[troll]
Well what a joke . The Labour Party and their fawning familiars have detested pubs for well over a century , naturally as focal points of free discussion entertainment they are at the top of the little list. Heart of Flint dealt them a mortal blow with the hated smoking bann when there were already problems .
The physical reality of the invisible hand of the state following me into the local and stopping me smoking is enraging at a visceral level where bankrupting the country I can somehow live with

That the Party intent on concreting over the Sacred vales of the South to house millions of strangers and in every way doing dirt on the traditions of the country should pretend to be on the side of the pub takes the flavoured pork fat bar snack.

Unbelievable that they’re stll intent on raising taxes on these places…ultimately leaving the good and responsible pubs to die while those pubs that do more to promote binge drinking (or less to dissuade it) can continue as they always do and absorb the costs while raking in a bigger market share while more of their competitors close around them. Disgraceful.

But the duty rise penalises people who sell cheap alcohol – i.e. supermarkets and binge-drinking-type pubs. People who sell expensive alcohol – i.e. normal pubs – gain far more from the VAT cut than they’ll lose from the duty rise. And their competitive position against supermarket sales is improved slightly…

(for example – on a £3 pint, the duty rise is 3p, but the VAT cut is 7p. On a £1 beer can, the duty rise is also 3p, and the VAT cut is a little above 2p)

They gain for a year. Then the VAT cut disappears and the duty rise stays, leaving them in the hole.

The duty rise is still a permanent one for all intents and purposes, one that barely adds anything to the cost of supermarkets selling their booze at super cheap prices and only really benefiting pubs that are over-charging on their beer. And let’s face it, those pubs in rural communities that are charging enough to benefit from this are facing much bigger financial issues than can be helped with any pitiful benefit they do gain here, otherwise they wouldn’t be charging exorbitant prices in the first place.

So yay, a slight readjustment for the short term that makes bugger all difference to the damaging effect supermarkets are having on pubs, to be followed with another readjustment in the next year or so that will return us to the situation we’ve been in previously…probably with yet another hike in excise duty that will further damage the pub trade.

How hard is it, exactly, to tax licensed pubs and bars separately and differently from off-licenses?

Surely if a tax rise amounting to 3% of the retail price ‘barely adds anything’ for supermarkets, then a tax rise amounting to 1% of the retail price would be even less important for pubs? In reality, off-license sales are far more price-competitive than on-trade sales, as the product is homogenous (a tin of Becks from Sainsburys or Costcutter is the same – whereas a pint of Becks in the King’s Arms and the Queens Head can provide very different experiences).

& anyone charging more than about £1.50 for a pint will benefit from the rule change. If you can find any pubs that charge less than that, then a) I’ll get a round in; and b) it’s no wonder they’re struggling financially.

“benefit” in what way? Not in the way every other business will benefit that’s for sure, the pub is being put in to some special category which means it can’t make the same benefits from the tax changes as other small businesses. Fair?

And the tax rise comparability is fairly irrelevant when the price of alcohol in the supermarket, even after this change, is still less than half the price. As I said, this is a short term change that slightly hurts supermarkets more than pubs, but that situation *will* reverse in about a year, and in fact pubs will once again be worse off than the small businesses that will also receive a re-rise in the VAT.

Again, why are we still taxing alcohol sold on-license at the same rate as off-license given the obvious problems with off-license pricing in comparison to their pub competition?

john b.

The calculations are flawed I’m afraid. Excise duty is a direct cost of production for a brewery and thus gross profit margins must be applied to it – if not then the net profit margin is affected downwards and the business will eventually become unviable. So by the time the brewery margin is added the pint is increased by 6 pence. The publican then must add his margin for the very same reasons, and his will be slightly bigger, at 60%. So the price increases by 13 pence/pint.

At £2.50 the vat reduction is 4 pence, so a pint goes up by 9 pence.

This is all pretty basic accounting and has been standard practice in dealing with excise since excise was introduced.

If the idea was to keep alcohol prices level the treasury would have left both vat and duty unchanged.

Thanks for the clarification eddie, it did seem strange that it was touted as “keeping things the same”, but now makes sense. Of course assuming that the publican adds no margin then it would keep prices the same, and perhaps Darling is assuming that publicans will, as they seem to have had to try to do to some degree for years now, swallow costs until they choke on them.

“if not then the net profit margin is affected downwards and the business will eventually become unviable. So by the time the brewery margin is added the pint is increased by 6 pence. The publican then must add his margin for the very same reason”

No, what you’re doing there is confusing a convenient accounting fiction with what actually happens in real life.

What matters, both to the brewer and to the landlord, is return on capital – margins are a useful tool, but don’t actually matter per se (if I buy 1,000,000 spoons for 99p each and sell them for £1 each tomorrow, my margin is tiny – but I’ve still made £10k, and my only cost is the interest foregone on not having £990,000 for a day, so this is all to the good).

If the brewer and landlord pass on the tax rise at cost price, rather than tax rise plus margin, then their return on capital will stay the same – i.e., they’ll make as much money per pint. If they add a margin onto the tax rise, then their return on capital will be higher – i.e., they’ll be using the tax rise as an excuse to make more money.

So if we find that the price of a pint is rising by 9p, this reflects the fact that brewers are making an extra 3p profit per pint sold, and that landlords are making an extra 6p. Which is nice for them, and may help pubs survive, but doesn’t fit the ‘evil government blah blah’ narrative.

Think about it – if the government is only taking an extra 3p but the price is up by 9p, the additional money must be benefiting *someone* in the value chain – it’s not just thrown in an incinerator…

As someone who grew up in pubs, I have to say I think the whole cheap supermarket booze argument is a red herring. Supermarkets have been selling alcohol for 2 decades, a pub is far more than just a drink. A traditional pub is a social space (in the true sense of the word) somewhere you could go alone, with friends, with a partner, with your family, before a wedding, after a funeral, at luchtime, after work or at night and not feel uncomfortable or out of place.

They were not places to eat, network, homework, conduct business meetings, or generally be an unptight, po-faced, health obsessed neurotic automaton who thinks that adding an extra shot of coffe to their coffee falovoured milkshake is an act of rebellion (but enough about starbucks).

It was the smoking ban that killed off the pub, there were some other problems but very few businesses can remain viable after alienating at least 50% of it’s regular customers. What we are left with are restaurants with bars for the over 30s and 2 for one vodka in a test tubes drinking warehouse chains for everyone else. One sucks and the other blows. The ban could have been implemented leaving room for both the traditional and the modern – as in parts of Europe – but that just isn’t the new labour way is it. Pub going=oldthink.

Quite right Matt 80% of pub goers were smokers actually and I cansee with my own eyes what it has done ( Admittedly there were already problems but there was also a loyal core client base)

Supermarkets etc. have nothing to do with it . Thanks New Labour .

“Supermarkets have been selling alcohol for 2 decades, a pub is far more than just a drink. ”

It is, but when that drink becomes so expensive that it is no longer affordable to do much more than just sit, people wonder whether they couldn’t be doing the “more” elsewhere. The problem has never been supermarkets selling alcohol cheaper, it’s the fact that pubs have been forced to sell alcohol at higher prices.

John b,

I like your interpretation of accounting for direct costs but if the industry had adopted that approach the profit on a barrel of beer would still be 2s 6p.

It’s beside the point though; if the government wanted to keep prices ‘broadly the same’ they would have left vat on alcohol at 17.5%. Simple as that.

This way, they get a handy duty increase halfway through the year, which is permanent but offset by a temporary vat increase. There is a 2% above base rate rise in duty coming in the next budget too, and the one after that, and the one after that.

These measures will result in large increases in prices justified by the ‘anti-binge drinking’ argument that they will have absolutely no affect on whatsoever.

Tescos is selling alcohol cheaper than the pub I work in can buy it, thanks to the tie.

It’s not just the supermarkets
It’s not just the smoking ban
It’s not just the pubco beer tie.

It’s a perfect storm of all three and many other concomitant factors which are killing the traditional boozer.

And it has to be said that in some way perhaps the “traditional” boozer needs to die, or rather evolve with changing culture. But the figures just don’t show that pub levels are affected by anything other than the economy and the affluence of their punters.

By all means, we obviously need an actual study that will prove once and for all that the smoking ban affected fuck all in the broad scheme of things, but the figures show that in times of prosperity (or believed prosperity) pub numbers rose, and in years where we’ve been feeling the pinch pubs have closed, smoking ban or not.

Again, I can only speak anecdotally, but the pub I work in has lost several high-spending regulars because they want to have their pint with a fag, and the the rise of non-smoking customers hasn’t happened, except for that we get lots more children in on Sunday lunchtimes. Children don’t spend very much, and quite often parents bring drinks FOR them.

[troll]
And it has to be said that in some way perhaps the “traditional” boozer needs to die, or rather evolve with changing culture

Who asked anyone to change anything ? More proof , were any needed , that change is bad

Cheeky bastard parents.

Whilst the loss of so many local pubs is sad, its probably inevitable. There are many contributing factors from changing tastes to mass immigration. Labour’s property boom has made large pubs a target for developers. Now the market has crashed, the suburbs are blighted by boarded-up pubs, where developers hope to sit it out.

Times have changed. After a days hard manual work, my father would visit the pub or social club several nights a week. I sit on my arse looking at a screen most of the day and I’d rather get some exercise or do something practical than sit in the pub in the evenings. There are so many entertainment options these days and people are a lot wealthier, so dining out has become common place.

I don’t believe the smoking ban has made much of a difference. Most pubs have created an outdoor smoking area. A lot of publicans say its attracted customers previously put off by the smoke.

Its depressing seeing pubs that I once frequented turned into 2 bed flats or yet another empty Indian restaurant (how do they survive?), but I’m as guilty as anyone for not visiting them.

Lee @ 17

Why did they “need” to change ? If people weren’t happy with traditional smoking pubs, there was nothing to stop non-smoking entrepreneurs starting up non-smoking pubs in competition. We actually had a couple of them in Bristol in the mid 90s but they weren’t getting enough business so opened their door to smokers. There have always been restaurants and there have always been cafe bars, supply and demand in balance. Now everywhere is the same, selling the same pretentious food and overpriced alcoholic pop to the same crowd of wannabee euro-yuppies. It’s phoney and it stinks. Change should be socially driven, and this wasn’t, it was sponsored by a vociferous minority of zealots and enforced by top down legislation.

What “changing culture” ? The culture obviously hasn’t changed, as the legions of non-smokers who alledgely only avoided pubs becsue of the smoke have realised that er, they don’t like pubs after all, even smoke free ones, so they are all going out of business. Pubs have been around for centuries, why should they change just because a few middle class health Nazis (who only visit them once a week) don’t like smokers ? I don’t like crowds and loud music, so I don’t go to concerts, if you don’t like smoke, don’t go to pubs.

[troll]
..and don’t forget the working men’s clubs which the smoking bann definitely did kill. You can imagine how much New Labour’s well scrubbed would be meeja parasites care about that .

“Why did they “need” to change ? ”

I am not talking about them having needed to change with smoking, I’m talking about the general need to change. Culture is changing, one way or another…some ways for the worse, and in some ways simply solidifying and bettering the healthy culture we had. It’s my belief that too many pubs veered too far down the more negative angle of modern culture and left themselves susceptible to other forces and are now feeling the pinch. None of this has to do with smoking, as far as I’m concerned.

“Now everywhere is the same, selling the same pretentious food and overpriced alcoholic pop to the same crowd of wannabee euro-yuppies.”

I see you echo my sentiments in this matter 🙂

“Change should be socially driven, and this wasn’t, it was sponsored by a vociferous minority of zealots and enforced by top down legislation.”

Regarding the smoking ban, because I love arguing about it as much as the next guy, it was socially driven. Smoking has socially been driven into being seen as a filthy habit with negative consequences on health and social acceptability. I will re-iterate again, once again because I love doing so, that the most Liberal argument on the table (Life after all comes before Liberty unless you’re a warped libertarians, then it’s only *your* life then Liberty) was the smoking ban. The day that people like yourself call for the ability to shit themselves on public transport without being charged for doing so, is the day I may begin to listen to your arguments about smoking in pubs.

“Pubs have been around for centuries”

In varying numbers, for varying purposes. Currently it would appear we are going through a slump, however the slump started two years before the smoking ban hit. Indeed when I worked in the trade the economics of running a pub as a business in a climate where people were spending less money while out was overwhelmingly apparant to see.

People could still smoke to their hearts content in 2006, but numbers attending pubs and clubs were clearly dwindling (anecdotal evidence alert). People very easily and readily ignore this data and the correlation that is easy to draw with the decline of the number of pubs. They also happily ignore that the industry itself projects to essentially recover from the dip it is currently facing and return to a more “normal” level by 2000-2010 standards in 2010.

But hey, whatever lets you rant about the smoking ban as if it is the cause of the world’s ills! 😉

“If people weren’t happy with traditional smoking pubs, there was nothing to stop non-smoking entrepreneurs starting up non-smoking pubs in competition.”

Actually, there is another possibility. Restrictive licensing which may have inhibited such risk taking. In Europe (well Italy, I suppose), I could see a couple of brands of beer on sale in cafes which doesn’t seem common over here at all. If you are spending a lot on being an alcohol-serving business, I am guessing you end up specialising in it and, therefore, ending up with the smoking clientele. What we really need is proper de-regulation to allow for more diversity of businesses. That would have been the liberal solution to smokey pubs.

Regarding the smoking ban, because I love arguing about it as much as the next guy, it was socially driven. Smoking has socially been driven into being seen as a filthy habit with negative consequences on health and social acceptability

1 This is a lie .I dispute your claim to be a “guy” at all if that implies social acceptability amongst other ‘guys’ ( Blokes I would probably say which is telling ) There was no call for a smoking ban , compromises were available and anecdotally no-one in any pub I have ever been in actually wanted to ban it. Anyone who did would be ostracised by the unquenchable loathing the English feel for the bumptious prig. Perhaps its different in the Nerd and Blackberry round your way , I expect they akll say “But hey !” there ugh

2 Its not a question of life before Liberty it’s a question of to what extent the state can make decisions about risk on your behalf . Why not ban eating fatty foods,(they would love to) , why not ban drinking which is clearly highly damaging both to the drinker and to the by-stander . There is no good reason why all vehicles should not be governed to be incapable of travelling above 60mph and every reason to have a law against coughing in the Winter. The passive smoking myth is brought into being only by ignoring the background of risk due to pollution and in general walking about living . WE all know the absurdities that Health and safety have driven working practices to . What is less well known is that all this has largely been useless and it is actually pressure from Insurers that has driven up standards d when they have risen .

3 The fact that numbers going to pubs were falling was reason to support them not to administer a bossy booted insufferably conceited coup de grace . A similar argument is made against removing the financial disincentive to marry and similarly it is wilfully twisted with loathing for anything that smacks of tradition.

You may feel that your opning about “The world” is terribly important but it is actually utterly irrelevant . My not being allowed to smoke in my own pub is real.

“( Blokes I would probably say which is telling ) ”

Hey, I beat my chest and club women over the head as much as the next guy/bloke/dude/gentlemen.

“There was no call for a smoking ban”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3561483.stm and http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/health/britons%20support%20smoking%20ban%20%20poll/526162 are only the start of opinion polls that show the smoking ban was called for.

“Its not a question of life before Liberty it’s a question of to what extent the state can make decisions about risk on your behalf .”

No, it’s about to what extend the government can make decisions about how you choose to risk and discomfort my life and the lives of others in an indirect manner. See defecation in public. I’m not against the banning of smoking, and I believe the vilification of smokers has certainly gone far enough in their own choices to do to their own bodies what they wish. Smoking in public spaces was never about what you do to yourself though. Ever.

“The passive smoking myth”

Along with the global warming myth, amirite?

“The fact that numbers going to pubs were falling was reason to support them not to administer a bossy booted insufferably conceited coup de grace”

Fact: Scottish pubs have seen zero decline in over half a decade, despite starting their smoking ban earlier and arguably being more rural than English pubs and suffering from worse economic conditions. Culture has to come in somewhere here.

80 % of people who go to the pub are smokers. Almost as many as are drinkers actually. So you are talking out of your scraggy arse .What’s more you are obviously looking and listening out of the same inappropriate orifice. Why not visit a pub? I think you will find if you ever are in one you will quickly satisfy yourself about the lack of enthusiasm. Just ask ..
This survey of which unelected slimy pupae ‘EU Health Commissioner Markos Kyprianou ‘ so approves I assume emanates for that revolting lie machine the EU . I am well aware of the lack of interest his sort have in what anyone might actually want. Lets assume this is more of same “Post democratic “ crap .
“This can only strengthen the momentum towards making European public and workplaces smoke-free by 2009.”…oh fucking lovely and they are banning outside heaters to, more European joy ;lucky we all have £5000 per household to be dictated by that sort of worm.

If you seriously think this has ever been about passive smoking then you are a blinking child with no right to be out without his mummy . Actuaries take no account of passive setting in setting rates and the EL rate for a bar keeper despite this fabulously lethal environment would be about 0.5% … a bricklayer say about three times that a deep sea diver about forty times that a clerical worker about half . That is a proper measure of the risk ,not a fiction erected against the backdrop of a non existent hermetically sealed life .Even then the passive smoking lobby have failed to get anything convincing ,t hey have had more success with , amongst other things broccocli , tight underpants and just about everything else in the known universe .The only real study showed the reverse and even if there are questions over it (energetically propounded by the health funding lobby ) , they would have been brushed aside had the results been “good”.
The risk then is teeny weeny and scarcely noticeable amongst the landscape of risks faced by the innumerable choices we make in each second ,when we are allowed. Got it ?

You say the delightful curl of smoke eulogised by Ezra Pound in the lovely lyric Nicotine , approximates to defecating in Public .If so you are clearly psychotic on which basis we might as well ban ties on the grounds that they appear to shout abuse and turn into pink elephants .. So thank you for the argument from personal anally retentive lunacy . Most impressive. Personally I find whiny health fascists profoundly offensive but I wouldn’t suggest an actual law … yet or at least if I did the punishment would be death by passive smoking which should take until the next ice age ..if there is one

Newmania, I agree with on a number of issues, but not on this one. The ban on smoking in pubs and restaurants was necessary to quicken a cultural change. You’re right, smoking has become socially unacceptable to the majority, but only in a closed public environment. Smoking emits noxious fumes that medical evidence proves can damage the health of others. Your clothes reek for several days after a visit to a pub. Before the ban, I would not eat in a restaurant or pub that allowed smoking. I did not want to suffer because of their selfish pursuit of a quick fix or because they lacked self-control or consideration for others. Smokers don’t tend to puff during their meal as it would ruin their enjoyment of the meal, but they were quite prepared to light up afterwards and ruin the experience for those around them.
Many publicans and some restaurateurs were reluctant to ban smoking because they were scared they would lose custom. I think most publicans have said that this has not happened and those that were lost have been replaced by non-smokers attracted to a more pleasant environment. You’d have to be a sad individual if the sole reason for going to a pub was to smoke. What about the drink, the atmosphere or the social interaction? Who would sacrifice this just because they could not be arsed to puff outside for a few minutes?
I’m all for personal freedoms, and judging by the bitterness and intolerance expressed on this blog, I’m more liberal than most, but smoking in a closed public environment has negative effects on others in the direct vicinity. Sometimes Govt action is required to enable cultural change, otherwise there would still be smoking on planes and the tube and it would be ok to get plastered and then drive home. It was right to ban it; one of the few acts that for which I can congratulate this Labour Govt.

Why not visit a pub?

What a bizarre statement? As if other people on this site haven’t been in a pub recently.

Also, even as someone who opposed the ban, I don’t see how defecating in public is any different from smoking in public? You can insult and rage as much as you like, but it doesn’t make you right. Some people are utterly repulsed by smoking. They’re very offended by it. That’s their prerogative; their right not to be repulsed by other people’s smoke is embodied by the smoking ban.

Defecating in public and smoking are very similar. They’re both unhygienic, smelly, and better executed in the comfort of your own home.

While I always took the smell of pubs as to be a price worth paying – as a non-smoker, I wouldn’t be so understanding if smoking were allowed in an office in which I work. It’s about where we draw the limits (given a yes/no on repealing the ban, I’d now have to think long and hard).

Your righteous indignation about passive smoking is also based on “some” evidence. Yet mountains of evidence suggests that passive smoking is very dangerous. I don’t know either way – I’m not scientist. Neither, I suspect, are you. Yet you remain dogmatically certain. This is why you fail.

“80 % of people who go to the pub are smokers.”

This is nonsense – even on anti-ban lobby groups’ figures, the figure was c.50%

“I don’t see how defecating in public is any different from smoking in public”

While I’m not aware of any private members’ communal defecation clubs, do you think they should be banned if people wanted to start one?

In short – banning smoking in offices, stations, hospitals and other public places where people are forced to go is the right thing to do; banning smoking in pubs, private clubs and other private places where people aren’t forced to go is the wrong thing to do; but luckily it hasn’t had any particular impact on either pub closures or the on/off-trade balance in the UK (ie the slow but steady decline in pub numbers and on-trade sales has continued at exactly the same rate as before).

In short – banning smoking in offices, stations, hospitals and other public places where people are forced to go is the right thing to do; banning smoking in pubs, private clubs and other private places where people aren’t forced to go is the wrong thing to do… ~ John B

I’d agree with that, wholeheartedly.

But I’d still quiver if asked whether to repeal the ban. I’d sit on the fence methinks (a rare, rare thing).

While I’m not aware of any private members’ communal defecation clubs, do you think they should be banned if people wanted to start one?

Private smoking clubs are banned otherwise all pubs would immediately have become private smoking clubs ( The working men’s clubs mounted a last defence …sad) so it would appear that the dirty protest club is better off than the lardy dar men. Ha I agree with John B and Aaron a G string ( his professionals name ) but chavscum ..good old chav scum has let me down.
CS thast the problem .You take a lot of bossy boots and statists like the Liberals and of course they can all combine into an army of clone warriors . They like doing as they are told . Take a lot of people who have a different vision and its like herding cats , that’s why New Labour win . That’s why its so important that you stand up for other people’s liberties . That why I support the hunt , couldn’t care less personally but otherwise they pick us off one by one . That is why it is your moral duty to stink of cigarettes , after all is it really that awful ? Having said that I am not really that dogmatic .There were already a growing number of pubs offering non smoking areas and especially at lunchtime . I think a compromise was available people are understandably paranoid about children and I think it would only be polite to take that into account .

Aaron if you are really unable to differentiate between the dancing wisps of aromatic old Holbourn and human excrement then I would like to sell you some really fantastic drugs of which I have an everlasting supply . I know you people like that sort of thing and I will be happy to be your new dealer

Gentlemen you may defecate

“banning smoking in pubs, private clubs and other private places where people aren’t forced to go is the wrong thing to do; but luckily it hasn’t had any particular impact on either pub closures or the on/off-trade balance in the UK (ie the slow but steady decline in pub numbers and on-trade sales has continued at exactly the same rate as before).”

My only problem with this argument is that it effectively shuts off parts of society with a completely imbalanced choice. Do you wish to risk your health and comfort to take part in a section of society, or cut that away completely? Just because a pub isn’t a place you MUST visit doesn’t mean it isn’t a place people want to. Why should only those that are willing to put up with discomfort and potential harm be the ones that are allowed to partake in that?

Looking anecdotally across the way I’d ask what would happen if all schools suddenly became super religious CofE schools? You’d be able to home school if you really wanted, just like you’d be able to drink at home on your own if you wanted to, but potentially you’re shut off from a part of society because you don’t agree with it. Is that any more right?

I think it should also be said that the lack of support for pubs to accommodate smokers, and the subsequent vilification of smokers now that there is no reason for a person that doesn’t wish to be in the presence of someone smoking to do so, has been absolutely unforgivable.

The smoking ban for me was a very definite line, the last thing we needed to do to ensure that everyone lived fairly with a choice some make to smoke, the fact some are trying to push this further still is going beyond liberal thinking and in to imposition of a viewpoint.

The health risk is negligible not the purpose of the bann and as for comfort the comfort of smokers has been sacrificed entirely for a tiny bossy booted minority who like ordering people around. That many of them call themselves Liberals should be no surprise to anyone.

If you think such people will ever be happy you are sadly deluded about the capacity of such sad sacks to derive pleasure from misery. Drinking next?

“The health risk is negligible not the purpose of the bann and as for comfort the comfort of smokers has been sacrificed entirely for a tiny bossy booted minority who like ordering people around.”

Buy a warm coat, cry me a river.

Pitiless Fiend !