Gordon Brown yesterday joined in the critics who lined up in the morning's newspapers to condemn the chief medical officer's demand to price alcohol by the unit.
With the prime minister so opposed to Sir Liam's plan, it is clear that again it will be left to Scotland to blaze the social policy trail, leaving us south of the border either to look on with envy or later to jeer 'told you so' as some have done after it emerged that Holyrood's bold move on free personal care could prove more expensive than at first thought.
Perhaps Gordon Brown is worried that, in times of recession, a price hike on alcohol would be a vote loser. Many critics, government spokespeople among them, are convinced that moderate drinkers would be unfairly hit in their pockets.
No, prime minister; it is binge drinkers who will be hit in their pockets. The moderate drinker who buys a bottle of wine at the weekend will barely notice the difference in the weekly budget.
Perhaps Gordon Brown fears critical comment that the money raised in Sir Liam's plan - in effect a tax - would be spent on unnecessary wars and bailing out reckless bankers.
No, prime minister; not if you make it known that the money will be ring-fenced to finance projects that address alcohol misuse. Outside Left has previously urged a levy on high street alcohol prices to fund such projects.
Sir Liam's plan will not cure alcoholism just as higher tobacco prices have not eradicated lung cancer. But at least the pricing mechanism can be used to make less attractive the prospect of getting ratted on cheap lager or wine as the aperitif to a 20-somethings' night out.
Reaction to Sir Liam's proposals suggests someone knows a better way. But I have yet to hear them explain it.
I have to say I'm largely ambivalent about increased tax on alcohol. Possibly because it wouldn't affect me significantly. I think a lot of the journalists writing against it are more worried about their own pockets! But if the touted chocolate tax goes ahead, I'd be marching on the streets against it!
So, does this mean that raising the cost of alcohol effectively will not reduce population of drinkers?