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)
Margot, you sound a determined lady on a mission. More power to your elbow!!
As an aside, I read your post on the latest feature on the blog. I had a partner who was also an artist. Some time after we'd split up, he moved abroad where he died last year. I was a number of years younger than he was and he used to joke that, because of my smoking (of which he disapproved, but tolerated) he would outlive me. He died in his mid-sixties (which is no age nowadays) having always been healthy, outdoorsy, a non-smoker and moderate drinker. In my job I frequently hear about healthy people who die suddenly and prematurely. I'm firmly of the opinion that whatever's to blame, in the majority of cases, it isn't lifestyle. Because I now believe that the dangers of ETS are a complete scam, I disregard every health warning and intend to grow old as a disgraceful eccentric (you can get away with a lot as an eccentric old biddy)!
Anyway...back to the matter in hand. I think that it's safe to say that NuLabour is on its last legs: there appears to be unrest in the ranks with talk of rebellion and Ed "So what?" Balls as the Young Pretender - it would be the last straw for the electorate after his ill-advised remark, I think.
I think that UKIP's chances of garnering support between now and the general election are excellent. Time for some groundwork... .
Dear Margot I have just returned from bingo and everyone i speak to say the same they never vote because all of them are the same. I disagree with that they havent listened to UKIP policies.I only wished i had a magic wand that would let people hear the policies that UKIP had to offer the voter. But unfortunately i do not, and it is much much harder for the smaller parties to get noticed when all the media never promote or give coverage to them. But i honestly believe that people want a change and its only a matter of time before this happens. I want a better future for my child. I want a fairer future for all and as i said before i will do everything in my power to get people to listen, and i also think people are beginning to listen more after 11 years of labour rule.So lets hope that come 1st of may the election results show that the people of this country are fed up with labour and show that loyal labour and conservatives are looking for an alternative.
Pat, I think that UKIP will do well when canvassing round the doors and leaflet dropping. People are just so fed up that they're waiting for a UKIP to come along and offer a real alternative to the three main parties and it's a huge plus that only UKIP wants us out of the EU - that alone should get it masses of votes. Problem is that UKIP needs more candidates to stand for election before it can be considered a threat. When it begins to look like one I wouldn't be surprised if the big 3 banded together to try and squash it (remember Brown's attempts to do a deal with the LibDems?).
Yes, Joyce, I agree with all your comments above.
Action is the next step. We must put our feet where our mouths are. I'll do as Norman did and talk to my local MP, whoever he is. My second meeting at the local UKIP branch is on the 17th. I'll offer my help with leaflet dropping and door to door talking. It won't be easy out there!
Best wishes, everyone.
This thread has been about an alleged email from Boris Johnson, to someone else, whose identity we have never learned. Very early on in the discussion, we learned firstly that the supposed email did not in fact come from Boris himself, but "allegedly" from someone in his campaign team, whose name also, did not come to the fore.
I suggested right from the start, that the whole thing seemed rather suspect, like some sort of underhand plot by the Labour Party to smear Boris, whilst at the same time throwing the proverbial cat amongst the pigeons, here on the Forest website, by starting an in-house war of words amongst us, as to who we should vote for, now that the Conservatives had performed a U-turn on the subject.
I have repeatedly defended Boris Johnson's stance on the smoking ban, on this forum, saying again and again, that these alleged words did not originate from him, but the majority here would not even listen. They had seen it written down, so it must be true?
Well I can categorically tell you now, that this carefully placed piece of propaganda, was nothing more than an outright lie, designed for the purpose of denigrating the Conservative Party as a whole, and throwing us, the smokers, into confusion, so that we would not have time to formulate our plan, calling for all parties to listen to smokers, or lose the smoker's vote.
I sent an email to Boris Johnson, in which I asked him if his position on the smoking ban had changed, since he said "Smoking bans, are a "classic example of Labour's bossy, hysterical, annoying approach. They should leave it to individual pubs and restaurants to decide."
I have just received an answer, which I have pasted here (below). This is real, not some fictitious piece of Labour propaganda. It is signed by the sender, and there is a phone number for anyone to try, if they still have any doubts.
It might not be the answer which some were looking for, but it does make his position on the ban and the way it has been executed, perfectly clear, and show without a doubt that it has not changed.
I find it so sad that we, who share this common cause, have lost so much time now with this ridiculous infighting, because so many were taken in by this ridiculous fake email, that we might have now lost the impetuous to take our plan forward to fruition.
====================================================Here is the email I received:
Dear Peter, thank you very much for your email, and I apologise for the delay in replying.
Boris Johnson is standing for Mayor of London. That post has no power to change the law on smoking.
Boris has repeatedly criticised the heavy handed approach that Labour has taken on a range of issues, including the smoking ban. He does feel that there may have been better ways to protect employees from the harmful effects of smoke, however he is not proposing to use the Mayoralty to lobby Government for the change you suggest.
Thank you for taking the time to write in.
Kind regards,
Rebecca Mellotte
Back Boris Campaign
Tel: 020 7202 7042
www.backboris.com
So Boris isnt a turncoat after all we'll put him back in the race then, I think the bottom line here is that a change of govt is needed badly whether it be UKIP or Conservatives anything is better than the same crowd again, they've been in govt far too long, have lost touch with reality, gone soft with big salaries and just want to stay in power for power sake, look at the state of the country after 10years of labour for god sake. Any party that says they will amend the smoking ban would get my vote.
Thanks for that Peter.
I don't mind admitting I was wrong, I hold my hands up to thinking that Boris was falling in line to further his chances, and I'm glad I've been proved wrong.
On reading a headline on the Standard board outside a shop, it stated that Boris's lead has been halved.
Nothing would surprise if the newt, Livingstone, gets elected again. He has the added bonus of migrant votes, 1 million are registered, and I think the vast majority will be Labour voters. I always knew there was a method to the madness of unlimited immigration, and if Livingstone gets back in, and Labour at the election their agenda will have been a success. Apart from bringing about the total destruction of this country they also knew that the vast majority of immigrants/migrants would be Labour voters.
GERRYMANDERED ON A MASSIVE SCALE is what Labour have done.
The logo they withdrew because it looked like a Swaztika should have been retained and each Labour politician had it emblazoned on their sleeves to show the Labour party for what it really is. After all they adopted a Nazi Policy with the Smoking Ban Experiment so why not be open about it and let the electorate see their true intentions.
It still stands that the leader of the Tories, David Chameleon Cameron, HAS done a u-turn on the smoking ban.
As has been pointed out many times in this thread, the Mayor of London has no power to repeal or amend the smoking ban. So this thread hasn't been "about" that. Nobody's saying we shouldn't vote for the Tories because Boris Johnson is (allegedly) anti-smoking. The consensus is we shouldn't vote for the Tories because THEY, as a PARTY, are now anti-smoking.
Once again, the evidence that they are anti-smoking comes from the mouth of the Tory Leader himself.
Sure, many of them will think the smoking ban is a disgrace - perhaps even the majority of them - but what matters is their policy as a PARTY. The official line etc. After all, that's what politics is about these days.
As for Johnson himself, I'm glad he thinks the smoking ban is heavy-handed. But it's sad that he does not intend to use the influence of being Mayor of London to lobby the government. Doesn't that indicate that, whatever his views on the ban, he lacks the balls to actually DO anything about it? Therefore, as far as the smoking issue is concerned, you may as well vote for bloody Livingstone?!
I do not believe this site is under attack by Labour infiltrators. This isn't Star Trek.
Yes, I think there is something a bit soft-centred about the Conservative policy on this. The Westminster village, to which the Tories belong, is interwoven with the town halls, the quangos, the charity 'civil service' the right thinking media elite - what a difference from the boozy, smoking oddballs and free thinking eccentrics of yesteryear's Fleet Street. And I agree with you Simon in an another post, about The Spectator. I think that for me it's lost the hint of hidden, joyous anarchy which had been there intermittently ever since I first was attracted to it in the 1960s. If I hadn't a subscription I would have stopped buying it. But I admit that's something of a digression. If there's a (mainstream) party which grasps the nettle and promises to reverse the current creeping tyrannies, the others will claim to have thought of it first. Meanwhile they are in the position of pusillanimous elderly members of a Parochial Church Council who say, only after the meeting, that they really did agree with the member of the awkward squad who challenged the vicar's latest trendy ideas. I've noticed that UKIP has an unequivocal promise to repeal the smoking ban law but you have to hunt for it (the law only needs to be amended). But, David Cameron, it's not just about smoking. Don't believe the publicity to which all the political class from town hall clerical worker to the readers of the Guardian jobs advertisements subscribe. Listen and believe there are votes in defence of a fair deal for a hard working, decent, very large minority.
What a difference a day makes! I agree with all posts above except that we must encourage votes for Boris to keep Ken out. The migrant workers are quoted as being the sure supporters of Labour. Other common knowledge that we all share shows that much of the migrant labour force are "sweat-shop" workers who came in by the back door. They don't have a vote.
Any vote for the three main parties, for any reason, will not alter the smoking ban and will take us under direct EU control.
If the legitimate migrants and all legitimate residents of London were allowed to see the Mayoral policy of UKIP's Gerard Batten MEP, there would be a resounding vote for him. Sadly, the EU strangled three main parties and their puppets at the BBC and Fleet Street, will move heaven and earth to make sure that they don't.
We can see his latest video below, and make up our own minds. Don't forget that it was the Londoners themselves who chose him to represent them as MEP for all London.
This is NOT a three horse race.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=UKIP+MAYORAL+BROADCAST&search_type=
[Cor! Typing that was hard on my failing eyesight! Every symbol must be correct and no spaces. Technology is great but I wish there was an easier way.]
Margot, instead of typing out the link, copy and paste - a lot easier.
Thanks, Joyve. I'll try.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=UKIP+MAYORAL+BROADCAST&search_type=
It worked! This version should be correct.
THANKS!
You obviously do not live in London, Margot, so without being rude to you, why are you concerned at all about the London Mayoral voting, and who gets in here?
The UKIPs Gerard Batten was given his BBC slot last night, exactly the same as all the other contenders, just after the 6pm news.
He spoke quite clearly, but like all other contenders for this race, he too never mentioned the smoking ban. But there again, why should he, why should any of them? As we all know, the London Mayor has no power regarding this law, and to come out, one way or the other, at this point in the race, could well and truly jeopardise their chances of winning.
No, Peter, I do not live in London. Many people contributing to this thread do not live in London. However, the Mayoral Elections are always a huge focal point for the whole of U.K.
I am very pleased indeed to hear that he had a voice at last on the BBC. I will look at it.
My chagrin at the media treatment of him was heightened recently when I tried to find his website hy typing in his name. I was directed to a video clip section dealing with a recent staged "freedom to speak" gathering organised by the Evening Standard. All three main candidates spoke. People attending the meeting voted. The Liberal candidate was congratulated on receiving the most second-choice votes. [Well - what do you expect? There were only three candidates to choose from.] Gerard Batten was not mentioned and obviously not invited.
There are many tiny fringe parties running in this election, but UKIP is far and away the fourth largest party on the political scene. Gerard is also London's MP in the UE Parliament. He was voted in by free vote from the residents of London themselves. He was born in the East End.
He does not get fair recognition from the media in this vital election. Surely, as London's elected MEP he has as much right, if not more, than the other three well publicised candidates.
So we are just led straight back to control by the UE and their further erosion of our civil liberties by causing chaos and destruction of our infrastructure. None of the three main partis will halt this.
Of course Gerard did not bring the Smoking Ban into his speech for reasons you yourself point out. The UKIP policy is quite clear on this. They will review all recent draconian laws and return liberty to the owners of businesses to conduct them in the way that they, themselves, consider to be in line with market trands.
What can be fairer than that?
Here is my reply from BackBoris, slightly different.
Dear David,
Thank you for taking the time to write to the campaign. It is vital that we hear from as many people as possible about the issues in London that matter to them.
As you know, Boris is standing for Mayor of London. That post has no power to change the law on smoking, even within London. Boris has repeatedly criticised the heavy handed approach that Labour has taken on a range of issues, including the smoking ban.
I have passed your comments on to our health researcher and your thoughts will be shared with Boris and the management team, as well.
Kind regards,
Bethany Wheatley
BackBoris Campaign
--
On 2/4/08 19:50, "webmaster@backboris.com" webmaster@backboris.com> wrote:
A mail was received from this person: David Atherton
(daveatherton20@)
>
To reply just hit the reply button and their email address will be filled in for you.
The idea was:
I was reading with exaspiration that Boris seems to of changed his mind on the smoking ban. How much more political correctness do we need in this country, especially as Boris has spoken out against the ban before. ASH and Labour are lieing about the harm of passive smoking while literally hundreds of pubs are closing in London. Over 1400 nationally since the smoking ban on July 1st 2007. Frankly if the Tories and Boris cannot get their act together on such a simple matter as this I am sure I can put my cross against someone who is pro choice on smoking. I was going to vote for him. There must be over 2 million smokers in London who would be happy to vote for Boris if he had the right message.
Peter James and everyone else:
I have just emailed Simon about publicising our social get together. So if you chaps and ladies can get your diaries out perhaps we can have a get together and no excuses, please. If the gerbil is expecting twins, take her down the vet.
Regards
Dave
Peter Thurgood:
I couldn't find the Gerard Batten UKIP MEP speech, then noticed it was on BBC London only. Also noticed it was five minutes before the start of Emerdale on ITV and the best Soaps night of the week. Also found that the closing date for registration to vote in the Mayoral election closes tomorrow.
So too little. Too late.
Emerdale?.......Oh dear...Margot...oh dear!
Yes, Peter, that's me. Your ordinary cloth-capped member of the masses. Mind you, I was a staunch Conservative for very many years - until the Thatcher boot came down. [Story for another day - don't start a new thread!]
Margot, there may be many migrants that have come in and work in sweat shops, but it was reported in the week that there's also 1 million that are registered to vote. They only have to be in the country a short while to be eligible for local/EU elections. As I said in an earlier post, Labour have GERYYMANDERED on a MASSIVE scale.
I wouldn't write the Newt off just yet, Boris's lead has already been halved. Plus what I read today Livingstone has a £3.4million propaganda bugdget and a 105 media staff to promote his policies. It's dodgy dealing all round as far as Labour are concerned.
Today I read that McLiar Brown, yesterday revealed that the principles of the Sikh religion would underpin his strategies from now on. Brown was attending Sikh Vaisakhi (New Year) celebrations with London Mayor Livingstone. That'll upset the Muslims and all the other minority groups, they'll insist he's discriminating against them.
Discrimination is not new to Labour they've been discriminating against us for the last decade, and we've laid down and let them do it.
Yes, Joan, I did know about the one million or so immigrant registered voters, but thought that was nationwide? To be fair, as the traditional sanctuary for the oppressed we have been to date, if we welcome them into our country, it's logical to give them the right to vote. Once we have accepted them, "Them" becomes "Us".
Regarding the fact that Ken et al have got this pantomime of an election already stitched up, you are probably right. I don't know what the voting procedure was before Ken had complete control and therefore the right to amend voting procedures, but I did notice, from a glance at the present situation, that one in five Londoners are not registered to vote. Those that think they can just turn up to vote will be turned away. The application form which must be filled in sounds lengthy and complicated and must be completed well in advance. Difficult for people whose native language is not English. Were all the residents of London given this form in time?
I noticed also that on the ballot paper, they must give a second choice vote. Their vote is invalid without this. They are not allowed to give both votes to the first choice candidate. Voters have been assured that the second vote will not be counted unless their first vote candidate suddenly becomes disqualified. As around 12 candidates have been accepted, this could cause the first vote to be widely scattered. A few of the 12 candidates could then be disqualified. This leaves the second [forced] vote as a powerful tool.
And who will be doing the counting?
So this election is not like the national election which [to date] takes place when a new government is to be formed.
As you say, gerrymandering on a massive scale. And all government approved.
Sadly, our discussion is all academic, isn't it.
I think the one million immigrants to england were only welcomed by MacLiar Blair himself for the very agenda that has now come to pass in that its not looking too hopeful for getting rid of red ken and the rest of the labour quislings. It has been revealed today (by a leaked letter) that a powerful eu committee is making efforts to hoodwink irish voters on the lisbon treaty vote next month by putting a muzzle on the strong measures they intend to enforce should it go through. This I might add is being done with the compliance of the irish government, just shows how far their tenticles have reached. This treaty that irrevocably alters the future of 400million europeans, is being put for approval to only 4 million voters. Scary stuff going on out there.
I know this is not exactly carrying on with the Boris theme, but as you might remember, I did get in touch with Boris' campaign team to ask his views on the smoking ban, and I did consequently publish them on here.
As a sort of experiment, I decided to get in touch with Socialist Party and ask them the same. Seeing as they say that they uphold the rights of the ordinary man, I asked them how they felt about the rights of the ordinary man who smokes, who apparently take up most of the number of the majority of smokers.
Their answer is very much like Boris' answer. I have pasted it (below).
But what it does show us, is that all the other parties, or all that we are hearing from, seem to be of the same view, that Labour pushed this though in a very heavy handed way. If that is the case, then I think we need to aim more facts at these parties to show then exactly what has been happening. As you can see from the email below, this guy didn't even know very much about how this works in Spain for instance. If they don't know facts like this, then I think we need to teach them.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
See email here:
Dear Mr Thurgood, Thank you for your e-mail to the Socialist Party. It has been passed on to me as the election agent for the Lewisham councillor Chris Flood, our candidate for the Greenwich & Lewisham seat in the London Assembly elections on May 1st.
On your specific question on smokers rights our position is that the rights of individuals should be defended - in this case the right of individuals to smoke - but also, of course, the rights of others in a collective situation such as a workplace not to have their health damaged etc.
Although I don't know all the details about the position in Spain - for example, do workers in the establishments mentioned have any real say? - that approach, of trying to conciliate between a 'clash of rights', appears to be similar to ours.
Ultimately real democracy should be about accommodating the rights of all, without the heavy-handed intervention of the state or the domination of society by big corporations (including 'Big Tobacco' and 'Big Pharma' drug companies!) who put their pursuit of profit before peoples' needs. Yours sincerely,
Clive Heemskerk, Lewisham Socialist Party
Anne, the government is not compliant with stitch up for the Irish Referedum on the Not The Consitution, Lisbon Treaty, it is the Irish government in collaboration with this one that are the driving force behind it. Take a look at the link I've posted.
http://bp2.blogger.com/_A_k9TcqvFM0/SAOWWwACkRI/AAAAAAAACVg/qp7rVHFn_xk/s1600-h/IrishDailyMailTreatyCon.PNG
This shows just what the EU and governments think of the electorate, they think we're too stupid to understand anything, but just in case we do they blatantly lie.
As to Ken the 'Newt' Livingstone, it's been reported that he's now using a Muslim cleric who actively backs suicide bombers, or shall we put it in proper terms, murderers, to woo 200,000 London Muslims to vote for Ken. What with the migrants registered to vote and if the Newt's propagandaist achieves his aim then I'm afraid we can all look forwrad to another term for this vile speciman of a human being ruling again.
If his tactics pay off you can rest assured he will reward all the migrants/muslims and absolutely crucify the rest.
For some reason Boris seems to have gone off the boil, whether he's been told by Tory HQ to tow their line, I don't know, but something has caused a big fall in poll ratings.
As to the last Mayoral elections I believe Livingstone got elected by default, I don't think they were straight up.
I have just received the following email from Boris' office, as a sort of follow up from the previous one:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dear Mr Thurgood
Many thanks for your email. Rob has asked me to reply on his behalf. I am sorry if his previous statement failed to clarify his position.
In addition to Boris' view on the smoking ban, Boris has said the following:
'What is the point of having local democracy if we don't leave decisions like this to a local level? If I had my way, we would have an online referendum in London about whether to give boroughs back the power to give discretion over smoking to pubs and clubs.'
I hope this helps clarify your concern. 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.
Yours sincerely
Jason Devan
The Policy Team
I see they're trying to smear Boris again saying he took donations from a tobacco company.
So what if he did, politicians, ASH, WHO and every other organisation with a vested interest takes donations from Big Pharma, or is this seen as different.
What about the people who have died after taking smoking cessation products supplied by Big Pharma, where's the voices of WHO/ASH about these killers, strangely they're silent on this front. They're no different from the tobacco companies they've gone all out to ruin.
And Livingstone, taking donations from a property developer wanting planning permission for a theme park in Brent, it was turned down by the council, but Livingstone could overturn the decision, he's colleague went to the the property developer.
So it's ok for all these donations to be swept aside, but mention a tobacco company and out come the likes of ASH and the trash that support them.
What a sick country we've become, and what hypocrites politicians are. There was a time when donations from tobacco companies was fine, but because of the propaganda tactics of WHO/ASH their money has become dirty. Not, in my opinion, as dirty as BIG Pharmas.