A big test for Cameron’s “Big Society” mantra
David Nuttall, Tory MP for Bury North has tabled a 10-Minute Rule Motion to amend the smoking ban which will be presented after Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday 13th October.
It’s a crying shame that this initiative has been siezed by a Conservative MP – not a Liberal. As has been said before, as a party we are in serious danger of being “boxed-in” by the Tories as the party of “wet-lefties” rather than the natural home of liberalism. If left unchecked, this will be a political disaster for the Liberal party’s future, but probably what we deserve, if we don’t pull their finger out.
(And if you listen to what David Nuttall MP sites as his reason for putting forward his motion – it’s actually “localism” -another Liberal watch-word that is being gobbled up by our coalition partners).
Considering the motion itself ….If David Cameron is serious about “the Big Society” then David Nuttall’s motion will receive wide-spread support from the Tory-side of the coalition. After all, as far as I can tell, treating people like grown ups, getting Big Government out of people’s lives, and in this instance giving responsibility back to the landlords is surely at the very heart of this particular Tory “idea”. As for the Liberals … there can surely only be one response… big fat resounding support .
We will be watching………
You can get involved with the “save our pubs and clubs” campaign here.
October 12th, 2010 at 4:32 am
Any party that forces prohibition upon the people should be shot imediately! We killed off the nazis once,why are we suffering them yet again!
October 12th, 2010 at 10:52 am
The smoking ban was introduced to protect non-smokers from the so called harm from second hand smoke. Pubs that do not employ any staff should therefore be able to allow smoking inside if the publican so wishes (as in Holland) and those that have only staff that smoke.
The smoking ban has been very costly. Publicans and the Government have lost millions in revenue and over 100,000 hospitality staff have been made unemployed.
October 12th, 2010 at 1:35 pm
Dearyme – I’m surprised at the surprise expressed that the junior coalition party has taken so long to realise that the Tories will gobble-up everything they can use from them and discard wet liberalism aspects which will cut little ice with voters at the next GE.
However, looking at the comments made I wonder how many pubs we have in the UK that only has a landlord working there.
On the question of only employing smoking staff you appear to have lost sight of their ‘rights’ not to be exposed to dangerous levels of passive smoking on top of their personal consumption.
The other problem for staff, compounded by the current economic situation and rising joblessness, is the pressure to just accept in silence what their employer wants or lose their job.
I don’t think anyone can argue that smokers cost the NHS and employers billions a year and in this time of savage cuts then surely it is acceptable and desirable to cut the cancer, respiratory and BP illness rates caused by direct and indirect smoke inhalation.
And the call that: ‘Any party that forces prohibition upon the people should be shot immediately’ and comparing them to nazis is not only ridiculous but in extreme bad taste. No doubt the poster thinks speed limits, wearing crash helmets, prohibiting alcohol and cigarette sales to children, prosecuting drug dealers and a million and one other positive prohibitions should be swept away.
I don’t follow the argument on the cost of the smoking ban – the main problem facing pubs is a change in society habits. People don’t go to pubs the way they used to partly because it is too expensive and partly because younger people go out a lot later at night and tens to head for clubs.
More and more drinking is done at home which means a loss in turnover for pubs but increased sales for supermarkets and overall I doubt if there is any loss in alcohol duty for the Government.
Some pubs have benefitted with the smoking ban and more people – especially non smokers – are eating out in pubs when they would never have previously contemplated this.
It’s so easy to throw out simplistic comments but often issues are not only very complex but bound up with separate issues which may often not be obvious at the outset.
For example, society no longer accepting drink driving means that to get to many pubs you have to use taxis or designated drivers.
The economic cutbacks has seen a cut in a lot of peoples’ expense accounts or company spending on entertainemt so all the problems of the financial viability of pubs can’t be laid at the door of the smoking ban.
October 12th, 2010 at 1:54 pm
Perhaps youd read this kind sir…….and as far as your rediculous claim that smokers working in pubs would further harm themselves from second hand smoke within the pub,is further insanity on your part….its been established that non-smokers within a bar pub whatever inside establishment do not get more than the equivalent of 1 cig per year…..even bartenders dosed maybe 6-9 cigs per year according to oak ridge laboratories after a 3 year study with bartenders and staff wearing nicotine exposure badges……add in that OSHA the us govmnts dept in charge of indoor air will not make a rule against indoor smoking because nothing in it reaches any level of harm to humans,children,animals or even your plants…….in fact tobacco smoke in the home has been shown to be protective against atopy in children and adult smokers themselves…..even preventing asthma.
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, Vol. 14, No. 1. (August 1991), pp. 88-105.
Abstract
Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is derived from cigarette smoldering and active smoker exhalation. Its composition displays broad quantitative differences and redistributions between gas and respirable suspended particulate (RSP) phases when compared with the mainstream smoke (MSS) that smokers puff. This is because of different generation conditions and because ETS is diluted and ages vastly more than MSS. Such differences prevent a direct comparison of MSS and ETS and their biologic activities. However, even assuming similarities on an equal mass basis, ETS-RSP inhaled doses are estimated to be between 10,000- and 100,000-fold less than estimated average MSS-RSP doses for active smokers. Differences in effective gas phase doses are expected to be of similar magnitude. Thus the average person exposed to ETS would retain an annual dose analogous to the active MSS smoking of considerably less than one cigarette dispersed over a 1-year period. By contrast, consistent epidemiologic data indicate that active smoking of some 4–5 cigarettes per day may not be associated with a significantly increased risk of lung cancer. Similar indications also obtain for cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. Since average doses of ETS to nonsmoking subjects in epidemiologic studies are several thousand times less than this reported intake level, the marginal relative risks of lung cancer and other diseases attributed to ETS in some epidemiologic studies are likely to be statistical artifacts, derived from unaccounted confounders and unavoidable bias.
http://www.citeulike.org/user/vmarthia/article/7458828
Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)…It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded.” -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec’y, OSHA
Hitler was a Leftist
Hitler’s Anti-Tobacco Campaign
http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id1.html
October 12th, 2010 at 6:19 pm
John: You lost all credibility when you said this:
“I don’t think anyone can argue that smokers cost the NHS and employers billions a year”
Only if you did equations at school with only one side.
October 13th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
David Nuttall’s Ten Minute Rule Bill to have the smoking ban amended so that private clubs and pubs would allow smoking, if they wanted it, has sadly just been shot down in the Commons. But the result of ayes 86, noes 141 shows the growing popularity for such an idea. This was a mere lone backbencher’s campaign thrown together hastily on the luck of a draw. With a coordinated movement within the coalition who knows what could happen…
http://order-order.com/2010/10/13/smoking-ban-amendment-defeated-but/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+guidofawkes+%28Guy+Fawkes%27+blog+of+parliamentary+plots%2C+rumours+and+conspiracy%29