Metropol

The Monopoly promotion started again last week. But I've seen a lot of complaints about it on Facebook - the tokens aren't stickers any more and there's no game board. Why did they change that?

JAS84 wrote: ↑Fri 30 Mar, 2018 13.48 The Monopoly promotion started again last week. But I've seen a lot of complaints about it on Facebook - the tokens aren't stickers any more and there's no game board. Why did they change that?

Because so few people used them? There were always piles of the boards at the counter left uncollected.

Apparently, you can now track your stickers online, if you so wish.

Ebeneezer Scrooge wrote: ↑Fri 30 Mar, 2018 08.24

Alexia wrote: ↑Wed 28 Mar, 2018 18.57 The mindset change that this policy aims to do is to put sugar in the same bracket as booze and fags - a luxury / vice.

Difference being that the two vices mentioned were targeted at least partially for their impact on those not partaking - passive smoking and antisocial behaviour.

My response to a lack of coca cola is mild annoyance, which I don't think falls into the same bracket!

You've obvs never been round a hyperactive child full of sugar, caffeine and e-numbers!!

Sainsbury's has gone down the route of switching to 250ml cans of full fat Coke, which are currently sold 10p cheaper than the 330ml cans of other derivatives. I imagine that post-sugar tax, they will increase them back up to the same price as the others which results in them all costing the same, even though the full fat version is smaller.

It's not going to bother me too much, but I don't really think the arguments for this stand up to closer examination. If you are consuming enough of full sugar carbonated drinks that they are making a meaningful impact on your health, then it is likely that they are going to be one small component of what is generally a very unhealthy diet. What about the rest of that diet? Will there be further controls for other things deemed unhealthy? How far will this go?

And will this even work? There isn't just a health cost to an unhealthy diet, there's a very real monetary one too. People eating unhealthy diets are already paying through the nose for them as small-measure branded carbonated drinks are already very expensive for what they are. As are constant takeaways and snacks. Eating healthily already is cheaper than eating unhealthily, so will people already fronting up the money for their poor diets really be phased by an extra 10p on a can of Coke? I wouldn't say this compares to the plastic bag tax, there's a difference between modifying your habits to not need a carrier bag every time and modifying what you are eating.

This is also only applying to drinks sold as sugared which is a direct attack on one industry. There is no extra tax on someone buying a hot drink and putting as much free sugar in it as they want. Someone who can't start their day without a visit to Starbucks for a large Americano with 2 extra shots and 3 sugars in it is not being any more healthy than someone who deigns to opt for Coke Classic with their £3 lunch deal from Tescos.

Then there is the issue of where the money will go. I would actually support this if, as a health-related tax, the revenue raised was ring fenced and used exclusively for the NHS. Instead they're going to put a one off £415M into schools for unspecified 'sports and healthy eating' programmes against a tax estimated to raise £512M in it's first year alone. Where is the rest of that money going? Particularly in further years? Your sugar tax money is just as likely to fund the next MP's pay rise as it is anything health related. I've got a feeling this will have as much to do with funding health as car tax does with funding roads.

cwathen wrote: ↑Fri 30 Mar, 2018 21.06 This is also only applying to drinks sold as sugared which is a direct attack on one industry. There is no extra tax on someone buying a hot drink and putting as much free sugar in it as they want. Someone who can't start their day without a visit to Starbucks for a large Americano with 2 extra shots and 3 sugars in it is not being any more healthy than someone who deigns to opt for Coke Classic with their £3 lunch deal from Tescos.

Playing devils' advocate, in mitigation, I present this piece of propaganda....er...I mean evidence....



Given a teaspoon of sugar is about 4/5g, you would have to have 7-8 spoonfuls of sugar in your large Americano (which is about 500ml) to have the equivalent sugar as you do in Coke, for example.

I think this law will evolve so that free sugar at coffee shops will eventually be replaced by a nominal charge per sachet added to the cost of the drink at the till.

Interesting to note that Frijj milkshakes are NOT covered by the new sugar tax.

Some Frijj millshake flavours come in lower sugar variants now, and I believe they have been reformulated since Müller's name made it onto the label (in my opinion, the flavour has improved in every case).

N.B. The mango one is only available in low sugar.

The bottle size decreased to 471ml a few years ago now, and they have since shrunk again to 400ml. However, they now do a 900ml bottle for a couple of flavours, presumably to compete with the wide range of 1l carton and bottled milkshakes.

Alexia wrote: ↑Fri 30 Mar, 2018 21.52 Interesting to note that Frijj milkshakes are NOT covered by the new sugar tax.

Neither is fresh fruit juice... which isn't even on that list. But has more sugar in it than many of those drinks.

Popped into Tesco today and noticed that Coke Zero has had a sneaky redesign in advance of the sugar tax - saw a 2l red bottle (as for whatever reason they've reintroduced those after getting rid of them a few years ago) and assumed it was just normal Coke, only to look closer and see the black band at the top which says 'zero sugar'. Nice little bit of trickery there!

bilky asko wrote: ↑Fri 30 Mar, 2018 16.17

JAS84 wrote: ↑Fri 30 Mar, 2018 13.48 The Monopoly promotion started again last week. But I've seen a lot of complaints about it on Facebook - the tokens aren't stickers any more and there's no game board. Why did they change that?

Because so few people used them? There were always piles of the boards at the counter left uncollected.

Apparently, you can now track your stickers online, if you so wish.

But they still have fold up leaflets that tell you the prizes and Ts and Cs - it just no longer includes a place to stick the stickers. If it was because nobody took them, there'd be no paper leaflets at all, they'd just say to look online.

Just spoke to a family member who works for KFC and he says he's been told even with Bidvest back on board, they're not expecting to be fully back to normal till July. Ouch.

JAS84 wrote: ↑Fri 30 Mar, 2018 13.48 The Monopoly promotion started again last week. But I've seen a lot of complaints about it on Facebook - the tokens aren't stickers any more and there's no game board. Why did they change that?

Surely the whole point of it being Monopoly is that there is a game board to stick them on.

Otherwise whats the point of naming the stickers Regent Street, Park Lane etc, they are losing the connection to the actual Monopoly game