The Pub trade is dying - Minimum price for Alcohol?

Mr. teddywinkles

darkpagandeath wrote: »

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.

What about budget upon budget increases just like the cigarettes. Will this happen? 16 euros for 8 cans of any lager to me seem very excessive but iv been called tight before

Simon2015

Simon2015 wrote: »

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.

Standard price of Gordon's is something like €24. The price increase would push it to just over €26. Not a massive increase, unless you only shop for bargains in booze.

darkpagandeath

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

What about budget upon budget increases just like the cigarettes. Will this happen? 16 euros for 8 cans of any lager to me seem very excessive but iv been called tight before

Even casual smoking is really bad for you I used to smoke now I Vape. Drink on the other hand not so much. They keep banging on about A&E that's down to terrible licensing laws. Leaving people little option but to down a nights drink in a few hours. If you had 24hr you would not get this ridiculous problem I don't buy this idea of we would drink ourselves to death. To me its simple, It's another issue the upper-class/our betters can control ones outlets.

Simon2015

Basil3 wrote: »

Standard price of Gordon's is something like €24. The price increase would push it to just over €26. Not a massive increase, unless you only shop for bargains in booze.

I only buy it when its on special offer, noway would I pay 26 Euro for a 700ml bottle.

Mr. teddywinkles

Basil3 wrote: »

Thanks for clearing that up ffs

Your welcome. Thought you were confused.

darkpagandeath

Simon2015 wrote: »

I only buy it when its on special offer, noway would I pay 26 Euro for a 700ml bottle.

You can buy Irish produced spirits outside Ireland for a fraction of what it costs here. They still seem to be in business. We are being gouged.

Spanish Eyes

It costs money to even get to a pub so even if the prices go up who will change their routines there? For what advantage?

Seems to me that as others have said too, it is not about drink, it is about the pubs losing out.

If they were serious about getting the so called mad drinking culture sorted they would make it a serious offence to be drunk and disorderly. But no, move along nothing to see here. A+E staff should be on the ball about it too.

Anyway, just about to open a nice Merlot. Feck them.

Old Bill

I can see dissident republicans making alot of money off this they are already making millions from selling imported cigarettes.

senordingdong

Old Bill wrote: »

I can see dissident republicans making alot of money off this they are already making millions from selling imported cigarettes.

Variety is the spice of life bill.

There was no business in counterfeit cigarettes until the nanny state took hold.

Flex

Another aspect of this bill Ive just seen is regards labeling. Expectation was that the

• grams of alcohol
• ingredients
• nutritional info
• number of standard drinks per container
• and the recommended allowances 'dont drink during pregnancy' logo

would all become compulsory, which I thought was a good idea as I like having that information. However there is also apparantly a requirement for health warnings to feature prominently, example here. Some of the suggested examples included incredible statements such as 'Alcohol causes domestic violence' or 'Alcohol causes child abuse'.

This will have serious consequences.

Firstly, off-licenses who sell small/unique/craft beers wines or spirits from abroad may lose their suppliers. Suppliers may be unwilling to produce specific labels and do specific production runs for a relatively small market that requires unique labels that contain links to the HSE website. Further, producers of craft beers from abroad may choose to forego supplying a small market like Ireland as they wont want to have their product on display containing labels stating they cause throat cancer, spousal abuse and so on.

Secondly, wholesalers, restaurants and smaller retailers who may currently be able to buy the usual Diageo or Heineken brands from wholesalers in the UK or USA, etc. will completely lose those suppliers as the labels for stock sold in Ireland will be completely unavailable. Consequently giving Irish based distributors of Diageo, etc. product a monopoly in Ireland.

Thirdly, as a socially liberal person who dislikes having the state unduly interfere with peoples personal lives I take issue with just about all of this bill, but I find this part particularly invasive. Even if I drink well under the HSE guidelines I will literally still have this measure follow me into my home. Or if Im in a restaurant with my girlfriend and we order a bottle of wine we'll be presented with one displaying a giant warning about domestic abuse. Implication being that once the meal is finished and we get home Ill beat and rape her. I really really find this part incredibly pervasive and something which is aimed purely at shaming people who enjoy having a drink.

Keeping in line with the theme of this bill being done to make the VFI happy, there was apparently a suggestion that pouring taps in bars contain similar warnings, however the VFI blocked it immediately. Instead, bars will have to have a sign up displaying health warnings (ie. an A4 page on a wall behind a radiator or under a table in the smoking area, similar to price lists :rolleyes:) or pamphlets for customers to read.

Flex

Flex wrote: »

Another aspect of this bill Ive just seen is regards labeling. Expectation was that the

• grams of alcohol
• ingredients
• nutritional info
• number of standard drinks per container
• and the recommended allowances 'dont drink during pregnancy' logo

would all become compulsory, which I thought was a good idea as I like having that information. However there is also apparantly a requirement for health warnings to feature prominently, example here. Some of the suggested examples included incredible statements such as 'Alcohol causes domestic violence' or 'Alcohol causes child abuse'.

This will have serious consequences.

Firstly, off-licenses who sell small/unique/craft beers wines or spirits from abroad may lose their suppliers. Suppliers may be unwilling to produce specific labels and do specific production runs for a relatively small market that requires unique labels that contain links to the HSE website. Further, producers of craft beers from abroad may choose to forego supplying a small market like Ireland as they wont want to have their product on display containing labels stating they cause throat cancer, spousal abuse and so on.

Secondly, wholesalers, restaurants and smaller retailers who may currently be able to buy the usual Diageo or Heineken brands from wholesalers in the UK or USA, etc. will completely lose those suppliers as the labels for stock sold in Ireland will be completely unavailable. Consequently giving Irish based distributors of Diageo, etc. product a monopoly in Ireland.

Thirdly, as a socially liberal person who dislikes having the state unduly interfere with peoples personal lives I take issue with just about all of this bill, but I find this part particularly invasive. Even if I drink well under the HSE guidelines I will literally still have this measure follow me into my home. Or if Im in a restaurant with my girlfriend and we order a bottle of wine we'll be presented with one displaying a giant warning about domestic abuse. Implication being that once the meal is finished and we get home Ill beat and rape her. I really really find this part incredibly pervasive and something which is aimed purely at shaming people who enjoy having a drink.

Keeping in line with the theme of this bill being done to make the VFI happy, there was apparently a suggestion that pouring taps in bars contain similar warnings, however the VFI blocked it immediately. Instead, bars will have to have a sign up displaying health warnings (ie. an A4 page on a wall behind a radiator or under a table in the smoking area, similar to price lists :rolleyes:) or pamphlets for customers to read.

Regarding the domestic abuse signage, I haven't seen anything specific relating to that. Even if it is the case, I think you're being overly dramatic with your example of going out for a meal.

Surely craft beer producers are going to be rubbing their hands together? A whole new segment of the population will now consider their produce, rather than just going for the cheapest deal they can find.

Chimichangas

senordingdong wrote: »

Variety is the spice of life bill.

There was no business in counterfeit cigarettes until the nanny state took hold.

Lmao. What year was that then? Pre 1980s? In response to punk was it?:rolleyes:

Chimichangas

Basil3 wrote: »

I would explain it to you, but I suspect you'd choose not to understand.

You would explain your link between guns and alcohol, and how they are similar?
I would want to be drunk and living in the wild west to understand that one.

Chimichangas

Chimichangas wrote: »

You would explain your link between guns and alcohol, and how they are similar?
I would want to be drunk and living in the wild west to understand that one.

OK, so I do need to explain?

I was making a comparison between the argument being made. I was not saying guns == alcohol.

Argument being made by poster here:
"Why should the actions of a few have a negative impact on me, a law-abiding, responsible [drinker]?"

Argument being made re guns in America:
"Why should the actions of a few have a negative impact on me, a law-abiding, responsible [gun owner]?"

Now I don't know if you can see the similarity, but that's all the explaining I'm going to do.

senordingdong

Flex wrote: »

Another aspect of this bill Ive just seen is regards labeling..

Remarkable point flex.
Never even considered the monopoly from labeling.
European court could be the only place to challenge it. We'll have to wait for the ruling in Scotland.

Also, try to go easy on the girlfriend.

Chimichangas

Basil3 wrote: »

OK, so I do need to explain?

I was making a comparison between the argument being made. I was not saying guns == alcohol.

Argument being made by poster here:
"Why should the actions of a few have a negative impact on me, a law-abiding, responsible [drinker]?"

Argument being made re guns in America:
"Why should the actions of a few have a negative impact on me, a law-abiding, responsible [gun owner]?"

Now I don't know if you can see the similarity, but that's all the explaining I'm going to do.

Sorry you missed my point; there is no similarity between alcohol and guns. No comparison. as far as i am concerned.
If anything there may be a similarity between the sale of any controlled substances, and the lack of controls of those sales. But I dont think that comes in here.

In your defence though I will say its probably not the worst argument you make...

Flex

Basil3 wrote: »

Regarding the domestic abuse signage, I haven't seen anything specific relating to that. Even if it is the case, I think you're being overly dramatic with your example of going out for a meal.

Surely craft beer producers are going to be rubbing their hands together? A whole new segment of the population will now consider their produce, rather than just going for the cheapest deal they can find.

Yea fair enough the example regards te after dinner was hyperbolic, I was unaware of a measure as outrageous as this tho, so was quite annoyed upon seeing it.

If I choose to go to the structurally seperated part of the store that sells alcohol, pay the minimum price, etc I don't want something like that when I'm at home enjoying my drink. And regards the above example, in a restaurant I wouldn't want to be presented with such a thing either if I chose to have a drink. It's completely over the top and pervasive.

rubadub

Simon2015 wrote: »

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

Gordons is 17 in tesco right now. It will increase to 20.66 with minimum pricing. That poster was posting the incorrect figures the ignorant cunt media put out, possibly on purpose.

So for many branded spirits there is no difference if its "non offer" prices. I expect a lot of heavy drinkers will turn to spirits now, and possibly end up drinking more, and even drinking the same units the spirits will probably have worse effects overall, be it health or societal.

Flex wrote: »

Another aspect of this bill Ive just seen is regards labeling. Expectation was that the

• grams of alcohol
• ingredients
• nutritional info
• number of standard drinks per container
• and the recommended allowances 'dont drink during pregnancy' logo

Have you a link to this? I never saw ingredients being a requirement, many were complaining about it. And I don't think nutritional info was required either, maybe, but certainly ingredients is news to me.

I brought up the label control issue before. Importers can just overlabel beers, like they current do with various products. Some beers do have different recipes, if heineken do not reveal UK figures an importer could possibly get it tested by a 3rd party lab and overlabel.

Some sellers may boycott ireland completely, like wine producers who do not want to reveal the true ingredients of their product.

Basil3 wrote: »

Surely craft beer producers are going to be rubbing their hands together? A whole new segment of the population will now consider their produce, rather than just going for the cheapest deal they can find.

Yes, which is a further hit on excise. Currently brewers in Ireland who produce below a certain amount only have to pay half the excise, or greatly reduced excise. So if everyone switched to these the governement would lose a huge amount of tax, and of course they fucking morons are planning on lining the retailers pockets rather than theirs.

rubadub

rubadub wrote: »

Gordons is 17 in tesco right now. It will increase to 20.66 with minimum pricing. That poster was posting the incorrect figures the ignorant cunt media put out, possibly on purpose.

So for many branded spirits there is no difference if its "non offer" prices. I expect a lot of heavy drinkers will turn to spirits now, and possibly end up drinking more, and even drinking the same units the spirits will probably have worse effects overall, be it health or societal.

Yeah my maths were off on the price of Gordons, as I was assuming 10c/mL alcohol. It should actually be:

0.789 grams of alcohol = 1 ml
1 gram of alcohol = 1/0.789 = 1.267ml

So using the 10c figure (if it's correct), a 700mL of Gordon's would have a minumum price of approx €20.71, as you say.

On that basis a few people won't be giving up booze for good

the_syco

senordingdong wrote: »

There was no business in counterfeit cigarettes until the nanny state took hold.

Agreed. It's now more profitable and a lot less riskier (less jail-time if caught) selling fake cigs than it is selling drugs.

candy-gal1

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?

+1 there, Id say the same of the whole bringing all the immigrants in from Syria, protest it , referendum it, ask why do we have to do these things and demand a proper answer, then vote!!!

Capt'n Midnight

Basil3 wrote: »

Surely craft beer producers are going to be rubbing their hands together? A whole new segment of the population will now consider their produce, rather than just going for the cheapest deal they can find.

Not really

This won't affect the price of branded drinks as much as the yellow pack stuff.

A 500ml can of heino is €1.99 in Tesco and contains (4.3% *500ml*0.798g/ml) = 17.157g
So the new minimum price at 10c/g would be €1.72 per can , so no change.
( Tesco are also doing a promotion of 12 pack for €18 at the moment, that would have to charge to €20.59 )

So no, sadly to say Heineken drinkers won't be flocking to craft beers.

A cynical person might even suggest the price was chosen not to affect the big boys.



Meanwhile for generic Aldi larger at 80c a can the price would more than double so it's a a measure that will only affect low income groups who don't pay extra for brands.

What it will do is make the generic brands as expensive as Dutch Gold, which is a Budweiser brand (they also do Stella) because otherwise some independent brewery might get the contract for generic supermarket beer.

Capt'n Midnight

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Not really

This won't affect the price of branded drinks as much as the yellow pack stuff.

A 500ml can of heino is €1.99 in Tesco and contains (4.3% *500ml*0.798g/ml) = 17.157g
So the new minimum price at 10c/g would be €1.72 per can , so no change.
( Tesco are also doing a promotion of 12 pack for €18 at the moment, that would have to charge to €20.59 )

So no, sadly to say Heineken drinkers won't be flocking to craft beers.

A cynical person might even suggest the price was chosen not to affect the big boys.

I'm talking about people who would only get a cheap deal. Heineken is a prime example. Sure, it's €1.99/can, but who goes in and buys one can?

You can get 12 cans for €18 right now (€1.50/can), or you can even get any 24 cans for €26 (€1.08/can). That's what people will be buying.

If the price of cans like Heineken are essentially always at 'full price', then I suspect people will start looking at other slightly more expensive options, like craft beers, as they can fall into a similar price bracket. I definitely think it will be enough people for them to notice.

RandomName2

Basil3 wrote: »

Sounds a lot like the gun argument in America.
[...]
Now I don't know if you can see the similarity, but that's all the explaining I'm going to do.

Well... not really. The gun argument in America concerns who can buy what. People who favour tighter restrictions point to crimes caused using guns, people who oppose, point to the doctrine which states that arming citizenry prevents disenfranchisement (it's an odd one alright)

This legislation is about charging all people more for a product. Trying to equate the two arguments simply because you think that the majority here oppose the 2nd Amendment in America is a pretty cack-handed way to gain support for your view.

Not that there aren't laws already in place to target people who abuse alcohol (public disorder offences, etc.)

RandomName2

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well... not really. The gun argument in America concerns who can buy what. People who favour tighter restrictions point to crimes caused using guns, people who oppose, point to the doctrine which states that arming citizenry prevents disenfranchisement (it's an odd one alright)

This legislation is about charging all people more for a product. Trying to equate the two arguments simply because you think that the majority here oppose the 2nd Amendment in America is a pretty cack-handed way to gain support for your view.

Not that there aren't laws already in place to target people who abuse alcohol (public disorder offences, etc.)

Thanks. Please read back for my explanation.

I was talking about one person complaining about why the actions of a minority should affect him. There are loads of example in life where this can/does happen. I used the gun example, because that's what popped into my mind when reading his comment. Completely normal and logical.

I stopped reading at your first sentence, but I'm sure you had valid points explaining why guns and alcohol are different.

Cletus van_damme

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Not really

This won't affect the price of branded drinks as much as the yellow pack stuff.

A 500ml can of heino is €1.99 in Tesco and contains (4.3% *500ml*0.798g/ml) = 17.157g
So the new minimum price at 10c/g would be €1.72 per can , so no change.
( Tesco are also doing a promotion of 12 pack for €18 at the moment, that would have to charge to €20.59 )

So no, sadly to say Heineken drinkers won't be flocking to craft beers.

A cynical person might even suggest the price was chosen not to affect the big boys.





Meanwhile for generic Aldi larger at 80c a can the price would more than double so it's a a measure that will only affect low income groups who don't pay extra for brands.

What it will do is make the generic brands as expensive as Dutch Gold, which is a Budweiser brand (they also do Stella) because otherwise some independent brewery might get the contract for generic supermarket beer.

I would guess branded drinks will increase, if a can of Dutch gold is gong to be €2 the premium branded can on the shelf beside it will not be the same price.


they are setting a minimum price, no mention of a maximum.

Capt'n Midnight

An argument for lowering the price
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/alcohol-and-public-policy-1.2461889


However since excise on a pint has only gone up 7c since 1998 there isn't much scope for that.

Capt'n Midnight

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

An argument for lowering the price
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/alcohol-and-public-policy-1.2461889


However since excise on a pint has only gone up 7c since 1998 there isn't much scope for that.

In a lot of places where drinking out is cheaper, you can also buy in an off-licence much cheaper (€2 bottles of wine, etc). Students/young adults are still going to load up on the cheaper option before going out.

Clive Bisquette

Basil3 wrote: »

Thanks. Please read back for my explanation.

I was talking about one person complaining about why the actions of a minority should affect him. There are loads of example in life where this can/does happen. I used the gun example, because that's what popped into my mind when reading his comment. Completely normal and logical.

I stopped reading at your first sentence, but I'm sure you had valid points explaining why guns and alcohol are different.

Your point is perfectly clear and valid to me poster.

rubadub

Basil3 wrote: »

Students/young adults are still going to load up on the cheaper option before going out.

The difference in price is a big factor. When I started drinking just over 20 years ago it was €1.27 (£1) cans of royal dutch in offies, drinking in pubs was roughly twice the price. So the cheapest drinks are actually cheaper 20 years on, while the pubs have gone up fairly steadily, you can see the guinness index here

http://www.finfacts.ie/Private/bestprice/guinnessindex.htm

So I think it sickens people to think of possibly paying 8 times the price for e.g. a bottle of heineken, 75cent vs €6 in temple bar. Even a mulit millionaire must be sickened by it.

If the price of cans like Heineken are essentially always at 'full price', then I suspect people will start looking at other slightly more expensive options

A lot of the mainstream beers are low in flavour to suit people, many of whom do not particularly like the taste of beer, many would baulk at the taste of craft beers. There are many good beers which they might switch to though, I reckon budvar will become more popular.