The most depressing thing is that, as soon as I saw the headline on the BBC News page, even though it was unattributed, I knew it was from a Lib Dem MP.
Greg Mulholland, Lib Dem MP for Leeds North West, is apparently to propose an amendment to weights and measures legislation, to make bars and pubs sell wine in smaller glasses.
Now, the reasons for doing this are pretty straightforward - to encourage people to drink less. And of course the health of anyone who visits a pub reasonably often would indeed benefit from drinking less alcohol.
But the point is - whose decision should it be, how much an individual drinks?
Do Liberal Democrats - a party committed to people having freedom and control over their own lives - really think that the size of glasses that people drink from, should be compulsorily controlled by the state?
I am afraid that this is just the latest manifestation of the mindset that this socially authoritarian Labour government has brainwashed us into - that quite simply because something will be good for people’s health, we should be forced to do it (this is a tendency I have noted before).
As I say, what scares me most is that this approach has become so pervasive that we now don’t even know we’re doing it.
I accept that Mr Mulholland is proposing something that he thinks will help. And we do indeed invoke the force of the law to prevent people from taking some decisions about what they consume (the criminalisation of hard drugs, for example). The issue is not completely black and white: society has to make a judgement somewhere.
But the cases where we do intervene are rightly extremely few: and for me the line of where the state is justified in interfering in determining what people and may not consume falls very clearly a long way short of decreeing the size of wine glasses. I am frankly appalled that a Liberal Democrat should be proposing such an illiberal measure.
There are of course good reasons to seek to inform people about issues such as how much alcohol it is wise to consume, and how size of glass relates to that. But assisting informed choice is very different from use the power of the state to remove the individual’s chance to make that choice.
When are we as a society going to wake up and realise what a nanny state mentality this Labour government has got us into - and expect instead people to take responsibility for their own lives and, in this case, their alcohol consumption?
January 30th, 2008 at 15:24
Well said Jeremy. Time and effort would be better spent on making sure you get a full pint in the pub. And I am sure as a CAMRA supporter Greg is in favour of that.
My mother has suggested that the Lib Dem policy of local income tax may in fact help to curb binge drinking - with young people all having to pay something and therefore having less disposable income to booze!
January 30th, 2008 at 15:25
What is it with our MPs and MEPs? They seem to be well to the authoritarian end of the spectrum compared to most members. No wonder we are accused of being a meddling, nannying socialist party so much.
I also fail to see what business it is of the government to say what I can and cannot put in my body (of course, a pub landlord would be at liberty to refuse to serve you). The only justification is the state takes away responsibility for your actions.
January 30th, 2008 at 15:55
What exactly is the issue here? The MP is proposing the pubs and bars actually sell “small” glasses of wine again by law, not that people would no longer be able to buy the bigger measures. As it stands there is too much focus on selling bottles of wine rather than glasses of it, the needs of the seller to turnover stock being primary to the wishes of the customer. What if someone only wants 125ml? They have to pay for 175 and leave some I guess, how exactly is that compatible with choice?
You have to have weights and measures, otherwise you don’t know what you’re paying for and stocking and pricing a bar to cater for every taste of different measurement would be impossible, but this just puts a little bit more choice back on the table for men and women that don’t want to drink more than 2 units in the modern licensed premise in just one purchase.
January 30th, 2008 at 16:11
Thanks Jeremy,
This is relatively weak stuff compared to our attacks against liberalisation of drinking hours, and I thought that I would be the only person who noticed this wouldn’t do our liberal credentials any good.
The state was right in the first place to enter the “measures” debate to ensure that people get fair sizes of drinks and can compare prices, but to then attempt to manipulate people’s behaviours to get them to conform to certain morals and values isn’t really on.
January 30th, 2008 at 16:51
Normally I would be against this sort of thing! But really isn’t all he is suggesting that venues have to offer what used to be the standard 125ml glass? He’s not trying to outlaw the larger glasses is he? And I would have thought that they don’t even need to offer a different glass. In fact drinking 125ml out of a multi-measure 250ml glass would be far more civilized - especially if it is red! I do think it is useful to have these smaller glasses, because the measure for the driving unit is between the two isn’t it? So I prefer to have the small glass i I am driving as I know I can get away with one and then no more.
January 30th, 2008 at 16:53
Whilst I fully agree that it is an individual’s choice how much they opt to drink, I do not think that forcing pubs, restaurants and wine bars to offer a traditionally-sized smaller glass infringes on anyone’s rights as he does not (unless I have misread it badly) suggest replacing other glass sizes.
The argument goes that without the smaller size glass, the medium size glass appears less generous than it in fact is. With the smaller size glass, the comparative size of the large glass would also become apparent.
I fully agree with the post and the two responses that the government should not be allowed to control food and drink consumed by a person. However - ensuring that there is a 125ml measure available alongside the 175ml and 250ml measures seems reasonably fair to me.
January 30th, 2008 at 19:53
Thanks for all thoughtful comments.
There certainly is a case for landlords providing a 125ml glass as well as larger ones - but I just don’t think it is the role of legislation to stipulate that. There are areas where I think we are right to expect certain requirements on what is sold and how, but I don’t think this is one of them.
And if we accept this proposal, then I’m not quite sure where we draw the line beyond it. If the state compels landlords to make drinks available in certain quantities, should it also stipulate compulsory comparative pricing between a 125ml and 175ml glasses? If I were a landlord trying to sell people more wine, but forced to have 125ml glasses on the pricelist, I would then price the 125ml glass at only very slightly less than the 175ml glass - so if a customer did want only a small glass, they would either pay well over the odds for it, or say that it seems much better value to get a 175ml glass.
Are we prepared for the state to start dictating the prices charged by pubs? I certainly hope not!
The state is much better off keeping out of this altogether. The big pub chains are extremely market-conscious, and if there is a significant customer demand for smaller wineglasses, they will meet it. It would be an appropriate thing for a politician to do so to become involved in such a campaign to call for pubs to provide smaller glasses; what it isn’t appropriate for them to do, is to compel it by law.
January 30th, 2008 at 20:52
It’s a bit late for us to be fretting over imposing legal restrictions on what pub landlords can and cannot allow on their premises after our MPs’ rather enthusiastic support for the smoking ban.
Since glasses have to be calibrated for use in pubs anyway, I see no harm in enforcing that the calibration on a wine glass includes, but need not be limited to, a “125ml line”.
January 31st, 2008 at 0:42
Jeremy,
I think one of us has misunderstood the issue. The way I understand it is as follows; legally speaking pubs etc are only able to sell you beverages of particular measures. At the moment because 125ml isn’t one of these measures pubs can’t actually sell you beverages in this amount. Rather than ‘forcing’ business to do anything, this legislation empowers both businesses and consumers to engage in a transaction which because of the hyper-regulated nature of the alcoholic beverages trade they wouldn’t be allowed to either. It /looks/ like illiberal legislation designed to tackle drinking, but it’s actually liberal.
That’s as I see it. If /I’ve/ misunderstood please tell me where, but don’t just point at this and say ‘it’s a law about drinking therefore it’s illegal’ - if you don’t legally introduce a measure, licenced premises can’t serve alcohol in that amount. This legislation just introduces a new (smaller than current) measure in which it can be served. Seems pretty harmless to me.
Duncan.
January 31st, 2008 at 0:47
@Jock
I hate to sound like a fair-weather-liberal which I don’t feel I am, but I should point out that there isn’t a direct analogy with the smoking ban, because the public already had as a vested interest in the health of other citizens because of the NHS; moreso than, for example, in a backwards countries like the US which don’t have proper state healthcare systems. In addition, so-called ’second-hand smoking’ MIGHT pose a direct health risk to non-smokers in ways which ’second-hand drinking’ (whatever that might be) doesn’t. If a politician were swayed by the purported evidence for this claim I can see how they could endorse a ban and still call themselves liberals in good faith. I’m not saying I endorse the ban myself (honestly, I’m not sure) just that the situation isn’t isomorphic.
Duncan.
January 31st, 2008 at 5:05
If a pub wishes to price a 125ml glass at twice the price of a 250ml one then that is their prerogative, but that doesn’t stop the fact that selling wine in a smaller glass could help prevent drink driving occurrences and allow a drinker to manage their night out in such a way that doesn’t encourage overly excessive drinking.
I do understand what you’re saying, so why not force them to have 100ml or 70ml glasses as well, etc, etc. but there does come a point where reasonably there can be no added benefit for doing such a thing and no common practice to support it.
January 31st, 2008 at 14:24
Duncan - thanks for your comment. I agree with you that one of us has interpreted this wrongly, and with respect and having looked at this again carefully I don’t think it is me!
I can’t find any press release directly from Greg Mulholland about this (the latest press release on his website is dated November…) but the BBC article I linked to above is extremely clear that he is proposing that pubs/bars be *forced* to make 125ml glasses available, and that pubs have moved away from doing so for their own reasons, not because they are prohibited from doing so.
It will be obvious from everything I’ve written above that I have no problem whatsoever with pubs being allowed to serve 125ml glasses (I’m very happy for them to serve any quantity they like, as long as they do actually sell the full measure advertised) - what I object to is them being forced to offer a particular measure.
February 8th, 2008 at 14:00
Some pubs don’t event serve 175 ml and have 250ml as their standard measure, because they want to sell you more wine. That means that if you drive there, it’s basically impossible to drink - even with 175 ml I’m not confident of being under the limit (I am quite small so 175 is a lot in my bloodstream!) With 125ml I would feel comfortable having a glass of wine then driving home, which would make an enormous difference in the country. It would also help me control my drinking as I would drink more slowly, plus going to the bar means you slow down, but mainly I support this because of the driving - and pubs wouldn’t need 3 sets of glasses, they could just draw different lines on their glasses. I can see the liberal arguments against, but the way I see it this would give drinkers more choice and control, and make driving to the pub more feasible, which would be a good thing. At the very least I think it’s good that he’s raised the issues so that people can start asking their pubs why they don’t serve 125ml, and you never know, some in country areas that rely on people who drive there might start…
February 15th, 2008 at 14:25
So Jeremy, if all pubs were to try and maximise their profits and abolish the pint glass in favour of two pints you would be quite happy with that? Let’s not be ridiculous, pubs and bars have an obligation to sell whatever alcohol they have in small enough measures that someone can enjoy the drink without necessarily becoming drunk.