Comments on: Why we SHOULD be concerned about the decline of Pubs http://thethirdestate.net/2009/04/why-we-should-be-concerned-about-the-decline-of-pubs/ What Is The Third Estate? Everything. What Has It Been Until Now In The Political Order? Nothing. What Does It Want To Be? Something. Sun, 12 Feb 2012 23:39:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.1 By: Tom Fletcher http://thethirdestate.net/2009/04/why-we-should-be-concerned-about-the-decline-of-pubs/comment-page-1/#comment-2175 Tom Fletcher Fri, 10 Jul 2009 03:33:17 +0000 http://thethirdestate.net/?p=608#comment-2175 I have to say I am very much in agreement with Reuben about the importance of pubs in British culture and about the role that these communal spaces have played in the development of social trends and etiquette in British history. As far as the smoking ban is concerned, I have always held one view on this: it is not the place of the government to tell a landlord whether his pub should be a venue which allows smoking or which disallows it. A landlord, as a pub is HIS property, should be able to choose. If the government banned smoking in peoples' own homes there would be outcry. As much as it can be argued that public houses are "public facilities", at the end of the day, they are privately owned. Yes, they are given licenses to sell alcohol by the local authority, but to be honest that is unrelated. As far as I am concerned, based on personal experience, as far as averages go, the smoking ban probably hasn't affected business for pubs. However, this is simply because those pubs which, by their very nature cannot cater for smokers, have lost business and those which can have gained it. The statistics which people ask for never show individual cases and give too broad a picture. I for one am sick of this government not only advising me how to live my life, but also bringing in rules to enforce it. Over zealous health and safety regulations, the smoking ban, think 25 (as it has now become) to avoid any possible consumption of alcohol by a minor --- as if that is going to stop a determined 15 year old from obtaining the stuff! --- it has become ludicrous. The nanny state is doing nothing, save wasting money on attempting to give a man a fish so that he'll eat for a day. If they spent money teaching man to fish, he'd eat for a lifetime by learning from his own mistakes and from the advice of others, without needing to be spoon-fed. Sorry I went off on a bit of a tangent...but the decline in pubs does, I believe, have a lot to do with my aforementioned points. The increase on beer tax, the smoking bans etc... are all examples of the nanny state. Has anyone done a real cost-benefit analysis of this style of government? If not, I would love to see one carried out! I have to say I am very much in agreement with Reuben about the importance of pubs in British culture and about the role that these communal spaces have played in the development of social trends and etiquette in British history. As far as the smoking ban is concerned, I have always held one view on this: it is not the place of the government to tell a landlord whether his pub should be a venue which allows smoking or which disallows it. A landlord, as a pub is HIS property, should be able to choose. If the government banned smoking in peoples’ own homes there would be outcry. As much as it can be argued that public houses are “public facilities”, at the end of the day, they are privately owned. Yes, they are given licenses to sell alcohol by the local authority, but to be honest that is unrelated.

As far as I am concerned, based on personal experience, as far as averages go, the smoking ban probably hasn’t affected business for pubs. However, this is simply because those pubs which, by their very nature cannot cater for smokers, have lost business and those which can have gained it. The statistics which people ask for never show individual cases and give too broad a picture.

I for one am sick of this government not only advising me how to live my life, but also bringing in rules to enforce it. Over zealous health and safety regulations, the smoking ban, think 25 (as it has now become) to avoid any possible consumption of alcohol by a minor — as if that is going to stop a determined 15 year old from obtaining the stuff! — it has become ludicrous. The nanny state is doing nothing, save wasting money on attempting to give a man a fish so that he’ll eat for a day. If they spent money teaching man to fish, he’d eat for a lifetime by learning from his own mistakes and from the advice of others, without needing to be spoon-fed.

Sorry I went off on a bit of a tangent…but the decline in pubs does, I believe, have a lot to do with my aforementioned points. The increase on beer tax, the smoking bans etc… are all examples of the nanny state. Has anyone done a real cost-benefit analysis of this style of government? If not, I would love to see one carried out!

]]> By: TaisseWak http://thethirdestate.net/2009/04/why-we-should-be-concerned-about-the-decline-of-pubs/comment-page-1/#comment-717 TaisseWak Mon, 25 May 2009 10:02:55 +0000 http://thethirdestate.net/?p=608#comment-717 Hi, I’m also wondering! Hope everything is well with you! Would love to see the new line. Hi, I’m also wondering! Hope everything is well with you! Would love to see the new line.

]]> By: Reuben http://thethirdestate.net/2009/04/why-we-should-be-concerned-about-the-decline-of-pubs/comment-page-1/#comment-640 Reuben Thu, 07 May 2009 10:29:18 +0000 http://thethirdestate.net/?p=608#comment-640 Owen, just been checking out the stats. In the first year after the smoking ban 1200 pubs (roughly 2 per cent) shut. The data in my original post suggested a decline in pubs of 1 per cent per annum. In other words, in the first year after the smoking ban the rate of pub closures increaded by 100%. As to your first comment, you don't have to believe in the free market to believe that it can render useful information about consumer preferences. Owen, just been checking out the stats. In the first year after the smoking ban 1200 pubs (roughly 2 per cent) shut. The data in my original post suggested a decline in pubs of 1 per cent per annum. In other words, in the first year after the smoking ban the rate of pub closures increaded by 100%.

As to your first comment, you don’t have to believe in the free market to believe that it can render useful information about consumer preferences.

]]> By: Owen http://thethirdestate.net/2009/04/why-we-should-be-concerned-about-the-decline-of-pubs/comment-page-1/#comment-639 Owen Thu, 07 May 2009 09:35:44 +0000 http://thethirdestate.net/?p=608#comment-639 Yes Reuben, the free market will sort everything out. Spoken like a true socialist :P Seriously, is there any evidence linking pubs' current troubles to the smoking ban? I could believe it, but I haven't heard of any. Yes Reuben, the free market will sort everything out. Spoken like a true socialist :P Seriously, is there any evidence linking pubs’ current troubles to the smoking ban? I could believe it, but I haven’t heard of any.

]]> By: Reuben http://thethirdestate.net/2009/04/why-we-should-be-concerned-about-the-decline-of-pubs/comment-page-1/#comment-637 Reuben Wed, 06 May 2009 18:41:16 +0000 http://thethirdestate.net/?p=608#comment-637 Julia, if the smoking ban had the effect of making pubs more widely appealing they would not have had to bring in a law to institute it. I am completely right on this matter. Julia, if the smoking ban had the effect of making pubs more widely appealing they would not have had to bring in a law to institute it. I am completely right on this matter.

]]> By: julia http://thethirdestate.net/2009/04/why-we-should-be-concerned-about-the-decline-of-pubs/comment-page-1/#comment-635 julia Wed, 06 May 2009 17:03:32 +0000 http://thethirdestate.net/?p=608#comment-635 Crikey! I agree with all this. Pubs are good places, especially since the smoking ban, and since they started serving coffee and food. Believe me, they used to be nasty smelly uncomfortable places full of drunken men talking past each other. Some pubs wouldn't let women through the door. And now people of all ages and backgrounds can sit comfortably, listen to good music and comedy, and have conversations with each other, they all start closing down! Crikey! I agree with all this. Pubs are good places, especially since the smoking ban, and since they started serving coffee and food. Believe me, they used to be nasty smelly uncomfortable places full of drunken men talking past each other. Some pubs wouldn’t let women through the door. And now people of all ages and backgrounds can sit comfortably, listen to good music and comedy, and have conversations with each other, they all start closing down!

]]> By: Owen http://thethirdestate.net/2009/04/why-we-should-be-concerned-about-the-decline-of-pubs/comment-page-1/#comment-608 Owen Fri, 01 May 2009 08:29:02 +0000 http://thethirdestate.net/?p=608#comment-608 Is there any evidence that the smoking ban has harmed pubs? That's not a rhetorical question - I'm genuinely curious. Is there any evidence that the smoking ban has harmed pubs? That’s not a rhetorical question – I’m genuinely curious.

]]>