Who does Brigid Simmonds remind you of?
(Click here to listen to the show)
As the BBPA’s CEO laid out her vision for the future, my mind wandered back to April 3rd 2003; a pivotal moment in the coalition’s second Gulf War with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.
Tariq Aziz (Iraqi propaganda minister) stood on the steps of the government building, confidently assuring the assembled press that Iraqi troops were pushing coalition forces back. Simultaneous TV footage meanwhile, showed British and American tanks entering the outskirts of Baghdad unopposed.
It was a definitive moment; highlighting the fact that in times of crisis, dictatorial regimes unaccustomed to external scrutiny and accountability, invariably resort to increasingly desperate measures to convince those willing to listen that all is well with the world.
- For Saddam Hussein and his government this evidenced itself through the use of a highly sophisticated propaganda machine, one which ensured the populace were fed a daily diet of blatantly biased and distorted propaganda.
- The BBPA appears similarly divorced from reality, engaging in blatant self-denial, coupled with a seemingly dogged determination to ensure the industry continues down a similarly destructive path.
- The interview with Brigid Simmonds therefore, merely confirmed what the overwhelming majority have long since known. That the BBPA is an organisation whose sole raison d’être is ensuring the protection of interests that are increasingly at variance with those of tied publicans.
Consequently, the public utterances of Brigid and Tariq possess one common trait; they are the product of individuals who steadfastly refuse to either acknowledge or address the issues so obvious to all around them.
Let me give you some examples.
- When asked whether she accepted the BISC report, Brigid questioned the impartiality of the Select Committee; suggesting they’d reached conclusions prematurely, thereby making the BBPA’s submission immaterial.
- Most of you I suspect, have quite rightly concluded that the Committee had long since lost patience with an industry so unequivocally opposed to external scrutiny from the outset.
Such a view is highly understandable, given the constant foot dragging, ‘glacial’ rates of progress and ‘slippage’; all designed to obstruct rather than contribute to the process of reform.
However it was Brigid’s refusal to acknowledge the real concerns of tenants that struck me most forcibly. For example, when the subject turned to the high prices tied tenants are obliged to pay for their beer, Bridget responded in a way that would have made Tariq proud.
It seems that in return for lower “hard rents”, tenants pay “a little bit more” for their beer.
A little bit more? That must rank as one of the greatest understatements of all time!
But Brigid didn’t stop there. She went on the reaffirm the pubco line that 265 million pounds has been allocated to supporting beleaguered publicans.
I’m sure Tariq would have enjoyed that one too!
As he was only too well aware, such claims are easily made, rather more difficult to substantiate; particularly if they’re the product of some very vivid imaginations.
It’s a little peculiar I know, but many of us are having a great deal of difficulty in tracking down the beneficiaries of this supposed ‘support’. They appear as elusive as those weapons of mass destruction.
And then of course there’s the thorny issue of rents. Cynics maintain that the overriding factor governing many rental premiums is debt repayment not turnover.
It seems however, that such a view is misplaced.
Asked whether high rental premiums were the reason for many pub closures, Bridget gave another ‘Tariq Aziz like’ response.
Rents it seems, have come down by 20% in the last four years.
Whilst I’m sure that response would’ve put a smile on Tariq’s face it certainly didn’t put one on mine. In fact it proved to be the final straw.
“Hit her with RPI Peter” I screamed, “for God’s sake man, hit her with RPI!”. But of course he didn’t, and the moment was lost.
And what about that statutory code enforced by an adjudicator? Peter White saw the sense of such a proposal. Needless to say Brigid didn’t concur; citing “inflexibility”.
You can see her point, can’t you?
After all, an industry that has become accustomed to doing pretty much what it damned well pleases over the years might regard the presence of an adjudicator sitting on its shoulder as a little “inflexible”.
We got some additional smoke and mirrors; “reputational risk” and “low cost entry” but nothing of substance; all of which suggested a complete disregard for the perfectly valid concerns raised by the Select Committee.
One commentator I spoke to appeared to have a rather more realistic grasp of the situation; pointing out that the government has a duty of care to act, given that they’re responsible for much of the current carnage.
“They gave the keys of the chicken shed to a couple of wolves” he told me, “now they’ve got to get them back”.
Statutory code enforced by an adjudicator?
Bring it on!
