Question time
Monday, August 3, 2009 One or two of you have been in touch about a Conservative Home survey that invites respondents to agree or disagree with the statement: "The Conservatives should relax the smoking ban so that pubs, restaurants and private clubs can apply to allow smoking on their premises".
Unfortunately, to answer this question you have to plough your way through page after page of questions about Afghanistan, assisted suicide, Lord Ashcroft, Boris Johnson, George Osborne, David Cameron and the entire shadow cabinet, rating their performance. (Let's be honest, most of them are invisible so how can we possibly rate them?)
Some of these questions are optional but others aren't. The whole thing is completely self-selecting but if none of the above puts you off you can find the survey HERE.
Simon Clark
Thanks for your comments. If I seem a little reluctant to endorse this poll, it's because it is aimed primarily at existing Conservative Home readers and I would suggest that there is more value in knowing what they think about the smoking ban without "rigging" the result by encouraging non-ConHome readers to take part. Unlike most online polls, I think the ConHome surveys probably do reflect the views of its readers (rather than a vocal minority). Early results, for example, indicate that this poll attracted over 1000 submissions. On that basis I would prefer not to influence the result because in this instance I think that an accurate result is more educational than a result that has been influenced by a third party. (PS. I agree with Michael Peoples that if you are going to vote you should complete the entire survey, not just the smoking issue, even if it's to say "Don't know". Likewise you should be honest about your political affiliation.)
Reader Comments (23)
It only took me three minutes to complete.
Where it asks about Cameron, then say he should repeal the smoking ban.
Where it asks if you are a Conservative supporter...then say other, and in the box below say UKIP, adding they are prepared to repeal the smoking ban.
Have just done it in the interests of upping the pro smoker vote. I ticked the 'don't know' box for the performance of most of their MP's. Only Ken Clarke and William Hague registered on my senility radar. As I recorded myself as 'Totally disenchanted with Politicians' I doubt if I shall cause much of a stir in Tory HQ. One day our self important masters will wake up to the fact that the draconian and universal smoking ban has seriously angered a significant proportion of our law abiding population.By this single and selfish act I ditched 50 years of admiration for our flawed but beloved democracy. Compromise no longer rules and we are all the worse for it. End of grump.
I've just completed the survey as well, making the point - I paraphrase here - that a pledge to amend, not repeal, the smoking ban would show that the Conservatives are prepared to listen. I won't support them unless the promise is made.
And a big fat raspberry to Andrew Lansley.
I have completed the form too and made a point about the smoking ban being amended and also an assurance that we would return to a democracy rather than the dictatorship we have been subjected to!
A darn cheek, I thought, at the end, asking for money - especially as the Conservatives were not squeaky clean in the expenses scandal!
The politics of the smoking ban are an interesting dichotomy. Firstly I think the smoking ban is registering with Tory HQ. ConservativeHome is de facto independent, but sympathetic of the Conservative Party, it is a daily read of Tory MPs, Ministers and advisors. It is considered to be hugely influential. Hats off to Tim Montgomerie for raising and debating the smoking ban. Doubly so as he had to endure one of my pro choice speeches as I reeled off the carnage. BTW I am not suggesting my incoherent ramblings are the reason he is doing this.
Hats off to all Taking Liberties contributors and other pro choice smoking people for keeping the issue alive in the newspapers and blogosphere. We are 12 million people and as probably one of the biggest minorities in this country, we should exercise our electoral perogatives more.
What I fear with Andrew Lansley is that pre election if an amendment be mooted Labour, ASH and Sir Liam (5 chins) Donaldson will be all over the Guardian and the BBC saying that the Tories want to kill the chiiiiildren, the Tories are not pro health etc and return us to the dark ages.
However at grass roots, especially Prospect Parliamentary Candidates, MP and Advisor level we have enormous sympathy and good will. I am working on a project at the moment which I hope will give the pro coice smoking movement a shot in the arm and is being dealt with at senior MP level and possibly beyond.
Is that a shaft of light at the end of the tunnel?
Thats the way to go Dave, get them at grassroots level before they get indoctrinated. Who knows, there may be a light at the end of the tunnel yet.
If the conservatives get in and do nothing to revert the smoking ban you should threaten them with a revolution of the 12million smokers!
I was one, of the "one or two" who were in touch with Simon about this survey. Might have been number one, or possibly number two, I am not sure, and to be honest, it doesn't really matter does it?
What does matter however, is that I pointed out this survey because it is very important, not just to the pro-smoking cause, but the way all of our lives could be effected after the next general election.
I don't see it as a chore, having to plough my way through page after page of questions about Afghanistan, assisted suicide, Lord Ashcroft, Boris Johnson, George Osborne, David Cameron and the entire shadow cabinet, rating their performances.
How I wish our lords and masters in the Labour government had ever asked us these same questions, and more importantly, had taken notice of the results, as the Conservatives do with their polls.
Here we are being asked fundamental questions about how this country should be governed, about which ministers we think are doing a good job and which are doing a bad job, about our armed forces, and the smoking ban, about our lives in general, and this is a chore?
When I just read some of the comments left here by those who completed the poll, I thought to myself that I wished I hadn't bothered to point it out in the first place. But if it hadn't been me, I am sure someone else would have pointed it out wouldn't they?
My gripe, is that here we have, what could well be the start of the return to democracy once again. We have a potential government asking us, the electorate, who we want to run this country, and how we would like it run. I was overjoyed when I saw this, and when it included the question about the smoking ban, I naturally thought everyone on this site would feel the same.
Instead of which, we have raspberry blowing, silly name signing, stating you are a UKIP supporter, and moaning because there is a box where you can click if you want to donate to the Conservatives (is there any political party which doesn't have such a box on their website?)
A total waste of an opportunity! It is akin to drawing glasses and a moustache on a political poster.
I agree with Peter that the other questions are not irrelevant.I answered the survey and put down that I was a Labour voter currently undecided. I did not mention the smoking ban other than answering the question and I do think the survey should be answered properly.
If it is clear that the only question that matters to those who complete the survey is the one relating to the smoking ban it is pointless. The Zealots can easily say that the survey was hijacked by FOREST supporters and ignore the findings. This would apply to any of the questions if for example the pro-lifers/choice obsessed about the assisted suicide question.
The Conservatives are pretty much guaranteed to be the next government and this survey may well form the basis of future policies. To turn it into a 'one trick pony' defeats the entire purpose.
Peter Thurgood,
You are a sourfaced arsehole!
But at least I am not a moron Ben!
I filled out this questionnaire some days ago, before Simon drew our attention to it here. I've no idea whether it was Peter Thurgood who drew my attention to it or not. Does it matter?
I filled out the questionnaire to the best of my ability. I emphasized, where possible, the smoking ban issue. I didn't know who most of the Tories in the Shadow government were, and indicated by ticking 'don't know'. And I said that I had no political affiliation - which happens to be the truth of the matter.
I'm currently most likely to vote for whatever party promises to amend or repeal the smoking ban. Since none of the main parties are saying they'll do this, I'm currently most likely to vote UKIP (or maybe eben BNP!) because they are saying they will.
I have no idea how this poll will be interpreted. Maybe they'll just weed out all the people who aren't Tories and ignore what they said. But it would be a bit silly of them to do so.
Dave Atherton wrote: What I fear with Andrew Lansley is that pre election if an amendment be mooted Labour, ASH and Sir Liam (5 chins) Donaldson will be all over the Guardian and the BBC saying that the Tories want to kill the chiiiiildren, the Tories are not pro health etc and return us to the dark ages.
Well, obviously this is the concern. But this is because ASH and co have been very effective at restricting the debate to public health, excluding absolutely everything else.
What needs to be pointed out are the enormous hidden (unreported) costs of the smoking ban in terms of fractured communities, isolation, social division, and in some case suicide and death. These things matter just as much as 'health'. It is only obsessive doctors and health freaks who regard health as being more important than anything else, and indeed everything else. Theirs is a one-sided, one-eyed view of life. Political debate should not be restricted to this sort of obsessive, blinkered single issue. Political debate should consider all the effects of some policy, not just one. This is true of every political issue, not just the smoking ban.
In addition, it is not even as if there are any real health benefits at all from the ban. All the figures that are bandied about are projections. They are imaginary numbers of 'deaths' or 'lives saved'. They rest upon questionable assumptions, and inaccurate data. By their own narrow measure, antismoking zealots don't have a good case. In fact they don't have any case at all. So it's everything else - the social division and isolation, the dying pubs and clubs - which matters. Because those things are real, while the health benefits are all entirely imaginary.
This debate just needs to get real, and to consider real effects, and the antismokers will retreat in disarray, hopefully to never return again.
Guys if I an comment on some of the threads here. Firstly let me get my conflict of interests out of the way. I am a Tory voter from the free market, anti Europe, libertarian section which I believe is where many/most of the party activist's philosphy's lie. Hence I have with UKIP an enormous amount of respect and agreement.
I have also have meetings with my local Tory PPC to help in the election. I have also been asked to stand as a local Councillor, which I probably will accept.
I am also on ConservativeHome's and Conservative Party's maling lists and I am a regular reader.
Ben, CH want feedback from activists, members and supporters. Thumbing your nose at the Conservative Party does not do the pro choice movement any good. Although saying that the CP is very sensitive to UKIP as 4,000 votes in Norwich confirm many marginals could be lost diluted by a UKIP voter turnout.
Idlex: Of course I agree with you but what I was high lighting was the barage that any Tory adninistration would have to endure.
Maybe I'm naive but, given there is virtual censorship in 'polite' and media society of discussion on the subject, I thought it a step in the right direction that the the smoking ban was recognised as worth including alongside other, national and international issues. I gave the survey serious answers.
And what is wrong with a silly name Mr Thurgood? Some of us like anonymity but it does not negate a valid viewpoint. As I said in my post, and I truthfully answered all the questions posed, I am disenchanted with politicians after fifty years of supporting our democracy. Just because some of us do not tread your particular line does not mean our views are not relevant. It seems to me that you take yourself so seriously you have little time for the rest of us.
And as for Simon, well for once he disappoints me. If he prefers a 'clean vote' uncorrupted by minority interests why on earth did he draw our attention to it? Either he wants us to have our say or he doesn't.
Peter,
The raspberry was a virtual one c/o a tick in the Very-Dissatisfied box against AL's name. As a Con/UKIP swing-voter I filled the form out fully and gave about 10 no-cost policy ideas besides scrapping the smoker-ban.
So panic ye not.
There are some very interesting comments on this thread. One thing that is apparent, if I may venture to make a point, is that any campaigning now needs to take a more "professional" tack.
Hence, however disgruntled one may be with some aspects of the current Conservative Party, it is also true that if there is an opportunity to comment then such comment IS more impressive if made constructively as opposed to sour grapes. It is also true that a number of people involved in this movement, and from more than one organisation, have been working very hard to influence Tory MPs and PPSs.
Under the circumstances, every effort should be made to support those efforts in the most mature way possible.
Pardon me for making those points, for I do not intend to teach anyone to suck eggs, but there will remain plenty of opportunities to vent spleen on other occasions and, moreover, there are times when the venting of spleen is totally appropriate.
I agree there Blad.
I filled this survey in a few days ago, before it was mentioned on this blog.
I've always voted Tory but don't at the present time for 3 reasons.
I completed the survey in its entirety (which to be honest, I quite enjoyed doing) and was polite and honest with my explanations.
I have just completed the survey. I tried to do so yesterday, but became hopelessly disorientated by the direction of the questions. Of course, I did not observe that the survey is REALLY directed at Conservative voters.
Once I realised that the survey is really for Con supporters, I found it easy to complete.IMAGINE yourself as a Con supporter. Answer each question as though you were. Thus, "Are you satisfied with Cameron as leader?" Answer, "Very...., Mostly...... or whatever"
Progress to next question.
Remember that 'comment boxes' refer only to the immediate question above them - no need to enter anything unless you want to.
The only thing that bothered me about completing this survey was the nagging thought in my mind that this Conservate Home was just a 'one person' blog with no actual connection to the Conservate Party. I am glad to accept the assurances from Peter T and others that this is not so. I am all for telling the Con PPCs about our hopes and expectations, if and when we vote for them.
What I would hope for, but do not expect, is that when the Con party decide upon their PPCs, they let us know who they are in good time and what their email addresses are so that we can tell them what we want. Will it happen? The probability is that not because they do not want to know - but it would be wonderful if they did.
As regards UKIP, I that they are doing a good job in reminding everyone that Britain is an independent nation, and not a federal state of the EU. That is important. But, the really impertant thing is to get rid of the nannies, which equates to getting rid of the Blair Babes. I am not being sexist, I merely point out that the Bliar Babes were selected as candidates PURELY because they were female - and see where it has got us. There have been lots of great women in parliament, but they were elected as PERSONS
My party was labour but no more. I wish I could trust the Conservatives but I don't. I must vote with my conscience on an issue that is more important to me than anything - freedom of choice - the only party promising that clearly and publicly is UKIP - now known as the party of choice.
If my vote for Ukip leads to another term of Labour by default then I am sorry but I cannot vote for any party that does not make its position on this issue clear.For me it is as simple as that.
Dave Atherton -
Interesting news about the prospects of your becoming a Tory Councillor.
If so - then the very best of luck to you.
It's long been my view that a REFORMED Tory Party would be a much more comfortable place for the 'traditional' Labour Voter than the Labour Party - which now seems so steeped in its totalitarian pretensions that it's beyond reform.
Leaving aside the matter of policies (a list can be sent on request), my broad suggestion is that NO party will ever again enjoy the support necessary to confer some degree of MORAL authority until it embraces two very simple, but powerful principles:
COMMON SENSE and COMMON HUMANITY.
And you can combine these with what is arguably the most important principle of all for those of us who wish to live in a land where we can BREATHE again:
The State is the SERVANT of the People - not its MASTER.
Or, SUPPOSED to be (that's its ONLY justification, after all)..........
And the Rallying Cry for the Faithful ?
What else, but:
F-R-E-E-D-O-M !!!
And if that upsets a few closet Hegelians - tough !
Margaret Thatcher once made a telling remark:
"Get the PHILOSOPHY right, and the POLICIES will follow"
Love her or hate her - you have to admit that that's not a BAD place to start !
The gods have showered pure gold onto the lap of David Cameron.
Let us hope he doesn't SQUANDER it.