Is the government's duty proposal a bright idea? Or just the 'same old same old'?
'Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.' Immortal words from The Who's Pete Townsend which sprang gazelle-like to mind after the government published its proposals regarding the taxing of low and high strength beers last week.
A while back UK brewing types were sounding positive about the coalition's attitude towards the sector. "They get it," was the general consensus. Fast forward a few weeks and an all-too-familiar refrain, namely, that ministers have missed an opportunity to tackle binge-drinking on the one hand while it penalises traditional cask ale producers, is back.
On the face of it the government rationale - incentivising brewers to produce weaker beers - appears obvious. But will it work in the overall scheme of trying to reduce binge-drinking? Unlikely.
Still, I imagine some within the brewing fraternity are already beavering away to come up with a flavoursome beverage that ticks all the right boxes when it comes to the issues the government is driving at. If brewers can come up with a low alcohol yet flavourful beer, fair enough. I won't be holding my breath though.
And anyway, this is beside the point. As brewers will argue 'til the cows come home, the majority of people who drink beer - particularly cask ale - aren't your binge-drinking sort. If they wanted to put down a marker that acknowledged this salient fact they'd incentivise pubs - the Home of Responsible Drinking™, after all - in a more imaginative way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reports that Punch Taverns may return thousands of pubs covered by its debt obligations sounds like a bit of a kite-flying exercise to me, since clearly it wants - or hopes - to renegotiate the A, the B and the Spirit bonds. But if it does default it won't mean licensees will necessarily be any better off. Reminds me of those Townsend lyrics again…
