"Namby Pamby Day"

Alexia
Posts: 2999
Joined: Sat 01 Oct, 2005 17.50

If I was the editor of a major middle class newspaper this morning, I'd be having a heart attack in my Waitrose cornflakes.

Wales brings in 5p surcharge on carrier bags, with profits going to environmental charities.

England bans in-pub fag vending machines.

Scotland bans alcohol promotions such as BOGOF and x-for-£X on wine

As a bleeding heart liberal with a general penchant for responsibility and obeying the law, no matter what my opinion of it, I'm in favour of the first two (we use far too many carrier bags, and our local canal is a haven for them)... plus fags in general should be discouraged as much as possible. Not so sure about the last one -- curbing loss leaders and introducing minimum pricing should be the priority in combatting supermarket alcohol tactics; after all, this bulk buy approach won't stop people ordering from England (Beer Here and More & Moor Beer will still be able to ship to Scotland) nor will it discourage young adults from buying crates of cheap lager and getting pissed in parks. And while pubs are closing at their current rate, we should be doing more to encourage people to visit their local for a good quality drink at a reasonable price.

Thoughts/opinions?
cdd
Posts: 2607
Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 14.05

As for the bag rubbish I imagine people will do the same as I do whenever I visit marks and spencers - steal the bags. Apart from which the law appears to have more loopholes than a sailor's knot.

Whoever thinks that people are going to change their habits for the sake of a pathetic 10 or 15p per shop anyway is mad.
User avatar
WillPS
Posts: 2456
Joined: Tue 22 Apr, 2008 18.32
Location: Carlton
Contact:

The WAG are ahead of the game on this one. I feel kind of sorry for the chip shops and what not who might suffer the burden of the admin but it's definitely the right way forward.
Image
cwathen
Posts: 1309
Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 17.28

Wales brings in 5p surcharge on carrier bags, with profits going to environmental charities.
The issue with the whole carrier bags debacle is the lack of a solution to the problem. It's all very well to want to get rid of nasty plastic carrier bags, but we need to be provided with a proper replacement for them. It might be reasonable to expect people to bring old bags or fancy bag for life dealies to reuse when they are going out for a planned big shop at Tescos but beyond that BYO just doesn't work - people won't carry bags about their person on the offchance that they might want to buy something, there needs to be a bag solution available at point of sale.

A few years ago, co-op introduced a biodegradable plastic bag which would completely decompose within 2 years of manufacture, largelly getting around the problem which plastic has. Nothing further seems to have been done with it. Or for something lower tech, there could be a wholesale move back to paper bags. Either way, IMO the solution to the plastic bag problem is to find a replacement for them, not waste time with 5p surcharges (which many people will just pay anyway) or making them ever-thinner (thus reducing the number of times they can be reused and actually adding to the problem).
England bans in-pub fag vending machines.
Smoking is a legal activity. Let's repeat that. Smoking is a legal activity. And once more: Smoking is a legal activity.

The health risks to the smoker and to others can't be argued with, but yet no government is likely to ban it outright because they would be too afraid of the backlash and (perhaps more significantly) it makes them an awful lot of money and they don't want that revenue stream to dry up.

What exactly will be achieved by banning in pub vending machines? From where I stand, they only get used by heavy smokers who've had a few beers and are in a frame of mind when they will happily fork out £8 for a pack of cigarettes that they can get for £4.80 in Spar rather than wait until the morning. So maybe you will save someone who allready smokes from smoking a few more, on one individual night, and then cause them to be better planned so that they don't run out of cigarettes.

Since no one (no one sane anyway) would ever use them in anything other than emergency situations, I can't see that it will stop anyone from smoking, nor can I see that they particularly encourage a non smoker to take it up, especially since explicit promotion of cigarettes was banned.

I can't actually believe that government time was spent on this when there are so many more significant things wrong with the world. The only effect I can see here is yet another hit to the on-trade who will loose out on their cut of the machine's takings.
Scotland bans alcohol promotions such as BOGOF and x-for-£X on wine
So, if a supermaket wants to sell 24 cans of Carlsberg for £15 that's fine because it's just the unit cost for that product, but if a pub wants to sell two pints of Grolsch for the price of one that becomes a promotion and so is now banned? Seems like a very grey area to me - and one which will hit the on-trade much more than the off. Yet another example of the very unbalanced way in which the government are 'tackling' alcohol related probems.
barcode
Posts: 1495
Joined: Wed 29 Aug, 2007 19.36

Loophole: Supermarkets and PUBS can just cut the price, but still have to be above the min price per unit.
you might just see Case for £8.
woah
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun 28 Mar, 2010 12.39

cwathen wrote: The health risks to the smoker and to others can't be argued with, but yet no government is likely to ban it outright because they would be too afraid of the backlash and (perhaps more significantly) it makes them an awful lot of money and they don't want that revenue stream to dry up..
But there's the huge wads of money spent by the NHS on adverts, leaflets and services for quitting smoking, on top of the money they spend on people who are ill or suffering as a result of smoking.

I don't know a huge amount about this - but do the taxes that are taken from cigarette and tobacco sales cover the costs of everything smoking related within the NHS?

It might not be a significant thing with the cigarette machines but it's a step forward, albeit a very small one!
User avatar
Gavin Scott
Admin
Posts: 6442
Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 13.16
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

woah wrote:
cwathen wrote: The health risks to the smoker and to others can't be argued with, but yet no government is likely to ban it outright because they would be too afraid of the backlash and (perhaps more significantly) it makes them an awful lot of money and they don't want that revenue stream to dry up..
But there's the huge wads of money spent by the NHS on adverts, leaflets and services for quitting smoking, on top of the money they spend on people who are ill or suffering as a result of smoking.

I don't know a huge amount about this - but do the taxes that are taken from cigarette and tobacco sales cover the costs of everything smoking related within the NHS?

It might not be a significant thing with the cigarette machines but it's a step forward, albeit a very small one!
The revenue generated eclipses the costs associated through the NHS by a gigantic margin. There's no other logic involved in the decision to allow them to remain on sale.

Contrast that with something like the drug MDMA which, at its peak of use, saw around 15 million tablets consumed each week (or probably weekend) in the uk. Despite this, to this day there have only been a tiny fraction of one percent of serious illness or death - but as its non-regulated and non-taxed it was banned.

I'm certainly not advocating that anyone dabbles in banned substances, but facts are facts.

Saying, "people are adults and can make their own choices" only seems to apply when there's financial incentive for the Exchequer. When there isn't, governments tend to take a more nannying approach.

As a cigarette smoker, one who is thoughtful enough not to smoke around anyone unless they're consenting to it - and certainly never in someone's car or home unless they're doing so too - I resent being vilified. Of the £7.50 I spend every day, £5.50 goes to the government. That's £2,000 per annum.

Not everyone who smokes needs NHS treatment or takes time off work because of associated health problems. Many do, of course, but the money in and money out is very much balanced in favour of government.

If I was told tomorrow that cigarettes were to be banned in the UK I would rejoice. I promise you. A foolish decision as a young student has seen me become a slave to its addictive properties and, in today's terms, leave me £57,480 worse off.

Removing availability in pubs and clubs helps stop occasional smokers lighting up when they're drinking, but that doesn't get to the heart of the matter, and they're not really the ones likely to burden the NHS.

They are a foul habit, they are harmful and it should be stopped - and I know that but am addicted. Its an uphill struggle for me, but that doesn't mean it has to be for generations of young folk now and in the future who are likely to make the same poor judgements I did when I was young and felt invincible.

Alcohol can be enjoyed safely, and in fact in regular moderation is good for the body, so its an entirely different kettle of fish. Excess and binging might be curbed by discouraging use through price for some, and I believe that is the motivation for the SNP policy. Perhaps those on a tight budget, those who pick up a bottle when its on offer that otherwise wouldn't.

But some are just as addicted to drink as smokers are to cigarettes, so no matter what you do they will find a way to consume it in quantity.

I see the logic of the SNP plan. I don't drink at home, but I love the social aspect of a few ales with pals in a pub. Pubs are wonderful places, but you don't have to be there all the time or get hammered when you are - and the majority of my pals feel the same way.

As to carrier bags - Scotmid currently charge tuppence a bag. They ask each time if you want one. And as per the facebook group I saw which made me laugh, the reply should be, "naw, I'll juggle my shopping home". :lol:

But surely its not beyond the wit of scientists to come up with a bag which is strong yet dissolves in water.

So there you go scientists - there's something for you to do. Invent that.
User avatar
Pete
Posts: 7589
Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 13.36
Location: Dundee

cwathen wrote:A few years ago, co-op introduced a biodegradable plastic bag which would completely decompose within 2 years of manufacture, largelly getting around the problem which plastic has. Nothing further seems to have been done with it.
IIRC didn't it turn out that it didn't actually work because once it ends up in landfill a mixture of lack of light / oxygen / landfill stagnation meant it stopped degrading quickly and went back to a slower speed. In addition to that, Tesco realised thatit was actually making the bags so weakthat they'd either have to make them thicker or have more snap and thus less being reused as bin bags.

So that's the answer to that one.

Reusable bottles + crates with the deposit and credit note generating machines you get in German always fascinate me.
"He has to be larger than bacon"
User avatar
Gavin Scott
Admin
Posts: 6442
Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 13.16
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Pete wrote:Reusable bottles + crates with the deposit and credit note generating machines you get in German always fascinate me.
Not a fan of the reusable Diet Coke bottles in Amsterdam, which are very scraped and scuffed and have no flex in them. As I drink from a bottle they tend to glosh out the liquid into my mouth with the same volume of air as liquid causing much burpage.

No, that doesn't suit me so they'll have to invent something else.

Chop chop, then.
cwathen
Posts: 1309
Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 17.28

So, 4 years on *bump*

"Namby Pamby Day" hit England today, with the introduction of the 5p plastic bag surcharge. Obviously anything that will reduce environmental impact is a good idea, but my issue with it is the same as it was 4 years ago - no retailer has bothered seriously looking at replacing plastic bags with anything else, and so we are now in a situation where if you want something to carry your goods home in your options are either to plan ahead and take bags with you, or be forced into paying for more bags.

Ultimately, there was no incentive for the retailers to change - if any customers complain they can just blame it on the government and the big supermarkets are stage managing the situation by announcing that they will give all the proceeds to charity, thus cannot be accused of profiting from the situation.

The situation in England (which I don't know if different from anywhere else) has also been a bit complicated by the exemptions, one of which makes little sense, and the other no one seems to know about;

'Small Shops' are exempt, but this is not determined by the type of business or size of the premises, but instead by the total number of staff employed (a business with less than 250 staff is exempt). Thus a McColls has to charge for bags but an independent convenience store doesn't, even though they are exactly the same type of shop. It can get more ridiculous when you get to franchises - a Domino's store owned by a small franchisee with only 2 or 3 stores can still supply bags for free whilst one owned by a larger franchisee must charge even though both have the same brand on the high street. This seems a very odd way to go about making exemptions.

The other exemption is that where you are buying raw meat, fish or poultry the retailer is still permitted to supply a bag free of charge. I made a point of asking around today at a number of shops (including big supermarkets) and none of them seemed aware of this.

I do also wonder how far enforcement of the 'bag tax' will go. Will we actually see cases of someone accidentally pulling an extra bag off a self scan checkout being prosecuted for bag theft, a supermarket employee being dismissed for double-bagging and not charging for the second bag, or a supermarket itself turning a blind eye to this and being prosecuted for willful supply of carrier bags?

As I said 4 years ago, whilst the environmental argument is sound I am amazed that time has even been spent on this when there are far more serious and pressing matters going on in the world.
Alexia
Posts: 2999
Joined: Sat 01 Oct, 2005 17.50

It'll soon become second nature to take a bag with you, or buy a bag that you can fold up / stick in your pocket etc. It has in Wales. World hasn't ended. Plastic bags are pretty rare. If you're a fan of brands you can sit outside ALDI or Sainsburys and play Branded Bag Roulette - all manner of hessian, BfL, canvas bags with all sorts of logos get used.
Post Reply