Smoking out our heroes and villains
Friday, May 7, 2010 
I'm not going to pretend that the smoking ban played a significant role in the outcome of the election. It didn't. While many of the people who comment on this blog continue to feel very strongly about the issue, as I do, most people take into account a number of issues when they cast their vote. I know I do, otherwise I wouldn't have voted Conservative yesterday.
Anyway, one reason I stayed up until five o'clock last night was to see how our smoker-friendly candidates got on, and which anti-tobacco candidates fell by the wayside. In the event I got overwhelmed by the results coming in thick and fast so today and over the weekend I will consider the evidence and post some of it here.
Heroes
Let's start with some good news. Greg Knight and Philip Davies (Conservative), the two MPs who have been most supportive of Forest's efforts, were re-elected with increased majorities. In Philip's case, his majority in Shipley, North Yorkshire, shot up from 422 to 9,944, a fantastic result and well deserved. An outspoken opponent of the smoking ban, Greg increased his majority in Yorkshire East from 6,284 to 10,842.
Good result too for Nigel Evans (Conservative) in Ribble Valley. Like Greg and Philip, Nigel supports our campaign to amend the smoking ban - and we need all the help we can get!
Among the new intake I was delighted to see Robert Halfon win Harlow for the Tories. Robert has attended a number of Forest events at party conference and two years ago, when we organised Tories Got Talent in Birmingham, Robert spoke in defence of smokers' rights.
I had mixed feelings when I heard the Tories had failed to win Torbay. It suggested that they weren't going to get an overall majority. On the other hand, the victor was Adrian Sanders (Lib Dem) who assured me last year that he would support an amendment to the smoking ban. He voted against a blanket ban in 2006.
Villians
Anti-smoking "Twitter tsar" Kerry McCarthy hung on to her Bristol East seat despite a significant swing to other parties. McCarthy and Forest have "history", as they say, so no tears would have shed by us had she lost her seat. Instead she lives to fight another day.
Sorry it didn't work out
As I reported earlier this week, Tory candidate Annesley Abercorn favours separate smoking rooms and was happy to say so. Unfortunately Annesley came second to the Lib Dems in Hazel Grove near Manchester. Better luck next time.
Same message to Nigel Huddleston (Conservative) who lost out to Labour in Luton South. Nigel had the bottle to support our Save Our Pubs & Clubs initiative - he was even prepared to have his photograph taken while wearing a fetching yellow campaign t-shirt when we invited him to a meeting of publicans in Luton last year. Your day will come, Nigel, have no fear.
Pat Nurse (UKIP) fought Louth & Horncastle with amendments to the smoking ban high on her agenda. Sadly she came fifth but a great effort from someone with no previous political experience and no budget to speak of.
Fellow UKIP candidate Nick Hogan suffered a similar fate. The landlord jailed (but quickly released) for allowing people to smoke in his pub came fourth in Chorley. If I know Nick he'll be back at the bar today drinking a Budweiser. Cheers!
Goodbye and good luck
Sorry to see Nigel Waterson (Conservative) lose his seat to the Lib Dems in Eastbourne. Nigel opposed the smoking ban and attended Forest's Revolt In Style dinner at The Savoy in 2007.
Goodbye and good riddance
Delighted to see the back of Labour's Gillian Merron who lost her Lincoln seat to the Conservatives. A few months ago Merron denied that the smoking ban had led to the closure of a single pub. Not one. Now she will have plenty of time to sit in the pubs that are still open and ponder the wisdom of that remark.
Meanwhile, let's not forget that former home secretary Jacqui Smith (Labour) voted for a comprehensive smoking ban - and look what happened to her!
More to follow ... Feel free to add your own heroes and villians in the comments.
Reader Comments (46)
Did the lovely Kerry keep her seat? :-(
Yes.
Simon,
Thought you might like to know that the new LibDem MP for Eastbourne, Stephen Lloyd, IS a smoker, I think he may well be supportive of the save our pubs & clubs campaign.
Thanks, Carl. Useful information. Rose, I have added a note about Kerry McCarthy to the post above.
Carl -
Let's hope so.
Especially since we've now lost Lembit.
But being a smoker is NO guarantee of being willing to defend smokers' freedoms (cf Clegg and Goebbels) - any more than being a non-smoker is any guarantee of being hostile to them (cf Simon and Kate Hoey).
But IF we get a Lib/Lab alliance.............
Martin V,
I was outside a hotel with the man back in that glorious summer of 2007, when I recall they said that all the non smokers would be flocking to the pubs in their droves.I can`t recall his exact words, but he was certainly questioning the wisdom of the legislation!!
Carl -
Yes - quite.
As I recall, they even used the phrase 'coming back'.
Coming BACK ?
After 450 years of inns-and-tobacco, the poor buggers had certainly had a long wait, that's for sure.
It's probably THEIR fault that all the pubs have been closing at such a rate lately: they've been drinking the breweries dry.
(Thought I'd get that in before the Antis' NEXT Not Very Convincing Explanation).
With all the REAL problems in the World, it's a tragedy that we should have to devote so much time and energy to even having to DISCUSS all this CRAP.
Nicht wahr ?
On Gillian "the smoking ban has not closed pubs" Merron, I hope in some way my Facebook group "Anyone but Gillian Merron, Labour MP for Lincoln," had some effect. It was picked up by the local paper who ran 2 pages on the story with plenty of people saying that the smoking ban was awful and had led to closures.
Her dumping by Karl McCartney was my personal higlight
http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=348888949973&ref=ts
Article, quotes and photos here.
http://www.facebook.com/#!/photo_search.php?oid=348888949973&view=all
Another MP who is one to watch is Steven Baker MP for Wycombe with 23,423 votes, a majority of 9560.. He is a colleague of mine at the Progressive Conservatives, the libertarian arm of the Conservative Party.
I personally lost out to Labour and Liberals, but our vote went up 250% and will be hoping to get elected in 4-5 years time.
In the meantime I will try and persuade my Labour Councillors to offer local pubs certain nights when the smoking ban will not be enforced.
My comment is here:
How iDave Threw Away the Election.
My initial thoughts regarding the general election results were that, from the point of view of a person who enjoys tobacco and who is horrified by the smoking ban and all the trickery associated with the way in which it was introduced, it is very disappointing that the smoking ban seems to have been irrelevant to the way in which people have voted. One may have expected much bigger ‘anti nanny state’ swings.
However, a little more depth of thought indicates an underlying trend which is not one which will be ‘picked up’ by the Mainstream Media.
My little thoughts have been not so much, “What is the swing from Labour to Tory, or from Labour to Lib Dem”, or any other such combination. My little thought has been, “What has been the result of changes in the number of Labour seats since the last General Election in 2005?”
After the general election in 2005, the Labour Party held 356 seats. After this year’s election, Labour hold 258 seats. After the 2010 election, there is a reduction in Labour seats of 98. This is a reduction of 27%. Now is that not a most interesting fact? It vaguely compares, in a simplistic way, with the percentage of people who enjoy tobacco as a percentage of the adult, voting population. In other words, the result of the election (along with by-elections in the intervening period) seems to indicate that smokers have, in fact, voted against the current regime. A 27% loss of seats for Labour, since the last general election, is a major change.
My deliberations may not be particularly accurate, but they have at least the advantage of relying on the actual real facts of the movement of seats away from Labour. A 27% swing away from Labour, in terms of actual seats in the House of Commons, regardless of a hung parliament, is an utter disaster for the Nanny/Bully State. The MSM must know that, but for some reason or other best known to themselves wish not, or cannot or dare not, say so. Sooner or later, the conspiracy against the people who enjoy tobacco will collapse. This probability is amply illustrated by the following fact.
My most local pub is part of a combine. The ‘No Smoking in these premises’ sign has disappeared. I do not know why – probably wrenched off by yoofs. It will be interesting to see how long it takes for the pubco to replace it and whether or not anyone cares. I wonder how many other such signs are falling off walls and doors, and how long it will take for them all to fall off and the whole idea of these signs to become ridiculed. One cannot help but feel that the whole thing is unutterably stupid.
It is also clear in my own mind that the people who instigated this silliness must not be allowed to walk away. Patricia Hewitt and Caroline Flint and, latterly, Moran, were the instigators of the ban. They must be harried until they admit that they were wrong. That is important. How else are we to make our politicians realize that what they do will have personal repercussions? Only when they realize that there are personal repercussions will politicians start to understand that they have to read and understand the bills that they pass. It is no longer acceptable to intelligent people that their representatives can make laws that they do not know or understand.
The main thing is that we who enjoy tobacco have only just started. We will not let it go away.
@Junican - now there's a thought! As time goes by, the signs (which are there only to remind us of the power of our 'masters') will gradually disappear and with them the constant visible expression of our masters' disapproval of smokers. Would a minority Tory government bother to replace them? Would it risk the ire of an electorate which knows that the country is in such deep sh*t that this is no time for pettiness? When the relentless persecution of smokers fizzles out, might we then see a relaxation of enforcement of the ban and pubs and clubs gradually bringing out the ashtrays? The disappearance of the signage could be helped on its way, of course :)
Very gratified that my anti-smoking Labour MP has been dumped in favour of a newbie, James Wharton (Tory). His online biography says that he "places a high value on individual freedoms, believing that we need sensible and controlled government" so he might be approachable.
Yippeeeeee!!! Dr.(of what I don't know!) Stephen Ladyman (Lab) who voted for the smoking ban got booted out of my constituency South Thanet and replaced by Laura Sandys (Con). Ladyman claimed for his Thanet Council Tax, Energy bills and groceries claiming his Farmhouse in Thanet(memorised his address from the ballot paper but won't risk advertising it here) to be his second home while selling himself as a local lad who knows the area! He was once the transport minister who wanted to introduce road pricing at £1.50 per mile, which would have put my husband and I out of business as we travel throughout the country each day. So good riddance to bad rubbish!
It seems that the Tories are analysing whether UKIP cost them a majority by taking votes in key marginals:
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/goldlist/2010/05/did-ukip-cost-the-tories-a-commons-majority.html
Is the lesson learnt?
One thing I would LOVE to see is Greg Knight's appointment as Chief Whip by Cameron.
He's the right size, and has the right opinions, and is just the sort of chap to bully the bullies into seeing the error of their ways.
I'm just a little concerned - Junican and Joyce's interesting comments aside - that too many people seem not to find Freedom sexy any more.
The fight, nonetheless, goes on.............
Apparently, the Tories are analysing whether votes for UKIP cost them their working majority!
I filled in Dave's questionnaire which allowed comment and in which I raised the issue of the smoking ban and stated that I'd be voting UKIP in the absence of any sign of its amendment by the Tories.
Wonder if they'll consider that the ban might have influenced voting behaviour or will they just put it down to the EU?
I voted Conservative to get Labour out .
I would do so again.
But I will say this The Ban and the EU would have got them the majority i'm convinced of that.
Labours constituences in Wales and Scotland allowed them to keep their heads above water.
So failing complete Independence or an English Parliament they will not win without the above.
Joyce -
Your comment that:
"Apparently, the Tories are analysing whether votes for UKIP cost them their working majority!"
is most interesting.
Since UKIP's main selling point is still perceived as 'Europe', I rather suspect that the answer received will depend entirely upon whether or not the respondent is Europhile or Eurosceptic.
Sooner or later, the Tories will HAVE to come clean on this issue - and stop fudging: the party cannot continue to ride two horses at once.
The usual "We shall continue to work from within to see the kind of 'Europe' we want" argument is bogus, absurd, and politically unworkable.
To say nothing of nationally ruinous.
And as to Ken(neth) Clarke's feelings - well, frankly, My Dear.................
Apart from anything else, it only serves to emphasise an impression of deviousness and double-dealing which their opponents are only too pleased to use against them.
In addition, they have to do a lot more work to convince our Friends in the North that they are a national - and not merely a Southern party.
As a Soft Southerner myself, I for one would heartily welcome the inclusion of a few more straight-talking Northerners in the style of Bernard Ingham into both the ranks and the high command.
The real problem with the Tory Party at the moment is that - like Mr Churchill's pudding - it 'lacks theme'.
And the Public has spotted it...............
Ali - my view is here
http://patnurseblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/blame-game-begins.html
Sorry you didn't do better Pat, but well done for putting up a good show and putting your money where your mouth is (no one can do more than that).
Having said that, I think you are wrong in saying that the Conservatives are just looking for someone to blame now, and are turning that blame onto UKIP. It isn't the Conservative Party who are doing this, but "ConservativeHome" which is a completely independent site for "anyone" to discuss political issues. They put this up as an idea for anyone to blog on.
I am a regular on the site, and as such am always going on about the smoking ban, but seeing as so many posters on there are Labour and Lib-Dem, I do not get a lot of sympathy.
But I must admit, I did post my thoughts on the "blaming UKIP thing", and I definitely agree that of course we lost a lot of votes to UKIP, firstly for the Europe thing, and secondly, the smoking ban, there can be no denying this is true.
What angers me mostly about this, is that I warned people time and time again that if they voted UKIP, they would NOT get them, they would get Labour back again, and it seems that my predictions are indeed proving to be true.
Our country is in such a state now over this, over people not voting decisively; we have this terrible hung Parliament hanging over our heads, we have Gordon (bleeding) Brown squatting in number 10, and we have Nick Clegg, the man who got the least votes out of the big three, acting as King Maker.
The Tories are trying to do a deal with Clegg, and that is our best option. What a frigging option that is! If Cameron stalls too long, or the talks don't go Clegg's way, Mandelson will jump into bed with him, promising to do anything he asks for.
This country has never been in such a mess for generations, and all because people would not take their responsibility seriously. The "let's teach 'em a lesson tactics" just didn't work did they; the "let's teach 'em a lesson tactics" have delayed getting our country's financial stability back again, and put us into a position somewhere trailing Greece.
Sorry, Peter, but I don't buy the 'if you refused to vote tactically - for the Tories - you acted irresponsibly' line. It could be argued that, if you genuinely believed that you could not, in conscience, vote for the Tories and Lib Dems, then to do so would be unconscionable and irresponsible.
There must be many people who, like myself, voted for a minority party, not to teach anyone a lesson, but positively, to support (as well as to signal support for) real change
You are in the fortunate position of genuinely believing in the Tories but there will be many people who voted tactically for them with a heavy heart because they know that tactical voting results in zero change. Positive voting, on the other hand, will - eventually.
I think that the election result clearly shows that the electorate doesn't want any of the three main parties and it's a pity that more people didn't vote positively. They would have been true to themselves and the tacticals would begin to realise that we really do have the power to effect change. We really do get the government we deserve and we deserve to be treated with contempt when we allow two parties the luxury of knowing it'll be the other side's turn next.
Peter -
Joyce is right, you know.
All of us get angry when the Crowd (or so it seems) makes the 'wrong' decision.
But it would have been greatly assisted in the decision-making process if Cameron's team had offered a more coherent form of conservatism (of the Liberal variety) that more people could have identified with: simply cosying up to the Soft Left to prove how nice they've become has left large sections of the Electorate bewildered rather than bedazzled.
Now, however, is a GREAT opportunity for the sort of 'change' that I believe most people (outside of the television studio) want to see.
As I said above, CLARITY is what Cameron now needs to offer a public made cynical by the Three Bears routine.
'More Of The Same' is not a battle-cry that's worth fighting (or voting) for.
All is not yet lost, but Cameron badly needs to start talking more to the Grown-Ups, and rather less to the Bright Young Things.
No ?
I refuse to vote for more of the same as well.
Yes, we are in a big mess now - but where does the blame lie? How anyone can blame the minor parties is incomprehensible.
The blame lies with the major parties for not accommodating all of their citizens at the outset and for all of them following the social-engineering agenda.
The Tory HQ (not grass-root tories, I hasten to add) have made their bed, and so they can lie in it as far as I'm concerned.
Are you really serious Joyce, when you say, "we really do get the government we deserve and we deserve to be treated with contempt"?
I don't think that I or my children or grandchildren, deserve to be treated with contempt. Why should we be treated like this? I voted for the party of my choice, which got the most votes and the most seats, and yet I was denied my vote in the same way that hundreds of people were denied theirs by being locked out of badly run polling stations.
What was the point of me voting if my vote was being swept under the carpet afterwards, like a dirty housekeeper would do with all the rubbish that is in their house?
I'll ask you one question Joyce, which I know means a great deal to you personally. Do you honestly believe that you deserve to be stopped from smoking? Because that is being treated with contempt, and that is what you are saying we deserve.
Martin says "Now, however, is a GREAT opportunity for the sort of 'change' that I believe most people (outside of the television studio) want to see"
The change we are seeing Martin, is that an unelected Prime Minister, who over 70% of the country voted to be kicked out of office, is now squatting in number 10. And the only real change we can possibly hope for is some stitched up deal between two parties that in reality will never see eye to eye. No real parliamentary business will be done, because they will never agree with each other, our debts will probably increase, rather than the other way round, and we could end up getting even deeper into Europe than we ever anticipated. And as a p.s. the Lib-Dems voted even stronger for the outright smoking ban than even Labour did.
Are these the changes you think we would all like to see Martin?
Regarding Helen's comments, "The Tory HQ (not grass-root Tories, I hasten to add) have made their bed, and so they can lie in it as far as I'm concerned"
The problem with what you say Helen, is that it not just the Tory Headquarters that will have to lie in this ghastly unmade bed which has been forced upon them by a largely uneducated electorate, it is the rest of us, the people who, no matter what political party you support, take some time and trouble to think about what you are voting for, it is them, it is us, who will be lying in the stinking unmade bed for a very long period I'm afraid.
Peter, may I ask you a question which might throw light on the point I was trying to make?
How would you have voted if Labour and the BNP were the two major parties?
I will answer your question Joyce, when you answer mine.
In order to "de-toxify" the Tory brand in the eyes of the great unwashed Cameron was forced to adopt a pretty bland strategy and keep his more robust views to himself. He has done a good job and should be congratulated in my view.
I just think it sad that more people who voted for minority parties could not have looked at the bigger picture and identified the over riding need to get rid of the evils of Labour for a generation. Despite the damage done, we still have this opportinity. Let's hope it's not wasted.
You think we still have this opportinity Goodstuff?
I pray you are right but my heart keeps saying you're not. The time to repair real damage I am afraid has passed.
Peter - yes, I am serious. People have only themselves to blame if they choose to continue to elect governance by parties in which they don't believe. You say that people shouldn't have voted spitefully, quite forgetting that many of the votes which the Cons. polled were from spiteful ex-Labour voters who voted merely for the lesser of two evils.
The Cons. might have won most votes and seats, but not enough under the system to govern unilaterally. In fact, the majority of the electorate DIDN'T vote in favour of a Con. government. Guess how cheated they feel? But that's our democracy in action!
...and Peter, how can you be in a position to state that people who didn't vote Tory are irresponsible or uneducated? (It really has echoes of Labour saying that smokers are irresponsible and stupid and require to be bullied for their own good.) Were Labour and the BNP the two main parties you would have voted Tory and defended your right to vote for a party in which YOU believe even if it meant splitting the ballot.
@Goodstuff - The Tories have had thirteen years to "de-toxify the brand". If Cameron had robust views and policies which appealed to the electorate then it's surely a grave error of judgment not to have shared them.
I still don't know what he stands for and I think that the result showed a vote of little confidence in any of the main parties because none of them address the proper issues of government let alone do so in the open and honest way they would if they treated the electorate as adults. I'm not even sure if any of them are up to it.
Well thank you for answering my question for me Joyce, even though you chose to answer it wrongly.
I stand corrected, Peter, or rather I don't yet...
Joyce says "the majority of the electorate DIDN'T vote in favour of a Con. government"
Come off it Joyce, what are you now, Labour's new spin doctor?
No matter which way you look at it the Tories got more votes than any other party. They got more votes than Tony Blair did in 95 (that swept him and his rotten party to power, but which they have now rigged to keep us out)
I will answer you question by the way, and that is that if Labour and the BNP were the 2 main parties, I am afrain to say that I would not vote at all.
But you still haven't answered my question, which was "Do you honestly believe that you deserve to be stopped from smoking? Because that is being treated with contempt, and that is what you are saying we deserve"
Put your hand on your heart Joyce and tell me that you really believe that you should be stopped from smoking because that is what you deserve?
...and Peter, my example presupposes that you see nothing substantive between the BNP and Labour (BNP was my bad choice of a hypothetical second main party).
Am I the only person who finds Peter Thurgood thoroughly annoying? It's not so much the substance of his arguments as the style. He always writes from the presupposition that Peter Thurgood is always right, and that Peter Thurgood has repeatedly told you so. So we get treated to laments like the following:
What angers me mostly about this, is that I warned people time and time again that if they voted UKIP, they would NOT get them, they would get Labour back again, and it seems that my predictions are indeed proving to be true.
Well, we haven't got Labour back. And we won't. We'll get, at best, some sort of shaky coalition or alliance. Who the partners will be remains to be seen. And there'll most likely be another election in a few months time because any alliance will be shaky. What we are not going to get is a Labour government or a Tory government. So Peter Thurgood's prophecy is actually going to be proved wrong.
I almost think that if I were sitting in a restaurant with Peter Thurgood, he'd be telling me in no uncertain terms that I absolutely must have the Cochon Roulade avec Pommes Frites, and that anything else was a health risk, and I shouldn't contemplate any of them. Even if I had my eyes on the Cochon Roulade, I'd have probably ended up ordering Bangers and Mash. But even after I'd ordered it and consumed it, he would be telling me that I would rue the day, because tomorrow I'd be in hospital with food poisoning, and I was already looking a bit green about the gills, and that what upset him more than anything was that he'd told me repeatedly that this would happen. The same would then happen with the sweet, where the choice was between Conservative Pie and Bread and Butter pudding. And then it would happen with which bus to catch home. And so on and on...
Peter, are you trying to miss my point? :)
If people choose to vote for a party in which they have no faith then they can't complain afterwards. Many people see no substantive difference between Labour and the Tories so to vote Tory to get rid of Labour is no real choice. Tory, as well as Labour, politicians treat the electorate with contempt and will continue to do so while people just keep voting each out rather than voting each in. I voted as I did because the party is committed to the issues that I care most about. Had the Tories robustly and sincerely stated their commitment to those issues I would have voted for them. The responsibility lay with them to convince me of their intentions. I refuse to vote for a party which is too timid to publicise its policies.
Idlex has been proven wrong and there he is, just like Gordon Brown, chucking his toys out of his pram, screaming and shouting and trying to bully people into submission.
Sorry Idelx it didn't work for Gordon and is isn't working for you.
For people like you, it is all about me - me -me. You don't seem to care one iota about what the rest of the country want, "Oh yeah...well I'll vote for anyone who lets me have a fag", doesn't matter if that party wants to tax the arse off us and take even more of our liberties away does, as long as you can have your fag.
And now we have a country going to hell in a handcart, with no one governing it, and you still sit back and squabble and scream, because someone else told you this would happen if you didn't pull your socks up. "How dare you try to tell me anything" you scream. Well I'm sorry Idlex, I am going to speak my mind, and if you don't like it, that's your prerogative, just don't try to silence me. It is people like you, who try to take my freedom of speech away that makes me vote Conservative, and I always will!
Oh come on Joyce.
You know as well as anyone that Cameron had to appeal to the widest possible audience to stand any chance of getting power, hence he had to be very "mainstream". But then this lays him open to allegations like "all the 3 big parties are the same........" so he just can't win.
But some of your flock seemed to genuinely believe that UKIP would be a major force in the election. Phrases like "such is the dedication of all UKIP freedom fighters, he (Farage) will NOT be our only MP to be elected" and "a government with UKIP MPs in it would force the Referendum we were promised and have us out of EU Membership in record time" were being bandied about only a few days ago. They look a little hollow now.
Goodstuff, I, for one, didn't for a moment imagine that UKIP would make huge inroads. It doesn't have sufficient appeal to enough people and very little profile in the North. Even Labour, however, was once a minority party.
I take your point that Cameron had his work cut out given Labour's rigging of the system in its favour. Nevertheless, Labour's so discredited that Cameron should have fared better. He might have been home and dry had he worked with UKIP before the election but if UKIP 'stole' Tory seats, responsibility lies with Cameron, not the voter.
Everyone talks of Labour's 'client state' included in which is the public sector but doesn't it occur to anyone that its employees might be thoroughly hacked off with Labour? People don't just vote to protect their livelihoods (had I done so, I would have voted Tory as the one policy that I heard them be clear about is so unworkable that its implementation would have protected mine) but with regard to all the various issues that affect their lives as well as the credibility of policies. If Cameron couldn't be bold and clear now, when would he be and I think that, in fact, it's this failure that's left him open to the charge that his party is now little different from Labour. His timidity is an expression of contempt for the electorate who must be too stupid, frightened or immature to deal with robust policies..
"How dare you try to tell me anything" you scream.
Of course I said nothing of the sort, Peter. I simply said that I find you thoroughly annoying.
I don't agree with everyone here. In fact, I probably don't entirely agree with anyone. But nobody else is ever quite as thoroughly annoying as you are. Everybody else is able to express their opinions without being in the least bit objectionable. Not so you.
It's not your opinions that bother me. They're actually perfectly reasonable opinions. But you have an uncanny knack of expressing those opinions in such a way as to make them far more obnoxious than they actually are. It is perhaps because you never seem to allow that any other opinion than your own has any validity whatsoever. Their opinions are just "wrong" - as you dismissively informed Joyce earlier in this thread.
You might actually get somewhere if you were to politely argue your case without trying to bludgeon anyone who disagrees with you into submission.
I am 59 and voted Tory for the first time specifically on the SB issue. Since 2005 I have been lobbying Labour over their 2005 election betrayal and how it would bite them in the backside at the 2010 elections and how right I was. I have backed Greg Knight and his support for Working Men's Clubs and Pubs. Whether it's Tory or Tory Lib-Dem the only sensible outcome is to give Greg Knight the recognition and power he deserves to oversee an amendment to the SB. But we must have patience it will not happen overnight so a committment from the new government to suspend the SB in it's present form would be very welcome. What pleased me most was Gillian Merron losing her seat. I exchanged several letters with her last year and told her she would not be in power because of her dogmatic attitude to smokers. Wales are planning to ban cigarette vending machines in October, Mike Penning publically said he would not implement this part of the SB, over to you Mike.
You will not get anywhere by ranting and raving Idlex. Why don't you post "your" views and give other posters a chance to see what you are all about instead of trying to pull my views apart without any real justification?
Regarding my post to Joyce, which you seem to see as terribly "wrong and dismissive". You seem to have a problem with anyone who doesn't conform to your personal views, which is fine, but if you are going to try and debate, then you should be prepared to listen to their views, and give your views in return. Instead of which, all I receive from you is personal abuse.
I have pasted my "terribly wrong and dismissive" post to Joyce below, for anyone to see. Perhaps you might care to look at it again and tell us all exactly what it was that was so "terribly wrong and dismissive" in it?
Are you really serious Joyce, when you say, "we really do get the government we deserve and we deserve to be treated with contempt"?
I don't think that I or my children or grandchildren, deserve to be treated with contempt. Why should we be treated like this? I voted for the party of my choice, which got the most votes and the most seats, and yet I was denied my vote in the same way that hundreds of people were denied theirs by being locked out of badly run polling stations.
What was the point of me voting if my vote was being swept under the carpet afterwards, like a dirty housekeeper would do with all the rubbish that is in their house?
I'll ask you one question Joyce, which I know means a great deal to you personally. Do you honestly believe that you deserve to be stopped from smoking? Because that is being treated with contempt, and that is what you are saying we deserve
I'm not ranting and raving, Peter. And I'm not concerned with the substance of your views, but the style with which you present them. I'm simply suggesting to you that reconsider the manner in which you put forward your views, to allow that they might not be the only ones of any substance, and that people with whom you disagree might also have a valid point of view.
This is positively my last reply to you on this subject Idlex. You say you are not ranting and raving, but reading between the lines, you most definitely are.
I even said in my last post to you that it is fine by me if you do not agree with my views, which flies in the face of your remarks, suggesting that I am not willing to listen to any other points of view other than my own. I also suggested to you that if you are going to try and debate, then you should be prepared to listen to others views, and give your views in return.
I am still waiting to hear any views from you, other than your personal attacks upon me? I am also waiting for your answer on my so called "terribly wrong and dismissive" post to Joyce, which I pasted again for you to see. Are you going to tell us all exactly what it was that was so "terribly wrong and dismissive" in that post, or are you going to stop all this childish name calling, and apologise?
reading between the lines
Why not just read the lines, rather than between them? There is nothing between the lines other than your imagination.
I am also waiting for your answer on my so called "terribly wrong and dismissive" post to Joyce, which I pasted again for you to see.
I didn't write that, of course. What I actually wrote was:
Their opinions are just "wrong" - as you dismissively informed Joyce earlier in this thread.
And this did not refer to the passage you re-pasted up for me to read. It referred to this one:
Well thank you for answering my question for me Joyce, even though you chose to answer it wrongly.
May 9, 2010 at 13:24 | Peter Thurgood
it was the sottish smokers and friends who voted with the labours blanket ban enforcement in mind who saw the end of labour rule in the scottish parliament
as it tuned out it took just 25 votes to do the job
now that the SNP are continuing with the anti smokers agenda they too will pay the price for
anti social and smokers rights