The Pub trade is dying - Minimum price for Alcohol?

the_syco

Banjo String wrote: »

Lads, what's the chances of this being implemented in reality?

Considering the 10pm off-license closing time, I'd say it's possible if they spin it right.

Banjo String wrote: »

Which leaves the question, as to why a Govt would purposely try to make itself even more unpopular with its electorate.

It's hugely beneficial to the government, as they can leave it hanging around for a bit, and then maybe cancel it at the last moment to be seen as the "good guys".

rubadub

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

More tax please. We hav to pay zee germans

The offies and supermarkets will the biggest winners

rubadub wrote: »

-Remember this suggestion is NOT an increase in excise, the only extra the government will seemingly get is the VAT.

So if a can is currently €1, this is a ex-vat selling price of 81cent, and vat of 19cent, and the government get excise.

If the can goes to €2.20, the ex-vat selling price is €1.79 and vat of 41cent, excise is the same. So the government get 22cent more, while the offie get 98cent more

Grandeeod

The 10pm closing time for off licenses was backward. Funnily enough it was another move based on keeping us "in check". That didn't work either.:rolleyes: Remember the 12.30am opening on a Thursday night? That got bounced based on people not getting up for work on Friday.:rolleyes: Real reason? Pubs were empty, so the Vintners lobbied and hey presto, opening hours were changed based on us all being stupid drunk on a Friday morning.:rolleyes:

Cletus van_damme

I grew up in a house with three chronic alcoholics and honestly the fact that a Doctor who has to have seen first hand the damage that alcoholism can do is willing to propose this rubbish is insulting. The price of drink is not and never has been the problem in Ireland.

Those three alcoholics all drank in a pub everyday, the new minimum pricing would have zero effect. The funny thing is that I honestly remember times when we had no money for milk but money was still found so they could go to the pub. What does Leo do about this? nothing. What happens to the increase in tax revenue? no mention of the increased taxes funding help for victims of domestic abuse caused by alcohol, no mention of anything other than put the price up and then people will stop boozing. Strange that a doctor has no understanding of addiction

So I have contacted Leo and a few other TD's, go here, handy link

whoismytd.com/

I asked them to prove that the minimum pricing is not just to help publicans by adding a few things to it.

First as the government and publicans are so concerned about young people getting booze I suggested that they would have no problem adding a new law like other countries have that anyone who sells booze to an underage person is fined. Also the premises is fined for a first offence, again for a second and loses its license for a third.

If that was brought in (and enforced) underage drinking might see a reduction. Of course it will never happen as supermarkets are much more strict on checking age and underage people mostly get their drink from an off licence. Worth noting is that about 75% of the pubs within two miles of me have their own off licence.

So send an email to your TD with your ideas, I also said that as bottles from an off license are to have new health warnings that all glasses in pubs should be rebranded with the same warnings. I'm sure publicans would have no problem with that.

Banjo String

Number 2 of 3 TD's replied to me this evening.

Last sentence had me in stitches.

Dear Banjo String

Thank you for your email in relation to the Government proposals to deal with the very high level of alcohol consumption in Ireland and the consequences in health, family relations etc.

This is mainly caused by the very low prices in off-licence outlets and the proliferation of such outlets - according to the 'experts'.

I appreciate the situation you find yourself in and I regret that you will be adversely affected by this new law.

There is wide spread support for the measure with the main criticism of the Bill being that it does not go far enough.

It is expected that not only will the Government parties support the Bill but it is likely that the Opposition and Independent Deputies will also.

I am sorry that my support for what is essentially a health measure will lead to you not voting for me or my Party in the future.

I would ask you, in light of above, to reconsider your decision.

Yours sincerely,

Cletus van_damme

Xenji wrote: »

Gonna have to start homebrewing my own beer now.

Honestly though if they are gonna have a set price in supermarkets and off-licences, then pubs should no longer be allowed to sell pints at €3 or less as this also encourages binge drinking.

its not binge drinking if you do it in a pub, then is socializing.;)

Also the new minimum pricing will be used to up the prices in pubs, when the publicans get a minimum set in pubs that would mean they dont have to do anything and places like Wetherspoons would lose part of their appeal.

Cletus van_damme

Banjo String wrote: »

Number 2 of 3 TD's replied to me this evening.

Last sentence had me in stitches.

Reply and say that if its the nations health they are worried about then you will fully support them if they prove that, just ask for these to be added to the proposed legislation;

1 all beermats are to have health warnings on them, much like cigarette packets.

2 every wall in a pub must have at least one A3 sized poster detailing the dangers of drinking.

3 any licensed venue that is caught selling alcohol to an intoxicated/underage persons three times loses it licence.


The TD has already said they are willing to lose votes for their support of "what is essentially a health measure" so they will have no problem with these proposals which would just expand upon the current proposals.

The only reason they could even think of saying no is that it might upset publicans, but remember this is " essentially a health measure" so that would never be a factor.

Let me know what the reply is.

Cletus van_damme

Banjo String wrote: »

Number 2 of 3 TD's replied to me this evening.

Last sentence had me in stitches.

Reply and say that if its the nations health they are worried about then you will fully support them if they prove that, remind them of this line "the main criticism of the Bill being that it does not go far enough"

just ask for these to be added to the proposed legislation;

1 all beermats are to have health warnings on them, much like cigarette packets.

2 every wall in a pub must have at least one A3 sized poster detailing the dangers of drinking.

3 any licensed venue that is caught selling alcohol to an intoxicated/underage persons three times loses it licence.


The TD has already said they are willing to lose votes for their support of "what is essentially a health measure" so they will have no problem with these proposals which would just expand upon the current proposals.

The only reason they could even think of saying no is that it might upset publicans, but remember this is " essentially a health measure" so that would never be a factor.

Let me know what the reply is.

Cuddlesworth

Banjo String wrote: »

Number 2 of 3 TD's replied to me this evening.

Last sentence had me in stitches.

I would have assumed that any reasonable person would be able to link to the studies conducted rather then a vague reference to "experts".

Like the fact that Scotlands minimum pricing is currently up in European court. Or the fact that the UK bailed on its plans, citing no concrete evidence and that it wasn't compatible with European law. And those are the muppets that introduced a ban on facesitting in porn.

I hope anybody here who voted these idiots in feel ashamed of their actions.

Flex

Cletus van_damme wrote: »

I grew up in a house with three chronic alcoholics and honestly the fact that a Doctor who has to have seen first hand the damage that alcoholism can do is willing to propose this rubbish is insulting. The price of drink is not and never has been the problem in Ireland.

Those three alcoholics all drank in a pub everyday, the new minimum pricing would have zero effect. The funny thing is that I honestly remember times when we had no money for milk but money was still found so they could go to the pub. What does Leo do about this? nothing. What happens to the increase in tax revenue? no mention of the increased taxes funding help for victims of domestic abuse caused by alcohol, no mention of anything other than put the price up and then people will stop boozing. Strange that a doctor has no understanding of addiction

So I have contacted Leo and a few other TD's, go here, handy link

whoismytd.com/

I asked them to prove that the minimum pricing is not just to help publicans by adding a few things to it.

First as the government and publicans are so concerned about young people getting booze I suggested that they would have no problem adding a new law like other countries have that anyone who sells booze to an underage person is fined. Also the premises is fined for a first offence, again for a second and loses its license for a third.

If that was brought in (and enforced) underage drinking might see a reduction. Of course it will never happen as supermarkets are much more strict on checking age and underage people mostly get their drink from an off licence. Worth noting is that about 75% of the pubs within two miles of me have their own off licence.

So send an email to your TD with your ideas, I also said that as bottles from an off license are to have new health warnings that all glasses in pubs should be rebranded with the same warnings. I'm sure publicans would have no problem with that.

I grew up with a parent who was an alcoholic and experienced the same; frequently no food in the house for days at a time, but always enough for this person to have pints every day. Thats one of the many reasons why I dislike this lazy price rise approach so much, it does nothing to address that. At its worst, it just means less money for the family of dependents of alcoholics since theyll just spend more to get their fill going forward. This is all about winning support from the VFI. Makes me sick.

And youre also right regards supermarkets being stricter on checking age before selling drink to people. In all my life I could probably count on one hand the amount of times a bartender asked me or a friend for ID, but when I was buying drinks in the off-trade up to the time I was 23 or 24, if I forgot my passport I wouldnt bother even trying to buy drink since I was nearly always asked for ID. The whole 'safer, more responsible controlled environment of drinking in a pub' is just nonsense

Banjo String wrote: »

Number 2 of 3 TD's replied to me this evening.

Last sentence had me in stitches.

I received a mail today from a TD saying he understood the disapproval and would highlight it in the Dáil. Better than nothing, I suppose

The sentence in bold is what antagonises me most about this.

I am sorry that my support for what is essentially a health measure will lead to you not voting for me or my Party in the future.

The 'health concern' angle of this is a blatant lie, it fails when put up against facts and data. Its reliant on lack of information and people accepting the racist stereotype of Irish people being naturally alcoholic in nature. What an arrogant reply to give you.

Also, wheres the "wide spread support for the measure with the main criticism of the Bill being that it does not go far enough"? Sincerely, of the people at my gym, work, rugby club, friends and family, Ive spoken to, not one is in favour. The most 'positive' response Ive come across has been one 'just hold off a bit, maybe it wont be as bad as we expect'.

Banjo String

Cletus van_damme wrote: »

Reply and say that if its the nations health they are worried about then you will fully support them if they prove that, just ask for these to be added to the proposed legislation;

1 all beermats are to have health warnings on them, much like cigarette packets.

2 every wall in a pub must have at least one A3 sized poster detailing the dangers of drinking.

3 any licensed venue that is caught selling alcohol to an intoxicated/underage persons three times loses it licence.


The TD has already said they are willing to lose votes for their support of "what is essentially a health measure" so they will have no problem with these proposals which would just expand upon the current proposals.

The only reason they could even think of saying no is that it might upset publicans, but remember this is " essentially a health measure" so that would never be a factor.

Let me know what the reply is.

From their manifesto.

Supporting Irish Pubs: 
Fine Gael recognises the importance of the Irish pub for tourism, rural jobs and as a social outlet in communities across the country.
We will support the local pub by banning the practice of below cost selling on alcohol, particularly by large supermarkets and the impact this has had on alcohol consumption and the viability of pubs.

The only health they're interested in is the health of the publicans bank. Balance.

darkpagandeath

Who are these "Experts ?" that really smacks of how dare you question us we know better than you what's good for you. And the super market angle boils my blood, Year on year consumption has been going down even with the " Evil super markets" killing off rural pubs. Maybe you should not put 3-4 pubs on a cross road in the back ass of no where and expect to stay in business.

Tin Foil Hat

The calories on the bottles is going to be interesting. It could easily mean that some constant dieters, more worried about their appearance than their health, will be more inclined to move away from beer and wine onto hard spirits. The Law of Unintended Consequences is great craic.

That said, I don't disapprove. It's only a piece information for people to use as they wish; and does not impinge on peoples pockets and freedoms.

RomanKnows

Banjo String wrote: »

From their manifesto.

The only health they're interested in is the health of the publicans bank. Balance.

Had a quick read of your past posts. You never had any intention of voting for anyone who wasn't SF anyway.

What's the party line there on the minimum price of alcohol? Any policy document I can peruse on this most pressing of topics?

Banjo String

RomanKnows wrote: »

Had a quick read of your past posts. You never had any intention of voting for anyone who wasn't SF anyway.

Obviously didn't read over them enough, (only last week's posts would confirm this if you look hard enough)

What's the party line there on the minimum price of alcohol? Any policy document I can peruse on this most pressing of topics?

I have no idea tbh, but regardless, politics isn't like a football team, if a party introduces ludicrous policies, it's up to the electorate to let them know it.

What's the best way to do that????? Its with a vote.

Why do I get the feeling I've bean. er interacting with you before btw Mr new to the site???

buried

The force of the lobby racket is strong with this one. Like other posters have pointed out, I'd wager the Vintner federation threatened a serious drop of their general election donation unless this measure was forced through. These cowardly schoolteacher politicians will bow down and be allowed to be whipped by whatever self-glorified, established power structure that has existed in the past rather than listen to the concerns of the ordinary citizen of today. Makes no difference, society has moved on from the days of dependence on the grim local public house for enjoyment, this measure won't solve the $hitty, outdated and overpriced service that the pubs spew out, just like the previous measure to close off-licences at 10pm didn't solve it, hence the need for this equally stupid measure.

RomanKnows

Banjo String wrote: »

Obviously didn't read over them enough, (only last week's posts would confirm this if you look hard enough)



I have no idea tbh, but regardless, politics isn't like a football team, if a party introduces ludicrous policies, it's up to the electorate to let them know it.

What's the best way to do that????? Its with a vote.

Why do I get the feeling I've bean. er interacting with you before btw Mr new to the site???

No, a quick sampling of your posts puts you firmly in the SF voter camp. You can have issues with parts of their policies and ideologies. I'll admit to being a FG supporter. Cards on the table. I think the current government have done a really great job under difficult circumstances. We can go through a line-by-line assessment of the manifestos put forward by all the major parties in advance of the last election if you want? See which of them promised everything, but didn't have to get involved in realpolitik as a result of getting the majority of the popular vote.

You've never interacted with me before unless you re-regred yourself.

RomanKnows

Banjo String wrote: »

Obviously didn't read over them enough, (only last week's posts would confirm this if you look hard enough)



I have no idea tbh, but regardless, politics isn't like a football team, if a party introduces ludicrous policies, it's up to the electorate to let them know it.

What's the best way to do that????? Its with a vote.

Why do I get the feeling I've bean. er interacting with you before btw Mr new to the site???

No, a quick sampling of your posts puts you firmly in the SF voter camp. You can have issues with parts of their policies and ideologies. I'll admit to being a FG supporter. It doesn't mean that I accept everything they put forward in their manifesto. I'm a huge believer in pragmatism.

I think the current government have done a really great job under difficult circumstances. We can go through a line-by-line assessment of the manifestos put forward by all the major parties in advance of the last election if you want? See which of them promised everything, but didn't have to get involved in realpolitik as a result of getting the majority of the popular vote.

You've never interacted with me before unless you re-regred yourself.

Banjo String

RomanKnows wrote: »

No, a quick sampling of your posts puts you firmly in the SF voter camp . You can have issues with parts of their policies and ideologies. I'll admit to being a FG supporter. Cards on the table. I think the current government have done a really great job under difficult circumstances. We can go through a line-by-line assessment of the manifestos put forward by all the major parties in advance of the last election if you want? See which of them promised everything, but didn't have to get involved in realpolitik as a result of getting the majority of the popular vote.

You've never interacted with me before unless you re-regred yourself.

Such as.......

And incidentally, how can you tell the TD who replied to me was or wasn't an SF TD btw?
I purposely left their name out.

Capt'n Midnight

If the object is to reduce the level of alcohol consumption then they should just increase excise duty. Doing this would mean the extra cost would go into central funding for things like health. They might even be able to reduce taxation elsewhere.

It won't benefit micro breweries as they are presumably above the minimum price already.


I can't see this really benefiting the publicans, because it's neutral for people who drink the more expensive beers so they aren't going to change.

But the kind of people who take the odd drink at home instead of going to the pub all the time because they have limited disposable income won't be able to afford to go to the pub as often because they'll have to spend more on supermarket beer.


If the price of a pint of supermarket beer goes up by €1 then yes it means the differential between drinking at home and in the pub is less than it used to be. But it also means that anyone who drinks at home now has €1 less to spend so they might not treat themselves to a night at the pub as often.


Overall this is just a form of corporate welfare for the Big Drink companies, because it will remove the competition.

RomanKnows

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

If the object is to reduce the level of alcohol consumption then they should just increase excise duty. Doing this would mean the extra cost would go into central funding for things like health. They might even be able to reduce taxation elsewhere.

It won't benefit micro breweries as they are presumably above the minimum price already.


I can't see this really benefiting the publicans, because it's neutral for people who drink the more expensive beers so they aren't going to change.

But the kind of people who take the odd drink at home instead of going to the pub all the time because they have limited disposable income won't be able to afford to go to the pub as often because they'll have to spend more on supermarket beer.


If the price of a pint of supermarket beer goes up by €1 then yes it means the differential between drinking at home and in the pub is less than it used to be. But it also means that anyone who drinks at home now has €1 less to spend so they might not treat themselves to a night at the pub as often.


Overall this is just a form of corporate welfare for the Big Drink companies, because it will remove the competition.

I agree. It isn't an ideologically pure form of taxation. I disagree that it's a form of corporate welfare for the large brewers though. If I ran a craft brewery selling an IPA at around 4.5% then I'd be very happy. The large brewers were flooding the market with cheap drink. They all have a cheap offering that is supposedly inferior to their premium offering. The craft brewers will now have an offering that isn't as hamstrung based on volume. Aldi will still be able to sell a fine Pale Ale for around €2 a bottle. They won't be able to sell 6 cans of 5% lager for €7. This really isn't a bad thing.

bb1234567

runawaybishop wrote: »

And if those calories were from protein I would take the 1400 desert over a 300 calories carb based desert.

for the average irish person who will sit on their arse after the meal, regardless of what they ate, it won't make much difference

buried

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

If the object is to reduce the level of alcohol consumption then they should just increase excise duty. Doing this would mean the extra cost would go into central funding for things like health. They might even be able to reduce taxation elsewhere.

It won't benefit micro breweries as they are presumably above the minimum price already.


I can't see this really benefiting the publicans, because it's neutral for people who drink the more expensive beers so they aren't going to change.

But the kind of people who take the odd drink at home instead of going to the pub all the time because they have limited disposable income won't be able to afford to go to the pub as often because they'll have to spend more on supermarket beer.


If the price of a pint of supermarket beer goes up by €1 then yes it means the differential between drinking at home and in the pub is less than it used to be. But it also means that anyone who drinks at home now has €1 less to spend so they might not treat themselves to a night at the pub as often.


Overall this is just a form of corporate welfare for the Big Drink companies, because it will remove the competition.

Of course it won't but I'd wager they believe it will, because they think it will save them the need to re-structure their defunct and totally out-dated business model, the fact is that they have a lobby group such as the VFI to bully their outdated, overpriced and dying trade to do this. They did it before, demanding off-licences shut at 10pm. That didn't work, now they want to bully our society as a whole in a desperate attempt to save their greedy outdated existence. I wouldn't be surprised in 3 years time there are calls from politicians to prohibit all off-licences due to "health concerns" when this current nanny-state pontificating nonsense doesn't work for the greedy VFI either.

Idbatterim

I told them that if this was legislated for, I would not be giving them my vote in any upcoming election, and would be urging my other family members to do likewise.

High time these useless bastards remembered who put them where they are, and who can just as handily remove them.

I have no idea tbh, but regardless, politics isn't like a football team, if a party introduces ludicrous policies, it's up to the electorate to let them know it.

What's the best way to do that????? Its with a vote.

Agreed on all these points banjostring, but who do you or I vote for the "options" are all sh**e, FG are the least bad IMO and I am very angry about this, but what do I do, vote for another party on this single issue which might cost me E5 or E6 a week (about 5 or 6 tins for pre drink), when financially incompetent parties like the rest are waiting in the wings to ruin us or target Irelands elite like myself on mid €30'000's? I absolutely despair, its bloody hopeless... The reason they can actually get away with this is, to a large extent because we dont have choice!

Who am I going to vote for as a private sector worker? FF, Labour, SF? as if...

There are a lot of us with opposing view on boards, but on a lot of issues you will find nearly total agreement, cant there be one non nanny state, common sense party for the common man?! You dont even need to be the biggest party, just go into coalition with FG, who would be the most natural fit and most likely need a partner again in the next government. Can Labour torpedo this joke out of interest?

CruelCoin

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

Is that why a lot of people have private health insurance in this country

Indeed they do. And they shouldn't have any issues with the system.

MRI, MRI arthogram(did i spell that right?), xrays, etc. All happened the day after i was referred to them (by a consultant i saw after a wait of an entire week).

Point still stands. If you pay for it, there are no issues with the system. You cannot bitch about free.

CruelCoin

Xenji wrote: »

Gonna have to start homebrewing my own beer now.

Really good fun.

Seriously, i love it. (And if value is your thing, pints work out at €1 a pint if you brew your own).

I have no idea what i'm doing with it though. Next batch will be random yeast, random goop-in-a-can (your malt+hops mix), spraymalt. I may well go blind.

Tarzana2

Grandeeod wrote: »

Lets cast our minds back a few years to Michael McDowells attempt to license cafes. Shot down in a blaze of glory by the vintners and then dressed up with potential anti-social/health issues.

One has to wonder how they managed to spin cafe bars as contributing to societal/health problems.

Tin Foil Hat

Tarzana2 wrote: »

One has to wonder how they managed to spin cafe bar as contributing to societal/health problems.

Easily enough. There's a troop of hatchet-faced, finger-wagging, nanny-state cnuts, in this country, who lose their reason at the very mention of alcohol. Loads of them are in our parliament and loads more of them are in our media. Almost anything will set them off.
I've come to the conclusion that these screaming banshees are doing far more to perpetuate the stereotype of the drunken Irishman than the people doing the actual drinking.

buried

CruelCoin wrote: »

Really good fun.

Seriously, i love it. (And if value is your thing, pints work out at €1 a pint if you brew your own).

I have no idea what i'm doing with it though. Next batch will be random yeast, random goop-in-a-can (your malt+hops mix), spraymalt. I may well go blind.

That's your own problem right there. Plenty of people can brew their own as long as they actually put the effort into it.

CruelCoin

buried wrote: »

That's your own problem right there. Plenty of people can brew their own as long as they actually put the effort into it.

This will be my second brew....I'm hardly the expert.

First batch, i followed the recipe and procedure to the minute detail.

I could do the same, but i feel some experimentation is in order. I can take the result and determine if i need to add cardomon, more hops, etc. Should i add extra hops in the form of dry hops, etc.

Perfection through iteration.