Joe1234 said:Is the lifting of the order immediate? When will we actually be able to buy groceries cheaper?
Who cares about the small shopkeeper anyway? Close down if its not profitable, its called redundancy and it happens every day. Get a job in the new Spar instead.
ClubMan said:Before Easter [broken link removed]. But isn't it the case that any shop that decided to sell below (invoice) cost now would hardly be prosecuted or taken to task over it now that the Order is to be repealed? Not that I'd condone lawbreaking obviously...
ClubMan said:Where does this 75% come from? According to http://www.environ.ie/DOEI/DOEIPol.nsf/0/62d49d52d4bc449780256f0f003bc7ea/$FILE/2.%20Ireland%201992%20and%202002.pdf (this report) c. 60% of the population of Ireland lived in urban areas in 2000 and possibly even more today. Also 1.5 million of a total population of just less than 4 million, or almost 40%, lived in the greater Dublin area in 2001. Do you really believe that 75% of the population live in the sticks with no choice in terms of where they can shop other than the local shop? And if they do and there is no other choice then surely the local shop is not under threat by default??
ClubMan said:Rather than working off clues that you detect in the tone why don't you just read the words instead?
OK - so you made it up. Thanks for clarifying that.Gunnerbar said:OK 75% was a guesstimate
You seem to be bemoaning the threat to certain "local cornershops" (images of The League of Gentlemen spring to mind) posed by the multiples especially in the aftermath of the abolition of the GO but you also bemoan the lack of choice in terms of shopping outlets available to certain remote (?) communities. How do you square this seemingly contradictory argument? If the community only has the local shop then it is not under threat. If the multiples move in then they have more choice. Which is more important in your view because you can't really have both?Yes, the real independents. The local cornershop. Who have also to survive against the franchises as well as the conglomerates.
...
In all fairness now I'm not talking about those that live in or near a town, who would have access to every style of outlet and can pick and choose. I'm talking about the other 75% of the population to whom these local shops serve.
Good luck to you if you have a real choice to pick and choose and don't live a distance away.
Haven't a clue what you mean by making the tone of my posts clearer. I try to concentrate on keeping the content as clear as possible but some people still seem fixated on tone for some reason...Give me a break Clubman. Try making the tone of your posts clearer if I got you wrong!
ClubMan said:OK - so you made it up. Thanks for clarifying that.
ClubMan said:Anyway - can you explain this seeming contradiction:
You seem to be bemoaning the threat to certain "local cornershops" (images of The League of Gentlemen spring to mind) posed by the multiples especially in the aftermath of the abolition of the GO but you also bemoan the lack of choice in terms of shopping outlets available to certain remote (?) communities. How do you square this seemingly contradictory argument? If the community only has the local shop then it is not under threat. If the multiples move in then they have more choice. Which is more important in your view because you can't really have both?
ClubMan said:Haven't a clue what you mean by making the tone of my posts clearer. I try to concentrate on keeping the content as clear as possible but some people still seem fixated on tone for some reason...
jister said:Who cares about the small shopkeeper anyway? Close down if its not profitable, its called redundancy and it happens every day. Get a job in the new Spar instead.
I gave you the figures after you posted the 75% "guesstimate". Please try and pay attention. Not being pedantic either - just trying to clarify if there is any substance to your figures. Seemingly not.Gunnerbar said:Eh, no I didn't make it up. I estimated it from the figures you gave me. You know where I was coming from so there's no need to be so pedantic.
Er, well - yeah. What's your point?Firstly, have you ever been in a "corner shop".
I never mentioned suburban areas. As I said - read my words and don't try to infer things from tone and the like. You still haven't explained how you square your concern for the hard pressed "corner shop" owners with the lack of shopping outlet choices available to some people. Let me make it simple for you - which is more important to you: the survival of small independent retailers or the availability of wider choice (and value) to consumers?Secondly I wasn't bemoaning the lack of choice in suburban areas. I know right well you can't have a super market on every estate. But maybe you were trying to glean something from my (percieved) tone! {fixated indeed}!
Again, the figures were not complete for suburban areas which is what I was referring to! And I don't think I was enormously off the mark with what I was trying to illustrate!ClubMan said:I gave you the figures after you posted the 75% "guesstimate". Please try and pay attention. Not being pedantic either - just trying to clarify if there is any substance to your figures. Seemingly not.
Blatently obvious!ClubMan said:Er, well - yeah. What's your point?
ClubMan said:I never mentioned suburban areas. As I said - read my words and don't try to infer things from tone and the like. You still haven't explained how you square your concern for the hard pressed "corner shop" owners with the lack of shopping outlet choices available to some people. Let me make it simple for you - which is more important to you: the survival of small independent retailers or the availability of wider choice (and value) to consumers?
CCOVICH said:So prices increased in the UK, albeit at a slower rate.
ronan_d_john said:I think this is the key to the eventual (if it ever happens) repeal of the Groceries Order. Prices aren't necessarily going to decrease, and this €1000 saving for a family is a bit of a "pie in the sky" notion anyway.
Prices may not increase as fast because of the repeal of the Order, rather than prices going down (long term, rather than short term).
CCOVICH said:I think the figure that is/was being bandied about is closer to €500, but anyway.
Teabag said:Now that Michael Martin has abolished the Groceries Order, will he return the nappy I sent him ? I put the sender address on the back of the envelope.QUOTE]
Well, seeing as he hasn't actually abolished it, maybe he's keeping a hold of it in case prices don't drop between now and whenever he does actually abolish it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?