If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Minimum price plan to end cheap alcohol sales-Your say wanted.
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Hello Guys and girls, as part of a leaders discussion we talked about the new Minimum price plan on Alcohol units and would love your feedback.
As you are more than aware a new Coalition scheme intends to place a 45p minimum price plan on each unit of Alcohol. The Coalition believes such introduction will reduce the irresponsible drinking. Theresa May says this is one of 'many' measures that have or will be introduced to combat such problems.
While that may seem excessive or not a lot depending on your view point, it would also go along way to prevent binge drinking according to the Government study shows-
So let us break it down for a start, How does this affect a person wanting a normal drink at a bar, restaurant or local pub?
It shouldn't. Most of the aforementioned places already pay such a fee on their minimum that they will either keep their prices the same or raise it only marginally. It's good news for us drinkers who like to drink out.
Likewise, this would make a pint a minimum price of 1.30. Hell ,if you can find a pint anywhere in the country for that price regularly, please send me a PM with the address. Regards.
How does this affect a person wanting to purchase cheap supermarket price alcohol whether in small packs, multi-buys or deals.
This is the main target of the price plan. They hope that by imposing this rule the alcohol on sale will have to abide a certain price plan and prevent supermarkets and alcohol stores selling alcohol at an 'Unreasonable and easy' price. Here is an example-
A bottle of Frosty Jacks has 22.5 units and is 3.50 for a 3l bottle from what I've seen. That is a roughly £10 a bottle under new plans.
A can of larger with 3 and a half units which costs 70p at Tesco will now cost a base minimum of £1.35. You do maths for packs of X and multi-buys.
Yes, it is a bit frustrating for those who like to stock up when there are deals on and drink it slowly. But not TOO much of an impact considering a pack of 18 larger with 4% which has 1.8 unit's would make the can price 81p. That would make the total pack worth 20 quid. Not a massive difference as such, but it is moving it out of the unreasonably cheap band as the Coalition would see it.
Wait, what about the already reasonably priced alcohol in shops like the bottle's of whiskey and such. They'll now be around 20 quid a bottle?!
A typical bottle of spirits will have about 28 units , so at the mimimum price per unit would cost £ 12.60 . It's more expensive than that anyway so won't have any real effect. If it is cheaper, stock up while you can
What about M+S Dine in for a £10 deals?
Unaffected, ministers have stated that such deals do not cause binge drinking. Again, this is out to target those who wish to buy cheap alcohol in large amounts to get drunk or to drink irresponsibly.
Let's move past pricing, will this really reduce binge drinking?
That is purely factual. I would argue it requires more than pricing to stop excessive consumption. Education on such issues would be my drive. However others argue that you can only limit supply or raise prices to really have an impact. The quoted Guardian article clearly states it will have a dramatic impact, but money shouldn't be the barrier in prevention.
Still, this happened to cigarettes. Has that worked in your opinion or is that because of the advertisements placed on it? Do you think similar should be done to Alcohol?
Do you think this will reduce drunken 'yobs' on the streets and littering beer cans?
So, what are your opinions? Good or bad? I know I've come across as somewhat an advocate but in my opinion this is not the path to take to reduce binge-drinking in the long term.
As you are more than aware a new Coalition scheme intends to place a 45p minimum price plan on each unit of Alcohol. The Coalition believes such introduction will reduce the irresponsible drinking. Theresa May says this is one of 'many' measures that have or will be introduced to combat such problems.
While that may seem excessive or not a lot depending on your view point, it would also go along way to prevent binge drinking according to the Government study shows-
- Nicholas Watt. The Guardian, Wednesday 28 November 2012The Alcohol Health Alliance UK welcomed the publication of the consultation, though it said the minimum price should have been 50p. It estimates that price would prevent more than 3,000 alcohol-related deaths and 40,000 crimes in England every year. A 40p rate, it said, would prevent 1,190 alcohol-related deaths and 10,100 crimes.
So let us break it down for a start, How does this affect a person wanting a normal drink at a bar, restaurant or local pub?
It shouldn't. Most of the aforementioned places already pay such a fee on their minimum that they will either keep their prices the same or raise it only marginally. It's good news for us drinkers who like to drink out.
Likewise, this would make a pint a minimum price of 1.30. Hell ,if you can find a pint anywhere in the country for that price regularly, please send me a PM with the address. Regards.
How does this affect a person wanting to purchase cheap supermarket price alcohol whether in small packs, multi-buys or deals.
This is the main target of the price plan. They hope that by imposing this rule the alcohol on sale will have to abide a certain price plan and prevent supermarkets and alcohol stores selling alcohol at an 'Unreasonable and easy' price. Here is an example-
A bottle of Frosty Jacks has 22.5 units and is 3.50 for a 3l bottle from what I've seen. That is a roughly £10 a bottle under new plans.
A can of larger with 3 and a half units which costs 70p at Tesco will now cost a base minimum of £1.35. You do maths for packs of X and multi-buys.
Yes, it is a bit frustrating for those who like to stock up when there are deals on and drink it slowly. But not TOO much of an impact considering a pack of 18 larger with 4% which has 1.8 unit's would make the can price 81p. That would make the total pack worth 20 quid. Not a massive difference as such, but it is moving it out of the unreasonably cheap band as the Coalition would see it.
Wait, what about the already reasonably priced alcohol in shops like the bottle's of whiskey and such. They'll now be around 20 quid a bottle?!
A typical bottle of spirits will have about 28 units , so at the mimimum price per unit would cost £ 12.60 . It's more expensive than that anyway so won't have any real effect. If it is cheaper, stock up while you can
What about M+S Dine in for a £10 deals?
Unaffected, ministers have stated that such deals do not cause binge drinking. Again, this is out to target those who wish to buy cheap alcohol in large amounts to get drunk or to drink irresponsibly.
Let's move past pricing, will this really reduce binge drinking?
That is purely factual. I would argue it requires more than pricing to stop excessive consumption. Education on such issues would be my drive. However others argue that you can only limit supply or raise prices to really have an impact. The quoted Guardian article clearly states it will have a dramatic impact, but money shouldn't be the barrier in prevention.
Still, this happened to cigarettes. Has that worked in your opinion or is that because of the advertisements placed on it? Do you think similar should be done to Alcohol?
Do you think this will reduce drunken 'yobs' on the streets and littering beer cans?
So, what are your opinions? Good or bad? I know I've come across as somewhat an advocate but in my opinion this is not the path to take to reduce binge-drinking in the long term.
0
Comments
Against
The part made bold is a crucial point. This is done with cigarettes, (My parent's do it :thumb:) so assuredly it can be done with alcohol.
For
AGAINST
Roundabout Pub, north hill Plymouth. Wed/Thur pound a pint.
Brass Monkey Pub, Royal Parade. Wednesday pound a pint.
C103, Union street. Friday £2 - 2 pints.
I'm no way an alcoholic, actually. I'm probably the one person, or type of person who is going to get hit BIGGEST by this!
I drink 2/3 a MONTH.
I drink cider because it is cheap, because i am poor. I am very very poor, i live by myself etc. £3.80 bottle of 3L Dry Cider, will get my mildy drunk for a couple of hours. That's honestly the most i can afford for a day out.
And every other weekend, i like to meet with my friends and have a nice drink of "3 Hammers" (Frosty Jack of Devon).
£10+ A bottle, fine i'll go back to drugs.
You say it won't affect the beer, but when you only want 3/4 cans or something small. Which means you're drinking sensibly you'll have to pay much higher prices (companies will use this to charge extra).
But if you binge drink, you won't be affected because for 20 packs it's the same price.
No, it's ANOTHER TAX ON THE POOREST
The CEO of Wetherspoon's was on R4 calling it a 'tax on poor people' because it will only increase the price of the very cheapest things on the market.
Tax on booze is still a tax.
I don't think setting a min price on alcohol is going to have much of an effect at all on problematic drinking. It's not prices that you have to change to get people to stop drinkning, it's the social attitude to getting drunbk that needs to be changed. People who want to get drunk will still get drunk.
One good thing that may come about as a result of having a minimum price however is that pubs may benifit. I would like to see the supermarkets lose some of their share of alcohol sales back to pubs and social drinking premises. I would also like to see large tax breaks for community pubs and social clubs. At the moment these places are being literally taxed to death
This.
All this will do is increase the market share of the "black" marketeers.
Proof positive that Governments really are stupid and never learn from their mistakes.
I personally dont see this effecting me as most things that I buy are already well above the cost of this suggested level of minimum pricing. I'm not saying that as "Look at me I have money", all I'm saying is that it doesnt really effect me. There is a bigger issue here and I think its something Shikari touched on nicely, and that is the cost of drink in supermarkets which is having an effect on the pub industry. However, when trying to work out how to cut away some of the supermarket trade and put it back in the hands of the public house, you need to stop supermarkets selling alcohol at stupidly low prices. This may well inflate the price, which is what the minimum pricing would have done anyway.
I do think its a bit wrong to have a tax on the poor, and that they will be disproportionally hit, and that a 3l bottle of cider would go up by so much. My personal thought is that whoever decided to sell cider at that strength for that cheaply in the first place was a bit of a c**k. Being able to buy your weekly recommended intake of alcohol for £3.50 is something that shouldnt have happened in the first place, ever.
I like how some (but not all) people tend to care little about politics in any way shape or form till it comes to government raising a tax on something that whilst people enjoy, is quite harmful to them and kills a number of people each year.
The government can do all they want to advertise drink awareness, and in this day and age I think people are very aware of the consequences of drinking. Though as with many things in life, people tend to only care when they start having the described problems themselves, which by then can often be too late.
What is the estimated tax increase and what proportion is being put back into tackling the issue on a more long term and fundamental basis? (a change in drinking culture)
Otherwise it's just opening the door to repeated tax increases on the basis that it's the responsible thing for the goverment to do.
As a single action, I find this quite pointless, unless it's backed up by a wholesale change through society. It's the attitude that needs to change, not the price.
(also, how the **** can anyone predict the exact number of lives saved by this? That just seems like statistical lies to me)
Alcohol duty may not go up by minimum pricing as it's worked out by vol, but VAT will. So technically the governemnt will increase tax revenue from this move.
I do like the idea of a Tory twat, who was a member of club at Oxford University which existed purely to get trashed on champagne and smash things up, telling us that increasing the price of booze will reduce consumption. It may do for the poorest people in society but you only have to look at a footballers' Christmas Party to find out that it won't for the wealthy. And a rich liver costs just as much to fix as a poor one.
Putting former members of the Bullingdon Club in Guantanamo Bay would make about as much difference. Now there's an idea I could vote for.
Just a typical Tory wheeze to screw the poor. Only the rich are allowed to have fun you know.
A move away from supermarkets and towards licenced and responsible venues would, in my mind, be a good move though.
This is aimed at teens/tweenies and the poorer in society. These are also the very groups who will make the most of a blackmarket economy. Funnily enough the same groups making the most of the supermarket now.
Looking at things, the proposed minimum pricing tariff might not be a good thing to do at all. However, what are the other measures that we could explore to try and get the intended effects of stopping people killing themselves with drink.
As has been stated above, this measure wont effect the rich, or indeed those addicted to the drink. Yet to sit back and let people make these mistakes is often called by many to be wrong and immoral as well. I know that smoking and drinking related issues do take up a lot of money and time from the NHS, but how much are they putting into it.
I often see on a day to day business, people asking the government to keep out of other peoples businesses, so why should they be making minimum pricing measures to try and persuade people to live longer? By all means introduce something specifically aimed at supermarkets and the like, but to help save the pub industry, not to save people, some of whom dont want the help?
A little devils advocate, but I'm in an interesting mood.
Also, lining government pockets is something we need to do as the UK has a little bit of a debt problem. Not that this would have made a massive difference anyway, nor should they raise revenue in this manner.
The problem is that the premis here is that something actually *needs* to be done. Question is though, why? What is the issue which they are trying to solve, and does it actually need solving in the first place?
We should be offering help to people, like addicts, who actually want and need our help (which is what we do for smokers). People make mistakes, that's the joy of freedom.
This is where I get a little libertarian and capitalist, which is weird for me.
If the pub cannot compete on price then they need to look at their unique selling point and emphasise that. If they still cannot survive well, that's capitalism. Sorry guys but clearly your business doesn't deserve to survive anymore. That's how the system works.
Whilst I generally agree, unless you've suddenly become American I believe you mean 'liberal' (unless you do mean there should be no Government or only Government to issue currency and regulate contracts)
I also think its more a Lib Dem policy than Tory as their manifesto says
http://www.alcoholpolicy.net/2010/04/liberal-democrats-manifesto-support-for-minimum-pricing-principle-and-below-cost-ban.html
The Tories manifesto committment is different
http://www.alcoholpolicy.net/2010/04/conservative-manifesto-tax-high-strength-drinks-and-ban-below-cost-sales.html
(though in the interests of fairness prior to the election he did speak about extra tax on strong drinks)
http://www.alcoholpolicy.net/2009/08/tories-plan-tax-hikes-on-cheap-drinks.html
Not really fair when pubs have to pay full 20% and supermarkets only pay 5%.
I think we should be looking to protect pubs.
Publicans who permit badbehaviour such as heavy drinking will lose their licences. Supermarkets face no such restraints. They have no idea what happens to cheap alcohol once it leaves their stores. In too many cases, it's passed on to under-age drinkers.
Pubs do far more for communities than supermarkets do.
The pubs that are struggling are often those that haven't managed to move with the times and still cater for the old-fashioned working man drinking half his pay on a Friday and slamming back a few during the week when the Missus is cooking his tea and looking after the wee 'un's. Those times have changed and ain't coming back (which I think personally is a good thing), but there's plenty of room for good well-managed pubs...
its rural and suburban pubs that are suffering the most. Selling beer is just not profitable anymore and its due to the above inflation tax rises each year.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/mar/23/alcohol-minimum-price-supermarket
Not a huge problem imho.
But to say that price is the cause of this is taking too narrow a view point though. It's bigger than that, although price will be a part.
A local village pub was thriving until it changed hands, now it's closed. By contrast, a few villages over, a previously down run and poorly used pub is now thriving.
There are many attractors to pub, the social side is the biggy. A poorly run pub will crash whatever the price. As Flash says, times have changed and the pub trade needs to change with it or people will vote with their feet - as they are. NB Charging a fortune for soft drinks just makes it worse!
I'm not saying some pubs aren't going under, but that's mainly because the world's changing and they're not keeping up not due to tax differentials (though as an aside as a free marketeer I'm against tax differentials cos they're Government purposefully loading the playing field). Lots of pubs used to survive on the men (and I mean men) drinking a fair chunk of their pay packets on a Friday and then a chunk of the rest on others nights whilst the wife made dinner and put the kids to bed. That's a model that's being dying for fifty years and things like tightening drink driving laws (a good thing) and indoor smoking bans (a bad thing) have just exacerbated that. The cost difference isn't a major reason why people drink at home compared to the pub (as even if tax was levelled it'll always be cheaper to buy a four pack of Stella than going to the pub), but people go to pubs to enjoy a good social event.
Some pubs have adapted and some haven't. The ones that adapt do well (they sell lunch, they sell wine), the ones that don't go to the wall.
Yep. A pub we often go to for a lunch is great cos its got a children's play area out back and always has one of the staff there, keeping an eye out and means we can sit inside and have a couple pint and a burger (and they do reasonable kids meals and cheap soft drinks). After seven it's adults only, but it still does good food and cheap soft drinks so if we go there with friends in an evening someone can drive. Pubs like that are going to do well
Such prices then force people to go to the supermarket.
Of course, not everyone wants to go to the pub and see football games, but those pubs who have those options do far better than those who don't. There are notable examples of other pubs without sports tv doing well, but they are in a minority.