Europe-wide savings cut Lidl's booze costs
2:20pm Monday 21st January 2013 in News
Europe-wide savings cut Lidl's booze costs
LIDL has responded to a survey by the Adver showing some supermarket alcohol is cheaper than at the cash and carry. The survey also found rock-bottom alcohol prices at the main stores in the town.
The Government is proposing to introduce minimum pricing to tackle binge drinking.
The pub trade is also calling for the measure to help it compete with supermarkets.
Lidl was among the stores in the survey.
A spokesman said: “We aim to offer our customers the highest quality products at the lowest possible prices.
“We are an international retailer with 600 stores in the UK and thousands more across Europe.
“As we are able to offer the same product to customers in a number of countries, we benefit from economies of scale so our customers receive the low prices they have come to expect.”
Comments(19)
fatman
says...
2:38pm Mon 21 Jan 13
A.Baron-Cohen
says...
3:17pm Mon 21 Jan 13
benzss
says...
4:37pm Mon 21 Jan 13
This winds me up.
I personally love a good pub... there are a few good'uns in the Old Town area I frequent fairly regularly, but one thing they ain't is cheap.
So, 'pub industry' - or people who claim to be spokespersons thereof - tell me why exactly I should pay more because you guys are uncompetitive?
Should we also have a minimum price on electronic goods bought online because Comet has gone bust?!
Hmmmf
says...
5:23pm Mon 21 Jan 13
faatmaan
says...
5:52pm Mon 21 Jan 13
itsamess3
says...
10:42pm Mon 21 Jan 13
I love the atmosphere in a good pub and do not agree with the smoking ban as i believe folk tolerated smokers for centuries-until the ban. I do not smoke but i would most certainly not ask guests in my home to go outside to smoke.
A good pub will be well supported if they provide a good service-regardless of cheap booze on offer at supermarkets.
RichardR1
says...
8:12am Tue 22 Jan 13
As for the old, why are pubs dearer, I would have thought that would be obvious to most people.
I think the use of the word tolerate, in the context of smokers is wrong. People simply had no concerns, and most still don't about passive smoke. It is only the easily indoctrinated few who sadly seem to shout the loudest that are creating a two tier society where health is concerned.
The reality is if we cured all the social illnesses the world would come to a grinding halt with mass over population.
So if some die early they save on health and social care, pensions and the like.
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man
says...
9:50am Tue 22 Jan 13
RichardR1 wrote:Sorry, but that's rubbish. as a non-smoker I now frequent pubs far more than I used to, as do most of my family.
Why pick on just one supermarket Advertiser.
As for the old, why are pubs dearer, I would have thought that would be obvious to most people.
I think the use of the word tolerate, in the context of smokers is wrong. People simply had no concerns, and most still don't about passive smoke. It is only the easily indoctrinated few who sadly seem to shout the loudest that are creating a two tier society where health is concerned.
The reality is if we cured all the social illnesses the world would come to a grinding halt with mass over population.
So if some die early they save on health and social care, pensions and the like.
I could not "tolerate" smokers breathing their death sticks in my face before the ban and I certainly can't now. I know many, many people that feel the same.
The role of a pub has changed, some have adapted but some haven't, and it's these that are going under.
benzss
says...
10:46am Tue 22 Jan 13
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:You and your family may go to pubs more, but on the whole people aren't going as much. Is it correlation or causation, who knows, but since the smoking ban there has been a precipitous drop in the number of open pubs.
RichardR1 wrote: Why pick on just one supermarket Advertiser. As for the old, why are pubs dearer, I would have thought that would be obvious to most people. I think the use of the word tolerate, in the context of smokers is wrong. People simply had no concerns, and most still don't about passive smoke. It is only the easily indoctrinated few who sadly seem to shout the loudest that are creating a two tier society where health is concerned. The reality is if we cured all the social illnesses the world would come to a grinding halt with mass over population. So if some die early they save on health and social care, pensions and the like.Sorry, but that's rubbish. as a non-smoker I now frequent pubs far more than I used to, as do most of my family. I could not "tolerate" smokers breathing their death sticks in my face before the ban and I certainly can't now. I know many, many people that feel the same. The role of a pub has changed, some have adapted but some haven't, and it's these that are going under.
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man
says...
10:52am Tue 22 Jan 13
benzss wrote:The smoking ban also came into effect around the same time as everyone ran out of (borrowed) money, and just before the whole economy went bad. But of course that couldn't have anything to do with it could it? Good pubs that cater to the current demographic are still making money. Just not so much through alcohol.
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:You and your family may go to pubs more, but on the whole people aren't going as much. Is it correlation or causation, who knows, but since the smoking ban there has been a precipitous drop in the number of open pubs.
RichardR1 wrote: Why pick on just one supermarket Advertiser. As for the old, why are pubs dearer, I would have thought that would be obvious to most people. I think the use of the word tolerate, in the context of smokers is wrong. People simply had no concerns, and most still don't about passive smoke. It is only the easily indoctrinated few who sadly seem to shout the loudest that are creating a two tier society where health is concerned. The reality is if we cured all the social illnesses the world would come to a grinding halt with mass over population. So if some die early they save on health and social care, pensions and the like.Sorry, but that's rubbish. as a non-smoker I now frequent pubs far more than I used to, as do most of my family. I could not "tolerate" smokers breathing their death sticks in my face before the ban and I certainly can't now. I know many, many people that feel the same. The role of a pub has changed, some have adapted but some haven't, and it's these that are going under.
house on the hill
says...
2:07pm Tue 22 Jan 13
Davey Gravey
says...
2:30pm Tue 22 Jan 13
RichardR1 wrote:Robert deal Martinez used to say just the same thing. Coincidence I suppose as you're not him are you dicky? Utter rubbish by the way. People hated stinking of smoke
Why pick on just one supermarket Advertiser.
As for the old, why are pubs dearer, I would have thought that would be obvious to most people.
I think the use of the word tolerate, in the context of smokers is wrong. People simply had no concerns, and most still don't about passive smoke. It is only the easily indoctrinated few who sadly seem to shout the loudest that are creating a two tier society where health is concerned.
The reality is if we cured all the social illnesses the world would come to a grinding halt with mass over population.
So if some die early they save on health and social care, pensions and the like.
Tim Newroman
says...
6:08pm Tue 22 Jan 13
Also, in pubs where half-decent food is served I'm sure even smokers agree that the eating environment is improved where there's no smoke.
I didn't originally agree with the smoking ban, as I believe anyone over 18 should be able to smoke cigarettes in an over 18 venue if they so choose... but over time, I think it's probably been a moderately good thing as opposed to a bad thing.
The MASSIVE taxation on alcohol and the general downturn in the economy under Labour are what have hindered some pubs.
LordAshOfTheBrake
says...
8:06pm Tue 22 Jan 13
I'm in agreement of "The Artist....", in that there was a big realisation that the money was gone and people found alternative and cheaper ways to enjoy alcohol without going to the pub where it is significantly more expensive. The smoking ban may have been an accelerant, but the decline would have happened anyway.
Food has always been the biggest money maker for pubs and those pubs that served good food have always done well. Service in pubs has gone downhill and like many other people; once I get bad service somewhere I try never to go back. Hence the reason I'm rarely in the Blunsdon Arms even though its on my doorstep!
RichardR1
says...
10:06am Wed 23 Jan 13
Amazing how no two people on these threads can have similar views must be the same person. Now I wonder what statistically that would mean with a world population in the billions.
LordAshOfTheBrake
says...
1:24pm Wed 23 Jan 13
According to this link, the number is 1500; however it also says that many were changing into alternative license premises.
http://www.independe
nt.co.uk/news/uk/hom
e-news/the-big-quest
ion-why-are-so-many-
pubs-shutting-down-a
nd-is-their-decline-
bad-for-society-7920
22.html
itsamess3
says...
10:50am Thu 24 Jan 13
In my experience smokers always enjoyed a smoke in between courses- be it in a pub/club or restaurant-some provided a separate area for non smokers-much smaller and rarely filled.
However the decline was inevitable due to less free houses and overpriced drinks including soft drinks for the non drinkers.
Lord Ash
Agreed the credit crunch started the decline and drove costs up on most things-stabilisation can take time and there are signs of that.
Bob
The pub losses could have been less but inevitable as it was not soely due to the ban.
Amazing how no two people on these threads can have similar views must be the same person. Now I wonder what statistically that would mean with a world population in the billions.
Totally barmy comment
RichardR1
says...
12:05pm Thu 24 Jan 13
Davey Gravey says...
2:38pm Mon 21 Jan 13