Share this post:
The UK’s Labour government is considering changing conditions for pubs in England and Wales. Has it listened to campaigners like Vox Political?
Apparently not.
According to the BBC, pubs may be allowed to stay open longer, serve food outdoors and host more live music, under the government’s planned review of licensing laws.
It also plans to cut the cost of licensing, extend business rates relief and cut alcohol duty on draught pints.
It is giving landlords and local communities a chance to have their say in a four-week call for evidence – and local pub landlords may have a lot to say.
Never miss a Vox Political post!
Social media algorithms often hide what you want to read. If you’d like to get every article directly, here are your options:
RSS Feed – instant updates, no filters:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/get-every-vox-political-post-no-algorithms-no-blocks/
Mailing List – updates delivered to your inbox:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/join-the-vox-political-mailing-list/
Video Mailing List – updates go straight to your inbox:
https://dashboard.mailerlite.com/forms/1503041/155584006128141972/share
Discord Server – direct updates, discussion and campaigns
https://discord.gg/SMCRE39XGm
Telegram Channel – every post, direct to your phone:
https://t.co/be9EMGHXFV
Hospitality businesses launched a campaign called #TaxedOut in a bid to get the government to change the conditions under which they have to operate in the UK.
This demanded a reduction of VAT from 20 per cent to around 10-13 per cent; a reversal of the decision to increase employers’ National Insurance contributions; and restore the 75 per cent business rates relief that was recently abolished.
Those are direct fiscal levers. They would immediately change the operating conditions for pubs, cafés and restaurants.
By contrast, Starmer’s “licensing reforms” are regulatory tweaks — about permitting pubs to open later, host more live music, and serve food outside. They seem business-friendly but cost the Treasury nothing.
Even the three supposed “sweeteners” in the government’s announcement – cutting licensing costs, extending business rates relief and reducing alcohol duty on draught pints – fall short in crucial ways:
Cutting licensing costs is largely administrative, not economic.
The “cost of licensing” refers to local authority fees — typically hundreds, not thousands, of pounds per premises per year. It’s not a major factor in pub insolvencies; it’s a rounding error compared with VAT, National Insurance, energy bills, and business rates.
So reducing that cost — or simplifying renewals — might make life slightly easier bureaucratically, but it does nothing to fix the financial pressures that are actually driving closures.
It’s a reform for press releases, not survival.
Extending business rates relief may seem promising — but the devil is in the details – the duration and the depth.
Hospitality leaders have consistently asked for the restoration of 75 per cent rates relief, which the government scrapped this year.
The BBC piece doesn’t say this relief will be restored to that level — just that there will be some extension or reform.
If Labour merely extends the existing smaller relief or promises to review the system, that’s not the same as reinstating the major relief the sector actually wants.
And even if partial relief is offered, it’s a short-term patch — not the structural reform of the broken business rates system that’s been demanded for years.
And cutting alcohol duty on draught pints is, again, a small gesture dressed up as bold reform.
Duty on draught beer is already lower than bottled or canned alcohol — thanks to “Draught Relief” introduced by Rishi Sunak in 2023 which cut duty on beer sold in pubs by 9.2 per cent.
Further reducing it by a few pennies a pint is politically easy, but economically trivial.
It saves a pub maybe £100–£200 a year, depending on sales — while energy bills alone have risen by thousands.
So, like the rest of the package, it’s a headline-friendly move with minimal real-world effect.
Put them all together, and these measures comprise an optical policy, not an economic one.
In practical terms: The government is offering longer opening hours to pubs that can’t afford to keep the lights on.
That’s the gap: none of the real industry demands are being met — because meeting them would mean reversing fiscal policy decisions that Treasury orthodoxy refuses to question.
The review will please big chains and conglomerates — Greene King, Stonegate, Mitchells & Butlers — that have the capital, staffing and economies of scale to profit from extended hours.
They are already benefiting from a small business plan that the Starmer government unveiled earlier this year, with reforms to tackle late payments, initiatives for easier access to finance, and a new Business Growth Service.
But for independent pubs, which make up the backbone of local high streets, later hours just mean:
-
Higher staff and energy costs
-
More strain on already-thin margins
-
Greater exposure to antisocial behaviour and policing costs
In effect, it creates a two-tier market: the giants expand, while the locals burn out. I once called it “market consolidation” — and that’s exactly what it is.
And it ignores the real problem: demand.
Even if every regulatory hurdle disappeared overnight, you can’t sell pints that people can’t afford.
Real wages in the UK have stagnated for over a decade, while disposable incomes have fallen sharply since 2022. Mortgage and rent costs have exploded. Energy bills are still double pre-crisis levels.
The average household has less to spend, and when they do spend, it’s often on cheaper supermarket alcohol — a symptom of economic insecurity.
So the government is trying to fix a demand crisis with a supply-side gimmick.
It’s the same logic that underpins its “small business plan” — talk about “growth” while ignoring the collapse in consumer purchasing power.
One of my friends, who is a pub licensee, opens only three days a week. She responds to calls for her pub to open on the remaining days by saying footfall would have to increase to at least 50 people per day, spending about twice as much as any of my fellow customers can currently manage (I’m a writer of online politics and therefore poverty-stricken, so my budget is significantly lower).
I haven’t spoken to her about these plans – yet – but I’m willing to bet she will be unimpressed.
To summarise:
The licensing review gives the illusion of action.
It does not deliver what the industry’s #TaxedOut campaign has demanded.
It helps the largest operators, not the small independents.
Cutting the cost of licensing is cosmetic.
Extending rates relief would be temporary and partial.
Cutting draught duty is symbolic.
It completely sidesteps the real crisis — that millions of people simply don’t have the spare cash for a pint anymore.
Share this post:
Like this:
Like Loading...
Starmer says he is backing pubs – but he’s serving spin, not solutions
Share this post:
Apparently not.
According to the BBC, pubs may be allowed to stay open longer, serve food outdoors and host more live music, under the government’s planned review of licensing laws.
It also plans to cut the cost of licensing, extend business rates relief and cut alcohol duty on draught pints.
It is giving landlords and local communities a chance to have their say in a four-week call for evidence – and local pub landlords may have a lot to say.
Hospitality businesses launched a campaign called #TaxedOut in a bid to get the government to change the conditions under which they have to operate in the UK.
This demanded a reduction of VAT from 20 per cent to around 10-13 per cent; a reversal of the decision to increase employers’ National Insurance contributions; and restore the 75 per cent business rates relief that was recently abolished.
Those are direct fiscal levers. They would immediately change the operating conditions for pubs, cafés and restaurants.
By contrast, Starmer’s “licensing reforms” are regulatory tweaks — about permitting pubs to open later, host more live music, and serve food outside. They seem business-friendly but cost the Treasury nothing.
Even the three supposed “sweeteners” in the government’s announcement – cutting licensing costs, extending business rates relief and reducing alcohol duty on draught pints – fall short in crucial ways:
Cutting licensing costs is largely administrative, not economic.
The “cost of licensing” refers to local authority fees — typically hundreds, not thousands, of pounds per premises per year. It’s not a major factor in pub insolvencies; it’s a rounding error compared with VAT, National Insurance, energy bills, and business rates.
So reducing that cost — or simplifying renewals — might make life slightly easier bureaucratically, but it does nothing to fix the financial pressures that are actually driving closures.
It’s a reform for press releases, not survival.
Extending business rates relief may seem promising — but the devil is in the details – the duration and the depth.
Hospitality leaders have consistently asked for the restoration of 75 per cent rates relief, which the government scrapped this year.
The BBC piece doesn’t say this relief will be restored to that level — just that there will be some extension or reform.
If Labour merely extends the existing smaller relief or promises to review the system, that’s not the same as reinstating the major relief the sector actually wants.
And even if partial relief is offered, it’s a short-term patch — not the structural reform of the broken business rates system that’s been demanded for years.
And cutting alcohol duty on draught pints is, again, a small gesture dressed up as bold reform.
Duty on draught beer is already lower than bottled or canned alcohol — thanks to “Draught Relief” introduced by Rishi Sunak in 2023 which cut duty on beer sold in pubs by 9.2 per cent.
Further reducing it by a few pennies a pint is politically easy, but economically trivial.
It saves a pub maybe £100–£200 a year, depending on sales — while energy bills alone have risen by thousands.
So, like the rest of the package, it’s a headline-friendly move with minimal real-world effect.
Put them all together, and these measures comprise an optical policy, not an economic one.
In practical terms: The government is offering longer opening hours to pubs that can’t afford to keep the lights on.
That’s the gap: none of the real industry demands are being met — because meeting them would mean reversing fiscal policy decisions that Treasury orthodoxy refuses to question.
The review will please big chains and conglomerates — Greene King, Stonegate, Mitchells & Butlers — that have the capital, staffing and economies of scale to profit from extended hours.
They are already benefiting from a small business plan that the Starmer government unveiled earlier this year, with reforms to tackle late payments, initiatives for easier access to finance, and a new Business Growth Service.
But for independent pubs, which make up the backbone of local high streets, later hours just mean:
Higher staff and energy costs
More strain on already-thin margins
Greater exposure to antisocial behaviour and policing costs
In effect, it creates a two-tier market: the giants expand, while the locals burn out. I once called it “market consolidation” — and that’s exactly what it is.
And it ignores the real problem: demand.
Even if every regulatory hurdle disappeared overnight, you can’t sell pints that people can’t afford.
Real wages in the UK have stagnated for over a decade, while disposable incomes have fallen sharply since 2022. Mortgage and rent costs have exploded. Energy bills are still double pre-crisis levels.
The average household has less to spend, and when they do spend, it’s often on cheaper supermarket alcohol — a symptom of economic insecurity.
So the government is trying to fix a demand crisis with a supply-side gimmick.
It’s the same logic that underpins its “small business plan” — talk about “growth” while ignoring the collapse in consumer purchasing power.
One of my friends, who is a pub licensee, opens only three days a week. She responds to calls for her pub to open on the remaining days by saying footfall would have to increase to at least 50 people per day, spending about twice as much as any of my fellow customers can currently manage (I’m a writer of online politics and therefore poverty-stricken, so my budget is significantly lower).
I haven’t spoken to her about these plans – yet – but I’m willing to bet she will be unimpressed.
To summarise:
The licensing review gives the illusion of action.
It does not deliver what the industry’s #TaxedOut campaign has demanded.
It helps the largest operators, not the small independents.
Cutting the cost of licensing is cosmetic.
Extending rates relief would be temporary and partial.
Cutting draught duty is symbolic.
It completely sidesteps the real crisis — that millions of people simply don’t have the spare cash for a pint anymore.
Share this post:
Like this:
you might also like
The pub’s not too loud — it’s too quiet, too often
Like this:
Ignorance, stupidity, or deliberate design? Is the government killing small firms under false pretences?
Like this:
#TaxedOut and shut out: hospitality’s cry for help
Like this:
Like this: