Ministers are considering draft proposals whereby up to 186,000 licensed premises, including bars, clubs, pubs and restaurants would be banned from offering free drinks and will face restrictions on so called “happy hours”. The proposals also suggest that wine should be served in ‘marked’ glasses and health warnings placed on drinks. New Labour, not content with the cigarette ban, which has seriously contributed to the closure of over 5 pubs per day, are now to consider having a second bite of the cherry. Yet, this government claims to be “business friendly”. This is simply not true.

Whatever your views on smoking, an outright ban was a significant attack on the civil liberties of millions of people, yes, non-smokers also have rights, but neither group should have had preference over the other. An alternative for example, would have been to allow ’smoking pubs’ or clubs. The same goes for restaurants, they could have been allowed to have a smoking room, much the same as those at many airport terminals. Instead, this government chose to ride roughshod over millions of people, whatever the consequences to civil liberties and business. Now we are seeing 5 pubs a day close and behind each one is a story, an individual or family that has invested their life savings, or another that is working as an employee and subsequently risks losing their job because the pub, bar or club is scheduled to close.

Banning pubs and clubs from offering free alcohol or restricting the traditional happy hour, is not going to solve the binge drinking or yobbish behaviour that we see on our streets almost every night. We all have a choice as to whether we go to a particular pub or bar, partake in ‘free’ offers or take advantage of discounts during happy hour. That choice must not be removed, because to do so, only demonstrates, that the state is attempting to control the people, rather than the other way around. It is not simply an issue of a tired looking government trying to act responsibly, it is yet another example of the state trying to dictate how we run our lives. Already they tell us where we can smoke, how much of our own money we can keep, how fast we must drive on the roads, where we can park, the list is endless…and yet this is supposed to be a democracy.

I am not advocating that there should be no rules, regulations or laws, that would be anarchy, but I am suggesting that there needs to be a commonsense, joined up approach…..moderation. There are 65m people in the UK, yet we are all tarred with the same brush, we could all, technically, have the toughest anti-terrorist laws in the world used against us, by our own government. Even though genuine ’terrorists’ count for an infinitesimal number of our population, the legislation assumes that the problem is much, much worse, introducing a fear fact designed to push us all into submission to another draconian peice of legislation. This scattergun approach to new legislation seeks to destroy the civil liberties of us all, given it does not even attempt differentiate between good and bad. By imposing a ban on everything the government doesn’t like they get, more and more control over the people. 650 Members of Parliament, ruling 65m people…maybe they feel they need this type of legislation to control us all.

What happened to personal responsibility? if people want to binge drink, that is their choice, however, if they overstep the mark, that is to say they interfere with other people trying to enjoy themselves, then they should be dealt with severely. Instead of a smack on the wrist and being sent home, or a night in the cells and sent on their way the next morning, they must be punished in a way that they will remember their transgression for a while to come. Yobbish or anti-social, drink related behaviour should be punished by at least one months income, irrespective of whether the individual is a high earner, on the minimum wage or on social benefits. These sums should be deducted direct, so that employers are made aware of the behaviour of some of their employees outside the workplace and those on benefits cannot refuse to pay. Harsh yes, but it is likely, that unless the individual has a drinking problem which requires help, then they will remember the lesson for a long time to come. Similarly, high earners would be hit proportionally to their earnings, everyone being treated equally.

If I drive too fast and have an accident, I wouldn’t expect the government to ban cars, if I cut myself whilst shaving, the state does not need to ban razor blades. In each case it was my decision, I would know the risks and expect to pay the consequences. No-one else. On the other hand, if we were talking about my children, then I may impose restrictions, until I felt that they were old enough and mature enough to make their own decisions…but only until then. So what do these restrictions on our civil liberties say about what government thinks of us? They treat us like children, they assume that none of us are capable of making our own decisions in life, instead, we must be controlled by rules and regulations.

We must not look at things like this potential ban as a single issue, that is what government wants us to do, instead we must look at each example as further evidence of this nanny state, further evidence that the state wants to control every aspect of our lives, even if this means new draconian acts of parliament to get those powers. We have seen this government use the anti-terrorist act to sequestrate the assets of the Icelandic bank, that was not what the legislation was for and in a prime example of how state can, will and does abuse the trust that we all put in them, when they are elected. There was plenty of other legislation that could have been used in the example I cite, without resorting to anti-terror legislation.

We should all be telling our MP’s the the vast majority of us are sensible, law abiding and have large doses of commonsense…in fact, much more than many MP’s. Therefore, we do not need, nor do we want a nanny state, we want less regulation and rules, not more. Does anyone feel safer as a consequence of the 7,000 additional laws introduced by this government? The answer is an emphatic NO…and that is why we must tell our elected members of parliament, that enough is enough.

If you want to see how the state is interfering in our everyday lives, even in our children’s schools, then it is worth reading an article written by Shrewd Mammal, (White Rome Burns).

There are many examples, and I shall name a few in the coming days, of MP’s being completely out of touch with what matters to the British public. The latest instance has to be set by shadow education secretary, Michael Gove.

Yesterday he made a big noise about so called ‘lads mags’, claiming that “Titles such as Nuts and Zoo paint a picture of women as permanently, lasciviously, uncomplicatedly available.” What is this guy on? I don’t intend to argue the case for or against these publications, in a tolerant such as ours, I find it hard to believe that this was all the Conservative MP could find to talk about.

There are many things that may cause families to break up these include losing their homes as a result of negative equity and rising interest rates. Money worries as a consequence of rising fuel prices, food prices, utilities and taxes. Stress in terms of having to work harder, for less money, maybe in fear of redundancy. There are a whole string of reasons, another is perhaps taking their partner for granted, something Michael Gove would do well to consider, because he and his party seem to be taking their poll lead for granted by believeing they know best and taking on a policy of patronising the electorate.

What we should all be asking is where has this guy been for the past 6 months, what does he really think concerns the British public at this time? Now lets think about that… could it be, an impending recession, the credit crunch, rising fuel prices, knife crime, house prices, redundancies? If this is not enough, there are many other serious issues that are of real concern to the electorate, perhaps Michael Gove should get out more, rather than reading Zoo and Nuts!

Every party claims to be “listening” to their public, well who are they listening to, it sure as hell isn’t you or me? Is Michael Gove going to seriously claim that one of his constituents came to see him to claim about lads mags? If he did receive a complaint, maybe someone could remind him about placing things into perspective.

It is high time all MP’s started to talk to the people that put them in office and more importantly, learned to listen. It is also time the Conservative party started to act like a real opposition party, the truth is, they only look good, because the Labour party is so awful. In my opinion, all Michael Gove has done, is to confirm, that it is not just the Government that has lost touch with the voters, but also some MP’s of the official opposition.

David Cameron needs to reign these guys in, before the electorate catch on to the fact MP’s within the his party are as removed from the public as government ministers and labour party MP’s. He should also consider bringing in real people to advise, people with real world experience, or better still, have real people stand as the local Conservative MP, rather than career politicians or local ‘faces’. Now, more than ever before, this country needs MP’s that talk, sound and look like the rest of us. No wonder the electorate feels so disenfranchised.

 Loading ...

 Loading ...