Pubs 'face a bleak future' says Southampton North & Romsey MP Caroline Nokes

Pubs 'face a bleak future' says MP

Pubs 'face a bleak future' says MP

First published in News Daily Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Parliamentary Correspondent

PUBS are facing a “bleak” future without Government help, a Southampton MP warned – as she targeted greedy pub companies.

Conservative Caroline Nokes told ministers of a “long list” of popular local pubs that had been boarded up in recent years, depriving their communities.

And she highlighted the plight of one closed pub in particular – the Stoneham Arms, in Bassett – to call for tougher regulation against “possible abuses”.

Ms Nokes, the MP for Southampton North and Romsey, said the pub’s owner – Enterprise Inns – had insisted no publican wished to take over as its tenant.

Therefore, it was due to be converted to a Co-op store, even though there is another Co-op just a few doors away.

Ms Nokes said: “We cannot know how competitive those terms were, or indeed, what other bars there were to people seeking to run the premises as a pub.

“Nor can I judge how significantly the beer tie acted as a deterrent to potential publicans, but I am convinced it played a part.

“The tie, the nervousness with which publicans regard possible abuses of it, and the general uncertainty that exists in the industry as a whole have come together to present a very bleak picture.”

‘Fairness’ Protesting that publicans were struggling to “earn a decent income”, she added: “I believe that regulation is necessary.

“Those in the trade seek certainty, fairness and reassurance that the Government are on their side, to ensure that they can run their business models.

“The Stoneham Arms as a pub provided a meeting place for the community, and there are precious few such facilities left in Bassett.”

Campaigners have accused Enterprise Inns of ignoring a bid to save the pub, having struck a deal to convert it into a store.

Meanwhile, Itchen MP John Denham is leading calls for a temporary “freeze” to prevent sales of pubs going ahead while listing is considered.

And he has argued for the law to be changed so companies have to apply for planning permission for a change of use, allowing planners to intervene.

Ms Nokes’ call came during a Commons debate in which Labour called for landlords to be given the chance to opt out of contractual links of large pub companies.

The opposition demanded legislation in May’s Queen’s Speech to help landlords earning less than £10,000 a year – while tied into buying drinks at inflated prices.

In reply, Business Secretary Vince Cable denied he had kicked the issue into the long grass, having earlier launched a consultation on action against the pub companies.

Mr Cable said responses were still being evaluated, adding: “There is no attempt to delay on those grounds.

“We want to see action.”

Comments (26)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:04am Fri 24 Jan 14

CHARLIE TAYLOR says...

No publican wishes to take over the tenancy !! sky high ingoing and ridiculous rent !! from Ex manager,tenant,lease
holder and freehouse owner!!
No publican wishes to take over the tenancy !! sky high ingoing and ridiculous rent !! from Ex manager,tenant,lease holder and freehouse owner!! CHARLIE TAYLOR
  • Score: 10

6:24am Fri 24 Jan 14

elvisimo says...

Whilst pub companies are otern the biggest issue it is somewhat stupid of politicians to get point fingers when they have done nothing to reduce the tax burden on landlords. Some 40% of a pubs turnover can disappear in terms of tax. Regardless of their tiny token review on beer duty, an average pub pays more in terms of tax and duty than they I'd in 2006 by almost 30%.
It is hypocritical of politicians to point fingers when they have allowed the business rates revaluation to be delayed indefinitely as they realise rateable values will have gone down. Targeting supermarkets and claiming they should have minimum prices seems to smack of greed. Put duty down for pubs, put vat down for food sold in pubs, look at their business rate liability.
These politicians should not throw stones when they live I'm a greenhouse. Yes the pub companies can be greedy, they can aspire for unrealistic rents but without political help and a realisation that successive governments have caused this situation, the problem will get worse. Come on Caroline do some research so that you know what you are talking about and realise that your governments policies are a massive part of the problem.
Whilst pub companies are otern the biggest issue it is somewhat stupid of politicians to get point fingers when they have done nothing to reduce the tax burden on landlords. Some 40% of a pubs turnover can disappear in terms of tax. Regardless of their tiny token review on beer duty, an average pub pays more in terms of tax and duty than they I'd in 2006 by almost 30%. It is hypocritical of politicians to point fingers when they have allowed the business rates revaluation to be delayed indefinitely as they realise rateable values will have gone down. Targeting supermarkets and claiming they should have minimum prices seems to smack of greed. Put duty down for pubs, put vat down for food sold in pubs, look at their business rate liability. These politicians should not throw stones when they live I'm a greenhouse. Yes the pub companies can be greedy, they can aspire for unrealistic rents but without political help and a realisation that successive governments have caused this situation, the problem will get worse. Come on Caroline do some research so that you know what you are talking about and realise that your governments policies are a massive part of the problem. elvisimo
  • Score: 8

6:26am Fri 24 Jan 14

elvisimo says...

Hm few auto type corrections in that. Get the gist though
Hm few auto type corrections in that. Get the gist though elvisimo
  • Score: 1

7:26am Fri 24 Jan 14

dacoo says...

does seem to be a recurring issue with enterprise run pubs, surprised they haven't been looked at a bit closely by the powers that be
does seem to be a recurring issue with enterprise run pubs, surprised they haven't been looked at a bit closely by the powers that be dacoo
  • Score: 10

7:59am Fri 24 Jan 14

Miguel Raton says...

The solution is simple. Make the tie-in to the brewery illegal.
The solution is simple. Make the tie-in to the brewery illegal. Miguel Raton
  • Score: 10

8:07am Fri 24 Jan 14

Georgethepie says...

Monopolies and mergers commission killed the pub trade years ago when they forced brewers to sell either the brewing arm or the pubs.
What happened Chinese investment company's snapped up the pubs. Punch, Enterpise the list goes on all making demands on landlords. It was only ever going to go one way.
They purchased alcohol cheap and sold it at top wack publicans had no purchase power, rents were to high investments to low, they even wanted cuts from pool tables and vending machines.
You reap what you sow. Government had a hand in this sorry episode and the only people that have lost are land lady's landlords and community's.
To late to cry now Ms Nokes
Monopolies and mergers commission killed the pub trade years ago when they forced brewers to sell either the brewing arm or the pubs. What happened Chinese investment company's snapped up the pubs. Punch, Enterpise the list goes on all making demands on landlords. It was only ever going to go one way. They purchased alcohol cheap and sold it at top wack publicans had no purchase power, rents were to high investments to low, they even wanted cuts from pool tables and vending machines. You reap what you sow. Government had a hand in this sorry episode and the only people that have lost are land lady's landlords and community's. To late to cry now Ms Nokes Georgethepie
  • Score: 11

8:33am Fri 24 Jan 14

wwozzer says...

Years ago when all you had at home was three channels in black and white and a land line you went to the pub to see your mates. It's a different world now.

Why would you go to a pub and drink beer that's four times the price of a supermarket and drink it outside in the rain if you're a smoker then walk god knows how far home because every year your "local" gets further away do to ongoing pub closures?

For a pub to survive it either has to become more of a restaurant like the White Swan at Mansbridge or be blessed with being the soul survivor in a good community like the West End Brewery.
Years ago when all you had at home was three channels in black and white and a land line you went to the pub to see your mates. It's a different world now. Why would you go to a pub and drink beer that's four times the price of a supermarket and drink it outside in the rain if you're a smoker then walk god knows how far home because every year your "local" gets further away do to ongoing pub closures? For a pub to survive it either has to become more of a restaurant like the White Swan at Mansbridge or be blessed with being the soul survivor in a good community like the West End Brewery. wwozzer
  • Score: 15

8:53am Fri 24 Jan 14

gilbertratchet says...

elvisimo wrote:
Whilst pub companies are otern the biggest issue it is somewhat stupid of politicians to get point fingers when they have done nothing to reduce the tax burden on landlords. Some 40% of a pubs turnover can disappear in terms of tax. Regardless of their tiny token review on beer duty, an average pub pays more in terms of tax and duty than they I'd in 2006 by almost 30%.
It is hypocritical of politicians to point fingers when they have allowed the business rates revaluation to be delayed indefinitely as they realise rateable values will have gone down. Targeting supermarkets and claiming they should have minimum prices seems to smack of greed. Put duty down for pubs, put vat down for food sold in pubs, look at their business rate liability.
These politicians should not throw stones when they live I'm a greenhouse. Yes the pub companies can be greedy, they can aspire for unrealistic rents but without political help and a realisation that successive governments have caused this situation, the problem will get worse. Come on Caroline do some research so that you know what you are talking about and realise that your governments policies are a massive part of the problem.
I have to say, there's a difference between a politician and the government. Our MPs are there to fight our corner, so to speak. They don't always win. It's not hypocritical for an MP to voice an opinion in support of his constituents, just because he hasn't managed to influence policy in favour of that opinion.

Would you rather your MP always toed the party line, and just insisted point-blank that every government decision and policy ever made was correct? Would you feel better represented?
[quote][p][bold]elvisimo[/bold] wrote: Whilst pub companies are otern the biggest issue it is somewhat stupid of politicians to get point fingers when they have done nothing to reduce the tax burden on landlords. Some 40% of a pubs turnover can disappear in terms of tax. Regardless of their tiny token review on beer duty, an average pub pays more in terms of tax and duty than they I'd in 2006 by almost 30%. It is hypocritical of politicians to point fingers when they have allowed the business rates revaluation to be delayed indefinitely as they realise rateable values will have gone down. Targeting supermarkets and claiming they should have minimum prices seems to smack of greed. Put duty down for pubs, put vat down for food sold in pubs, look at their business rate liability. These politicians should not throw stones when they live I'm a greenhouse. Yes the pub companies can be greedy, they can aspire for unrealistic rents but without political help and a realisation that successive governments have caused this situation, the problem will get worse. Come on Caroline do some research so that you know what you are talking about and realise that your governments policies are a massive part of the problem.[/p][/quote]I have to say, there's a difference between a politician and the government. Our MPs are there to fight our corner, so to speak. They don't always win. It's not hypocritical for an MP to voice an opinion in support of his constituents, just because he hasn't managed to influence policy in favour of that opinion. Would you rather your MP always toed the party line, and just insisted point-blank that every government decision and policy ever made was correct? Would you feel better represented? gilbertratchet
  • Score: 4

8:54am Fri 24 Jan 14

gilbertratchet says...

elvisimo wrote:
Hm few auto type corrections in that. Get the gist though
It's ok, I don't think anyone believes you really are a glass house :)
[quote][p][bold]elvisimo[/bold] wrote: Hm few auto type corrections in that. Get the gist though[/p][/quote]It's ok, I don't think anyone believes you really are a glass house :) gilbertratchet
  • Score: 2

8:59am Fri 24 Jan 14

gilbertratchet says...

Miguel Raton wrote:
The solution is simple. Make the tie-in to the brewery illegal.
How is that simple? This is state intervention on a free market. We really need to stop relying on legislation to solve every single problem this country has. It really isn't simple for the state to just say "a brewery is not allowed to have an interest in a pub". Every other sector is allowed to involve itself in their own supply chain. Why should pubs be any different? I don't think we'd end up with more open pubs if breweries weren't allowed to be involved. Quite the opposite.

I wish people wouldn't keep saying "The solution is simple. Make X illegal". It's never simple. I guess the solution is simple. We make poorly-thought out comments on websites illegal.
[quote][p][bold]Miguel Raton[/bold] wrote: The solution is simple. Make the tie-in to the brewery illegal.[/p][/quote]How is that simple? This is state intervention on a free market. We really need to stop relying on legislation to solve every single problem this country has. It really isn't simple for the state to just say "a brewery is not allowed to have an interest in a pub". Every other sector is allowed to involve itself in their own supply chain. Why should pubs be any different? I don't think we'd end up with more open pubs if breweries weren't allowed to be involved. Quite the opposite. I wish people wouldn't keep saying "The solution is simple. Make X illegal". It's never simple. I guess the solution is simple. We make poorly-thought out comments on websites illegal. gilbertratchet
  • Score: 6

9:01am Fri 24 Jan 14

Maine Lobster says...

The pub trade has priced itself out of the market if they are tied to a brewery. There is no lack of customers for the faceless chain pubs. They are buzzing with customers as people want value for money and paying through the nose at £3-50 or £4 a pint is out of the question for many ordinary people. The situation will continue unless pubs can have the freedom to purchase their supplies from a competitive market.
The pub trade has priced itself out of the market if they are tied to a brewery. There is no lack of customers for the faceless chain pubs. They are buzzing with customers as people want value for money and paying through the nose at £3-50 or £4 a pint is out of the question for many ordinary people. The situation will continue unless pubs can have the freedom to purchase their supplies from a competitive market. Maine Lobster
  • Score: 10

11:12am Fri 24 Jan 14

gilbertratchet says...

Maine Lobster wrote:
The pub trade has priced itself out of the market if they are tied to a brewery. There is no lack of customers for the faceless chain pubs. They are buzzing with customers as people want value for money and paying through the nose at £3-50 or £4 a pint is out of the question for many ordinary people. The situation will continue unless pubs can have the freedom to purchase their supplies from a competitive market.
Seems to contradict itself. If there is no lack of customers for the faceless chain pubs, how have they priced themselves out of the market?
[quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote: The pub trade has priced itself out of the market if they are tied to a brewery. There is no lack of customers for the faceless chain pubs. They are buzzing with customers as people want value for money and paying through the nose at £3-50 or £4 a pint is out of the question for many ordinary people. The situation will continue unless pubs can have the freedom to purchase their supplies from a competitive market.[/p][/quote]Seems to contradict itself. If there is no lack of customers for the faceless chain pubs, how have they priced themselves out of the market? gilbertratchet
  • Score: 3

11:40am Fri 24 Jan 14

George4th says...

The last Labour Government accelerated the demise of the local pub by:

1. Introducing 24 hour alcohol drinking which fueled the growth of city centre pubs/clubs dragging away locals into the town centres.
2. Issuing licences to sell alcohol to every corner shop/local convenience store in the land!
3. Allowing the rise and rise of Supermarkets selling cheap alcohol.

Add to this the subsequent ban on smoking.

Add to this the rise and rise of the Coffee Shops everywhere!

Many local pubs had no chance to compete.

The world has changed and we must move on with the changes.............
.....
The last Labour Government accelerated the demise of the local pub by: 1. Introducing 24 hour alcohol drinking which fueled the growth of city centre pubs/clubs dragging away locals into the town centres. 2. Issuing licences to sell alcohol to every corner shop/local convenience store in the land! 3. Allowing the rise and rise of Supermarkets selling cheap alcohol. Add to this the subsequent ban on smoking. Add to this the rise and rise of the Coffee Shops everywhere! Many local pubs had no chance to compete. The world has changed and we must move on with the changes............. ..... George4th
  • Score: 4

11:47am Fri 24 Jan 14

J.P.M... says...

gilbertratchet wrote:
elvisimo wrote:
Whilst pub companies are otern the biggest issue it is somewhat stupid of politicians to get point fingers when they have done nothing to reduce the tax burden on landlords. Some 40% of a pubs turnover can disappear in terms of tax. Regardless of their tiny token review on beer duty, an average pub pays more in terms of tax and duty than they I'd in 2006 by almost 30%.
It is hypocritical of politicians to point fingers when they have allowed the business rates revaluation to be delayed indefinitely as they realise rateable values will have gone down. Targeting supermarkets and claiming they should have minimum prices seems to smack of greed. Put duty down for pubs, put vat down for food sold in pubs, look at their business rate liability.
These politicians should not throw stones when they live I'm a greenhouse. Yes the pub companies can be greedy, they can aspire for unrealistic rents but without political help and a realisation that successive governments have caused this situation, the problem will get worse. Come on Caroline do some research so that you know what you are talking about and realise that your governments policies are a massive part of the problem.
I have to say, there's a difference between a politician and the government. Our MPs are there to fight our corner, so to speak. They don't always win. It's not hypocritical for an MP to voice an opinion in support of his constituents, just because he hasn't managed to influence policy in favour of that opinion.

Would you rather your MP always toed the party line, and just insisted point-blank that every government decision and policy ever made was correct? Would you feel better represented?
I agree however I think elvisimo has a point. mp's could get a clear view as to the real issues with a little research and then wouldn't have to issue portly thought out statements to please their constituents. It's very easy to point fingers but a large part of the problem seems to be closer to home.
[quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]elvisimo[/bold] wrote: Whilst pub companies are otern the biggest issue it is somewhat stupid of politicians to get point fingers when they have done nothing to reduce the tax burden on landlords. Some 40% of a pubs turnover can disappear in terms of tax. Regardless of their tiny token review on beer duty, an average pub pays more in terms of tax and duty than they I'd in 2006 by almost 30%. It is hypocritical of politicians to point fingers when they have allowed the business rates revaluation to be delayed indefinitely as they realise rateable values will have gone down. Targeting supermarkets and claiming they should have minimum prices seems to smack of greed. Put duty down for pubs, put vat down for food sold in pubs, look at their business rate liability. These politicians should not throw stones when they live I'm a greenhouse. Yes the pub companies can be greedy, they can aspire for unrealistic rents but without political help and a realisation that successive governments have caused this situation, the problem will get worse. Come on Caroline do some research so that you know what you are talking about and realise that your governments policies are a massive part of the problem.[/p][/quote]I have to say, there's a difference between a politician and the government. Our MPs are there to fight our corner, so to speak. They don't always win. It's not hypocritical for an MP to voice an opinion in support of his constituents, just because he hasn't managed to influence policy in favour of that opinion. Would you rather your MP always toed the party line, and just insisted point-blank that every government decision and policy ever made was correct? Would you feel better represented?[/p][/quote]I agree however I think elvisimo has a point. mp's could get a clear view as to the real issues with a little research and then wouldn't have to issue portly thought out statements to please their constituents. It's very easy to point fingers but a large part of the problem seems to be closer to home. J.P.M...
  • Score: 1

1:38pm Fri 24 Jan 14

Inform Al says...

It's not breweries that the victims of Enterprise Inns are tied to, it's the pubco itself. Beer was much cheaper in pubs when they were nearly all tied to breweries, despite breweries taking advantages such as increasing the prices each year at budget time by more than the tax increases. The fact that the prices that landlords have to charge is so high is testament to the pernicious evils of the pubcos. In response to a previous post the Stonehams was the only drinking establishment remaining in an area that is now completely devoid of community meeting places.
It's not breweries that the victims of Enterprise Inns are tied to, it's the pubco itself. Beer was much cheaper in pubs when they were nearly all tied to breweries, despite breweries taking advantages such as increasing the prices each year at budget time by more than the tax increases. The fact that the prices that landlords have to charge is so high is testament to the pernicious evils of the pubcos. In response to a previous post the Stonehams was the only drinking establishment remaining in an area that is now completely devoid of community meeting places. Inform Al
  • Score: 2

1:48pm Fri 24 Jan 14

AndyAndrews says...

My close family and I only go into pubs to eat so any pub not serving decent, reasonably priced food can close down as far as we're concerned,
My close family and I only go into pubs to eat so any pub not serving decent, reasonably priced food can close down as far as we're concerned, AndyAndrews
  • Score: 2

2:41pm Fri 24 Jan 14

Inform Al says...

AndyAndrews wrote:
My close family and I only go into pubs to eat so any pub not serving decent, reasonably priced food can close down as far as we're concerned,
The food at the Stonehams was good with reasonable prices, it was the price of the pubcos beer that caused the pubs demise. This Christmas we had to bus the old folks club at nearby Ventnor Court to Eastliegh for the Christmas meal that used to be done at the Stonehams. There is also nowhere near to the Crematorium just up the road for wakes etc. On top of the last Southampton administration taking all our assets from this area the pubco has added to our misery.
[quote][p][bold]AndyAndrews[/bold] wrote: My close family and I only go into pubs to eat so any pub not serving decent, reasonably priced food can close down as far as we're concerned,[/p][/quote]The food at the Stonehams was good with reasonable prices, it was the price of the pubcos beer that caused the pubs demise. This Christmas we had to bus the old folks club at nearby Ventnor Court to Eastliegh for the Christmas meal that used to be done at the Stonehams. There is also nowhere near to the Crematorium just up the road for wakes etc. On top of the last Southampton administration taking all our assets from this area the pubco has added to our misery. Inform Al
  • Score: 2

2:59pm Fri 24 Jan 14

Maine Lobster says...

gilbertratchet wrote:
Maine Lobster wrote:
The pub trade has priced itself out of the market if they are tied to a brewery. There is no lack of customers for the faceless chain pubs. They are buzzing with customers as people want value for money and paying through the nose at £3-50 or £4 a pint is out of the question for many ordinary people. The situation will continue unless pubs can have the freedom to purchase their supplies from a competitive market.
Seems to contradict itself. If there is no lack of customers for the faceless chain pubs, how have they priced themselves out of the market?
No, it doesn't contradict itself if you read it properly. The cheap chain pubs, as far as I know, buy there supplies in large quantities and from various suppliers, hence why you get guest ales. They sell beer much cheaper than the traditional local and that is why they are still in business, not closing in droves.
[quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote: The pub trade has priced itself out of the market if they are tied to a brewery. There is no lack of customers for the faceless chain pubs. They are buzzing with customers as people want value for money and paying through the nose at £3-50 or £4 a pint is out of the question for many ordinary people. The situation will continue unless pubs can have the freedom to purchase their supplies from a competitive market.[/p][/quote]Seems to contradict itself. If there is no lack of customers for the faceless chain pubs, how have they priced themselves out of the market?[/p][/quote]No, it doesn't contradict itself if you read it properly. The cheap chain pubs, as far as I know, buy there supplies in large quantities and from various suppliers, hence why you get guest ales. They sell beer much cheaper than the traditional local and that is why they are still in business, not closing in droves. Maine Lobster
  • Score: 1

3:24pm Fri 24 Jan 14

gilbertratchet says...

Maine Lobster wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Maine Lobster wrote:
The pub trade has priced itself out of the market if they are tied to a brewery. There is no lack of customers for the faceless chain pubs. They are buzzing with customers as people want value for money and paying through the nose at £3-50 or £4 a pint is out of the question for many ordinary people. The situation will continue unless pubs can have the freedom to purchase their supplies from a competitive market.
Seems to contradict itself. If there is no lack of customers for the faceless chain pubs, how have they priced themselves out of the market?
No, it doesn't contradict itself if you read it properly. The cheap chain pubs, as far as I know, buy there supplies in large quantities and from various suppliers, hence why you get guest ales. They sell beer much cheaper than the traditional local and that is why they are still in business, not closing in droves.
The chain pubs are still tied to a brewery. Being tied to a brewery generally means being obliged to buy a certain amount of stock from the brewery per month. It doesn't mean they can *only* buy from that brewery.
[quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote: The pub trade has priced itself out of the market if they are tied to a brewery. There is no lack of customers for the faceless chain pubs. They are buzzing with customers as people want value for money and paying through the nose at £3-50 or £4 a pint is out of the question for many ordinary people. The situation will continue unless pubs can have the freedom to purchase their supplies from a competitive market.[/p][/quote]Seems to contradict itself. If there is no lack of customers for the faceless chain pubs, how have they priced themselves out of the market?[/p][/quote]No, it doesn't contradict itself if you read it properly. The cheap chain pubs, as far as I know, buy there supplies in large quantities and from various suppliers, hence why you get guest ales. They sell beer much cheaper than the traditional local and that is why they are still in business, not closing in droves.[/p][/quote]The chain pubs are still tied to a brewery. Being tied to a brewery generally means being obliged to buy a certain amount of stock from the brewery per month. It doesn't mean they can *only* buy from that brewery. gilbertratchet
  • Score: 0

4:47pm Fri 24 Jan 14

beiroot says...

gilbertratchet wrote:
elvisimo wrote:
Whilst pub companies are otern the biggest issue it is somewhat stupid of politicians to get point fingers when they have done nothing to reduce the tax burden on landlords. Some 40% of a pubs turnover can disappear in terms of tax. Regardless of their tiny token review on beer duty, an average pub pays more in terms of tax and duty than they I'd in 2006 by almost 30%.
It is hypocritical of politicians to point fingers when they have allowed the business rates revaluation to be delayed indefinitely as they realise rateable values will have gone down. Targeting supermarkets and claiming they should have minimum prices seems to smack of greed. Put duty down for pubs, put vat down for food sold in pubs, look at their business rate liability.
These politicians should not throw stones when they live I'm a greenhouse. Yes the pub companies can be greedy, they can aspire for unrealistic rents but without political help and a realisation that successive governments have caused this situation, the problem will get worse. Come on Caroline do some research so that you know what you are talking about and realise that your governments policies are a massive part of the problem.
I have to say, there's a difference between a politician and the government. Our MPs are there to fight our corner, so to speak. They don't always win. It's not hypocritical for an MP to voice an opinion in support of his constituents, just because he hasn't managed to influence policy in favour of that opinion.

Would you rather your MP always toed the party line, and just insisted point-blank that every government decision and policy ever made was correct? Would you feel better represented?
...so were not a democracy after all...It's just the big hitters in the cabinet that make the decisions,the same at local level.
[quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]elvisimo[/bold] wrote: Whilst pub companies are otern the biggest issue it is somewhat stupid of politicians to get point fingers when they have done nothing to reduce the tax burden on landlords. Some 40% of a pubs turnover can disappear in terms of tax. Regardless of their tiny token review on beer duty, an average pub pays more in terms of tax and duty than they I'd in 2006 by almost 30%. It is hypocritical of politicians to point fingers when they have allowed the business rates revaluation to be delayed indefinitely as they realise rateable values will have gone down. Targeting supermarkets and claiming they should have minimum prices seems to smack of greed. Put duty down for pubs, put vat down for food sold in pubs, look at their business rate liability. These politicians should not throw stones when they live I'm a greenhouse. Yes the pub companies can be greedy, they can aspire for unrealistic rents but without political help and a realisation that successive governments have caused this situation, the problem will get worse. Come on Caroline do some research so that you know what you are talking about and realise that your governments policies are a massive part of the problem.[/p][/quote]I have to say, there's a difference between a politician and the government. Our MPs are there to fight our corner, so to speak. They don't always win. It's not hypocritical for an MP to voice an opinion in support of his constituents, just because he hasn't managed to influence policy in favour of that opinion. Would you rather your MP always toed the party line, and just insisted point-blank that every government decision and policy ever made was correct? Would you feel better represented?[/p][/quote]...so were not a democracy after all...It's just the big hitters in the cabinet that make the decisions,the same at local level. beiroot
  • Score: 1

6:55pm Fri 24 Jan 14

Charlie Bucket says...

beiroot wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
elvisimo wrote:
Whilst pub companies are otern the biggest issue it is somewhat stupid of politicians to get point fingers when they have done nothing to reduce the tax burden on landlords. Some 40% of a pubs turnover can disappear in terms of tax. Regardless of their tiny token review on beer duty, an average pub pays more in terms of tax and duty than they I'd in 2006 by almost 30%.
It is hypocritical of politicians to point fingers when they have allowed the business rates revaluation to be delayed indefinitely as they realise rateable values will have gone down. Targeting supermarkets and claiming they should have minimum prices seems to smack of greed. Put duty down for pubs, put vat down for food sold in pubs, look at their business rate liability.
These politicians should not throw stones when they live I'm a greenhouse. Yes the pub companies can be greedy, they can aspire for unrealistic rents but without political help and a realisation that successive governments have caused this situation, the problem will get worse. Come on Caroline do some research so that you know what you are talking about and realise that your governments policies are a massive part of the problem.
I have to say, there's a difference between a politician and the government. Our MPs are there to fight our corner, so to speak. They don't always win. It's not hypocritical for an MP to voice an opinion in support of his constituents, just because he hasn't managed to influence policy in favour of that opinion.

Would you rather your MP always toed the party line, and just insisted point-blank that every government decision and policy ever made was correct? Would you feel better represented?
...so were not a democracy after all...It's just the big hitters in the cabinet that make the decisions,the same at local level.
Well, we're still a democracy. We're not a direct democracy, because basically nowhere is. That sort of democracy doesn't scale. Do you really want to have a say, a vote, on every issue? No, not practical. What we have here is a type of representative democracy. We have the freedom to choose a member to represent our interests in parliament, and we have the freedom to lobby them with what we believe our interests are. Parliament is there to make decisions in our interests, not to fulfil our wishes. It can be argued that they're not doing this, but there's a selection bias involved in that - we don't tend to notice, collectively, when something is done right, only when it goes wrong. Anyways, that's a different issue. Point is, we ARE still in a democracy, just not the sort of democracy where WE all have a say on everything. And nor should we. We can't even agree on the most basic of things, can you imagine the upheaval if the entire country got to decide every major issue? Nothing would ever get done. That's why we have a representative system.
[quote][p][bold]beiroot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]elvisimo[/bold] wrote: Whilst pub companies are otern the biggest issue it is somewhat stupid of politicians to get point fingers when they have done nothing to reduce the tax burden on landlords. Some 40% of a pubs turnover can disappear in terms of tax. Regardless of their tiny token review on beer duty, an average pub pays more in terms of tax and duty than they I'd in 2006 by almost 30%. It is hypocritical of politicians to point fingers when they have allowed the business rates revaluation to be delayed indefinitely as they realise rateable values will have gone down. Targeting supermarkets and claiming they should have minimum prices seems to smack of greed. Put duty down for pubs, put vat down for food sold in pubs, look at their business rate liability. These politicians should not throw stones when they live I'm a greenhouse. Yes the pub companies can be greedy, they can aspire for unrealistic rents but without political help and a realisation that successive governments have caused this situation, the problem will get worse. Come on Caroline do some research so that you know what you are talking about and realise that your governments policies are a massive part of the problem.[/p][/quote]I have to say, there's a difference between a politician and the government. Our MPs are there to fight our corner, so to speak. They don't always win. It's not hypocritical for an MP to voice an opinion in support of his constituents, just because he hasn't managed to influence policy in favour of that opinion. Would you rather your MP always toed the party line, and just insisted point-blank that every government decision and policy ever made was correct? Would you feel better represented?[/p][/quote]...so were not a democracy after all...It's just the big hitters in the cabinet that make the decisions,the same at local level.[/p][/quote]Well, we're still a democracy. We're not a direct democracy, because basically nowhere is. That sort of democracy doesn't scale. Do you really want to have a say, a vote, on every issue? No, not practical. What we have here is a type of representative democracy. We have the freedom to choose a member to represent our interests in parliament, and we have the freedom to lobby them with what we believe our interests are. Parliament is there to make decisions in our interests, not to fulfil our wishes. It can be argued that they're not doing this, but there's a selection bias involved in that - we don't tend to notice, collectively, when something is done right, only when it goes wrong. Anyways, that's a different issue. Point is, we ARE still in a democracy, just not the sort of democracy where WE all have a say on everything. And nor should we. We can't even agree on the most basic of things, can you imagine the upheaval if the entire country got to decide every major issue? Nothing would ever get done. That's why we have a representative system. Charlie Bucket
  • Score: 0

8:07pm Fri 24 Jan 14

Maine Lobster says...

gilbertratchet wrote:
Maine Lobster wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Maine Lobster wrote:
The pub trade has priced itself out of the market if they are tied to a brewery. There is no lack of customers for the faceless chain pubs. They are buzzing with customers as people want value for money and paying through the nose at £3-50 or £4 a pint is out of the question for many ordinary people. The situation will continue unless pubs can have the freedom to purchase their supplies from a competitive market.
Seems to contradict itself. If there is no lack of customers for the faceless chain pubs, how have they priced themselves out of the market?
No, it doesn't contradict itself if you read it properly. The cheap chain pubs, as far as I know, buy there supplies in large quantities and from various suppliers, hence why you get guest ales. They sell beer much cheaper than the traditional local and that is why they are still in business, not closing in droves.
The chain pubs are still tied to a brewery. Being tied to a brewery generally means being obliged to buy a certain amount of stock from the brewery per month. It doesn't mean they can *only* buy from that brewery.
If that is the case, I am corrected, however, they still sell at a much cheaper rate, which is the very reason they are succeeding and the object of the debate.
[quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote: The pub trade has priced itself out of the market if they are tied to a brewery. There is no lack of customers for the faceless chain pubs. They are buzzing with customers as people want value for money and paying through the nose at £3-50 or £4 a pint is out of the question for many ordinary people. The situation will continue unless pubs can have the freedom to purchase their supplies from a competitive market.[/p][/quote]Seems to contradict itself. If there is no lack of customers for the faceless chain pubs, how have they priced themselves out of the market?[/p][/quote]No, it doesn't contradict itself if you read it properly. The cheap chain pubs, as far as I know, buy there supplies in large quantities and from various suppliers, hence why you get guest ales. They sell beer much cheaper than the traditional local and that is why they are still in business, not closing in droves.[/p][/quote]The chain pubs are still tied to a brewery. Being tied to a brewery generally means being obliged to buy a certain amount of stock from the brewery per month. It doesn't mean they can *only* buy from that brewery.[/p][/quote]If that is the case, I am corrected, however, they still sell at a much cheaper rate, which is the very reason they are succeeding and the object of the debate. Maine Lobster
  • Score: 0

8:40pm Fri 24 Jan 14

dolomiteman says...

Ms Nokes said: “We cannot know how competitive those terms were'

She could have easily found out the cost involved by looking on enterprises website which list all pubs and the costs or even phoned them and asked.
Ms Nokes said: “We cannot know how competitive those terms were' She could have easily found out the cost involved by looking on enterprises website which list all pubs and the costs or even phoned them and asked. dolomiteman
  • Score: 1

8:11am Sat 25 Jan 14

Dai Rear says...

gilbertratchet wrote:
elvisimo wrote:
Whilst pub companies are otern the biggest issue it is somewhat stupid of politicians to get point fingers when they have done nothing to reduce the tax burden on landlords. Some 40% of a pubs turnover can disappear in terms of tax. Regardless of their tiny token review on beer duty, an average pub pays more in terms of tax and duty than they I'd in 2006 by almost 30%.
It is hypocritical of politicians to point fingers when they have allowed the business rates revaluation to be delayed indefinitely as they realise rateable values will have gone down. Targeting supermarkets and claiming they should have minimum prices seems to smack of greed. Put duty down for pubs, put vat down for food sold in pubs, look at their business rate liability.
These politicians should not throw stones when they live I'm a greenhouse. Yes the pub companies can be greedy, they can aspire for unrealistic rents but without political help and a realisation that successive governments have caused this situation, the problem will get worse. Come on Caroline do some research so that you know what you are talking about and realise that your governments policies are a massive part of the problem.
I have to say, there's a difference between a politician and the government. Our MPs are there to fight our corner, so to speak. They don't always win. It's not hypocritical for an MP to voice an opinion in support of his constituents, just because he hasn't managed to influence policy in favour of that opinion.

Would you rather your MP always toed the party line, and just insisted point-blank that every government decision and policy ever made was correct? Would you feel better represented?
It's not hypocritical for Mrs Nokes to say what she says but it's fraud for her to purport to belong to the party of which I was once proud. "Regulation" by the State is the knee-jerk Socialist reaction to everything up to and including original sin. Join the Labour Party Mrs Nokes.
But in fairness it was us who stared the rot when hyper-taxation was only warming up.
Remember the Beer Orders?
Instead of a simple amendment to the Licensing Act to the effect that when the renewal of an on-licence would mean that one brewer (using Company Act definitions) would hold more than 50% of the on licences in a Division the Justices shall not renew it-we had this inscrutable The Supply of Beer (Tied Estate) Order 1989 and The Supply of Beer (Loan Ties, Licensed Premises and Wholesale Prices) Order 1989. Look it up on Wikipedia Mrs Nokes. See what the response of the oligopolistic brewers was? Well that's "regulation" for you Mrs Nokes. Think again-much harder.
A good start might be to bring commercial leases in line with dwelling leases, i.e. a pub co can't give a 1 year lease and make it a full repairing lease. You'd be surprised how many older people with a pension lump sum, keen to be their own landlord, have been bankrupted by this. I could go on, but PLEASE DON'T REGULATE. It can only make things worse.
[quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]elvisimo[/bold] wrote: Whilst pub companies are otern the biggest issue it is somewhat stupid of politicians to get point fingers when they have done nothing to reduce the tax burden on landlords. Some 40% of a pubs turnover can disappear in terms of tax. Regardless of their tiny token review on beer duty, an average pub pays more in terms of tax and duty than they I'd in 2006 by almost 30%. It is hypocritical of politicians to point fingers when they have allowed the business rates revaluation to be delayed indefinitely as they realise rateable values will have gone down. Targeting supermarkets and claiming they should have minimum prices seems to smack of greed. Put duty down for pubs, put vat down for food sold in pubs, look at their business rate liability. These politicians should not throw stones when they live I'm a greenhouse. Yes the pub companies can be greedy, they can aspire for unrealistic rents but without political help and a realisation that successive governments have caused this situation, the problem will get worse. Come on Caroline do some research so that you know what you are talking about and realise that your governments policies are a massive part of the problem.[/p][/quote]I have to say, there's a difference between a politician and the government. Our MPs are there to fight our corner, so to speak. They don't always win. It's not hypocritical for an MP to voice an opinion in support of his constituents, just because he hasn't managed to influence policy in favour of that opinion. Would you rather your MP always toed the party line, and just insisted point-blank that every government decision and policy ever made was correct? Would you feel better represented?[/p][/quote]It's not hypocritical for Mrs Nokes to say what she says but it's fraud for her to purport to belong to the party of which I was once proud. "Regulation" by the State is the knee-jerk Socialist reaction to everything up to and including original sin. Join the Labour Party Mrs Nokes. But in fairness it was us who stared the rot when hyper-taxation was only warming up. Remember the Beer Orders? Instead of a simple amendment to the Licensing Act to the effect that when the renewal of an on-licence would mean that one brewer (using Company Act definitions) would hold more than 50% of the on licences in a Division the Justices shall not renew it-we had this inscrutable The Supply of Beer (Tied Estate) Order 1989 and The Supply of Beer (Loan Ties, Licensed Premises and Wholesale Prices) Order 1989. Look it up on Wikipedia Mrs Nokes. See what the response of the oligopolistic brewers was? Well that's "regulation" for you Mrs Nokes. Think again-much harder. A good start might be to bring commercial leases in line with dwelling leases, i.e. a pub co can't give a 1 year lease and make it a full repairing lease. You'd be surprised how many older people with a pension lump sum, keen to be their own landlord, have been bankrupted by this. I could go on, but PLEASE DON'T REGULATE. It can only make things worse. Dai Rear
  • Score: 0

8:38am Sat 25 Jan 14

Dai Rear says...

In passing this newspaper has actually removed the piece and pictures about Dean Hancock and the photographer. Now I know what it must have been like to live in the Soviet Union and read Pravda.
Look silly newspaper it's going to be tried, if at all, by magistrates and they're hardly likely to admit to reading your tabloid, let alone to being influenced by it. Look silly legislators, in the week the jury system showed its robustness by acquitting the Abergavenny chap who gave the 2 no hope thieves a little tap let's accept that juries are not delicate orchids and that the Contempt of Court Act need be wielded, if at all, with an exceptionally light touch.
In passing this newspaper has actually removed the piece and pictures about Dean Hancock and the photographer. Now I know what it must have been like to live in the Soviet Union and read Pravda. Look silly newspaper it's going to be tried, if at all, by magistrates and they're hardly likely to admit to reading your tabloid, let alone to being influenced by it. Look silly legislators, in the week the jury system showed its robustness by acquitting the Abergavenny chap who gave the 2 no hope thieves a little tap let's accept that juries are not delicate orchids and that the Contempt of Court Act need be wielded, if at all, with an exceptionally light touch. Dai Rear
  • Score: 0

3:04pm Sun 26 Jan 14

PartySleuth says...

We must not forget that peoples attitudes to pubs are changing and Pub Landlords ALSO need to be proactive in the way they market their pubs in the digital world.
This is not to say I don't agree that pub companies need to take some responsibility for the problem. As an ex Punch Leaseholder I am only too aware of the greed of the pub company who doesn't support their landlords. This is why I set up my own company offering a Free consultation to help Landlords take an unbiased look at their business and to help integrate digital into future marketing plans.
Debbie Thomas
www.promoteyourpub.n
et
info@partysleuthprom
otions.co.uk
We must not forget that peoples attitudes to pubs are changing and Pub Landlords ALSO need to be proactive in the way they market their pubs in the digital world. This is not to say I don't agree that pub companies need to take some responsibility for the problem. As an ex Punch Leaseholder I am only too aware of the greed of the pub company who doesn't support their landlords. This is why I set up my own company offering a Free consultation to help Landlords take an unbiased look at their business and to help integrate digital into future marketing plans. Debbie Thomas www.promoteyourpub.n et info@partysleuthprom otions.co.uk PartySleuth
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree