All Things Pubs and Society

About

  • Thanks for listening, Rachel…

    Well there we go. Pub Campaigners have been relentless since October in trying to drill home what this April Budget is going to do to the hospitality industry. Some reports have suggested that we could lose up to 9,000 pubs within the year coming.

    Yet once again our pleas for support fell on deaf ears.

    Ironically, Reeves’ budget is aimed at focusing on getting people back into employment! Sorry?! what jobs do you think people are going to be able to access when our businesses fall apart. It means Billions of Pounds of Income Tax and NI, Corporation Tax, VAT going down the drain- and guess what- MORE people accessing benefits not less.

    Of course we need to relook at the people who haven’t got a days work in them because they’re simply bone idle. But has anyone actually addressed why we have masses of people with this mentality? Is it because the people have been failed by Government and its predecessors? Is it because people are disillusioned and watch people who go out to work moaning about being sick of feeling like they work for fuck all? Seriously, what does that portray to the upcoming young people hitting the employment market or those thinking about getting a job or returning to work. I personally think it just justifies their feelings- and I cant say right now I can fault them for feeling that way!

    What utopian snow covered chocolate box land are Government living in whereby virtually annihilating small businesses prosperity and longevity is actually going to help get people off benefits? It couldn’t be more counterintuitive if you tried! Yes small businesses are very obviously ‘small’; but they often play an extremely important part in keeping local people in work; providing innovative services with grassroots entrepreneurs and serving our communities often at ground level all whilst contributing to the countries coffers. We often ‘fill in the gaps’ where Big Corporates aren’t really hitting the spot or find it too low key for their attentions. Il also say people love a family owned business that’s been going for years and we don’t tend to be registered to Hedge-funds in the Cayman Islands!!

    So yes, Small businesses as a whole are vitally important to this countries economy and employment actually. It’s not all about Supermarkets and Net Zero; it’s about growth and sustainability from the bottom up. I cant blame independent shop owners, publicans, trades and such if they want to just shut shop and give up. Why are we, the smallest of the business fry, taking on this burden of being the scape goat for politicians to avert upsetting the Corporates who often aren’t even 100% committed to paying UK Tax?

    Just watch how when the Government rhetoric will change when large numbers of once were thriving small businesses simply fail. They will twist it back onto us as a way of covering up their inadequacies in addressing the real problems and of course, give them a new reason to blame the high level of unemployment in this country.

  • Blame The Beer Orders

    I tuned into a rather interesting broadcast on YO1 Radio with Paul Crossman of the Campaign for Pubs and local York MP Rachel Maskell reflecting on the Beer Orders established in 1989 and their impact on the pubs of today.

    As Paul quite rightly points out, what was initially a decent idea to promote competitiveness and a way to break down barriers for more people to have their own pub business, became something rather sinister as a result of Pubcos. exploitation and abuse of power.

    The fundamental issue is what is known as ‘The Beer Tie’. This means Tied Pub Tenants are obliged, or contractually ‘Tied’, to purchase alcoholic drinks and soft drinks from their landlord. These agreements can differ and Tenants may opt to purchase their wines or spirits for example from the open market but only if they pay a Annual Premium or ‘Buy out fee’ to their landlord to do so. However, as nearly all pubs rely on draught products as their main source of alcoholic beverage income, I have yet to see any Tied agreements which allow for all draught products to be purchased on the open market for an Annual Premium whilst remaining Tied on other less demanded products.

    This causes the Tied Tenants unnecessary hardship. Pubco. landlords rely on 2 streams of income: Rent & Beer. As a result of the Tenant therefore becoming contractually bound to purchase their beers through the landlord; the landlord realised they can essentially charge whatever they want for it. The idea of a Tied Pub Tenant is that the rent is lower than the open market value, and purchasing beer through them would essentially top it up giving the Tenant a head start and a cash flow advantage. This concept couldn’t be farther from the truth as both rental value is generally inflated in comparison to the open market rental value and the beer pricing is usually extortionately inflated (in some cases it has been reported up to 140% per 11 gallon of beer in comparison to accessible open market prices).

    In cash terms, the average difference in Beer Prices I would suggest is approximately increased by £80 per 11 gallon of beer for Tied Pub Tenants in comparison to Free of Tie Tenants who buy from the open market. That’s nearly £1 a pint more than if bought from the open market for the same product. One has to bear in mind that a pint of lager is on average sold at around £5.08 (according to the Morning Advertiser) so to purchase beer at a £1 a pint more to sell at this price is simply in any other trade, economically ridiculous.

    To give balance, the Beer Tie isn’t exactly new. Prior to 1989, the 6 main UK breweries (Bass/Scottish & Newcastle/ Whitbread etc) owned the huge numbers of the UK pub estate and they quite reasonably demanded that the beer that they brewed was sold over the bar. Tenants had a reasonably good relationship with these breweries. The breweries had the money to invest and upkeep their properties to a decent standard to keep business turning over. Breweries had a ‘direct to market’ operation reducing third party distribution costs. Breweries had their own technical services to upkeep the dispense and cellar equipments effectively. Breweries were also at a competitive war with each other and so it made sense to keep their prices lower to keep people drinking their beer.

    But in 1989 Government made a decision to ‘break’ this monopoly to encourage a fairer real estate and brewing market. The majority of these pubs were purchased by the Pubcos or better known as ‘real estate moguls’. Currently only 2 of the 6 main UK Pubcos. actually brew beer and even then, the beer pricing to Tenants of their own pubs is still grossly inflated. All 6 Pubcos. demand that the products they list (irrespective of whether they are brewed by themselves) are to be the only products available to Tenants to sell in their pubs by simply acting as a third party between supplier and tenant; a glorified supermarket if you like. This is detrimental to smaller independent breweries and Tenants and does not promote the fairer market principle of the Beer Orders act.

    As a result of the Pubco. takeover, beer prices have been consistently driven higher and higher at wholesale and customer level; even when external economic factors were more stable than today. Pubs close as a result. Pubs fall into disrepair as publicans cannot afford to maintain the property on minimal GP and cash margins (Pubcos. now expect most Tenants and leaseholders to essentially upkeep the property in a similar manner to a freehold owner). Consequentially this has caused pubs what were and should be thriving to fail. We have lost 1/3rd of Great British Pubs since the millennium yet Pubcos. have thrived and offshore stakeholders have become even richer at our expense.

    The Beer Orders have encouraged nothing more than big profit gains at the expense of our hard working publicans and communities which rely on upon them. Shame on the Government. Shame on the Pubcos.

    On a side note, being a York publican, we are extremely lucky to have Rachel Maskell as our local MP in backing this cause to pressure for Parliamentary change alongside Paul Crossman who is a hard working publican in his own right whilst also being a passionate and dedicated campaigner for change in the Pub industry. But as highlighted in the interview, more MPS need to be made aware of this problem. I would suggest this will only happen to happen is members of the public directly pressure their local MP’s to save their locals by campaigning for legislative change to save us from the clutches of greed.

  • ‘That’s £4,445 please sir’…

    *Ching Ching*

    That’s the Bill we, the Tax Payer, have paid for Bojo to have a get together with his staff according the Guardian yesterday. And the best part is, it wasn’t even spent in this country. It was spent in New York…

    Now that the Labour Government are seemingly trying to do something about something, they have uncovered a disgusting abuse of country’s coffers committed by some of our Members of Parliament.

    Nobody is going to convince me that anybody needs £2,500 worth of shoes, courtesy of the tax payer, purchased in Barbados. And I’d love to have seen what the hospitality bill included to run up a bill for nearly £4.5k worth of food and drink.

    We are forgetting that the MP’s also receive an actual salary. Can anyone tell me how/why it’s acceptable to cost the Tax Payer £1,200 for coffee pods in 2 months. If you want fancy Coffee Pods; then you pay for fancy Coffee Pods. Don’t expect me to fork out £150 a week for it. You get enough already.

    I can’t even believe that a civil servant could have had access to £2.5k worth of hospitality on this credit card (according to the BBC) without having to have it authorised. It’s unclear whether this is for one bill or over the course of a year for example, but from the article I did get the impression that this was the maximum that could be claimed on one bill at any time without question.

    £2.5k. Honestly? It is an honourable position but they’re quite frankly taking the piss. MPS work for us and as your employer I don’t agree that £600 a month on coffee pods for one office is exactly a justifiable and reasonable expense.

    MPs receive a 90k a year salary (rising to 94k in April 25) excluding claims for second homes and transport etc to enable MPS to carry out their job. All of these things are either subsidised or claimed on expenses paid for by the Tax Payer and yet MPS cannot afford to live comfortably or pay for their fancy coffee pods themselves? Put your hand in your own pocket. Spend a bit of your own cash like the rest of us.

    It’s an absolute joke! Penalising the disabled, the small businesses and the pensioners to try and put a few quid back into the coffers that THEY took out of to fund their luxuries is deplorable.

    I tell you what Mr Starmer and Government, take a pay cut of at least 50% and scrap this extravagant expenses scheme. Find out what it’s like to live without bank of tax payer and weighing up whether food or heating is most important.

    Honestly, I thought the situation with the small boats was bad enough and their hand outs questionable… but I would say this hits hard in a different way. We are now paying for MPS to exploit us. The other ones just exploit us simply because they can because nobody stops it and they owe this country absolutely nothing. But the MPS… well they really should know better. It just shows that they really don’t give a toss about us. The old phrase ‘I’m alright Jack’.. comes to mind.

    This country needs a change and quickly.

  • The Hub of Conversation

    The Glorious British Pub

    Photo by Pavel Danilyuk on Pexels.com

    What has always been a lively hub of conversation and opinion is now becoming a brand new place for the Gestapo, *sorry Government*, to monitor the level of conformity within the flock down at the local boozer.

    Despite Mr Starmers’ assurances in protecting the Right to Free speech, unsurprisingly the Woke minority has whispered sweet nothings into his ear and developed an idea that is not dissimilar to a rather famous novel written by George Orwell. Except this is 2025 and not 1984.

    Incoming: ‘The Ban On Banter’.

    If it wasn’t bad enough that Pubs are being crippled financially by reducing our business rate relief from 75% to 40% and smashing us with the changes to NI Employer Contributions on top of everything else, we are now taking on the role of unpaid Diplomat and babysitter within our own homes!

    Publicans will soon be expected to also monitor what customers may be discussing between themselves over a pint. If an employee then deems this offensive (irrespective of whether the conversation was even directed towards them), then Mr Starmer has demanded that the Publican takes ‘reasonable measures’ to protect the sensitive ears of adult employees that have actively chosen to work in this adult environment.

    It goes without saying that the vast proportion of British people are very aware of what truly is not appropriate for public discussion. Aside from a few moronic individuals who pathetically attempt to sound important in order to justify being a complete dick, society has successfully constructed a set of non-negotiable unwritten beliefs and attitudes which maintain the function of being a tolerant and civil society and not a hateful entity.

    Despite this, we are being pressured to change another much loved aspect of British Culture and Identity to suit a tiny percentage of people who know by shouting ‘I’m offended’ means that shits gonna hit the fan in their favour.

    It is an occupational hazard of working in pubs that you simply won’t agree and you will end up listening to some things you don’t care for. I can also guarantee you will probably end up being bored to death by those who think 5 pints gives them a ticket to Parliament. This is what Pubs are about! Get over it!

    9 times out of 10 anything pushing the boundaries a bit too far in earshot of others is very easily tackled with a simple, light-hearted, ‘is this conversation appropriate?’ 9 times out of 10 most patrons do change the conversation, or lower the volume, as we all have an unwritten set of values and behaviour that makes us a tolerant and civilised society.

    But we are not sheep to the State and nor should we ever be. I take great umbrage in being expected to monitor a bit of banter with such stringency. It’s bad for business and completely unnecessary.

    Will they be recompensation for loss of trade and reputation when Publicans enforce ‘reasonable measures’ but are left without their regulars as they now think it’s a crèche? Will they be compensation for loss of trade and customer reputation resultant from Vexatious tribunals? The banter ban, on face value, seems rather easy for some people to abuse to make a few quid by simply shouting ‘I’m offended and you didn’t care enough about it’.

    I fear Britain is becoming a Nanny state and heading towards being incompatible with the Great British Pub by preventing discussion about anything except the status quo or what is not deemed acceptable by the state.

    I strongly dislike I’m being forced to surrender to this as a result of a decision made by people who live with blinkers on planet cuckoo and have probably never ran a pub or worked in one. By someone who neither understands the consequences nor the logistics of enforcing a ‘Banter Ban’ in an adult alcohol fuelled environment. By someone who gives no regard to anybody else’s enjoyment except those who follow the status quo. By Someone who actively disregards the rights of a Publican to choose their own rules of conduct in their own premises. Why can’t we just accept that some people simply aren’t suited to bar work…

    Because ultimately, it’s the silly banter and the varied conversation that makes the Great British Pub the Great British Pub. Please don’t spoil it Mr Starmer. We really are special and require preservation not annihilation.

    Leave a comment

    No comments to show.