-4% and wine around 9- 10%, compared to currently being about 50% stronger than that.
A beer or a bottle of wine could remain an affordable pleasure if it was weaker.
A very good point. I'm quite fond of Sam Smiths pubs because you can get a pint of Alpine Lager (2.8%) and drink four or five and have a good night out with your friends and not get blotto. Because of the low alcohol content there is also less tax on it so it is very cheap (around £2 a pint the last time I went in). I wish more pubs did the same.
I remember when my sister rented her first house in 2002, her rent was £15 a month more than the equivalent mortgage. I thought this was really silly.
Now the equivalent rent on a house like mine is almost exactly double my mortgage - £720 compared to £366.
How do I know this? Because before I bought this house I rented the identical one two doors down!
It is brutal. I am lucky that I was able to buy quickly and cheaply, but in London that clearly isn't an option. It's understandable that people believe Corbyn may help, the only snag is that he won't and may conceivably make things far worse (cf Trump, Brexit, Tsipras).
Anyway, I have some work to do before turning in. Have a good evening everyone.
The growing delta between monthly mortgage and rents is beyond crazy.
If someone says or writes something they don't like, why not simply ignore it? Taking offence at every opportunity is childish. 99% of people used to agree with that way of thinking until a few years ago, I don't know why people have changed their attitude since then.
Because it's part of a tide of articles blaming Millennials for the crime of not being able to afford massively over valued housing.
That constant blame, the outrageous assertion that they are lazy, is radicalising them.
Essentially, the top decile drink *pretty much all* the alcohol, at an average of 74 drinks. These are your problem drinkers. The ninth decile don't even come close at 15 drinks.
People who are drinking 74 drinks a week are unlikely to cut down in any meaningful way.Let's say they cut down by 10% as a result of the introduction minimum pricing - they're still way over the healthy 'limit'.
All the minimum price on alcohol does is punish _poor_ problem drinkers who, as I say, will like as not either a) not cut down enough to make a difference or b) cut down elsewhere, buying cheaper food, etc, to maintain their habit.
I don't think that follows, because if you zoom in on the top decile it is itself a spectrum. 74 drinks a week looks a lot but its less than 2 bottles of wine a day, and there are a lot of people by whose standards that is almost teetotal. So there are people in the decile drinking less than 74 drinks a week, and the most price-sensitive of that subset are highly likely to be susceptible to pricing pressure to the extent of moderating (even if only slightly) their intake.
The problem with this is the people most likely to be price sensitive are the people who can take it or leave it, the people who aren't problem drinkers in the first place.
One can assume two different demand-vs-price graphs for problem vs non problem drinkers, the first being highly elastic while the second being highly inelastic.
In other words the only people this stupid nannying law will have any impact on are poor people who like a drink now and again but can take it leave it, who will be deprived an occasional pleasure. The seriously addicted will do what addicts always do - find a way to pay for their addiction. And the rich will carry on regardless. So what is the point of this law?
It's on a par with Swedish state shops for alcohol. Supermarkets in Sweden are allowed to sell weak beer only. The Swedish state operates a chain of shops selling spirits and wine at rip-off prices - ~3x the price of booze in Germany - in an attempt to keep people off the demon drink.
Also Swedish local authorities can pass near-prohibition laws if they wish. The only drink on sale would then be weak beer.
Interesting that the Swedes can do this even though they are under the yoke of the evil EU! Did they have a referendum to 'take back control'?
I don't think that follows, because if you zoom in on the top decile it is itself a spectrum. 74 drinks a week looks a lot but its less than 2 bottles of wine a day, and there are a lot of people by whose standards that is almost teetotal. So there are people in the decile drinking less than 74 drinks a week, and the most price-sensitive of that subset are highly likely to be susceptible to pricing pressure to the extent of moderating (even if only slightly) their intake.
The problem with this is the people most likely to be price sensitive are the people who can take it or leave it, the people who aren't problem drinkers in the first place.
One can assume two different demand-vs-price graphs for problem vs non problem drinkers, the first being highly elastic while the second being highly inelastic.
In other words the only people this stupid nannying law will have any impact on are poor people who like a drink now and again but can take it leave it, who will be deprived an occasional pleasure. The seriously addicted will do what addicts always do - find a way to pay for their addiction. And the rich will carry on regardless. So what is the point of this law?
I am not an advocate of the law, as I suspect price elasticity for alcoholics is limited.
Its effects will probably be at the margin, on those shifting into problem behavior.
Perhaps the most interesting effect will be if brewers and vinters return to the strengths sold decades ago, with beer and cider at 3-4% and wine around 9- 10%, compared to currently being about 50% stronger than that.
A beer or a bottle of wine could remain an affordable pleasure if it was weaker.
A very good point. I'm quite fond of Sam Smiths pubs because you can get a pint of Alpine Lager (2.8%) and drink four or five and have a good night out with your friends and not get blotto. Because of the low alcohol content there is also less tax on it so it is very cheap (around £2 a pint the last time I went in). I wish more pubs did the same.
There is an interesting article on wine strength trends here:
A growing minority of young people are losing faith in capitalism altogether, which makes sense when you consider that most of them are being directly rinsed by a capitalist on a monthly basis. Combine that with stagnating wages, increasingly insecure employment terms and the looming threat of climate apocalypse, and can you blame anyone for wanting large-scale change?
I don't want to be rude, but most people growing up from about 1950 to about 1990 had things rougher.
I got married in 1962 and lived in rented accomodation before buying a house in 1963. My grandson, marrying next year, is having things a lot tougher. For a start my mortgage was calculated on, and needed only, my salary. His requires both his and his fiancée’s. He is a teacher; my wife was, when we got married. Like her he teaches in a primary school Her work-life balance was much better than his. I get the very strong impression too that the professional life of a newly qualified pharmacist is much more difficult today than it was for me in 1962.
I got married in 1964 and my wife gave up work to have our children.
However, we did not seek or buy that which we could not afford and my wife mended, knitted and sowed at the same time as seeking bargains, all the time
In other words we lived within our means. Indeed we had to save up £250 over three years to install central heating in our new home bought for £3, 500.
Times have changed as everyone demands and expects so much more today
I'd vote for a moderate Labour Party (anything right of Miliband) over the current Tories. And I'm sure there are nominal Labour supporters who would vote for an unashamedly Cameroon Tory Party over current Labour.
The electorate is frozen by the current polarisation* of the main parties, with moderates/floaters on both sides afraid to vote for a minor party for fear of it letting their particular bête noire get into power**.
*frozen, polarisation, geddit? **or into meaningful power in the Tory case.
I don’t see there being that much of Labour’s coalition that would vote for a Cameroon Tory party.
The very fact somebody says they would vote moderate Labour rather than present Tories would seem to suggest there will people who would do the reverse, vote for a more liberal seeming Tory party than the present Labour party. Why would that be a surprise? Even if we accept the public prefer the parties to be more extreme, we know floaters exist, which mean there will be people who are currently voting one way but would happily switch if the other way altered a bit.
I don’t see how one person being willingly to vote for a moderate Labour Party means that there must be many other Labour supporters who’d vote for a Cameroon style party. I get the feeling that there’s a small but significant minority of Tory supporters unhappy with the Conservative party at the moment. I don’t get the impression that is the case for Labour, with Labour supporters seemingly much more enthusiastic about Corbyn than Conservatives are about May.
Re floaters - well that’s a different matter from Labour supporters.
You referred to the Labour coalition, which I would take to include people currently supporting them, but not necessarily firm in that support. Nor did I say it would be many.
As for the logic behind it, it seems nonsensical to me that if people presently supporting the Tories right now as they find Labour too extreme might change their minds were Labour less extreme, that there would not be people who would move in the other direction. An argument is to be made Labour have the greater opportunity in such a situation, but I wasn't saying the two effects would be equal, but that it makes no sense for there to be one, without the other.
Point taken on the reference to the coalition, however I didn’t say you said it would be many. I added that in there as a caveat to cover myself - as it would obviously be silly for me to say no Labour supporter would do xyz because I can’t say for sure what every single individual supporter would do.
A growing minority of young people are losing faith in capitalism altogether, which makes sense when you consider that most of them are being directly rinsed by a capitalist on a monthly basis. Combine that with stagnating wages, increasingly insecure employment terms and the looming threat of climate apocalypse, and can you blame anyone for wanting large-scale change?
I don't want to be rude, but most people growing up from about 1950 to about 1990 had things rougher.
I got married in 1962 and lived in rented accomodation before buying a house in 1963. My grandson, marrying next year, is having things a lot tougher. For a start my mortgage was calculated on, and needed only, my salary. His requires both his and his fiancée’s. He is a teacher; my wife was, when we got married. Like her he teaches in a primary school Her work-life balance was much better than his. I get the very strong impression too that the professional life of a newly qualified pharmacist is much more difficult today than it was for me in 1962.
I got married in 1964 and my wife gave up work to have our children.
However, we did not seek or buy that which we could not afford and my wife mended, knitted and sowed at the same time as seeking bargains, all the time
In other words we lived within our means. Indeed we had to save up £250 over three years to install central heating in our new home bought for £3, 500.
Times have changed as everyone demands and expects so much more today
Take what ever angle you like but property has, as a multiple of salary, more than doubled in cost. And at the same time rents have exploded meaning the old notion of renting while you saved up to buy is out of the window.
A growing minority of young people are losing faith in capitalism altogether, which makes sense when you consider that most of them are being directly rinsed by a capitalist on a monthly basis. Combine that with stagnating wages, increasingly insecure employment terms and the looming threat of climate apocalypse, and can you blame anyone for wanting large-scale change?
I don't want to be rude, but most people growing up from about 1950 to about 1990 had things rougher.
I got married in 1962 and lived in rented accomodation before buying a house in 1963. My grandson, marrying next year, is having things a lot tougher. For a start my mortgage was calculated on, and needed only, my salary. His requires both his and his fiancée’s. He is a teacher; my wife was, when we got married. Like her he teaches in a primary school Her work-life balance was much better than his. I get the very strong impression too that the professional life of a newly qualified pharmacist is much more difficult today than it was for me in 1962.
I got married in 1964 and my wife gave up work to have our children.
However, we did not seek or buy that which we could not afford and my wife mended, knitted and sowed at the same time as seeking bargains, all the time
In other words we lived within our means. Indeed we had to save up £250 over three years to install central heating in our new home bought for £3, 500.
Times have changed as everyone demands and expects so much more today
Undoubtedly so. I lived in some real slums as a student. Mold, bad plumbing and freezing.
Nonetheless, I do not envy Fox jr starting out in life (apart from his youth). I just had to compete with other Brits, he has to compete with the whole world. Leave or Remain, globalisation is not going away.
A growing minority of young people are losing faith in capitalism altogether, which makes sense when you consider that most of them are being directly rinsed by a capitalist on a monthly basis. Combine that with stagnating wages, increasingly insecure employment terms and the looming threat of climate apocalypse, and can you blame anyone for wanting large-scale change?
I don't want to be rude, but most people growing up from about 1950 to about 1990 had things rougher.
I got married in 1962 and lived in rented accomodation before buying a house in 1963. My grandson, marrying next year, is having things a lot tougher. For a start my mortgage was calculated on, and needed only, my salary. His requires both his and his fiancée’s. He is a teacher; my wife was, when we got married. Like her he teaches in a primary school Her work-life balance was much better than his. I get the very strong impression too that the professional life of a newly qualified pharmacist is much more difficult today than it was for me in 1962.
I got married in 1964 and my wife gave up work to have our children.
However, we did not seek or buy that which we could not afford and my wife mended, knitted and sowed at the same time as seeking bargains, all the time
In other words we lived within our means. Indeed we had to save up £250 over three years to install central heating in our new home bought for £3, 500.
Times have changed as everyone demands and expects so much more today
Take what ever angle you like but property has, as a multiple of salary, more than doubled in cost. And at the same time rents have exploded meaning the old notion of renting while you saved up to buy is out of the window.
I don't think that follows, because if you zoom in on the top decile it is itself a spectrum. 74 drinks a week looks a lot but its less than 2 bottles of wine a day, and there are a lot of people by whose standards that is almost teetotal. So there are people in the decile drinking less than 74 drinks a week, and the most price-sensitive of that subset are highly likely to be susceptible to pricing pressure to the extent of moderating (even if only slightly) their intake.
The problem with this is the people most likely to be price sensitive are the people who can take it or leave it, the people who aren't problem drinkers in the first place.
One can assume two different demand-vs-price graphs for problem vs non problem drinkers, the first being highly elastic while the second being highly inelastic.
In other words the only people this stupid nannying law will have any impact on are poor people who like a drink now and again but can take it leave it, who will be deprived an occasional pleasure. The seriously addicted will do what addicts always do - find a way to pay for their addiction. And the rich will carry on regardless. So what is the point of this law?
I am not an advocate of the law, as I suspect price elasticity for alcoholics is limited.
Its effects will probably be at the margin, on those shifting into problem behavior.
Perhaps the most interesting effect will be if brewers and vinters return to the strengths sold decades ago, with beer and cider at 3-4% and wine around 9- 10%, compared to currently being about 50% stronger than that.
A beer or a bottle of wine could remain an affordable pleasure if it was weaker.
A very good point. I'm quite fond of Sam Smiths pubs because you can get a pint of Alpine Lager (2.8%) and drink four or five and have a good night out with your friends and not get blotto. Because of the low alcohol content there is also less tax on it so it is very cheap (around £2 a pint the last time I went in). I wish more pubs did the same.
+1 for that. I always look to see what the lowest alcohol bitter is and opt for that for the same reason. I don't like sweet drinks and if I am driving, mineral water is often the only (boring) option. I wish more pubs served beers like Adnams Sole Star (0.9% ABV).
It's on a par with Swedish state shops for alcohol. Supermarkets in Sweden are allowed to sell weak beer only. The Swedish state operates a chain of shops selling spirits and wine at rip-off prices - ~3x the price of booze in Germany - in an attempt to keep people off the demon drink.
Also Swedish local authorities can pass near-prohibition laws if they wish. The only drink on sale would then be weak beer.
***
Interesting that the Swedes can do this even though they are under the yoke of the evil EU! Did they have a referendum to 'take back control'?
***
The US, Canada and Australia, as federal countries, allow states to do what they like on all sorts of things (i.e., states' rights). The US has been a single country for about 200 yrs. I'm not surprised the EU doesn't interfere in member states' taxation of alcohol. Spain and Sweden for instance would probably never agree to harmonise their policies.
Also the EU is far from becoming a single federal country as the founding fathers (Monnet and Schuman) wanted.
I suspect Finland has a similar system to Sweden. It's also within the EU and all northern countries seem to have the attitude that booze is sinful and must be taxed, or they even pass a law that beer with above 3% alcohol can only be sold in state shops.
A growing minority of young people are losing faith in capitalism altogether, which makes sense when you consider that most of them are being directly rinsed by a capitalist on a monthly basis. Combine that with stagnating wages, increasingly insecure employment terms and the looming threat of climate apocalypse, and can you blame anyone for wanting large-scale change?
I don't want to be rude, but most people growing up from about 1950 to about 1990 had things rougher.
A big problem with the rise of social media, it has the totally skewed expectations and what is perceived as the “norm”.
Yes, having secure employment and wanting affordable rents and housing is a prosperous and unreasonable demand. Damn those millennials....if they didn’t have social media they would be totes fine with insecure employment, rising rents and the difficulty of buying a property.
The data seems to suggest that millennials today are in a much worse position than previous generations at the same stage, far from previous generations ‘having it worse.’
Comments
Also Swedish local authorities can pass near-prohibition laws if they wish. The only drink on sale would then be weak beer.
As for the logic behind it, it seems nonsensical to me that if people presently supporting the Tories right now as they find Labour too extreme might change their minds were Labour less extreme, that there would not be people who would move in the other direction. An argument is to be made Labour have the greater opportunity in such a situation, but I wasn't saying the two effects would be equal, but that it makes no sense for there to be one, without the other.
So in 1937–39 a total of 36,898 officers were dismissed; 9,579 (26 per cent) of them were arrested, and 1,457 (3.9 per cent of all dismissed, 15.2 per cent of those arrested) were reinstated during 1939. In addition 19,106 were dismissed on political grounds but not arrested, 14,968 of them for being ‘connected with conspirators’, and the other 4,138 under Voroshilov’s June 1938 Directive that officers of ‘unreliable nationalities’ (e.g. Polish, German, Romanian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Estonian, Finnish and Korean) were to be discharged immediately. 38 By the end of 1939 no fewer than 7,486 (50 per cent) of the former and 1,919 (46.3 per cent) of the latter had been reinstated.39 "
from the fairly well sourced" " Triumph of the Red Army, Stalingrad to Kursk" by Gepffrey Jukes.
The references are in Russian, so I have not gone to the primary sources.
All very disruptive of course, particularly as the Red Army tripled in size over the period and completely changed doctine in terms of combined arms.
What baffles me the most though, is why set a 'minimum price' that puts the money directly into the brewer's pocket, rather than raise duty to give more money for the government to spend on healthcare, to treat alcohol related issues, to fund treatment programmes, etc. To me it's utterly baffling that of all the options available, this is the one they've chosen.
Its effects will probably be at the margin, on those shifting into problem behavior.
Perhaps the most interesting effect will be if brewers and vinters return to the strengths sold decades ago, with beer and cider at 3-4% and wine around 9- 10%, compared to currently being about 50% stronger than that.
A beer or a bottle of wine could remain an affordable pleasure if it was weaker.
It raises reasonable questions and you can ask someone if they agree with their former selves or not, but in the absence of recent examples of obnoiousness, it's probably reasonable to hope they've grown out of it. Come to that, how many of us have *never* said anything stupid?
He is a teacher; my wife was, when we got married. Like her he teaches in a primary school Her work-life balance was much better than his.
I get the very strong impression too that the professional life of a newly qualified pharmacist is much more difficult today than it was for me in 1962.
That constant blame, the outrageous assertion that they are lazy, is radicalising them.
It's a interesting hypothesis.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wine-becomes-more-like-whisky-as-alcohol-content-gets-high/
And Jancis Robinson here:
https://www.jancisrobinson.com/articles/why-wines-are-stronger-now
Basically, making wine stronger gives the illusion of flavour and body, overwhelming more subtle flavours that enhance foods.
However, we did not seek or buy that which we could not afford and my wife mended, knitted and sowed at the same time as seeking bargains, all the time
In other words we lived within our means. Indeed we had to save up £250 over three years to install central heating in our new home bought for £3, 500.
Times have changed as everyone demands and expects so much more today
NEW THREAD
Nonetheless, I do not envy Fox jr starting out in life (apart from his youth). I just had to compete with other Brits, he has to compete with the whole world. Leave or Remain, globalisation is not going away.
It's on a par with Swedish state shops for alcohol. Supermarkets in Sweden are allowed to sell weak beer only. The Swedish state operates a chain of shops selling spirits and wine at rip-off prices - ~3x the price of booze in Germany - in an attempt to keep people off the demon drink.
Also Swedish local authorities can pass near-prohibition laws if they wish. The only drink on sale would then be weak beer.
***
Interesting that the Swedes can do this even though they are under the yoke of the evil EU! Did they have a referendum to 'take back control'?
***
The US, Canada and Australia, as federal countries, allow states to do what they like on all sorts of things (i.e., states' rights). The US has been a single country for about 200 yrs. I'm not surprised the EU doesn't interfere in member states' taxation of alcohol. Spain and Sweden for instance would probably never agree to harmonise their policies.
Also the EU is far from becoming a single federal country as the founding fathers (Monnet and Schuman) wanted.
I suspect Finland has a similar system to Sweden. It's also within the EU and all northern countries seem to have the attitude that booze is sinful and must be taxed, or they even pass a law that beer with above 3% alcohol can only be sold in state shops.
The data seems to suggest that millennials today are in a much worse position than previous generations at the same stage, far from previous generations ‘having it worse.’
https://twitter.com/goodwinmj/status/916309501615267840
Attitudes like this by older generations is why this is happening:
https://twitter.com/jameskanag/status/877862748549398528