Mark Daniels: Playground politics

I've often thought that if I were to create a "Top Five List Of Things That Are Wrong With The Pub Trade," the number one spot wouldn't be taken with such everyday topics as The Beer Tie, or The Smoking Ban, or even The Supermarket Issue.

No, I've always thought that the biggest threat to our industry comes from Downing Street itself: Gordon Brown's government.

I wrote last week that recent statements from politicians Gerry Sutcliffe, Tobias Ellwood and Don Foster were little more than politicking in the face of a General Election and it seems that there is some truth to this.

Whilst they might have appeared as if they were saying the right things to woo the trade in to thinking that they are on our side, the big guns continued plotting against us in the background.

Yesterday's budget was a classic example of a government that in one hand say they want to help trade, industry, and small-to-medium businesses, and in the other want to grasp all the cash they can to fill the rapidly emptying pot of money that they drilled a hole in the bottom of.

In 2008, when Alistair Darling announced the Alcohol Duty Escalator, I mused that it would mean that each year he would barely have to mention alcohol in his speech and the duty would rise. It seems that's true, because in Wednesday's budget the Chancellor spent less than ten seconds referring to beer; it wouldn't even have taken that long if he hadn't chucked in the bit about extending the escalator a further two years.

The resulting 5% hike isn't really a surprise, although it's disappointing that in spite of vast public opposition to the alcohol accelerator and the pleas of a trade buckling under over-taxation, Alistair Darling has still forced forward with it. And, to add insult to injury, he announced that it will be extended, meaning that we're now stuck with the policy until 2015. (Just in time, then, for their manifesto at the next election to say that they would drop it...)

Unbelievably, since 2008 beer duty has risen by a staggering twenty six percent.

Darling's speech on alcohol only lasted a further twenty seconds because he added that the long-standing anomaly on the level of duty on cider means that, from midnight Sunday, duty on the product will increase by an apple-souring 13% in total.

We all knew that one was coming, but it would have been much more palatable if the increase had been brought in over, say, two years.

The whole thing was over quicker than I would be if I ever managed to woo Jennifer Aniston and showed that, once again, the plight of small businesses (for that is what the majority of public houses are) wasn't really at the forefront of his mind. The increases will surely mean that pubs are forced to raise their prices steeply as breweries and suppliers will build-in not just this tax increase, but other increases the budget has forced on them too. (CAMRA have hinted it could be as much as 20p a pint.)

Indeed, CAMRA's Chief Executive, Mike Benner is quoted as being "at a loss in understanding how a government that recognises the community value of pubs can impose such consistently draconian beer duty increases."

But here's the rub: Labour doesn't recognise the community value of pubs. It says it does in a shallow attempt to win our votes, but the reality is that it doesn't really give a toss. Once the election is over, the vague promises of support from the likes of the three MPs at last week's CAMRA event in Parliament are likely to disappear quicker than Debbie McGee in a Paul Daniels illusion.

To the Government, public houses are money-making machines with an easily taxable product, so wrapped up in our own back-stabbing that we've run out of steam to challenge them on any of the serious issues that really do affect our trade.

It's time for the trade to pull its socks up and start working together to ease the burden of legislation against us rather than involving ourselves in playground politics.

Budget Humour

I couldn't help but smile when a customer told this joke over the bar last night: Alistair Darling's budget has made a lot of millionaires over night. Unfortunately, they'd started out as billionaires!

A humble apology to Sky TV...

I always try to make sure that I've looked in to the facts of things before I write them, and I was brought up to acknowledge when I've made a mistake and apologise when necessary.

And so it's come to my attention that in my last blog I got a little carried away complaining about Sky's pricing model for their new 3D service by stating that pubs will have to pay a further subscription to receive the 3D services whilst residential customers won't, something I believed was unfair given that Sky had been using pubs to push their new three dimensional service.

Indeed, on their main 3D web page it does actually say that Sky World customers with the HD pack can experience 3D for no extra charge, followed by an asterisk that leads you to the statement: "only applicable to residential customers."

In fact, this is where the murky waters of Sky's package combinations becomes confusing. If you have a domestic package and want Sky 3D, you must pay for Sky HD. However, if you are a commercial customer with the Ultimate Package you will receive the 3D service free of charge without subscribing to High Definition. And 100 pairs of glasses for your customers.

I apologise to Sky for any confusion that might have occurred, but it's worth noting that even in a small outlet like mine the difference between the Base and Ultimate packs is £113 a month. That's quite steep considering most of the channels in the Ultimate pack don't offer sports that the majority of pub customers want to see. You do, though, get a free HD box if you subscribe to the Ultimate package, but you don't get the HD channels included.

Why, then, can I have 3D free, but not the High Defintion* package, which was - let's face it - touted as the​ future of television only five minutes ago...

* Subscribing to HD can cost up to £100 per month extra if you are in the top ratable value bracket.