MPs on the purchase age
August 30th, 2010 at 8:48 am by David FarrarThe Herald has surveyed MPs on where they stand on the drinking age. They have a story, and full results.
I’ve summarised the results, by party. They are:
| 18 | Split | 20 | Unknown | Total | |
| National | 5 | 16 | 6 | 31 | 58 |
| Labour | 6 | 19 | 8 | 9 | 42 |
| Green | 1 | 8 | 9 | ||
| ACT | 2 | 1 | 2 | 5 | |
| Maori | 3 | 2 | 5 | ||
| United | 1 | 1 | |||
| Prog | 1 | ||||
| Ind | 1 | 1 | |||
| Total | 19 | 38 | 15 | 50 | 122 |
So MPs for 18 are slightly ahead of 20, but a third of the Parliament favours a split age. What will be important is if a split age is defeated, will those MPs then vote for 18 or 20.
Related posts:
- The split purchase age
- Purchase age not drinking age
- 10 reasons why making it illegal for 18 and 19 year olds to purchase alcohol is the wrong thing to do
- Nats confirm conscience vote on alcohol purchase age
August 30th, 2010 at 8:55 am
Can we stop calling it “split age” please. Let’s have some honesty and call it “bob-each-way, try to appear to be doing something whilst not offending anyone”…
Vote:August 30th, 2010 at 9:25 am
I guess the 31 National ‘unknowns’ are waiting for their electorate polling to come in. Must be hard acting on your conscience when you don’t have one.
Vote:August 30th, 2010 at 9:29 am
Tom – I think they’re waiting for the memo from John
Vote:August 30th, 2010 at 9:42 am
I find it amusing that it was a National government that lowered the age to start with. Why are we even having this debate? Whatever government changes the law will lose 2 years’ worth of youth vote FOREVER!!!!
Vote:August 30th, 2010 at 10:08 am
Yep the split is a dithering response failing to take any action to deal with what is the major problem of Juvenile consumption and directed at not losing 18 year old votes. To change the drinking age back to 20 or 21 it is also essential to raise the voting age to the same level so as to preserve a status quo in voter support. Do it.
Vote:August 30th, 2010 at 10:57 am
The politicians are still all wondering how they will fiddle with this as “Rome burns’ and they try to work out the ramifications of how they vote. I wonder how many of the 50 don’t knows would be considering doing a “Choudrey” and hide in the broom cupboard rather than commit to a position that will follow them for ever.
Vote:So we still focus on the, admittedly too high, number of dopey youths who can not socialise on lessor amounts of alcohol and large quantities of water and or energy drinks, while we focus on the minority who, preload, skull and in other ways abuse alcohol with zero personal repercussions.
The elephant in the room is public drunkeness and is always ignored in searching for solutions. Fiddling with age restrictions will have absolutely no effect on the problems society faces on youth binge drinking. “Chairs on the Titanic” comes to mind.
August 30th, 2010 at 12:08 pm
Splitting the purchase age may do something to reduce access of alcohol for people under 18 but it’s the immature attitude to alcohol at all ages which is the main problem.
Changing that requires a culture change and you can’t legislate to do that.
Vote:August 30th, 2010 at 1:40 pm
Twenty odd years ago my friend told me she had overheard a telephone conversation between a south african businessman who had managed to sell some shonky IT gear to our boss.
She told me he was talking about producing “alcho pop” drinks to target teenagers and how rich they would all get.
At the time I thought what a load of rubbish considering the legal age here is 20 and what are they going to do, put alcohol in Ribena.
Hey Presto not long after that the drinking age was lowered to 18 and the “alcho pop” age dawned.
Makes you wonder who is running this country.
Vote: