July 2013

A Question of Balance

Too many pubs fail to put a decent spread of beer types on the bar

IF I RAN a pub, I’d make sure that the range of cask beers included sufficient variety that as few customers as possible would be disappointed. If I had four pumps, I’d have a classic ordinary bitter, a golden ale, a stronger premium bitter and a dark beer, either a mild or a porter. As the number of pumps grew, I might add one or two stronger and/or more exotic beers, but I’d still retain roughly the same proportions. And I’d always remember that, although there’s much to be said for offering more unusual brews, the majority of customers, even in specialist pubs, will be looking for beers in the gold-amber-copper colour range with a strength roughly between 3.5% and 4.5% ABV.

So it’s disappointing when pubs which you think really should know better fail to adhere to the basic principle of offering a balanced beer range. Although by no means the only offenders, Wetherspoon’s often seem particularly bad at this. For example, on one occasion, apart from the usual Ruddles and Abbot, there was nothing on the bar below 5%, which isn’t ideal if you want to keep a clear head at lunchtime. Another time, all the guests were dark beers of some description with the exception of one cloudy Belgian-style witbier which I imagine many casual punters would have sent straight back. It really isn’t good if you’re confronted with eight handpumps but can’t find anything you want to drink, or if in Spoons you find Ruddles the least worst option.

I also recently called in a well-regarded free house (not in this area) which I’ve always found to have a particularly congenial atmosphere. It had eight beers on, one of which was a chocolate porter, and the remaining seven all golden ales. Now, I’ve nothing against golden ales, and many of them are excellent beers, but it would have been nice to see a bit more variety and one or two milds and classic bitters. Wye Valley HPA is a fine brew, but on this occasion their Bitter or Butty Bach might have provided a broader choice.

It’s not difficult, licensees – as far as you can, within the number of beers you can turn over, make sure you offer as wide a variety of strengths and styles as practicable, and don’t neglect beers of sessionable strength in the amber and copper colour range.

Party Pooper

It’s a licensee’s right to bar admission to large parties to maintain his pub’s character

IT HAS BEEN reported that the Blue Bell pub in York has been excluded from the 2014 “Good Beer Guide” by the local branch of CAMRA because at times it supposedly operates a restrictive admissions policy. Now, this is a pub I am very familiar with and would place it in my Top Ten of British pubs. It’s a tiny, unspoilt place with front public bar, central servery and rear snug, connected by a corridor along one side. Fifty people would fill it. So it’s perhaps understandable that the licensee chooses to put up “Private Party” signs to keep out rowdy stag and hen parties visiting the city on weekend evenings. He says: “We do get nice strangers coming in the pub but on Saturday nights and race days York city centre is a nightmare.”

Realistically, apart from a few hours on Friday and Saturday nights, casual visitors are not going to have any problem gaining admission, and even then I would imagine all that it takes is to ask politely. The main impact of excluding the pub from the “Guide” will not be to cost it any trade, but simply to deprive some visitors to the city of the opportunity to experience one of Britain’s true classic pubs. Maybe a more diplomatic and tongue-in-cheek approach would have been to follow the example of one Bristol licensee and put up a sign saying “No Idiot Pub Crawls”.

June 2013

Down Escalator

The success of the duty escalator campaign was due to the entire pub and brewing trade singing from the same hymnsheet

THE NAME of Derick Heathcoat-Amory is not one that is likely to be familiar to the modern-day beer drinker, but his claim to fame is that, in 1959, he became the only post-war Chancellor of the Exchequer to actually cut beer duty. Until now, that is. During the past year, CAMRA led a high-profile campaign to scrap the Beer Duty Escalator, which was introduced by Alastair Darling in 2008 and each year increased the level of beer duty by 2% over and above the rate of inflation.

Many, including myself, were somewhat sceptical of the chances of success, given the dire state of the public finances and the general climate of anti-drink scaremongering. However, in the event, in his budget in March, George Osborne not only scrapped the escalator but went two steps further and actually cut the main rate of beer duty by 2%. This must rank as one of CAMRA’s greatest campaigning achievements in the lifetime of the organisation.

An important factor in this was getting the entire brewing and pub trade speaking with one voice, and bringing industry organisations such as the British Beer & Pub Association (BBPA) and Society of Independent Brewers (SIBA) onside. The argument that the negative impact of the escalator on pubs had wider social implications struck a chord well outside the confines of the trade, and the campaign was given strong support by voices such as the Sun newspaper and the Taxpayers’ Alliance whom some CAMRA members might not regard as natural bedfellows. In contrast, appeals to government based on claims that one section of the industry was gaining an unfair advantage have invariably met with failure. United we stand, divided we fall is a crucial lesson to be learned.

At times the campaign against the escalator was (maybe understandably) guilty of overstating the negative impact it had on the pub trade. Of course it didn’t help, but it was only one of a number of factors working against pubs. Thus the duty cut should not be seen as a magic bullet. One excuse for lack of success has now been taken away, and it is now up to pubs to respond in an enterprising and imaginative manner and deliver more competitive prices to customers. Those who just use it as a means of fattening their margins do not deserve to prosper.

The escalator was maintained for all other categories of alcoholic drinks, leading to some indignation from the wine and spirits sectors. To some extent this was just redressing the balance, as there were at least two occasions during the last couple of decades when Kenneth Clarke and Gordon Brown froze spirits duty while raising that for beer. However, it has been widely pointed out that Britain’s high levels of duty across the board (either second or third in the EU, depending on the type of drink) have severe negative consequences in encouraging smuggling and illegal distilling. Hopefully next year will see the escalator scrapped for all drinks.

Cider is an unusual case, as the general level of duty is much lower than that on beer for products of comparable strength. Traditional cidermakers have defended this on the grounds of the investment needed in orchards and lengthy fermentation periods but, on the other hand, it does give a cost advantage to some industrial products that seem to have little connection with the Herefordshire or Somerset countryside. In 2010, Alastair Darling proposed an across-the-board 10% hike in cider duty, which met with considerable resistance in the West Country and was cancelled by the incoming Coalition government. Maybe a better solution, rather than a general increase that would hit all producers, would be to raise the proportion of pure apple juice required to qualify for the lower rate from the current 35% to something like two-thirds or three-quarters. Products not meeting that requirement would be taxed at the higher rate for “made-wine”, which is similar to that for beer.

May 2013

Twenty Years On

The first ten years weren’t bad, but the second have been disastrous for the British pub

THIS MONTH marks the twentieth anniversary of this column, which originally began in “Opening Times” in May 1993. I’d wager it’s the longest continuously running opinion column in any local CAMRA publication.

Ten years ago, I reflected on developments during that period and reached the conclusion that, while there had been some negative trends, overall there was still much to celebrate: “While you’re less likely now to find a good pint simply by going in pubs at random, the best pubs now are better than ever before. There are plenty of superb drinking establishments about, both old favourites and ones that have sprung up in the past few years. And the choice and quality of beers available, if you’re prepared to make a little effort to seek them out, is enormously better than it once was.”

However, during the following ten years, things have taken a dramatic turn for the worse. While many new breweries have opened up, and the choice of beer in specialist pubs has shown a further massive expansion, for the pub trade as a whole, things have been little short of disastrous. At least a fifth of the pubs that were open in 2003 have now closed, and it is hard to make a road journey of any length off the motorway network without encountering a depressing sequence of boarded-up pubs. Beer sales in pubs are 37% down over the ten-year period.

This is the result of a perfect storm of adverse factors. The trade has been battered by the twin punches of the smoking ban and the duty escalator, while there have been two related but distinct trends of the general demonisation of even moderate alcohol consumption, and the growing view that drinking needs to be ringfenced from the routine of everyday life. People place far more emphasis on not touching a drop in “normal” situations than they used to. Just “going to the pub”, without involving a meal, is something that is becoming no longer an acceptable leisure pursuit in polite society.

Outside of urban centres, many of the pubs that survive have gone over to food to such an extent that they are now in effect restaurants, not social meeting places. In a sense that is an inevitable reaction to the changing market-place, and pub owners can’t really be blamed for doing it, but it still renders them radically different places. Where the all-purpose pub does survive, its trade often seems thin and apologetic, and far from the parade of human nature that once could be seen. The trade is also much more concentrated towards the traditional weekend busy periods – lunchtimes and early evenings can be utterly dead.

Sadly, pubs, as a seven days, fourteen sessions a week, institution, are a shadow of their former selves. Over the years, I have had great times in pubs that I would not have missed for anything, but I suspect if I was just embarking on the world of adulthood today, regular pubgoing would not even feature on the agenda. Yes, there are still good pubs to be found, and good times to be had in them, but their overall place in our national life is greatly diminished from what it once was, and that trend shows no sign of abating.

A further unwelcome feature of recent years is how some who claim to stand up for pubs have sought to gain short-term advantage from an accommodation with the anti-drink lobby that ultimately can only end in tears. The success of pubs depends on wider social attitudes. A society in which the regular, moderate consumption of alcohol is viewed in a relaxed, tolerant way as a normal part of everyday life will have thriving pubs. On the other hand, pubs will struggle when alcohol is widely regarded in a censorious and disapproving manner.

April 2013

Pricing Drinkers Back into the Pub?

It is delusional to believe that minimum alcohol pricing will do anything to help the pub trade

SOME PEOPLE in the drinks trade such as Greene King boss Rooney Anand seem to have got the idea that minimum alcohol pricing would be a way of redressing the balance between on- and off-trade consumption and encouraging people back into pubs. However, Tim Martin of Wetherspoon’s was closer to the mark when he described minimum pricing as “utter bollocks, basically.”

In practice it’s hard to see how it would generate a single extra customer for pubs. For a start, it’s fairly obvious that if you increase the price of A, but leave B the same, it doesn’t make B any cheaper, or give people any more money to spend on it. Perhaps it might lead the odd person to go back to B because A is no longer such an irresistible bargain, but on the other hand it will increase costs overall and potentially lead people to cut back on B. It certainly won’t put any more money in anyone’s pocket apart from brewers and retailers.

In a survey carried out by YouGov [1], 39% of respondents said that minimum pricing would lead to them drinking less in pubs and bars, while fewer than 1% said they would drink more. Another poll by ComRes [2] showed below 20% support for the plan amongst the population as a whole, so it can’t exactly be said to command broad popular support.

Much of the rhetoric surrounding minimum pricing concerns problem drinkers downing dirt-cheap white cider, super lagers, budget vodka and the like. While it would undoubtedly raise the price of their favoured tipple, is it really going to persuade them to start using pubs instead? And would the pubs want them anyway? On the other hand, before discounting, the price of most mainstream branded alcoholic drinks is already 45p or more a unit, so it will make no difference whatsoever. Obviously it would affect the price of some products that are being discounted, but even so they would still be markedly cheaper than the equivalent in pubs. No doubt it would to a small extent cut overall consumption, but people aren’t suddenly going to stop “pre-loading” because the price of a bottle of cheap vodka has gone up from £10 to £12.

The reasons for the long-term decline of the on-trade relative to the off-trade lie in a variety of social changes over the years that go well beyond price alone. If you want a drink, it isn’t a simple either-or choice as to whether to have it at home or in the pub – you need an actual occasion to prompt you to visit the pub. Even if beer was a pound a pint, pubs wouldn’t be doing anything like the trade they were thirty years ago, especially at lunchtimes.

It is also suggested that this change in the marketplace is something that has been brought about as part of a deliberate policy by the major supermarkets. However, in reality, while they may be able to tweak customer preferences to a limited extent, supermarkets can only sell what people want to buy. They are, by and large, responding to consumer demand, not creating it out of thin air. If they really could manipulate the market to the extent that is claimed, then they would have discovered the Holy Grail of business.

Minimum pricing would also set a precedent for government regulation of drink prices that it would be naïve to assume would never be extended in some way to pubs. It is short-sighted in the extreme for one section of the drinks trade to seek a temporary advantage from what is essentially an anti-drink measure. In the words of Winston Churchill, “an appeaser is one who feeds the crocodile hoping it will eat him last.” Anyone with an interest in alcoholic drinks as producer, retailer or consumer who feels any sneaking sympathy with minimum pricing should reflect long and hard on that proposition.

References:

[1] http://www.sabmiller.com/index.asp?pageid=149&newsid=2109

[2] http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/General-News/Fewer-than-one-in-five-people-support-minimum-pricing

March 2013

Not What it Used to Be

The idea that familiar beers have become less distinctive may be more than just nostalgia

IT’S NOT UNCOMMON to hear people complaining that many well-known cask beers have become blander over the years and have lost much of the character they once had. It’s tempting to dismiss this as simply looking back on the past through rose-tinted spectacles, and it is certainly true that as you get older your tastebuds become less sensitive. It may also be the case that the introduction of some very strongly-flavoured brews in recent years has made some of the established ones pale in comparison.

However, a couple of months ago, Peter Alexander wrote about how some of the major brewers have admitted making lager brands less bitter in a bid to gain wider acceptability, and it is hard to believe that the same never happens with real ales. It is certainly my subjective impression that many beers that have been around since the 1970s are not as distinctive as they once were. One where it’s hard to argue this hasn’t happened is Holt’s Bitter, which is still an excellent beer when well kept, but over the years has become noticeably rounder and mellower in flavour, and darker in colour, compared with the pale, “shockingly bitter” brew described in early editions of the “Good Beer Guide”.

There may be other factors at work, though. One is that beers once confined to brewers’ tied estates, where they had some control over how they were kept, have now become widely available in the free trade and pub company outlets where standards of cellarmanship are not as consistent and therefore the average quality encountered is not as good. This undoubtedly was the case when many previously keg-only Whitbread pubs began stocking Marston’s Pedigree in the 1980s, and seems to apply today to, for example, Taylor’s Landlord.

I also suspect that financial pressures to turn stock over as quickly as possible lead many pubs to put beers on as soon as they have dropped bright in the cellar and not give them sufficient conditioning time to develop their full flavour. It has often been remarked how some pubs manage to coax depths of flavour out of beers widely dismissed as a bit dull, and maybe serving beer before it has had time to mature properly in the cellar is one of the main reasons why beers don’t seem as distinctive as they once were.

Sharing the Pain

The decline in beer sales is now hitting both on- and off-trades equally

ONE OF THE major trends in the beer market in recent years has been the steady move from pub to at-home drinking. According to statistics produced by the British Beer and Pub Association, in 1997, the on-trade accounted for 71% of total beer consumption, a figure that had fallen to 52% by 2012. This is often simplistically blamed on supermarket discounting, although in reality the reasons behind the shift are much more varied and complex.

However, the latest figures tell a different story and suggest that this trend has come to a grinding halt. In the twelve months to December 2012, the total UK beer market declined by 4.7% compared with the previous year, with the falls in the on- and off-trades being pretty much the same. The malign effects of the beer duty escalator must bear a large share of the blame for this but, even if it once contained an element of truth, it is wide of the mark to suggest that cheap beer in Tesco is currently killing pubs.

February 2013

Dull or Shiny Spoons?

Have Wetherspoon’s proved a blessing or a curse for British pubgoers?

OVER THE past twenty years, the rise of Wetherspoon’s from very small beginnings has been one of the most obvious changes in the British pub scene. They now have over 850 branches, and one or more of their pubs can be found in pretty much every substantial town in the country. Their large average size means that they command a much higher market share than that figure might suggest, and it is reckoned they now account for one in ten of all pints of real ale sold. Like many new developments, they have strongly divided opinion and sparked some passionate debates over whether, on balance, they have been a good or bad thing.

In their favour, they have enjoyed conspicuous success during a period when large swathes of the pub trade have been struggling. Most of their pubs have been brand-new openings rather than having been bought from other pub operators. All of their pubs sell a range of real ales, and they are strong supporters of small independent breweries. In many of the places they operate they have by far the best choice of beer in town. No less than 256 of their pubs now feature in CAMRA’s “Good Beer Guide”. They have introduced customer-focused measures such as all-day opening and all-day food which, even after the 1980s liberalisation of licensing hours, were still rare. They offer conspicuously good value across the whole range of food and drink, and their pubs are bright and welcoming and attract a wide range of customers from all age groups. Their Chairman, Tim Martin, has been an articulate and outspoken defender of pubs and drinkers in opposition to the government and the anti-drink lobby.

On the other hand, their detractors argue that their establishments are soulless, open-plan drinking barns singularly devoid of traditional pub atmosphere. One way they achieve low prices is economising on staff numbers, resulting in endless waits at the bar and tables groaning with uncollected glasses. Their food is specified down to a price, rigorously portion-controlled and warmed up in a microwave. Their wide range of customers often seems to be dominated by elderly drunks and single mothers with offspring in tow. Perhaps most telling of all, many paint them as the Tesco of the pub world, using their financial muscle to drive down prices from suppliers and ruthlessly undercut the local competition. They end up replacing characterful, independent pubs with standardised corporate drinking outlets with the same range of food and drink and general ambiance from Penzance to Wick. You know what you’re getting with a Wetherspoon’s, but that’s because, like McDonalds or Starbucks, they’re basically all the same.

I have to say that, all things considered, I tend to incline more to the first view than the second. You can’t knock their success, and, at a time when closed and boarded pubs are a common sight, they are opening dozens of new ones every year in a variety of locations. They have hit upon a formula that obviously works and pulls the customers in. They started from a single pub thirty years ago, and the same business opportunities have been open to everyone, but nobody else has taken them to anything like the same extent.

Pubs, just like any other business sector, benefit from healthy competition, and, when Wetherspoon’s were starting up, much of the pub trade was very complacent. However, their formula is basically to do a wide range of things reasonably well, and if you choose to specialise you can still make a decent living. Wherever there’s a Wetherspoon’s, not too far away there will be pubs with one or more of better food, better beer, a more traditional and intimate atmosphere, better pub games and better live music. Yes, the kind of bog-standard pub that tries to be all things to all men may struggle, but perhaps that’s no bad thing.

My biggest criticism is that, with few exceptions, they’re very “unpubby” in feel, with open-plan layouts avoiding internal divisions and traditional pub-style fixed bench seating. Whatever else it may be, a Wetherspoon’s pub is scarcely ever cosy. However, I’ve reached the conclusion that’s a deliberate policy to appeal to customers for whom old-fashioned pubs came across as a touch intimidating.

January 2013

Going to the Dogs

A pub that welcomes man’s best friend is likely to be welcoming to people too

THE LONG-RUNNING “Fred Basset” newspaper cartoon strip consists of a series of variations on about four underlying stories, one of which is when Fred’s master claims to be taking him out for a walk but – surprise, surprise – ends up calling in to the local pub for a pint. What could be more pleasant and sociable than popping in for a couple and a natter while your faithful hound sits patiently and recovers his breath for the homeward leg?

Yet, unaccountably, many pubs seem to have an objection to dogs, even the best-behaved ones, and put up officious notices saying “No Dogs Except Guide Dogs” – which, of course, they have to admit by law. Maybe you can understand this in a heavily food-oriented pub where diners don’t want to have to put up with pooches begging for scraps, but even there surely a dog-friendly drinking area could be set aside.

Some licensees seem to have a narrow-minded attitude reminiscent of the old-fashioned park-keeper, and delight in issuing instructions to their customers as to what they should not do. Yet, in my experience, the vast majority of dogs in pubs are well-behaved and are content just to sit quietly under a table. I recall recently being in a pub where a guy got up to leave and took with him a large black poodle that I hadn’t even noticed was there at all.

Indeed, one couple of dog-lovers told me that, even if they don’t have their dog with them, they often ask whether a pub welcomes dogs. “Without fail,” they said, “all the pubs which say no turn out to be rather soulless, unfriendly places which we wouldn’t choose to visit again – no matter how nice they look, or how ‘reasonable’ their excuses are for not allowing them – whereas the ones which say yes are always warm, friendly and sociable. Although it has surprised a few bar staff when we walk in, having asked if dogs are allowed, without said pooch in tow.”

So surely it’s time for more pubs to extend a warm welcome to man’s best friend – provided he behaves himself – and realise that promoting a friendly, unstuffy, tolerant atmosphere is likely to be good for business.

Oh Yes You Are!

Claims that anti-drink lobbyists are not being killjoys ring distinctly hollow

ANTI-DRINK pressure group Alcohol Concern have issued a call for people to abstain totally from alcohol during January. Obviously many people will be forced to cut down simply because of being skint after the festive season, but this is taking things to another level. Spokeswoman Emily Robinson said:

“Many of us think the way we drink isn't a problem, but even having just a few beers after work or a few glasses of wine at home too often can take you over safe limits and store up problems for the future.

“We're challenging people to take part in Dry January and try giving up booze for 31 days, and if it sounds like a big ask you're exactly the person we want to join us and have a go.

“We're not being killjoys or telling people to never drink again. We just think this provides the perfect opportunity for all of us to take a breather and get thinking about our drinking.”

Er, isn’t killjoys exactly what you are being? And those so-called “safe limits” are a load of nonsense plucked out of thin air by you and your neo-Prohibitionist friends. Of course, if every drinker took them at their word, most of the pubs in the country would be out of business by the end of the month. What a result that would be! Somehow I doubt whether we will see them picketing the National Winter Ales Festival later this month.

A group called “Drinkuary” has been set up as a counterweight to this joyless miserabilism – go along to their website at www.drinkuary.org and take a look.

December 2012

Responsible Reductions?

Official moves to water beer down are patronising and likely to be counter-productive

BACK IN 2009, I predicted that we were likely to see the government aim to “persuade” brewers to voluntarily reduce the strength of widely-available beers in the interest of public health. And, while I take no pleasure from successful crystal ball gazing, so it has come to pass, with the government announcing a “Responsibility Deal” earlier this year with the major drinks manufacturers in which they undertook to take one billion alcohol units out of the market by 2015.

So far, we have seen the strength of several top-selling premium lagers such as Stella Artois and Carlsberg Export reduced from 5.0% to 4.8%, and that of canned and bottled Strongbow from 5.3% to 5.0%. Although perhaps done for different reasons, a number of well-known cask beers such as Bombardier and Batemans XXXB have also had their strength cut.

This has been described by the House of Commons health select committee as no more than a token gesture. Maybe it is, but in a competitive market there must come a point when such strength reductions start to encounter consumer resistance, especially if not everyone moves at once. Drinkers are not stupid, and in reaction to such moves there is every likelihood that they will start to drink more to compensate, or switch to other beers where the strength has not been cut, or even transfer their allegiance to other drinks categories.

It’s also predictably disappointing how the focus of strength reductions is always placed on beer and cider, never on wine or spirits. Indeed, with spirits, EU law prevents them being sold at below 37.5% ABV.

And, if the powers-that-be do not think the brewers have gone far enough, there must be a real risk in the future that we will see further tiers of higher beer duty introduced, probably kicking in at a level well below 5%, and also the government setting the drinks industry a year-on-year target for a reduction in the average strength of beer and cider sold in the UK. Within a few years, we may be left with little choice but to drink weak and watery beers.

Which People’s Pint?

Lower duty for 2.8% beers is a pointless gesture if nobody wants to drink them

FROM October 1st last year, the duty on beers of 2.8% ABV or below was halved, in an attempt to encourage the production and consumption of lower-strength brews. This was trumpeted by some who really should have known better as ushering in the era of the “People’s Pint” – low gravity, refreshing beers sold at an affordable price.

However, on the ground very little has happened. A few existing products have been reduced in strength to take advantage of the lower rate, most notably Skol lager which was already only 3.0%. Some of the larger brewers have launched new bottled ales, but in general these have either been dismally thin or had an unpleasant gloopy texture stemming from arrested fermentation. There has been virtually nothing in the real ale market, where shelf life is a serious issue. The less alcohol in a beer, the quicker it will go off, which is not ideal for products where demand is low anyway.

In fact, the brewer who seems to have taken this most seriously is Samuel Smith, who have reduced the strength of their keg dark and light milds, and Alpine lager, to 2.8%, and are selling them at a bargain price in their pubs. Indeed, these must be the cheapest regularly-priced draught beers in the country. No doubt they appeal to a particular cost-conscious market, but there’s little evidence of other brewers or pub operators following suit.

Those championing this measure seem to have missed the point that one of the reasons people drink beer is actually that it contains alcohol, and also that alcohol is an essential part of the character of a beer. It is extremely difficult to produce a beer with much appeal to the tastebuds at such a low strength, and few will choose a poor product solely because it is cheap.

November 2012

Careless with the Facts

If university researchers can get their figures wrong by a factor of four, can we trust any of their work?

BACK IN September, the BBC screened an episode of “Panorama” entitled “Old, Drunk and Disorderly?”, taking a predictably hysterical line towards levels of drinking amongst older people, and presented by the erstwhile “thinking man’s crumpet” Joan Bakewell (incidentally a native of Stockport). The programme made the somewhat surprising claim, apparently based on research by Sheffield University, that imposing a minimum alcohol price of 50p per unit would, over a ten-year period, save the lives of no less than 50,000 older people in England. When the total of deaths wholly or mainly attributable to alcohol amongst all age groups is running at about 7,000 a year in England, such a figure is hard to believe, to say the least.

This was challenged by a member of the public and, after investigation, it turned out that the original figure had been overstated by more than four times. The actual figure, based on the research, was more like 11,500. This led to an embarrassing retraction on the the BBC website, and Ms Bakewell being called back in to the studio to re-record the relevant sections of the programme for BBC iPlayer.

It doesn’t say much for the standards of journalistic rigour practised at the BBC nowadays that such a self-evidently questionable claim was allowed to pass without challenge. And, given that an error of this magnitude managed to get through the system of academic peer review, what credence can we give to any of the research produced by the University of Sheffield that is being used to support the case for minimum pricing?

Even 1,150 a year, which is a sixth of the total, seems a questionable figure. The truth is that, as it has never been tried, we simply do not know what the impact would be, and it is well-known that across-the-board reductions in average consumption are not necessarily reflected equally amongst all categories of drinkers. Alcohol consumption is already steadily falling year-on-year, and I would guess that, in practice, it would be hard to spot any significant variation from existing trends.

This is also another example of a growing trend to portray the older generation as being irresponsible and criticising them whenever they have the temerity to actually enjoy themselves.

Real Beer, Real Counties

Traditional beers should be associated with traditional counties, not their modern keg equivalents

LOCAL Stockport brewery Robinson’s have recently, as part of their rebranding exercise, adopted the identity of “Cheshire Family Brewers”. Some have jibbed at this, saying it is living in the past, and that Stockport was moved from Cheshire to Greater Manchester in 1974. However, it was never the intention of the 1974 local government reforms to change geography. As a spokesman for the Department of the Environment said at the time: “The new county boundaries are solely for the purpose of defining areas of local government. They are administrative areas, and will not alter the traditional boundaries of Counties, nor is it intended that the loyalties of people living in them will change.”

Since then, we have seen a whole raft of piecemeal reforms to the 1974 structure, which has resulted in a confusing and inconsistent mishmash of administrative areas with different statuses and levels of power. As argued by that admirable organisation, The Association of British Counties, “what we need is a fixed frame of popular geographical reference that is independent of the successive whims of local government reorganisation”. This happens in Northern Ireland, which has been divided into 26 unitary districts, but where people still continue to strongly identify themselves with its six traditional counties. So why can’t the same work in England?

Stockport, in geographical terms, is indisputably within the county of Cheshire, and long may it and its beers remain so!

October 2012

A Pump too Far?

Will some pubs simply never have sufficient demand to make real ale viable?

“OPENING TIMES” is a magazine produced by the local branch of the Campaign for Real Ale, and so obviously promoting the availability of real ale is one of its core aims. If a pub has put on real ale, that is naturally reported positively as a “gain”, whereas if it has been removed, it is viewed negatively as a “loss”. Any pub encountered on a “Stagger” serving only keg beers will be briefly dismissed as “no real ale”. So it’s not surprising that some pubs, feeling they may be missing out on publicity, have decided to put real ale on their bar where there was none before. If they can make a go of it, that’s all to the good.

However, real ale isn’t just like any other product – you can’t just stock it and forget it. You have to take some degree of care to look after it properly, and it also needs a certain level of turnover to stop it going off. It’s also, unlike in the past, no longer a matter of simply replacing keg bitter with cask bitter, as real ale brands are now very much distinct from keg. So you have to do one or both of persuading your existing drinkers to switch, and attracting new customers who want to drink it.

In recent months, sadly, we have encountered a handful of previously keg-only pubs that have put real ale on, but haven’t been succeeding on the above criteria. The beer offered has varied from extremely tired, through borderline “on-the-turn”, to absolute vinegar. In the last case, it was handed back and a refund provided without question.

“Opening Times” is entirely within its rights to severely criticise licensees for not looking after their beer properly. But, if poor quality is entirely due to low or erratic turnover, does it maybe need to be accepted that some pubs, because of the profile of their trade, are never going to be fertile soil for real ale, and they should not be criticised too harshly for recognising that stocking it is simply not viable?

Sorry, This Beer’s Off!

Some pub customers are still far too reluctant to return poor beer to the bar

ON A TOUR of Scotland, some friends called in to a hotel in a remote location on the North-West coast. They were pleased to see a handpump on the bar, and so ordered a round of pints which they took outside to drink. However, apparently the beer was so vile that they just left it on the table and walked away. Given that they are not exactly a bunch of shrinking violets, I was surprised to hear that they hadn’t gone back in and asked for it either to be changed or a refund given.

Admittedly, sometimes you feel that you just can’t be bothered, particularly if the beer’s only borderline returnable and it’s somewhere you won’t be going again. I have occasionally left near-full pints and walked away that in a familiar pub I would undoubtedly have returned with a comment like “sorry, but this really isn’t on very good form today”. After all, you’re going out for a relaxing drink, not a confrontation.

But, to my mind, if beer is blatantly sour or murky, then really it’s almost your duty to take it back and politely request that something should be done about it. British people are still too often unwilling to “make a fuss” or “cause a scene”, and this reluctance to point out poor beer ultimately does the reputation of real ale no good. On several occasions I’ve seen people who really should know better struggling through seriously below-par pints that should have been sent straight back.

September 2012

Taste the Difference

Pub food was far more interesting and surprising thirty years ago

ON A FEW occasions, I’ve made comments along the lines that, thirty years ago, food in pubs was often more varied and innovative than it is now. This has often been met with incredulity and people saying “from what I remember it was absolute rubbish”. So it’s worth trying to explain what I mean. I will start with an important caveat – I freely admit to being a somewhat picky and idiosyncratic eater, so I don’t remotely claim that what I say about food is in any way authoritative or applicable to the general population. In particular I can’t stand the bad side of “traditional English” – the gristly meat, lumpy gravy, tasteless spuds and soggy veg.

Back in those days, pub food was more in its infancy, and to a large extent licensees were left to their own devices. Even in managed pubs, food was usually the licensee’s perk. While there were Berni Inns and the like, the chain dining pub was virtually unknown. There was a huge disparity amongst what was on offer – some was dreadful, some was superb, and so going in new pubs could be a voyage of discovery. Pubs were still experimenting and finding out what worked and what didn’t. It could well be described as a wide variety of simple, informal food, more food for existing drinkers than food for a destination meal out.

You were much more likely to see substantial snacks alongside main meals, for example Cumberland sausage with crusty bread or smoked mackerel with bread and butter. The White Hart at Chobham in Surrey, near to where I was living then, did a main course “Mushrooms Bistingo” – breaded mushrooms with garlic mayonnaise and bread – which I still remember now. Quite a few pubs offered extensive cold buffets, something you never see nowadays. The one at the Bull’s Head in King’s Norton, Birmingham, particularly sticks in my mind. And you were much more likely to get a proper Ploughman’s than the pathetic cheese salad with a roll that often passes for it nowadays.

Back in those days, many pubs served pizzas, which at the time were in the vanguard of the reaction against old-fashioned stodge. I remember having excellent pizzas, for example, at the now-closed Highwayman at Rainow. While often derided nowadays, pizzas still form the core of the menu at fashionable restaurant chains like Pizza Express and Ask. But when did you last see a pizza on the menu in a pub? (Praise must go to the refreshingly different pizza-centred menu recently introduced at the Plough in Heaton Moor)

Some pubs made a speciality of particular national cuisines from around the world. I remember one featuring Austrian and Balkan dishes, and several with a Mexican-themed menu, again something you don’t see now. The modern focus on locally-sourced ingredients, while laudable in some ways, tends to restrict the range of dishes that is offered. All too often, there seems to be a consciously retro emphasis on nursery food and public school dinners, when to my mind there should be more Mediterranean and less Marlborough College.

Far too many pubs nowadays offer, with a few variations, a predictable, standardised menu of “pub grub” majoring on traditional “meat, spuds and veg” dishes and a handful of assimilated favourites such as lasagne and chill con carne. There is remarkably little inspiration and innovation, and equally little embrace of the revolution in eating habits that has occurred in Britain over the past thirty or so years. A good indicator of how genuinely progressive a pub’s menu is must be the proportion of main dishes that come with something other than some form of potatoes as the default accompaniment.

Thirty years ago, there was certainly less pub food around. Fewer pubs did food overall, and it was harder to find food in the evenings and Sundays. Some pub food was dire, although that’s still the case today. But there was more variety in terms of approach and styles of presentation, and more of a sense of pubs trying new and different things to see if they worked rather than just settling into a comfort zone. Pub food was, quite simply, more interesting.

August 2012

Five Years On

The smoking ban has devastated the pub trade, but its supporters still refuse to admit it

THE BEGINNING OF JULY saw the fifth anniversary of the introduction of the blanket indoor smoking ban in England. During that period, over 10,000 pubs have closed in England alone, over a sixth of the total that were open before, and beer sales in pubs have fallen by 27%, compared with 13% over the preceding five years [1]. On any road journey through town, suburbs or countryside, the sight of closed and boarded pubs has become depressingly familiar.

Nobody is claiming that the smoking ban has been the sole factor behind the recent wave of pub closures, but there has been a clear step-change in the rate of decline. The recession is often blamed, but in the past pubs, as a kind of “affordable pleasure” have been relatively resilient to economic downturns, and there was a marked increase in closures in the second half of 2007, well before the credit crunch kicked in [2].

Brewers and pub operators from J. W. Lees [3] to J. D. Wetherspoon [4] have reported a significant fall in trade and profitability in the wake of the ban, and there is a wealth of anecdotal evidence from licensees that their trade has been severely affected. In the words of licensee Mark Daniels, who was far from a diehard opponent, “The smoking ban has certainly caused most pubs, especially those that were traditional drinking outlets (like mine, for example), a lot of pain - and it has caused a lot to close, too. To say it hasn't is, frankly, ridiculous and shows a severe lack of knowledge of the problems the pub trade is facing right now.” [5]

While many pubs continue to do reasonably well at the traditional busy weekend times, it is noticeable that they are much quieter at lunchtimes and early evenings, and the “baseload” trade of regulars they once enjoyed is greatly diminished. This affects non-smokers too, as if your smoking friend has stopped going to the pub you might well choose to do the same. The naïvely optimistic forecasts that pubs would attract a whole new wave of non-smoking customers have proved to be totally misplaced.

In hindsight, surely it would have been far better if some compromise could have been reached that allowed smoking to continue in separate rooms in pubs, but ensured provision for those who preferred a non-smoking environment. This would have undoubtedly have avoided much of the damage that has ensued. If those who supported the ban back in 2007 were prepared to admit they had been wrong, they might be deserving of some respect, but by continuing to insist in the face of all the evidence that it has done no harm they forfeit all credibility.

It was always claimed by supporters of the ban that smoking was a special case, and that the principle would not be extended. However, it is now becoming ever more clear that, just as predicted by opponents of the ban, the campaign against smoking is being used as a template for action in other areas, including many aspects of diet, but especially alcohol. For example, there was a recent article in “The Independent” from columnist Steve Richards in which he said “binge-drinking can go the way of smoking”, and drew an explicit parallel between the two [6]. Scarcely a month goes by now without some new anti-drink measure being proposed or implemented, many of which are obviously copied from tobacco control.

In the short term, there may be little chance of any relaxation of the ban, although similar bans have been amended in other countries, but any campaign to defend pubs that does not at least acknowledge the damage it has caused is an exercise in hypocrisy and denial that is doomed to failure. In the words of Chris Snowdon, author of “The Art of Suppression”, the definitive study of modern-day Prohibitionism [7], “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.” [8]

References:

[1] BBPA Beer Barometer – First Quarter 2012

[2] Guardian - Where have all the pubs gone?

[3] "JW Lees, the family-owned brewery based in Middleton, blamed another poor summer and the continuing impact of the smoking ban introduced in 2007 for a 34 per cent drop in profits in the year to March 31, 2009."

Retrieved in 2009 from:

http://www.crainsmanchesterbusiness.co.uk/article/20100118/FREE/100119872/1074/-/-/poor-weather-and-smoking-ban-hangover-hit-jw-lees-profits#

[4] Telegraph - Wetherspoon fumes over smoking ban

[5] Retrieved from The Publican website, 2008, no longer on line

http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=16&storycode=66482

[6] Independent - Binge-drinking can go the way of smoking

[7] The Art of Suppression

[8] Strange, strange bedfellows

---

Note: Opening Times was not published in July 2012