Minimum Pricing on Alcohol Per Unit

[Butts]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20515918


I note that The Government is proposing to bring forward legislation to introduce a minimum unit price of between 40p-50p on our tipples. This follows the proposals set before Holyrood in Scotland for a similar scheme.

The idea behind it is to penalise the "super ciders" and their like that allegedly enable those with a problem to indulge themselves due to the relative cheapness of the product.

Unfortunately caught in the crossfire are the ordinary members of the public who like a social drink and will also have to pay substantially higher prices for a pint at their local or bottle of wine with a meal.

As I understand it the rates of excise duty are not to be increased to achieve the mimimum pricing so this seems like a potential windfall for purveyors of alcohol such as supermarkets and off licences.

Unsuprisingly the "health zealots" are calling for an even higher price than 50p for a unit - now they have just about extinguished smokers they have a new target in their sights

Is this the right way to go about reducing excessive consumption by a minority effectively penalising everyone else in the process ?

 

[wintonian]

One hopes that instead of using alcohol as 'loss leaders' they will heavily discount in a more morally just way, rather than pocket the difference, and use items of necessity such as toiletries or fresh meet to preform that function instead.

An additional benefit that one might also perhaps hope for is that the gap between the price in the supermarket and the price down the pub decreases, leading to consumption moving back towards the public house, helping to support an industry that is in some fiscal difficulty.

Of-course an enactment of this policy would lead to overall consumption decreasing having an effect on the chancellors receipts, but this should be balanced out (perhaps over balanced) by a reduction of public spending in areas like healthcare and law & order.

 

[Butts]

One hopes that instead of using alcohol as 'loss leaders' they will heavily discount in a more morally just way, rather than pocket the difference, and use items of necessity such as toiletries or fresh meet to preform that function instead.

An additional benefit that one might also perhaps hope for is that the gap between the price in the supermarket and the price down the pub decreases, leading to consumption moving back towards the public house, helping to support an industry that is in some fiscal difficulty.

Of-course an enactment of this policy would lead to overall consumption decreasing having an effect on the chancellors receipts, but this should be balanced out (perhaps over balanced) by a reduction of public spending in areas like healthcare and law & order.

It beggars belief that The Government are missing the chance to pocket the extra revenue by way of duty using the excuse that the money will be spent on problems associated with alcohol abuse.

As you mention there has been talk against the 50p per unit figure as this is likely to have an adverse effect on the excise duty raised overall. Perhaps that is a clue to their real priorities

 

[wintonian]

It beggars belief that The Government are missing the chance to pocket the extra revenue by way of duty using the excuse that the money will be spent on problems associated with alcohol abuse.

As you mention there has been talk against the 50p per unit figure as this is likely to have an adverse effect on the excise duty raised overall. Perhaps that is a clue to their real priorities

This is a matter of expanding welfare policy and thus its provision through regulation, which in social democratic theory is a higher cause than the size of the treasurys coffers, although they cannot be seen in isolation.

Naturally those further round to the right would see things somewhat differently, perhaps even questioning the need or desirability of such regulating by the state.

 

[Butts]

This is a matter of expanding welfare policy and thus its provision through regulation, which in social democratic theory is a higher cause than the size of the treasurys coffers, although they cannot be seen in isolation.

Naturally those further round to the right would see things somewhat differently, perhaps even questioning the need or desirability of such regulating by the state.

The problem is that their track record is not that good - concern over the Environment resulted in Air Passenger Duty - but that is not hypothecated just "chucked in the general pot"

ps Have you not had your "Camomile Tea" as you are still awake at this crazy hour !!

 

[wintonian]

I never said that the state doesn't profess to require continual injection of resources - particularly financial ones.

But in terms of the overall tax receipts and general income of the state, increased revenue at one end means less borrowing, or the relaxation of another revenue stream in order to encourage market growth, which theoretically in turn increases things like the income tax and capital gains receipts but with out increasing them as proportion of income.

ps Have you not had your "Camomile Tea" as you are still awake at this crazy hour !!

I've been trying to avoid reading this book on the theories and concepts of social policy and unfortunately its use of language is overly and unnecessarily complex.

 

[Clip]

This will, in my opinion, just spread bootleg and highly dangerous spirits on to the market. Plenty of shops round my way already sell the stuff if you ask and tip the wink.

But as has been said the average punter of which are the majority will get stung here. And what will this do for already expensive ales and ciders? I know in places like the craft beer co and other such fine establishments that like to import beers and ciders not just from round the country but the world will push the price up considerably. Especially when you're paying £4.50 for a half already.

 

[Butts]

This will, in my opinion, just spread bootleg and highly dangerous spirits on to the market. Plenty of shops round my way already sell the stuff if you ask and tip the wink.

But as has been said the average punter of which are the majority will get stung here. And what will this do for already expensive ales and ciders? I know in places like the craft beer co and other such fine establishments that like to import beers and ciders not just from round the country but the world will push the price up considerably. Especially when you're paying £4.50 for a half already.

£4.50 per half....thats liquid gold

 

[wintonian]

£4.50 per half....thats liquid gold

I paid that once for half a larger in a restaurant in Mayfair 10 year ago.

 

[Clip]

£4.50 per half....thats liquid gold

Its stunning stuff. Cant remember the name of it right now but they had a few of them in at that price.

I wont let on how much some of the bottles are - you may fall off your chair

 

[Butts]

I paid that once for half a larger in a restaurant in Mayfair 10 year ago.

Half a larger ??????

That social policy book is "doing your head in"
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Its stunning stuff. Cant remember the name of it right now but they had a few of them in at that price.

I wont let on how much some of the bottles are - you may fall off your chair

Did they sell "Buckfast Tonic Wine" at this establishment ?

 

[wintonian]

Half a larger ??????

Well I can't complain to much, not after all the free wine I had at a function at the Royal Society of Arts or was it Lancaster House - I can't remember now, but it was all very nice.

 

[341o2]

will this affect the subsidised bars in Westminster? Still, I expect it will go down as MP's expenses

The suggestion that this may contravene EU trading laws will probably be the deciding factor

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I see the body representing the drinks industry have once again come out with their standard statement.....It will penalise the responsible drinkers.

Is it not the proposal to penalise the irresponsible drinkers whose actions over recent years, especially as this section were given carte blanche to carry on their total irresponsible drinking habits. It is bodies who are part of the drinks industry who set "happy hour" periods et al.

Do not senior members of the drinks industry ever look at the events that are caused by "binge drinking", caused by either purchase of a full-caseload of supermarket loss-leader offers for home consumption or by events in town/city centres by alcohol marketing promotions.

It reminds me of the person who is no longer the flagship leader of the BBC, who when questioned what his views were on certain programmes that had caused uproar, gave responses that he had seen none of these and seemed totally unaware of what had occurred.

Ever heard of the story of Admiral Nelson, who in response to a query put to him in a fraught period of a naval event, put his telescope to his blind eye and made the statement...."I see no ships".

 

[Richard1960]

Hmmm not a good idea in my opinion why should the price i pay go up just because of a few idiots who abuse it.

We either want a free market or not whatever next a extra tax on creamy butter because it blocks the arteries.

 

[jon0844]

I don't see a problem. It's not a tax meaning 45-50p is added per unit, but a minimum... given the examples I've seen - it will do away with 20p cans of lager.

I have tried a Tesco value lager, once, and it was awful. The only reason you might drink any of these super cheap drinks is to get hammered - nothing else.

We don't NEED to drink alcohol and when people do, surely it's about drinking something that we enjoy. I'd expect that what I'd normally drink won't go up in price much at all.

So, if it stops kids buying cheap booze just to get wasted then I really do not see an issue. Responsible drinkers aren't likely to be moaning about cheap cans of beer or bottles of cider, are they?!

 

[Richard1960]

I don't see a problem. It's not a tax meaning 45-50p is added per unit, but a minimum... given the examples I've seen - it will do away with 20p cans of lager.

I have tried a Tesco value lager, once, and it was awful. The only reason you might drink any of these super cheap drinks is to get hammered - nothing else.

We don't NEED to drink alcohol and when people do, surely it's about drinking something that we enjoy. I'd expect that what I'd normally drink won't go up in price much at all.

So, if it stops kids buying cheap booze just to get wasted then I really do not see an issue. Responsible drinkers aren't likely to be moaning about cheap cans of beer or bottles of cider, are they?!

If the extra money was going to treat victims of alcohol i might reluctantly agree,it just seems though more cash for the supermarkets/manufacturers.

What else would we like to see government poke its nose into our shopping baskets.

But there you go.:cry:

 

[Eagle]

If the extra money was going to treat victims of alcohol i might reluctantly agree,it just seems though more cash for the supermarkets/manufacturers.

But in the vast majority of cases there is no extra money. Most alcohol as priced currently is above the limit anyway.

 

[Richard1960]

But in the vast majority of cases there is no extra money. Most alcohol as priced currently is above the limit anyway.

No agreed certainly not the type i buy anyway,but like all government thinking it could just be the thin end of a very long wedge once started into controlling prices higher up the margins,and i do not trust then not to do that one bit sadly.

Lower down the margins any extra money generated should be used to help people in my view indeed as you say if there is any.

I will give you an example iceland heavily regulates alcohol, and in the supermarkets you can only buy lower strength beer,you have to go to an off licence type place to get stronger beer,and here is the rub a freind of mine who went recently said a bottle of vodka was £22 which you can buy in tecos for around £12,so there would be plenty more scope for government interference once the door is open to it in my view.

 

[yorksrob]

I would only support this measure in conjunction with the scrapping of the beer tax escalator to allow the pub industry to recover.

 

[Butts]

I would only support this measure in conjunction with the scrapping of the beer tax escalator to allow the pub industry to recover.

That combined with the "smoking ban" was a double whammy

 

[yorksrob]

That combined with the "smoking ban" was a double whammy

Indeed it was. And the forcing of smokers outdoors has created untold noise problems for nearby residents. (I've never been against smokers being allowed a ventilated room away from the bar)

 

[wintonian]

Indeed it was. And the forcing of smokers outdoors has created untold noise problems for nearby residents. (I've never been against smokers being allowed a ventilated room away from the bar)

It's nt the smokers that cause most of the issues here, rather its the ******ed up students at 03:00. :-x

ps. I didn't know the use of $$ could be considered swearing.

 

[Greenback]

One hopes that instead of using alcohol as 'loss leaders' they will heavily discount in a more morally just way, rather than pocket the difference, and use items of necessity such as toiletries or fresh meet to preform that function instead.

An additional benefit that one might also perhaps hope for is that the gap between the price in the supermarket and the price down the pub decreases, leading to consumption moving back towards the public house, helping to support an industry that is in some fiscal difficulty.

Of-course an enactment of this policy would lead to overall consumption decreasing having an effect on the chancellors receipts, but this should be balanced out (perhaps over balanced) by a reduction of public spending in areas like healthcare and law & order.

Good post. As I understand it, none of the drinks currently sold in a pub or restaurant would be affected, as they would all be charging more than the 40-60p per unti price level anyway. There may be a few possible exceptions, but if we think it is a good idea for licenced establishments to be selling things like shots at 50p a go, we might as well give up now.

(As an aside how many units are there in a bottle of Corky's?)

 

[Eagle]

As an aside how many units are there in a bottle of Corky's?

700 ml at 15% equals 10½ units. (So the minimum price would be £4.73.)

 

[SS4]

(As an aside how many units are there in a bottle of Corky's?)

number of units = volume (ml) * strength (% by volume)/1000
I'm not au fait with Corky's so can't tell you

It won't surprise anyone to know I'm against this, it prevents buying in bulk and thus taking advantage of the economies of scale. I've got 32 cans of cider because it was cheap - does the government really think I'm going to drink them all?

It's not needed and it won't solve anything bar giving Osborne more cash.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
but in case I'm wrong perhaps some of our Scottish members could enlighten us as to any changes (if any)

 

[Eagle]

I've got 32 cans of cider because it was cheap - does the government really think I'm going to drink them all?

I put it to you that you are going to drink them all. Eventually.

It's not needed and it won't solve anything bar giving Osborne more cash.

Although it'll be the retailers pocketing most of the extra money. The minimum price isn't a tax (although of course tax still applies to the new price at the same rate).

 

[Greenback]

It probably won't do much, but some sort of action to curb excessive binge drinking.

 

[wintonian]

but in case I'm wrong perhaps some of our Scottish members could enlighten us as to any changes (if any)

Scotland's plans are on hold pending a judical review, brought by none other than the Scotch Whisky Association - so no self preserving interest there then.

 

[Butts]

Scotland's plans are on hold pending a judical review, brought by none other than the Scotch Whisky Association - so no self preserving interest there then.

Correct - theres certainly a row brewing up here