Calls for minimum price for alcohol sales

senordingdong

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0103/alcohol.html

RTE wrote:

The President of the Vintners Federation of Ireland Gerry Mellett has called for a minimum price to be set on alcohol sales.
Gerry Mellett said that this is the only way pubs will survive competition from supermarket sales of alcohol.
He said that the removal of restrictions on below-cost selling of alcohol in supermarkets is 'breaking the back' of the pub industry.
At the moment he says pubs cannot compete with the low prices charged by supermarkets who, he claims, use alcohol to attract customers to buy groceries as well.
Mr Mellett says publicans are under severe pressure with turnover down between 20% and 40% and says many more will close if something is not done.
Gerry Mellett also said that the imposition of the smoking ban has also been contributing to what he called the death of the Irish pub.
The Revenue Commissioners have released figures showing that the number of pub licences in Ireland over the past five years has fallen by 1,300.
Last night, it was announced that up to 85 jobs are expected to be lost with the closure of Galway city pubs: Cuba bar and nightclub, The Cellar Bar and the Harvest Off-Licence are to close because of falling sales.
A Department of Enterprise spokesperson later said the move to introduce a minimum price on alcohol could give rise to legal issues under competition legislation. These issues, he said, would have to be considered by the Competition Authority.

I can't believe my eyes reading that in this day and age.

Despite the moral and legal issues...the Vinteners Fed. honestly believes that the solution to competition is making everybody charge the same as them.

I wish somebody would slap some sense into these people.

wobbles-grogan

senordingdong wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0103/alcohol.html



I can't believe my eyes reading that in this day and age.

Despite the moral and legal issues...the Vinteners Fed. honestly believes that the solution to competition is making everybody charge the same as them.

I wish somebody would slap some sense into these people.

Agreed. But the problem is they cant charge too much less. They're already making very little in some cases. The large, busy pubs obviously make a lot but the smaller family run country places (and in cities too) dont.

The problem here is costs. The pubs have to pay out a lot of costs that supermarkets dont (or maybe the supermarkets do but it doesnt matter as much to them).

Landlords need to reduce the rent on properties.
Insurance costs need to come down.
Heating. Etc etc.

I suspect that pubs would reduce their prices if they could, to attract more customers. After all, they dont want to go out of business.

senordingdong

I agree that landlords need a break...but fleecing the consumers isn't it.

Look at it another way....they were busy every other day and turning over a tidy profit.
Then prices continued to soar, the passed on the expense to their customers.
Now that they have little or no customers left, they want the supermarkets customers to pay extra...in order to get people to waste their savings in the pub again???

PCPhoto

wasn't this thread done already !!

it turns into a dispute about pubs lowering their prices to attract customers, and then on to something about the government forcing cheaper rents for the pub landlords blah blah blah.

various comments about pub staff, then the price differential between templebar (Dublin) pubs, country pubs and pubs in the suburbs....oh and the fact that they managed to get off-licences closed at 10pm under the guise of "protecting the children".

oh and one or two people commenting on better facilities for smokers in pubs.


As regards my opinion on the matter - pubs need to cover costs, those that are desperate enough for money at the moment have dropped prices or started special offers to get customers in - they are struggling to meet payments and looking for an alternative..... like a lot of business's they need to adapt in order to create a reason for customers to arrive.

they should not expect government intervention - if you are not able to survive in a business when trade is down ..... its time to get out.

Peoples attitudes to alcohol has changed over the recent years - it is cheaper elsewhere, there is no incentive to goto the pub ...... why would anyone spend almost €5 on a bottle of beer when you can get 24 bottles for €15-€20 ....even adverts on TV are telling us to "drink responsibly" or "never ever drink and drive" .... checkpoints by gardai in the morning time has put fear into drinkers - so the option of less drinking is the easier option....and theres no point in going to the pub if you are only going to have 1 or 2 ...you can do that at home.

Unfortunately for the pub trade I think the government has tried to bail out one too many sector ..... they can no longer throw money at a problem and hope that will fix it.

senordingdong

PCPhoto wrote: »

wasn't this thread done already !!

Well I bed your pardon...I don't check every forum before I make a post.

Nice contribution though.

Fratton Fred

What negotiating power do pubs have with their suppliers? I would hazard a guess and say that Diageo can get away with charging what they like.

Can you imagine a pub in Ireland refusing to sell Guinness because they won't pay the prices being charged?

cavedave

I have never heard a spokesman for the LVI mention that choice may be an issue. Most off licences now have the option of a few good beers. The vast majority of pubs serve the same 5 drinks.

I rarely go to my local pubs as they have no good beer. I do not think this is the major reason for low pub sales. But to not conceive that the quality as well as price of the product you sell might be important does show a certain lack of passion amongst pub owners.


As for mandatory alcohol pricing its a good chance to drag out the obligatory John Stuart Mill On Liberty (1869) quote

The limitation in number, for instance, of beer and spirit houses, for the express purpose of rendering them more difficult of access, and diminishing the occasions of temptation, not only exposes all to an inconvenience because there are some by whom the facility would be abused, but is suited only to a state of society in which the labouring classes are avowedly treated as children or savages, and placed under an education of restraint, to fit them for future admission to the privileges of freedom. This is not the principle on which the labouring classes are professedly governed in any free country; and no person who sets due value on freedom will give his adhesion to their being so governed

Fratton Fred

Can you imagine a pub in Ireland refusing to sell Guinness because they won't pay the prices being charged?

There are a few pubs that do. Most of the Porterhouses, L Mulligans Grocers only has bottled Guinness and a very small number of others.

Devia

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What negotiating power do pubs have with their suppliers? I would hazard a guess and say that Diageo can get away with charging what they like.

Can you imagine a pub in Ireland refusing to sell Guinness because they won't pay the prices being charged?

They might start ordering less Guinness if the punters aren't coming in to buy it. Which is realistically whats going to happen eventually. Booze companies need to get real.

senordingdong

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What negotiating power do pubs have with their suppliers? I would hazard a guess and say that Diageo can get away with charging what they like.

Can you imagine a pub in Ireland refusing to sell Guinness because they won't pay the prices being charged?

That's the crux of it.

From the top down the price has been passed to the consumer...now the consumers are demonstrating their own power so it should start to show a change from the bottom up for once.

From what I can tell though, in the same way that consumers feel the publicans are gougers, the publicans feel the suppliers they answer to are gougers.

Fratton Fred

I think the system if rates for small businesses needs to be addressed as well. It seems very unfair for pubs, shops etc to be charged high rates, but people who use council services, water etc don't pay a penny.

greenasgrass

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What negotiating power do pubs have with their suppliers? I would hazard a guess and say that Diageo can get away with charging what they like.

Can you imagine a pub in Ireland refusing to sell Guinness because they won't pay the prices being charged?

Gibneys in Malahide did this once from my recollection. Diagio had put up the price to them but they refused to accept it and it came to a head so no more guinness deliveries. Carlsberg and Guinness were unavailable for about a month until diagio got some sense and gave in (I suspect). Either way the pub kept going strong, however it is a very popular place especially among the 18-30 group so it was in a good position. Can't see a small pub outside of a big town getting away with this.

28064212

greenasgrass wrote: »

Gibneys in Malahide did this once from my recollection. Diagio had put up the price to them but they refused to accept it and it came to a head so no more guinness deliveries. Carlsberg and Guinness were unavailable for about a month until diagio got some sense and gave in (I suspect). Either way the pub kept going strong, however it is a very popular place especially among the 18-30 group so it was in a good position. Can't see a small pub outside of a big town getting away with this.

Unless there was some sort of grouping of them. You know, like a trade union, but for pubs. Maybe even a federation of these so-called 'vintners' that could put pressure on the people selling to them, rather than their customers.

bladespin

I think the vintners point was about below cost selling, selling alcohol as a loss leader to get punters into supermarkets, I certainly don't agree with that.

Eliot Rosewater

My concern here is that this minimum pricing will be introduced. Surely it makes political sense to. Come next election no regular member of the public will base their vote on this one single issue. But any political party that introduced it would recieve a lot of the publican vote, and would experiance a net gain in support.

It would be a terrible move. It has no meaningful rationale. Most consumers in this country would have to pay for it, and that would affect the least well off worst. People have said, through the market, that the cost of drinking in a pub does not represent value for money compared to drinking at home. Publicans should accept this fact.

cavedave wrote: »

As for mandatory alcohol pricing its a good chance to drag out the obligatory John Stuart Mill On Liberty (1869) quote

I only read that essay this week - it's still relavant today!

senordingdong

bladespin wrote: »

I think the vintners point was about below cost selling, selling alcohol as a loss leader to get punters into supermarkets, I certainly don't agree with that.

I don't see a problem with it.

bladespin

senordingdong wrote: »

I don't see a problem with it.

Well apart from the fact that it's destroying an industry and costing jobs. :rolleyes:

I'm all for competition and think pubs here are crazy overpriced, but selling below cost only leads to problems, you need only look to why the grocery order was introduced to see why.

wobbles-grogan

senordingdong wrote: »

I don't see a problem with it.

Me too - kind of....

Why dont the pubs sell alcohol for less as a means to get customers in. Then charge them for other things.
Like paying at the door for a gig? Finger Food?

Again though, i think landlords can reduce the rents a bit.

In my local village of 5-600 people and 2 pubs, the rent on one of them is just over 2000 a month. How is the guy meant to make money at that without selling the beer for more than a supermarket?

senordingdong

bladespin wrote: »

Well apart from the fact that it's destroying an industry and costing jobs. :rolleyes:

I'm all for competition and think pubs here are crazy overpriced, but selling below cost only leads to problems, you need only look to why the grocery order was introduced to see why.

You're all for competition but are in favour of an idea that is blatantly against competition :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Selling below cost isn't a lone problem, alcohol as a whole is a problem, but we live in a society that demands it, that's extorting the consumer is not the solution.

Ddad

I'm in agreement with many posters about the vintners shooting themselves in the foot with the way they treated consumers in the past. They do have a point about the below cost selling.

Twenty years ago it cost approx five pounds for four cans of moderate quality lager. At present you can buy four cans for around the five euro mark. It's fairly warped given our drinks culture that alcohol is so inexpensive. It's now possible to get S^^tfaced for less than 10 euros.

We have serious social issues with the consumption of alcohol. A lot of these are hidden by the level of drinking at home. It's been covered here many times and we're going to reap the whirlwind in cases of alcohol related abuse and health issues.

The vintners have a point but they're the wrong ones to make it. Drug pushers complaining about the availability of cheap drugs. I'm all for minimum pricing on drink. We're all going to pay for the current low pricing of booze by paying for the health implications of those who overindulge.

bladespin

senordingdong wrote: »

You're all for competition but are in favour of an idea that is blatantly against competition :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

What idea am I in favour of that's blatantly against competition?

You lost me totally with that, I cannot see how below cost selling encourages competition.

28064212

bladespin wrote: »

Well apart from the fact that it's destroying an industry and costing jobs. :rolleyes:

I'm all for competition and think pubs here are crazy overpriced, but selling below cost only leads to problems, you need only look to why the grocery order was introduced to see why.

You mean the Groceries Order that was rescinded in 2006? How's the grocery sector in Ireland at the moment? Pretty healthy I would have thought, all things considered.

Ddad wrote: »

The vintners have a point but they're the wrong ones to make it. Drug pushers complaining about the availability of cheap drugs. I'm all for minimum pricing on drink. We're all going to pay for the current low pricing of booze by paying for the health implications of those who overindulge.

Don't mind tax increases on alcohol. Similar to cigarettes, it is a contributory cause of a lot of expensive problems. What I do have a problem with is increasing prices to make a profit for private businesses. Any increases should be applied to all alcohol, regardless of who the alcohol is sold by

bladespin

28064212 wrote: »

You mean the Groceries Order that was rescinded in 2006? How's the grocery sector in Ireland at the moment? Pretty healthy I would have thought, all things considered.

The groceries order was a joke but it came about through supermarkets underselling eachother to the point where some were going bankrupt and took innocent manufacturers with them.

28064212

bladespin wrote: »

The groceries order was a joke but it came about through supermarkets underselling eachother to the point where some were going bankrupt and took innocent manufacturers with them.

Hang on, it was either a necessary idea or a joke, it can't be both. Are you for a law which bans below-cost selling?

bladespin

28064212 wrote: »

Hang on, it was either a necessary idea or a joke, it can't be both. Are you for a law which bans below-cost selling?

The order itself was a joke, I never suggested it was good, I merely pointed out the reason it was introduced i.e. the idea behind it.

I am defiantely in favour of a ban on below cost (not low cost) selling of any good, it's a ridiculous notion.

28064212

bladespin wrote: »

The order itself was a joke, I never suggested it was good, I merely pointed out the reason it was introduced i.e. the idea behind it.

I am defiantely in favour of a ban on below cost (not low cost) selling of any good, it's a ridiculous notion.

Those are two directly contradicting statements. The Groceries Order was a ban on below-cost selling

cavedave

Ddad

A lot of these are hidden by the level of drinking at home.

The pubs make no effort to stop over consumption in them.


The price elasticity of demand for alcohol is important here

Alcoholic beverages (US)[42]
-0.3 or -0.7 to -0.9 as of 1972 (Beer)
-1.0 (Wine)
-1.5 (Spirits)

One of the reasons governments tax alcohol so heavily is that changing the price does not have a huge effect on consumption levels.

bladespin

28064212 wrote: »

Those are two directly contradicting statements. The Groceries Order was a ban on below-cost selling

No, the groceries order set prices, not just a ban on below cost selling, there is no contradiction in what I'm saying.

28064212

bladespin wrote: »

No, the groceries order set prices, not just a ban on below cost selling, there is no contradiction in what I'm saying.

? The groceries order banned below-cost selling

Sources:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/1108/groceries.html
http://www.consumerstrategygroup.ie/report/forward/groceries_procon.html
http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/with-the-scrapping-of-the-groceries-order-smaller-retailers-are-worried-that-the-big-multiples-will-target-them-with-belowcost-selling-and-force-them-out-of-business-109227.html

NotInventedHere

Simple solution to this problem is to remove alcohol sales licences from supermarkets. Alcohol should only be for sale in premises that under 18 have no access to.

bladespin

28064212 wrote: »

? The groceries order banned below-cost selling

Sources:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/1108/groceries.html
http://www.consumerstrategygroup.ie/report/forward/groceries_procon.html
http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/with-the-scrapping-of-the-groceries-order-smaller-retailers-are-worried-that-the-big-multiples-will-target-them-with-belowcost-selling-and-force-them-out-of-business-109227.html

Have you a copy of the order itself by any chance?

AFIK there was a little more to it than just the ban on below cost sales.

Simply put, if you allow below cost sales you kill competition.

ragg

bladespin wrote: »

Well apart from the fact that it's destroying an industry and costing jobs. :rolleyes:

I'm all for competition and think pubs here are crazy overpriced, but selling below cost only leads to problems, you need only look to why the grocery order was introduced to see why.

There is nothing to stop pubs doing the same with food or entertainment \ free soft drinks for drivers etc....

almost everybody loves to go down the pub for a pint, but many dont like the idea of paying 4 - 5 quid a pint. If the publicans can get people in, people will stay, it's up them how they do it though. Silly ideas like this are not the way though

28064212

NotInventedHere wrote: »

Simple solution to this problem is to remove alcohol sales licences from supermarkets. Alcohol should only be for sale in premises that under 18 have no access to.

:pac: You know children are allowed in pubs too yeah? And restaurants, of course

Cookie_Monster

Ddad wrote: »

Twenty years ago it cost approx five pounds for four cans of moderate quality lager. At present you can buy four cans for around the five euro mark. It's fairly warped given our drinks culture that alcohol is so inexpensive. It's now possible to get S^^tfaced for less than 10 euros.

alcohol here still costs a fortune. spirits can be twice the price for a bottle than other EU countries. A pint is generally 20-40% more expensive, wine is about 500% more expensive.

I got a crate of beer bottles in Italy for the same price as 6 here, a bottle of decent pino grigio for 1.20, the same would be 8-10 here. Absolute was 11 for a bottle, all in the local Co-op supermarket. We are still being absolutely robbed here, and its mostly the gov and its duty :mad:

If anything a standard max price for a pint needs to be set

senordingdong

NotInventedHere wrote: »

Simple solution to this problem is to remove alcohol sales licences from supermarkets. Alcohol should only be for sale in premises that under 18 have no access to.

How is that simple?
Where has consumer age entered into the debate?

bladespin

ragg wrote: »

There is nothing to stop pubs doing the same with food or entertainment \ free soft drinks for drivers etc....

almost everybody loves to go down the pub for a pint, but many dont like the idea of paying 4 - 5 quid a pint. If the publicans can get people in, people will stay, it's up them how they do it though. Silly ideas like this are not the way though

Absolutely but the vintners seem to love passing the cost on so it's unlikely they'll ever be accused of selling below cost, their biggest problem is their loathing to touch their prices, not the local supermarket.

28064212

bladespin wrote: »

Have you a copy of the order itself by any chance?

AFIK there was a little more to it than just the ban on below cost sales.

Yes, generally dealing with wholesaler cartels and price-fixing. Where does it set minimum prices other than not below-cost?

Cookie_Monster

NotInventedHere wrote: »

Simple solution to this problem is to remove alcohol sales licences from supermarkets. Alcohol should only be for sale in premises that under 18 have no access to.

They had that, even in supermarket the booze had to be separate, with separate till and separately divided from the shop. It was done away with about 6/7 years or so ago after the gov changed the laws

cavedave

NotInventedHere

Simple solution to this problem is to remove alcohol sales licences from supermarkets. Alcohol should only be for sale in premises that under 18 have no access to.

How would this increase pub sales?

bladespin

28064212 wrote: »

Yes, generally dealing with wholesaler cartels and price-fixing. Where does it set minimum prices other than not below-cost?

? It obliges the seller to cover all their costs, not just the cost of the goods itself.

Ok, that's enough banter, my opinion is clear, I'm not here to debate the groceries order merely the vintners statement.

NotInventedHere

cavedave wrote: »

How would this increase pub sales?

It may not, but it would increase employment in the small business sectors (more off licences)

Cookie_Monster

NotInventedHere wrote: »

It may not, but it would increase employment in the small business sectors (more off licences)

should we only allow bakeries to sell bread or butchers to sell meat too, completely do away with being able to get all your shopping in one combined location?

cavedave

NotInventedHere

It may not, but it would increase employment in the small business sectors (more off licences)

Cookie_Monster
should we only allow bakeries to sell bread or butchers to sell meat too, completely do away with being able to get all your shopping in one combined location?

cookie_monster your thinking to small. Lets pay people to go around breaking windows to give more jobs in the window industry while were at it.

Blisterman

The pub industry need to start combining their buying power. A friend of mine worked in Wetherspoons in England, and he said they get their beer for about 10p a pint before tax, they have that much buying power, cause they're buying millions of pints.

If they grouped together and formed some kind of cooperative, there's no reason why they couldn't lower their wholesale costs completely, and by extension, their profits.

Of course, they'd rather take the easy option of ripping off their customers more.

johnnyskeleton

An often overlooked expense of the pub trade is the licence fee.

To enter the pub market you have to buy an old licence from a working pub. You can't simply comply with statutory criteria and start serving. This makes licences very valuable, even for pubs that have no business whatsoever and have to close down.

A new system whereby anyone can get a pub licence if they meet the criteria would do a lot to improve the pub industry. True, the current publicans would lose out on the huge licence fees they have already paid, but if we are realistically considering shafting the off licences, shafting the on licences must also be fair game.

As an aside, over the christmas period I was in a few busy pubs in Dublin. It seems that on the busy nights they are back to treating the customer like scum whose only purpose is to hand over their hard earned to the publican. Yet they wonder why more people don't go to the pub more often?

NotInventedHere

cavedave wrote: »

cookie_monster your thinking to small. Lets pay people to go around breaking windows to give more jobs in the window industry while were at it.

Whilst I understand you believe that all economic and policy decisions should be made to conform your lazziez faire view of market competition. I don't. I believe that in certain instances that market interference on social grounds trumps all other considerations. Therefore if it is socially un acceptable for cheap alcohol to be floodingthe market, The powers that be shoud do something about it. I am probably in the wrong thread, but I think if alcohol sales were prohibited in Supermarkets I believe that there would be no need for minimum pricing on Alcohol as the large retailers distort the market because they are using alcohol as a loss leader. another benefit would be that when alcohol is banned from grocery stores they would have to fight for customers on groceries price alone.

Cookie_Monster

NotInventedHere wrote: »

Whilst I understand you believe that all economic and policy decisions should be made to conform your lazziez faire view of market competition. I don't. I believe that in certain instances that market interference on social grounds trumps all other considerations. Therefore if it is socially un acceptable for cheap alcohol to be floodingthe market, The powers that be shoud do something about it. I am probably in the wrong thread, but I think if alcohol sales were prohibited in Supermarkets I believe that there would be no need for minimum pricing on Alcohol as the large retailers distort the market because they are using alcohol as a loss leader. another benefit would be that when alcohol is banned from grocery stores they would have to fight for customers on groceries price alone.

but its not the cheap alcohol (and its not cheap by EU levels) that causes the problem. It the complete inability for Irish people to control themselves, thats the problem. Look at France for example, wine costs pennies, kids can drink from 16, you get beer in vending machines, yet no major binge/addiction epidemic.

Raising/ Lowering prices will have little or no impact society here, the wasters will find ways to get the booze regardless of cost IMO. why should the rest of us suffer excessive prices due to the inability of a minority to control themselves?

senordingdong

NotInventedHere wrote: »

Whilst I understand you believe that all economic and policy decisions should be made to conform your lazziez faire view of market competition. I don't. I believe that in certain instances that market interference on social grounds trumps all other considerations. Therefore if it is socially un acceptable for cheap alcohol to be floodingthe market, The powers that be shoud do something about it. I am probably in the wrong thread, but I think if alcohol sales were prohibited in Supermarkets I believe that there would be no need for minimum pricing on Alcohol as the large retailers distort the market because they are using alcohol as a loss leader. another benefit would be that when alcohol is banned from grocery stores they would have to fight for customers on groceries price alone.

Why should they not be allowed use alcohol as a loss leader?

Laminations

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

but its not the cheap alcohol (and its not cheap by EU levels) that causes the problem. It the complete inability for Irish people to control themselves, thats the problem. Look at France for example, wine costs pennies, kids can drink from 16, you get beer in vending machines, yet no major binge/addiction epidemic.

Of course, the government should instead just legislate that people should control themselves more and maybe try to be more french....

Raising/ Lowering prices will have little or no impact society here, the wasters will find ways to get the booze regardless of cost IMO. why should the rest of us suffer excessive prices due to the inability of a minority to control themselves?

Its called alcoholism, you should give it a try and see how well you can control yourself. Conversely alcoholics could argue that when they go grocery shopping why should they suffer alcohol being pushed on them so you can get drunk cheaply. I never knew one had a right to get drunk cheaply, does that trump the right of protection from the state (even if that protection is against yourself?).

All that said, I'm not sur I agree with a minimum price. Maybe banning below cost selling in this area or instead removing the barriers preventing pubs from competing (high rents, high insurance, high council charges)

senordingdong

Laminations wrote: »

Of course, the government should instead just legislate that people should control themselves more and maybe try to be more french....



Its called alcoholism, you should give it a try and see how well you can control yourself. Conversely alcoholics could argue that when they go grocery shopping why should they suffer alcohol being pushed on them so you can get drunk cheaply. I never knew one had a right to get drunk cheaply, does that trump the right of protection from the state (even if that protection is against yourself?).

All that said, I'm not sur I agree with a minimum price. Maybe banning below cost selling in this area or instead removing the barriers preventing pubs from competing (high rents, high insurance, high council charges)

No, because people need to grow up and take responsibility for their own actions, and stop depending on some nanny state to protect from, of all things, themselves!

Anyway, this plea from the vintners has nothing to do with protecting public health (though it is usually a successful guise) it's about protecting their pockets.

Cookie_Monster

Laminations wrote: »

Its called alcoholism, you should give it a try and see how well you can control yourself.

but I can control myself enough to not get to that point in the first place.

Conversely alcoholics could argue that when they go grocery shopping why should they suffer alcohol being pushed on them so you can get drunk cheaply. I never knew one had a right to get drunk cheaply, does that trump the right of protection from the state (even if that protection is against yourself?).

It no more pushed on them than meat is on vegetarians in the shop. It got specific locations which you can easily avoid. Granted at times of the year it'll be in a prominent display position, but so is every other product.

All that said, I'm not sur I agree with a minimum price. Maybe banning below cost selling in this area or instead removing the barriers preventing pubs from competing (high rents, high insurance, high council charges)

The main problem pubs seem to have here is that are pretty much all stand alone so have no major buying power, as has been said before. If even dunnes/tesco and ALdi was a seperate shop they'd all be much more expensive. We need proper chains of pubs over here or at the least central buying agreements to lower input costs.

Laminations

senordingdong wrote: »

No, because people need to grow up and take responsibility for their own actions, and stop depending on some nanny state to protect from, of all things, themselves!

Anyway, this plea from the vintners has nothing to do with protecting public health (though it is usually a successful guise) it's about protecting their pockets.

Hmmm yes, because we are all so self determined and not subject to circumstance. We dont all start out with the same hand in life you know. Addicts should just grow up you are right

I have no interest defending the high prices set by publicans, I'd prefer to see an attempt to lower their costs (on their behalf) and remove expensive licences which are a bariier for new entrants. But I dont see below cost selling of alcohol as beneficial in the long run