Today’s U-turn on minimum pricing for alcohol is a clear sign that we are in the second half of this parliament with the general election hoving into view and that the Tories are very worried about their chances.

By the time I finished as home secretary, I was pretty convinced that the last Labour government should have introduced minimum alcohol pricing. The research from Sheffield University which we had commissioned showed a clear correlation between increasing the minimum price and reducing crime and bad health. It would have been welcomed by pub owners who see their custom disappearing to drink cheap wine at home – or, more worryingly, turning up already half cut from the ‘preloading’ they’ve done with cheap supermarket vodka. Had we not been in the increasing gloom and paralysis of the end of our time in government, I think we would have had the nerve and energy to introduce the policy – and, in doing so, we may have had the sort of long-term impact on health and our social environment that the decision to ban smoking in public places clearly has had.

I don’t dispute that this is a finely balanced policy decision – it does smack of state paternalism, it could impact on everyone regardless of whether they are a ‘problem drinker’ or not and it risks increasing supermarket profits at the same time as it penalises consumers. So I don’t condemn those who took a different view from me in government. And, incidentally, I don’t remember any public briefing about disagreements across government while we were working through the issue.

The current position is very different. The Home Office has just finished a consultation on a minimum unit price of 45p. This wasn’t one of the numerous government consultations launched by a junior minister with minimal interest from anyone but those directly involved. It was hailed by David Cameron himself as an important step and one which he supported. Now we hear that ministers including Theresa May, Michael Gove and Andrew Lansley are opposing the policy. This isn’t just a story of cross-government discussion – people are willing to publicly oppose a policy which their prime minister publicly championed. And we’re not talking about disenchanted backbenchers, but mainstream and senior cabinet members. Even in our darkest and most difficult days, I find it difficult to think of a policy publicly announced by Tony Blair or Gordon Brown which was then trashed publicly by other cabinet ministers. If this had happened while I was chief whip, I’d have sworn a lot and put my forehead to the desk in despair.

So my interpretation of the events of today is this: uncertainty and argument about this policy will certainly continue. Many believe it is a good, evidence-based policy. Others believe it is an unacceptable burden for social drinkers and voters. Vested interests in the alcohol industry will continue to lobby and campaign against.

What is completely clear, however, is that the handling of this issue shows a government which is giving up serious policy consideration and is now focused on the next election and the next Tory leader; and it shows a prime minister who can no longer count on the support of his cabinet colleagues. It took us 11 years to get to this stage – the Tories have managed it in less than three.

—————————————————————————————

Jacqui Smith is former home secretary, writes the Monday Politics column for Progress, and tweets @smithjj62

—————————————————————————————

Photo: 00ucci