BEER AND THE BUDGET
SIR,—Journalists always enjoy finding or manufac- turing trends, and that is why I am surprised that nobody has yet linked the reduction in the beer tax to its logical forerunners in this Government's financial policy, and that your paper in particular dismisses it with the mere observation that it `will, of course, be generally welcomed.'
Because this time the trend does not need to be manufactured. Drinking is just the latest of the more picturesque and less commendable English traditions that this Government has tried to foster. The intro- duction of Premium Bonds pandered to the weakness for gambling and easy money—`You can't lose,' they untruthfully told us, whereas in fact you stand a far better chance of winning on the horses. (And, true to form, the cost of going racing has also been reduced during this Government's term of office.) So the picture of the Prime Minister's ideal England begins to build up. Sturdy yeomen enjoying their wagers and quaffing their ale. Drinking toasts to the Queen (and waving their hats at her when they get the chance) and to kind Uncle Harold, the benevolent squire who made it easier for them to indulge. Meanwhile their omniscient betters in the saloon bar (who with the reduction in the income tax can afford to stay on spirits) get on with the job of running the country and• the world.
And working on the assumption that most beer- drinkers are Labour voters, the imaginative Premier may even hope that some will be drunk enough by polling day to put their Xs in the wrong place.
It occurs to me, though, that I may after all be wrong in seeing the reduction in the beer duty as a coherent part of government policy. It may just have been the price demanded by the Colonial Secre- tary for postponing his resignation.—Yours faith- fully, MICHAEL LEAPMAN 19 Pond Street, Hampstead, NW3
Previous page
