Who To Believe? The Trader, The Tax Expert, Or The Social Engineer?

Via F2C, it's good to see that the Clubs and Institutes Union haven't given up hope of a bit of sanity creeping into government decision-making.

In a report detailing events at their May conference, there was an account of Vice-President John Tobin's motion to call for separate smoking rooms in working men's clubs.

So-called independent reports had been submitted to the Government to the effect that there was no evidence of overall financial damage being done to industry as a result of the smoking ban. “What a load of rubbish,” he exclaimed. Less than two years into the ban, local authorities had been instructed to consider claims for reductions in business rates directly attributable to the ban. Bissett Kenning & Newiss represented about 700 clubs making a claim. Ninety-five per cent were successful and the average rebate was 10 per cent of rates to continue on a year-by-year basis. There is your firm evidence of real and substantial damage caused by the smoking ban’.

He is very well informed - but then, he would be considering he is 'in the trade' - because here is the relevant tax guidance from the Valuation Office Agency in 2008.

4.3) It was not considered that this change [the smoking ban] could constitute a [material change of circumstance] and earlier versions of this advice reflected this. Advice from counsel now shows this view to be wrong that the ban on smoking can be a matter affecting the physical enjoyment of a hereditament. In other words, how it can physically be used beneficially.

4.9) In considering smoking ban proposals, [valuation officers] need to envisage what rent would be have been paid for the hereditament at the [antecedent valuation date] assuming the ban was then in place affecting both the subject premises and other premises.

In short, it is accepted that businesses suffered a material loss as a result of the ban, and so business rate relief is merited for those who claim.

So we have a government agency admitting losses due to the ban, and physically rebating over 650 CIU clubs as a result. This is without taking into account the many more numerous affected pub operators, as Eric Pickles spoke strongly about while in opposition.

"Whatever people's views on the smoking ban, it has been a significant change that has affected many pubs. The Government's own tax inspectors have now admitted that pubs may be eligible for refunds on their business rates"

Very odd then, that the hastily swept-under-the-carpet government review of the ban - demanded by the original legislation on the third anniversary - found that there was no problem at all.

It was, however, written by Linda "rent-a-report" Bauld.

So who are we to believe? People who work in the industry day in, day out, and who are calling for an amendment to counter falling revenues; the rating agency which has decided that pubs and clubs have certainly suffered as a result of the smoking ban; government ministers who have stated on record that it is a material change to trading ... or some career anti-tobacco prohibitionist, with no grounding in business or commerce, who has never earned a productive penny in her life, and whose grant status relies on producing studies to please the Department of Health?

Hmm, whaddya think?

Government Values Plain Packaging TEN TIMES MORE Than It Values Pubs

This afternoon's article at VGIF attracted this comment from fellow jewel thief, Xopher.

Still waiting for the promised review of the smoking ban. Promises, broken and politicians - 3 words, the basis of so many sentences.

As pointed out further down the thread, we have indeed already been treated to their pretence of an in-depth analysis of a law - based on a manifesto lie, remember - which arguably closed down vast numbers of community pubs.

You'd be forgiven for not having seen it, though. Simply because it was never designed to be seen and, therefore, to have attracted attention.

It was commissioned by the Department of Health in 2009 and entitled "Smokefree - feasibility study - secondary analysis of data relating to the hospitality sector". You'd be hard-pressed to track it down as it wasn't published as a stand alone piece. Google Scholar, for example, has never heard of it.

We know that it cost £47,479 to produce, though, thanks to this Word document which lingers around the web like a naughty child. And that it was given to a safe pair of hands in the form of career prohibitionist Anne Ludbrook, but that's about it.

Instead of being presented for analysis, warts and all, it was quietly included in the Department of Health's whitewash of March 2011.

The part relating to the hospitality industry - that is, pubs and clubs - amounted to just 868 words. Expensive stuff at around £54 per word, but a disgraceful dismissal of the concerns experienced by thousands of pub and club owners up and down the country since 2007.

Contrast that with the £468,000 the government has spent lobbying itself - just in the South West - on plain packaging of tobacco and you'll recognise the utter contempt afforded to pubs by Westminster.

Just promoting a vanity project by state-funded tax drains - which will have no effect whatsoever on smoking prevalence in England, or anywhere else in the Union - is valued ten times more by our government than our unique and world famous pub heritage.

Is it any wonder that this Snowdon quote is so often cited?

"If I see one more politician who voted for the smoking ban crying crocodile tears about the state of the pub industry, I may throw up."

Half a mill on talking to itself to appease tax spongers on an issue the public mostly couldn't give a shit about; a paltry £47k towards pubs.

Next time you hear a politician pretending to tear his hair out about the plight of pubs, remember that.

Dear Smokers. Up Yours. Regards, Your Local Pub

Comments don't usually make blog material, but when they unveil previously unreported events, it's worth highlighting them.

For example, under the line at the Morning Advertiser's article, "PM brands smoking ban a success", comes this anecdote from a self-declared publican.

I know [most publicans support the smoking ban] because of the evidence I saw with my own eyes whilst at a debate in the House chaired by Greg Mulholland and attended by representatives of all political parties along with many many publicans.

The question was asked who would support a return of any kind to smoking in pubs and only one person put their hand up. When asked who want it to stay as it is the room was full of hands. Now I know this isn't everyone, but as a representative sample of publicans it was quite a gathering.

Now, the guy who wrote it tends to offer many a straw man in his defence of the ban in pubs and is generally oblivious to the confidence trick that has been played upon him but, if that is true (we can't tell as it appears to be a meeting not covered by Hansard), hearts will bleed with renewed anguish when reading articles about the desperate plight of the hospitality industry, eh?

In The Belly Of The Beast

There was a friendly little gig at Westminster on Wednesday, you may have heard about it.

I'm an incredibly busy bunny at the moment and have targeted limits on my time - as you will have noticed from the reduced output here - so ... of course I was there!

A highly-respected proper blogger has already eloquently described events, so I'll just chip in with the usual tabloid take on things to which you have become accustomed.

The day started on College Green with a gathering of people who didn't really know what they were supposed to be doing. It's to be expected really, since they are your normal men/women in the street, unlike the handsomely state and pharma-financed anti-tobacco lobbyists who are professionally accustomed to the ways of parliament, and probably on first name terms with Westminster security.

150 or so of pub and club industry personnel who have seen, up close and personal, the ban damage denied by ASH et al dutifully queued for their day passes - the ones not required by tobacco controllers who have laminated season tickets given to those who fly through the revolving doors on a regular basis - to be greeted with free food, beer, music and speeches.

It would be wonderful if this had been donated by a state which steals money off of every man jack of them on an ongoing basis, but it wasn't. Only tax-leeching anti-smokers qualify for such treatment, spending the money taken from us with the help of state threats and intimidation.

On a personal note regarding security, my jacket was scrutinised very closely on the X-ray machine when they spotted my e-cig battery (which does, admittedly, look like a .303 rifle shell), but just as I was about to pre-emptively explain, the female operator looked at me; smiled; and waved it through. It must have been one of my more pheromonically-attractive days. That's when I applied the cleverly-designed magazine to my mobile phone-shaped semi-automatic and shot every last one of the futhermuckers!.

Once within the ancient walls, those MPs who had been contacted by attendees and invited to discuss the possibility of an amendment - and who could actually be bothered to spend 5 minutes with real people - popped along. Mostly conveying the same message. It went generally like this (I could name names, but some such things are best left in reserve for now).

"Oh yes, the ban is OTT, and I agree with you that there should be an adjustment to the legislation, but if pushed to a vote I'd have to abstain. That's politics, sorry."

The die is cast. Only certain minorities are worth championing. More than my job's worth etc.

A line with which the BBC obviously agree judging by this appallingly slanted piece on Brillo's show. Watch as the studio MPs exhibit an astonishing lack of imagination (or simple-minded ignorance) of the vast array of different options for allowing choice for all. It seems we are, indeed, living in the age of kakistocratic government.

They're not all that idiotic, of course. A healthy contingent of unblinkered MPs mingled with other attendees of a very good turnout for such an event, including many influential political individuals.

The fine weather was immensely welcome as many took in the terrace view over the Thames while a HoC employee informed us that "smoking is prohibited in the parliamentary estate" - a rule which was *cough* impeccably observed, natch. You see, it's only members who are allowed to smoke on the terrace, not the public. There really is one rule for them etc on that issue, it seems.

Later, after having decamped to the pub for a couple of hours of refreshing conversation, I headed off into the dusky evening to make my way back to Puddlecoteville. And as I did so, a sign on Parliament Square seemed to express sage advice to anyone who has sampled the stench of self-important paternalism and grotesque dismissive denial of personal liberties around Westminster.


If only it wasn't necessary, my electronic friend. If only.

The Craic Is Crocked

If you find yourself in Ireland in the near future, be sure to pick up a piece of historical art while you're there. It will look something like this and cost about 20p in old money (ie, not Eurozone).


Because the world famous pubs of Ireland are an endangered species, to be sure (I adopted my Irish accent for that bit, hope you appreciate the attention to detail). There was a time when the archetypal Irish pub was considered to be one of a kind; impervious to all threats and copied all over the civilised world.

Not any more.

PUBLICANS are driving their customers home, offering free rounds of drink and running book clubs in a bid to attract customers.

Many pubs too offer free food and a table quiz night.

FREE food?

LIMERICK city publican Paddy Kelly is fighting the recession by building on his food trade. With one big difference. This is claimed to be the only pub in the land where customers get food served free of charge with their drink.

For years customers at his ‘Monday Club’ tucked into spare ribs.

He developed the menu and now free meals consist of bacon and cabbage, pork, beef and a wide variety of dishes, including curry. Recently he completed an outdoor barbecue where most days burgers, sausages and puddings sizzle to the delight of customers.

And the drink is as cheap as you will get in the city centre, with a pint of Guinness at €4.

"I like cooking and I find it very enjoyable. Giving out food without charge to my customers is just a way of saying thanks for their support and custom. I don’t charge and this is appreciated," said Paddy, who usually starts serving food at around 5.30pm.

News of the pub with free food has gone around the world and TV crews from New Zealand, Britain and the US have called to witness the free feast.

Hardly surprising, really. It's a natural human trait (sadly) to watch the discomfort of others, especially if the poor sap doesn't realise he himself is being served up as a tasty global prime time freak show morsel.

Their woes are definitely multi-factorial, but the problem for Irish pubs began in 2004, despite this nonsense from a report ASH released just the other day (I'm not linking to it as it's a pile of shite and also because it's not a unique claim of theirs, so can be easily googled).

Evidence shows that in many countries, bans on smoking in public places have had a net positive economic benefit for businesses and no adverse effect on the hospitality industry.

That's right, no adverse effect whatsoever to pub stocks. Especially in Ireland, eh? Unless their recession started about four years before everyone else's.

Source

700 pubs were needlessly exterminated that year. The industry in Ireland never fully recovered before the recession kicked in, and the result is that now they're giving away food and booze. Yes, booze!

SOBER LANE, SULLIVAN’S QUAY, CORK CITY

ROCK, paper, scissors is just one of the games that bar staff at Sober Lane have with customers where the prize is a free drink. The staff also do a "flip the coin" evening on Sundays where the customer gets their next round free if they win.

It brings to mind this soundbite from proud British zealot, Deborah Arnott, last year.

Deborah Arnott, chief executive of the anti-smoking group ASH, insisted it was a myth that the anti-smoking legislation had forced pubs out of business.

She said: 'Many pubs have shifted their focus to serving food, so they have changed their nature.'

One wonders if Debs also believes that it's a perfectly hunky-dory outcome that Irish pubs are now having to give the stuff away for nothing along with a complimentary drink.

But then, her colleagues are actively working at a way to stop that, too. Because anti-alcohol campaigners don't like such 'promotions' one little bit, and I'm sure they'd be spitting feathers at the idea of anything alcohol-related being available cost-free if the idea was taken up this side of the Irish Sea.

Irresponsible alcohol promotions in pubs, bars and clubs are contributing to excessive consumption amongst the public, resulting in alcohol-related crime and disorder, and adverse health consequences. They propagate an unsafe drinking culture and bold measures are now required to reduce harmful drinking and avoid preventable deaths.

Free, one assumes, would fall into such a category as 'irresponsible'. And anti-smoking busybodies at ASH have been helping the anti-alcohol lobby to achieve their own bansturbatory aims in Scotland and Wales, as regular readers will know.

Alcohol Action Ireland won't be out of the loop, either, and will no doubt be tackling the 'problem' of giveaway alcohol as soon as they've added the finishing touches to Ireland's new driving limit of a thimble full of shandy (as long as you didn't use mouthwash that morning, of course).

Because if there's one thing these vested interest puritans do very well, it's share policies and new bullying initiatives by way of international 'summits'. Free rounds to boost business won't be tolerated for too long ... nor the buying of rounds, probably. And just wait till the anti-obesity campaigners hear about all that free food.

Nope, I'm afraid pubs will have to face up to the bitter truth - just about everything they serve is frowned upon in this new world of citywide fitness centres and enforced physical perfection. The anti-smoking vanguard marched into pubs with their passive smoking club, smashed a massive hole in the hospitality industry's defences, and have now relayed precise co-ordinates of the wound to those who would seek to do the same.

The one business-saving measure not mentioned in that list of innovative Irish sticking plasters is the welcoming back of smokers with open arms. But then, that's not an option anymore since they meekly succumbed to the siren anti-smoking voices who are now stabbing them in the back ... with a chainsaw.

The craic was good while it lasted, but the time to stand strong in Ireland was 7 years ago. All that's left now is freebies, opprobrium, and 'three bags full sir' to future controls inflicted on the industry.

Perhaps the Irish could work at being world famous for the unique atmosphere of their swimming pools or something instead, I dunno.

Official: UK Smoking Bans Ruin Lives

Here's some research that you will never find anywhere on the BBC. Primarily because it goes against every piece of disinformation their chums in tobacco control have been flinging at them, but also because it hasn't been compiled by some loopy snake oil salesman from Yankland.

No, this emanates from British researchers (full pdf here), is bang up to date, and derives data from the British Household Panel Survey ... so will therefore be dutifully ignored by Nanny Beeb.

We use three waves of the British Household Panel Survey to examine whether changes in smoking behaviour are correlated with life satisfaction and whether the recent ban on smoking in public places in England, Wales and Northern Ireland has affected this relationship. We find that smokers who reduced their daily consumption of cigarettes after the ban report significantly lower levels of life satisfaction compared to those who did not change their smoking habits, with heavy smokers particularly affected. No such finding is reported for previous years.

So then Cameron, if you are true to your word in wishing to enact policy on the back of a measure of happiness, amending the smoking ban is a no brainer, yes?

Or were you just talking bollocks like your mate Nick?

H/T here via Crampton

Yakety Shapps, Don't Talk Crap

While tidying up dusty corners of the RSS reader after my little break, I find this ostrich posturing from Grant Shapps.

3500 pubs closed under Labour

Ministers today called for Labour to apologise for all the community pubs that closed their doors thanks to the Labour Government’s policies.

Well, it would be start, I suppose, though I suspect Labour's militant puritan wing would rather shove conker husks up their sphincters than do anything for pubs.

Official figures show there was a net closure of 3,530 pubs across England under Labour from 1997 to 2010.

[Grant Shapps, Minister for Local Government said] "Labour must apologise for the harm they did to community pubs across the country."

In contrast, the new Government is doing its best to defend local pubs:

Sounds great! How you doing that then, fella?

- [...] the Government will allow communities to bid to take on [...] community pubs, where they are up for sale.
- More help will be given to firms to help them with business rates
- There will be a ban the sale of alcohol below cost price, helping protect local pubs from unfair ‘loss leading’ by some supermarkets.
- The Government is reforming licensing rules to make it easier to play live music in local pubs.
- The new Government has already scrapped the planned 10% rise in cider duties - the so-called "cider tax".

Nice one, that'll save a couple of hundred. Sorry to interrupt, do carry on.

Oh, I see. You've finished.

And then it becomes clear why Shapps uses the 3,000 odd closures since 1997 instead of the scarier figure of 6,500 since the Licensing Act 2003, more than 5,700 of those since 2007 (pub stocks were rising until 2003). It's so he doesn't have to mention that law - highly relevant to pubs, oddly enough - which mustn't be mentioned in Westminster.

Two out of three Tory MPs voted against a blanket ban in the Health Act 2006, but now, with the ban happy EU lapdog Lib Dems ball-and-chained to all of their ankles, the elephant must be left to stomp around the hospitality industry unfettered.

So that's the coalition's miracle plan for pubs laid out, following hot on the heels of David Miliband's hospitality wonder cure, with not even a passing mention, in all their self-aggrandising hot air, of the issue which has caused as much - if not more - damage than all of the others combined.

These arrogant, self-serving, mendacious tax gobblers take the biscuit, the cake, and the whole fucking bakery, they really do. They have little regard for anyone but their clique of Westminster bubble lobbyists, civil servants and quangoes, and deserve nothing but our utter and eternal contempt in return.

Change? What fucking change?

Someone Is Off Message

A committed David Miliband supporter (hence the twibbon), yesterday.

Which isn't quite what David Miliband was saying, earlier this month.

“[...] in many villages and towns across Britain pubs are the life and soul of the community."

"[...] we can and should stand up for the local pub – and the community links and civic life they sustain. Local pubs are great British institutions – and as Labour leader I would stand up for them.”

Hmmm, I wonder which is the true face of Labour with regard to pubs?

By the way, you can ask Miliband Major a question or two on the subject here, if you like. You can be trusted to be nice, can't you?

The BBPA: Backsliding Into Oblivion

It would seem that Mark Hastings, of the British Beer & Pub Association, has never been taught the concept of metaphorically, and vehemently, drawing a line in the sand.

He was afforded a brief vox pop on Radio 5 today stating his industry's case in response to Teresa May's proposal to charge pubs and clubs for policing anti-social behaviour. It went very much like his organisation's press release.

“We would also like to see a renewed focus on individual responsibility. While it is absolutely right to hold business to account, it is equally vital to hold individuals responsible for their behaviour – drunken louts need to be penalised for the menace they cause to their communities."

An admirable sentiment, and one with which I would wholeheartedly agree. Except for the fact that Hastings has been backsliding on individual responsibility for quite a while now ... to his industry's detriment.

In 2004 when blanket smoking bans were first mooted, for example, he was bullish in defending pubs and their customers.

British Beer and Pub Association spokesman Mark Hastings believes a total ban would prove costly and be legally complicated to implement.

He added: "Clearly they (the chains) recognise non-smoking is on the increase and they want to reflect that. But we also believe in freedom of choice.

"While customers want more restrictions on smoking, only 20% would support a total ban in pubs - that is (from) a Department of Health survey on this".

Mr Hastings also claims Ireland has seen a 15% drop in trade following the introduction of a total smoking ban in pubs.

He says that if the same thing happened in the UK and had the same impact, 5,000 pubs would be shut and 75,000 jobs lost.

He was correct on all counts. Uncannily so, in fact, when predicting pub closures and job losses. He possessed all the aces, he merely had to bravely play them again and again.

But rather than stick to his guns, he subsequently seems to have lost his balls on the London Underground between media spots.

In 2007, he downgraded the damage, which he had correctly predicted, when faced with opposition from a few anti-smoking fanatics.

Mark Hastings, communications director of the British Beer and Pub Association, said that although the ban may lead to a small decline in beer sales, pubs would also see an increase in the sale of food.

I don't know where the 'freedom of choice' part had managed to lose itself in the interim, nor the quite correct assertion that a significant majority didn't want to see a total ban (which they still don't).

Forward to March 2008 and Hastings was probably wishing he'd been more heroic as his initial fears began to disastrously materialise.

BRITAIN'S pubs are at the heart of every community – yet they have never been under such pressure. We are experiencing a "perfect storm" of rising costs, falling demand for our key product, draught beer, and grappling with the impact of a smoking ban that has hit sales hard.

Food wasn't helping 'sales' after all. It was full-on devastation ... and well before any recession had been felt, you notice.

What's more, the government wasn't just walking all over Hastings and his weak will, they had also ensured that his own members would be the ones to enforce their own demise. If Hastings was on the ball, he would have noticed this potential development quite early considering the Times had mentioned it in 2005.

In licensed premises the responsibility for enforcing the law would be placed on landlords and it would be policed by health and safety officers from local councils. Failure to comply would result in a fine.

And now? When much of the hospitality trade is calling for a sensible amendment to a law which has wrought so much damage? Which Hastings predicted? What say the pubs' stalwart and defender?

Mark Hastings, director of communications, British Beer and Pub Association ("We do not want to see a return to smoking in pubs. It would be a backward and unwelcome step.").

Game, set and match to the government over a quite limp and apologist approach from the gibbering wreck that used to be the proud BBPA.

Now. Taking into account the abject capitulation by Hastings over the smoking ban, it was almost pitiful to hear his weak attempt to deflect government focus away from pubs, with regard the 24 hour drinking debate, in favour of a reliance on individual responsibility.

Weak because he surely must know by now that government doesn't attach much importance to individual responsibility or freedom of choice, and pitiful because - by his own inaction - the state has established a precedent whereby pubs are to be solely responsible for policing their customers.

Hastings allowed that to happen. His organisation, despite the political clout it used to carry, woefully failed to rigorously stand up for its members and their right to self-determination. He presided over a period of time where his members became unpaid enforcers for the state, and he did so with an inconsistent whimper and a cowardly retreat from conflict.

The BBPA are now busted. Government know they are an easy touch and will fleece pub owners for everything they can get. What's more, once the precedent has been established for city centre barns - who can confidently assert that all licensed premises won't be charged for policing costs in the future? That the landlords won't, for example, be invoiced for the cost of squad cars parked outside rural pubs to catch those who may have had more than one pint?

Why not? After all, in Hastings' words, they "need to be penalised for the menace they cause to their communities".

And, like the scourge of city centre 'binge drinkers', the government won't be too willing to foot the bill themselves when they have a proven spineless industry just sitting there bravely turning tail and fleeing whenever a battle presents itself.

An Inconvenient Truth

One rather inconvenient problem for anti-smoking lunatics is the inescapable fact that when businesses are forced into such measures, a disastrous collapse in their profits invariably follows.

Apparently, though, it's never the fault of the ban itself. When the English ban began, the drop in trade was attributed to the 'poor summer' (no recession back then, you see). The subsequent increase in pub closures was then blamed on everything from the recession and cheap supermarket booze, to England's football failures, as the righteous desperately tried to shift attention away from the obvious, like some kid shouting and waving at Dad while their sibling pinches a couple of choccie digestives from the biscuit jar.

For example, the fact that Punch Taverns have almost been wiped off the financial map is nothing to do with the ban at all, despite their share price having tumbled from £13 to mere buttons in the 18 months following July 2007.

See, while the blanket ban is a nationwide abomination, there is no control group with which to compare. Sure, the Scottish ban started a year before the English one - and pub closures began there, err, about a year earlier - but that was put down to a freak herd of marauding killer giraffes or some such nonsense. Anything but the ban. Any lie will do.

What is sorely required is some way of comparing two similar businesses under different constraints as regards smoking policies. Step forward the United States and their non-federal approach to legislation.

Obama's home state, Illinois, inflicted a smoking ban on its casinos back at the beginning of 2008, and the results are just in compared to those states that haven't followed suit.

Source: St Louis Fed

My, my. How could this possibly happen? After all, Wikipedia, who never publish without checking their sources, tell us that ...

A 2003 review of 97 such studies of the economic effects of a smoking ban on the hospitality industry found that the "best-designed" studies concluded that smoking bans did not harm businesses.

Until you check the source and find it was produced by the most insane anti-tobacco nutter in the world universe. Nice rigour there, Wikipedia.

I know what you're thinking. This graph must have been paid for by tobacco companies. Because they are the only ones who raise doubts about smoking bans, or so we're told.

Well, not really, no. Unless one counts the Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis as a tobacco manufacturer, of course. They go on to flesh the graph out with some interesting numbers, too.

Changes (in one year) in Illinois casinos due to the smoking ban:

Revenue: down $400 million (20%)
Attendance: down 12%
Casino tax revenue to the state government: down $196 million
Casino tax revenue to local governments: down $12 million

Not great news for a state which is suffering quite appalling financial difficulties.

[Illinois’s comptroller, Daniel W. Hynes] picks the papers off his desk and points to a figure in red: $5.01 billion.

“This is what the state owes right now to schools, rehabilitation centers, child care, the state university — and it’s getting worse every single day,” he says in his downtown office.

Mr. Hynes shakes his head. “This is not some esoteric budget issue; we are not paying bills for absolutely essential services,” he says. “That is obscene.”

Indeed. How he must rue the loss of $200m+ income per year to help out, eh?

Hang on. Are we not also experiencing a bit of a deficit ourselves? I'm sure I read it somewhere. Didn't that nice fresh-faced boy mention it a couple of weeks ago?

I dunno, maybe something like an amendment to the Health Act 2006 might help. Just a thought.

Whaddya say, Nick?

H/T American Thinker

{Waves To Nick Clegg}

Interesting news from the hospitality industry.

The number of bar and pub firms going out of business in the first three months of the year was more than double the number in the same period last year, [...]

Wow! That's nasty stuff. Especially considering the escalating devastation the industry has already been suffering since ... ooh, about 2007?

Here's another quick reminder of pub closure figures.

UK Pub Closures 2004-2009

Or ...

2004: 478
2005: 102
2006: 216
2007: 1,409
2008: 1,973
2009: 2,365

The Graun piece goes on to say.

The position of many pubs and clubs is generally accepted to have been made worse by the smoking ban and a losing battle for sales with supermarkets.

Now, I don't know about you, Nick Clegg, but I reckon an amendment to the smoking ban is a cost-free measure which could dramatically boost the fortunes of a hefty proportion of the pub and club economy. Whaddya think?

And, oh look, you have a Great Repeal Bill on the go which it could be tacked onto.

How very convenient.

If you haven't yet joined the corresponding Facebook group, please do so here or at the sidebar and invite your sympathetic friends. Ta.

Labour Kill Businesses, Especially Pubs

Cameron adroitly targeted a raw Labour nerve during PMQs on Wednesday.

The Prime Minister has made the decision to introduce a jobs tax which will kill the recovery. This morning on GMTV, he said that business leaders who oppose this decision have been deceived. Is the Prime Minister really telling us that he knows more about job creation than business leaders who employ almost a million people in this country?

Of course he is. I'm surprised he took his fingers out of his ears long enough to understand the question, to be honest.

You see, we've always known that Labour hold to the attitude that they always know better than anyone else, but refusing to accept that a flood of top business leaders may have a point really does make them look rather stupid.

There they are, clutching the same numbers every week, convinced that they are going to win the lottery of business ideas when the odds are stacked high against them. Quite incapable of admitting their folly, they continue adhering to dogma and ideology while closing their every sense to the damage they are causing, or are about to cause.

It's a case which has been conclusively proven in their destruction of the hospitality industry. A fact they not only refuse to admit but, astoundingly, try to spin in the opposite direction.

Survey data, anecdotal evidence and reports in the media seem to indicate that the impact on the hospitality trade as a whole has been at worst neutral and in many cases positive. We have seen no significant evidence to date that implies that smokefree legislation [...] will create any long-term economic problems for pubs or the hospitality trade in general.

Gillian Merron also parroted this nonsense despite personally meeting a delegation of publicans from her Lincoln constituency ... just before she threw their petition in the bin.

It will come as no surprise that the experience of the trade is brutally at odds with Labour's wild flight of fantasy.

The smoking ban attracted plenty of comment. Despite being in place now for nearly three years, two thirds agreed the ban should be partially appealed to allow more choice, as 72 per cent said it had hampered their business.

I'm not sure that could be classed as "at worst neutral, and in many cases positive", are you?

It certainly isn't positive for Labour's election chances. This conclusion filled the Puddlecote household with much glee.

Only two per cent of the 169 licensees responding to our survey said they would vote Labour on May 6.

The Publican, who carry this survey, have laid out an election 'manifesto' which they will be presenting to the parties, and hey, look at this proposal.

4. Review the smoking ban in light of its impact on trade

You know, the impact which Labour, turning their sand-buried heads and having a look around, are absolutely certain hasn't happened.

Still, there will be a review. In fact it is already underway, but the result has already been purchased by Labour. They're spending about a million quid on it. Only £47,000 on the effect it has had on pubs, though.

4. Smokefree - feasibility study - secondary analysis of data relating to the hospitality sector

Cost: £47,000

Status: Ongoing

Contractor: University of Aberdeen .

Principal researcher: Prof Anne Ludbrook.

Publication: no outputs to date.

So, this Anne Ludbrook, she must be a publican, yeah? Or a brewer, or a distiller, or someone involved in the hospitality industry in some way?

Of course not.

Anne Ludbrook, Programme Director of the Evaluation of Health Improvement Programme, University of Aberdeen

[...] she has been involved in a range of research activities and in consultancy work for the NHS and the World Health Organisation. Her current research interests are focussed around the use of economics in health improvement. Recently completed work relates to the cost-effectiveness of interventions for alcohol misuse, the effect of income change on health and the health and economic impacts of smoking in public places.

And they say the tobacco industry is crooked?

Publicans are crying out for help. In the industry, three quarters of those still trading after Labour's hammer blow are suffering financially, and there is a concerted campaign in favour of an amendment.

Yet Labour commission research exclusively from those who have made a multi-million pound business out of producing statistics to order, and use health advocates to scrutinise the hospitality industry.

Labour are truly, abhorrently corrupt. There is no other word for it.

If you run a business, or wish to hold down a job, in this country, your chances are a lottery which depend on the whims of quite appalling Labour bastards.

Like I said before. Expenses? It wasn't the paltry sums involved, it was just a chance to give politicians a well-deserved bloody nose. One day, these anti-social hooligans might learn some respect for the electorate.

You Decide

From the BBC's Have Your Say.

Stunning ignorance? Or top drawer subtle satire?

Does the British pub have a future?

299. At 12:21pm on 20 Mar 2010, Sue Doughcoup wrote:

Not being a pub user I don't really know. I don't consider myself a pub user as I probably go into a pub about 4 times a year - and that's a good year. Before the smoking ban pubs were dirty, smelly places and I objected to the smell of smoke on my clothes. Now I can't afford the price or the time. I did try the pub after the ban with a few friends, but that very quickly tailed off because as soon as a conversation got going the smokers among us inevitably went out to have a smoke and the conversation ended abruptly. I cant see the point in having split smoking/non-smoking areas cos the smokers are too selfish and will only go in the smoking areas. Hardly a social occasion so I don't bother. Then again I don't drink much anyway - the odd bottle of ale every now and again.

Dutch Courage

I'm baa-aack!

Conference was illuminating, whilst the company and hospitality before and after, in Amsterdam and The Hague, was a genuine delight.

There is a smoking ban in Holland but, being freedom-loving continental Europeans and not anally-retentive British pussies, choice is offered in spades. It wasn't very difficult to seek out bars which didn't throw you outside to smoke while you enjoyed their beer.

I also noted that there weren't any boarded up ones, either. It appears to be an alien phenomenon to the Dutch.

As our host at last night's hot and pricey Indian restaurant brought out the post-meal ashtrays, I became thoughtful and intrigued as to why this huge difference in fortunes between the Dutch and British hospitality industries exists.

After all, Labour do tell us that the recession was global.

The tough international economic conditions will not leave the Netherlands unscathed. The Dutch economy may have grown by 2% year-on-year in 2008, but the economy was already shrinking in the last three quarters, from a quarter on quarter perspective. In the fourth quarter in particular, economic activity declined drastically. This development will continue to an even stronger degree throughout the first half of 2009. After that the economy will very gradually pick up again, but on balance the Dutch economy will shrink both this year and next. This year the negative growth will reach 3½%, the largest contraction since 1931.

Surely that would have had an effect on Dutch bar owners, considering the price of a pint in The Hague and Amsterdam these past couple of days was between €5 and €6 (£4.50 to £5.50 [conv]). OK, that was in the cities, but the mean price of a beer in other areas is €4 (£3.60), which is on a par with or, in some cases in excess of, prices in Central London.

But bars don't close over there. Why ever not?

Perhaps they haven't got the same evil supermarket companies as we have, eh? Yes. That'll be it.

The Dutch foundation for alcohol prevention, STAP, wants Dutch supermarkets to stop selling crates of beer at bargain prices. The foundation is concerned that the low prices encourage excessive drinking, especially at a time of year when young people are celebrating their exam results.

STAP is calling for a minimum price for beer and wants the market leader to withdraw its product from the supermarkets that choose to sell the beer at excessively low prices.

A crate of Heineken beer contains 24 bottles and normally costs between 11 and 12 euros at Albert Heijn which means one bottle costs about 50 eurocents, with discount only 29 eurocents. In bars in The Netherlands, where the legal drinking age is 16, a glass of beer in a bar costs about two euros, four times as much as in the supermarkets.

Hmm. Perhaps not.

Well, it surely must be those evil pubcos then. It can't be anything else, can it? They may have been around since the Beer Orders (1989) effectively created them, but pubs have been closing for years, I'm constantly told.

UK Pub Closures 2004-2009

Or ...

2004: 478
2005: 102
2006: 216
2007: 1,409
2008: 1,973
2009: 2,365

Oh yeah. So they were! Apart from the 25% increase in pub stocks between 1971 and 2003, of course**.

I'm not sure the pubco tie effect can fully explain the massive leap in closures from 2007 onwards, though.

Why the huge pub failures in the UK but not in Holland? Why are theirs ticking along nicely and ours aren't? What on earth could be the over-riding factor?

As I drank a cool Heineken in the smoking room at Murphy's Bar, situated between gates D15 & D16 inside Amsterdam Schipol airport, I still hadn't worked it out.

Perhaps Gillian Merron may have a decent explanation.

**All sources: BBPA Statistical Handbooks, not available online.

Gillian Merron: Screw Constituents, Her Party Comes First

He may have been declaring victory as US tanks trundled up Main Street, Baghdad, but Comical Ali still has nothing on Lincoln Labour MP, Gillian Merron.

This is what she had to say about the effect of the smoking ban on pub closures during a health committee meeting last week.

Merron said: “The pub trade does have challenges and I am aware of that but it isn’t the case that the ban had led to pub closures.”

She went on to describe the smoking ban of 2007 as a “tremendous success” and said it had the support of 80 per cent of the public

That's right, none at all. No closures have resulted since Labour re-classified community pubs to the same category as crèches and public libraries. No closures have occurred since Labour enforced the equivalent of making you eat your fish inside the restaurant but your chips outside.

I'm not sure when, if ever, Merron last pulled a pint, but those who spend their lives doing so think her statement is, quite frankly, risible. One columnist in the trade paper, the Morning Advertiser, described her as 'laughable', 'ridiculous', and 'shows a severe lack of knowledge of the problems the pub trade is facing right now'.

Gillian Merron: "Pah! Comical Ali was always an amateur"

Alistair Darling was in 'no doubt' that the smoking ban had had an effect on pub closures, and even Martin Dockrell, Policy Director of ASH, put the decrease in footfall attributable to the ban at 50%.

The only excuse is the Tom Harris defence, that no-one had expressed any disquiet to her about the law, so therefore everyone must be happy.

However, Gillian cannot even remotely claim that. Because she was visited, at her constituency surgery, by two local publicans chosen to represent Lincoln businesses who were suffering under her party's legislation.

Here are some extracts from an e-mail one of them sent to me yesterday describing their meeting with Merron over a local surgery table.

I can’t remember what month it was but it was late 2007 about Nov/Dec when I asked for a meeting with GM to bring in petition from about 20 different pubs in the city, that were all feeling the effect from the smoking ban, I know that my petition alone had over 100 signatures, which would have been more, but quite a lot of my customers were not coming in any longer.

A fellow Landlady and I went to present our petitions to GM and also had a discussion with her, as she seemed really keen to know how we were coping and we had a really good talk.

We let her know the problems we were having because of the ban. She was told of the downhill takings because of people’s refusal to come in a pub any longer. We let her know that this was non-smokers as well and we also let her know that all the pubs submitting petition had not had the honour of welcoming any new non-smokers into their establishments.

It was told to her that my takings were down from £6,200 a week average to £5,200 a week, but bills had stayed the same, £1,266 rent, £400 rates, £2,500 beer bill, £100 spirit bill, £450 staff wages, £230 gas/elec, £150 entertainment and all the other expenses i.e. water, rubbish disposal, beer gas, TV licence, sanitary etc, had to come out of the remaining £100. She seemed so concerned.

The other landlady then said that it was worse for me because I could lose my home as well and by then the discussion had got to quite an emotional stage, because of our struggle, but that was the first time I had actually realised that I could lose my home. I started crying about that thought, which set my fellow landlady off and when we looked round Gillian was also shedding a tear.

Gillian said she would pass the petitions on.

Whether she did or not is debatable as all this landlady received after the meeting was a letter detailing the dangers of second hand smoke.

Remember that. 20 pubs in her own constituency took time to petition her to represent their views, yet last week Merron stated that she knew of no evidence of any pubs suffering as a result of the legislation her party bludgeoned, undemocratically, through parliament.

The landlady concerned isn't a landlady anymore.

Since then, my takings carried on going down, I tried spending more on weekend entertainment to try to encourage people in, but none of it worked. I tried doing meals, which worked for a week and finished with just one plate of chips sold a day. In the end our outgoing always exceeded our income and we finished up owing too much and on 1st July 2009 we had to declare bankruptcy and close the pub.

Perhaps Gillian might like to revise her estimate of pub closures upwards by at least one, then?

One would have thought that such an emotional meeting would ring a bell with Merron when she boasted of the 'tremendous success' of the ban. This was a face to face meeting after all, and MPs do like to tell us how hard working they are for their constituents. But Merron simply dumped the heartfelt petitions on a researcher or DoH civil servant and got on with the job of defending her party instead.

Fortunately for Merron, and other shameful MPs who boasted of the huge benefits of interfering in private property rights, she isn't forced to live with the consequences of her party's actions. Sadly, others have less scope.

I am now paying £800 a month Mortgage as we took a remortgage to take the pub on. (The mortgage was only a manageable £350 a month before we took the pub on) We are waiting for the interest rates to go back up and then we will probably lose the house, our home. Thanks to the smoking ban.

If you live in Lincoln you have one chance, and one chance only, of gaining the support of your local MP. You must be fully in adherence with Labour party policy or you might as well be whistling in the wind.

For Gillian Merron, party comes first. Constituents are just a necessary evil.

Pubs Are Safe In Their Hands ... Hey, Don't Laugh!

A few MPs yesterday conducted a hot air emitting session in Westminster Hall on the subject of Labour's ongoing pub closure programme.

With a couple of notable exceptions it was customary fare, though I'm surprised the majority of speakers were able to remain focussed on the discussion with that heroically proportioned pachyderm rampaging around the room.

There were a few snippets that I personally found interesting, though.

Face/palm moment of the whole debate, for example, must surely be this contribution from Bournemouth East Tory, and former Blues Brother, Jake Tobias Ellwood.

Certainly the issue of preloading needs to be addressed; my hon. Friend Anne Main made that point. It is a disgrace that when Labour came to power the price of beer in a pub was twice that of beer in the supermarket but now the price of beer in a pub is seven times that of beer in the supermarket. Is it any wonder that people are loading up on alcohol before going to the pub, or buying alcohol in the supermarket and avoiding the pub? That issue needs to be addressed.

Something must be going dramatically awry with pub pricing, then, considering that ONS statistics have shown supermarket alcohol prices to have risen over and above inflation in the past 30 years.

Between 1980 and 2008, the price of alcohol increased by 283.3%. After considering inflation (at 21.3%), alcohol prices increased by 19.3% over the period

However, armed with figures showing that the differential isn't really the fault of supermarkets, Ellwood revealed that the Tories have a cunning plan.

We will place a cap on the price of loss leaders in supermarkets and I hope that that will work.

Good grief.

Labour's Gerry Sutcliffe then revealed that he could be related to Lieutenant George in Blackadder Goes Forth.

To return to the point that this is a general election issue, I am highly in favour of that. It is right that issues close to our communities should be discussed in public, especially at general election time.

We're also highly in favour of Labour's assault on pubs being an election issue, Gerry. You're going 'over the top' and those whom you decided were less than human are manning the machine guns. Tally Ho!

And, as if to remind us that MPs aren't all stuffed shirts, Gerry rounded the ineffectual pow-wow off with a generous slice of side-splitting humour.

The smoking ban has been mentioned. Do hon. Members forget that the overwhelming majority of Members of this House voted for the smoking ban? I understand that there have been issues with its implementation, but we have considered best practice to ensure that the ban has been applied so as to meet policy objectives, as well as to find ways of supporting those who want to smoke.

Here's that 'support' in full.

Outside smoking shelters in the UK are forbidden by law to be more than 50 percent enclosed. As the campaigning group Freedom2Choose has pointed out: a farmer who keeps pigs is obliged by law to provide them with 95 percent shelter. So the 12 million or more tax-paying British citizens who smoke are officially, legally, worse than pigs.

Still, at least MPs are taking the issue of pub closures very seriously.

So seriously, in fact, that the the newly-appointed Minister for pubs stayed well away in case he became too agitated in his zeal to solve the problem, presumably. Or, as the guy in the natty black suit and trilby pointed out.

He says that he has a few ideas in his locker; today would have been the ideal day to open that locker and let us see what is actually going on. It is a little bit like someone realising that their glasses are in their pocket at the very end of their driving test; it is a bit late to put things into focus and it is certainly a bit late to impress anyone.

When you're on a mission from God, it's always about glasses and driving, isn't it?

Only Criminals Are Deterred By Smoking Bans

Finally, the MSM are waking up to the powerful disincentive of smoking bans on visiting your local, err, prison?

No smoking prison sparks drop in crime

A noticeable drop in recorded crimes on the Isle of Man is being attributed to the opening of Europe's only completely no smoking prison.

The number of burglaries has plunged by more than 35 per cent, there has been a 25 per cent drop in the number of assaults and the number of people caught stealing cars has fallen by seven per cent in the past year.

Domestic assaults fell 11 per cent and criminal damage offences dropped eight per cent.

Correlation? Causation? Who knows? However, let's take the assertion at face value for now, seeing as a mirror article in the Mail even quotes a former prisoner who spent six months there.

"As soon as word got round that it wasn't a joke and that all smoking was banned, even in the exercise yard, a lot of people I know started having second thoughts about committing crimes.

It was something they genuinely feared. Not prison itself, but the idea of being forced to give up smoking.

Some of my mates have simply given up crime, whether it be stealing cars, shoplifting to order or burglary, as a direct result of the smoking ban."

Yep, in both reports, it's definitely the smoking ban wot done it, trumpets the obedient MSM.

Yet strangely, whenever the carnage of pub closures is mentioned (52 per week at last count), the press tend to attribute it to just about everything but the smoking ban. It's normally either the recession (of which we have suffered many with no pubs closing), cheap supermarket booze (always been so), or high pub prices (when were they ever cheap?). The smoking ban is sometimes tacked on as an afterthought, but never with any conviction despite the fact that said wholesale closures, both north and south of the border, began in earnest the moment the respective bans were implemented.


The ban's disastrous effect on the hospitality industry is stunningly obvious, with plenty of unequivocal evidence to back it up, but the MSM (and the government) are incapable, or unwilling, to categorically link the two. The reduction in Manx crime is less easily attributable to the ban, but instantly touted in these reports as the only cause.

It's perfectly believable that a non smoking prison on the Isle of Man could be having a noticeable effect. After all, if comfort in incarceration is lessened for smoking ne'er-do-wells, the deterrent is obviously going to be more potent.

But by the same token, isn't it about time the press, the government, and pub fans in denial (you know who you are) admitted that pubs and clubs are also deeply affected by smoking bans, and stopped trotting out the usual refrain that they have 'little or no effect'.

The hospitality industry is in the comfort business, after all, it's what they do. If potential criminals are making life changing decisions to avoid being forced somewhere in which they can't smoke, is it so very difficult to accept that pubgoers can be easily discouraged from voluntarily entering premises, for the same reason?

Will Lansley Be Consistent?

Still catching up after a busy Friday, so thanks go to The Daily Politics for YouTubing Thursday night's Question Time. This snippet raised an eyebrow or two as the grown-up Puddlecotes enjoyed the weekly QT Chenin Blanc (from 4:18 in the above clip).

Andrew Lansley: "The job of all of us is to respect the views and the needs of minorities as much as we respect the view of a majority in a democracy."

Glad to hear it, Andrew, very glad.

The problem is that he doesn't appear to apply this excellent democratic outlook to the minority or the majority on certain issues, if Tim Montgomerie on Con Home is to be believed, after a poll found that a majority of Tim's blog members favoured choice for the minority with regard to the smoking ban.

My understanding, however, is that Shadow Health Secretary Andrew Lansley - a great believer in public health - does not want to return to the issue.

No. It would seem that the majority stamping all over an element of choice for the minority is perfectly acceptable to Lansley when it comes to the provision of separate smoking rooms, or any other compromise, for the 21% of adults who enjoy tobacco.

If Lansley truly believes that "The job of all of us is to respect the views and the needs of minorities", he would look at a way of amending the smoking ban should the 'shadow' be removed from his job title post-general election.

Unless only some minorities count, of course.

Evidence That Implies

Yesterday I mentioned the Number 10 petition wallahs skipping through tulip-filled meadows in their elysian fantasy world.

... the impact on the hospitality trade as a whole has been at worst neutral and in many cases positive. We have seen no significant evidence to date that implies that smokefree legislation ... will create any long-term economic problems for pubs or the hospitality trade in general.

So, today, here are a couple of extracts from stories they may have missed.

In London.

Eleven pubs are closing in London each week as the recession, the smoking ban, high taxes and the structure of the industry force the capital's boozers out of business.

In the first six months of the year, 281 of the estimated 7000 pubs in London called last orders for the final time, according to figures released today by the British Beer & Pub Association (BBPA).

And in the world of hospitality business.

Marston's, the brewer and pub chain, has reported a steep fall in annual profits, despite a recent rise in sales.

It blamed the overall falls on agressive discounting in supermarkets, the weak economy and a continuing consequence of the smoking ban.

Here is the Number 10 e-petitions team, pictured earlier today.

State Denialists

As quite stunning lies go, this nugget from the response to a Number 10 e-petition suggesting the provision of separate smoking rooms in pubs and clubs takes some beating.

Survey data, anecdotal evidence and reports in the media seem to indicate that the impact on the hospitality trade as a whole has been at worst neutral and in many cases positive. We have seen no significant evidence to date that implies that smokefree legislation, either in this country or in others where it has been in place for some years, will create any long-term economic problems for pubs or the hospitality trade in general.

Yep. Nothing but positive news from the hospitality industry since July 2007, eh?


And, of course, according to Number 10, the disaster for pubs, which kicked in well before the economy imploded, has certainly not escalated since.

UK pubs closed at a rate of 52 per week in the first half of the year - a third more than the same period in 2008 - the British Beer & Pub Association said.

Yet while all but the most bigoted anti-smokers within the industry admit that the smoking ban has had a deletorious effect, the Department of Health are still rigidly clinging on to a hearts and flowers view.

Try not to laugh as I repeat this bit.

... the impact on the hospitality trade as a whole has been at worst neutral and in many cases positive.

Now, it was always clear that such a petition would be ignored, despite the fact that the provision of smoking rooms could do nothing but improve the chances of pubs staying open. Moreover, there would be no effect on the health of non-smokers as they would have no need to be in the vicinity of smoking should they choose not to be. It is a 100% win/win.

But a little more honesty in the reply would be desirable (not to mention actually tackling the meat of the petition rather than merely responding to the first sentence). Why not instead say, truthfully, that the EU & WHO are committed to blanket bans and it is out of Westminster's hands? I dunno, perhaps it's an idealistic view, but isn't the point of a democracy the fact that the electorate should be given straight and honest answers by their representatives and assistants? Or are bare-faced, transparent lies the order of the 21st century?

Actually, don't answer that.

Trivia: Godwin stopped me titling this 'Government Pub Holocaust Deniers'