Queen's Speech: what's in, what's not
Friday, May 3, 2013 at 9:43 Quick update on the plain packaging saga:
Guardian political editor Patrick Wintour (the man who brought us the news that plain packaging would be in the Queen's Speech) now reports that Queen's Speech to contain legislation on pensions, social care and benefits but not, it seems, plain packaging.
Meanwhile the tobacco control industry continues to thrash around with the support of its cheerleaders in the media, notably the Independent (Doctors condemn Government's decision to hold plans for plain cigarette packaging) which also has a leader urging the prime minister to change his mind.
In a press release ASH claimed that:
Since the launch of the public consultation on standard tobacco packaging in April 2012 there has been a groundswell of support for the measure with nearly two-thirds of the public and a majority of MPs across all political parties in favour.
Groundswell of support? Would that be the 500,000 people who opposed plain packaging in a pubic consultation compared to the estimated 220,000 who supported it?
The health groups say that if the Government will not go ahead with the introduction of standardised packaging then Parliament should decide in a free vote as was the case with smoke-free legislation. The Labour Party has already committed to supporting the measure.
Odd, isn't it, that Labour didn't introduce plain packaging when they were in power. They considered it but backed off because there was no evidence it would work.
There is still no credible evidence that plain packaging will stop children smoking but, politics being such an unscrupulous business, it makes sense for Labour to embrace the measure in Opposition and accuse the Government of abandoning its commitment to public health etc etc.
Finally, there's a good article on the Channel 4 News website, with input from Forest – Ifs and butts of the fag packet argument – FactCheck.
Update: Coalition to dump cigarette plain packs? (AOL Money)
Update: Anger at dropped fag pack proposal (The Sun)
Reader Comments (6)
[quote=simon]I feel another campaign coming on ...[/quote]
As said, should Plain Packaging NOT be on Queenie Pooh's (so I was a Kenny Everett fan) agenda then I think that is in no small way your (and Angie@HOOPS) doing. Thank you both.
Threatening that Labour will introduce it if the Tories won't is like threatening to tickle them with a feather. Last night's and today's local election results should show them that listening to anyone but the voter is a vote loser.
People are equally fed up with Labour, the Lib Dems and the Tories on this issue. If David Cameron wants to win back his core vote, he needs to distance his party from Nanny as soon as possible. She brought Labour down in 2010 - she'll bring the Tories down in 2015 too. After all, if the blanket smoking ban is so popular support wouldn't be flooding to the only party willing to amend it.
No one wants the public health interference in their lives - except those who get paid to interfere.
I'm hoping that the antis become desperate and overplay their hand producing more so called 'evidence'. With UKIP on the up it might just illuminate the paucity and fabrication of 'evidence' existing for the display and public bans and cause a look back. Ready made excuse, the previous Govt. allowed themselves to be conned.
I'm ever hopeful.
It's hard to see how any credible evidence could come from Australia since, at the same time as introducing plain packaging, they also increased the tax on cigs at the same time. Their only recourse would be surveys, but we know how bent they can be.
If you want to win elections, have your photo taken outside a pub smoking. Will we now see Cameron and Clegg (who have always "just given up") following Nigel's example? Smoking stand-up comic and master politician blows the corrupt Establishment out of the water. Some days, all the lights are on green. I'm sure Cameron knows which way the wind is blowing.
You're right there Jonathan, so is Pat.
Quangos and Nannies need removing from the tax-payer funded list, along with the government-funded lobbying that they receive.
If they were so popular, they would have floods of donations from the electorate anyway. The only reason they exist is because government choose to fund them from the public purse - I wonder why??
The main reasons I am against the current Government are quangos/nanny state and the denormalisation of legal citizens, ie smokers/the obese/drinkers.
The education is already there - it's rammed down our throats and has been for the last few decades. People have been dieting since Twiggy in the 60's. The filthy lucre is there to line the pockets of the zealots only. The electorate have had enough and have at long last realised where their taxes are being wasted.