There seems to be something about the smoking ban that encourages intolerance between pub users. Perhaps it is because it panders to the regrettable British tradition of kicking a man when he’s down. I have mentioned before the ludicrous complaint that smokers, having already been excluded from the pub, should be prevented from using the beer garden. However, this is thoroughly trumped by this tale of rank bigotry.
More depressing news, that over 60 pubs are now closed and boarded in five East Lancashire boroughs with a high proportion of small, wet-led street-corner locals. This underlines the devastation of the pub trade that those who don’t venture beyond town centres and leafy suburbs fail to see.
According to a survey by Deloitte, 20% of adults now visit pubs less often following the smoking ban. I suspect any licensee could have told you that for free, but even so - when some smoke ban apologists remain in a state of denial - it’s useful to have confirmation of the bleeding obvious from a reputable source.
The recent CAMRA National Conference decided to set up a Task Group with the remit to “research and build extensive evidence on the importance of community pubs and real ale to the promotion of responsible drinking with the underlying principle of reinforcing the rights of adults to enjoy alcohol responsibly” (my bold). This is potentially one of the most important developments in the history of the Campaign. I have argued in the past that CAMRA has dragged its feet on this issue, seeing the big brewers as the main enemy and indeed occasionally even misguidedly making common cause with anti-drink campaigners in fighting them. However, it has become increasingly clear that the major enemies of pubs and drinkers are now the government and neo-prohibitionist lobby groups.
Someone complained to me that he had gone out into the rather limited outdoor drinking area of one particular pub and found it full of smokers. Now I couldn’t help thinking he was really talking to the wrong person, but this was something that was always going to be an inevitable consequence of the smoking ban. If they’re not allowed to smoke indoors, where else are they supposed to go?
This is an interesting report on comments by the chief executive of Mitchells & Butlers in which he says we have now reached a tipping point in terms of value for money between the on and off-trade. Up to a point, people have been prepared to pay more in the on-trade for atmosphere and conviviality - and, for some, the availability of cask beer - but the latest duty hike combined with the economic downturn are likely to push many drinkers over the edge. Already, much of the serious session drinking that used to take place in pubs has moved to private homes (and has also by and large moved from draught bitter to canned premium lagers).
Not so long ago, it was axiomatic that beer prices in the South-East tended to be at least 50p a pint more than those around here. But recently, I’ve noticed the gap narrowing and even closing altogether. Many pubs in this area, especially those in the more affluent parts, seem to have put through inflation-busting rises that have resulted in £2.40 for a pint of ordinary bitter being commonplace. Yet recently I spent a few days in Buckinghamshire in and around Aylesbury, and found prices generally in the £2.50-£2.60 region. Indeed I encountered the premium Old Hooky in a fairly smart pub at a bargain £2.25, which you would be unlikely to find in a similar pub here. Price differentials now seem to have more to do with the perceived social status of the establishment than with geographical area.
I see Heineken are now looking at introducing 24 oz glasses so they can serve their beer with a “genuine Continental head”. It would be ironic, given all CAMRA’s futile campaigning on the subject, if the impetus for a revival of oversize glasses came not from the real ale sector but from lager.
I see that Stella Artois is now being advertised with the slogan "Only four ingredients - barley, hops, maize and water".
Maize???
Now, I'm not one to argue that only all-malt beers are worth drinking, and indeed many of the finest British ales include brewing sugars. However, you would think that if they included an inferior substitute ingredient in the mash they wouldn't be so keen to shout it from the rooftops.
And whatever happened to yeast?
Maybe the likes of Beck's should get in with a campaign saying "Only four ingredients - barley, hops, yeast and water".
Well, it's only a modest proposal, and falls far short of the complete repeal of the public smoking ban which I would advocate. But anything that undermines this obnoxious and intolerant piece of legislation must be good, so please sign this petition to allow pubs and clubs to apply for smoking licences.
I can’t help thinking that this article entitled Cask Ale Bouncing Back represents a large dose of special pleading. The overall market for beer is contracting, and within that market there is a continuing shift from drinking in the pub to drinking at home. There is less cask beer being drunk now than at any time in the lifetime of CAMRA. A rising share of a rapidly declining market is scant cause for celebration.
On occasions, such as family social gatherings, I have tried canned versions of premium beers such as Abbot Ale. However, compared with bottles they are always disappointingly lacking in condition. These are not the “draughtflow” beers containing a “widget” (which in my experience always taste like foamy dishwater) but it seems the manufacturers deliberately make them less gassy to try to replicate the feel of handpulled beer in the pub. However, all they succeed in doing is producing something that is just, well, flat.
Yum, yet another post about food!
While we are often told that food has been the saviour of the pub trade, I am more and more coming to believe that it has ruined it. The original purpose of a pub was a place where people could meet and socialise over a few drinks. If they wanted a sit-down meal outside the house, they would go to a café or restaurant. Back when I started drinking in the 1970s, this remained very much the case. Many pubs served food, but it was generally very much a sideline and often confined to sandwiches and snacks. Looking back, it is surprising how many of the high-profile rural destination pubs did not serve evening food at all.
In the mid-1980s, my local pub offered no food on Sunday lunchtimes, and was packed throughout the two-hour session from 12 to 2. Now it’s open all day, majors on set Sunday lunches, and sees fewer customers overall and certainly far fewer casual drinkers.
More and more, pubs have expanded their food trade in an attempt to develop their business. In the process they have encroached on the territory of dedicated restaurants and increasingly sacrificed their original character as pubs. We are left with a strange hybrid kind of business that may superficially resemble a pub but in reality is just a second-rate dining outlet. And of course with food comes “family dining”, and places where you could once enjoy a quiet pint have become infested with howling infants.
I can’t help thinking that it would have been better if pubs and restaurants had gone their separate ways, which would leave us with much more welcoming and convivial pubs, albeit perhaps fewer in numbers, and a better everyday dining experience too. This, of course, is something that remains the situation in many Continental countries.
As I’ve said before, it’s an increasingly rare experience, and one that is to be savoured, to come across a proper pub ticking over nicely and doing what it’s supposed to.
Writing in the Daily Mail, Richard Littlejohn pulls no punches in this scathing attack on the government's plans to reduce the drink-drive limit.
