Lorely Burt, friend or foe?

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

#28 – Solihull
This a strange one. Unlike hundreds of other incumbent candidates I've no reason to feel any animosity towards Liberal Democrat Lorely Burt who is defending one of the smallest majorities in the country. Unlike her colleague Annette Brooke who was a consistent supporter of tobacco control but has thankfully now retired, Burt didn't vote for plain packaging, she didn't vote in favour of a ban on smoking in private vehicles with children, nor did she vote against an amendment to the smoking ban. Truth is she didn't vote either way so I've no idea what her views are. No, the reason Burt makes it on to this list is because of her bizarre behaviour in March 2014 when she "donned a mask and carried a pint of beer [and a fake cigarette] to mock UKIP leader Nigel Farage at her party's spring conference in York" (Daily Telegraph). Fake cigarette? That says all you need to know about the Lorely Burt and the Liberal Democrats. Her real crime, though? It just wasn't funny.

2010 majority: 175 (0.3%)
Estimated number of smokers in Solihull: 15,334*
Principal opponent: Conservative
Friend or foe: Foe
Target rating: Extremely 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.

Location, location, location

Now that's what I call a smoking terrace.

It was recommended as a potential location for a future Forest event but I had to see it for myself (hence yesterday's 350-mile round trip) because photographs can be deceptive.

I wasn't disappointed. Watch this space.

Chris Skidmore, an apology

Well, this is embarrassing.

In an earlier post I listed Chris Skidmore, the incumbent Conservative candidate for … as a 'friend'.

What a contrast with the sad apology for a Conservative MP I met in Bristol on Friday.

Like me, Chris Skidmore (above, right) was a guest on Sunday Politics West.

On a personal level he was very pleasant. Before recording started he introduced himself and we had a brief chat, mostly about the weather.

We didn't talk about banning smoking in cars with children but when the producer came to take us to the studio I asked, "How are you voting on Monday?"

"For," he replied.

Fair enough. If he feels strongly and has some good arguments for a ban that are clearly his own I can accept that.

However, when asked by presenter David Garmston how he would vote, and why, a blank look came over his face. It was as if he was on autopilot.

He uttered a few platitudes but nothing to suggest he had a genuine view of his own. Going through the motions is the best way to describe it. A zombie would have shown more passion.

Crucially there was little to distinguish Skidmore's opinion from that of Jo McCarron, the Labour candidate for Kingswood, who was also on the programme.

The only real difference between them was McCarron's bright red dress. (Skidmore was wearing a suit with a white shirt and no tie. Significantly the suit was grey.)

Kingswood is a marginal seat. Unless Tory MPs like Skidmore put some clear blue ideological water between them and their opponents, how can the Conservative party hope to win an overall majority next year?

Nice chap he may be, but Chris Skidmore is wet with a capital 'W'.

Esther McVey, friend or foe?

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

#27 - Wirral West
Former TV presenter Esther McVey polarised opinion even before she was elected to parliament in 2010. Only yesterday the Telegraph's Tim Stanley described her as a "very bright star" and a "prime example of David Cameron’s liberal-minded, female, modern favourites who were quickly elevated to cabinet rank." In contrast the Daily Record referred to her recently as a "despised Tory hatchet woman – dubbed McVile for her defence of welfare cuts". All I know is McVey courageously rebelled against her own government and voted against plain packaging of tobacco. The fact that the Mirror subsequently accused her of hypocrisy because of a letter she sent a constituent in which she described plain packaging as an "enormously positive measure that will save lives and prevent children from taking up smoking in the first place" can be taken with a pinch of salt because it was almost certainly drafted by a junior member of staff. McVey must be judged by her voting record and in 2014 and 2015 she also voted against a ban on smoking in private vehicles carrying children. Reports suggest she has an enormous battle on her hands to retain her seat. I hope she succeeds.

2010 majority: 2,436 (6.2%)
Estimated number of smokers in Wirral West: 11,013*
Principal opponent: Labour
Friend or foe: Friend
Target rating: Extremely 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.

ASH advises councils on best practice concerning Freedom of Information

I have in my hand a copy of a letter from Deborah Arnott, CEO of ASH, to Swindon Borough Council.

Dated 9 October 2014 and addressed to the chief executive, it begins:

Dear Mr Jones,

We're writing to councils to highlight current practice of the tobacco industry with respect to Freedom of Information requests. As a public health organisation we are of course committed to Freedom of Information legislation and its core principle that open and transparent government is very much in the public interest.

I sense a 'but' ... Let's see:

We have recently been contacted by a number of councils who have received FOI requests from tobacco companies. A number of other government organisations have also been subject to FOI requests from tobacco companies, including Government departments, Public Health England and regional offices of tobacco control.

Councils, as they would with all requests, should follow the law and best practice in dealing with FOIs related to tobacco issues. However, we would ask that, where information from non-governmental and other organisations will be made public, councils should follow good practice and notify those organisations affected ahead of any release.

There are a number of reasons why we are keen to ensure organisations in tobacco control have a chance to review any information which will be going into the public domain:

* In the past there have been threats of violence and direct abuse directed at ASH staff and other working in tobacco control. It is therefore important that personal information about staff is redacted in any documents released.

* While most of the communication between ASH and local councils should be released if requested, there are some written materials which are shared with council staff to assist in developing future policy, including early drafts of documents which are intended for later publication. In line with the Act it may not be appropriate [my emphasis] to release this information.

Some recent tobacco industry requests have been very broad in their scope, covering a number of years and not defining the topic on which they are requesting information. We would urge councils to consider these requests with caution [my emphasis], and when necessary and in line with the legislation to ask for further and better particulars of such requests.

Surely she's not suggesting councils should withhold information or make it more difficult for third parties to get the information they're entitled to? No, I can't believe ASH would do that. After all, "As a public health organisation we are of course committed to Freedom of Information legislation and its core principle that open and transparent government is very much in the public interest."

As for "threats of violence and direct abuse directed at ASH staff and others working in tobacco control", I think she's referring to this: Pro-tobacco activists accused of harassing and abusing anti-smoking campaigners as government considers banning branding on cigarette packets (Daily Mail).

I said at the time I thought one or two people were misguided to use the language they did, even in jest or to make a point. See how it's used, years later?

Anyway, the letter continues with a reference to the WHO treaty on tobacco control and "industry attempts to undermine UK and European public health policy", adding:

You can find out more about the activity of the tobacco industry through the Bath University Tobacco Tactics website www.tobaccotactics.org.

(I imagine most readers will be familiar with this website. If not, you can read about it here: Tobacco Tactics – what do you think of it so far?.)

I've nothing to add at this stage. If however you're wondering how I got my hands on the letter, I'll give you a clue:

Freedom of Information.

Oh, the irony.

Valerie Vaz, friend or foe?

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

#26 - Walsall South
First elected in 2010, Labour's Valerie Vaz was quickly elected to the Health Select Committee and wasted no time establishing her anti-tobacco credentials, voting against David Nuttall's proposed amendment to the smoking ban. In July 2013 she asked the following parliamentary question, “Apart from vending machines, what public health initiatives is the Minister going to undertake immediately to stop 570 children a day taking up smoking?” She subsequently supported the ban on smoking in private vehicles (with children) and was a keen and vocal advocate of plain packaging. Vaz also supports higher taxes on alcoholic drinks and in 2012 commented, "Alcohol is linked to many other diseases, and to violent crimes, domestic violence and anti-social behaviour. In my view, there should not be 24-hour licensing. Before the law was changed pubs used to close at 11pm and people knew it was time to go home.”

2010 majority: 1,755 (4.3%)
Estimated number of smokers in Walsall South: 12,958*
Principal opponent: Conservative
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.

Ukip – what a shambles

I've heard everything now.

This afternoon, on the Daily Politics Election Special (BBC2), Andrew Neil questioned the health spokesmen representing the five main parties.

I wasn't watching but I followed the debate on Twitter.

Incredibly Ukip's health spokesman, Angus Dalgleish, is reported to have said smoking should be banned in parks but not pubs because children play in parks.

WTF! Is this official policy (it's not in the manifesto) or did he make it up on the spot?

I can't believe I even toyed with voting for such a shambolic party.

Update: Angus Dalgleish is a "consultant physician specialising in cancer medicine". See Cancer expert Professor Angus Dalgleish to stand for UKIP in Sutton and Cheam

Ironically he's standing in a constituency where the incumbent is the Lib Dem's Paul Burstow, chairman of the APPG on Smoking and Health run by ASH.

It's a marginal yet Burstow could retain his seat if the Conservative vote is split by Ukip. If that happens, a good Tory candidate (Paul Scully) will be lost to parliament.

Update: Ukip press officer Gawain Towler has responded via Twitter to Forest's disbelief: "He was giving a personal opinion as an oncologist."

Our response: "Perhaps you should release a statement saying that is not Ukip's official policy. Many people will be disappointed/confused."

Further update: Response from Ukip's head of media to a media enquiry:

"There is no written policy from UKIP on banning smoking in parks, Professor Dalgleish, as one of the country's leading oncologists, was giving his personal opinion as he is more than entitled to do."

He may be entitled to have a personal opinion but Dalgleish's comments demonstrate utter contempt for (or ignorance of) Ukip's official position.

Here's Forest's reaction in full:

"With the possible exception of the smoker, smoking in the open air doesn't harm anyone.

"Angus Dalgleish's comments will confuse many people who may have been persuaded to vote for Ukip because of the party's opposition to the smoking ban and plain packaging.

"There's a suspicion Ukip only supports an amendment to the smoking ban because of Nigel Farage and without his influence they would be the same as every other party on tobacco control.

"If the party wants to appeal to Britain's ten million smokers they need to state very clearly that Dalgleish's comments do not represent party policy and they are firmly committed to rolling back the nanny state, not adding to it."

Another update: To be fair to Ukip's media office, they've been quick to distance the party from Dalgleish's "personal" views.

Unfortunately the damage had already been done. See Election 2015 health debate: UKIP on park smoking ban (BBC News).

Has the tobacco industry been no platformed?

A couple of weeks ago I mentioned I'd been invited to take part in a debate at the Oxford Union next month.

The motion – ‘This House believes that the tobacco industry is morally reprehensible’ – is designed to generate a heated discussion about whether the tobacco companies should be treated as pariahs.

When I was approached in March I was told I'd be speaking alongside a senior tobacco industry executive but I wasn't told who we'd be debating against.

Two weeks ago I found out, via Twitter, that the Union's first choice speakers were Simon Chapman, Australia's leading anti-tobacco campaigner, and fellow Aussie Mike Daube.

For various reasons Chapman couldn't do it but what irked him, after he had already turned down the invitation, was the discovery that the debate was being 'supported' by Imperial Tobacco. (See Simon Chapman and the Oxford Union.)

After his outburst I wondered if the debate would go ahead and who would propose the motion. Last night I found out.

Speaking for the proposition are Baroness Finlay of Llandaff, professor of palliative medicine and a member of House of Lords, and our old friend Professor Gerard Hastings, founder of the Centre for Tobacco Control Research and a "special government adviser" on tobacco control.

I also discovered that I will no longer be joined by a representative of the tobacco industry but by Mark Littlewood, director general of the IEA.

Don't get me wrong. I'm delighted Mark is taking part. It will be good fun and Mark is a top, top debater. He's also an Oxford graduate, prefers a leather jacket to a suit, and smokes like a chimney so our chances of winning the debate have improved enormously!

It does beg the question, though, why is the tobacco industry not represented? Surely they have a right to defend themselves against the proposition that they are "morally reprehensible"?

My guess is that in order for the debate to go ahead they've had to bow out. Perhaps (and this is pure speculation) the Oxford Union found it impossible to persuade a senior tobacco control campaigner to share a platform with a representative of a "morally reprehensible" industry.

If that's the case a legitimate industry has effectively been 'no platformed'. So much for free speech.

I'll check the facts but I'm tempted to mention it in my speech.

Update on Wednesday, April 29, 2015 at 12:11 by Simon Clark

Here are the facts according to Cherwell, the Oxford student newspaper:

Union tarred by Imperial Tobacco sponsorship dealings (Cherwell)