If Blair had told the truth to parliament and the Lords there would have been , the ONS survey showed people ( non smokers included ) wanted restrictions but not an outright ban. Blair lied and said he had not had the results of the ONS survey when in fact he had but he and his government wanted a ban so pushed it ahead on false information

How to get rid of Maggie Thatcher 2 (Theresa May)

I've not heard there was any lie involved, but in any case it was sensible to ban smoking in all public places. Any exemptions would have been arbitrary and illogical.

I'm glad that wasn't meant seriously!

There was and it formed part of the Judicial Review , these excerpts from papers used


They lied to MP’s and the House of Lords, most notably over the 2005 ONS report, which clearly showed for the second year that 66% of the public still favoured choice. They stated on a number of occasions at both the debate and report stage that the data had not been compiled. I have proof from the DoH that they had the data 2 months before the House of Lords debates. And nearly 3 months before Royal Assent. This disclosure would certainly have called for a re-think about Lord Steel’s amendment giving choice

From the ONS Survey

Concentrating first on sample A, about half the respondents thought that pubs should be mainly non-smoking with smoking allowed in designated areas (51%), and a fifth (19%) thought the premises should be mainly smoking with a designated non-smoking area. A fifth (20%) said that smoking should not be allowed anywhere. Less than a tenth (8%) thought there should be no restrictions on smoking at all.

Sample B who thought there should be smoking restricted restrictions in pubs were also asked how often they would visit pubs if they had these restrictions in place. The tables exclude those respondents who said they did not go to pubs. Three-quarters (75%) said they would visit about as often as nowadays, but 24% said they would go more often. Non-smokers were particularly likely to say they would visit a pub more often if there were smoking restrictions in place (28% said they would, compared with only 9% of smokers).

So only 20% actually wanted a complete ban , and 75% said they would visit a pub as often with only 24% saying they would go more , not what we were told is it ?

They were also given an impact statement prepared by Yorview which showed the impact especially to the hospitality trade, that was never disclosed either.

It is all gone and dusted now but the way it was handled was wrong

So a 1/5 of Mps are re elected each year , about time they were held more responsible each year

It's absolutely fair if that's the system in place. Is it optimal? Not in my view but I've been of that opinion for twenty-odd years (as are the SNP and Lib Dems for two).

The thing that holds UKIP back under the present system is that they just aren't very popular.

Comparison.

UKIP put up candidates in 621 constituencies in the last election and could only win the majority of the vote in one constituency. What percentage of the total UK electorate had the opportunity to vote for them I'm not sure but it must have been a lot. So 12. whatever % might sound like a lot but it's spread so thinly that it's more of a testament to their willingness to put up candidates in constituencies they have no chance in. I don't know what percentage of votes they got from those who could have voted for them but it couldn't be that much or they'd have won more seats.

The SNP on the other hand only concern themselves with putting forward candidates in Scottish constituencies. They won all but 3 I think and were close to getting 50% of all votes they were seeking. If UKIP did a similar thing they'd be the biggest majority government in modern times (I reckon).

Hence a comparison between a party standing in 621 constituencies and a national party standing in 57 (or 59?) constituencies isn't a very good comparison to make. Our FPTP constituency system rewards popularity (i.e. what percentage of those people eligible to vote for you do so) rather than simply how many votes you can total by standing in every constituency possible.

I'm not a fan of it either but that's what it measures so rather than focus on the total votes you should maybe look at the number of votes UKIP don't get despite standing candidates in so many constituencies.

Next referendum - it's probably too early for the monarchy one. I'm not sure what ones the Swiss and Icelandic folks have had. Maybe something they've done? Maybe assisted death or something like that? I'm not sure what the current laws are on that. Most likely is that referendums will be put off for a long time except where it can't be avoided.