I understand that, but from what I hear, the cost of making it means-tested and then ensuring only those who meet the criteria receive it, would far outweigh the cost of just giving everyone a payment that probably doesn’t even cover two months of what they’re paying to the energy companies.
I'm finding it hard to believe that the government didn't do the sums on that.
The government are banking on a large proportion of those eligible (via pension credit) not claiming.
You may be right. Governments of all stripes have ignored the massive amount of unclaimed entitlements for obvious reasons.
As pensioner losing WFA I don't have a problem: I think it should be income-related.
Same here - I didn’t need it and hopefully those who do will get more.
Personally I'd file that under forlorn hope - they've come up with something that if done properly would cost more than just giving everyone the money as up to now has done... so far from leading anyone to 'get more' I'm with @Arethosemyfeet that it's more likely that they know that they're going to hit those who are still eligible but don't claim, and are ok with that...
But it's ok because these are the good guys in charge now...
I understand that, but from what I hear, the cost of making it means-tested and then ensuring only those who meet the criteria receive it, would far outweigh the cost of just giving everyone a payment that probably doesn’t even cover two months of what they’re paying to the energy companies.
I'm finding it hard to believe that the government didn't do the sums on that.
The government are banking on a large proportion of those eligible (via pension credit) not claiming.
You may be right. Governments of all stripes have ignored the massive amount of unclaimed entitlements for obvious reasons.
That initiative suggests that the *Sunak* government was trying not to ignore the massive amount of unclaimed entitlements (last year)... it doesn't tell us much about what the *new* government will do. I mean, I'll assume they won't act in bad faith, but...
Jenrick is obviously working hard to be the chosen one. His Facebook page is full of pictures of him doing stuff to prove how wonderful he is. He happens to be my MP and he was on the front of the local paper claiming he was running a campaign about reinstating 24 hour coverage at our hospital's urgent care system. The campaign that local Independents and Labour activists had been running for the last year.
Call him out, if you haven't already done so...though there will always be gammon (and others) willing to swallow the lies of such people.
Thing is - and I once lived in a seat where we turfed out a Labour minister and elected an independent on a Save the Hospital ticket (and then re-elected them 5 years later) - it might be (is) hypocrisy, but it’s also political reality.
On balance, now they’re in opposition the Tories are exactly who will lead ‘save the hospital’ campaigns and Labour -because they can be shut up with promises of select committee berths etc, will tend not to be.
Yes it’s turning on a sixpence but Labour are the ones who now have to make the tough choices and the Tories wear the ‘something must be done’ coat.
In our case, Labour took the seat from the Tories in 1997 on amongst other things a ‘save the hospital’ ticket, then made the MP a health minister and closed the hospital!
At which point all the Labour activists got split down the middle between those who decamped to the independent and those who just sort of stood there bewildered.
I’m sure the Tories have done the same but that’s my personal example - oppositions campaign to save hospitals, governments close them. And so the world turns.
In our case, Labour took the seat from the Tories in 1997 on amongst other things a ‘save the hospital’ ticket, then made the MP a health minister and closed the hospital!
At which point all the Labour activists got split down the middle between those who decamped to the independent and those who just sort of stood there bewildered.
I’m sure the Tories have done the same but that’s my personal example - oppositions campaign to save hospitals, governments close them. And so the world turns.
I'm profoundly depressed at the usual nonsense about, for instance, economic growth - no party has a cat in hell's chance of doing anything about that.
They, and indeed Labour, may be wrong, of course but I would argue that 'nonsense' is a stretch here.
AFZ
FWIW my key concern would be - and obviously you'll have to take my word for it as I can't prove it - is that without knowing the content or much about the subject I clicked on the link thinking 'letter to the Guardian backing Labour on the economy' and had correctly guessed half a dozen of the signatories.
At least one of those signatories is having buyers remorse:
I'm profoundly depressed at the usual nonsense about, for instance, economic growth - no party has a cat in hell's chance of doing anything about that.
They, and indeed Labour, may be wrong, of course but I would argue that 'nonsense' is a stretch here.
AFZ
FWIW my key concern would be - and obviously you'll have to take my word for it as I can't prove it - is that without knowing the content or much about the subject I clicked on the link thinking 'letter to the Guardian backing Labour on the economy' and had correctly guessed half a dozen of the signatories.
At least one of those signatories is having buyers remorse:
Before the election ‘look, we clever people think Labour are great, and people trust what we say because we’re right’
7 weeks after an election (or whatever we are) ‘I, a clever person, would like to make it clear that the new government are wrong because I’m still right’
I'm profoundly depressed at the usual nonsense about, for instance, economic growth - no party has a cat in hell's chance of doing anything about that.
They, and indeed Labour, may be wrong, of course but I would argue that 'nonsense' is a stretch here.
AFZ
FWIW my key concern would be - and obviously you'll have to take my word for it as I can't prove it - is that without knowing the content or much about the subject I clicked on the link thinking 'letter to the Guardian backing Labour on the economy' and had correctly guessed half a dozen of the signatories.
At least one of those signatories is having buyers remorse:
Before the election ‘look, we clever people think Labour are great, and people trust what we say because we’re right’
7 weeks after an election (or whatever we are) ‘I, a clever person, would like to make it clear that the new government are wrong because I’m still right’
Or he knew there was a con being run but thought he wasn't the mark.
Blanchflower's always been a bit out there and much more outspoken than the other signatories but he's not being inconsistent here.
The letter talked about what public investment in the right areas could achieve. Now, he's saying Labour aren't doing the things they need to do. That makes him a non-partisan, expert commentator. Nothing more, nothing less.
Where I disagree with him is that he's totally jumping the gun. Ignore the spin from both the government and its haters (especially the Telegraph in this case) and look at what Labour actually does.
To which the answer is we don't bloody know yet. Not until the budget. Blanchflower has been a critic of Labour for a long time. He's based his critique on a whole load of rumour, in this case.
Simon Wren-Lewis's blog is much more serious commentary about where we are.
I have been clear, in several places that I worry Labour won't be brave enough but this whole deluge of 'Labour is failing because they haven't fixed everything yet' or more precisely in this case, 'they're failing 'coz of what I think they will do ' is all a little tedious.
To which the answer is we don't bloody know yet. Not until the budget. Blanchflower has been a critic of Labour for a long time. He's based his critique on a whole load of rumour, in this case.
Or on the publicly reported pronouncements of Starmer and Reeves in recent days.
Simon Wren-Lewis's blog is much more serious commentary about where we are.
I'd read him for economics rather than politics as he has has engaged in the same level of wishful thinking in the past:
To which the answer is we don't bloody know yet. Not until the budget. Blanchflower has been a critic of Labour for a long time. He's based his critique on a whole load of rumour, in this case.
Or on the publicly reported pronouncements of Starmer and Reeves in recent days.
Simon Wren-Lewis's blog is much more serious commentary about where we are.
I'd read him for economics rather than politics as he has has engaged in the same level of wishful thinking in the past:
Indeed. This discussion might sit better in the Labour Gov thread. It's a spin off pre election from an argument that economically it was a lie to say things could be better. Several notable economists wrote to a newspaper arguing that Labour were on a better track economically. Mr Blanchflower feels they are too close to previous Tory mistakes.
If it helps, the Tory leadership hopefuls are all over my Twitter feed spouting crap...
It's especially galling at the moment because it all comes down to: Labour are so rubbish, they haven't even fixed x yet. Where x is undoubtedly something for which they are entirely responsible.
The flip side of that is that it's a rhetorical position that plays well to themselves but has zero chance of winning them an election. Whichever mediocrity crawls out of this race to lead them is very unlikely to get them any closer to power.
They are probably going to double down on the win-back-Reform-voters strategy. That's fine by me in the short term.
It's especially galling at the moment because it all comes down to: Labour are so rubbish, they haven't even fixed x yet. Where x is undoubtedly something for which they are entirely responsible.
Being able to say "why haven't you fixed problem X that we caused by our policies of the last decade" with a straight face is undoubtedly some sort of talent.
Not a talent that is useful for the country as a whole, of course.
It's especially galling at the moment because it all comes down to: Labour are so rubbish, they haven't even fixed x yet. Where x is undoubtedly something for which they are entirely responsible.
Being able to say "why haven't you fixed problem X that we caused by our policies of the last decade" with a straight face is undoubtedly some sort of talent.
Not a talent that is useful for the country as a whole, of course.
Indeed.
Alex Andreou Tweeted today that despite being a very close political observer he has no clue where any of the leadership hopefuls sit on anything apart from immigration. He concluded that the Farage takeover is complete.
I am really torn here.
Detoxification of our national conversation on immigration is desperately needed. It's virtually impossible with our media but if the Tories are going to run with this it will only get worse. Eventually they'll realise that they cannot out-Reform Reform. Eventually. Labour quietly fixing the problem will help but that will take time.
Conversely, the Tories' electoral chances with this strategy are virtually zero. Consider: Anyone who actually thinks refugees are human will be turned off completely; Anyone who knows that immigration is in fact a minor issue will not be interested until they come up with policies for the things that actually matter; And most of those who are drawn to these policies don't trust the Tories at all. If what I see on Social Media is representative of this group at all, there's a strong vibe of "You failed, you can't be trusted, I'm voting Reform." Reform can't loose with this unless and until they win some power as they get to pretend that they have workable policies without having to deal with reality.
So yeah, in summary, the current leadership campaign suggests a weakening of the Tories as an electoral force in the short term.
The Government is considering imposing stricter controls on smoking, in order to reduce pressure on the NHS and save lives. Tory spokesmen are allegedly saying it will ruin some businesses. By their priorities ye shall know them. Need one guess what Farage's line will be?
The Government is considering imposing stricter controls on smoking, in order to reduce pressure on the NHS and save lives. Tory spokesmen are allegedly saying it will ruin some businesses. By their priorities ye shall know them. Need one guess what Farage's line will be?
Wasn't there a bill introduced by the previous government to impose stricter controls on smoking, that only didn't become law because the election was called? Is that one of those "good idea if we propose it" but "bad idea if they propose it" situations? Surely any sensible politician would work across the party divides to get something done, rather than just perpetuate the divisive partisan politics that's been ruining the nation for decades? Especially over something there's clearly cross party support for given that it was Tory policy a few months ago and is Labour policy now.
Yes, Sunak proposed it, not long before the election.
The health benefits are fairly obvious, but, as usual, there are those who would oppose it because businesses will lose money. True, a number of pubs closed some years ago following the ban on indoor smoking, but there may well have been other factors at play (cheaper alcohol available at the supermarket, for one).
The Government is considering imposing stricter controls on smoking, in order to reduce pressure on the NHS and save lives. Tory spokesmen are allegedly saying it will ruin some businesses. By their priorities ye shall know them. Need one guess what Farage's line will be?
"It will end pubs", apparently.
I'm a little torn on these proposals. From a personal point of view, I'd be delighted - I can't stand the smell of burning tobacco (or other things that people are prone to ignite and inhale), and so anything that means that I don't have to smell your disgusting habit sounds good to me.
But on the other hand, the health risks associated with me catching a whiff of your fag in a pub garden, or whilst walking down the high street, are pretty minimal. There are health risks to you if you choose to smoke, but I think current legislation basically eliminates health risk to third parties. Well, except for third parties that you live with, but Labour's proposed legislation isn't going to prevent, for example, people with children from smoking in their homes.
I am an ex smoker. I packed in about 40 years ago for health reasons. I support the legislation aimed at preventing young people to ever be able to smoke legally.
However, I have never been against other people smoking. We have many people addicted to smoking who are just not able to stop. That's why I support efforts to stop people starting.
When I was young many pubs had a bar and a room called, 'Smoke room' even though one could smoke anywhere in the pub. I would have accepted smoke rooms in pubs on the understanding that no staff would be forced to work in them.
It's just another thing not in Sir Keir's manifesto.
I don't think the ban on smoking in outdoor areas of pubs etc. has yet been declared as official policy, though it's not being ruled out. There are, inevitably, objections, which may or may not be valid, but such a ban would be hard (impossible?) to enforce:
I don't think the ban on smoking in outdoor areas of pubs etc. has yet been declared as official policy, though it's not being ruled out. There are, inevitably, objections, which may or may not be valid, but such a ban would be hard (impossible?) to enforce:
However, I have never been against other people smoking. We have many people addicted to smoking who are just not able to stop.
Sorry, but that’s rubbish. Anybody can stop. It’s not easy - in fact it’s fucking difficult. I forget how many failed attempts I made to stop before I finally succeeded, but it is possible so I don’t accept the argument that they are not able to stop. Would you say the same about alcoholics or heroin addicts?
When I was young many pubs had a bar and a room called, 'Smoke room' even though one could smoke anywhere in the pub. I would have accepted smoke rooms in pubs on the understanding that no staff would be forced to work in them.
What happens when none of the staff are prepared to work in them?
Agreed - stopping is not easy, at least for some people.
I stopped smoking (back in 2006) through the aid of s prescribed drug whose name I can't remember. It worked, although colleagues told me afterwards that I had been like a bear with a sore head for about 3 weeks whilst the stuff did its job...apparently, they were too scared to tell me during that 3-week period, in case I rose up and slew them.
The drug was developed as an anti-depressant, but was found to be also very effective in suppressing the desire to smoke. AIUI, there turned out to be side-effects which caused it to be taken out of use, but I'm not sure if that's still the case.
However, I have never been against other people smoking. We have many people addicted to smoking who are just not able to stop.
Sorry, but that’s rubbish. Anybody can stop. It’s not easy - in fact it’s fucking difficult. I forget how many failed attempts I made to stop before I finally succeeded, but it is possible so I don’t accept the argument that they are not able to stop. Would you say the same about alcoholics or heroin addicts?
When I was young many pubs had a bar and a room called, 'Smoke room' even though one could smoke anywhere in the pub. I would have accepted smoke rooms in pubs on the understanding that no staff would be forced to work in them.
What happens when none of the staff are prepared to work in them?
Two things.
1. I think this discussion belongs on The Labour Government thread not this one about the future of the Conservatives - my apologies I'd I've slipped into junior hosting... just my view.
2. More importantly the truth of addiction and how difficult or otherwise it is to quit is a very complex discussion.
There is lots of evidence that some people are much more prone to addiction than others. Thus one person's I can quit so anybody can is something I treat with extreme caution.
I offer one observation about nicotine addiction. It's a very long time since I have done any adult work, but as a junior doctor, I met a number of ex heroin users who couldn't give up the fags. My point being that maybe nicotine addiction - which is both physical and psychological - is a very tough one to beat.
Yes, I wondered what this had to do with the erstwhile tory government, until I was reminded that the proposals which Labour have taken over were first introduced by Sunak.
However, the mere thought of introducing a ban on smoking outside has produced the inevitable right-wing foaming at the mouth, with the egregious Esther McVey making offensive remarks. This report is from the Guardian, but contains references which some will find painful:
Another example of how the tories are unfit to be in government.
BTW, nicotine addiction is indeed hard to beat. Before I used the prescribed drug I referred to earlier, I'd tried, and failed, to give up at least three times. Even today - 18 years later - the occasional craving still occurs.
If she's that concerned about the taking away of freedoms, I would suggest that taking away the freedom to live and work, or even travel without queues at immigration and roaming charges on the phone, throughout the EU is a far bigger loss than being able to light up in a beer garden. Which is something her party are entirely responsible for.
Meanwhile, another tory leader hopeless hopeful demonstrates his unfitness for office:
Government ministers are not responsible for the work. Civil servants are. When Priti Patel told them to pull their finger out she was accused of bullying
Meanwhile, another tory leader hopeless hopeful demonstrates his unfitness for office:
Government ministers are not responsible for the work. Civil servants are. When Priti Patel told them to pull their finger out she was accused of bullying
Missed the edit window - I think the Guardian is free to read, and not behind a paywall, but I apologise if I'm wrong about that. I'm a subscriber, so don't have any problems with it...
Meanwhile, another tory leader hopeless hopeful demonstrates his unfitness for office:
Government ministers are not responsible for the work. Civil servants are. When Priti Patel told them to pull their finger out she was accused of bullying
Ministers, and the Government more generally, are responsible for setting the rules that civil servants work under. When the Tory government passed a ludicrous law calling those seeking asylum by the only route available to them "illegal" they also established a system where those arriving in the UK seeking asylum couldn't have their claims assessed. The result was the relevant staff being reassigned to other duties, and tens of thousands of people locked up in hotels, former military camps and a barge at great expense. The backlog of claimants from before that bill was passed was being worked on, but very slowly. Meanwhile the number of people who couldn't have their claims assessed, because of government policy, grew and grew. You can't blame civil servants for not doing something that their ministers had managed to make impossible.
I keep getting requests for money. Are you on some sort of commision ?
Unlike many newspapers, the Guardian has decided to make all their content free for anyone to read, rather than limit reading content to subscribers. But, they also need subscribers to cover their cost - and so they put a "please subscribe" request on all their pages, having these ads seems a small price to pay to read quality journalism.
Meanwhile, another tory leader hopeless hopeful demonstrates his unfitness for office:
Government ministers are not responsible for the work. Civil servants are. When Priti Patel told them to pull their finger out she was accused of bullying
Meanwhile, another tory leader hopeless hopeful demonstrates his unfitness for office:
Government ministers are not responsible for the work. Civil servants are. When Priti Patel told them to pull their finger out she was accused of bullying
Ministers, and the Government more generally, are responsible for setting the rules that civil servants work under. When the Tory government passed a ludicrous law calling those seeking asylum by the only route available to them "illegal" they also established a system where those arriving in the UK seeking asylum couldn't have their claims assessed. The result was the relevant staff being reassigned to other duties, and tens of thousands of people locked up in hotels, former military camps and a barge at great expense. The backlog of claimants from before that bill was passed was being worked on, but very slowly. Meanwhile the number of people who couldn't have their claims assessed, because of government policy, grew and grew. You can't blame civil servants for not doing something that their ministers had managed to make impossible.
Whilst not disputing anything in your post, the impression I get is that there is far less neutrality in the civil service.
For the majority of civil servants, there's very little (if any) room to show political bias, they just have to follow the rules (I suppose they have the option to quit if they feel unable to follow the rules). When someone in the Home Office gets an asylum claimant assigned to them the rules are well defined as to what the Home Office (ie: the Ministers and rest of Government through Parliament) considers grounds for asylum, and asylum can only be granted if those rules are met (there is, of course, a legal route to challenge a ruling which includes possibility of the courts saying that the rules set by Ministers are illegal). The same goes for the management layer above those who assess claims, in terms of whether the rules allow them to pass a claimants case to be assessed (under the previous Tory government the vast majority of people who had arrived in the UK recently and claimed asylum were stuck because the rules they had set stated that they couldn't be assessed for asylum - but also, because they hadn't been denied asylum they also couldn't be deported leaving no option except pay for hotel bills for months).
O deep joy. The tory hopefuls have started their attempts to become leader of what remains of the party, but it's hard to see what they have to offer, given their ruinous reign of 14 years. More of the same?
Mel Stride is talking the most sense (admittedly the bar’s not very high and he won’t win). If, for some bizarre reason, I had a vote, that is where my vote would go.
However, I wonder if he really wants a Big Job and this is his pitch to the others, because he can’t possibly win. Can he? Strikes me as a back room boy really. A personable, relatively media friendly one, but still back room.
Comments
Same here - I didn’t need it and hopefully those who do will get more.
You may be right. Governments of all stripes have ignored the massive amount of unclaimed entitlements for obvious reasons.
However,
this initiative suggests differently.
Personally I'd file that under forlorn hope - they've come up with something that if done properly would cost more than just giving everyone the money as up to now has done... so far from leading anyone to 'get more' I'm with @Arethosemyfeet that it's more likely that they know that they're going to hit those who are still eligible but don't claim, and are ok with that...
But it's ok because these are the good guys in charge now...
cross-posted with @alienfromzog
That initiative suggests that the *Sunak* government was trying not to ignore the massive amount of unclaimed entitlements (last year)... it doesn't tell us much about what the *new* government will do. I mean, I'll assume they won't act in bad faith, but...
Thing is - and I once lived in a seat where we turfed out a Labour minister and elected an independent on a Save the Hospital ticket (and then re-elected them 5 years later) - it might be (is) hypocrisy, but it’s also political reality.
On balance, now they’re in opposition the Tories are exactly who will lead ‘save the hospital’ campaigns and Labour -because they can be shut up with promises of select committee berths etc, will tend not to be.
Yes it’s turning on a sixpence but Labour are the ones who now have to make the tough choices and the Tories wear the ‘something must be done’ coat.
At which point all the Labour activists got split down the middle between those who decamped to the independent and those who just sort of stood there bewildered.
I’m sure the Tories have done the same but that’s my personal example - oppositions campaign to save hospitals, governments close them. And so the world turns.
Wyre Forrest?
S cotch
H errings
I n
T omato
S auce
50 years ago too?
At least one of those signatories is having buyers remorse:
https://x.com/D_Blanchflower/status/1827688405632761960
https://x.com/D_Blanchflower/status/1827699870246875344
Before the election ‘look, we clever people think Labour are great, and people trust what we say because we’re right’
7 weeks after an election (or whatever we are) ‘I, a clever person, would like to make it clear that the new government are wrong because I’m still right’
Or he knew there was a con being run but thought he wasn't the mark.
The letter talked about what public investment in the right areas could achieve. Now, he's saying Labour aren't doing the things they need to do. That makes him a non-partisan, expert commentator. Nothing more, nothing less.
Where I disagree with him is that he's totally jumping the gun. Ignore the spin from both the government and its haters (especially the Telegraph in this case) and look at what Labour actually does.
To which the answer is we don't bloody know yet. Not until the budget. Blanchflower has been a critic of Labour for a long time. He's based his critique on a whole load of rumour, in this case.
Simon Wren-Lewis's blog is much more serious commentary about where we are.
I have been clear, in several places that I worry Labour won't be brave enough but this whole deluge of 'Labour is failing because they haven't fixed everything yet' or more precisely in this case, 'they're failing 'coz of what I think they will do ' is all a little tedious.
AFZ
Or on the publicly reported pronouncements of Starmer and Reeves in recent days.
I'd read him for economics rather than politics as he has has engaged in the same level of wishful thinking in the past:
https://x.com/sjwrenlewis/status/1463189613426663424
He's blogged recently about what the budget might look like.
Indeed. This discussion might sit better in the Labour Gov thread. It's a spin off pre election from an argument that economically it was a lie to say things could be better. Several notable economists wrote to a newspaper arguing that Labour were on a better track economically. Mr Blanchflower feels they are too close to previous Tory mistakes.
If it helps, the Tory leadership hopefuls are all over my Twitter feed spouting crap...
When aren't they spouting crap?
Fair point.
It's especially galling at the moment because it all comes down to: Labour are so rubbish, they haven't even fixed x yet. Where x is undoubtedly something for which they are entirely responsible.
The flip side of that is that it's a rhetorical position that plays well to themselves but has zero chance of winning them an election. Whichever mediocrity crawls out of this race to lead them is very unlikely to get them any closer to power.
They are probably going to double down on the win-back-Reform-voters strategy. That's fine by me in the short term.
AFZ
Being able to say "why haven't you fixed problem X that we caused by our policies of the last decade" with a straight face is undoubtedly some sort of talent.
Not a talent that is useful for the country as a whole, of course.
Indeed.
Alex Andreou Tweeted today that despite being a very close political observer he has no clue where any of the leadership hopefuls sit on anything apart from immigration. He concluded that the Farage takeover is complete.
I am really torn here.
Detoxification of our national conversation on immigration is desperately needed. It's virtually impossible with our media but if the Tories are going to run with this it will only get worse. Eventually they'll realise that they cannot out-Reform Reform. Eventually. Labour quietly fixing the problem will help but that will take time.
Conversely, the Tories' electoral chances with this strategy are virtually zero. Consider: Anyone who actually thinks refugees are human will be turned off completely; Anyone who knows that immigration is in fact a minor issue will not be interested until they come up with policies for the things that actually matter; And most of those who are drawn to these policies don't trust the Tories at all. If what I see on Social Media is representative of this group at all, there's a strong vibe of "You failed, you can't be trusted, I'm voting Reform." Reform can't loose with this unless and until they win some power as they get to pretend that they have workable policies without having to deal with reality.
So yeah, in summary, the current leadership campaign suggests a weakening of the Tories as an electoral force in the short term.
Such a shame.
AFZ
The health benefits are fairly obvious, but, as usual, there are those who would oppose it because businesses will lose money. True, a number of pubs closed some years ago following the ban on indoor smoking, but there may well have been other factors at play (cheaper alcohol available at the supermarket, for one).
Jim Hacker tried to ban smoking, too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mtp2-PEH20
"It will end pubs", apparently.
I'm a little torn on these proposals. From a personal point of view, I'd be delighted - I can't stand the smell of burning tobacco (or other things that people are prone to ignite and inhale), and so anything that means that I don't have to smell your disgusting habit sounds good to me.
But on the other hand, the health risks associated with me catching a whiff of your fag in a pub garden, or whilst walking down the high street, are pretty minimal. There are health risks to you if you choose to smoke, but I think current legislation basically eliminates health risk to third parties. Well, except for third parties that you live with, but Labour's proposed legislation isn't going to prevent, for example, people with children from smoking in their homes.
However, I have never been against other people smoking. We have many people addicted to smoking who are just not able to stop. That's why I support efforts to stop people starting.
When I was young many pubs had a bar and a room called, 'Smoke room' even though one could smoke anywhere in the pub. I would have accepted smoke rooms in pubs on the understanding that no staff would be forced to work in them.
It's just another thing not in Sir Keir's manifesto.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/aug/29/starmer-faces-pushback-from-pubs-over-bonkers-outdoor-smoking-curbs
Prior to the election, Labour simply took on board Sunak's proposals:
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uks-labour-promises-ban-smoking-younger-generations-2024-06-13/
I wouldn't be surprised to see Labour proceed with the previous ideas, but without going any further.
I stopped smoking (back in 2006) through the aid of s prescribed drug whose name I can't remember. It worked, although colleagues told me afterwards that I had been like a bear with a sore head for about 3 weeks whilst the stuff did its job...apparently, they were too scared to tell me during that 3-week period, in case I rose up and slew them.
The drug was developed as an anti-depressant, but was found to be also very effective in suppressing the desire to smoke. AIUI, there turned out to be side-effects which caused it to be taken out of use, but I'm not sure if that's still the case.
Two things.
1. I think this discussion belongs on The Labour Government thread not this one about the future of the Conservatives - my apologies I'd I've slipped into junior hosting... just my view.
2. More importantly the truth of addiction and how difficult or otherwise it is to quit is a very complex discussion.
There is lots of evidence that some people are much more prone to addiction than others. Thus one person's I can quit so anybody can is something I treat with extreme caution.
I offer one observation about nicotine addiction. It's a very long time since I have done any adult work, but as a junior doctor, I met a number of ex heroin users who couldn't give up the fags. My point being that maybe nicotine addiction - which is both physical and psychological - is a very tough one to beat.
AFZ
However, the mere thought of introducing a ban on smoking outside has produced the inevitable right-wing foaming at the mouth, with the egregious Esther McVey making offensive remarks. This report is from the Guardian, but contains references which some will find painful:
Another example of how the tories are unfit to be in government.
BTW, nicotine addiction is indeed hard to beat. Before I used the prescribed drug I referred to earlier, I'd tried, and failed, to give up at least three times. Even today - 18 years later - the occasional craving still occurs.
Ms McVey, though, is nothing if not inconsistent so...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/aug/30/james-cleverly-accused-aggravating-uk-asylum-backlog-crisis
No.
Unlike many newspapers, the Guardian has decided to make all their content free for anyone to read, rather than limit reading content to subscribers. But, they also need subscribers to cover their cost - and so they put a "please subscribe" request on all their pages, having these ads seems a small price to pay to read quality journalism.
Whilst not disputing anything in your post, the impression I get is that there is far less neutrality in the civil service.
Here's Badenoch:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/sep/02/kemi-badenoch-tory-leadership-campaign-launch-immigration
However, I wonder if he really wants a Big Job and this is his pitch to the others, because he can’t possibly win. Can he? Strikes me as a back room boy really. A personable, relatively media friendly one, but still back room.