BLTP raises an interesting point on my last post:
Tag: neo-prohibitionism
Charting new reserves of willpower

- Zatec lager – a lager that tastes like lager, an uncompromised expression of a true pilsner
- Harviestoun Bitter and Twisted – the same colour as the Zatec, but much more body and aroma despite being 4.2% to Zatec’s 5%, to get them thinking about the difference between ale and lager
- Worthington White Shield – to talk about bottle conditioning, and because it is one of the five greatest beers in the world
- Goose Island IPA – to talk about hops, and because it’s also one of the five greatest beers in the world
- Dogfish Head Midas touch – to talk about the history and evolution of beer, and broaden the parameters of what it might be
- Brooklyn Dark Chocolate Stout – to talk about malt, and to open up a hint of ‘extreme’ beer (even though it’s not that extreme by most aficionado’s standards, it’s pretty out there for your average drinker)
- Harviestoun Ola Dubh 40 Year Old – to show the innovation that’s happening and to leave conventional notions of what beer is and tastes like as a dwindling speck in the rear view mirror
- Cantillon Rose de Gambrinus – to fuck with their heads and make them cry
CAMRA and the neo-prohibitionists
A few of you have asked me where CAMRA is in the whole battle against the neo-prohibitionists, and whether they have issued any response to the HSC report.
Some pretty ladies illustrate the problem
Everyone seemed to welcome the Myleene Klass post as a bit of light relief from my anti-neopro posts, so here’s a happy medium between the two, specially for Cooking Lager. Have a look at this poster, which is currently displayed on a crosstrack site at Finsbury Park Tube:

Answering the neo prohibitionists, 1 of 10: “Alcohol Consumption in the UK is increasing”
Why choose 1947? Oh, that’s why!
The Select Committee acknowledges that “The history of the consumption of alcohol over the last 500 years has been one of fluctuations, of peaks and troughs.” So why choose 1947 as your point of comparison? Isn’t it odd to say “How have drinking patterns changed over the last 63 years?” The reason for choosing this seemingly random date is that it represents a really low consumption point – any comparison is only going to look better if you deliberately choose the lowest point.[1] By choosing 1947, the Committee is deliberately ‘spinning’ the figures – manipulating data to suit their case. That in itself is statistically weaselly, but would be just about valid were it not for one key fact: alcohol consumption in the late 1940s was atypical of British drinking patterns over time, thanks to extraordinary and never repeated factors, and therefore does not represent a valid point of comparison. In World War Two:
- Thanks to material shortages, the average strength of beer decreased markedly. Even though people were drinking more beer, they were consuming less alcohol through beer.
- Spirits consumption virtually disappeared because (a) there were acute grain shortages. Production of Britain’s indigenous spirit – whisky – collapsed, and any existing volume was exported for valuable income; and (b) imports of spirits virtually ceased thanks to dangers to shipping – essentials had to be prioritized.
- Many pubs were bombed out
The post-war years (including 1947) were even leaner than the war, as a broke country started to rebuild itself. It took years before the British economy got back to normal. When it did, alcohol consumption began to rise again. 1947 is therefore a ridiculous point with which to make comparison.
Changing British Drinking Patterns: The Truth
Alcohol consumption rose through the second half of the twentieth century because society became more prosperous, people had more income, and the economic foundation of Britain changed from being a manufacturing economy to a leisure/service economy. Nevertheless, if we were to choose 1870, or 1900, or 1914 as our year of comparison, the story would be one of declining consumption. Too far in the past to be relevant? OK, how about 2004? Not long enough? OK, how about 2000?
Over the last ten years, alcohol consumption has declined. It rose between 2000 and 2004, but has since declined – per capita alcohol consumption in the UK in 2009 was the same as it was in 1999, and 0.9% lower than in 2000. In other words – over a statistically relevant time scale, UK alcohol consumption is NOT increasing. The Select Committee Report is forced to acknowledge this inconvenient truth. Deep in the text, it admits that “since 2004 when consumption peaked, there has been a slight decrease in alcohol consumption in terms of litres of pure alcohol,” but says it is “unclear” whether this is just “a blip”. But by the time they get to their conclusions and Executive Summary, this inconvenient ‘blip’ has been forgotten. There is no mention of a recent fall in consumption, only that “the rising levels of alcohol consumption and their consequences have been an increasing source of concern in recent years”. The Select Committee also argues that the decline is not a “clear and consistent pattern of falling consumption since 2003”. But look at this chart:

Finally – a note about international comparisons
The Committee reports that the UK has “One of highest consumption rates in Europe”. The truth is we’re actually 9th – behind Luxembourg, Ireland, Hungary, Moldova, the Czech Republic, Croatia, Germany and Spain. At the time of writing, Fulham are 9th in the Premier League. Would even Fulham fans attempt to argue that their team is ‘one of the highest’ in the Premiership?
Polls and priorities
Bless you, you’re a liberal minded lot.
The Health Select Committee Report on Alcohol
I know I go on quite a bit about the politics of drinking. Here’s a very good illustration of why I do.
- Introduce minimum pricing
- Increase in spirits duty
- Increase “industrial white cider duty”
- Duty increases should predominantly be on stronger drinks
Marketing
- Statutory regulation of advertising from outside of alcohol and advertising industry
- No billboards within 100 metres of schools
- 9 o’ clock watershed for TV advertising
- Cinema advertising only for films with an 18 certificate
- If over 10% of audience/readership is under 18 then medium should not be used to advertise
- Alcohol advertising banned on social networking sites
Licensing
- Impose mandatory code urgently (which bans cut price drinks promotions, demands CCTV in pubs, and more)
- Police to enforce ‘serving to drunks’ legislation
- Government should assess why pubs associated with heavy drinking do not have their licences revoked
- Government should give more powers to local authorities to allow them to restrict and revoke licences
- Copy the restrictions on promotions in the off-trade introduced in Scotland, such as limited areas for alcohol consumption
Other
- Mandatory labelling scheme on all drinks packaging
- Improve alcohol treatment services
Now there are some sensible measures in there – I for one have no problem with steep increases in duty on tramp juice and a fairer allocation of duty on spirits relative to beer. And I’m still undecided on minimum pricing – I disagree with the level being recommended but can see some arguments for it as well as against it. But there are some deeply worrying recommendations too, and it’s the sheer volume of recommendations that’s really scary.
Well, because Liam Donaldson told the committee (with his usual utter disregard of any factual substantiation whatsoever) that there are “no safe limits of drinking,” and that “alcohol is virtually akin to smoking as one of the biggest public health issues we have to face in this country.”
Bollocks of course. But officially published, sanctioned, and undisputed bollocks.
And that comparison with smoking is quite deliberate. Not all the measures listed above will come to pass, but arguably the most important line in the report is this one: “Education, information campaigns and labelling will not directly change behaviour, but they can change attitudes and make more potent policies more acceptable.”Smoking hasn’t been banned form British society. But consistent campaigning against smoking eventually changed social attitudes towards it. The smoking ban came in because the majority of people were in favour of it. Nobody but the ad industry minded when advertising and sponsorship were banned. Making smoking socially unacceptable was far more effective than trying to ban it outright. The anti-drink lobby have learned from this, and this report is a naked attempt to make drinking socially unacceptable.But drinking is NOT the same as smoking. The BMA itself acknowledges the beneficial effects of moderate drinking. Nevertheless, this report seeks to persuade people to treat it the same way, and is meeting with little resistance.I’ve spent most of the last day immersed in the report, following the links to its sources, trying to work out what they’re really saying, drawing graphs so data is more easily understandable. And I’ve found that the report is highly selective in the data it uses, misrepresents what other data is saying, and in many places contains blatant untruths. It needs to be challenged.I’ve got kind of obsessed with doing so, and I’ve got lots of charts, quotes etc which do not seek to manipulate or twist the data, like the anti-alcohol lobby unfailingly does, but just present the raw numbers – collated by independent and reliable government sources and even the NHS itself – which prove that many of the report’s conclusions are deeply – I’d argue even wilfully – flawed.Over the next few days, I’ll be putting up several posts which debunk each of the following, oft-repeated myths:
- “Alcohol consumption in the UK is increasing”
- “Binge drinking is increasing”
- “Alcohol is becoming more affordable”
- “Binge drinking has been made much worse by the introduction of 24 hour licensing”
- “Alcohol related hospital admission are soaring”
- “Alcohol advertising and promotion must be tightly regulated, primarily because it is encouraging children to drink more alcohol.”
- “Alcohol abuse costs the country £55bn a year”
Sorry to go on. But please stay tuned. And if you ever hear someone spouting any of the above bollocks, please rip off the charts and use them to argue back.
Dog Jumps Shark*
*If you don’t know, ‘jumping the shark’ is a phrase from the TV industry that refers to the episode when popular comedy Happy Days finally lost it and ran out of ideas, symbolised by Fonzie jumping over a shark on water skis.
Oh, for fuck’s sake
“A forthcoming audio adaptation of Doctor Who dropped a reference to a character being drunk, partly because it could encourage children to hit the bottle. The character was instead described as being merry and cheerful.”