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)
Am I the only one to have just realised that the Tories have (according to 'Devil's Kitchen') recruited Julian Le Grand? Yep, the same who advocated licences for smokers....
I have most probably said this before on this blog, I have certainly said it elsewhere. Until this year, I had not voted in a General Election since 2001, when I voted for Paul Goggins, Labour, despite having let my membership slip.
My own personal protest was not to vote, me, who had always argued vehemently that in a democracy we should all use our mandate.
This year I voted UKIP in the Euro Elections. This is a party who at last have made me prick up my political ears. It is not just their stand on the smoking ban, it is their general common sense, not radical, not extreme, just sensible policies. Even if my vote does not help to win them a seat next year, at least I know I have joined many others in stating my case clearly to whichever political club holds the balance of power.
There have been some brilliant comments on this thread but we have lost sight of the fact that the three main parties and national media are under direct control by the EU aka Big Brother. To keep we punters happy in our ignorance, it has obviously been decided that EU support will now be given to the Tories. To provide a harmless alternative protest vote, the Greens are given good media coverage and this has the added bonus for them of splitting the UKIP vote. Even the BNP will be given limited media coverage as a further watering down of the UKIP vote. UKIP will be given no voice at all but will be treated with the derision that Peter Thurgood, for example, is always so keen to portray.
UKIP cannot be regarded as a "fringe" party. It is the fourth largest party and voters showed this by the huge support it received in this year's council and EU elections and in all bi-elections since. It is the only worthwhile party to include in its published manifesto, amendment to the smoking ban.
To attempt to keep their owm personal jobs, the charade will continue and limited in-fighting be allowed as all three parties approach our [last] consitutional General Election. Were the Tories free to do so, of course they could hold a Referendum on our membership of the EU. Simply the fact that NuLab renaged on its manifesto promise and its unelected leader, Gordon Brown, went ahead and signed the Lisbon Treaty is sufficient reason.
This Tory referendum will not happen. Nor will any attempt be made to modify the smoking ban, which has been the most valuable tool in disenfranchisement of the British public and will remain so. It also continues daily to swell the coffers of the pharmaceutical companies due to the ill-health it has caused -especially mental ill-health.
To return to the subject of what we smokers can still do to further our cause, We should NOT have public demonstrations. This would simply underline the fact that, like the Jewa durng the Nazi regime, we now regard ourselves as outcasts from society. We should NOT litter the streets with fag ends or set fire to outdoor refuse bins. We should simply continue the quiet intelligent conduct we have shown to date.
We should NOT form ourselves into a "Movement" and join other protest movements. Beware, for example, of the Tax-Payers Alliance. A good weekend read would be to study their websites. You will find that they are a thinly disguised branch of the Tory party aka the EU and backed by wealthy private industry such as McAlpines, Avanta and Bamford [JCB Diggers]. The Tory promise to cut public spending simply means that they will transfer public services to private companies.
Sadly, even commentors on this blog have stated that they will continue to vote UKIP even if it is only a conscience vote, but ARE THEMSELVES so brainwashed that they do not believe sufficient UKIP MPs will be elected. If just voting, while others do the work, is all they have to offer, this will be so. UKIP has no big money behind it and all local branches need supportive ACTION, not just words. It will be footsoldiers on the streets who ensure victory for UKIP. What smokers CAN do to further their own cause is join UKIP as a member and offer their active help to their local branch. If there is no local branch yet -then help to form one. This election will also be fought on the internet - a very powerful tool - but not available to everyone.
So come on, you smokers, put your money and action where your mouth is. Join the ever growing army of little people.who are the only ones actually fighting this third world war. That is what I have done.
Bravo, Margot!
Margot -
I feel that your analysis is a sound one.
There obviously NEEDS to be some sort of re-alignment in British politics. That much should be clear to ANYONE interested in the subject.
Cameron has had the greatest opportunity of any party leader since the War to achieve this - but seems to lack either the imagination or the guts to grab it. It would also, incidentally, bring some much-needed excitement back into Politics, and re-engage the interests of the disillusioned millions.
Sadly, it looks like he's going to blow it.
As I see it - and in the absence of a Damascene turnaround by the Cameron Junta - the ONLY party that seems willing to liberate:
a) The United Kingdom from the growing tyranny of the European Superstate,
b) And the Individual from the growing tyranny of Government
is UKIP.
Quixotic as it may seem to many, I think that in all likelihood I shall be casting my 'X' for them. And JOINING them, too.
In my deluded, romantic view of things, NO cause is FINALLY lost until the last person who supports it has given up HOPE.
And at least WE don't yet have to face the unappealing danger of the torture chamber or the firing squad.
PS:
I STILL wish, however, that UKIP would drop the 'UK' bit (and I speak as a True Patriot): I sense that 'The Independence Party' - with ALL that that implies - would somehow broaden its appeal among those who, though sympathetic to its Eurosceptic agenda, still feel that it is something of a One-Issue Party.
Just a thought.
Martin - UKIP is an evolving party. It began with Goldsmith as the radical and slightly crazy Eefendum Party, moved through the weird and wonderful times of Kilroy Silk, and now it offers a real alternative to real people in the UK of whatever culture who have swelled the ranks from the bottom up. I asked one working bloke, a former Tory, why he joined UKIP. His answer was that he got so fed up at screaming at the TV news at the policies and antics of other parties that he made a choice to break free from the status quo. Something many more of us are doing since July 1, 2007.
To say that the party should drop the UK implies that there is something to be ashamed of by being proud of the Uk although I accept that we are not, actually, since devolution, The Uk anymore.
Margot said : "UKIP has no big money behind it and all local branches need supportive ACTION, not just words. It will be footsoldiers on the streets who ensure victory for UKIP. What smokers CAN do to further their own cause is join UKIP as a member and offer their active help to their local branch. If there is no local branch yet -then help to form one."
This is what I have done and I urge others to do the same. I feel very strongly that win or lose, this is the first step that we the people can take to get our country back from those who would oppress us and run Britain into the ground for their own career or financial ends.
Cameron has called for us to pull together to keep Labour out. He must offer us something in return and what we ask is a very small thing. He must also put his money where his mouth is or he will lose the election.
Pat, you say:
Cameron has called for us to pull together to keep Labour out. He must offer us something in return and what we ask is a very small thing. He must also put his money where his mouth is or he will lose the election.
100% agree. Cameron hasn't offered me anything yet. As far as I can see, under the tories we'll still be told what lifestyle choices we should take, ie they will continue to tell me and bully me into what they think is best for me and treat me like a child.
I was at several of the fringe events at their conference and I know that many grass-roots tories are urging their leaders to ditch this ethos. I have yet to be convinced that their leaders have any intention of doing so.
I will also vote UKIP at the next election. I think I have stated before - once bitten, twice shy with reference to the newly turn-coat Chloe Smith MP.
Pat -
You suggest that:
"To say that the party should drop the UK implies that there is something to be ashamed of................"
Absolutely not !
That, as you will appreciate, is not my position at all. Heaven forfend !
But, I fear, there is a PERCEPTION still among too many folk that UKIP remains essentially a One-Issue Party - albeit that the 'issue' is probably the greatest one NOT on any other party's current agenda.
My rather presumptuous suggestion is that by dropping the 'UK' part of the nomenclature, we would be EMPHASISING the notion of 'independence' - both at the NATIONAL and the PERSONAL level (with obvious connotations of FREEDOM).
In strictly 'marketing' terms (one needs to cut cards with the Devil occasionally), I also feel that 'The Independence Party' simply SOUNDS better.
Moreover, you may even see 'Independence Parties' springing up all over Europe with the same aspirations, and nurturing a similar philosophy.
I just have the STRONGEST FEELING that such a simple name-change WOULD, over time, massively broaden its appeal - which is what I very much want to see.
It would mark - albeit at a subtle level - a further development in its 'evolution' into a mainstream party that HAS to be taken seriously.
The persistent odium and schoolboy invective directed at it by Cameron and Co strongly suggest to me that they are MORE worried about its potential than they would care to admit in public. A good sign, I think.
I merely offer this suggestion as a friend, and potential member - not as a critic.
And I, too, remember Jimmy Goldsmith's Referendum Party, attending the rather exciting rally at Alexandra Palace all those years ago. The sheer PASSION of the speakers (inc James Bellamy and Edward Fox) and the audience was a little disturbing at first - UNTIL I realised that even I had been conditioned into accepting the bland, East European-style stage-management of the modern party conference as the norm: this must have been what politics USED to be like.
Oh yes, and I voted for it, too !
What else could a True Conservative do..........?
Anyway, just a thought.................
PS:
And God save us all if ZAC Goldsmith, Eco-Warrior to the Quality and Al Gore Afficionado, represents the FUTURE Tory Party (now under New Management)..................
I have never heard such a load of old cods-wallop, as I have read on here recently. Margot is doing a grand job defending her "all righteous" UKIP party, and good luck to her for standing up for her personal beliefs, but please face the facts; UKIP are a two horse party, Europe and the smoking ban! Beyond that, they have nothing to offer us.
I stand for getting out of Europe and amending the smoking ban, so why not vote for me?
That's how bloody stupid it is, UKIP have about as much chance of winning the general election as I do!
When I read some of the comments on here, it is almost enough to make me want to give up smoking. Policy on Afghanistan? Education? NHS? Pensions? ID Cards? Transport? Income Tax? VAT? Oh who gives a fart, as long as we can smoke!
Well I am sorry, but smoking alone is way down on that list as far as I am concerned, and so it should be to everyone.
And before anyone jumps up and says "it isn't just about smoking, it's about freedom" I say that is bullshit! I have seen people write on here that they would vote for "ANY" party that promised to amend the ban!
I defy anyone to show me UKIP's policies on all the issues I have mentioned above, and tell me how they are better than the policies offered by any of the major parties?
As for running down Zac Goldsmith, maybe you should read some of Zac's comments which he made last week, (below).
___________________________________
"We all know that this government has been far too trigger happy when it comes to making new laws; an estimated 6,500 since 1997. That's a problem in itself; a bureaucratic nightmare. But the bigger problem is the underlying philosophy that has given rise to, and shaped these laws.
Whatever the issue, our Government takes as its starting point an assumption that we are all fools, or villains - or both. Almost every ordinary human activity has therefore been regulated, policed, or in some cases banned altogether. So if one farmer is cruel to his animals, they must all be regulated into oblivion. If one painter falls from his ladder, then ladders must be banned".
"In one of my recent surgeries, I met the daughter of an eighty-year old woman who is a virtual prisoner in her own home as a result of the horribly unpleasant, threatening behaviour of her neighbours. I visited her home, and persuaded the authorities to come with me. No one was in any doubt that the final years of this elderly lady's life are being ruined. And yet, the law makes decisive action almost impossible. I will do everything I can to ensure this one victim finds peace. But her story is repeated throughout the country, and most victims won't see justice. While the government cracks down on us – all of us – it turns a blind eye to true injustice".
"If after the next election we have a new government, we will have to start afresh. We need to take as our starting point the assumption that the vast majority of people are good and sound. We need to trust people to make decisions for themselves. To trust farmers to farm well, parents to look after their children, head teachers to run their schools, police to set their own local priorities. We need to accept that local decisions on planning and development are best taken by local people".
"As part of this new approach, we will need to be far more willing to counter perverse EU rules, as many other countries already do. It is lunatic for instance that we are prevented by the EU from applying the same welfare standards to the food we import as we do to our own farmers. Our farmers cannot possibly compete and, as we allow them to go out of business, we are losing our food security. If the law is an ass then we must change it, not just shake our heads.
A society in which the tide of restrictive regulations has been turned and where we have fewer and better laws will not only be more free, it will also be more responsible, more caring and more successful".
Freedom, Peter, as I have said before is the MOST important thing to me not whether I can smoke when and where I feel like. I know you don't accept it, but I am a cultural smoker. A smoker is WHO I am. That is why this issue is so important to me. Getting me to quit is like asking Moslems to eat pork. It is that important.
UKIP has gone from being a two issue party to something much more with some great policies and if you had been at the UKIP conference, then you would have heard. What was it you were saying on another thread about pre-judgement? As I said before, it is evolving. It does have policies on the main issues and let's face it, it couldn't do worse tah the idiots running the asylum now.
I guess the smoking ban doesn't really matter that much to you and fair enough. We all either support it or don't give a damn to varying degrees. You might as well give up smoking anyway, and sincere good luck wishes if you do, because once the Tories get in, I've no doubt that there wil be yet more bullying to try and force us all to stop smoking.
The only way we can get any meaningful change is to break the curent three party system. That will never happen as long as we all cling onto worthless traditional voting patterns where the only people who win are those feathering their own nests in cabinet.
This is my last word on this thread because I've probably said too much already. It has been a brilliant debate but I honestly, truly, believe that a vote for the Tory party is acceptance of the ban and we can all kiss good bye to an amendment.
Margot, I think was a Con voter before this issue. I am sure she is not alone in switching to UKIP - the party of the future and yes, Martin, I do see your point now and agree. Join Ukip, and make your point and the party wil listen. It changes it's polciies to suit it's support and does not expect it's supporters to change their views to suit it.
.. and it would appear that the Tories are reneging on a promise to amend the hunting bill. I think that tells me, at least, all I need to know about what we can expect from the Tories on any amendment to the blanket smoking ban.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/conservative/6292213/Hunt-supporters-in-new-clash-with-Tories-over-repeal-of-ban.html
I'm mortally disappointed as I had hoped against hope for better, but it seems as if it really will be more of the same under the Cons so what is the point of wasting a vote on them. NuLab, NuTories, it really makes no difference to me.
... oh, and I don't hunt but this issue still matters to me because, again, it is about freedom of choice
Yes, Pat, I was a Tory and huge fan of Thatcher. She was born & bred just 13 miles from where I lived. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The silly little vainglorious woman sold us out completely to Global Control and ended up a very rich woman. Ted Heath, who stated that the British people were too stupid to govern themselves, started the sell out and ended up a very rich man himself.
Thatcher "floated" our economy on the concept of the survival of the fittest. She encouraged impossibly high bank interest rates and impossibly high electricity costs. Our major production industries were forced to close down in rapid succession causing job losses with no other alternative than unemployment for the masses.
Our British Aluminium factory was the world leader in the production of aluminium. This niche in the market was seized upon by the Soviets and is now controlled by the Russian Mafia.
I wrote an impassioned letter to Thatcher pointing out the destruction her electricity policy was creating and advocated we follow the Norwegian policy regarding electricity. In addition to traditional methods use, among other sources, wave power from their coastline. Our own coastline is very similar. I pointed out that electricity was free to the Norwegian people and their industries. They produced electricity for themselves and it was given to themselves. Just look at the independence they have enjoyed ever since and compare it to the 60% rise in the cost of energy we are now promised in this benighted suffering country.
My letter was passed to the Department for Energy and I received a long fatuous reply from them. I had already covered every point they made in my letter to them including the two year period of unemployment one could anticipate for meter readers and office staff to find other employment within the saved and new production businesses possible.
Like Pat, I am tired of having to waste so much time and energy repeating the 'same old, same old'. The sensible and all encompassing UKIP policies are there on the UKIP website for Peter to read for himself. As Pat says, the party is still evolving and open always to sensible suggestions from its members. As with the other parties, its final election manifesto is not yet published.
One thing is obvious from the way UKIP is evolving from the ground [the community] upwards is that big government is not favoured. Instead we can look to that other successful independent country, Switzerland. Central government there controls the roads, railway, postal service and armed forces. Two year National Service is still in operation. Beyond that the country has always been divided into self regulating "Campons". Small regional government is envisaged by UKIP.
That's it. I'm off. So it's goodnight from me and goodnight from her. And not forgetting the wise gentle Norman, timbone and all other worthy unsung posters, especially the incredible Martin V, whose long screed on the previous page should be published far more widely than just on here.
P.S.
No, perhaps UKIP may not be able to form a government this time, but they could form a very effective Opposition.
It's obvious to anyone that the EU has decreed it is the Cons turn to deflect the British Public away from what is really happening. NuLab has no chance at all. Never forget that the EU also control the BBC and all important media.
A reminder that the South East region, including the City of London and Westminster, was taken over by the EU in October 2006. It was renamed the TransManche Region and is administered by unelected EU staff from an office in Paris.
Do you live in Lincolnshire, Margot, and which area?
.. and yes, absolutely agreed on Martin V's post. Martin, Please post a link to your blog which I'd like to read regulalry...
.. so much for a last word from me (tee-hee)
Pat.
If I don't get some weeding done, some cooking and some eating, I will perish!
No, I lived just across the border in Nottinghamshire. Since then, I've lived and worked all over the world and for over thirty years now, [and forever, I hope], live in the "occupied" territory of the Kent Coastal region directly opposite France. Come and visit - bedrooms available. [Contact me via F2C].
Which reminds me - I forgot to say goodbye to Joyce. Yes, I noticed about Le Grand - ominous, eh?
Interesting footnote about this EU controlled TransManche Region in which I live. Do you all remember when Channel 4 broadcast the file "Taking Liberties" last year? It was first Tuesday in the month when we have our UKIP meeting. We all rushed home to view it and when we turned on found that, in this region only, it had been replaced by the life story of Amy Winehouse. Other things happen down here - too numerous to mention. I still haven't managed to see "Taking Liberties".
Absolutely goodbye.
Good Morning everyone.
I did manage a sausage sandwich and a cup cake yesterday. Better luck today, eh?
Typing error above. I was talking about the film "Taking Liberties" not the file.
Forgot to mention and thank the ever faithful ever watchful Mary smoker yesterday. Thanks for all your input. I attempted to follow up your comment on today's topic [19th October},but see that one has to register with Yahoo so will not be joining in. Dire warnings are being sent out regarding registering your email details with popular internet companies. These provide easily collected data which can be used for infiltration.
I take care to "Delete all Browsing History" [including "Add-Ons"], after each session on the internet. Access this via the Tool Bar.
I recommend a daily visit to the UKIP website to get update on what is actually happening in Brussels. You probably missed the item in which Nigel described the re-election of the dreadful Barosso as Chairman or Leader or whatever he is. He describes the voting by our Cons there. Almost to a man they voted "Yes" and one of them at least rose to his feet, smiling delightedly, as he gave him a standing ovation. They may have moved their seating to a seemingly more eurosceptic position, but their "Yes" voting on all matters remains the same, with the exception of Daniel Hannan.
A superb video response by Nigel to the Irish "Yes" vote is on there at the moment.
Anyone left reading this? It will be soon pushed off the page,.