Vote on smoking ban in public places

dirtydog · 15 Feb 2006 at 13:22

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.

Rich_L · 15 Feb 2006 at 13:28

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?

dirtydog · 15 Feb 2006 at 13:33

The government's originally preferred option.

reflex · 15 Feb 2006 at 13:36

Makes me laugh that its such a big issue in peoples life. I dont smoke, i dont care if someone smokes near me, i dont notice the smell and think theres far far worse issues that need to be sorted.

Visage · 15 Feb 2006 at 13:38

dirtydog said:
The government's originally preferred option.

So Blair and Co changing their mind in the face of public opinion is a Bad Thing?

Rich_L · 15 Feb 2006 at 13:39

dirtydog said:
The government's originally preferred option.

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.

Seems sensible to me rather than going against the government line :shrug:

HEADRAT · 15 Feb 2006 at 13:39

reflex said:
i dont notice the smell

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

dirtydog · 15 Feb 2006 at 13:39

reflex said:
i dont notice the smell

I think you must be in a minority there.

dirtydog · 15 Feb 2006 at 13:41

Visage said:
So Blair and Co changing their mind in the face of public opinion is a Bad Thing?

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.

Rich_L · 15 Feb 2006 at 13:44

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

dirtydog · 15 Feb 2006 at 13:44

Rich_L said:
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.

Seems sensible to me rather than going against the government line :shrug:

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.

HEADRAT · 15 Feb 2006 at 13:45

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

dirtydog · 15 Feb 2006 at 13:46

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

R4z0r · 15 Feb 2006 at 14:05

cleanbluesky said:
Stay out of the pub! If going into pubs is that much hassle, stay out. That or its not really an issue is it.

If not being able to smoke in a pub is such an issue, stay out. That or its not really an issue is it?

Nitefly · 15 Feb 2006 at 14:41

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...

Nix · 15 Feb 2006 at 14:51

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.

Sleepy · 15 Feb 2006 at 14:58

Nitefly said:
There are 10 people in a flat.

Really bad analogy try again.

pumaz · 15 Feb 2006 at 15:04

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.

Nitefly · 15 Feb 2006 at 15:05

Sleepy said:
Really bad analogy try again.

Why is it bad? Sums up exactly what I think.

singist · 15 Feb 2006 at 15:24

NokkonWud said:
I am ecstatic, I work in a club behind the bar and it really REALLY annoys me, I am really looking forward to being able to go out and come back NOT smelling of smoke.

Superb!

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.