On your bike, Boris

As the anniversary of Boris Johnson’s mayoral victory approaches one charge that is increasingly being made against him is a lack of his own distinctive vision for London. All his best policies, his Labour critics contend, are hangovers from the previous Labour administration. Whether it’s his introduction of the London living wage, or his belated trips overseas to promote the capital, all of his most distinctive measures introduced so far seem to have a familiar Livingstonian ring to them. As a journalist Johnson may have been well known for his quick wit and ease with Latin phraseology, but as mayor he has turned out to be curiously unoriginal.

But copying, they say, is the sincerest form of flattery, and if Boris does choose to stick to the Livingstone playbook on many issues then it is, in many ways, a victory for Labour values of sorts. One policy that Johnson has inherited from the previous Labour administration and seems to be sticking with is plans for a public bike scheme similar to initiatives already up and running in France, Spain and the United States. Boris has confirmed he will be going ahead with the project with plans for 6,000 public bikes to be available for hire across zone 1 by 2010.

Having just returned from a holiday in Barcelona where a public bike scheme has been going since March 2007, the potential advantages of a similar scheme for London for cutting congestion and greening the capital’s public transport system are clear. Under the Barcelona scheme registered users are given an electronic card which is used to unlock the bikes available from a network of around 400 stations across the city. Annual subscription to the service is around 30 euros with the first half hour of each journey taken free, although rental fees increase steeply after two hours. The scheme is run jointly by the city council and the advertising company Clear Channel, and is funded by a combination of revenue raised from parking fees imposed on car users in the city centre and advertising at the bike stations. Since its launch the initiative has proved immensely popular with Barcelona’s residents, expanding to around 6,000 bikes with the service covering around 70 per cent of the city’s total area.

Would a similar scheme work in London? A number of possible pitfalls have been highlighted by recent media reports. The boss of Clear Channel and head of the Barcelona initiative Barry Sayer told the Evening Standard last week that the London plan would be ‘structurally challenging’ because it would rely solely on rental fees, although bosses at the GLA refute this saying the scheme is financially viable and will be funded through a combination of funding from the TfL, user charges and an as yet unidentified ‘sponsor’.

But another problem highlighted by Sayer that is perhaps harder to argue is Boris’s refusal so far to upset his own car using supporters. ‘We need more bicycle lanes,’ Sayer told the Evening Standard simply. So far however the London mayor has shown little sign of wanting to take on the interests of London’s car users, scrapping the western extension of the congestion charge and allowing motorcyclists to use bus lanes, which the London Cycling Campaign complain is dangerous. Unless Johnson is prepared to make the difficult decisions to make London more bike friendly, however, then the public bike scheme may end up being a victim of the mayor’s increasingly evident tendency to fudge.

Event report: Could a concert of democracies be the solution for UN reform?

Last year the Progress policy group on progressive internationalism suggested a ‘concert of democracies’ as one of its recommendations for the future. This is an idea on which political thinkers and activists are divided, and Wednesday’s event ‘Could a concert of democracies be the solution for UN reform?’ promised to provide a lively discussion on the issue. Indeed, the panel was divided firmly into two camps, with Alan Johnson arguing in favour and Paddy Ashdown and David Hannay arguing strongly against.

Alan Johnson began by claiming that there is a strong political argument for a concert of democracies, a definition of which can be found in the Princeton projects’ work on the subject, and that failings in global governance have led to a recent rise in the interest in the idea. Alan outlined his ‘top ten’ arguments in favour which ranged from the ability of the concert of democracies to impose sanctions when the UN could not to the support democratic nations could offer fledgling democracies to the fact that the construction of an alternative body could provide an incentive for UN reform. Brushing off accusations of abandoning liberal internationalism, Alan claimed that in fact a concert of democracies was a way in which to genuinely embrace this school of thought as liberal democracies could stand up for their values on a global level.

Lord Hannay argued that there was a lack of intellectual rigour around the idea. He claimed it is currently fashionable due to neocon republican support for the idea during the 2008 American elections but that it had only low level backing by Democrats, has received a negative response in Europe and has received no interest or support throughout the rest of the world. He argued the support that has been gathered is a result of impatience at the slow reform of the UN. He outlined a number of points to explain his opposition to the idea starting with the fact that a concert of democracies would divide the world into two, a throw back to the Cold War era. He raised the point that the main challenges we face are global challenges which need global solutions, something that could not be reached if the world was divided into two camps. As well as these two major points he argued that developing democracies such as India, South Africa and Brazil would not agree with such an approach and that problems around how to classify a democracy and thus membership would arise. He argued strongly that democracy alone doesn’t create legitimacy or international law and a concert of democracies could not be a substitute for the UN Charter. He concluded by saying that a concert of democracies is not the solution to UN reform and outlined potential alternatives which included expanding the G8, expanding the UN Security Council, a new UN environmental agency and finishing the Doha round.

Paddy Ashdown began by agreeing with much of Lord Hannay’s speech. He argued that the idea of a concert of democracies had been created to bypass the UN and that, whilst there were problems with this institution, a concert of democracies would make it worse. The UN, he argued, is about having discussions with people you don’t like. Most vehemently he expressed his view that we do not have the right to export democracy and it is up to the people to choose their own form of government. Lord Ashdown asked what we would define as liberal democracy – is the UK one? Also, he asked, if the world’s greatest democracy can have created Guantanamo Bay and a network of torture, can we really see democracy as such a moral force? Finally he argued that on issues like climate change we cannot leave out nations like China and need to reach out and accept their imperfections. In response to Lord Ashdown’s claims Alan Johnson commented on the irony of being lectured about democracy by two lords.

Following the panellists’ discussion questions were asked on a range of issues from how a criteria would be created in order to allow entrance into the concert of democracies to questions around the legitimacy of such a body and issues around the changing US administration and what effect a less progressive administration could have. One question which sparked significant debate was the issue of Kosovo. Paddy Ashdown argued that whilst this had been an illegal intervention, it had been carried out because of the overwhelming support of the international community.

Meg Munn ended the event by asking for a show of hands on the issue which demonstrated that the room was almost exactly split 50-50 (with a slight tilt in favour!) on whether a concert of democracies was a good idea or not, proving this debate shows no sign of being resolved any time soon!

Political apologies

The Tory and media obsession with extracting an expression of remorse from Gordon Brown over his handling of the British economy detracts from the real issues affecting the country, and the steps that need to be taken to nurse Britain’s banking sector back to health.

The facts are simple, the British economy, with its reliance on the financial sector, is in poor shape and some sort of intervention is needed to ensure that a recession does not turn into a depression. Labour seems to be taking that message on board, with financial stimuli and attempts at a global economic settlement being employed to ensure the country is not sucked into a US sub-prime, CDO shaped black hole.

Yet, in the midst of one of the most turbulent times in a generation, people have fixated on Gordon Brown’s failure to apologise for the ‘mistakes’ of the Labour government over the past twelve years. The media’s silly hunt for an apology led to Brown telling the Guardian that he “take[s] full responsibility for all [his] actions”.

What is the use of Brown apologising for his tenure as Chancellor and Prime Minister? Will his critics accept the apology and move forward? Will it impact upon policies designed to ameliorate the ills of the banking system?

David Cameron provides a helpful example of the absurdity of apologies. His recent mea culpa to the British nation for failing to “warn against the levels of  . . . corporate debt and banking debt” was mischievously designed to drawn attention to Brown’s silence and suggest that Cameron is a more mature political force.

The most generous evaluation of Cameron’s apology is that it was utterly useless. What exactly did he have to apologise about? The Tories have had no real power for twelve years, and apologising for a failure to warn about something is not an apology at all, but a dig at the party who were in charge and had to take real decisions about the economy.  In addition, this apology was carefully targeted to ‘corporate debt and bank debt’, two issues that are not considered of paramount importance by people at large (who care more about mortgages and other personal debt).

In any case, shouldn’t the Tories apologise about the fact that they were previously in favour of even more deregulation? In the near past, John Redwood’s policy commission actively pushed for a full deregulation of the mortgage market. When leader, William Hague said he would deregulate, and promote ministers according to their success on deregulation. The idea that the Tories would have called for more regulation over any area of the financial sector is laughable. Yet they apologise only for ‘failing to warn’ about two types of corporate debt. There is a vast gulf between saying sorry and being sorry; Cameron’s effort clearly falls into the former category.

This fixation on apologies helps no one. A coherent strategy for the British economy and political system is required, not more of the political chicanery once decried by a fresh-faced David Cameron. Labour has outlined this strategy and is implementing it. Perhaps now that the Tories have made their peace with the British public, they can tell us what their grand plans are.

Event Report: Peer review: Is it time to complete House of Lords reform?

The recent lobbying scandal was the spur for Progress organising this discussion about reform of the House of Lords, a political old chestnut that is still far from being resolved. Indeed, Tony Wright and Nick Cohen both began by complaining of their weariness of the issue. Despite this, the debate proved to be lively and interesting, with much attention paid to the merits and demerits of David Steel’s incremental reform bill that is currently before the House.

Tony Wright thought it extraordinary that 12 years into a Labour government with a huge majority and commitment to constitutional reform, we are still left with an only semi-reformed second chamber. He supports a hybrid chamber, with enough election for legitimacy, and enough appointment to have independence and expertise. However, at this late stage of the Parliament reformers must settle for a pragmatic approach that deals with immediate problems. Therefore the Steel bill, which tidies up some of the anachronisms of the current system, should be supported. Tony pointed out the root of many of our problems is that the honours system is mixed up with the House of Lords. The honour of a peerage should be disentangled from the job of being a legislator.

Nick Cohen began by telling the story of William Phillips, a veteran US anti-communist of the left, who when at a party in the 1960s was confronted with Kenneth Tynan spouting dusty Marxist dogmas. ‘Young man,’ he said after Tynan ran out of steam, ‘your arguments are so old I’ve forgotten what the answer is.’ Nick feels much the same about this argument – astonished that Labour supporters are still debating whether to create a democratic second chamber. He warned that once in opposition Labour will regret not having reformed the Lords, depriving itself of a base from which to attack any future Tory government.

Unlock Democracy director Peter Facey pointed out that the preamble to the 1911 Parliament Act (which removed the Lords’ veto over government bills) declared itself to be a temporary measure. 98 years later, we are still no closer to the constitutional settlement we need. Peter set out some things Labour can do to progress the issue at this late stage of a Parliament. There should be a firm commitment to reform in the next Labour manifesto, a draft bill should be produced, and a vote held in the Commons to ‘flush out’ supporters. Tories who vote for reform can then be held to their beliefs in the future.

Several members of Parliament contributed to the debate from the floor. Ivor Richard, a former Leader of the Lords, contradicted many contributors by arguing against support for the Steel bill. His objection is that the bill enshrines the principle of a nominated house, by creating a ‘better’ nominated house. Most seriously, the bill gives the unelected appointments commission the power to determine the political composition of the chamber. This view was echoed by Damien Welfare from the Campaign for an Elected Upper House.

Alon Or-Bach from the National Policy Forum pointed out that the NPF has opted for a fully-elected House of Lords, and that this view is representative of the grassroots of the party. Various other issues and questions were raised, including, the danger of the second chamber having greater legitimacy than the Commons, the need to ensure proportionate representation of women and ethnic minorities, and whether outright abolition was the answer.

Peter Facey thought that until the Commons and the executive were both comprehensively reformed, abolition of the second chamber would be a disaster. The executive in the UK already has too much power, and all countries of our size have a bicameral system. He argued that what makes the Lords work as a reasonably-effective check on government is that no one party is in control. Finally, Peter isn’t asking for a ‘big bang’ reform, merely any kind of bang at all!

Nick Cohen finished by warning the meeting that Iain Duncan Smith’s proposals for a British senate were still Conservative party policy. By giving each county equal representation it would entrench a conservative majority, as is the case in the USA. If the reforming party blows its chance on constitutional reform then don’t assume that nothing else will happen.

Margaret Jay, who chaired the debate, concluded by saying she had enjoyed the discussion, but was unsurprised by it. The debate has been going on for a long time, and is likely to continue for many years to come.

Beer goggles

Did anyone else hear the Director of Wetherspoons, Tim Martin, on Today this morning? I was left wondering whether I’d had one too many the night before when I heard him ranting about the excessive ‘regulation’ which he said had resulted in a £4 million cost to his company. This excess was apparently the increase in holiday leave from 20 to 28 days introduced by the government which comes in on the 1st April. Leaving aside the fact that most arguments at the moment point to the need for more regulation not less, it's important to remember why we're increasing holiday leave, and why it's particularly important for low salaried workers - precisely those who work in places like Wetherspoons.

For one thing, the UK has historically had the lowest holiday entitlement in the EU, with the European average being 34 days combining public holidays and statutory entitlement. In Finland the entitlement is 44 days. Yet we know that we still work some of the longest hours in Europe without the corresponding productivity we’d expect for putting in the extra toil.

Yes, this increase does come at a difficult time for business, but the recession must not be used as a cover for industry which has always opposed enhancement of worker’s rights on the basis of cost to profits. In any case, the interview also revealed that Wetherspoons has increased its profits by £25.6 million recently, so it can easily afford the cost of giving its employees well-earned time off.

The second area which is putting “massive pressure” on the pub industry according to the Wetherspoons chap is the new licensing regime. This is the regime which gives local authorities the powers to close down premises which consistently serve drunk people and help to create havoc in neighbourhoods because they fail to control crime and disorder. I think massive pressure is exactly what was required here surely? And Tim Martin had further scaremongering regarding the new measures which Jacqui Smith and Alan Johnson want to introduce to curb excessive drinking by outlawing happy hours and targeting groups such as only women for sales, calling on the government to “stop interfering” otherwise they will kill the “golden goose”.

Finally, Martin had a pop at the government’s “covert taxes unleashed surreptitiously” on an unsuspecting public, i.e. excise duty. Now the last time I heard, this information is announced twice a year in front of the cameras and Parliament by the Chancellor in the Budget and PBR. Not exactly cloak and dagger then. There may be more that needs to be done to protect the small breweries and independent pubs which form the centres of communities as Ruth Smeeth has pointed out, but these organisations won’t be helped by the sort of special pleading Mr Martin is promoting.

So when Alastair Darling meets with representatives of the pub sector next week, let’s hope he keeps a clear head and isn’t fooled by arguments which use the recession to turn back the clock on legislation which has been introduced to protect workers and improve public health.

Event Report: The end of globalisation? Will it survive the recession?

Patricia Hewitt, who chaired yesterday’s Progress event on the future of globalisation in the world recession, opened the debate  by stressing that the current world financial crisis is absolutely a crisis of globalisation, caused by complex interconnected financial networks.

Author and economist Philippe Legrain started by saying he hoped that this wasn’t the end of globalisation, as he is currently writing a book about the future of globalisation! However, in these turbulent economic times nothing can be ruled out. Globalisation is neither inevitable nor is it doomed to fail.

The cause of this financial crisis is excessively loose American monetary policy, and not free trade, migration, or other features of globalisation. A retreat into protectionism will be a disaster, not least because protectionism is the very opposite of a fiscal stimulus. Philippe concluded by stressing the importance of the G20 taking decisions to ensure greater balance in the world economy (with more spending in Asia and more saving in the USA and UK), and better international institutions.

According to David Coats, most people in committee room five on Wednesday evening would agree that on balance open markets have been a good thing for most people in the world. The real question is whether the globalisation of finance has been beneficial. He argued that greater integration of the world financial system since the 1970s has led to greater instability.

Like Philippe, David stressed the importance of beginning to unravel the global imbalances that have grown over the past 15 years. This will not be easy, as the Chinese still have a huge appetite for US government bonds, and their people have a huge need to save their money to compensate for the lack of social security. David’s colleague Will Hutton believes that the IMF should take charge of unravelling the global imbalances, if necessary imposing tariffs on countries that refuse to cooperate.

Finally and most importantly, global markets must be legitimised to the public across the world – their benefits explained and their excesses constrained. Rather than resorting to unfortunate soundbites about British jobs for British workers, the government should be ensuring the social dimension of the EU is strengthened so that workers have a guarantee that they will not be adversely affected by globalisation. The countries with the strongest welfare states are those best-placed to succeed in a globalised world.

Former Minister for Europe Denis MacShane gave an entertaining and erudite speech ranging over the topics of protectionism, political extremism, and social and cultural liberty. The current crisis is a crisis of free trade, and it is more important than ever for the progressive left to be arguing against protectionism, authoritarianism and xenophobia.

Denis outlined some possible responses to the crisis – crucially, a philosophical assault on money secrecy, against British territories like the Channel Islands as much as against Switzerland. A restatement of the benefits of openness to the world, and the utility of the EU. And a re-invigoration of international bodies like the International Labour Organisation, which no Labour cabinet minister has bothered attending in the past 12 years. DfID still directs too much funding to market fundamentalists like the Adam Smith Institute and not international trade union initiatives. Until the crisis New Labour wasn’t prepared to consider these arguments – now we must.

Denis concluded with the aphorism from economist Joan Robinson: ‘there is only one thing worse than being exploited by a multinational, and that is not being exploited by a multinational’.

Andrew Simms from the New Economics Foundations responded directly to that quotation by asking whether there couldn’t be a Buddhist ‘third way’ between inactivity and exploitation, and also questioned whether capitalism’s much-vaunted creative destruction isn’t often destructive destruction.

Andrew emphasised that we are facing a triple crunch – not just an economic collapse but the crises of climate change and pressure on natural resources. The global economy has no conception of its asset base – its natural resources – and the limits imposed by them. Like a self-indulgent teenager we have been working on the assumption that our resources are limitless. Yet we could be only 93 months away from the point where the environmental crunch arrives.

Andrew argued that the global economy has not just been inefficient in its use of resources, but also in its ability to reduce poverty. A rebalancing of the economy towards local activity is required, as is a green ‘new deal’ – reflating the economy through  environmental improvements. In the end the global economy should be better, not bigger.

Philippe took issue with this argument, pointing out that globalisation makes the economy more efficient, therefore making dealing with climate change easier. Localisation of the economy would result in greater consumption. It’s technological change that offers the best hope of a solution to the problem of climate change.

In response to a question about the UK’s manufacturing sector, Denis pointed out that the UK actually has a higher level of manufacturing than France – it’s just more specialised and not in the traditional ‘big ticket’ industries. He would like to see a greater proportion of GDP being directed to universities, which can they develop the innovations that will drive future economic growth in the UK. Denis again emphasised that the progressive left must speak with one voice in favour of the EU, and Labour pro-Europeans (who have been briefed against frequently in the past 12 years) must be allowed to make the case for Europe vocally.

Patricia interjected with her thoughts on the difficulties of achieving change through international institutions. Progress on the Doha round of WTO talks will be almost impossible, as Washington and Brussels are no longer able to cook up a compromise and impose it on the rest of the world. The G20 looks like the most likely institution that can achieve economic reform with the consent of most countries in the world.

David concluded by arguing the centre left has failed by not proclaiming the progressive story there is to tell about globalisation. The lack of intellectual self-confidence is stunning. For the past two decades the centre left has accommodated itself to market fundamentalism – but Kevin Rudd’s 2007 election win in Australia will be the last victory in this ‘third way’ mould. The centre left now needs to explain how it will recreate the global economy in its own image. We have to make the case for markets with a social dimension. David responded to Andrew’s critique by arguing that it was critique of capitalism in general, and not of the globalised economy of the past 20 years. Globalisation has been the biggest poverty reduction programme in history, and we should celebrate it for being so.

Patricia stepped in to moderate David’s critique of the centre left – New Labour understood the need to balance markets with social justice, and great strides have been made in the UK over the past 12 years in quiet re-regulation of labour markets. The lack of intellectual confidence applies more now, when markets have been understood to have failed, than it does to the previous 12 years.

Patricia concluded the meeting by quoting an adviser to President Obama: ‘never let a crisis go to waste’.

An evening with Boris

Yesterday evening I attended Boris Johnson’s People’s Question Time in the pugilistic splendour of Bethnal Green’s York Hall. The evening was chaired by Labour’s John Biggs who sported an air of good-humoured antagonism towards the Mayor throughout. The audience followed suit, booing Boris as he stood up to speak but being otherwise fairly genial.

Boris began by listing the achievements of his tenure to date; the Freedom Pass, the Oysterisation of the transport network, a bicycle hire scheme, Crossrail and Tube modernisation. Weren’t all these schemes instituted by Ken Livingstone, I asked politely? A typical Boris dodge followed. “Umm, I didn’t quite see you, but I’m sure the question was meant benevolently, so we’ll move on”, he mumbled.

The real answer was given by John Biggs, who said Boris “took all the credit for the improvements and blamed the government for the problems”. Boris failed to give a convincing explanation for the traffic chaos during the snow last month, and his claims to be a champion of cyclists rang hollow when the audience complained about the scheme to allow motorcyclists into bus lanes and the lack of investment in the cycle network.

A popular topic during the meeting was knife crime. The BNP’s Richard Barnbrook, suggested custodial sentences for all those caught in possession of knives. He was quickly shouted down by members of the prison service in the audience who explained from their own experience “prison doesn’t work”.

On housing, Johnson was asked a direct question about whether he would stick to his election pledge of building 50,000 affordable homes in the capital. “I am optimistic . . . but the figure will be hard to reach due to the state of the market”, he said. A simple ‘no’ would have sufficed.

However, the question which really seemed to flummox Boris was whether all the feral cats on the Olympics’ site had been caught. You can rest easy; apparently they have.

It was obvious that Boris didn’t have Ken’s detailed knowledge about London, and he often asked questioners to send him more information so he could help at a later date. But such response often successfully deflected and satisfied questioners, a particular skill of his it seems. This, coupled with an apparent drift to the centre and the continuation of a number of Ken’s policies in the capital, means that Labour will need a mayoral candidate who engages directly with voters and their concerns to be elected in 2012. A fact worryingly evidenced by the 60% approval rating Boris received in a somewhat unscientific electronic poll conducted at the end of the evening.

Event Report: Regaining the capital

Yesterday saw an excellent panel of speakers join us for a well-attended Progress debate on winning back London. Tessa Jowell, Steve Reed, Nicky Gavron and Julia Clark of Ipsos MORI shared their assessments of the strengths and failures of our campaign in the lead up to 2008 and highlighted a number of issues that we need to look at if we are to turn the tables next time. Two themes in particular emerged, namely the need for a Labour vision for London that address the concerns and aspirations of all Londoners and the need to ensure that out our message reaches people in terms that they can identify with. Julia Clark’s facts and figures hit home hard on this point, particularly those on the satisfaction divide between inner and outer London heading into 2008 and the uncomfortable evidence that actual voting patterns were split more along ethnic than class lines. There was panel-wide consensus that we will need a courageous debate on these issues as we head towards 2012, but it is clear the real challenge will be achieving consensus on the best way to address them.

Steve Reed accurately identified crime as one key area in which we failed to properly articulate our understanding of voter concerns and set out our policies and achievements. Tessa Jowell highlighted the loss of Labour support amongst aspirational voters living in suburban London and the importance of a ‘one London’ approach that includes people from Zones 1 to 6. Nicky Gavron stressed the importance of a unifying vision to underpin our policies and also caused something of a stir amongst the audience with talk of a coalition of progressive parties.

During the course of a lively questions session it became clear that opinion is polarised about how hard we should be on ourselves given the relative success of Labour in London as against the national backdrop. But, as Tessa Jowell reminded us, the greatest truism in the world of politics is that you either win or lose. Last time we lost, and we need to put that right. There was a lot of food for thought on how we might do this, but I’ll close with some sage practical advice taken from Julia Clark’s closing comments: if we are serious about engaging our local communities on the issues that matter to them, we need to do more listening and less Guardian reading. 

Sultanas of spin

I couldn’t resist blogging this wonderful snippet which came across my desk about one of the Rees-Mogg family who is a Tory PPC in North East Somerset. Apparently this chap (who has been in the news before for comparing people who didn’t go to Oxbridge to “potted plants”), sent literature to the good citizens of NE Somerset which sported entire sections lifted from The Sun newspaper.

Most amusing was how the  no-nonsense and direct language of The Sun was gentrified. So a “costly flop” became “expensive and trivial”.

And furthermore, Jacob Rees-Mogg’s dad is a well-respected journalist and former Editor of The Times! You couldn’t make it up.

Not only do the Tories not have any substantive economic alternatives to Labour, they can’t even come up with their own prose either!

Raising the age won't reduce the problem

This week Nicola Sturgeon has outlined the SNP's plans to combat alcohol abuse in Scotland with one of the measures being to raise the age to purchases alcohol in off-licenses to twenty-one. The incentive for Scottish students to go south of the border to university I’m sure has just been increased, as well as Carlisle becoming Scotland’s answer to Calais or if the measures are expanded to pubs, the new Tijuana. But it is not the age of drinkers in Scotland that is behind the high levels of alcohol abuse and underage drinking in Scotland, or elsewhere in the UK for that matter, but rather our culture towards drinking. This is clear when we look to the continent, where France has lower drinking ages to here and half the amount of underage drinking. Some charities like Alcohol Concern even oppose the concept of raising the drinking age to 21. Due to the adverse effect of intensifying the taboo related factor and making alcohol a right of passage and a forbidden fruit.

I write this blog as a former off-license worker in Scotland for over five years with experience of tackling under age drinking at the frontline of the battle. It’s from this background that I oppose the plans for raising the drinking age in Scotland to twenty-one and not out of a sense to bash the SNP.

For starters, most off-licenses are already following a policy of asking for ID from anyone who looks under twenty-one, or basically within the 16-24 age group. With most companies running their own “mystery shop” tests checking up on their staff making sure they are asking for ID. My old company Threshers use to run a scheme called FISH, don’t ask me for what it stood for, but it tested customer service and whether we were asking for ID. They would even send people like myself, then in Scotland, to branches in Manchester to check on their stores there. However, not all shops in Scotland adhere to this policy that is why a more sensible approach would be that offered by the Scottish Labour Party’s suggestion of a national mandatory Challenge 21 scheme.

When I think back to my time behind the counter I remember that the main problem we had was not those under age buying the drink as that was fairly easy to spot, it was actually the smaller independent drink retailers in the area flouting the law or not following policies like ours. This was why the suggestions of Scottish Labour MSPs such as Pauline McNeill who advocate life time bans on shops known to continuously sell alcohol to underage drinkers. As a sales assistant I could personally be fined £1000 for selling alcohol to someone under age but the licence holder would be unaffected by my actions. The licensee could only loose his or her license if caught in the act.

The next major problem was those who were old enough to purchase alcohol who were doing so on behalf of those underage. The latter included friends, parents and siblings generally older than twenty-one who would purchase the alcohol for those they knew to be underage. I had many arguments with parents who genuinely believed that it was perfectly acceptable to buy crates of beer, cider or alcho pops for their young teenage children. I remember on one occasion a rather well heeled gentleman, who came in to buy some bottles of cider for his 13 year old daughter, and became threatening when I explained politely that it was against the law. Then went next door to Tescos, where he left his child outside and walked passed my shop window a few moments latter giving me the finger with one hand, and with the other raising above his head in triumph the alcohol he had bought for his daughter next door!! The only plus side to this story is that he went on to drop the alcohol moments later.

What is needed in this country as a whole is greater investment in education from a young age highlighting the ramification of drinking irresponsibly medically and socially. Not the policy of headline grabbing that the SNP administration is pursuing.

There’s an old Scottish proverb that goes “they talk of my drinking but never my thirst”, something Nicola Sturgeon should consider when they try to bring through this legislation.