Nationalise the pubs!! - The Carlisle Experiment

The Homebrew Forum

Help Support The Homebrew Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Bear in mind, too, that beer before the two wars was of eye-watering strength and, judging by some of the recipes I've looked at, as thick as treacle. The weakest bitter in the Durden Park book, Simonds Bitter (Reading) runs in at 6 percent abv and they go up from there. There's one "Small Beer" that comes in at 4.2% (and it's one of my favourites), but that's for boys and nursing mothers.
 
Any ideas/links to the reciepe? (I'm not interested in making it, just looking at the receipe)

Nah - just a distant memory of seeing it on draught in the 90s which is when I first heard about the nationalisation.
 
Hi All

More info about the state management scheme there ...
https://thestatemanagementstory.org/
... which includes an index of the pubs that were nationalised and identifies which of them are still running as pubs (should anyone wish to organise a pub-crawl) and a bit more about the history of the scheme, including about how it was brought to an end.

The interesting points I've gleaned from reading around this are ...
  1. the scheme made a profit for the government in every year it was running, right up until it was finished in 1971; and
  2. the scheme identified a number of innovations and made a number of investments in transforming pubs and their "service offering" ... that commercial brewers and pub owners were quick to copy and benefit from (to the extent that Whitbread ended up being a restaurant and budget-hotel chain (they also ran coffee shops (like the State Management Scheme introduced into pubs) until they sold Costa to Coca-Cola)
... and yet the rhetoric that only privatised industries can make profits, invest and innovate persists :?::confused.::?:

Cheers, PhilB
 
Hi All

More info about the state management scheme there ...
https://thestatemanagementstory.org/
... which includes an index of the pubs that were nationalised and identifies which of them are still running as pubs (should anyone wish to organise a pub-crawl) and a bit more about the history of the scheme, including about how it was brought to an end.

The interesting points I've gleaned from reading around this are ...
  1. the scheme made a profit for the government in every year it was running, right up until it was finished in 1971; and
  2. the scheme identified a number of innovations and made a number of investments in transforming pubs and their "service offering" ... that commercial brewers and pub owners were quick to copy and benefit from (to the extent that Whitbread ended up being a restaurant and budget-hotel chain (they also ran coffee shops (like the State Management Scheme introduced into pubs) until they sold Costa to Coca-Cola)
... and yet the rhetoric that only privatised industries can make profits, invest and innovate persists :?::confused.::?:

Cheers, PhilB

Great website on this! Love the rule on "undesirable women" (plenty of em in my local wetherspoons :laugh8:)
 
Hi All

More info about the state management scheme there ...
https://thestatemanagementstory.org/
... which includes an index of the pubs that were nationalised and identifies which of them are still running as pubs (should anyone wish to organise a pub-crawl) and a bit more about the history of the scheme, including about how it was brought to an end.

The interesting points I've gleaned from reading around this are ...
  1. the scheme made a profit for the government in every year it was running, right up until it was finished in 1971; and
  2. the scheme identified a number of innovations and made a number of investments in transforming pubs and their "service offering" ... that commercial brewers and pub owners were quick to copy and benefit from (to the extent that Whitbread ended up being a restaurant and budget-hotel chain (they also ran coffee shops (like the State Management Scheme introduced into pubs) until they sold Costa to Coca-Cola)
... and yet the rhetoric that only privatised industries can make profits, invest and innovate persists :?::confused.::?:

Cheers, PhilB


The 'rhetoric', in economic terms, is that having a state monopoly / state backed monopoly crowds out anyone who could have done better, been more innovative, or provided a type of establishment that offered an alternative ( i.e. if you didn't like the state pubs, tough cookie), not that a state monopoly cant make a profit, ever.

That is, in boring economic terms, a state monopoly is less efficient at allocating resources.
 
I allways thought the ww1 restrictions such as licencing hrs were all to do with having a sober population.

My victorian born grandfather said in the 1970s the beer was not as good as in his youth.His comments did not revolve around the strength of it,But the taste.
 
I would have thought that the strength was brought down and the use of less grain because of food shortages. I'm surprised it wasn't mentioned.
Also I think the reason why there is now a push for reducing sugar in everything and alcohol limits again. Because of the American ethanol fuel plants which run on corn sugar.
 
Back
Top