A message to smokers from Boris Johnson
Wednesday, April 2, 2008 A few years ago Boris Johnson (now an MP and a London mayoral candidate) responded to a letter from Forest with the following message of support. Smoking bans, he wrote, are a "classic example of Labour's bossy, hysterical, annoying approach. They should leave it to individual pubs and restaurants to decide. Vote Tory! Vote for freedom!"
Today, in response to a gentle enquiry about Boris's policy on the smoking ban, a reader received this email from the Back Boris campaign team:
Boris feels that the smoking ban has actually been implemented with very few problems. It was designed to ensure that workplaces are free from smoke so employees were not exposed to the harmful effects of smoke.
While Boris has some sympathy for smokers he does support the law. If there is anything else you would like to bring to our attention, please do not hesitate to get back in contact with us. It is vital that we hear from Londoners about the issues that matter to them.
To put this in perspective, the mayor of London does not (to my knowledge) have the power to overturn national legislation, so the ban was never going to be a major issue in the forthcoming election. It is, however, disappointing to hear Boris abandon his previous position in favour of a disingenuous, Cameron-style response.
If you have any thoughts on the matter you can contact the Back Boris team HERE.
PS. If I lived in London I would still vote for him. Anyone but Ken!
Reader Comments (176)
While I agree with Col Dee and Peter Thorgood, however I'm sure no one really wants to see the likes of the BNP and UKIP in govt but who the hell else is there to vote for to give that useless shower in govt a sharp shock, if everyone made it clear before the next elections that they are not going to vote or are voting for the above, maybe a miracle would happen and a right thinking churchillian like character will appear out of the mire and save us all from the global warming scam, pc brigade and the anti smoking freaks.
I'm somewhat confused here, because I find it quite hypocritical that posters on here fighting for freedom of choice cannot see the irony in the remarks of 'excuse me while I puke', because I said was 'thinking' of voting BNP, so much for respecting other people's freedom of choice. In my humble opinion to seek to demean those 'thinking' or 'definitely' voting BNP is on a par with the likes of the anti-smoking brigade.
Peter & Zitori, you may abhor the BNP, I'm not a lover of them myself, but if I choose to vote for them I should be free to do so without being vilified because of it.
And let's not forget here, the SBE and the fast growing Healthist Campaigns are reminiscent of Hitlers Nazi Policies, which this 'supposedly' democratic government have embraced and are actively supported by the 'supposedly' democratic opposition. So I really don't think that those wanting our freedom of choice re-instated should be denigrating others while still supporting parties that have given it away.
I'm not championing the BNPs corner here, far from it,I'm just pointing out the inconstistencies of the arguments against BNP, because it seems that any mention of them and the shutters come down.
If you support democracy it should be supported wholeheartedly, not just parts that suit each individual. The day it's restored will be the day that people stop 'thinking' of voting BNP, until such times I'm afraid that many people will be tempted to vote for them.
"however I'm sure no one really wants to see the likes of the BNP and UKIP in govt"
By putting UKIP and the BNP into the same category you have shown your ignorance.
UKIP are nothing like the BNP in the fact that UKIP are an essentially Libertarian organisation, while the BNP are typically Authoritarian. Just like Labour, the Conservatives and the biggest misnomer in politics, the Liberals.
Also people would do well to remember that less than a hundred years ago the two party system was dominated by Tories and Whigs (Liberals). The Labour party was nowhere in sight then.
History shows us that things change, so why write off any small party, especially a party that is showing itself to have more in common with ordinary folk?
What the people of this country really need is for an wholesale clear out of the incumbent politicians now sitting in the HoC, of all parties, all 600 odd.
A clean sweep with a new broom, then the mere mention of the BNP will not upset anyone and become a defunct party.
UKIP - yes I'm also considering voting for them because they want out of the pernicious EU, but if they got elected what's to say they won't do the same as every other politician once elected, become a rabid EU supporter.
In truth I have no trust whatsoever in any politicial party, be they, Labour, Tory, Lib-Dem, UKIP, Greens or the BNP.
None of the above appeal - where do I go?
Peter, I agree with Tony and have tried to bite my lip and not waste time answering the scurrilous stuff you are trying to blacken UKIP with. I'm relying on people's own intelligence to see through it all. UKIP are not a "little" party and shouldn't be compared in any way to the BNP. You are now advising that people do not vote for them because they don't have millionaire backers. WHATEVER WILL YOU COME UP WITH NEXT!
It costs £10 to join UKIP and I haven't seen them bleating anywhere that people will be expected to contribute more.
You slated the dedicated hard working local council candidate Robert Feal-Martinez because he was "only" a publican. You doubted that his views represented UKIP policy and yet the article "Only UKIP can save our pubs", is on the front page of the UKIP website.
Incidentally, this article was written as the result of a survey done among licenced trade members by the "Morning Advertiser", the licensed trade's newspaper.
The same article states that UKIP MEP Godfrey Bloom has started a beer mat campaign.
How much more authentication do you want?
And what are the glorious conservative party going to do about repealing the smoking ban?
To get back to the subject of this forum. I now see tht UKIP are running their own Mayoral candidate for London. He is the MEP Gerard Batten.
Joan, I would defend your right to vote for the BNP. That shouldn't stop me airing my veiws about these Nazis. The anti-smoking crusaders and BNP have much in common. Exclusion. A dispicable ideology that will always end in suffering. There have been no inconsistances from myself regardiong the BMP or the ANTIS. I despise them both.
Some great debate is going on here and Margot is, indeed, correct about UKIP MEP Godfrey Bloom because I was one of the people who went to see Godfrey Bloom and I am one of the instigators of the very same beer-mat. Mr Bloom was and remains very sympathetic regarding the blanket ban of tobacco-smoking in enclosed public spaces. I have yet to read or hear about a Conservative/Liberal Democrat/New Labour MP expressing the same level of sympathy for the plight of publicans and licensees as well as members of the public who smoke tobacco. I can verify that UKIP is, indeed, becoming more overtly against a blanket smoking ban, although some UKIP members are, obviously, in favour of the ban. Some of the candidates in the forthcoming council elections have chosen to state this on their material to hand out to the general public. I fail to understand why some people appear to display symptoms of paranoia regarding UKIP! Or, is that we in UKIP are now starting to rattle a few cages because we are beginning to increase in numbers and, hopefully, strength? We are firmly committed to opposing the tyranny of the EU and its unlimited legislation which is being increasingly thrust upon us. We want to have a referendum on a vitally important issue, namely, the Lison Treaty. Does that make us barmy? We have experienced yet another example of EU-government stupidity earlier this week when Ms H Harman announced that from Sunday it will be an offence to refer to a barmaid as 'love' or make flattering or suggestive comments!
Tony is completely correct that minority parties should not simply be written off because they have fewer members. His example of the Labour Party in the early 20th Centurary is a very apt one. Furthermore, I am becoming increasingly convinced that representatives of minority parties, (whether they be UKIP, BNP or something else) could not make a worse mess of things generally than has happened in recent years. Members of minority parties would have to work extremely hard to display a similar level of incompetence and the profound lack of listening skills which may be attributed to very many representatives of the three major parties who are in prestigious positions at present.
Good grief Col Dee! I don't think anyone will notice my typo-error (20th century - not centurary - sorry) in my final paragraph after reading what you have just posted! I do agree with a lot of what you have written, but I must say that you are rather harsh regarding the intelligence issue! A lot of white British people must be pretty intellectually challenged to vote New Labour in in three consecutive general elections!
By the way, UKIP members do have opinions regarding issues other than getting out of Europe. (Law and Order, Competitiveness in Education to name a couple, and very traditional approaches actually). However, having just read through all you have written, I think I'll now fade into the background and let everyone else dissect the content of your post!
After reading the above posts what you realy have to do is stand back and look at what Labour, Liberals and 1/3 of Conservatives voted for.
They banned the use of a legal product which they condone the sale of on PRIVATE Property. A legal product that they make billions out of and to top it all they removed the democractic rights of members of clubs to vote what they wanted their club to be.
Does that sound like we are living in a "FREE" country when legal products are banned on privately owned property and private members clubs.
MPs once voted into power seem to think that they are there to rule us not serve us and until that mind set is changed this country wont change.
I bet Winston Churchill is turning in his grave.
Like one of the posters above I will vote for a fringe party and if 12 to 14 million smokers do the same no main stream political party will have an overall majority. If I had my way I would kick them all out they are a load of greedy grasping people that are only interested in themselves.
Joan, I would defend your right to vote for the BNP. That shouldn't stop me airing my veiws about these Nazis. The anti-smoking crusaders and BNP have much in common. Exclusion. A dispicable ideology that will always end in suffering. There have been no inconsistances from myself regardiong the BMP or the ANTIS. I despise them both.
I appreciate the reply Zitori, and I'm pleased you'd defend my right to vote for whom I please. And like you I'd defend your right to air your views about the Nazi. You say that the anti-smoker crusaders & the BNP have much in common, exclusion. A despicable ideology.
This is my point, as this is exactly what the 3 main parties ideologies are, what they have done to smokers, excludes them from socialising with the mainstream public, and unless people are deemed healthy by the health fascists smokers are not going to be the only ones excluded. Where it will all end I dread to think.
Col.Dee - I admire your honesty, and for what it's worth I can see where you're coming from in some of what you say, from my own experience of where I live. It's gone from a close knit community to divided one, on the one side you have the money people, liberal elites, moving into the new houses, on the other side English speakers have become a minority. What I find very offensive though is that those that actively support immigration/unlimited immigration, take great pains to isolate themselves from the self-same policies that's been foisted, without any form of consultaion, onto the rest of us. The country has changed beyond our wildest imagination. And to question anything about immigration brings the usual all-encomapssing words to the fore 'racist' or 'bigot'. Where the ruling classes & liberal elites are concerned TRUTH is a dirty word. But telling truth is NOT racist.
Health fascism, climate change: there's a green jackboot waiting there.
Jenny of Yorkshire. One thing you forgot to mention, and so did I, is that UKIP has always had a clear policy of restricting immigration. You have obviously been a member of UKIP for a lot longer than I and it is good to have your voice. I was beginning to fear that I would be the only one bombarded with questions and I am still very much a learner.
I stated that it costs £10 to become a member but feel I must hasten to add the obvious - that it costs nothing to be a supporter and vote for them.
Col Dee: Your recent post was quite brilliant and extremely courageous. You stated so much that English people feel but dare not say. However, I would like to clarify my comment that we are an established multi-racial society. We are indeed that. We must build the future from where we are at present. You state, in effect, that we should have simplified the whole thing at the very beginning and said that if you want to come to our country, you live as we do. Well, of course we should have done. Enoch Powell was right and no one supported him more than I did. However, we didn't do that, and it is too late to change track now.The most we can hope for is that UKIP will achieve the seemingly impossible and become elected into government. Even these new multi-racial Britons must wish that immigration be curbed. There simply isn't room or employment for the amount of people we now have living here.
To be free from the domination of the EU and the billions of tax payers' money we pay them each year, and to have a moderate commonsense government committed to improving the lives of everyone at present living in the U.K., we should already be halfway towards easing the racial tensions which exist at the moment.
So much of the trouble in the huge inner city areas is a direct result of poverty and ignorance. And the greatest of these ills is poverty.
So why should this be considered impossible? The Labour movement itself was very small to begin with. It really is up to each individual to take the United Kingdom Indepedence Party seriously and really look at their policies as a viable alternative. They need to look in depth. Go to the UKIP website. Attend a local meeting, as I have done. Read the speech made by Lord Pearson in the House of Lords, as you intend to do this evening, This proves, beyond doubt, that financial independence is possible
As you say, we have no guarantees that UKIP is the complete answer but it is certainly the best alternative we have at present.Let us not forget that a party consists of the members within it and its policies are formed by those members - so if we are as dissatisfied as we say we are, let us become those members within UKIP and help form a better world for ourselves. The alternative - to throw up our hands in despair and say there is nothing we can do about the ever worsening situation we are in, really is not the way to go.
To return to the question of the UKIP policy on the smoking ban, which is where this all started. As I understand it, they do not intend to overturn the ban but to modify it so that owners of businesses have a choice of whether they wish to run a smoking or non-smoking, or part smoking, establishment. This concept is popular with smokers and non-smokers alike.
As for the young people. It really is up to parents to give guidence to their children not the state. The sad thing is that smoking was definitely becoming much less fashionable until all this draconian action took place. Suddenly it has been put into the category of "forbidden fruit". The best thing that could happen would be for the very subject to sink into the oblivion it once had, and become simply a matter of choice, like what food we choose to eat.
Move to England Col Dee.
You've got my vote.
I've never voted labour, I've voted conservative 4 times , but never again. We're only going to beat this ban if we make the politicians listen at the polls. I've been in regular contact with my Tory candidate and there's absolutely nothing he can do unless the Tory Central Office take our (and his) views. I feel sorry for him in a way, but he won't get my vote. Until Cameron gives 'just a little' - even crying out over the new hate-crime that the smoke-ban has created, along with confirming that it was the smoke-ban that has caused the demise in the pubs, I have little respect. My candidate has even confirmed to me that the WHO report was hushed up and that the funding was going elsewhere to try to prove that passive smoking exists. If he knows that, then why isn't he stating this out loud.
I can't trust them, they're too 'politically correct' and won't help me. So, my decision. I won't vote for him (even though I feel sorry for him!)
The fight against the anti-smoking crusade should NOT be connected in any way to the biggoted, ignorant,devisive garbage that is being posted here today. How quickly the subject has turned to 'black and white', with the sort of disgusting comments that were used against the Jews, and other persecuted races, not forgetting smokers.
Col dee, yes now you've admitted you are a racist, the BNP is waiting with open arms for you. So why don't you piss off and spread your bile somewhere else.
To see UKIP or the BNP as our saviours in the fight against oppression, is probably the lowest depth that this blog has ever sank to.
Ah. It seems my previous post (from circa 7:30pm last night) has been deleted. It's a pity.
I have removed several comments from this thread. I respect people's opinions and I have no wish to censor them, but a line was crossed when people began to talk about an issue - immigration and race - that had absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this post.
Like Peter Thurgood (earlier comment), I applaud Boris Johnson's statement rejecting the second votes of BNP supporters. This is an open forum (within reason) but I abhor racism and fascism and I will not tolerate posts that are deliberately racist. There are other forums where you can express such views. This is not one of them.
Note: if you want to discuss Boris and the BNP, I suggest you do so on Boris's blog (www.boris-johnson.com), not here.
I agree 100% Simon, thank you.
I didnt get to read Col Dee's letter but I get the gist of what was said and am disappointed it was deleted as I'm sure he wasnt trying to rabble rouse just stating it as it is, deep down we all feel the same as he does about our countrys being overcrowded and turned into calcuttas, I only hope the word cigarette and smokeing wont go the same route in the future.
I think you need to speak for yourself, Ann. I certainly don't, and several other posters have made it clear they don't either. And if I thought "we all feel the same" about race I would certainly conclude "Taking Liberties" wasn't for me.
Sorry, that was a bit ambiguous. I meant, I don't feel the same as "Col Dee" about immigration/race, and I think several other posters on this forum don't either.
I can perfectly understand why Simon deleted my posts, as my views are fairly extreme and it would be damaging for the pro-choice movement to be tarred by the extreme views of one person, on an issue unrelated to smoking. Apart from any personal distaste people may have felt reading my views, there is the practical consideration of an imbecilic media, and ASH.
For that reason I will not write anything else here in that vain.
However, for the benefit of those curious, the gist of what I wrote was:
Immigration and the way it's been implemented (PC, diversity etc.) has crippled Britain's national identity, and the result of that is that we are vulnerable to groups like ASH. They are fanatics who promise success and a better future etc. British people, dislocated from their own history, are far more willing to be controlled than they would have been, say, 100 years ago, when British national identity was stronger. Thus, we get things like the smoking ban.
The demonising of smokers is just one part of a general attack on our culture and heritage.
For the record I don't hate anyone. I simply think that some cultures just don't mix, no matter how many diversity seminars you attend.
PS. I retained copies of the controversial posts so if anybody wants to read them, they can get in touch with me privately [slushprodukt AT yahoo co uk]. In any case I'm setting up a website to air my views so they'll be available there, sometime soon.
If I am described as 'the lowest depth to which we have sunk' for supporting UKIP (cf. Zitori's comments) then I shall accept that statement and hope to swim to the surface in my own way. I am a free-thinker, Zitori, a product of an education system which has been systematically eroded and almost driven to extinction - namely, the old grammar school system. Margot - thank you for acknowledging my presence. I didn't mention UKIP's restriction of immigration issue because, as Simon correctly points out, that isn't the subject of this post. I am, however, deeply concerned about the legislation issues and, as I previously stated, we are being bombarded with EU directives and regulations which are being thrown at us at a rate of knots. I feel sad that someone as individualistic as Boris Johnson should change his approach to the smoking issue so dramatically. In fact, I am deeply disappointed. This reminds me of Mr Cameron's recently publicised u-turn on this subject. I cannot identify with such u-turns and I no longer recognise the conservative party as standing up for beliefs and values I personally believe in after 25 years of voting for them. I am not a long-standing member of UKIP, but UKIP seems to be the only party with the courage to stand up against the implementation of draconian and unnecessary legislation.
There seems to be a tendency here by some posters to tar UKIP and the BNP with the same brush, simply becuse they are outside the "big three".
To my mind UKIP has a well thought through set of policies covering a wide range of issues, all with a libertarian theme. There is a refreshing honesty about the party which is absent from the main political players. It's appeal to people like me is obvious.
Unfortunately the same cannot be said about the BNP.
Thank you Simon, I was beginning to give up hope on here.
Can you please tell me Jenny, where, in their manifesto, do UKIP mention overturning, or amending the smoking ban, or indeed, anything at all about the smoking ban?
The answer to that question has been pointed out to you Peter. In addition, you are quite at liberty to be a die-hard Tory just as other people are entitled to their political viewpoints. However, you are not going to convince people as to your views for a whole number of reasons that have been collectively expressed. May I also point out that, in your efforts to drum up recruits for the Conservative Party, there is a certain paternalistic "I know best" element to your posts which is not attractive nor a vote winner either. Give that a rest please, old man, after all, we are all as irritated about the current political state of affairs as each other and there are no principled well argued cases coming from the Tory Party, at least, not enough to impress anybody. If there were, we'd probably all be agreeing with everything you say.
Why dont we all meet at some point at the Boisdale in Belgravia at some point and lets have a bloody good chin wag and try to organise something positive.im prepared to travel 220 miles on the train.
For the benefit of Peter Thurgood and others who doubt UKIP's views. The manifesto you have been looking at was written in 2005. This has not yet been updated as we do not have a firm date for the next general election. However, UKIP's position has been made quite clear through a series of public statements by their leadership. Please look at the following links. How much more proof does anyone need that the UKIP is against the blanket smoking ban? It wants choice.
1. How about Nigel Farage expressing support for F2C in the Morning Advertiser in Feb 2007.
http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news_detail.aspx?articleid=27354
Nigel says: 'If a publican wishes to go smoke free. Great, that is their choice. If they don't, that is also their choice.'
2. Look at Nigel Farage's views on the smoking ban and patio heaters here (Jan 31 08)
http://www.ukip.org/ukip/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=450&Itemid=57
3. Look at an example of a local election leaflet - which has the full blessing of UKIP
http://www.winwithtim.co.uk/TimHunterleafletpage1.pdf (April 08)
http://www.winwithtim.co.uk/TimHunterleafletpage2.pdf (April 08)
4. Look at the recent 'Bin the Ban ' beermat' campaign etc,etc. (Mar-April 08)
http://www.ukip.org/ukip/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=553&Itemid=57
The ban can obviously only be overturned by Parliament.
5. The UKIP MEPs are opposing the proposal to introduce an EU-wide ban.
http://indemgroup.eu/it/32/news/449/?tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=1&cHash=d8c4dc657f
This is the most supportive position so far from any political party regarding overturning the ban. It is massively more supportive then the LibDem/NuLab/Con attitudes.
I do hope that all this can help clarify the position of UKIP regarding this issue.
I am really taken aback and its frightening to see how near the surface the red flag word racist is in an intelligent forum like this site, I think I'll give it up as I'm beginning to feel constricted already, I feel that people are being forced to make apologies about their thoughts, what sort of a debate is that, Col Dee was making a valid point about immigration (I had used the word overcrowding instead as I knew it would offend how brainwashed is that) to show how the likes of outfits like ASH are intrinsically entwined in the demonising of the smoking ban and down the road drinking bans and obesity bans. I can hear the Boris's and the Gordon's laughing all the way to the next election. Bye y'all.
Thank you Jenny, at least you answered properly, in a civilised manner, and supplied links as well to what I asked for.
I have searched and searched on the UKIP site for any information like this, and have not been able to find any, and apart from you, no one else has provided me with any before.
As you are probably aware, and as I said much earlier on in this discussion, there are a lot of cranks and people trying to cause disruption on this thread. There are also others, who are very condescending, and have just one goal in their sight, which is to oust the Tories, regardless of whatever they might or might not say on this subject.
I would say that our goal should be to oust the Labour Party, for it was them that implemented this awful law, and it is them that should be taught a lesson at the polls.
My way of getting rid of Labour is to vote Conservative, your way is to vote UKIP. We might both disagree with each other as to which party is the best choice for doing the job, but surely we should all be on the same side when it comes to fighting injustice?
We seem to be approaching some clarity regarding our voting options. For the sake of it, I'll attempt to compile the pros and cons in one place.
I've purposely omitted voting for Labour and the LibDems because they have no claim to "the smoker's vote" and nobody in this thread appears to be considering them.
So, the options:
A) Vote Tory.
2/3 of them voted against the ban, so they can't be blamed for it. However, the leadership (and Boris Johnson) are now pro-ban, so they wouldn't abolish it. They have also voiced support for further smoking restrictions. Really the only 2 things in the Tories' favour are that they are an established party with policies on everything, and 2/3 of them voted against the ban (but that seems to be irrelevant now).
B) Vote UKIP.
They are demonstrably against the ban (thanks Jenny) and would amend or abolish it. Furthermore they would get us out of Europe and thus help to preserve our national identity. On the down side, they've never been in power before and may have little idea how to go about it. (But then, that may make them a better government!) Aside from the big 3, UKIP may be most likely to win an election. See also (C).
C) Vote for a minor independent party (eg the UK Libertarian Party). They won't get in, but votes will encourage them to continue and grow. Also, voting for independents will make the big 3 parties realise how out of touch they are, and they might change.
Personally, it seems to me that voting for the Tories is the most ludicrous of those options. I believe a Tory government would be pretty much "more of the same".
What we need now, as I said before, is a new era in politics. We need MPs who are not paralysed by party dogma. We need parties who don't have armies of spin doctors manipulating us. We need politicians with conviction.
I suppose another question is, how many of the people canvassing for the minor parties actually expect to get in? What would happen if they did? Meltdown?
The dilemma is whether to pour everything into getting rid of Labour (vote Tory) or pour everything into avoiding more of the same (vote for a minor party). The latter option is less likely to succeed, meaning that Labour may get back in!
It's complicated...
In the end, what's the point of getting rid of Labour only to get Blue Labour? What kind of victory would that be for the libertarian/smoker? So I say take the risk and vote for a minor party. The era of Tory/Labour needs to be ended.
An obvious point perhaps, but I don't recall reading this in any of the above posts:
We elect individuals to represent us in parliament. Whatever party-flag they fly, MPs vary in their allegiance to their respective whips. It's worth remembering that some Labour MPs haven't bought into nu-labor authoritarianism at all. One who springs to mind immediately is Kate Hoey, member for Vauxhall. Check her voting-record on theyworkforyou.wotsit... a better friend to freedom would be hard to find in any of the big 3: against smoking-ban, hunting ban and I.D. cards, voted for transparency in parliament, investigation into the Iraq war, voted for a referendum on the EU and highly critical of Mayor Livingstone's fiefdom.
I'm the last person to stick up for Nu-Labor, but I reckon MPs like Hoey are more troubling to the executive than the media-pleasing Tory "opposition", in that I think they represent what a significant number of non-tribal Labour voters thought they were buying into. I'll count myself in that, as I did vote Labour in '97. Sorry! I really am!
It follows then that we should lobby both our individual MPs and prospective parliamentary candidates and elect those persons who we feel will best represent our concerns, regardless of what colour's on their rosette. At the last election, my own choice happened to be a Tory.
Like most on here, I'm not an extremist. I don't believe in absolute libertarianism: I do see a [smaller] role for The State. The problem we're facing is that supposedly-moderate NuLab have become a party of extremist cold ideologues peddling unfair, divisive, even treasonous policy and, because they've been getting away with it for so long, this has distorted the idea of where the political centre-ground rests.
An effective opposition must not be extremist in itself but, in it's demands for moderation, transparency, fair-representation and common-sense, show-up the extremism of those we oppose.
Yes, Col Dee, I agree with your logic.
Yet whilst my heart says UKIP I do have a slightly nagging worry that such a strategy might result in a further term for NuLab withn all the horrors that would entail.
It's a pity that the Tories won't take a more robust line re the inequalites of the smoking ban.
I can understand why they don't want to major on the issue and possibly (to their way of thinking) alienate more of the population than they gain and I'd like to think that they'd be more likely to take action to preserve the pubs in the countryside where the ban is really going to hurt. But, as has been said, all the indications so far are that they will do nothing. I suppose that, in the face of a lack of any reassurance from the Tories, I'd take the view that there is little to lose anyway and vote with my heart.
Point taken, Col Dee, and well stated. However you have introduced the dread words "UK Libertarian Party". In making my own choice, I looked at their website. It is very attractive indeed and offers abolition of all personal income tax. This brings us back to the perennial problem of supporting any anti-establishment party. If the "fringe" vote is split among severl smaller parties, the established big three will continue unchecked.
If all fringe voters would set aside personal small hopes or desires and consolidate into voting for the same viable fringe party, by electing them the way would be opened for a true democratic system in the future. This is something that supporters of all fringe parties should take seriously. There can be no doubt that UKIP are the party to take seriously in this respect. They do have a real hope of success and there is little or nothing in their policies which can be argued against.
The old saying, "United we stand, divided we fall", has never been more applicable than right now.
Regarding whether they would be capable of governing - whether they have the expertise - they are used to "parliamentary" procedure in the UE parliament. Behind any government are the civil servants. They are conversant with correct procedure in all matters. We have all seen and enjoyed the TV series "Yes, Minister". Do you not think that people who have been brave enough to dedicate their one and only life to commitment to a fringe party have not the intelligence to look with clear eyes at the established civil service which they will then be able to control?
So - just a few extra thoughts for these pages!
We who express our views here are just a tiny minority of the general population. But, at least, if we can agree that we have a common aim and can begin to spread the word among as many people as possible, then we do have a fighting chance.
Does anyone disagree with this, my own personal view?
I think your logic is quite excellent, Margot, and have little to add to what you've written.
You are right to point out that spreading our votes too thinly, but consisently against labour, could result in the worst scenario: Labour get back in but with a greatly reduced share.
So I see little option but to go with UKIP.
May I just add that there is little point in grumbling that the three main parties seem to be doing nothing to aleviate this draconian smoking ban which is causing economic and social destruction to our country. We must be quite clear that there is actually nothing they can do or say. By legal agreement, they are now under the control of the EU. They simply do not have any say in the matter.
The region in which I live, the South East region including the whole of London, has already been "regionalised" by the EU. As from October 2006 it was put under the control of an unelected Frenchman called Alain le Vern and renamed the "Arc Manche Region". It is controlled by the Arc Manche office in Paris. The intention is that the whole of England should be regionalised, renamed, and put under the control of an office in some part of Europe, e.g. Germany. The intention is that the whole of the U.K. should be regionalised and the name United Kingdom removed except in an historical context.
Apparently this was reported in some newspapers, but who believes what is written in newspapers? It was not mentioned on television.
Please don't ask me which newspapers. I am only one person trying to live an ordinary life. Those really interested in proof should do their own research, or join UKIP who will furnish them with all such information.
All I want to remind you of here is that all three main parties are subject to EU and cannot change present policies.
As Jenny kindly supplied me some links to UKIP and their support to overturning the smoking ban, I decided to look up Boris' views on the matter, as, after all, this thread is supposed to be about Boris and his views.
Here is what I found:
"I wonder whether it's absolutely necessary for Whitehall to decide whether smoking should be banned in bars and clubs and restaurants," he said.
"I'm not a smoker, I disapprove of it, but I think this is something that could pre-eminently be decided locally."
Http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23433540-
details/I+didn't+mean+to+be+racist+,+claims+Boris/article.do
I think I qualify as the single most rabidly freedom-loving columnist on this paper. I have sounded the alarm against bans on smoking, snacking, smacking, hunting and making jokes about religion; and I have inveighed against just about every example of nanny-statery you can think of, from booster seats for 11-year-olds to the new labels on wine bottles warning you that the contents can make you drunk
Http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.show.article.page&obj_id=140428
A group of celebrities has written to The Times newspaper opposing a smoking ban in public places.
Actor Stephen Fry, television presenter Chris Tarrant, artist David Hockney, Tory MP Boris Johnson and Bob Geldof were among those who signed the letter.
"Dangers of smoking and passive smoking are currently being exaggerated to the point of hysteria," the letter claims
Http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3689466.stm
Hi Margot
Greetings from a fellow inhabitant of the "Arc Manche Region".
Yes, the EU is the driving force behind all the smoking restrictions in Europe but the governments of the individual countries surely do have leeway over how strictly the bans are legislated, hence the much more liberal restictions in other countries.
So if the Tories (or any other party) were of a mind too they could presumably cut some slack here as regards exemptions for pubs, segregated areas etc. Or are you saying this is not the case? Not wishing to be awkward, just trying to understand your point.
Peter,
Re your last post, isn't the whole point here that Boris seems (for whatever reason) to have altered his position on the ban. What is the point of these quotes on his previous position?
At least one of those links, Bootboy, is from just a few weeks ago. I have searched everywhere, and there is no news item and no link, showing that Boris has changed his views since then. If anyone can show me differently I would like to see it?
When someone was kind enough to take time to provide me with links to UKIP showing their views to the ban, I did not start saying that they were out of date, which I believe most of them were.
Hi Bootboy,
Hope you are enjoying living in our new Arc Manche part of Europe. You can buy French bread at your local supermarket, you know.
No, I simply don't know how much leeway our present government has under this central EU control. And why other European countries are able to interpret the smoking ban so liberally. I can't believe that any government would deliberately set out to destroy large parts of it's economy as this one has - and without opposition from the other two parties.
Another thing I don't know is whether there is personal financial incentive being offered very discreetly by the EU. Sorry - I am being less than polite and probably enormously non-p.c. and could even be accused of mental inbalance, to even suggest that our scrupulously honest leaders would ever countenance such a thing. Could even be sued for libel, I suppose. So I will resume the stiff upper lip and not think such unthinkable thoughts again.
What I do know, is the absolutely vital importance to them of conquering and subjugating the United Kingdom. It is more important to them than any other part of Europe. Throughout history, these independent islands have been a thorn in the flesh to Europe. Throughout history the ruling powers of Europe, be it the Germans,French,Spanish or the Holy Roman Empire; have really tried. We have managed to fight them off and retain our independence until now. I can imagine that no effort or expense will be spared to hammer home and achieve this present campaign by Europe.
Our last hope was rejecting the present Lisbon Treaty at present having its second reading in the House of Lords. We have some excellent UKIP Lords in there doing a brilliant job of revealing the truth. [UKIP is a tiny fringe party not worth considering? I don't think so!]
There was every hope of success as Labour do not have a majority in the House of Lords. The Liberal lords were in favour of rejecting the bill and then suddenly, on Thursday, for no apparent reason these "Euroluvvies" went about face and supported it. Don 't know what the final outcome will be, but am not holding breath.
The only hope is revolution; while we still have communication with each other and before it has become a complete madhouse. No one wants another "Bastille", so we are patiently left with only the hope that UKIP will succeed in the next general election and get us out of Europe while there is still time.
Council elections are important too as a sign that people are dissatisfied with the present regime. Even if UKIP have not been able yet to field a candidate, a vote for an Independent or a spoiled ballot paper will give indication of national opinion.
I noted on this present forum, [poor old Boris, perhaps he will join UKIP eventually], that there are ordinary M.Ps who disagree with their party line but can do nothing about it. Perhaps they will have the courage, and sufficient savings behind them to exist in the meantime, to leave their respective parties and join UKIP. UKIP does desperately need more candidates. If a few of the present M.Ps had the courage and conviction to join them, they really would become a force to be reckoned with in the next election.
Well, this is only a small forum with a few people on it within the vast realms of cyber-space, but a journey of a thousand miles does begin with a single step.
Best regards to us all. Any further views on what I have just said?
Simon said he had deleted some posts because they were racist. Why is it that when anyone gives an opinion of their image of what this country has become or dares mention the BNP then out come the knives and the racist slurs.
I agree that what Col Dee posted could be contsrued as racist, but it doesn't mean he is,
after all casting these asperions on someone without even knowing the person personaly isn't exactly a nice thing either
I do hope these slurs were not aimed at me too, as I see that a post I responded to of Co. Dee was deleted, why? there was nothing detrimental about it. No wonder the country has gone to the dogs when the word 'racist'
is frequently used to censorship debate.
I agree that for people who want to take their opinions to the extreme there is sufficient sites to do so, but censorship because some express these opinions more openly than others can be likened to what the Smoking Ban Experiment has done to society, divide it, and
censor debate on the issue and the truth of the SHS myth.
.
I agree with everything you say, Joan, but we have to accept that this is not a "free for all" forum. This is Simon's forum, and it is his right to decide what is acceptable to him and what isn't.
More practically, it is a bad idea to allow pro-choice sites like this to be associated with racism. It would play right into the hands of people like ASH and Guardianistas.
The views I expressed are, despite being the result of a chain of logic, personal experience and contemplation, essentially racist. Racism offends people viscerally, irrationally, because they have a natural inclination to believe that we can all get along, and part of that is believing that we are all equal. Therefore, many people will find racist views incomprehensible and offensive because they undermine an almost sacred desire to "make friends".
I do not apologise for holding racist views, but I do regret posting them on this particular site. I thank you for defending me but I think Simon's rationale for deleting my posts is sound. And even if it weren't, it's his blog! :)
Oh, and I forgot to mention that in this brave new world which Bootboy and I are at present inhabiting in our Region Arc Manchem we will be paying our taxes directly to Mr Le Vern in Paris. The House of Commons and the House of Lords will probably no longer existm other than as tourist attractionsm and the revenue from priceless asset the City of London will also go to Mr Le Vern. That is if the London Stock Exchange hasn't been transfered to Paris or Brussels or Berlin.
Let's hope our present leaders do retire as millionaires. Otherwise, what is the point of it all?
Think I am exagerating? Check it out for yourselves. [No, Peter, not via me!] Ask your MPs, make a bit of a fuss, insist on a reply. Bet you won't get any replies!
Above all, seriously consider UKIP and spread the word - ask your local MP if he will join UKIP. Explain why.
Have a good weekend, everyone.
I found information about the Arc Manche region, in the Conservative Home website from October 2006:
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/files/cchq_press_release.pdf
It's pretty damned scary.
Margot, I think you make an excellent point about the situation here:
What I do know, is the absolutely vital importance to them of conquering and subjugating the United Kingdom. It is more important to them than any other part of Europe. Throughout history, these independent islands have been a thorn in the flesh to Europe. Throughout history the ruling powers of Europe, be it the Germans,French,Spanish or the Holy Roman Empire; have really tried. We have managed to fight them off and retain our independence until now. I can imagine that no effort or expense will be spared to hammer home and achieve this present campaign by Europe.We've got to start fighting back NOW, or we're f***ed.
It's as I've been saying all along in this thread: Britain is being systematically dismantled, because of its libertarian history. That's why things like the smoking ban are implemented more fiercely here than in Europe: the populace "need to be taught a lesson".
But ultimately, of course, the whole of Europe will suffer by the EU - not just Britain. We just happen to be particularly useful for setting an example.
Reading that document, I get the uneasy feeling that none of what we're seeing is accidental. There's a sense of a masterplan being nurtured in Brussels, to erase national identity from every country in Europe. The question is WHY DO THIS?!, but that can only be answered by guilt-ridden middle-class Marxists.
Now I'm off to bed. Thank god there's always bed - lol.
Peter I think meeting up would be a great idea at Boisdales, who else is in?
Mr/Ms Moderator can we do this here or can I post my email address to co-ordinate things here?
I don't know if I'm right in this, but I think the EU have been trying to take charge of the London financial institutions for a while now, if I remember rightly there was something mentioned about a sell off to foreigners, just like water, gas electric etc., have been sold off. I'm not exactly sure but it was along these lines.
The three main parties are all pro-EU, Labour and the Lib-Dems being worse, but I think Cmaeron is a bit like Blair, he plays down his EU credentials but if the Tories win the election I believe he'll be no different to Brown. Plus the talk of renegotiating is a lot of cobblers, it'd have to be some heavy negotiations to get back what successive governments have given away to Brussels.
I think England/Scotland/Wales/Ireland are going out of their way to making the SBE even more draconian than other European countries to show themselves in a good light to them. The EU Youth Forum also played a big part in bringing about the ban EU wide, they're also putting their oar in about healthy eating, their recommendations is that children in schools should be made to eat healthy, forget Jamie Oliver, he was just a celebrity they got on board to entice parents, this, like the SBE is an EU edict.
I don't believe any government here would repeal the SBE without prior approval from the EU the same goes for an amendment. Put it this way if the EU didn't want to dominate every country in Europe, ASH would not be holding the upper hand, they'd still be the tin pot organisation they started out as. Where WHO is concerned they should go back to what they were orginally set up for, not interferring in people's lives as they now do on a daily basis.
The only way to regain our independence is for complete withdrawal. But when this is mentioned so many ask but how will we manage. The same as we did without them.
Take a look at
this on Guido Fawkes.
The Progressive Governance Summit is a tax-funded get-together of nulabor-style world leaders. Their logo, until today, was a very thinly-disguised swastika. [They've cropped it now, as someone's apparently decided we're not quite ready to see the whole picture just yet.] GF shows the original logo as it appeared on the 10 Downing Street site earlier.
The BBC have not run the story.
Well spotted, Basil Brown. Thanks for passing on such up to the minute news.
That should make us all go quiet for a moment!
Hi Dave A
I have noticed before you have attended Broisdales. I thought it would be an excellent venue for us all to go and meet each other and thrash things out.
I'm game any time after April.