> small price to pay to help curb the binge-drinking culture and do my bit towards lifting 250,000 children out of poverty

You’re assuming, of course, that these increases will have any discernible impact at all on binge drinking or child poverty. I’d say that’s one mighty assumption.

Mmmm… but what’s wrong with looking at supply v demand. How elastic is the demand of alcohol depending on its price?

Not very: http://timworstall.com/2008/02/22/hmm-2/#more-1739

Nick / Sunny – indeed, no surprises there.

And for a more complete picture of the likely effects, I’m thinking you’d need to look at the cross-elasticities of cheap cider with weed and smack, too.

This is just a cash-grab (which is fine with me – though I’d always go for income tax first, assuming IHT is untouchable now) and tokenism (i.e. NuLab business as usual).

“And for a more complete picture of the likely effects, I’m thinking you’d need to look at the cross-elasticities of cheap cider with weed and smack, too.”

And E too! I used to take that when I was a student and went clubbing since the bar prices were so ridiculous. Leaving out the potentially more unpredictable longterm effects, E delivered a more consistently enjoyable experience than alcohol for as little £2-5 for a whole night. Of course, I guess that would only be a suitable alcohol replacement in some contexts. I can’t imagine it being that much fun on cold street corners.

The alcohol taxation is a simple case of Darling trying to regain the percentage of sale as tax that alcohol used to have years ago, he’s dressed it up in sheeps clothing as a way to stop binge drinking but it is, in essence, a load of bullshit.

I also hold a great anger towards their utilisation of the “wine will still be cheaper than a decade ago” argument. Because wine has become more popular thus spurring cheaper versions of wines and greater discounts through higher sales we should tax it more is essentially what they’re saying because there is no other reason why wine would be so fundamentally “cheaper” now than earlier.

What’s key is that the argument falls down on other alcohol, where their average prices have increased at a higher rate than wages have, and that’s not even taking in to account higher cost of living. The lesson here is that if you’re a responsible drinker move to wine while you can and it isn’t taxed to high heaven, because the government wants more than it’s ever had of the alcohol market in taxation.

Question: How can taxation ever curb binge drinking before it destroys the social drinking market, forcing more of our pubs and bars to close?

Lee poses a very good question. My own post (written in rather a hurry between finishing work and picking my wife up from a hospital appointment this evening) was intended to be slightly tongue-in-cheek and in no way as a rigorous analysis of the Budget! That said, it looks as if I was the only LC blogger who could be bothered!

You were Paul! But then again this wasn’t a budget to get the pulses racing- arguably the key decisions over the next few months aren’t the tinkering in the budget (if you assume that fiscally the position will remain fairly constant) but crisis management- whether its the intervention by the central banks this week, Northern Rock or any of Northern Rock’s successors. Darling didn’t have much room for manoervre- and in spending terms things are going to get tighter before they get easier- it’ll be how he and the govt as a whole manages crisis and whether we go into a deep recession that they will be judged on.

Question: How can taxation ever curb binge drinking before it destroys the social drinking market, forcing more of our pubs and bars to close?

Good question.

The reason why Darling has no room for manoeuvre – after a record period of strong growth – is that Brown has f*cked up the public finances.

And the contempt with which the Labour elite now regard us was evident in Ed Balls’s shout of “so what?!” when Cameron pointed out that we have a record tax burden.

Raising tax on drink will have no impact on young “binge drinkers” and is simply a money raising exercise, while giving a helping hand to the smuggling industry on the side.

Meanwhile the FTSE is down 100 this morning – nothing to do with the budget, but looks as though the central bank “bounce” has been rather short lived.

This seems pretty well judged as a ’staying the course’ budget with no big announcements that might frighten the economic horses.

Most people won’t howl much about more tax on high polluting cars, as owning one is a choice. And most people won’t complain much about a few pence added to alcohol and fags because no one ever does.

The public finances are too tight to do anything radical despite not being absolutely dire (the economy is still growing, employment is still growing, and despite relatively high public borrowing – annual borrowing is lower than its worst 1990s levels, and total accumilated borrowing is far lower than most rich countries (at well less than 40 percent).

And on top of that what little has been done with spending has been focused on things no one will much complain about like child poverty.

So a fairly uninspiring budget – frankly it might be a good idea to welcome that phenomenon.

#10

> Ed Balls’s shout of “so what?!”

That never happened.

Your first clue that it never happened should have been that the Express said it did.

Your second port of call ought to have been Hansard.

“So weak!”

Ditto.

DonaldS -

I think this was an eye witness: http://www.westmonster.com/2008/03/oh_dear_ed.html

I am not sure if Hansard always records heckles:)

It’s in Hansard. I checked.

In a way, it doesn’t matter – though Hansard doesn’t always record heckles – and I imagine Balls would have rushed to “put them right” as soon as Cameron picked it up.

It doesn’t matter because it perfectly encapsulates Balls’s (and his ilk) contempt for us – whether or not he actually said it doesn’t really matter. It’s what he clearly thinks!

“The Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (Ed Balls): So weak!”

Hansard

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm080312/debtext/80312-0006.htm

—-

Not that this matters much – but Hansard seems pretty clear on it being “so Weak”.

And for those fools to think that heckling is a basis on which to judge people in the House of Commons, get iver it. The whole thing is supposed to be part pantomime. It always has been – and every politician joins in.

I see – you may be right. In that case, I suppose this risks becoming another “crisis, what crisis?” or a “no such thing as society” (both of which were misleading misquotes). Strange how even with the media today, legend and myth is used to encapsulate people rather than facts about them.

Nick –

alas few people on here even bothered to check hansard – and if people posting on a politically aware site like this accept without question the claims of political opponents about some one (in this case Ed Balls) – then we can hardly be surprised it is easy to build a myth among the wider public.

What does “so weak” mean in this context anyway? The economy, Cameron, his response?

Hansard can be and is corrected – it isn’t necessarily an accurate word-for-word transcript of what was actually said.

Note I have no idea what Balls said (but it wouldn’t surprise me if he did say “so what”) nor have I given it much thought.

The Managing Editors’ room is where Members can check the transcript of their speeches. Members are not allowed to make alterations of substance to their speeches. Neither may Members subsequently add anything to their speeches or “write in” material to the record, as is allowed in some other legislatures.”

Nick

I would imagine having watched it live (though not in the chamber, and unable to hear the heckle itself) that Balls was suggesting that the line of attack was ’so weak’ among other things.

after all – even now amid the sub-prime chaos the argument that labour has ruined the UK economy over the last ten years rings hollow at best.

ukliberty

Hansard can be corrected and routinely is thanks to sound recording. But those not employed by hansard can’t influence that (other than highlight a possible mistake to be checked by hansard themselves).

And so it would be somewhat odd to think that Balls shouted “so What” and Cameron ranted about “So What” – but the paid professional listening and typing mistook Balls’ cry as “so Weak”.

Its far far more likely he said ’so weak’

M4E, I was more concerned about people thinking it was a verbatim account.

“Members are not allowed to make alterations of substance to their speeches.” – How Hansard works

sorry – i thought you was suggesting that the hansard was perhaps innacurate in reporting “so weak” – which seems unlikely.

though granted it is not a verbatim account and mistakes do happen and are corrected.

No problem!