Sinn Féin at war on smoking?

Two months ago the government in Ireland announced plans to raise the age of sale of tobacco from 18 to 21.

It’s not as extreme as a generational ban (raising the age of sale by one year every year until no adult can legally purchase tobacco), but it’s still problematical.

One, young adults are still being discriminated against. Two, there will be similar unintended consequences including an increase in black market sales.

Despite that the policy has received very little scrutiny in Ireland and there has been even less media or public debate on the issue.

(I appeared on several TV and radio stations but I seemed to be the lone voice publicly opposing the measure.)

Anyway, on July 4 minister for health Stephen Donnolly introduced the second stage of the Public Health (Tobacco) (Amendment) Bill 2024 (aka the 'smoking 21 bill') with these words:

The purpose of this measure is not to further regulate tobacco products but to begin to eliminate them from our lives and the lives of our children. It is, to use the public health term, an "endgame measure", signalling the beginning of the end of tobacco in our country.

The big surprise however was not the policy but the fact that it was opposed by Sinn Féin. According to the Irish Examiner:

Sinn Féin will not be backing the Government’s bill to raise the smoking age to 21, the Dáil heard yesterday.

The proposed bill was called unreasonable and unenforceable by the party’s spokesperson for health, David Cullinane ...

“The idea that an 18-year-old can join the Defence Forces, buy a vape or buy alcohol, but cannot buy a cigarette is unreasonable, and probably more importantly unenforceable,” he said ...

He added that if the bill is passed it would push more trade into the “tobacco black market”.

Where have I heard those arguments before?!

Sadly, much as I would like to reach out to Sinn Féin to congratulate them on their stance, I'm not sure the party would welcome an approach from a UK-based smokers' rights group, so we are keeping our distance.

But here's the interesting thing.

In Northern Ireland, Michelle O'Neill – first minister and Sinn Féin vice president – has taken a completely different position, actively welcoming the UK government's plan to raise the age of sale of tobacco not just to 21 but by one year every year.

Curiously, I seem to be the only person who has noticed this because to the best of my knowledge no-one else has commented on it, but it does seem odd, and inconsistent for a party that wants a united Ireland.

To add to the confusion, Sinn Féin last week called for their MPs – who refuse to take their seats in Westminster – to be given speaking rights in the Dáil.

In the unlikely event that were to happen, would they oppose one another en bloc, like warring tribes, on this issue?

Meanwhile it's been said that the only reason the Irish Government isn't pushing for a UK-style ban on the sale of tobacco is because a ‘smokefree generation’ plan is precluded by EU law. Allegedly.

My guess is this will be addressed when the EU's next Tobacco Products Directive is introduced in 2027 (or thereabouts), but we'll just have to wait and see.

Back in Dublin parliamentarians are now enjoying a long summer recess and the Dáil won't resume until September 18, following which the smoking 21 bill will go before the Committee on Health which includes not only David Cullinane but also his Sinn Féin colleague Seán Crowe.

Although they are heavily outnumbered by TDs and senators whose parties support the policy, it will be interesting nevertheless to hear what they have to say.

Watch this space.

How to make smoking cool again

Excellent piece by Kara Kennedy in the Daily Mail today.

Like most opinion pieces on the Mail website it's behind a paywall but the headline gives you the gist:

I gave out bowls of cigarettes to my wedding guests. Like so many people my age, I like smoking precisely because we're sick of being told what not to do

Alternatively (and I strongly recommend this) you can pay £1.10 for a copy of the print edition.

Readers may remember that Kara was a panellist at an event Forest organised at the Institute of Economic Affairs in March last year. (See Smoking Gun: Prohibition and the Infantilisation of Britain.)

We invited her to take part after reading 'An ode to smoking' which she wrote for The Spectator World, the US edition of The Spectator, and she didn't disappoint.

At the time she was working as a staff writer for The Spectator but she subsequently went freelance, moved to Washington DC, and has since written for various publications including the Telegraph, Mail, Tatler, and the New Statesman.

She also got married and is currently seven months' pregnant, hence this introduction to her piece in the Mail today:

It has been 162 days since my last cigarette, not that I'm counting or anything. I won't and can't smoke until the baby I'm carrying is born in September, but already I know this doesn't mean I'm giving up.

Tongue-in-cheek (?) she adds:

I've asked my husband to deliver me a nicely wrapped packet of Newports as my 'push present'.

As it happens I wouldn't be surprised if Kara has smoked her final cigarette because a lot of parents quit permanently after they've had a baby.

Then again she may go back to smoking ‘no more than five or six’ cigarettes a day, and not even every day.

That will make her, like many people, a social smoker who smokes because she genuinely enjoys it, not because she's hopelessly addicted.

Either way it's her choice and any liberal-minded person ought to respect that.

Instead it’s anticipated that the new Labour Government will use the King's Speech tomorrow to announce that it will reintroduce a bill to ban the sale of tobacco to future generations of adults.

The policy won't directly affect Kara, 26, but it won't be long before people of a similar age WILL be prohibited from legally purchasing tobacco.

When this happens there are three likely outcomes.

One, fewer people will smoke.

Two, it will drive more smokers to the black market.

Three, it could make smoking cool again because, as Kara rightly points out, one thing many young people don't like is being told what NOT to do.

None of these outcomes are mutually exclusive so a generational ban could result in all three.

Anyway, credit to the Mail for publishing the article (a double-page spread, no less) the day before the King's Speech and a week after Cancer Research UK made the absurd claim that cancers caused by smoking have hit a record high - despite a huge fall in smoking rates since the 1950s.

It even includes a quote from me.

PS. Quelle surprise, today's ASH Daily News bulletin has just landed in my inbox and the anti-smoking lobby group has chosen NOT to include Kara's piece.

Instead they sent the following links to their subscribers:

More NHS cash ‘not feasible’, adviser tells Labour (The Times)
Hospital discharges limiting home care in England, councils say (Guardian)
Labour pledge on junk food adverts aimed at children may still face delay to 2025 (i)
Dad demands vaping ban after both his daughters hospitalised (Cumberland News)

And, from the USA:

Campaigners target Philip Morris' flagship heated tobacco US launch (Daily Mail)

It begs the question, why would they NOT want their subscribers (many of them politicians, civil servants, and public health sector workers) to know about Kara's article?

I think we know the answer but draw your own conclusions.

Below: Journalist Kara Kennedy at Smoking Gun: Prohibition and the Infantilisation of Britain last year. Photo: Stuart Mitchell

C’mon, England!

Three years ago, before England played Italy in the final of Euro 2020 (which had been postponed by twelve months due to Covid), I wrote:

I shall watch tonight’s match hoping for but not expecting an England win. Experience has taught me not to be so presumptuous.

Also, while many people will say the result is the only thing that matters, that’s no longer true for me.

I want England to win but if Italy are clearly the better team – and win – I will be fine with that.

The same is true tonight. I’d like England to win but if Spain are by some distance the better team, and win, I’ll be disappointed but will accept it with good grace.

Truth is, I’ve had a difficult relationship with men’s football, including the England football team, for some time.

At the World Cup in Qatar in 2022 I didn’t bother watching the quarter-final against France because I sensed the inevitable defeat, and I was right, although reports suggested England played well and, had it not been for a missed penalty near the end, they might have gone on to win.

Having watched every England match up to the semi-final in Euro 24 I couldn’t bring myself to watch most of the Netherlands match because I found the previous games so frustrating I was actually shouting at the TV (at the age of 65!).

Instead I kept an eye on the live updates on the BBC News website while watching a new police drama on iPlayer.

At half-time I turned over to ITV where the pundits confirmed that England were playing quite well but my natural pessimism kicked in and I returned to The Turkish Detective, going back to the football only when I saw they had scored in the last minute.

I’ll watch the final tonight but is it too much to ask for good football from both sides? Three years ago, when a European Super League was briefly on the table, I wrote:

A clip was posted on Twitter recently that showed Dundee United playing Hibernian in the mid to late Sixties. It was quite short but it was a revelation.

It showed wave after wave of attacks on the opposition goal. As soon as United lost the ball they would win it back. Old-fashioned wingers and inside forwards ran at the defence at every opportunity.

Compared to the football we often see today it was exhilarating. Yes, today's game at the very top level is more skilful, more athletic and better organised tactically, but it can also be very boring.

I’ve been watching football for over 50 years and the poor matches have always outnumbered the good, but for me there is something rather sterile about a lot of today’s football. Aside from isolated moments of great skill, it rarely gets you on your feet.

That's the real elephant in the room no-one wants to address. More often than not modern football is not a great spectacle.

Personally, I blame Pep Guardiola, the former Barcelona manager now approaching his ninth season at Manchester City where he has enjoyed extraordinary success.

I’m not disputing that Guardiola is a fantastic, innovative coach whose possession-based teams can, at their very best, be brilliant to watch.

The problem is, the experience can also be very tedious - hundreds of passes, the majority going side-to-side or, worse, backwards.

Opponents are inevitably set up to defend en masse and the result is a tactical chess match whose outcome is often decided by an error or a moment of great skill.

The problem is, those moments - even at the highest level of the game - are few and far between.

Worse, Guardiola’s success has encouraged teams at all levels of the game to ‘pass out from the back’ and keep possession of the ball as if their lives depend on it.

In practise this means a generally cautious, safety first approach that is robbing the game of much of its appeal.

To be clear, I support possession-based football, with the ball played to feet rather than up in the air, and there’s nothing particularly new about it.

But there has to be balance between a short and long passing game that can stretch the opposition, and in the modern era football has gone too far in favour of keeping the ball at all costs.

Watching England in Euro 24 has been the most frustrating experience because how often has one of our ‘world class’ midfielders taken on an opponent and run past them?

Instead, the default pass has been sideways or back, often to the goalkeeper.

Other teams have done it too but it’s worse when England do it because some of our players are better than that.

Given England’s historically poor tournament record I accept that Gareth Southgate’s record as head coach - two finals, a semi-final and a quarter-final in four attempts - is remarkable, but how many times have we played really well and entertained supporters?

Don’t get me wrong, I want England to win tonight but I also want victory to be deserved. A ‘moment’ of brilliance amid a sea of sludge will not be enough if we bore the rest of the world to sleep.

That’s why, whatever happens tonight, it’s time for Southgate to move on. Considering the mess he inherited (England losing to Iceland at Euro 2016), he’s done an excellent job in many, many respects.

But it’s not just about winning a single tournament with a handful of moments that obscure the mind-numbing tedium of many England performances. We need a coach who can unlock something more.

In my lifetime the two greatest international teams have been Brazil in 1970 and again in 1982.

It’s true that Brazil didn’t win the 1982 World Cup but they were the most exciting team by some margin, and who remembers much about the eventual winners Italy, apart from the match against Brazil where they surprised everyone by winning 3-2.

As for 1970, Pele’s Brazil won every match they played with brilliant attacking football and never looked like losing.

It says everything that one of England’s finest World Cup performances was in defeat, losing 1-0 to that extraordinary Brazilian team.

But here’s the thing. In 1970 England were the defending champions and although they played well in that match they played with caution and only came out of their defensive shell when they went behind.

After that they scorned several opportunities, including Geoff Astle hitting the bar when it seemed easier to score.

I’d like to think tonight will be different and England won’t wait until they are behind before giving it a good go, but I’m not convinced Southgate has that in his locker as a coach.

In any case, he would probably argue, why change a winning formula.

It’s true too that in 1966 England didn’t play that well and their sole World Cup winning tournament is best remembered for a few ‘moments’ - Bobby Charlton’s goals against France and Portugal, plus Geoff Hurst’s hat-trick in the final against West Germany - but it’s hard to argue they didn’t deserve to win the tournament because no other side was obviously better.

In Euro 2024, however, Spain have clearly been the best team and therefore deserve to win.

Better technically, they will probably give England more space in their own half, but I do hope we give it a real go and take risks rather than hoping to nick a win with a ‘moment’ or, worse, on penalties.

In sport, and especially in football, the best team doesn’t always win so although I predict a 3-0 win for Spain, Gareth Southgate’s side are not without a chance.

C’mon, England!

David Hockney, eighty-seven up

I’m a day late but happy birthday to David Hockney, 87 yesterday.

As readers know, because I’ve told the story several times, Britain’s most famous living artist (and smoker) was responsible for the best day of my working life.

It took place in September 2005 at the Labour conference in Brighton after the great man accepted our invitation to speak at a fringe event opposing the Labour Government’s plan to ban smoking in all enclosed public places.

Chaired by Claire Fox (now Baroness Fox), other speakers included musician Joe Jackson and the late Sue Carroll, a much-loved columnist for the Daily Mirror.

Brighton 2005 wasn’t the first time we had met Hockney because the previous year he had joined a handful of guests including Oscar-winning screenwriter, the late Sir Ronald Harwood, for a private dinner hosted by Forest at Boisdale of Bishopsgate.

On that occasion he arrived direct from Heathrow, having received our invitation from his manager when he flew in from Sicily. (I had sent it several weeks earlier and had assumed he wasn’t coming because we hadn’t received a reply.)

The following morning we spoke on the phone and he surprised me by describing the evening as a “life-enhancing experience”.

It turned out that doing things on a whim was David’s modus operandi, and although it was frustrating from a PR perspective we just had to get used to it.

Brighton, for example, was notable for the fact that we were given less than 48 hours’ notice that he was coming and we couldn’t promote his appearance until it was confirmed.

PR wise it made things more difficult than they might have been. On the other hand, it was arguably more exciting.

In 2008, on the first anniversary of the smoking ban in England, David attended another Forest event, a party at Boisdale of Belgravia.

Three years later, in July 2011, he spoke at a Save Our Pubs & Clubs reception we organised on the terrace at the House of Commons.

It’s no exaggeration to say that on each occasion we had no idea he was coming until he actually turned up.

During the Noughties he was living in Bridlington in Yorkshire, but in 2012 he returned to California where he had lived previously and where he painted many of his most famous works.

For the past six or seven years he has lived in Normandy and although we’ve continued to invite him to events via third parties, I’m not certain that our invitations have ever reached him.

Most recently, before our ‘Beat the Ban’ lunch in May, we were told, ‘Please know he is deeply engaged in his painting and responding to few invitations at this time.’

My hope is that Forest can host a special event to celebrate his 90th birthday in 2027. If he could join us for that, that would be something.

See also: Unforgettable - David Hockney at the Labour Party conference

PS. Asked by The Oldie, ‘Do you still love smoking?’, Hockney replied, ‘I think tobacco is a great gift to the world.’

Above: David Hockney with Sir Greg Knight MP on the terrace at the House of Commons, July 2011; below: Hockney (and me!) at Boisdale of Belgravia, July 2008.

CRUK: smoking-related cancer cases at an 'all time high'

According to a study published today and reported by The Sun, among others:

Cancer cases caused by smoking are at an all-time high, according to Cancer Research UK.

Analysis by the charity suggests 160 people are diagnosed per day – nearly 58,000 per year.

All time high? Seriously?

To put this in perspective, smoking peaked in the 1950s when 80 per cent of men and 40 per cent of women in the UK were smokers.

Seventy years later, having been in decline for most of that time, smoking rates are currently at their lowest ever recorded levels, with fewer than 13 per cent of the population currently smoking.

Given the nature of cancer I accept there will be some lag effect, but 60-70 years? Not even CRUK has made that leap.

Instead, on GB News this morning, head of public affairs Shaun Walsh spoke of the lag effect in relation to people who smoked 10-15 years ago.

At that time the UK smoking rate was 21 per cent (2009), falling to 17 per cent five years later (2014).

How then can the cancer cases allegedly caused by smoking possibly be at an all time high compared to previous generations when far more people smoked?

Even if the lag time was 30 or 40 years, cancer cases would have reached their peak in the 1980s or 1990s.

So what's behind this absurd claim? I'm sure it's a coincidence but there’s the little matter of the generational tobacco sales ban.

Furthermore, according to the same report in The Sun:

A letter signed by 35 health experts and charities will be sent to the new Health Secretary, Wes Streeting, on Tuesday [today] calling for ministers to end smoking.

Published in the British Medical Journal, the open letter calls for Labour to adopt Rishi Sunak’s plan to stop children born after 2009 ever being allowed to buy tobacco.

Ah, yes, it all makes sense now. The tobacco control industry is desperate that the new Labour Government includes the generational ban in the King’s Speech on July 17 and this is their latest attempt at lobbying ministers, not that Keir Starmer and health secretary Wes Streeting need much persuading.

As for organisations lobbying government, potentially in breach of their charitable status, I'll leave that for another day. Watch this space.

PS. I should add that most cancers – with the notable exception of lung cancer – are multifactorial, which means there could well be factors other than smoking involved.

Even lung cancer isn't 100 per cent attributable to smoking. About 80 per cent of lung cancer sufferers have been smokers, but the reasons for the other 20 per cent have never been clear – general air pollution, perhaps, or even genetic reasons.

One report said the cancer cases in today's study include breast cancer which is curious because, as far as I’m aware, breast cancer has rarely if ever been associated with smoking. So why now?

Update: According to the CRUK press release:

This is also the first time Cancer Research UK has included breast cancer as a cancer type caused by smoking in this kind of analysis.

The scientific research for this link has been growing for years and the charity is now confident in the evidence showing that smoking causes around 2,200 cases of breast cancer every year in the UK.

Below: Yours truly with Andrew Pierce and Beverley Turner on GB News this morning

Guernsey - don’t mention the war!

Guernsey is to consider extending smoking bans to beaches and other outdoor areas, as well as raising the age of sale of tobacco.

According to the BBC:

Smoking bans on beaches, public parks and children's playgrounds are among the ideas the public has been asked to comment on, as part of a public survey launched by the Health Improvement Commission (HIC).

On Thursday I was asked by BBC Radio Guernsey to respond to the story, which I did on the breakfast programme, and a soundbite from the interview (which was recorded on Zoom) was later used on Channel Island News, the local evening news on BBC1.

It reminded me that 20 years ago I flew to Guernsey to support a local campaign, Support Our Smokers (SOS), that had been set up by a local hotelier to fight calls to ban smoking in enclosed public places.

His name was Paul Leigh and he was particularly worried about smoking being banned in pubs and bars. He therefore contacted Forest to ask if we would provide a speaker to take part in a meeting he had organised.

I had never been to any one of the Channel Islands so I jumped at the chance.

I’m not the world’s best flyer so initially I investigated getting the ferry from Poole (three hours) or Portsmouth (seven hours), but in the end I bit the bullet and flew to Guernsey from Gatwick on a twin-propellor plane operated by Aurigny, the state-owned Guernsey airline that had been nationalised a year or two earlier.

(As an aside, Wikipedia records that ‘In 1977, Aurigny banned smoking on all services, the first ever airline to do so’.)

Paul met me at the airport and took me to his bar/hotel where he had offered to put me up for a couple of nights. He also gave me a tour of the island.

It’s a bit of a blur now but I remember visiting St Peter Port, the main town, driving along the coastal road, and taking a detour through one of the residential areas where some of the richest people on the island live.

The meeting took place at another hotel and was attended by several other licensees and members of the public opposed to a smoking ban.

I don’t remember much about it apart from the fact that I was introduced and treated like a minor celebrity, which is the first and only time that has ever happened to me.

I’m not sure I lived up to my star billing but if they were disappointed they hid it well. On the whole, I think they were just pleased that someone from the UK had taken the trouble to come and back their campaign.

In the end, of course, the outcome (a public smoking ban) was the same as everywhere else, but it did strike me as ironic that an island that 60 years earlier had been liberated from the Nazis had now succumbed to another form of fascism - health fascism.

Not that I actually said that, because it may have been in bad taste as well as a wild exaggeration, but it was what I was thinking!

Nevertheless, in September 2018, in another interview on BBC Radio Guernsey, I did hint at the connection when I told presenter Jenny Kendall-Tobias:

I think Germany is quite a good example of a nation, possibly for historical reasons, that does not want to appear to be too oppressive in its lifestyle regulations. In Germany of course they actually have smoking lounges in airports. They are well ventilated, they are not smoky because they've got the latest state of the art ventilation, and that seems to be a very good compromise. Also in Germany, not in every state but in some states, and in Berlin for example, you'll still find some bars where you're allowed to smoke and again that seems to me a reasonable compromise.

We are not asking for people to be able to light up whenever or wherever they want. Those days are gone and we wouldn’t expect a return to that, but we don't see why you should not be allowed to have smoking rooms in bars if the owner decided that it was a good thing for his business. What you will actually find is that very few bars and restaurants would allow smoking but at least there will be some element of choice. At the moment I think Germany is quite a good example of a country that gets the balance right.

That interview was in response to a previous call to ban smoking in outdoor public places. For the full transcript of the 24-minute interview click here.

Below: Channel Island News, July 4, 2024

Election epilogue

Quick update on my previous post, written ahead of the Election on Thursday.

But first, here’s a comment posted by Eamonn Butler, co-founder of the Adam Smith Institute, on Facebook:

Biggest Con-Lab swing since 1945; second lowest turnout (59.9%) since 1918; 3m fewer votes than Corbyn; lowest winning vote share (33.8%) since 1945; Tories + Reform on 48%; 40.3% of seats won on <40% vote share; PM’s own majority down 11,195; pro-Gaza MPs now 6th-largest Parliamentary group. Funny old world.

Funny old world, indeed.

But before moving on (and we must move on) I just wanted to tie up a few loose ends because on Thursday, before the results were known, I named a number Conservatives I wanted to see returned to Parliament, and several I hoped would be cast out, never to be heard of again.

This was based on how they voted after the second reading of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill in April. It’s a niche issue, and I know there are more important matters, but (for me) voting for or against the generational tobacco ban indicates the type of politician you are - paternalistic/authoritarian or free market/socially liberal – and the type of society you want to live in.

In that context I can reveal that the results were, to say the least, mixed.

The good news is that the following (who all voted against the Tobacco and Vapes Bill) won their seats:

Kemi Badenoch, North West Essex
Suella Braverman, Fareham
Alex Burghart, Brentwood and Ongar
Sir Christopher Chope, Christchurch
Mark Francois, Rayleigh and Wickford
Richard Fuller, North Bedfordshire
Andrew Griffith, Arundel and South Downs
Robert Jenrick, Newark
Sir Edward Leigh, Gainsborough
Julia Lopez, Hornchurch and Upminster
Andrew Rosindell, Romford
Sir Alec Shelbrooke, Wetherby and Easingwold
Greg Smith, Mid Buckinghamshire
Sir Desmond Swayne, New Forest West

The bad news is we lost a considerable number of potential allies, notably Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, Sir Philip Davies, Steve Baker, Sir Jake Berry, Sir Simon Clarke, Giles Watling, and Liz Truss.

Other Conservatives who voted against the Tobacco and Vapes Bill and lost their seats were:

Sarah Atherton, Wrexham
Shaun Bailey, Tipton and Wednesbury
Simon Baynes, North Shropshire
Paul Bristow Peterborough
Rehman Chishti, Gillingham and Rainham
Brendan Clarke-Smith, Bassetlaw
Sarah Dines, Derbyshire Dales
Dame Jackie Doyle-Price, Thurrock
Nick Fletcher, Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme
Chris Green, Bolton West
Jonathan Gullis, Stoke-on-Trent North
Darren Henry, Broxtowe
Adam Holloway, Gravesham
Tom Hunt, Ipswich
Andrew Lewer, Northampton South
Marco Longhi, Dudley
Rachel Maclean, Redditch
Anthony Mangnall, South Devon
Karl McCartney, Lincoln
Anne Marie Morris, Newton Abbot
Tom Randall, Gedling
Laurence Robertson, Tewkesbury
Lee Rowley, North East Derbyshire
Gary Sambrook, Birmingham Northfield
Alexander Stafford, Rother Valley
Jane Stevenson, Wolverhampton North East
John Stevenson, Carlisle

Add to that the eleven Tory MPs who voted against the Bill but stood down before the election, and you can see the problem we face in the new Parliament.

(By my calculation, 34 of the 57 Conservatives who voted against the Bill have either stood down or lost their seats. On Thursday night we even lost the DUP's Ian Paisley who has consistently opposed anti-tobacco legislation.)

There was mixed news too concerning two Conservative members of the APPG on Smoking and Health, which is run by ASH and has been chaired - indeed driven - in recent years by Bob Blackman, the Conservative MP for Harrow East.

Defending a majority of 8,170, Blackman was widely expected to lose his seat. Instead he won with 53.3 per of the vote and an increased majority which, to be fair, was quite an achievement.

In the circumstances it was small consolation that fellow Tory Maggie Throup (Erewash), another member of the APPG on Smoking and Health, lost her seat because I suspect she will be easier to replace than Blackman would have been.

The latter, after all, has made the eradication of smoking a personal crusade, more so than any other Tory MP, and will no doubt continue to do so.

Another disappointing result was in Epsom and Ewell where Mhairi Fraser, a new Tory candidate who I praised as an opponent of the nanny state, came second to the Liberal Democrats.

Likewise, Alex Deane - another opponent of the nanny state who was fighting a seat for the first time - failed to win Finchley and Golders Green, coming second to Labour in what had been a Conservative-held seat for decades.

It's not all doom and gloom, though. The front runners to succeed Rishi Sunak as leader of the Conservative Party include three former ministers who voted against the Tobacco and Vapes Bill: Kemi Badenoch, Suella Braverman, and Robert Jenrick.

It won't stop Labour passing the legislation required to phase out the sale of tobacco, but if one of them were to win the leadership election it will at least offer hope that the Tories aren't going to blindly follow Labour down the path of excessive regulation.

As for Reform, I would imagine the party’s MPs will take their cue from Nigel Farage and if Farage chooses to he and his fellow Reform MPs (five in total) could make quite a lot of noise about the generational ban. But will they?

As I say, neither the Tories nor Reform can stop the new Labour government introducing and passing its own tobacco bill, but opposing it would at least put the nanny state back on the political agenda.

Finally, have you noticed how people on the centre right, whether they be politicians or members of the general public, have accepted the result of the election without taking to the streets in protest?

(If there are complaints they are directed at the Conservative government for being so useless and the Conservative Party for running one of the worst election campaigns in history.)

That’s how democracy works, folks. If you don’t like the result of an election, or (God forbid) a referendum, and wish to challenge or overturn it undemocratically or by force, go and live somewhere where democracy is neither respected nor recognised, and see how you like it there.

In the meantime, and despite the ‘unfairness’ of the first past the post system, let's be thankful that the next few days and weeks won’t be dominated by parties going back and forth doing back room deals trying to conjure up some sort of coalition or working majority.

It’s a funny old world but in the context of a UK general election proportional representation would be no laughing matter.

Update: Tory MP who increased majority to run as Chairman of 1922 Committee (Telegraph)

Election special

‘This Thursday I shall do something I haven’t done on election night in half a century. I shall switch off my TV, radio and phone and go to bed.’

Like Matthew Parris, writing in The Times yesterday, I won’t be staying up tonight.

Watching the party I have always voted for in general elections reduced to fewer than 150 MPs won’t be a pleasant experience, but they’ve brought it upon themselves so there will be very little sympathy from me.

Furthermore, while I am (very) apprehensive about a Labour government, there are a significant number of Conservatives I won’t be sorry to see the back of.

Naturally they include most of the MPs who voted in favour of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill in April, but it’s a such long list I won’t name them all here.

Instead, here are some of the Tories I definitely won’t miss should they lose their seats. It’s a bit random but they all voted for the generational ban so good riddance to them should that happen.

Bob Blackman, Harrow East
Majority: 8,170

Chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Smoking and Health, which is run by ASH, Bob Blackman appears to have made it his mission to eradicate smoking regardless of what I mistakenly thought were traditional Conservative values. Sadly, freedom of choice and personal responsibility appear to be anathema to him, just as they are for many Tory MPs for whom state sponsored paternalism has become deeply embedded in their political psyche. Worse, they have allied themselves to the tobacco control industry whose agenda is arguably driven as much by a hatred of a legal industry as it is by a concern for public health. Defending a majority of 8,170 makes Blackman extremely vulnerable so fingers crossed!

Maggie Throup, Erewash
Majority: 10,606

Maggie Throup is another member of the APPG on Smoking and Health whose seat in Parliament looks vulnerable. Like Blackman ASH are unlikely to miss her because I’m sure there will be plenty of MPs only too happy to fill her shoes, but were she to lose it would at least allow us a wry smile. Prediction: gone and quickly forgotten.

Tom Tugendhat, Tonbridge, Edenbridge, and North Downs Villages
Majority: n/a

Tugenhart's previous seat in Tunbridge and Malling, where he had a majority of 26,941, has been abolished and he is now the Conservative candidate for the new seat of Tonbridge, Edenbridge, and North Downs Villages. My concern is that, if elected, he will almost certainly throw his hat into the ring to become the new leader of the Conservative Party. If that's the direction the Tories want to go, good luck to them, but electing an advocate of creeping prohibition and the nanny state would hardly be a good look if the Tories are to challenge the new Labour government. Who needs more of the same?

Grant Shapps, Welwyn Hatfield
Majority: 10,955

Shapps is another who may fancy his chances in a leadership battle. Whether he gets the chance to stand is another matter, though. In 2019 he won Welwyn Hatfield with a majority of almost 11,000 but that must be looking a little fragile now. Victory for Labour in Welwyn Hatfield won't help us, of course, but it would be good to remove from the battlefield another potential Tory leader who seems to favour the nanny state over personal liberty.

Oliver Dowden, Hertsmere
Majority: 21,313

Yet another Tory minister who voted for the Tobacco and Vapes Bill and could also have eyes on the leadership prize. In a perfect world, any Tory who supports a generational ban on purchasing tobacco should be prohibited from standing, but the reality is that only one member of the Cabinet (Kemi Badenoch) opposed it at the second reading, which tells you a lot about the current Conservative Party. Dowden may have a better chance of hanging on to his seat but I wouldn’t be sorry if he was one of several 'Portillo' moments tonight. Then again, he's so anonymous most people probably won’t notice.

Richard Holden, Basildon and Billericay
Majority: 20,412

This is a strange one because Richard Holden is (or was) a smoker. We know this because in 2021 he was fined £100 for dropping a cigarette. Sadly, like many politicians who are smokers (David Cameron comes to mind), he appears happy to support anti-smoking measures that target fellow smokers or, in this case, future generations of adults who might also wish to smoke. The former MP for Durham North West recently abandoned his seat in the North East (majority 1,144) in favour of being parachuted in to Basildon and Billericay where the Tories are defending a majority of 20,412. A pattern of behaviour is emerging …

Rishi Sunak, Richmond, North Yorkshire
Majority: 27,210

I’ve nothing against Rishi personally. He seems a nice guy with a lovely family but he’s a hopeless politician, a vacuous political vessel, and if he loses his seat it’s on him and no-one else. He knifed Boris when the Tories were six points behind Labour in the polls and it’s been downhill ever since.

The announcement of a progressive tobacco sales ban - mimicking a Labour government in New Zealand - was a low point for me and many others, and including it in the Conservative manifesto – knowing how divisive the policy is among Tory MPs – was the final straw.

It’s rare if not unprecedented for a prime minister to lose their seat in a general election, and it would take a political earthquake to squander a majority of 27,210 in one of the safest Tory seats in the county. Nevertheless it would be an historic moment and richly deserved.

Sorry, Rishi, but you blew it with me and many other Conservative voters when you announced a generational tobacco ban and you will not be missed.

On a more positive note, here are five Conservative candidates I do want to see returned to Parliament. Several are vulnerable however so watch this space:

Kemi Badenoch, North West Essex
Majority: n/a

Kemi Badenoch won her previous constituency, Saffron Walden, with a majority of 27,594 in 2019. The seat has now been abolished and she is fighting a new seat, North West Essex, which some say makes her more likely to be defeated.

Badenoch was the only Cabinet minister to vote against the Tobacco and Vapes Bill at the second reading in April and, while I appreciate that it’s a niche issue for many people, I cannot stress how important it is that someone with her principles and values is returned to Parliament because there won’t be many of them in the new Parliament.

If she is returned she needs to stand for the leadership of the Conservative Party and, if she wins that election (a big ‘if’), her principles must be supported by those she leads. The alternative, looking at her likely rivals, is grim. But first, she has to win her seat. C’mon, Kemi!

Sir Philip Davies, Shipley
Majority: 6,242

Philip (now Sir Philip) Davies has been a friend of Forest for more than 15 years, sponsoring receptions at the House of Commons and speaking at several other events. And that’s despite the fact that he dislikes smoking and is not shy about saying so. He is however a man of principle, which is rare among politicians, and he is a firm believer in freedom of choice and personal responsibility.

Sadly, recent comments suggest he has written off his chances of re-election. He is even reported to have bet £8,000 on losing his seat which he has held since 2005 with an initial majority of 422. Whatever he does next (more GB News, a consultant to the betting industry, perhaps), I wish him well. He will be a significant loss to those of us who want a smaller, less regulated state.

Sir John Hayes, South Holland and The Deepings
Majority: 30,838

First elected to parliament in 1997 with a majority of 7,991 (49.3% of the vote), the chairman of the Common Sense Group of MPs is now defending a majority of 30,838 (75.9% of the vote in 2019), making it the safest Conservative seat in the last Parliament. If this article in UnHerd is to be believed (The last bastion of Tory Britain), Hayes is a 'secure Tory' who 'campaigns like a lover'. More important, he has generally voted against nanny state measures which makes him an increasingly rare breed.

See also: Lookout, it's John Hayes!

Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, North East Somerset and Hanham
Majority: n/a

Technically, this is a new seat, replacing North East Somerset that Jacob Rees-Mogg won with a majority of 14,729 in 2019. It's easy to mock the Conservative candidate for North East Somerset and Hanham and, for what it's worth, I don't see him as a future leader of the party or anything like that. Nevertheless I do want to see him returned to Parliament because we desperately need MPs with the principles and values he has stuck to throughout his time in office and on the backbenches.

Also, and this is a minor but important issue, I have rarely known any MP to be so good at responding to correspondence even if it's to decline an invitation to some event. To put this in perspective, and speaking from personal experience alone, the vast majority of MPs rarely reply to letters, emails or invitations from non-constituents. Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg (or his secretary) invariably does.

This isn't rocket science. The most basic requirement of an MP must be to run an efficient, functioning office. It shouldn't be beyond most of them but it clearly is. If MPs can't run their offices properly how can we have confidence in them to run a government department, should that opportunity arise? A bit niche, perhaps, but if I lived in North Somerset Sir Jacob would get my vote on the efficiency of his office alone!

Giles Watling, Clacton
Majority: 24,702

I’m biased because Giles Watling did Forest a huge favour when he stood in at the last moment to sponsor our reception at the House of Commons in February. But apart from that, he struck me as very decent, with a good sense of humour, and no airs and graces.

The elephant in the room (or should I say Clacton) is Nigel Farage. A few weeks ago part of me would have liked to see Farage elected (for the entertainment value if nothing else) but, as I suggested recently, I suspect the novelty (for him and for us) will wear off very quickly, especially if he is one of only two or three Reform MPs.

Moreover, having toyed with voting for my local Reform candidate, I was convinced not to by an article by another Rees-Mogg – Annunziata Rees-Mogg, a former Brexit Party MEP. Annunziata's warning about a top down party intolerant of any internal dissent rings true, I'm afraid, and Farage's threat to take over the Conservative Party strikes me as unbelievably arrogant.

The expectation is that Watling will lose to Farage but he strikes me as a good man and a hard-working constituency MP so I’m rooting for him to defeat the odds and win. If that denies us the sound and fury of Farage denouncing the generational tobacco ban in Parliament, so be it.

It’s worth noting though that over the past few months Farage (and Reform) have had remarkably little to say about the policy, and that speaks volumes too.

In addition to the above I’ll be keeping an eye on the fate of all the other Conservative candidates who voted against the Tobacco and Vapes Bill in April.

It will be an almost impossible task to stop the ban when Labour introduces their own legislation in the new parliament, but if there is to be any opposition it's essential that the following (who all voted against the Bill at second reading) are returned:

2019 majorities in brackets

Sarah Atherton, Wrexham (2,131)
Shaun Bailey, West Bromwich West (constituency abolished, now standing in Tipton & Wednesbury)
Steve Baker, Wycombe (4,214)
Simon Baynes, Clwyd South (1,239), now North Shropshire
Sir Jake Berry, Rossendale and Darwen (9,522)
Suella Braverman, Fareham (26,086)
Paul Bristow, Peterborough (2,580)
Alex Burghart, Brentwood and Ongar (29,065)
Rehman Chishti, Gillingham and Rainham (15,119)
Sir Christopher Chope, Christchurch (24,617)
Sir Simon Clarke, Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (11,626)
Brendan Clarke-Smith, Bassetlaw (14,013)
Sarah Dines, Derbyshire Dales (17,381)
Dame Jackie Doyle-Price, Thurrock (11,482)
Nick Fletcher, Don Valley (constituency abolished, now standing in Doncaster East)
Mark Francois, Rayleigh and Wickford (31,000)
Richard Fuller, North East Bedfordshire (24,283), now North Bedfordshire
Chris Green, Bolton West (8,855)
Andrew Griffith, Arundel and South Downs (22,521)
Jonathan Gullis, Stoke-on-Trent North (6,286)
Darren Henry, Broxtowe (5,331)
Adam Holloway, Gravesham (15,581)
Tom Hunt, Ipswich (5,479)
Robert Jenrick, Newark (21,816)
Sir Edward Leigh, Gainsborough (22,967)
Andrew Lewer, Northampton South (4,697)
Marco Longhi, Dudley North (11,533)
Julia Lopez, Hornchurch and Upminster (23,308)
Rachel Maclean, Redditch (16,036)
Anthony Mangnall, Totnes (12,724), now standing in South Devon
Karl McCartney, Lincoln (3,514)
Anne Marie Morris, Newton Abbot (17,501)
Tom Randall, Gedling (679)
Laurence Robertson, Tewkesbury (22,410)
Andrew Rosindell, Romford (17,893)
Lee Rowley, North East Derbyshire (12,876)
Gary Sambrook, Birmingham Northfield (1,640)
Sir Alec Shelbrooke, Elmet and Rothwell (17,353), constituency abolished, now standing in Wetherby & Easingwold
Greg Smith, Buckingham (20,411), now Mid Buckinghamshire
Alexander Stafford, Rother Valley (6,318)
Jane Stevenson, Wolverhampton North East (4,080)
John Stevenson, Carlisle (8,319)
Sir Desmond Swayne, New Forest West (24,403)
Elizabeth Truss, South West Norfolk (26,195)

My guess is that any Conservative candidate whose majority in 2019 was less than 10,000 will struggle to hold their seat, but even candidates sitting on much larger majorities will be nervous, especially high profile candidates targeted for tactical voting.

Sadly, we have already lost a number of Conservative MPs who voted against the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, with the following all choosing not to stand for re-election:

Adam Afriyie, Windsor
Richard Bacon, South Norfolk
Sir Graham Brady, Altrincham and Sale West
Dehenna Davison, Bishop Auckland
Jonathan Djanogly, Huntingdon
Sir James Duddridge, Rochford and Southend East
Mark Eastwood, Dewsbury
George Eustice, Camborne and Redruth
Paul Holmes, Eastleigh
Eddie Hughes, Walsall North (constituency abolished)
Sir Greg Knight, East Yorkshire

As for the new generation of Tory candidates, it's a sign of my age (probably), but I recognise very few and how many are genuinely liberal on a lifestyle issue like smoking must be open to doubt.

If elected, most will probably take their cue from the next leader of the party, hence the importance of whoever succeeds Sunak.

That said, two 'new' candidates do stand out as potential allies. The first is Mhairi Fraser (Epsom and Ewell) who spoke at the launch of Popular Conservatism in February when I wrote:

"The state is no Mary Poppins," [she said] adding, "It's time to put nanny to bed".

Rishi Sunak's generational tobacco ban was one of the policies she criticised, and her comments drew warm applause which surprised me a bit because Conservative audiences can be capricious when it comes to smoking.

Another small state Tory who would make an excellent member of parliament is Alex Deane, a former director of Big Brother Watch and a familiar face to viewers of Sky News, GB News and Talk TV.

Alex is the Conservative candidate for Finchley and Golders Green where the Tory majority in 2019 was 6,562, which probably makes it a marginal (at best) in 2024.

Courageously he is attempting to win the seat previously held by Mike Freer who stood down after his office was targeted for an arson attack on Christmas Eve.

Frankly, that rather puts the Tobacco and Vapes Bill into perspective, but I nevertheless hope that Alex and other candidates who have previously opposed nanny state policies will, if elected, stick with their convictions rather than taking the path of least resistance (a familiar Tory failing).

Anyway, I'll let you know how many of the candidates I’m rooting for win their seats. Fingers crossed, it will be more than single figures!