« Bite on the side | Main | Women, poor things, so easily influenced »
Thursday
Apr252013

Peter Kellner, YouGov and tobacco control

Peter Kellner, President of YouGov, the "independent" polling company, has just sent this message from the company's email address:

Update: scroll to the end for the perfect riposte. See also Chris Snowdon on the same subject, Peter Kellner can't keep quiet.

Cigarette packets: the case for a new law
Let me declare my interest at the outset. ASH, the anti-smoking campaign, is a client of YouGov; I am also a trustee. So, for once, this blog goes beyond data analysis. It includes YouGov research, but also sets out my personal views.

The reason for doing this now is that government ministers are finalising their plans for next month’s Queen’s Speech. This is when we shall find out which new laws they propose. One of the candidates is a bill to require tobacco manufacturers to sell cigarettes standard, olive-coloured packs with prominent health warnings. The brand name would be printed in modest, standard type. The days of bright, eye-catching packs would be over.

This is an example of what the new packs could look like:

The thinking behind the new law is that it would be a logical extension of reforms over the past 15 years – the ban on cigarette advertising, the banning of smoking in offices, pubs and other indoor public places and, most recently, the ban on displaying cigarettes openly in supermarkets (now in force) and small retailers (on the way).

Over the years, the law has supported a social revolution: far fewer people smoke than a generation ago. Perhaps the biggest challenge now is to discourage teenagers from starting to smoke. De-glamourising smoking is one way to help meet this challenge. Banning bright packs is part of that campaign. Australia has already banned them – successfully fighting a strong legal challenge from the tobacco industry. Will the UK now follow suit?

The issue is in the balance. Last Friday, John Humphrys interviewed Anna Soubry, the (Conservative) Public Health Minister, on BBC Radio Four’s Today Programme. This is part of that exchange:

AS: There is work to be done on smoking and that’s the next debate that we’ve got to have.

We’ve had a consultation on what’s called plain, it’s not, it’s very colourful very intricate, but standardised packaging, and there’s a real debate now to be had on whether or not we should introduce it like they have in Australia.

JH: Are you in favour of that?

AS: I am.

JH: So it’s going to happen?

AS: Oh no, it doesn’t mean to say it’s going to happen because we haven’t had the debate. We need now to have that debate. I’ve seen the evidence. I’ve seen the consultation. I’ve been personally persuaded of it, but that doesn’t mean to say that all my colleagues in government on both sides of the house are persuaded, and that’s the debate that we now have to have.

So the consultation is over. The relevant minister is convinced. The Liberal Democrats support a new law – indeed they were the first major party to embrace it, back in 2009. Yet the issue remains in the balance. So let me help ministers by setting out the pros and cons.

First the pros:

1. Reform would be popular. Last month YouGov showed respondents the above picture and asked whether they would support or oppose a new law ‘requiring tobacco to be sold in plain standardizing packaging with the product name in standard lettering’. 61% support the plan while just 14% oppose it. 21% said they neither supported nor opposed it; 5% said ‘don’t know’. These are comparable to the levels of support ahead of past measures to bear down on cigarette smoking; each time support for reform has gone even higher once reform has been enacted. There has never been the public backlash that some feared and parts of the tobacco lobby predicted.

2. Reform would be cheap. It’s an ideal measure for austere times, when ministers look for ways to make life better without spending money.

3. There is a real prospect that, over time and in conjunction with other reforms, fewer teenagers would take up smoking. We would become a healthier nation.

4. Of all the reforms that have been enacted or proposed, this is the least disruptive. It does not deprive newspapers of advertising revenues; it does not force smokers to change their habits in pubs or offices; it does not make retailers alter the way they lay out their wares. These things have already happened; the ‘civil liberty’ arguments of the tobacco industry have been rejected; democracy and freedom have survived. The latest measure is more modest than any of these and should cause less fuss.

Now the case for the antis:

1. The tobacco industry doesn’t like it.

And that’s about it. As in the past, the industry has been highly imaginative in trying to link their opposition to arguments about civil liberties, intellectual property rights, tobacco smuggling, free trade and unemployment. The bottom line is that, as for the past half century, they have been fighting a rearguard action to defend their right to kill their customers.

In the next few weeks we shall find out whether the ministers find the pro- or anti-arguments more persuasive.

I haven't got time to comment on this. I'll simply draw your attention to a previous post – Peter Kellner, YouGov and ASH.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

References (1)

References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.
  • Response
    Response: nike tn requin
    If you'd like excellent human resources with your perfectly worth, matter family.

Reader Comments (5)

YouGov's stated policy is to publish details of all its polls including the exact wording of the questions asked. A few years ago YouGov carried out a series of polls for ASH UK on public support for the smoking ban, and failed to lodge the details in its archive. I reported this to the British Polling Council as YouGov is a member and has to abide by the BPC's rules, which include publication of poll details. I can't remember the outcome. I probably also questioned whether YouGov should be carrying out polls for ASH UK when Kellner is one of its trustees.

Thursday, April 25, 2013 at 12:50 | Unregistered CommenterJonathan Bagley

I believe anybody who seriously believes that putting cigarettes in plain packing will reduce the temptation for young people to smoke is living in some bizarre delusion of their own making. It will merely dissuade them from choosing one brand or another, preferring instead to be steered only by price. There is evidence that MORE young people are taking up smoking than ever before. This is hardly a surprise since the attempt to "criminalise" smokers has turned them into a kind of bunch of renegades - a body of people publicly standing in defiance of the expressed will of the state. Furthermore, in pubs and clubs aimed at younger people the non-smokers are now forced to stand in the rain with the "cool" crowd that smoke - so they might as well have a fag while they are there, right?

ASH and other lobby groups have never quite had the balls to stand up and demand an outright ban on purchases of cigarettes over-the-counter. This would be a morally upright approach to protecting young people from becoming addicted to nicotine in the first place. Consequently they have ended up criminalising those that are addicted to nicotine and de-humanising them when they smoke. I don't smoke, but I have no support for organisations that treat those that do as some form of lower-order animal life. Frankly ASH and similar lobby groups now disgust me far more than smokers and smoking do.

Thursday, April 25, 2013 at 15:33 | Unregistered CommenterRyanS

I wonder what the enemies of liberty will dream up once they have achieved this step towards their twee fantasy of what people should do. Fascists and they don't even know it.

Friday, April 26, 2013 at 6:32 | Unregistered CommenterMike

Off topic but
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2013/04/bob-blackman.html?

Bob Blackman. Laws to protect children from smoke in private vehicles, reflect true conservative values

Friday, April 26, 2013 at 11:15 | Unregistered CommenterSheila

For TC and their 'think of the children lies and propoganda' to get this far we all know what side the main 3 parties support - their own back pockets!! They don't give 2 hoots about their citizens, nor their country.

Let's hope the backlash from us 'mere common citizens who see beyond propoganda' starts to happen in future elections.

Saturday, April 27, 2013 at 0:48 | Unregistered CommenterHelen

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>