Just a load of hot air?

Maybe it was bound to happen. We've waited so long for a major political debate about the supermarkets' role in the binge-drinking debate to come along, that when the moment did arrive, I was bound to be disappointed.

Last week's debate in the House of Commons about the consequences of cheap alcohol in supermarkets was, John Grogan aside, full of hot air and lacking in substance. It is such a shame when a real moment of opportunity arrives it is swamped by squabbling and point-scoring.

David Amess, more frustrated geography teacher than the raging Tory MP he wishes to be, made two statements that about summed up the level of debate. "I shall certainly not join the honourable members who condemn all cheap alcohol. I go to stores and like my three bottles for £10 and all that", he said, pompously. Then five minutes later he said: "Cheap alcohol is fuelling bingeing". A cogent argument indeed!

And then there was Philip Davies, Tory MP for Shipley, who on two occasions asked why he and his constituents should pay more for their alcohol "simply to cover a minority of people who are drinking irresponsibly". A fair point, you might argue - except this is a man who, his official political CV states, has served time as both marketing manager and customer services manager for Asda. Hardly surprising that he is obsessed with price.

Maybe I am being unfair. After all, MPs are caught in an impossible situation. Their constituency clinics must be an endless round of complaints from 'decent folk' about kids drinking cheap alcohol from supermarkets. But of course, the moment you start threatening the end of super-cheap alcohol, the very same 'decent folk' get very ratty indeed.