They don't like it up 'em
Wednesday, December 17, 2008 Too many Christmas parties this week - which is why I am only just catching up with the following stories.
Chris Blackhurst, city editor of the London Evening Standard, is the latest journalist to question the nature of the "public" consultation on future tobacco controls. On Monday he wrote:
What also bothers me is how the proposal [to ban tobacco display] was developed. First, in the summer, the Department of Health launched a consultation and then, through organisations it funds, controls or has very close links to (ASH, Cancer Research UK, Smoke Free North East, North West and so on) it launched a campaign to create an appearance of "overwhelming public support" ... Surprise, surprise: the DoH reports that 84% of the 96,000 respondents were in favour of pushing cigarette sales under the counter.
Blackhurst's comments follow THIS press release which was issued by Forest last week. It has also been sent out with the 2008 Forest Christmas card (above) which has gone to journalists, broadcasters, MPs and (of course) the Department of Health.
Meanwhile there is evidence that the anti-smoking lobby is rattled by recent developments. How else do you explain THIS story from Sunday's Observer ("MPs fall foul of 'dirty' tricks by tobacco giants")?
I assume, reading between the lines, that the "story" was given to the paper by ASH. They don't like it up 'em, do they?
Simon Clark
The Tobacco Retailers Alliance has issued its own comment on the DH report. Curiously, despite submitting a response to the consultation (and organising a petition on the No 10 website), the TRA "was not even listed as having given a response". Ken Patel, national spokesman for the TRA, said:
"The Tobacco Retailers Alliance provided clear evidence from both Canada and Iceland which shows that display bans have not impacted youth smoking in those places, while at the same time having a very detrimental effect on retailers. Yet nowhere does that evidence appear in the report. In fact, the Tobacco Retailers Alliance was not even listed as having given a response. Meanwhile the report appears to hang on every word of publicly-funded, orchestrated campaigns. Ministers talk about this being the biggest response ever to a public consultation. Yet over half of all responses came from a publicly-funded organisation, Smokefree North-West, led by the DH Regional Tobacco Policy Manager. We seem to have this extraordinary situation where government is giving public funds to organisations in order to lobby itself, while ignoring the pleas of legitimate small businesses."
Full response HERE.
Reader Comments (50)
I am confused. MPs seem to think that it is ok to use huge sums of taxpayers money for lobbying purposes but private businesses cannot spend their own cash to counteract lies.
I personally think now is the time to be talking to Labour and getting the ban amended. The only objection they can raise is SHS. I have started today in my lunch hour, I am not joking.
I think you are making a wrong move Dave. We all want to see an amendment of the smoking ban, but do we, at our country's expense?
The Labour Party have ruined this country, and even if they promised to overturn the ban tomorrow, I still would not vote for them.
They haven't got a clue about the economy, just take a look how that dismal failure Brown sold our gold, (say no more).
They haven't got a clue about business, or the NHS or education, or anything at all, which I can see apart from trying to control us, and nanny us.
We need to show Brown and his ghastly Labour Party that we are going to teach them a lesson they will not forget. We have taken too much from them, to just shake hands now and say all is forgiven, as long as you let us smoke again.
I would rather never smoke again in my life than vote that bunch of toadies in again.
We do have another party you know, and they are not stupid, they must be able to see now, what is on offer here. Think about it Dave, and think about it, everyone.
I agree with Peter. To just say let us smoke and let bygones be bygones would be foolish. The anti's are diging themselves a very deep grave by themselves and whatever bad light is cast upon them is also cast upon the gvernment ( which they know ). Hopefully with a bit more lobbying from FOREST and ever more exposure in the media on how the facts are just fabricated, cherry-picked lies, we will see an amendment / repeal to the ban in the near future. Especially when increasing businesses like pubs, their suppliers etc... are calling on government to save them and their employees from bankruptcy / unemployment. And in the time when unemployment is reaching 2 million, the government needs to act quickly. On a lighter note, what a great reference from Simon there from Dad's Army ( good ole Jonesy ). "They don't like it up 'em SIR!"
I don't think it's any use speaking to labour. They will not listen to anybody other than their own funded lobby groups.
This is what they said yesterday in parliament:
Johnson defended the government's anti-smoking measures amid protests from MPs that they did not go far enough.
OK, so Johnson defended himself, possibly due to pressure from Mandy, I don't know, but there were many brainwashed others wanting more anti-smoking measures.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/dec/17/yesterday-in-parliament
NuLabour have just lost touch with everything and everybody with the exception of the puritans amongst us. And then they wonder why there is so much unrest on our streets.
"Dr Janet Atherton, Chair of Smokefree North West, which works to tackle smoking among children and young people, said: 'Everyone had a right to be heard - nearly 60,000 members of the public in this region signed up for stronger measures. These people will feel a little cheated that the tobacco industry, when having its say, chose to do in such a misleading and dishonest way.'"
Fancy that, an anti-smoker Winging about someone else being misleading and dishonest.
The words pot kettle and black spring to mind.
Labour won't listen. They don't.
Labour won't admit fault. They can't.
They will continue trying to protect the people from comprehending the economic and social consequences of their big lies.
The only real chance for sanity is with a new Conservative government and Tory PPCs must be lobbied hard. Everything else is a distraction.
Well said Basil
How any minister of the Crown can say the public consultation exercise indicated an "overwhelming majority" in favour of further anti-tobacco measures, when it was clearly rigged, needs to be given the red card at the next GE.
Unfortunately, Cameron and co have yet to really impress me, but I, for one, am prepared to give them a go. New Labour do not deserve another term - they continue to govern this country by PC spin and lies. The day they are removed from power cannot come a day too soon.
I recently wrote to the conservatives about what their view on the ban was, as I am an undecided voter I thought I would get an official view of what the Conservatives are about. This was my response:
Dear Carl,
I am writing on behalf of David Cameron to thank you for your recent email about the smoking ban.
The Government’s ban on smoking in public places came into force on 1st July 2007. Smoking is now banned in all enclosed public spaces and workplaces. Whatever one’s own views, it is very clear that public opinion has demanded a ban on smoking in public places for some time. There is also a considerable body of scientific evidence to point to the harmful health effects of second-hand smoke.
While the smoking ban certainly does place restrictions on where people can smoke, it does not ban what is still a lawful activity and people are free to smoke in their own homes and outdoors where the impact of their smoke on others will be minimal. The Government has published five sets of regulations which set out the detail of the smokefree legislation. You can view these within the policy and guidance section of the Department of Health website: http://www.dh.gov.uk/PolicyAndGuidance/fs/en
Conservatives have expressed some reservations about the ban, for example about smoking in prisons and mental health units, and about the requirement on all public places and businesses to display no smoking signs. The Government Minister previously responsible for the smoking ban, Caroline Flint, has assured us that the Government are committed to a review of the legislation, so if any problems occur which were not expected while the legislation was being formulated, the legislation may be reconsidered.
I hope that the new measures will play a positive role in reducing exposure to second-hand smoke and, in turn, help to improve public health.
Thank you, once again, for writing.
Are they for / against it? Who knows but with a response like that, I wouldn't put any money on the Tories repealing / amending the ban.
It makes one wonder whether a modern Tory Cabinet would have been prepared to adjourn while Winston Churchill stood outside the door of No.10 to smoke a cigar. This may seem a bizarre thought but there are probably people who fought in the 1939-45 war who, at this very moment are standing outside the doors of their clubs and pubs, or are in wheelchairs outside their hospitals, having a cigarette. The Conservatives should recover the idea of fair play, take a lead and promise to amend the law.
Carl, I hate to say this, but that is exactly the same response, word for word, which I got from them twelve months ago.
I see that ASH has accused the Tobacco Retailers Alliance of being a front organisation for tobacco companies. However anyone who disagrees with ASH is routinely denounced this way, so the accusation has to be taken with a pinch of salt. And I don't know why ASH should be complaining, since the TRA's submission was ignored anyway.
But if it was true that the TRA was a front organisation for tobacco companies, and this was the reason why the TRA's submission was ignored, then in fairness the submissions of antismoking organisations should have been ignored too.
In these sorts of circumstances, is it any longer possible to discover what public opinion really is? Once large, well-funded campaigning organisations, on whatever side, are allowed a voice in 'public' consultations, it becomes a battle of the giants in which ordinary people are sidelined, their voices entirely drowned out.
Would opinion polls be better than submissions from the public? Unfortunately, these also are open to manipulation, by asking leading questions of selected population groups to get the answers desired. When asked whether they would prefer a complete ban on smoking in public places, or a partial ban, or no ban, the majority was usually for a partial ban. But once that option was removed, the majority were for a complete ban. In this manner the result was changed by changing the question.
I don't know what the answer is.
Carl, thank you for publishing your reply from the DoH. I have extracted the 'Exemptions' section.
In my work as a Tour Manager, I am hosting a group of 48 in a Thistle hotel for the Christmas period. Some have already requested smoking bedrooms and there will be others. The hotel has a complete no smoking policy. I have written to Thistle central management and quoted the Exemptions section of this document.I look forward to their reply.
Thanks Carl,
I did wonder what the Tory stance was. I won't be voting for them either and I think smokers should make clear to all wannabe MPs that if they really want to be in the next Govt,then open up at least SOME indoor places so we don't all have to freeze and feel like second class citizens.
I'd beware if I was them about believing the rubbish that the majority wanted a smoking ban --- we've all seen how majority figures can be manipualted by anti-smoking orgs that can easily pull the wool over the eyes of stupid, foolish and naieve politicians.
I think it is also important to remember that a question in an opinion poll can be misleading. When the final pre ban opinion poll was done, there was no mention of licensed premises. When a person was asked whether they agreed with a ban in public places, the last think most of them thought about was pubs and clubs, (especially as many of them most likely very rarely went to them, if ever). The first thing to come to mind was everyday places like shops and malls and waiting rooms, which were practically all no smoking already, and had been for years. Many places of work were already non smoking as well, most office blocks had become totally non smoking.
In my view, none of the 3 main parties has any backbone or gumption to challenge the obviously and proven fraudulent figures that are being bandied about concerning the Smoking Ban and the various 'public consultations'. It is shameful that anyone would want gormless puppets like these to run out country; after all, we are now in a financial crisis due to the complete gormlessness of the current government and the fact that they have allowed themselves to be taken in by the likes of ASH and have completely had the wool pulled over their eyes. They can't possibly admit to that now, it would, in their eyes, make them look even more stupid (if that were possible), whereas, if any did admit to it, they would be seen as brave and worthy of taking seriously.
It is time for a completely new broom to sweep away the mess and the lies that have now been allowed to become so ingrained in parliament and that are being passed down wholesale to local government too! It will be a really tough job, but we need to find good, honest, hard working and enthusiastic politicians to take this on. I believe there are the right people out there, they are just not being considered as a serious contender and that leaves the main 3 safe in their comfort zone!
When I mentioned to Carl that his response from the Conservative offices was identical to mine a year earlier, and others have also received the same response, the point I was making is that this is a standard reply done by admin if there is something about the smoking ban in the intray.
Snippets from Dave Atherton and Simon about the Forest fringe event at the Conservative Conference earlier this year might suggest that some Tory MPs do not feel the same way as the standard reply would suggest.
I replied to my response, but received nothing else. It would not surprise me if the admin staff never even read my original letter, neither did they read my reply. What is even more likely is that my letters were never even seen by David Cameron (who the first letter was supposedly sent to) or any other Tory MP.
Anybody who thinks that "any political party", is going to put their hand up at this moment in time and state that they are ready to overturn or amend the smoking ban, must be very naive indeed.
There are only two parties in the race, and for some reason unbeknown to most people, Labour seems to have caught up and narrowed the gap with the Conservatives to almost an equal position.
Labour have spent millions of pounds of our money over the past two years on anti smoking propaganda, and unfortunately, the common man has been taken in by most of it. There is even a piece in this morning's paper, regarding a report to MPs, which states that speeding motorists should be treated like smokers, to make driving too fast socially unacceptable. It goes onto say that speeding must become as big a social taboo as smoking and drink driving.
There you have it in black and white. They have admitted that they have mounted a concerted campaign against the smoker to make him or her feel like an outcast, a social leper, and now they are aiming their sights at other groups. Their lies and propaganda have won the day, and the large majority of the British public have fallen for it, hook line and sinker.
Now place yourself in the Tories position, teetering on the edge, over the outcome of the forthcoming General Election, which could be as close as just two months away. Would you really be prepared to risk all, over an issue, which has been hammered home into the general public's heads for so long, that the idiots actually believe it's true?
Labour have got their way over this issue by spending vast amounts of our money on it, and producing one set of figures after the other. We know they are false figures, and we say it enough times, but we are saying it to the wrong people. We need to say it to the unbelievers, not the people who already know.
I would like to see Forest conduct a series of polls across the country, in pubs, restaurants, bars, clubs, shops, offices, etc. I would like to see these figures published in National Newspapers, the same way as we see the false figures published.
We will never see the smoking ban amended or seriously taken up by any other political party, until we start convincing the general public that they have been lied to, and taken for a ride.
The truth needs to be seen.
Oh I agree Peter, but if we all sit back and either don't vote or vainly place our trust in the Tories or Lib Dems, then personally I believe we are wasting our vote and our time.
As I have said before, I don't suppose that enough people will vote this time around for an independent party, or in fact anyone else other than the main 3, but if enough people do to raise up one of these parties and make them more widely known and well enough supported that they can raise these issues in parliament, then we will have achieved something far better than wasting our votes on any of the other 3. These parties need a good kick up the backside and to increase greatly the votes to a lesser party might just go a long way towards that!
It isn't even just about the smoking ban, it is about exposing the current government for the liars and cheats that they are as well as the opposition for being daft enough to believe what they have been fed, or too lazy or ignorant to argue against it.
Timbone: Let me be a bit more explicit. The vast majority of the Tory rank and file share either our outrage or at worst are resentful. The Tory rank and file, I class as members and councillors for example. Liberal opinion formers either from the left, right or middle were equally aghast. The MPs were a little more guarded but nevertheless behind us. Alas I did not have the bottle to button hole John Redwood and David Willets.
For balance there was a minority of Tories who were happy with the ban, my estimate 5-10%.
You can see how slick and well oiled the ASH propaganda machine is, not only getting a complete ban through in 2006, but also crying foul at the TRA. The newspapers just cut and paste what ASH want them to.
I think Labour and the Tories do not think there are enough votes in smokers. Even if they do they will run into the full majesty of ASH's and the DoH's hold on the media.
I think this is a start, lets see what else we can do.
UKIP have stated that they would amend the ban.
So would I Carl, and you might just as well vote for me as UKIP.
I am not saying that UKIP are not any good, I am just saying what I have always said regarding them, which is, that they have about as much chance of getting into power as I have, so it is a completely wasted vote.
I don't think any protest vote is a wasted vote Peter. As I said before, the more there are, the more, hopefully, the main 3 will have their complacency knocked for six!
In my view, it is still better to make a protest vote than it is to not vote at all.
Peter, as the European elections are partially PR it would work there. I have had some very encouraging emails from Gerard Batten and Godfrey Bloom, both UKIP MEPs.
UKIP on a national scale may not work but as far as the EU and local elections go, we may as well get UKI as many seats as possible.
I meant UKIP*
A wasted vote is a non vote. Even if the local UKIP candidate gets only a few hundred or a few thousand votes, the main parties could be made to think why.
There is absolutely no point in voting for a party which has no hope of getting into power.
You should be concentrating on convincing the three main parties, or at the very least, one of them.
A few thousand votes going to UKIP,or any other minority party, could swing the next election in favour of Labour again, then what, try to survive another five years of being bossed about, and nannied by this awful bunch again?
I'm sorry, but I've voted Tory all my life, but never again.
They are an opposition and are supposed to oppose the government - that is their job. I have never yet heard from the Tory Central Office that they dislike the ban.
I have heard it from almost all their PCCs, but what use is that?
Sorry, but my vote is going to a party that has the guts to speak out and to speak the truth instead of playing into the hands of the majority. I mean - could someone please tell me when smoking was illegal? It isn't, so why aren't smokers catered for?
The main parties may think that the smokers vote doesn't count, but my vote is a smoker's vote, and I'll deal with everything else after.
Before the ban I was a happily married woman - 3 kids, good job etc, nothing to moan about.
Since the ban, I'm a changed person and I now feel hate. I have never truly hated anything in my life, and I cannot stand what this ban has done to me. I am sure I am not alone.
The ban is first on my list, and I am almost certain for all those smoking non-voters in previous elections (approx 35% of the country), the ban will have an impact.
The tories need to address this if they want my vote. I'll return to them with open arms if they did.
Just a point, I have never been political in my life, although I have always voted tory as I was brought up that way. I am now standing as a candidate for an alternative party (there's 4 parties standing against this ban) which is how important this issue and TRUTH is to me.
Sorry for the rant, but I think that the Tories could have done a lot more to save the thousands out of work, the thousands of failed businesses and the social unrest that we are now experiencing if they had actually done their job and opposed this dictarship that is on power
No Mary, you are not alone. I never realised that anyone could do what was done. I was naive, and didn't take time out from my writing and publishing to find out the severity of this ban. I didn't realise I would no longer have a place in 'no mans land' after going through security at the airport. I didn't realise that mentally ill patients confined to the indoors would be forced to stop taking their self imposed therapy (a cigarette). I didn't realise that places where the public had not smoked for years, decades, even centuries (churches) would have to put up an ugly sign referring to the law to replace the polite notices which had been there previously. I have lost friends, both non smokers and smokers, because I never realised that they had just taken all the propaganda without thinking about it. The friend who studies epidemiological research, who when I tries to discuss it with him, just said that any evidence contrary to their findings was from the tobacco companies! The friend who I used to smoke and drink with, who when I tried to reason with him (outside a pub in freezing temperatures) put his cigarette out and walked away. And the non smoking friend who never complained about it, and all of a sudden started spouting all this crap about second hand smoke, then killed the conversation dead with those two magic words, Roy Castle.
Yes, I feel bad vibes towards certain people which I had never felt before, people like Patricia Hewitt, Deborah Arnott, and Pat Kearney of Manchester Smokefree - because they have personally attacked me with that smug, condescending attitude.
Rant over, going for a fag before I internally combust.
Timbone
I wonder what was put on St. Roy (bloody) Castle's death certificate. He was a pain in the neck when he was alive also a rubbish commedian but even more of a pain now he's dead. If he was so opposed to smoking why did he work the northern working mens clubs? It seemed his principles went out of the window when it came to making money out of smokers. He was one of the first to get hooked up in the "Blame" culture. He had to blame somebody for his illness. Also could his illness have been caused by the pollution spewing out of the factories in the north when he worked the circuits? I have always been suspicious about him anyway - funny he was the only one. Maybe ASH paid his medical bills in return for his relentless campaign! Nothing would surprise me.
I agree with Mary, i'm a Tory by nature as such but most disappointed not to see more fight in Dave in various matters with regards the way HMG are totally destroying this country our our identities.
What I don't understand is thatlies now are the norm and people with responsibilities and power are being paid large sums of money for telling them!!
Yet not one MP or our 'fantastic' investigative
newspaper journalists nor the awful TV media has had the guts to expose the corruption.
In fact one female North West MP told a lie two days ago regarding banning cigs under the counter. '60% voted for it in my area '60% who ? Mrs MP ?
With MPs like this running the country who needs Rob Mag.
I too feel hate since the ban mostly towards friends who are smokers and non for their unquestioning acceptance or else turning into stupid 'stunts' spewing the Ash propaganda like little hitlers.
Practically overnight they were screaming about the smell of smoke on their clothes and hair and filthy butts.
I put it all down to the false economy. The proles got a bit of money and thought they could sustain for ever a beverly hills lifestyle of tanned bodies, white teeth and sushi and 4 wheeled drives they considered essencial for living on a council estate or in a dallas palace.
The final straw was the unreal change when friends that you had a drink and a fag when visiting their home pre ban, politely asking if you would mind smoking outdoors. All of a sudden smoke was affecting their throats.
Regardless of the conquences, I will not be voting for any of the main parties come next election.
My protest vote will be going to all the independents on the ballot dangerous or otherwise.
A person with three children, states that they will vote as a smoker, and deal with everything else after that.
I simply cannot believe that anyone could say such a thing. Our children should come first in everything.
Talk such as this, plays right into the hands of the likes of ASH and their Labour supporters. They have already portrayed smokers as outcasts, and dirty people, do we really want them to start calling us selfish as well, that we put the smoking issue before thinking about our children?
This is what angers me also, when I hear so many people saying they will vote for UKIP. They are not saying it because UKIP will offer us better education for our children, or better hospitals, or cut taxes, etc. They are not even saying it because UKIP wants the UK out of Europe. They are saying it for one reason only, and that is because UKIP have said they will overturn the smoking ban.
If another party came along, the BNP for instance, or the New Nazi Party, and said that they would overturn the smoking ban, would you vote for them? Think about it.
The reason I am fighting the ban, is because it is an attack on our civil liberties, not just because I smoke. I would be fighting any ban which took away our rights to perform any perfectly legal act.
Keep on knocking the Conservatives, and all you will succeed in doing is letting Labour in again. I hear so many moans about the Conservatives because they haven't announced they will do anything about the ban. The Conservatives, or any major party, would do something about the ban, if they knew the depth of feeling involved, and if they were threatened with loosing all the smoker's votes.
Other groups get off their arses, and do something when they feel their rights are being threatened. Remember the women of Aldermaston who set up their peace camp to protest about the US Cruise missiles based there? Or the Countryside Alliance, when 400,000 people marched through London? Or The Civil Rights Movement in the USA. There are so many more, but I am sure you get my drift?
If "smokers", and this is worldwide, not just a British thing, feel so victimised, which I think they quite rightly should, then why aren't we doing more about it? I haven't heard of massive groups of smokers going on marches, or publicans come to that, I haven't heard of smokers protesting outside Downing Street, or handing massive piles of signatures in, calling for an end to the ban. I haven't seen adverts in our national press, telling the truth about passive smoking, I haven't heard about groups of smokers "invading" pubs and other indoor places, and all lighting up, in a sign of solidarity. In fact I haven't heard much at all, apart from a very small group of people on websites, who constantly moan that the Conservatives are not helping them.
We need to start helping ourselves first, and show all the political parties that we mean business. Then they will take notice, and then they will help.
Peter wrote: "If another party came along, the BNP for instance, or the New Nazi Party, and said that they would overturn the smoking ban, would you vote for them?"
Yes of course I would vote for them and would not think twice about it. In fact I have voted BNP a couple of times because myself as a WHITE 25 year old has LESS rights as an ASIAN my own age. And yes I do have less rights as I was recently told by an employer that I would have to cut my hair ( I have long hair ) if I was to get the position because it doesn't look "tidy". And yet an asian was allowed to have an unsightly beard because he believes in a make believe god. So yes I would vote any party purely on the basis of them overturning the smoing ban, because quite frankly I don't care about any other issue until this one is solved.
On another note, kids being constantly told what NOT to do is damaging them more than my reason for voting is. And when this country has problems like knife crime, gun violence, smoking, drugs and drink all in kids aged 10+ years then you have to think, do I actually care if they kill each other? The government doesn't seem to, why should I?
My protest is limiting my visit to the pub to about 3 times a year. And then only spending about a fiver. I'm just waiting for more pub closures, more unemployment so that the people who should have fought the ban more than anyone else ( the publican ) is forced to do so.
Well Carl, I don't really have much to answer you with, except as Gordon Ramsey might say, "F**K me!"
lol Peter. Good answer! Just venting a little rage.
I have never voted for a party other than one of the main 3 in my life, however now I cannot justify voting for any one of them as they are complacent now, not just with regard to the smoking ban, but with regard to many freedom issues and the nanny state attitude as a whole.
Therefore, in my view, voting any of them in will just be endorsing what they are doing already, which is sitting back and letting all this sh*t happen without making any effort to represent and support their voters.
So, I still intend to make a protest vote, probably for UKIP, but not just on the smoking issue, but on all the issues surrounding personal liberties, general freedoms and with the hope that a party other than the main 3 might just also stop some of the persecution of not just smokers, but drivers too! I don't see that happening from the Conservatives or the Lib Dems and we already know about Labour.
Don't vote for a brand, vote for a candidate. Question your individual PPCs on the issues which matter to you and judge their intentions accordingly.
With that said, Conservative instincts are pro-liberty. Choice is at the heart of Tory philosophy. In the free-vote, most Tory MPs voted against the nulabor smoking-ban.
Let them know the issue is alive and that a growing number of people are cottoning on to the disgraceful antics of ASH and their publicly-funded bedfellows. Keep making a noise about the fraudulent statistics, ASH's hubris after pulling off their confidence-trick and nulabor's adoption of the same trick for their bogus "consultations". Let them know we're watching and that we haven't been conned. That the smoking-ban is one of the principle emblematic Nanny State issues.
We will not secure a commitment to a whipped-vote to overturn the ban, but I'd be very surprised if another free-vote in a Tory-dominated house wouldn't produce exemptions at least.
UKIP as champions of liberty? Here's their one MP's voting-record.
Thank you Basil, I am glad to see someone on here talking common sense.
I decided to reply to the generic email I got from "David Cameron" and got this reply!
Dear Carl,
When the financial crisis happened, I made it clear that the Conservative Party was ready to put aside party differences to help bring stability. That's why we supported the recapitalisation of our banks.
I also said that we would not suspend our critical faculties over this Government's calamitous economic policy decisions - decisions that helped not only cause this crisis by encouraging government and personal debt to spiral out of control, but could also make the recession deeper and last longer.
That's why we have set out a positive alternative, starting with immediate action to tackle the credit problems at the heart of the issue.
It's clear the recapitalisation is failing to restart lending to the real economy, so we've proposed a National Loan Guarantee Scheme to underwrite loans to businesses.
It is vital that this £50bn proposal - which has been welcomed by the business community - is taken forward by the Government right now.
I can't promise it will save the world, but the sooner the Government swallows its pride the sooner we can get credit flowing again, and help Britain's struggling businesses.
Conservatives have always understood and supported businesses, we know what they need to prosper.
We also recognise that they make a difference not just by creating wealth, offering employment, and paying taxes to fund public services, but by making their money in a moral way, treating their employees right, strengthening communities, and playing a positive part in society.
So we don't see the financial crisis as an excuse to bash capitalism, we see it as a challenge to make it work better in the future.
As well as better regulation we need to reinforce the values of trust, integrity and responsibility - with strong institutions, and incentives to do the right thing.
And just as importantly the Government should lead by being as prudent with the public finances as we expect banks to be with private finances, and by being as moral and responsible with the public purse as we expect business to be with consumers' cash.
That's what a Conservative Government would do. Let's hope we get a chance to have one in the coming year.
Thank you for all your support, and have a very Merry Christmas.
Ok so it's just a bulletin but how they can "thank" me for my support when I haven't supported them at all is beyond me!
Yes Basil, very well put. Things will get worse before they get better. I think it is bordering on fantasy to think that some political army led by a hot smoking prince charming will overturn the more severe and often inhumane aspects of this ban within months, even years.
I know that I am not alone in sometimes feeling very black moments about the whole sorry affair, even losing confidence and doubting my own arguments. I think that by the time things begin to change for the better, we may even have lost that traditional style pub that we once knew.
I do however believe that things will begin to regain a balance eventually. Like Basil said, we must not give up letting people know what we know. Two things which I have tried to do is to make polite, factual comments on MPs blogs when it is appropriate to do so, and the same thing in comment sections in the National and Local press. You never know who is reading them, and you never know if something you say may get passed on in conversation somewhere else.
It is a slow, uphill struggle at the moment. Thinking about all the things I read on here and elsewhere, I think that I may possibly vote Conservative for the second time in my life - that is 36 voting years (you had to be 21 once) - I would have more energy if it was 36 genealogical years!
If "smokers", and this is worldwide, not just a British thing, feel so victimised, which I think they quite rightly should, then why aren't we doing more about it?
Your customary complaint, may I say, Peter.
I think that, for one thing, smokers have never been any sort of a cohesive social group. They have no central focus, no national union or association. Smokers are dispersed evenly all over the country (and indeed all over the world) and as such are an ideal target for the sort of attack to which they are now being subjected.
It was, furthermore, an attack which they simply hadn't expected, and which caught them entirely unprepared.
And it was an attack which also destroyed the meeting places - the pubs - where they once used to gather. And this meant that they each smoker was left more or less on his or her own in a climate of mounting state-sponsored hostility.
Smokers are on their own. For the most part they have only their own personal resources to fall back on. And after decades of having their habit vilified, and in the absence of contrary information, many have accepted much of the propaganda as gospel truth, and have no inclination to defend smoking. Others made the best of the ban, and shrugged off the discomfort of smoking outside, and even saw it as an opportunity to give up or cut down on smoking. For others no doubt the ban was inconsequential, because they never went to pubs anyway. And many of those who did object to the ban felt that there was absolutely nothing that they could do about it anyway. I encountered all of the above opinions at my local pub before the ban came into force.
In such circumstances, I'm not in the least bit surprised that there have been few marches or demonstrations. How could there have been? For there to have been such things there would have had to have been some centre, some focus around which smokers could rally. But there was no centre, no focus.
You cite the Aldermarston women or the American civil rights organisations. The Aldermarston women had a focus, which was the Aldermarston nuclear base itself. And just how long did it take American blacks to rebuild their particular 'spoiled identity'? Just a little matter of a few hundred years.
Some people here have cited the protests against their smoking bans of the Dutch and Germans as evidence that they're made of sterner stuff than us Brits. But I see it as evidence that the British and French bans have atomised British and French smokers in ways that the less draconian Dutch and German bans did not. In those places people could and did come together and protest, because they still had places where they could gather and talk and plan.
But one thing that has surprised me over the past 18 months has been the intensity of my own response to the smoking ban. I was under no illusions prior to the ban that I might accept it or enjoy it. But in the event I was astonished at the sheer intensity of the rage that welled up in me, and the enduring quality of that anger. I'm now filled with murderous hatred towards antismokers. I used to hardly ever get angry, but now I'm angry all the time. And I've come to realise that it's an anger that is never going to go away.
And I see that same anger reflected in this thread, in what Mary and Ann and Carl have written. I realised some time ago that my anger was probably universal, and that millions of people feel the exactly the way I do. What else could they feel?
Which leads me to make a prediction: there is an enormous explosion coming. What the antismoking campaign has created is an atomised cloud of extremely angry people, a fuel-air mix suffused with pent-up, undirected rage. And it's going to explode one day. Little by little those angry people are inevitably going to start meeting each other and sharing their rage, and at that point ignition will begin, and the rage will begin to be directed.
I can't predict when it will happen or what form that explosion will take. I just feel absolutely certain that it is coming, and that it will have shocking power. And it is not as if there'll be anything new about it: it's what always happens when people get stamped on, ignored, treated with contempt. It's what happened in Northern Ireland in the equally despised Catholic minority.
I'd like to think that some far-sighted politician will see the danger, and act to avert the catastrophe. But it was a parliament of fools and dupes who voted for the smoking ban, and which shows no sign of recognising its error. And this continuing absence of political leadership and political foresight is only going to make the coming explosion all the more powerful.
A few years ago in Spain I asked my Spanish hostess how the Spanish civil war had affected ordinary people in Spain, and she replied that it had divided families across the whole of Spain. Now I can see the same sort of process at work in Britain, as people become divided into smokers and antismokers instead of Catholics and Protestants or Republicans and Nationalists. It's not something that anyone plans. It's something that just happens, something which has its own inner logic, and which gradually gathers an unstoppable momentum.
I think we all agree on here is that the only way to overturn this smoking ban is to form a united front as the pub landlords should have done in the first place. (They have no sympathy from me whatsover).
United front meaning vote for one political party en masse to make our voices heard. I feel the Dave C brigade being the best of the bunch.
The saying goes 'United we stand, divided we fall'.
I've done some thinking and I agree with Peter, if we can getsome sort of cohesion ie. Constant emails to parliament / a particular party but en masse, not individual we may have some sort of chance. Or have some violent protests, either way I'm game.
You are wrong in what you say, Idlex, that "smokers have never been any sort of a cohesive social group. They have no central focus, no national union or association"
Firstly, who are Forest, if they are not the smoker's national union or association?
Secondly, I am fed up with being described as a "smoker". I don't work at "smoking", it is just a casual pastime which I occasionally enjoy. I also eat, but am not described as an Eater. Smoking is just one thing I do. I am a person, an individual, who happens to smoke tobacco from time to time.
The anti smoking lobby have purposely used this term against us, against people who smoke, in the same manner they used the term "drink driver". It places us on the outside of what they term, normal society, casting a stigma upon us.
We should not allow, the anti smoking lobby, to describe us as anything, other than opponents of the smoking ban. Due to their lies and propaganda, the word smoker has become a dirty word. If we are going to continue to use this word ourselves, then we should start using it in association, with the great people of this world, and there are plenty of them, who have smoked over the years. Our opponents use it, in association with dirt, and bad smells, and people who care nothing for children. We must change that, before we can clean up our image.
With regard to people who smoke never having been any sort of cohesive social group. This is partly true, but the main reason for this, is because they have never had to be a part of such a group. But now, we do need to be a part of such a group, and I would suggest that Forest, should be that group.
I don't know how many people log onto the Forest site, or the Taking Liberties, site, but it must be quite a considerable number, but just logging on, and complaining every day, as we all do, will not get us anywhere.
Forest does represent the people who smoke in the country. You can see exactly what they do here: http://www.forestonline.org/output/How-Forest-Works.aspx
What I would like to see however, are more polls, organised by Forest, and given more publicity. I do not think the general public, know or even care about the way people who smoke are being treated. We have to make them see, and we have to make them care, and the only way to do this, is through an organisation such as Forest, who have money and contacts behind them.
I was speaking to someone at dinner the other night, and the smoking issue came up, and I mentioned Forest. "Who are they?", they asked, "A political Party?". That says it all.
We need more publicity. There are millions of people who smoke and who are having their rights taken away from them. It is time to let the people see who we are, that we are ordinary people just like them, politicians, doctors, nurses, firemen, members of the armed forces, police officers. You name the job, and you can guarantee a good number of those engaged in it smoke.
Secondly, I am fed up with being described as a "smoker". - Peter Thurgood
Hmmmm..., that's about the third time I've encountered this. And I'm a bit puzzled by it. I'm personally not bothered about being called a smoker. Perhaps I should be. If 'smoker' has become a dirty word, then 'non-smokers' and 'anti-smokers' must also be endangered, along with 'smoking' and 'smoke'. It rather reminds me of the convolutions that took place when 'homosexuals' became 'gays', and 'negroes' became 'coloured'. I hope we're not going down that road. For the time being I think I'll carry on referring to 'smokers' until somebody can come up with a better word.
As for Forest, from your link:
Forest is a media and political lobby group. Our purpose is to protect the interests of adults who choose to smoke or consume tobacco in its many forms. We do that by lobbying politicians, broadcasters and journalists on a number of issues in variety of ways.
It doesn't have a membership. So it can hardly be called a union. F2C would seem to be more the thing. But that's a more recent and arguably pub-centred organisation.
Anyway, the point I wanted to make was that, in the absence of any umbrella organisation, smokers had no way to make their collective voice heard, even if there were 13 million of them. They were never going to be able to organise demonstrations, not because they couldn't be bothered to "get off their arses", but because there was no organisation to do the organising. The same would have happened if the social group under attack had been shoppers, or gardeners, or sunbathers. Are we to have organisations that represent every single imaginable social 'group'? So that when I get on a bus, I'll also be a member of the Bus Passengers Union, and when I pop some chewing gum in my mouth, I should make sure that I'm a member of the National Association of Gum Chewers?
We shouldn't have to be defending ourselves this way. We should be part of a society in which the bullying of any social 'group' of any sort is immediately recognised and condemned. It's not really smokers who should be asked why they're not doing more, but everyone else.
It's exactly the same as in Nazi Germany. Could the persecuted Jews have done more to help themselves? Undoubtedly. But, in the aftermath, the question that was being asked was: how could everyone else have let it happen?
"Our children should come first in everything."
Spoken like a true New Labour troll.
I agree with idlex, smokers shouldnt have to defend themselves and everyone else should also be asked why they're not doing something about it.
Smokers are too widely dispersed in the first place, we're more like the jews under nazism. It was a subtle creeping cancer that started out with psycological brainwashing by the media and govt lobbying, while they were putting their agencies in place.
In fact if you think hard enough about it you will realise that it started back as far as 1997 when they started testing the water so to speak with subtle little changes like smoking being banned in office canteens and certain restaurants and hotels were suddenly having no smoking areas.
Then the false economy started to pick up pace when bankers were allowed to rob their own banks and our money and reality tv made every wanabee a star in their own right because 'they were worth it'. They had sorted out the gays and the negros/coloureds/blacks by telling them they were equal and the false money flowed and everyone wanted to live forever.
What better time was there for the cash cow agencies like Ash etc etc to join the bank robbers and draw in the dosh as well. Only difference with these guys was the rumenations were better as there was no accountability.
Smoke and mirrors and govt back handers for votes and the rest is history.
While us poor smokers are heading for the gas chambers!