Well not until Summer 2007.
I didn't expect there to be such a definitive answer against it and I was glad my MP (Oliver Heald) was one of those who voted for the ban.
To be honest, when this was first proposed I did wonder if it would work! Would the backlash be too strong! But I was pleasantly surprised to find such a trend against it, even the Daily Mail (through gritted teeth, and is always fun to read it when it realises that public opinion is so strongly against their thoughts on an issue) agreed that it was in the public mood for a ban. But they couldn't resist a dig at Labour for breaching a manifesto commitment (It was a free vote) and the fact that it doesn't apply to MP's bars in the Commons. Of course it doesn't, Westminster is a Royal Palace and it is therefore, in theory, one of the Queen's homes (and the ban doesn't include people's residences). Of course the Daily "Hurrah for our blackshirts" Mail would'nt let such facts inconvenience them.
Then you get those who complain that it is a breach of their liberties. I don't think that's worth going into right now, suffice to say I have already made my views known on the selfishness of those who bleat "Nanny state" on issues like these.
All in all though, a good day and one which has the weight of public opinion. Westminster you can be proud of yourselves :)
2 comments:
I know I keep making this point when we discuss bans and workplace regulations - but Royal Palaces are exempt from all legislation.
The Serjeant at Arms is in charge of all rules and regulations inside the Palace.
However on the smoking ban it looks as if the ban will be observed - but the point is that the Serjeant at Arms (in conjunction of the Leader of the House) could choose not to and there would be nothing the police could do about it.
21st Century democracies eh?
Well for once I was pleased that it is a Royal Palace, if only to show up the 'Daily Mail'
Post a Comment