Salmond's going to be even smugger than usual after seeing the UK govt putting forward one of the SNP's ideas, widely berated by every opposing party at the time (including failing to become law when they were the minority administration in Holyrood).
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17482035
No doubt Dave or Nick will try to claim it as their great idea on saving the country from itself.
My personal opinion is it is a good law (like banning smoking in public places) but I expect a huge variation in opinions from the panel (as is right).
Remember: it's not a stealth tax (other than making a little more VAT from cheap cider).
Last edited by: Lygonos on Fri 23 Mar 12 at 07:45
|
It is not the government's business to tell retailers at what price they may sell their goods.
The government may impose, subject to electoral punishment, set whatever tax rates they may think fit.
There is far too much social engineering (meddling) by tax means though.
Small government is good government.
|
Affects those buying beer in Aldi but not in Waitrose.
Need I say more?
|
I blame the jocks, if they were not such a load of pee artists, it wouldn't be necessary.
How they think a country of fat drunks is going to survive on its own is beyond me,
|
>>How they think a country of fat drunks is going to survive on its own is beyond me
Same as the country full of free-boating immigrants does south of the border ;-)
|
>> Affects those buying beer in Aldi but not in Waitrose.
>>
>> Need I say more?
>>
No not really, where do all the drunken yobs who litter our our street buy their cheap booze, Aldi or Waitrose?
|
>> No not really, where do all the drunken yobs who litter our our street buy
>> their cheap booze, Aldi or Waitrose?
>>
Probably neither. The cans etc I see lying round are mostly well known brands so not Aldi/Lidl.
|
|
No but the point I am making is that anti social drinking is fuelled by cheap alcohol purchased at the bottom end of the market. They're not buying £8 a bottle wine at Waitrose to achieve their ends. Curbing the sale of cheap alcohol can only be a good thing. Nobody buys the really cheap and nasty stuff with any other intention other than getting drunk.
|
>> Remember: it's not a stealth tax (other than making a little more VAT from cheap
>> cider).
Judging by the number of drinkers of cheap cider one may see in the streets, the VAT rake-off may be significant!
|
I think it is a good idea, supermarket booze is far too cheap, a can of beer costs me less than a pint of coke at the supermarkets.
It won't effect pub prices much and it might encourage people to start going back to their locals protecting jobs in the process.
|
Once again it`s the poorer masses that bear the "brunt" - Folk that can`t really afford to go out to pubs/clubs binge drinking and getting drunk, but stop home drinking a few cans of cheap lager in an evening. Yet, as usual, the "knobs" cheap "stay at home, whilst we play Bridge" spirit drinks (Whiskey was the example used) would probably remain unchanged in price!
This is just another "reverse Robin Hood" tax, rob the poor - give to the rich!
|
If and when it succeeds in reducing the binge drinking (which I doubt it will), guess who will be taxed even more to replace the duty lost on it.
We're all suffering now because of the clamp down on smoking and the lost duty...not from me though, I haven't bought a cigarette in the UK for ten years at least!
Pat
|
Smoking should be BANNED
B A N N E D! you hear.
Easy to enforce you cant hide the evidence. Failing that the NHS services should all be withdrawn from smokers.
|
How much revenue would be lost if smoking was banned?
Personally, I encourage all smokers. I reckon they're saving me a lot of tax.
|
>> How much revenue would be lost if smoking was banned?
>>
>> Personally, I encourage all smokers. I reckon they're saving me a lot of tax.
Nah, they are not, its reached the point where medical costs to keep the tar monkeys breathing outweigh the duty revenue
|
>>Nah, they are not, its reached the point where medical costs to keep the tar monkeys breathing outweigh the duty revenue
Actually once you factor in reduced pension payouts/lower longterm care costs smoking pays for itself several times over.
Keep on puffing - it's tax I don't need to pay ;-)
|
You miserable lot, you're only peeve because I don't pay tax in the UK for my ciggies and wine:)
Can't remember the last time I used the NHS either and I've smoked since I was 14 years old.
Ah yes, I was Xrayed to discover the true extent of the Arthritis, which of course is caused by smoking and despite working until after retirement age and paying my dues, I shouldn't have been allowed that Xray!
Pat
|
ASH estimate £14bn p/a is raised in tobacco tax, yet an FOI to the Health Department estimated costs for treating smokers for all related disease was £2bn p/a. Plus a goodly percentage of those that do never reach pension age.
Ok let find another £12bn from somewhere.
Like road tax £32bn raised £8m spent on roads and related.
Statistics shmatistics.
As always
Mark
|
>> ASH estimate £14bn p/a is raised in tobacco tax, yet an FOI to the Health
>> Department estimated costs for treating smokers for all related disease was £2bn p/a. Plus a
>> goodly percentage of those that do never reach pension age.
>>
>> Ok let find another £12bn from somewhere.
>>
>> Like road tax £32bn raised £8m spent on roads and related.
>>
>> Statistics shmatistics.
>>
>> As always
>>
>> Mark
Complete cobblers, as you would expect from ASH. As Pat admitted she isn't even paying the tobacco tax and thats pretty common these days
|
>> Once again it`s the poorer masses that bear the "brunt" - Folk that can`t really
>> afford to go out to pubs/clubs binge drinking and getting drunk, but stop home drinking
>> a few cans of cheap lager in an evening. Yet, as usual, the "knobs" cheap
>> "stay at home, whilst we play Bridge" spirit drinks (Whiskey was the example used) would
>> probably remain unchanged in price!
>> This is just another "reverse Robin Hood" tax, rob the poor - give to the
>> rich!
Quite honestly I have great sympathy with this rule on one hand, but I know it wont even touch the problem.
Supermarket Alcohol is too cheap. Frankly its been dragged down to price levels low enough to divert peoples money away from better diet, or other things. And its rubbish stuff too, cheap nasty lager, disgusting fizzy cider, surprised they haven't brought back the red barrel party 7 for 5 quid. Blame the supermarkets they sell the stuff at a loss to drag the suckers in.
But it wont cure the issue. Most binge drinking is done in clubs or pubs with your mates. No-one binge drinks at home on your own. The rule wont cure a damn thing.
|
|
Ah well when alcohol costs as much as drugs the crime rate will no doubt increase to fund the drinking, what needs to be dealt with are the antisocial drinkers who fight, puke, fill A and E units. £80 on the spot fines are a joke, make these scum clean up their mess, graffiti and vandalism and punish them with a loss of liberty, not cushy cells, games and tv but a regime to either shock them into compliance with society or perhaps instill some self discipline which is sadly lacking.
Last edited by: Jetski on Fri 23 Mar 12 at 13:48
|
>> This is just another "reverse Robin Hood" tax, rob the poor - give to the
>> rich!
>>
As with so much else.
Electricity feed-in tariffs: Those who can afford to lash out several grand to cover the roof of their house in photovoltaics get free electricity, those who cannot pay for theirs and that of the solar panel owners.
Car / petrol tax: Those who can afford to lash out out a shiny, new CO2 bothering car pay less, those who cannot get fleeced.
Etc ad nauseum.
|
>>Car / petrol tax: Those who can afford to lash out out a shiny, new CO2 bothering car pay less, those who cannot get fleeced.
Car tax (VED) is massively outweighed by the VAT paid on a new car.
Regulars here will be aware of the "spending lots to save a little" mentality seen with those justifying buying a new car "to save on fuel costs".
The biggest waste of recent years has to be Child Trust Funds - to think that one-eyed idiot could justify the country borrowing money to put it into savings accounts for children helps us to maintain a healthy disdain for economists/chancellors.
|
The reason for the problem is the proliferation of outlets that are allowed to sell alcohol. Why are so many pubs closing down. Because people can get cheap alcohol elsewhere. As a kid I remember the only real place to get alcohol was an off licence, or a section of a pub that sold off licence drinks.
What we need to do is go back a few decades when alcohol was not freely available from every corner shop. There are too many greedy shop owners who sell to under age people for pure financial gain and do not have the morals to adhere to current rules.
Have dedicated off licences, as we do now, that control the sale of alcohol properly and are run strictly to government and local government regulations. So then only pubs, clubs and off licences would have the power to sell alcohol. Putting up the price will not solve the current binge craze especially amongst the younger crowd.
|
What a load of pathetic humbug this is.
We are a country with an ingrained alcohol culture. Alcohol is already more expensive here than almost anywhere else.
Does anyone in or out of government expect adjusting the price of cheap booze to make a blind bit of difference to public health or behaviour? No one who isn't half-witted. The politicians are moving the pieces around as usual to give the impression of activity without threatening tax revenue or profits.
At the same time they can scold us for our terrible habits and shed crocodile tears over the danger to our health. Makes you want to kick the carphounds.
Tchah!
|
|
Oh dear - I find myself agreeing with you for once A.C. !
|
Alcohol in Germany is cheap (though taxation has increased in recent years), here in Bavaria beer is taxed as food and until recently was not subject to VAT. Wine, Champagne and spirits are frequently cheaper in a local supermarket than in the airport duty free shop.
There is considerably less binge drinking here than I see when I go back to the UK. I think one reason is that alcohol here is less controlled and therefore consumption less likely to be seen as cool and rule breaking by kids. At age 16, people are legally allowed to buy beer and wine in a pub or supermarket. This doesn't mean there is no binge drinking, but it seems to be less endemic.
I don't actually think binge drinking is anything new in the UK. I remember in my formative years in the early 80s, city centres at the weekends always seemed to be full of people off their heads. Also, the original licensing laws were introduced in World War 1 to reduce the effect of drunkenness on the productivity at factories.
|
>>I don't actually think binge drinking is anything new in the UK<<
Nope!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Street_and_Gin_Lane
Last edited by: Dog on Fri 23 Mar 12 at 15:25
|
>>Why are so many pubs closing down. Because people can get cheap alcohol elsewhere. As a kid I remember the only real place to get alcohol was an off licence, or a section of a pub that sold off licence drinks.
<<
Hang on there Mr Ecs, the reason so many pubs are closing down is becau8se they stopped the Landlords from having the choice to allow smoking in their pubs and turned them into kindergartons and playschools instead.
I have nothing against kids but traditionally a pub is an adult place not a place for under 10's to see people drinking, swearing and enjoying it.
It's certainly paved the way for our 14+ years old teenagers to binge drink.
Pat
|
Pubs have been closing for the past 3 decades : long before smoking bans kicked in.
Fashions change.
I object to my 10 x 25cl bottles of 4.8% French beer at Aldi costing more than £33.04..
As far as alcohol diseases are concerned, the NHS should treat them as self inflicted injuries - like drugs - and save a lot of money..
|
>> As far as alcohol diseases are concerned, the NHS should treat them as self inflicted
>> injuries - like drugs - and save a lot of money..
The NHS treats self inflicted injuries like any other accidental injury.
|
>> As far as alcohol diseases are concerned, the NHS should treat them as self inflicted
>> injuries - like drugs - and save a lot of money..
>>
So when drug users arrive in A&E after an overdose they get turned away........or psychiatric patients whose conditions have been caused by substance abuse are refused treatment......
What about people with less than perfect diets who develop Cancer? Do we say its self inflicted so tough?
|
>> I object to my 10 x 25cl bottles of 4.8% French beer at Aldi costing
>> more than £33.04..
I think you mean £3.04......
But that and the £2.99 Merlot were exactly the examples I had in mind upthread.
|
The reason pubs are closing down is because they were crapholes, the smoking ban, and drink driving laws. There are plenty of very good pubs with great atmosphere, doing great food, in great places, doing great business. The way pubs have changed can only be applauded.
Mr ECS, you want to go back to the old ways of licensing? I grew up in those days, it didn't work then we used to get blathered, there was plenty of antisocial drinking. Plus it was a real problem to get booze served with food.
|
Apologies if this has been covered, but what happens to the extra money paid over when the minimum price is implemented? Does it just increase the retailer profit? That must be illegal price fixing.
The whole idea is carp anyway. The only people who will cut down will be the half sensible ones, not the anti-social binge drinkers, such as the pensioner who enjoys a couple of bottles of beer every night; and if the price is increased enough, the serious addicts will start on illegally produced alcohol - a bit like putting caps on APRs would be a charter for loan sharks.
|
|
IMO any pub that is surviving is probably more to do with the kitchen than the bar. Profit margin is better on food than beer too, I'd guess.
|
|
This is a good pub, if you like spit n' sawdust type boozers g.co/maps/ungxu
|
|
Does this minimum pricing apply in the heavily subsidised House of Commons bars? And, if so, will it stop MPs getting drunk?
|
>> Does this minimum pricing apply in the heavily subsidised House of Commons bars? And, if
>> so, will it stop MPs getting drunk?
>>
Since you have to ask, you know the answer is going to be no.
Hypocrisy is the vice chosen first by 90% of politicians..and second choice for another 9%..
(See Ken Livingstone's tax arrangements,John Major, and in a past generation Lord Boothby.. - who sued the Mirror for libelling him with the truth about his relationship with the Krays and won)
Last edited by: madf on Sat 24 Mar 12 at 09:19
|
The Hippocratic Oath is taken by Physicians:
The Hypocrittic Oath is taken by M.P`s!
|
|
It won't make any difference if people want to get drunk they will.Prohibitation didn't work in the States.Same as sigarettes people will smuggle more good money to be made.>:)
|
ive worked with alcholics, they prioritise there spending ...booze first then what evers left for food , electric etc etc, putting the price of booze up will mean less spent on food items and so forth
this policy is not the answer more like gradual extermination of the undesirables
|
I'm trying to see the logic of this measure. Obviously it will have no effect on alcoholics (as z says above) - they are addicts (remember Players Medium/Senior Service at 3/10d - 19p!! for 20 yet people still smoke at £8.30 a pack).
The idea seems to be to prevent/reduce "pre-loading" and binge drinking. However, even if it does prevent a bit of pre-loading, surely the real bingeing takes place in the clubs and pubs gone into later in the evening with mates . The prices there will be unchanged - and probably very high (according to my "kids"). So how will it stop/reduce binge drinking? - I would guess that very little binge drinking takes place using supermarket booze at home?
And another thing, why increase the price with extra profits going to brewers/supermarkets? Why not stick extra tax/duty etc on these drinks so that Gov gets more money (to waste!!)
Maybe I'm being thick and you can enlighten me.
P
|
>> And another thing, why increase the price with extra profits going to brewers/supermarkets? Why not
>> stick extra tax/duty etc on these drinks so that Gov gets more money (to waste!!)
>> Maybe I'm being thick and you can enlighten me.
You and me. If the supermarkets got together and agreed this their feet wouldn't touch, they'd be fined literally millions for anti-competitive practices.
I suppose, given that it's a minimum price per 10ml of ethanol, that there'll still be cheap beer etc but it will be weak - cheap wine will just be watered down , it will be unsaleable at £4 a bottle - or will the existing £4 a bottle wine just be pushed up in price? In other words, all the guff about it not affecting anything priced above 40p/unit will turn out to be wrong?
The only certain things are
- that there will be unintended consequences as yet unknown, and
- the infantilisation of the proletariat has taken another step. And we are surprised that people don't act responsibly!
It's a most un-Conservative policy too. Lord knows what Cameron thinks he'll get out of this, I'm beginning to wonder if the man has any real nous at all.
|
Anyone on here regularly drink anything that retails for under 40p/unit?
I'd love to know
|
|
I buy my alcohol by the bottle, or glass, who the hell knows what a unit is anyway?
|
You don't know what a unit is?
Who are you, and what have you done with Zero?
;-)
|
>> You don't know what a unit is?
Practically nothing. Half a smallish drink.
It's typical of these old maids to devise a basic unit you can't even feel. Makes it difficult to take the anti-alcohol poisoning agenda seriously.
|
>> who the hell knows what a unit is anyway?
I didn't, but was curious so looked it up - it's 10ml of pure alcohol apparently:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_of_alcohol
One pint of 4% beer (ie. 'standard' strength) contains 2.3 units.
|
Reminds me of chemistry 30 yrs ago (vaguely) - Add 10mls of ethanol to 10 mls of water and you get 19.5mls.
(without having a fly toot!)
|
>> One pint of 4% beer (ie. 'standard' strength) contains 2.3 units.
...or 28 units in a normal (70cl) bottle of 40% spirits such as whisky (700 x 0.4 / 10).
Last edited by: Focus on Sat 24 Mar 12 at 22:24
|
>> One pint of 4% beer (ie. 'standard' strength) contains 2.3 units.
2.3 units? point 3?
...or 28 units in a normal (70cl) bottle of 40% spirits such as whisky (700 x 0.4 / 10).
so 28 units from a bottle that will serve 32 singles?
See? Those would try and educate and dictate our drinking habits come up with a completely nonsensical and deeply complicated way of trying to indicate how much we should drink.
We are led by idiots
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 24 Mar 12 at 22:39
|
Sorry to hear you're struggling with the concept.
Perhaps we should just have standardised 4% beers/ciders, and 40% spirits with nothing else in between.
|
No as its a crap system perhaps we should drop it.
or ignore it
Oh - we do already, i wonder why.
|
"No as its a crap system perhaps we should drop it. "
Perhaps you would provide us with an alternative way of comparing the alcoholic content of drinks of varying strengths.
I'm sure the government would like to know.
|
"Perhaps you would provide us with an alternative way of comparing the alcoholic content of drinks of varying strengths."
I suggest just drinking the stuff - I'm sure most of us can judge the alcohol content after a few sips. And if you are unsure try comparing a pint of bitter and a pint of whisky - it's fun. On the other hand, read the label - I figure beer at 4% proof is a little less "alcoholic" than that Macallan at 40%. And that nice red I'm bingeing on with 3 other members of the family along with a nice meal at 12.5% is somewhere in between. As for how many units each is I haven't a clue. Beer - not many?, Macallan - quite a lot (better not drink the whole bottle!), wine - somewhere in between but shared between the four of us, not too much. Just one rule - don't drive after any of them.
Why does the Gov need to compare the alc content? Oh yeah, gotta tax it/ban it/restrict its use. Bloomin' nanny state.
Daft thing is, alcohol consumption is actually declining - and you'll never stop the diehard/binge drinkers from drinking too much.
I remember how unfair I felt it was when teachers punished the whole class for the misdemeanor (sp?) of an individual. Same with this minimum price policy.
|
"Daft thing is, alcohol consumption is actually declining - "
And how would we know that if we did not have a standard measure and so able to compare annual consumption?
|
"how would we know that if we did not have a standard measure and so able to compare annual consumption?"
Well, I don't see much mention of "units" of alcohol here.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11170814
Although there is here
www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12397254
|
>> "No as its a crap system perhaps we should drop it. "
>>
>> Perhaps you would provide us with an alternative way of comparing the alcoholic content of
>> drinks of varying strengths.
>>
>> I'm sure the government would like to know.
How about saying
"1 pint of strong beer, 1.5 pints of weaker beer"
How about "x glasses of wine"? (most wine is about the same so who cares)
How about "1 single of higher proof spirit or 1.5 shots of lower proof?"
What so difficult about making that simple? .5 of a unit a day error is really and simply not going to make the blindest bit of difference health wise.
But no we have to be told to regulate our consumption the nth decimal place for NO good reason. Why make it simple when you can really ruck it up.
|
That's OK if you only drink one variety of alcohol.
How do you compare 6 pints of session ale ,one strong one, a bottle of Australian red and a bottle of Lambrusco and a couple of brandies with say 15 pints of lager.
The answer, as you well know, is you can't unless you convert the alcoholic strength of each drink to a common unit.
Alcohol is actually a poison in excess so its probably not a bad idea to know how much you are taking
|
>> That's OK if you only drink one variety of alcohol.
>>
>> How do you compare 6 pints of session ale ,one strong one, a bottle of
>> Australian red and a bottle of Lambrusco and a couple of brandies with say 15
>> pints of lager.
>>
>> The answer, as you well know, is you can't unless you convert the alcoholic strength
>> of each drink to a common unit.
As I said, my answer covers that scenario perfectly
The problem as you know is, that you cant work it it out in your head standing at the bar next to the beer taps or staring at the wines in the chiller cabinet. The answer as you know is, that no-one works it out to .5 of a unit on a daily basis because there is no need to, You appear to be living in a cyber world when it comes to drinking.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 25 Mar 12 at 14:22
|
I think 1 unit = 1 measure of spirits is simple enough, and it's about 1/2 pint of normal beer. A glass of wine (at 6 to the bottle) is 1.5.
Things got muddier when strong beer became the thing. Standard draught beer used to be c. 3.2%-3.8% for mild or bitter, but that has crept up and the heavily advertised premium ales are now 4.5-5% and have displaced the 'session' beers in many pubs - too strong for me to enjoy two or three. Give me a pint of Taylors Golden Best at 3.5% anytime.
To me the message is fairly simple. If you're aiming for somewhere around the recommended 3-4 units a day, don't drink more than a couple of pints, 3 shorts or a couple of glasses of wine a day, and have at least the occasional dry day. Choose sensible strength beer if available.
Most days I don't drink, so when I do I'll have 4 or 5 glasses of wine or 3 pints if I feel like it. Spirits for me are an occasional malt whisky or three. I probably have 20 or so different ones at hand, but rarely touch it unless an enthusiast calls.
The big puzzle is why UK has more of a problem than some other countries that have much cheaper drink. Maybe it's the 'rounds' culture. Much nicer to sit in a Czech bar with friends and drink as much, or as little as you like, just ticking the beer mat. The ticks will also remind you how much you've had at the end of the night!
|
>> Spirits for me are an
>> occasional malt whisky or three. I probably have 20 or so different ones at hand,
>> but rarely touch it unless an enthusiast calls.
Knock, knock...
|
>> Knock, knock...
>>
Bring your driver!
|
>> so 28 units from a bottle that will serve 32 singles?
Eh? If you're being served 21.875ml measures you should maybe speak to Trading Standards.
Methinks Z-man has been on the sauce tonight!
|
The unit was chosen to be equivalent to a measure of spirits.
That used to be 1/6 of a gill, or 1/24 of a pint (the Jocks IIRC were greedier and went for 1/5 gills).
A bottle was a pint and a third or 26.67 fl.oz being 32/6 of a gill = 32 shots. That was 757.68ml not the 700ml that we get now.
The standard strength was 70 degrees proof which is 40% ABV so we haven't been jizzed on that.
A standard Imperial shot would contain 9.47ml of ethanol.
A bottle is now 700ml. I'm not sure there is a 'standard' measure any more but it used to be 25ml**, so 28 to the bottle. At 40% ABV there are 28 of those, so 10ml of ethanol or one unit each. QED.
**There was concern a few years ago that pubs were starting to sell spirits in single measures of 35ml. This rather messed up the simple idea of what a unit is. The same thing has happened with wine. A glass in my opinion is 125ml, 6 to the bottle. That's 1.5 units per glass at 12% ABV. My local pub now sells a "small" glass at 175ml, or a "large" at 250ml - a ludicrous 1/3 of a bottle. No wonder people are falling about.
|
|
Weren't some units sold in 35 ml anyway? Whenever I saw the bigger shots I'm sure it was always gin, was it a hangover from some odd rule or just chance?
|
The old 1/6 - 1/5 - 1/4 gill measurements were metricised years ago.
More recently it was 25ml (England), 30ml (Scotland), 35ml (N.Ireland and Scottish 'working mens' clubs).
I think Scotland is now 25mls standard measures but I never buy spirits in a pub - I drink nail varnish remover.
|
>> Weren't some units sold in 35 ml anyway? Whenever I saw the bigger shots I'm
>> sure it was always gin, was it a hangover from some odd rule or just
>> chance?
How old are you? The 'big measures' thing with spirits started about 10-12 years ago I think. One of our local pubs (now shut down) started selling unknown brands of lower strength in 35ml about then, so that was probably when the optics appeared in the cash and carry.
|
|
Not old enough clearly ;)
|
>> Not old enough clearly ;)
>>
The metrication came in the late 70s I think. Before that it was always fractions of a gill. After, it went to 25ml. Maybe in Scotland they had 30/35 as a follow on from the 1/4 and 1/5 gills?
How near the border are you ;-)
|
>> who the hell knows what a unit is anyway?
>>
Don't you have to have at least five a day,or am I confusing it with something else?
|
"Anyone on here regularly drink anything that retails for under 40p/unit?"
If they do then hurry down to your Bargain Booze store and buy 3 litres of 5.7% cider for £3.50, a mere 22p per unit of alcohol.
Two people can get drunk and still have £1.50 change from a fiver. Bargain. Capitalism certainly delivers the goods.
|
>> Anyone on here regularly drink anything that retails for under 40p/unit?
>>
>> I'd love to know
If you're talking prices in the big supermarkets then 40p/unit is achieved via multibuy offers. Mass market products such as Stella, Magners etc are almost continually on 3 for 2 or 3 for £20 or some such thing. Wine at £8/bottle or 3 for £10 is the most absurd I've seen. Reasonably regular in Sainsburys - usually for Italian stuff that might reasonably be £4 a bottle. Judging by the bargains thread I suspect plenty of us use these - without necking the lot in a night.
The discounters on the other hand have perfectly drinkable stuff honestly priced in single packs/quantities at well under the 40p price. Like MAdf upthread I find Aldi's 'Brasserie' at a few pence over £3 for 10 25cl bottles at 4.8% ABV just as good as the Tesco equivalent. Their ciders are similarly priced. They also have drinkable wines from £3+/bottle - and stuff that's OK for cooking or parties at £2.99.
I suspect this market is completely off Miinster's radar.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 25 Mar 12 at 09:25
|
I expect that the deals you outline are exactly the sort of thing the proposal is aimed at.
1. The cheaper and more accessible drink is the more some people will drink.
2. The effects of excessive drink are extremely costly to both the individual and society both in terms of anti social behaviour and costs to the NHS.
3. The government would like to reduce these costs by reducing alcohol consumption
4 Research shows this could be done by increasing the cost of alcohol at the bottom end.
Obviously there is an issue of personal freedom here. Is it right to increase the cost to some individuals in order that the costs to other are reduced? Some will think one way other and some another but the freedom to buy wine of a sort at £2.99 a bottle is not one for which I shall be manning the barricades.
|
CG, I'm no expert but I'm not sure about your points 1, and 4.
The measures seem to be aimed at binge drinkers who go and "pre -load" and then go to clubs, pubs, etc. with the deliberate aim of getting "hammered". If this is their intention then sticking 30 - 40p on the price of a can of beer from the supermarket won't make much difference and, since prices in pubs/clubs are much more expensive anyway, it won't affect the consumption there. I don't think there are many problem binge drinkers who go to the supermarket, buy BOGOF cheap booze and go home to watch X Factor.
With regard to Point one, I remember the days when supermarkets didn't sell cheap booze but we still managed to find the local off-licences or pubs off sales to buy booze.
With regard to point 4, I can't find anything on research which "proves" this point and, in fact, I remember from (many years ago!!) studying Economics and being told that many goods were "price-demand inelastic" (?) and were beloved of Governments because they could stick more tax on them without affecting demand to any great extent thus guaranteeing an increased tax income. The examples always given were fags, booze and petrol!
In addition I seem to think that the countries in Europe with the worst "binge-drinking", anti-social behaviour problems are the N Europeans (Iceland, Norway, Sweden, UK) where booze is very expensive compared to, say, France (where there are often people in bars having their first beer or pastis at 10am), Italy, Spain etc. By the way, there is an even greater difference between supermarket and bar beer/wine in France than here!
It suggests that the problem is "cultural" - maybe Anglo-Saxon/Scandinavian v Latin/S European?? So is this measure likely to make a difference? I don't think so -- but feel free to disagree!!
P
|
Here you go. These are the documents on which the proposed legislation is based.
www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/alcohol-drugs/alcohol/alcohol-pricing/
|
Thanks CG - there's a lot of reading there - I'll get back to you (one day!!)
P
|
>> Anyone on here regularly drink anything that retails for under 40p/unit?
>>
Tap water, and the way that's going not for long. I do occasionally buy the "Happy Shopper" version of Red Bull which is currently 35p IIRC. It's a long while since I paid 40p or less for a cup of tea even at transport cafe prices though.
PhilW makes a valid point there; like a fair few of us I'm old enough to readily convert back to pre-decimal currency and it's a frequent raiser of eyebrows, not least amongst the new-family 20-somethings who are currently experiencing the kind of inflation which last occurred when I was a teenager; only this time it's rather more subtle.
|
>> like a fair few of us I'm old enough to readily convert back to pre-decimal currency
Yes, a single B&H king size costs seven bob. In 1960 or so you could get a wrap of marijuana for five bob in the East End.
But people earning £1000 then would be earning £25,000 now.
|
|
I remember the old money very well.I grew up with the decimal system and had to learn Sixpences ten bob notes etc.Got used to the English system and back to decimal.You can't win.>:)
|
>> Anyone on here regularly drink anything that retails for under 40p/unit?
Just wanted some cheap-ish lager for the summer weather so bought a pack of (only) 4 Asda Pilsners yesterday morning. 4 x 500ml, 4% = 80mls = 8 units, for £2.80 = 35p per unit. And it's quite drinkable on a sunny day.
Last edited by: Focus on Sun 25 Mar 12 at 11:46
|
Would you have noticed/cared if it was £3.20?
I doubt it unless you drink 2 packs of 4 every day of the week.
|
>> Would you have noticed/cared if it was £3.20?
Probably - at that price I'd start looking at the Carlsbergs/Heinikens/Fosters etc. as well. At £2.80 they pretty much picked themselves.
But if you're asking whether I'd still buy lager at 4 cans for £3.20, then sure.
|
|
BTW the 1 litre bottle of 50% branded Vodka we bought for stepson on the plane for 12 euros on the way back from Tenerife works out at about 20p per unit :o
|
>> >> Anyone on here regularly drink anything that retails for under 40p/unit?
>>
>> Just wanted some cheap-ish lager for the summer weather so bought a pack of (only)
>> 4 Asda Pilsners yesterday morning. 4 x 500ml, 4% = 80mls = 8 units, for
>> £2.80 = 35p per unit.
Much too expensive. Asda 'Bierre De Luxe' 10 x 250ml bottles, 4.8%, for £3.05 (not a special offer) = 25p/unit. At that strength I shouldn't need to drink too many before it starts to taste really good :)
EDIT: and it is actually French according to Asda website
Last edited by: Focus on Wed 28 Mar 12 at 10:53
|
>> Asda 'Bierre De Luxe' 10 x 250ml bottles, 4.8%, for £3.05 (not
>> a special offer) = 25p/unit.
...However, I notice that although it is still described as 'premium strength French lager', its percentage has dropped to 4.2. (And it's now £7 for a pack of 20.)
To me, 'premium' implies 5%-ish, and while 4.8 is close enough, I would class 4.2 as in the same category as your non-premium Carling/Fosters etc. I feel like a strongly worded letter of complaint is in order... :)
|
>> It's a most un-Conservative policy too. Lord knows what Cameron thinks he'll get out of
>> this, I'm beginning to wonder if the man has any real nous at all.
Repeat after me 100 times, "Cameron is NOT a Conservative"
|
Units? Easy...
One bottle of whisky is a unit isn't it?
Worksh for me.
Last edited by: Humph D'Bout on Sun 25 Mar 12 at 10:54
|
I can only manage to squeeze a tad more than four units from a 75cl bottle of wine, and Grouse decanted into the 'single' (hitherto unused) end of my jigger spirit measure would barely dampen the base of my whisky glass.
Perhaps I'm just greedy.
|
Oh to be fair, I hardly ever drink more than half a unit at a time and then not that often...
:-)
|
|
Clinical definition of alcoholism is someone who drinks more than their GP.
|
|
And a reckless driver is anyone who drives faster than you...
|
I have never heard of anyone who has gone out and got drunk worry at all about the number of "units" they have drunk!
The only binge-er (?) I know well, when I ask him how he is on a Monday, doesn't say "Feel a bit rough - got through 27 units last night" he says "Feel a bit rough, had a few pints down the pub then went onto **** club and had about a dozen double vodkas and Red Bull. Had a few other drinks as well but can't remember what - oh and a bottle of wine with the curry later"
Do you think 30/40p on the price of supermarket beer wil have any effect on him?
|
What does surprise me how many young women getting kalied. (spelling).
They scare me more than young men.>:)
|
... getting kalied. (spelling)...
Try 'drunk'.
|
Just been doing some research on the Asda website, and I can see now why cider is the drink of choice on the streets.
Asda Premium Cider: 2l 5.3% £2.27 = 21p/unit
Hawksridge Cider: 2l 4.2% £1.53 = 18p/unit
And with all those apples no doubt you're getting 1 of your 5 a day as well :)
|
...and I can see now why cider is the drink of choice on the streets...
Cider traditionally has a duty advantage, making super strength cider generally cheaper than super strength beer or lager.
True alcoholics also know some volume of drink, as well as strength, is needed to get smashed most efficiently.
Cider and sherry is a good combination.
|
"Cider and sherry is a good combination."
Thanks Iffy - I'll give it a go!!
|
A couple of pints of rough cider and two schooners of port.
Take one pint glass of scrumpy. Drink enough cider to make a space: tip in one schooner of the port: drink both combination pints: fall over!
(Discovered at a T.A. camp in Norfolk many years ago!)
|
Backfast is the answer
Shamelessly stolen from wiki
in Scotland, Buckfast is associated with drinkers who are prone to committing anti-social behaviour when drunk, especially drinkers under 18 years old. Its high strength (15% ABV/14.8% in the Republic of Ireland), relatively low price and sweetness are characteristics that are thought to appeal to underage drinkers.[5] The drink also has a very high caffeine content, with each 750ml bottle containing the equivalent of eight cans of cola.[6]
Several Scottish politicians and social activists have singled out Buckfast Tonic Wine as being particularly responsible for crime, disorder, and general social deprivation in these communities. Although Buckfast accounts for only 0.5% of alcohol sales in Scotland, the figure is markedly higher in Lanarkshire.[7][8] Helen Liddell, former Secretary of State for Scotland, called for the wine to be banned. In 2005 Scottish Justice Minister, Cathy Jamieson MSP, suggested that retailers should stop selling the wine. On a subsequent visit to Auchinleck within her constituency, she was greeted by teenagers chanting, "Don't ban Buckie".[9] Jamieson then received correspondences from lawyers acting for Buckfast distributors, J Chandler & Co., in Andover. [10] A further consequence was that Buckfast sales increased substantially in the months following Jamieson's comments.[8]
In September 2006, Andy Kerr, the Scottish Executive's Health Minister described the drink as "an irresponsible drink in its own right" and a contributor to anti-social behaviour. The distributors denied the claims and accused him of showing "bad manners" and a "complete lack of judgement" regarding the drink.[11] Kerr met with J Chandler & Co. to discuss ways of lessening Buckfast's impact on west Scotland but the talks broke up without agreement. Three months later, Jack McConnell, First Minister of Scotland stated that Buckfast had become a "a badge of pride amongst those who are involved in antisocial behaviour."[12] In response the distributors accused the Scottish Executive of trying to avoid having to deal with the consequences of failed social policy and the actual individuals involved in antisocial behaviour by blaming it all on the drinks industry.
However in January 2010 a BBC investigation revealed that Buckfast had been mentioned in 5,638 crime reports in the Strathclyde area of Scotland from 2006–2009, equating to an average of three per day. One in 10 of those offences had been violent and 114 times in that period a Buckfast bottle was used as a weapon. A survey at a Scottish young offenders’ institution showed of the 117 people who drank alcohol before committing their crimes, 43 percent said they had drunk Buckfast. In another study of litter around a typical council estate in Scotland, 35 percent of the items identified as rubbish were Buckfast bottles.[13][14]
The monks of Buckfast Abbey and their distribution partners strenuously deny that their product is particularly harmful, saying that it is responsibly and legally enjoyed by the great majority of purchasers. They also point out that the areas identified with its acute misuse have been economically deprived for decades and Buckfast represents less than one percent of the total alcohol sales in these places - actual figure 0.58% of alcohol sales.[15]
11.25 units for £6.50
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 25 Mar 12 at 21:02
|
>> 11.25 units for £6.50
That's relatively expensive - 58p/unit.
EDIT: I meant compared to the ~20p/unit of cider
Last edited by: Focus on Sun 25 Mar 12 at 21:16
|
For many years Buckfast's biggest market was an area in Lanarkshire - the concern with 'Buckie' is the combination of alcohol and caffeine... and the bottle itself!
90% of head injuries in Monklands district general hospital on a Fri/Sat/Sun were males who had been hit with a Buckie bottle. A request to have the product sold in plastic bottles was refused by the monks at Buckfast.
A very large proportion of these drinkers also partake of diazepam, which disinhibits nicely along with alcohol and caffeine.
I was working in Monklands back in the 90s and a couple of us went in to a nearby pub for a pint. A rather dishevelled chap came in and asked for 'a wine' - I thought WTF... until I saw Buckfast was up on the wall with an optic attached.
Also saw a fair few neds come in with their paralytic mates, panicking: "My mates puking blood - he's puking blood!"
Almost invariably it was just Buckie down the front of their (previously) white shellsuits.
|
|
A good friend's nephew, now a priest, was a novice at Buckfast 20 years ago. Lost his watch in the brew once. They weren't overly concerned.
|
>>The monks of Buckfast Abbey and their distribution partners strenuously deny that their product is particularly harmful, saying that it is responsibly and legally enjoyed by the great majority of purchasers. They also point out that the areas identified with its acute misuse have been economically deprived for decades and Buckfast represents less than one percent of the total alcohol sales in these places - actual figure 0.58% of alcohol sales
>> A survey at a Scottish young offenders’ institution showed of the 117 people who drank alcohol before committing their crimes, 43 percent said they had drunk Buckfast.
Do the math.... 0.58% of alcohol consumed is Buckfast yet it's consumption is associated with 43% of those who had been drinking prior to commiting crimes (serious enough to warrant jailtime).
That is NOT a ringing endorsement of the product!
(or the fuds who drink it).
|
|
you cant go wrong with a watneys party 7.....you would probably still be road legal after a sesh on one
|
|
I wonder if this will refuel a resurgence in home-brew (Tom Caxton type kits)?
|
|
Maybe but if this comes through, the rate of illegal/dodgy booze will go up, it's already gone up. A couple of people were killed round my way last year in a garage lock up brewery.
|
>> I wonder if this will refuel a resurgence in home-brew (Tom Caxton type kits)?
Been contemplating exactly that for a while. Start with one bucket and beershpere and gradually expand production.
|
|
I once made a 40pt bitter-kit about 6yrs ago, didnt taste like Boddy`s or Tetley, so I wasn`t too keen! - by the time I`d had about 30pts I quite liked it! - and also I`ve noticed that when I`m down the pub, I`m having an increasingly larger no of pints of Real-Ale! - tastes must be changing!
|
Minimum alcohol pricing - Roger.
