Yes I heard that Blair and Hewitt actually voted against their own legislation.. you couldn't make it up. Anyway whatever.. those two are muppets of the highest order but in the end I believe the right thing has been achieved.
Vote on smoking ban in public places
- Thread starter benjo plz.
- Start date
What was the goverment line?
The initial compromise proposal was touted - after a consultation it was deemed to have considerable complications and so an amendment was tabled to allow MPs to vote for a full ban - a free vote.
So wasn't the 'government line' therefore - here's the 3 options, vote for what you think would be best.
How can you go 'against' that line?
The initial compromise proposal was touted - after a consultation it was deemed to have considerable complications and so an amendment was tabled to allow MPs to vote for a full ban - a free vote.
So wasn't the 'government line' therefore - here's the 3 options, vote for what you think would be best.
How can you go 'against' that line?
I don't see it as a big deal or evidence of 'flip-flopping' (hehe) that another option is introduced which MPs then find preferable though, particularly when, after the introduction of the initial option, a consultation revealed a host of problems in enforcing the original proposal.dirtydog said:
Seems sensible to me rather than going against the government line :shrug:
reflex said:
You don't notice the smell, so when you get home after a night out you don't put all of your clothes in the washing basket as they just ming of smoke! Most of the times I actually put them straight in the wash as otherwise it makes the whole room start to smell.
HEADRAT
Visage said:
The end result is not a bad thing, I agree. I don't believe that they really changed their minds though, they just realised they were going to lose so got on the winning side, so to speak. Their judgement was wrong in the first place.
Perhaps it was all a cunning ploy and they wanted the total ban in the first place but at the time deemed it politically unacceptable.
1. Soften up the public by introducing a watered-down ban with caveats and exemptions.
2. Make a big deal about the complications it would entail.
3. Introduce much 'simpler' total ban.
4. Public go for it as it sounds better than the previous proposal.
Trés cunning, hell if I can think of it I'm sure a politician ('s advisor..) can
1. Soften up the public by introducing a watered-down ban with caveats and exemptions.
2. Make a big deal about the complications it would entail.
3. Introduce much 'simpler' total ban.
4. Public go for it as it sounds better than the previous proposal.
Trés cunning, hell if I can think of it I'm sure a politician ('s advisor..) can
Last edited:
Rich_L said:
Fine but a consultation wasn't really needed was it? It was blindingly obvious to any reasonably intelligent person who'd given the subject five minutes' thought that the government's original plan was flawed and would be very hard to implement. Yet Blair and Hewitt wanted to push on anyway. We've only got to where we are today because they realised they would lose a vote (even under a government whip) on the original plan. So they decided to get on the winning side as it is less humiliating to do a U-turn than it is to lose a vote, and be forced into the same U-turn anyway.
But I agree that it isn't a big deal, I don't really care about any of that - I'm just saying
Let's at least understand what really happened here.Maybe we'll also get less fag butts littering the streets even though every smoker you ever speak to always swears that they put them in the bin and don't flick them out of cars.
Obviously just another part of the conspiracy against smokers, there is a secret group littering the streets with fag butts.
HEADRAT
Obviously just another part of the conspiracy against smokers, there is a secret group littering the streets with fag butts.
HEADRAT
Rich_L said:Perhaps it was all a cunning ploy and they wanted the total ban in the first place but at the time deemed it politically unacceptable.
1. Soften up the public by introducing a watered-down ban with caveats and exemptions.
2. Make a big deal about the complications it would entail.
3. Introduce much 'simpler' total ban.
4. Public go for it as it sounds better than the previous proposal.
Trés cunning
Or not
Meh who knows.. you could be right but I'm not convinced that it happened like that 
There are 10 people in a flat. One of them plays really really loud music, disturbing the others...
"Will you not turn your music down? We find it inconvinient"
"Go somewhere else! Its not my problem, you don't have to live in this flat! I have my rights you know!"
"Yes, we could move elsewhere, but its an awefully huge hassel when you could just turn you music down isn't it?"
"Still not my problem"
TBQH.
Also, I asked around 17 people today what they thought. 5 were smokers. Every single one agreed...
"Will you not turn your music down? We find it inconvinient"
"Go somewhere else! Its not my problem, you don't have to live in this flat! I have my rights you know!"
"Yes, we could move elsewhere, but its an awefully huge hassel when you could just turn you music down isn't it?"
"Still not my problem"
TBQH.
Also, I asked around 17 people today what they thought. 5 were smokers. Every single one agreed...
Bigstan said:^^
Good post
Not everybody.
I will always view this legislation as an unnecessary curtailment of my civil liberties - a total ban is unnecessary and ill-thought out and I will always despise this government for inconveniencing me and my fellow smokers simply because they were too lazy to think it through properly.
Stan
And you don't think that this whole time non-smokers have been inconvenienced by your fellow smokers? Come off it.
This is excellent news, I used to smoke for about 8years (packed in 10 years ago). It now means i can go out to pubs and clubs without struggling to breath and comming in stinking like an ash tray
Like Chris Moyels said this morning we will look back in years to come and won't beleive that resturants etc. used to let people smoke while others were eating.
Like Chris Moyels said this morning we will look back in years to come and won't beleive that resturants etc. used to let people smoke while others were eating.
NokkonWud said:
At last; someone who the law was brought in for; not the whining non smoking public but the people who work in pubs etc.
Anyway, back to the spurious argument ....... It's interesting, that where the ban is already in force (NYC, Dublin etc) .... when the pariahs goes out for a smoke many non smokers follow them ... go figure.