Mark Oates

Director of @WeVapeUK, founder of the @SnusAssociation & @ASI Fellow

[Mark Oates @MOates_]

@moving_charlie I have been watching one property that listed at £1.1m two years ago and is now on for auction at £760k one day left no bids.

[Mark Oates @MOates_]

@JoeBaker1971 Was it based here?

[Mark Oates @MOates_]

Are the French definitely ok?

British Soldiers warned France's insane Nicotine Pouch ban could land them in the nick whilst on exercise with NATO!

https://t.co/RjsuqNWmTk

[Mark Oates @MOates_]

@AngloAvalon @Daveyeahhh If they only have an exhaust pipe and not an inlet pipe then they draw in hot air from outside by creating negative pressure in the house. Somewhat self defeating.

[Mark Oates @MOates_]

@RuskySte90 What? Meshes or bugs?

[Mark Oates @MOates_]

@TomWright165389 @MavenPolitic What kind of AC do you have? Split systems are great. The mobile ones with one outlet pipe and no inlet pipe do. Great job of sucking in hot air from outside.

[Mark Oates @MOates_]

@TypeForVictory @pharmst Same way they tax dividends from accumulation funds held outside an ISA that are automatically reinvested.

[Mark Oates @MOates_]

@TypeForVictory And the public will be pushed into riskier and riskier bonds.

[Mark Oates @MOates_]

@stuey_beef How are they even going to be able to define a cash like investment. So they tax money market funds and then someone creates a money market fund that's slightly riskier to avoid the tax. What are they going to do? tax that? They could just make a slightly riskier MMF.

[de vangrailmaaier (ACVODA) @plopnl]

This is not how you run an impartial/unbiased survey!

Structural Issues Affecting the Entire Survey

STRUCT-1 — Age grouping — 'young people' defined as aged 10–24
STRUCTURAL BIAS
The survey defines 'young people' as anyone aged 10–24. This bundles three legally and developmentally distinct groups into a single category: children (under 16), who cannot legally purchase these products anywhere in the EU; minors aged 16–17, who are also legally prohibited from purchase; and young adults aged 18–24, who are lawful consumers in all EU Member States. This conflation is consequential. Uptake statistics drawn from this 14-year age band will be substantially driven by legal adult behaviour among 18–24 year olds, but the survey language and framing consistently reads the results as a child protection issue. Questions on initiation age, access channels, product appeal, promotion effects, and flavour bans are all materially distorted by this definition. A 19-year-old buying a vape legally in a shop and a 13-year-old obtaining one through a friend are not the same regulatory problem — but this survey cannot distinguish them.

STRUCT-2 — Product equivalence — all products treated as a single regulatory category
STRUCTURAL BIAS
The survey repeatedly groups cigarettes, heated tobacco products, nicotine e-cigarettes, nicotine-free e-cigarettes, and nicotine pouches together under 'tobacco, nicotine, and non-nicotine products'. This implicitly treats them as equivalent in terms of harm, appeal, and regulatory need. It is not. Combustion products (cigarettes, waterpipe tobacco) carry the highest and best-established harm burden. Heated tobacco products produce fewer combustion byproducts but are not without risk. Nicotine e-cigarettes are non-combustion and widely used as cessation tools; the UK OHID (2022) review assessed them as substantially less harmful than smoking. Nicotine-free e-cigarettes carry minimal direct pharmacological harm. Treating these as a single group in questions about measures, bans, and regulation systematically implies that restricting a nicotine-free vape is equivalent to restricting a cigarette — which distorts responses on virtually every policy question in the survey.

Question-by-Question Assessment

Q1 — Measures protecting people from tobacco effects are 'beneficial for society
STRONGLY LEADING
Bundles a contested policy preference into the premise of the opening question. Disagreeing requires the respondent to position themselves as opposed to public health protection — a socially unacceptable stance that suppresses critical responses before the substantive survey begins. It sets a normative anchor that colours all subsequent questions.

Q2 & Q3 — Which products are 'most attractive' to young people / adults?
MODERATELY LEADING
The word 'attractive' implies deliberate design for youth appeal — a contested regulatory claim that presupposes manufacturer intent. 'Most used by' would be factual and neutral. The split between 'young people (10–24)' and '25+' is the only age distinction offered, meaning the question structurally cannot reveal whether elevated use among the 10–24 group is driven by children, minors, or legal adults.

Q4 — Are you a current or former user?
NEUTRAL
Factual and direct. No significant bias.

Q6 — At what age do young people start using these products?
ACCEPTABLE
The question itself seeks factual input and is reasonably neutral in construction. Its limitations are structural rather than wording-based.

Q7 — Through which channels do young people obtain products?
ACCEPTABLE
The channel options are comprehensive and the structure is balanced. The premise that young people do obtain these products is reasonable in context.

Q8 — Market growth data followed by agreement on increased consumption
STRONGLY LEADING
Front-loads dramatic market growth figures — heated tobacco up 3,000x, e-cigarettes up 5x, nicotine pouches up 16x — then immediately asks for agreement that use has increased 'particularly among young people'. The statistics prime the respondent toward agreement before the question is read. The phrase 'particularly among young people' anchors the frame toward a child protection narrative without evidence that growth is disproportionately concentrated in that group. Notably, the data that traditional tobacco sales declined substantially over the same period — consistent with adult smokers switching to less harmful alternatives — is not presented.

Q9 — Digital promotion 'influences' uptake among young people
STRONGLY LEADING
Presents digital promotion as a causal driver of uptake, then asks only to what extent — no option exists to say the relationship is uncertain, weak, or that current evidence is insufficient to establish causality. The direction of causality (promotion causes use rather than use creating demand for promotion) is assumed. The question asks only about 'young people', with no acknowledgement that 18–24 year olds are legal consumers for whom commercial communication is not inherently problematic.

Q10 — 'Further EU action is needed' on digital promotion
STRONGLY LEADING
Presupposes a regulatory gap and asks only about the scope of new action, not whether action is warranted. Respondents cannot say that current national or EU measures are sufficient, or that EU-level intervention is not the appropriate response.

Q11 — Differing national laws 'hinder' the single market
MODERATELY LEADING
The agree/disagree framing embeds the negative conclusion in the premise. Respondents who believe national regulatory diversity has merit — a well-established subsidiarity argument — have no positive option to express that view, only 'disagree' with a negative framing. The value of, for example, countries experimenting with different flavour restrictions and observing outcomes is not offered as a perspective.

Q12 — Importance of various legislative objectives
NEUTRAL
The best-constructed question in the survey. It covers public health, harm reduction, consumer information, and administrative burden objectives — a genuinely balanced set. All importance levels are available. Two improvements would strengthen it further.

Q13 — Effectiveness of restrictive product measures
STRONGLY LEADING
Lists only restrictive regulatory measures and asks how 'effective' they are at 'reducing uptake and/or harmful effects' — presupposing they are effective and that the relevant outcome is reduced uptake rather than, say, reduced harm among continuing users. No option exists to say a measure might be counterproductive. This matters: flavour bans may redirect users toward cigarettes; disposable bans may push users toward higher-nicotine refillables; plain packaging has documented associations with illicit trade growth in some jurisdictions.

Q14 — The scope 'has not kept pace' with market developments
STRONGLY LEADING
Asks respondents to agree only that scope 'has not kept pace', with no option to say the current scope is appropriate. The market data provided (nicotine pouch growth) is selectively presented to support scope expansion. The parallel observation — that traditional tobacco sales declined substantially over the same period, consistent with substitution to less harmful products — is absent. A neutral presentation of these data points would invite a more considered response.

Q15 — Importance of bringing unregulated products within scope
ACCEPTABLE
Reasonable in structure. The limitation is positional — it follows the leading Q14, which anchors scope expansion as already agreed — and it does not ask what level of regulation should apply, implicitly suggesting that inclusion means treatment equivalent to tobacco.

Q16 — EU rules 'need to include' a fast-response regulatory mechanism
STRONGLY LEADING
Presupposes a need and asks only to agree. Does not surface the significant democratic accountability concerns associated with fast-track delegated regulatory powers that can be exercised without full legislative procedure, nor the risk of regulatory overreach in a domain touching lawful adult consumer products.

Q17 — Technology-neutral definitions 'could help ensure' coverage
MODERATELY LEADING
Frames technology-neutral definitions as unambiguously helpful ('could help ensure coverage') before asking for agreement. The trade-off — reduced legal certainty, risk of unintended coverage of products that should not fall under tobacco law, potential for regulatory overreach — is not presented.

Q18 — Plain packaging would 'strengthen' the market and public health
STRONGLY LEADING
Uses the verb 'strengthen' to frame plain packaging as self-evidently beneficial. Evidence is contested: some studies show limited impact on smoking prevalence; others document associations with illicit trade growth and brand counterfeiting. Intellectual property and trademark implications are substantive concerns that are not acknowledged. No negative outcome option is offered.

Q19 — Labelling and packaging measures are 'effective in ensuring' objectives
ACCEPTABLE
Reasonable structure with a comprehensive list of measures. The framing 'effective in ensuring objectives' is mildly positive but not strongly leading. The main weaknesses are the absence of 'counterproductive' as a response option and the positional effect of following Q18.

Q20 — Flavour prohibition would 'strengthen' market functioning and public health
STRONGLY LEADING
The most problematic question in the survey, combining leading wording with embedded contested claims and two structural biases. The preamble states as fact that flavours 'seem to play a key factor influencing young people's decision to start using these products' and that they 'create the impression the product is less harmful'. Both are empirically contested — particularly the harm perception claim, which is not well-supported in the primary literature. The question then asks only whether a ban would 'strengthen' outcomes, with no option to say it could be harmful. The harm reduction literature documents a clear risk: adult smokers who have switched to flavoured e-cigarettes may return to cigarettes if flavours are banned, producing a net harm increase.

Q21 — The traceability system 'should also cover' other products
STRONGLY LEADING
The extension is presented as the obvious default. No option to say the current scope is appropriate or that a different system would suit non-tobacco products better.

Q22 — How important is it to 'strengthen' enforcement areas?
STRONGLY LEADING
Presupposes that strengthening is always the appropriate direction and asks only how important that strengthening is. Respondents cannot say any area is adequately covered at current levels or that requirements in some areas could be reduced.

Summary

Of the 22 questions assessed, 10 are strongly leading, 4 are moderately leading, 2 carry structural bias that affects the entire survey, 4 are acceptable with caveats, and 2 are neutral. No question is simultaneously neutral on wording, correctly disaggregated by age, and correctly disaggregated by product type. The age-grouping and product-equivalence problems are the most consequential because they are invisible at the question level — they look like design choices rather than biases — but they systematically pre-shape the conclusions the data can support. A consultation that conflates children with legal adults and cigarettes with nicotine-free products will inevitably produce results that support the most restrictive available policy options, regardless of how individual questions are worded.

[Olly @oIIyjm]

20% VAT for education and SEND support.

5% VAT for rollercoasters.

[Mark Oates @MOates_]

@Crispy75 @sc0ttfb This is only true if you completely ignore the cost of capital employed and the opportunity cost of tying up enormous amounts of public capital in housing stock. The cost isn't that far off housing benefit.

[Mark Oates @MOates_]

@HannoLustig Where's the inquiry into why the BofE doubled its QE during a supply side shock (COVID).

[Mark Oates @MOates_]

@IGMansfield @BristOliver I remember reading that in the US people were getting high paying jobs in tech firms by showing their Ivy league acceptance letters and then just not bothering to go on the course. The point being is it really the education that matters?

[Robert Colvile @rcolvile]

Not sure who can look at the UK job market and the state of youth unemployment and conclude that the solution is a further 18% rise in the minimum wage oh hi it's the Green Party

[Yogi @Houseofyogi]

Spirit Airlines died tonight at the hands of the socialist crusader, Elizabeth Warren

She must be so proud to add another casket to her achievements.

Tonight at 3am, Spirit turns off the lights. 14,000 jobs gone. 30+ smaller airports lose service.

JetBlue offered $3.8 BILLION in cash to buy Spirit in 2022. Shareholders, flight attendants union, literally everyone voted yes.

The combined company would have held 9% of the US market against a Big 4 that already owned 80%.

For anyone who understands numbers: 9% isn’t a monopoly against 80%.

Warren said no.

She wrote letters. She pressured Buttigieg. Biden’s DOJ sued. A federal judge killed the deal in January 2024.

Her argument: the merger would cost consumers $1 billion a year.

Now look at her collateral damage she dusts under the rug.

510 pilots gone in the months after. 1,800 flight attendants furloughed in December.

14,000 jobs in 2023. 7,500 last week. Zero tonight.

And that’s just the people in Spirit uniforms.

Catering goes. Fuel guys go. Baggage crews, gate agents, airport coffee shops, hotels and rental cars in 70 cities Spirit flew to. Every airline job carries 3 more on its back.

40,000 people out of work because of one woman’s moronic crusade against the market.

And the math ain’t mathing.

Spirit abandoned 90 routes during the death spiral. Fares on those routes are up 14% on average. Oakland to Newark: $135 to $288. Fort Myers to San Juan: $92 to $219. Kansas City to Newark up 66%.

That’s reality. Not some BS number from a “study.”

So @SenWarren tell me how this saves the consumer money?

Cheap carriers in a market drop fares 21% across the board. Southwest did this in the 90s and saved Americans $68 BILLION over 20 years.

Warren killed it. That’s what moronic politicians led by socialism do.

Then with her own blind arrogance, she tweeted Spirit’s collapse is “a Biden win for flyers.”

A win.

14,000 people are reading termination letters tonight.

And she’s taking credit.

This is socialism in 2026.

A senator who’s never made payroll thinks she knows how to run a market better than the people who own and work in the company.

She saved you a billion on imaginary paper.

She cost you ten times that in real life.

She didn’t protect consumers from anything.

14,000+ will go from working to welfare.

She will make sure to blame billionaires, hardworking tax payers, AI, capitalism and whatever monster they will make up tomorrow hiding under your bed.

Higher taxes. Fewer jobs. More expensive everything.

She called it a win. I hope you enjoy winning.

[Christian May @ChristianJMay]

In case you thought Scotland's politics couldn't sink any lower or get more pointless, the Greens accuse political opponent of "hoarding yachts"

[Mark Oates @MOates_]

@RollingHedge @grok @RokoMijic £60b in 2016 because "Brexit!" and the £450b in response to Covid (Supply side shock) was perhaps even more criminal and reckless?