Read on Twitter
A short thread on what one potentially overlooked political implication of the new Coronavirus regulations coming into force next week. 1/8
It will surprise few people who follow my ramblings that I like pubs. One of my favourite things as I travel around the country visiting family and making work trips (remember that!) is to go and find ordinary pubs in ordinary places and have a quiet pint. 2/8
It might come as a revelation to a lot of people in London that in many of Britain’s towns there are still plenty of pubs in the hearts of their communities for whom selling hot food (aka substantial meals) is not a cornerstone of their business. 3/8
These are not bistro pubs, these are boozers (in the very best sense of the word). Food only plays a significant role for them on a Sunday, when many will do a good trade in roasts. 4/8
The rest of the time, these are places that people go to for a drink (and very rarely to get drunk) – not for roast pheasant and lentil salad. People are more likely to go for a couple of pints than a plate of padron peppers. 5/9
(Indeed, in recent years there has been an often-overlooked uptick in drinks-only micro-pubs opening on high streets in unfashionable towns across the country – Teesside has lots, for example.) 6/9
These normal pubs, which have survived and even thrived (despite the farcical on-licence tax regime) by serving drinks to normal people, are the ones that are going to be completely screwed by these new “tier 2” regulations. 7/9
By insisting on this ridiculous (and unenforceable) “substantial meal” rule, the government risks inadvertently killing off yet more anchor institutions in the places that it is so desperate to improve. 8/9
The communities of the Red/Blue Wall – and in coastal towns and in unglamourous suburbs of cities (including London) – will not thank them for it. 8/8
(PS, I know lots of people think that opening any pubs right now in any form is a risk too far - but that is a different debate).
