Alex Challoner is a former prospective London Mayoral Candidate & Director of London Vision Network
Until last week, I had never heard the phrase ‘vertical drinking’. In my experience, nobody goes to their local intending to drink vertically… though they do, occasionally, end up reclining horizontally afterwards. Indeed, I have always found that, when it comes to boozing, volume and intent matter much more than geometry. But now we have been gifted not just the term ‘vertical drinking’ but a lively and spirited debate about its merits.
Contrary to reports in the press and statements by our political leaders, Westminster City Council (WCC) is not playing the part of a puritanical local authority determined to force everyone to sit down on a night out or order via a waitress rather than at the bar. WCC were quick to attempt to clarify. They said that rumours of a standing ban were “ludicrous”. But, as Mark Twain noted, “a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” And that has been the case here.
Leading the charge against Westminster City Council licensing policy has, of course, been the Mayor of London. Joining the pile on is a headline-hungry 10 Downing Street and would-be replacement for Sadiq, Dawn Butler MP. Westminster City Council must be quaking in their boots that the MP for Brent East has waded in!
The mayor’s malicious misrepresentation of the small print of a draft consultation has been eagerly seized upon by the press too. The Evening Standard has opined that it “will kill Soho.” The Guardian’s Simon Jenkins has proclaimed that he will “defend vertical drinking.” Even these hallowed pages have got in on the act, running an opinion piece rather hyperbolically entitled “Westminster City Council has declared war on the Great British pub.” Silly season effects everyone it seems, from high-brow political blogs to London’s faded daily paper. Though in this case, it seems to particularly effect those that have probably not read WCC’s draft licensing policy.
It is a real shame, then, that this whole row is a desperate distraction.
For much of the past ten years, when it comes to telling the story of London ‘s pubs and nighttime economy, the mayor has been content to play the role of a supervillain. His casting in the part was no accident. He appointed London’s disastrous ‘Night Czar’ who presided over the sector’s decline and destruction. He stayed silent as a Labour government hiked up business rates and increased employment taxes. He cheered on when that same government passed legislation that destroyed jobs and sought to curb pub banter.
Data from the Night Time Industries Association has found that more than 3,000 pubs, bars and nightclubs have closed in London since 2020. And Sadiq Khan was mayor throughout that period. It is only now, as he has succeeded in squeezing fresh powers over licensing out of Whitehall, that the mayor has chosen to portray himself as the champion of licensed businesses. He recently attacked the Soho Society for their opposition to any and all licensing applications. And now, here he is again, wading into battle against newly Conservative-controlled WCC (who, we suspect, have been his true target all along).
Sadiq Khan has left it far too late to try to salvage some kind of legacy as ‘fun mayor’ now.
But, as well as exposing the Labour’s naked opportunism, this trumped-up row risks obscuring a very real policy debate: how do you solve a problem like Soho?
The central London district has become a high-profile victim of gentrification. Twenty or thirty years ago, policymakers were glad when people started moving back into Soho in greater numbers. At the time, Soho had become associated with the sex trade, and was full of pubs with sticky carpets and edgy, independent nightclubs. It was an area that really came alive at night. A growing, more affluent population was good for Soho. It supported more outlets, a greater mix of retailers and a better, wider selection of businesses. It stopped the area from being mono-cultural. But the people who moved into Soho (and elsewhere in central London) have grown older and richer, they have had families and adopted earlier bedtimes. Now, living next to a pub, down the street from a busy restaurant or on top of a nightclub is less fun. They resent the noise, the mess and the anti-social behaviour.
But Soho is famous. It’s part of the attraction of London, and so it needs to be accommodated; not sacrificed to NIMBYism. So here are four things that a Conservative Mayor and WCC working together could do:
Noise – licensing should require good sound insulation, double doors and so forth. That should be uncontroversial. Likewise, outside drinking should end at a reasonable hour, but outside dining could perhaps continue a little later. There is a specific issue around closing time, especially for clubs, when lots of people leaving at the same time make a lot of noise as they leave. A policy which required a thirty-minute wind-down period after alcohol sales end and/or the music ends, before closing doors on venues in the Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ), might make sense.
Litter – Soho needs to have its bins emptied and its streets cleaned like any other part of the city. It might just need to have that done late at night or early in the morning. As much as I would loathe to add more costs to businesses, could something like a Business Improvement District levy, dedicated to paying for this service, work?
Crime and antisocial behaviour – Khan’s loss of 3,000 frontline officers is to blame. More locally focused policing which can be flexibly deployed with uniformed officers patrolling from 23:00 – 02:00 would address this.
Keeping Soho alive – businesses need customers and Soho is not just a Friday or Saturday night location. Night buses and the Night Tube need to be re-thought, extended to Thursdays and possibly even more. The Mayor controls many commuter lines now. Mandating an extra late train or two is potentially within his gift.
In determining the best way forward for the West End, we should avoid an either or situation where we have to choose between the needs of residents or the needs of businesses. An effective public policy solution for the West End at night is about much more than just licensing. It’s about police resources, transport links and planning powers. It requires City Hall to work with WCC not against them. It certainly shouldn’t be about scoring cheap political points.
The truth is that London’s pub goers, landlords and the residents of Soho all deserve better than a confected argument about ‘vertical drinking’. We will not fix Soho’s problems by trading insults, deliberately misrepresenting policy or pointing fingers. This is, if not a storm in a teacup, then perhaps a tempest in a pint pot.
The problems faced by both Soho residents and those who run the concentration of licensed premises that they live next door to will not be solved either by hardcore NIMBYism or by muscular interventionism from City Hall. We need an urgent and serious debate about balancing residents’ concerns with London’s need for a vibrant city centre.
But this row is a long way from that.
Alex Challoner is a former prospective London Mayoral Candidate & Director of London Vision Network
Until last week, I had never heard the phrase ‘vertical drinking’. In my experience, nobody goes to their local intending to drink vertically… though they do, occasionally, end up reclining horizontally afterwards. Indeed, I have always found that, when it comes to boozing, volume and intent matter much more than geometry. But now we have been gifted not just the term ‘vertical drinking’ but a lively and spirited debate about its merits.
Contrary to reports in the press and statements by our political leaders, Westminster City Council (WCC) is not playing the part of a puritanical local authority determined to force everyone to sit down on a night out or order via a waitress rather than at the bar. WCC were quick to attempt to clarify. They said that rumours of a standing ban were “ludicrous”. But, as Mark Twain noted, “a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” And that has been the case here.
Leading the charge against Westminster City Council licensing policy has, of course, been the Mayor of London. Joining the pile on is a headline-hungry 10 Downing Street and would-be replacement for Sadiq, Dawn Butler MP. Westminster City Council must be quaking in their boots that the MP for Brent East has waded in!
The mayor’s malicious misrepresentation of the small print of a draft consultation has been eagerly seized upon by the press too. The Evening Standard has opined that it “will kill Soho.” The Guardian’s Simon Jenkins has proclaimed that he will “defend vertical drinking.” Even these hallowed pages have got in on the act, running an opinion piece rather hyperbolically entitled “Westminster City Council has declared war on the Great British pub.” Silly season effects everyone it seems, from high-brow political blogs to London’s faded daily paper. Though in this case, it seems to particularly effect those that have probably not read WCC’s draft licensing policy.
It is a real shame, then, that this whole row is a desperate distraction.
For much of the past ten years, when it comes to telling the story of London ‘s pubs and nighttime economy, the mayor has been content to play the role of a supervillain. His casting in the part was no accident. He appointed London’s disastrous ‘Night Czar’ who presided over the sector’s decline and destruction. He stayed silent as a Labour government hiked up business rates and increased employment taxes. He cheered on when that same government passed legislation that destroyed jobs and sought to curb pub banter.
Data from the Night Time Industries Association has found that more than 3,000 pubs, bars and nightclubs have closed in London since 2020. And Sadiq Khan was mayor throughout that period. It is only now, as he has succeeded in squeezing fresh powers over licensing out of Whitehall, that the mayor has chosen to portray himself as the champion of licensed businesses. He recently attacked the Soho Society for their opposition to any and all licensing applications. And now, here he is again, wading into battle against newly Conservative-controlled WCC (who, we suspect, have been his true target all along).
Sadiq Khan has left it far too late to try to salvage some kind of legacy as ‘fun mayor’ now.
But, as well as exposing the Labour’s naked opportunism, this trumped-up row risks obscuring a very real policy debate: how do you solve a problem like Soho?
The central London district has become a high-profile victim of gentrification. Twenty or thirty years ago, policymakers were glad when people started moving back into Soho in greater numbers. At the time, Soho had become associated with the sex trade, and was full of pubs with sticky carpets and edgy, independent nightclubs. It was an area that really came alive at night. A growing, more affluent population was good for Soho. It supported more outlets, a greater mix of retailers and a better, wider selection of businesses. It stopped the area from being mono-cultural. But the people who moved into Soho (and elsewhere in central London) have grown older and richer, they have had families and adopted earlier bedtimes. Now, living next to a pub, down the street from a busy restaurant or on top of a nightclub is less fun. They resent the noise, the mess and the anti-social behaviour.
But Soho is famous. It’s part of the attraction of London, and so it needs to be accommodated; not sacrificed to NIMBYism. So here are four things that a Conservative Mayor and WCC working together could do:
Noise – licensing should require good sound insulation, double doors and so forth. That should be uncontroversial. Likewise, outside drinking should end at a reasonable hour, but outside dining could perhaps continue a little later. There is a specific issue around closing time, especially for clubs, when lots of people leaving at the same time make a lot of noise as they leave. A policy which required a thirty-minute wind-down period after alcohol sales end and/or the music ends, before closing doors on venues in the Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ), might make sense.
Litter – Soho needs to have its bins emptied and its streets cleaned like any other part of the city. It might just need to have that done late at night or early in the morning. As much as I would loathe to add more costs to businesses, could something like a Business Improvement District levy, dedicated to paying for this service, work?
Crime and antisocial behaviour – Khan’s loss of 3,000 frontline officers is to blame. More locally focused policing which can be flexibly deployed with uniformed officers patrolling from 23:00 – 02:00 would address this.
Keeping Soho alive – businesses need customers and Soho is not just a Friday or Saturday night location. Night buses and the Night Tube need to be re-thought, extended to Thursdays and possibly even more. The Mayor controls many commuter lines now. Mandating an extra late train or two is potentially within his gift.
In determining the best way forward for the West End, we should avoid an either or situation where we have to choose between the needs of residents or the needs of businesses. An effective public policy solution for the West End at night is about much more than just licensing. It’s about police resources, transport links and planning powers. It requires City Hall to work with WCC not against them. It certainly shouldn’t be about scoring cheap political points.
The truth is that London’s pub goers, landlords and the residents of Soho all deserve better than a confected argument about ‘vertical drinking’. We will not fix Soho’s problems by trading insults, deliberately misrepresenting policy or pointing fingers. This is, if not a storm in a teacup, then perhaps a tempest in a pint pot.
The problems faced by both Soho residents and those who run the concentration of licensed premises that they live next door to will not be solved either by hardcore NIMBYism or by muscular interventionism from City Hall. We need an urgent and serious debate about balancing residents’ concerns with London’s need for a vibrant city centre.
But this row is a long way from that.