The hypocrisy of Labour MPs
Thursday, April 17, 2014 at 15:43 Breathtaking hypocrisy from Labour MPs following yesterday's announcement that Imperial Tobacco is to close its Nottingham factory.
Chris Leslie, MP for Nottingham East, tweeted:
I hope Imperial Tobacco will work with DWP to redeploy the many affected Nottingham workers who are losing their jobs & need new employment.
Lilian Greenwood, MP for Nottingham South, went one better:
Thanks @UKLabour colleagues inc @Vernon_CoakerMP @Nik_McD & @GrahamAllenMP working together to support Imperial Tobacco workers. #onyourside
"On your side"?!!!!!
It was thanks to legislation introduced by the last Labour government that 500+ workers have now lost their jobs.
In case Greenwood, Leslie et al have forgotten, laws included a ban on tobacco advertising and sponsorship, a ban on smoking in all indoor workplaces, a ban on tobacco vending machines and a ban on the display of tobacco in shops.
Today they have the cheek to shed crocodile tears for tobacco industry workers, many of whom may have written to them asking them to oppose those measures in case they cost them their jobs.
The packaging industry has made no secret of the fact that plain packaging could result in more jobs being lost.
Labour supports plain packaging so if plain packs are introduced and packaging companies subsequently announce the loss of jobs, can we expect similar tweets along the lines of:
I hope x will work with DWP to redeploy the many affected workers who are losing their jobs & need new employment.
Thanks @UKLabour colleagues working together to support packaging workers. #onyourside
I think I'm going to be sick.
PS. Via Breitbart.com here's my full response to the closure of the Nottingham factory:
Simon Clark, director of the smokers' group Forest, said, "It's not pro-smoking to mourn the loss of jobs. The reality is however that the closure of Imperial's Nottingham factory will have no impact on consumers.
"What's worrying is that it follows a decade in which successive governments have introduced increasingly draconian policies designed to force adult consumers to quit smoking.
"Instead of focussing on education, government has prohibited tobacco advertising, banned smoking in public places, outlawed cigarette vending machines and banned the display of tobacco in shops. Now ministers want to introduce standardised packaging.
"How many more people are going to pay for the war on tobacco with their jobs? The smoking ban alone led to a huge number of jobs being lost as thousands of pubs closed as a direct result of the ban.
"Sadly, when campaigners are demanding further action on smoking, they don't take the loss of jobs and the impact on workers' families into account."
Via the Nottingham Post, here's an interesting article about the history of Imperial in Nottingham. Worth reading.
Reader Comments (14)
I agree. It's sickening. Do they even realise what a bunch of hypocrites and thugs they are? What on earth did they expect?
So much for "Big" Tobacco. It's clearly "Little" Tobacco being attacked on all sides by Big Health and Big Govt and Big Labour.
I hope people remember this when the election's come next year. These MP's don't care because it's not them losing their jobs, it won't be easy for 500 people to get another job in one City. However again the EU has a bit to do with this regarding the ban on menthol cigarettes and Imperial are to close there factory in France this story was in the FT. Just another reason to leave the EU. Let's hope people see sense on the 22nd May and vote Ukip. Happy Easter.
And remember to tell them on Twitter and elsewhere why you're voting UKIP
#WeSmokeWeVote or #WeVapeSmokeWeVote
The UK government is losing about £4 billion in taxes each year, due to people buying tobacco legally in other countries and smuggling.
Labours smoking ban cost the country more than 150,000 job losses and about 15,000 pub closures, where's their apology for that mistake ? I don't suppose we'll ever see one.
Once again I see in a Forest press release that smoking was banned 'in public places'. No, it was banned in private places - pubs, clubs, restaurants. Government forced its authority into places which are neither government property nor public property. That is the whole point. That is why we're fighting. Isn't it?!
Joe, I take your point but when we are speaking to the media we have to use terms they and their readers understand and 'public smoking ban' or 'ban on smoking in (enclosed) public places' are the terms that, rightly or wrongly, are most commonly used to describe the ban.
Granted it's a form of shorthand and doesn't give the full, nuanced picture but there isn't time, in a soundbite, to add the rider that pubs, clubs etc are privately owned and should be exempt from the ban.
In any case, even privately owned businesses are subject to health and safety regulations so our argument against the ban was based primarily on the argument that the 'danger' of second hand smoke is insufficient to justify such extensive regulations, especially if the venue meets an agreed standard of air quality.
Instead of talking about bans on smoking in public (sic) places we could describe it as a ban on smoking in the workplace but that has problems too because 'workplace' could be interpreted as anywhere people are working, indoors or outdoors.
Frankly, it's a minefield whatever term we use and I don't see an easy answer.
Yes Joe Jackson. "public" place has been redefined to mean anywhere the anti-smokers want to go and even those they don't - like our own intimate private spaces such as cars and homes.
It's very clear today that Big Health backed by the Big State owns everything - your body, your mind, your money, your home, your car, and even your own back garden.
No. Joe Jackson those are public places, places where the public are welcome to enter. The law put the rights and health of non smokers above the rights of smokers. It is not right that people should endure a risk to health just going to a pub, club or restaurant. It is entirely right for politicians to want to ensure that people who have lost jobs because smoking is becoming socially unacceptable are helped.
Blanket public smoking should be the term used because there is no need for a smoking ban in places where only smokers meet and work.
Anti-smokers and smokerphobics like sqlblues have no right to demand everywhere caters only for them.
Choice for both sides is right and fair. We are all the public - even smokers as much as we are being socially excluded by a public hate campaign.
" places where the public are welcome to enter."
Or not, as the case may be. Don't like smoking? err... don't go in. Notwithstanding that the owner has the right to refuse entry.
"It is not right that people should endure a risk to health just going to a pub, club or restaurant."
If you believe it, don't go in. If you believe your own health is at risk, eh... don't go in. Simple, isn't it? My health is none of your business and FYI, having looked at the most important of these 'surveys' (that's all there is) don't believe a word of it.
"to ensure that people who have lost jobs because smoking is becoming socially unacceptable are helped."
How, exactly? make sure they get their dole? or more dole? Well, we could always print more money or perhaps you wouldn't mind paying more tax. And how do you know smoking is becoming socially unacceptable? don't tell me! somebody told you.
With thought processes such as yours I feel distinctly pessimistic for the future of the planet, never mind the Country. Decorum forbids me from a single word response to your 'comments'.
As for becoming socially unacceptable. Hate has always been socially unacceptable and it's the small but vocal and well funded minority of anti-smokers who should be targeted for denormalisation because hatred is not normal nor should it be encouraged.
The truth is only a very small minority of vocal and well funded professional anti-smokers want bans everywhere and that's because their jobs, funding and salaries depend on attacking law abiding people.
Most of the public don't care nor do their share the anti-smoker's phobic mania. Those that hate smoking but not the smoker think it is right that they have places of their own to meet.
Anti-smokers are small minded liars, nasty, abusive and dangerous to the cause of social cohesion, the economy, employment, health and social justice.
The day is coming when the State stops pampering to their perverse obsessive disorder and intense bitter hatred of legitimate adult consumers.
'Hate' may be socially unacceptable, but it is successfully being used by governments worldwide.
Our career politicians have joined the band-wagon. They know that 'hate' means wealth; they understand that 'hate' means power; they follow the filthy lucre.
It won't happen in my life-time, but eventually the corrupt establishment will be vilified. No-one can argue at the moment that the establishment is not corrupt. It's only a matter of time.
That's what you get from career politicians - how can anyone argue otherwise. They are in it for what they can reap, not for what is best for their citizens.
OK. Let's put aside the idea that a pub is a 'public place' just because 'members of the public' may (or may not) choose to go in. Surely that's not the point. The point is that they don't own that place, i.e. did not pay for it with their taxes. The publican should therefore set the smoking policy, and the 'public' then votes with their feet, or their wallets. If it's true that most people despise smoking, then maybe most publicans would ban it, but there would - and should - still be some smoking pubs - just as there are, for instance, vegetarian restaurants or gay bars.
Simon re. dealing with the media, I know how incredibly difficult and frustrating it is, but I do think this distinction between public and private is crucial. I think every time we use terms like 'smoking ban in public places' we are using the enemy's definitions, and tacitly supporting them. Why not just say 'the smoking ban'?! Everyone knows what you mean! By adding 'public places' you appear to be deliberately half-agreeing with the Antis, and validating the idea that the ban is justified as 'protecting' the 'public' etc. Why not 'the smoking ban in privately-owned places'? Or 'the blanket smoking ban'?
Maybe I'm making a fuss about something few other people see as important . . . but I do believe it's an important question of principle, never to accept and use the enemy's terminology and definitions of what is happening.
I totally agree Joe Jackson but here's the thing - people voted with their feet to keep smoker pubs and non smoker choice and that's what rattled the anti-smoker industry and the obsessive smokerphobic hysterics.
The ban came in to force people to hate and fear smokers because smoking on its own just wasn't upsetting people who didn't smoke enough.
Smokers and tolerant non smokers have always got along both in smoking and non smoking places.
Forcing private property owners to effectively Nationalise their businesses to cater for the phobia of the Smokerphobics' Comrades was meant to socially exclude normal and well balanced adult tobacco consumers and make others fear and loathe them.
It's called "Denormalisation" It was never about health or free choice but enforcement of political ideology backed by threats of prosecution, financial ruin or even jail.
Yes, private businesses so wanted non smoker venues only that threatening criminal penalties were brought in to force them to have non smoker venues only.