Adrian Sanders sets the record straight
Tuesday, July 14, 2009 Last week I wrote that Adrian Sanders, the Lib Dem MP for Torbay, had argued that it was now "unacceptable" to even talk about amending the smoking ban. Sanders posted a response saying he had been misrepresented. Having looked at the evidence again (see HERE), I am happy to put the record straight.
Nevertheless, to clarify the situation I sent him an email with the following questions:
1. You say that the way you have been quoted "does not reflect my personal view". Could you clarify what your personal view is?
2. Given that the government has said that it intends to review the ban in 2010, do you welcome a public debate on the issue?
3. Given the impact of the ban on some pubs and clubs and local communities, would you support a review of the legislation that takes into account the views of all interested parties?
4. If there was a to be a free vote on the issue in a future parliament, what would your position be (ie would you support an amendment to the ban and, if so, what amendment/s would you support)?
5. If you support an amendment to the ban would you be prepared to support our campaign?
Adrian has replied as follows:
1. My personal view is that every law should be open to review and amendment.
2. Of course!
3. Yes
4. Probably, but it would depend on the results of the review, otherwise what's the point of conducting one.
5. See answer to 4
He adds:
This all began because the South Devon branch of the LVA invited me as a member of the Culture, Media & Sport Select Committee to their monthly meeting to talk about the licensing act. They were aware that the CMS Select Committee was reviewing the Act. I was not there as an expert on the smoking ban and the question about it was one of many questions raised by publicans.
Issues relating to pub ties, binge drinking, taxation, public safety regulations, supermarket pricing, local licensing decisions, and many more all attracted at least as much, if not more, participation and interest from those present than did the smoking ban. Consequently I was more than a little annoyed at my local paper (and other papers that took their feed) for ignoring the other issues that had been raised and my answers to them, and for then inaccurately reporting what I did say!
So there we have it. I doubt that Adrian Sanders will ever be the most committed supporter of amendments to the smoking ban. Nevertheless, while he (and MPs like him) remain open-minded there is a glimmer of hope.
PS. I know there is a huge flaw in the above scenario - namely, the government review of the ban. I don't think it's being overly cynical to assume that this will be a massive whitewash that will seek to emphasise how "successful" and "popular" the ban has been.
If, as is likely, our evidence is ignored we will just have to produce our own review. MPs can then read both documents and decide for themselves.
Simon Clark
In case it gets lost, I would like to highlight the comment made by Rose Whiteley on a previous thread. Rose wrote:
"I was more than a bit surprised to see the venom against Adran Sanders MP, especially as he made it clear he did NOT personally agree with the Government's position. What's more, I think he was just reasonably saying he doesn't want to be represented as having a view he doesn't, with which we can probably all agree. Let's not turn potential allies into opponents."
I couldn't agree more. Some of the comments on this blog are not just myopic, they are unnecessarily mean-spirited. If you don't believe me, see some of the comments about AWT on my previous post.
Reader Comments (19)
I am sorry if you think my post is "myopic" or "mean-spirited" Simon.
I personally think that anyone who accepts Mr Sanders views on not just his own party but all political parties is very short-sighted indeed.
Adrian Sanders stated quite categorically "My answer was that there is no desire at all in this Government or the other parties to bring any alterations to the smoking ban. Even the amendment to allow members at private clubs to decide whether to bring any change on their premises"
That statement is what I disagree with. There is nothing "myopic" or "mean-spirited" about disagreeing with a falsehood.
PS. I know there is a huge flaw in the above scenario - namely, the government review of the ban. I don't think it's being overly cynical to assume that this will be a massive whitewash that will seek to emphasise how "successful" and "popular" the ban has been.
I think that this is bound to happen if New Labour are still in power when the review takes place. There has been no sign whatsoever of this government listening to anyone other than themselves and fake charities like ASH over the past two years, and I see no reason why that should change.
What's needed is a change of government and a change of culture. A new Conservative government would have an ideal opportunity and a mandate to roll back the nanny state that Labour have constructed over the past 12 years, and of which the smoking ban has been the flagship. Unfortunately the Conservatives show no sign of intending to do any such thing. Call-me-Dave seems to have hitched his wagon to Blairite personality politics, to the nanny state, to global warming, and every other piece of mind-bending claptrap that has assailed this country in recent years. It was by doing this, after all, that he managed to become the leader of the Conservative party, and he does not yet seem to see any reason to behave any differently. It used to be the charge thrown at him by Labour that he was a political chameleon. How I now wish that this was true!
I do believe that the smoking ban will eventually be amended or repealed, because it's simply such an obscene and divisive law. But I have yet to see the honest and principled politician (are there any?) who will step up and do the decent thing, and call for an end to this disgusting ban.
Peter, Adrian Sanders was not talking about individual MPs, he was referring to the policies of government and the leading political parties. And he is entirely correct. Since the introduction of the smoking ban neither the Labour government nor the Conservatives or Lib Dems have shown the slightest desire to amend it. We have to change that and accusing an MP of a "falsehood" - when he has merely spoken the truth - is not going to help us.
Idlex, I too believe that the blanket ban will eventually be tweaked/amended.
I was at an education conference today. During the break, as always I went outside the venue for a smoke along with many others. It was nice day and rather stuffy inside, so many non-smokers came outside for a bit of air as well.
Many got chatting in groups and we took a break from the conference topics and the smoking ban came up. Although the non-smokers were obviously not as annoyed as smokers were with the ban, they all agreed that it was awful. Not one approved of it. One even mentioned the word 'denormalisation' and was appalled how smokers were being treated. (Working in education, they all have equality and diversity rammed down their necks.)
I was very pleased, to say the least, that the majority of these professionals hadn't been totally brainwashed and took it as a 'glimmer of hope' in some common sense being eventually returned to our country once the nannies have been booted out.
I get the feeling that people are biting their tongues at the moment because they know that it's not worth even mentioning within this current government. I also, unfortunately, believe that call-me-Dave is turning into a Nanny. That said, I think (not just hope) that the people will speak out more if the tories got in.
The tories voted 2 to 1 against the ban. If they have now changed their way of thinking, we need to ask why. Every reason any of them give can easily be quashed. They know it, and so do we.
Tim Montgomerie of ConservativeHome wrote in the FT today "Mr Cameron ..currently runs the Conservative party from a suite of offices likened to the White House West Wing. Most big decisions are taken by a small group of people that he has known for 20 years." Might I add with his Shadow Ministers holding onto his coat tails.
The article also goes onto document most of the Tory PPCs are Thatcherite type free marketeers and my experience of Tory senior advisers is that they too are libertarian.
If the Conservatives win the next election and there is a free vote on amendments we maybe home and dry. However I feel 2010 is too soon possibly, but we have a year to prepare. SOPAC, Amend The Smoking Ban is very timely.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/eaffda76-6ff1-11de-b835-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1
I think we should commend Adrian for his time and honesty. His "probable" support is very encouraging and I believe he is Deputy Chief Whip of the Liberals, perhaps Adrian can garner more support within the party.
One matter I am greatly encouraged about was that in the local paper where the meeting was reported there was a healthy debate which was exclusively on the smoking ban. I always thought that these were very limited in effect. Adrian was kind enough to reply to the largely pro choice smoking comments, possibly taken aback at the conviction of smokers. It seems these newspaper blogs are more influential than I thought.
http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/news/Licensees-dismayed-U-turn-stance/article-711687-detail/article.html
This post is a cry for help is there anyone out there who would be interested in creating a web site for smokers. It is getting increasingly difficult to find a place i can have a holiday and beable to smoke in my hotel. When you ask travel agents if i could have a smoking room in my hotel they say they will request it, but with no clear answer if i could have one. It would be nice to see a travel agent for smokers someone who knows where i can book that allows smoking in ones room and also the places i can go and not be restricted.I am sure this will take off because when one is paying a large ammount of money for a holiday then we should be sure that it will not be spoilt by not being able to smoke in ones room.Anyone interested in starting up a travel agents for smokers? I am sure it would be very popular. I would do it myself if i knew how and had the information that would be needed.
Pat,
I do not think that such a website is likely to appear. The reason is that thousands and thousands of hotels,etc, the cost of circulating them all with some sort of questionaire would be very expensive and, in all probability, the vast majority would not reply. It is one of those situations where hoteliers might say, "I cannot work out whether or not it would be a good thing for me to say that I do or do not allow smoking. Better to keep quite about it".
I think that your best bet is to telephone the hotel you are thinking of booking directly and ask them straight out.
Pat,
I do not think that such a website is likely to appear. The reason is that thousands and thousands of hotels,etc, the cost of circulating them all with some sort of questionaire would be very expensive and, in all probability, the vast majority would not reply. It is one of those situations where hoteliers might say, "I cannot work out whether or not it would be a good thing for me to say that I do or do not allow smoking. Better to keep quite about it".
I think that your best bet is to telephone the hotel you are thinking of booking directly and ask them straight out.
Oopst!
I cut myself off.
ENJOYMENT, PLEASURE are what pubs are all about, arn't they? You cannot disassociate publicans from punters. The two are intertwined. When you introduce draconian punishments for publicans, for whatever reason, you break down the relationship between publicans and their customers. You provoke the conditions where publicans are obliged to PHYSICALLY ATTACK the people who provide them with their living. Be in no doubt that this is true.
Believe me, it is not terrifically difficult to equate this situation with Einstein's belief that Time and Space are intertwined. I know that by saying this, that I invite ridicule, but I have to accept it.
There is no need to go into detail, but the idea that Einstein had was that 'the process of change' (time), can speed up or slow down.
What we have been witnessing with pub closures etc has been an ACCELERATION in the breakdown of publican/customer relationships. The intertwining has always been about certain 'regulars' who pay for the publican's basic costs along wth the 'irregulars' who provide the extra profit.
Once a publican is obliged to PHYSICALLY ATTACK his 'regulars', for whatever reason, the end is obviously nigh.
I do not understand what these politicians and doctors are trying to do. Is there some sort of TEMPLATE whereby - if you shout untruth long enough and loud enough, untruth will become truth?
There are so many weird, 'social engineering' (do as I say, not as I do) aspects to this thing that one sometimes has to just say, "FOR GOD'S SAKE, I AM OLD ENOUGH TO MAKE MY OWN MIND UP. LEAVE ME ALONE".
South Devon branch of the LVA.
'Issues relating to pub ties, binge drinking, taxation, public safety regulations, supermarket pricing, local licensing decisions, and many more all attracted at least as much, if not more, participation and interest from those present than did the smoking ban'.
I thought that local LVAs still had a lot of power, so why is the smoking ban not a bigger issue?
Adrian Saunders is a true politian, he answers Simons queries by picking his political words carefully by more or less saying he will if they will, he wont if they wont and what would be the point otherwise.
Its how these guys defeat their opponents, the aim is not to win an argument but to avoid it, as in his answer to question 5. 'see answer to 4'.
The trick is to shut down debate, to short circuit any need for thinking, if possible reduce your answer to a snappy question like 'Are you happy to put your children's health at risk' thus forcing your opponent to answer on your terms making their opponents answer sound defensive.
Its a real neat trick, not as easy as it looks but there are some masters of the art in the political establishment.
Ann and Junican sometimes you have to view the glass to be half full rather than half empty. My impression that the smoking ban was passed because it was not a matter of conviction for the vast majority of MPs and as it was a free vote, followed their colleagues into the aye lobby because that was the prevailing opinion.
However we smokers have refused to accept the situation and we campaign vociferously for an amendment. Kerry McCarthy, Tom Harris (Labour MPs) and Mary Honeyball (Labour MEP) have all incurred the wrath of writing pro ban articles. In the blogosphere and newspapers angry smokers descend in their hordes to pass on their bon mots. It is usually their most commented piece.
So to be fair to be Adrian he is correct that to many at Westminster the smoking was considered to be a dead issue. I had a conversation with a nationally known blogger who smokes and he said the same thing as recently two months ago. Hat tip to Taking Liberties readers and other pro choice groups and its members for keeping the topic live.
In general elections voter turnout is depressingly low, c60%. For example there are more smokers in the UK, than who voted Labour at the last election. Politicians are increasingly aware that 12 million smokers are motivated, have a zeal and commitment that makes us a potent force nationally. UKIP demonstrate that adopting a pro choice stance at worst does not detract from their vote and I know full well that UKIP have picked up motivated members especially from Freedom2Choose because of the policy. I know of one who could leaflet for Britain and there must be not one dwelling in Norwich North that has not had an UKIP message.
What I am saying is that politicians realise that the smoking issue is not going away and undoubtedly there are votes to be gained in taking an amendment stance. We must take Adrian’s positive message in the right spirit, and I do find the Liberal Democrats seem to be taking this on board the most.
Finally on AWT is a very successful businessman and works extremely hard for his company. To put in the time that he has to SOPAC, especially in this financial climate demonstrates integrity over commercial gain. Boisdale is also recommended here and quite rightly too, it is a wonderful place to go for a night out, Simon’s recommendations are invariably sound. .
In conclusion, without being naïve let us acknowledge a politician who has an open mind.
Maybe I was a little harsh in accusing Mr Sanders of a "falsehood". I suppose the real term I should have used was making unfounded assumptions.
I disagree that Mr Sanders was referring to the policies of government and the leading political parties, and not individual politicians. He is not a stupid man, and if he had meant "policies" he would surely have said that, and not "parties", which is what he clearly did say.
Can you imagine how Greg Knight MP (Conservative), David Clelland MP (Labour), Nigel Farage MEP (UKIP) must all feel, when they read Mr Sander's words? These people, along with Antony Worrall Thompson, and many others, are all men and women of great integrity, who put their money where their mouths are.
Whatever their party's policies, be it known or not, on the smoking ban, they have stepped up and declared their strong affinity to the Save our Pub & Clubs campaign. They are the people we should be pouring our admiration on.
I do not want this to run into a personal argument, so as far as I am concerned, this is my final word on this subject.
"FOR GOD'S SAKE, I AM OLD ENOUGH TO MAKE MY OWN MIND UP. LEAVE ME ALONE".
No. You are addicted to tobacco, and it is your addiction that is making up your mind for you. As an addict, you don't deserve to be treated as an adult human being, but as a child or a dumb animal. You need to be helped, even if it is against your will. When we have finally rid you of your dreadful addiction, we will give you back your full rights as an adult human being.
Just so long as you don't start smoking again. Or drinking alcohol. Or coffee. Or tea. Or gambling. Or fornicating. Or eating fast food. Or meat. Or fish. Or eggs. Or sugar... We have a list as long as our collective arms of things you shouldn't do.
Dave Atherton wrote: Kerry McCarthy, Tom Harris (Labour MPs) and Mary Honeyball (Labour MEP) have all incurred the wrath of writing pro ban articles. In the blogosphere and newspapers angry smokers descend in their hordes to pass on their bon mots. It is usually their most commented piece.
When did Tom Harris write a pro-ban article? He didn't vote for a complete ban. I suspect that you are confusing him with Paul Flynn, who did write such articles, and upon whom angry smokers did indeed descend.
Exactly what I was going to say idlex. Tom Harris has never written a pro ban article. He did blog about the Christmas Card from F2C, and in reply to comments clearly stated that he voted against the ban. Tom Harris has the Save our Pubs and Clubs poster appearing on his blogspot, and the video. I have heard it said that this is because they are part of an advertising package. Maybe so, but he could have them removed, and he doesn't. I personally have a lot of time for Tom Harris.
Tom Harris not only has the Amend The Smoking Ban banner on his blog, but he has actually said that he supports them. Via Frank Davis:
Someone had asked him:
"Can I take it that you will give the Amend The Smoking Ban team your support?"
To which Tom Harris replied:
"Yes, you can take it."
Idlex you are quite right, thanks for correcting me.