Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

VinLieger

Deleted User wrote: »

According to the irish times the plan is to bring in MUP at the same time as its brought in in Northern Ireland so that border shop owners dont suffer an exodus of shoppers heading north. For Stormont to bring in MUP means Stormont needs to be functioning. Currently its not.

Can't see that happening before Christmas.

Even if it were functioning it also would need the DUP and SF to agree on something which after the year they have had doesn't seem likely to happen on any issue.

10000maniacs

6541 wrote: »

This really annoys me. I hate the way the government is essentially saying you can't be trusted with drinking so we are upping the cost. I will tell you here and now, I will buy all my booze on the black market and I will bring van loads down from the North.

It is FG spin. They don't give two $hits about the nations health.
As mentioned previously, the real agenda is this from their 2011 election manifesto. So their real agenda with minimum pricing is to keep alcohol prices artificially high.

Supporting Irish Pubs: Fine Gael recognizes 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

Here is the manifesto in full.
http://michaelpidgeon.com/manifestos/docs/fg/Fine%20Gael%20GE%202011.pdf

Dr Crayfish

Yup I'm going to drive to the North once a month or so and buy a few trays. No way am I being dictated to this way by those clowns in Leinster House.

kylith

We.ve done remodelling at home so I've more space, and my brother's old brewing kit is in the shed...

Think I might try my hand...

BuilderPlumber

Time for the people to take to the streets again to stop the threat of yet more unneeded legislation that has a negative impact on people's pockets. A more honest approach from the government would be to up the rates of VAT. Healthism is just another form of dictatorship designed to keep people down and make more money for government. We need to be wise to this before it becomes the next horrid ideology. Of course healthism and health are different things: healthists use health issues and myths about them to force agendas usually to increase VAT and protect pubs here in Ireland when it comes to alcohol. Healthists NEVER of course mention stress reduction as a major way to improve people's health: you cannot put VAT on that and it does not benefit the pubs either. Healthism and healthists do not care about health and use health issues much the same way ISIS use religion or Stalinists use the theories of Karl Marx.

10000maniacs

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Time for the people to take to the streets again to stop the threat of yet more unneeded legislation that has a negative impact on people's pockets. A more honest approach from the government would be to up the rates of VAT. Healthism is just another form of dictatorship designed to keep people down and make more money for government. We need to be wise to this before it becomes the next horrid ideology. Of course healthism and health are different things: healthists use health issues and myths about them to force agendas usually to increase VAT and protect pubs here in Ireland when it comes to alcohol. Healthists NEVER of course mention stress reduction as a major way to improve people's health: you cannot put VAT on that and it does not benefit the pubs either.

Fianna Fail have a huge pub ownership contingent within their ranks and so do a lot of the independents, so I fear this will be pushed through.
Its a pity the general public are being treated with sheer contempt with all this politician hyperbole. At the very least can they be honest about it and say they are doing this in an attempt to bail out the publicans.

VinLieger

10000maniacs wrote: »

Fianna Fail have a huge pub ownership contingent within their ranks and so do a lot of the independents, so I fear this will be pushed through.
Its a pity the general public are being treated with sheer contempt with all this politician hyperbole. At the very least can they be honest about it and say they are doing this in an attempt to bail out the publicans.

The single reason the cafe bar bill failed back in the mid 2000's which was aimed at giving us similar setups as on the continent and an attempt to normalise alcohol instead of restrict it was due to the number of FF backbenchers that were also publicans

TallGlass

This is to curb drinking. Yet the price of Nagins of Vodka is remaining unchanged. These are single handle the alcoholics choice of a quick fix and do serious untold damage. Yet the price is not changing.

This has to be the biggest load of bollix I have come across. Right down to the basic logic that it will get people back into the pubs. How will raising off licence prices for people back to pubs?

How about something simple from the publicans like lowering your fúcking prices.

BuilderPlumber

10000maniacs wrote: »

Fianna Fail have a huge pub ownership contingent within their ranks and so do a lot of the independents, so I fear this will be pushed through.
Its a pity the general public are being treated with sheer contempt with all this politician hyperbole. At the very least can they be honest about it and say they are doing this in an attempt to bail out the publicans.

You ever notice how many politicians' families own pubs? You also see clinics run via pubs. I agree 100%: they should be honest and admit this is all to save the pubs but it won't. Pubs are in crisis largely because of their attitude. I find 99% of pubs to be dire places that would depress one. Dark, dingy, nothing on in them and owners who are horrible.

Governments can never be honest. Was the Afghan government honest about banning alcohol because it threatened the heroin/opium industry? No, they concocted a religious misinterpretation instead. When the Iranian revolutionaries had to fight Saddam's invading army, they too had to ban alcohol officially because of religion but in reality because it distracted young men from fighting Iraqis and pro-Shah Iranians. No government can ever be honest as to the REAL reasons. For us, it is always defending pubs and getting more VAT.

Leroy42

TallGlass wrote: »

How about something simple from the publicans like lowering your fúcking prices.

Why would they do that when they can simply force the competitors up to their level?

Zubeneschamali

KrustyUCC wrote: »

All that will happen is that ‘cheaper’ cans at the moment will rise to €2.00 ... then the likes of Heineken etc will just rise by as much again

Folks keep saying that, but it makes no sense. Lidl make money selling quality beer for €2 a bottle now. There is no incentive here for them to jack up that price, on the contrary, their selling point will be you can have better beer at the minimum price.

What'll happen is that the likes of 75c a can Galahad from Aldi will be swept off the market completely when the good stuff is available at the same price.

Guinness and Heineken may try to raise prices, but I guarantee that Lidl and Aldi will discount them down to the minimum regardless - they do it now in special offers, 8 cans for €12, so why wouldn't they keep doing it?

VinLieger

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

For us, it is always defending pubs and getting more VAT.

Ironically this will actually probably reduce VAT if it works which overall means less money for health and mental health services. No matter which way they try to spin it theres a serious flaw in their logic and they refuse to engage with the public on it for that very fact

Beechwoodspark

I disagree, the "drinking problems" are myths from the government.

Most pubs are overpriced dingy dark kips. Hygiene leaves a lot to be desired. Often the "pub grub" on offer is underwhelming. Fair enough, the choice of drinks has improved over the years.

A significant amount of pub owners treat their customers like dirt. They act as if the customer is there on sufferance and better behave or they will be barred-while charging them jacked up prices for the pleasure

BuilderPlumber

VinLieger wrote: »

The single reason the cafe bar bill failed back in the mid 2000's which was aimed at giving us similar setups as on the continent and an attempt to normalise alcohol instead of restrict it was due to the number of FF backbenchers that were also publicans

Lazy pubs owned and affiliated to politicians and not just Fianna Fail ones either but all parties is the main reason why we have strange government attitudes towards alcohol. I know well the attitude of publicans. Here are three examples of statements I heard from them at different times:

'If I had my way, Tesco and all supermarkets would not be allowed sell alcohol'
'The pub should be the only place where alcohol can be sold'
'The state owes us a living and publicans should be the only people with a licence to sell alcohol'.

By this, they are saying that shops, restaurants with no bars, festivals and greyhound/horse racing arenas should not sell alcohol and one should not drink it anywhere other than a pub.

Zubeneschamali

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Folks keep saying that, but it makes no sense. Lidl make money selling quality beer for €2 a bottle now. There is no incentive here for them to jack up that price, on the contrary, their selling point will be you can have better beer at the minimum price.

What'll happen is that the likes of 75c a can Galahad from Aldi will be swept off the market completely when the good stuff is available at the same price.

Guinness and Heineken may try to raise prices, but I guarantee that Lidl and Aldi will discount them down to the minimum regardless - they do it now in special offers, 8 cans for €12, so why wouldn't they keep doing it?

The good stuff. :pac:

The retailer is one actor. The manufacturer and distributors are also involved. If cans of Carlsberg current go to the distributor for 50c then to the supermarket for 60c then are sold at €1 (happens fairly regularly with offers) then why in the **** would the manufacturer and distributor just leave it be and leave the huge profit increase all for the retailer?
I would guess the price gap between Galahad and "premium" brands will be small at first and rise over time.

Snickers Man

To paraphrase a recurring theme from the classic Western Movie of 1939, Jesse James (the one starring Tyrone Power and Henry Fonda): "If we're ever going to have justice in this country, the first thing we gotta do is take out all the doctors and shoot 'em down like dogs"

The guff that the health industry talks about this issue make me sick. (Now there's an irony surely!)

They think they can change culture and attitudes just by pricing something out of people's reach and making it a pain in the arse to get hold of in the first place. And really, who is going to have their behaviour modified just because they hide the beer inside a supermarket behind a "booze burka"?

What is most frustrating about these measures is that they won't actually work. Neither will the accepted wisdom underpinning them which is that we have to stop "normalising" alcohol consumption.

BS! We should try to avoid normalising destructive, binge drinking as being synonymous with having a drink. The notion that, you're not really drinking unless you're trying very hard to get pissed is a very Irish one. It's not one that is universally shared across other societies in which alcohol consumption is a large part of their culture.

We SHOULD be normalising the concept of drinking in moderation. Which is what pertains in most other countries. But oh, no. That would just be giving into the "Drinks lobby"

The truly sad part of this is that all the evidence suggests that repressive and restrictive practices only encourage binge drinking and destructive behaviour. Having a beer with your lunch? Disgraceful.
Having 10 beers on the one night a week you organise to go out "drinking" Well, if you must you must.

Mad as hell :mad::mad:

gadgiemagoo

I don't know if this point has been made already - apologies if it has! Scotland attempted to bring in a minimum price of 50p per unit in 2012. It's not yet been implemented as it's caught up in a Supreme Court Appeal by Scottish Whisky Assoc.

I lived in Scotland for 10 years & while minimum pricing has not yet happened, Scotland "outlawed" multi-buy offers. Asda used to run an offer on a range of wine (granted not what you'd serve up at Christmas, but fine). The offer was 3 bottles for £10 & was on offer throughout UK. When Scotland "outlawed" multi buys I walked into my local Asda & p$ssed meself to see the same range for sale at £3.33 per bottle - yes 1p cheaper than the "outlawed" multi-buy offer! 10/10 Asda

elperello

VinLieger wrote: »

Even if it were functioning it also would need the DUP and SF to agree on something which after the year they have had doesn't seem likely to happen on any issue.

SF already support Minimum Unit Pricing down here so to be consistent they will have to support it up North.
The DUP have a streak of puritanism running through them. Remember Paisley talking about drink as "the devil's buttermilk".

When they get the Stormont Show back on the road they will be looking for something to put through to show they can work together.

Zebra3

I disagree, the "drinking problems" are myths from the government.

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Paschals shares in Diageo will soar in value.

You mean his wife’s shares. :rolleyes:

Asus X540L

elperello wrote: »

SF already support Minimum Unit Pricing down here so to be consistent they will have to support it up North.
The DUP have a streak of puritanism running through them. Remember Paisley talking about drink as "the devil's buttermilk".

When they get the Stormont Show back on the road they will be looking for something to put through to show they can work together.

Back in the 1800s the catholic church in Ireland refused to support the temperance movement as they saw it as too "proddie"

hawkelady

Am I grasping this right, these increases ( if they happen) will be going into the supermarkets coffers as it's not a tax. So if a cam increases by 80cent , that 80 cent will be going to the shop that sells it ..
is that right?

elperello

hawkelady wrote: »

Am I grasping this right, these increases ( if they happen) will be going into the supermarkets coffers as it's not a tax. So if a cam increases by 80cent , that 80 cent will be going to the shop that sells it ..
is that right?

Right, only the extra VAT goes to the exchequer.

STB.

Yes we are doing really well.

As it is we are in third place in the Nanny State Index of Countries in the EU. When the UK leave the EU, we'll be up there with a shot of being the No.1 being told what to do.

Nanny State laws. When you couldnt be arsed dealing with the real issues, introduce something ridiculous to grab headlines and make it look like youre so forward thinking. Sure noone will notice the flimsy good for nothing light touch regulation to deal with banking, housing, health at all.

BuilderPlumber

Snickers Man wrote: »

To paraphrase a recurring theme from the classic Western Movie of 1939, Jesse James (the one starring Tyrone Power and Henry Fonda): "If we're ever going to have justice in this country, the first thing we gotta do is take out all the doctors and shoot 'em down like dogs"

The guff that the health industry talks about this issue make me sick. (Now there's an irony surely!)

They think they can change culture and attitudes just by pricing something out of people's reach and making it a pain in the arse to get hold of in the first place. And really, who is going to have their behaviour modified just because they hide the beer inside a supermarket behind a "booze burka"?

What is most frustrating about these measures is that they won't actually work. Neither will the accepted wisdom underpinning them which is that we have to stop "normalising" alcohol consumption.

BS! We should try to avoid normalising destructive, binge drinking as being synonymous with having a drink. The notion that, you're not really drinking unless you're trying very hard to get pissed is a very Irish one. It's not one that is universally shared across other societies in which alcohol consumption is a large part of their culture.

We SHOULD be normalising the concept of drinking in moderation. Which is what pertains in most other countries. But oh, no. That would just be giving into the "Drinks lobby"

The truly sad part of this is that all the evidence suggests that repressive and restrictive practices only encourage binge drinking and destructive behaviour. Having a beer with your lunch? Disgraceful.
Having 10 beers on the one night a week you organise to go out "drinking" Well, if you must you must.

Mad as hell :mad::mad:

Don't be fooled for a minute with these doctors. They on their big salaries are drinking fine wines all the time and then going around pretending they are against alcohol. All these terms like 'binge drinking' are slogans to drive a repressive message home and to try and change people from drinking at home to drinking in a responsible place instead. Defining binge drinking as 3 drinks in one sitting is more of same drivel. Anyone who drinks then is a binge drinker. Real binge drinking is drinking all day with reckless disregard for one's safety where 10+ drinks are slugged down in a short period of time AND where 20 drinks could be consumed in all.

It is time for this Taliban healthism to stop and not just with alcohol. Sugar, salt, tea, coffee, sitting down, not dieting after Christmas, carbohydrates, etc. Anything and everything they can think of. Heap of drivel of all of it. Things they don't mention that are real health risks include stress in horrible jobs, financial worries and the concept of being overfit. The whole healthism thing is a result of a myriad of lobbies representing the vintners, sport, the fitness industry, and doctors who do not want to do their job and who instead write books about diets. It is sad governments listen to them and enforce their stupid and unhelpful lunacy.

Spanish Eyes

Anyone with half a brain knows what this is REALLY about, so I will not darken the door of a pub ever again, unless I have to because of a birthday or something.

Nope. They wouldn't even give you a bowl of peanuts or crisps.

They have power above and beyond their calling, and I'm out if this comes in as is looking quite likely now.

Anyway that's my own personal two fingers. Anything else I can do?

flutered

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Anyone with half a brain knows what this is REALLY about, so I will not darken the door of a pub ever again, unless I have to because of a birthday or something.

Nope. They wouldn't even give you a bowl of peanuts or crisps.

They have power above and beyond their calling, and I'm out if this comes in as is looking quite likely now.

Anyway that's my own personal two fingers. Anything else I can do?

stay out of the pubs

flutered

i am sorted for christmas folks, gonna be down in the canerys, cheap booze and hot sun to work up a thirst, i will bring back a few litre bottles for the month of january, to beat the cold promised on the weather fourm hereabouts

Ipso

Start home brewing, it's not difficult and you won't poison yourself.

ArmaniJeanss

gadgiemagoo wrote: »

I don't know if this point has been made already - apologies if it has! Scotland attempted to bring in a minimum price of 50p per unit in 2012. It's not yet been implemented as it's caught up in a Supreme Court Appeal by Scottish Whisky Assoc.

I lived in Scotland for 10 years & while minimum pricing has not yet happened, Scotland "outlawed" multi-buy offers. Asda used to run an offer on a range of wine (granted not what you'd serve up at Christmas, but fine). The offer was 3 bottles for £10 & was on offer throughout UK. When Scotland "outlawed" multi buys I walked into my local Asda & p$ssed meself to see the same range for sale at £3.33 per bottle - yes 1p cheaper than the "outlawed" multi-buy offer! 10/10 Asda

Funny thing is I think very few would have had an objection if bulk buy discounts of alcohol had been banned here - I don't like the €1.80 a can, 7 for €10 pricing model at all as it encourages people to buy more than originally intended. It would still have led to small price increases as well as making life more difficult for off-licenses, but a much more acceptable way imo.

gadgiemagoo

flutered wrote: »

i am sorted for christmas folks, gonna be down in the canerys, cheap booze and hot sun to work up a thirst, i will bring back a few litre bottles for the month of january, to beat the cold promised on the weather fourm hereabouts

Can't only take limited booze/fags back from Canaries - what u talking
about?