In July of this year the Irish Government introduced "Random Breath testing" on Irish Roads in an effort to stop the endless carnage and death that was happening particularly in the early hours of the morning.Since this has been introduced many rural pubs in Ireland have been closing, and I think that the figure is somewhere around 100 in 2006. It is expected that this figure will be higher in 2007. The Irish Vintiners Association has blamed the introduction of the new laws in the demise of the Irish Rural Pub, saying that people are not prepared to drink a few pints and then drive home due the higher probability of getting caught. They also dragged out the "smoking ban" again to support their claim.

From the above it would appear that the Vintiners were happy to serve drink to anyone who wanted it and then once they left there was no responsibility on them. This conjures up in my mind something like "well I did'nt give him/her the gun, but I loaned him a few bullets, what was done with those bullets is nothing to do with me".

Now a Government Minister Eamon O Cuiv has announced that the Department of Transport is considering extending the rural bus service to later at night in order to facilitate bringing rural drinkers to the pub for a few pints and a chat.

He said it could be extended further in the evenings for a "modest sum of money".

I find this unbelieveable, here we are in a society that drink is taken in huge amounts causing injury, death, damage to lives and families and this muppet Government is drawing up plans to bus people around that countryside so that they can go for a few pints and chat and line the pockets of the local friendly publician.

Why can't the pubs adapt to the change in the market, every other business that I have being involved with has to change and adapt in order to continue in business. No not the Vintiners, they are special if they are losing customers its the Government who will introduce measures to bring the customers to it. It should be noted at this point that this is the same Government that basically told BUPA to "feck off " or operate in the market that was there, why can't the Government turn around to the Vintiners and tell them "feck off"?. The reason is that there is a General Election in May of this year and there are a lot of votes to be had in rural Ireland and these votes are very important at present as the election will be close.

Another thing what defines "a modest sum of money"? will we ever get an answer? I doubt it, so you and me, the taxpayer, can look at the money that the Government takes from us and be content in the knowledge that rather than been spent on Health or Roads etc its going to be spent on minibuses up and down the country ferrying locals to the pub. Its only when you right this down to realise how feckin annoying this is.

Of course the government has denied that it is encouraging drinking, but if you are paying or subsidising the transport of people to pubs what are you doing? If the people are drinking lemonade they d'ont need the bus.

If the argument is that this will help people to socialise why d'ont the people organise for one person to drive and rotate this on a weekly basis?

Finally will the bus stop for chips on the way home and if so will the government issue all the merry bus passengers with a voucher for a bag of chips and a carton of mushy peas to round of a perfect evening?

Add a comment

 | Link | back to top |

Can we really call a Government running one of the most successful economies in the world a "muppet Government"?

They must be doing something right!

Just to complete the views I expressed, there were in fact 226 rural pub closures in 2006. However many of these licences were sold for a sum of between €150,000 and €175,000, not a bad return. Additionally drink sales are actually are rising in Ireland which would again ask the question why ca'nt the rural pub adapt?.

On the point of "muppet Government" in the previous comment, I am not criticising the Government on running the economy, I am refering to them as muppets for listening and then accommadating vested interests. Governments and politicians are meant to legislate and run society for the greater good not for a chosen few.

Could you enlighten us more about the "not a bad return" when you speak about the sale of licences?

Surely the landlords had to buy the licences themselves to start with.

 As I understand it, licences have dropped considerably in price recently. So in addition to making a loss on the licence sale the landlords have also had to close their business and look for a new livlihood - seems an odd definition for "not a bad return".

 

If the Government decides to go ahead with this, which no doubt they will, How are they going to have a bus outside every pub at closing time? or are will they propose that licencing laws be relaxed as well?

Not a bad return means that if you possess an asset, be it tangible or intangible, and that asset is'nt generating any revenue, its economic value is nil as it has no wealth generating potential. If you can sell this asset which under normal accounting rules would be depreciated or amortised,depending on type, over its useful life for a greater amount than shown on your accounts you generate, this is called profit. So if the asset value on your books is nil,and revenue being generated is nil, but you sell the asset for say €150,000 that is a very good or a not a bad return.

Now that we understand this the blog was about mini-buses, excess drinking, and  Government assistance to vested interest's not about economics or GAAP, but having said that I am glad to enlighten.

Well I thought "return" would have been used in the context of investment, as in "return on investment"

i.e. I bought a pub licence for €500,000 which I now sell for €150,000. I make a loss on my investment.

What you seem to be saying is "ah sure you have to forget about the €500,000, you know like that's spent. It's worth nothing, and €150,000 back on nothing is not a bad return".

I'm not sure this is very enlightening, although I will grant you it is different.