Labour have failed to control binge drinking

Conservative 'news story' on the website.

"Shadow Health Minister, Stephen O'Brien, has attacked Labour for failing to tackle binge drinking, saying:
"It's been low on their priority list, and now we're seeing the consequences, with excessive drinking and associated violent crime still not under control." "

Though in general the whole "government should refect the people and not alter behaviours, however disastrous they are. It seems as though to me this point has gone too far, they already meddle so much so as to result in the binge drinking we have in this county.

I don't really want to go into the details right now, but drinking can but only be seen as a societal response to the despondent nannying culture that controls the thinking from Westminster. If we, as individuals within the UK, are taxed to the hilt, lack any form of real privacy and are loosing rights left right and centre in a world which is made dramatically more gloomy by our own actions (that is the actions of our own elected parliament), then what is there to do but drink?

This is a very sketchy, and underdeveloped point. But honestly. Ask yourself. What does our government do other than dampen your prospects of a brighter future?

"He promised that a Conservative Government would clamp down on binge drinking and alcohol abuse by:
- Taking action to prevent the sale of cut-price alcohol
- And clamping down on shops who sell alcohol to under-age drinkers."

These actions wont solve anything. And I suspect that Stephen O'Brien knows it. But its political expediency to do at least as much as the opposition are doing on a topic. However much that does little or nothing to help. I mean, how many times a year do you hear a politician saying that will 'clamp down on shops who sell alcohol to under-age drinkers'. And who honestly thinks it is those drinkers who are the problem!?

Technorati Tags: British Poltics,Drinking,Conservatives

Prime Minister Brown says, "There is increasing public support for the action that was taken."

...I say, "You did something that everyone hates, and over time people have gotten used to it and begin not to care too much."

The fact that this is connected with the Prime Minister's response to a smoking ban question is inconsequential. This is authoritarian thinking, and is wrong wrong wrong!

What sort of state do you have when government takes action, not for the benefit of the economy, or defence, or indeed anything directly in connection with the remit of government. But in terms of the lives and the society.

Parliament is not meant to change society. Society drives parliament. And to do anything otherwise is to go against all ideas of democracy and the tradition of this country; which everyone (except David Davis it seems) has forgotten.

That being said, maybe this is simply opportunism. Maybe there is no discernable tradition within this country any more on any real sense. That is, multi-cultralism (note not immergration), has succeeded too well. That is not one incomming culture has overcome what was indigenous (even though that is a historically inaccurate comment) within this country, but the ultimate mass of difference has created a societal flux.

Maybe our society is nothing more than a name - The United Kingdom - and a mess. And it is for our labour government to take advantage of this. Fun times!