Mandelson versus the DH
Friday, December 18, 2009 On Tuesday I reported that the Department of Health had decided, at the very last moment, to delay the expected announcement of its latest Tobacco Control Strategy paper. Clearly, a big argument was taking place behind the scenes.
Today's London Evening Standard has an explanation for what was going on. It confirms what we suspected. See HERE.
To put it in simple English, we believe that the DH wants to introduce plain packaging for tobacco products but the policy is being opposed by Business Secretary Peter Mandelson.
This, of course, is very reminiscent of the battle that took place a year ago when Mandelson opposed the introduction of a display ban. Eventually, he negotiated a reprieve for retailers with the ban being delayed until 2011 (large stores) and 2013 (small stores).
We'll have to wait until the New Year to find out what's going to happen. In the meantime you might like to write to Health Secretary Andy Burnham making it clear what your views are on this latest piece of anti-smoker legislation - and how it could influence which way you vote in the forthcoming election.
Simon Clark
Write to Rt Hon Andy Burnham MP, Secretary of State for Health, Department of Health, Richmond House, 79 Whitehall, London SW1A 2NS or email the Department of Health at: dhmail@dh.gsi.gov.uk
Reader Comments (13)
I would like to write expressing my views...but what is his correct address...and can he be contacted by e-mail?
Thanks Simes!
Merry Christmas.
At least Mandy is good for something.
Hope he pulls this very important deal off.
Mandellson knows a vote loser when he sees one !
Unlike the rest of the dopes.
It must surely have come into the minds of these health fanatics in the DoH that the law of 'diminishing returns' must come into force at some point. But, no......I think that it hasn't. I think that it has come into the mind of Mandelson.
Parliament has already passed a law requiring tobacco stuff to be placed behind shutters and curtains to protect children. So, what is the point of plain packaging? Children cannot see tobacco products, therefore of what importance is the packaging?
Frankly, I do not give a toss about 'curtains' and 'packaging'. When I do go to buy a packet of fags, I will make a point of requiring all the cutains to be opened so that I can see the merchandise and taking as long as I wish to decide which brand I wish to buy. It will be good fun!
The diminishing returns effect will come in when tobacco manufacturers start to demand a reduction of duty in view of the fact that their ability to sell their products is being systematically destroyed?
There is a major tobacco manufacturer in Japan called 'JT International'. It is the third biggest tobacco manufacturer in the world. What is to stop JT INternational saying, "Erm.....because of the restrictions in the UK, we will stop supplying tobacco to the UK" - and, if all the other manufacturers did the same, and closed their UK plants, how would the government react?
At the end of the day (and I hate that phrase!), Adults will do what they want, and this includes ALL adults, including 18 year olds.
This is my 2 pennerth worth, for what it is worth! Sorry if it exceeds limits Simon.
to Rt Hon Andy Burnham MP
Yet another snipe at the innocent smoker!
This sort of legislation will open the doors even wider for smuggled and counterfeit tobacco products to be brought into the UK and sold, thus denying the government of its several pounds of flesh in terms of the tax charged on the legal product.
It is already far easier and often cheaper, for children to obtain illegal drugs than cigarettes, so this action would do absolutely nothing to prevent youngsters from smoking, if anything it will make even more alluring.
No government has successfully curbed or prevented, to any degree the sale or supply of illegal drugs, so why does this government believe it will be able to control the import and sale of illegal tobacco products?
As a law abiding citizen I would prefer to see our police forces dealing with real crime, not the trumped up scaremongering sort that has been used to ostrosize smokers! Smoking is a legal pastime and very pleasurable and beneficial to many and no more harmful to the general public than anything else that might adversely affect a very small minority, such as perfumes that can bring on epileptic fits and nuts that can be catastrophic for those that suffer such an allergy.
The only thing that most sane, civilised and tolerant people, both smokers and non smokers, have seen over the past few years is a government looking to take control of every aspect of people's private lives and it is not something that any of us want, nor do we need. This is exactly the sort of thing that will lose this government votes by the thousand, if not millions!
These sort of tactics are also seen as a smoke screen (no pun intended) to cover up the 'dirty deeds' undertaken by government, the ones that it is hoped we will not catch onto, however most of us have a little more sense than government seem to give us credit for and with what has gone on over the last 12 to 15 months in particular, has caused total lack of trust in any politician, whether they be national or local representatives, and rightly or wrongly, the perception is that virtually all politicians are in politics purely for what they themselves can gain from it and not in any way, shape or form, for the good of the people who pay their wages and trumped up expenses!
Who to vote for in the next election will be a difficult choice for many as very few people in this country want a Nanny State, let alone a Bully State, which is what we have now and, by the look of it, going forward if Labour stay in power.
As government have failed miserably to make any significant inroad into the import and supply of illegal drugs over the years, there is no hope of controlling tobacco imports and supply. Smokers object to being treated worse than those who supply and use illegal drugs, but that is what this is coming to. Get the illegal drugs sorted first, then you might just have a chance with tobacco control. In the meantime, unfortunately, many other crimes that affect people far more than drugs and tobacco are being committed and not dealt with affectively.
Good for you, Lyn! Did, by any chance, you get a reply from our "beloved" "Health" Secretary? No, I thought not. I emailed "Call me Dave" Cameron on the Fascist ban, and, funnily enough, he didn't reply either. Fancy that! Well, if the twat wakes up to the fact that there are between 13 and 15 million smokers out there who will vote for whoever raises that stupid ban, then we should have a Tory Gov't with an enormous majority. But he won't...I wonder why not?
Old Greeny
I did get a reply, surprisingly! Unsurprisingly it was the stock reply. At the risk of Simon's wrath below is my response - I was furious!
Dear Mr Gordon
I see nothing different in your response to responses received from other emails I have forwarded to the DoH - it all seems to be a stock answer that is reeled out any time someone, particularly a smoker, challenges the actions of this government.
It is strange to me that your figures on Canada and Iceland seeing a reduction in youngsters purchasing tobacco or taking up smoking when every other source that I have seen or heard about states the exact opposite.
It is also strange that you mention how smoking prevalence decreased in the last decade to 2006 BEFORE the smoking ban came into force! That in itself should tell its own story!
I personally know people who had chosen to give up smoking but since the ban have started again, simply because they will not tolerate bullying and interference on this scale by those elected to be our servants, not our masters! I also know one or 2 people, grown adults, not youngsters, who have started smoking for the first time in their lives because they have got fed up with staying in the pub on their own, minding people's drinks and missing out on the conversations, debates and general chit chat that now happens outside pubs with the smokers! You may see this as a stupid thing to do, but to many people it is the only way they can rebel against this ridiculous and stifling law.
I have seen no evidence to convince me that smoking is responsible for over 100,000 deaths per year and no evidence that smoking or SHS causes cancer.
From personal experience my extended family have lived very long and very healthy lives, most well into their 90's and one making 100. All of these smoked and/or lived with smokers all of their lives and suffered absolutely no ill effects whatsoever. In fact, regarding low birth weights, my mother was relieved that she smoked whilst carrying myself and my brother as we were both 10 pound+ babies! Neither of us were ill during childhood, accept for the normal measles, chicken pox and german measles and we had very few colds and have never had flu!
My daughter has always been in fine health, living with smoking parents and then going on to work in the hospitality industry, working in pubs and clubs. Since the smoking ban, she is always ill with colds and bugs. She doesn't smoke and never has, which is entirely her choice!
The only people I have known who have both smoked and suffered from cancer have had other, more convincing situations or contact with more dangerous materials that are known to cause or contribute to the cause of cancer, asbestos, for example. Other things that contribute to lung disease and breathing problems are people working in engineering environments and in that time have inhaled minute particles of swarf from metal grindings, amongst other things.
Stress and depression are huge causes of cancer and the number of people suffering stress and depression has escalated alarmingly, but we don't see anything being done from government to help these people - the services are still diabolical and in extremely short supply. It is also extremely bad for depressives to be isolated as so many more now are due to the smoking ban because they do not feel comfortable going out any more.
The biggest cause of cancer, be it lung, breast, or any other is the human genes!
As for CRUK - just like politicians, if anyone representing them told me on a bright sunny day that the sun was shining I would call them a liar! As far as I am concerned CRUK by name and crook by nature.
None of the reports from these sources, CRUK, BHF, ASH, have been honest and it is widely believed that only the reports saying what they and the government want them to say are published whilst any others are destroyed. A little like the climate change fiasco!
If you are unable to respond to specific queries and only forward out a pre-written load of tripe that has been approved by some nameless jobsworth, then don't bother replying. If you are prepared to discuss relevant points raised, not only with me, but with others of like mind, then perhaps an open and for once, honest, public debate should organised, publicised and televised!
Can't see it happening though because too many ordinary people have done the research that government have not and so could shoot you down in flames!
Mrs Lyn Ladds
If you want to see the stock reply received let me know and I will post it!
An excellent response Lyn and brialliantly put.
I'm sure that jobsworth Gordon was left shivering in his boots that you had DoH latest gobbledegook tobacco lies rumbled.
Thanks Ann, as I said, I was furious at being brushed off in the way we usually are, especially after the expenses scandal. It is about time they remembered just who it is that pays their wages and expenses and they can't carry on using us for a free ride without taking some notice! (Although I am sure they will try!).
Good God, if they behaved in this way in any other 'business' they would be sacked on the spot!
Further response from DoH:
Dear Mrs Ladds,
Thank you for your further email about tobacco regulation.
I am sorry you were unhappy with my previous response, but the information contained in that response in the most up-to-date and accurate available.
Smoking is undeniably the biggest cause of preventable death in the country and the Government will continue to do all it can to prevent the harm that smoking and secondhand smoke causes.
As it appears you are unwilling to accept the evidence provided, there is nothing further I can add on this matter.
Yours sincerely,
Cameron Gordon
Customer Service Centre
Good try Lyn.
The answer about says it all.
Thanks Peter. Just goes to prove however, that unless we succumb to the propoganda we don't appear to count!
What makes them believe the 'evidence' they provide is right and everyone elses is wrong? Stupid question, I know!