In politics individuals don't count
Friday, February 13, 2015 at 18:28 The Government yesterday published the draft regulations on standardised packaging of tobacco products.
At the same time we finally got to read the summary report on last year's consultation.
The first thing to note is that, predictably, the Government has completely ignored the huge public response against plain packaging.
According to the report:
A total of 137,711 responses were received, made up of 1,307 detailed responses from businesses, organisations, the public and health and social care professionals, and 136,404 campaign responses (ie multiple copies of the same response endorsed by individuals).
So, how do those campaign responses break down? Here's the table:
Well, that's pretty comprehensive, I think you'll agree. The general public has spoken and with few exceptions almost every individual who responded to the consultation via a campaign petition was opposed to the policy.
Unelected Department of Health officials saw things a little differently however. Effectively dismissing the campaign responses they wrote:
The consultation process was not designed or intended to elicit representative samples of public opinion, instead it sought information, comments and views on the consultation questions, draft regulations, impact assessment and equality analysis.
It gets better:
It is in the nature of open consultation exercises that, generally, it is only those who have an interest in the subject to respond to the questions. The nature of consultation exercises means that respondents are self-selecting, and cannot be considered to be a representative sample of public opinion.
In other words, if you have not responded to the questions in detail you clearly have no real interest in the subject and we will disregard your opinions.
Furthermore, as you have chosen (unlike the overwhelming majority of the public) to play your part in the democratic process we shall categorise you as "self-selecting" and your views are therefore worthless.
Finally, as an individual contributor to the consultation you are no interest to us. We only want to hear the opinions of NGOs, government bodies and (some) businesses (but not tobacco companies or retailers, obviously).
Oddly, I don't remember any comments like that in the report on the Consultation on the future of tobacco control published in December 2008.
On that occasion, of course, the result was very different:
As you can see, petition responses greatly favoured the tobacco control industry.
Anyway, I'll let you draw your own conclusions why Department of Health officials would qualify one set of campaign responses but not another.
The only thing I'll add at this stage is a big thank you to everyone who responded to the consultation via the Forest campaign. On numbers alone the tobacco control industry took a hell of a beating.
So tonight I shall raise a glass to everyone who signed our petition. Cheers!
To read the summary report of the 2014 consultation click here.
Reader Comments (6)
"In politics individuals don't count"
But they do when they vote, Simon, so could we please have all the names of MPs who vote for plain packaging as well as all the names of the MPs who voted for the smoking ban in cars.
I seem to remember that Taking Liberties published a list of all the MPs who voted for the Smoking Ban at the time but I can't find it, so if you could possibly post it again, I'd be most grateful.
I have a list of how MPs voted on an old website - http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/nearlydone/WhoVotedHow.htm
As regards the importance of public opinion I seem to remember when the ban was debated considerable weight was put on the opinion of those who responded to a Woman's Hour programme. The appropriate information from the National Household Survey also seemed to be 'absent' until a few days after the vote but ASH were well equipped with a suitable survey from YouGov (run by the high ranking ASH member Peter Kellner).
Who actually runs this Country? Certainly not the people, not even our representatives and their democratic procedures. It's the unelected beggars in the DoH and Tobacco Control Industry who simply change the rules to suit themselves.
Is there anyone in politics strong enough to put these people in their place?
This makes me wonder if there's any use in participating in this kind of masquerades. Maybe all the interested parties should communicate with tobacco control only through a court of law. Sue the bastards every step of the way. Judging by their performance in the McTear case, they don't stand a chance. I think we are at a point in history where the slippery slope is evident to everyone and in court action tobacco companies shouldn't be alone anymore....the future of fast food industry, fizzy drinks and sweets industry is at stake here too. After plain packs for cigs next step would be plain packaging for McDonald's and Coke cans. This is as clear as daylight. The time of 'consultations' and playing democracy it's over. They should be fierce and relentless and terminate these tobacco control terrorists.
'Consultations' are an illusion. They are intended to create the perception of participation. The purpose is to subvert actual democratic participation while creating grist for propaganda. It is a "check the box" activity to enable the controllers to claim the 'stakeholders' were consulted (notice they even choose the relevant stakeholders).
Tyrants have used this tactic for centuries (recall the ever-changing legislative and consultative during the French Revolution and the soviets and the one candidate elections of the Soviet Union).
Vlad has hit the nail on the head. All the blather about 'public opinion' is neither here nor there. What matters is the constitutional rights of citizens of England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales. The important word there is 'constitutional'. Citizens have the constitutional right to be as self-sufficient as they possibly can be. The are not OBLIGED to buy vegetables from supermarkets - they can buy privately and grow their own if they wish to do so.
Despite the propaganda about smuggling, I do not recall any instances of individuals being persecuted/prosecuted for 'doing their own thing' to be self-sufficient.
This is what happens when a government foolishly ring fences spending on civil servants rather than front line services.
The DH is effectively invulnerable and therefore unaccountable. It's mandarins can be as dishonest, authoritarian and incompetent as they like, safe in the knowledge that they will be allowed to pursue their agendas, continue to draw their salaries and eventually get a gong for their troubles.
Anyone who believes that the documentation produced by the DH in support of plain packaging is of an acceptable standard, is not fit to represent the people of the UK. Anyone who believes that plain packaging is anything more than a vanity project to appease an unappeasable minority is too stupid or too indoctrinated to represent the people of the UK.
David Cameron and his government have failed the nation through their spineless refusal to deal with the spread of health extremism within the UK establishment. I will not be voting for him or his party despite the terrifying spectre of a Labour /SNP coalition government. I deserve better than a choice between two evils.
.