![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Generals of iza nations
Mar. 2nd, 2009 10:49 amIt's unfair to come to general conclusions because of specific instances of stupidity. I shouldn't have made a blanket criticism on Facebook of Scottish broadcasters just because one person thought that Pepys Road was pronounced Peppis Road. And people should not assume that all politicians are clowns just because Harriet Harman seemed determined at the weekend to make a total twat of herself. I finally heard her actual quote which, so far as I could see, was effectively an appeal to mob rule (a more accurate term for "the court of public opinion"). I don't recall Hattie talking about said court of public opinion when people took to the streets in Portsmouth against Paedophiles. Indeed, it was heartening to see the sane political world distancing itself this morning from what Harman said at the weekend.
However, I saw a piece this morning about alcohol sales in Scotland:
Now, I'm not questioning the problem of binge drinking or excess alcohol intake. What I guess I want to say is, I would like to ask politicians "what kind of society do you want to see?"
By that, I don't mean airy-fairy words like "a fair and just society etc etc", but something a bit more nitty gritty. What, in hard concrete terms, would be a particular politician's "ideal world"? I sometimes get the feeling that it would be a perfectly safe staid world where everyone lived a long life and was bored to tears every day.
Taking this specific, the justification for the rule is that alcohol costs the national health service a large amount of money. But an equal answer to this "problem" would be to make people pay for health treatment. I'm not saying that it's a preferable answer -- just that many such "solutions" make implicit assumptions about how society "should be" that are not made clear in the legislation.
I think that politicians are, at heart, usually good people who want to make life better for other people. But I also suspect that politicians' definition of "better" is not the absolute that they appear to think it to be. Where there is a scale of "freedom vs safety", safety wins out. Where there is a problem of "freedom vs annoyance", the banning of the annoyance wins out. Laws, by definition, restrict rather than liberate. I was driving the car the other week. I'm a sober driver and a careful driver. But I still think that there's a 50% chance that I will get a £60 fine for some kind of "infringement" if I drive for any length of time in a part of London that I do not know.
This is not an anti-government tirade or an anti-politician tirade. I leave that kind of thing to the simplistic. I know know that it's a complex area. But I would like politicians to just sit down and have a think about their ideal world, rather than implementing piecemeal legislation that doesn't appear to me to have method or a big picture at its soul.
________
However, I saw a piece this morning about alcohol sales in Scotland:
Scottish government ministers have announced plans to set a minimum price for alcohol in a bid to stop drink being sold for "pocket money prices".
Cut-price offers encouraging bulk buying are also to be banned in the country, along with money saving promotions like "three for two" deals.
In addition, the display and marketing of drink is to be restricted to specific areas within off sales premises.
Scottish ministers also plan to create legal powers to introduce a "social responsibility fee" for some retailers.
Now, I'm not questioning the problem of binge drinking or excess alcohol intake. What I guess I want to say is, I would like to ask politicians "what kind of society do you want to see?"
By that, I don't mean airy-fairy words like "a fair and just society etc etc", but something a bit more nitty gritty. What, in hard concrete terms, would be a particular politician's "ideal world"? I sometimes get the feeling that it would be a perfectly safe staid world where everyone lived a long life and was bored to tears every day.
Taking this specific, the justification for the rule is that alcohol costs the national health service a large amount of money. But an equal answer to this "problem" would be to make people pay for health treatment. I'm not saying that it's a preferable answer -- just that many such "solutions" make implicit assumptions about how society "should be" that are not made clear in the legislation.
I think that politicians are, at heart, usually good people who want to make life better for other people. But I also suspect that politicians' definition of "better" is not the absolute that they appear to think it to be. Where there is a scale of "freedom vs safety", safety wins out. Where there is a problem of "freedom vs annoyance", the banning of the annoyance wins out. Laws, by definition, restrict rather than liberate. I was driving the car the other week. I'm a sober driver and a careful driver. But I still think that there's a 50% chance that I will get a £60 fine for some kind of "infringement" if I drive for any length of time in a part of London that I do not know.
This is not an anti-government tirade or an anti-politician tirade. I leave that kind of thing to the simplistic. I know know that it's a complex area. But I would like politicians to just sit down and have a think about their ideal world, rather than implementing piecemeal legislation that doesn't appear to me to have method or a big picture at its soul.
________
