Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

da_miser

Leroy42 wrote: »

Most alcohol is currently sold in pubs, so price is not really a major issue for most people.

And just like when the pubs increase their prices, people moan and make claims that they won't pay that, but it never make any real difference

With many going to be out of work the pub will not be a option.
When you working and they put 10c on a pint, we all moan about it , but only €1 extra on a 10 pint session, now doubling the price of a can during a recession= RUCTIONS.

Leroy42

But if you are used to going to the pub, you are used to paying €5+ for pint. Paying €2 for a can is still a significant saving.

Did any pubs drops there prices at the last recession? Not many if any. They know what drink is fairly immune to price increases (without limits).

It wasn't eve an issue at the last GE. SF are in favour of it yet saw their vote go up. The only, political, conclusion, is that it isn't really a issue with the public.

Doctor Jimbob

Leroy42 wrote: »

But if you are used to going to the pub, you are used to paying €5+ for pint. Paying €2 for a can is still a significant saving.

Did any pubs drops there prices at the last recession? Not many if any. They know what drink is fairly immune to price increases (without limits).

It wasn't eve an issue at the last GE. SF are in favour of it yet saw their vote go up. The only, political, conclusion, is that it isn't really a issue with the public.

That's probably down to the fact it's being portrayed as a public health measure rather than what it really is.

L1011

Leroy42 wrote: »

You do you think will protest this? A few quid extra of drink on the oft, as this Covid is showing as all prices have increased, will not make a massive difference and certainly won't have people out marching.

Most alcohol is currently sold in pubs, so price is not really a major issue for most people.

And just like when the pubs increase their prices, people moan and make claims that they won't pay that, but it never make any real difference

Its a lot more than an 'extra few quid' if your primary off-sales purchases were slabs

Also, all premium products WILL put their prices up to maintain premium position. You can't claim a premium position when you're now the same price as Pratskzy.

And the bulk of the extra costs goes to the retailer - its not a tax.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Did any pubs drops there prices at the last recession? Not many if any.

A large proportion of the LVA did a 50c/pint drop across the board and were told to reverse it as it counted as cartel action.

Leroy42

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

That's probably down to the fact it's being portrayed as a public health measure rather than what it really is.

Totally agree, but doesn't change the fact that I honestly don't see people doing anything about this.

Myself, I will be making a conscious decision to go to the pub even less than I do now because I see this as nothing other than a market protection racket.

If everyone stopped going to the pub (when they are actually open as opposed to now!) then the publicans would be forced to act. Sure the price in the Offy goes up, but as a direct result of the vitners, so take it out on them. Buy the beer in the offy, and refuse to pay the prices in the pub to show that we won't accept this.

But we all know that will never happen. People simply cannot live without the pub.

Doctor Jimbob

Leroy42 wrote: »

Totally agree, but doesn't change the fact that I honestly don't see people doing anything about this.

Myself, I will be making a conscious decision to go to the pub even less than I do know because I see this as nothing other than. market protection racket.

If everyone stopped going to the pub (when they are actually open as opposed to now!) then the publicans would be forced to act. Sure the price in the Offy goes up, but as a direct result of the vitners, so take it out on them. Buy the beer in the iffy, and refuse to pay the prices in the pub to show that we won't accept this.

But we all know that will never happen. People simply cannot live without the pub.

Yeah, you're probably right, I can't see there being any major outcry over this.

I'll probably do the same. I was never a big pub drinker to begin with and the past few months have really shown how much more enjoyable it can be to have a few cans of some good beer at home rather than paying 2 or 3 times the amount for worse beer in a pub.

Thelonious Monk

L1011 wrote: »

Both FF and FG fully support this due to the number of publicans in the parties; and they've deluded most other politicians to support it too. It'll pass.

It'll probably get thrown out in the courts due to lack of trying other methods first (like our minimum smokes pricing was); but that'll take months to years


Remember, this measure is 100% about supporting publicans and their unprofitable/dear on-site off-licences; not a jot about public health.

It'll probably also make societal issues worse as dependent drinkers are going to spend the extra cash and leave their families with even less money for food/rent/whatever.

Yes sure isn't supporting the local pubs through whatever means in the FG manifesto. What I find worst about this is that I don't think one TD objected to the legislation. Who are they actually representing??

CrankyHaus

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Who are they actually representing??

The publicans' economic interest dovetails nicely with the paternalistic instincts within the Irish elite (including some doctors), who can tell each other that this is "for their own good", objective evidence be damned. They won't be affected by the price increases anyway, so what do they care if a working man can't enjoy a few drinks with friends.



This paternalistic instinct, that normal people "don't know what's good for them", never really went away as Ireland liberalised. It just transferred from doctrinaire Catholicism to nanny-statism.

Potential-Monke

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I suspect you were dealing with arseholes who happened to be drinkers, rather than non-arsehole drinkers who the drink somehow turned into arseholes.



:rolleyes: and then you go on to say how you liked St. Etienne from Aldi. A true connoisseur of the grain and the grape...

No, normal, lovely people change if enough drink is taken. I've dealt with all sorts. Yes, maybe half of them were arseholes who like to drink, but the other half were made up of normal people, or even really nice people, who change when they drink. It's easy to distinguish them, as they're the only ones who apologise the following morning once sober. The arseholes continue to be arseholey, threaten you, etc. Few months later you get a letter from GSOC saying the complaint was not upheld, and you try and match it back to the arsehole.

And sorry we don't share our tastes. I've always found people who look down upon those who drink cheaper drink the same kind of arseholes who look down on others for not wearing designer labels. Not saying you are one, but there's no need for elitism when it comes to drink. Looking back, it wasn't nice, it was just the most palatable pish available, and definitely better than some craft shyte with bellends talking about the hint of x fruit and an aftertaste of elitism. We fool ourselves into thinking a certain poison is palatable. I preferred St. Etienne as it was the only one I could drink without feeling full.

Wine people are the worst. All wine tastes shyte (imo) and people trying to tell me otherwise are deluded (again, imo).

the_syco

Potential-Monke wrote: »

I've always found people who look down upon those who drink cheaper drink the same kind of arseholes who look down on others for not wearing designer labels.

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Wine people are the worst. All wine tastes shyte (imo) and people trying to tell me otherwise are deluded (again, imo).

I find these parts humorous.

Potential-Monke wrote: »

stopped drinking and become a stoner. Far better life because of it. Can't really see the draw of it any more. And I've finally come to realise that I've been lying to myself for years thinking that drink tastes nice. It doesn't. We just fool ourselves into finding the one we find most palatable and begin to think it's nice. Again, just my opinion (craft beer is mank).

Ah, so you're a born-again christain sober person? The worst type :pac:

Potential-Monke wrote: »

I spent 9 years as a Garda, and the vast majority of incidents were drink related.

Confirmational bias, tbh.

Potential-Monke

the_syco wrote: »

Ah, so you're a born-again christain sober person? The worst type :pac:

No no, I'll still have a drink if it's warranted, ie: wedding, but I don't go to many of them anymore anyway.

And confirmation bias? I would have thought experience of it firsthand tbh!

Hotblack Desiato

Potential-Monke wrote: »

It's easy to distinguish them, as they're the only ones who apologise the following morning once sober.

Just because they have regrets doesn't mean they're not still an arsehole. In vino veritas as the saying goes. The urge to inflict physical violence on others doesn't come out of nowhere. (I shouldn't have to point out it's not a get-out in court, either.)

And sorry we don't share our tastes.

That's not the point. The point is you're slagging off people who drink one sort of thing and like it, because of your frankly completely uninformed opinion that all alcohol tastes bad just because the one you drank tasted bad.

Not saying you are one, but there's no need for elitism when it comes to drink.

But reverse elitism about "craft beer tossers" is ok?

We fool ourselves into thinking a certain poison is palatable.

A lot of drinks are far more than 'palatable' and to claim otherwise is quite frankly rubbish.

Wine people are the worst. All wine tastes shyte (imo) and people trying to tell me otherwise are deluded (again, imo).

Just because you don't like it doesn't give you the right to call people deluded.

Potential-Monke

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Just because they have regrets doesn't mean they're not still an arsehole. In vino veritas as the saying goes. The urge to inflict physical violence on others doesn't come out of nowhere. (I shouldn't have to point out it's not a get-out in court, either.)

Ok. I'll just stick with my on the job experience, which states otherwise.

That's not the point. The point is you're slagging off people who drink one sort of thing and like it, because of your frankly completely uninformed opinion that all alcohol tastes bad just because the one you drank tasted bad.

The one. I've only ever tasted one drink. Yes. And watch most people on their first drink of the night. Most (not all) give away a very small tell that their mouth hasn't adjusted to the poison they're putting into it. It's small, but it's there.

But reverse elitism about "craft beer tossers" is ok?

No, not reverse elitism. Hipster bashing. Subtle difference. Funny, when I Ctrl+F, the only instance of the 'craft beer tossers' comes to your post. Well, and mine now too that I've posted it. So, your words.

A lot of drinks are far more than 'palatable' and to claim otherwise is quite frankly rubbish.

K. In your opinion.

Just because you don't like it doesn't give you the right to call people deluded.

They're deluded if they think they can convince me wine is nice. Not deluded because they drink it.

But, none of this has anything to do with the thread, so on we move.

Leroy42

MAP is a commitment in the proposed programme for government signed off by the party leaders today.

Quantum Erasure

****in greens...

elperello

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

****in greens...

By all means if it makes you feel better.

However the truth is that MUP went through the Dail supported by all parties.

In the Senate the only voice raised against it was Prof.Sean Barrett of Trinity. Wearing his economist hat he correctly pointed out the madness of granting an extra profit to the drinks industry.

Reputable Rog

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

****in greens...

Doesn’t matter who’s in government, all the tossers are in favour of it.

brightspark

elperello wrote: »

By all means if it makes you feel better.

However the truth is that MUP went through the Dail supported by all parties.

In the Senate the only voice raised against it was Prof.Sean Barrett of Trinity. Wearing his economist hat he correctly pointed out the madness of granting an extra profit to the drinks industry.

If they really thought a price increase would improve peoples' health they could have simply raised the duty, but that wouldn't have suited their publican friends, relations and financial supporters.

Yellow_Fern

Drinkers already pay for the full impact of their drinking healthcare etc. included.

andrew1977

Newry here I come so the day after it comes into effect in Ireland .
Will Northern Ireland go with minimum pricing ? I’m sure they have enough going on to not implement soon .

Leroy42

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Drinkers already pay for the full impact of their drinking healthcare etc. included.

Do you know what the average costs of dealing with an RTA involving a drunk driver is, including legal fees, court costs and medical?

Atlantic Dawn

Bringing this in now will completely wipe out the pubs.

Hairy Japanese BASTARDS!

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Bringing this in now will completely wiped out the pubs.

How so?

Pub prices will remain the same.
Off licence prices go up.

Hairy Japanese BASTARDS!

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Bringing this in now will completely wiped out the pubs.

How so?

Pub prices will remain the same.
Off licence prices go up.

Leroy42

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Bringing this in now will completely wiped out the pubs.

How do you reckon on that? It is aimed at protecting the pubs

Atlantic Dawn

A person has x amount of money for drink/entertainment, higher prices on the at home boozing means less to spend at the pub. Combine that with the pubs going to be completely undesirable places to go for a year plus and yes this will do more damage to the pubs, not less. Pubs will also have to raise prices to pay for reduced business, at least 25% across the board to be any way breaking even.

Geuze

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Bringing this in now will completely wipe out the pubs.

I think you're confused.

This policy is aimed at helping pubs, by making alcohol outside pubs more expensive relative to alcohol in pubs.

Geuze

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

A person has x amount of money for drink/entertainment, higher prices on the at home boozing means less to spend at the pub. Combine that with the pubs going to be completely undesirable places to go for a year plus and yes this will do more damage to the pubs, not less. Pubs will also have to raise prices to pay for reduced business, at least 25% across the board to be any way breaking even.

Hmmm, maybe............

hatrickpatrick

Geuze wrote: »

I think you're confused.

This policy is aimed at helping pubs, by making alcohol outside pubs more expensive relative to alcohol in pubs.

Yes, but the issue now is that with pubs almost certainly becoming incredibly depressing places at least until the end of the year, a lot of people when faced with a choice between an expensive house party or an expensive night in the pub will just skip the pub altogether.

Richard Hillman

They'll only introduce it if Northern Ireland do. I think Sinn Fein and the DUP know it wouldn't go down well with their working class support base. Recreational rioting isn't as fun without 10 cans of Carling on board.