Charles Moore's reflections on the week
There has been far too much argument about the effect of ‘24-hour drinking’, due to the government’s change of the rules last year. The truth is that there is not, in reality, 24-hour drinking, and the reform has neither caused nor cured the mass drunkenness of boring young people in the centres of towns and cities. Much less attention has been paid to other aspects of the same Act. One is that the licensing of premises was transferred from magistrates to local councillors. This has politicised the granting of licences, and made people suspect that they now go to chums of the ruling parties in each council. Which greatly increases the resentment against new licences.
More articles from: Charles Moore | this section
Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit
Advertisement
After a good meal, Tory MPs like to play a…
To step into the House of Commons nowadays is like…
When William Hague put on his masterful performance at the…
There is a reason why Tory excitement about returning to…
Mud sticks. In politics everyone remembers the charge and not…
GASCONY, SW France, near Condom-en-Armagnac 13th Century stone house, 21st Century luxury for 12 in 5 en-suites. 50 acres +
IF YOU ARE PLANNING A CHAMPAGNE RECEPTION and looking for some light entertainment, you can now hire London's busiest steel
BOSC LEBAT, SW France. Only 45 minutes from Toulouse Airport with daily flights from most provincial airports avoiding the horrors
Spectator Business | Apollo Magazine
Corporate | Advertising | Privacy | Terms
Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP
All Articles and Content Copyright ©2009 by The Spectator | All Rights Reserved
DougS
March 13th, 2008 4:01pm Report this commentCharles Moore is usually among the most astute commentators going; maybe because I've only read him on British politics, because his suggestion about Mrs. Clinton is absolutely absurd. As a practical matter (and I'm sure he knows this) it just doesn't work that way in terms of picking your VP from your party opponents. But whatever McCain thinks of Mrs. Clinton personally and as a member of the loyal opposition, their view of the world, politically, is completely different. Not a shred of logic: Yes, it would infuriate the Republican base (and his advisors would prevent it), but it wouldn't get any additional votes. No one votes because of a VP. And, too, McCain esp. at 71 has obligations to posterity with his running mate . . . and anyway there are tons of excellent Republican candidates for VP. As we "Yanks" say, Mr. Moore is coming out of left field with that one. Stick to British politics, Chuck, where there are few better (looking forward to the Maggie book(s)!).
Back to top