Friday, 27 February 2015

WHO do they think they are?

Since it's Friday, let's have a bit of good news for a change...

Pressure mounts on WHO chief over Ebola

World Health Organization (WHO) chief Margaret Chan must resign over the group's inefficient response to the recent Ebola crisis, the largest global AIDS organization said.

In a scathing statement released this week, Los Angeles-based AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) called for sweeping reforms to the WHO to better prevent and manage dangerous epidemics.

"In light of WHO's lack of leadership, decisive action and resolve to embrace responsibility for the protection of global public health in the Ebola crisis, the current Head of WHO should step down so that a proactive, reform-minded individual might take the lead and transform WHO into an efficient global instrument for rapidly addressing global health threats," AHF said.

You may recall that when the Ebola epidemic was at its height, Margaret Chan couldn't even give a speech about it because she was "fully occupied" in Moscow trying to get e-cigarettes banned. Instead, she put out a statement which strongly, and falsely, implied that she was busy dealing with Ebola.

Chan's holiday in Russia perfectly illustrates the problem with the WHO today. It is so obsessed with micromanaging the lifestyles of rich westerners that it is unable to carry out the job that it was set up to do, ie. tackle infectious disease in poor countries.

Hyperbole? Not really...

Cut music to 'an hour a day' - WHO

People should listen to music for no more than one hour a day to protect their hearing, the World Health Organization suggests.

And then there's the WHO's war on confectionery.

Sack her.

Sugar sales (still) falling

From the BBC:

Researchers from Action on Sugar are calling for strict limits on added sugars. 

They argue that as the body can generate energy from food such as fruits, vegetables, pasta and rice, there is no need for additional sugar beyond this.

That is the very essence of puritanism, right there. That people should be given—as Cromwell said—“not what they want but what is good for them.”

Meanwhile, Action on Sugar have been getting excited by this:

UK sugar sales drop by 14%

Sales dropped by £298m ($338m) in 2014 and coincided with findings that nearly half of British customers had shied away from sugar that week.

The anti-sugar cranks deny all the evidence that sugar sales have been falling for decades, so I don't know why they believe this latest piece of evidence.

I'm being disingenuous. They believe it because they can take the credit for it, having spent a year creating hysteria about sugar being the new tobacco.

A drop of 14% in a year is a pretty big deal and it tells you something very important. It tells you that if people want to reduce the amount of sugar they eat, they can easily do so. They don't need meddlesome legislation.

Thursday, 26 February 2015

Outdoor smoking bans (again)

That revolting individual, Lord Darzi, is calling for a ban on smoking outdoors again. In the British Medical Journal, Darzi and Simon Chapman are playing a game of good cop/bad cop, with the latter assuming the role of a half-decent human being by opposing the policy.

...some have invoked the virtues of shielding children from the sight of smoking as worthy evidence in this debate. They may concede that smoking in wide open spaces such as parks and beaches poses a near homeopathic level of risk to others, but they point to an indirect negative effect from the mere sight of smoking. This line of reasoning is pernicious and is redolent of totalitarian regimes in their penchants for repressing various liberties, communication, and cultural expression not sanctioned by the state. North Korea’s residents are routinely subjected to such fiats, but many of us would recoil at the use of such reasoning elsewhere.

Totalitarian is the word. The idea that individuals should pretend to be something they are not in order to fulfill the state's vision of a virtuous country is deeply sinister. That they should do on pain of arrest is frankly fascistic.

I have nothing to add to what I said about this last year so, if you're interested, read that.

It hardly needs to be said that smokers, like nonsmokers, have never volunteered to be role models for other people's children. The claim that adult activity should be criminalised if it can be witnessed by minors does not have to be taken to its logical extreme for it to be exposed as absurd and totalitarian. It is plainly not a serious argument. And yet, if I did feel the need to act as a role model to children, I would, first and foremost, impress upon them the importance of ignoring and despising unjust laws. I would hope to teach them that there is, in any society, a minority of bigots who resent liberal values and who will do whatever they can to impose their own lifestyles upon them. If flouting a draconian law will help a child realise that the state is not its friend, then I will cheerfully light a cigarette in any street or park.

Wednesday, 25 February 2015

The future of pubs (if CAMRA keeps winning)

I gave a speech at the Future Pubs conference yesterday. This is what I said...

I’ve been asked today to give you my predictions of what the pub industry might look like in 2020. There are, I think, two realistic possibilities. The mundane view is that the trade will be pretty similar to what it is now, but with even fewer pubs. I would expect to see the rate of closures to slow down, but under any realistic scenario I wouldn’t expect to see the number of pubs grow. In only 3 of the last 35 years has there been an increase in the number of pubs, and only a modest increase at that, and all three of those years were in the twentieth century. The recession has, I’m sure, played a part in the decimation of the pub trade in the last eight years, but that doesn’t mean that recovery will lead to the growth in the sector. For the last couple of generations, pubs have closed during recessions and they have continue to close, albeit in smaller numbers, during booms.

The mundane view may also be the optimistic view. A less optimistic view is that, if the pub preservation movement continues to win victories in parliament, the pub industry will be well on its way to something like nationalisation by 2020.

What I call the pub preservation movement is the alliance of groups like The Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA), Save the Pub, Fair Deal for Your Local and the All Party Parliamentary Save the Pub Group. The best that can be said about these groups is, perhaps, that they mean well. It pains me to criticise them because, on the face of it, we have a lot in common. They like beer, they like pubs, they want to see the pub industry prosper and grow. So do I. The fundamental difference is that whereas they see the government as the solution to the trade’s problems, I see it as the cause.

The pub preservers’ faith in government has led to what is, in my view, one of the most self-defeating and counter-productive political agitation in living memory. If we one day discover that the Campaign for Real Ale has been secretly controlled by the temperance movement for years, would we really be surprised?

For years, the Great Satan was the big brewers. CAMRA lobbied for—and virtually wrote—the Beer Orders which smashed the tied house system. Quite predictably, PubCos arrived to take their place, and now it is the PubCos who are the Great Satan and the big brewers who have been partially rehabilitated in the public imagination as ‘family brewers’ who supported something called ‘community pubs’. This kind of historical revisionism and rose-tinted nostalgia is an abiding characteristic of the pub preservation movement.

I have no interest in defending the PubCos. In many cases, they have run their businesses badly - as evidenced by the colossal debt that most of them are in and the fact that they have been selling off large parts of their estate. They have been hopeless when it comes to defending the interests of their customers on issues like minimum pricing and the smoking ban. If I were a publican, I think I would prefer to run a freehouse.

However, this does not mean that I think PubCos are evil or are determined to demolish every pub in the country, which appears to be the view of the pub preservers. You need to assume fiendish motives to able to predict how a business will react to ill-thought out regulation and perverse incentives.

This is how I think events will unfold.

Phase one: Market rent only

Parliament has decided - rightly or wrongly - that it is unfair for PubCos to be monopsony sellers who charge tenants more than the market price for alcohol. Essentially, it has decided that the PubCo quasi-franchise model is exploitative. And so it is giving tenants the legal right to buy their alcohol from wherever they like. It is easy to predict that most tenants will take advantage of this and buy their beer on the open market. And it is also easy to predict how the PubCos will respond. They will make up for the loss of wet rent by increasing the dry rent.

Phase two: Rent assessment

But the pub preservers can see this coming and they are one step ahead. They have pushed the government into bringing in a system of arbitration to decide what the 'market rent' is. Of course, we know what the market rent is. It is whatever the tenant and landlord agree upon. CAMRA et al. don’t really mean ‘market rent’. They mean a ‘fair’ rent, as interpreted by themselves.

Incredibly, this rent must not only be ‘fair’ - whatever that means - but it must be set at a rate that leaves the PubCo tenant ‘no worse off’ than the equivalent free-of-tie tenant.

This is legislation that could only be drawn up by politicians who have never worked in business. It applies to a fictional world where people and buildings are homogenous, identical units, the value of which can be objectively calculated by a bureaucrat. It is fantasy economics. The idea that the government can adjust the price of one overhead so that one publican is no worse off than a completely different publican is ludicrous.

A surveyor could only make such an evaluation if there was an identical pub run by identical publican to use as a comparison and, of course, there never is. It is highly unlikely that there would be a free-of-tie pub that was even remotely comparable, but even if there was, the surveyor wouldn’t have access to the books to see how much its rent and overheads cost.

Aside from being inherently impractical, this system of rent assessment will lead to horrendous market distortions. Its absurdity was exposed when the government admitted that an adjudicator might demand a tenant be charged no rent at all in order to be made him ‘no worse off’ than a free-of-tie tenant. The message is 'run your pub worse than the pub over the road and you pay a lower rent. Run it into the ground and you pay no rent.' It is economic insanity.

In practice, we must hope that surveyors exhibit more common sense than politicians when they are called in to deal with rent disputes. What we can be sure of is there will be plenty of disputes. Inevitably, many tenants will choose to go free of tie and, equally inevitably, PubCos will increase the rent when they do. Faced with a higher rent, the tenant will realise that the Save the Pub group hasn’t given him a free lunch after all and will move on to phase two and demand a rent assessment. Why wouldn’t he? It’s the PubCos who have to pay for it.

And so either the adjudicator will agree with the PubCo that the rent should be higher, in which case the tenant will face much the same costs as before, or he will decide that the PubCo isn't allowed to charge what the PubCo feels it needs to charge, in which case the PubCo has a fairly easy decision to make. The government has decided that it is no longer in the pub business, it is in the commercial property business. So the PubCo decides it’s going to rent the property to somebody else, but not as a pub, or it decides to sell the property, in which case it may or may not be bought by someone who wants to run it as a pub.

The best case scenario for drinkers is that these pubs are bought by independent publicans who keep it as a going concern. One does not need to read between the lines too much to work out that CAMRA’s real agenda is to force PubCos into selling off their estates to rosy-cheeked landlords and their ample-bosomed wives who will stock a cask of Old Thumper behind the bar and sing All Around My Hat.

If this happens, I will be happy with the ends even if I don’t approve of the means, but there are good reasons to suspect that this is not what will happen at all.

When is the last time the vast majority of Britain’s pubs were in the hands of individual operators? Certainly not in the lifetime of anyone in this room, nor in your grandparents lifetime. The tied house system is centuries old. Since the Victorian era, pubs have predominantly been owned by either brewers or PubCos. It is highly doubtful whether there are enough aspiring publicans with sufficient capital to buy a pub, particularly when beer sales are going through the floor and it is well known that the licensed trade is struggling.

Phase three: Planning restrictions

If no would-be publican can raise the money to buy the pub, the PubCo is going to sell it off to developers who will turn it into a shop or a private dwelling. But the pub preservers are once again ahead of the pack and have foreseen this unintended consequence of government action and - guess what? - they see yet more government action as the solution. They want to stop pub buildings changing their use without planning permission. Unlike the rest of their policies, this one didn’t quite make it through parliament although a second-best option has been brought in and pubs are now busy getting themselves listed as Assets of Community Value.

Pubs will flock to have themselves listed as Assets of Community Value and many will succeed. [UPDATE: In today's news, every pub in Otley has applied.] Getting this protection against a change of use is easy enough to do since it is easier for the local community to support their local pub in the abstract than it is to actually spend money in it, which is, of course, what the pub really needs.

The intention of this change to planning laws is to keep pubs on the market for long enough for an investor to come in and buy them, but although there may be exceptions, this seems to be a solution looking for a problem.

I am not convinced that the pub trade’s biggest problem is a lack of boarded up pubs standing idle up and down the country. The problem is a lack of buyers which stems from a lack of demand for pubs as they currently exist. The most likely outcome of the change to the planning laws is that pubs will stand derelict for months or years until the local community finally accepts that it is never going to bought as a pub and it would be better for everyone if it was turned into a house or shop.

Phase four?

I don’t know how many pubs will have to stand derelict before the penny drops within the pub preservation movement that the problem is a lack of demand, not a lack of supply. Perhaps the penny will never drop. Perhaps the next step will be for CAMRA et al. to lobby the government to step in where the market has supposedly failed by buying up all these ‘community pubs’ - these Assets of Community Value - and running them itself.

This is not as far-fetched as it might sound (remember the Carlisle experiment?). It would be in keeping with the big government interventionism of the pub preservers and it is not a million miles away from the proposals of the left-wing think tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research, which envisages pubs as state-subsidised post offices/internet cafes/creches/community centres. In other words, as National Heritage sites which preserve the physical building but cannot preserve the spirit of the pub, or even retain its primary purpose of serving alcoholic beverages.

Government ownership is, perhaps, the logical conclusion of a series of policies that pile intervention upon intervention to make up for government failure. If you distort the market so much that there is no market left then the only people who will be daft enough to enter the market are politicians. This is what I mean when I say that by 2020 we could be on our way to some form of nationalisation if we continue down the path of intervention.

Demand, not supply

It seems to me that the pub preservation movement has got just about everything wrong. Not just wrong, but diametrically wrong. The problem is not that PubCos are preventing people from going to the pub by closing down their premises and driving their tenants out of business. In fact, rates of closure have been about the same in the non-managed sector as in the free-of-tie sector for years and the Save the Pub group has been frankly dishonest in its manipulation of statistics to disguise this inconvenient fact. Pubs have been closing in every sector because of a fundamental lack of demand that has been largely due to government intervention.

Since 2006, the number of pubs in this country has fallen by 10,000. I estimate that around 4,000 of these have closed as a result of long-term social changes that I won’t go into here, but about which you will be familiar. That leaves 6,000 closures that cannot be explained by the secular decline.

What has happened since 2006 that can explain this dramatic increase in pub closures? I put it to you that the most likely culprits are the smoking ban, the alcohol duty escalator and the recession. The recession is now at an end, but - as I said earlier - I’m not holding my breath for a new golden age for pubs. The recession was the final nail in the coffin for many pubs, but it was not the underlying cause of the trade’s decimation. That leaves the smoking ban and alcohol duty - the first of which is extremely draconian and uncompromising by international standards, the second of which is extremely high by international standards. Almost incredibly, British drinkers pay 40 per cent of the EU’s entire alcohol tax bill.

The government could put right these wrongs tomorrow if it was genuinely committed to the pub trade. It could, and should, halve alcohol duty. It could, and should, amend the smoking ban to allow publicans to permit smoking in at least one room of their pubs.

What chance of this happening? Very little, I suspect. But it is what you would do if you were serious about reviving demand for pubs. You would look at the reasons why demand dropped off a cliff after 2006 and rectify them.

Instead, we have to endure the nauseating sight of watching MPs who voted for the smoking ban crying crocodile tears over the demise of the pub and blaming anything, including immigration, other than themselves. Instead of a united coalition campaigning for a big cut in alcohol duty, we see many publicans - and, once again, CAMRA - getting into bed with the temperance lobby to support minimum pricing—a policy that will leave even less disposable income in people’s pockets and therefore leave them less to spend in the pub.

Lest we forget, this is the same CAMRA that urged publicans in 2007 to - I quote - “prepare for a boost in demand for real ales following the banning of smoking in all pubs in England”. Now CAMRA thinks that raising the price of a can of lager from 80p to a pound will make people rush to buy a pint in a pub for four pounds. It would be funny if it weren’t so serious to those of us who want a living, breathing, thriving pub industry, rather than the mere preservation of ‘community pubs’ (whatever they are).

This, then, is my conclusion. If you believe, against all evidence and experience, that more government is the solution, then you will continue to get more government and you will get it good and hard.

Tuesday, 24 February 2015

The long tentacles of temperance

There's a 'public health' conference in Edinburgh in October on the subject of alcohol. The conference is called 'Momentum for change: research and advocacy reducing alcohol harm'. The words 'advocacy' and 'change' make it fairly clear that it is another chance for activists to swap notes and plan political campaigns. As usual, this shindig is being financed by the unwitting taxpayer, in this instance via the Scottish government and the Scottish NHS.

There is nothing surprising about this. It is the depressingly predictable way that the sock puppet state operates. But it is worth looking at one aspect of it, for it is being organised by the Global Alcohol Policy Alliance and its chairman Derek Rutherford offers some welcoming words on its website.

Derek Rutherford may be the most important temperance/public health luminary you have never heard of. His career nicely illustrates the way that the temperance lobby has merged into the 'public health' movement. Rutherford is a religious teetotaller of the old school. In an interview published in Addiction in 2012, he explained:

"In my youth I had three loves: the temperance movement; the church, because I was also an active member of the Baptist Church in Easington; and the Labour Party. They were the three organizations that I was committed to and they all came together." 

Rutherford is a trustee—and chairman of the Advisory Board—at the Institute of Alcohol Studies (IAS). Despite its academic pretensions and dispassionate-sounding name, the IAS is a temperance wolf in sheep's clothing. It was created by the now-defunct UK Temperance Alliance in 1983, of which Rutherford was a prominent member. The UK Temperance Alliance was previously known as the UK Alliance, or, to give it its full name, the United Kingdom Alliance for the Suppression in the Traffic in All Intoxicating Beverages.

The UK Alliance was formed in the 1850s to campaign for the total prohibition of alcohol. Not only did it fail, but the failure of the 18th Amendment in the US made prohibition a dirty word for generations and so it adopted the more moderate word 'temperance' in 1942. When the word 'temperance' started to sound too puritanical, it became a sort of think tank.

During its glory days, the UK Alliance bought some nice real estate in Westminster—which is still called Alliance House—and the IAS lives of its rental income along with funding from the EU. The IAS is coy about its earlier incarnations, saying only that it has "moved on from some of its original viewpoints" but the financial accounts of the Alliance House Foundation—the charity which syphons the rent from Alliance House into the IAS—still gives its objective as being “To spread the principles of total abstinence from alcoholic drinks”. In all the years I've been paying attention, the IAS has never said a good word about alcohol in any context.

In his Addiction interview, Rutherford says that he has been a "temperance man" all his life. He says he joined the International Order of Good Templars (IOGT) in the 1930s when he was 9 years old. The IOGT was also formed in the 1850s to fight for prohibition and it has also morphed into a pretend public health group which now claims to work "solely from evidence based facts". In the 1970s, it modernised slightly by calling itself the International Organisation of Good Templars. Today, it is known simply as IOGT International. I can't find details of IOGT International's funding, but its Swedish branch, IOGT-NTO, which lobbies in Brussels, receives funding from the government.

In 1990, IOGT International formed the pan-European Active Sobriety Friendship (AKA Active Europe) for young people. I've written about their extreme temperance agenda before. Despite hardly bothering with the sheep's clothing they, too, get funding from the EU.

Rutherford makes an interesting observation about how the rise of 'public health' offered opportunities for temperance men that the disease model of alcoholism did not:

"...when I entered the mainstream alcohol field in my 20s it was dominated by the disease model, the view that alcoholism comes in people, not in bottles. The decline of this view and its replacement by the public health model really meant a return to the temperance perspective I acquired very early, which always accepted that the problem is actually all to do with alcohol, and that if consumption increases then so will the level of harm. Hence the importance the movement placed on factors such as price and availability..."

As a result of this convergence of policy interests, Rutherford was able to set up the Teachers' Advisory Council on Alcohol and Drug Education (TACADE) in the 1960s at a time when "the temperance movement had a bad image" despite being an officer at the UK Alliance. He then became Director of the National Council on Alcoholism, which started getting government funding in 1972 (even he calls its a "supposedly non-governmental organisation"). The National Council on Alcoholism was replaced by the (state-funded) Alcohol Concern in 1985, but Rutherford had already walked out three years earlier after a row with the NCA's new chairman who said that he had no time for "a bunch of Methodist teetotallers". Rutherford returned to the UK Alliance where he formed the Institute of Alcohol Studies "to fight the alcohol policy cause".

In 1990, whilst International Secretary of IOGT, he co-founded Eurocare AKA the European Alcohol Policy Allaince, a neo-temperance organisation that lobbies in Brussels and which—yet again—gets funding from the EU.

Today, as an elder statesman, he is the chair of the Global Alcohol Policy Alliance which is having its annual conference paid for by the taxpayer in Edinburgh. The Global Alcohol Policy Alliance was formed in 2000 by Derek Rutherford who says that the priority is to "make the most of the opportunities provided by the development of the WHO Global Alcohol Strategy and the focus on non-communicable diseases."

The long and prolific career of Derek Rutherford tells us two things about the modern anti-alcohol movement that are not widely appreciated.

Firstly, that it remains steeped in temperance. Most people think that the temperance movement is virtually dead and that 'public health' is a different beast which just happens to have the same objectives of raising taxes, restricting licensing and banning advertising. In fact, the old temperance groups are still very much alive. They have simply changed their names or set up new organisations to pursue the same goals. This is one reason why I use quote marks around 'public health'. I refuse to accept the rebranding of moralists, religious zealots and puritans.

Secondly, the neo-temperance movement is dependent on government money. With the exception of the IAS, which has an unusual funding model, all the groups named above get money from the state in some form or another, and even the IAS gets some money from the EU. This is not unusual in public health—the majority of public health advocates get their hand in the taxpayer's pocket somewhere down the line—but it is still remarkable that an unpopular cause like gospel temperance is being kept alive by the largesse of government. Without it, the temperance movement really would be moribund because, as Rutherford says, it has vanishingly little grass-roots support:

"...the greatest tragedy is that we have not been able to create a people’s movement. We have not been able to have the grass roots marching as they did in an earlier era... We have many more professionals working in the field, but there is no popular movement"

But who needs public support when you have full-time professionals and government grants?

Monday, 23 February 2015

Some good news about sock puppets

Eric Pickles deserves a standing ovation for his latest move to stop taxpayers' money being used for political lobbying/advocacy/campaigning. His department—DCLG—is introducing a new clause into its grant agreements, saying:

“The following costs are not Eligible Expenditure:- Payments that support activity intended to influence or attempt to influence Parliament, Government or political parties, or attempting to influence the awarding or renewal of contracts and grants, or attempting to influence legislative or regulatory action”

In short, this means that local authorities cannot spend money lobbying the government. Pickles says:

"We hope this can and will be rolled out more widely across the public sector."

Amen to that.

Read more—including the full text of his statement—at the IEA lifestyle blog.

The 99 per cent

When the UK government suddenly announced that it would be pushing ahead with plain packaging last month, some people wondered why it had not waited for the results of the public consultation to be published.

The consultation has now been published...

99% say no to plain packs

Westminster is facing increasing pressure to backtrack on proposals to introduce plain tobacco packaging after an overwhelming 99% of respondents to a public consultation were opposed to the legislation.

The results of the plain pack consultation, released last Wednesday, showed the government had received 137,000 responses on the issue.

This included 136,000 campaign responses from retailers, lobby groups and unions calling for MPs not to press ahead with standardised packs.

That's that mystery solved, then.