The first time I tried to write this post there were so many expletives I had to delete it all and start again. So this is my calmer second attempt.
The Mayor of the City that I call home, Boris Johnson, has a new scheme to combat binge drinking. He's asking offies not to sell booze to anyone under the age of 21. Obviously he can't change the law and every single off license in London is still entitled to sell to anyone over the age of 18, and I hope they pay no attention whatsoever to the floppy haired twat.
This is such an absurd and unpleasant policy, if it can even be called a policy. It is unenforceable, thus pointless, yet lets BoJo poster as a hard man, tough on problems, kinda guy to the suburban voters who put him into power. The liberal reasons for opposing this are evident. What is really repellent is Boris' own teenage years as a binge drinker in the Bullingdon Club. There being drunk and disorderly, whilst destroying property was a positive affirmation of one's excellence. Boris is suggesting that its ok for white tie clad toffs to act like wankers but not normal teenagers with little else to do.
Boris has run away from his ideas of liberalism and the problem of the overbearing State in a frenzy of headline grabbing nonsense. Since becoming Mayor, Boris has shown that he isn't a buffoon. He is something far worse.
Somebody (Guy, perhaps) please try to tell me I'm wrong.
Friday, 18 July 2008
Boris Johnson is an illiberal, idiotic, populist, prallack
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Is Boris a closet Scots Nat? The SNP government up here is coming up with similar nonsense, proposing to ban the sale of booze in off-licences to under-21s and wanting to impose a minimum price for booze, which would probably be illegal under European law.
I'd noticed that. I think they're both in power and want to seem like they're "doing something" about a perceived problem. Repellent really.
I will have a go...
I think you portray the scheme unfairly. As I understand it, it will be targeted to areas in which there are considerable problems with anti-social behaviour caused by drunk youths.
The scheme was suggested by a Croydon councillor (Steve O'Connell), who said:
"What we want to tackle is the corner shops that are selling eight cans of Stella for a fiver because it can lead to young people then getting involved in anti-social behaviour. It will require a cultural shift and it would affect their profit margins, but it would stop some violent incidents taking place and, after Croydon, I would like to see this applied across London."
If it is well-targeted, then why is this a problem. As you mention, it is not compulsory but advisory - many nightclubs/bars already operate on an over 21 basis by choice, why shouldn't off-licences also choose to do so, especially if it can be shown (which I'm not sure) that it will reduce anti-social behaviour/violence as O'Connell suggests.
The Bullingdon Club issue I think is entirely irrelevant. So what - he used to binge drink and destroy property, I agree that this is wrong on many levels. However, you are wrong to imply that Boris is suggesting its 'ok for white tie clad toffs to act like wankers but not normal teenagers with little else to do' - Boris has done nothing in the last 20 years to suggest that this is his view. Even if he is hypocritical, which I do not grant, shouldn't we applaud his attempts to cut down on binge drinking in problem areas.
I feel that your point that it is unenforcable undermines your point about its illiberality. As it will still be optional for off-licenses etc, then there is no infringement on anyone's liberty - who loses out? Unless you argue that an off-licence should not be able to make such a choice (for example on grounds of age-discrimination - which I think will be quite a poor line to take), then liberalism really doesn't come into it.
On the point that it is unenforceable, you are setting too high a standard - by testing the policy against the metric of 'all off-licences will follow the guidance provided by councils', then of course it is unenforceable, but this was never going to happen in the first place. What's the worst that will happen, everyone ignores the directive, and all that has been wasted is a bit of time/effort/money (but not a huge amount). On the other hand, it may (and this is quite a big if) prove effective at reducing anti-social behaviour in problem areas.
Bringing the Bullingdon club into it seems to me to be below your usual level of discourse, as it is the typical anti-toff, class warfare attack which holds little water. I accept that you are making a point about his apparent hypocrisy, but think you are wrong to do so.
My dear boy,
A valiant attempt but I don't think you've quite managed to square the circle. The issue for which policy is supposedly trying to be found for is anti-social behavior amongst young people. I reject that we need to counter the young being uncouth or uncivil etc. It is not the role of government to do this. Government's role is to prosecute crimes and to try to come up with policies which will decrease the level of crime for the benefit of both the potential victim and the potential offender. Being drunk is not a crime. Being drunk and disorderly is a crime. The State should have a twin track approach to so called problem areas. Firstly, increased on the street policing to deal with crimes as they are taking place (and its not difficult to spot a load of teenagers of the lash). Secondly, finding other activities, forms of entertainment or leisure for the young people involved. Boris' policy will tackle neither the crime itself, nor its causes (please do not try to hector me and say alcohol is the cause of these crimes and if they aren't crimes then bloody leave them alone). In short, its a bad policy. It is designed to look tough, will have no positive affect, and attack those often at the margins of society (those making the transition from childhood to adulthood).
In your defense of the policy you suggest that it will be useless or have little effect. Then why bother. Those offies that comply will lose money. Its not like a trendy bar being a 21 because they are trying to attract a particular kind of clientèle.
I fear that when "optional" policies which are moralising come in then they tacitly become enforced. For example, Croydon council might look on your application to open an offie or boozer if you won't let in under 21s. We've seen this in Turkey under AKP. It pretends to be liberal but in a creeping fashion closes these doors.
Your attempted attack with age discrimination etc was very good. Most amusing. But obviously flawed. This is not my beef with this policy.
This fits into a general pattern of Tory policies which will have no positive discernible impact yet reward people they like, and attack people they don't in order to a, satisfy prejudices and b, fit into an overall narrative which is turning pretty nasty. E.G. the tax incentive to marry will have no positive policy outcome. Incentivising the marginal couple to get married is laughable. Likewise it will have zero effect on crime or education results. However, Tories (and their voters) like marriage as a moral good, so you'll reward it. This 21 drinking policy will have no benefits but attacks those who you don't like, youths with little to do.
On the Bullingdon front.
I brought this up in part, I will admit, because I'm so angry and disappointed with Boris. However, I do have a greater point. If Boris truly thought this policy could produce some positive outcomes then he's an idiot. He's not. Which suggests that he is opperating in the manner I sketched out above. As such this policy it is merely an aroma policy, punishing those who "we" don't like. I'm illustrating that people like you, me and Boris behave disgracefully from time to time, yet we don't have bad policy needlessly thrown our way. This victimisation of young people is a bad way of tackling what is a genuine issue.
It isn't just an anti-toff class warfare thing. I couldn't get away with it, but as the policy is essentially class warfare (of a sort - middle class older people vs poor young people (I'm evidently generalising).
The reverse form of this policy, in a Bullingdon setting it this:
"In response to the uncontrollable, and shocking rise in violent crime, room smashings, and vomiting through windows, the Proctors have instructed all Oxford offlicenses (on a purely voluntary basis of course) not to sell vintage port or reasonable champagne to any student. The scourge of the Bullingdon must be brought down."
Is this so different? Maybe I've taken the analogy way to far. If so ignore it, it amused me at one in the morning.
Anyway, reply away.
'I reject that we need to counter the young being uncouth or uncivil etc'
Well then this suffices for your argument. We disagree as to the initial premisses, namely the significance of youth drinking as a trigger for anti-social behaviour (or perhaps even the level of anti-social behaviour which exists generally) - all the rest of your conclusions can be derived from this. If you don't see a problem existing in the first place of course any policy is going to be a stupid idea.
Although I'm not sure if I've entirely understood your position, as you do later refer to it as 'a genuine issue'.
--
However, to change tack for a while, I imagine that you would concede that many people do indeed (and perhaps incorrectly) think that there is a major problem of binge drinking/anti-social behvaiour among youths. If, as you suggest this policy is unenforceable and will have no effect then there is no net loss. Indeed, there may be a positive effect. If, as you seem to think he is merely doing it to be seen to be doing something, and to reassure people, then this is enough. If it makes people feel safer, and no-one loses out, then what is the problem? The only people you can see losing out are off-licences who voluntarily choose to comply with the guidance - I see no real problem with this. If an off-licence complies with suggested government policy, for example on climate change, and decides to offset its emissions then it will also lose money. However, this is the result of a considered and free decision - so I still have yet to see who loses out from this policy (regardless of whether it actually has any effect.
--
I entirely reject your 'class warfare' analysis. When the government legislates on issues such as restrictions on drug use, regulations on homelessness etc, or even on labour/union laws, ie any issue likely effect those from poor backgrounds, this is not (usually) branded as class warfare. Why should restrictions on teenage drinking be any different - if a problem exists, then government may and should intervene, this is nothing to do with who the people are or what their background is.
Your analogy about the Bullingdon is a little to imprecise in my opinion. But if it were the case that a) there was an ' uncontrollable, and shocking rise in violent crime, room smashings, and vomiting through windows' by members of the Bullingdon club, and b) it was possible to accurately target those involved, perhaps by asking off-licences not to sell alcohol to people dressed in Bullingdon club tails, then I think the proctors would be justified.
If, in the London case there is a) a problem, and b) an effective way of targeting it, then I have no problem with the scheme.
I agree with James, this is an issue related to the type of liberalism we want. Government is increasingly legislating away our possibilities to do harm to ourselves and others, rather than tackle the reasons why we are inflicting harm in the first place (interesting given the Tories recent talk of taking responsability).
Drugs or drink carry risks, but the other side of the coin is of course that they are fun. And overwhelmingly they are used responsibly, including by those under 21. Thats why this policy does have a net loss. Its posturing that diverts attention from the underlying causes behind binge drinking and anti-social behaviour, which are social and economic.
This is the sort of ineffectual quick fix policy that undermines our faith in politics, and is taking us in an increasingly paternalistic direction.
Guy,
I don't think I made myself clear. "I reject that we (Government" need to counter..." As in I do not think that either government can make us all polite. The building of a more civil society starts with each one of us and the mantra "you know better so do better".
Mr Howatt, you sum up my position far more effectively than I did. Thank you.
Post a Comment