- This topic has 2,688 replies, 35 voices, and was last updated 10 hours, 4 minutes ago by
.
- Posts
Absolutely disgraceful headlines in the Sun (no surprise there) and Telegraph (not much surprise there either) today. Labour plans to reduce the drink drive limit, and quite right too, which of course is spun as an attempt to ‘kill off pubs’. Absolutely desperate rubbish.
Firstly if a pub is only able to survive by discharging its customers into their cars over the limit, thus putting themselves and innocent people at risk, then frankly they deserve to go under. How much future custom are they going to get from a punter who’s wrapped their car around a tree anyway? Or worse one who’s been run over doing the right thing and walking home.
Secondly drink driving is rife in rural areas anyway. If someone is prepared to break the law as it is, reducing the limit is not going to make them think twice. There’s barely any police in rural areas to enforce it anyway, a lack of police numbers being another thing that the right wing press moans about despite cheerleading for the party that oversaw it.
“If someone is prepared to break the law as it is, reducing the limit is not going to make them think twice. There’s barely any police in rural areas to enforce it anyway”.
Doesn’t seem much point changing the law, then. Another example of a government tinkering around the edges for no good reason but with no ideas about anything important.
The truth is pubs have been driven to the wall by governments of both stripes for years now. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion it has been a deliberate strategy but it is nice of the “Daily Telegraph” to only just get around to noticing.
The traditional “wet” pub will not survive. In all honesty, they are doomed by future demographics anyway.
Nice of our glorious Prime Minister supported by fewer than 1 in 5 voters to commit British troops to Ukraine.
As I read elsewhere:
“I hope all these Ukrainiacs – those who ‘stand with Ukraine’, with stupid flags in their cars and social media bios – are straight down to the Armed Forces Careers Office tomorrow. If they are too old they can enlist their kids or grandkids to go and fight a nuclear superpower in some sh*thole corrupt country a thousand miles away.
Have at it.”
Somehow I doubt our political class (or the French political class for that matter) will be encouraging their children to go there.
Given that Starmer used to demand resignations over the most minor matters, I assume he will be demanding this dishonest cretin hands in his notice?
Doesn’t seem much point changing the law, then.
It won’t make any difference in rural areas which is what the Telegraph’s claim relates to. Hopefully it acts as more of a deterrent in areas where there’s a chance you’ll actually be caught. Personally I’d make the limit a negligible amount and no more which is the norm in many countries. Our current limit (except Scotland which is already lower) is one of the highest in Europe.
The truth is pubs have been driven to the wall by governments of both stripes for years now. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion it has been a deliberate strategy but it is nice of the “Daily Telegraph” to only just get around to noticing.
It is noticing because Labour is now in charge. Fairly sure plenty of pub closures happened between 2010 and 2024. I quite agree that it’s both stripes. Labour isn’t helping but anyone who thinks pubs have had it rosy until 18 months ago is deluded.
I honestly hadn’t read this article before my earlier post, mainly because “Spiked” is behind a paywall now (I think you are allowed about four free articles a month).
The evidence from Scotland is the lower limits have made no difference at all.
Labour’s drink-drive limit will call time on the pub for good
I’ve said before the demise of the local pub was all down to Thatcher’s pubco idea. When I started drinking 36 years ago there were 10 pubs and 2 social clubs in the area. Now there are 3 pubs, one of which closes and reopens every now and again and the one social club.
The Daily Telegraph needs to understand that Drink Driving by anyone, whether British, Albanian, Syrian or whoever is totally selfish and if caught a just punishment should be given. A second offence should be an automatic life ban.
I’m surprised the papers haven’t spun it to say Labour are going the way towards a Muslim society and will be banning alcohol totally in a couple of years.
The message about drink driving is widely understood now. Unfortunately some people choose to ignore it. They won’t change their behaviour because the limits have been made even lower.
I suspect a more significant issue (but much less talked about) is people driving while under the influence of drugs. I saw this sign yesterday, when I was walking from the centre of Wolverhampton to the racecourse. I certainly didn’t see signs like it when I was younger.
Yet I find a lot of the voices which seem to be very hostile towards pubs or drinking in general seem to have a very relaxed attitude towards people being either high as a kite on dope or hyped up out of their heads on coke.
And it is 1.01 on Betfair that usage of those two drugs is far higher in Westminster than the national average.
Not exactly sure how the drug wipe works but I know it tests for both cannabis and cocaine and is usually performed if the breathilyser test is passed or they believe the person is under the influence of drugs. Breathilyser is usually done first as this only takes seconds to give a result whilst the drug wipe takes a few minutes.
Another thing about drinking and driving. The 0% beers/lagers etc are much more palatable nowadays up to those 30 years ago. Anyone remember Kaliber
“I’ve said before the demise of the local pub was all down to Thatcher’s pubco idea.”
Mrs Thatcher’s government wanted to break up the cartel operated by the Big Six and make it easier for smaller brewers to get their beer to market. The problem was the legislation was very badly drafted. It stopped brewers from owning a huge estate of pubs but it didn’t stop property companies from doing so – which is what the pub cos are effectively.
Unfortunately the pub cos have no interest in beer and are only interested in the pubs to rinse them for as much rent as possible. The Big Six may not have been perfect but at least they brewed beer and had a vested interest in pubs.
Pubs are faced with lots of issues but the main one is cost. Visiting them is becoming an unaffordable luxury for many people.
When CAMRA was formed in 1974, a pint cost in the region of 17p to 20p (maybe a little more in London). If the price of a pint had increased only in line with inflation and nothing else, it would now cost something like £1.30. But it doesn’t because of the absurd amount of tax and duty charged.
In my neck of the woods, it is a struggle to find a pint of cask beer for less than £4 outside of Wetherspoons. £4.50 is more common and some places charge over £5. A visit to London before Christmas showed £6.50 to be a standard sort of price in the city centre.
When you buy a round for four people and there is no change out of £20, that is becoming an expensive hobby. And that is largely due to successive governments viewing pubs as cash cows and hammering them with ever higher taxes. Far higher than most other European countries.
Throw in high business rates, escalating energy costs, higher wages and national insurance and the scandal of the beer tie and it is a miracle so many pubs are still open.
Anyone remember Kaliber
My dad tells me the ‘hangover’ was worse than a real one.
As far as I can see, drug limits are set at a level to allow for accidental exposure at most which is far below the alcohol equivalent. There may well be an awareness issue but certainly it’s treated more harshly. I believe there can be a medical defence to prescribed cannabis which I’m not sure I agree with.
Come to think of it, drugs are probably one of the reasons people are drinking less.
Absolutely pointless change, will make no difference whatsoever.
I've stumbled on the side of twelve misty mountains
I've walked and I crawled on six crooked highwaysYou’re being driven somewhere but are given the choice of three identical drivers, the only difference being that one is sober, one is at the new limit and one is at the current limit. Which one are you choosing?
Would they all get you there safely? Probably, but what’s the first thought you’d have if one of the drinkers crashed? Should have gone with the sober one.
Sometime ago I was informed by a publican that the profit margin on soft drinks is significantly higher than that on beer, particularly draught beer. So, theoretically, if the reduction in the drink-driving limit results in those drivers partaking of more softies then overall pub profits will increase.
So when you, half apologetically request ‘just a pint of lime and soda please’ instead of a hearty ‘pint of bitter please’ do remember that you’re actually doing the pub a favour.
Very theoretical as I, for one, don’t believe the reduction in the limit will affect pubs one way or the other. The demise of the boozer is largely down to a culture change and large discepancy in the price of booze in a pub compared to off-sales in supermarkets etc.
I mourn the loss of the wet-pub smoky-dive as they were part of my formative up-bringing but they and I are of a different time; one that’s anathema and alien to the younger generations now, who by common consent contain many more tee-totallers and intermittent light drinkers than in the ‘good old days’
This won’t just apply to people driving to a pub for a drink though. Won’t it also affect people who drink heavily at home in the evening and then drive the following morning when still probably over the limit? Something that I was aware of people doing at Christmas.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.