Well, then

If this is what we have to look forward to-

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,372882,00.html

Last Call for Many Pubs as British Economy Declines

Friday, June 27, 2008



LONDON — An industry group says nearly 30 pubs closed every week in Britain last year because of high costs, economic worries and the effects of a smoking ban.

The British Beer & Pub Association says 1,409 pubs closed in 2007, compared with 216 in 2006 and 102 the year before that.

The impact was greatest in cities, where the group estimated that 2 percent of pubs closed last year. Association spokesman Neil Williams says city pubs could not provide comfortable areas for smokers as rural pubs have done.

Williams said Friday that pubs are responding by campaigning for lower beer taxes and by promoting the traditional British pub, which dates back centuries. But he says the high rate of closures is unlikely to fall while current economic strains persist.



Hear tell there's poli-talk about a bailout.

Seriously.

Boys and girls, we here in the colonies hold the dearest wish ye not be so stupid as to let yer Lords be pourin' the fookin' drinks.

(I hereby invoke my ultimate Right to a smilie) :nono:

Thank you for the explicit article. Genius, in depth journalism.

If the article is intended to cause panic or fear outside of its borders, it is best they take shelter in one of those very extremely rare dystopian few that are actually worthy of a visit in order to fight of the zombies of cluelessnes.

June 27, 2008...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 100%

Thank you for the explicit article. Genius, in depth journalism.

If the article is intended to cause panic or fear outside of its borders, it is best they take shelter in one of those very extremely rare dystopian few that are actually worthy of a visit in order to fight of the zombies of cluelessnes.

June 27, 2008...

---

Actually, it is a model of unadorned, pointed (and to-the-point) journalism, and the fact of one pub/bar being gooder/badder than another is only peripherally salient.

The zombies you refer to are found in every such establishment, truth.

Pubs are still closing at an alarming rate in the UK, however it appears to be a Geographic thing as much as an economic.

In some parts of the country the Smoking Ban is totally ignored and hence has a minimal effect. Other parts adapted or only partially complied.

Those parts that have zero tolerance, actually follow stupid laws to the letter or are in a local culture that agree's with the aim of the Smoking Ban are fucked.


However Pubs have been in decline for a while in parts of the UK, the Smoking Ban has merely speeded up the rate of closure in those areas.

I'm confused though..

Why point at the UK, when we got the idea from the US and have had similar findings?

Quote:

---

Since its passage in July 2003, a significant amount of anecdotal evidence has suggested that New York’s statewide smoking ban has negatively affected bars, clubs and taverns across New York State. Countless media accounts have described a dramatic drop in customers for bars throughout the state, as well as a steep decline in bar revenue and significant job losses.

To date, the only statistical evidence put forth to gauge the ban’s economic impact has analyzed the combined revenue and job totals from both restaurant and bar industries. The following economic study is the first detailed economic analysis focused exclusively on the economic effects of the state smoking ban on New York State’s bars. This report measures the direct and indirect economic impact of the New York smoking ban on bars, taverns and clubs*.

The major findings are that the passage of the state smoking ban in 2003 has directly resulted in a dramatic loss in revenue and jobs in New York’s bars, taverns and clubs.

Specifically, the following statewide economic losses have occurred in New York’s bar and tavern industry as a direct result of the statewide smoking ban:

* 2,000 jobs (10.7% of actual employment)
* $28.5 million in wages and salary payments
* $37 million in gross state product

In addition, there are indirect losses to other businesses which supply and service the state’s bars and taverns:

* 650 jobs
* $21.5 million in labor earnings
* $34.5 million in gross state product

In summary, the enactment of the New York State smoking ban has had a dramatic negative impact on the bar and tavern business and related businesses. The total economic impact is:

* 2650 jobs
* $50 million in worker earnings
* $71.5 million in gross state product (output)


*This analysis, defines bars, taverns and clubs using the following North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) definition: “This industry comprises establishments known as bars, taverns, nightclubs, or drinking places primarily engaged in preparing and serving alcoholic beverages for immediate consumption. These establishments may also provide limited food services.”

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

Pubs are still closing at an alarming rate in the UK, however it appears to be a Geographic thing as much as an economic.

In some parts of the country the Smoking Ban is totally ignored and hence has a minimal effect. Other parts adapted or only partially complied.

Those parts that have zero tolerance, actually follow stupid laws to the letter or are in a local culture that agree's with the aim of the Smoking Ban are fucked.


However Pubs have been in decline for a while in parts of the UK, the Smoking Ban has merely speeded up the rate of closure in those areas.

I'm confused though..

Why point at the UK, when we got the idea from the US and have had similar findings?

Quote:

---

Since its passage in July 2003, a significant amount of anecdotal evidence has suggested that New York’s statewide smoking ban has negatively affected bars, clubs and taverns across New York State. Countless media accounts have described a dramatic drop in customers for bars throughout the state, as well as a steep decline in bar revenue and significant job losses.

To date, the only statistical evidence put forth to gauge the ban’s economic impact has analyzed the combined revenue and job totals from both restaurant and bar industries. The following economic study is the first detailed economic analysis focused exclusively on the economic effects of the state smoking ban on New York State’s bars. This report measures the direct and indirect economic impact of the New York smoking ban on bars, taverns and clubs*.

The major findings are that the passage of the state smoking ban in 2003 has directly resulted in a dramatic loss in revenue and jobs in New York’s bars, taverns and clubs.

Specifically, the following statewide economic losses have occurred in New York’s bar and tavern industry as a direct result of the statewide smoking ban:

* 2,000 jobs (10.7% of actual employment)
* $28.5 million in wages and salary payments
* $37 million in gross state product

In addition, there are indirect losses to other businesses which supply and service the state’s bars and taverns:

* 650 jobs
* $21.5 million in labor earnings
* $34.5 million in gross state product

In summary, the enactment of the New York State smoking ban has had a dramatic negative impact on the bar and tavern business and related businesses. The total economic impact is:

* 2650 jobs
* $50 million in worker earnings
* $71.5 million in gross state product (output)


*This analysis, defines bars, taverns and clubs using the following North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) definition: “This industry comprises establishments known as bars, taverns, nightclubs, or drinking places primarily engaged in preparing and serving alcoholic beverages for immediate consumption. These establishments may also provide limited food services.”

---

---

WTF.

Please, I am a retired civil-servant with pension pending my age.

I worked liquor control in my state of residence for many years and am steeped (forgive the term) in the domestic situation vis a vis spirits and the consumption thereof.

Reread the last sentence in my first post, Rat.

Honestly, sir, you Brits are so reflexively (insert favored ideological pejorative term) sometimes.

Can't even discern genuine empathy.

Err.. actually I was asking a serious question and believe it is a serious issue.

A Pub is often the centre of a Community and the less community spirit there is, there is a coressponding rise in social problems.

We got the idea from the USA (intially, other countries also jumped on that bandwagon before us) and our pub trade is now going to the dogs the same way New York's is (I've not heard of help from Government in either case)

Its not bad in Newcastle, little thing like that wont stop us enjoying ourselves. But then, this is a party city, not a village or town.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

Err.. actually I was asking a serious question and believe it is a serious issue.

A Pub is often the centre of a Community and the less community spirit there is, there is a coressponding rise in social problems.

We got the idea from the USA (intially, other countries also jumped on that bandwagon before us) and our pub trade is now going to the dogs the same way New York's is (I've not heard of help from Government in either case)

Its not bad in Newcastle, little thing like that wont stop us enjoying ourselves. But then, this is a party city, not a village or town.

---

Ah.

Well, drinking establishments have been under outright attack over here for about 25 years, and the dram shop laws forced a tightening of the actual "accounting" of alcohol inventory, so the initial batches of closings were due to bar owners being deprived of the normally-anticipated 30-40% skim.

Without that, a lot fewer people are willing to do the necessary work to run a nice place, as you know.

The economy has nicked some as well, but that has merely served to sharpen the downward trend.

In any case, the government here wouldn't bail out a bar, and I was surprised to hear old Gordo might be interested.

As to New York, I guess they've decided you can't have everything.

It's all down to a healthier society, you see, and I'm sure the U.N. would agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

Err.. actually I was asking a serious question and believe it is a serious issue.

A Pub is often the centre of a Community and the less community spirit there is, there is a coressponding rise in social problems.

We got the idea from the USA (intially, other countries also jumped on that bandwagon before us) and our pub trade is now going to the dogs the same way New York's is (I've not heard of help from Government in either case)

Its not bad in Newcastle, little thing like that wont stop us enjoying ourselves. But then, this is a party city, not a village or town.

---

Ah.

Well, drinking establishments have been under outright attack over here for about 25 years, and the dram shop laws forced a tightening of the actual "accounting" of alcohol inventory, so the initial batches of closings were due to bar owners being deprived of the normally-anticipated 30-40% skim.

Without that, a lot fewer people are willing to do the necessary work to run a nice place, as you know.

The economy has nicked some as well, but that has merely served to sharpen the downward trend.

In any case, the government here wouldn't bail out a bar, and I was surprised to hear old Gordo might be interested.

As to New York, I guess they've decided you can't have everything.

It's all down to a healthier society, you see, and I'm sure the U.N. would agree.

---

Banks and Building Societies and Stock Broking firms are being bailed out. They are basically gamblers. At least as RF says pubs are socially embedded in society.

I wonder if Paddy Power(Bookmakers) will go cap in hand if they have a bad year.:whistling

Alcohol does have its problems, I agree. It is, afterall, a drug.

However, a "Local Pub" is also traditionally a part of the Community. It's often the only "Social" element for many peoples lives. Their closure therefore causes more problems than keeping them open.

I'm sure that the USA must have learned this from Prohibition.

I'm not talking about Pubs in say "City Centre" locations, where there is quite a lot of competition for young drinkers out partying. I'm sure that many of these establishments will survive no matter what, despite overpricing etc. Certainly in Newcastle, there doesn't appear to be a huge problem in the Bigg Market or on the Quayside.

The "Locals" though, I think are a valuable part of the Communities they serve.

I haven't heard Gordo is thinking of any help for the trade, however since he has been instrumental in destoying it with the amount of Tax he's charging on Alcohol plus the Smoking Ban on top.... funnier things have happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

Alcohol does have its problems, I agree. It is, afterall, a drug.

However, a "Local Pub" is also traditionally a part of the Community. It's often the only "Social" element for many peoples lives. Their closure therefore causes more problems than keeping them open.

I'm sure that the USA must have learned this from Prohibition.

I'm not talking about Pubs in say "City Centre" locations, where there is quite a lot of competition for young drinkers out partying. I'm sure that many of these establishments will survive no matter what, despite overpricing etc. Certainly in Newcastle, there doesn't appear to be a huge problem in the Bigg Market or on the Quayside.

The "Locals" though, I think are a valuable part of the Communities they serve.

I haven't heard Gordo is thinking of any help for the trade, however since he has been instrumental in destoying it with the amount of Tax he's charging on Alcohol plus the Smoking Ban on top.... funnier things have happened.

---

Yes, agreed.

Didn't mean to come off as unsympathetic.

I've shed a few tears (well, drunken ones, anyhow) over the periodic closings of the types of establishments you speak of.

One of the original "necessary evils", I'd say.

Out of interest J2, and I know this will probably change by State..

Whats the level of Taxation on Alcohol over there?

Here it's basically 40%, PLUS the sales tax on top (Temp. 15%, usually 17.5%.. and the very idea of paying Tax on the Tax pisses me off on general principles.. I hate exise duties)

That means that when you pay for your Pint, well over half of the money goes to the Exchequer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

Out of interest J2, and I know this will probably change by State..

Whats the level of Taxation on Alcohol over there?

Here it's basically 40%, PLUS the sales tax on top (Temp. 15%, usually 17.5%.. and the very idea of paying Tax on the Tax pisses me off on general principles.. I hate exise duties)

That means that when you pay for your Pint, well over half of the money goes to the Exchequer

---

It does change by state, but Michigan (shelf-price-wise I would have pegged us - educated guess - at about the 60th percentile, nationally) did it thusly:

Cost: (ex) $10.00

Markup: (57%) $5.70

$15.70

Excise: (There were three, as I remember; each was 1.5%, total of 4.5%, calculated after mark-up, so-)

$1.11

$16.81

????? (last there was a 1.85% kicker - can't remember what for - calculated the same way-)

.31

Total: $17.12

That would be, say, for a well-quality (cheap, 750ml) bottle of scotch.

A decent single-malt was between $30-50/bottle; Ambassador around $180.

I'm sure they're more now.

Of course, the 57% "markup" is a tax, insofar as the state collected it, but it was a state-run business, run just like any other, so.

Make-up your own mind about that one.

At the time I left civil service, there were 17 control states out of the fifty, and many non-"control" states were much, much higher.

Flippin' heck, I remember paying about $30 for a liter of Jack Black in Georgia when I could have brought one from home for about $22.

So say $7 out of the $17 goes to Government.

Here its more like $10 out of the $17..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

So say $7 out of the $17 goes to Government.

Here its more like $10 out of the $17..

---

Dare I remind you?

But of course...

Feature that, then, won't you:

A state, doing business in a largely open market where capitalism reigns, is cheaper than the socialist state.

Not for long.

Granted the nanny state charges us for anything unhealthy..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

Granted the nanny state charges us for anything unhealthy..

---

No freedom in that, eh?