Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

VinLieger

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

https://www.lobbying.ie/return/6598/vintners-federation-of-ireland

I'll just leave that here. Make of it what you will.

Edit:
It's actually a very interesting site:
https://www.lobbying.ie/return/14417/vintners-federation-of-ireland

Its ironic as theres been a lot of "think of the children" types coming out complaining about lobbying by vested interests trying to kill the bill yet when you ask them about the vintners lobbying for it who are also a vested interest they don't seem to have a problem with it, then when you ask them to think why the vintners would be for it they suddenly go silent and dont have much else to say

Pinch Flat

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

https://www.lobbying.ie/return/6598/vintners-federation-of-ireland

I'll just leave that here. Make of it what you will.

Edit:
It's actually a very interesting site:
https://www.lobbying.ie/return/14417/vintners-federation-of-ireland

How many of them publicans? One of the at lest thinks it's okay to drive around with a few pints on board.

donegaLroad

If I want to go for 2 or 3 pints, it costs me approx €30. Taxi into town, 3 pints, taxi home.... on the other hand, a middling bottle of wine costs me €10, litre bottle of Leffe beer from Lidl, €3.

It will never be more expensive for me to have a few drinks at home, unless they are really going to town on drink prices (no pun intended)

Zubeneschamali

VinLieger wrote: »

He claims it wont affect anything but the low end booze being sold below cost but we all know thats absolute bo11ox.

No we don't, I think he is exactly right. It won't cost me a cent since I never buy cheap alcohol.

Which is why this is not a health measure, it is a tax on poor people, an attack on the discount supermarkets and a favour for publicans.

If it was a health measure, it would be a simple excise increase across the board to decrease alcohol consumption. That would still hit the poor more than FG voters, but at least it would hit everyone to some extent. This measure deliberately doesn't hit any FG voters at all.

mikemac2

Never trust the vintners lobby

A few years ago Senator Terry Leyden proposed a tax on alcohol with the funding going towards mental heath and suicide services

Ok it would have to be debated but you could see his point. There is a link and it might be a way of getting funding

On further questioning it turned out the bould senator is a publican and the tax was only for off licence sales.

To drag in an emotive issue like suicide to tax your competition is looow. Fianna Fàil - the publican party

KungPao

Let's say a can of Heineken is €1.75 at current rates. And Karpackie is €1.35.

If karpackie goes up to €1.75, (or whatever the minimum price would be) will Heineken raise their prices to retain their 'standing' or leave it, and watch sales skyrocket as the cheap beers sales plummet and ultimately go off the market?

I'm interested as to how it would play out.

Dead against it though. Stop meddling in our lives ffs.

rustynutz

This bill is clearly being pushed through for the sake of the Vinters Association, is there any way we, the public, can lobby against it?

Stonerloner

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

rustynutz wrote: »

This bill is clearly being pushed through for the sake of the Vinters Association, is there any way we, the public, can lobby against it?

No, we can't , they've too much money and influence in Irish politics.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

And their annual alcohol consumption rates per head are very similar to ours. Slightly lower, but not by much. Ireland is on a par with the rest of western Europe when it comes to alcohol consumption. The Irish political class in conjunction with its mates is just one big huge parasite that sucks the life out of the economy and the individual.

Per capita the consumption is actually higher but the binge factor is nothing what it's like in Ireland. People have a beer on the way home from work on the U-Bahn, or when they go to the park/lake. The consumption is spread out, it's not confined to Friday/Saturday night.

Stonerloner

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

I propose 10 euro a bottle of bud.

KungPao

If there is to be a minimum price in supermarkets and offies, I propose a maximum for a pint.

Let's leave it at €2 for a can, and €5 for a pint.

Ush1

Nanny state bullsh*t, Varadker is spineless.

Kivaro

rustynutz wrote: »

This bill is clearly being pushed through for the sake of the Vinters Association, is there any way we, the public, can lobby against it?

Stonerloner wrote: »

No, we can't , they've too much money and influence in Irish politics.

Yes we can. It works in other countries. Contact your local representative and explain that you, your family, and your friends will never vote for him/her again if the bill is pushed through. Similarly, you could express your dismay at other social issues e.g. the sentencing and bail system in Ireland.

It's amazing how these politicians have all the time in the world to focus on nanny-state issues but no time at all for work on infrastructure, healthcare, crime & sentencing, and other real quality of life issues.

hatrickpatrick

I'm still hopeful that this won't pass. The bill was filibustered last time just on the structural separation aspect - if that attracted a sh!teload of lobbying, can you imagine how much lobbying minimum pricing will attract against it?

Plus, the EU court ruled that it was probably illegal, if those opposed can demonstrate in the national courts that other measures which would affect prices across the board would have the same effect. Otherwise it's anti-competitive. So I can foresee major court battles ahead if it ever makes it onto the statute books.

Fingers crossed anyway...

hatrickpatrick

buried wrote: »

The most worrying aspect about all this is what's going to happen once the TD vintner publicans see this pi$$ poor tactic isn't going to send the people rushing back into their depressing, outdated, soulless pubs. What will be the next course of action? Ban off-licences altogether?? The way things are currently going I wouldn't be f**king surprised.

I actually heard that raising the minimum age for off-sales to 21 but not for on-sales was being seriously proposed at one stage. F*cking joke.

kylith

KungPao wrote: »

Let's say a can of Heineken is €1.75 at current rates. And Karpackie is €1.35.

If karpackie goes up to €1.75, (or whatever the minimum price would be) will Heineken raise their prices to retain their 'standing' or leave it, and watch sales skyrocket as the cheap beers sales plummet and ultimately go off the market?

I'm interested as to how it would play out.

Dead against it though. Stop meddling in our lives ffs.

I'd say it'll affect everything. If Karpackie goes up to 1.75 Heineken, which sees itself as a premium brand, is going to go up because the brewer will not want the public to mentally put Heineken in the 'cheapo beer' bracket. So, say Heineken goes up to 2.50, the craft beers aren't going to want to be seen as on a par with Heineken so they're going to go up too.

I maintain that the best way to encourage a reduction in alcohol drinking is to put a price cap on non-alcoholic alternatives. Coke, for example, is more expensive than beer, which is absolute madness. You can buy several litres of Coke in a shop for the cost of a 250ml bottle in a pub.

kylith

kylith wrote: »

I'd say it'll affect everything. If Karpackie goes up to 1.75 Heineken, which sees itself as a premium brand, is going to go up because the brewer will not want the public to mentally put Heineken in the 'cheapo beer' bracket. So, say Heineken goes up to 2.50, the craft beers aren't going to want to be seen as on a par with Heineken so they're going to go up too.

Thats exactly what will happen, and anyone who says this bill wont affect them or how much they currently pay for alcohol at home is being naiive.

VinLieger

kylith wrote: »

I'd say it'll affect everything. If Karpackie goes up to 1.75 Heineken, which sees itself as a premium brand, is going to go up because the brewer will not want the public to mentally put Heineken in the 'cheapo beer' bracket. So, say Heineken goes up to 2.50, the craft beers aren't going to want to be seen as on a par with Heineken so they're going to go up too.

I maintain that the best way to encourage a reduction in alcohol drinking is to put a price cap on non-alcoholic alternatives. Coke, for example, is more expensive than beer, which is absolute madness. You can buy several litres of Coke in a shop for the cost of a 250ml bottle in a pub.

This is exactly what will happen, we already saw how precious Heineken are over their "premium brand" pricing when wetherspoons tried to sell it for the same as everything else.

Zubeneschamali

VinLieger wrote: »

This is exactly what will happen, we already saw how precious Heineken are over their "premium brand" pricing when wetherspoons tried to sell it for the same as everything else.

Good - Heino the same price as Irish craft beer, less Heino sold, more Irish beer. Win win.

KungPao

kylith wrote: »

I'd say it'll affect everything. If Karpackie goes up to 1.75 Heineken, which sees itself as a premium brand, is going to go up because the brewer will not want the public to mentally put Heineken in the 'cheapo beer' bracket. So, say Heineken goes up to 2.50, the craft beers aren't going to want to be seen as on a par with Heineken so they're going to go up too.

I maintain that the best way to encourage a reduction in alcohol drinking is to put a price cap on non-alcoholic alternatives. Coke, for example, is more expensive than beer, which is absolute madness. You can buy several litres of Coke in a shop for the cost of a 250ml bottle in a pub.

Most likely how it would go, alright.

But I'm thinking if they did raise their prices considerably above minimum, wouldn't they encourage people (dismayed at the sudden price increases) to swap their Heinos for cheaper alternatives? I know I've no problem grabbing a few Karpackies instead of the so-called premium brands.

If they were the same price, the opposite would likely happen - People who usually buy Hackenberg may as well 'upgrade' to Heineken/Carlsberg etc. Thus the big boys knock out the cheaper brands and revenues spike.

Whatever happens, the consumer/joe public gets shafted as usual.

Ush1

KungPao wrote: »

Most likely how it would go, alright.

But I'm thinking if they did raise their prices considerably above minimum, wouldn't they encourage people (dismayed at the sudden price increases) to swap their Heinos for cheaper alternatives? I know I've no problem grabbing a few Karpackies instead of the so-called premium brands.

If they were the same price, the opposite would likely happen - People who usually buy Hackenberg may as well 'upgrade' to Heineken/Carlsberg etc. Thus the big boys knock out the cheaper brands and revenues spike.

Whatever happens, the consumer/joe public gets shafted as usual.

Defo won't stay the same price, all brands will go up.

kylith

KungPao wrote: »

Most likely how it would go, alright.

But I'm thinking if they did raise their prices considerably above minimum, wouldn't they encourage people (dismayed at the sudden price increases) to swap their Heinos for cheaper alternatives? I know I've no problem grabbing a few Karpackies instead of the so-called premium brands.

You and I mightn't be bothered (I prefer many of the cheap brands to Heineken or Bud, which I find tasteless), but some people would be mortified if people thought they were buying the cheap stuff. I know people who'll only drink Evian and wouldn't buy Lidl's water, and who top up their Evian bottle from the sink lest anyone think they buy the cheap stuff.

AlanG

Ush1 wrote: »

Nanny state bullsh*t, Varadker is spineless.

When Varadker first brought this up he spoke about how it would decrease consumption. The he set targets which were a linear continuation of the consumption reduction that has been happening anyway - so no increase in the rate of alcohol decline.
Spineless is right. Rich man taxing the poor for their own good.

Ush1

AlanG wrote: »

When Varadker first brought this up he spoke about how it would decrease consumption. The he set targets which were a linear continuation of the consumption reduction that has been happening anyway - so no increase in the rate of alcohol decline.
Spineless is right. Rich man taxing the poor for their own good.

Exactly, it also assumes only poor people have alcohol problems.

Zubeneschamali

Ush1 wrote: »

Exactly, it also assumes only poor people have alcohol problems.

That's because it has nothing to do with reducing alcohol consumption.

It's about driving business from the discount supermarkets and giving it to the Vintners.

Ubbquittious

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That's because it has nothing to do with reducing alcohol consumption.

It's about driving business from the discount supermarkets and giving it to the Vintners.

Not a bad idea tbh. So many small pubs around the country slowly dieing out some attempt should be made to save them

ohnonotgmail

Ubbquittious wrote: »

Not a bad idea tbh. So many small pubs around the country slowly dieing out some attempt should be made to save them

why should the government be taxing off sales to save them? if they are dying it is because nobody wants to go to them.

kylith

Ubbquittious wrote: »

Not a bad idea tbh. So many small pubs around the country slowly dieing out some attempt should be made to save them

Little pubs around the country are dying out because of falling rural populations and drink-driving laws meaning that John-Joe can't have a feed of Guinness and drive home afterward.

Like any business; if you don't have the customer base or you don't adapt to changing conditions, you're going to go under. Why the feck should I have to pay pub prices to drink in my own house?

Richard Hillman

When governments are in for too long they always end up with the nanny state nonsense. The same happened with FF towards the end.

This government has about a year left in it. With the exceptionally slow pace politics moves at in this country they won't get it done and they most certainly won't be putting alcohol prices up before an election.

The important point for citizens and lobbyists looking to stop this is to point towards the increase of drug use of teenagers. This will push teenagers towards drugs.

VinLieger

Ubbquittious wrote: »

Not a bad idea tbh. So many small pubs around the country slowly dieing out some attempt should be made to save them

OR maybe the pubs could stop charging an arm and a leg for pints as well as providing some kind of update to the 1950's atmosphere that still pervades many rural pubs to try draw punters back instead of trying to force them to come back by making the alternative too expensive.

The answer to a failing business modeling is not legislating for a government bailout its learning how to innovate which the vintners have consistently refused to do.