Three leader columns in the Guardian, the Times and the Financial Times demonstrate the battlefield upon which policy decisions are made as the UK government last week put plans for plain packaging of tobacco on ice.
First the Guardian, which is aligned closely with the health lobby on tobacco issues. The Guardian believes that the government has been won over by big business (tobacco companies) on a public health issue.
When Andrew Lansley was this government's health secretary in 2010 he said the evidence was clear that packaging helps to recruit smokers, the paper says. His government's suggestion that it should wait and see what happens in Australia is disingenuous, it says. Instead, people should think about Lynton Crosby, a lobbyist working closely with David Cameron (as leader of the Tory party rather than the country) and a supplier to BAT.
The Guardian does not point out that the government's public consultation on the subject has not finished and the Department of Health says: "We’re keeping an open mind on this issue, and haven’t made any proposals yet. We’re currently analysing what people told us, and will publish a summary of responses." That statement is, of course completely wrong.
But it is widely expected that 500,000 people were against plain packaging and 200,000 in favour. Perhaps the Guardian believes that people need to be told what to do. And, as it points out, it is not as if it is in favour of banning smoking."To be clear, the proposals were not about banning the sale of cigarettes. England's 8 million smokers would still be able to stock up at newsagents and petrol stations," it says.
And at car boot sales too...The Guardian does not buy the argument that weakening the well-regulated legal trade will move jobs to the black market where organisations and criminal gangs seek easy money from selling Jin Ling and the like.
Before a quick view of the the FT's comment, I need to point out that my media company does sell trade communication services to tobacco companies who want to influence our audiences of independent retailers and wholesalers.
Second the FT, which questions Downing Street's double-hatted man and says that the government has last week "abandoned its widely expected plans to introduce plain packaging". The FT has a passing interest in the tobacco issues but a stronger one in how lobbyists can be regulated. It is pressing for some disclosure of where and when Mr Crosby was in Number 10.
Finally the Times, which tackles both issues together. In 25 years, it says, the number of smokers has been cut in half and this has happened because the government has intervened strongly. Most people believe that the ends have justified the means.
The Times says the government is right to continue to investigate further regulation and also right to pause on plain packaging until some evidence is available. Unlike the Guardian, the Times seems to accept that there is a line where regulation has to stop.
However, the Times fears that the government may be doing the "right thing for the wrong reasons". Like the FT it wants the government to come clean on the role of lobbyists in general and Mr Crosby in particular.
In the meantime, it advises the government to "show that it is serious about preventing young people from getting hooked by better enforcing the laws banning the sale of cigarettes to children." Good advice.
What should local retailers do? If you believe that your customers will be tempted away by cheap illegal tobacco, then you should contact your MP and make the point that you fear that the legal jobs that you have created will be threatened by mobsters.
Don't get sidetracked by the lobbyist debate. That is for the lobbyists to discuss. Focus on explaining the economics for your local shop of tobacco policy. Support the law and ask for a fair playing field in return.
Read more on www.betterretailing.com.
First the Guardian, which is aligned closely with the health lobby on tobacco issues. The Guardian believes that the government has been won over by big business (tobacco companies) on a public health issue.
When Andrew Lansley was this government's health secretary in 2010 he said the evidence was clear that packaging helps to recruit smokers, the paper says. His government's suggestion that it should wait and see what happens in Australia is disingenuous, it says. Instead, people should think about Lynton Crosby, a lobbyist working closely with David Cameron (as leader of the Tory party rather than the country) and a supplier to BAT.
The Guardian does not point out that the government's public consultation on the subject has not finished and the Department of Health says: "We’re keeping an open mind on this issue, and haven’t made any proposals yet. We’re currently analysing what people told us, and will publish a summary of responses." That statement is, of course completely wrong.
But it is widely expected that 500,000 people were against plain packaging and 200,000 in favour. Perhaps the Guardian believes that people need to be told what to do. And, as it points out, it is not as if it is in favour of banning smoking."To be clear, the proposals were not about banning the sale of cigarettes. England's 8 million smokers would still be able to stock up at newsagents and petrol stations," it says.
And at car boot sales too...The Guardian does not buy the argument that weakening the well-regulated legal trade will move jobs to the black market where organisations and criminal gangs seek easy money from selling Jin Ling and the like.
Before a quick view of the the FT's comment, I need to point out that my media company does sell trade communication services to tobacco companies who want to influence our audiences of independent retailers and wholesalers.
Second the FT, which questions Downing Street's double-hatted man and says that the government has last week "abandoned its widely expected plans to introduce plain packaging". The FT has a passing interest in the tobacco issues but a stronger one in how lobbyists can be regulated. It is pressing for some disclosure of where and when Mr Crosby was in Number 10.
Finally the Times, which tackles both issues together. In 25 years, it says, the number of smokers has been cut in half and this has happened because the government has intervened strongly. Most people believe that the ends have justified the means.
The Times says the government is right to continue to investigate further regulation and also right to pause on plain packaging until some evidence is available. Unlike the Guardian, the Times seems to accept that there is a line where regulation has to stop.
However, the Times fears that the government may be doing the "right thing for the wrong reasons". Like the FT it wants the government to come clean on the role of lobbyists in general and Mr Crosby in particular.
In the meantime, it advises the government to "show that it is serious about preventing young people from getting hooked by better enforcing the laws banning the sale of cigarettes to children." Good advice.
What should local retailers do? If you believe that your customers will be tempted away by cheap illegal tobacco, then you should contact your MP and make the point that you fear that the legal jobs that you have created will be threatened by mobsters.
Don't get sidetracked by the lobbyist debate. That is for the lobbyists to discuss. Focus on explaining the economics for your local shop of tobacco policy. Support the law and ask for a fair playing field in return.
Read more on www.betterretailing.com.
Comments
Post a Comment