UK Politics General Discussion

[Plastic Person]

To be honest, I (perhaps controversially) wouldn’t mind some additional taxation on alcohol either, as that’s another significant cause of preventable health problems. But in the case of alcohol, I’d probably go the other way and tax it more highly for consumption away from licensed premises. I think people are more likely to binge drink and develop unhealthy relationships with alcohol in their own home than in a pub, and this could also benefit hospitality because people might be more likely to visit their local pub if the drinks there are cheaper than consuming at home.

This seems incredibly optimistic!

I am extremely, unusually libertarian on the issues of drinking and drug prohibition, but then, that is undoubtedly informed by the fact that I drink and have taken drugs. Nonetheless, complete prohibition of any kind rarely works, and it is better to foster an element of personal responsibility and respect for your fellow citizens. I.e. Not honking on a massive zoot on the bus, or pissing up the wall after a few summer tinnies. Admittedly, in the UK, this is an uphill battle...

The government's complete dismissal of the very research that they commissioned Prof. David Nutt to undertake, as outlined by @GooseOnTheLoose above, is one of the most farcical moments in the last few decades of British politics.

 

[rob666]

No wonder there are issues if you are pissing against the wall in an uphill battle, your feet will get very wet, bloody fool.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

Follow Legoland Windsor's smoking area and have them all fenced off from public view.

Right outside of attractions, and along high traffic walkways at busy junctions, where you'll find everyone standing in front of said smoking area, oblivious to the fencing behind them... Or waddling around with fag in mouth and not a care in the world.

 

[BarryZola]

The key difference between alcohol and smoking is that people getting drunk and being loud and unruly is not actively damaging people’s health, whereas inhaling second hand smoke can have a very damaging effect on people’s health if done too often. There are many studies suggesting that inhalation of second hand smoke can be very damaging to children and their development, for instance, and the effects can be very damaging for adults, too.

That's largely why it was banned inside and moved outside, so that's a bit of a moot point really. The air is not trapped inside and going directly into the lungs of everyone. This latest one is more about it being a bit annoying or unpleasant for people to have to smell it. You're unlikely to get any unwanted physical ailments due to the occasional whiff of tobacco smoke floating past.

And how do you know that people being unruly due to alcohol abuse is not going to be to the detriment of people with certain mental health conditions nearby? It could cause panic attacks or other issues for people with conditions such as anxiety.

 

[Matt N]

This seems incredibly optimistic!

I am extremely, unusually libertarian on the issues of drinking and drug prohibition, but then, that is undoubtedly informed by the fact that I drink and have taken drugs. Nonetheless, complete prohibition of any kind rarely works, and it is better to foster an element of personal responsibility and respect for your fellow citizens. I.e. Not honking on a massive zoot on the bus, or pissing up the wall after a few summer tinnies. Admittedly, in the UK, this is an uphill battle...

The government's complete dismissal of the very research that they commissioned Prof. David Nutt to undertake, as outlined by @GooseOnTheLoose above, is one of the most farcical moments in the last few decades of British politics.

For clarity, I’m not suggesting alcohol prohibition. Many, many people drink responsibly and enjoy alcohol, and unlike smoking, there is a widely accepted safe level of alcohol consumption. I simply think it might help if they were to do something similar to the sugar tax and tax off-premises consumption a bit more.

My reason for thinking that on-premises alcohol consumption is less likely to lead to alcohol-related issues is because a) premises have opening hours and licensed serving hours, so there’s a natural limit to the alcohol consumption window and b) there may, rightly or wrongly, be some social stigma attached to binge drinking on-premises that might put people off, whereas that factor does not exist if drinking in the comfort of your own home. Whether that social stigma is justified or not is up for debate, but rightly or wrongly, it does exist to a degree.

With that being said, I fully admit that I may have an easier time supporting tougher laws on these things because I have never consumed alcohol, never smoked and never taken drugs. I made an active choice to not drink alcohol simply because no alcoholic drinks I’ve encountered have appealed to me and because the inherent notion of getting drunk, lowering your inhibitions and being unable to remember things you did does not appeal to me in the slightest. I grew up in a firmly anti-smoking family where very few people ever smoked and even those who did either gave it up or smoked very irregularly, so I would have had to go out of my way to take up smoking. It’s never appealed to me in the slightest. And with this in mind, you can probably tell that any notion of drug use is a complete non-starter…

I’m certainly not trying to be sanctimonious by any stretch; I certainly have my vices, and I have certainly consumed certain things to excess in the past. Diet cola, particularly Pepsi Max, has long been a guilty pleasure of mine, and there was a time in my early to mid teens where I used to make my way through a 2 litre bottle each day. I’ve cut down hugely, and I only drink it sparingly these days (I’ll have the odd pint or two if I’m out, which isn’t hugely often), but I definitely used to drink it to excess at one point. I’d be a sad guy if they ever tried to ban Pepsi Max, even if I would try and understand the health justification!

And how do you know that people being unruly due to alcohol abuse is not going to be to the detriment of people with certain mental health conditions nearby? It could cause panic attacks or other issues for people with conditions such as anxiety.

My apologies; I did not consider this.

 

[Poisson]

My reason for thinking that on-premises alcohol consumption is less likely to lead to alcohol-related issues is because a) premises have opening hours and licensed serving hours, so there’s a natural limit to the alcohol consumption window and b) there may, rightly or wrongly, be some social stigma attached to binge drinking on-premises that might put people off, whereas that factor does not exist if drinking in the comfort of your own home.

The hours thing doesn't really work. Doesn't take long if you are committed on the shots to start the process, or you just start earlier.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

My reason for thinking that on-premises alcohol consumption is less likely to lead to alcohol-related issues is because a) premises have opening hours and licensed serving hours, so there’s a natural limit to the alcohol consumption window

We have 24 hour alcohol licencing.

and b) there may, rightly or wrongly, be some social stigma attached to binge drinking on-premises that might put people off, whereas that factor does not exist if drinking in the comfort of your own home. Whether that social stigma is justified or not is up for debate, but rightly or wrongly, it does exist to a degree.

There is absolutely no social stigma attached to binge drinking on premises in this country, at all. There is social stigma to binge drinking alone in private. If you do it on licenced premises, or with other people, it's called socialising or having a party, it is actively encouraged.

I give you Carnage:

Carnage UK - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Also see: Any city centre on Friday / Saturday evenings. Any pub when England are playing. Any pub showing a final. Any licenced premises on Halloween, Christmas Eve, New Years Eve. I've missed a lot, but you ought to get the picture. Binge drinking is actively encouraged, in vast amounts, in most licenced venues in the country. The one place, as a country, we think it's a bad idea is alone in the home. Unless you're @DiogoJ42.

And with this in mind, you can probably tell that any notion of drug use is a complete non-starter…

Caffeine, a drug and psychoactive substance, is still present in Pepsi Max.

 

[DiogoJ42]

Hey! I don't drink "alone"! I'm socialising with you lot!
.... Just not in person.

 

[Matt N]

Caffeine, a drug and psychoactive substance, is still present in Pepsi Max.

Maybe I should rephrase that to currently illegal drugs (e.g. cannabis, marijuana, cocaine, heroin).

I think there are different levels of drug, and caffeine, being in a lot of day-to-day things including chocolate and coffee as well as soft drinks, is on the tame end of the scale. I’m sure that most would probably agree that caffeine is a lot tamer than something like cannabis, cocaine, heroin or even possibly alcohol.

 

[Plastic Person]

But, @Matt N, caffeine is legal and accepted as a manufactured product because that is the cultural norm and has been for centuries. Meanwhile, if I were to pop down to my local public cemetery sometime in late September, and visit the corner where a certain type of mushroom may or may not be naturally growing in the earth, put them in my pocket in order to take them home to grind down for something or other, I could end up in prison!

Of course, this is a slightly facetious and pretty basic point to make, and I've seen people's lives ruined in part by drugs, as well as enhanced by them. But it's a point worth making nonetheless.

Now, as a reward for sitting through my tedious mini-lecture, I encourage you to treat yourself to an ice-cold glass of Pepsi Max.

 

[Matt N]

But, @Matt N, caffeine is legal and accepted as a manufactured product because that is the cultural norm and has been for centuries. Meanwhile, if I were to pop down to my local public cemetery sometime in late September, and visit the corner where a certain type of mushroom may or may not be naturally growing in the earth, put them in my pocket in order to take them home to grind down for something or other, I could end up in prison!

Of course, this is a slightly facetious and pretty basic point to make, and I've seen people's lives ruined in part by drugs, as well as enhanced by them. But it's a point worth making nonetheless.

Now, as a reward for sitting through my tedious mini-lecture, I encourage you to treat yourself to an ice-cold glass of Pepsi Max.

That’s a very fair point, and one I’ll admit I didn’t think of! I’d never thought of it like that!

Maybe I am a bit of a hypocrite… I apologise if it comes across like that…

For whatever reason, though, I’ve always, rightly or wrongly, viewed caffeine as “safer” than the likes of alcohol or illegal psychedelic substances (is that the right term for drugs like cannabis, cocaine, speed etc?). Maybe it’s because even kids are allowed/advised to have caffeine in small doses (such as in chocolate bars and soft drinks) without qualms, whereas the health advice is not so blasé about giving kids a pint of beer or a line of cocaine. Maybe it’s because you’re still allowed to drive regardless of how much caffeine you’ve consumed, whereas you’re most certainly not allowed to drive if you’re drunk or high. I’m not saying it’s necessarily right, but it’s the way I’d always previously thought about it. The fact that caffeine is much more freely available and put into things and less regulated than alcohol and other drugs always made me assume it was tamer, rightly or wrongly.

Like I say, though, maybe I’ve always had the wrong perspective and been a bit of a hypocrite, and I apologise if I have.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

I think there are different levels of drug, and caffeine, being in a lot of day-to-day things including chocolate and coffee as well as soft drinks, is on the tame end of the scale. I’m sure that most would probably agree that caffeine is a lot tamer than something like cannabis, cocaine, heroin or even alcohol.

Please do read Prof. David Nutt. His entire premise is creating drug related legislation and policy based on evidence and fact, rather than what appears presently socially acceptable.

 

[Benzin]

Caffeine is just an acceptable drug. Why else are there so many needing tea/coffee breaks to get through a day at work?

Water supremacy. Binge the Pepsi at home instead.

 

[rob666]

Limiting drinking hours often has the opposite effect to what you would expect Matt.
"The Six o clock Swill" in Australia and NZ was quite a phenomenon...limited drinking time meant a crazy rush to get smashed before last orders.
Limited drinking hours causes booze races.

And stop apologising for having an opinion Matt...that is what we are all here for.

 

[jon81uk]

But in the case of alcohol, I’d probably go the other way and tax it more highly for consumption away from licensed premises. I think people are more likely to binge drink and develop unhealthy relationships with alcohol in their own home than in a pub, and this could also benefit hospitality because people might be more likely to visit their local pub if the drinks there are cheaper than consuming at home.

I broadly support this sort of thing too, as much as I want cheap alcoholic drinks at home, the disconnect between less than £1 a can at home and £5 in the pub does feel damaging to the pub industry. In Scotland they introduced 50p a unit minimum which has pushed some prices up for drinking at home so it’s at least £1 a can (depending on strength) and has had quite a positive effect on health in Scotland.

The hours thing doesn't really work. Doesn't take long if you are committed on the shots to start the process, or you just start earlier.

There is absolutely no social stigma attached to binge drinking on premises in this country, at all. There is social stigma to binge drinking alone in private. If you do it on licenced premises, or with other people, it's called socialising or having a party, it is actively encouraged.

Sydney Australia has a LOT of measures to tackling drunk and disorderly behaviour including no shots being served after midnight, no rounds after midnight (two drinks per order) and no entry to venues after 1am (or similar) which stops people getting ejected from one venue and moving drunkenly to another, the first place has to take more ownership over their drunks. So not directly about the binge drinking, but it should lessen people getting significantly drunk later in the night and encourage venues to look after people.

 

[Matt N]

On a separate note, it would seem that the government are introducing sweeping worker’s rights reforms in upcoming legislation: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...-be-given-new-rights-to-demand-four-day-week/

Headline clauses from the legislation include:

• All workers will have the right to flexible working practices, such as a four day week (where workers can work the same contracted hours across 4 days rather than 5), from day one.
• A single status of worker will be created so that all workers will have the same basic rights, such as sick pay, holiday pay, parental leave and right to fair dismissal, regardless of contract type. The law will also change so that the qualification period of 2 years for these rights is abolished; workers will now qualify for these rights from day one.
• Restrictions on zero-hour contracts and “fire and rehire” practices will be introduced.
• Workers will gain “a right to switch off”. This means that workers will not be obliged to take work calls or answer emails outside of their contracted hours, and bosses will not be allowed to pester them.

The Conservatives are unsupportive of this legislation, stating that the “French-style union laws” will undercut Labour’s goal to prioritise economic growth and leave businesses “petrified”. Critics argue that increased flexible working will reduce productivity.

However, Labour sources have hit back and stated that the Conservatives originally pledged to make flexible working the default in their 2019 manifesto, and that they are building on existing legislation around flexible working introduced by the Tories to some extent.

What do we reckon to these proposals? I think some of this stuff sounds excellent, and should really level the playing field among workers!

 

[rob666]

Sorry Matt, not all workers...it was clear in the news reports that sme's (small and medium businesses) will be exempt, and I'm sure there will be a million other excuse clauses, as in the working time directive.
This is more for admin and governmental posts, and the "planned" legislation is merely at the discussion stage, it will certainly be diluted.

You should be careful quoting from the Telegraph, behind a firewall so we can't check the full report, and it is a very much right wing perspective that the paper has always held.

Workers rights have been poor for years.
BPB has a bad habit of sacking people after two seasons, then bringing them back after a break to stop continuity of service for workers right.
Needs to be stopped.

 

[Benzin]

Most businesses realised during Covid that out of office working wasn't actually the end of the world.

Some bosses truly believe that allowing working from home reduces productivity though. Though answering the door for post is no different to the entire office having a discussion about something.

I was constantly at odds with my last boss about the original 2 days I was working from home supporting pregnant wife and then newborn (was reduced to 1 day just before I left, but even when I HAD to stay at home for 2 weeks post surgery & peri-natal support it almost felt like the assumption was I'd be barely working. Which usually doesn't end well (why else would it be my last boss?)

Also depends on the job. Some industries it's harder to work around flexible hours for various reasons. Lifestyles have certainly changed, and people have realised that working a mind-numbing 9-5 isn't always the best option. Especially if you have bosses who are incredibly inflexible with what life throws at you.

 

[DiogoJ42]

It very much depends on the job!
If the show I'm working on is five 10 hour days in a row, then I have to work five 10 hour days in a row!

 

[rob666]

Precisely...there will be many many clauses and clearances, people will be expected to sign their actual rights away...just like with the working time directive!
Things are never as clear cut as the Torygraph likes to think.