The politics of tackling alcohol abuse

It’s probably fair to say that alcohol is both a social good and a social evil in modern society. On the positive side, a moderate intake of alcohol allows people to relax and disconnect from the stresses of their everyday lives. Although it varies from person to person and also depends on just how much you drink, there is a fairly broad consensus that drinking the “right” amount of alcohol is good for your physical health. On the flip side of the coin, alcohol use and abuse is broadly responsible for thousands of deaths each year. The negative influence that alcohol abuse has on society spans the spectrum of one’s imagination; from causing motoring accidents, through to physical assault and rape, poor financial decision-making, degraded social responsibility, and long-term illness such as coronary disease. When one considers in full the many and varied ills that alcohol abuse brings to the table, it is hard not to compare and contrast the vehemently strong anti-smoking sentiment that is palpable in modern Western societies to the fairly lackadaisical gaze with which we view alcohol abuse. It’s okay to be a raging drunk, but don’t you dare smoke!

Of late, there have been some soft murmurings around the traps that perhaps this broad public tolerance of alcohol abuse might be slowly coming to a close. In Australia, Kevin Rudd has recently announced a new advertising campaign targeting binge drinking, which is welcome, but of course, is not going to be enough in itself to make deep inroads into the problem. Over here in the UK, in handing down his first Budget as Chancellor of the Exchequer, Alistair Darling has put his neck out with a slightly more practical measure and one that seems unthinkable in the political climate back home; a tax hike on alcohol:

British finance minister Alistair Darling announced on Wednesday that alcohol duty will increase by 6 percent above the inflation rate with hefty rises in beer, wine and spirits coming in at midnight on Sunday.

In his first budget, Darling told parliament that beer will rise by 4 pence a pint, cider by 3p a litre, wine by 14p a bottle and spirits by 55p a bottle, marking the first rise in duties on spirits in more than a decade.

The lift on the duties on spirits is by no means insubstantial, but one has to wonder whether these increases are really going to do anything other than increase the volume of funds flowing into the government’s coffers. An extra 4 pence on a pint of beer is not going to make anybody (particularly if they are drunk!) think twice about ordering another round. Nor is another extra 14 pence on a bottle of wine going to force the country’s chardonnay socialists and blue-bloods call it a night after the first bottle or two. You could buy seven bottles of wine before noticing that you’ve even spent a pound more than usual, which is more than enough to send most people into cloud cuckoo land.

Clearly governments have it tough politically when tackling issues related to alcohol abuse, but making inroads on this issue is a worthy endeavour for any government in today’s belligerently hedonistic world. Practical measures like tax increases might be the right path to take if implemented sensibly, in a way that people can understand and comprehend. A hardline education campaign reminding society just how much trauma is caused by well-meaning folks having too much to drink is probably just what the doctor ordered. Such a campaign has worked wonders over a period of several decades in relation to tobacco. The right campaign with strong backing from civil society can do the same for alcohol abuse.

One hundred days of Rudd Labor

Time flies, as they say, when you are having fun. I am not sure the Rudd Labor Government has been having fun in office, but the consensus seems to be that they have done an excellent job so far. The “hundred days in office” narrative has already attracted quite a good deal of commentary and analysis in the mainstream media, which I’ve decided to summarise below. To be honest I think the government’s achievements speak for themselves [PDF], and Australia can, at least thus far, feel quite proud about the decision it made last November.

The AgeEditorial
Quite effusive in its praise.

The AgeJaspan and Grattan, A Long March
You can certainly tell whose camp The Age is in, not unjustifiably. To be quite honest I am a bit over the thinly veiled and pointless Chinese communism references, however.

The AgeGrattan, Rudd delivers progress report
A fairly fact-oriented report on the release of the government’s First 100 Days document.

The AustralianFranklin, Rudd says no to Left agenda
Tries quite hard to turn Federal Labor’s commitment to actually delivering on what it promised as a repudiation of “leftism”. Err, no, that’s just called ethical governance in a democratic society.

The AustralianShanahan, Kevin’s three pillars challenge for next 1000 days
Does not really add much to the debate, I’m sorry to say.

The AustralianKelly, Brace for it
Focuses quite squarely on the inflation bogey currently dominating political debate in Australia. Quite positive all in all about the way the government has taken to the job at hand like ducks to water.

SMHCrabb, Softer side of Rudd begins to emerge
One of the best pieces from Crabb that I have read for some time. The silly hat is flung to the side for a moment, and we get to consider a few slightly fluffy although insightful aspects of Rudd’s character. The touching Nguyen vignette is a must-read.

Courier MailPorteous, Here’s a list of my achievements, boasts PM
This being a paper from up north, Porteous can’t resist throwing in a reference to Rudd’s apparent weight gain since becoming Prime Minister. Nevertheless a reasonable summary of reactions to the publication of the booklet.

Herald SunBolt, One word from Rudd makes all better
Bolt does his usual gross simplification of things, still stung it seems by the majority of the nation’s gracious embrace of the apology to the stolen generations. Get over it, Andrew.

BlogocracyBad move, Kev
I think Tim’s overstating the danger here for the government in releasing this self-celebratory booklet. This could of course backfire a little bit, but in general I think that the Rudd Government has done a good job, most people accept that, and that therefore this piece of slight self-congratulation is not out of order. Particularly if funded by the party and not the taxpayer.

History, belatedly made

Over an extremely dodgy live video stream provided by the ABC, I watched as the incoming Rudd Labor Government did what the previous government did not have the political stomach to do for over a decade, offering a formal apology to indigenous Australians, and in particular to the stolen generation. Although it is hard to get a full appreciation for the flow and delivery of the speeches owing to the poor quality of the footage at my end, I thought both Rudd and Nelson spoke admirably and did their best to capture the emotion and importance of the occasion with their words. It is not often that parliament is transformed into the stage for an outpouring of national pride and celebration, but certain scenes from the floor of the House of Representatives today managed to do just that. Through its actions so far, and particularly with this grandiose first step in parliament, the Rudd Labor Government has done almost a flawless job of commending itself to the people as a uniting and re-energising force for democracy in Australia.

And the Opposition? Brendan Nelson’s speech was on the whole quite graceful and delivered with true emotion, although there were a few moments where his focus seemed to fade towards a hapless justification of the Howard Government’s inexcusable delaying of today’s events, and the Coalition’s patrician view on compensation (shared with just a tad more compassion at present by the government). Reports are already in that certain parliamentary members of the Coalition boycotted the morning’s events, and that many people watching Nelson’s speech in live sites and in Canberra turned their backs at certain points in the speech. With respect to the former, I do not believe that history will judge those members kindly, and on this fairly auspicious day for the nation, I’m not mentioning their names here. With respect to the latter, I do think that Nelson probably deserved a better show from those watching than he got, but he and the political parties he represents do have a lot to answer for after a decade of neglect of this issue. Pictures, as they often do, tell the tale quite eloquently. The already published images of the Coalition members standing to applaud Rudd’s speech in parliament are a bit awkward; you can tell that some of them are out of their comfort zone, and being dragged along with something that they don’t wholeheartedly believe in. Given that some of them have spent the last decade of their political lives asserting their disbelief in the need for an apology, it’s probably not all that surprising.

Regardless of the history, which is indeed history, today is a day for healing old wounds and casting a die for a new future for Australia, both indigenous and non-indigenous. The major parties have an opportunity now to drive a bipartisan national agenda of investment in Australia’s indigenous communities, with the aim of raising education, health and mortality rates to respectable levels, from the obscene position they are now currently in. The stakes are high in a political sense, just as they are in a human sense. For the Rudd Labor Government, achieving real and lasting results in this area would arguably set it apart in political history as perhaps the greatest the country has yet seen. For the Opposition, there is an opportunity to reinvent itself with respect to so-called “soft” political issues such as reconciliation, and the restore trust and respect for its members amongst the indigenous community that has somewhat been lost over the course of the last decade.

One can not help wondering idly what John Howard made of the jubilant scenes in parliament today. Why did he so doggedly and so determinedly choose and then mercilessly maintain the course on reconciliation that he did, rather than embrace the issue with the humanity that Rudd’s words embodied this morning? I can’t recall the former Prime Minister ever being applauded in quite the same way during his decade in office as Rudd did today, but there is honestly nothing that Rudd did today that Howard could not (and should not) have done ten years ago.

In the same way that the former Prime Minister never, ever said sorry, I am not sure I will ever, ever, understand his mindset towards this issue.