Cost of supermarket booze set to soar after Labour clobbers brewers with extra £124million in taxes
The British Beer & Pub Association reckons it will put around 16p on a four-pack
SHOP BOOZE TAX HIKE Cost of supermarket booze set to soar after Labour clobbers brewers with extra £124million in taxes
Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
BREWERS have warned of shop price hikes after being hit with a £124million tax on packaging.
Ministers yesterday saddled beer and lager producers with a £192 a tonne charge for recycling their glass bottles.
Sign up for Scottish Sun
newsletter
Sign up
The Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), which puts them on the hook for the cost of council collection, sorting and recycling, has been branded a 'Bevy Levy'.
The British Beer & Pub Association reckons it will put around 16p on a four-pack.
Boss Emma McClarkin said: "By heaping a further £124million on brewers - the equivalent of 4p per 330ml bottle – these new fees sabotage the Chancellor's hopes for British businesses and will hit shoppers at the tills.
'To put it mildly, EPR could drive some brewers out of the glass bottle market and heap more costs on pubs which will only endanger jobs and growth.
'This is just not good enough given the barrage of rates and regulations the sector is already grappling with.'
Alex MacDonald of the UK Spirits Alliance warned 'punishing fees' for glass will hurt business and raise the price of drinks for consumers.
Earlier in the year Jeremy Clarkson used his Sun column to lash out at the Bevy Levy and all the other taxes crippling pubs like his, The Farmer's Dog.
EPR makes producers responsible for the full eco lifecycle of their products, footing the cost of councils to collect, sort and recycle waste packaging.
Labour plotting blitz on boozers with Budget 'sin tax' raid on pubs as Wes Streeting threatens outdoor smoking ban
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scotsman
27 minutes ago
- Scotsman
Details of Iran attack still remain fuzzy from Trump and his team
President Donald Trump walks on the South Lawn upon arriving at the White House, Saturday, June 21 (PIcture: AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana) Next Friday marks the first anniversary of Labour's landslide win in the 2024 General Election – what a difference a year makes. Sign up to our daily newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to Edinburgh News, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Much has changed in the 51 weeks since Keir Starmer was swept to power on the back of a thumping majority. Many loyal voters have been disappointed by him in government, including 120 of his own MPs, and he faces rebellion from within the ranks on the Treasury's proposed benefit cuts. Yet there is still enough spare change down the back of the sofa to buy 12 fighter jets from the USA which will be capable of launching nuclear missiles. I'm sure that is a huge consolation to disabled people already struggling to make ends meet. At least Starmer stopped short of going into full Tony Blair mode, and the UK did not get involved in the US bombing mission to Iran, which may have broken international law. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad While a year seems a long time in politics, much can change within the course of a week. Last weekend, many feared we were on the brink of World War Three, as Trump launched his raid on Iran's nuclear facilities and the Iranians responded with attacks on Qatar. By Thursday, the entire episode had descended into farce. The exact details still remain fuzzy at best. Trump claims Iran's entire nuclear capability had been obliterated and tweeted 'Bullseye!' Who knew he was such a fan of 1980s British TV game shows? By the start of this week, a leaked intelligence document suggested the impact had been limited, while the International Atomic Energy Agency said there was no leakage of radiation. To a lay person like myself, that suggests two possible scenarios. Either the mission was a failure or the underground nuclear facilities never existed in the first place. By midweek, the CIA had changed the official narrative. The nuclear site had received 'severe damage', which is a few steps down from obliteration. This was backed up by some grainy aerial photos which claimed to show what had happened, but actually proved nothing at all. This is all eerily reminiscent of 2003, with the false evidence trotted out to prove Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Meanwhile, Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Kameini said the US failed to achieve anything significant and was claiming the incident to be a victory for Iran. The whole thing may have to referred to VAR for a final decision. On Thursday US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, who has faced allegations of alcohol abuse and anger management issues, weighed into the debate. The former Fox News presenter lambasted the press for their lack of patriotism in not believing the president. He called the mission a 'historic success' and repeated the claim that the facility had been 'obliterated' at the weekend. Or maybe he was referring to himself being 'obliterated' at the weekend. It's all very unclear. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The only thing we know with any certainty is that if Trump says he devastated Iran's nuclear capability then he definitely didn't. Judging by form, he's either rambling nonsense or deliberately lying. Although he did come up with an uncharacteristic gem of wisdom on Tuesday. He claimed neither Israel nor Iran 'knows what the f**k they are doing'. They're not the only ones, Mr President.
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Tom Skinner and the triumph of Essex Man
As a teenager, my first husband was an Essex Man. It ended badly – all my fault – but I still retain a fondness for the breed, who I associate with self-made can-do stoicism and optimism; the opposite of, say, Islington Man. An Essex Man is being spoken of as the one to give the ghastly 'Sir' Sadiq Khan a run for his money In recent decades, the county has become known as a glitzy, new-money Cheshire-on-Colne, due to the popular television show The Only Way Is Essex, a 'scripted reality' show in which a mutating cast of likely lads and luscious-lipped ladies make out and break up at bars and barbecues. The girls boast of a taste for Bad Boys with whom they have Steamy Romps, followed by Love Splits and Lonely Hells before Bouncing Back to Show Him What He's Missing while Flaunting Her Curves on a Sunshine Break To Dubai. They never saw a drink that wouldn't look better in a frenemy's face, or a swimming pool that couldn't be improved by pushing a love rat into; they backbite and backstab the way others say 'please' and 'thank you'. Of course I love it! Towie has recently, and rather dismayingly, made a show of talking about Mental Elf issues, much to the detriment of the drama. But these kids aren't really snowflakes. They're the descendants of the actual Cockneys who were resettled in Essex after the destruction of the East End by the Luftwaffe. They inhabit the first hardcore working-class Conservative stronghold of post-war England; in the 2019 election, all 18 seats in the county were held by the Tories with absolute majorities. In the EU referendum, every one of Essex's 14 district councils voted Leave. During the previous century, Essex Man was shorthand for a disillusioned, working-class, traditionally Labour voter who switched to Mrs Thatcher's Conservatives. They did so because they felt that Labour had moved to the Loony Left and cared more about Gaza than Grays. Of course Reform were always going to go big there. Nigel Farage himself has his constituency in Clacton-on-Sea. During his visits, he is mobbed by teenagers for selfies. A year after winning his seat, he remains wildly popular with constituents. You can't say that about many MPs. Reform's success in Essex isn't just about Farage: last month in council by-elections, the party took a seat in Harlow and a couple more in Thurrock. But the hold of the Tories on Essex should not be underestimated; no less than Kemi Badenoch has her throne in North West Essex. It would make the heart of this blue-collar county swell to have an MP of their own become PM. To make matters more interesting, an Essex Man is being spoken of as the one who might give the ghastly 'Sir' Sadiq Khan a run for his money, a phrase which conjures up for me the rampant fare-dodging which is one of the hallmarks of the ruined London Khan has presided over. Tom Skinner was one of the hopefuls in series 15 of The Apprentice; I don't recall him, but that's probably because I'm always too busy drooling unattractively over my pin-up, Lord Sugar. Recently Skinner has taken to X bemoaning the state of the capital: 'Colder…more hostile. It's tense…London don't feel like London no more. The police ain't on the beat. The people are scared. I'm not giving up on it…I still believe in this gaff…but we need change…we need safety.' Anyone can go on social media and moan that fings ain't what they used to be. But what makes this different is that Dominic Cummings reposted the above. He urged the 34-year-old Skinner to run against Khan in 2028 and offered the muscle of the old Vote Leave brigade as back-up. This week, Kennedy went down a storm at a conference in Westminster when he spoke of his love for his country. Asked about whether he would run for London mayor, he told the Now & England conference: 'Anyone could do a better job that Sadiq Khan…we'll see what happens'. The rapturous applause – and the fact that hatred of orthodox politicians in Britain is stronger than it's ever been – means he should certainly consider it. He's definitely got a little something going on that might well appeal to the thoroughly cheesed-off man in the London street. As Niall Gooch wrote in UnHerd: 'Skinner represents a clear contrast to the collapsing post-1997 consensus. He is not a graduate; he has not been formed in or by progressive institutions; he has no interest in the shibboleths of managed decline or conventional Blob thought. His is a commonsensical, man-of-the-people approach — in some respects he resembles Nigel Farage'. Skinner might do well if he ran for mayor, for the simple reason that what public life lacks is Straightforward Men. Everywhere you look you can see male creatures slithering and sliding, obfuscating and liberty-taking, lying and why-o-why-ing; the resurgence of Alastair Campbell sums it up best, but you're spoilt for choice. In 2022, I wrote in this very magazine an essay called In Praise Of Straightforward Men in which I eulogised the I'm A Celebrity… contestant Mike Tindall: 'Tindall's air of calmness is so attractive that it seems neither here nor there that he looks quite like a potato.' It's this quality of good-humoured resilience that we associate with Essex Man. But Tindall, who hails from Yorkshire, proves that you don't have to be born east of the capital to qualify; while the ghastly Jamie Oliver, with his ceaseless posturing and preening, proves that you can be born there and not necessarily be an Essex Man. Tom Skinner recently made a video for X with Robert Jenrick, standing outside a pub talking about 'tool theft'. Apparently this is not as much fun as it sounds, but something which afflicts Ordinary Working People a great deal. The opportunistic air of the pairing would have once irritated me. But because the ghastly Keir Starmer and Sadiq Khan are in charge at the moment, I felt warmly towards Skinner. Could he do worse than those two bozos? It's unlikely. Even if he doesn't, at least ordinary folk can recognise something of themselves in a man like Skinner. Skinner even reminds me of my first husband a little, when he was in his robust and roseate youth. So yes, I'm all for Essex Man bringing his admirable qualities to our lawless and loveless capital. Vote Skinner!
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Maybe we can start talking about the issue we've been ignoring
A commentary on the new survey written by Sir John Curtice (love him, who doesn't) delves into some of the stuff that might be going on with the figures. The public are well aware of Britain's problems, he says; indeed, lots of them are feeling it directly. But Sir John also says that rather than turning their backs on the state, for the most part the public are still inclined to look to government to provide solutions. They also feel that most people on low and middle incomes are paying enough tax already but suspect some of the better-off could pay more. If the people who run the survey had asked me for my opinion, I would have said pretty much the same thing. However, it's the consequences of all this for the political parties that really interests me because the public's view of how it's working now is remarkable. For example, just 19% think the current system of governing Britain needs little or no improvement. As for trust in government, only 12% trust it to put the country's interests before party interests 'just about always' or 'most of the time'. This is even lower than the previous record low of 14% in 2023. It's bad. The specifics of the findings are particularly troubling for Labour. The report says only 30% of people in what sociologists call semi-routine and routine occupations voted Labour, compared with 42% in professional and managerial jobs. To put it another way, Labour won the election but failed to reconnect with its traditional base of working-class voters, which is a big change. The working-class Tory and the posho socialist have always been a thing, but broadly speaking, support for political parties in this country has always been pretty much in line with social class. Now the traditional class-based support for parties is breaking down. Read more Tunnock's is being blamed for society's problems. Step away from the teacakes Are you 'upset'? The dangers of flags in Scottish schools These are the latest plans at the Glasgow School of Art. Really? The Social Attitudes Survey suggests that one of the new alternative influences on voting could be age: only 6% of 18 to 24-year-olds voted Tory compared to 36% of those aged 65 and over. But the age factor isn't new really: young people have always been drawn more to the left before tending to become conservative as they grow older. Again, there have always been exceptions – the teenage Tory like William Hague in the 70s or the ageing socialist with a mortgage and an ISA – but on the whole, oldies are less likely to be lefties. Education as a factor is also hard to pin down. The Attitudes Survey says just 5% of graduates voted for Reform compared with 25% of those with less than an A level or equivalent, but this isn't a completely different issue from class if we consider how levels of education are broadly linked to background. And we know Reform is polling better than Labour among working-class voters. A recent YouGov poll found that among the social and economic groups C2DE – I hate all this pseudo-scientific terminology but it's hard to avoid – Reform has around 30% support compared to 20% for Labour. In other words, it's class that's the factor here. Even the Attitudes Survey's results on the culture war and 'equalities' issues follows the same sort of pattern. The survey says people with liberal attitudes on culture war and equalities issues mostly voted Labour (53%), Lib Dem (17%) or Green (14%) while those with more conservative views were more likely to support the Tories (32%) or Reform (28%). You could take issue with the terms liberal and conservative here, but the survey's conclusion is that the way people vote reflects their views on culture war issues – trans, gender, race, DEI, all that – just as much as where they stand in the traditional debate between left and right. Nigel Farage of Reform (Image: Ben Birchall) But again, it's all about class. Is it any surprise that identity politics focused on gender and race has failed to catch on in working class communities when they're the ones dealing with the effects of economic inequality based on class? Thanks to multiple reports from the Social Mobility Commission, and the fact that we can see it for ourselves every day, we know that although only 7% of the population is privately educated, they're dominant in politics, business and the media. And yet when it comes to diversity quotas or lessons on DEI, social class doesn't get a mention. There are at least some people talking about it though. The Education Select Committee did a good report on the subject in 2021 in which they said ideas such as 'white privilege' were the opposite to what disadvantaged white children experience and were alienating to working class communities. They hear all the talk about their privilege and they don't hear much talk about how disadvantage affects their lives and, as we can see in the Attitudes Survey, it's started to have an effect on how they vote. Bottom line: class. Where we need to go from here would seem obvious then. As the survey points out, trust in government and party politics is low. The connection between Labour and its traditional working-class base has also been severed and it won't be restored while politicians and commentators, with that Nelsonian blindness, are talking about other things instead. Reform are scooping up votes because they're benefitting from voters who feel ignored. So stop ignoring them. Start talking seriously about economic inequality. Start suggesting solutions (it might be taxing the better-off more, who knows). But above all, start talking about what's really going on here: class, class, class.
