Comment...

The tobacco sponsorship debate has provided a salutary warning to the new government that the British electorate firmly believes that " there is no such thing as a free lunch". Large donations to party funds imply an expectation of favourable returns. As Peter Kellner in the Observer (23rd November 1997 ) states, "One of Labour's crucial advantages in this year's general election was that most voters regarded the party as cleaner and less sleaze prone than the Conservatives. That reputation is now in jeopardy following the controversy over tobacco and Formula One......"

Let this be a warning to New Labour before it starts accepting donations from the drinks industry or its front organisation which in the past has "bought " favours from a Conservative government. On the Formula One Circuit companies like FOSTERS push a substance which, unlike tobacco, causes havoc and death on our roads. A Scottish Health Minister has already remarked that alcohol, unlike tobacco, can be good for the health. We hope this is not New Labour's official justification for alcohol sponsorship.

The social consequences of alcohol are only too clearly seen. This issue of ALERT highlights the one million children who suffer from someone else's intoxication and the thousands of lives still needlessly injured on our roads through inappropriate drinking. There is also the cost of criminal behaviour. As Jack Straw has pointed out, "Every year there are almost 1.5 million victims of violent attacks committed by people under the influence of drink. Every weekend people avoid their town and city for fear they will be attacked or intimidated by drunken youths. This cannot continue". Let us hope that New Labour resists the temptation to cosy up to the drinks industry.