Robert Sayles: Severing the tie - is militancy the only answer?

In my previous blog, the spotlight was on those who appeared to be somewhat critical of attempts by some to address perceived deficiencies to the tie.

Here, I wish to focus on the strategies adopted by the various protagonists as well as assess the likelihood of success. We are after all stakeholders in this process; consequently we have a vested interest in the outcome.

Many firmly believe that the escalating conflict between tenant and pubco has come about as a result of one thing and one thing only, pubco intransigence.

They would point to the fact since 2004, pubcos have adopted a number of tactics specifically designed to delay and stall much needed reform.

Patience has clearly long since run out, resulting in three groups going on the offensive, CAMRA, Fair Pint and the alliance of GMB and Pub Revolution. In each case the tie has been the sole issue of contention.

Whilst CAMRA have referred the matter back to the OFT and asked them to look at it again, (they initially concluded that there was no case to answer) Fair Pint have lobbied hard in Westminster to get ministers on board.

Both strategies are what we might term conventional in nature; this in turn has led sceptics to conclude that neither have any realistic prospect of success. Politicians it is suggested, are currently engaging in little more than electioneering, whilst few believe that the OFT are likely to change their current stance.

If you accept both these arguements then you must also recognise that this offers those seeking reform two very clear cut options; acknowledge that the prospect of failure is very high or alternatively, adopt a more militant approach. Clearly, some have long since reached this conclusion, hence the alliance of GMB and Pub Revolution.

Militancy, by its very nature almost inevitably adopts an extreme stance; it is grounded in the belief that there is no viable alternative. It is a textbook strategy for many militant groups worldwide but is problematic in several ways.

• As I intimated in my previous blog, it categorises people within one of two camps, either 'with' or 'against' those seeking reform.

• Militancy invariably demands extreme action and is therefore likely to appeal only to those who feel that the severity of their plight warrants it. It is by its very nature therefore, less palatable to the overwhelming majority; the net result being that it is likely to alienate many of those who are broadly sympathetic with many of the objectives of the organisation.

• It fails to acknowledge the complexity of many of the issues involved. For example if I were to say that certain aspects of the tie are admirable, (e.g. the protection afforded to small brewers to ensure their survival) would I be viewed as 'anti militant' even though I concur with those who believe the price that we in the tied trade are being asked to pay for our beer is quite literally killing us?

• It usually limits the conflict to a specific issue, in this case the tie, thereby putting issues that have a somewhat lower profile but which are nevertheless important to one side.

All three groups have concluded that, at this stage at least, it is only practical to deal with the primary issue; the price we as tenants pay for our beer. On this point I concur with them wholeheartedly, there is little doubt in my mind that at this moment in time, the tie is THE issue.

Many customers, mine included, have reached the threshold in terms of what they are prepared to pay; three pounds a pint might be acceptable in London but it is most certainly not in many parts of Birmingham.

Some point to the fact that people will always come for the 'pub experience'; that might be so, but as I have suggested, those very same people will only pay so much for the privilege, for many that point has long since been reached.

If you factor in the huge discounts pubcos enjoy as a result of their purchasing power, they are currently making more on a barrel than I am. Can that be right? Peter Luff suggested that pubcos don't do enough to take that percentage of the profit; I would suggest that this observation has merit.

Pubcos argue that government taxation is the real problem; this is met with scorn and derision by many. They would counter that it is nothing more than a smokescreen designed to deflect criticism away from the bigger issue; the margin pubcos currently enjoy through the tie.

Of course there is a simple solution; pubcos could head off a confrontation by implementing reform. That said, if I were in their position I know exactly what I would do - employ the same tactics that have worked so well thus far, namely fudge, delay, prevaricate, and ensure all public utterances contain the words 'transparency' 'partnership' and 'co-operation'.

In short, I would do absolutely nothing and call the government's bluff next year. Given the political uncertainty, (current polls suggest a hung parliament is a likely outcome) this might prove to be a sensible strategy. If you accept this then you could argue that it further validates the more militant stance adopted by GMB and the Pub Revolution?

So what does the future hold? I don't pretend to have all the answers; I don't think any of us do. We are after all in unchartered waters; the future is filled with nothing but uncertainty. I would however say this to all those concerned:

To the activists - Be open to alternative ideas and don't view those who have reservations about some of the tactics you employ as the 'enemy'. I am certain that almost everybody in the tied trade acknowledges the fact that change has to come and come quickly, that should be our starting point.

Those who question in the hope of seeking solutions should not be labelled as 'pro-pubco' or 'anti-reformist'. Such terms are deeply divisive, overtly simplistic and their usage demonstrates nothing more than a complete lack of understanding of the complex nature of the issues that confront us.

It is this very complexity that dictates that many of us will inevitably reach differing conclusions about the way ahead; the problems are clear enough, the solutions much less so.

To my fellow publicans - The way forward is not through point scoring or petty sniping but through constructive dialogue where we try to focus on areas of agreement, (I suspect when it comes down to it we are all a lot closer on many of the issues than we think) whilst accepting there will inevitably areas of disagreement.

This has to be our starting stance surely. If we are unable to do this then what can we realistically hope to achieve? The pubcos have remained a formidable force by maintaining a united front; it is high time we showed that same level of solidarity.

To the pubcos - Brigid Simmonds, chief executive of the BBPA, recently stated that the industry needed some 'breathing space'. My overriding message to Brigid would be this; "You asked for breathing space and you've got it. Now use it; because I suspect if you don't, some of us most certainly will!"

Let me leave you with this thought. I have been privileged enough to have travelled and worked in many parts of the world, seen and done many things. Nevertheless, I can honestly say that in all that time, nothing has come close to touching my heart in a way this industry has.

We have something very special here, something worth preserving, something well worth fighting for. An outsider could never begin to understand but I know many of you do because like me, you love your profession, it is in your blood and for many of you it will remain there until the day you die.

Some argue that there is no place for emotion in the world of business; I would respond by saying that passion and emotion is what this industry is all about.

It is what brings us back to forums such as this again and again. It is what drives people like Mark Daniels, Chris Maclean, myself and many others to write articles such as this, united in the fervent hope that we ca