Assessing Conservative values
Friday, May 18, 2007 
On Wednesday I attended a rather swish reception hosted by Fleishman Hillard, a leading public affairs and PR consultancy. Other guests included MPs, lobbyists, political chiefs of staff and researchers. This week the company published a document called The Cameron Environment: Assessing Conservative Values. The report is predictably vague in many areas, but here are some of the policies they think a Tory government might adopt:
- Adjust balance between the state and the public
- More aggressive green agenda
- Lighter touch taxation
- Abolish ID card project
- Introduction of a Bill of Rights
If you're hoping that Cameron might, just might, relax the smoking ban - don't hold your breath. Fleishman Hillard report that new policies will focus on "trusting the professionals". (The British Medical Association will be pleased!) Specifically, under health, they suggest that the Tories are "likely" to establish a Chief Medical Officer's Department within the Department of Health. (The CMO was a leading figure behind the smoking ban.) There may also be a "stronger role" for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. (Remember them? They recently called for smokers to be given time off work to attend smoking cessation courses.)
Then again, on fox-hunting, Fleishman Hillard believe the Tories "will call for another free vote on a revised version of the Act, which we would expect to be far more palatable for rural communities". If they can do that for hunting with hounds, why not smoking in (some) enclosed public places? You can download the entire document HERE.
Simon Clark
10.00am - I had literally just published the above post when an email fell into into my lap(top) from our public affairs monitors. The following Early Day Motion has just been tabled in the House of Commons: "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying [my italics] that the Smoke-free (Signs) Regulations 2007 (S.I., 2007, No. 923), dated 19th March 2007, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd March, be annulled." The signatories are Mr David Cameron, Mr Andrew Lansley, Mr Alan Duncan, Dr Andrew Murrison, Mr Stephen O'Brien, Mr Patrick McLoughlin. Praying? How appropriate (see HERE)!
Reader Comments (51)
"Praying" is standard language in this kind motion, but what are they asking to be annulled? The legislation regarding the no smoking signs?
Yeah, it's the law requiring everywhere, including churches to put up A5 no smoking signs on their front doors.
"If you're hoping that Cameron might, just might, relax the smoking ban - don't hold your breath. Fleishman Hillard report that new policies will focus on "trusting the professionals"
This is very worrying when the 'professionals' are unduly influenced by the pharmaceutical industry.
Rob, You're right re language - I have amended my comment to "How appropriate".
I don't trust Cameron - never have done. He is out of touch with ordinary people and particularly those in the north of England. A local conservative stalwart (on his A List) wrote a letter to the Yorkshire Post, which was published on Thursday this week, saying how much she supports the forthcoming ban on smoking on public places - she was against putting A5 stickers on churches etc. but wrote in the following opening paragraph,
"The smoking ban due to come into force in England on July 1 in public places is welcome and long overdue - such a ban has been in force in many other countries for some time now." - so that is the official party line. I am extremely dismayed - I have voted conservative for 25 years (when I reached 18) and now am disgusted that the party should turn against smokers and freedom of the individual. Margaret Thatcher was tolerant and Winston Churchill, of course, an enthusiastic cigar-smoker. They have now turned their backs on all this and turned their backs on the values of Churchill and Thatcher. The smoking debate, combined with the decision not to bring back grammar schools (I'm a former grammar school girl from a working-class background) publicised this week, have made me feel quite sick and disenfranchised. I am now wondering who to vote for and which party would champion the freedom of choice for ordinary people.
Quite right too... I've been thinking a lot about the rules I was raised by (which were essentially Roman Catholic - although I'm not religious now) - and how they subconsciously inform the position I take on various aspects of life as an adult. Fundamental to my libertarian streak, I think, is the teaching that God gave us 'free will'. There's nothing in the ten commandments about smoking, and churches are supposed to operate according to the rule of God not the rule of health fascists.
Although organised religion makes me nervous (and I certainly wouldn't want to see anything close to a 'religious right' of the kind they have in the U.S.A. At least there is a sign here of minds that do not see the health lobby as the highest power on earth.
Hi Jenny H,The BNP and UKIP are both against the smoking ban as it offends against the freedom of choice,I am not holding my breath that either of them have a prayer of doing anything about it though.However what of Brown?he says he wants to restore trust and confidence in government,he says he believes that you must have tolerance as it is part of being British.Is it just possible he could pull the white rabbit out of the hat and amend this hateful,spiteful,extremist,intolerant act to something which resembles fairness and tolerance.Again I am not holding my breath but strange things can happen,and wouldn't that go a long way to restoring some trust and confidence in the government.
I have to sympathise with Jenny about feeling disenfranchised. Being from N Ireland I have never been able to vote for the governing party as no major mainland political party ever fielded candidates here. Now after hundreds of years of conflict we finally get an elected assembly. However, the first and as far as I can see only thing that all parties agree to is a smoking ban.In addition, rights that the rest of the U.K. have, such as abortion, Sunday trading or casinos are not allowed here and will not be as no party will face the wrath of any of the major churches.It should be more important to introduce those rights available to other U.K. citizens than to remove the right to have a cigarette.
Abbeyfield, I don't blame you for not holding your breath.
Much as Brown may want to restore trust and confidence in government, he is unlikely to do it by revoking the smoking ban, or even amending it, as, unfortunately, more of the public are non smokers and too many have been brainwashed by the blatant lies that have been spouted by the NHS and other so called 'professional or charitable' groups. It is a sad fact that these people also prefer to leave their brains (if they have any) in a bucket by the back door when they leave their homes, as this can be the only explanation for them to be dim enough to be taken in by the propaganda. It is transparent in so many cases and certainly does not take a rocket scientist to see through it. If nothing else, then just the fact that none of them can seem to agree on figures, which vary so dramatically should set alarm bells ringing, but they don't. Therefore the only answer can be that many so called intelligent people have left their brains behind for a rest when it comes to this ban. They can't even see that eventually this will have a negative impact on them too when other things start to be banned to prevent drunkeness, obesity, etc.
But of course, it won't happen to them, just like a few years ago the thought of a smoking ban was so ridiculous, no-one thought that would happen either!
Brown will have to go a very long way to convince me to trust or have any confidence in MP's or government, whatever their party - there has been far too much corruption for far too long to it to be an easy task.
One of my pet peaves are people who think themselves qualified to try and tell other people what they *should* think is important.
I always vote - always have done, especially when I think about women chaining themselves to railings and having to fight for the vote. Thanks very much for the supportive comments which have been posted since I wrote my last piece.
Abbeyfield - it's good to know that there are parties who believe in freedom of choice and both those parties are right wing parties - Cameron has moved too far into the 'centre ground' and we have too many centre parties now. Even if we have a general election in the near future, it is doubtful that parties such as the BNP will make great progress because of the negative media publicity about them. I recently spoke to a few BNP supporters at an election count and they seemed to be friendly reasonable people and not at all like 'skinheads and thugs', as members of the media prefer to present them. I didn't meet and talk to any UKIP people so I can't pass any comment about members of that party.
Perhaps if smokers got together and made a protest vote for such a party, the major parties would lose a lot of votes and start to feel a little concerned. (eg. if a minority party suddenly returned a few MPs or something instead of having no or very little representation.) At least then, there may be a 'balance of power' which is something, nationally lacking. Today the mainstream parties seem to be supporting each other on many major issues.
I believe that this forthcoming smoking ban is a major issue because, not only are millions of smokers being targeted and affected, but the effects of public house/private and working men's clubs and other closures will be dire for financial and social reasons - for non-smokers as well as smokers. Additionally, the traditional way of life for millions of people is being affected in one foul swoop, the consequences of which have not been thought out thoroughly enough by those people in favour of a blanket rather than a partial ban. All this is the direct consequence of people not being prepared to compromise and form a balanced structure ie. going from one extreme to the other.
Michael Peoples explains differences re:the way of life in Ireland (N. Ireland I believe) - in that region there are a lot of regional parties and differences in legislation. That explains to me a lot about the mentality of people in that area and the influence of the Churches. Other parts of Britain also have distinct 'regional' differences and preferences. My homeland in West Yorkshire is vastly different from, for example, counties in southern England and the Midlands. People from former mining and textile areas have very often enjoyed having a smoke with their drink -and most people don't drink wine as portrayed on soaps, they tend to drink bitter, lager and cider. Also, the Church does not play a major role governing people's social lives compared to chapels and churches 50+ years ago, but there is some kind of 'regional mentality' or tradition.
Ironically, the Labour Party (New Labour) has paved the way to destroy the traditional regional (as well as national) ways of life for the same people who supported them and voted them in in 1997 and in subsequent elections, so Tony Blair et al have 'bitten the hands that feedeth'. Gordon Brown will do the same. Sadly, now, Cameron and the others will follow suit. One fundamental traditional way of life (both at a national and at a regional level) will be so badly affected, it will be destroyed. What a shame people were not prepared to compromise and they (the politicians) are trying to make us all 'the same' - will it work well? - my prediction is NO!!
One can only agree with the sentiments expressed within this section of discussion on the smoking ban. However we are all in agreement in a general sense or so it would seem.
It begs the question what are we going to do about it? It seems to me very little will be done in fact, apart from the various arguments already aired against the ban.
Smokers are a substantial minority and, in my experience here in London seem to make up at least half of the drinking and dining out public. Hitting where it hurts financially is the smokers most effective weapon or so it seems to me.
Why not all of us simply refuse to eat or drink out at any establishment, pub, bar or restaurant?
I am confident that if this is done on an organised basis the outcry from the licensed trade would be so that the Government may have to readjust their thinking.
Imagine thousands of people not visiting these places anymore......
How about it anyone?
David. I have already vowed to give up visiting pubs and restaurants after the ban comes in agree.
I agree with you entirely on this matter. Withholding our custom is the single most powerful weapon at our disposal. Sadly though it is the pub and restaurant owner that would pay the real price for this. I unfortunately don't know what to do about that.
If 50% of the smoking population withheld their business the ban would be repealed within six months, but sadly I don't see it happening - though rest assured I'll be doing my part :)
What we need to do is take into account the following factors: -
July 1st - Antis will start to enjoy the 'novelty period' and they will be flocking to their nearest hostelries/clubs etc. to support the ban. Also, it will be summer and, theoretically, the weather between July and September should be reasonably good - yes, even around here in northern England. No matter what eager drink-smokers (like me) do or don't do, by September the government will be saying it is huge success and interviewing antis saying how wonderful life is!! These people deserve to be lulled into a false sense of security.
However, from October onwards, the weather should be colder and wetter, the 'novelty' period will be wearing off and those people who aren't really supporters of the pub/club culture will start to get bored of going to the places which aren't really their natural habitat. This is the time to to start 'taking action' and use a strategy. ie. form a kind of action group where (by use of e-mails to friends to pass on to friends etc. and word of mouth etc.) people supporting our cause agree to to boycott our locals etc. and find alternative ways of amusing ourselves during certain periods of time. If takings are significantly down during the period of, say, a month in winter, then the breweries will start to question where all their wonderful ban-supporting customers have gone. Any ideas on this point and/or how to progress would be very much appreciated.
It's worth remembering that more than half the parliamentary Tory party voted againt Patsy's ban, as opposed to less than thirty Labour MPs. I'm not sure, but I don't think Cameron actually believes in this legislation: he was away from the house on the day of the vote. He is also a smoker himself. It's more likely that they just don't want to have this debate right now, in this atmosphere of "expert"-led orthodoxies being so engrained in the public conscious. Once the ban's been in place a couple of years, and all the "unintended consequences" have come to pass, we could start hearing some dissenting "expert" voices calling for common-sense exemptions.
My own Tory MP, Ed Vaizey [Wantage], actually sent me a link to the Joe Jackson essay, in response to my pre-vote lobbying. Needless to say, he voted against the ban.
Any MPs' voting-record can be checked on theyworkforyou.wotsit.
It is the very mark of the democratic deficit we now face, that there is no centre-left party advocating policies of social-libertarianism.
With regard to the smoke free signs as in original post, can anyone advise me where my own establishment is concerned? I have owned an antique shop for the past ten years in Suffolk, it is a 16th century timbered building and as it is my own ratepaying space I have always taken it as my right to refuse to display posters or advertisements of any kind and am therefore incensed that I am told I must display this stupid sign. Not once in the last ten years has anyone lit a cigarette in my shop and yet I regularly have trouble from drunks and drug addicts who are trying to sell stolen items for the next fix (of course shoplifting is hardly considered a crime anymore). If I have to ban non existent smoking why not a sign banning the non existent fox hunting the whole thing is ludicrous. I intend to flout the ban until I get a warning but will then probably have to give in as I simply cannot afford the £2000.00 fine but would like to know if it would be illegal to deface the sign - any suggestions on how to do so would be welcome.Am happy to be part of veto as suggested by Jenny or to vote for alternative party as in previous post - will keep watching this space.
Even before seeing Christopher Hitchins' exposé on Cameron I was not impressed. Cameron is very much first and last for David Cameron and he will go with the herd if he thinks it will be best for him and any principles will be lost.
As I hear it Cameron has stopped smoking but before that, he had been grunting about turning round some parts of the ban and had even inquired about air cleaning systems.
However, Cameron will not have the guts or the integrity to face down the antis. He' may appear bold when surrounded by his supporters and the Tory Party but he's a real coward at he end of the day.
What annoys me is not the smoke or not to smoke bit but the fact that the ban has only been brought about by medical fraud. The public will therefore remain stupefied, witless and scared of their own shadows when someone around them is smoking. That is actually a disgrace and how long will it be before they wise up to their idiocy? Or is this just the start of the great brainwash in which case we can just say "ta-ta human race?"
Wendy - Re: Smoke-free signs - you will have to display the A5 size signs as your historic premises are a workplace. Old churches/ cathedrals etc. are also being forced to do the same thing, hence the recent outcry by senior members of the clergy. My husband is self-employed and although he works as an independent contractor for other companies, at the other companies' premises, he has been sent the government information pack with stickers and has to display these stickers somewhere at home (eg. his small office/ computer room) in case the inspectors call. Failure to display a sign is a £1,000 fine.
Re: strategies for vetos and action - all suggestions are welcome and appreciated. I don't feel I personally can do a lot as I am only one individual, but if I can awaken the thought processes of others, as well as offer my support, it may inspire people to have the courage to contact each other and work together to produce positive results.
Wow there are a lot of very good comments above. This blog is becoming seriously interesting.
Basil; There is no social libertarian party anywhere in the world that I know of center left or otherwise.
Jenny; I understand wondering who to vote for and I also understand you want to use your right to vote. I have thought much about that myself and here is how I feel about it. To vote for the "lesser evil" is still voting for evil. If there is no choice of candidate you can believe in there is still the possibility of NOTA None of the above. That is who I voted for the last three opportunities I've had. I go to the poling office and I write None of the above on the voting slip and put a cross by it. That is a valid use of my right to vote.
On the boycott idea; I'm all for it. It is sad that it will affect the owners and staff of the pubs etc. but I think it has to be done. In Italy they have some similarly stupid laws of some kind concerning restaurants and lots of people get round this by having very large private dinner parties. The diners make a contribution but the meals are in a private house. I predict there will be many more private parties in houses come the autumn.
On the question of No Smoking signs; I have an alternative sign should anyone be interested. You can see it here.
http://tinyurl.com/35gvn6
Yes, we all appear to have common ground on this issue. I am also in favour of an economic boycott of pubs, restaurants and clubs and, indeed, having been doing so since the MPs voted a complete ban on 14th Feb 2006.
I feel very sorry for the businesses that will be affected by the lack of custom, as a result of this ban, but consumer boycotts do work.
I believe, the British on the whole, have become complacent with respect to civil liberties and have forgotten all the efforts and sacrfices of previous generations to secure our limited freedoms. One by one, these freedoms, no matter how trivial they appear to other people, are being chipped away. So we are not just ranting about the forthcoming smoking ban, it is the endless attacks by government and unaccountable bodies (sponsored by HMG) on every aspect of our daily lives. The arrogance of "we know best, so tow the line" has to be attacked and resisted with the same vigour and passion.
I am very disapointed in the Conservatives, they have previously always supported freedom of the indvidual , but not any longer, they have become just like Nu Labour, not much to choose between them. The incomming smoking ban is an attack on 12 to 14 million smokers to have any facilitie of their own, not to mention trampling all over private property rights. Looks like I will be voting UKIP at least they support the freedom of individuals.
Popeye I agree with you on the Conservatives but I'm not voting UKIP either. It isn't a matter of just getting the right people to have the power of government. The problem is the power of government itself rather than who wields it. We might find a party that would not abuse it's power but I'd rather they couldn't face such a test in the first place because there will always be a new tyrant to come after them.
Cameron has announced the possibility of a Bill of Rights. It is interesting that he calls it a Bill of Rights which is what the Americans once had. But he then goes on to say that it will contain a clearer statement of the EU Human Rights law which is itself based on the UN Declaration of Human Rights. These all include some real rights very watered down but also include as "rights" things that are really priverlages. Cameron uses the term "Bill of Rights" which is truly about rights and not privelages. The old American concept of rights as manifested in their declaration of independence and later in the Bill of Rights contains a completely different philosophy to the later UN declaration of human rights and those that have followed it. The main difference is that the American people gave some rights to their government in order for it to operate and they reserved many important areas as being untouchable by the government. The UN and the later human rights stuff has the idea that it is governments who grant rights to the people.
Aye, "trust the professionals" says Cameron. Good grief, what a soundbite!
Well, let's consider these "professionals" in the medical arena for a moment. The BMA, SCOTH, DofH and ASH (are they professionals?) are all promoting NRT. The selling of NRT is a major multi billion dollar moneymaker which requires a mercantile campaign which is supported by both monies direct and monies in kind (for studies) from Big Pharma (BP).
The BMA, SCOTH, DofH and ASH are all to some degree or another the tools of BP. BP needs smokers to sell its products - no smokers, no money. If there were no smokers BP would therefore loose a lot of money. Ergo, if smokers diminish in numbers then BP will have to place pressure on its minions to ease up.
This has already become a vicious circle.
Who would believe that around 35 years ago a group of smoke hating doctors formed a public group with the intention of fighting the damage caused by tobacco (but not of course the smoker).
Since then they've kept active creating a whole new science where qualifications, achievements, studies and growth are depedent upon a strict self-nourishing basis akin to marking each others homework.
Their plan is clearly shown on the ASH website yet there's hardly a single politician with the guts to look through the fear filled climate they've funded.
The imminent ban will anger 25% of the population, it will discomfort many smokers and non-smokers, it will cause economic distress to many businesses, it will create an massive carbon foot print, it will create problems on city streets, it will damage community and worst of all it is unlikely to permanently decrease smoking rates.
Had further restrictions but not a ban been encouraged or even rewarded and provision for the co-existence of smokers and tolerant smokers allowed it would have been supported by all but the tiniest fraction of one percent of the people.
Obviously they have all the brain but not a jot of sense.
It would appear then from some of the comments made that the idea of a boycott of premises is beginning to take hold.How would we make it work if we went ahead?
Here are a couple of suggestions and I would be very pleased to to see many more.
First we would need to form a loosely knit group,"Smokers United" or something of that ilk.We would need to have a member of the group to whom we could give our e-mail addresses to.We would need to know at least which area the address was associated with e.g. joebloggs@aol.com (Leeds,Yorkshire).We would then need to draw up lists of businesses in evey town and county,we would also need the postal address of each business.We could then decide which business to target with our boycott,and having done that we would write to the manager/manageress to inform them that their business would be boycotted by our group on a particular day or night.Hopefully this would lead the business owners to put pressure on their MP.If we were to target a large chain this may well be even more effective.If no one objects I would be pleased to collate the gathering of the e-mail and business addresses.
If we can agree something along the lines I have proposed I will put my e-mail address up on the site very shortly.
Hi again Carl, Bernie and all of you,
I am sorry for my spelling and even my poor English; I am French living in London and during few visited in Aberdeen since 2005 I saw the change of this place who look like Pigalle in Paris……
I, with other Friends, French Lawyer, decide to hire a Scottish law firm and try to find the way around this laws who go against all the Human right of choose and freedom, Right of Privet Propriety ….
The good new is that there is away around and now we are processing with preparing the Memorandum for QC.
The bad new is that as none Scottish and none from Aberdeen, We need to get in contact with people that have with same interest as us. We do believe that if we can move the Smoking Ban in Aberdeen, a small town where the law is so hard we can make it move every where. Then are next will be Scotland, England…..and why not in France where the law will be on Next year and will leave us more freedom that in UK but will be still an acceptable under “The declaration of the human Right”
“Considering that it is essential that the human rights are protected by de jure system so that the man is not constrained, in supreme recourse, with the revolt against tyranny and oppression. »
“Considering that in the Charter the people of the United Nations again proclaimed their faith in the basic human rights, the dignity and the value of the human person, in the equal rights of the men and the women, and that they were declared solved has to support the social progress and to found better living conditions in a larger freedom. »
“Article 7.
All are equal in front of the law and have law without distinction to an equal protection of the law. All are entitled to an equal protection against any discrimination which would violate the present Declaration and counters any provocation with such a discrimination.
Article 8.
Any person is entitled to an effective recourse in front of the competent national courts against the acts violating the basic rights which are recognized to him by the constitution or the law. «
Please do get in contact with me if you are interest>
Thank you
Frederique
PS: You have to know, for this project I thought to move to Aberdeen but will be quite impossible because I am a smoker and as I see on internet and as I be tall :” Sorry no dog and not smoker…”
Just logged on and read all of the above contributions.
Re: Conservatives and their beliefs and those of other political parties
Yes, the new conservative party line has definitely changed and it appears to me that Cameron is now in favour of supporting the blanket ban which saddens me. If he has stopped smoking (as one writer suggested above), he'll probably adopt the attitude of John Reid (marxist, anti-smoking hypocrite as he used to smoke more than 60 a day!). I always thought that conservatives would, at least, compromise and not work against the freedom of choice and of the individual. On this issue (and, of course, regarding many other major issues such as education and Iraq) the conservatives have had ample opportunity to attack New Labour. However,they have failed miserably to do so and that is why they made no progress in the north of England in the recent local elections.
Obviously New Labour support this blanket ban - they instigated it. With regard to the Liberal Democrats - at their recent conference in Harrogate (N Yorkshire) Ming Campbell pledged his support towards keeping New Labour in power. A lot of people vote Lib Dem without realising what they are actually voting for. They think they are harmless, nice, easy-going people - but I'm telling you that they are not. I know a lot of local lib dems who are very very anti-smoking and looking foward to the blanket ban.(sad people!) So - having established the main parties' lines regarding this issue - a major factor in people's social lives and their right to express themselves and their individuality. At present, all of the above three parties are, frankly, a waste of time.
The Publican Party in Scotland bravely offered a line of resistance, but I don't think they were able to make the desired progress due to their SNP -v- Labour battle.
Rather than forming a new resistance party, it may be better to choose to vote for an established party (eg. UKIP or BNP) - after all, thinking logically, there are a LOT of votes available amongst smokers (12m to 14m) and if more people decided to do a protest vote, it would scare the mainstream parties if they suddenly had real opposition from a smaller party - forming new parties would simply split the vote and no one would get anywhere. In France, 85% of the population voted - in Britain we are fortunate if half that amount of people visit the polling stations. I'm sure there must be a lot of smoke-drinkers who didn't bother voting recently.
Immediate Future
I don't trust Gordon Brown (never have trusted him). Even Dick Turpin had the decency to wear a mask and this man has robbed us blind and taxed us to breaking point. This is the man who is in the process of receiving a 'poisoned chalice' because he will be forced to implement the ban and suffer retribution whilst Blair is awanning around doing his lecture tours and singing "I did it my way!". Things will get worse under this man - this is my prediction.
Balance and Compromise
For the benefit of anti-smokers - I am NOT advocating that all rooms in all places should be 'smoking rooms'. I firmly believe non-smokers should have their own public houses and own smoke-free rooms in places and they should be treated considerately - especially where establishments serve food and where children are likely to be present. However, traditional drink-smokers, on the other hand, should be treated with an equal amount of RESPECT and consideration and allowed some of their own facilities or own places to frequent.
Solutions/Vetos and Fighting Spirit
I firmly believe that there ARE solutions to all problems and these solutions should be carefully thought out. Battles were not won by people just sitting back, acquiescing and feeling hopeless and allowing other people to walk all over them! That attitude would not, for example, have enabled my grandfather and his comrades to survive the trenches in France in 1916/17 and he and others managed it. Let's face it, we British have been a formidable power in previous years and generations and are now the victims of psychological erosion and bullying - particularly during the Blair years. Blair and the ruling elite WANT us to feel hopeless and not think for ourselves - after all, that's why they have created an education system designed to discourage us from being competitive and thinking for ourselves. They have seriously insulted our intelligence and NANNY has the upper hand treating adults like 5-year olds (only 5 year-olds have more rights!).
I believe we can fight back in some way. I suggested yesterday that we begin to take action later in the year. I explained about July to September being the 'fine' months and novelty period for the antis. I would like to read some more comments from people regarding appropriate action strategies. May I take this opportunity to thank those people who have written in support of vetos. This is a start. We are intelligent enough to work together and work out some concrete strategies.
Just read Abbeyfield's comment (it was posted on whilst I was writing my 'manifesto'!! Well done, very good strategy - keep them coming!
Frederique, this organisation should interest you:
http://www.freedom2choose.co.uk/
Jenny I'm with you in spirit and I am willing to help. There is one point that I think is very important here. Smokers are not losing their right to smoke in pubs and restaurants etc. Smokers never had such rights and I don't believe they ever should have had them or ever should in the future. What we had was a privilege granted to us by the owners of such places when they indicated by the presence of ashtrays or the presence of a no smoking sign at the door whether or not we could smoke in their premises. The owners had the right and not the smokers. And it is the owners who are losing that right. This is not just a pedantic point.
I recently spoke to a cafe owner who had proudly displayed some no smoking signs in his window. These weren't just polite signs. One of them said "it's about health and it's about time". Kind of an ASH type sign.
This guy was an anti smoker and also a cafe owner. I went in to talk to him and asked if he had seen an increase in business since he had put up the signs (they had been there about 6 months). He said his business had improved. I told him that it was a pity that his right to make that kind of business decision was soon to be taken away from him and his competitive advantage over other local cafes that allowed smoking would be lost too. He appeared confused by this as a lot of other people may be who think this is just about smokers. So I pointed out to him that he had a cafe right now where no one smoked and that come July 1st he would still have a cafe where no one smoked. The law was completely unnecessary for him to have a smoke free cafe. But once the law took away the right of cafe owners to make such choices they would all be the same.
At the end of our conversation I can't say that he was a totally reformed character but he was nowhere near the rabid animal he had been before. He still doesn't like smoking but for him it is just a matter of the smell and he believes there might be a health risk too. But he wasn't a "political" type of anti smoker. In his case there could be many different types of solution and they didn't have to involve the government at all. ASH types only have government solutions. Any time a special interest group only listens to "solutions" that require new laws and new taxes you know you have a political campaign and it is also highly likely the problem they are promoting is full of holes too.
Very few people know what property rights are and yet they are fundamental to any other rights and they explain why some things the government tells us are rights are really just privileges. Most people are very quick to get the idea of property rights.
It is through property rights that the logical solutions to any real or imagined danger from tobacco can come. Everyone can be happy if the government keeps out of it and owners are allowed to decide on the basis of what their customers want. If a lot of customers want smoke free areas the pub owner will create them because it is not good business to ignore what your customers want.
What I am saying is that smoking is the banner under which this all goes but we shouldn't talk to the press or other people about our right to smoke but about the right of property owners to decide what is and isn't allowed on their property.
Abbeyfield, we do not need yet another "loose" cofederation of smokers'/freedom to choose groups. In fact what we need is tight organisation with everyone working together. Yes, people may have their own organisations but efforts must be pooled. I won't bore you with all the details of the extensive and hard work put in already by freedom2choose.co.uk (or the extensive efforts of Forest) but we have now reached the point where co-ordinated efforts are absolutely necessary. In addition there are too many websites wasting time blogging and reaching limited audiences.
I have just proposed the following to key Freedom to Choose members:
"1) Key members to meet to construct a strategy.
2) Information to reach a much wider public.
3) Personal lobbying of MPs and meeting them.
4) A clear agreed structure with designated
responsibilities accepted by participants.
5) A better fundraising strategy and the elimination
of waste plus better yet simple electronic info,
support packs etc.
6) All the various groups to come together under one
banner relating to and working together in a co-
ordinated way.
We need to know who we all are, yes, WHO WE ALL ARE! So an inventory of protesters needs to be put together and they take their place within the resulting structure.
These things are not impossible, in fact, much on the infrastructure is in place but it needs pulling together."
Indeed the time for looseness is over. It is the time for grim, concerted, hard-hitting and perisitent large scale effort without panic. No, the issue is not going away unless we let it but there is no quick solution and people need to be prepared for the long haul or drop out now.
I for one will not be visiting pubs ect when this ban comes in. I shall vote with my feet and wallet. I refuse to pay to stand outside they can get stuffed. Pubs are not health clubs. I can buy alcohol in from the supermarket, order food over the phone, gamble on line all in the comfort of my own home and continue to smoke in peace - friends of course will be invited round. Publicans dont deserve your custom if they are not prepared to fight for it.
I think this is all very unfair - suggestions that smokers should boycott pubs, clubs and restaurants etc. Why should publicans and business owners be 'piggy in the middle' in a disagreement between smokers and parliament?
Many have already spent a small fortune on smart outdoor covered areas for smoking customers. The best they can do is to minimise the inconvenience of smokers going outside to light up and make every effort to make smokers as comfortable and as welcome as possible. Should this not be acknowledged with your continued custom?
If some people feel so strongly about the smoking ban in enclosed public places then wouldn't their wrath be better targeted at the government? How about boycotting all tobacco counters in shops and supermarkets etc for one month? The loss of taxation revenue to the exchequer would be keenly felt and you would be sure of comprehensive media coverage.
Robert you have a point but you are still purveying the nonsense that smoking is being banned and that pubs and restaurants are public property. It isn't and they are not. The property rights of owners of pubs and other private properties are being abridged yet further. We have never had a right to smoke on the property of others. Many owners of pubs have given us the privilege to smoke but it is not our right and we are not losing our right.
A Public property is a property owned by the state. A public house is private property.
Smokers will boycott the pubs anyway, Robert, as a matter of course and not specific plan - as, in fact, has happened all over the world. Smoking bans, contrary to poular myth and anti-smoking propaganda, are not good for business at all but just the opposite.
Yes, I too feel sorry for those publicans who have spent lots of money to create accommodations, but no-one is going to regularly spend money in the winter to then go and sit out in the cold. If the boot were on the other foot, would you?
I havent been in a Scottish bar since March 2006. (and they say we have no willpower.....)
I will return when the ban is amended.
Loyalty is a two way street. They had the option to fight for me, they refused, they rolled over, they caved in.
When they grow a spine I will support them 110%.
Robert, it is indeed and unfair that publicans should bear the brunt of it, but it wasn't the smokers that picked the battleground, it was the government.
But it is the more powerful avenue of protest abd the best way of bringing more people into the fight.
Even those who support the ban may change their mind when they find out it's going to cost their favourite pub, or the only pub within walking distance going out of business.
Your idea seem to involve every quitting smoking for a month, if I read that right, which will only prompt the anti-smoking movement to herald it as a success. It would actually be better for smoker to buy more - but that would only be marginally better.
Every war has its casualties and is this one its going to be the pubs. Any supporters of the ban really should have thought more about how smokers would react to it before lending their support to this attack on civil liberties.
I'm not particularly happy about giving up going out, fortunately I have an understanding girlfriend who understands my depth of feeling on this issue.
Bernie - thank you very much for educating me. I actually had not thought about things on those lines, but I quite accept what you say and I appreciate the way you have explained everything so clearly and so well.
.
Re: purchase of tobacco - it may be good to take a short trip abroad eg. Spain (where cigars/cigarettes etc) are much much cheaper, buy loads and loads, and then, if people want to boycott buying tobacco and paying taxes in England etc. they have plenty in stock. Or, request friends and families to purchase things for you and bring them back for you (legal limit for personal use, of course). This cuts down, then, on the tax revenue.
Frederique - I think you do very well expressing yourself in English - I realise how difficult it is to write in a foreign language. Firstly, can you please educate us and let us know exactly what is happening in France - for example, the ban came in, is it being observed or are people ignoring it? Do you have highly-paid enforcement officers bossing you around and fining you in France? We are told so very little about anything - for example, we in England are not told very much at all about what is happening in Scotland, Ireland and Wales and now Northern Ireland.
Secondly, I think the legal aspect (rights to property etc) may tie in with what Bernie has explained about the private property aspect and this has interested me too. This could be very important.
I am very interested to read other people's comments because I feel that I am learning a lot from them.
I have started to read Richard Littlejohn's new book, "Littlejohn's Britain" - and I would like to take thie opportunity to say how very very good and astute it is. Mr Littlejohn writes columns in the Daily Mail and used to write for The Sun. So far (I've read about 80 pages) it does not specifically mention the Smoking Ban, but it discusses the erosion of civil liberties, bans, infringements upon us which are currently taking place. He is a political commentator and outlines in a humorous way exactly what the politicians (in particular the New Labour government) are about. It is well worth spending £12.99 to purchase a copy and I can highly recommend it.
May I also take this opportunity to point out that I think that the government etc. are wanting people to focus upon this ban because it takes people's minds away from other very serious issues which are taking place and they are using this as a 'smoke-screen'!
Can anyone help me please?
I have been trying to research which countries are the best to live in, with regards to being able to smoke freely and a more liberal attitude to freedon of choice.
I am finding this difficult, with all of the propaganda around at the moment, can anyone help me?
To Blad Tolstoy,Hello Blad have just come back from a thorough reading of the freedom2choose.co.uk website,it really is terrific and when I post this I will be sending my donation for the judicial reiew fund.
If any of you who use this site have not yet been to the freedom2choose site I heartily recommend a visit and a donation.
Kay; the choices are very limited. I'm seriously considering the Free State Project which you can find at www.freestateproject.org
There are still many countries that don't have smoking bans and if that is the only important thing to you then the choices are numerous but don't count on them remaining smoke friendly.
Hmmm, no cheering yet, but it may look as if the French have scrapped their ban. See in the First Post at:
www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=2&subID=463
Thanks abbeyfield and don't forget to tell your friends as we are going to be developing significantly soon and all being well.
Don't forget too, we are freedom2choose.co.uk and NOT freedom2choose.org as the latter is a rather half baked site.
With regard to moving, eastern Europe has still some good places for the time being. However, the time has come get properly organised and stand and fight. The number of protesters runs into hundreds now but without proper co-ordination we are nothing.
One of the problems with smokers and other people affected such as publicans, is that we tend to be of an individualistic nature. This leads people to do their own thing. Fine, I'm all for that, but we must also work together and co-ordinate. There are loads of people fed up with the smoking bans for one reason or another and that includes quite a lot of non-smokers. In Freedom to Choose a number of these are not taking a back seat role either but a primary one because they can see that the issues go well beyond smoking:
1) The corruption of medical science to sell smoking bans. (The
corruption of medical science benefits no-one.)
2) Infringements of property rights.
3) Social discrimination and victmisation.
4) Loss of businesses and jobs.
5) Damage to economy generally and to social cohesion.
Blad; I've seen the site and I think you have some good things going on there. I agree about the individualistic nature of many of us that object to these laws. I think that is predictable too. We may have been fooled by a lot of things but we didn't just go along with the herd mentality and we are able to think for ourselves to a marked degree.
The problem of organising, it seems to me, is keeping the purposes and plans within the realm of what we can all agree on.
Bernie, F2C key members are hoping to hold an actual national strategy meeting soon. That will be a face to face and therefore (hopefully) avoid the communication difficulties caused by electronic interaction. Under live circumstances it is much easier to decide parameters.
I've been on to the Freedom2choose web site (excellent stuff), signed the petition and it is a great site (Churchill with victory sign summing up the great gesture I would like to make to all those antis!) I would like to make a donation, but get tangled up in everything and put wrong numbers in - is there a PO Box to which I may send a cheque to support this campaign? If anyone knows, please let me know.
ps. Frederique - I am sending you an e-mail!!
Message for Jenny H -
All donations towards the Judicial Review should be made payable to Ormerods (our solicitors) and cheque sent to:
The Carpenters Arms Motel
Old Vicarage Lane
South Marston
Swindon, Wiltshire
SN3 4ST.
You can also pay by PayPal BY going to the homepage of the website www.freedom2choose.co.uk and clicking on Donate. Thanks for your valued support.
Bill C.
Thanks, Bill C. Just confirming that a cheque is in the post and I forwarded the site and info on to a few friends. Jenny H
Going back to the theme of conservative values - what is Cameron doing? Has he been bribed by the government? There's a major stink going on about the grammar schools issue (and understandably so) and now he is upholding the Iraq war etc. (papers on 23rd May). Bears out my previous theory that he'll fall in line with the blanket smoking ban as well!! Sadly we have no real opposition in this country any more.