Good Cop, Bad Cop

Devil's Advocate

The UQ (aka UK) Ltd government appears to be playing the game of Good Cop/Bad Cop:

• Good Cop (government)
• Bad Cop (Sir Liam Donaldson - government)

Clearly, the premise is that if there is something the government wants, it will officially oppose the desire. Governments wants more tax (they all do) this through alcohol sales (added duty), but could not formally condone any move that would provide it. A minimum price (50p) for a single unit of alcohol. With the binge drinking culture, it would be political suicide to actively support such a move.

So, condemn it (Good Cop)

Even inept government has its limits of ineptitude. One outcome is certain: consumers will be much more conscious (until influenced by the alcohol) of the number of units they are consuming. Each one will cost 50p.

Government: we want your money so to avoid the problem just give it to us. Your donation for nothing in return. Alcohol could be made illegal, but that would start a real uprising. The cash cow is so lucrative it must not be harmed and with essentially the entire nation hooked on drink to some extent (low, moderate, heavy) is just too much for any army of police.

Displease the people by all means, but make them pay for the privilege of feeling DISPLEASE

Sir Liam Donaldson (Bad Cop) 

• proposes the action and is seen as the (establishment figure) bad guy

The introduction of a minimum price for an alcohol unit would penalise and punish those who use alcohol in a 'sensible' way, by not over-indulging. Again, not a politically good move, but still highly desirable. Upsetting the people doesn't matter. Collecting the maximum from them does matter.The country does have a serious drink problem and the obvious answer is to tax it. The justifiction is to crush the problem whereas more honestly it is to exploit it. The actual result will be no change in the numbers using alcohol, although ideally it would be to increase the userbase. Crime will almost certainly increase requiring more police and people-protection. Robbery will ensure that the supply is maintained and/or theft will become the method to obtain funds to acquire it. Obviously, more police and people monitoring (surveillance of all kinds) will be necessary. Just another method to give the people what they deserve. The law-abiding and sensible user simply pays more to acquire the alcohol legally. Brown heading the government does not officially approve of such penalty. Irrelevant. The non law-abiding user just steals it or 'mugs' somebody for some money or burgles houses, steals cars and radios. The usual suspects. Very relevant to increase the necessary protection, monitoring and surveillance.

Create the problem and provide the solution

The government gets kudos for promoting common sense and Donaldson gets the tar and feathers. So far, so good. But how does it work that the goal is reached to achieve a minimum price for a unit of alcohol? Donaldson will have to be officially rebuked for making such an outrageous suggestion, but condemnation will not be possible since many positive points are made. The only issue is the minimum cost per unit and raising prices to stop the increased use. This is the critical feature and the key to it all working.

Reverse psychology

• The average adult in the UK consumes the equivalent of 120 bottles of wine a year and warned: "The country has a drink problem."
• Passive smoking damages others, passive drinking inflicts untold damage on children whose mothers drink while pregnant (emotive argument), or whose parents drink too much, as well as the 7,000 victims of drink drivers and 39,000 alcohol-related sexual assaults per year.
• A minimum price per unit of alcohol at 50p.
• Tightening licensing laws so local authorities consider the deaths and ill-health due to alcohol in the area before granting new licenses for pubs or clubs.
• Donaldson vowed to continue to push for the measure, saying it was backed by evidence and had the support of the medical community and alluded to the fact that he had been calling for a ban on smoking in public places for many years before it was finally accepted by ministers. Irrelevant.
• "We are heading for a meltdown as far as the individual health consequences of drinking are concerned and then you have the passive consequences of drinking on top of that".
• Sir Liam Donaldson added that he knew the idea of a minimum price per unit was controversial and would 'upset some people and ruffle some feathers', but he hoped decisions would not be taken without proper debate.
• "Where is plan B?" Why should a plan B or Plan C or... be needed? Irrelevant.
• Toleration of a drink problem this country has?
• The proposal is under consideration in Scotland. Irrelevant.
• The Chief Medical Officer's Annual Report, the 50th report produced since a chief medical officer was first appointed, cites research that a 50 pence per unit minimum price would mean:

• a bottle of wine could not be sold for less than £4.50
• whisky for not less than £14
• a six pack of lager not less than £6
• a two-litre bottle of cider not less than £5.50

• Moderate drinkers would end up paying around only £1 more a month where as a heavy drinker would spend £13 or £14 more a month.

• This quantifies the government interpretation of the heavy drinker as consuming between and 14 times as much alcohol as the moderate drinker. Obviously, by this logic the occasional drinker has virtually nothing.

• Heavy drinker is probably an alcoholic or drink dependent and so will 'find' the extra money at the denial of essentials to the family. It happens.

• Donaldson argued that the measure would help pubs because it would stop supermarkets selling cut price alcohol which encourages young people to 'pre-load' or drink at home before going out.

• How about government getting tough and preventing supermarkets from doing this. Tightening up the licensing laws. The tax revenue is reduced anyway so the commercial reason has nothing to do with (weak) government.

• The measure would see 3,393 fewer deaths, 97,900 fewer hospital admissions, 45,800 fewer crimes, 296,900 fewer sick days, 12,400 fewer people unemployed and benefit society by £1bn a year.

Not verifiable

• This simply demonstrates the damage done to society by alcohol and raising or lowering prices is totally irrelevant.

• However the drinks industry dismissed the idea:

• Mark Pragnell, managing director of the centre for economics and business research which was commissioned by SABMiller plc (shareholder), one of the world's leading brewers, to investigate the plan said:

• "A key problem with minimum pricing is that heavier drinkers – those that the policy is supposed to be targeting – are least responsive to price changes. This means that minimum pricing is an incredibly blunt instrument which imposes significant costs across large sections of society, whilst having very limited benefits in terms of curbing the excesses of the minority."

• It cannot be a surprise that a company that relies on shareholder investment would oppose increasing the cost of their product to the consumer. The government would get any benefit not the company. They are just the agent off which the parasite feeds.

• Gordon Brown rejected the minimum price per unit idea with an argument that included the fact that this would see the end to cans of lager and cider sold at less than the cost of a bottle of water. Brown apparently doesn't want the majority of moderate drinkers to pay more. This is a specious argument as drinking water can be drawn from a tap and the problem can be attacked by government action to reduce blatant profiteering. This won't happen as it defuels Brown's precept: the high cost of water drives up the need to charge more for lager and lager should be more expensive than water.The report also called for a ban on using certain antibiotics in animals because irresponsible use was driving antibiotic resistant disease like MRSA.

Completely irrelevant and specious. Red herring

• Wider use of simulations is needed that should be used for continual medical training the report said and men with prostate cancer should receive more counselling to help them decide if they want radical treatment or not as the cancer may never cause them significant problems. Side effects of surgery and radiotherapy can be devastating.

Specious connection

So, make out that Donaldson is the Bad Cop for stating the positives and the government the Good Cop for supporting not imposing a minimum price. A surprising government policy in conflict with itself. It a shining light in the darkness that alerts to a problem. The spin is obvious: Bad Cop Donaldson is right and even though minimum prices are opposed, it would be a good thing to favour alcohol (tax) increases much to the benefit of society. By pushing up prices.

The cost for all the benefits is the minimum
price/unit (50p) and will appear a real bargain

Alcohol is a simple chemical and very, very cheap to synthesise. Tight control by government on the sale to the public (Inland Revenue and Customs) means the public can have no idea of the quality of the 'alcohol' or even how it reaches the sellers. It's the proverbial gift horse donor to the Treasury coffers and is why it is so desirable. The users have to be 'persuaded' that a price increase to a minimum unit price is a good idea.

It's just a revenue earner and a poison. Both as a drug and the damage done to society.

Spun all the way around

Government is the Good Cop for opposing the views of...

...the government: Bad Cop (Donaldson)

• The logic used in this argument is a paradox: it's very illogical though realistic and plausible

Anti-alcohol campaign
Just Shooting The Breeze