The Obscurer

Everyone knew that the proposed law banning smoking in public places was absurd; for smoking to be outlawed only in pubs that served food meant it was likely that some pubs would ditch food and become purely drinking and smoking dens. That hardly seemed a recipe for a healthy environment and so something had to be done; but surely not the complete banning of smoking in every public place in the country?

I don’t smoke, and so I am sure that I will regard pubs as being even nicer places for me to visit once smoking is banned, but this law seems all wrong. If you were to compare the way we live now to the way things were twenty years ago – with regards the general smokiness of pubs, the number of no-smoking areas and smoke-free workplaces, and in the number of smokers in general – then you can’t fail to notice that we have already made great strides in the direction the health campaigners would like us to go, all without any legislation. So why the need to ban smoking now?

I can understand the argument for banning smoking at work; I once worked in an office where most people smoked and it was pretty unpleasant. The proposal that I could just leave and get another job if I didn’t like it didn’t seem that fair to me (especially as this was in the middle of a recession and it had been tough enough just getting that job in the first place), and so I can sympathise with pub workers who don’t want to indulge in passive smoking but feel that they have little choice. Surely, though, there are all sorts of alternatives to an outright ban. You could ban smoking in the bar area itself, for example, or offer the carrot of tax relief or even the stick of health and safety regulations to encourage premises to improve their ventilation and air conditioning systems, or to create separate areas so that smokers and non-smokers are provided with a choice of where to sit. Of course, bar workers would still face smoke when they move out of the bar area, to collect glasses and so on, but then many workers face similar problems when they venture out of their offices or places of work. Plumbers, for example, may have their own smoke-free office, shop or showroom but could still have to work in a house owned by smokers, and they have to accept others’ freedoms in their work environment; or does this new law mean a private house becomes a workplace when workmen are there? Are people now going to be prevented from smoking in their own homes when they have an electrician in doing a re-wire?

It is easy, and all too tempting, to blame this law on a Labour government that is continually assailing our civil liberties in the face of public anger, but it is more depressing than that. The 200-vote majority in the commons on a free vote shows that this is not just a New Labour thing; politicians of all parties supported this bill. Also, as with ID cards and terrorism legislation the government can genuinely claim that they are in agreement with the general public on this one, as opinion polls regularly attest to. If anything, though, the figures on smoking are more disturbing.

Because I can see why people could support ID cards, 90 days detention, laws against glorifying terrorism, even capital punishment if they believe that such things will make them safer and aid national security; I don’t agree with them, but I can see there is an argument there. How though can you explain the Newsnight survey that suggested that if anything this government isn’t authoritarian enough; 64% of those polled agreed with the smoking ban, but many wanted the law to go further. 68% said that pregnant women should be banned from smoking at any time, 69% said that those with children should be banned from smoking in their own homes, and 48% wanted a total ban on smoking, full stop. I doubt many people think it is a good idea to smoke if you are pregnant, or to smoke around children, but for a majority to think that it is alright for the state to legislate in such areas seems quite worrying. For those who want a freer and more liberal society, it is starting to look like we may have no alternative but to impose it!

If you’ve read my previous post, where I mention that I work in the public sector, then you are no doubt jealous of the fact that my pension allows me to “swan off” at 60 when everyone else will have to work until they are 68 before they retire; at least you will if you have been reading what the media has been saying for the past month or so.

Unlike many bloggers I have a fairly benign opinion of the mainstream media; but it has been frustrating recently to see many commentators I respect blithely trot out this “two tier pension” rubbish recently. I will briefly explain what I mean.

Firstly, I would have thought it is pretty obvious that if the state retirement age is raised then that affects everyone equally, wherever they work. This seems to have escaped the critical faculties of most newspapers; I may be able to retire at 60, but I will still have to wait until I am 67/68 before I get my state pension.

Secondly, the current average retirement age is 58 (according to a copy of the Daily Express I saw lying around, so I am happy for that figure to be proved wrong); that is short of 65 and even a couple of years shy of 60. So, regardless of the age you can draw your pension, most people I suspect will retire as soon as they can afford to, whenever that may be.

The main difference with my position compared to many in the private sector is that I cannot be prevented from retiring at 60 and drawing my pension; but that is not to say that I will be able to. I hope to retire earlier; I may well have to retire later, and work until my occupational pension is supplemented by my state pension. We will have to see how the sums work out.

The fact is that every pension scheme, everywhere, is having to look at how affordable its benefits are. As long as the benefits can be funded, then I don’t see it matters when people retire, or what pension they receive. If the only way my pension fund can remain solvent is for my retirement age to be put back five years then I personally am not bothered by that fact. All things should be considered, but whatever they do it won’t change the age at which I actually want to retire.

The point is that this is another silly and simplistic difference between the public and private sectors. There isn’t a two tier retirement age, rather there is a multi tier retirement age in theory (as many retirement ages as there are different pensions schemes) and an almost infinite number of retirement ages in practice (the age at which people actually finish work). My wife’s private sector occupational pension states she should work until 65, but as the benefits she will receive are higher than in mine she may be able to retire earlier than I can if her employers can let her go. If you have your own personal private pension then you can retire whenever you want, just as long as your pension pot has built up enough money for you to be paid a reasonable annuity.

I do feel fortunate to be a member of my pension scheme, don’t get me wrong, I know it is better than most; but if you think I will have a 7 year head start on you, sat on a beach while you serve out your time, then think again. As ever, real life is a bit more complicated than that.

Whatever my friends may think, I consider myself to be quite continental in my drinking habits; I mean, my favourite tipple is Belgium’s Stella Artois for a start. I do drink too much, but I prefer the “little but often” route to sclerosis rather than a binge drinker’s all out assault on my liver. I am far happier having a quiet pint or two with a meal or a book than I am downing pitchers of booze in a town centre Wetherspoons.

Much has been made of the changes to the licensing laws which are soon due to come into force, and for some reason many have waited until the last minute before making their objections known. Now that it is too late to change the legislation all sorts of people are predicting disaster once the new laws are in place.

A few weeks ago Judge Charles Harris QC commented that “Continental-style drinking requires continental-style people – people who sit quietly chatting away at cafe tables”, and almost daily there have been further comments from other people along the same lines. In response, it has been argued that why should decent law abiding folk be prevented from having a little drink after 11 o’clock?

I am in two minds about this one; on the one hand the current licensing laws are clearly outdated and anachronistic, and for that reason liberalisation is a good idea; on the other hand I have little doubt that the only real effect of the new laws will be that the pissheads of today will just drink even more tomorrow.

The thing is, it is not just continental-style people we need in order to have continental-style drinking, but continental-style bars, and I don’t think we are going to see many more of them come November. I often work late shifts, finishing work at 2 or 4 am, and sometimes I would quite like to pop into my local for a swift pint to unwind after a tough day; but I doubt my needs will be catered for once the new legislation comes into force. After all, there are no legal restrictions on coffee shops and libraries opening after 11 pm; the reason they don’t is presumably because doing so is simply not worthwhile. Similarly, I can’t see any quaint country pubs staying open on the off chance that I may wander in with my newspaper at half past four for a quiet drink; only places that can pack people in with happy hours and 2-for-1 offers are likely to find late opening profitable.

It is interesting to actually compare Britain with the rest of Europe. It is true to say that in other countries café owners are able to stay open later and longer; it is also true to say that many of them don’t bother. Last time I was in Paris we wandered around for ages trying to get a drink after 6 pm. There were dozens of cafés around and about our hotel, but having been open all day they shut for the evening when the proprietor went home to his family; and this was on a Saturday.

I think the fears that there will be an increase in violent disorder and drink related crime once the new licensing regulations come into force will be realised, although I don’t think that is necessarily a good reason for sticking with our current silly and restrictive opening times. I just think we need to be realistic; that if binge drinking is considered a problem now, then these changes are likely to make things worse.

And it may be true that British drinking habits have been formed as a consequence of our authoritarian licensing laws, and that the European attitude toward alcohol is to be admired; but the question is, how do we get there from here?