nuzak posted:

Mate if you're this concerned about the lack of scientific understanding in politics you'd still be voting green. Their economic policies seem to be the only ones based on some kind of reason, rather than magical austerity logic.

IDGI. I can't remember the last time I saw people criticising labour/conservative environmental or scientific policy over their economic policies.

LemonDrizzle posted:

"It is the Conservatives who are the party of social justice" - Michael Gove, introducing David Cameron's closing speech

LemonDrizzle posted:

Grapevine now has it that Cameron's closing tory conference speech will have at least one big tax giveaway and that UKIP have a new defector lined up.

quote:

Hundreds of alcohol-related deaths could already have been prevented if the Government had introduced minimum unit pricing last year, according to a study published on Wednesday.

In contrast, the decision by ministers to instead target “below-cost” alcoholic drinks will save just 14 lives a year and is 50 times less effective at protecting public health than the rejected proposals for minimum pricing, the research found.

The Government introduced a ban on the sale of below-cost alcohol in England and Wales in April, targeting ultra-cheap drinks sold for less than the amount of tax payable on them with the aim of reducing the burden of alcohol-related illness and crime on the state.

The move followed the scrapping of plans to introduce a minimum price of between 40p and 50p per alcoholic unit, which ministers argued would unfairly penalise responsible drinkers. At the time, critics said the Government had “caved in to lobbying from big business”.

Now researchers at the University of Sheffield, who compared the public health impacts of both approaches, have concluded that minimum pricing would have “an approximately 40-50 times greater effect” on alcohol consumption than the targeting of below cost drinks.

The study, published in the British Medical Journal, suggests that the Government’s ban will only prevent 14 deaths and 500 hospital admissions in England each year. A 45p minimum unit price would save 624 deaths and 23,700 admissions annually, it adds.

The researchers also pointed out that targeting below cost drinks would have a minimal impact on the alcohol market, increasing the price of just 0.7 per cent of drinks sold in England. By comparison, a 45p minimum unit price would increase the price of 23 per cent.

The amount of alcohol consumed by “harmful drinkers” – defined as more than 50 units per week for men or 35 for women – would also barely be affected by the Government’s ban, they added. In the space of a year, this group would only drink three units less than they would have previously – compared to 137 units less under a 45p minimum unit price.

The researchers compared the effects of the two policies on public health using a mathematical model alongside General Lifestyle Survey data from the ONS to estimate changes in alcohol consumption, spending, and related harm among adults in England.

Alcohol charities last night called on the Government to change course and adopt minimum pricing. Jackie Ballard, chief executive at Alcohol Concern, said: “The research published today is further proof that minimum unit pricing is an evidence-based policy that will save lives and cut crime, and we need the Government to act quickly to introduce it.

“We know that minimum unit pricing will reduce alcohol-related harm, cut crime and assault, ease the burden on our hospitals and protect the young and vulnerable. This is why doctors, nurses, ambulance services and police up and down the country want to see it introduced.”

Simon Antrobus, the chief executive of Addaction, added: “If further evidence were needed that the Government was wrong to ditch minimum unit pricing, this is surely it. It’s a policy that would have a significant benefit to public health, saving millions for the NHS and helping to protect our most vulnerable drinkers.”

But a Department of Health spokeswoman said: “Alcohol-fuelled harm costs society £21 billion a year and we are determined to reduce this burden to taxpayers. We are taking action to tackle cheap and harmful alcohol such as banning the lowest priced drinks.

“We are working with industry to promote responsible drinking, and are already making headway by removing a billion units from the market over three years.”

In Scotland, a 50p minimum unit price for alcohol has already been agreed by MSPs – but the law cannot be implemented until legal proceedings brought by the Scottish Whisky Association are completed. In Northern Ireland the issue is currently under review.

Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrat Home Office Minister, said: “Minimum unit alcohol pricing remains on the table. We can't sensibly take it forward until the outcome of the Scottish court case. But I'm personally sympathetic to the idea.”

Sarah Wollaston MP, the Conservative chair of the Health Select Committee, said: "I have long supported a minimum unit price for alcohol as the most effective way to reduce the harm to the heaviest drinkers, their families and communities. Minimum pricing in Canada has been associated with significant reductions in alcohol related harm and, once the European Court has reached a verdict, if that gives a go ahead for Scotland, I hope the Government will reconsider the position south of the border. Of course minimum pricing cannot work in isolation but whilst alcohol remains so cheap, price will undermine all other efforts to help those who are losing control of their drinking."

kim jong-illin posted:

Revisiting an important public health topic that a lot of people ITT still fail to understand:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...dy-9765616.html

ReV VAdAUL posted:

Word is the Tax cuts are meant to appeal to C2s (poorer workers), my wild guess is a significant fuel duty cut.

Gonzo McFee posted:

DesperateDan posted:

That really made me sit back and strongly reconsider my position, obviously more than one cock is required. I will label one of the spatters of jism in your honour though, would you like a boxed close up of a badly drawn spermatozoa smoking a spliff too?

Seems far more productive than picking the colour of rosette the neo-liberal shitbag party in power wears

Fluo posted:

Na we understand it, we just stopped caring*.

Fluo posted:

Na we understand it, we just stopped caring.

Chocolate Teapot posted:

*you stopped caring

**and didn't understand it

I'm a Chocolate Teapot and I eat poop. I'm literally saying these words in this post out of my mouth.

quote:

Hundreds of alcohol-related deaths could already have been prevented if the Government had introduced minimum unit pricing last year, according to a study published on Wednesday.

In contrast, the decision by ministers to instead target “below-cost” alcoholic drinks will save just 14 lives a year and is 50 times less effective at protecting public health than the rejected proposals for minimum pricing, the research found.

The Government introduced a ban on the sale of below-cost alcohol in England and Wales in April, targeting ultra-cheap drinks sold for less than the amount of tax payable on them with the aim of reducing the burden of alcohol-related illness and crime on the state.

The move followed the scrapping of plans to introduce a minimum price of between 40p and 50p per alcoholic unit, which ministers argued would unfairly penalise responsible drinkers. At the time, critics said the Government had “caved in to lobbying from big business”.

Now researchers at the University of Sheffield, who compared the public health impacts of both approaches, have concluded that minimum pricing would have “an approximately 40-50 times greater effect” on alcohol consumption than the targeting of below cost drinks.

The study, published in the British Medical Journal, suggests that the Government’s ban will only prevent 14 deaths and 500 hospital admissions in England each year. A 45p minimum unit price would save 624 deaths and 23,700 admissions annually, it adds.

The researchers also pointed out that targeting below cost drinks would have a minimal impact on the alcohol market, increasing the price of just 0.7 per cent of drinks sold in England. By comparison, a 45p minimum unit price would increase the price of 23 per cent.

The amount of alcohol consumed by “harmful drinkers” – defined as more than 50 units per week for men or 35 for women – would also barely be affected by the Government’s ban, they added. In the space of a year, this group would only drink three units less than they would have previously – compared to 137 units less under a 45p minimum unit price.

The researchers compared the effects of the two policies on public health using a mathematical model alongside General Lifestyle Survey data from the ONS to estimate changes in alcohol consumption, spending, and related harm among adults in England.

Alcohol charities last night called on the Government to change course and adopt minimum pricing. Jackie Ballard, chief executive at Alcohol Concern, said: “The research published today is further proof that minimum unit pricing is an evidence-based policy that will save lives and cut crime, and we need the Government to act quickly to introduce it.

“We know that minimum unit pricing will reduce alcohol-related harm, cut crime and assault, ease the burden on our hospitals and protect the young and vulnerable. This is why doctors, nurses, ambulance services and police up and down the country want to see it introduced.”

Simon Antrobus, the chief executive of Addaction, added: “If further evidence were needed that the Government was wrong to ditch minimum unit pricing, this is surely it. It’s a policy that would have a significant benefit to public health, saving millions for the NHS and helping to protect our most vulnerable drinkers.”

But a Department of Health spokeswoman said: “Alcohol-fuelled harm costs society £21 billion a year and we are determined to reduce this burden to taxpayers. We are taking action to tackle cheap and harmful alcohol such as banning the lowest priced drinks.

“We are working with industry to promote responsible drinking, and are already making headway by removing a billion units from the market over three years.”

In Scotland, a 50p minimum unit price for alcohol has already been agreed by MSPs – but the law cannot be implemented until legal proceedings brought by the Scottish Whisky Association are completed. In Northern Ireland the issue is currently under review.

Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrat Home Office Minister, said: “Minimum unit alcohol pricing remains on the table. We can't sensibly take it forward until the outcome of the Scottish court case. But I'm personally sympathetic to the idea.”

Sarah Wollaston MP, the Conservative chair of the Health Select Committee, said: "I have long supported a minimum unit price for alcohol as the most effective way to reduce the harm to the heaviest drinkers, their families and communities. Minimum pricing in Canada has been associated with significant reductions in alcohol related harm and, once the European Court has reached a verdict, if that gives a go ahead for Scotland, I hope the Government will reconsider the position south of the border. Of course minimum pricing cannot work in isolation but whilst alcohol remains so cheap, price will undermine all other efforts to help those who are losing control of their drinking."

Fluo posted:

It's mostly the Liberal side of the Liberal Democrats in the big seats in the party.

kim jong-illin posted:

You're hardly one to talk with the dense seam of anti-intellectualism you demonstrated over it last time, especially when multiple people did the sums to prove that you were talking out of your arse.

Zephro posted:

I think it's also pure triangulation - the higher tax-free allowance is a Lib Dem policy and I'm pretty sure the higher 40p threshold has been nicked from UKIP.

Carrier posted:

*in slightly politically incorrect asian voice* Erection chat: Who are people itt planning on voting for in the next election? I see a lot of talk of the tories being hosed and the lib dems being hosed and also labour being hosed from various people so I guess it would be interesting to know rather than who people think aren't going to get in, the people they are actually going to vote for.

Personally, i'll probably vote lib dem again, despite all their broken promises and poo poo.

Zephro posted:

Dunno if this is the same tax cut, but apparently Dave just promised a £12,500 tax-free allowance, and shifting the higher-rate threshold to £50k.

So basically a tax cut for the bottom ~80%

kim jong-illin posted:

Revisiting an important public health topic that a lot of people ITT still fail to understand:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...dy-9765616.html

Fluo posted:

Carry on with the snide comments looking for an argument, you're not getting one from me.

Fluo posted:

Na we understand it, we just stopped caring.

Bozza posted:

"By crudely drawing penis on your ballot, you are oppressing the working class! You are literally the worst!"
- a serious post itt

Chocolate Teapot posted:

What's wrong with minimum pricing? I care, others here care. What's a better alternative?

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad posted:

nobody else is ever getting in, thanks FPTP.

Fluo posted:

Some homeless people wanting a little warmer to help them get to sleep in the street will have to muster together another 20-50p to get their special brew white lightning turbo snakebite drink from the corner shop or supermarket. The pros outweigh the cons majorly and there isn't a better alternative off the top of my head. So there isn't "literally no downside" but the downside is very minor and the positives are pretty great.

serious gaylord posted:

I think he was more saying that by drawing a cock and balls on your ballot, all you succeed in doing is heaping more poo poo on the working class person counting the ballots.

Burqa King posted:

Labour won 44-36-16 in 2010 so I reckon that's safe or have there been swings of that magnitude before?

Bozza posted:

"Heaping more poo poo" how exactly? Are we seriously arguing that someone counting ballots is going to be shaken and upset by a badly drawn dong? Will this cause them to faint in the loving polling station because of the sense of outrage they will feel as the democratic process has been so flippantly insulted?

Jesus Christ, get a loving grip.

Bozza posted:

"Heaping more poo poo" how exactly? Are we seriously arguing that someone counting ballots is going to be shaken and upset by a badly drawn dong? Will this cause them to faint in the loving polling station because of the sense of outrage they will feel as the democratic process has been so flippantly insulted?

Jesus Christ, get a loving grip.

Answers Me posted:

If I were counting ballots anything weird drawn on it would cheer me up, it'll be the mass of Xs for Tories and UKIP that'll leave me upset