Westminster Council successfully rage-baited the entire country this summer, as it moved to ban so-called ‘vertical drinking’ in Soho pubs. The government openly criticised the plans, saying: “Busy pubs full of people talking to each other is not a public nuisance; it is British life, and it is thousands of jobs.”
Now that the council has released a statement, promising to ‘better explain’ its position, lots of us are left wondering what this controversy was about in the first place. Is it looking to discourage drunken behaviour in London’s public spaces, or is there more going on here than meets the eye? So, without any further ado, let’s discuss what this is all about.
What is ‘Vertical Drinking’?
‘Vertical drinking’ is a brand-new phrase invented to describe an action that’s as old as time itself in the UK: standing in a pub and drinking. It’s that simple. Yes, that’s it.
The mere act of standing and drinking now requires its own preposterous bureaucratic term, just so the powers that be, in this case, Westminster County Council, can categorise it in an effort to justify a misguided crusade against local residents who want to have a chat over a drink.
Why People Are Talking About It
Westminster County Council needs to update its current licensing policy, which was initially drawn up in 2021, by October 1st. So, a couple of months ago, it released draft plans which covered a range of policies, but notably that it wanted to “discourage excessive drunkenness and encourage the provision of more seating in premises that serve alcohol for people to sit and enjoy a drink and order food by table service in place of open bar space that caters for high volume vertical drinking.”
After an article criticising the plans, published in The Guardian, went viral, the topic has been thrust into the limelight, and Westminster City Council has attracted blows from the Mayor of London, Sir Sadiq Khan, the government, and the pubs themselves.
Though the council has denied claims that it’s seeking to ban ‘vertical drinking’, it has also just released a new statement, claiming that it has taken on board feedback to better explain terms like ‘vertical drinking’. Although this whole issue is a textbook example of political ineptitude, there is a silver lining.
Pubs: Uniting a Divided British Public
The UK has arguably never been more divided than it is now. With each and every one of us sheltered from opposition in our very own bespoke algorithmic homes on social media, it’s rare to see an issue that actually unites people… Until now. It turns out that pubs are the one institution we can all seemingly agree on. So thank you, Westminster City Council, for galvanising the masses in a display of national unity that hasn’t been seen since the 2012 Olympics.
But this isn’t all to do with cosy, pseudopatriotic rhetoric about the tradition of the pub in Britain, why it persists as a warm, welcoming ‘place to be’ for people of all ages, creeds, and beliefs; where passionate debates can be heard in one corner, while explosions of laughter happen in another.
No, this is also about survival. We live in a time of economic uncertainty – especially for the hospitality industry, which has been pushed to breaking point by exorbitant rental costs, steep Starmer government business rates, staffing crises brought on by Brexit, and knock-on effects of the cost of living crisis. Because when customers themselves are shelling out more money on their bills, weekly shops, cinema trips, and on car parks in London, they’re usually less inclined to shell out £7 on a pint.
British pubs are closing at a rapid rate on a net-negative trajectory that has seen the total number of pubs in the UK plummet to record lows, falling below 45,000 for the first time. In a period of existential crises for pubs, is now really the best time to be calling for tighter regulations?
Either way, the overwhelmingly negative reception to Westminster Council’s proposal from local business leaders, patrons, and the outraged social media mob (who are sharpening their pitchforks as we speak) surely spells doom for this woefully unpopular policy idea.
