In eightenth century London the message was short and to the point

‘Drunk for 1 penny, Dead drunk for tuppence, Straw for nothing’!!

The government of the day became alarmed when it was found that the average Londoner drank 14 gallons of spirit each year.

Excessive Gin rendered men impotent, and women sterile, and was a major reason why the birth rate in London at this time was exceeded by the death rate.

The Gin Act was passed, which levied a steep tax on Gin, and took it out of the financial reach of the poor. Later, the Duke of Wellington passed the Sale of Beer Act, which removed all taxes on Beer, and permitted anyone to open a Beer Shop on payment of a two-guinea fee. I have blogged HERE about one of those Beer shops which is still open to this day.

Alastair Darling’s desire to take Gin out of the reach of the poor echoes those days.

“MPs called for a return to the level in 1983 when the duty on a litre of pure alcohol was 11 per cent of the average male weekly manual wage.”

Now, why would Labour want to measure the level of duty on Gin against a manual worker’s wage? Are the streets once more filled with insensible working class Gin drinkers? Are we about to see a return to the Beer Shop? (Leg-Iron would approve!) Has the birth-rate of Labour voters declined due to over consumption of Gin? Is the ‘average Londoner’ drinking 14 Gallons of Gin a year?

Gin drinkers are more likely to be middle class professionals, er, the sort of people who go skiing in Andorra, where four litres of gin will set you back all of £12, or holidaying in the Dordogne, where a bottle of Gordon’s will cost you around £12 – not the £24 proposed by the Chancellor. Lucinda will have to forgo the Volvo boot full of Fois Gras in favour of Jeremy’s Gin, as middle class Britains turn into Gin Runners.

‘It’s for personal use Officer, Olivia is getting married next month, and we have to host the reception’.

I am convinced Nu-Labour would like to bring back the Beer Shop, Nu-Labour voters drinking cheap beer, and the middle classes penalised to replace the tax they are losing. It won’t work.

Publican’s everywhere will go out of business – those who have not already been driven out of business by the no-smoking legislation.

I have just had a long conversation with Denise Hogan, wife of the pub landlord jailed for flouting the no-smoking ban. Already the no-smoking ban has resulted in one of their two pubs going to the wall, her husband going bankrupt, (and being jailed) and only half the premises of their present pub open for economic reasons.

Double the cost of spirits – and they will stay in business how?

1
Uncle Marvo March 1, 2010 at 08:16

Don’t forget to visit BastardOldHolborn@blogspot.com to help Hogan out of the chokey.

These gintaxing gits are squeezing the stone. There is no blood left. The reason they tax gin and fags is solely because they can get away with using “health” as an excuse. If they try to squeeze more tax out of the usual sources they’ll have a riot on their hands. They are more scared than one thinks.

Had they a pair between them, they would just tax away. But they know.

And so do we, don’t we?

2
Cato March 1, 2010 at 10:35

When, some 20 years ago, I lived in South-East London there was a beer house just round the corner..and very popular it was too. Sadly, it’s been reborn as a normal pub.

3
lenko March 1, 2010 at 11:18

When I was a little lad — back in the days of the first Queen Elizabeth — everyone drank ale. Including the Queen.

We were afraid to drink the water, what with all the dead bodies etc, in the Thames.

Not sure if that’s relevant.

4
JohnRS March 1, 2010 at 11:18

Do the words “Eurostar” and “Cross Channel Ferry” have any meaning for these numpties?

If this prime collection of village idiots is actually going to implement their moronic plan then anyone within a couple of hours drive of Dover/Folkestone will go from paying some excise tax in the UK to paying none at all…at least not on gin.

Have they ever seen Calais on a busy booze-cruise day? Hundreds of cars each one not paying hundreds of pounds to the Chancellor. It warms the old cockles (or should that be moules?).

5
Alan March 1, 2010 at 13:37

“I am convinced Nu-Labour would like to bring back the Beer Shop, Nu-Labour voters drinking cheap beer, and the middle classes penalised to replace the tax they are losing. It won’t work.”

They have sort of returned in the guise of supermarkets. Alright, you’re not drinking on the premises but cheap beer walks out of those shops in large quantities. Some of the cans might even have been paid for with earned income too!

For some reason beer swilling at home is not as frowned upon by the nanny State as sloshing a spirit or qwaffing wine is. Remember the tales of secret, hidden and unwitting (middle class) drinkers doing themselves in with a glass or two of wine a night. Causing no-one any harm, not even themselves as the medics who set the guidelines pulled the figures out their arses.(Just like they do on obesity, lowering the BMI measure to artificially create an epidemic).

Somehow wine and spirits are seen as less good than beer yet the elite in Westminster spend mountains of our money maintaining the best wine cellar in the country.

6
Nick2 March 1, 2010 at 17:23

Putting swinging duty on spirits (or tobacco) is counter-productive. Since spirits and fags are readily available much cheaper in Europe all that will happen in the event of a heavy duty rise is that legal spirit sales will be diverted to booze smugglers, who, according to the government itself are also involved in other criminal activities.

7
Bugger (the Panda) March 1, 2010 at 20:20

Some years ago I used to do a lot of work in Canada, specifically Quebec, Ontario and the Maritime Provinces.

Canada was the and still is a Provincial Alcohol Monopoly, for retail that is.

The National Government was desperate for cash and stonked up the booze and fag taxes.

They ignored all advice to the contrary and the obvious happened, the people near the 49th parallel just popped over to the US and bought their rations. Canada Customs then started being awkward at the crossing points and people switched to smaller crossing points which were often unmanned.

The Indians decided that where their land abutted the border or even straddled it they were untouched by such white man’s customs like Excise.

They brought it in one side and trucked it out the other.

Then the real criminals on both sides of the border became involved and fast launches sped across the St Laurence River and the Great Lakes with booze and fags.

My cousin was in the RCMP and they gave up . The criminals had faster boats and bigger serious weaponry.

Eventually they reduced the taxes when the law enforcement people told the that they could not attempt to control the trade without a serious loss in life.

I could go on about Sweden and Denmark, Finland and Estonia, but to summarise, two countries side by side having significantly different sin taxes inevitably leads to cross border illicit trading.

It has forever been thus and still is within India, for example where each state in the federation controls whether to allow or not alcohol and at what tax under what conditions.

Even boringly peaceful and lawful Denmark had to reduce their sin taxes as they were out of sync with Germany’s.

Some people never learn.

8
binlid March 1, 2010 at 21:18

Whilst researching my family tree some years ago, I discovered I had a relative who had been convicted for operating an illegal still. Wonder if he left any notes? I always fancied being a kitchen/garage entrepreneur.

9
wrinkled weasel March 1, 2010 at 23:51

I used to make my own beer. It is remarkably easy to do and the results are good if you follow the rules. I am about to start doing that again. And by the way, it tastes a lot better than most of the over-gassed slosh sold in supermarkets, and replicates all the effects of intoxication.