Whilst I accept that David Cameron is demonstrating some leadership in terms of electoral reform, his latest proposals are so limited as to leave him open to the accusation of political tokenism. He has suggested that he is willing to open the Conservative candidate list to anyone “who wants to apply”, using what he describes as a system of “open primaries” where everyone in a constituency can vote at public meetings to select their prospective Conservative MP.  

However, in typical Cameron style, he limits the risk. Instead of making this policy widespread, by insisting that all Conservative MP’s stand for re-selection, he has stated that this policy will only be implemented in areas where Conservative MP’s have announced their intention to retire or stand down. At the moment, that is just 5 seats, which, even based on the current number of Conservative MP’s (190), would account for just over 2.5%. If the Conservatives are successful in getting into government, these candidates, chosen by the people, would likely amount to much less than 2% of the total. In other words, it will make little or no difference. Pure, unadulterated tokenism.

Cameron needs to demonstrate that he is a man of conviction, we have had 12 years of tokenism from Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. At the very least, Cameron should insist that his entire front bench stand for re-selection. However, I would like to see him go further and provide the people of this country with the opportunity to select their preferred Conservative candidate, in every constituency. That is true democracy. If the people don’t like his preferred candidate, then that is the will of the people, you can’t get more democratic than that. I am encouraged that he has stated that candidates would not be rejected because they had no experience of politics, that is also a step in the right direction, but if Cameron wants to be taken seriously, then he needs to go all the way. I personally believe it will strengthen his party, not weaken it and if he loses a few ‘mates‘ along the way, then that is the will of the people he claims to want to serve.

When we look at a potential new leader, it is essential that, as well as taking into account their policies, we look at the leaders principles and judgement. In the case of Julie Kirkbride, David Cameron has come out to defend her, stating that her case was “different” to that of her husband Andrew Mackay. That is total piffle and he knows it. Kirkbride and Mackay are married, both had to have known about the arrangement to maximise the ’Second Home Allowance and, of course, as a family unit, Kirkbride would have been a benificiary of this arrangement. If David Cameron can’t see what everyone else can, then he is not fit to lead the party, much less this country, because he will be no better than Gordon Brown. He must, at the very least, insist that Julie Kirkbride stands for re-selection in an ‘open primary’, which would leave it to her constituents to determine whether her behaviour was acceptable, not him. Having put up with 12 years of New Labour, the public know the difference between headline grabbing rhetoric and action, as well as the difference between right and wrong. He cannot and must not take his poll position for granted. If the people of this country want to see fresh new faces in parliament, they may decide to vote for candidates from smaller parties, or independents.

For the record, I would like to say that I wholeheartedly endorse his suggestion that Conservative MP’s will only be required to follow the Whips orders on Manifesto commitments, other party’s should take note.

I have no issue with government or other agencies seeking to discourage children and teenagers from smoking, after all, we all know that it is a lot easier to start than it is to stop. Therefore, I would actively support any education programme that is designed to achieve this objective, but banning the display of cigarettes, does anyone really think that this will have any affect whatsoever? Well clearly yes, this out of touch, politically correct Labour government.

This is political tokenism at its best, removing cigarettes from display will not reduce the number of young people from smoking, in fact it may provide a perception of something illicit, which I feel sure, will appeal to some youngsters. The claim is that there are up to 200,000 11-15 years olds smoking. Okay, so given it is illegal to sell cigarettes to children of this age, where does the government think they get them from. Maybe it is via vending machines or an older mate, or perhaps a ‘friendly’ local store. Either way, it is claimed that some 200,000 youngsters have found some method of feeding their habit. So, what really encourages them to smoke, is it peer pressure, something to do, the fact that it is illegal or because it makes them feel grown up? Maybe is is a combination of all these factors, but it can hardly be said it is because they have seen them displayed.

The problem with political tokenism is the knock-on effect or consequences of the action. For example, did the banning of cigarette sponsors for Formula 1 lead to a reduction in smoking? I don’t think so. But now, at a time when the likes of Honda are looking to put as many as 800 people out of work because they cannot afford to continue their race team, cigarette sponsors could have been a lifeline.

Take a look at the pub trade. Some 5 pubs are closing every week in this country; many landlords have put this down to, amongst other things, the ban on smoking. Yes, I accept that it is also as a consequence of the alcohol duties and competition in the supermarkets, but many landlord place the lion share of blame at the smoking ban. So, at a time when people need jobs and accommodation, 5 pub businesses are closing every single week. And, of course, it is not just pubs that are being affected, even beermat manufacturers are finding it tough. A few weeks ago there were 4 UK based manufacturers, now one has transferred manufacturing to Germany and another has closed its doors for good, halving the capacity overnight and placing people out of work.

What is not evident is whether this government simply couldn’t give a toss about collateral damage, or if they just didn’t bother to look any further than political tokenism and a positive set of headlines. Government should act responsibly, which means that if they intend to introduce new legislation, they should look at the potential consequences of their action, not just the headlines. A failure to do so, is a gross dereliction of their duty and of course, there have been many examples of this over the past 11 years. I am personally sick to the back teeth of this politically correct government, their sledgehammer to crack a nut approach to every problem and their insistence that stick is better than carrot. The bottom line is we are all being treated like children by New Labour, and I for one, have had enough.