The Pub trade is dying - Minimum price for Alcohol?

gaius c

lee_baby_simms wrote: »

I can only imagine Norris' liver cancer experience has pushed him towards this sort of draconian nonsense.

It sets such a dangerous precedent. Treating every person on the dole as a lazy alcoholic.

They shouldn't be allowed smoke either. Or have access to premium tv channels like Sky Sports.

Norris is also demonstrably wrong.


https://twitter.com/gavinsblog/status/675304784946208773

VinLieger

Norris cracked a while ago

Cletus van_damme

VinLieger wrote: »

There was zero forethought put into this.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying but I disagree with this, I think it was carefully thought out, remember the general trend is that everyone is drinking less, younger people in particular are drinking less or not drinking at all.

Added to that when people are drinking they are changing to spirits or craft beers. This means the big brewery's lose out twice. The new legislation will not prevent problem drinking or divert any of the extra revenue generated into anything of social value.

Minimum pricing guarantees that major brewers can continue to make the same amount of profit while selling less, added to that they already know that they can call it a success in three years when reviewed because they can claim the existing decrease in alcohol consumption is due to minimum pricng. It's a great business strategy.

seamus

gaius c wrote: »

Norris is also demonstrably wrong.
https://twitter.com/gavinsblog/status/675304784946208773

Interesting that there's basically no difference in the drinking at home rates except for wine and champagne. Maybe having wine with dinner is a luxury that the unemployed forgo?

the_syco

Cletus van_damme wrote: »

remember the general trend is that everyone is drinking less, younger people in particular are drinking less or not drinking at all.

I wonder what the ratio of people now going for "headshop highs" from the likes of Silk Road, or jsut the usuals, compared to the people not drinking?

rubadub

seamus wrote: »

Interesting that there's basically no difference in the drinking at home rates except for wine and champagne.

It says nothing about rates or consumption, it was expenditure figures.

as someone posted

it's spending tho so self employed may buy two craft beers but unemployed might be buying tesco larger 4 pack for same price

Mr. teddywinkles

Basil3 wrote: »

Sounds a lot like the gun argument in America.

Its not a gun. Its a drink ffs

Mr. teddywinkles

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

Its not a gun. Its a drink ffs

Thanks for clearing that up ffs

foggy_lad

Basil3 wrote: »

Getting ugly people laid?

I can't help thinking that Leo went on a massive bender(pun intended) and woke up next to some fugly beast who was drooling and grinning like a Cheshire cat and has now decided to stop himself doing the same again by removing the cheaper choices from the supermarket shelves!

dasdog

I have my doubts this will get implemented but it inspired me to order cider and mead yeasts today. Just need a couple of boxes of not from concentrate cloudy apple juice and bags of sugar from Lidl/Aldi. Haven't done a brew of any kind in over a year (made some great beers and ales before) but I've set a target of 12% for the mead yeast batch of turbo cider.

Capt'n Midnight

suicide_circus wrote: »

Can I have a list of VFI member pubs so I know where not to drink ?

A list of non-vintners pubs would be much shorter.

There's two associations , so it's not a monopoly :rolleyes:
http://www.lva.ie/ Dublin
http://www.vfi.ie/ outside Dublin

Capt'n Midnight

Cletus van_damme wrote: »

I have never heard anyone suggest a minimum price for guns as a way to fix gun violence, apart from Chris Rock.

no , that was a minimum price for bullets.

completely different scenario ,




maybe like driving licences we should have drinking licences ?

you know , do a test , have to produce it in bars

and a B licence would only get you two pints, provided you don't have endorsements on it
you'd need a C or D to get more and an E suffix to take shorts


Or maybe do it like paracetamol, you can't buy more than X amount of alcohol at at time in a supermarket of offie ?





http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090525/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
Sledge Hammer: "Guns don't kill people."

Dori: "Oh, you're totally right. Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

Sledge Hammer: "No... BULLETS kill people."

jobbridge4life

foggy_lad wrote: »

I can't help thinking that Leo went on a massive bender(pun intended) and woke up next to some fugly beast who was drooling and grinning like a Cheshire cat and has now decided to stop himself doing the same again by removing the cheaper choices from the supermarket shelves!

I know you are being facetious but on a serious note the only thing Leo was thinking about was 'getting something done'. That something didn't need to be effective, evidence based, fair or in the public interest; all it had to be was literally something and the bigger sounding and looking the better. I have heard from people in DoH that there was a lot of research based resistance to this measure but the health-authoritarians combined with Leo's ambition ensured that it happened. The legislation is meant to be shambolic.

We live in hope that the European courts will rightfully find laws of this nature to be contrary to the law.

Bongalongherb

jobbridge4life wrote: »

I know you are being facetious but on a serious note the only thing Leo was thinking about was 'getting something done'. That something didn't need to be effective, evidence based, fair or in the public interest; all it had to be was literally something and the bigger sounding and looking the better. I have heard from people in DoH that there was a lot of research based resistance to this measure but the health-authoritarians combined with Leo's ambition ensured that it happened. The legislation is meant to be shambolic.

We live in hope that the European courts will rightfully find laws of this nature to be contrary to the law.

I have to disagree with the above. Leo has been in charge of the health service for quite a while now and it's worse than it was when James Reilly was in charge. The only thing that Leo is doing is sitting on his hands. A great wage for doing nothing regarding the Irish health service.

Why folk vote for useless politicians is beyond me.

This is one of those stupid questions I'm sure, but i'm not completely clued into politics' in and outs.

Why is is that we have a referendum for Gay marriage, but things like minimum pricing (despite the public being generally against it) just get pushed through?

I suppose what I'm asking is.. why isn't there a referendum for this? Supposed to be a democracy and all that, surely the public vote should be held on most/all matters, particularly those that generally seem to get opposition from the general public? Is it a case of X amount of people have to petition for a referendum to occur or..?

Seems like it'd be an easy enough way to knock things like this over and move on with life?

jobbridge4life

Bongalongherb wrote: »

I have to disagree with the above. Leo has been in charge of the health service for quite a while now and it's worse than it was when James Reilly was in charge. The only thing that Leo is doing is sitting on his hands. A great wage for doing nothing regarding the Irish health service.

Why folk vote for useless politicians is beyond me.

With respect I think you've misinterpreted my post. When I say 'getting something done' I am referring to literally anything he can stick his name to that is remotely positive or can be spun as such. I have no respect for Varadkar. Legislation is the one thing that all Ministers crave, especially grandiose omnibus bills like is currently suggested. He is a politician of the very worst sort IMHO. That so much of the media and public are taken in by him disturbs me.

Bongalongherb

jobbridge4life wrote: »

With respect I think you've misinterpreted my post. When I say 'getting something done' I am referring to literally anything he can stick his name to that is remotely positive or can be spun as such. I have no respect for Varadkar. Legislation is the one thing that all Ministers crave, especially grandiose omnibus bills like is currently suggested. He is a politician of the very worst sort IMHO. That so much of the media and public are taken in by him disturbs me.

My apologies. I took your post out of context.

hatrickpatrick

jobbridge4life wrote: »

With respect I think you've misinterpreted my post. When I say 'getting something done' I am referring to literally anything he can stick his name to that is remotely positive or can be spun as such. I have no respect for Varadkar. Legislation is the one thing that all Ministers crave, especially grandiose omnibus bills like is currently suggested. He is a politician of the very worst sort IMHO. That so much of the media and public are taken in by him disturbs me.

Bongalongherb wrote: »

My apologies. I took your post out of context.

There's a wonderful quote from Yes Minister (which I find incredibly alarming in terms of how readily any of its comedy can be accurately applied to current politics - nothing has changed in 30 years!), where they talk about politicians' logic. "Something must be done, this is something, therefore we must do it."

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This is one of those stupid questions I'm sure, but i'm not completely clued into politics' in and outs.

Why is is that we have a referendum for Gay marriage, but things like minimum pricing (despite the public being generally against it) just get pushed through?

I suppose what I'm asking is.. why isn't there a referendum for this? Supposed to be a democracy and all that, surely the public vote should be held on most/all matters, particularly those that generally seem to get opposition from the general public? Is it a case of X amount of people have to petition for a referendum to occur or..?

Seems like it'd be an easy enough way to knock things like this over and move on with life?

I know even less about Irish politics, but I imagine the price of booze isn't in your constitution.

Ireland has a lot of crazy (imo) health laws. Just imagine if there was a referendum for every one.

Today's referendum: should gripe water be banned?

syklops

Deleted User wrote: »

This is one of those stupid questions I'm sure, but i'm not completely clued into politics' in and outs.

Why is is that we have a referendum for Gay marriage, but things like minimum pricing (despite the public being generally against it) just get pushed through?

I suppose what I'm asking is.. why isn't there a referendum for this? Supposed to be a democracy and all that, surely the public vote should be held on most/all matters, particularly those that generally seem to get opposition from the general public? Is it a case of X amount of people have to petition for a referendum to occur or..?

Seems like it'd be an easy enough way to knock things like this over and move on with life?

Referenda are required when an amendment is made to the constitution. Alcohol pricing does not affect the constitution.

On the one hand I agree with you, important changes should be put to a vote, but democracy is about voting in people who share your ideals and they making the decisions.

Im annoyed with FG on this issue on a number of fronts. I had thought they had been doing a decent job up until now, apart from health. The Economy is on the way up, whether thats due to them is an argument for another thread, but things are slowly improving. Despite many vocal critics in the media, I was sure they would be returned to office after the election.

In one fell swoop, before the election, they have pissed off a large percentage of the population. Thats very bad politics. Thats very poor strategy and very bad planning. My confidence in them is shot.

FF didnt cause the downturn, it was a global thing, but they could have done a lot more to make sure we didn't end up in the heap which we did. Likewise, FG didn't fix the global economy, in some ways they were just in at the right time to see things improve, but if you want to get in again in the near future, you need to keep earning the brownie points.

The water charges came in, and the country was up in arms over a 64 euro tax every three months. If I drink a can of premium imported Czech beer, which is what I usually drink at home, if I drink 1 can 20 nights of the month, which by the way is within HSE guidelines, which currently costs 1.25 euros a can, it costs 25 euros a month. From what I've been reading, the minimum price is going to be 2.80 so my base consumption is going to rise to 56 euros a month. If you put the water charges and my conservative numbers together you get:

water charges every 3 months = 64
Old beer cost every 3 months = 75
New Beer cost every 3 months = 168
Difference between old and new beer costs = 93 euros.

So if you stay within the HSE limits, its a whole new water charge. . Water charges were forced on them to implement from the previous government - it wasnt their fault. This could easily have been lost in a drawer - preferably forever.

FG are not getting a vote from me come election time and I say that as some one who had been planning to vote up for them up until Wednesday.

Mr. teddywinkles

I think the whole policy is just insulting to the general public. You cant control your drinking habits so we'll tell you what you can consume.

Valetta

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

I think the whole policy is just insulting to the general public. You cant control your drinking habits so we'll tell you what you can consume.

If the first part of your second sentence is correct, then action by the government is the logical way to go.

Also, nowhere are they telling anyone how much they can consume.

Clive Bisquette

Well here's my tuppenceworth:

Never been before the beak

Never had a fight in pub or outside a chipper

Like a casual can at home while watchin TV.

Have a dislike to being gouged by publicans and hotel owners whose business can be driven by sporting or cultural events and whose activities are heavily funded by the taxpayer.

Fcuck the nanny state and FG for denying me the privilege of a few good valu cans in front of the |TV.

Fcuck you ...and middle Ireland is saying Fcuck you !

Clive Bisquette

Clive Bisquette wrote: »

Well here's my tuppenceworth:

Never been before the beak

Never had a fight in pub or outside a chipper

Like a casual can at home while watchin TV.

Have a dislike to being gouged by publicans and hotel owners whose business can be driven by sporting or cultural events and whose activities are heavily funded by the taxpayer.

Fcuck the nanny state and FG for denying me the privilege of a few good valu cans in front of the |TV.

Fcuck you ...and middle Ireland is saying Fcuck you !

Your 3 cheap cans in front of the TV will cost €6 instead of €4. Is it really that big a deal, or are you talking like 20 cans?

Simon2015

Will this minimum pricing also effect the price of spirits ?

Simon2015

Simon2015 wrote: »

Will this miniumum pricing also effect the price of spirits ?

Yeah, the cheap stuff. It is minimum 10c per mL of alcohol.

700mL vodka at 40% = minimum €28. This includes the dodgy Tesco brands etc.

Mr. teddywinkles

Valetta wrote: »

If the first part of your second sentence is correct, then action by the government is the logical way to go.

Also, nowhere are they telling anyone how much they can consume.

So the whole point is to limit me a RESPONSIBLE drinker while it wont matter a fook what the price is to a raging alcoholic. Is this your point here. The whole policy is to solve the cultural and health problems associated with drink yes? How does this achieve this. I walk in to supermarket and see 8 cans priced 16 euros or more. As a responsible drinker it will turn me off forking out that money for that amount. To out of control pisshead not so much.

dr.fuzzenstein

Clive Bisquette wrote: »

Well here's my tuppenceworth:

Never been before the beak

Never had a fight in pub or outside a chipper

Like a casual can at home while watchin TV.

Have a dislike to being gouged by publicans and hotel owners whose business can be driven by sporting or cultural events and whose activities are heavily funded by the taxpayer.

Fcuck the nanny state and FG for denying me the privilege of a few good valu cans in front of the |TV.

Fcuck you ...and middle Ireland is saying Fcuck you !

I think my holiday routine will change to using the car and going to Norn Iron or take the Ferry to France and load up with booze until the exhaust scrapes the road. It's fully legal after all. Now we can get ready for Irish customs trying on the auld "You've exceeded your duty free limit" shtick, where they try to bully people into handing over their fully legally bought alcohol and tobacco.

So read up on it:
http://www.revenue.ie/en/customs/leaflets/pn1878.html

800 fags
1kg of loose tobacco
10 liter spirit
90 liters wine
110 liters beer

And it's not "either, or", it's "as well". And how often would you be stopped coming from NI? I might invest in a Transit. Fcuk minimum pricing up the arse with a broken bottle and ditto the government.
Sure, I'll probably end up drinking a lot more than I do now and possibly I might take up smoking again, plus the Irish government will lose out on a single cent of tax from me so when I end up in hospital, they're in the hole for the cost of that, but they have engineered the situation, so what can I do?

darkpagandeath

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

So the whole point is to limit me a RESPONSIBLE drinker while it wont matter a fook what the price is to a raging alcoholic. Is this your point here. The whole policy is to solve the cultural and health problems associated with drink yes? How does this achieve this. I walk in to supermarket and see 8 cans priced 16 euros or more. As a responsible drinker it will turn me off forking out that money for that amount. To out of control pisshead not so much.

No idea what it's supposed to do there is only one section of society claiming "Paddy" is a drunk and that's our betters in the Government. They kind of gloss over the whole no more problem drinkers than the EU average and we are middle in the consumption table. If price effects consumption we would be a dry state by now.

Not being Irish I hate using the word paddy but the lads in Power seem to have zero problem using it. I'm just tying to make a point.

Simon2015

Basil3 wrote: »

Yeah, the cheap stuff. It is minimum 10c per mL of alcohol.

700mL vodka at 40% = minimum €28. This includes the dodgy Tesco brands etc.

Thats a massive increase on spirits. I was in lidl today and saw they had a 700ml bottle of Gordons Gin for 18 Euro.

As a casual drinker those sort of price increases would make me stop drinking.