Health debate unites/divides the parties

Forget the leadership debate. Health secretary Andy Burnham yesterday went head-to-head with his Conservative and Lib Dem rivals, Andrew Lansley and Norman Lamb. Co-hosted by the BMA, NHS Confederation, King's Fund and the Royal College of Nursing, the hustings-style debate covered the future direction of health policy.

Early intervention was Andy Burnham’s key message. More money should be allocated for the Healthy Child Programme, he suggested. Labour had taken bold action on public health with childhood obesity and on smoking and it is time to take a “longer look” at alcohol policy.

Preventing people from starting smoking (my emphasis) should be a key part of government policy, said Burnham. This includes tackling supply, including the banning of vending machines. He's also wants to look at the case for plain packaging while NHS Stop Smoking places should be more available in the workplace.

Tackling the smuggling of tobacco is key for the Lib Dems. Smoking cessation services should also be improved, said Lamb.

The Tories want to ban proxy purchasing and improve the border control agency. Smoking Cessation Services should reach out more and the pharmacy sector should be used, said Lansley. Demand is also key, and young people should not be artificially boosting their self-confidence in this manner.

Full details (including video) on the King's Fund website HERE.

Return of the magnificent, er ....

Last night I took a call from a friend, an unreformed Thatcherite who (like me) was active in student politics in the Seventies and Eighties. Neither of us are fans of David Cameron but the gist of the conversation was, desperate times call for desperate measures. Quite how desperate will become clear after tonight's debate, but as things stand it's not looking good.

Anyway, the only image that came to mind as I lay in bed last night was The Magnificent Seven. I'm not suggesting that we hire a team of wily old gunslingers to save Britain but there have been worse ideas ...

Nick Clegg and the New Labour project

Tonight's leadership debate is eagerly awaited ... but by whom, exactly? I admit that I am far more interested in the outcome than I was a week ago, but it is still going to be watched by a minority of the population - a very small minority, as it happens.

This week, lest we forget, it's Sky's turn to broadcast the debate live and the most they can expect is, what, two million viewers? (If you're going to the pub tonight you will expect to watch Liverpool versus Athletico Madrid not Clegg versus Cameron and Brown.)

Last week around nine million people - a quarter of the electorate - were looking in and while Nick Clegg did OK, his performance was hardly on a par with, say, Barack Obama.

Clegg came out on top because few people expected him to do well. Cameron was a disappointment for the opposite reason. I thought Brown did OK. Apparently, though, his "aggressive" style is not in tune with our touchy feely times.

Of course, the most influential person won't be in front of the camera tonight. He'll be behind the scenes, lobbying and cajoling the media to adopt a particular line. If you're a journalist with a fast approaching deadline there isn't time to analyse the debate. All you want to know is, who won, and if it's not immediately clear or there are conflicting opinions, you welcome a firm steer.

Enter Peter Machiavelli Mandelson, the most accomplished political operator in the country. Last week, according to first hand accounts, Mandelson was incredibly busy backstage telling anyone who would listen how well Clegg had performed. Mandelson knew, before most people, that a Clegg "victory" in the first debate had the potential to set the cat among the pigeons. (Even he, though, could not have predicted such a seismic swing in the opinion polls.)

This is not an original analysis - I have read it elsewhere (can't remember where) - but it has been a talking point in "my" circle this week. And it goes like this:

Mandelson is no friend of Brown. Or even old Labour. What matters to Mandelson is the New Labour project. A prime objective of the project is/was to create a centre left coalition that will condemn the Tories to decades in Opposition.

For Mandelson, the prospect of a Lib/Lab pact (or, rather, a Clegg/Milliband pact) is the future. It will keep New Labour in power, the voting system will be changed to some form of PR, and the prospect of a Conservative government any time soon will disappear with it.

I still can't accept that a televised debate watched by a minority of the population can swing an election, but in today's world perception is everything. Clegg mania is like a virus. My guess is that if he thinks it will keep the Tories out, Peter Mandelson will continue to feed it.

Health wars: the phantom menace

Years ago Forest published a report entitled Health Wars: The Phantom Menace. It featured many of the health scares reported by the British media in 2001. I am often reminded of it, especially when I see headlines like "Smoking in pregnancy ups risk of cross-eyed baby".

Yesterday the Telegraph reported that "Women who are obese or smoke during pregnancy can cause their sons to have a low sperm count in adulthood ...' Full story HERE.

Writing for The Free Society, Karen McTigue points out that the report is seriously lacking in actual evidence. According to the Telegraph (although this was not reflected in the scare-mongering headline):

The review found there was no evidence to link exposure to individual chemicals to poor sperm production. However, exposure to complex mixtures of environmental chemicals, as might be experienced in real life, may have an impact on the development of testicles and lead to low sperm counts in adulthood. However, more research would need to be done before a link can be fully proven.

More research? Fancy that! Karen adds that:

Saturday’s Daily Mail revealed that Samantha Cameron was spotted drinking a bottle of Mexican lager on Thursday post [leadership] debate ... Current governmental advice states that pregnant women should not drink at all, which, as with most governmental advice, we should happily go ahead and ignore. In other words, babies or no babies, the government and it’s researchers should back right up and let us worry about our own bodies.

Full article HERE.

This charming man

I had a rather fractious conversation yesterday with a man about cigarettes and cancer. I didn't handle it very well but I wonder if he was the same person who rang Forest last week and asked to speak to me. Told that I was out of the office, the caller replied:

"Wouldn't it be ironic if he was in hospital dying of cancer?"

He then asked my colleague:

"Do you smoke?"

"That's my business," she told him.

"Well," he said, "if you do I hope you die a long, slow, painful death."

Charming.

The man who rang yesterday has a 19-year-old son who intends to smoke (against his father's wishes) and it's Forest's fault apparently because our website "encourages" people to smoke.

"No, it doesn't," I said firmly.

"Yes, it does," he said. "It says that people enjoy smoking."

"Well, lots of people do," I said, "but we also make it clear that there are serious health risks associated with smoking."

The man told me he had a relative who died of cancer ("Have you ever been in a cancer ward?") and how selfish smokers are to put their family through such an experience.

"What about bungee jumping?" I said, trying to change the subject. "Would you stop people from bungee jumping as well?"

I didn't quite catch the answer because we got cut off. He rang back a few minutes later.

"That was very rude," he said.

"We got cut off," I said. "I didn't do it on purpose."

It didn't matter what I said, there was no reasoning with him. I shouldn't have raised my voice, though. I was walking over Magdalene Bridge (in Cambridge) and even my daughter began to edge away as my voice floated over the Cam and people began to turn and stare.

Eventually we agreed to disagree.

"Thank you for calling," I said. "I appreciate the feedback."

Click.

From our own correspondent

The story so far. A friend and his family, due home last Friday after holidaying in Spain, have been stuck in Madrid since Saturday having travelled there by train from Malaga. They hope to get a train to Paris tomorrow, followed by Eurostar to Kings Cross on Wednesday.

The latest bulletin arrived this morning:

Well, it looks as though the government have finally woken up to the fact that people are stranded abroad - probably too busy looking at the polls to see what's been happening for the past few days.

Apparently they are now having a Cobra Cabinet meeting (which meets in times of war and crisis) and prime minister Gordon Brown (still) has suggested they might use the navy to move people from Europe back to Blighty. Perhaps he should check with Des Browne the defence secretary to see if we still have a navy which can do this since they have cut it to a minimum. Pretty rum (geddit?) for an island nation - huh!

He also is speaking to the Spanish PM about flying Britons abroad to Spain (where airports are still open). Hey Gordon, Spain is great, mate, but how do you get them back to the UK from here dumbass! If our experience is anything to go by the travel pipe is full.

Back here on Earth we have one more day in Madrid before we take our chances with the French railway strike tomorrow morning ...

It's a mini adventure. Watch this space.

Soldiers of misfortune

Isn't it odd how politicians love to use the rhetoric of war? In the Mail on Sunday yesterday Gordon Brown told Ben Fogle: "Show me a soldier who's made no mistakes and I'll show you a soldier who's won no battles." The implication was clear. Gordon is a soldier. A general, perhaps.

Some years ago I interviewed Mark Oaten when he was chairman of the Liberal Democrats. As I noted at the time:

I sense that Oaten likes to operate with military precision. Indeed, for a party opposed to the conflict in Iraq, its chairman is remarkably keen to invoke the language of war.

"With the polls suggesting that we are a position to overtake the Conservatives, we recognise that if we are to make the next step forward we need to have what we call an air war victory as much as a ground war victory, if you understand the two analogies.

"It's the two coming together that will bring us the next wave of seats beyond the ones we would normally have targetted."

Mark Oaten has stepped down as an MP but I wonder if we can expect similar comments from his old colleagues. After all, there's a war on, battles to be won, etc etc.

Class of '97 - Tony Blair and the Tory Chicken

"A dolphin has been following House of Commons speaker John Bercow on his campaign trail to mock his expenses ‘flipping’", Bucks Free Press

During the 1997 campaign my old friend Gary Ling was part of a similar stunt involving a man dressed as a chicken. At the time I was living in Edinburgh and Gary was press officer for the Scottish Conservative party. A few years later I asked him to write an article about The Chicken for Freedom Today, The Freedom Association magazine that I edited.

It still makes me laugh so I thought I would share it with you. Note the reference to Tony Blair refusing to get involved in a televised debate with the prime minister, John Major. Blair wasn't stupid. As the frontrunner in the '97 campaign he had everything to lose and very little to gain. A bit like David Cameron, in fact.

CHICKEN RUN by Gary Ling

PERHAPS the most lasting memory of the Tories' 1997 election campaign was the slogan 'New Labour, New Danger'. I don't know how many millions of pounds it cost to think it up but it got the campaign off to a poor start from which the party never recovered. Indeed, it is indicative of the effectiveness of the campaign as a whole that my most memorable experience as press officer for the Scottish Tory party was the visit to Edinburgh of the Tory Chicken.

For those of you who neither remember nor care, the role of The Chicken was to highlight the fact that [Opposition leader] Tony Blair had refused to debate, head-to-head, with [Conservative leader] John Major. Tory strategists had assumed that the prime minister would whip his opponent in a televised encounter and Labour spin doctors must have shared this analysis. They saw no advantage in putting Blair head-to-head with Major, hence The Chicken.

When the call came from London that I was to receive and activate The Chicken north of the border it was quite a relief. The Scottish Conservative party's election campaign had been consistently undermined by bickering among senior Cabinet ministers in London on the issue of Europe and further blighted by having to respond to a blizzard of press releases from the Scottish National Party on the delineation of the continental shelf and the share of oil wealth that would allegedly accrue to an independent Scotland.

Notoriety

The Chicken's alter ego was an out-of-work actor called Noel who had already achieved some notoriety after being kidnapped by Labour's rival Teddy Bear and held for ransom. We met, as arranged, at Edinburgh Airport and set off for the city centre hotel where Tony Blair was to take part in a photo call in the main bar.

Entering the building via different entrances, we rendezvoused with other members of the Tory team in a room on the fifth floor. As Noel changed into his chicken suit I sprang my surprise. On the way to the airport I had picked up a kilt. For his visit to Scotland the Tory Chicken would become the Tory Tartan Chicken!

As we waited for Blair to arrive we planned our attack in detail and covered every contingency. I positioned a member of our team on the first floor fire escape with a good view of the back entrance with instructions to call when the Labour Battle Bus pulled up with Blair aboard. The bus was late and waiting for the call was agonising, but when it came not even the SAS could have been better prepared.

Ran

Down the fire escape we ran, taking the stairs two at a time - only to stop dead in our tracks when we got to the bottom, turned the corner ... and realised that we were in full view of the car park and back entrance as Blair, his minders and hangers on were entering the hotel.

No time for decorum. We pushed The Chicken into a corner and camouflaged him as best we could. Easier said than done, of course, because the hotel suddenly became very busy as the big event approached. On more than one occasion journalists were just inches from standing on The Chicken's foot. Luckily these newshounds couldn't find a feather in a chicken coop and he went undetected.

When finally we got the nod that the photo call was about to start, my admiration for Noel went sky high. Springing to life (not easy when you're wearing a baking hot chicken suit and a kilt!), he joined me near the entrance to the lounge bar where Blair was preparing to pull a pint.

Strutted

To this day I remember counting to three, and in we marched. What an entrance! Sticking close to me, The Chicken strutted towards the melee surrounding the Labour leader who adopted his usual cheesy grin as he faced the cameramen.

Too late, Labour minders and Blair babes saw what we were up to and moved to block us from view. I grabbed Noel from behind and lifted him as high as I could. I knew immediately that we'd scored a direct hit because a great roar of laughter went up from the ranks of the assembled media.

On the TV news that night I had my soundbite plus some fantastic footage. Oblivious to what was going on behind him, Tony Blair - our future prime minister - could be seen pulling a pint and over his right shoulder, high above the crowd of grey Labour suits, was a triumphant Tory Tartan Chicken.

The Conservatives may have lost an election, but you should have seen that Chicken run!

The author of this article was press officer for the Scottish Conservative party in the 1997 general election. The Tories went on to lose not only that election but also the 2001 and 2005 elections. Nothing to do with The Chicken, of course ...

Additional reading:
The Tory chicken loses its head
Was there more than one Tory chicken?

Ashes to ashes - our holiday hell

Gary Lineker is in the papers today after he "spent a gruelling 24 hours travelling by plane, car and train to make it back from Spain" in time to present Match Of The Day last night.

A friend of mine has also been on holiday in Spain with his family. Unlike the former England footballer, they are still there. Yesterday he emailed to say:

We are currently on the train to Madrid from Malaga and will stay in Madrid overnight. We have two days to make the 766 miles to Cherbourg.

One of our UK contacts has booked all six of us on a ferry journey from Cherbourg to Portsmouth Monday night so we should be on the UK mainland Tuesday morning.

Last night he emailed again to report a change of plan:

Looks like we are now competing with travellers from all over the world who want to land in Spain (southern Europe) and make their way overland home (Germany, Belgium etc, I have met them all).

So where are we? Well, the Cherbourg trip is out - all trains out of Madrid to France are booked. But we managed a confirmed booking to Paris from Madrid on Tuesday arriving at 2330hrs. But we had to pay cash to Spanish railways for the trip from the border part (they accepted a card for the Spain portion) into France because there might be a strike by the French.

We are waiting to hear if our tickets for the 0719 Eurostar on Wednesday from Paris into Kings Cross have come through. If not it may be Calais on foot. But at least we are closer to home.

This morning came the news that:

We are staying in Madrid until Tuesday morning. The cloud persists here in Madrid but we hope to be in Dover 1600hrs Wednesday. The Eurostar tickets which were £745 for all six of us last night were £1831 this morning. So we have booked a train from Paris Wednesday 0758hrs morning to Calais and then the ferry.

We also need to book a hotel v v near the station in Paris Tuesday night so we can leave 0700hrs Wed morning. The only potential problem we can see right now is a strike on the French side Tuesday afternoon.

My friend, who works in financial services, predicts that:

This volcanic thing is going to be bigger than 9/11 in terms of its economic effect. Watch the pound plummet Monday as a result of the Lib surge and this event.

On a personal note he adds: "I reckon we're £2k out on this gig so far and all it's done is figgin rain!"

A pint and a pie

It was my daughter's birthday yesterday so tonight we are going to see Legally Blonde at London's Savoy Theatre. Meanwhile I have been reminded for the umpteenth time that at 5.30 on April 15, 1997, I was minutes from missing the birth because - weary of waiting - I had, er, wandered off and gone back to "work". Truth is, I was thirsty and I was hungry. I did what any man would do ...

Is that the best Britain's leaders can offer?

Did anyone see last night's election debate? Pretty underwhelming, if you ask me. I watched for the first 30 minutes before turning over to watch Have I Got News For You (which was equally devoid of political bite) before switching back.

I then watched the Ten O'Clock News on BBC1, followed by Newsnight, during which a series of politicians from the three main parties were asked to say who won the debate. Well, of course, Alan Johnson, William Hague, Chris Huhme, Theresa May, Vince Cable et al were never going to concede that a rival party leader had "won" so what we got was spin and more spin.

I don't think there is any question that Nick Clegg came out of it best, if only because a lot more people will now know who he is. Sharing a platform with the two main parties was a huge plus for the Liberal Democrats and, as several other commentators have noted, the most common expression used all night appeared to be "I agree with Nick". If I was Nick Clegg this morning I would be pinching myself with glee.

One of the reasons I switched over to HIGNFY was because I couldn't bear to watch Brown's smirking face, or listen to his feeble, rehearsed jibes such as "You can't airbrush your policies even if you can airbrush your posters" or ""This is not question time. It's answer time, David."

Yuk.

But you get what you expect from Brown. The man never disappoints. He's a grade A bruiser who is fighting for his political life.

Most of all, though, I was disappointed by David Cameron. For once, I almost agree with the Daily Mirror whose headline this morning reads: "Gordon Brown crushes naive David Cameron as kid Clegg shines".

One or two people have said that Cameron's closing statement was the best of the three, but how many people were watching by then?

My guess, as TV critic AA Gill implied on Newsnight, is that the viewing figures will have fallen the longer the debate went on, and that the second and third debates will attract an ever decreasing audience.

Cameron had the opportunity to floor Brown on so many issues and he flunked it (as he done on so many occasions during Prime Minister's Questions in the House of Commons). The PM is a sitting duck yet Cameron barely laid a finger on him. In fact, early on (when I assume most people were watching) it was Brown who had Cameron on the back foot more than once and it seemed as if Cameron had no answers to Brown's taunts.

Astonishing.

I don't believe that these televised debates will seriously influence the result of the election. For all the talk of floating voters, I am sure that most people already know how they are going to vote and nothing that happens in the next few weeks will make much difference.

It was dispiriting nevertheless to witness three party leaders with so little to offer in terms of charm, charisma or oomph and to think, is that the best Britain has to offer?

PS. I loathe their policies and I would never vote for them, but for me the best party leaders in Britain are Alex Salmond (SNP) and Caroline Lucas (Green party). Salmond is sharp and savvy while Lucas is intelligent and articulate.

Last night made me think that we should perhaps have a separate televised debate featuring the leaders of the smaller parties, if only to show the country what they're missing.

Update on Friday, April 16, 2010 by Simon Clark

Massive 14pc poll surge for Lib Dems after TV debate (Daily Telegraph)

Publican manifesto: review smoking ban

Based on the results of a small online survey, The Publican has just published its own election manifesto. The paper reports that respondents were given seven issues to vote on what they think should be the priorities for any future government.

Scrapping the alcohol duty escalator received the most votes, closely followed by tighter controls on off-trade pricing. Change to the beer tie came third. "Repeal the blanket smoking ban” came fourth, followed by calls for a reduction in red tape.

The paper says it will write to the main political parties and will ask them to:

• Scrap the alcohol duty escalator
• Tackle irresponsible supermarket pricing
• Make the beer tie business model fairer
• Review the smoking ban in light of its impact on trade
• Cut red tape for pubs

Election 2010: how should you vote?

Votematch is designed to help you determine your voting preference come the general election. It's easy to do and takes less than five minutes. See HERE or below.

For what it's worth, the program couldn't decide my "best match" because my scores were as follows:

Conservative 61%
UKIP 61%
Labour 39%
Liberal Democrats 35%

Fancy that!

Election 2010: read between the lines

The publication this morning of the Liberal Democrat manifesto is an opportunity to compare the parties' policies on tobacco control. Except that it's not because apart from UKIP, the various manifestos are remarkably free of specific policies.

Essentially the voter is being asked to give the next government carte blanche to do pretty much what it wants in the name of health, especially the health of our children (as if the state, rather than the parent, is directly responsible).

If we complain about bans on smoking in parks (and other public spaces) or cars (and other private spaces), they will no doubt point to some anodyne sentence in their manifesto and say: "Look, you voted for this." Indirectly.

As far as the smoking ban is concerned, only Labour makes the firm declaration that "The ban on smoking in public places will be maintained". Don't get too excited, though, because UKIP is the only party committed to amending the ban: "UKIP supports designated smoking rooms in pubs, clubs and public buildings". Fair play to UKIP (and indeed Labour), you can't be clearer than that.

Of the manifestos published to date, here's how the parties stand:

Labour
No mention of further tobacco controls, but that doesn't mean Labour won't introduce more regulations. In fact, you can depend on it. In the words of the manifesto:

We all have a responsibility to look after our own health, supported by our family and our employer. The ban on smoking in public places will be maintained. Wherever necessary, we will act to protect children's health from tobacco, alcohol and sunbeds.

Conservative
Prevention of illness is a common mantra in this election. Reading between the lines, expect more regulation on tobacco and alcohol, if only to "nudge" us to change our habits:

Lifestyle-linked health problems like obesity and smoking, an ageing population, and the spread of infectious diseases are leading to soaring costs for the NHS. At the same time, the difference in male life expectancy between the richest and poorest areas in our country is now greater than during Victorian times.

We will turn the Department of Health into a Department for Public Health so that the promotion of good health and prevention of illness get the attention they need. We will provide separate public health funding to local communities, which will be accountable for - and paid according to - how successful they are in improving their residents' health.

Liberal Democrat
Again, nothing specific in terms of tobacco. Like the Tories, the Lib Dems want to offer financial rewards to those who "prevent" illness:

Give priority to preventing people getting ill by linking payments to health boards and GPs more directly to preventing measures.

SNP
Alert: only the Scottish Nationalists have a section dedicated to smoking and what it calls "Creating a smoke free Europe", but at least they're open and honest about it:

Preventing smoking in public places is an important step to creating a smoke free, healthier Scotland and the SNP is working in partnership with our European neighbours in the fight against tobacco. In addition to the Scottish Government’s smoking prevention action plan, a number of initiatives have been taken at a European-wide level and the SNP will continue to work with the EU to make sure that future initiatives are powerful tools in creating a smoke free Europe.

Plaid Cymru
Those lovely Welsh nationalists "demand" more power to regulate on issues such as tobacco vending machines. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile, for sure:

We demand devolved powers to legislate on other health-related matters such as sun beds, cigarette vending machines and the regulation of alcohol pricing.

UKIP
Alone amongst the parties, UKIP is calling for an amendment to the smoking ban. Fair play to UKIP for sticking to its guns on this issue. What a pity that the best the party can hope for is a single seat in Westminster. According to its manifesto:

UKIP realises that the local pub is a unique part of British community life, but it is under serious threat from supermarket price undercutting, brewery company indifference and the smoking ban. UKIP supports designated smoking rooms in pubs, clubs and public buildings.

BNP
For completeness only, I include the BNP. Actually, I don't think the party has published its manifesto yet but on its website it declares - again without being specific - that:

More emphasis must be placed on healthy living with greater understanding of sickness prevention through physical exercise, a healthier environment and improved diets.

No mention of the smoking ban and, frankly, I hope it stays that way. Nothing, not even a commitment to amend or repeal the ban, would encourage me to vote BNP.

The Green party publishes its manifesto tomorrow. As a left-leaning party not dissimilar in outlook to the SNP, expect a similar response to lifestyle habits such as eating, drinking, smoking and, of course, driving a car.

Update on Thursday, April 15, 2010 by Simon Clark

The Green party published its manifesto today and joined Labour in declaring that it would "support the ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces". Needless to say they also want to increase taxes on alcohol and tobacco. "vote Green on May 6th for a fairer world," writes Green party leader Caroline Lucas. Fairer for whom, exactly?

Another lie about smoking exposed

A few weeks ago is was argued that smoking in cars is 23 times more toxic than in other enclosed areas such as the pub. More than one anti-tobacco campaigner used it as an excuse to ban smoking in cars. Surprise, surprise, it's not true.

"In a subsequent exhaustive search of the relevant literature, we failed to locate any scientific source for this comparison," writes Ross MacKenzie, School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Australia.

"Given that the issue of banning smoking in cars is gaining traction internationally, use of this media-friendly tobacco control 'fact' presents potential problems of credibility."

The 23 times estimate has evolved from being a brief quotation in a US newspaper to entering the academic mainstream in 1998 when a Tobacco Control editorial closely copied the previous quote. Both the newspaper report and the editorial were then cited in an issue of Nicotine and Tobacco Research.

"The biggest danger of inaccurately interpreting research on smoking in cars for the sake of a snappy media sound bite is to lose favour with an overwhelmingly supportive public and to provide ammunition for opponents of tobacco control," the authors said.

Full story HERE.