Great news for sports fans as booze ads ban AXED sparing fans a ticket price hike and boosting investment in grassroots
Partial restrictions on alcohol ads will still form part of a ten-year NHS plan
BOOZE SPONSORS OK Great news for sports fans as booze ads ban AXED sparing fans a ticket price hike and boosting investment in grassroots
Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
PLANS to ban alcohol sponsorship at sporting events have been axed — sparing fans ticket price hikes, The Sun can reveal.
Health Secretary Wes Streeting has ruled out barring booze firms, it is understood, to the relief of football, rugby and tennis chiefs.
2
Adverts like David Beckham's for Stella Artois would have been banned under the proposals
Credit: Stella Artois.
The Premier League agreed a four-year mega-deal with Guinness last season while ABK Beer backs October's Rugby League Ashes.
Dropping the 'nanny state' ban will also boost grassroots sport, as cash trickles down from the elite levels.
One senior Tory said: 'Sponsorship helps keep football tickets affordable and grassroots sports alive.
'You don't drive harmful drinking down by banning adverts, you just hit fans in the pocket.'
However, partial restrictions on alcohol ads will form part of a ten-year NHS plan out next week, it is believed.
They may be outlawed before the 9pm watershed in line with junk food and drink as ministers try to tackle growing health problems.
Junk food ads are to be banned between 5.30pm and 9pm from October.
We told yesterday that more than half of Labour voters opposed an ads ban by meddling ministers.
Fury as cost of 12-pack of beer set to soar by £1 thanks to sinister new tax brought in by Labour
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
34 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Reform the NHS, not our shopping baskets
This week, the NHS will publish its 10 Year Health Plan. The most we can expect from this exercise in Soviet-style planning is tinkering around the edges of an edifice that was erected when Joseph Stalin ruled in Moscow. By 2035, the end date of this 10-year plan, the country will almost certainly be unable to afford the NHS in its present form – if, indeed, it hasn't collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions by then. Unable to address the fundamental problems of the NHS, the dirigistes of Whitehall have come up with a new plan to direct us how to lead our lives – telling us what we should or shouldn't be allowed to choose to put in our shopping baskets. Supermarkets will be expected to cut 100 calories from the average shopping basket by limiting sales of sugary and salty snacks or other 'junk food'. Ever since Napoleon Bonaparte sneered at England as 'a nation of shopkeepers', we have worn his insult as a badge of honour. We are proud to be a people who earn our living by trade and we cherish the liberties that are the glory of a commercial society. Even those of us who are not shopkeepers are at least customers. So little does this Labour Government know the British people that it is about to resort to distinctly Napoleonic measures to punish both retailers and consumers. Yet previous attempts to control consumption have never succeeded in changing enduring patterns of behaviour rooted in human nature. It is outrageous that officials feel empowered to tell us what we can, and cannot, eat. The public is being infantilised and robbed of agency. Centuries have passed since Parliament abandoned sumptuary laws that prohibited the lower orders from imitating the luxurious dress of the aristocracy. But the bureaucratic mind is obdurate in its disdain for popular tastes in food and drink. Combined with Labour's instinct to meddle, along with its insatiable fiscal appetite, it is no surprise that, as we report today, a modern version of the sumptuary laws is about to land on an unsuspecting nation. Obesity is a genuine and growing problem, but, hitherto, all attempts to address it by fiscal means have failed. The latest obesity tax – supermarkets will be fined if they don't reduce the nation's calorie intake, and this will inevitably be passed on to consumers – now emerging from the bowels of the Health Department and the Treasury, claims to be aimed directly at our waistlines. In reality, like all its predecessors, it will target our wallets. There is a certain grim irony in the fact that this policy should have been adopted at the same time as the decision by the NHS to prescribe the weight-loss drug semaglutide (contained in Ozempic and Wegovy). It is fairly obvious that the underlying rationale of the new regulations is less about obesity than about the Government's failure to control spending. No doubt figures will be trotted out about how many lives will be saved by cutting consumption of ultra-processed foods or any other category of comestible that attracts the ire of the health bureaucrats. But the truth is that new rules are being concocted because the Government is running scared of its own MPs, who have effectively imposed a veto on cuts in welfare spending. What would genuinely make a difference to life expectancy and health outcomes would, of course, be a radical reform of the NHS, a more active population, and a reduction in the numbers wasting their lives on benefits. Rachel Reeves has just poured another £29 billion into the health service, without any clear cost-benefit calculation. Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, is intelligent enough to know that he has inherited an obsolete behemoth that is crying out for root-and-branch reform. But building a new consensus for a new NHS would require the Labour Party to rethink its assumptions about the social contract, as well as the role of insurance and individual responsibility. The original 1946 NHS Act created 'a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement in the physical and mental health of the people of England and Wales'. Today, the nation's health is not safe in the hands of a dysfunctional Labour Party that would rather do anything – even introducing an assisted-dying service – than take on the overdue task of making the NHS fit for purpose. These new directives are at best a displacement activity, at worst an act of fiscal condescension. A nation of shopkeepers deserves better than to be bossed around by its own government.
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Judge me on my record, 18-year-old Warwickshire council leader says
An 18-year-old acting leader of a county council has urged people to judge him on his actions rather than his age. George Finch took temporary charge of Warwickshire County Council after the Reform UK leader stood down on Wednesday. He now oversees a local authority with £1.5bn of assets and a revenue budget of about £500m. The unusual situation has sparked debate, with his party calling it a proud moment and Labour and the Conservatives questioning his experience. Finch, a councillor for Bedworth and the local Reform UK chairman, has not ruled out running for the top job on a permanent basis. He said his track record was pretty good. Reform made unprecedented gains in Warwickshire in May's local elections, mainly at the expense of the Conservatives. They became the largest party and formed a minority Howard, who had been leader for 41 days, said he was quitting as council leader with "much regret" due to health reasons. Finch had been his deputy and will serve as interim until a new leader has been chosen, as per the council's constitution. Finch, who also serves as portfolio holder for children and families, said he hoped people would be able to see past his age. "The people of Bedworth Central elected me with a thumping majority of 1,100," he told the Local Democracy Reporting Service. "Don't judge me on my age, judge me on what I do. At the moment, my track record is pretty good."As party chairman I got 13 out of 13 candidates elected. "All of the things we needed to do to prepare for the elections, they speak volumes." Jaymey McIvor, an Essex county councillor and Reform UK local government spokesperson, praised Finch for taking over and getting on with the job. He said Warwickshire councillors were focused on issues such as fixing potholes and improving access to skills in deprived areas. "I was able to see councillor Finch in action," he told the BBC's Politics Midlands programme. "He was very professional."I think we should actually be quite proud that a young British man, who has been elected to office to represent his community, has found himself in a very senior position."Labour MP for Birmingham Edgbaston Preet Gill said the people of Warwickshire "frankly deserve better". "This is not work experience," she said. "This is not about learning on the job. "With all due respect, at 18 you will not know how to deliver adult social care, children social care [and] SEND services." Mike Wood, the Conservative MP for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire, was more apprehensive. He said he had previously been a local councillor, and it was a tough job."It really would take a quite remarkable 18-year-old to go straight from sixth form to running a large local authority with a half a billion pound budget with no previous experience," he said. Watch Politics Midlands on BBC One in the West Midlands at 10:00 BST on Sunday. The show will be available on iPlayer BBC Coventry & Warwickshire on BBC Sounds, Facebook, X and Instagram.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Britain's mad planning system is becoming more and more absurd
Across the political spectrum, we don't agree on much. But we can all agree that the UK needs more homes and must start building in earnest. So why is Labour-run Birmingham City Council demanding that Mark Jones rip down the £180,000 two-bedroom 'granny flat' he built in his back garden for his dying father? With bin strikes, rat plagues and near bankruptcy, one might imagine that this particular local authority would have different matters on its mind. Mr Jones said he believed the building complied with planning laws and lodged a retrospective planning application. But the council's officious officers found that the Sutton Coldfield IT engineer has fallen foul of their regulations as it was 'over-intensive', and have ordered it to be demolished by the end of the month. The case shows in microcosm what is wrong with Britain's planning system. Like so much that is wrong on our island, from the NHS to the post-war explosion in council housing, its origins lie with the 1945 Clement Attlee Labour government. The 1947 Town and Country Planning Act established our system of planning permission, as well as the modern system of needing consents to build on land. It also meant that all planning authorities had to come up with a comprehensive development plan. Green belts, the listing of buildings and the anathematising of building in the open countryside can all be dated back to this legislation. In some regards, we should be grateful for Attlee's innovation. Anyone who has taken the seven-hour trip from Boston to Washington DC on the Acela Amtrak train will see why. Apart from a stretch along the Connecticut coastline, the prospect out of the windows is of virtually unending urban sprawl. Or contrast the west coast of Ireland with the west coast of Scotland. While the Irish views are endlessly interrupted by the tackiest imaginable McMansions, complete with fake colonnades and naff statuary, the Caledonian vista is virtually uninterrupted. Our planning system has made large-scale developers hugely powerful to a far greater extent than in most other developed countries. Building your own house is straightforward in much of the United States. But then America is a large country with plenty of space, as defenders of the British status quo might point out. The rules in much of Europe, however, are also vastly more flexible. In France, for example, it is relatively straightforward to buy a plot of land on the fringes of a village and build a family home on it. By contrast, in the UK, to build a new single dwelling in the isolated countryside is extraordinarily difficult. One of the very few routes is via what is now called Paragraph 84 consent. This is a rule, first introduced in 1997 in the dying days of John Major's government, allowing for new country houses to be built, but only if they are of 'truly outstanding' design and 'reflect the highest standards of architecture'. We would all, I am sure, like to live in such houses – but to meet such benchmarks requires money, plenty of it. It is not something that rural Mr Joneses, middle-earning IT engineers and their like, will ever be able to afford. The British system places all the cards in the hands of the vast corporate builders, with their new housing developments. Angela Rayner's Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which is now being pushed through the House of Lords, will only make this problem even worse. It will make development easier, and that is indeed a worthy goal. It will make it easier to overrule Nimby-style objections, but its mechanisms are not there to help people who want to do their own projects. It is all about pushing through large-scale plans in the face of local opposition, be they for new homes, wind or solar farms or the latest railway wheeze dreamt up in Whitehall. It is not about allowing Sir Keir Starmer's much-touted 'working people' to realise their own building ambitions. Our planning system might seem to have been more of a success if our post-war homes were exemplars of design. But that is far from the case. Probably the only country in Western Europe that has uglier townscapes than those found in much of Britain is Germany. Walk through Cologne, and outside of its Cathedral and Romanesque churches you would be hard put to find an uglier city with less inspiring buildings. Colognians have a very good excuse. When their city was rebuilt in the 1950s from the ashes the RAF had reduced it to, beauty was not foremost on their minds. We have no such excuse for some of the horrors that urban planning has imposed on our towns and cities. And our planning laws did little to protect us from these missteps. When Nick Boles was housing minister in the Cameron government, he was evangelical about relaxing planning rules in urban and suburban areas. He wanted to allow thousands upon thousands of Mr Joneses to do pretty much as they pleased with their own land and property, and thought this would make a huge difference to our housing shortage. It would also empower local people. Such an approach would clearly be a disaster if applied to, say, the Victorian garden square of London or the Georgian terraces of Bath. They would soon be scarred with endless glass boxes and extensions which would now be on trend, but soon look very dated. If Labour really wants to empower working people, allowing the Mr Joneses to build on their back gardens could be just the thing. But don't hold your breath.
