ASH: tobacco lobby hijacks website
Thursday, July 15, 2010 Desperate stuff! The Chartered Institute for Environmental Health has just issued the following press release:
Tobacco lobby 'hijacks' website
16th July 2010
Pro-health campaign ASH has accused the tobacco industry of orchestrating pro-smoking comments on a website launched by deputy prime minister Nick Clegg in a move to get ‘unnecessary’ laws and regulations scrapped.
Mr Clegg said the Your Freedom site would allow ‘raucous, unscripted debates’. Once a proposition is put forward, the public can make comments and vote on opinions by giving them a score out of five stars.
The government says it will take notice of the views expressed, before drafting a Freedom Bill intended to cut down on bureaucracy and improve civil liberties.
On the first day the site went live at least 18 people called for less restrictive laws on smoking in pubs, tobacco advertising or signage, making it one of the most popular topics.
But a survey released the same day by YouGov on behalf of ASH to mark the third anniversary of the introduction of smoke-free legislation found growing support for the ban.
Overall, 81 per cent of adults in England back the prohibition on smoking in workplaces, pubs and restaurants, compared with just over 70 per cent three years ago.
An ASH spokesperson said: ‘No politician in their right mind would consider advocating overturning the smoke-free legislation.
‘I think this surge of suggestions has probably been put up by the tobacco industry and campaigners, but it is probably a bit of a fad and will all die down.’
A spokesperson for the Local Government Association said although the Cabinet Office needed to ensure debates were not hijacked by lobbyist groups, there was ‘no major concern or alarm’ over the process.
She added: ‘We are constantly arguing against excessive top-down bureaucracy that ties people to paperwork and unnecessary regulation.
‘We are all for people being able to have a say and hopeful that councils will also get involved and expose areas where they think centralised bureaucracy is slowing them down or wasting their resources.’
The YouGov research also uncovered public support for extending prohibition on smoking to cars and outdoor areas such as children’s playgrounds.
Ian Gray, CIEH policy officer, said: ‘Smokers are increasingly aware of the danger to themselves and others from second-hand smoke.’
Hmmm. Do you think the tobacco control lobby is getting just a teensy bit concerned? They must have hoped any opposition to the smoking ban would have disappeared long before now. Instead, it's stronger than ever.
Fancy that!
PS. There have been a hell of a lot more than 18 comments on ConHome in favour of changes to the smoking ban. If 18 comments can rattle them enough to provoke this reaction, they must be in a real tizz now!! Hilarious.
Simon Clark
Ha ha! Another reason for ASH to be nervous ... Cut all Public Funding to Action on Smoking and Health (ASH). (Update: see comments.)
Reader Comments (41)
They're rattled. The blogosphere doesn't equate to orchestration. Brilliant debate on the Conservative Home site at the moment (although my comments seem to have disappeared - perhaps its me being a dunderhead).
BTW, imagine what level of support wed could be generating if the Facebook site 'can we find 1 million people who do want smoking back in pubs' hadn't mysteriously vanished when it had about 800,000 people on it.
So the ConservativeHome readership is in the pay of big tobacco? I posted this on ConHome as a clear majority want the smoking ban amended.
"Can I remind you that 58% of ConservativeHome readers want an amendment to the smoking ban.
"58% of Tory members support relaxation of smoking ban.
58% of the 1,493 Tory members who voted in ConservativeHome's end-July survey of opinion agreed with the contention that "the Conservatives should relax the smoking ban so that pubs, restaurants and private clubs can apply to allow smoking on their premises."
Also 73% of ConservativeHome readers would like private members clubs to be able to have a smoking room.
So where is your overwhelming support Peter?
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2009/08/58-of-tory-members-support-relaxation-of-smoking-ban.html
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/.a/6a00d83451b31c69e20120a7d1a66b970b-pi
"So where is your overwhelming support Peter?"
Not quite sure what you mean Dave, but if you are referring to me, you should know that I am behind you all the way!
‘I think this surge of suggestions has probably been put up by the tobacco industry and campaigners, but it is probably a bit of a fad and will all die down.’
Well now ASH spokesperson, perhaps you could furnish us with evidence to verify your suspicions…like you have done with your ‘passive smoke kills’ statements.
I won’t hold my breath!
Incidentally – a fad that lasts three whole years and still going strong and getting stronger – is one hell of a fad wouldn’t you say?
ASH UK references its Yougov opinon surveys in its reponse to the attempt at an EDM (accessible via ASH news a few days ago). I can find no details of these surveys on the ASH UK website. Yesterday I emailed ASH, asking for links to these surveys. Exaclty what questions were posed is most important. As of now, I have not received a response.
There appears to be a conflict of interest. Peter Kellner is listed as a trustee of ASH UK. When Yougov was floated in 2005, Kellner owned 6% of the shares.
@Peter Thurgood
I was referring to the Buffon Peter Lee, lol.
Never heard of him when did he join ASH??
@Chris F J Cyrnik: I wrote about the ASH survey here: http://freedom-2-choose.blogspot.com/2010/07/ash-to-ashes-and-sound-of-squealing.html
Which pointed to ASH's Press Release called ASH Responds To MPs' Call For Reintroduction Of Smoking In Pubs And Clubs, UK. You can find the PR here: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/194126.php
Simon, the moderator has closed comments and votes on the Cut Funding to ASH UK suggestion on the grounds that it is not suggesting the scrapping of a law. They didn't appear to be doing that with the smoking suggestions last week. There are already a large number ofcomments including one explaining exactly where ASH UK receives its funding from.
To be fair, they have a point. I suggest that whoever posted this suggestion (I know he reads this blog) re-posts it on the Government's Spending Challenge website. That would be a more appropriate place for it.
Yes, a good point. If he moves it, it will be top of the charts in no time.
I posted the ASH one. I have since resubmitted it with a named piece of legislation . It's been up a week with a lot of support so far.
http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/repeal-section-70-of-the-charities-act-2006-cut-all-public-funding-to-ash-etc
Of course, if someone wants to ALSO put one on the spending site, then please feel free. Just post the url and I'll sign it!
How dare ASH accuse people like myself being in the pay of or influenced by the tobacco industries.
I am a elderly lady whose social life has been decimated by this spiteful smoking ban.
I added support for the topics to amend/repeal the ban because I think that it is the most disgusting piece of legislation to come ever.
25% of the population are smokers and their voices remain unheard.
"imagine what level of support wed could be generating if the Facebook site 'can we find 1 million people who do want smoking back in pubs' hadn't mysteriously vanished when it had about 800,000 people on it." via Mark Butcher
...and yet facebook don't remove a site with tributes to a cold blooded murderer (Moat)
there is one on the spending challenge about fake charities and ASH is mentioned http://spendingchallenge.hm-treasury.gov.uk/how-can-we-rethink-public-services-to-deliver-more-for-less/fake-charities
and I might add I am not in the employ of big tobacco neither!!
Nick has removed the SMOKING tag from the so-called freedom website. Again.
http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/restoring-civil-liberties/replace-the-smoking-tag/idea-view
C'mon Nick, you've taken the "SMOKING" tag off
your wonky website. Do you think the issue will go away if you ignore
it? Have the now-discredited ASH been having a go at you?
Tell Nick what you think at http://www.facebook.com/nickclegg?v=wall
If you are reading this my Dear Ash persons
You have upset a lot of nice people this last few years,but now you have crossed the thin dividing line between reason and annoyance.
Stop annoying the idiots before they get really upset.
Get a proper job and just go away,
Sick of begging.
I emailed yougov a week ago asking about the five surveys done about the smoking ban and its popularity. Can find no reference to them in the yougov archives and requested details of the questions asked,responses by gender/ age groups and the full results. As expected , I hav,nt had a reply.
Hmmm now the site really has been hijacked methinks not very good security for a gov't site!
Guys can I just clear up a few things up on YouGov, it is not as bad as think. Peter Kellner is indeed one of the founders, but also a chap called Stephan Shakespeare and current CEO. I have met him, funnily enough as recently as last Wednesday. Stephan is a well known centre-right businessman and philanthropist who not only is a former Conservative candidate but also the person who funds ConservativeHome.
I am sure as any astute businessman he does not discriminate on who pays his bills. If you do have questions put them here and I can write to him.
Ask him when YouGov will reply to those who have asked for details of the ASH study. Their refusal to answer e-mails on the matter is rather curious.
I just tried logging onto the Your Freedom website again, so that I could add my name and comments to the "stop ASH charity status" thing. My user name and password are already there, all one normally needs to do is then click on the "sign on" box, which I did, and sure enough the text comes up telling me that I am now signed on.
With that out of the way I proceeded to make myself known on the "ASH charity thing", but this is when another box starts popping up, saying the following:
A user name and password are being requested by http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk.
Considering that I had already given them these details, it seems very strange to me that I was "accepted" until I tried to log onto the ASH thing. It looks very much to me that my name has been recognised by their system, and I have been shut out.
I will of course keep trying throughout today, but I am not holding out much hope. Has anyone else had this problem?
I just tried to log onto the Freedom website, was presented with an unfamiliar window asking for user name and password and told the site was down for maintainance.
I emailed ASH for details of the surveys. Sheila emailed Yougov. I don't Yougov are obliged to release the details. If ASH commissioned the surveys, they will be the property of ASH and it it is they on whom we should be concentrating. I thought getting the details would be easy - just put in a freedom of Information request. However it seems charities are exempt from the FOI. They do, though, have to conform to a strict code of conduct, regulated by the Charities Commission. It should be possible to argue with the CC that, since ASH is to all intents and purposes acting as an arm of the Government, they should be treated as such and hence should be instructed by the CC to release the information.
I'm sure I'd be a lot richer if I was part of the tobacco lobby. It should not be permissable for ASH to make these unsubstantiated accusations against ordinary members of the public who are expressing a legitimate view. They are just trying to stifle honest and heartfelt opinion, to destroy the first opportunity any of us have had to really be heard above their own maniacal squeals and to cast doubt in the minds of MPs.
I agree with Liberty. If the person whose suggestion is the one topping the smoking section on the Freedom website is reading this. Perhaps he or she can post a comment stating whether or not they have had any contact with the tobacco industry. If nthe answer is no, ASH should be requested to post an apology on their website - as they had to so when threatened with legal action by Allen Carr's relatives.
"However it seems charities are exempt from the FOI."
That's a bit bloody convenient, isn't it?
So what their status as a "charity" means is that they can come out with whatever bollocks they like, based on God knows what, and nobody can ask what their sources are! Meanwhile their simultaneous status as an extremely powerful lobby group means they can lean on politicians, journalists and broadcasters (Frank Davis reminded us on his site of the Richard and Judy interview with BobFM back in 2007 that got sidetracked by ASH) and have their views spread unchallenged.
They really make my blood boil - they claim that the Freedom site is being subverted by the tobacco lobby (even though it's open to anybody with an email address), while their own unsubstantiated YouGov survey "proving" that smokers love the ban, and are clamouring for further restrictions, is authoritative. How the hell do they get away with this stuff?
And have you noticed that whenever an internet news article is full of quotes from ASH spokespersons, there's never any mechanism for comments?
I have written to YouGov and will post a reply, if any as soon as I can.
Let us stop merely responding. Let us take the initiative instead. It seems to me to be the case that Simon, and all of us, merely ‘respond’ to whatever ASH et al dictate to be ‘the truth’. It is unfortunately true that it is very difficult to defend the ‘status quo’. For example, it is always going to be difficult to defend the rules of golf if ‘a special interest group’ decide to attack the rules of golf on the basis of gender. It is certainly possible for a group of women to make a case for women golfers to have different golfing rules.
Fortunately, the powers-that-be in the golfing world would dismiss this idea out of hand. As regards the rules of golf, gender is irrelevant.
Unfortunately, as regards the enjoyment of tobacco, the ‘special interest groups’ have managed to change the rules. They have managed to elevate the ‘special interest groups’ (anti-smokers) above the interests of everyone else. The words ‘everyone else’ are very important.
It is reasonable to ask, how did these ‘special interest groups’ manage to change the rules? How did ASH et al manage to persuade the Government that their argument for the smoking ban was correct?
The answer is that they fiddled the statistics. In terms of the golfing analogy, they somehow managed to convolute and exaggerate the effects of gender on the rules of golf.
Is it possible to revert to the ‘status quo anti’ - freedom to smoke where individual owners of property permit it? Well……..difficult that it may seem to be, it IS possible. Obviously, parliament could simply decide so, but the decision needs justification.
What might be the justification?
It seems to me that the first thing is to show that passive smoking is harmless. To the best of my knowledge, this idea has been shown to be true. I do not think that there are any real ‘scientists’ who believe that ‘second hand smoke’ is significantly harmful.
But is there not another factor in this equation?
I speak of the ‘surveys’ which ASH et al purport to have conducted (via YouGov and in other ways). It seems to me that ASH et al have gone out of their way to keep these surveys secret. People here have said that they have asked YouGov for information and have been ignored. I have emailed YouGov and asked for details of surveys which have been quoted in press releases. YouGov has ignored my requests. I asked the Dept of National Statistics to provide me with info about the survey which was supposed to have been instigated by them, indicating a 3% increase in licensed premises since the smoking ban. The reply that I received was, “We cannot help you – ask YouGov”.
Be that as it may, but the important thing to me is to show that the surveys are both false and irrelevant – false because they have been ‘fiddled’ and irrelevant because, as regards pubs and clubs, the people who take part in the surveys have no interest in pubs and clubs. IE, those who want to forbid smoking in pubs and clubs never (or very rarely) enter pubs and clubs. Their opinions therefore are irrelevant.
I do not know whether or not to go any further. Perhaps I have outstayed my welcome. I do not know. But there are other important things. Shall I go on? Sod it! I will, but as quickly as I can.
As regards the complaints that YouGov ignore requests for information about surveys. Here is a quote directly from the YouGov site:
“YouGov is bound to respond in full to any bona fide enquiries about specific published polls”
Now, I’ll bet a pound to a penny that hardly anyone, searching the YouGov site, will find this quote. I will show you where it is:
1. Go to www.yougov.co.uk This takes you to YouGov homepage.
2. In the top right hand corner, you will see a tag named ‘INTERNATIONAL SITES’. Click on this. It takes you to ‘Corporate Home’ with the heading ‘ABOUT US’. (This ‘international sites’ is the confounding factor which makes it difficult to find YouGov’s methodology).
3. On the left hand side, you will see a list of subjects. It is well worth while to read them all since they reveal the way in which YouGov decides who to send a questionnaire to.
4. The quote above can be found as the very last thing in the Question & Answer subject.
5. In that ‘very last thing’ can also be found the fact that YouGov is a member of the British Polling Council (www.britishpolingcouncil.org). Very interesting if one wants to complain about YouGov not answering one’s enquiries.
Be aware, however, of the devil in the detail – what is a ‘specific PUBLISHED poll’? It may be that ASH’s polls are PRIVATE. However, we can see that if The British Lung Foundation relies upon an ASH poll to support its claims in a press release, then the BLF must have been given permission by ASH to use its poll results, in which case it would be unreasonable for ASH to deny access to its poll to the general public.
If I may go on just a little further (I do not know whether or not this is interesting). I have often wondered just how many people YouGov actually send questionnaires to (whether via the internet or not). Nowhere do YouGov et al, to the best of my knowledge, say. YouGov’s surveys quote only THE RESPONSES to their questionnaires.
It might interest people to know that there is, in the Questions & Answers subject referred to above, a hint as to how many questionnaires they emit.
Damn it! I am tired and fed up! Tomorrow evening, I will complete this – if people want me to. It requires a bit of mathematics, but not anything difficult. I cannot even be bothered with a spell check!
Can I ask for your support on the Freedom Site.
Under the tag freedom. Please leave your important comments. Thank you.
'Save the Hospitality Industry by repealing the iniquitous smoking ban'
@Chris - You have no right to derail this thread in this way. I hope Simon deletes your post. What game are you playing?
No one should be nudged into supporting your agenda.
David R - if it is Chris's post above your post I think it is entirely relevant and I for one would support it - if I could get on to Cleggy's propaganda site in the first place.
They may not be listening but I am English. If the natives don't understand, I just shout louder!
Pat - Have you registered on the site with your details, if so then log on and click on 'freedom' on the tag panel on the right hand side.
Just noticed this, regarding cutting Government aid to charities.
Only health and international aid have been spared the axe as part of the Government's austerity drive, although defence and schools have also been told they will be shielded from the most painful effects.
As far as I am aware, the likes of ASH do not come under the auspice of "health", so hopefully, with a little help from us, (and the many letters we will write to Government) we could ensure that ASH is one of the first to fall.
Read the article here
I read that a lot of LibDems base their idea of liberty on the writings of John Stuart Mill. I'm not an expert on JSM, but see the Theory of Liberty section here, specifically on the 'harm principle':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill
It seems that the idea of harmful SHS would have been the only way to persuade a JSM inspired liberal to side with the antismoking zealots.
...in other words, if SHS unravelled, I think they'd think again.
Last night, I was tired and could not continue my post re ‘surveys’. I feel the need to finish the job, even if it might be boring.
Recall that I said that there was no indication in YouGov’s surveys as to how many questionnaires were sent out (via email or whatever); that this number is important on the grounds that there may be many people who are simply not interested in the subject of the survey and can therefore be assumed to be IN FAVOUR OF THE STATUS QUO. Is that correct? I am not sure. This idea can be complicated. For example, if one asked a person, “Would you like a smoking ban in pubs?” and that person said, “I am not bothered”, then one can take it that that person is not actually FOR such a ban. Peculiar things happen when one reverses the question. Ask a person, “Do you want the smoking ban in pubs to be repealed?” If that person answers, “I am not bothered”, one can only reasonably assume that he is not actually IN FAVOUR OF THE BAN BEING RETAINED. The importance of this idea is that ASH cannot claim that ‘silence’ means ‘agreement’.
Anyway, here is the answer to the question, ‘how many questionnaires do You Gov send out?’ The answer involves a little bit of maths.
These are the numbers required to get the answer:
1. YouGov claim to have 280,000 panellists.
2. The average number of respondents to their surveys is about 2,000.
3. On the YouGov site as I described it, the man said that it would require the ‘infiltration’ of 5,000 ‘fanatics’ to cause a 10% shift in the results of a survey.
We must define ‘infiltration’ to mean that a group of fanatics sign up with YouGov with the intention of all voting the same way whenever any individual one of them is asked to complete a questionnaire on the subject in which they are interested.
We must also assume that the YouGov man is being realistic in the figures he quotes.
Firstly, we must ask how important is 5,000 as a proportion of 280,000? It is easier mathematically to take the figure of 280,000 to be 250,000. It will not make much difference.
5,000 as a proportion of 250,000 is 1 in 50, which seems to be very small, but read on.
The easy way to discover what the influence of 1 in 50 can be is to make an assumption.
Let us assume that YouGov send out 10,000 questionnaires. If 1 in 50 of those questionnaires is sent to a ‘fanatic’, then 200 (1 in 50 of 10,000) questionnaires will go to fanatics. Since that 200 are fanatics, we can assume that ALL 200 will complete the questionnaire in the same way.
If the total number of respondents is 2,000 on average, then one can see that 200 people, all voting in the same way, can indeed cause a variation of 10% (200 as a proportion of 2,000).
Now…….here is the important thing. The YouGov man said that, in YouGov polls, 5,000 fanatics WILL cause a 10% shift. Thus, it can be assumed that, roughly speaking, YouGov send out 10,000 questionnaires.
It is important to understand that, as a result of the above considerations, it is quite possible for 5,000 ASH supporters, who are panellists on YouGov, and all intent upon voting in the same way, to skew results by 10% - or more. QED.
Oh, I have also discovered how Mumsnet publicise surveys. It seems that they simply post the survey on their ‘notice board’. People who are interested in the survey can click it and answer the questions on the survey, if they want to. Is it therefore any surprise that 86% who answered the questionnaire were in favour of banning cigs in cars with kids present? What a swiz!
Junican, I would also add that a great many of the smokers who have been adversly affected by the ban are elderly and I would assume that a very large proportion of them do not have a computer and therefore never have a chance to voice their opinion.
Speaking for myself, I am a member of the yougov panel and have done dozens of surveys however I never seem to be asked anything about smoking. Was I asked at the outset whether I was a smoker? I simply can,t remember but it does appear strange that my opinion on smoking related topics seems to be religiously ignored and not wanted.
Sheila (Sheils?)
I recently signed up as a panelist. I was not asked any questions about my habits. But as we see from the above, there is no need to!
Your point about old people is a good one, but YouGov say that they try to take a fair cross section of their panelists, and I would imagine that age is one of the factors, and it is probable that they take a proportion of 'survey targets' according to the average age bands of the population as a whole. However, if some product which is being tested is particular to the younger element, then older people will not be surveyed.
If I may just take my statistical argument one step further (!).
Suppose YouGov ask the question of 10,000 people, "Are you in in favour of a total ban on smoking in cars?" Suppose also that they receive 2,000 replies.
We have already said that 200 of these could be ASH fanatics. If the other 1,800 are split 50/50 you would get 900 for and 900 against plus an additional 200 fanatics also for. That is 1,100 for and 900 against. The split would be 55% for and 45% against. Thus ASH could claim that THE MAJORITY is far a ban.
But what about the other 8,000? Let us be generous and say that 4,000 are genuinely too busy or away, that leaves 4000 who can be taken to be 'not bothered' one way or the other. It is not illegitimate to add them to the 'against' figure on the grounds that they are happy with the status quo. We saw this effect in the poll tax fiasco. Remember? Before the poll tax came into effect in England, there was no great swell of opinion against it, but when it actually introduced, little old ladies were marching in the streets.
So, taking the other 4,000 to be against, the split now becomes 4900 against and 1,100 for. In percentage terms, that is about 80% against such a ban and 20% for.
That is why I keep going on about the fact that the vast, vast majority of the population NEVER, or hardly ever, go to pubs. All these people who complain that they used to STINK when they came out of the pub before the ban are liars. The fact is that they never went to pubs and are, if fact, just anti-tobacco zealots.