Nick de Bois, friend or foe?

Between now and the General Election on May 7 I'm highlighting my top 40 'target seats', those where the candidate standing for re-election has consistently supported anti-tobacco policies, and those where a leading candidate is a consistent opponent of excessive lifestyle regulations and policies that infantilise us all. With a few exceptions, I'm focussing on marginal or semi-marginal seats.

#5 - Enfield North
No MP fought harder to stop the introduction of plain packaging than Nick de Bois. Plain packaging, he wrote, "is the result of 'feel good' politics as opposed to rational, evidenced-based policy". At the Forest reception at the 2014 Conservative conference in Birmingham he brought a smile to everyone's face with a marvellously witty, passionate speech. Now he finds himself at serious risk of losing the seat he won in 2010 when he defeated the Labour incumbent MP Joan Ryan. In what promises to be a close-run contest, the deciding factor could be Ukip. Like several other Tory held seats, Ukip can't win Enfield North but they can hand it to Labour.

2010 majority: 1,692 (3.8%)
Estimated number of smokers in Enfield North: 13,250*
Principal opponent: Labour
Friend or foe: Friend
Target rating: Every vote counts

*Based on 20% of the registered electorate in 2010

Note: marginal seats have been defined as those with majorities of 10% or less that require a swing of 5% for the incumbent party to lose.

Stephen Williams, friend or foe?

Between now and the General Election on May 7 I'm going to highlight my top 40 'target seats', those where the candidate standing for re-election has consistently supported anti-tobacco policies, and those where a leading candidate is a consistent opponent of excessive lifestyle regulations and policies that infantilise us all. With a few exceptions, I'm focussing on marginal or semi-marginal seats.

 #4 - Bristol West
Former chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Smoking and Health (run by ASH), Lib Dem candidate Stephen Williams is one of Britain's most committed anti-smoking politicians. On a personal level I quite like him. Against that he's a strong advocate of plain packaging and helped launch the Plain Packs Protect campaign in 2012. In 2013 his enthusiastic support for smoking bans and other tobacco control policies was recognised by the World Health Organisation which presented him with a special award, at which point he declared he'd like to be public health minister! Stranger things have happened.

2010 majority: 11,366 (20.5%)
Estimated number of smokers in Bristol West: 16,500*
Closest opponent: Labour
Friend or foe: Foe
Target rating: Not impregnable but should hold on

*Based on 20% of the registered electorate in 2010

Note: marginal seats have been defined as those with majorities of 10% or less that require a swing of 5% for the incumbent party to lose.

David Nuttall, friend or foe?

Between now and the General Election on May 7 I'm highlighting my top 40 'target seats', those where the candidate standing for re-election has consistently supported anti-tobacco policies, and those where a leading candidate is a consistent opponent of excessive lifestyle regulations and policies that infantilise us all. With a few exceptions, I'm focussing on marginal or semi-marginal seats.

#3 - Bury North
Elected in 2010 David Nuttall was hailed as a hero by many smokers when one of the first things he did as an MP was to put forward a Ten-Minute Rule Bill to amend the smoking ban. The Bill was rejected by 141-86 but it demonstrated Nuttall's conviction politics. Speaking out against plain packaging, which he considered an extension of the nanny state, he said: "There are those of us who believe it is up to the individual to take personal responsibility for their own health." Ironically, if Nuttall loses his seat (most likely to Labour), it will be the result of Ukip taking a substantial chunk of his vote. Parliament needs more independently-minded MPs like David Nuttall, not less.

2010 majority: 2,243 (5%)
Estimated number of smokers in Bury North: 13,361*
Principal opponent: Labour
Friend or foe: Friend
Target rating: Every vote counts

*Based on 20% of the registered electorate in 2010

Note: marginal seats have been defined as those with majorities of 10% or less that require a swing of 5% for the incumbent party to lose.

Anna Soubry, friend or foe?

Between now and the General Election on May 7 I'm going to highlight my top 40 'target seats', those where the candidate standing for re-election has consistently supported anti-tobacco policies, and those where a leading candidate is a consistent opponent of excessive lifestyle regulations and policies that infantilise us all. With a few exceptions, I'm focussing on marginal or semi-marginal seats.

#2 - Broxtowe
Elected in 2010, Conservative candidate (and former smoker) Anna Soubry excelled herself in office. As public health minister not only did she support plain packaging (on the dubious grounds that bright colours on fag packs encouraged her to start smoking), she also drove the EU's Tobacco Products Directive through Westminster with little regard for parliamentary procedure. To win the seat Labour need a 0.4% swing, easily manageable with the help of a few hundred disgruntled smokers. Against that Soubry has been high profile, which may work in her favour. Labour's candidate, former MP Nick Palmer, is described as "moderately" anti-smoking but anything's better than another five years of Ms Motormouth and her gurning aunt routine.

2010 majority: 389 (0.7%)
Estimated number of smokers in Broxtowe: 14,445*
Principal opponent: Labour
Friend or foe: Foe
Target rating: Vulnerable

*Based on 20% of the registered electorate in 2010

Note: marginal seats have been defined as those with majorities of 10% or less that require a swing of 5% for the incumbent party to lose.

Nigel Farage, friend or foe?

Between now and the General Election on May 7 I'm going to highlight my top 40 'target seats', those where the candidate standing for re-election has consistently supported anti-tobacco policies, and those where a leading candidate is a consistent opponent of excessive lifestyle regulations and policies that infantilise us all. With a few exceptions, I'm focussing on marginal or semi-marginal seats.

#1 - Thanet South
Whatever you think of Ukip in general (and I have my reservations), party leader Nigel Farage has been a consistent and outspoken opponent of comprehensive smoking bans and other tobacco control policies. Ukip's manifesto commitment to amending the smoking ban in pubs and repealing the plain packaging legislation bears Farage's personal stamp so he deserves support for sticking to his convictions in a hostile environment. If elected Farage will be the first unapologetic smoker in the House of Commons since Ken Clarke, a sad reflection of our PC age. (One MP admitted to me that he smokes but never in his constituency for fear his constituents will see him.) If Farage falls short (comedian Al Murray is also standing in Thanet South) Ukip will lose its leader and smokers will be denied a potentially influential voice in parliament.

2010 Conservative majority: 7,617 (16.6%)
Estimated number of smokers in Thanet South: 14,068*
Principal opponent: Craig Mackinlay (Conservative)
Nigel Farage, friend or foe: Friend
Target rating: Too close to call

*Based on 20% of the registered electorate in 2010

Note: marginal seats have been defined as those with majorities of 10% or less that require a swing of 5% for the incumbent party to lose.

Cameron's 'good life' undermined by excessive state intervention

Got to hand it to Nigel Farage.

According to the Telegraph this morning, Ukip will today unveil an election manifesto that includes amending the smoking ban to allow separate, well-ventilated smoking rooms in pubs.

The party would also repeal the plain packaging law.

Meanwhile the Tory manifesto, published yesterday, contains the following gratuitous reference to plain packaging and the tobacco display ban:

We are helping people to stay healthy by ending the open display of tobacco in shops, introducing plain-packaged cigarettes and funding local authority public health budgets.

That's quite a kick in the teeth for the 104 Tory MPs, most of whom are standing again, who voted against plain packaging only five weeks ago.

Many of them also voted against the display ban.

Imagine having to promote a manifesto that includes policies you fundamentally disagree with.

Was it really necessary to include like badges of honour policies that have already been passed by parliament?

The display ban wasn't even supported by the Conservatives until this parliament. The legislation - opposed by the Tories in opposition - was introduced by the last Labour government.

Still, at least we know where we stand. In the name of 'health' expect more nanny state policies from a Cameron-led government.

The result is I am slowly coming round to the opinion, expressed by several people on this blog, that a vote for any Conservative MP (even small state Conservatives) will merely encourage the party to pursue more interventionist policies.

As for Ukip, I have a lot of time for Farage, Suzanne Evans, Stephen Woolfe, Douglas Carswell and one or two others, but the pool of talent is shallow.

The MEP who represented the party in the Scottish leaders' debate in Aberdeen last week was an embarrassment and there are too many like him.

I've never had this quandary before. I've voted Conservative ever since I was old enough to vote in 1979.

I don't consider myself a floating voter and I'm not losing sleep over it (the election campaign is far too boring for that), but I'll say this - Ukip's manifesto has made me think.

MPs who need your vote

Are you sitting comfortably? Here's the bad news.

I've been doing a little research and no fewer than 16 of the top 40 marginal seats held by the Conservative party (and targeted by Labour) were represented by MPs (now candidates) who voted against plain packaging in March.

In contrast, only eleven of the top 40 Tory seats targeted by Labour are being fought by MPs/candidates who voted in favour of plain packaging.

In other words, a substantial number of MPs who are naturally opposed to excessive regulation could lose their seats. For the record they are:

Jackie Doyle-Price, Thurrock
Mark Spencer, Sherwood
Nigel Mills, Amber Valley
Paul Uppal, Wolverhampton South West
John Stevenson, Carlisle
David Morris, Morecambe & Lunesdale
Karl McCartney, Lincoln
Richard Fuller, Bedford
Simon Kirby, Brighton Kemptown
Mary MacLeod, Brentford & Isleworth
Nick de Bois, Enfield North
Ben Gummer, Ipswich
David Nuttall, Bury North
Chris Skidmore, Kingswood
Stephen Mosley, City of Chester
Esther McVey, Wirral West

As for the Tory candidates who supported plain packaging and are currently hanging on to their own marginal seats, they are:

Matthew Offord, Hendon
Peter Aldous, Waveney
Stuart Andrew, Pudsey
James Morris, Halesowen & Rowley Regis
Marcus Jones, Nuneaton
Richard Graham, Gloucester
Michael Ellis, Northampton North
Paul Maynard, Blackpool North & Cleveleys
Gavin Barwell, Croydon Central
Robin Walker, Worcester
Kris Hopkins, Keighley

I have focussed on Tory marginals targeted by Labour because they appear more vulnerable than Tory marginals targeted by the Lib Dems.

The elephant in the room is of course Ukip. Given that both Ukip MPs (Douglas Carswell and Mark Reckless) voted against plain packaging and the party is opposed to the smoking ban, the attraction of voting for the party - if you're libertarian on these issues - is obvious.

The problem is that a vote for Ukip in certain constituencies could result in the loss of some very good MPs who are naturally opposed to Big Government.

Personally, if my MP's voting record suggested a consistent commitment to small government and less regulation I would support them regardless of the party they represented.

If, on the other hand, their voting record indicated otherwise I would vote for someone else.

What I'm trying to say is, don't destroy the careers of politicians like David Nuttall or Karl McCartney just because you want to 'hurt' David Cameron.

Likewise, if your natural inclination is to vote for one of the mainstream parties, make an exception for the likes of Carswell and Reckless. I'm not a fan of defectors, mid parliament especially, but on the basis of their voting records they deserve our support.

See also the full list of MPs who voted against plain packaging in 2015 and the list of MPs who voted in favour of David Nuttall's ten-minute rule bill to amend the smoking ban in 2010.

Lest politicians forget, smokers are voters too

We've said many times and I'll say it again, smokers are voters too.

The problem is, relatively few people vote for a candidate on the basis of a single issue, especially in a general election. That's why single issue candidates (including former directors of Forest!) invariably lose their deposits.

Anti-smoking policies may annoy and even anger millions of people but they don't affect the outcome of elections. That appears to be the view of strategists like Lynton Crosby and it's hard to disagree with their analysis.

There are several reasons for this. One, smokers are a minority of the population. Two, even smokers (the majority of them anyway) have other priorities – the economy, the NHS, immigration, all the usual issues.

Nevertheless it's not beyond the bounds of possibility to think that smokers (and tolerant non-smokers like myself) could make a difference in a handful of seats up and down the country.

Beginning tomorrow therefore I'm going to feature a series of target seats where the candidate standing for re-election is either an avowed anti-smoking campaigner or has voted consistently in favour of the more extreme tobacco control policies (smoking ban, display ban, plain packaging).

After the election we'll see how many of these anti-smoking candidates have retained their seats.

Sadly the few that do lose their seats will probably be replaced by candidates who are equally anti-smoking, but let's give it a go.