Trickle becomes a flood

Many will have said it was watery piss already, but the next beer to have its strength reduced is Budweiser Draught, which is being reduced from 5% ABV to 4.3% to make it “more sessionable”. Few beer lovers will be shedding any tears over this, but it’s yet another example of the growing trend of beer watering. I suspect few of its drinkers realised it was actually 5% in the first place.

Incidentally, while there is a widespread belief that American beer is weak, this is largely a myth. Most regular US beers, although very pale and bland, conform to the “Continental” 5% standard rather than the British 3.8-4% “session beer” standard. This may arise from the fact that, in the US, alcohol content is normally shown by weight, not by volume. As alcohol is considerably lighter than water, a US beer that is 4% by weight will be the same strength as a Canadian one that is 5% by volume.

From Blackburn to India

While there’s a wide variety of premium bottled ales available in the major supermarkets, few of them can be described as particularly hoppy. One exception was Hawkshead Lakeland Gold, a genuinely bitter beer which was a good cross between traditional English flinty bitterness and New World hops, but unfortunately after selling it for a few months Tesco seem to have dropped it earlier this year.

However, some compensation is at hand in the form of the recently-launched Thwaites Indus IPA, a 4.6% ABV brew now available in bottle at Morrisons. Thwaites house style has generally been on the malty side, but this offers a distinct contrast. The bottle describes it as having a “thoroughly hoppy flavour” and says it is a “refreshing amber ale, brewed with four hop varieties for superb taste and aroma.” It isn’t yet on the Cyclops tasting notes website.

There was little noticeable aroma, although this was a fridge-chilled sample that might have dampened it down. Colour is an appealing dark amber, with noticeable carbonation and a thin but lasting head. The flavour is very dry, with the hops coming through strongly in a surprisingly long, complex aftertaste. There are hints of fruit and a good solid malty base – it’s certainly not one of those wishy-washy lemony beers. Definitely one for a repeat purchase.

It’s also available in cask form, but it is yet another beer where the bottled version is considerably stronger than the cask, which is only 3.9%.

Smoking and freedom

There’s a very interesting blog posting at Liberal Vision:

Smoking, Freedom and all things (ob)noxious

The demolition of the “protecting the health of workers” argument is particularly good:

The third point, then, must address what is often portrayed as both the main argument and the one hardest to refute – though ASH admitted it was in fact merely a tactical ploy – which is that something must be done to protect the health of workers. This, again, is a property rights issue: every man has a property in his own person, and is able to make an informed decision as to the costs and benefits of any employment. The idea that no person should be allowed to take employment that carries a risk is absurd. Instead, the risks should be made clear and individuals should be free to determine the balance for themselves. If people are able to evaluate the risks of going to war or space, of running into burning buildings or driving 40 tonne trucks across a thin layer of ice above the Arctic Ocean, they are presumably able to evaluate the risks, and the potential rewards, in terms of wage premiums, higher overall levels of employment, and so forth.

Some might not mind working in a smoky bar; some might actively enjoy it; and some might value the extra income more than they fear the health risks. But it is their choice to make. They do not need ASH or the government taking decisions for them. It is that removal of individual choice, discretion and responsibility that is “bastardising the central plank of liberalism”.

A problem of proof

Here’s a rather unfortunate tale from my neck of the woods where Joe Coyle, a 22-year-old man with cerebral palsy, was refused service in the Governor’s House pub in Cheadle Hulme despite reportedly providing nine separate forms of ID. Reading between the lines it does seem like one of those “six of one and half a dozen of the other stories” – he clearly looks about 15, so it was entirely reasonable for the pub to ask for ID, but they were then overzealous about it resulting in him becoming abusive towards them. If the pub staff really did suggest that they wouldn’t let him in because he might become “mentally unstable” then that is totally out of order and will do their reputation a lot of harm.

However, the real villain of the peace is surely the climate of hysteria about underage drinking that makes pubs feel compelled to operate “Challenge 25” policies in the first place and fearful of the consequences if they don’t follow them to the letter.

There’s another pub just across the road – the Church – so I wonder if he and his friends tried there and got a better reception. Plus five other pubs within half a mile. As an aside, Cheadle Hulme is one of those rare places that has seen an increase in the number of actual pubs (not just bars) in the past twenty years.

You also have to wonder what kind of “friends” would let him stay outside while they finished their drinks.

Grit your teeth and bear it

Ever been tempted to complain about howling children in a pub or restaurant? Perhaps best not to bother, as you run the risk of getting a bottle smashed over your head. And in future, give your business to establishments that have an adults-only policy, or at least have a completely separate room for families. Realistically, if you do feel the need to complain, it may be more prudent to do so to the management rather than directly to the offending customers.

The weak and the strong

I’ve reported several cases recently of brewers reducing the strength of their draught real ales. It’s easy to portray this a either a sop to the anti-drink lobby or a cynical rip-off, but the reality is that it is being done in response to market demand. Quite simply, people increasingly don’t want to drink stronger real ales in pubs. I was in a Marston’s pub looking at a leaflet about their forthcoming (in-house) guest ales, and not a single one was above 4.5%. Robinson’s have always struggled to sell the 5% Double Hop and its predecessor Frederics.

On the other hand, most of the best-selling premium bottled ales in the off-trade cluster around the 5% ABV mark, and very few are below about 4.2%. Indeed, Marston’s actually increased the strength of their best-selling Pedigree from 4.5% to 5% in bottle, but not on cask or in can. More and more beers (London Pride, Cumberland Ale, Bombardier, Butcombe, Old Speckled Hen to name but a few) are stronger in bottle than on cask.

This represents a growing divergence in the beer market. In the pub, many customers are going back to work, or heading off to a meal, a show or a sports match, or driving, and therefore have an interest in keeping the level of intoxication within bounds. Even if they’re there for the evening, it will be as part of a session and they’ll be looking to pace themselves. In all circumstances, they need to get themselves home once they’ve finished drinking. In general, even if people do drink the stronger beers, it will usually only be one at the end of the evening. It is also the case that many 5% real ales, while very good beers, are hard work to drink in quantity.

In contrast, most PBAs will be consumed at home, in ones or twos, while relaxing in front of the TV or computer screen, at times when people are not going anywhere else. They may well see an advantage in drinking less volume of a richer, stronger beer. The two markets are very different and the products offered to them are evolving to reflect that difference rather than just being a mirror image of each other. It’s no longer a case of drinking at home what you drink in the pub.

Perhaps the answer for pubs is that, if they want to sell ales of 5% or above, they would be better doing so as speciality keg products, like Leffe or Innis & Gunn.

And on the “you read it here first” front, it would not surprise me to see Wells & Youngs cutting the strength of cask Directors from 4.8% to 4.5% to directly rival Old Speckled Hen and Batemans XXXB.

Edit: I’ve added a poll asking what is your preferred strength for draught beer. This is a new third-party poll which allows the option of comments - but bear in mind these will be lost once the poll closes.

Yet more beer watering

The latest issue of the CAMRA newsletter What’s Brewing reports that Wells & Youngs have reduced the strength of cask Bombardier from 4.3% ABV to 4.1%. This is hot on the heels of Bateman’s cutting the strength of their flagship XXXB.

Who needs an anti-drink lobby when the brewers are doing their work for them?

It’s getting increasingly difficult to find any cask beer above 4.5% on the bars of mainstream pubs. On the other hand, there’s no problem amongst the ranks of the premium bottled ales on Tesco’s shelves.

Ironically, there is one of the “Rik Mayall” advertisements for Bombardier immediately below the relevant news item.

May suit alternative use

...subject to planning permission of course. Such is the description on many entries for pubs for sale on estate agents’ websites. So, if your local pub closed down, what would you like to see in its place? I asked the question: “Which of these would you prefer on your street?” There were 35 responses, broken down as follows:

A block of Housing Association flats: 5 (14.3%)
A derelict pub: 4 (11.4%)
A kebab shop: 5 (14.3%)
A nail parlour: 1 (2.9%)
A restaurant that is outside your price range: 9 (25.7%)
A Tesco Express: 11 (31.4%)

Perhaps I should have made it clear that the “derelict pub” was one that had zero prospect of ever reopening as licensed premises. Personally I went for a Tesco Express, as that would be handy for my top-up shopping, but a kebab shop within easy walking distance would also be good. None of the others would be of any use to me, and I wouldn’t really want a rotting eyesore just down the way.

Incidentally, the poll was prompted by this thread about whether it would be a good thing for Marco Pierre White to convert a local pub into a poncey restaurant gastropub. I reckoned the locals would probably find a Tesco Express more useful. If there was a poncey restaurant I’d be worried about Mercs and Range Rovers taking up all the parking spaces.

Don’t let society scapegoat smokers

Peter Guillam argues here that calls to ban electronic cigarettes reflect a deep-rooted prejudice against smokers and our death-denying culture. In the Guardian, of all places. “You will see in the thread below vitriolic comments about smokers being disgusting, revolting, even sub-human; for smokers are now fair game for just about any sort of abuse,” he says. It seems that stigmatising smokers is the new fashionable prejudice. Read the full article.

Half a loaf

Let me make it quite clear that my personal view is that there was no need for any form of legislation restricting smoking in licensed premises. Prior to July 2007, the market was already responding to meet the demand for non-smoking areas. The vast majority of food-oriented pubs had a substantial non-smoking area (including all Wetherspoons). Many were over 80% non-smoking; some had banned smoking entirely. A growing number of community and wet-led pubs were also providing non-smoking areas. Although some antis will exercise selective memory and deny this, in most areas of the country it wasn’t at all difficult to find somewhere you could have a drink in a non-smoking atmosphere, if that was what you wanted.

Realistically, if they believed in freedom of choice, anyone who wanted to promote non-smoking areas should have been trying to convince licensees to provide them, and demonstrate that there was a genuine demand, rather than campaigning dog-in-the-manger style for a blanket ban.

Both before and after the ban, various compromise solutions were proposed that would have restricted smoking to some degree but not outlawed it in all indoor areas. These included:

1. Banning smoking in pubs serving food, but allowing it in those that didn’t
   
2. Allowing smoking to continue in private clubs, but not in pubs
   
3. Allowing separate smoking and non-smoking pubs (much the same as 1)
   
4. Allowing smoking in separate rooms in pubs without either a bar or table service
   
5. Allowing smoking in pubs and bars that have no staff apart from the proprietor
   
6. Allowing the current “smoking shelters” to be expanded to fully-enclosed, heated “smoking huts”

All of these have their advantages and disadvantages, which I don’t propose to go into in detail. Some are more practical than others. The first two were for a time declared government policy. All are a step backward from the pre July 2007 situation. But, in their different ways, all would be an improvement on the current position, and would at the same time give some succour to the licensed trade while enhancing social life for both smokers and non-smokers. Half a loaf is, after all, better than no loaf at all.

But, of course, the real reason why the antismokers are not prepared to concede any ground whatsoever is that it would rapidly and clearly demonstrate the lack of demand for entirely non-smoking venues, at least as far as wet trade was concerned.

Imagine, for example, the pub that has been allowed to erect a fully-enclosed, heated smoking hut. Inside the hut, it’s rammed and there’s a lively flow of banter. In the main part of the pub, there’s a handful of diners, a white-bearded bore holding his glass up to the light saying “The London Pride’s drinking well tonight” and a constant troop of merry hut denizens to and from the bar.

Stubbing out your own folk

There has been plenty of anecdotal evidence that the smoking ban has hit working-class communities hardest, as they are more likely to have the kind of traditional wet-led pubs that it has damaged most, and working-class people are more likely to be smokers. It is ironic that the Labour Party who brought it in have hurt their own supporters more than any others.

For example, as I reported here a couple of years ago:

Brian Iddon, MP for Bolton South East, said: “I’m getting complaints from our core Labour vote that they feel the Labour Government is just hitting them left, right and centre. They are heavily bruised at the moment.”

Dr Iddon cited the ban on smoking in public places and rising alcohol and food prices as other causes of anger.

This is confirmed by a new report from the Save Our Pubs and Clubs Campaign entitled The British Smoking Bans: Stubbing out the urban pubs:

Traditional inner city pubs have suffered the most since the introduction of smoking bans in Scotland, England and Wales, a new report has found.

Researchers also found that the areas with the greatest levels of closure have been in Labour-held constituencies with an average of almost eleven pubs per Labour constituency, compared to 9.9 pubs per Liberal Democrat constituency and 7.6 pubs per Conservative constituency.

Of the ten hardest hit constituencies seven are Labour held, two Liberal Democrat, and just one (Cities of London and Westminster) Conservative.

The data show large numbers of traditional drink-led urban pubs shutting down. These are in areas with traditionally quite high levels of smoking so it would appear that regulars who used to enjoy a pint and a cigarette with friends have decided to stay at home instead.

But of course the Labour Party is now increasingly dominated by an arrogant, patronising metropolitan élite that sees the working classes as no more than voting fodder who need to be told how to live their lives. It may have been the party of the people once, but it certainly isn’t any more.

(h/t to Simon Clark at Taking Liberties)

Drink less and live longer

The latest piece of foaming anti-drink hysteria is a report from the Royal College of Psychiatrists which says that the already made-up and absurdly low alcohol consumption guidelines should be “drastically reduced” for people over 65. They should drink only 1.5 “units” of alcohol a day, the equivalent of half a pint of beer or a small glass of wine. I’m sure that’s going to soothe the cares of the world away. Leave off that 500ml bottle of Pedigree, it’s far too much for you! You’ll have that 2% Tesco Value Bitter and enjoy it!

A group of experts from the Royal College of Psychiatrists says there is a growing problem with substance abuse among older people, who they describe as society's "invisible addicts".

The report says a third those who experience problems with alcohol abuse do so later on in life, often as a result of big changes like retirement, bereavement or feelings of boredom, loneliness and depression.

But the extent of the drinking is hidden because unlike younger drinkers, more older people drink in their own homes, the report suggests.

The problem is exacerbated by the widespread use - and misuse - of prescribed and over-the-counter medicines among elderly people which can interact badly with alcohol.

Compounding the problems are the changes our bodies undergo as we get older which mean we are less able to cope with the effects of alcohol.

If it’s a “hidden” problem, in what way is it a problem at all? It’s not as if the Old Gits are rampaging through the weekend streets brawling and puking.

For many older people, having a regular couple of drinks is one of the few pleasures they’re still able to enjoy. In my experience, the vast majority settle down to a ritualised routine of moderate drinking and rarely if ever overdo it. In the last years of his life, my late father (who lived to 91) would have one pint or bottle or can before his lunch, and one small whisky or sherry before his tea, and that was it. But even that would have been 3 or 4 units a day.

In any case, if you’re in the twilight of your years and can see the Grim Reaper coming over the horizon, the argument that abstaining from drink will prolong your life is unlikely to carry much weight.

It also seems that they want doctors to do yet more prying every time you go into the surgery with a minor ailment:

They also want GPs to screen every person over the age of 65 for substance misuse, along with health campaigns around drugs and alcohol specifically targeting older people.

Also, typical of the BBC and its unquestioning obeisance to the Bully State, there isn’t a single dissenting or sceptical opinion quoted in the report.

The comments on the article are, however, well worth reading:

So now we have to work on past the age where scientists are telling us we cannot tolerate alcohol due to health issues, we are susceptible to injury and are over the hill. But we need to keep working to support junkies and those who scrounge off the system. At this rate it is cradle to grave and don't think you are getting a pension as you will just drink it. By the time I retire I will be dead.

I was amused by one comment that this guideline limit was so low that they were obviously now trying to treat alcohol abuse by homeopathy.

Fame at last

I see the companion blog of my Opening Times columns has now made it to the heady heights of #81 on the Wikio wine and beer blog rankings. It’s a bit disappointing I don’t get more comments on there, given that the column appears in a monthly print magazine with a circulation of 7,000 and the link is always given at the bottom. I mean, it’s not as if it’s never controversial. While it often develops themes first mentioned here, it’s rarely just lifted verbatim. And that column came first, of course.

If you’ve subscribed to this, why not subscribe to that as well and liven it up a bit?

Incidentally, do you get the impression that the general beer blogging scene has gone a bit quiet recently? Maybe folks are all blogged out after the great “craft keg” ruckus…

Save the pub from Cameron!

The Sunday Mirror seems to have suddenly woken up and noticed that pubs are closing left, right and centre.

The local is in crisis. So today the Sunday Mirror calls on PM David Cameron to honour his election promise that his Government would be “pub-friendly and take the urgent action needed to protect a treasured national institution”.

It’s funny how they weren’t quite so vocal when their friends in the Labour Party were in charge and busy doing their best to wreck the pub trade. But, even so, better late than never, and as we have seen the Coalition are enthusiastically continuing the anti-pub policies that Labour began. There’s even - right at the end - an acknowledgement of the elephant in the room:

The smoking ban dealt a devastating blow to thousands of traditional pubs. Takings nosedived by as much as 40 per cent at some town centre and inner city locals as smokers decided to drink at home. Supporters of the ban - introduced in Scotland in 2006 and the rest of the UK in 2007 - say it has made pubs more family friendly and people healthier. But street corner pubs with no beer garden have suffered badly.

It may not do all that much to change things, but at least there’s a wider appreciation of the reasons behind the decline of the pub trade in the past few years. And, while supermarket pricing again gets part of the blame, was the differential really that much less before July 2007?

(h/t to Simon Clark at Taking Liberties)

Social cleansing

Chef Marco Pierre White is not someone known for his customer care skills. He has recently bought the historic Angel Inn in Lavenham, Suffolk and alienated regulars by getting rid of Strongbow and Foster’s. He says “I don’t like Foster’s and Strongbow. I like traditional ales and ciders. If they don’t like that, I’m sorry.” Fair enough, but surely if you want to change the product mix you take your customers with you by offering a choice rather than doing your best to antagonise them. While he may be conjuring up an image of a traditional rustic ale and cider house, in reality what’s the betting it will be a poncy, pricey gastropub, and he quite simply doesn’t want working-class people riff-raff in there? They probably drop fag-ends on the floor outside as well.