Wednesday 22 June 2011

Prepare For Ten Minutes Of Naked Statism

Today, a nasty little statist will stand up in Westminster and fight for the right to criminalise you for enjoying a legal product in your own property.

Alex Cunningham - a right royal arrogant twerp from Stockton - is presenting a ten minute rule bill this afternoon arguing for a ban on smoking in private cars.

It's scheduled, as is usual, for immediately after PMQs at 12:30pm and should be available to view live here.

He's extremely proud of himself for this, so he is. So much so that he placed his pompous 'arris on an ITV TyneTees couch on Thursday to be grilled by jaw-droppingly inept local presenter, Gerry Foley. The 'hard talk' went something like this.

GF: "So, Alex. You want to ban smoking in cars."
AC: "Yes, I do, I was approached by the British Lung Foundation to do so and I'm a hideous authoritarian, so I jumped at the chance."
GF: "I'm going to put you on the spot here, but do you think smokers should be flayed humanely, or just be shot with dum-dum bullets?"
AC: "Yes, you're right Gerry, they're a stain on humanity and I want to take control of their property. Screw their rights is what I say."
GF: "Cheers, Alex. Now, onto Ed Balls, how bloody great is HE!"
Not verbatim, obviously, but sadly the link to the programme is now dead so I had to paraphrase.

Anyway, it'll be interesting to see if - just as with Kevin Barron back in October - Cunningham pumps out the usual anti-tobacco fabrications as he reveals himself to be the very worst kind of self-important dictator. I'll be keeping a particular eye out for the 17% heart attacks lie, and the completely fictitious '23 times more toxic' codswallop.

There's more about this at Taking Liberties ... and just look who's going to be speaking against the bill.

God speed, Philip, me old china.

UPDATE: The bill was passed by 78 votes to 66, by no means a strong majority so that should be the end of that. For now, at least. If you missed the whole thing, it's now available to view at this BBC link.


Anonymous said...

He wants to ban smoking in cars "where children are present". I'm undecided as to whether ASH etc would be pleased, or see this creating a fairly stable position from where it would be more difficult to move forward and ban smoking in all cars, which we know is what they want.
One of the principles of the war on tobacco is to avoid reaching a position of stable equilibrium. For example, allowing pubs under a certain area to go smoking or non smoking would be a stable equilibrium.

Smoking Hot said...

Good ole Phil ... had a go at ASH too. :)

Dick Puddlecote said...

Yes. Played his hand well, I thought. Cunningham looked like a slimy weasel throughout the whole thing, far from the arrogance shown with his lapdog local presenter the other day.

Anonymous said...

So does this mean that banning smoking in cars will now become law and when does this ban come into effect?

Dick Puddlecote said...

No, Anon, it's going to die a quiet death for now like the overwhelming majority of rule bills do. As the BBC write-up beneath the video says, without government support it has no chance.

Mr A said...

Is there a list of the autocratic Nazis who voted for it? I have a pile of envelopes and rather loose bowels at present and don't want to waste any of it.

James Burr said...

Phil grows in my estimations the more I see of him. Shame he seems alone in having brains, common sense and principles.

Mr A said...

Just seen the actual speeches. Do you think Phil actually reads your blog? He seems remarkably well-informed on tobacco science (and the Machiavellian nature of ASH) for an MP. Damn good show. Always good to see ASH get it, even if it it's sadly all too rare. But this unfortunately shows where democracy falls down. He proves (with sourced evidence) that passive smoking is harmless, most smokers don't smoke in cars with kids anyway, and then also highlights the private property/freedom issues as well as the distorted nature of the other side's evidence. And what happens? They vote for it anyway. Just who do these people think they are representing - that is their job, after all. And if I ever found out which (undoubtedly Labour) gimp shouted, "What about the cheeeldren?" after Phil presented his long list of evidence (or the ones who jeered when he mentioned the word "freedom", anathema to lefties, I know, but still) I'll be looking for a suitable lamp post ASAP.

Anonymous said...

I have just posted an item on Subrosa regarding this matter. It was during watching this debate that the thought struck me. The thought was:


The 'one horse race' allows the most ridiculous acts - such as the emptying of a reservoir because a person peed in it. It also allows the Royal College of Psychiatrists to come out with the most abject nonsense regarding old people's drinking habits.

In the 'one horse race', you cannot lose a bet.

"Think of the children!"