E-petition spin

 

It's pure spin but the media fall for it.

Yesterday it was fraud-abroad that was to be tackled. It was nothing more than dusted-down measures introduced by the Labour Government in 2008. This morning I was called at 7.00 am to talk about today's headline seeking gimmick of e-petitions.

Tony Blair did that. The most popular petition, with more than 180,000 people in support, opposed road pricing. If the same people had been asked if they wanted safer roads, with fewer accidents and less pollution they would also have said yes . World experience has shown that public will always vote to lower taxes and improved services. 

On Tony Blair's site, more than 70,000 supported the one word suggestion that Gordon Brown should "resign". And almost 50,000 signed up to the idea that TV presenter Jeremy Clarkson should become prime minister. In the last census 400,000 people gave their religion as Jedi and name Darth Vader as their religious leader.

Foolishly the Tories put this piece of vacuous populism into their manifesto so they have to go through the motions. I am sure that House Leader George Young is wearily resigned about wandering down this parliamentary cul-de-sac.  There has been serious progress in opening up the parliamentary agenda through the Backbench Committee that has new control  over some parliamentary time.

For the first time in ten years of war in Afghanistan parliament voted on our deployment there. The great reform that is long overdue is to free up private members business which is easily sabotaged by opponents - mostly Government nerds.

The successful Government use of the Internet has been DirectGov. It provides instant practical up-to-date information. It works and is good value.

E-petitions is an idea whose time has already gone.

 

P.S. One blogger claims that he could raise a 100,000 signatures demanding the public executions of David Cameron and Nick Clegg.  He may be right. Can't see that becoming a bill before Parliament.

 

Comments

[Mike Dinsdale]

Not just spin, another exaple of intellectual proprty theft.
Particularly the "Big Society" which has existed for many years thanks to the work done by tens of thousands of unpaid volunteers. I seriously object to existing ideas and enterprise being claimed as Cameron's own idea. Hasn't he the sense to realise how offensive, we who give our time freely, find his policies of exploitation. Government policies are living proof that there is no such thing as a new idea. Not from the coalition anyway.

[Jane]

Whilst acknowledging the pitfalls I like the idea. I purchased the book by Gordon Brown's former polster (her name escapes me at the moment) and I recall on reading it that the focus groups she used must have lived on a different planet to me. I suppose they were all from the London area as their concernsbaffled me. So I have little faith in focus groups as a reflection on the public's concerns. We are a representative democracy and I feel that somehow we should be able to have some input into our lives. You may be in touch with your constituents but I can tell you that my MP does not have to put in much effort as the seat is so safe.

Mike - the big society has all but gone in my area. Community volunteers were very common some 15 years ago and the tasks they undertook are now being done by the local authority. I know this as I organised volunteers. We used to remove graffiti, clear dykes etc etc. We also staffed our small police office which is open a couple of hours a day. Now being done by paid staff and controlled by such punitive Health and Safety rules too. I still volunteer but the tasks are fewer although I am optimistic for the future. We even had our Chief Constable saying he intending using volunteers to take fingerprints at crime scenes!!!

Petitioning the Cabinet office and allowing time for debate is fraught with difficulties but worth exploring. I would have thought MPs welcomed any ideas which would involve the public in connecting with Parliament? In the past ten years we have less people engaged with politics and a growing cynicism towards those who act on our behalf. Lets try something new....

[Kay Tie]

"The most popular petition, with more than 180,000 people in support, opposed road pricing. If the same people had been asked if they wanted safer roads, with fewer accidents and less pollution they would also have said yes"

You seem to think road pricing and safer roads are incompatible. The reality is that road pricing was classic New Laboir: eye-catching nonsense that couldn't be implemented (like Blunkett's pedophile satellite tracking tags). It would have wasted millions in building it before the flaws became apparent to all but the dumbest, another hallmark of New Labour (eg aircraft carriers with no planes).

Let us hear no more about how foolish the population are: they have shown themselves to be smarter than the morons who governed us for more than a decade.

[Kay Tie]

"Particularly the "Big Society" which has existed for many years thanks to the work done by tens of thousands of unpaid volunteers. "

I don't think that anyone has made any claims for it being new. But they are claiming we don't have it now: New Labour shattered it, corrupting charities, regulating people, and creating the narrative that only government can do things, leading to the absurd final stages of Gordon Brown's delusions where he gave swimming sessions and books out for "free" to people. Madness.

[Michael Fox]

Just another authoritarian labour MP who has no idea what democracy really is about! It is we, the public, who tell YOU what we want not you strutting your stuff and being condescending to the 'little people'. It's thanks to people like you that I stopped voting Labour but if we ever get to the situation where decent people are once more in control then I will be happy to go back.
Just one last thing - the quote of yours in the Guardian did make me laugh as all I needed to do was make a substitution and I had what I felt was the truth of the last labour government -
'The labour party is not an area that is open to sensible debate; it is dominated by the obsessed and the fanatical and we will get crazy ideas coming forward.'

No doubt you will delete this because we all know that Labour follows the Mugabe style of politics - disagreement is not to be tolerated nor is democracy.

[Kay Tie]

"No doubt you will delete this because we all know that Labour follows the Mugabe style of politics - disagreement is not to be tolerated nor is democracy."

You're confusing Paul with the Guardian: Paul doesn't delete comments, the Guardian has elevated it to a neo-Stalinist art form.

[Paul Flynn]

What happens if 100,000 signatures are collected to bring the boys home from Afghanistan or for legalising euthanasia? Debate may take place. Government action, never.

[Paul Flynn]

Michael Fox, it was Labour that set up the Wright reforms that have now given us the Backbench Committee. They now have their own time in parliament to set their own agenda. Private members bills are clogged in the House by the ability of a small number of anti-democratic MP who can sabotage them.

[Paul Flynn]

You could not make it up. This is an e-mail I have received. It is signed but I will leave it anonymous until the writer gives me permission to publish his details.

"I recently stumbled across an article on BBC News regarding the idea of debating petitions in Parliament. In the article, found here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12084525, it states you said "If we get the e-petitions in there will be some asking for Jeremy Clarkson to be prime minister, for Jedi and Darth Vader to be the religions of the country."

I ask you several questions regarding this comment. First of all, what are you basing this upon? Several petitions have been started on the 10 Downing Street website prior to its closure regarding Jediism and I wonder why this would be a problem if they were to be debated in parliament?

Thanks and as they say, 'May the Force be with you'.

[Paul Flynn]

Another Comment from the TIMES website:-

"There was huffing and puffing round the breakfast table this morning as we listened to the government's new gimmick -- that successful on-line petitions should get a parliamentary debate, and even made into a bill. The Labour MP (Paul Flynn) had some sensible things to say about the idea... but as the husband pointed out, it's a pity the Labour party hadnt neen more sensible when they started this whole e-petition idea. It was, after all, their gimmick in the first place.

So what IS the matter with the idea?

Well, for a start, it is a veneer of popular power, a substitute touted as the real thing. Mass e-petitioning looks as if it is putting power back into the people's court. But actually it is more likely to give an outlet to the computer-literate, with time on their hands and an axe to grind (which is decidedly skewed sub-category of 'the people'). Remember how the Today programme had to stop it's annual 'person of the year' competition because all kinds of maverick campaigns launched all kinds of very odd people into the top of the list.

Second, it is taking us in the wrong direction in terms of legislative activity. What we need is less legislation, fewer white papers -- not more. That is to say, we need a bit more sense that the solution to every problem is NOT a new law. This e-petition idea risks turning us all into amateur law-makers.

And finally, it turns the complexity of politics into a competition between single issue interest groups (and that in the long term has the effect of taking power away from 'the people' not giving it back). Of course we would all like to save the sparrows and the bees, stop rape, and have a better public transport system . . . and no doubt you could get 100s of thousands of people to sign up for those causes. But the real politics is not about signing up to some obvious good causes, it's about balancing and prioritising a competing selection of good causes. That's what, for us, the parliamentary process is all about. And anyone who wants to see the fatuity of the petition mode could well study the fruitless Californian system of "propositions" which serve to paralyse more than enhance government."

[valleylad]

I think the e-petitions are a great idea, all the popular ones will horrify politicians should be fun.

Why however bring the census into it? The stats office changed the rules on named religions so that they wouldn't have to put Jedi on the census form. Personally as one who listed my religion as Jedi I'm disgusted. I was hoping that if it was a tick box choice this time around it would be the most popular religion in the UK and therefore deserving of greater status than christianity!

[valleylad]

"it's about balancing and prioritising a competing selection of good causes." - You
obviously not talking about British politics - that's about getting good coverage in the Daily Mail!

Lets just take road pricing. An expensive complicated and intrusive solution to reducing road traffic and therefore a politicians wet dream. Obviously whacking charges on fuel would have similar effects and cost near to nothing to implement.

[Tony]

I'd have to agree with the comment about less legislation being required - but the pace does not seem to have slowed under this new(ish) government
But on the other hand, and allowing for the potentially skewed nature of those people who do submit stuff, if 100,000 citizens of the UK feel strongly enough to register online about a specific issue then wouldn't that be worth MP's considering?
I mean, its not a party thing , its not a small number to raise on a petition, and it could well be very messy but these are people you';re dealing with and we're like that

[Kay Tie]

"Lets just take road pricing. An expensive complicated and intrusive solution to reducing road traffic and therefore a politicians wet dream. Obviously whacking charges on fuel would have similar effects and cost near to nothing to implement."

Well, fuel charges wouldn't give you a database of where everyone was on a minute-by-minute basis. And it wouldn't let you decide which parts of the country would be cheap to drive in when a by-election was coming up. On the flip side, it wouldn't be technically possible to make it work (of course, that didn't stop New Labour pressing ahead with the stupid ID card scheme).

[Dick Puddlecote]

"Paul doesn't delete comments"

Oh yes he does. Edits other people's sometimes, too.

[Paul Flynn]

If 'editing\ means removing libellous or obscene comments he does.
KayTie would never do that.

[Dick Puddlecote]

Come on Paul, don't be shy about your net naivete from 2008. It's great to know you don't delete or edit valid comments anymore, but please don't pretend you didn't used to. Despite your best efforts, there are still a few signs around.

http://paulflynnmp.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/11/on-with-the-motley-lembit.html

[www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnOIulONWcof4mMeG61KU1TmEzVxJzgvJg]

A device that allows for the public to voice their opinions might rock the boat!
Most MPs appear to accept only opinions and 'science' that support their cause. A good example was the Health Committee who, when 'discussing' the smoking ban, relied on evidence from the 250 'Stakeholders' invited by the DoH and even gave credence to a Women's hour poll simply because it agreed with their intended outcome.
Dissenting voices were, of course, tainted by Big Tobacco or some other commercial bias. - Still, not to worry, the NRT producers are getting yet another £250,000,000 order from their DoH pals. - It certainly was worth all those donations.

[Paul Flynn]

That accusation was wrong in 2008 - and it's wrong now.

It was endlessly repeated on the end the smoking ban websites. MP Nuttall's attempt to introduce the Bill to end the ban was defeated by 141 votes to 86. Take defeat gracefully. The smoking ban has been a great succes.

[Dick Puddlecote]

You might want to edit your last word Paul, it looks like French or something.

By the way, Paul, take defeat gracefully, the war on drugs is a worldwide success, politicians know best, stop whinging, eh? ;)

[Dick Puddlecote]

Paul, the Iraq War has been a brilliant success (politicians tell us so every day), you really should take defeat gracefully.

[J Stewart]

On what grounds do you rate the smoking ban to be a success, Paul (or are you just being mischievous)?

[Kay Tie]

"On what grounds do you rate the smoking ban to be a success, Paul (or are you just being mischievous)?"

Well I can go to pubs and restaurants without my clothes and hair stinking after and without my throat becoming raw. Yes, I know the ban wasn't for people but as a means of control, but sometimes the unintended consequences are good ones.

[Trooper Thompson]

Paul,

I share your view that this petition thing is just a gimmick, but what are people supposed to do when the politicians are so out of touch? The prime example is the EU. You know the people don't want power handed over to Brussels, and yet it continues no matter which of the major parties is in government.

[Patrick]

We have garbage 'out of touch' governments and crap oppositions because we the British public vote for them.

Mr average couldn't give a flying fig about drugs , afghan, the environment etc.

He has a very busy life of over consumption, travel, sport, reality TV, soaps and whinging.

He and 20 Million others watch X-Factor (10 Million voted).

As we are far too contented moaning,far too apathetic to care about important issues, and far too busy to participate, what should we really expect?

We get the governments we demand, deserve and repeatedly vote for.

[Smoking Hot]

Kay Tie (and P Flynn) ... so that's your success is it? You can have 'clean' clothes and hair, when and if you deign to visit pubs (if they haven't closed down). What about the senior citizens who smoke? Oh yes, you are perfectly happy for them to go out in sub-zero temperatures just as long as they don't impact on your lifestyle and any other of your self-imposed 'rights'. What about theirs????

As for the smoking itself, l know of no-one (yes, no-one) who buys UK cigarettes or tobacco. Which rather screws up any means of monitoring or creating stats about UK smokers doesn't it? The taxes that would've been paid to the Treasury are now paid to the EU ... or more precisely to countries such as Poland, Bulgaria etc. This trade is increasing.

You call this a success? Dream on!

[Patrick]

Puddlecote
You still don’t get it. Nobody is opposed to you coughing and spluttering away your days inhaling poisonous stinking fumes we would just like the FREEDOM TO CHOOSE not to.

Surely only a moron would voluntarily pay hard earned to pollute his/her own body on a daily basis to make corporate tobacco rich only to end up in a cancer ward?

[Patrick]

Smokers Top Tip
Why waste fortunes on expensive ciggies?
Simply buy a cheap childs dummy from any local supermarket and you can have endless satisfaction without annoying anybody or smelling like a garbage truck.

[Kay Tie]

"You can have 'clean' clothes and hair, when and if you deign to visit pubs"

You forgot my raw throat. But then you're a smoker and that means you have a hide thicker than a rhino and a complete indifference to the welfare of others.

You think that the smell of stale cigarettes contaminating clothes, hair, pillows, etc. is a small deal compared to your enjoyment but it just illustrates your crass selfishness: you have lost your sense of smell and your lack of empathy means you cannot conceive of how others might be suffering.

[Fredrik Eich]

Patrick,
"Nobody is opposed to you coughing and spluttering away your days inhaling poisonous stinking fumes we would just like the FREEDOM TO CHOOSE not to"
Agreed. That is why it would be wrong for the law to prohibit any public place from going smoke-free. If the law prevented places from going smoke-free
then there we would not have had the smoke-free pubs and restaurants that we had prior to the ban and that's not even talking the places that maintained
non-smoking and smoke-free rooms. No one is opposed to public places being able to go smoke-free if they want to, we just need a change in the law so that smokers can
have their own inside public environments to smoke in, rather similar to the way smoke-free environments existed prior to the ban.

[Smoking Hot]

Kay Tie ... l note that you totally ignored the rights of others. Empathy? ... you just want it one way ... to you.

You don't give a damn about anyone else except you. l, on the otherhand, want freedom of choice. lf bars etc want smoking then they should have it and if they don't want smoking the same applies. Customers then make the choice whether they go in or not as in the recent changes regarding certain types of Dutch bars.

Freedom of Choice, as Patrick says. What could anyone in a supposed democratic country have against that?

[Kay Tie]

"l note that you totally ignored the rights of others."

You have the right to do what you like without harming others. You missed that bit out. I'm not stopping you smoking: go and do it somewhere else.

"You don't give a damn about anyone else except you. l, on the otherhand, want freedom of choice."

You want the freedom to monopolise all public spaces with your smoke. Which is what you did before the ban: I couldn't go to pubs for the sheer awfulness your kind created.

[David]

After hours lock ins were always part of the pub scene. Very often, tolerated by licensing authorities/police, particularly away from town centres. I'm guessing they are very few here who have never drank in pubs after 'closing time'.

Flouting of the smoking ban in pubs and clubs is widespread and gathering momentum. The police are not the slightest bit interested in getting involved, council resources are being cut. This ban is failing.

[Kay Tie]

"This ban is failing"

Nope. I can eat in restaurants without selfish diners lighting up and ruining my meal. All the pubs I go to are smoke free. The ban is operating perfectly well.

[David]

My advice - 'enjoy' it while it lasts. The vast majority don't mind smoking in pubs. If they did, we wouldn't be losing 40 a week. That's one reason the law is being flouted, pubs want their greatest source of revenue back (smokers and their non smoking friends). Good ventilation and/or separate smoking rooms would solve the problem overnight. How could any rational, fair minded person possibly object to that?

[J Stewart]

Kay Tie - the ban wasn't brought in to pander to your wish to economise on shampoo and soap and its success can't legitimately be measured by your personal level of satisfaction. In an earlier post you criticised the last Government for undermining personal responsibility yet you demand that no private business owners may decide to allow smoking and no individuals may decide to patronise such a venue. The ban doesn't just undermine personal responsibility, it destroys it. I think you illustrate very well the flaw in the e-petition proposal.

(and will someone please explain to me why smokers are selfish for wanting SOME venues whilst antismokers are not selfish for wanting ALL venues?)

[Smoking Hot]

Yes David, that is correct. I believe it's approaching 7000 closures now. Maybe we could have them back as smokers pubs? ... oop's, forgot about Kay Tie may want to come in them!

Actually l don't give a damn anymore. We've got Smoky Drinkys which are gatherings of like minded people ... smokers and non-smokers. We don't need licences or have any gov/council interference because they don't know where they are. Works out a lot cheaper too.

Also got the bikers clubhouse which has never imposed a smoking ban. Council anti-smoking enforcement officers have been nowhere near it. Wonder why? :)

Same can be said of the pubs along the border of Eire and NI.

Lastly l've got my main home in Bulgaria where the voice of the people is still loud and clear. Even if a full smoking ban was brought in there it would be almost totally ignored by the people. Strange how freedom is alive and well in an ex-USSR bloc country. Perhaps that's because freedom is still precious to them ... and 'my kind'.

[Paul Flynn]

Lucky Bulgaria! Good luck with the voice of the people. You'll need it.

The smoking ban has spread across Europe from the Irish Republic that was the first country brave enough to introduce it. It has been a success because it has been overwhelmingly respected and popular - especially by non-smokers and smokers trying to free themselves of their addiction.

Many people voted Tory is the belief that they would repeal the ban. Not a chance of that.

Pubs have been closing steadily over the past 20 years. The process reflect changing social habits with increased TV watching and use of restaurants.

[Smoking Hot]

In July of this year l was proud to take some D-Day Veterans back to Normandy courtesy of Heroes Return. l wrote about the visit and at the end of my article was this relating to the veterans. :-

"Later on when l'd taken them to bar and we were sat out in the sun having a beer ... and a smoke, one of the vets said " Y'know, l used to enjoy a pint and a smoke at the pub but it's not worth going anymore. Hardly anyone goes. When l have been and l want a smoke l've got to shuffle out on these f**king sticks. Doesn't matter if it's pouring with rain, blowing a gale, f**king snowing ... out l f**king go"

He went on "What really pi*ses me off is all them f**king anti-smoking c**ts. They say it's better for me, it's healthier, it's for my own good ... l'm 85 for f**ks sake!"

His mate replied " Makes you wonder why we bothered, f**king fascists won in the end"

...........

l make no apologies for the language as we were not in the company of ladies or children.

How the righteous can treat these brave men like this is beneath contempt.

[J Stewart]

So, Paul, if it's so "overwhelmingly respected and popular" why did "many people" vote Tory in the hope they'd repeal the ban?

[Paul Flynn]

'Smoking Hot' That a preposterous self-serving piece of non-sense! If you have to make up stories, try to make them more convincing that this.

[Paul Flynn]

It's your lot J Stewart. You have had your Commons Vote and you have lost. No Government will repeal the smoking ban, now or in the future. That's the reality of it.

[Smoking Hot]

You calling me a liar Mr Flynn? Here is the original article written in July! http://nothing-2-declare.blogspot.com/2010/07/d-day-heroes.html

Retract it Mr Flynn or at some point l'll turn up in your face and give you a true Yorkshiremans answer!

[Kay Tie]

"(and will someone please explain to me why smokers are selfish for wanting SOME venues whilst antismokers are not selfish for wanting ALL venues?"

Think of it as a lesson: your lot monopolised all venues for decades. Taste of your own medicine. Well it would be if you had any working taste buds after all that smoking.

[J Stewart]

Not quite sure what you mean by my 'lot' but no matter.

No-one, to my knowledge, is asking for the ban to be repealed (although if it is so popular, that wouldn't make a whit of difference) - just amended to allow choice and personal decision-making.

I think that day will come as increasing numbers of people are realising the truth about tobacco control.

[Kay Tie]

"your wish to economise on shampoo and soap"

Thank you for illustrating just how arrogant and selfish you smokers are. You simply have no ability to understand just how disgusting your second-hand smoke is. By refusing to see the harm you people do you show everyone else just how necessary the ban was.

I suggest that you use the same freedom you people offered me: stop going to pubs. Or give up smoking and stop being so self-centred. Your choice.

[Kay Tie]

"Retract it Mr Flynn or at some point l'll turn up in your face and give you a true Yorkshiremans answer!"

What you going to do? Blow smoke in his face?

[Kay Tie]

"No-one, to my knowledge, is asking for the ban to be repealed"

I think Smokey "D-Day" McSelfish is.

[J Stewart]

Ah, Kay Tie, your stance boils down to simple bitter revenge. Have you any idea how childish you sound? In the grown-ups world people compromise. You go to your smokefree place, I go to the smoking permitted place. Even before the ban came in there were many, many smokefree places so there was no need to expose yourself to the horrid smoke (or splash out on a bar of soap ;)).

[Smoking Hot]

Kay Tie ... please refer to reply re Arkell v Pressdam

[Kay Tie]

" In the grown-ups world people compromise."

Smokers *never* compromised before the ban. Why do you think that they would if the ban were lifted?

"You go to your smokefree place, I go to the smoking permitted place."

Prior to the ban, there were almost no smokefree places: smokers monopolised almost all indoor public spaces.

[Smilenka]

lf you put your prejudices aside for one moment and actually read the comments Kay Tie you'll find SH advocates freedom of choice.

[Kay Tie]

"please refer to reply re Arkell v Pressdam"

I think you meant "Pressdram". In any case, perfectly illustrating your thick hides and pig-ignorance.

[Kay Tie]

"you'll find SH advocates freedom of choice."

What freedom would that be? His idea of freedom of choice leaves non-smokers with no choice at all.

[J Stewart]

Kay Tie- before the ban came in pubs had little signs, the first said 'smoking permitted throughout', the second, 'designated smoking area'. I lived before the ban in a market town which had ten restaurants, nine of which were smokefree. Smoking rates have been falling since the 70s and it would be a poor businessman who ignored the change in the market. Pre-ban, I can't remember the last time I was in a smoky bar anyway as the ones I seemed to find myself in appeared to have effective ventilation.

Most smokers don't want to monopolise places - they just want the market to reflect the fact that they exist.

[Kay Tie]

"Even before the ban came in there were many, many smokefree places"

No, there weren't. You didn't notice because you were too busy in your little smoke filled world to look through the fug and see the effect you were having on other people.

" so there was no need to expose yourself to the horrid smoke (or splash out on a bar of soap ;))."

Do you think it's fair to expect me to wash my hair, clothes and pillowcase every time I visit a pub? You can't smell the disgusting stink so you really don't understand, do you? This is EXACTLY what I mean by your selfishness. You really think it's about soap, but it's about the disgusting all-pervading stench of stale smoke. You simply have no idea how horrible it is and you quite frankly don't give a toss (as your belittling remarks illustrate).

You have no imagination or empathy and care nothing about the trouble to which you used to put other people. And that is precisely why I am overjoyed at the ban: I intellectually know just how inconvenient it is for you, freezing in the cold, cupping your stained fingers around a little stub of burning leaves. And my reaction? Merely take a leaf out of your book and simply dismiss your feelings and turn back to my drink.

[J Stewart]

Kay Tie - I will leave you to your bitter bile as you seem incapable of conducting a reasonable discussion without resorting to abuse.

I am a law-abiding, decent human being who happens to smoke and I take offence at being attacked as if I'm a piece of dirt that's stuck to your shoe. I'm happy to know that we're unlikely ever to meet.

[Trooper Thompson]

Kat Tie,

Contrary to what you say, smokers did compromise and continue to compromise to this day. Although they continued to smoke where it was permitted, people did not smoke on tube trains or on buses when it was banned there. Smokers did not light up in cinemas or insist on smoking in other people's houses or cars.

All we want is for owners to have the right returned to them to decide whether smoking is permitted. I think you know that there is a fundamental issue of freedom involved, which is why you hide behind an ever-more emotional cloak.

Smokers have no wish to be anywhere near people like you. If the law isn't changed, and legal drinking establishments given back their right to decide, then the slide into a blackmarket, inlicenced drinking culture will continue.

[Kay Tie]

"pubs had little signs, the first said 'smoking permitted throughout', the second, 'designated smoking area'."

I remember just how well the smoke obeyed those little signs.

[Kay Tie]

"legal drinking establishments given back their right to decide"

That merely resulted in smokers monopolising public spaces.

[Trooper Thompson]

Whatever, Kay Tie. Us smokers have had about enough of you shrill, temperance harridans. We're making our own plans. The same thing happened when pubs weren't welcoming to black people - they organised their own social scene. I just fell sorry for the publicans who will lose out by obeying the legislation.

[David]

Ever visit the Netherlands Kay Tie? If you plan to do so in the future, beware - there's been an outbreak of common sense, driven by those who know what their customers demand.

It'll spread. UK antis might be the last to admit defeat, but the writing's on the wall. The ban will, at the very least, be amended. If not, rejected by popular demand. Some of the licensed trade bodies are already calling for an amendment. Unthinkable until recently. This issue is now well and truly about economics, everything ASH et al predicted has spectacularly failed to materialise (no surprise there). Non smokers have not flocked into the pubs, smoking rates are unaffected, heart attack rates have certainly not fallen (at least not in relation to the overall long term trends). Businesses have not thrived. But I accept your dry cleaning and shampoo bills might have been reduced, so it hasn't all been in vain.

[Paul Flynn]

So that's it.

The smoking ban is equivalent to the Holocaust.

Outrage that the French are flying their own flag - in France.

Bulgaria is freer country than the UK.

Smoking is a weird addiction. It's not just the body it damages.

[Trooper Thompson]

err..

"The smoking ban is equivalent to the Holocaust"

who said that, Paul?

[Smilenka]

Are you just playing Mr Flynn or are you really that stupid? Bulgaria is indeed freer than UK. I've lived in your country and your petty regulations are putting the USSR to shame. What was it when your party was in power? 4,000? 4,500? new regulations? l can honestly say, as have others, l've lived your dream and it doesn't work.

Kay Tie, although English is my second language it seems to be superior to yours. SH advocates smoking and non-smoking premises. That is choice, what part of that are you incapable of understanding?

[Dick Puddlecote]

Kay Tie: How do you comment at Tim Worstall's with a straight face when you hold such logicless, anti-market views?

Surely you should have worked out that choice works two ways by now?

Paul: Nice employment of the lefty 'irrelevant emotive hyperbole' ploy there. ;)

You didn't answer this, by the way.

"Paul, take defeat gracefully, the war on drugs is a worldwide success, politicians know best, stop whinging, eh?"

Because, as you said yourself right here, politicians know best and it's a worldwide decision. Give up sunshine. :)

[David]

Smilenka, Kay Tie represents a tiny, irrelevant and cowardly minority who only ever seem to vent their anger anonymously online. Unless he/she (Katie?)has some position of influence over the rest of us, we can dismiss his/her somewhat psychopathic anti smoker rants as harmless emissions of hot air. Probably gets worked up over most things he/she disagrees with. It's fun winding these types up, they actually have a crucial role in the fight against against ignorance and prejudice.

[Kay Tie]

"We're making our own plans. The same thing happened when pubs weren't welcoming to black people - they organised their own social scene."

Oh lordy lordy! Well off you trot. You've finally got it: go away and stop polluting public spaces.

[Kay Tie]

"But I accept your dry cleaning and shampoo bills might have been reduced, so it hasn't all been in vain."

Belittle all you like. I take it you'd be really outraged if I pissed on your clothes and hair. Tell you what, I'll prepare a jar of the stuff and you tell me where you're going to be. You won't complain, will you? After all, it's just shampoo, isn't it?

[Kay Tie]

"Kay Tie: How do you comment at Tim Worstall's with a straight face when you hold such logicless, anti-market views?"

Because there are times when the market doesn't work. As Tim would agree. This is one such: the way in which smokers interacted with the bars left a status quo where no publican could risk offending the smokers for a devastating loss of custom, so all bars allowed these selfish oafs free to lock down the choice of the rest.

"Surely you should have worked out that choice works two ways by now?"

It's a classic case of competing freedoms. The key here is that smokers are harming others and it is therefore perfectly consistent to constrain smokers so that they harm only themselves.

[Kay Tie]

"Kay Tie, although English is my second language it seems to be superior to yours."

How so, Comrade?

[Kay Tie]

"SH advocates smoking and non-smoking premises. That is choice, what part of that are you incapable of understanding?"

Because he's not: he's advocating a return to the status quo ante ban. Before the ban, bar and restaurant owners were free to exclude smokers but they rarely did: the market did not provide choice because of the way smokers behaved.

The ban has now provided the same choice that SH advocates for non-smokers: stay at home. Only this time, SH is on the receiving end of that choice rather than dishing it out. It's delicious to see how for the first time his eyes are opened as to what such limited choice means. Perhaps he should bite the bullet and give up smoking. He might even be able to give up the selfish tendencies at the same time.

[Kay Tie]

"Kay Tie represents a tiny, irrelevant and cowardly minority "

Actually, we're in the majority. And we're very much irrelevant: we're the customers now, and you're the skulking outcasts. Enjoy your new status.

[Fredrik Eich]

?

[Patrick]

David
"Smilenka, Kay Tie represents a tiny, irrelevant and cowardly minority who only ever seem to vent their anger anonymously online."

Anyone who reads this blog knows that for several years i have never agreed with Kay-Tie until now.

It's a "cowardly minority" that swarm sites with narrow bigoted views fueled by their own financial vested interests.

It's " a tiny, irrelevant and cowardly minority" that threatens a disabled arthritc 76 year old pensioner with " a true Yorkshiremans answer" What a hero!

It's a "cowardly minority" through peer pressure and fashion that were gullible enough to start smoking in the first place.
Corporate Tabacco brainwashed you and still are despite the fact that it costs you your hard earned cash and years of your lives.

Surely only an imbecile pays a daily fee to pollute their own body?

Happy New Year - Give it up!

[David]

See what I mean...

'I take it you'd be really outraged if I pissed on your clothes and hair. Tell you what, I'll prepare a jar of the stuff and you tell me where you're going to be. You won't complain, will you? After all, it's just shampoo, isn't it?'

No Kay Tie, it's urine. Shampoo is usually a form of liquefied soap specially formulated for use on hair.

'It's a "cowardly minority" that swarm sites with narrow bigoted views fueled by their own financial vested interests.'

Sorry Patrick, you've lost me here...

'Anyone who reads this blog knows that for several years i have never agreed with Kay-Tie until now'.

Does this mean you'll also be also be offering to 'shampoo' me?

Oh yeah, and why do you presume I'm a smoker? Prejudice again? Would I still deserve the shampoo treatment simply by defending the rights of those who do? People who, who on average, contribute more to the public fund than most. Whose smoking status is absolutely non of your business. Who only require separate in door facilities to do something that is 100% legal - something that wouldn't upset other,normal, people. Why won't any of you rantis respond to that request?

Happy New Year to you - keep it up!

[David]

Nearly forgot this corker:

'Actually, we're in the majority. And we're very much irrelevant: we're the customers now, and you're the skulking outcasts. Enjoy your new status.'

'The irrelevant majority....'

Nice one - sums up government's attitude to the electorate in three words.

[Kay Tie]

"No Kay Tie, it's urine. Shampoo is usually a form of liquefied soap specially formulated for use on hair."

I meant it's just shampoo required to wash it out.

What possible complaint could a smoker have about urine poured into their hair? It's disgusting? It smells? It means you have to wash your hair and clothes? You didn't want someone to pour urine over your head? These are all things you (used to) do to other people with smoke. And demand you should have the "choice" to continue to do.

"People who, who on average, contribute more to the public fund than most"

Actually, given the prevalence of smoking being overrepresented in the C2DE category, I doubt that very much.

"Whose smoking status is absolutely non of your business."

Now that would be actually hilarious if I thought you were making a joke. I'm very much for smoking to be none of my business, but the smokers keep insisting on being able to "choose" to make it my business.

"Who only require separate in door facilities to do something that is 100% legal"

That's not the requirement: you want to return to the status before the ban where your "choice" meant practically all pubs and restaurants were smoking leaving the non-smoking intelligent majority out.

"something that wouldn't upset other,normal, people."

Everyone else thinks it's a disgusting anti-social habit. Only thick-skinned smokers, used to a lifetime of disregarding the disapproval of others, think they aren't upsetting people.

[Trooper Thompson]

"the way in which smokers interacted with the bars left a status quo where no publican could risk offending the smokers for a devastating loss of custom"

Right, so the control-freak Labour government brought in legislation imposing a devastating loss of custom, and shutting the bars down.

"It's a classic case of competing freedoms."

Not at all. The freedom issue was for the owners of bars to decide for themselves. That freedom was taken away by the control-freak government. Non-smokers and smokers were never free to drink in any pub - it was down to the owner/landlord. No anti-smoker is able to explain why, if there are so many people in favour of this legislation, non-smoking bars could not have opened and flourished without the legislation?

[Charles]

Whetherspoons went smoke free before the smoking ban and quickly allowed smoking again because of the loss of trade.

[Jane Daniel]

When I started smoking aged 14 (yes I was at work then in the 50's) it was not considered anti social or a filthy habit. Smoking was a sign that you had 'grown up' and was a 'rite of passage' for most teenagers.
I have only ever smoked where an ashtray had been placed, as that has always signified that smoking was acceptable.
As the years have gone by I have smoked in less places, either because there were no ashtrays (signifying a non smoking establishment) or because smoking was banned in a certain place.
I have accepted all of that and never smoked where I was not welcomed to do so.
I am now in my mid 70's and can now only smoke either at home or in the open air.
I am now disabled (accident damaging my hip) and so can not get out as much as I would like to. So now I only smoke in my own home. This is a very lonely existence and I would love to be able to go to a pub for a drink occasionally. However, as a smoker I know that I can't do this and enjoy a drink and cigarette in safety and comfort in a pub.
I accept all this and am sorry that my pleasure upsets so many people. I wish that my life was different, but after smoking for over 60 years it is difficult to stop.
It really hurts me to hear that smokers are now classed as disgusting filthy death carriers as I really hadn't considered myself to be thus.
Now that I am all these horrible things I am glad that I am nearing the end of my life.
How cruel and malicious are these people that have ostracised me and cast me out from society.
I am so sorry if my 'habit' has offended people and wish that I had never taken that first cigarette all those years ago.

[Trooper Thompson]

Jane,

don't let them bring you down. There have always been a small number of control-freaks who look at the rest of us with contempt and want to boss us around. It's just in recent times they have managed to sneak into positions of power. It won't last forever. It's like under Cromwell, when they'd send soldiers around to confiscate the food if anyone was celebrating Christmas (which had been declared a day of fasting and repentance). After a few years of this, the people (our ancestors) had had enough. The same will happen again.

[David]

I'm very sorry to hear that Jane. Presumably a sentiment not seconded by Patrick, Kay Tie, nor by former chain smoker Paul Flynn. I have to say, I'd much rather be in a pub with you than any of them (one has even threatened me to chuck urine over me for expressing an opinion, let alone smoking).

Some of us are trying to regain your right to smoke in a comfortable and safe environment other than your home. In reality you never upset many people, only the 'cruel and malicious people that have ostracised you and cast you out from society.'

Have you noticed that neither Kay Tie or Patrick haven't mentioned the legal basis of the ban? To prevent exposure to ETS of staff, not the customers. Based on a lie, of course. There is no reason why separate smoking areas could not be staffed by smokers, and/or that good air filtration would remove the smoke. Besides, there is no law (yet) that prohibits employers from hiring smokers only.

For the moment, however, it seems (in the words of Kay Tie) that you must 'enjoy your new status as a skulking outcast '.

All the best for the new year.

[F Wilson]

It is strange that non smokers who say they have a "right" when they go to a Pub or Club not to have anyone smoking there yet do not believe that the Pub or Club owners should have the right to decide if Their premises should be smoking or non smoking,is it any wonder that the Industry are calling for a reform of the smoking ban to allow them the choice and so cater for smokers once again in order to save their business.

[Kay Tie]

"one has even threatened me to chuck urine over me for expressing an opinion, let alone smoking"

You never did answer why someone chucking urine over you is unacceptable, but you blowing smoke over someone else is just fine.

"Have you noticed that neither Kay Tie or Patrick haven't mentioned the legal basis of the ban? To prevent exposure to ETS of staff, not the customers. Based on a lie, of course."

Actually, I did mention it. I said that the ban wasn't for the likes of me, but a way of controlling people. But that the unintended consequence was to bring freedom to people to enjoy public spaces without being assaulted by smoke. Funny old world.

"For the moment, however, it seems (in the words of Kay Tie) that you must 'enjoy your new status as a skulking outcast '."

Yes indeed. It's about time you experienced what you inflicted on others for years and years.

[Kay Tie]

"There is no reason why separate smoking areas could not be staffed by smokers, and/or that good air filtration would remove the smoke."

Oh, I agree with this approach (even if before the ban you didn't give it a moments thought). Still, despite selfishness being the mother of this innovation it's still innovation and should be welcomed.

[J Stewart]

Take heart, Jane, Kay Tie, fortunately, represents a very small minority - most people do not revel in seeing the elderly and disabled forced to either live in social isolation or endure being cast out into the elements because they wish to indulge in a perfectly legal habit. The public and the hospitality industry have been (and continue to be) lied to by the tobacco control lobby. Sooner or later those lies will be exposed to more and more people. It's not going to be pretty when the majority of smokers realise that they're being demonised on the basis of spin.

[Trooper Thompson]

Oh, I agree with this approach[the use of air filters] (even if before the ban you didn't give it a moments thought)

Not so. Prior to the ban, the hospitality industry spent a lot of money on air filters, only to have the control-freaks legislate such expenditure into the dustbin. Why? Because the issue of second-hand smoke was only the pretext. The real agenda was 'de-normalisation of smokers'. Which also explains why the anti-smokers are all in a tizzy over e-cigarettes.

[Trooper Thompson]

"You never did answer why someone chucking urine over you is unacceptable, but you blowing smoke over someone else is just fine."

Don't you see how crazy you sound, Kay Tie? I'm sure you've got enough manners and decency not to pour urine over someone's head, haven't you?

[David]

Are you a total idiot? Who on earth, apart from you, would want to throw urine over someone who simply supports the provision for separate smoking rooms?

'Actually, I did mention it. I said that the ban wasn't for the likes of me, but a way of controlling people. But that the unintended consequence was to bring freedom to people to enjoy public spaces without being assaulted by smoke. Funny old world.'

Unintended? You must be an idiot. It was an integral part of the denormalistion process, introduced by corrupt and fraudulent means (to an end). Even the claimed risks of ETS are miniscule. If you'd bothered to circumnavigate the propaganda, which I very much doubt you have done, you'd have soon found out why we ended up with a divided society.

And Kay Tie, I'm not a skulking outcast. People like Jane are the outcasts. You should be ashamed of yourself for relishing the effect its had on the elderly and vulnerable.

All you want is revenge. Very noble. Dickhead.

[Kay Tie]

"had on the elderly and vulnerable."

Ah, the poor "vulnerable". Yeah, let's go for that heartstring bingo. But after a decade of hearing you whining about "the vulnerable" to justify all kinds of crap, I'm all out of sympathy for "the vulnerable".

I also find it deeply ironic that a smoker of all people is suddenly showing concern for the welfare of others. Road to Damascus conversion?

[Kay Tie]

"Don't you see how crazy you sound, Kay Tie? I'm sure you've got enough manners and decency not to pour urine over someone's head, haven't you?"

Oh, the irony! A smoker talking of manners and decency for considering the effect on others.

Actually, it's not ironic at all is it? You've just got a complete blindspot for the foul disgusting things you've been doing for years.

[Phil J]

As a measure to cull the pub&club industry the smoking ban has been a roaring success-congratulations to all who voted for it-idiots!
As a measure to reduce smoking habits etc the smoking ban has been totally futile-congratulations to all those who voted for it-idiots!
Tobacco sales are up, smoker prevalence is up and tobacco shares are up-still at least local councils now have a safe haven for all their pension funds!
All that ever needed to happen was for licensees to have CHOICE-it's that thing that usually occurs in a democratic country. If there were choice, those who did not like the smell of tobacco smoke would have no need to enter a 'smoking pub/club'. Simples!
Mind you, that was too easy for highly intelligent MPs like Mr Flynn who feels that imposing his will on the people is of paramount importance!

[Charles]

Kay Tie. You speak of manners and decency, but you are the only one who is lacking in manners and decency.

[cirrusminor]

Kay Tie, I think we really need some empirical evidence of this tobacco smoke/urine-pouring equivalence you keep asserting. Tell you what - let's each take 10 random adult members of the public. I'll smoke a cigarette somewhere in the vicinity of my group, and you can tip urine over the heads of yours, and then we can report back with our findings.

[Kay Tie]

"All that ever needed to happen was for licensees to have CHOICE-it's that thing that usually occurs in a democratic country."

Democracy says that the majority - non-smokers - dictates to the minority - smokers. Which is what happened. Stop whining and give up smoking.

[Charles]

The majority of pub regulars were smokers before the ban, so the majority should prevail.

[Kay Tie]

"You speak of manners and decency, but you are the only one who is lacking in manners and decency."

What a topsy-turvy place Smoker's World is. Spreading disgusting carcinogenic substances on to clean people is considered good manners. Amazing!

Fortunately, Smoker's World has transformed to Smoker's Living Room and we don't have to suffer your ill manners any longer. Hooray!

[Charles]

Kat Tie. As the majority of regular pub goers were smokers, don't you agree that the majority should prevail?