Elections and the spread of 'I know what's good for you' groups

Unless you have been overseas or temporarily in a coma recently you will have witnessed and / or taken part in the wonder that is democracy in Australia. Yes, the good folk of South Australia and Tassie 'went to the polls' over the weekend. Well nearly all Tasmanians went to the polls. The Electoral Commission says that 30,000 didn't so a lot of us were overseas, in a coma or just couldn't be bothered.  But fear not, later in the year we get to do it all again when we have to decide if Kevin "Oh Obama I love you soooo much please come visit" Rudd or Tony "man, I look good in speedos" Abbott should lead the country. 

In some ways elections are good. They give us the illusion that we, the people, have a say in how things are run. Of course this isn't true, as the process over the proposed Tamar Valley pulp mill demonstrated, but for a brief time we can dream.  You also have the joy of 'numbering' the ballot paper. There is something deeply satisfying in putting someone you love to hate last. In a Senate election this can mean numbering that loathsome pollie as your 40th choice. It's the most wine free fun you can have with your clothes on. 

But elections have a dark side. Not violence, something much more insidious. It's not the fact that even if some of the pollies you love to hate get the boot they are simply replaced by other politicians. It's like dental hygiene. Brush away the germs and back they come but you keep doing it in the hope that it makes a difference eventually. 

Neither is it that eyesores election posters litter the countryside, nor the moronic and seemingly endless advertisements or even the patently uncomfortable 'suits' that suddenly turn up at your door pretending that they give a toss about what you think. No, there's a far worse danger. 

You see during the lead up to an election the 3 W's (whingers, whack jobs and what have you done for me latelys) have the opportunity to come out and push their 'issues'. Elections are like Christmas for activists. They know that pollies are desperate to keep their jobs and are ripe for some lobbying. If ever a pollie is going to listen or, god forbid, promise to do something it will be during an election.

As soon as a pollie promises to do something you have a mistake waiting to happen. Even a fabulous idea, like the home insulation program, can, in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats, be turned in a lethal stuff up. The brilliant thing about the latest Tassie state election is that it looks like we've got a hung parliament. This will make it harder for pollies to 'be seen to be doing something'. Think of it as a very clever harm minimisation strategy. Hopefully it will catch on in the rest of Australia. 

By this stage you have questions. "Are you ever going to get to the point" and "Are you going to write something funny". Well yes and no. The point is that the Federal election hasn't even started and already the "I know what's best for you" crowd is gearing up for some lobbying. The ABC's Country Hour program featured an item today (22nd March) about some new 'Health Alliance' group who will demand that the Government raise taxes on wine to make us drink less of it. This will apparently improve our health and help those who have problems with alcohol.

During the item there was a response from the Winemaker's Association who pointed out that some 12,000 jobs would be lost if the suggestion from the 'Health Alliance' was implemented. This doesn't worry anyone from the Health Alliance because they won't be one of the 12,000. So the association made a good point but the wine industry can and should highlight the other flaws in the latest item on the 'social improvers' agenda.

Raising taxes is completely ineffective as a behavioural change mechanism. People who have a problem with alcohol will still have a problem even if wine is more expensive. A flagon of sherry going up 20% or even more will not make any difference. If their problem is with more expensive wine raising the price simply means they have to break into our houses looking for our plasmas or wine cellars.  In any case how much more tax will the rest of us have to pay before 'we come to our senses' and the alcoholics stop being addicts ?

Look, we've tried this before. Raising the price of alcopops did not reduce teenage binge drinking. In fact there were reports in the media that teenagers were ending up in emergency rooms more often because they were buying cheaper but stronger alcohol. Sure this happened sooo long ago (last year) but somebody must remember.  

In any case why should people who don't have a problem suffer because of the minority who do. Most people most of the time enjoy their wine responsibly. They don't end up on the streets, beat their wives or run over cute furry animals for fun. Help those people who need it but don't demand that all of us pay extra for something that gives us pleasure and does us no real harm. 

Finally, we all have, or at least had, a Mum and we don't need or want another one.  There is something deeply offensive about self appointed busy bodies deciding for others that they have had 'enough'.  Being an adult means making decisions and living with the consequences. If people want to drink, let them. If they develop a problem because of it then they should take responsibility and do something to correct it. If they don't, criticise them for that, tax them for that and leave the rest of us alone.

There is a temptation to dismiss this as a piece of filler on the ABC or a storm in a tea cup but it's not an isolated incident. This is another step in the ongoing push to demonise alcohol in general and wine in particular. Governments have always been interfering in people's lives and mostly the results have been terrible. Thirty years of 'social engineering' hasn't taken us to nirvana it's delivered an increase in learned helplessness.  

No one, not addicts or the rest of us, will be better off if wine taxes are increased. But lots of people, most of whom don't share the income or job security of the "Health Alliance" members, will be worse off.  There is no guarantee that raising taxes will lead to better health outcomes but you can guarantee people will lose their jobs, small vineyards will close and all of us will be just that little bit closer to the dull but good boys and girls so desired by the finger wagging crowd.

People who are part of the "Health Alliance" are not really interested in us or our health. What they want is to tell us what to do. They want us to live our lives the way they live theirs. Except they don't 'live' they have some sort of beige existence.  It's like that vegetarian joke. Do vegetarians actually live longer or does it just feel that way?

Sorry for channelling Barnaby Joyce but c'mon people, isn't it time we all said enough is enough? Treat 'social improvers' like crack. Just say no.

What do you think?  Send us a comment