Tuesday, 30 October 2018

The cream of 'public health'

Our old friend Gerard 'the corporations!' Hastings has been flown to the other side of the world to offer his indispensable expertise to 'public health' campaigners in New Zealand. Hastings is one of the more obvious examples of a person exploiting the low standards of nanny state academia to make a living preaching his anti-capitalist/anti-consumerist sermon. He hates advertising, in particular, and so has made that his area of purported expertise. The WHO naturally seeks his advice and gets him to compile their evidence reviews.

Judging by the adoring tweets from his audience, his talk was down to the usual standard. The Kiwis must have been keen to hear about fizzy drinks because he turned this old slide about the evil booze peddlers...


Into this slide about Big Coke...


Not content with trying to stamp out all advertising for tobacco, booze, sugary drinks and food that he doesn't like, Hastings now seems to want to stop private individuals from discussing these products with one another...


The slide below is my favourite because it nicely captures the rigour and quality of the man's academic work.


Where to begin with this? The figures are roughly correct (see chart below) but the advertising ban (or 'adban' as he calls it) started in 2003, not 2004, the purchase age was raised in 2007, not 2009, and tobacco vending machines were banned in 2011, not whatever year he's pointing at. The graph is mislabelled at the top: the graph goes up to 2016, not 2014, although he hasn't bothered with the last year, perhaps because the ever-smoking rate went up that year.

The x-axis goes in two year intervals until 2008 when it goes in three year intervals until 2014 when it goes back to a two year intervals, but the space between all these intervals is the same. And, best of all, the final policy is titled 'plane packs'.

Give that man another OBE!




Monday, 29 October 2018

Budget 2018 and the Laffer Curve

The Chancellor, Philip Hammond, was on a spending spree in today's budget. A few new stealth taxes were announced, notably on digital services and online gambling, but the story with booze and tabs was much the same as it's been for the last five years: tobacco duty goes up by two per cent above inflation while duty on wine, cider and beer is frozen. Wine duty is set to rise in line with inflation, unfortunately, because it's mostly produced by foreigners.

The rise in tobacco duty will, of course, lead to more downtrading to cheaper brands and rolling tobacco and will encourage more smokers to buy their cigarettes in the EU and on the black market.

Looking at total revenues from tobacco and alcohol duty in recent years tells its own story. The alcohol duty escalator was abolished in 2014/15. Every year since has seen healthy growth in alcohol duty revenues.


The story is very different for tobacco. Although tobacco duty revenues have traditionally risen despite a declining number of smokers. Since 2013/14, every year has seen tobacco duty rise by two per cent above inflation. Every year has seen a decline in revenues.


Arthur Laffer wouldn't be surprised.

Thursday, 25 October 2018

Last Orders podcast with Simon Evans

There's a new Last Orders podcast out and I think you'll enjoy it. Our special guest this time is the comedian Simon Evans who I have been a fan of since his early days on the circuit. We discuss middle class cocaine users, Tory paternalism, the amusing failure of 'public health' policies and more besides.

We've been a little slack in putting out podcasts this year, partly because Tom has been fighting the good fight in the USA, but we've rebooted it and the plan is to do one every month. It is now a stand alone podcast (not part of the Spiked feed) so please subscribe to it here and give it a rating.

If you don't use iTunes, you can listen to the latest edition here.

Thursday, 18 October 2018

Taxpayer-funded pressure group wants higher taxes

The Public Health (Alcohol) Bill passed in Ireland two weeks ago. Temperance lobbyists around the world are drooling in anticipation because it includes many of their favourite neo-prohibitionist policies, notably minimum pricing, cancer warnings, severe advertising restrictions and a display ban of sorts.

For the sake of Irish consumers, I'd sooner this law hadn't been passed but the consolation is that I can watch these wrong-headed policies fail. I doubt that many small shops will bother with the booze burqa and the Irish government will spend years battling the EU over mandatory health warnings.

Irish nanny statists were hoping that Northern Ireland would bring in minimum pricing at the same time as the Republic, but there's no government in Northern Ireland so that won't be happening any time soon, and with the unit price set at €1 (88p)* there will be plenty of activity over that precious soft border.

Loyal readers will recall that the Public Health (Alcohol) Ireland Bill was sold to the public by Alcohol Action Ireland, which is almost entirely funded by taxpayers. In case the sockpuppetry wasn't obvious enough, they set up another group - the Alcohol Health Alliance - which was specifically and explicitly created ‘to support the Public Health (Alcohol) Bill’. In addition to writing submissions to government as ‘an independent [sic] voice for advocacy and policy change’ and promoting the legislation in the media, Alcohol Action Ireland set up a webpage which enabled its supporters to lobby their parliamentary representative with a standardised e-mail (‘I urge you to please support the implementation of the Public Health (Alcohol) Bill, in full’ etc.). In 2016, Ireland’s Department of Health gave Alcohol Action Ireland an additional €75,000 ‘to engage with the EU to build support for the Public Health (Alcohol) Bill’.

Government lobbying government doesn't get more blatant than this. The money given to these campaigners by government was, as one Irish politician noted 'a circular kind of transaction'.

Despite the British government's anti-sockpuppet grant standards, sockpuppetry remains rife in Britain too, especially in the local and devolved governments (where the clause doesn't apply). Take Balance Northeast, for instance. Wholly funded by the hard-pressed taxpayers in the north-east via 14 local authorities, they produced a press release today in advance of the Budget:

Strong support for higher alcohol taxes to help fund public services

New figures released today show that nearly half (49%) of North Easterners support increasing alcohol taxes if the money raised went into funding public services impacted by alcohol use, such as the NHS and police.

So less than half of North Easterners support increasing alcohol taxes even if they are told that the money will be hypothecated for the NHS and police, which it won't be. Not exactly a thumping mandate, but Balance commissioned the survey and had to make the best of it.

A better question might have been 'Would you support using more of the £13 billion drinkers pay in alcohol taxes to pay for alcohol-related services?' Or perhaps 'Would you support defunding temperance pressure groups like Balance Northeast to pay for alcohol-related services?'

Instead, drinkers and non-drinkers alike are forced to pay for parasitic organisations like Balance Northeast to lobby for still higher taxes. It really beggars belief that, after years of 'austerity' which have seen severe budget cuts in local government, local authorities are still squandering taxpayers' money on these people.


* An Irish unit is 10 grams of alcohol. The equivalent of a UK unit will be €0.80 (70p).

Wednesday, 17 October 2018

Too hot for TV

There's a fun Twitter account called @ClassicAds that shows old TV commercials, mostly from the 1980s. If you're British, over 40 and fancy a trip down memory lane, have a look at some of the adverts below.

They all have something in common. If they were made now, it would be against the law to show them before 9pm under the government's ridiculous childhood obesity strategy. Yes, even the ones for butter and orange juice. I dare say many of them breach some regulation or other as it is.

Nobody really knows how many kids were obese in the 1980s (nobody really knows how many are obese now), but the number was pretty small. Perhaps the government is - as John Stuart Mill might say - interfering wrongly and in the wrong place?
















Monday, 15 October 2018

Minimum pricing and the reverse Midas touch of 'public health'

More evidence that the Sheffield minimum pricing model was flim flam...

This follows the release of data from the Retail Data Partnership which found the following trend in convenience stores:

Brian Eagle-Brown of The Retail Data Partnership (TRDP) gave an overview of convenience performance in recent months, noting that alcohol sales were up “across the board” since the implementation of MUP.

“What was unexpected is that the result of minimum pricing is not declining, but actually increasing alcohol sales. Gin sales are up 90% year on year,” he said.

And as a fun bonus:

In news that may further disappoint policy makers, sales of full sugar soft drinks also appear to have been largely unaffected by the introduction of the sugar tax.

Brian’s TRDP colleague James Loker said that there “had not been a massive impact” from the sugar tax, and that “essentially sugary drinks are doing as well as they always have, and in some cases actually better.”

TRDP data revealed that the drinks most disadvantaged by the tax were those that opted for a formula change, with Irn-Bru and Ribena suffering a sales downturn.

Oh dear, what a shame, never mind.

I'll just leave this here lest we forget...



Friday, 12 October 2018

Questions to which the answer is yes

The BBC asks are we are living in a nanny state? In the article, my classical liberal stance is described as ‘ultra-libertarian’ while a ‘conservative’ makes the Orwellian argument that bans give people more choice. It’s a pretty good illustration of how much the centre of gravity has moved in this debate over the years. Do have a read of it.

Meanwhile the government wants to regulate pizza toppings. Only an ultra-libertarian could disagree!