Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[birchesgreen]

I don't believe anyone is suggesting that smoking be prohibited, just the retail sale. If you have them then you can smoke them.

Yes i believe that is the way it is implemented in NZ.

 

[ainsworth74]

This thread is a bit long for me to read - is there anyone in it defending the conservative party any more, just out of interest?

We definitely have one or two who float around, I won't name them as that might not be fair(!), but there's a couple and I think at least one of them is a paid up member of the Tory Party. They've all been fairly quiet around here lately though whether it's disaffection with their party or exhaustion at being a minority voice on the Forum I can't say.

 

[SynthD]

they will try to buy him off. Tram extensions etc ( which may well be his game plan with this)

A second set of tramlines to Manchester airport?

Right.

Comes across weak and unprincipled.

Too many in the Conservative Party criticise the front bench for their actions, but have an identical voting record. May and Stewart are perfect examples of this. If Street is placated by anything Sunak says then he’s a fool, or playing his electorate for fools.

So... people will start smoking in protest?

Yes, we’ve seen working class Tory/Republican voters choose all sorts of self damaging choices because the media told them too.

One problem with the policy that I haven’t seen discussed is the future impact on smokers wishing to move to the UK from abroad. Is our response that they have to either give up or not come?

Yes, follow the law of where you move to. American/Swiss/Czech gun owners don’t have special rights here.

I don’t believe smokers can be trusted to manage the second hand smoke they cause. Too many affect their children, some call it their right as a parent.

 

[ainsworth74]

I don't believe anyone is suggesting that smoking be prohibited, just the retail sale. If you have them then you can smoke them.

Yes it's less an outright ban and more an extra inconvenience. If you desperately want to smoke but are too young to buy them then go to France (other countries available) and buy a bucket load of cigarettes. Or more likely, and I suspect this is the hope, you'll take up vaping instead which isn't trouble free (we desperately need to outlaw disposable vapes, and tighten regulation on what goes into them for instance) but comes with far fewer health complications.

Too many in the Conservative Party criticise the front bench for their actions, but have an identical voting record. May and Stewart are perfect examples of this.

Though that is the nature of our system. If you want to be a Tory MP (or an MP of any other party) you have to vote with the Tory Whip most of the time and certainly on key (often controversial) votes. Someone like Rory Stewart of course did rebel on Brexit and had the whip removed by Boris Johnson as a result and you'll notice is no longer an MP. Rebelling against the party whip isn't a simple matter and can have significant consequences making it a difficult thing for an MP to do even if they personally don't support the policy in question or have issues with it.

It all flows back to the Constitutional issues that we face whereby the power of the MPs and thus Parliament is extremely constrained by the Executive and Government itself. Governments over a period of time have deliberately created a situation whereby the ability to rebel is quite limited as the Government and Party has tremendous power to punish and cajole MPs into line.

Even the very mechanism of how votes are conducted helps to enforce conformity. If you want to vote against the Government you have to physically walk into a separate lobby of Parliament away from your colleagues, who can see and speak to you as you do this with all the peer pressure that comes with, and walk through with the Opposition who themselves may not be all that welcoming to you.

I agree that the voting records of people like May and Stewart aren't always aligned with the values that they now state publicly but there's a lot more too it than just reading a voting record and saying "Well even though Theresa May says she doesn't like 'X' she spent 'Y' years voting for it therefore clearly it's just crocodile tears!" or similar.

 

[Howardh]

Where does it stop, after all? Should the individual have to pay privately for alcohol-related diseases? For diseases related to eating too much fatty foods or sugar? For cancer induced by sunburn? All these things were arguably "caused" by decisions made by the individual, but to me that seems a very brutal way of running things.

Often wondered that myself. I play hockey, now more occasionally than regular, and to play we need to pay subs to be covered by the club's insurers. I don't mind that, a lad collapsed last week and will be taking time off work; insurance should cover his lost wages but his treatment was on the NHS - and I don't think they can claim off the insurers.

So maybe there is a route to take financial pressure off the NHS by law insisting that risky or health-related activities should be individually insured, including driving. Against that is that smokers, drinkers, drivers etc pay a lot of tax on that, plus if working they pay NI stamps too.

What I don't get, I play or fun and to keep me healthy, but I have to be insured in case of a rare accident. Whereas the others (smokers/drinkers) are "deliberately" worsening* their health.

*I'll take the argument that a couple of glasses of red is good for the heart

But what would a PM do, if he insisted that you only got treated if insured, there would be few votes on it, so just tax them 'till they squeak. NHS is free for all at point of need, long may that continue. Although free dental care should be included, I pay a minimum of c.£25 for an annual check-up, more for treatment (private treatment doens't cost much more than the NHS!).

 

[Cdd89]

Yes, follow the law of where you move to. American/Swiss/Czech gun owners don’t have special rights here.

If this is such an easy law to comply with, why aren’t we banning it outright for all existing smokers? I think we both know the answer

 

[Gloster]

One thing that to me seems like a lie is the "meat tax" comment which has not come up on here yet:

Would Labour tax meat? And other Conservative claims checked

Checking Conservative conference claims on HS2, inflation, defence spending, fracking and more.

www.bbc.co.uk

Some nonentity and waste-of-space called Claire Coutinho, who I'd never even heard of until yesterday yet is apparently the energy secretary, said "It's no wonder Labour seems so relaxed about taxing meat".

Labour have not said they would do such a thing, indeed they have specifically said they would not do such a thing. On being quizzed later, she said it was "good to have a light moment in your speech".

Ha ha ha b****y ha. How can she get away with this? I do wonder whether there would be grounds for Labour to take her to court over what seems to me to be blatant lies. IANAL, but in my possibly naive opinion, it almost looks like it could be libel.

At the very least, she should be instantly sacked. The government should not be able to get away with spreading this kind of misinformation.

It was first mentioned by Sunak who claimed that the Conservatives weren’t going to do a number of things like taxing meat and flying, bringing in seven wheels bins and making car sharing compulsory car, all done with hints that they were Labour policy. None appear to be any party’s policy and most are no more than vague ideas odd people (in both ways, perhaps) have floated. There is a possibility that it allowed them to slide under the radar adjustments to policies on housing insulation that will save landlords money. How many Conservative MPs own rental property?

One problem with the policy that I haven’t seen discussed is the future impact on smokers wishing to move to the UK from abroad. Is our response that they have to either give up or not come?

Then they will have to adjust their lifestyle to fit with the norms and laws of our country, as we should do if we move to another country. This does not seem to be unreasonable to me and in this country we are, or at least were, fairly tolerant of what people do in private: we are not, for example, Iran. I may be well left of centre, but respecting the laws and standards of whichever country you are in seems to be the only reasonable thing to do.

 

[Cdd89]

Then they will have to adjust their lifestyle to fit with the norms and laws of our country, as we should do if we move to another country

So what I’m hearing from this is that foreign adults should be forced to quit smoking if they move here, whereas British adults should not.

 

[Howardh]

Just a note about the Metrolink going to Manchester Airport, I understand there are plans to extend it to T2 from it's current terminus at the station, which is some distance from T2 and T3 right now!

 

[GS250]

I'd expect the UK to ideologically become more conservative over the next few decades. The impact of migrants from Asia will influence this. I think the biggest misjudgement many have made is to assume that any non white migrant is a 'leftie'. Some are, but I'd say when it comes to traditional values of family and how society functions, many are actually very conservative.

The predictable clash of values during the last Football World Cup highlighted this. Yet previously the mantra was to tolerate views from other parts of the world without exception. Personally I think we've all been had over by the constant shoving of identity politics down our throats.

I'm pretty confident that we are going to end up with a Labour largest party. Fatigue of the government will surely kick into play here whether the Tories like it or not. I think many who usually quietly vote Tory will hold their nose and vote Labour.

Not so sure the 'red wall' will entirely revert though. That may well cost Labour a majority.

 

[SynthD]

Even the very mechanism of how votes are conducted helps to enforce conformity. If you want to vote against the Government you have to physically walk into a separate lobby of Parliament away from your colleagues, who can see and speak to you as you do this with all the peer pressure that comes with, and walk through with the Opposition who themselves may not be all that welcoming to you.

People who are swayed by peer pressure should be shamed publicly so the electorate can pick someone with a backbone.

If this is such an easy law to comply with, why aren’t we banning it outright for all existing smokers? I think we both know the answer

You should say the unspoken bit. The point others raised was not taking an existing right away from people here. The government has no legal or moral duty to maintain the rights of immigrants from what they enjoyed in their home country.

 

[ainsworth74]

So what I’m hearing from this is that foreign adults should be forced to quit smoking if they move here, whereas British adults should not.

Surely following the law of whatever country your visiting or moving to is just the way the world works? If you don't like a law of that country then you don't go there? I'm not sure why this is controversial? If this law comes into effect then people born after a certain point will no longer be able to buy cigarettes in the UK. Whether they be British or any other nationality that's just the way it will be. Should a British 18 year old be able to buy booze in the United States? After all they can in the UK but in the US they have to wait until 21.

People who are swayed by peer pressure should be shamed publicly so the electorate can pick someone with a backbone.

Right, and with regards to the other reasons why rebelling is quite a difficult thing for an MP to do?

 

[Cdd89]

Surely following the law of whatever country you’re visiting or moving to is just the way the world works? If you don't like a law of that country then you don't go there? I'm not sure why this is controversial?

Laws need to be considered in terms of their impacts; they don’t exist in a vacuum. For the same reason that many would see it as cruel to ban smoking outright, causing hardship to millions of UK smokers, I see it as cruel to do this to people who seek to move here from abroad.

Should a British 18 year old be able to buy booze in the United States? After all they can in the UK but in the US they have to wait until 21.

Yes, I disagree with that too. Rights should be granted when you’re an adult (18; although if someone wanted to change the age of majority up or down by a few years generally, I wouldn’t have a huge argument with them). That feels like a fairly basic and important point of principle to me.

However, 21 is close enough to 18 that the number of people impacted is very small. By contrast our policy will envelop increasingly large numbers of adults.

 

[Merle Haggard]

I have never smoked in my life (probably why I'm still here) but may I point out a tiny problem in shops being banned from selling cigarettes?
In my case, the only neighbour that smokes (and heavily) buys his supplies from a Facebook group page. Much cheaper than the local shops, and other good news is that they don't have a health warning (well, maybe the do - can't understand what it says on the packet )
Empirical research - by collecting discarded cigarette packets a few years ago - suggested that around half collected did not bear the mark that.U.K. tax had been paid, and therefore presumably not sold over the counter here.

 

[jon0844]

It must be easier than ever to smuggle cigarettes into the country.

I remember growing up in north London and most corner shops sold dodgy fags under the counter.

 

[Merle Haggard]

It must be easier than ever to smuggle cigarettes into the country.

Not sure since we left the EU but I think that many are brought in by regular travellers with Eastern Europe and are within their personal allowance, so no need to smuggle. Probably most don't smoke themselves...

 

[nw1]

So what I’m hearing from this is that foreign adults should be forced to quit smoking if they move here, whereas British adults should not.

Thinking about it, the strangest aspect of this law could be summarised as follows: 30 years time, two people from (say) France or the USA move here. One is 47, then other is 48. The latter can buy cigarettes and the former cannot. They will see it as bizarre, to put it mildly.

You could ban all smoking in public (including private properties to which the public have access) for anyone of any age, inside or outside. I suspect that would have more beneficial effects.

 

[SynthD]

I see it as cruel to do this to people who seek to move here from abroad.

What is the point in different countries and their sovereignty? Why is smoking the issue that prompts this, rather than free speech or national healthcare?

 

[nw1]

I'd expect the UK to ideologically become more conservative over the next few decades. The impact of migrants from Asia will influence this. I think the biggest misjudgement many have made is to assume that any non white migrant is a 'leftie'. Some are, but I'd say when it comes to traditional values of family and how society functions, many are actually very conservative.

Will it though? Given it seems to be a frequent observation that millennials are remaining liberal later in life compared to, say baby boomers and earlier, I wouldn't necessarily say this will happen.

I certainly hope not, anyway. Part of human progress should be to reject outdated ideas which marginalise sections of the population, and I would not like to see an increasing return to the bad old days.

 

[DC1989]

I'd expect the UK to ideologically become more conservative over the next few decades. The impact of migrants from Asia will influence this. I think the biggest misjudgement many have made is to assume that any non white migrant is a 'leftie'. Some are, but I'd say when it comes to traditional values of family and how society functions, many are actually very conservative.

The real reason they are letting in a million people a year?

 

[ainsworth74]

Laws need to be considered in terms of their impacts; they don’t exist in a vacuum. For the same reason that many would see it as cruel to ban smoking outright, causing hardship to millions of UK smokers, I see it as cruel to do this to people who seek to move here from abroad.

Cruel feels a bit strong? And it's not as if it's going to take them by surprise, if someone feels so strongly that they cannot get buy without smoking (or, more accurately, not buying cigarettes) if they visit or move to the UK then they have the choice to simply not visit or move to the UK. Considering the rates of smoking are declining all the time this doesn't feel like a particular issue.

Yes, I disagree with that too. Rights should be granted when you’re an adult (18; although if someone wanted to change the age of majority up or down by a few years generally, I wouldn’t have a huge argument with them). That feels like a fairly basic and important point of principle to me.

However, 21 is close enough to 18 that the number of people impacted is very small. By contrast our policy will envelop increasingly large numbers of adults.

My point being that your complaint appears to be that something that is legal in one country is a problem if it's made illegal in another. A British 18 year old can drink in the UK but couldn't in the US. I agree that 18 is a sensible age for that and the US is, as in so many ways, out of step by setting it at 21. But that is the law and it's their choice. I don't think it's "cruel" or "immoral" or anything else that a British 18 year old cannot drink whilst they're in the US.

 

[nlogax]

Laws need to be considered in terms of their impacts; they don’t exist in a vacuum. For the same reason that many would see it as cruel to ban smoking outright, causing hardship to millions of UK smokers, I see it as cruel to do this to people who seek to move here from abroad.

Uh.. no.

 

[Egg Centric]

If smoking is solely down to the individual, does that mean we can save the money the NHS would spend on treating related illnesses? It's up to the individual to pay privately for that?

I'd be careful with that argument. Even disregarding where it leads (let's ban horse riding?), with the current levels of cigarette taxation plus smokers' convenient habit of dying fairly quickly and being less likely to be obese, smoking is a massive net positive for the NHS.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I've never smoked - however I do believe smoking in a private place, without others around, is a personal choice (for adults) and trying to completely ban it (the stated aim) does indeed seem rather authoritarian. Controls on advertising and smoking in public places are sufficient measures - you want to prevent passive smoking but telling adults what they can and cannot do with their own body in their own private space is a bit too much.

I think the problem with seeing smoking as a private thing about what people can do with their own bodies comes some years later when the smoker goes to their GP with their medical problems - and the rest of us are then expected to pay - maybe £ thousands or tens of thousands through our taxes to deal with self-inflicted medical conditions that have been caused entirely by the person's decision to start smoking. And further when the smoker becomes unable to work and has to claim benefits - which again everyone else has to pay for - entirely as a result of their decision to smoke. Add to that the emotional pain and possible hardship caused to the smoker's friends and relatives when the smoker becomes very ill or dies.

I do actually agree with your philosophy to the extent that it's best to as far as possible to allow people the freedom to do whatever they want with their lives. But you also have to balance that by the fact that we live in a shared community and therefore we all have responsibility to think about the impact our actions have on other people. I'd view smoking as one of those things where the the indirect harm caused to other people is so great that interfering with peoples' freedom of choice by preventing them smoking is probably the least bad option.

Then separately there's the issue that many smokers themselves regret having started but then can't stop because it's addictive, so they may well themselves feel it would've been better if they'd been prevented from starting smoking in the first place. Freedom of choice becomes a tricky thing when something is addictive and therefore itself arguably makes people's choices less than free.

 

[najaB]

I've never smoked - however I do believe smoking in a private place, without others around, is a personal choice (for adults) and trying to completely ban it (the stated aim) does indeed seem rather authoritarian. Controls on advertising and smoking in public places are sufficient measures - you want to prevent passive smoking but telling adults what they can and cannot do with their own body in their own private space is a bit too much.

I haven't seen any proposal to ban smoking in private. I would be (mildly) opposed to that. The proposal is (AIUI) to simple extend the existing age-based restrictions on retail sale of tobacco products by increasing the age over time.

In other words: you smoke them if you've got them.

[You can ignore this post, for some reason I replied to a post from two or three pages back!]

 

[75A]

Not sure since we left the EU but I think that many are brought in by regular travellers with Eastern Europe and are within their personal allowance, so no need to smuggle. Probably most don't smoke themselves...

We haven't left the EU at all, drive for 3 miles down a local road here and you cross the border 4 times with no controls, so people of whatever age London determines will have no problems buying lung cancer.

 

[Typhoon]

Some nonentity and waste-of-space called Claire Coutinho, who I'd never even heard of until yesterday yet is apparently the energy secretary, said "It's no wonder Labour seems so relaxed about taxing meat".

I've heard Coutinho talked of as the 'outside' candidate in the next Leadership election, in the same way as Badenoch was last time (or was it time before), presumably on the grounds that, like you, few have heard of her so has no black maks against her name. I knew she had been given a cabinet post, I think she had previously held ministerial posts in the Treasury. I wouldn't recognise her.

I just wish all parties would try and stabilise teams so some sort of expertise is built up and so ministers wouldn't be caught out by the simplest of questions when interviewed.

Regarding the taxing of meat I assume she is basing it on the fact that they haven't said they wouldn't. There was something else they were going to tax the other day - no evidence. Why bother, enough of the media will lap it up.

Some of those Tories who Johnson kicked out prior to the 2019 election must now realise that it was a silver cloud as they don't have to defend this sort of nonsense.

 

[takno]

I don't believe anyone is suggesting that smoking be prohibited, just the retail sale. If you have them then you can smoke them.

Of course with drugs it's the supply-side where the real damage is done, so the fact that this law focuses only doing the damaging bit is even worse. Pulling people into criminality just to maintain obtuse and pointless laws which don't even realistically achieve anything at all is an insane way to run a country

It's all pretty moot anyway - I don't suppose they'll even get round to a vote, and if they do it won't win, and if did win it would likely get dumped shortly after Scotland had copied it, but before anybody actually got old enough to be affected

 

[thaitransit]

No idea how that government is still in power! I expect a massive landslide win by the opposition party.

 

[nw1]

I think the problem with seeing smoking as a private thing about what people can do with their own bodies comes some years later when the smoker goes to their GP with their medical problems - and the rest of us are then expected to pay - maybe £ thousands or tens of thousands through our taxes to deal with self-inflicted medical conditions that have been caused entirely by the person's decision to start smoking. And further when the smoker becomes unable to work and has to claim benefits - which again everyone else has to pay for - entirely as a result of their decision to smoke. Add to that the emotional pain and possible hardship caused to the smoker's friends and relatives when the smoker becomes very ill or dies.

I do actually agree with your philosophy to the extent that it's best to as far as possible to allow people the freedom to do whatever they want with their lives. But you also have to balance that by the fact that we live in a shared community and therefore we all have responsibility to think about the impact our actions have on other people. I'd view smoking as one of those things where the the indirect harm caused to other people is so great that interfering with peoples' freedom of choice by preventing them smoking is probably the least bad option.

Then separately there's the issue that many smokers themselves regret having started but then can't stop because it's addictive, so they may well themselves feel it would've been better if they'd been prevented from starting smoking in the first place. Freedom of choice becomes a tricky thing when something is addictive and therefore itself arguably makes people's choices less than free.

I see your argument and it's the same argument many make. However I do tend to disagree on the appropriateness of it. For one thing, is is it a slippery slope? Could the same arguments not potentially be used to ban alcohol, which can cause all manner of health problems? Similarly fatty or sugary food.