Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

elperello

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120455434#Comment_120455434

You are entirely wrong.

The whole reason for bringing in MUP was that the Government thought drink was being sold too cheaply.

The price it was selling at was the market price by any definition.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120455375#Comment_120455375

You've spent post after post suggesting that alcohol was under-priced and people will continue to buy it at its new MUP price. Then you talk about MUP helping to reduce alcohol consumption? You can't keep your story straight because it is a position built on sand.

The government is not justified in adopting measures to the extent of MUP merely to reduce alcohol consumption. Mere overall alcohol consumption is too high level a measurement. There's lots of posts on this thread pointing out the most price sensitive consumers are likely those least abusing alcohol and subject to its harms. And the least price sensitive are the 'problem' drinkers who will continue buying alcohol as before just at a higher price SO the responsible moderate drinkers are punished and the problem drinking will continue. There is nothing wrong with moderate alcohol consumption that warrants government intervention. Government advice yes about any very slight health risks, intervention like this no.

And there's lots of cogent arguments on this thread shooting down other justifications for MUP such as anti-social behaviour or irresponsible 'home' drinking. Ignoring all anti social behaviour, or irresponsibility that comes with pub drinking. And with pub drinking drink driving is far far more likely to occur.

But instead you take us down a rabbit hole with a meaningless definition of market price.

With MUP they aren't just 'influencing' it, they have actually set a legally binding minimum.

It's an entirely different categorical situation to the vast majority of all other products. There is no scope for competition below the minimum price.

A retailer can choose to sell other products at any price, absorbing the government 'influence', if they choose to do so. They cannot do that with alcohol.

It's a categorical difference.

And you talk about us not understanding basic economics? When you don't understand the basic legal difference?

BlueSkyDreams

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120455460#Comment_120455460

And the current price is the new market price.

In the future, it will change price again and that shall become the market price.

And so it goes on.

BlueSkyDreams

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120455461#Comment_120455461

I do think alcohol was under priced. But as we talked about previously, someones definition of cheap or expensive is subjective.

I expect that alcohol will still be purchased at similar volumes at its new price, yes. In which case, it was under priced to begin with.

There is a new market price. Get used to it.

elperello

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120455480#Comment_120455480

Here's a true story to amuse you.

In my local supermarket drinks section they have a few remaindered drink packs, some with a can missing others with damaged packaging.

One six pack with one can missing has been there for months, it's out of date since November.

It is priced at the MUP price for 5 cans while you can buy an in date six pack of the same beer for the MUP price of six cans.

Of course nobody has bought the six pack with one missing that is now over 4 months out of date.

What do you reckon is the market price of the 5 cans of out of date beer?

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120455492#Comment_120455492

So you think alcohol will be purchased in same quantities.

So that means all MUP will achieve is people paying more for the same quantity alcohol for no purpose, other than leaving less to spend on other items.

And your response is 'get used to it'?

Well perhaps we must but it does not speak in any way to the merit of MUP as a measure and in fact suggests MUP as currently introduced to be a pointless measure. Well unless you are a retailer of alcohol in which case it is a profit leader at the expense of consumers.

And if you suggest MUP should be higher well I refer you to my previous points about the basic fallacies underlying MUP as a measure in terms of price sensitive purchasers etc

dxhound2005

It was tested in the European Court of Justice, sent back to Scotland leaving it up to them. Challenged by the alcohol lobby all the way to the UK Supreme Court, sent back to Scotland by them. When the UK was a member state. The bluster on this thread about going to Europe to get it overturned is long gone.

After many hundreds of pages of legal stuff, it can be boiled down to "Scotland doesn't trust their alcohol shops". The court gave them the option to apply higher taxes in place of MUP, but they concluded that the alcohol shops would still keep doing cheap promotions. Forgoing profit, in pursuit of new customers and of market share. Another fair or unfair "market price" depending on everyones point of view.

MUP is being evaluated ahead of the Sunset Clause dates in legislation. I wouldn't judge this soon what that evaluation is going to conclude.

VinLieger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120455492#Comment_120455492

The idea that we were under pricing alcohol while also being one of the most expensive countries in the world to purchase it is an objectively absurd notion.

FYI there is not a new "market price" when the government are artificially inflating that price to favour the producers and sellers. If they had simply increased excise that would be a market price but setting a legal minimum allowed price is nothing to do with the market, its just legally enforced price gouging.

dxhound2005

It is the Public Health (Alcohol) Act 2018 after all. More excise was judged not being capable of achieving the same reduction in alcohol harms as MUP is designed to do. We will see what the outcome is, in the years ahead.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120455686#Comment_120455686

The dogs on the street know excise wasnt increased as it would have affected pubs.

Excise increase and or ban on below cost selling could have been brought in far more quickly than MUP.

If MUP affected pubs it would not have been brought in.

GNWoodd

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120453484#Comment_120453484

I love this narrative of under pricing , economically viable etc .

Some of these pubs had survived through multiple generations and through difficult times filled with emigration , poor farming returns etc.

They closed on our watch

VinLieger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120455686#Comment_120455686

No that's not correct they didn't want to use excise as the original purpose of this was to specifically protect rural Pubs, the public health aspect is the excuse they came up with once they realised their original idea would be struck down by the EU anti competition laws. It's all there plain as day in FGs 2011 manifesto.

GNWoodd

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120453660#Comment_120453660

When it became a criminal offence to drive home after two or three pints , as people had done for decades without issue , that was the end for rural pubs .

I don’t remember rural communities ever being asked for their opinion on this hence my comment about the pressure group .

dxhound2005

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120455818#Comment_120455818

The legislation has zero mentions of either "rural" or "public houses". Wherever you got your information go back and tell them they are not correct. The EU court left it to member states to decide for themselves. When the thing was first mooted well over 10 years ago, "they" were already using the health "excuse".

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2012-12-20/308/

dxhound2005

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120455698#Comment_120455698

Was that below cost selling happening before MUP? Is it still happening? If it is that is a big failure for the legislation. Bring in a ban as well as MUP.

VinLieger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120455868#Comment_120455868

That's a 2012 record, once again FGs 2011 eleciton manifesto was published in February that year so it was very likely discussed within 2010 by themselves and whoever had been lobbying for it. It clearly states why they wanted MUP to ban below cost selling and it had no mention of health.

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.

You can try to argue their mention of concerns around consumption was about health buy it's clearly and only about more people choosing to drink at home than in pubs.

Also it's not like there werent other ways to ban below cost selling. Michael Martin himself repealed the groceries order in 2006 which used to ban the practice of below cost selling, why not reintrouduce that? Because it wasn't enough to appease the publicans, they wanted to HURT the off trade and try to force people back into pubs.

dxhound2005

It was the Minister for Health who said in the Dail answer that MUP was being prepared for, based on the Substance Misuse Report. That clearly makes it a public health issue. And as the small extract below shows, cheap alcohol was identified as a health problem back then. Nothing was going to stop the alcohol shops doing the cheap promotions, until MUP came along. The pub trade was already in trouble, and MUP hasn't saved them.

https://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/12388/2/Steering_Group_Report_on_a_National_Substance_Misuse_Strategy.pdf

%PDF-1.4 % 523 0 obj > endobj 537 0 obj >/Filter/FlateDecode/ID[]/Index[523 23]/Info 522 0 R/Length 88/Prev 1156692/Root 524 0 R/Size 546/Type/XRef/W[1 3 1]>>stream hbbd```b``N d"I BD0 VԈUxDC/u,#,0 4$ endstream endobj startxref 0 %%EOF 545 0 obj >stream hSYOQ>sVh`[*[hX44@ƅ:1

Over half of drinkers were identified as having a harmful drinking pattern. This equates to nearly one and a half million adults in Ireland drinking in a harmful pattern.6 2. Irish children are drinking from a younger age and drinking more than ever before. o Over half of Irish 16 year old children have been drunk and one in five is a weekly drinker.7 The average age of first alcohol use in children decreased from 15 years for children born in 1980 to 14 years for children born in 1990.8 3. The pattern of alcohol purchasing in Ireland has shifted from the pub to the off-licence sector, and to supermarkets in particular. o There was a 161 per cent increase in the number of off-licences operating between 1998 and 2010 and over the same time period the number of pub licences decreased by 19 per cent. In 2010 the average cost of a 500ml can of lager from the off-licence was €1.77 while the average price of a pint of lager in the on-trade sector was €4.35.9 The off-licence sector accounted for half of the alcohol market share in 2008 and, given the much cheaper price of alcohol in the off-licence, the volume of alcohol sold from the off-licence was much greater than that sold in the on-trade. o Much of this increase was in mixed trade outlets which have used significant discounting of alcohol products along with alcohol price-based promotions to encourage people into their premises. o Purchasing by distance sales from specialist off-licences and mixed trade outlets has become more widespread. There is some evidence to suggest that under-18 year olds are consuming alcohol purchased by distance sales from specialist off-licences and mixed trade outlets. 

BlueSkyDreams

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120455578#Comment_120455578

Its still the market price.

Nothing illegal about it.

BlueSkyDreams

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120455808#Comment_120455808

But is it because they arent as supported by the local community any more?

The costs are obviously very high to run a pub nowadays. Rural pubs in particular will probably reduce in number.

Fewer punters for the same about of pubs doesnt keep them all viable.

Some must close to allow the others to remain open.

VinLieger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120456493#Comment_120456493

What are you missing about everything your posting as evidence being in 2012 and FGs manifesto that I'm talking about as the first mention of MUP and it's original reasoning being developed in 2010 and published in early 2011?

By 2012 they had pivoted to health as their original reasons for wanting it were highly questionable and without the health nonsense would have been struck down by the EU anti competition laws.

VinLieger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120456568#Comment_120456568

I never said it was illegal but when the government are artificially inflating it, it absolutely is not "market price" go back and redo leaving cert business studies.

Fr Tod Umptious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120455818#Comment_120455818

It's all there plain as day in FGs 2011 manifesto.

We are back to a decade old election promise again are we ?

Ignoring the fact that it was a Labour minister that started the ball rolling on MUP, and that it was supported by all parties.

And when people here expected SF to ride in on their "anti-government everything" white horse they got the land of their lives when they found out that SF wanted to MUP price to be higher.

Not to mention the fact that MUP was supported by the off license association, and that the same FG were responsible for some of the strictest COVID measures in the world, leaving pubs shut for the bones of two years.

The old FG and the pubs trope is really out of date, come up with something new.

VinLieger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120456871#Comment_120456871

We are talking about the origin of the idea and intitial reasons behind it, you can ignore it due to it being inconvenient to your own personal beliefs all you want but the first reasons and mention of MUP had absolutely nothing to do with health. Also who cares if it was a labour minister who got the ball rolling they were a minority partner in government, they absolutely were being directed on what policies to enact by FG. This might be breaking news to you but that's how governments work, ministers dont go off and enact policies without cabinet approval and a fair amount of the time they are given policies by cabinet for their specific departments.

elperello

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120456568#Comment_120456568

Welcome back.

Conveniently ignoring other posters who pointed out why it's not the market price you have brought a straw man to the party.

Nobody said it's illegal.

BlueSkyDreams

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120455547#Comment_120455547

I think sales of cheap alcohol will still hit similar volumes, yes.

Because the price point for MUP is still cheap. 1.60 a can roughly.

And if it doesnt have the govts desired affect of curbing the volume of sales, then yes, they will just increase the MUP price further, as the new market rate will still be too low to achieve the aim.

Remember that rampant inflation over the last 12 months would warrant a review anyway.

I do appreciare that if MUP keeps rising, there is an unfairness on the moderate drinker on low income, but its hard to get round that.

I dont think we can realistically have 2 market rates. 1 for problem drinkers and 1 for moderate drinkers on lower incomes.

BlueSkyDreams

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120456667#Comment_120456667

I would follow your own advice on that one.

The govt impacts all prices for goods and services.

You cant legally buy alcohol at a lower price today. Therefore, it is the market price.

What the price was before MUP was introduced is irrelevant.

We can all hark back to the days when a beer cost a penny . Its irrelevant if i walk into an Off License today.

The increase in prices of any product over any given period are principally a result of Govt legislation/regulation, market forces & inflation.

MUP is no different.

BlueSkyDreams

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120457039#Comment_120457039

Im not ignoring anybody, but there is somewhat of an echo chamber going on here.

Last time I am going to say it, but it is the market price. You cannot buy alcohol cheaper legally.

The market price used to be cheaper, yes. But as with almost all products, prices go up for a variety of reasons and MUP is no different.

Govt legislation has accelerared the price rise for cheap alcohol on health grounds.

But that new price is the current market price. End of.

elperello

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120457202#Comment_120457202

It's not an echo chamber it's just that people aren't buying your nonsense.

The new price is artificially inflated by MUP.

It's not a market price, end of.

dxhound2005

It's only a minor imposition, less than the Excise. The alcohol shops can still do their below cost selling on the majority of products. Nothing stopping them doing a promotion on €20 bottles of wine for a tenner, or on champagne down from €40 to €20.

MUP would probably stop them pretending the "market price" of Kylie Minogue Rose is €12, and offering it at €6. But they can pretend that it is €12 and offer it at €9.

https://www.tesco.ie/groceries/en-IE/products/306802015

Gusser09

The market is currently false. That is a fact. It's a fake.

I'd like to see the figures regarding footfall into pubs and if it has risen since MUP. That was the aim of MUP in Ireland.

Larger, stouts and beers have been disproportionately affected by this BS. That is also a fact.