![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
It may seem to be focussing on the trivial when so many other initiatives of the new Ontario government just call out for justice in response (anti democratic civic council changes; breaking contracts in a way which both implicitly minimizes the seriousness of anthropogenic climate change and makes Ontario look like a bad place to do business; stifling reforms to police accountability in the cradle) but there are several telling elements in the Fordian approach to dropping the minimum price of beer which merit some attention.
First, straightforward stupidity. Ford is quoted as saying:
"I think people in Ontario are mature enough, they're mature enough to know when they've had one too many,... I have all the confidence that the people in Ontario can be responsible beer drinkers."
The "people of Ontario" are not a sample, or a selected set of people. They are an entire typical North American population. Because they're culturally conditioned, they're not as bad as some places - going out in downtown Toronto on a Friday night is not nearly as hair-raising as going out in London on an excess-of-drink axis - but it's in no way controversial that there are lots of irresponsible Ontarians out there. Ordinary statistics provide an estimate of drunk drivers, or ethanol addicts who have been arrested, or sought treatment, in the province; numbers can be extrapolated to those who have not.
Secondly, this step (which is not original to Ford; it goes back to a Hudak campaign promise) is almost entirely flash with no substance; the cost of labour and materials has increased enough since the last time beer was actually sold for 24 dollars a case. The government is not doing anything to enable a decrease in inputs into the price, such as a decrease in taxes on beer.
(Some craft brewers have noted that it would be far more helpful simply to allow them to open their own beer stores (as opposed to the on-site "bottle shops" attached to breweries which currently exist) thereby eliminating the effective duopoly of LCBO and Brewers Retail which currently dominates beer sales. The previous government's allowing sales in supermarkets did not really change the overall schema; of course, the current government's as yet unfulfilled promise to allow sales in corner stores may address this problem. Maybe; it's more likely just to put the Brewers Retail top 10 into corner stores near the cigarettes.)
Thirdly, the raising of the price was a response to a serious input at a policy level, and is not unique to Ontario. The UK, a number of years ago, put in place minimum prices per "alcohol unit", and there are reliable studies showing a positive correlation between such price increases and better health outcomes. (Of course, as Ford doesn't accept this sort of market mechanism for carbon consumption, there's no good reason to think that he would accept it for alcohol consumption. This is a level of stupid equivalent to sticking your fingers in your ears and repeating "La, la, la, can't hear you".) Now, there can be informed objections to this approach - I've seen it condemned as coming down on the poor for drinking while letting the well-off drink as they like: the effects of the policy skew by class and income. A bold defence of the right of the poor to forget their miseries by drowning their sorrows would be a new thing for any Ontario government but it would have to be accompanied by a drop in taxes on drink to be effective, and it's not the line the government is taking (see point one, above).
Fourth, making policy, as Ford clearly has been doing, simply on the basis of reversing as many decisions as you can of your predecessor government is not a good way to govern. Even if some problematic decisions are righted, the net is cast too wide. This is as true for the Trudeau Liberals, who coasted for two years reversing the Harper government's actions, as it is for Ford. (I thought they were mistaken in reversing the change in CPP/retirement age from 65 to 67, for example.) And where many of the Harper item decisions which went into the dustbin seemed to come out of nowhere - vide the long form Census kerfuffle - the Wynne and McGuinty positions being reversed were all the results of real policy input. Repealing them for serious policy alternatives would be one thing; just blocking them or reversing them in a mad rush is another.
Finally, this is actively promoting what is guaranteed to be an inferior product, produced by avoiding paying living wages and using cheap inputs. Assuming there are any takers, the proposed promotional incentives will cost the government money in the form of reduced revenues from the LCBO and promote, indirectly, the Idea that the only reason to drink is to get intoxicated (as that will be about the only reason to drink what can be produced at that price point, withe the possible exception of small beer).
