When most media in the United Kingdom analyze stress in the economy and on businesses, it concentrates on pubs closing and the cost of a pint, two data points that have always dominated discourse.
When the government announces its annual budget, one can hear the journalists snoring until such time as the increase on a pint of beer is announced — it's always an increase, never a decrease.
Their interest once included the increase in tax on cigarettes, but that vice now has been largely marginalized, so beer it is.
Last month, the BBC reported on the loss of jobs in the hospitality and hotel industry since the last budget, one that imposed notable increases in employer National Insurance Contributions.
The article led with UKHospitality’s analysis of government numbers, and those numbers do not make for placid reading.
UKHospitality said 53% of job losses since last October have come from the sector. It added that “4.1% of all jobs in the sector had been lost, and the number could reach 100,000 by the time of the next budget.”
Service levels evidently are falling. How could they not, despite the professionalism and good intentions of the remaining staff?
One bar owner quoted in the article said, such is the brunt of costs, he has stopped paying himself, even if the bar “probably generate[s] £300,000 or £400,000 for government, from this one business.”
The hotel industry, I believe, does not get a fair shake of the dice because Members of Parliament look out the window and see streams of tourists walking by enjoying themselves.
Everyone travels, yes? They spend money on hotels and attractions, on food and beverage, so what is the issue? Business is booming, no?
Also, the sector’s employers are not advertising jobs, having little choice but to trim staffing costs to pay for increased operational costs and choosing not to rehire.
According to the article, job openings fell by 5.8% to 718,000 between May and July across nearly all industries, and I assume many of those job losses are in hospitality.
Hoteliers have been vocal for years as to the pressures they are facing, and the seemingly additional weight of these pressures at the doorsteps of hotels. The struggle often feels like one step forwards, and two back.
Maybe such a prominent article caught the attention of government people who could make a difference?
My hometown, too
I have previously written about my hometown of Dartford. I've written about its most famous children, Mick Jagger and Keith Richards, and about its tunnel-bridge, the Dartford Crossing, in relation to the new Silvertown Tunnel, closer to the center of London and which also crosses the River Thames.
I crossed the Dartford Crossing recently. Afterwards, I went on my laptop to pay the £2.50 charge, and on the screen, news greeted me that that starting Sept. 1 the price is due to go up to £3.50, a 40% increase. That is noticeable.
The Silvertown Tunnel charges £4, and, as I have written before, the formerly free Blackwall Tunnel now charges the same.
Is there a link between this and the increased charge at Dartford?
Yes, I would say, considering that officials said the Dartford bridge when it opened in 1991 would stop charging for crossings when its debt was paid, which, I think, was due to be in 2002. Evidently, the charge remains.
The government states “current charging levels are no longer sufficient to achieve [the crossing’s] stated aim of managing demand so that the crossing works well for users and local people,” which is politico-speak saying nothing.
The government also took the opportunity to confirm new funding for another crossing, the Lower Thames Crossing, which if open will destroy much of the marshland of North Kent where I started my passion for birding more than 40 years ago.
It will have a charge, and it will soon after opening reach its full operating capacity.