UKIP leader Farage backs new freedom to smoke campaign

mkpdavies · 12-02-2007, 11:01 AM

I'm pretty good as spotting a troll or a fascist. Not sure about witches though.

andypandy · 12-02-2007, 11:15 AM

Ok, Troll-Finder General? You would have your work cut-out in the ranks of UKIP I dare say?

You should stop looking for ghosts and goblins and things that go bump in the night, and concentrate on the real cultural poltergeists that continue to wreck the individuality of the nation state.

Millennium3 · 12-02-2007, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B.A.Ware

This is a sensible policy from UKIP what they should add to it is that all pubs should meet strict air quality measures on health and safety grounds with proper air movement systems this would protect staff and non-smokers alike.

Looks like we are getting some free publicity out of it.

http://www.freedom2choose.co.uk/news_viewer.php?id=117

Quote:

UKIP Announces Support for F2C

One of our members, Tony Blows, a publican in Hereford, has been a member of UKIP for several years. He recently wrote to his local office highlighting our campaign and as a result, received a call from the Party Chairman expressing interest. Today we received a call from one of the UKIP MEPs who was pleased to announce that Nigel Farage would be very happy to support us.

Many of our members had written to various Tory MPs seeking the party view on the smoking ban but despite David Cameron's assurances that his party did not agree with 'banning things', he has said nothing to gain our confidence that they would seek to revisit the question in their next election manifesto.

Well, they had their chance - they blew it - so now we would urge all members (licensees in particular) to take a look at what UKIP have to offer for the future and perhaps join the party. Help them to help us, so to speak. A few of our members have already joined tonight, myself included.

It was gratifying to see that they did not let the grass grow under their feet and their pledge to support us could be seen on their website by this afternoon. Talks between us will continue and we will keep everyone posted on progress. In the meantime, read the declaration of their support on the UKIP website....

Considering the speed at which F2C have decided to support UKIP, surely it is time for UKIP to review the policies of other pressure groups and small parties to see if some alliance is not possible - the ED's do look an obvious choice.

NF has focused on the old 'right' of the Tory Party - if we got all of these we would be lucky to get 10% of the vote - not enough for a single seat at Westminster. Is it really worth going to all this effort just to ensure the Tories cannot be elected - for that is exactly what the current strategy will yield!

KeithW · 12-02-2007, 05:01 PM

As someone who thinks Nigel Farage talks a great deal of sense most of of the time I am disappointed to read of his support for F2C. In view of some of the comments expressed on this forum I would like to add a few of my own.

First of all the government does not make a huge amount from smokers. HMRC collects about £385 billion a year of which £8 billion comes from tobacco duty or two percent. Smoking related diseases cost the NHS around £1.5 billion, moreover 34 million working days are lost.

Unusually for this Labour Government this is one piece of leglislation that actually has the overwhelming support of public opinion. Yet some on this forum see the measure as "fascist". On the contrary I just wish the government paid as much respect to public opinion on immigration, the EU and law order and much more.

Clearly the voters UKIP is most likely to target (and hopefully win over) are Conservatives. These will likely be middle class, often professional people. These people are also the least likely to smoke and there is good evidence to back this up. For example, in my local Bradford newspaper, a few months back, a survey was carried out to determine the percentage of smokers in each of the 30 wards that make up the council. The wards where the highest percentage of people smoked were poor inner city wards (as high as 39% in one). The wards where the lowest percentage of people who smoked lived were the prosperous Tory wards with Ilkey scoring just 16%. The people most likely to smoke are often the ones least likely to vote and if they do it will for Labour because they are on benefits.

This leglislation does not stop those people who wish to poisan themselves with nicotine if they want. It only helps prevent them poisaning others.

It seems to me that some on this forum regard the lives of bar staff as less important than other workers. I think most people would agree that employers have a duty to health and safety standards. Many people have to take whatever work they can get in this overtaxed, ridiculously expensive country.

Many employers are still forcing people to work in smoky amospheres and will do so until July 1st.

If Nigel Farage and UKIP really want to help smokers then there really is something positive they could do.

Today, Patricia Hewitt, the Health Secretary, has given her blessing to the policy of denying operations to smokers until they kick the habit.

Now I think this really is a step too far - Hewitt should be opposed and UKIP could help defeat her.

This-England · 12-02-2007, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KeithW

As someone who thinks Nigel Farage talks a great deal of sense most of of the time I am disappointed to read of his support for F2C. In view of some of the comments expressed on this forum I would like to add a few of my own.

First of all the government does not make a huge amount from smokers. HMRC collects about £385 billion a year of which £8 billion comes from tobacco duty or two percent. Smoking related diseases cost the NHS around £1.5 billion, moreover 34 million working days are lost.

Unusually for this Labour Government this is one piece of leglislation that actually has the overwhelming support of public opinion. Yet some on this forum see the measure as "fascist". On the contrary I just wish the government paid as much respect to public opinion on immigration, the EU and law order and much more.

Clearly the voters UKIP is most likely to target (and hopefully win over) are Conservatives. These will likely be middle class, often professional people. These people are also the least likely to smoke and there is good evidence to back this up. For example, in my local Bradford newspaper, a few months back, a survey was carried out to determine the percentage of smokers in each of the 30 wards that make up the council. The wards where the highest percentage of people smoked were poor inner city wards (as high as 39% in one). The wards where the lowest percentage of people who smoked lived were the prosperous Tory wards with Ilkey scoring just 16%. The people most likely to smoke are often the ones least likely to vote and if they do it will for Labour because they are on benefits.

This leglislation does not stop those people who wish to poisan themselves with nicotine if they want. It only helps prevent them poisaning others.

It seems to me that some on this forum regard the lives of bar staff as less important than other workers. I think most people would agree that employers have a duty to health and safety standards. Many people have to take whatever work they can get in this overtaxed, ridiculously expensive country.

Many employers are still forcing people to work in smoky amospheres and will do so until July 1st.

If Nigel Farage and UKIP really want to help smokers then there really is something positive they could do.

Today, Patricia Hewitt, the Health Secretary, has given her blessing to the policy of denying operations to smokers until they kick the habit.

Now I think this really is a step too far - Hewitt should be opposed and UKIP could help defeat her.

Good post.

mkpdavies · 12-02-2007, 05:24 PM

You want to force a pub owner to ban a legal activity in his own pub, owned by him, run by him.

So now the pub owner has no choice, while workers before had the choice of whether to take advantage of his employment or not.

The thin end of the wedge on the slippary slope to full on fascism.

I hope it is something that you enjoy doing that is banned in your own home next.

KeithW · 12-02-2007, 08:15 PM

There was nothing at all in my comments that could realistictally be construed as fascistic.

If we had government by referenda like the Swiss do this public smoking ban would have been overwhelmingly carried. However if any such referendum was to be held in this country and it went the other way I would accept the democratic decision.

No law is perfect – I think we could all agree on that

I simply want every employer to ensure that all employees have a safe working environment. Imposing such laws on employers is nothing new. I guess some people might like to get rid of all health and safety legislation and use the excuse that any employee that doesn’t like the terms and conditions can lump it.

As for banning something that I enjoy doing in my own home. The public smoking ban will not, as far as I know, affect people smoking in their homes. This legislation is about smoking in public.

Finally I think it is worth noting that the EU in it’s obsession with equality, human rights and political correctness has left out a rather large minority out – smokers! I understand that employers will have the right not to employ anyone that smokes and dismiss anyone that does – even if they just smoke outside workplace hours. This strikes me as wrong but I understand it really is on the cards. I suggest UKIP would be make itself rather more popular opposing this than a popular public smoking ban!

mkpdavies · 12-02-2007, 08:25 PM

Quote:

As for banning something that I enjoy doing in my own home. The public smoking ban will not, as far as I know, affect people smoking in their homes. This legislation is about smoking in public.

A pub can be and often is a persons own home. The person chooses to let people who want to come in and buy drinks, come in and buy drinks.

If people don't like the rules of his house, don't go in. Same for people who might be tempted to try for one of the jobs he/she is offering.

If it was a publically owned pub (IE shareholder owned), then you may have a case.

Quote:

If we had government by referenda like the Swiss do this public smoking ban would have been overwhelmingly carried. However if any such referendum was to be held in this country and it went the other way I would accept the democratic decision.

Why would anyone want a referendum on what private indivuals do and allow in their own property?

Quote:

I simply want every employer to ensure that all employees have a safe working environment.

I would say yes to that for publically owned companies. Otherwise I would like to see some self responsibilty restored. You think the little pub is not providing adequate conditions, you either ask if they will, or go elsewhere. Why should that person cater for your desires in his own place?

This-England · 12-02-2007, 08:37 PM

Quote:

I simply want every employer to ensure that all employees have a safe working environment.

I must say that’s best argument yet against smoking in pubs.
My arguments where not based on a moral principle of freedom but on a realistic point of people power.
However this takes it to a Libertarian argument level.
Should pub workers be exposed to other peoples smoke?

mkpdavies · 12-02-2007, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Should pub workers be exposed to other peoples smoke?

They won't be if they don't take the job. Their choice.

12-02-2007, 11:01 AM	#41 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 32,078 Party: Libertarian Party	I'm pretty good as spotting a troll or a fascist. Not sure about witches though. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Lib Dems

12-02-2007, 05:01 PM	#44 (permalink)
KeithW Newbie Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 8	Supporting F2C - Not a good idea! As someone who thinks Nigel Farage talks a great deal of sense most of of the time I am disappointed to read of his support for F2C. In view of some of the comments expressed on this forum I would like to add a few of my own. First of all the government does not make a huge amount from smokers. HMRC collects about £385 billion a year of which £8 billion comes from tobacco duty or two percent. Smoking related diseases cost the NHS around £1.5 billion, moreover 34 million working days are lost. Unusually for this Labour Government this is one piece of leglislation that actually has the overwhelming support of public opinion. Yet some on this forum see the measure as "fascist". On the contrary I just wish the government paid as much respect to public opinion on immigration, the EU and law order and much more. Clearly the voters UKIP is most likely to target (and hopefully win over) are Conservatives. These will likely be middle class, often professional people. These people are also the least likely to smoke and there is good evidence to back this up. For example, in my local Bradford newspaper, a few months back, a survey was carried out to determine the percentage of smokers in each of the 30 wards that make up the council. The wards where the highest percentage of people smoked were poor inner city wards (as high as 39% in one). The wards where the lowest percentage of people who smoked lived were the prosperous Tory wards with Ilkey scoring just 16%. The people most likely to smoke are often the ones least likely to vote and if they do it will for Labour because they are on benefits. This leglislation does not stop those people who wish to poisan themselves with nicotine if they want. It only helps prevent them poisaning others. It seems to me that some on this forum regard the lives of bar staff as less important than other workers. I think most people would agree that employers have a duty to health and safety standards. Many people have to take whatever work they can get in this overtaxed, ridiculously expensive country. Many employers are still forcing people to work in smoky amospheres and will do so until July 1st. If Nigel Farage and UKIP really want to help smokers then there really is something positive they could do. Today, Patricia Hewitt, the Health Secretary, has given her blessing to the policy of denying operations to smokers until they kick the habit. Now I think this really is a step too far - Hewitt should be opposed and UKIP could help defeat her.

12-02-2007, 05:24 PM	#46 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 32,078 Party: Libertarian Party	You want to force a pub owner to ban a legal activity in his own pub, owned by him, run by him. So now the pub owner has no choice, while workers before had the choice of whether to take advantage of his employment or not. The thin end of the wedge on the slippary slope to full on fascism. I hope it is something that you enjoy doing that is banned in your own home next. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Lib Dems

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

12-02-2007, 11:15 AM	#42 (permalink)
andypandy Senior Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 880	Ok, Troll-Finder General? You would have your work cut-out in the ranks of UKIP I dare say? You should stop looking for ghosts and goblins and things that go bump in the night, and concentrate on the real cultural poltergeists that continue to wreck the individuality of the nation state.

12-02-2007, 08:15 PM	#47 (permalink)
KeithW Newbie Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 8	There was nothing at all in my comments that could realistictally be construed as fascistic. If we had government by referenda like the Swiss do this public smoking ban would have been overwhelmingly carried. However if any such referendum was to be held in this country and it went the other way I would accept the democratic decision. No law is perfect – I think we could all agree on that I simply want every employer to ensure that all employees have a safe working environment. Imposing such laws on employers is nothing new. I guess some people might like to get rid of all health and safety legislation and use the excuse that any employee that doesn’t like the terms and conditions can lump it. As for banning something that I enjoy doing in my own home. The public smoking ban will not, as far as I know, affect people smoking in their homes. This legislation is about smoking in public. Finally I think it is worth noting that the EU in it’s obsession with equality, human rights and political correctness has left out a rather large minority out – smokers! I understand that employers will have the right not to employ anyone that smokes and dismiss anyone that does – even if they just smoke outside workplace hours. This strikes me as wrong but I understand it really is on the cards. I suggest UKIP would be make itself rather more popular opposing this than a popular public smoking ban!