I'll sup from that cup ... or how I learned to love being taxed ...

A report in the Telegraph today says that vast majority of alcohol sold in the UK (71% according to the report) is sold at a discount.

The report goes on to say that in Germany only 19% and in France 22% of alcohol was part of a promotion, whilst European average was 28.5%, with the Netherlands offering 30% of alcohol on sale at discounted prices.

The research by SymphonyIRI Group has emerged as the Government debates introducing a minimum price for alcohol of around 40p per unit. SymphonyIRI said alcohol was on "sale" more than any other product category in the grocery sector.

So let's start with the SymphonyIRI research for whom I've got just one question ... "Discounted from what?" Is there some universal standard price for alcohol?

Now here's one for HMG ... are you really surprised at the level of discounting by the on-trade when we have the second highest level of beer duty in Europe ... that equates to over 40% of all beer duty collected but only 13% of the beer consumed? Hard-working people up and down the land, who having been squeezed by the banking crisis that was not of their making, want an affordable pint in which to drown their sorrows ... what's so wrong with that?

No doubt the anti-drinking lobby and HMG will use this "research" to add gravitas to their claim that Minimum Pricing is required, well perhaps it is within the off-trade where the deepest discounts are applied and the lowest unit price is routinely charged in direct contravention of licensing requirements on retailers to be responsible in their promotional activity.
 

There are also concerns about the amount of alcohol being sold through the internet where a study by the University of Plymouth has found that online alcohol sales had largely fuelled a “significant and emerging battleground” in the efforts to tackle teenage binge drinking. Quelle surprise there then ... not! With next to no control over the sale of booze to minors how come online retailers aren't being subjected to the same level of scrutiny, regulation and control as the (by and large) on-trade?

Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer - Official Portrait June 2012

This administration is now infamous for its inability to "join the dots" when coming up with its policies, none more so than it's woeful attempt at an Alcohol Strategy. So Waldorf & Statler (you posh muppets) here's a couple of suggestions:

Ban the sale of alcohol on-line ... make it a requirement that physical proof of age is required to be seen and verified by an actual responsible human being rather than a useless age-verification algorithm.


Dare to create, not a minimum price, but a Standard Unit Price (SUP) for alcohol from which discounting is regulated, that would level the playing field between on and off trade and in the process allow those who truly add value by providing service, premises and safe controlled environments to consume it in (such as responsible retailers such as pubs) to make a decent return (and living) on the products they sell.

Even the acronym SUP is more appealing (and relevant) to drinkers than MUP (you muppets!) Not only that, but it would cut out all the accounting bullshit that goes on at HMRC to determine whether alcohol is being sold at below cost in the off-trade and thus depriving a hard pressed Exchequer of much needed tax revenues. It might even free up a few bods to chase companies and individuals who use "aggressive" tax avoidance schemes ... you say tomato I say to-mar-to ... you say avoidance ... I say evasion ...

I'm on a roll ... three's a charm ... whilst you're at it why not a Standard Rate of Alcohol Duty (on a sliding scale according to strength if you like) applied to all alcoholic drinks? Level both the supply and demand and allow some true transparency and simplicity in both the retail and manufacturing sectors. Too simple for you? Universal suffrage coupled with universal "suffering" ... and we'll really "all be in it together" bet there wouldn't be so many cases of Moet being delivered to No 11 then . (Honestly not a spoof ... spot the Associated Press copyright in the lower left corner.)

Anyways off to the pub for an over-taxed pint served by a hard-pressed publican in his vastly over-rented Punch pub ...

Breaking news ... London man set to lose job due to minimum pricing ...

"Re-shuffle, what re-shuffle?"

If there's one job loss that I shan't mourn brought on by this administration's disconnected, disjointed and misinformed Alcohol Strategy it will be that of the Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley.

As reported in the redoubtable Independent Lansley is said "to be furious that David Cameron has overruled his concerns over the legality, morality and effectiveness of the proposal designed to tackle Britain's binge-drinking culture. It left Mr Lansley looking isolated and sparked suggestions he will lose his job in the next reshuffle."


Let's just analyse some keywords in that report:

Legality ... I am sure that 'Europe' will have something to say about minimum pricing at some point ... good job the Treasury has all that above inflation alcohol duty escalator money to burn when they appoint a veritable army of high-paid lawyers to defend its decision when it is challenged in the courts.

Morality ... allowing (along with the previous administration) certain elements of the off-trade to continually flout the principle of "responsible retailing" and the four licensing objectives in the Licensing Act, then take it out on the majority of consumers who "drink responsibly" especially those on low incomes ... but let's face it the 'undeserving poor' don't deserve a pint at the end of a hard days graft.

Effectiveness ... unless the minimum unit price is set well above the currently mooted level of 40p it just won't work. Put it to something like £1.20 a unit and the disparity between off-trade pricing and on-trade pricing would all but disappear. There would be no incentive to drink at home when the price one pays in the supermarket is the same as in the pub ... the latter of which, of course, on the whole provides a safe controlled environment for social drinking. (Note to Georgie Porgie ... here's a bit of joined up thinking ... think of the increased corporation tax and VAT this would generate ... gotta pay for all those lawyers!)

Designed ... this implies some sort of intelligence and forethought, something that is clearly not evident in the Alcohol Strategy, unless it has been a carefully crafted 'knee-jerk reaction' to certain reports about the rise in liver disease or hospital admissions .

Isolated ... this will be the feeling a lot of publicans get when the staff and customers have all departed for the night and the long dark night of the soul is upon them. A little reported consequence of this administration's mismanagement of the alcohol has been to further diminish the sustainability of thousands of tied community pubs by steadfastly defying the 'will of parliament' over regulation of the pubcos. As more and more pubs go to the wall, less and less 'safe places' are available for 'responsible drinking' ... let alone the costs in terms of ruined lives and increased benefit costs. Isolated? That'll be the solitary ounce of common sense the Cabinet share between them.

So don't spare a thought for Lansley, it would seem the majority in the NHS won't, he'll be fine with a couple of well paid directorships in the health provision industry ... save your compassion for the ordinary folk of this country who are just trying to make a living and have a pint and a natter come knocking off time.

P.S. Note to picture editor of the Independent - how about using a bottle of wine or spirits next time you run a piece on alcohol and save the images of beer for beer related stories - you lazy git!

Alcohol Education and Research Council’s symposium on home drinking

It would appear that some discussion not motivated by political dogma of the issue of home drinking has been going on ... there are some great statistics from the symposium from a research report in Addiction journal, based on interviews with ‘ill drinkers’ in Edinburgh. As reported in the Morning Advertiser.

"The report’s aim is to support the case for minimum pricing by trying to demonstrate that it will have a significant effect among heavy drinkers in reducing their consumption. I’m not sure it succeeds — and neither, for that matter, are its authors — but some fascinating stuff is thrown up in the process.

The interviewees, patients at two hospitals in the city, were very heavy drinkers indeed, sinking an average of nearly 200 units a week, equivalent to 100 pints of cooking bitter or, more realistically but no less frighteningly, a bottle of vodka a day.

Quite a number exceeded 300 units. One managed 800 units. That’s what I call a drink problem. They were paying an average of 43p a unit, comfortably below the 50p a unit touted as a minimum – and that’s only the average. Cheapest unit price paid was 9p – for two-litre bottles of white cider in the supermarket.

Compared with the general Scottish population the patients were paying 29p less per unit and there was a clear inverse correlation between the amount consumed and the price paid for it, right down the line.

If it’s just the ethanol you’re after that’s rational behaviour, of course. And if the report demonstrates anything, it is that drinking at these undoubtedly dangerous levels is largely an off-trade issue.

Only a quarter of respondents bought any drink at all in the pub or club, and on-trade purchases account for a mere 7.4% of total units consumed.

“Our clinical experience,” say the researchers, “acquired unsystematically from drinkers’ self-reports, suggests that it is sometimes preferable for a dependent drinker to drink in a pub or club where there are external controls on the amount consumed and the level of intoxication and also possible mental health benefits of social interaction.”

Intuitively, this has to be correct, but you crave something more scientific to back it up and, as yet, it doesn’t seem to exist. Which is what makes the AERC symposium interesting, and I look forward to reading the briefing paper that comes out of it, to see what I missed.

As for whether minimum pricing, or any other price constraint, can reduce consumption, the report is honest enough to say that we can’t know until we try it. Charging 9p a unit can’t be right. But price is only one factor in a "multiplicity of determinants that cause people to drink like this."

How can HMG ignore such findings and refuse to do something about the reckless behaviour of supermarkets? Still an administration that keeps putting off scrapping Trident (cost estimated to be £25 billion) whilst imposing the biggest cuts in living history to other public services (if you can call Trident a public service) is hardly surprising!

And so this is Christmas ...

... and what have you done?

A question that many of us will be asking our "political masters" or the Coalitionistas as I like to call them.

So what has this unholy union of Liberals and Tories done for the much-beleaguered UK pub trade in their first six months in office?

Cast your mind back to the "bonfire of the quangoes" - in their unrelenting pursuit of deficit reduction (at all costs save those of their respective vested interests) - the axe was wielded on a couple of hospitality industry bodies - the Alcohol Education Research Council (AERC) and the Security Industry Authority (SIA).

The AERC’s main aims are to: “Generate and disseminate research based evidence to inform and influence policy and practice” and “to develop the capacity of people and organisations to address alcohol issues.”

Both worthy aims and the AERC has, during the last five years, concentrated on family interventions, community action programmes and screening plus brief interventions for alcohol misuse. They are a repository of a vast library of reports and research into the effects of alcohol that both government and industry readily draw upon.

The Coalition’s response to this sterling work? Cut its funding and turn it into a charitable trust – and we know how well charities do during hard times – especially if their not the cuddly / furry types. Good call Mssrs Clegg and Cameron; at least they’ll be able to use dogma and prejudice to determine their alcohol harm reduction policy without the inconvenience of a publicly funded body calling them to account. After all the AERC will just be another bleeding heart charity soon!

This as they do significant U-turns on combating below cost sales of alcohol by the off-trade (most notably the big supermarkets) which are widely accepted to be a major factor in alcohol abuse (from the health lobby to the police); at the same time the government has allowed back-door powers to ban such innocuous promotions such as pub loyalty cards. Could it be that the pub industry doesn’t contribute as much to party coffers as the supermarkets?

Talk about schizophrenic … this as we are all about to suffer an increase in VAT to 20% in the New Year. The supermarkets will undoubtedly swallow up the VAT increase and continue their irresponsible “deep discounting” whilst pubs won’t be in a position to do the same and their prices will inevitably have to rise. I would contend that this will drive more consumers from the safe and supervised environments of pubs into unregulated homes and street corners and the ensuing increase in anti-social behaviour will still be blamed on pubs!

Then there is the SIA – set up to regulate the security industry (including door-supervisors or “bouncers” as they are so charmingly referred to at times) when the industry was unable to “self-regulate” and was rife with thugs and criminals. The SIA has had two main duties: “The compulsory licensing of individuals undertaking certain designated activities” and “To manage the voluntary Approved Contractor Scheme”

These duties have been admirably fulfilled by the SIA since its inception in following the enactment of the Private Security Industry Act 2001. Is this wholly necessary public body to be applauded and receive continued public funding – no of course it’s not! No, the industry is to return to “self-regulation” after the Olympics in 2012 (we’ll need a credible vetting service for the industry for this international event) – shame we didn’t get the World Cup, then it might have survived until 2018! 

I could go on about the Coalitionistas much vaunted review and reform of the licensing regime, their U-turn on live music provision in pubs, the disproportionate burden their pension reforms will have on small businesses such as independent pubs … but I probably lost you way back.

If I didn’t lose you then think on about what sort of society you want to live in, because one without pubs in all their myriad incarnations will be much the poorer for their absence.

Anyway – Bah! Humbug! And All That To You All!

on trade to shrink to 30% of beer sales by 2018 ... SHOCK! HORROR!

So the head of Molson Coors, Mark Huner, predicts ... well no surprise there with all major brewers bending over and taking it like good 'uns for the supermarkets is it?


And whilst I'm on the subject, with news that Tesco is to slash the price of spirits in the run-up to Christmas — despite admitting "it is not necessary and is financially damaging". (Tesco spirits manager Mark Sudbery told the Metro) it's no wonder the British pub is buggered.

I am just amazed at the hypocrisy of these people, just goes to show that the never-ending pursuit of profit goes before all other considerations, including their duty to be responsible retailers.

Still time to go to local council licensing committees and report such irresponsible behaviour - if only we had a campaign to report these flagrant breaches of the responsible retailing guidelines (and if only the guidelines had some bite!) After all it is the British taxpayer that picks up the bill for these loss leading strategies and in these times of austerity surely this is irresponsible and reprehensible?

Seems to me that the predictions indicate a vast shrinkage in on-trade volumes and that can only mean one thing ... more pub closures.

I predict that the on-trade will have become polarised to an even greater extent by then with managed (food-led) operators leading the market at one end (with cheap on-sale pricing being a major factor in their alcohol sales) and at the other end highly skilled independent operators (probably mostly in the free of tie sector) succeeding with innovative offerings with unique points of difference.

The real losers will be run of the mill tied operators, who become increasingly cash starved by the rapacious activities of their landlords and the tax collectors who simply give up the ghost.

Remember Keynes said " the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent"

He also said "The biggest problem is not to let people accept new ideas, but to let them forget the old ones." and "The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping from old ones" - these statements are a quandary for the pub trade ... how can we evolve when the thing we most cherish lies in the past (the traditional pub) if only he were alive today to add some sage words.

Don't teach my grandmother how to suck eggs ....

Jonathan Downey managing director of The Rushmore Group, a collection of urban bars in London and other major cities, was asked by ALMR chief executive Nick Bish to speak at its autumn debate last week and propose the motion ‘It’s last orders for the British Pub’.

Apparently he thinks that the only ground-breaking advance in the pub industry was the introduction of Sky in 1989, whilst changes to society and improvements in living conditions have elicited no response from the on-trade. Utter bunkum.

He said: “Whilst clearly no one really believes the pub is on its last legs, the industry is under attack from all sides and the message here is clear — as an industry, we first need to accept that there is a lot we should be doing for ourselves if we are to have any hope of making some of the essential changes needed to maintain a thriving business.”

If you want to read more of his self-satisfied rambllings see:

http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/save-comment/88555

So tell us something new Mr Downey ... despite the best efforts of individual licensees who have and still provide(d) comfortable, safe, value for money pubs, many have continued to fall by the wayside, bludgeoned down by crippling rents and taxes, beset by cheap supermarket sales and bound up in a death shroud of red tape ... grandma used to say " there's no such thing as a bad  pub, only a bad publican" and that a "pub is just four walls, it's what you do with it that counts" ... she would, however, be quite literally spinning in her grave (if she hadn't been cremated) to see what is happening to her beloved trade (of over 60 years) ... perhaps you have found a lucrative niche of well-heeled customers for your outlets (whatever "urban bars") are... not all licensees share your good fortune.

It is facile and patronising in the extreme to suggest that the ills that have befallen this industry stem from an inability to change ... my grandmother regaled us of times long gone by when the rise of the Kinemas and the Wireless were innovations (in a time when there were very few restaurants and most pubs served little more than curled up sarnies and pickled eggs) ... the British publican is by and large an extremely adaptable and industrious entrepreneur ... but faced with overwhelming odds not technological advancement s/he is struggling to survive the perfect storm that pubco's, supermarkets and HMG have brewed up.