George Miller-Kurakin - a celebration

Last night, at the National Liberal Club in London, a small group of us took part in "An Evening Dedicated to the Life of George Miller-Kurakin".

I wrote about George - and his funeral - HERE and HERE but it was good to have another opportunity to pay tribute to an old friend and recall some of the fun we had in the Eighties when we joined forces to fight - as best we could - the forces of communism at home and abroad.

(How absurd that sounds today but for several decades communists, and the Soviet Union in particular, were a genuine threat to our way of life. Without the likes of George Miller ... well, who knows?)

Julian Lewis, Conservative MP for New Forest East, captured the mood well when he spoke not only of George's achievements but also of his warmth, charm and immense good humour. When Julian mentioned George's "chuckle" there were nods of recognition throughout the room, and sitting here, writing this, I can hear it now.

George's brother Vladimir painted a vivid picture of his best qualities and I was astounded to learn that George couldn't speak a word of English when the family arrived in Britain. When I first met him I assumed that English was his first language. There was no trace of an accent. (Others may disagree.) It was only later that I realised that Russian was the language they all spoke at home.

Other friends spoke of his tireless work helping Russian dissidents inside and outside the USSR and there were lots of anecdotes - not all of them printable - involving trips to Jamaica, Chile and elsewhere. Politics, I was reminded, used to be fun. Even the dirty tricks!

Not everything George did came off (I can vouch for that) and sometimes his heart could rule his head, but Julian made the point that he never stopped trying. He was always ready to give something a go and if that didn't work he'd try something else.

Some of last night's guests I hadn't seen for a long, long time (25 years or more) so the occasion brought back a lot of memories and the realisation that, for all the time we spent together all those years ago, there was a lot about George I didn't know. In fact, for a man bursting with bonhomie, he was remarkably discreet.

Sadly, George was only 54 when he died but he made the very most of his life - and who, among us, can honestly say that?

Above: yours truly with George Miller at (I think) George's wedding in Frankfurt. (Why else would I be wearing a carnation?) What I do know is, it was a long time ago and a lot of vodka has passed under the bridge since then.

PS. Thanks to Russell Walters and Nigel Linacre for organising last night's bash. Julian suggested there should be an award - in George's name - for future freedom fighters so this event could run and run!

England: minority support for comprehensive smoking ban

According to The Times today, the latest British Social Attitudes survey shows that "support for the smoking ban has soared, particularly in Scotland where it was first introduced".

In Scotland, we are told, support for the ban has doubled from 25 per cent in 2004 to 53 per cent.

In England, however, and contrary to the tone of The Times report (because it doesn't mention it), support for the ban has remained static. In fact, less than half the population support the current comprehensive ban.

I have a copy of the BSA report in front of me. It reads:

In Britain as a whole, the majority support a smoking ban, with just seven per cent saying that smoking should be freely allowed. However, the level of restriction, whether a complete ban or simply restricted to certain areas, divides the public.

While just under half (46 per cent) support a ban on smoking in pubs and bars altogether, a similar proportion (41 per cent) prefer limiting smoking to certain areas of pubs and bars.

When we compare levels of support towards the ban in England and Scotland in 2007 we see attitudes were different on either side of the border. While attitudes in England were very similar to those in Britain, Scotland was much more supportive of a complete ban on smoking. There, nearly six in ten supported a complete ban in 2007, while a much smaller proportion (35 per cent) thought that smoking should be allowed in certain restricted areas.

So there we have it. According to the survey, only 46 per cent of people in Britain (2008) and 46 per cent of people in England (2007) support a comprehensive ban. This compares with 58 per cent of people in Scotland (2007).

Perhaps attitudes have changed since then. I don't know. But the idea that a large majority of people in Britain/England are enthusiastic supporters of a ban in every pub and bar is demonstrably false.

I will explore the difference between Scotland and England later. In the meantime you can read The Times story HERE.

Big Brother is watching you

If I ate cornflakes I would have choked on them yesterday. According to a front page headline in the Daily Telegraph, a report by the Sustainable Development Commission (whatever that is) wants ministers to introduce average speed cameras nationwide "to ensure that motorists stick to the 70mph limit". This, they claim, will cut carbon emissions by 1.4 million tons a year.

I don't give a toss if it cuts carbon emissions by 10 million tons a year. (Where do they get these figures from anyway?) The thought of having to drive at an average speed of 70mph on Britain's motorways is too painful to think about.

I have written about this before but it bears repeating that on some stretches of motorway - and at certain times of day - the speed limit should be increased to 80 or even 90mph. Instead of variable, sensible speed limits that take into account road conditions and the capability of the average modern car, we are stuck with a national speed limit that was introduced in the 1960s when the average family saloon could barely do more than 70mph anyway.

We have far too many speed cameras already. The majority should be restricted to accident black spots (remember them?). Average speed cameras are even worse. They have their uses (around roadworks, for example, and in congested periods where it reduces the concertina effect caused by vehicles braking at high speed), but all the time? I can't think of anything worse.

In fact, there's something about average speed cameras that remind me of Orwell's 1984. (I know this is an over-used analogy, but stick with me.) Unlike ordinary speed cameras (which are bad enough), you can't escape average speed cameras. Your every move is monitored. Every time you accelerate above the speed limit you then have to drop below it to compensate because you know your average speed is being calculated.

Big Brother is watching you. That's how it feels.

Just as the smoking ban has ruined the quality of some people's lives, the blanket introduction of average speed cameras would have a similar impact on mine. I'm not joking. I love driving and I love my current car and the thought of having to pootle along for mile after mile is my vision of hell.

Personally, I think it's dangerous. Like many cars today mine has cruise control and I have noticed that if I switch it on and "drive" at 70mph (a ridiculously slow speed on three or four-lane motorway with little traffic and good visibility) there is every chance, on a long journey, that I will get so bored travelling at the same speed that I will eventually fall asleep.

The fact is, like millions of other drivers, I don't abuse our roads or other drivers. I passed my test in 1977 when I was 18 and I have never had a single conviction or penalty point on my licence despite the fact that I have regularly exceeded the speed limit.

If the Sustainable Development Commission get their way that could all change because it will be almost impossible not to fall foul of those Big Brother style average speed cameras.

Yesterday afternoon, on Five Live's Drive programme, presenter Peter Allen laughed when he interviewed the man from the SDC. Clearly, he thought the guy was mad to suggest there was public support for such a move.

Unfortunately, with campaigners like this on the loose, it's no laughing matter.

Photo: clearlicence.co.uk

That Breakfast interview in full

Better late than never, you can see me on BBC Breakfast with Duncan Bannatyne (January 14, above) by clicking on this link HERE.

During the interview Bannatyne denied having written that a 12-year-old boy should be able to call the police if his mother lit up in a car while he was present. The transcript reads:

SIMON CLARK
Duncan mentioned there this example of a 12 year old boy whose mother smokes in the car. In an article Duncan wrote he actually said that boy should be able to go to the police. Now what type of society ...

DUNCAN BANNATYNE:
That’s not true Simon, that’s not true, that’s not true.

SIMON CLARK:
You wrote that in an article.

DUNCAN BANNATYNE:
No I didn’t. I was asked a question: how would you police that ...

BILL TURNBULL:
Right, it’s your view though isn’t it.

DUNCAN BANNATYNE:
Well children at the age of 12 should be allowed to live an existence that is smoke free and not have people blowing ...

BILL TURNBULL:
So should they ... do you really think children should be able to report their parents to the police if they do that?

DUNCAN BANNATYNE:
I believe, unlike Simon, I am for smokers, I believe that smokers are 90% good, law-abiding citizens and I believe they will obey the law, and they will see the law and they will stop, and you know if they don’t they will be seen by police officers and other people, the children won’t have to go to the police. You know, people said this about seat belts, you can’t introduce seat belts, how will you police it? You can police it, it’s not a problem, but most smokers will stop smoking with children in the back when it’s against the law.

FACT: writing in the Observer (October 11, 2009), Bannatyne declared unequivocally:

Smoking should be banned in cars, and particularly any vehicle with children in it. On a school visit I met a 12-year-boy who wanted to be an athlete who told me that every morning his mother lit up when she was driving to school, even though he'd begged her to stop. He should be able to report her to the police [my emphasis].

"Not true", eh, Duncan? I suggest you get your facts straight next time.

Full article HERE.

That was the week that was

This week's papers reported that New code on alcohol sales to include ban on drinking games (Guardian).

As ever, politicians seem to be over-reacting. I've been going into pubs for 35 years and I have never, ever seen the so-called Dentist's Chair. Does a yard of ale count as a drinking game? I suppose it does, although I've rarely seen anyone try it.

The only drinking "game" I've taken part in (that I can remember!) is the time-honoured tradition of "It's your round". I guess we should ban that too.

Stories that (almost) passed unnoticed include:

1. Macedonia bars close to protest smoking ban (AFP)
2. LA extends smoking ban to outdoor cafes (LA Times)
3. Kebab shops face late night alcohol ban (BBC News)
4. The return of ricketts: the nanny state has failed (Economic Voice)

Electric warriors

Well, that was weird, wasn't it? All I did was ask for some feedback about e-cigarettes and a whole herd of people appeared from nowhere. What I hadn't expected were the remarkably strong opinions and what amounted to a civil war between the users of different nicotine delivery systems!

(And what was all that ASH troll nonsense? If there's one thing I can't stand it's someone accusing another of being a "troll", whatever that is. People are entitled to their opinion.)

E-cigarettes may still be a cottage industry but it seems to be well-organised with some extremely committed consumers - unless they are all marketing people - who have developed some strong online communities on message boards and forums.

PS. Frank Davis (aka idlex) has a good take on the Taking Liberties "debate" HERE. And I have discovered that many of the people commenting came from THIS forum.

Manifesto for a nanny state

I am in meetings all day (again) today, so I'll leave you with a story that appeared earlier this week. According to reports, public health experts have called on politicians to introduce 12 policies that will allegedly help improve public health.

The so-called manifesto, published by the Faculty of Public Health and the Royal Society for Public Health, which together represent 9,000 public health specialists and health related professionals, calls for a ban on smoking in cars with children. a minimum price of 50p per unit of alcohol sold, no junk food advertising in pre-watershed television, 20 mph limit in built up areas, a dedicated school nurse for every secondary school, 25% increase in cycle lanes and cycle racks by 2015, compulsory and standardised front-of-pack labelling for all pre-packaged food, stop the use of transfats, stop the use of transfats etc etc.

Full story HERE.

Wanted: comments on e-cigarettes

I am on the road or in meetings for much of the day so I'll leave you to discuss e-cigarettes.

According to the headline on the BBC website today: "Proof lacking on e-cigarettes safety, experts warn".

If you think about this, the headline could equally read: "No proof that e-cigarettes cause harm, experts say" ... but that's not really much of a story.

I was asked to comment but I don't know very much about e-cigarettes and I didn't want to say something for the hell of it. Eventually, after a bit of thought, I said:

"Given what we currently know [about e-cigarettes], there seems little cause for alarm and I would caution against any form of scaremongering.

"I don't know anyone who uses e-cigarettes as a permanent replacement for cigarettes, but they are useful in certain situations - on a long-haul flight, for example - where smoking is banned.

"That apart, they can be quite expensive so I can't imagine anyone using them for any length of time, or in any quantity, so one would assume that the health risks, if any, are minimal."

They didn't use it.

Full story HERE.

The video above is courtesy of a website called Mini Cigarette. If anyone uses or has tried an e-cigarette, perhaps you'd like to comment.

Update on Thursday, January 21, 2010 by Simon Clark

Thanks for your comments. I've learned a lot about e-cigarettes I didn't know before. Very useful.

We'll back the pub but they won't back us

Brigid Simmonds is chief executive of the British Beer and Pub Association (BBPA). She popped up on BBC Breakfast (or was it GMTV?) yesterday, and I caught her again on The Daily Politics (BBC1). She was responding to the Government's plan to introduce a ban on cheap alcohol promotions. If I understood her correctly, she was not arguing against these measures but felt that it is unfair on pubs because it doesn't address the issue of cheap supermarket booze.

In keeping with the BBPA's 'new' campaign, I'm Backing The Pub (actually, it's a re-branding of an old campaign called 'Axe The Beer Tax: Save Our Pubs'), Simmons spoke enthusiastically about the importance of the pub in the community.

I have no problem with the I'm Backing The Pub campaign, apart from one thing: the BBPA, like the hospitality industry in general, obstinately refuses to support any attempt to amend the smoking ban. In fact, they are reluctant even to discuss it.

I have had meetings with or written to a number of trade bodies and the response has been the same each time. "We won't campaign against the ban because it's the law" or "Half of our members support the ban". Doh!

As it happens, I met Brigid Simmonds a couple of months ago. It was a small private event so I can't say who was there or what was discussed. But I will say this. When I introduced myself and explained that Forest is campaigning to amend the smoking ban, the look on her face spoke volumes.

She wasn't unpleasant or unfriendly. She just moved away so that the conversation, such as it was, could go no further. (I remember the moment well because I commented upon her reaction to the person standing next to me.)

Meanwhile her organisation, the British Beer and Pub Association, wants us to back the pub.

Well, I've got news for the BBPA, the British Institute of Innkeeping, the Federation of Licensed Victuallers Association, the Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers et al. Supporting the pub is exactly what Forest, via the Save Our Pubs and Clubs campaign, is doing. We're backing the pub with both our time and our money.

But what is the pub and leisure industry doing to help smokers? Apart from a few smoking shelters and the odd heated patio or roof terrace, the answer is: sweet FA.

Tony Benn helps launch Big Brother Watch

I attended the official launch of Big Brother Watch, the new Taxpayers Alliance campaign, in London last night. If I'm honest, I had a little too much to drink which masked my cold during the event but I'm feeling it this morning.

Venue was Vanilla, a modern bar restaurant a short walk north of Oxford Street. We were in the cocktail bar downstairs. It reminded me of Xenon, the first and only London nightclub I have ever been to - and that was in the Eighties. An odd place, perhaps, to launch a new political campaign but no-one was complaining. It's nice to see these things done with a little panache.

All the usual suspects were there - Mark Littlewood (IEA), Shane Frith (Progressive Vision), Philip Booth (No2ID), Simon Richards (Freedom Association), Eamonn Butler (Adam Smith Institute) - and many more.

Guest speakers were David Davis and Tony Benn. Benn is 85 and, officially, a national treasure. Call me old-fashioned, but I do find it a bit galling to hear people on the right sucking up to him as if he's some sort of hero.

I interviewed him in Edinburgh seven years ago for a magazine called The Politico. He was touring the country with his one-man show and he was very charming and hospitable. Politically, however, Benn has never changed. He's the same one-eyed socialist he was in the Sixties and Seventies when Britain was led to the edge of bankruptcy and national humiliation.

Anyway, it was an excellent night and I wish Big Brother Watch well. Alex Deane, the director, is young and very bright and I am sure we will hear a lot more of the campaign in the coming months and years.

Click HERE for more information.

Hotels that offer a welcome for smokers

Smokers Welcome, the website that was launched on 1st July 2007 to help people find a "smoker-friendly" pub following the introduction of the smoking ban, has now introduced a section featuring hotels with bedrooms where you can light up.

The new service is a result of public demand and some gentle lobbying by Forest.

For more information click HERE.

Note: information on smoker-friendly hotels is changing all the time so always check before you book (and before you arrive) that smoking rooms are still available.

Cough medicine

Currently on a diet of Lemsip and Strepsils. Hope it works because I'm on the Stephen Nolan Show (BBC Radio Ulster) this morning discussing the possible prohibition of smoking in Finland. Cough, cough.

UKIP and the smoking ban

Further to my post about Hamish Howitt and UKIP, I have been directed to an interesting and apparently well-informed article on a site called Counterbalance. I could easily imagine the article appearing in Private Eye, and I say that as a compliment. See HERE.

Looking at the bigger picture I don't doubt that reversing the smoking ban is official UKIP policy, but I see little evidence to support the suggestion that "UKIP has been, or is being, hi-jacked by the pro-smoking or publican lobby".

I've had a quick browse around the party's website and I can't find any reference to the ban - or fighting it - at all. See for yourself HERE.

I can't even find a reference to the party's Save The Pub campaign. I know it has a separate website HERE but if the party is serious about the campaign surely there should be a banner on the main site with a link to the Save Our Pub site on the home page?

On closer inspection I don't think the Save The Pub website has been updated for quite some time. The most recent item appears to have been published on 20 March 2009. Draw your own conclusions.

All this has strengthened my belief that my decision not to develop closer links with UKIP - which I was invited to do last summer - has been vindicated.

Put simply, the party has too many mavericks and too many internal divisions to be a stable partner in any campaign or political initiative.

PS. This post was written before I read THIS story!

Why Finland?

I shall be discussing the Finland smoking story on the BBC Radio Wales lunchtime phone-in from 12 noon. Broadcasting House is ten minutes' walk from our office in Soho so there's just time for another cup of coffee (my fourth of the day) ...

BTW, does anyone have any idea why Finland should want to lead the way towards prohibition? Facts would be good but idle speculation is equally welcome.

See BBC report HERE.

Breakfast at the Beeb

It's 9:30 and I have been up since four o'clock. I was going to drive to Television Centre but had second thoughts and got the 5:30 train instead. Arrived in west London an hour and a half later.

Today's Breakfast presenters were Bill Turnbull and Sian Williams. Duncan Bannatyne and I were on at 7:40. We were there (I thought) to respond to a report that the Finnish government wants to ban smoking completely, beginning with a ban on smoking in the home.

In fact we never addressed the subject of complete prohibition because Bannatyne was given the first (and last) word and he began by stressing the need for smaller steps such as a tobacco display ban, a ban on vending machines and a ban on smoking in cars with children.

Cue the man from Forest to talk about smoking in cars with children, a subject guaranteed to put the smokers' lobby on the back foot. ("Who can argue against that?")

Smokers, I said, should be considerate towards their passengers but why are we always banning things? Cars, I added, are private spaces and the "next logical step" would be to ban smoking in the home. How would this be enforced?

I used the phrases "bully state" and "Stasi state" and said that, according to an article he had written (in The Observer), Duncan Bannatyne wanted to give children the power to report their parents to the police if they lit up in the car.

This seemed to hit a nerve because Bannatyne suddenly appeared uncomfortable. The odd thing was, he seemed to deny having written any such thing when we have proof that he did. (Or did someone else write it for him? See HERE.) I was about to push him on this when presenter Bill Turnbull jumped in with a question of his own.

I would like to have said a lot more but that, I'm afraid, is the nature of television and radio. You just have to make the best of it.

Update on Thursday, January 14, 2010 by Simon Clark

A viewer writes:

"I have just watched an interview with a member of your organization Mr Simon Clark and Mr Duncan Bannatyne. I would just like to comment on Mr Clark's comments: 'What a load of shite'. As an ex smoker with young children I found his interview ill mannered, his defense (sic) against Duncan pathetic and the only to words that sprung to mind were 'nob head'. Thanks for your time."

A friend writes:

"Happy New Year. Was happily sitting on sofa drinking my tea when you popped up with my hero! No not Bill Turnbull."

Duncan Bannatyne - hero?!!! OMG.