Low budget?

So here we are 24 hours before budget day and all the indications are that the chancellor is going to take a few things in the right direction, but not far enough to make the slightest difference. Plus ça change.
Contrary to what the puritan anti-alcohol brigade would say, many of us who enjoy a beer among friends welcome the idea of minimum pricing legislation, which would cut the inroads slashed into Britain's traditional beer and pub culture by loss-leading supermarket offerings of mass-produced lager. But it needs to be set at a higher level, than simply ensuring they charge at least the duty rate. 50p per unit is a sensible level and would do no harm to sensible drinkers' habits.

The further suggested tinkering with the excise duty relevant to strength is also sensible but as ever the measures apparently under consideration are timid and designed more to pander to various sensiblities rather than addressing the issue properly.

An increase in duty on beers and ciders over 7.5 per cent ABV is not a bad thing in itself, though it may mean simply that those who live on Carlsberg Special have to make do with a little less food. On the other hand a reduction in duty on lower priced beers is extremely sensible and might encourage a switch in consumption towards traditional British session ales, which are typically consumed in a pub in company rather than on the streets or at home slumped in front of the television.

But to set the level for lower duty at - as is currently speculated - 2.8 pct ABV is not only absurd but meaningless. Almost no beers at all  - save the occasional, rare, traditional Mild - are produced at that strength, and very few ill be encouraged by such a measure. Far more sensible, and a move that might have actually had an impact, would have been to reduce duty on beers under 4.0 pct ABV, or even, if it might be thought to assuage the anti-alcohol lobby further, below 3.8 pct ABV. A session bitter at 3.6 pct ABV can be a very enjoyable, extremely mildly relaxing drink. But, equally importantly, it would still be recognised as 'a drink'.

But will the chancellor do that? It would be a move that required genuine forethought, good advice and just a dash of political ingenuity. In other words: no.