The Bar Towel

On the other hand, this might give us a good ally in the fight. Imagine if Whole Foods got these LCBO Express stations in the stores. There's an incentive on their part to ensure a selection that caters to their audience, which will most likely be interested in craft beer. Perhaps it will put grocery stores in the position of wanting to lobby for control over selection. Only if it becomes ubiquitous, of course.

cmadd wrote:On the other hand, this might give us a good ally in the fight. Imagine if Whole Foods got these LCBO Express stations in the stores. There's an incentive on their part to ensure a selection that caters to their audience, which will most likely be interested in craft beer. Perhaps it will put grocery stores in the position of wanting to lobby for control over selection. Only if it becomes ubiquitous, of course.

That would be a bright note.

Only this is not the Liquor Control-Sharing Board of Ontario.

However WF might in such case have incentive to expand the chain and offer LCBO more premium-quality express outlets. Why should WF stores cooperate if the selection is brain-dead LCBO mainstreamproduct, this will not draw business to Whole Foods at all will it!

Belgian wrote:

cmadd wrote:On the other hand, this might give us a good ally in the fight. Imagine if Whole Foods got these LCBO Express stations in the stores. There's an incentive on their part to ensure a selection that caters to their audience, which will most likely be interested in craft beer. Perhaps it will put grocery stores in the position of wanting to lobby for control over selection. Only if it becomes ubiquitous, of course.

That would be a bright note.

Only this is not the Liquor Control-Sharing Board of Ontario.

However WF might in such case have incentive to expand the chain and offer LCBO more premium-quality express outlets. Why should WF stores cooperate if the selection is brain-dead LCBO mainstreamproduct, this will not draw business to Whole Foods at all will it!

Even if it had the effect of streamlining and speeding up the listing-testing process it could be a win. I guess the point is that this will add a host of private businesses with unique customer bases to the parties of people who give a damn about alcohol selection. Of course, the devil is in the details. It will be a new dynamic at least.

Belgian wrote:

cmadd wrote:On the other hand, this might give us a good ally in the fight. Imagine if Whole Foods got these LCBO Express stations in the stores. There's an incentive on their part to ensure a selection that caters to their audience, which will most likely be interested in craft beer. Perhaps it will put grocery stores in the position of wanting to lobby for control over selection. Only if it becomes ubiquitous, of course.

That would be a bright note.

Only this is not the Liquor Control-Sharing Board of Ontario.

However WF might in such case have incentive to expand the chain and offer LCBO more premium-quality express outlets. Why should WF stores cooperate if the selection is brain-dead LCBO mainstreamproduct, this will not draw business to Whole Foods at all will it!

I wonder if there is also the possibility of things sort of evolving. I mean the first step is LCBO stores in grocery stores right? And there is already a framework in the laws for LCBO agency stores right? So how hard would it be, and how long would it take, for it to change where the LCBO stores in grocery essentially become "LCBO Branded" stores run by the owners of the grocery stores inside their stores (but with separate cash registers) and using grocery store employees. I mean it is not that far of a jump once you are already in the grocery store, and I am sure the LCBO would love the additional profits that come with someone else handling all operations (including staffing).

“Ontarians are, generally speaking, very pleased with the system of (liquor) distribution, they just want more access, and we think this is the right way to go.”

Assuming beer enthusiasts, some capitalists and those generally opposed to excessive government intervention in public matters....who else would be amongst those who are not "pleased with the system of (liquor) distribution"? Are there wine and/or spirits enthusiast group(s) having essentially the same conversation as what we have been having on Bartowel all these years?

dale cannon wrote:...and those generally opposed to excessive government intervention in the sale of private goods...

Fixed!

dale cannon wrote:“Ontarians are, generally speaking, very pleased with the system of (liquor) distribution, they just want more access, and we think this is the right way to go.”

.... Are there wine and/or spirits enthusiast group(s) having essentially the same conversation as what we have been having on Bartowel all these years?

Oh yeah CD, big time. Check the wine and foodie sites. Anybody here with a passionate taste for good food, wine and beer is deeply disappointed in the LCBO, and having to deal with the whole 'very pleasing' system.

To understand mind-blowing propaganda statements like the one you quoted, it may be necessary to re-read George Orwell's "1984" and watch Terry Gillaim's "Brazil" as well.

"(Ontarians) just want more access." < by that definition we must be not very good Ontarians.

Belgian wrote:

dale cannon wrote:“Ontarians are, generally speaking, very pleased with the system of (liquor) distribution, they just want more access, and we think this is the right way to go.”

.... Are there wine and/or spirits enthusiast group(s) having essentially the same conversation as what we have been having on Bartowel all these years?

Oh yeah CD, big time. Check the wine and foodie sites. Anybody here with a passionate taste for good food, wine and beer is deeply disappointed in the LCBO, and having to deal with the whole 'very pleasing' system.

To understand mind-blowing propaganda statements like the one you quoted, it may be necessary to re-read George Orwell's "1984" and watch Terry Gillaim's "Brazil" as well.

"(Ontarians) just want more access." < by that definition we must be not very good Ontarians.

I liked this one:

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7929.html

the way I see it this is a small, limited victory but a victory nonetheless. Clearly the Libs were scared enough by the rash of articles in the press and the bluster from the Cons to actually do something. I am as cynical s the next guy -- this is just a nearly meaningless change in anticipation of campaign talking points -- but at least the glacier has budged.

It is a limited pilot program and nothing fundamental has changed with liquor law or commercial freedoms for brewers. However, if these stores do well perhaps they can be expanded and given a different mandate than their larger stores.

At the very least let us give them credit for addressing the issue of availability/access. It will be slightly easier and more convenient to buy beer, liquor & wine. Cool.

What is missing is two additional things which have gone unaddressed:

1) commercial freedoms that put ontario brewers on par with other brewers -- ie. why can wine and large beer co's run their own private off premise stores?

2) selection - if and when these freedoms are gained, will the operators have the right to freely import products from across Canada and the world? I don't see what the big deal is as long as the LCBO is aware of all the cases coming in and taxes are paid.


What did we learn?

1) The government can just make a decree and change things when push comes to shove. Depending on the size of the change we may not need to write new legislation or change the world, just change the operating policies and mandates of the LCBO.

2) Pressure works. Keep it up. Let them know this wasn't enough.

3) We need to get more effective lobbying. Wine seems to get singled out for special treatment. Read the statement released and its clear that they are seen from a privileged viewpoint.

I am not sure what the OCB actually does from a lobbying point of view or how much LCBO management and politicians give a shit (my guess, they don't) but we need to know who these bureaucrats are and we need a full time PR and Lobbying effort to take advantage of the desire for change.

If someone knows the inside scoop on any lobbying efforts please enlighten me. By the way, lobbying for sampler 6 packs at the LCBO is not what I mean here.

Duncan called the Tory proposal “boneheaded,” a description that PC finance critic Peter Shurman found amusing.

“I take that as a compliment coming from the ‘bonehead-in-chief’ of the Liberal party, outgoing Finance Minister Dwight Duncan,” said Shurman

I'm glad to see we are finally getting an intelligent discussion about beer distribution in Ontario.

The discussion on TVO's The Agenda this evening was relatively intelligent I thought, with the aforementioned Mr Shurman making the most sense in my estimation (though he does not come across as terribly likeable). It certainly seemed clear to me that the Liberal plan is to do absolutely nothing, except for putting ten (count 'em, ten!) boutique outlets in grocery stores across the province.

midlife crisis wrote:The discussion on TVO's The Agenda this evening was relatively intelligent I thought, with the aforementioned Mr Shurman making the most sense in my estimation (though he does not come across as terribly likeable). It certainly seemed clear to me that the Liberal plan is to do absolutely nothing, except for putting ten (count 'em, ten!) boutique outlets in grocery stores across the province.

It was pretty good (though I don't know if "Shurman" and "sense" have ever appeared in the same sentence).

The most interesting thing was how little disagreement there was over the Beer Store. The Liberal's talking points hinted at the Government being open to snail-paced change to the BS.

though I don't know if "Shurman" and "sense" have ever appeared in the same sentence

I don't understand why you feel the need to throw in a gratuitous attack just because you (I presume) don't agree with Shurman's position. I didn't call Prue a "raving socialist" or something. I thought each guy presented their positions sensibly.

midlife crisis wrote:I don't understand why you feel the need to throw in a gratuitous attack just because you (I presume) don't agree with Shurman's position. I didn't call Prue a "raving socialist" or something. I thought each guy presented their positions sensibly.

I don't care what you call Prue, he is a raving socialist. Shurman is a slimy attack dog, represents everything that's wrong with politics. Don't know why you'd take that so personally. Relax, have a beer.

The guy appeared on a TV show and made cogent arguments for the abolition of the LCBO. Frankly I doubt I had ever heard of him prior to that. He seemed a little forceful, but "slimy attack dog" is overstating it surely. But perhaps you have a history or something.