Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

1252253255257258322

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,211 ✭✭✭✭Suckit


    From that article:

    But new research by the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) has found that minimum unit pricing has also hit Scots who enjoy a drink in the pocket - with an average loss of £71 since the policy began.

    Christopher Snowden, who researched the costs for the IEA, said: "Our estimate suggests that minimum pricing has cost Scottish drinkers more than a quarter of a billion pounds.

    "Now in its fifth year, minimum pricing is a reminder that politicians are often responsible for the rising cost of living.

    "Although alcohol consumption has fallen slightly in Scotland, we find no evidence that this has led to an improvement in health outcomes.

    "Consumers have simply switched from the most affordable alcohol to mid-range brands, to the benefit of alcohol producers and retailers.

    "The policy could be dropped tomorrow without costing the government a penny.".......


    .......Research published by Public Health Scotland in 2021 found that minimum pricing had a minimal impact on drink-related crime.

    Jon Bannister, a criminology professor at Manchester Metropolitan University, said the reduction in the quantity of alcohol bought has had "minimal impact on the levels of alcohol-related crime, disorder and public nuisance reported in Scotland".

    Alison Douglas, chief executive of Alcohol Focus Scotland, described the findings as "disappointing" given the reduction in off-sales consumption and insisted early indications were that MUP had "saved lives".

    Fcuking sham.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,211 ✭✭✭✭Suckit


    So, it's in its 5th year, and doesn't work.

    Whoever takes over our government next should take a mental note of this and get ready to scrap it for bonus points. By then it should have been long enough for them to admit defeat in Scotland and no point in us continuing with this Bullcrap experiment.

    The only effect that has been proven here is that the retailers and alcohol producers became a lot more wealthy.

    I hope when it is scrapped, that they put a cap on it, to stop them re-increasing it any further, as it will have just been proved that has no effect on those drinking.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,570 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    From Wikipedia

    The Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) is a right-wing think tank[1][2][3] and UK registered charity[4] associated with the New Right.[5][6] The IEA describes itself as an "educational research institute".[7] It says that it seeks to "further the dissemination of free-market thinking", and that it does so by "analysing and expounding the role of markets in solving economic and social problems."[7][8] The IEA subscribes to a right-wing[2][9][10] and neoliberal worldview and advocates positions based on this ideology,[11] including climate change denial,[12] and total privatisation, in effect abolition, of the National Health Service (NHS), in favour of a healthcare system the IEA says is similar to Switzerland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and Israel.[13][3] The IEA is funded by the tobacco industry[14] (although it does not reveal this),[15][16] and IEA officers have been recorded offering "cash for access". The IEA is headquartered in Westminster, London, England.[17][12]

    So I'm not surprised they would have nothing good to say about government action in the market.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,211 ✭✭✭✭Suckit


    Are you saying that they made up those statistics? Or that the statistics are incorrect? They appeared in all or most Scottish papers over the weekend.

    It's also worth pointing out that AAI are themselves a charity in Ireland, the only Government funded one, with the sole purpose of telling us the worst case scenarios with alcohol, so it's one extreme to the other, but the one in Scotland seems to have figures. AAI seems to spout a lot of skewed nonsense.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,570 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    No, I'm saying there is a spin on those statistics because of who it's coming from.

    Just like AAI would put a spin on statistics.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,938 ✭✭✭HBC08


    Whoever takes over next no matter what party has voted in favour of MUP.

    You don't often get politicians backtracking and admitting they were wrong,especially with an obscure bit of legislation that most people don't even know has been enacted.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 17,429 ✭✭✭✭elperello


    You are probably right considering that they all voted for it.

    When a measure is supported by Government and Opposition it becomes sort of neutral political territory.

    Anyone who buys a bottle of wine or a few beers for the barbecue will know it's gone up but many may think it's just inflation or tax.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,232 ✭✭✭waterwelly



    It does work though, well for me anyway. Fancied a few cans the other night so got 4 bulmers.

    If there was 24 cans for €20 I would have bought and ended up drinking those over 2 nights.

    Personally I'd rather that instead of MUP the price should be the same if you buy one can or 12 cans and it must be obligatory to offer small unit cans / bottles for sale.

    So for example if you sell smirnoff or any spirit in 1 Litre bottles you must also offer it at the same price per litre for say a 200ml bottle, and that must be in stock.

    Or for bulmers you should be obliged to offer and have in stock single cans for the same price per litre as a case.

    I think that would be a much fairer system, not encourage people to be buying mountains of drink.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 635 ✭✭✭dubstepper


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

    You drank 4 cans one evening but would have drank 12 cans if they were a bit cheaper??



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 17,429 ✭✭✭✭elperello


    Well you are entitled to your opinion as they say but I disagree.

    I'd prefer to be able to buy drink at the market price not at a rigged market price.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,232 ✭✭✭waterwelly


    Never said that.

    If the extra cans were in the fridge chances are I'd drink them, just because they are there, not because of the price.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,232 ✭✭✭waterwelly


    24 cans for €20 is hardly the market price though, it was rigged by supermarkets to get you in to buy your groceries.

    I'd be happy to pay the market price as long as I can buy 1 can rather than have to buy 20.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 17,429 ✭✭✭✭elperello


    In fairness that is an issue for you to address.

    I have to pay the MUP price even though I seldom drink more than 2.



  • Posts: 8,532 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Bs. You bought 4 cans and drank them in one night but were happy that you couldnt bulk buy for cheaper? I like 4 cans a night too but id rather be able to buy an 8 pack for 10 quid rather than 6 cans @ 13 quid.

    It makes no sense at all what they are doing. It hasnt and wont reduce alcohol consumption for the harmful drinkers and thats what any do gooder legislation should be about.

    MUP wont do anything but line the pockets of wealthy supermarkets and take money out of the pockets of the hard pressed. WTF was wrong with 8 cans for a tenner. Or 8 cans for 12.

    I'll be asking anyone looking for a vote what their plans are for rolling back on this nanny state shite.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,232 ✭✭✭waterwelly


    Its the reason for MUP surely, to discourage people from buying mountains of drink purely because its on cheap offer and then drinking it just because "its there"



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 17,429 ✭✭✭✭elperello


    It absolutely was the market price.

    The supermarkets took commercial decisions to sell at a certain price point.

    There was nothing to stop anyone from walking in and buying a case of beer and going somewhere else for groceries.



  • Posts: 8,532 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    The supermarkets would be selling it based on a loss leader approach. They knew the vast majotity of people would spend money on other stuff where they would more than make up for losses. The supermarkets werent at a loss.

    MUP was pushed by vinters and do gooder types. Nothing to do with my health.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 17,429 ✭✭✭✭elperello


    They certainly weren't at a loss and they are making even more money now except in border areas.

    Gullible politicians lobbied by interest groups on behalf of off licences, publicans and health worriers.

    MUP hasn't improved my health anyway.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,938 ✭✭✭HBC08


    If you need legislation passed to prevent you from buying mountains of drink then that's your issue.

    I don't want to be paying through the nose because of the odd eejit who can't tie their own laces.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,211 ✭✭✭✭Suckit


    Yes, but as the statistics are showing it is ineffective both as means for health issues and for crime, you would assume it will be easy enough to scrap it. Like it says in the article 'it wouldn't cost the Government a penny'.

    FF/FG/SF etc. could be in Government next and not see any point in continuing it, if it has been proven to be just lining the pockets of the breweries and retailers, as it seems to be doing little else.

    Or would the plan be just to close their eyes tightly an put their fingers in their ears?



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 8,532 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Vitners and publicans are too big a lobby group. No way this is scrapped.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,211 ✭✭✭✭Suckit


    The stats in Scotland on their 5th year of it, are showing that it doesn't work. You would seem to be the anomally, AKA the type of drinker that the rest of us are paying for.

    Most people wouldn't buy 24 cans and drink them all over 2 nights just because they are there.

    I have 3 x 15pack of Guinness I purchased at the weekend because the supermarket was selling them at absolute MUP (€1.66 per can), yet I don't have the urge to horse my way through them. I only bought in bulk because of this ridiculous law, and being unsure when they will be down that low again.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,232 ✭✭✭waterwelly


    I though it was introduced as a public health measure, who said it was introduced to reduce crime?

    I've not seen any statistics yet to showing its ineffective. Its only around a few months.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,570 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    The stats in Scotland on their 5th year of it, are showing that it doesn't work.

    The problem with that is it all depends on who you ask.

    If you want to hang your hat on the IEA report you can say it has not.

    But if you want to believe the Newcastle University report mentioned below then you can say it has.




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,232 ✭✭✭waterwelly


    At Christmas there was mountains of cheap drink flowing through the checkouts, I doubt I'm the only one that would have drank less if I didn't have 6 crates in the corner.

    I've started drinking less, exercising more and losing weight. I used to smoke but gave them up years ago over the price.

    These measures work, whether people like it or not.



  • Posts: 8,532 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    A lot of folks i speak to would have gotten the 8 cans on a friday for 12 or 14 quid. Now they go to the boozer instead. And spend the extra few quid on a few pints. That was the aim of this legislation. Nothing else. If significant progress isnt realised from the MUP then it should be acknowledged and withdraw accordingly. That'll never happen though. I'll be clear too. If we ever have lockdowns again and pubs are closed ill have zero sympathy.



  • Posts: 25,909 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Where was this? I haven't seen cheap booze since the last time I landed in Dublin airport.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,232 ✭✭✭waterwelly


    Dunnes were selling 24 x 500ml cans of Heineken for €10 at one point. Lidl had 24 cans of Guinness €15.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,570 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    People claim that this was all about the pubs.

    But that's a stretch, the pubs especially in rural areas and in smaller towns are dead and have been dying for years.

    Plenty of good government legislation like smoking ban and drink driving laws added to their demise.

    People might be going to the pub a bit more now because they were shut for the bones of two years, but it's not a long term trend.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,570 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    This is also a consideration for those heading up north to bulk buy.

    You have a number of factors.

    The increased cost of fuel

    The not so great exchange rate

    The can size difference (which annoyed one poster here recently)

    To get the best value the more you buy the better.

    But if you have that much drink stocked up in the house will you consume it quicker ?



Advertisement