Pubs Minister? (An interesting press release)

[Conrad]

I got sent this article today: John Healey: Practical help served up for struggling pubs (http://www.communities.gov.uk/news/corporate/1511255)

Lots of interesting stuff:


Restrictions on sales which prevent premises continuing as pubs will be also banned.

Government has thrown its weight behind the recent Business, Innovation and Skills Select Committee Report to relax the "beer ties" - the rules that require tenant landlords to buy beer supplies only from pub companies or "pubcos". This will mean that landlords can buy locally sourced guest ales as well as their usual stock, to increase the range of choice for customers and support the local economy. If the industry does not fulfil its promise, Government will legislate to open up the market.

[arwkrite]

Can you honestly see the pubcos willingly relinquishing control of their means of raising revenue ? Someones having a joke . As with all big business it takes laws to get them to do anything and then they employ lawyers and accountants to find loopholes.I cannot see me standing around for the time tied landlords have free and unfettered choice in what ales they sell, I may get very thirsty.

[Conrad]

I think if pubco's do release control a bit it is because they see it as being beneficial to them. I don't see how letting a couple of guest ales through hurts their pub, and that is probably enough to avoid the Governments threats of legislation.

I agree it is all hot air, but at least they are now concerned enough to start warming it up a bit.

Edit: I should probably mention we have been contacted by one local council to get information about pubs in it's region, the information was for use in the aspect of adding community services to pubs, so I should give credit where credit is due, some are definitely looking at something.

[oldboots]

:moremad:
A bit of cynical electioneering sums this crap up, Nu Labour seem to have realised pub users have a vote. After the election (if they get back in) they'll be back to their old tricks, raising beer tax above inflation, introducing more unnecessary regulation of pubs, ignoring supermarket pricing tactics, financing fake Neo-pro charities, wittering on about binge drinking and health risks with made up figures to "prove" their shoddy case.

The other bunch of scumbags won't be any different - they're already moaning about "Broken Britain" blaming alcohol, and pandering to the worst excesses of Daily Mail readers. A bunch of scheming, lying, cheating, crooked, hypocritical, pusillanimous, dishonourable, disreputable, obnoxious, waste of space rubbish the lot of 'em.

:moremad:

VOTE NIHILIST !

[Farway]

:moremad:
A bit of cynical electioneering sums this crap up, Nu Labour seem to have realised pub users have a vote. After the election (if they get back in) they'll be back to their old tricks, raising beer tax above inflation, introducing more unnecessary regulation of pubs, ignoring supermarket pricing tactics, financing fake Neo-pro charities, wittering on about binge drinking and health risks with made up figures to "prove" their shoddy case.

The other bunch of scumbags won't be any different - they're already moaning about "Broken Britain" blaming alcohol, and pandering to the worst excesses of Daily Mail readers. A bunch of scheming, lying, cheating, crooked, hypocritical, pusillanimous, dishonourable, disreputable, obnoxious, waste of space rubbish the lot of 'em.

:moremad:

VOTE NIHILIST !

That's the spirit, I assume Gordon can't come round your house for a cuppa & chat then :D

[Conrad]

Old and Bitter indeed. :)

Whilst agreeing with every word you said I still like the noises the statement makes and it would be nice if they did some of them.

Maybe it is time to form the Real Ale Party, the name alone would get my vote, I can't imagine they would make their policies much worse than the major parties.

[arwkrite]

"A bunch of scheming, lying, cheating, crooked, hypocritical, pusillanimous, dishonourable, disreputable, obnoxious, waste of space rubbish the lot of 'em." to quote Oldboots

Such poetry, such passion such Insight of Humanity. I just wish I knew that many adjectives with regards to politicians.

[Farway]

...
While walking down the street one day a "Member of Parliament" is tragically hit by a truck and dies.

His soul arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance.

'Welcome to heaven,' says St. Peter.. 'Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts, you see, so we're not sure what to do with you.'

'No problem, just let me in,' says the man.

'Well, I'd like to, but I have orders from higher up. What we'll do is have you spend one day in hell and one in heaven. Then you can choose where to spend eternity.'

'Really, I've made up my mind. I want to be in heaven,' says the MP.

'I'm sorry, but we have our rules.'

And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the lift and he goes down, down, down to hell. The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a green golf course. In the distance is a clubhouse and standing in front of it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him.

Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet him, shake his hand, and reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at the expense of the people.

They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar and champagne.

Also present is the devil, who really is a very friendly & nice guy who has a good time dancing and telling jokes. They are having such a good time that before he realises it, it is time to go.

Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the lift rises....

The lift goes up, up, up and the door reopens on heaven where St. Peter is waiting for him.

'Now it's time to visit heaven.'

So, 24 hours pass with the MP joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a good time and, before he realises it, the 24 hours have gone by and St. Peter returns.

'Well, then, you've spent a day in hell and another in heaven. Now choose your eternity.'

The MP reflects for a minute, then he answers: 'Well, I would never have said it before, I mean heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be better off in hell.'

So St. Peter escorts him to the lift and he goes down, down, down to hell.

Now the doors of the elevator open and he's in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and garbage.

He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the rubbish and putting it in black bags as more crap falls from above.

The devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulder. 'I don't understand,' stammers the MP. 'Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar, drank champagne, and danced and had a great time.. Now there's just a wasteland full of rubbish & crud and my friends look miserable.

What happened?'

The devil looks at him, smiles and says, 'Yesterday we were campaigning... ...


Today you voted.'

[Eddie86]

:moremad:
A bit of cynical electioneering sums this crap up, Nu Labour seem to have realised pub users have a vote. After the election (if they get back in) they'll be back to their old tricks, raising beer tax above inflation, introducing more unnecessary regulation of pubs, ignoring supermarket pricing tactics, financing fake Neo-pro charities, wittering on about binge drinking and health risks with made up figures to "prove" their shoddy case.

The other bunch of scumbags won't be any different - they're already moaning about "Broken Britain" blaming alcohol, and pandering to the worst excesses of Daily Mail readers. A bunch of scheming, lying, cheating, crooked, hypocritical, pusillanimous, dishonourable, disreputable, obnoxious, waste of space rubbish the lot of 'em.

:moremad:

VOTE NIHILIST !

What he said

[oldboots]

I had a look at the super whizzy "12 point action plan" of "tough, practical measures" , for what it's worth here they are:


Give "Pub is the Hub" £300,000 a year for 3 years for some business advisors - (someone to tell pubs to become restaurants or shops or sell stamps).


Make a contribution (£3.3 million over 3 years) to the Plunkett Foundation to support up to 50 community pubs - (they'll have to find the full amount for this themselves of course; 50 pubs is less than a fortnights worth of closures).


Commission a (another) study into pub ownership and management and not only that but, hold another review into how well licensees know their business.


Ensure "Local Action Groups" are aware that pubs are a jolly good thing and tell them where they can get the forms to apply for a grant for rural pubs.


Maybe reform the live music provisions in the 2003 Licensing Act


Maybe regulate contracts between PubCos and their tenants - but not just yet we'll let them think about it. If they don't do it themselves we'll jolly well make sure they do by making them regulate themselves, so there!


Ask the PubCos if they wouldn't mind awfully relaxing the tie a bit please, maybe next year chaps?


Ask the PubCos to have Bruline* equipment properly calibrated (* measures all beer served to make sure the tenant isn't buying it elsewhere at half the PubCo price).


Review the way gaming machine licensing duty operates.


Write a letter to Local Authorities asking them to be especially nice to pubs who want to become restaurants please.


Give Planning Authorities time to think about if planning permission might be needed to demolish a pub.


Ask the Ministry of Justice if they wouldn't mind having a look at restrictive covenants.


I'm sure you'll agree "tough, practical measures" indeed ! Our pubs are safe in their hands.
:mad:

[Eddie86]

I had a look at the super whizzy "12 point action plan" of "tough, practical measures" , for what it's worth here they are:


Give "Pub is the Hub" £300,000 a year for 3 years for some business advisors - (someone to tell pubs to become restaurants or shops or sell stamps).


Make a contribution (£3.3 million over 3 years) to the Plunkett Foundation to support up to 50 community pubs - (they'll have to find the full amount for this themselves of course; 50 pubs is less than a fortnights worth of closures).


Commission a (another) study into pub ownership and management and not only that but, hold another review into how well licensees know their business.


Ensure "Local Action Groups" are aware that pubs are a jolly good thing and tell them where they can get the forms to apply for a grant for rural pubs.


Maybe reform the live music provisions in the 2003 Licensing Act


Maybe regulate contracts between PubCos and their tenants - but not just yet we'll let them think about it. If they don't do it themselves we'll jolly well make sure they do by making them regulate themselves, so there!


Ask the PubCos if they wouldn't mind awfully relaxing the tie a bit please, maybe next year chaps?


Ask the PubCos to have Bruline* equipment properly calibrated (* measures all beer served to make sure the tenant isn't buying it elsewhere at half the PubCo price).


Review the way gaming machine licensing duty operates.


Write a letter to Local Authorities asking them to be especially nice to pubs who want to become restaurants please.


Give Planning Authorities time to think about if planning permission might be needed to demolish a pub.


Ask the Ministry of Justice if they wouldn't mind having a look at restrictive covenants.


I'm sure you'll agree "tough, practical measures" indeed ! Our pubs are safe in their hands.
:mad:

What he said

[Rex_Rattus]

I've had an E-mail from CAMRA hailing the Minister's announcement as a great success. A bit premature, methinks, as the proof of the pudding will undoubtedly be in the eating. The current Government making this sort of announcement can't do any harm, but the fact is that whether the next Parliament will be minded to devote any Parliamentary time to new legislation if the pubcos don't make the changes demanded is anybody's guess, and most certainly not a done deal. Wait and see, I suppose.

[Conrad]

From what I could pick up CAMRA were still going to try and chase after the tie as being monopolistic even despite this. If I was them I would grab the publicity and run, but I really don't understand why they are hell bent on going after the tie, particularly on the basis of it being a monopolistic practice.

As to the rest, I am just glad that someone is making enough noise to at least get them to make token gestures, more of the same sort of noise needed to try and get the gestures to happen I think (and yes I realise that sounds a little contradictory of the first paragraph :)). Also I was glad to see that Essex contacted us about getting a list of pubs implying they were at least doing something on a practical level, although that was clearly local rather than central Government.

[oldboots]

From what I could pick up CAMRA were still going to try and chase after the tie as being monopolistic even despite this. If I was them I would grab the publicity and run, but I really don't understand why they are hell bent on going after the tie, particularly on the basis of it being a monopolistic practice.


CAMRA has always had a bit of a problem with the tie, when it was "The Big Six" it was evil, likewise now with the PubCos, however with the cuddly family brewers it was "a good thing". People often equate the problem CAMRA has with the tie to its supposed Trotskyist leanings or perhaps some its members yearning for a less industrialised bucolic past. There's no doubt that some PubCo practises are harmful to the industry and the drinker and should be sorted out. The tie crystallizes some of this for CAMRA in one neat target. They also hope along with SIBA, naively I believe, that removing the tie would open up a world of opportunity to small brewers.

[Conrad]

I'm not in favour of the tie, but as I understand monopolies then the OFT are right to say it is not a monopoly practice, there are after all other pubco's and independents successfully running their business in the sector. It seems to me that pursuing the monopoly case further is just a waste of money that could be better spent elsewhere by CAMRA.

I also agree that it is naive to think that removing/relaxing the tie would make little difference to the small brewer, I am inclined to think that if the people running the tied pubs were that bothered by Real Ales they wouldn't have signed a contract to run a tied pub (I could be wildly wrong there). I just think that CAMRA should be focusing a little harder on the Real Ale aspects and doing what I think they are better at, so promoting Beer Festivals and raising the profile of Real Ale.

All IMHO of course

[rpadam]

CAMRA has always had a bit of a problem with the tie, when it was "The Big Six" it was evil, likewise now with the PubCos, however with the cuddly family brewers it was "a good thing". People often equate the problem CAMRA has with the tie to its supposed Trotskyist leanings or perhaps some its members yearning for a less industrialised bucolic past. There's no doubt that some PubCo practises are harmful to the industry and the drinker and should be sorted out. The tie crystallizes some of this for CAMRA in one neat target. They also hope along with SIBA, naively I believe, that removing the tie would open up a world of opportunity to small brewers.
I'm largely with CAMRA on the beer tie and the "cuddly family brewers" of whom I am mostly very fond (Hall & Woodhouse obviously excepted). The idea of taking the tie away from the small estates of companies like Harveys, Bathams, Arkells, Holdens, etc. (and especially even smaller outfits such as Wye Valley, Westerham and Goachers) would surely put investment and expansion of such enterprises in great doubt. In fact, on balance, I would happily keep the tie for the likes of Shepherd Neame, Fullers and Charles Wells and even (sharp intake of breath) Greene King...

[arwkrite]

I believe the tie gives wannabe publicans a way into the business at an affordable price. The Pubcos have property which they want to rent out and get a return on by preferred suppliers giving them good rates. This is not always a good thing for the publican who knows his market. I have seen some pretty greedy actions by pubcos in the days after the break up of the big six. My local changed pubcos three times in a year and profits were skimmed off every possible thing the landlady did to try and offer the users more amenities.
However you look at it the The Big pubcos i.e Marstons, Greenking, Weatherspoons are pretty healthy . Whitbread had problems by taking their eye of the ball. The purely property portfolio pubcos are the ones which seemed to have been hit hardest. The smallest or least profitable of pubs the accountants believed were a drain on the pubco. Result ..sell off for redevelopment even though there may have been a modest living for a freeholder. This sort of pubco wants it all ways, both the rent and a skim of any takings. In my opinion that is greedy but something has to feed the debt mountain these sort of pubcos have built for themselves.