Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

kenmc

VinLieger wrote: »

Thats all well and good and I agree but this bill specifically serves no purpose other than to try and put more money into the vintners pockets. FG admitted as much in their 2011 manifesto as you well know.

How will that work? If they increase price of drink for home consumption, folk will have less to spend in the pub....

McMurphy

kenmc wrote: »

How will that work? If they increase price of drink for home consumption, folk will have less to spend in the pub....

The plan is to make drinking in the house less affordable, so someone may then (unlikely) decide that they'll just go to the pub instead.

Supporting Irish Pubs:
Fine Gael recognises 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.

The last sentence says it all. 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

Firstly I have never seen any evidence anywhere to prove that large supermarkets where indulging in "below cost" selling of alcohol anyway, it has long been claimed that it's happening, but no one has demonstrated that it is so.

Secondly, as already stated, there's not a mention of health anywhere, the only intention I see is wanting to jack up the price of drink in an off sales becuse it is affecting the viability of Irish pubs.

It's as plain as the nose on their faces that this is nothing less than giving the greedy and lazy self entitled vintners another dig out from the big bad cheaper alternative.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Leroy wrote:

Of course this doesn't actually work in practice!

Then the whole 'we place that job in the hands of elected TD's in order to bring some order to the process' argument is entirely flawed...!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

elperello wrote: »

Darn right they don't!!

I have actually seen UK and German tourists unloading cases of beer from their cars that they have brought from home on arriving at their destination in Ireland.

They tend to be the ones who have been before and were shocked at the prices in our supermarkets.

Next year they will know for sure that we are Pixieheads.

German tourists rearely drive all the way to Ireland - they fly in an rent the car.

Also, the reason they'd be bringing beer with them if they did is becaues the ony stuff on offer to them in most bars is branded crap that they woudn't touch with a bargepole.

elperello

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

German tourists rearely drive all the way to Ireland - they fly in an rent the car.

Also, the reason they'd be bringing beer with them if they did is becaues the ony stuff on offer to them in most bars is branded crap that they woudn't touch with a bargepole.

But some do drive to Ireland for one reason or another and I have met them and spoken to them.
Even though there is quite a large range of good beer available in Irish shops now they still can't stomach the prices charged.
Just my personal experience.

Reputable Rog

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

German tourists rearely drive all the way to Ireland - they fly in an rent the car.

Also, the reason they'd be bringing beer with them if they did is becaues the ony stuff on offer to them in most bars is branded crap that they woudn't touch with a bargepole.

I see plenty of German and French cars around during the summer.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

A fe might drive yes - but they don't do it to experience Irish supermarket beers. For one thing, it takes more time. For another, it's more expensive. If cost is an issue they'll fly. If cost isn't an issue, pub prices won't be. And people are aways a little bit mroe tolerant of more expensive prices when on holiday. They dont have to put up with prices all year round.

Not defending this, by the way! in any case tourists are less likely to not drink in pubs than locals and the "protect tourism" line is even more bogus than the "healthcare/prevent abuse" line.

elperello

I take your point about poor beer offerings in some Irish shops but that wasn't the reason put to me by the tourists they were driven by the exorbitant prices.
I was just using the anecdote to illustrate that our prices are already high by European standards.
I feel that arguing over the quality of beers is a bit of a red herring in the context of MUP. As far as I'm concerned if someone likes Bud or Coors that's their choice.

Zubeneschamali

elperello wrote: »

I feel that arguing over the quality of beers is a bit of a red herring in the context of MUP. As far as I'm concerned if someone likes Bud or Coors that's their choice.

MUP will mainly hit the likes of Galahad and Dutch Gold, cheap rubbish FG voters would never buy.

Expensive rubbish like Bud will be mostly unaffected.

McMurphy

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

MUP will mainly hit the likes of Galahad and Dutch Gold, cheap rubbish FG voters would never buy.

Expensive rubbish like Bud will be mostly unaffected.

If Galahad or Dutch G rise in price, you can be dam sure that budweiser (etc) will rise in price too.

That price difference buffer will surely remain in place, otherwise there's nothing to imply bud (etc) won't appear to be a "premium" brand.

It will have a domino effect, expect spirits/wines/etc etc etc to follow suit too.

No company in their right mind would allow their marketed as a premium brand product sit next to well known budget brand with little to no price difference.

Capt'n Midnight

It can't be said often enough that this won't provide a single red cent more for the health services, because the excise duty will not increase one iota.

If the aim was to reduce consumption by anyone who wasn't on the breadline then excise duty could be raised instead.


I not quite sure how this will send people to pubs because the off-licence price for the brands on tap in the pub are above the minimum price already.

Capt'n Midnight

Anyone remember when they reduced the excise duty on low alcohol beers ?

And how the pubs all offered it at a reasonable discount from the standard pint ?

Or do you remember it as only available in a few pubs for a short time and at close to the price of normal pint, because heaven forbid customers could be inclined to take a healthier option.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It can't be said often enough that this won't provide a single red cent more for the health services, because the excise duty will not increase one iota.

If the aim was to reduce consumption by anyone who wasn't on the breadline then excise duty could be raised instead.


I not quite sure how this will send people to pubs because the off-licence price for the brands on tap in the pub are above the minimum price already.

Well, of course, our all-caring government "never claimed"l this - apparently it's being done to aid the tourist industry...

Vic_08

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Anyone remember when they reduced the excise duty on low alcohol beers ?

And how the pubs all offered it at a reasonable discount from the standard pint ?

Or do you remember it as only available in a few pubs for a short time and at close to the price of normal pint, because heaven forbid customers could be inclined to take a healthier option.

A bit like how they promote safe driving by offering designated drivers a pint of concentrate mixed soft drink for the same price if not more than a pint of beer.

They are simply a selfless civic-minded bunch and anyone who says different is just drinking the Kool-aid.

...That'll be €12.95 when you're ready, it is a premium imported beverage with mixer after all.

McMurphy

I posted this on the politics forum, but its relevant here too.

Lanzarote last week.




Tesco in Dublin this week.



Remind me how drink is far too cheap in this country again Leo.

McMurphy

So.

First we had the manifesto from FG that stated their intentions to protect Irish Pubs in 2011.

Supporting Irish Pubs:
Fine Gael recognises 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.

Note the devil in that detail though....

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

Then I read this morning that....

Minister for Transport Shane Ross is examining the roll-out of community car schemes and assessing insurance costs for publicans to drive customers home from the pub.

So let me get this straight. First you want to introduce MUP to protect the viability of Irish Pubs....

Then you want to introduce MUP due to health concerns....

Then you want to look at possible measures that would enable publicans to drive their unhealthy alcohol filled drunken customers home?

Wut

Vintners are riding the govt side roads.

Leroy42

Its clear that this is an attempt to increase the viability of the pubs. It said so in their manifesto in 2012 and that hasn't changed. They are, disingenuously, trying to now claim that it is for health reasons. But both may be true (not their reasons but the effect).

I think the pub is a important part of our culture. Certainly it is something we are well known for across the world. Why is it deemed that art and plays and Irish and sport is worthy of investment but this isn't? Ireland would certainly lose a part of itself if pubs were to disappear.

That being said, it is still inherent on the trade itself to help itself and up until now they have shown little desire to do that, and for that I have little sympathy for them. But they did show, with the introduction of the smoking ban, that it is not beyond their wit to come up with ways to work with the laws rather than against them.

On the point about insurance, that is actually a good idea. If something can be done around that area it is a good thing for everyone. The vintners should have done this as a group a long time ago.

VinLieger

Legislation is being reintroduced to the seanad after Halloween, depressingly this really looks like its going to go through cus if it makes it through there FG,FF and SF have all promised to support it

McMurphy

VinLieger wrote: »

Legislation is being reintroduced to the seanad after Halloween, depressingly this really looks like its going to go through cus if it makes it through there FG,FF and SF have all promised to support it

The only option open to anyone is emailing the local TD informing them that if they support it, they'll lose your vote.

VinLieger

Rick Shaw wrote: »

The only option open to anyone is emailing the local TD informing them that if they support it, they'll lose your vote.

Indeed it needs more people though, its depressing how little of the real facts around this have been discussed in the media, nobody is willing to question it because of the stupid "public health" angle

McMurphy

VinLieger wrote: »

Indeed it needs more people though

Get Brendan Ogle on the case.

Jim Bob Scratcher

VinLieger wrote: »

Legislation is being reintroduced to the seanad after Halloween, depressingly this really looks like its going to go through cus if it makes it through there FG,FF and SF have all promised to support it

Another new opportunity for the black market to flourish. I hope you are listening Leo, or are you still hungover after drinking a couple of 30 euros worth of bottle of wine courtesy of the taxpayer ? Leo wake up ya bleedin alco!

Fr Tod Umptious

VinLieger wrote: »

Indeed it needs more people though, its depressing how little of the real facts around this have been discussed in the media, nobody is willing to question it because of the stupid "public health" angle

What exactly are "the real facts"

Honest question.

Dr Crayfish

Rick Shaw wrote: »

The only option open to anyone is emailing the local TD informing them that if they support it, they'll lose your vote.

I mailed all 5 of my TDs. They all responded saying they're supporting it. Told them all I voted for them last time and I wont vote for them again if this goes through, and will try and convince friends and family not to do same.
This has annoyed me so much. It's 100% nanny stateism, I've not met one person who agrees with it, yet these 250 w*nkers in Leinster House know better than probably 85% of the population who don't want this.
Is there anything we can do or will we just accept this like sheep as usual? Highest insurance on cars, rent out of control, horrible weather, and now they're pricing the bejesus out of our booze. Stupid bloody country.

McMurphy

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

What exactly are "the real facts"

Honest question.

Let's start with the rather flimsy health concerns facade.

VinLieger

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

What exactly are "the real facts"

Honest question.

FG's 2011 manifesto clearly states this is a bill designed to reduce below cost selling with the goal of pushing punters back into pubs.

There is ZERO evidence this will reduce alcohol related health issues.

Our consumption is down year over year since the mid 2000's according to the OECD so the issue is already getting better and not worse like the government would like us to believe.

They government also claim this will help addicts but i don't think I know one addict who cares about the cost it takes to feed their addiction so this if anything will just create a new/larger black market. Similarly they claim this will help children affected by parents who are addicted, the same logic above applies that they likely don't care about the cost and if anything this will just hurt children more as there will be more money spent on alcohol in the household.

If this was really about improving the health and mental health of the country they would be increasing excise so all of the price increase would go to the tax coffers and could then be directed in health services. However that is not happening as it would also affect the Vintners profits and they are the true architects of this bill as I already mentioned.

McMurphy

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Let's start with the rather flimsy health concerns facade.

Then move on to the finance minister having a fairly hefty chunk of shares in Diageo, the country's largest drinks giant.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

VinLieger wrote: »

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

What exactly are "the real facts"

Honest question.

FG's 2011 manifesto clearly states this is a bill designed to reduce below cost selling with the goal of pushing punters back into pubs.

There is ZERO evidence this will reduce alcohol related health issues.

Our consumption is down year over year since the mid 2000's according to the OECD so the issue is already getting better and not worse like the government would like us to believe.

They government also claim this will help addicts but i don't think I know one addict who cares about the cost it takes to feed their addiction so this if anything will just create a new/larger black market. Similarly they claim this will help children affected by parents who are addicted, the same logic above applies that they likely don't care about the cost and if anything this will just hurt children more as there will be more money spent on alcohol in the household.

If this was really about improving the health and mental health of the country they would be increasing excise so all of the price increase would go to the tax coffers and could then be directed in health services. However that is not happening as it would also affect the Vintners profits and they are the true architects of this bill as I already mentioned.

Didn't someone a few pages ago bring up a quote from the FG manifesto admitting it was nothing to do with health but was to preserve pub culture and tourism?

Anyway: well done to whoever wrote to the MPs - would get said family and friends to write to. And protest/picket TD offices.

ohnonotgmail

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Didn't someone a few pages ago bring up a quote from the FG manifesto admitting it was nothing to do with health but was to preserve pub culture and tourism?

Anyway: well done to whoever wrote to the MPs - would get said family and friends to write to. And protest/picket TD offices.

Yep i did. this is the relevant section of the 2011 manifesto

Supporting Irish Pubs:
Fine Gael recognises 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.

hatrickpatrick

I'm still hoping this will have a rougher ride than expected due to lobbying. There hasn't been much lobbying around minimum pricing yet but I feel this is because advertising and structural separation are the only aspects to have been debated in the oireachtas so far. Hopefully when they get to the minimum price part, the lobbyists will blitz the crap out of sitting politicians.

Where are we with the legal situation? If someone takes a court case based on eu competition law, does the ambiguous ECJ ruling favour, in Ireland's case, the bill's legality or its illegality?