Saturday, 5 December 2009

Will Lansley Be Consistent?

Still catching up after a busy Friday, so thanks go to The Daily Politics for YouTubing Thursday night's Question Time. This snippet raised an eyebrow or two as the grown-up Puddlecotes enjoyed the weekly QT Chenin Blanc (from 4:18 in the above clip).

Andrew Lansley: "The job of all of us is to respect the views and the needs of minorities as much as we respect the view of a majority in a democracy."

Glad to hear it, Andrew, very glad.

The problem is that he doesn't appear to apply this excellent democratic outlook to the minority or the majority on certain issues, if Tim Montgomerie on Con Home is to be believed, after a poll found that a majority of Tim's blog members favoured choice for the minority with regard to the smoking ban.

My understanding, however, is that Shadow Health Secretary Andrew Lansley - a great believer in public health - does not want to return to the issue.

No. It would seem that the majority stamping all over an element of choice for the minority is perfectly acceptable to Lansley when it comes to the provision of separate smoking rooms, or any other compromise, for the 21% of adults who enjoy tobacco.

If Lansley truly believes that "The job of all of us is to respect the views and the needs of minorities", he would look at a way of amending the smoking ban should the 'shadow' be removed from his job title post-general election.

Unless only some minorities count, of course.


Frank Davis said...

Shows what a bunch of hypocrites they are.

Anonymous said...

At least he voted against the blanket smoking ban, unlike Mike Penning who said that he didn't want to ban anything, yet voted for a blanket ban.

Mark Wadsworth said...

In reply to the first question, no of course he f***ing well won't be.

Or was it a rhetorical question?

Anonymous said...

Now that both Labour and Tories
endorse segregation, prejudice,
bigotry,exclusion and intolerance
its has become much easier to incite hatred and attacks on Jews,
Homosexuals,Lesbians ,Coloureds and
the cripples. Lets be honest, if
an headcase sees his mother and grandma standing outside a bingo
hall getting pissed wet through, just because they smoke ,then
can you blame him for giving the
other minorities a bit of stick
Pandoros box is best left shut

Ex Tolerant

Anonymous said...

At one point I wondered if smokers had been deliberately set up as the acceptable objects of hatred du jour given that the political agenda, indeed, the law outlaws on grounds of race, religion or disability. Given Ex-tolerant's point then it might well be backfiring (another of those pesky unintended consequences).

What I'd like to see is an AGW- sceptic, anti-ban investigative journalist highlight, in the MSM, the parallels in dodgy 'science' and MO.

Wonder how the Gorgon's enjoying wonderful, wonderful Copenhagen...

banned said...

The only one who spoke honestly was the Moslem chap from Slough @5:00.
Andrew was wrong in fact when he stated that UK was " a much more diverse society than Switzerland ". About 10% of the Swiss population is foreign.

Junican said...

I am really pleased to see, Dick, that you have accepted something that I have been saying for months, and that is that we must change people's perception of smoking. The word 'smoker' has similar connotations to the word 'murderer' or 'killer'. We must stop using the word 'smoker' in our blogs. We must use the words 'a person who enjoys tobacco'. This can be shortened to the acronym PET - a Person who Enjoys Tobacco. The plural is PETS - People who Enjoy Tobacco. In that way, the nastiness conjured up by the word ASH can be countermanded by the softness of the word PET.

It is a small thing, but we know how important soundbites are - think of 'SMOKEFREE ENGLAND!' Doesn't that phrase have a resounding character?

As regards Lansley, he is just like all the other politicians - a sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal - not to be seriously believed.

Dick Puddlecote said...

FD: Goes without saying in this political climate, unfortunately.

MW: I think, subconsciously, it probably was, yes. :-(

Anon @ 20:43: "What I'd like to see is an AGW- sceptic, anti-ban investigative journalist highlight, in the MSM, the parallels in dodgy 'science' and MO."

I think we will be waiting a long time for that. I've thought the same, but irascible investigative journalists are very thin on the ground.

Junican: Hmm. A bit close to PETA's ludicrous Sea Kittens idea for my liking. ;-)

Pat Nurse said...

I don't agree, Junican. I am most definately a SmokER. If we don't align ourselves as a group, then the politicians don't see that the blanket smoking ban excludes a minority. A person who smokes can justifiably be asked to leave premises if someone doesn't like what they do. A smokER being asked to leave for who they are is discrimination.

I do agree, however, that something must be done to stop hate crimes against smokERs and equating them with murderers. That is what needs to change. SmokERs should not simply become people who like a smoke as much as other people like chocolate. That stance will lose us the argument that we have a right to be treated the same as everyone else.

Anonymous said...

Lansley is an ignorant thick two faced cunt.
He hasn't even a clue what an e-cigarette is and he thinks that you actually light it up and smoke it.
That's what he wrote to me when I asked if they were about to be banned as the antis may get upset if they saw someone using one.

Anonymous said...

I heard this comment by AL on Question Time and almost choked on my cup of tea.

The man is a 100% hypocrite and so are his 'team'.

Fair enough, he may have voted against the ban. He speaks for it now though as he has been indoctrinated into the PC correct and corrupt world of Westminster.

What they think now is what I will vote on, not what they did in the past.

AL and the tory leadership believe that the ban is wonderful. They believe the 17 and 40 figures that MSM embrace from the antis without question.

If they are so weak and so naive to believe it without question, then they can stew as far as I'm concerned.

They may get in at the next election, but they won't be there long if they refuse to listen to smokers, their partners, familes, friends, communties and businesses and favour the few hundred quangos instead.

I'm aware that many are voting Tory for a 'liberalisation' from the control that the state currently holds.

Personally, I'd go the full way and give the tories (as well as labour) a kick up the back-side and will vote BNP.

Let me smoke in my club - and I'll be happy - BTW, I've never voted in my life, but will do this time.

Working Class Man

Junican said...

@ Pat Nurse.

What I am saying is that DP used the phrase, "a person who enjoys tobacco". This phrase is similar to the phrase, "a person who enjoys chocolate". But, there is no equivalent word for a person who enjoys chocolate (eg. 'chocolater') as there is with the word 'smoker'. The nearest that I can think of is 'chocaholic' - but that is an entirely different thing.

'A person who enjoys tobacco' is a free person amusing himself in his own way. He is not 'A SMOKER!'