Forest on the fringe
Tuesday, October 6, 2009 This morning I was a panellist at a fringe event organised by Policy Exchange. Despite the early start - 8.00am - the room was full. Other speakers were Dr David Taylor, School of Pharmacy, University of London; Dr Tammy Boyce, The King's Fund; and Mark Simmonds MP, shadow minister for health.
The title of event was "Do we need more public health initiatives for the worried well?" (answer: no) and we were invited to respond to the following statement:
Seatbelts and smoking: two of the best proven examples that effective interventions in public health have been regulations. The most effective alcohol policies are those that use measures addressed at the whole population (price and availability) – do we have to penalize the majority, those who drink responsibly for example, to change behaviour in the minority? The rising tide of obesity has prompted more spend on societal marketing campaigns with little evidence base for their effectiveness. What can we do to tackle this public health time bomb?
As usual I ran out of time, but I questioned whether regulations had actually contributed a great deal to the reduction in smoking rates. I attacked the scaremongering tactics employed by the health lobby and the often counter-productive impact of laws such as the smoking ban. Legislation, I added, had to be evidence based and I criticised the fact that laws such as the smoking ban and the proposed tobacco display ban are often introduced when there simply wasn't enough evidence to justify them.
Needless to say I was completely on my own when it came to defending smoking and during the Q&A I was forced to take umbrage with Simmonds' claim that those who smoke 20 cigarettes a day are "pretty likely to get lung cancer". Not true, I said, pointing out that according to Professor Richard Doll those who smoke for 15 years have a two per cent risk of getting lung cancer; smoke for 30 years and the risk goes up to eight per cent; smoke for 60 years (from 15 to 75) and the risk is 16 per cent. Not good but not "pretty likely" either.
A member of the audience pointed out that despite talk of a "health time bomb", the Lancet had recently predicted that half of today's babies will live until they're 100. Quite so, I said, so let's put all these health scares into perspective. For all the talk of obesity and binge-drinking epidemics, people in Britain are living longer and healthier lives than ever before.
Finally I bemoaned the fact that the nanny state had become - under Labour - the bully state - and I expressed the hope that a Conservative government would be less heavy-handed in its approach to public health.
PS. Simmonds rejected my suggestion that the smoking ban should be amended. The Conservatives, he said, have no plans on that score. (Note: this is not a direct quote. See below.)
Simon Clark
According to DeHavilland, the political monitoring agency:
"Mr Simmonds agreed with Mr Clark that the smoking ban is merely pushing the problem into people’s homes or onto the streets, but said it is a law that no Government would overthrow."
Mr Clark highlighted reporting on the ‘obesity epidemic’ and ‘binge drinking epidemic’ as well as scaremongering putting people off eating beef or cheese, for example, based on selective medical findings. On seat belts, Mr Clark said while they have reduced driver fatalities, there is also research which shows it encourages people to drive faster, putting the driver, passengers and passers-by at risk.
He described the regulations to reduce smoking rates as ‘out of control.’ Delegates heard that in the 1950s, 80% of men smoked, which came down to 45% by the 1980s, at a time when there were very few restrictions on smoking. Since 1992 the smoking rates have inched down and are currently at 22%, a figure which has only been achieved through ‘draconian measures,’ Mr Clark maintained.
He expressed disappointment that Conservatives did not rally against the smoking ban, insisting the ban has simply pushed smoking onto the streets, with more people outside, creating more litter and increasing noise pollution.
Mr Clark criticised health lobby groups for calling for exclusion zones, where for example in hospitals staff and visitors have been forced off hospital grounds in order to smoke. Many regulations have been counter-productive, he insisted.
‘Passive smoking epitomises the culture of scaremongering,’ Mr Clark argued, adding that research found it is difficult to prove a link between passive smoking and ill-health. Legislation should be in proportion to the risk, he said, as he insisted that health campaigners now want to use the same scaremongering for food and drink.
‘We are told more than 30,000 lives are being lost due to over-eating each year, with the cost to the NHS being at £500 million per annum,’ Mr Clark said.
Concluding , Mr Clark called on the Government to ‘get off people’s backs’ and spoke in favour of education with less Government intrusion. ‘We don’t have a nanny state any more, but a bully state’ he claimed and expressed hope that a Conservative Government will take a lighter touch approach.
Ms Boyce disagreed with Mr Clark on the seat belt issue and on smoking. She agreed however there is no need for extra health intervention from the Government. She claimed that health interventions have clearly failed under Labour, with rising obesity and teenage pregnancy levels. In 2007/08 the DoH spent over £50 million on information, she added.
In the question and answer session, Mr Clark said people in the West are living healthier lives than ever before and maintained that health officials are exaggerating possible risks. He spoke out against blanket bans, stating that politicians exaggerate problems and then compensate for this through legislation. Finally, and returning to the theme of smoking, Mr Clark pointed to the 52 pubs that close each week, highlighting the impact the ban has had on communities.
Reader Comments (68)
So Mark Simmonds, the shadow minister for health, rejected Simon's suggestion that the smoking ban should be amended, by stating 'the Conservatives, have no plans on that score'. And?
This isn't exactly news is it? If the Conservatives, or Labour, or the Lib-Dems, had plans to amend the ban, it would be something we would all know within minutes of it being announced!
But, this doesn't necessarily mean that the Conservatives, will not announce such an amendment in the future. At the moment, there is much discussion going on within the Tory ranks, regarding Boris, and his 'mis-timed' swipe at DC for not offering a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, come what may.
There are, as I have predicted for many months, many discounters within the party, ready to give their vote up to UKIP if they do not get the answer from DC, as to what they are looking for. This mainly affects those disenfranchised from the fallout of promised Lisbon Treaty referendum, but I am also starting to hear more and more voices calling for a clear message on overturning the nanny state and giving the people a free choice once again.
So before anyone gets too riled up about something which does not even yet exist, try taking one step back and observe what is happening behind the scenes. The time to cast stones will be when all parties have released their pre-election manifestos If they still do not include what you are actually looking for, that is the time for shouting, and possibly voting for another party.
p.s.
discounters should read "dissenters"
This is very encouraging news from both Simon and Peter and at least things seem to be moving in the right direction.
However, we will have to wait and see what might happen and what is in the Party manifestos even though it will be difficult to put any faith in them after Labour's manfesto lies.
I do sincerely feel that this is the best time to keep the pressure on the parties. As a smoker, I believe that if they want my vote, they will have to tell me where they stand on this issue. Currently, from what Simon says, the Tories do not support an amendment. That they want to abolish health quangos and end the bully state is great news, though, which even I have to admit :)
This will be the first time in 40 years that I shall not vote Tory.
12 million smokers should take note and vote UKIP
Precisely Disgruntled!!
Re Mark Simmonds MP (Government Health Spokesman - New Tory Branch):
"He is married to Lizbeth, and has three children; Isabella, Oriana, and Oliver. Mark is a dedicated husband and father and when asked what he likes doing best he always answers that spending time with his family is his number one priority."
(Website blurb)
I bet he mixes a mean Horlicks, too !
And uses loo paper made from re-cycled air.
Where DO they find 'em ?
How I'd LOVE to see at least ONE Tory MP turn up at Ascot, dressed to the nines, a doxie on each arm, a cheroot clenched between his dazzling teeth, and wearing a quiet certainty that his nag is going to run a good race in the Queen Elizabeth Stakes.
Meanwhile:
Someone pass the sick bag, please: all this Public Virtue is making me distinctly nauseous.................(albeit in a nice, caring sort of way).
Just prior to the last General Election, the prospective conservative candidate called at my house and I asked him if the Tories intended to ban smoking. He told me that the party 'had no plans to bring in a smoking ban'. I did not really believe him, but at least there were no such plans in the Tory manifesto.
Now we have another Tory saying 'we have no plans...'
If manifesto pledges are not worth the paper they are written on, they how worthy are these 'no plans' statements?
Keep up the pressure chaps!
Peter -
You suggest that we keep our powder dry and:
"observe what is happening BEHIND the scenes..."
But that's the point: we have NO idea what IS happening 'behind the scenes'.
I suspect that what's REALLY happening beyond the public gaze is a more-than-tacit agreement between both major parties to the effect that:
The Tories introduce legislation that New Labour would like to, but fears it can't - for fear of alienating its supporters.
Labour will return the favour when its turn comes around again.
Neither will instigate ANY programme of legislative repeal that would cause REAL pain to the other.
Both will continue to support the status quo with regard to the Ban.
Believe me: for once, I WANT to be wrong.
Oh , how I want to be wrong...............
I agree with you Martin, and I also want to be wrong.
The tories are too weak with their present leaders to take on the might of the global zealots, even though they know they are wrong not to.
If the present wave of Tory PPCs do as Chloe Smith did and perform a turn-coat the minute they are in office, then heaven help our country.
Unfortunately, if they do gain office, I believe this is what they will do. I have not been given any indicators to suggest otherwise.
I am not sure, had the Tories won the last election, whether they would have brought in a 'health' law, with signs on places where people have not smoked for decades, even centuries, threatening fines. There would, I believe, have been some kind of legislation, but nothing like what we have, not even the 'partial ban' where only pubs without food and private clubs would have been saved.
The thing is, we do now have a law. The majority of Tories do not smoke, neither do they frequent back street pubs, working mens clubs or greasy spoon cafes, so it does not effect them or their friends.
Here is a comparison. The Tories closed the mental hospitals for a new scheme called 'care in the community'. As a result some crime rates soared, prisons became even more overcrowded plus many other problems in society which did not exist previously. So did Labour, knowing the mistake, do anything about it? Of course not.
It's a shame that Kenneth Clark was not voted in instead of young fresh faced garden of England Cameron.
@Timbone
Infact the Tories had no plans for a smoking ban in 2005. ASH had to write to Andrew Lansley the Shadow Health Secretary to ask what his plans were.on smoking.
He wrote back to say that the current "voluntary" approach was working perfectly well and it was up to the individual business to decide.
@Timbone
Here is the provenance, from ASH no less. Prophetic words on back street pubs and clubs.
"You specifically raised the question of smoking in public places. Within three years and before legislation could be implemented, we believe that the industry could and would deliver a voluntary code removing smoking from up to 80% of pub space. The recent announcement by the pub chain, J.D. Wetherspoon, to ban smoking two years ahead of the Government's legislative ban indicates the industry's willingness to achieve this solution.
Of course, if, after public houses have been given a real opportunity to deliver a smoke-free environment for all those who want it, [sic] to remove smoking from where staff are working, and in all areas to which children have access, we would reassess the priority and the need for legislative action. I do not regard the Government's White Paper proposals as valuable or desirable, they may lead to perverse results, with a substantial number of smoking pubs and clubs especially in deprived areas. I hope this clarifies our position.
Previous attempts at voluntary self-regulation by the pub trade have been heavily criticized as failures by the public health lobby."
http://www.ash.org.uk/ash_47zndbeu.htm
Dave, Timbone, Ann, and others -
Some good points above, and some timely reminders of what Certain People said about any putative Ban in the not-so-distant past.
But the question remains: if the Tories in the main voted AGAINST - why should they NOW be in favour ?
Clearly, strings are being pulled.
My feelings on the matter may be expressed in the form of another question:
Who is the more morally culpable ?
The MAD ARSONIST who sets fire to your house ?
Or the 'FRIEND AND NEIGHBOUR' who stands idly by and watches it burn down ?
Answers on a postcard, please.............
Well said Martin V. I dont trust the main partys nor would I vote for them any more.
At this stage of my life smoking is the most important thing from a social point of view and if you havent got a social life what have you got, and anyone in the same situation that feels strongly about this should only vote for a party that gives a definite committment to reform of the smoking ban.
As we all know a lot of partys make promises that appeal to a wider selection of voters and conveniently forget their half promises when elected.
In the present political and economic climate going to bed with the devil may not be as drastic as we think.
In my opinion a person would want to be very naive to believe anything the main partys promise, especially having been down that road before with the lot of them.
They all sing from the same hymn sheet.
Once bitten twice shy so to speak.
I feel so strongly about this, especially in the present climate with bans popping up all round the place that if I did vote for any main party I would end up feeling ashamed of myself.
I think Simon and Forest are doing a wonderful job and especially his input at the above event. And what would us smokers do without him to champion our cause.
But in the absence of any strong committment from the main partys I think it would be good for our cause if Simon spoke at a UKIP conferences too, after all they are a party that have made a clear promise about the smoking ban and they are a new party, new broom and all that.
AND, I'll probably get my eye dyed, but what about attending a BNP conference as well to discuss their smoking policy. After all they have come out for smokers rights too.
Because I think when trust goes from the main partys, one has to take it upon themselves to make stronger statements.
You'd never know, but Dave might get such a shock he just might put something in writing!
One probability you did not add to the equation Martin, was, "Who is to blame for the Smoking Ban? The Labour Government who brought the law in, after denying they would ever implement a complete ban?
Or the Conservative opposition, who had more MPs oppose an all out ban than both Labour and the Lib-Dems put together?
In the woolly eyes of certain demented souls, who still cling on grimly to their early left wing leanings, they still find it so difficult to blame the "makers" of this law, and so turn their anger on their old arch enemy, the Tories!
To all those who cling to this misguided belief, I almost hope you get what you wish for....another five years of hard Labour!
There can be no reason to vote for the BNP on this issue when there there is an alternative in UKIP. I would sincerely hope no smoker goes down the BNP voting line! It really would be quite wrong and do our cause no good at all.
Peter Thurgood is right about Labour and we should remember who to blame - however, if the Conservatives do want our vote - and don't want to risk another five years of hard labour - then they should make themselves very clear here and now at conference, what they would do about the ban now or in the life of the next parlt should they get voted in.
My contact with Conservatives - apart from Philip Davies - has been very negative including my spat with the Tory PPC for Mansfield who says he believes it is wrong to even talk about amending the ban and said that smokers do not matter. How deep does this feeling run among Tories?
If I can sum up Tory attitudes to the smoking ban perhaps we can make some sense. If you want an honest answer why the Tories won't amend the smoking ban, I simply do not know.
Maybe they don't think it is a vote winner, but I think the main reason is that do not want to take on the vested interests of the BMA, Royal College Of Surgeons, Department Of Health and ASH. If they did float the idea of an amendment Donaldson, Gilmore, Arnott et al would be touring the TV studios denouncing the Conservative policy. We all know how the BBC is anti smoking and frankly many newspapers just cut and paste uncritically ASH press releases. TV schedules would be cleared and column inches devoted to say that the Tories don't care about health, Tories want to kill the chiiiildren, we are returning to the Dark Ages etc.
The positive side of a probable Tory government is that the membership is against the ban, most Tory MPs and PPCs too. It is all about persuading the Shadow Government and their special advisers it is a vote winner and more importantly a righteous cause.
I have been saying exactly this Dave, for the past year, but for some reason, so many who choose to blog on here, also choose to ignore the simple truth.
They have an inherent hatred of the Tories, and use them as a scapegoat for everything and every law that this ghastly Labour government has forced upon us.
If DC said tomorrow that he would amend or overturn the ban, they would still be moaning about something.
Not me, Peter. But I don't want to vote for possibly ten years of Hard Conservatism either. What Dave says about the anti-smoking lobby and their prejudicial press contacts is spot on and makes perfect sense. However, if the Tories want our vote - and they think we really do matter - then they should say so before the election.
Not the Tories' fault, but Labour has destroyed all trust for political parties which will affect the Tories as well. I was very impressed with Osbourne's speech yesterday, and mightily charmed by Ken Clarke's. At present they are making the right noises which is excellent and actually very refreshing and at least they have made me feel assured that things will not get worse.
However, that said, I still have to vote with my conscience and there is only one viable party that sees the value of the smokers' vote which it will get because it is the only party to state publicly that smokers are not pariahs and they do matter.
Do not blame the smokers for caring so much about an issue they didn't want to be an issue at all. Now they have been forced into this position, they must be sure before they put their trust in any other party that they will not be stabbed in the back again.
I actually don't think the smoking ban has huge general public support and so therefore, I don't think that a Tory anouncement that redresses the unfair balance at present would generally lose them votes from a public that really is sick to death of NuLab in so many other ways.
The Tory stance at present would indicate that they are ashamed to be seen to support choice and smokers so why on earth should any smoker vote for them? Why should Tories care more for big powerful anti-smoking organisations than the average man or woman who smokes on the street. If that is where their priorities lie, then, again, why should we vote for them - that stance is no different to NuLab.
You have obviously not read what I have been saying for the past year Pat, and exactly what Dave has echoed (above).
It is not a case of what the Conservatives want or believe in, it is a case of being slaughtered by the media, should they dare to mention, as Oscar Wild might have said, "The subject that dare not speak its name"
So taboo has this subject become that young children now think that it is the 11th Commandment, that Moses wrote in stone, and brought down from Mount Sinai.
No one can dare question this new religion. It is almost akin to saying that you don't believe in Tony Blair, it is blasphemous!
But seriously, I was even watching a marvellous and sad programme the other night about the bombing of Coventry. In one part of the programme they interviewed a woman about her experiences, and as she explained what had happened to her, she said, "of course, that was when people used to smoke".
Her comment stooped me in my tracks. What was this poor woman talking about? Doesn't she know that people still do smoke?
This is what we, and the political parties are now up against. The people of this country have been so brainwashed, that they believe all the lies and hogwash they are being fed with. The poor woman who said this comment, had lived through the blitz and defied Hitler and the German army, yet there she was on TV, a beaten woman, her brain completely distorted by the rubbish that has been fed to her.
And you expect our politicians to try and put a sensible argument to these people? We are not talking about an ignorant few here, we are talking about an estimated 40 to 50 million people in this country, who do not smoke and have been brainwashed.
You cannot talk sense to such people, they need re-educating first.
Peter, I do understand what you are saying but it is important to me that I KNOW that the Conservatives or any other party would immediately begin to address this new "culture" before I would vote for them.
I could not vote for a party that, even at this stage, appears ashamed of standing by smokers. I agree that the cultural battle must be won first to gain an acceptance of those people who do not want to quit. However, we could also find ourselves in a situation five years down the line where the Tories are looking at getting in for a second term and they still haven't done any work on this particular issue either by re-education or just simply treating smokers as human.
I am, obviously, not a natural Conservative but even less a natural UKIP supporter. I am, however, a smoker and also a subject of this country and the party that makes it clear that they respect this, and my right to live my own life, will get my vote.
What, exactly, is wrong with the Cons saying now that they believe smokers have been treated harshly and they intend to redress that balance while also ensuring the rights of the smoke-free zealots are catered for? Could it possibly be that the Sun is so anti-smoking that Rupert Murdoch in return for his paper's support, will, in fact, be calling the tune including any decision on this issue.
Believe me, I want to trust the Conservatives will do the right thing on this issue but I just can't. It is their job to get me on side as a voter - not mine to support them and wait and see what they might or might not do.
Pat, I am not arguing with you, or trying to tell you who you should or should not vote for. That is your decision and your decision alone.
All I am trying to point out, is why the Conservatives are acting the way they are on this issue.
And as I am sure you are aware, they Conservatives are not alone in this cowardly stance on smoking, the Labour Party and the Lib-Dems are both acting exactly the same.
The only parties you are likely to get, not acting in this manner, are the fringe parties, which have absolutely nothing to fear, because they know they are never going to be in the position of forming a government.
I do not like wearing a seat belt while driving, and I refuse to wear one, (unless I have a police car beside me), but if I had to take another driving test, for any reason, I would buckle up with a second thought on the subject, because I know that I would not pass my test if I refused to wear that belt.
The smoking ban and the propaganda that surrounds it, is that seat belt for politicians. If they dare to speak up against it, they could be finished, and the difference is, it wouldn't be just a test, this would be the real thing!
As for Rupert Murdoch and the Sun, I am not 100% sure, but I seem to recollect hearing somewhere that he holds shares in one of the big tobacco companies, so I wouldn't put too much faith in that one if I were you.
No worries, Peter, I know this is just debate and we will all vote as we feel. Yes the fringe parties will do well because as you rightly say, they have nothing to fear. The main parties' lack of courage is deplorable and makes me wonder what they would be like in Govt. No iron ladies or gentlemen in that lot. What else of Britain would they give away because of this cowardice,I wonder?
As for the Sun, perhaps it is not Murdoch's policy but as a freelance journalist who has offered smoker stories to the Sun, which has got very annoyed with me for daring to do such a thing, I can tell you that the Sun is definately anti-smoking. The newsdesk response to these stories is that "smoking kills millions of people very week and if we take a positive line on it to any degree that would be totally irresponsible."
I don't know about Murdoch's links with BT but he is also an Aussie - after the Americans the most anti-smoking culture in the world.
Just a thought, Peter and Dave - if the fringe parties are doing well from the smoker's vote - and Labour is doing very badly for lots of reasons including the smoking ban, then why do the Conservatives not see value in being honest about where they stand on the smoking issue? Couldn't they could pick up those votes that will go to fringe parties?
Peter -
You say:
"One probability you did not add to the equation Martin, was, "Who is to blame for the Smoking Ban? "
Peter - WHOM do you think I was referring to when I referred to The Mad Arsonsist ?
Now, don't get me wrong: I admire your persistent defence of the Conservative Party. But it's an uphill struggle for you - as the evidence mounts almost daily that this is NOT - in any conceivable sense a 'conservative ' party ANY MORE. It's a trendy, Europeanised, politically-correct, statist, Centre-Left party that has - under the malign (IMHO) leadership of Herr Cameron - ruthlessly expunged whatever was left of any vestigial 'conservatism' in the post-Major rump.
Cards on the table:
I'm a Conservative to his toenails, with a thoroughgoing distaste for ALL forms of Utopian Collectivism - and that INCLUDES Socialism. Why ?
Because any belief system which has a vision of an Ideal Society, when empowered to do so, INEVITABLY involves compulsion at some level. And I don't like being bossed around !
Whether in the Gulag or the Pub.
That said, I've had many Socialist friends in the past, and admire many of the writings and works of Socialists throughout History. I also despise most Tories as the dim-witted, self-important careerists that they undoubtedly are today: I don't believe that 90% of them have a CLUE as to what 'conservatism' REALLY means.
Although of Middle Class provenance, I've spent (perversely) the greater part of my life in 'working class' environments - factories, building sites, and farms. And one thing that has struck me is the essential conservatism (in MY sense of the word) and patriotic decency of my colleagues. THEY have been consistently and cynically used as electoral canon-fodder by a party for whom Ideology is more important than People, the Ends more important than the Means, and their ghastly Utopia more important than the Country I love (with ALL its faults).
THEY are the very people - despised and deserted by New Labour - whom Cameron should be accommodating within a reformed Conservative Party. Instead, he and his Guardian-reading buddies merely fret and frown and 'deeply regret' whenever, out of sheer frustration, some of their number declare an intention to vote for the BNP, or - horror of horrors - an admiration for Enoch Powell !
Why am I a 'Conservative' ?
Because, I believe:
That People matter more than Ideas.
That History teaches us much, and we fail to learn at our peril.
That things should ONLY be destroyed if they are shown to be harmful or no longer beautiful or of any service to Society.
That the Nation matters more than the State.
That the Government's role is to SERVE - not to OPPRESS.
That there should be as FEW laws as possible - consistent with the orderly running of a civilised Society.
That the weak and vulnerable should be protected by us all - both collectively AND individually.
That we should CHERISH colour, variety, risk, and diversity.
That People are INFINITELY various in terms of their needs, desires, abilities, and fallibilities - and that it is THEY that provide Life with its dynamism and meaning rather than institutions, agencies, and abstract notions of an un-achievable Eden (that might suit Jehovah - but not Adam and Eve).
That we should EDUCATE each according to his needs AND abilities, in order to produce a Society of autonomous, THINKING individuals - and NOT an homogenised mass of semi-literate drones INCAPABLE of questioning their masters - or compliant timidities fit only to serve as drudges in a system created FOR them by others.
That we should be suspicious of ALL power.
That we should be sceptical of ALL government.
That Common Sense and Common Humanity will find a resonance in most people's hearts and souls.
That driving Fear into the soul of Man - the better to control him - is a GREATER sin than to drive a dagger into his heart.
Above all , that it is better to live as a Free man in a world of danger and uncertainty, than as a Pampered Simpleton in a padded cell.
And all the above points conveniently coalesce in my UTTER hatred of the Smoking Ban - and the misery and ruin it has caused in the lives of SO many of my countrymen.
Yet ALL our well-articulated and impeccably-reasoned entreaties are flicked away like the unsightly ash on some toff's expensive lapel.
Yet - from where I stand - I don't see Dave's claque of floppy-haired Sloanes, suburban nonentities, and born-again Heathites as offering much evidence of adopting or recognisinfg ANY of the principles I've mentioned.
Like I said - I'd LOVE to be proved wrong.
Or maybe I'm just being picky............
"You cannot talk sense to such people, they need re-educating first."
I admire your confidence, Peter, but there won't be any re-education from the Tories.
By the way, I'm public school educated and a business owner employing 80 people.
No lefty bias here, just pragmatism.
Just to throw a spanner in the works.
I live in a labour heartland where voting Tory is frowned upon (even though I always voted Tory in the past but have now switched to UKIP since the smoking ban).
Many are extremely angry with Labour over this and will not vote for them ever again because of it. I must admit that I was surprised with some who had changed their tune.
A few will always vote for labour because they have no minds of their own and have been 'told to' by their parents, et al. I don't think I can do much to influence a controlled/sad lot.
The ones that have decided that 'enough is enough' with labour are now voting BNP though because they know that they will tweak the blanket ban in some way.
They haven't a clue what the BNP is about, just like they haven't got a clue what Labour is really about. They just want to be able to socialise in comfort and safety and want their lives returned.
If the tories really want the labour heartlands - they have to cater for them. A 'tweak' in the smoking ban would go an extremely long way.
One has to ask - is it worth smokers being killed to introduce a 'smoke-free' environment to others, or should an element of choice be introduced?
I will always ask that question to the tories, but have yet to get an answer,
Smokers are being bullied, denormalised and murdered, when choice is an easy option in a so-called democratic society. Why are they so weak on the issue when public health is a so-called top-priority? It doesn't make sense to the labout heart-lands. They are advocating ill health and death by their weakness on this issue and will not therefore gain their vote.
I do not like pointing out that smoking is perfectly legal - why should I when it is?
Smokers, just like fast-food eaters, drinkers, lap-dance ogglers, racing-car drivers, iron-men activists, footballers, rugby-players, champagne drinkers, gymnasts, athletes, jews, muslims, gays, catholics, atheists, buddhists, - the list is endless on the so-called 6 strands of diversity that this pathetic government introduced - should be treated as what they are and what they choose to be.
(Particulary when they surplus billions to the public purse)
Those left with any mind (not many - I know) will not vote Labour, Tory, LibDem or BNP - that leaves us with just two alternative - UKIP or don't vote.
Well, I've just heard on R4 that Mr Cameron's Big Speech this afternoon is going to be entirely Policy-Free, but very big on Vision.
Bearing in mind Dave's apparent inability to see the nose on the end of his face, it should be interesting.
Just hope he doesn't overdo the Scripted Spontaneity and Furrowed-Brow Agonising bit.
That's SOMEONE ELSE'S gimmick.......(and I hate plagiarists).
Can't wait..............
Martin V's blog should be cut/pasted and forwarded to Dave for him to absorbe before his R4 speech this afternoon.
It might make him talk some sense for a change.
Then again, he might not understand it!
ASH says smoking should be banned outright. Our present Government and their paid lackeys agree with them.
They constantly use our money to promote their unproven views on this subject. They even promote such views to young children in schools, which I, and I am sure many others think is entirely wrong, as the views are not based upon health, but politics.
I have read, time after time, on here and so many other pro-smoking sites, that everyone is fed up to the teeth with this propaganda and lies being stuffed down the throat and into the minds of not just us, but our children as well.
How can sensible people believe such rubbish I hear you all ask?
Then, in the next breath, I open up this page today, and what do I see? I see yet more gullible fools, who have fallen, hook line and sinker, for the Labour propaganda, and the awful thing is, they do not even realise it.
The new voice of the smoker, now blames the Conservatives for the smoking ban, the Conservatives for not doing anything about it, and the Conservatives for not speaking up for the smoker. Now I wonder where they suddenly got this new voice from, Labour's propaganda spin-meisters perhaps? No, it couldn't be could it? We are all far to clever and well educated on here to fall for such obvious spin as that....aren't we?
I wouldn't bet on it! Look at some of the comments about Cameron and his team, "uneducated Tory toffs?" Oh please, this sudden intake of unadulterated Labour rubbish does not help us one iota, in fact it does just the opposite, it shows our Labour masters that smokers can be conned into believing anything, just like the rest of the population have.
Go ahead, vote for UKIP, vote for the BNP, and who do you think will win the election? Yes, that's right, the ghastly anti smoking Labour Party, and who will have helped them win it? YOU!
As for Rupert Murdoch of the Sun, I dont think he'd be adverse to a sweetheart deal if it suited his purpose.
As I'd say he was pleased when he acquired the tv sport licence with approval from Ireland's dodgy ex PM, who was also very pleased when a member of his family became a best selling author.
Martin V, your comments were brilliantly put and I heartily agree.
Ann, I totally agree with your comment too, Martin V's post should be sent to DC and the rest of the Conservatives as well!
Peter said : "Go ahead, vote for UKIP, vote for the BNP, and who do you think will win the election? Yes, that's right, the ghastly anti smoking Labour Party, and who will have helped them win it? YOU!"
Yes, that could happen but it wouldn't be the fault of us who vote. It will be the fault of those wo won't even try and get us on side. If the Tories think that it would be so dangerous for Lab to get in again, then they must compromise on the smoking issue if they want to win the election with a landslide.
Although I can see that in other civil liberties areas the Cons are making the right noises, they are not with this issue. To vote for them just to stop Lab getting in, won't do for me because on this issue, what difference does it make whether we get Tories or NuLab?
We are already more than two years into the ban. We have kids going into pubs now who have never known what it was like before - five years of more of this from the Tories then there will never be any chance to get this amended because it won't be "normal" to smoke in a pub to new generations who will just accept it.
That is why it matters. I still cannot understand why any smoker would vote for any party that doesn't give a damn about this issue. A vote for Tories means we might as well give up and accept the ban as well.
He may have been joking but Andrew Neill said on TV at lunchtime that Eric Pickles had warned delegates at the Tory Conference not to drink more than one 'unit' in an evening. Even if it was a jest I fear it might represent a truth. Re Martin V's comments earlier I share the support they've received here. If the Conservatives had any sense they would be monitoring this site and they would be seen anyway. Some hopes, maybe! As far as my own Conservative MP is concerned, his genial and kindly incomprehension is a cushion or maybe a blindfold against the points I have tried to get through to him.He and his breed remind me of the kind of benign but baffled schoolmaster of yesteryear who ruefully imposes sanctions for misdemeanours which have not been committed and does it for the pupils'own good. Well-meaning, uninformed assent of the majority is a powerful weapon of the social engineers.
PS: Further to my comment just made I have a dim memory that people attending the Tory Conference are representatives not delegates. Apologies if I'm wrong.
All right, let's put it another way:
The scenario at this moment seems to be that the Conservatives are keeping remarkably quiet about their intentions regarding the smoking ban. They are not saying they want to keep it, in its present form, they are just saying precisely nothing about it!
From the POV of a smoker, this isn't good news, but, it isn't as bad as the alternative, which is a resounding, and most definite, NO CHANGE from Labour!
Of course we can vote for the fringe parties, but let's face it, we all know in our hearts they have as much chance of forming the next government, as Norman Wisdom does. We also know that casting a vote for them, or indeed, not voting at all, is giving the vote back to Labour again.
At the end of the day, we have two choices; we can vote for the Conservatives, who are offering a whole raft of new measures to ensure more choice and freedoms in many different areas of our lives, and with them, might, just might, come the freedom we are seeking regarding the smoking ban.
The second choice, is that we vote Labour, UKIP, Lib-Dem, or BNP (take your pick), and we get another 5 years of hard Labour once again. There will be no "mights" or "maybes" with Labour back in control, we know what we are now going through, and believe me, it would get even worse under yet another term with them.
Our National Health Service (what is left of it) would cost us even more than it does now, and we would get an even worse service. Our education programme would be run into the ground. More and more immigrants would be let into our already overcrowded country, again costing us yet more money. Local councils would be given even more power over us, to tax us until we bleed, Unions would gain more power and eventually bring the country to a standstill as they did once before when Labour was in power. Europe would control every single aspect of our lives, and a Labour government would not lift a finger to stop them. Bins would lie for weeks without being emptied, and old people thrown out of their care homes. Meanwhile Tony Blair, as president of Europe, would sit happily back, fiddling, while what was left of Great Britain burnt.
George Orwell painted a picture of a rosy summer's day, compared with what we could be in for, if we let Labour slip back in again.
I keep hearing how important the smoking ban is to everyone here, and that is the reason, you keep telling me, that you wouldn't dream of voting Conservative. I say you are sleepwalking into oblivion by letting yourselves be brainwashed by such rubbish.
If it was really that important to you, you would be doing something positive about it, not just limply saying that you will let Labour in again, as if that will bring about some sort of change.
I have seen OAPs marching on Downing Street, I have seen disabled people campaigning outside the Law Courts, I have seen Gays, campaigning in the street for their rights, Policemen and woman, our armed forces, firemen, postmen, the list is endless, they have all been there, standing up for their rights and getting maximum publicity, and in many cases, wining their case. When are we going to see "smokers" making a stand for their rights? And I am not talking about a few dozen trying to make their case heard, I am talking along the lines of the other cases I have mentioned here?
When I see that, then I'll know you're all serious.
"Europe would control every single aspect of our lives, and a Labour government would not lift a finger to stop them" Would David Cameron? I don't hear much from him on that either and I don't recall him being involved in the recent No campaign in Ireland --- but perhaps you can put me right..? (I haven't, so far, heard his speech today, for example).
As for smokers taking to the streets like other minorites have in the past for their rights, some have. Some go out day after day at their own expense, and with no help, posting info leaflets through letter boxes and posting them in public places. The mainstream media has always been happy to support and publicise such minorites' protests but they will not do it for smokers.
Believe me, Peter, I am very serious about this issue. Tell me where the march is, and I'll be there.I have been to every protest event that I have been able to attend. This is a new fight - two years old. The Gays, etc.. have been fighting for decades.
The truth is that fringe parties will get the lost votes this election and possibly even more the election after that until, finally, this awful one party stance between the three main players in the political system comes to an end. That is really what people want.
If we end up with one BNP MP at the next election, it will not be the fault of those who voted with their conscience but that of the main parties who allowed it to happen. The Cons and every other main stream political party must stop ignoring us and treating Britons with a genuine grievance as if they don't exist.
My wish or dream would be that UKIP at least becomes the main opposition party. It won't happen this election but it really could in future if the party sorts it's leadership issue, puts up enough candidates, and people are prepared to take a chance. Voters in 30 years pushed up what began as the SDLP's vote to end up with the waste of space that is now the ilLibDems.
We need a new popular party, we need a change to this collaborating three party system, we need choice in so many ways. The Tories will not give that to us because it would not be in their own self-serving interests.
I should add that voting Tory just to keep Labour out maintains the staus quo and tactical voting is the very first thing that must change.
This is the first election since 1997 that I am actually voting FOR a party as opposed to against the one in power. That, I believe, is the right way forward if we really want things to begin to change.
I agree with you on some of the issue you have raised Pat, but definitely not on the getting out there and doing something positive issue.
I know you are very active in what you have done, but you and I alone are not going to be able to stop this endless march of left wing extremism that is eating away at our liberties.
I would truly like to know how many smokers do you know that have lit up in a pub since the ban? I have, but I had to do it alone, big bloody deal, hardly going to get our cause onto the front page that is it? I have asked in the past, for others to join me on a mass smoke in, and what did I get? I got one positive response, God help us...
I have stopped anti-smoking zealots in the street, who were trying to hand out leaflets telling people how to stop smoking, and instead, I told passers by, how to carry on smoking. I even passed out my own cigarettes to those who wanted them. Who else would have joined me on that one I wonder?
I have advocated doing charity runs and other events to raise awareness of the smokers cause and to help others who cannot help themselves. My idea on this was to give smokers back their normality once again. You know what happened with this one, it got shouted down loud and clear, no one wanted to get off their bottoms and do a bloody thing!
Leaflet drops can help, but they will not get the publicity we need if we want to make people sit up and listen. Can you imagine a political party relying on leaflet drops? We need to be seen and to be heard, laud and clear, and the way to do that is through big, noisy public events.
I keep hearing about how marvellous we all are, and what an enormous amount of information we have to hit back at our critics with. But what good is that information if we are never going to use it against the right people? It's no good telling Mrs Smith next door that the scientific facts we are being presented with are all wrong, she probably doesn't even know what the word "scientific" means, let along the facts which go with them.
I'll tell you what Mrs Smith will take notice of, she'll take notice of 500 people all smoking outside Downing Street, she'll take notice of 100 people caught on camera, smoking in a pub, she'll take notice of 20 people, smoking in the public gallery of the house of commons. "I saw your lot on telly" she'll say, and once she does say that, you'll know we are getting the message across.
The point is, I don't think the telly would give smokers the kind of coverage for their cause that would be useful.
I was so inspired by what you did with the smoke free people in handing out free cigs, that I have been waiting for the right opportunity to do the same and I am about to get it. Even though our tiny Smoke free ofice is always empty, it is moving to bigger premises in the centre of town. I will be one of their first "customers" but they won't like me when I stand outside giving away my roll-ups.
We all inspire each other on here, and other forums, and we share vital info. This fight only began after the ban. We should have done more before it became a reality, but we were conned. I don't intend to get conned again.
I have never lit up inside a public place since the ban because the English side of me is culturally compliant as I suspect most English people are. Certainly as far as pubs are concerned, I wouldn't want to get the landlord the fine that could break their backs.
I do fully intend to take part in the next flash smoking event which involves going into a public place like council offices and the smoke free office and lighting up. But let us not forget that as I write, one smoker at least, is waiting to go to Jail for doing just that. His name is Chris Carter and he is a very courageous man. The ban makes criminals out of us. To smoke in public, if it isn't organised properly, will play into the antis' hands.
A non smoker feels no ill effect from the ban, and it is extremely difficult, even frustratingly impossible to try to make them understand. Even worse than this, the non smoker is quite pleased when they are in those few public places where people still smoked before the ban. Of course, many non smokers never even went in those places anyway.
The majority of those who have a position of leadership in any political party are non smokers.
As smokers, especially in the educated classes diminished, so the restrictions grew, ending with the anti smoking law passed in 2006. This is a law which, upon it's enactment on that sad day in 2007, began a landslide in anti smoking which, as Kenneth Clark said, has got out of control.
At the end of 2007, I sent a copy of a piece I wrote about this anti smoking law (which was on the front page of the F2C website) to all the politiacal parties. I only had a reply from three. The Tory reply was a pre prepared reply which I have seen others receive. The Greens replied with the expected response. UKIP replied, and from the response, I could see that the article had been read, and there were some sympathetic comments.
I have lost this reply with a computer which completely died, (I wish I had had the forethought to realise I may have wanted to keep it). I cannot remember the name of the person, but it was a gentleman quite important in the UKIP machine. What I always remember is this. Despite his empathy, he told me that UKIP had no policy on the smoking ban as there were more important things to think about!
This was at the end of 2007. I do not know who was the main man in UKIP then, but assuming it was not Nigel Farage, then it was very likely a non smoker. Let me take you back to my original theory about non smokers holding positions in political parties. Is it possible that the only reason UKIP changed their stance about the smoking ban is because a smoker became their leader? Farage is no longer their leader, so will the smoking issue fade into the background again?
Timbone - UKIP recognises that a lot of new support for the party has come from disaffected smokers. Many of the bottom and top of the party membership smoke. UKIP back in 2006 didn't think smoking was an issue at all. They have since learned that it is and taken a view to support smokers. An example of how the party is constantly evolving in line with its grass roots support.
It might be that because Nigel smokes he is not brain-washed in the same non-smoker way. I was impressed that they let me speak at conference about abolishing smoke free. Here in Lincoln we put two motions. One was mine the other from our local chairman about the BBC.
London also put in a motion about the BBC which wasn't as defined or meaningful as Lincoln's but it was chosen over ours and we were chosen to present the smoke free motion. I'm sure they wouldn't have chosen both of our motions but if the BBC thing was more important to the party, then the Lincoln BBC motion would have been the one to get through as the most viable to be voted into policy and the smoke free motion would have been refused.
I may be sceptical but I felt that UKIP wanted to endorse it's support for smokers by hearing this motion which the party proved was important by the overwhelming way in which the motion was carried by members who voted on it.
As for non-smokers, many of them are as angry as we are over this ban because they recognise what a danger it is to individual liberty including my sister, a life-long non-smoker. Many non-smokers who hate smoking are angry about the ban because now we are all on the street, they cannot escape smoke anywhere. I maintain that it is only the anti-smokers who will fight to the death to eradicate smoking. Most other people prefer choice and see no harm in it all.
As UKIP rightly told you in 2006, smoking is not a big issue. In truth, the majority of people don't give a damn one way or the other about this issue when there are so many others of concern. That's what I believe anyway and why I would love to see the Cons come out on our side to test the water. They are cowards and that is the only reason they won't.
Thanks Pat
A very good debate here between Peter and Pat and I agree with what both are saying but as Peter says the time for talk is over and unless we organise as a group and make an impact like the anti's, the smoking issue will end up like Ireland and become part of the accepted culture.
Its very difficult I know, as we havent got the wealth machine at our disposal like the anti's and people are scared to be associated with the farting cows of the 2lst century or the jews of the 20th century, so to speak.
But we could start by making it known to local polititions that we refuse to do jury duty on the grounds that our legal habit is not accomodated.
We could put stickers on our cars.
We could dump our butts and cig packs on the street when not being observed, at night if necessary.
We could also do a Michael O'Leary of Ryan Air caper and hire an actor dressed as Churchill or better still a jewish actor with an appropriate message and a gang of smoking refugees behind him and stand outside parliament.
Yes, Peter you are quite right, the time has come to help those who help us such as Forest, F2C etc and give them a Big Brother backing before we fade into oblivion.
Ann, the small voice in the wilderness, the small voice of common sense, the small voice, showing big guts!
Thank you so much Ann, I was beginning to lose all faith and hope in my fellow smoking man and woman.
Keep it up Ann, you are not just fighting for the right to light up a cigarette, you are fighting for our freedom and democracy, which this Labour government has taken away from us.
You say, Pat, that the Conservatives are cowards on the issue of the smoking ban?
They probably are, and so are millions of people in this country today, including many on here, who are frightened out of their lives to openly oppose the new religion that has been hammered home, night and day by this Government.
But ask yourself this, who would you rather vote for, someone who is scared to put their views forward because of the political correct society we now live in, where it is a crime to even mention certain things or words?
Or the makers of such a society, who have forced their biased and bullying laws upon us, with the option of being classed as criminals if you do not abide by their rules?
Thanks Peter, but thats just for starters.
There's lots of things that could be done to play the antis at their own game like hiring a spin doctor of hard hitting words to desimilate and contradict their psychobabble.
Its just a matter of turning the bullshit speak and their modus operandi back on themselves and god knows we've heard enough of it at this stage to know it by heart.
Its a disgrace and a shame when you see the way this global cess pit bully state of the 21st century, can grant rights and accomodate every minority group imaginable under the sun, to the extent of infiltrating and destroying the moral and ethical fibre of society and the status quo with their new laws, can then turn around and discriminate against a minority of peace loving smokers by making us feel like lepers, turning society against us and throwing us into the gutter.
Even Jesus was given a stable with a roof and 4 walls.
Enough is Enough I say.
I think the best way of beating the antis is by using their own game. We should make sure all politicians know that support for us means they are on the winning side. As Debs from ASH said : "This kind of campaiging is literally a confidence trick!"
I'm so sorry, Peter. I absolutely hear what you say and to a great extent I agree. However, I cannot compromise my vote in the hope that the Conservative Party might decide to amend the ban if they are voted in. I think if they would be courageous, and come on our side, they would win by a landslide. If not, as you say, we might get another five years of hard NuLabour. After all, we are only asking for an amendment - choice for all. What can be so wrong or "harmful" about that? What is to fear among the new green tories?
If the Cons get in and don't amend the ban quickly, and certainly not in the first five years, then we will be stuck with it forever. Culture will have changed. The 18 year-olds going into pubs now, know no different than smoke free. FIve years down the line, it will be impossible for them to even imagine allowing choice. It will be alien to them.
If we are going to be active, then we must make the Cons realise this is imperative and could be the difference between them winning or losing the next election. I genuinely believe people hate NuLab so much they wouldn't vote them in again not even if the Tories came out in favour of smoking choice. Would the Sun, for example, go against the Tories because of this one issue if Ash went whining to them about any possible amendment?
Finally, to vote Conservative now without this assurance is to accept the ban. If NuLab gets in again it will not be our fault. It will be the Cons. To me it will make no diference. There is already not much more than fag paper betwen them at least on the health policies.
Peter -
You ask Pat:
"But ask yourself this, who would you rather vote for.....someone who is scared to put their views forward......or the makers of such a society, who have forced their biased and bullying laws upon us....."
In other words:
The Coward, or
The Bully.
Hell, if THAT's the choice !
And it doesn't HAVE to be this way.
That's what's SO sad.
And that's why I'm so sad, too................
I see very little difference between Cameron's Tories and TB's New Labour. (Since Brown took over I think that we've seen a return to old Labour (but on speed, as it were!) I wouldn't be at all surprised if. as soon as the Lisbon Treaty's ratified, Mandelson engineers that Brown's dumped to be replaced by a TB clone). Cameron should know exactly what people are unhappy about and be publicly addressing those concerns. People aren't stupid - they understand the economic mess Brown's landed us in but they won't be willing to 'share the pain' whilst also being bullied about their lifestyles and being treated with the contempt that's enshrined in New Labour's avalanche of laws. If Cameron were truly to offer hope I'd have expected him by now to have seized the moment. When, to misquote Pat, you can't put a fag paper between the big three, I can't think of a more obvious time to vote for a 'fringe' party (I understand that UKIP are fielding 500 candidates - are they still a fringe party?). Only when people have the courage to start voting for fringe parties can anything change (BTW only 30 odd years ago the SNP were perceived as a party of complete oddballs and they've broken the stranglehold of Labour in Scotland - despite probably still being oddballs (although they too have become drunk on power and are every bit as authoritarian as their Westminster counterparts).
As for protest, I've been saying for a long time that I think that our best bet is to join forces with other libertarian groups. We can't protest as individuals and, even though we are 12 million, the majority of smokers aren't even aware that there is resistance or the basis of it.