Localism Is Barred From Your Local

Thursday, 20th August 2009

One of the things that's happened as a consequence of devolution is that sometimes Westminster finds itself following Holyrood. It's almost as if the latter has actually become a mini-laboratory of democracy. That's as it should be. Alas, the reality is that it's more of a laboratory for managerialism. Perhaps, one bright day, this will produce some good ideas that Westminster will feel like copying. At the moment? Not so much.

So it's no surprise that David Cameron seems to be moving towards copying some of the SNP's ideas on "combatting" the problem of cheap booze and hooliganism. Minimum prices for alcohol would seem to be one idea Cameron is happy to pinch from the SNP. The merits of the idea are neither here nor there, what's interesting is what it says about Cameron's vision for and of government.

Because where's the bleedin' post-bureacratic age in any of this? Nowhere to be seen. Where is the Tories' much-ballyhooed commtiment to localism? Abandoned, it would seem and not even sidelined in favour of anything good.

It's precisely because the licensing of premises to serve alcohol and the price they serve it at is, in some respects, a trivial issue that it matters. It demonstrates that the Tories commitment to decentralisation is, shall we say, suspect. All of this, in any case, can more sensibly be handled by local authorities. They may well make decisions that aggravate voters but if so then voters can have their say at the subsequent election.

That might well result in very different policies on booze in different parts of the country. This would be helped too, of course, is local councils were able to set and collect their own taxes. Cameron, however, seems to think that this is (yet another) problem that Westminster alone can solve.

I'd quite like to be wrong about this, but there lurks the rather disturbing thought that anyone who really, truly, hugely believes in the Tories commitment to localism is, well, a cheap date.

[Hat-tips: Adam Smith Institute & Liberal Vision]

Filed under: Booze (42 more articles) , Cameron (208 more articles) , Libertarians (142 more articles) , Localism (57 more articles) , Tories (265 more articles)

Previous Back to Alex Massie Next

Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (2)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

Rhoda Klapp

August 20th, 2009 1:18pm Report this comment

Putting a minimum price on something is not the same as increasing the duty on it.

Taxing activity you disapprove of is bad in principle. Ban it or leave it alone.

I this case, the activity they disapprove of, in both cases is binge-drinking, pulic drunkenness etc. These are already against the law, aren't they? In Scotland and England. Why don't they get the people who are supposed to enforce the law to do their job? Or maybe take every drunk off the street 'for their own good' and release them when sober or into the care of someone who will be responsible. Young people (I assume they are talking about young people) can find enough money to get sloshed at any price you care to charge.

Edward McLaughlin

August 22nd, 2009 8:34am Report this comment

"It's precisely because the licensing of premises to serve alcohol and the price they serve it at is, in some respects, a trivial issue that it matters."

Were you tired when you cast this Doc?

Post comment