Monday 20 May 2013

Alcohol Con bites the hands that feeds it

This is rather wonderful from Alcohol Concern. Less than two weeks after minimum pricing was dropped from the Queen's Speech, the fake temperance charity has decided to have a pop at the politicians.

MPs admit to unhealthy drinking culture in Parliament, new survey reveals

New data released today by Alcohol Concern reveals a quarter (26%) of MPs believe there is an unhealthy drinking culture in Parliament.

That's an interesting interpretation of the statistic. Another—more honest—interpretation would be that a large majority of MPs don't think there is an unhealthy drinking culture in Parliament, but that wouldn't really serve the cause, would it?

Either there is an unhealthy drinking culture in Parliament or there isn't. Alcohol Con have put it to a vote and most MPs don't think there is. End of story.

Eric Appleby, Chief Executive of Alcohol Concern said:

“It’s surprising that only a quarter of MPs believe there is an unhealthy drinking culture in Parliament."

Considering the place is riddled with purse-lipped crypto-socialists like Sarah Wollaston and lemon-sucking busybodies like Diane Abbot, maybe Appleby has a point. Or maybe he's just disappointed that so few of them gave him the answer he wanted. Either way, women and Labourites were disproportionately more likely to complain about a "drinking culture".

A third (36%) of female MPs agreed with the statement that there was an unhealthy drinking culture in Parliament.

Labour MPs (31%) are more likely than MPs from either of the Coalition parties (20% Conservative and 19% Liberal Democrat) to believe that there is an unhealthy drinking culture in Parliament.

I also note that only the left-wing media bothered to report this non-story (see BBC, Guardian, Independent, Mirror). What is it with leftists and temperance?

Appleby continues...

"If a quarter of employees reported an unhealthy drinking culture in any other organisation it would provoke immediate action by bosses."

Firstly, they're not reporting it to their bosses, they're responding to a leading question in a poxy survey.

Secondly, there are plenty of bosses who would tell them to shut up or sod off.

Thirdly, MPs aren't air traffic controllers. Their job is to have long lunches with various rent-seekers and lobbyists while waiting to be told how to vote.

"Surely it’s time for Parliament to rethink its drinking culture and lead by example.”

Surely it's time for Parliament to rethink its culture of giving public money to groups like Alcohol Concern. Even after the Department of Health withdrew its funding, most of their income comes from the state. What do you say, MPs? Surely it's time to rid yourselves of this turbulent pressure group.




PS. Maybe Alcohol Concern has found some non-state funding at last. As the press release notes, "Alcohol Concern partnered with pharmaceutical company Lundbeck Ltd to commission and communicate the findings of the survey." Lundbeck have just brought out a stop-drinking drug.

6 comments:

Unknown said...

"Thirdly, MPs aren't air traffic controllers. Their job is to have long lunches with various rent-seekers and lobbyists while waiting to be told how to vote."

Brilliant!!

As for the Lundbeck comment at the end, it's easy to see what these people are up to, just follow the money.

James Burr said...

"Lundbeck have just brought out a stop-drinking drug."

No! Say it ain't so! Temperance fanatics funded by vested interests!? Surely not.

nisakiman said...

The first two comments beat me to it on the Lundbeck connection. So here we go again...

Jonathan Bagley said...

"Clinical trials also showed that the drug, which costs roughly £3 a pill, was generally well tolerated, with side effects considered generally mild to moderate in nature, the most common being nausea, dizziness, insomnia and headache."

So, like 6 pints of pints of beer at 1/6th the price and none of the pleasure.

Junican said...

But what are the long-term effects of these pills? Surely, they should be evaluated for thirty years before being considered to be safe?

Junican said...

It beats me how these pressure groups are considered suitable for Big Lottery funds. How is it justified when there are hundreds of real charities in desperate need of funds?