The politics of health

There's an interview with Joe Jackson in today's Independent. As well as promoting his excellent new album Rain, the article mentions his "diligently researched, widely quoted paper, Smoke, Lies and the Nanny State" which you can download HERE from the Forest website.

"I'm fed up talking about it," he says of the pamphlet, "but the argument in a nutshell is that whatever dangers there are in passive smoking are hugely exaggerated. There's no good evidence that second-hand smoke harms anyone, and the reasons why the ban is happening clearly have a lot more to do with politics than they do with health."

Full interview HERE.

Note: inspired by a song on the new album, Joe has written an article for The Free Society blog which we will be publishing very soon. Watch this space.

A question of freedom

Yesterday, following the publication of Ronald Harwood's article about smoking on The Free Society blog, we  received an email from a (very) senior journalist at the Guardian.

It reads:

What a shame, he always seems such a nice, clever man, but he doesn't get it, does he? Of course there are bossy people around, there always are, it's very irritating, but at least they can't murder you. And more people have more freedom in 2008 than in history, recorded and unrecorded, have ever had ... in total, that is.

Before anyone jumps in with a knee jerk, anti-Guardian response, I think this is worth discussing because such comments are one of the major hurdles that genuine liberals (or libertarians) face each and every day.

It depends on your definition of freedom, but it would be foolish to deny that many people do not, in general, consider their "freedom" to be under serious threat. This is certainly true on a macro level where the threats posed by the Nazis (before and during the Second World War), the Soviet Union (post war), poverty or disease have either disappeared or been significantly reduced.

There may be a terrorist threat to our freedom but, at the moment, it remains relatively small. Few people, even in London, get up in the morning worrying that they may become a victim of a terrorist atrocity. Likewise, the chances of most of us being murdered are so small it's not something you would lose sleep over. (That, I think, is what he means when he writes "at least they can't murder you".)

So what we're left with is all those micro freedoms that many of us DO believe are being taken away from us, bit by bit. And even then it's not that simple, because alongside some new restriction people can always point to some form of de-regulation (licensing hours, for example).

Our job is to convince people that "small" freedoms - the freedom to smoke in some public places, the freedom to make informed choices about what we eat and drink, the freedom to be offensive (see below) - DO matter and are not bargaining tools to be given away in return for some other "freedom".

Sure, they're not on a par with being invaded by a foreign power, but - in a democracy - if they matter to a substantial number of people (even a minority) they still matter. So I appreciate what our Guardian correspondent is saying, but real freedom has to start with little things. If we forget that we are in danger of losing some of the more important freedoms that we currently take for granted.

Peer pressure rules, OK?

Last week's sports pages were dominated by one story - the 50th anniversary of the Munich plane crash that killed 23 people including eight members of Manchester United's famous "Busby Babes". All week there were dire warnings that some Man City fans might abuse the minute's silence to honour the victims. Before yesterday's Manchester derby some commentators were even calling for a "lifetime ban" for any supporter caught shouting out.

In the event everything passed off smoothly and supporters of both teams respected the occasion. Nevertheless, it has to be said. A lifetime ban? For shouting during a minute's silence? Bad manners, yes. Tasteless, certainly. But why should it be considered a major offence punishable by a "lifetime ban"?

What next? Are we going to ban everyone who boos the opposition's national anthem or calls Frank Lampard a "wanker"? In a free society people have a right to be offensive, up to a point.

I say "up to a point" because there has to be a limit to our tolerance. I once had someone thrown out of a football ground for making "monkey" chants at an opposition player and I don't regret it for a second. I didn't however want the guy banned for life.

More often than not peer pressure will govern people's behaviour without the need for draconian penalties - and that's what happened yesterday.

Bafta winner speaks out!

Winner of an Oscar in 2003 and nominated for a second Academy Award in 2008, screenwriter Ronald Harwood last night picked up a Bafta for Best Adapted Screenplay for The Diving Bell and the Butterfly.

Ronald is an outspoken critic of the anti-smoking movement. He recently sent us a no holds barred article on the subject. It's based on a speech he gave at The Garrick Club in London where he is a member. I have been waiting for the appropriate moment to publish it. Now seems as good a time as any. Click HERE.

PS. The Daily Telegraph published THIS interview with Ronnie last week. See also THIS article which reveals that the National Theatre has turned down every play Harwood has ever written. I wonder why?

Madsen, the ASI and The Next Generation

It has been interesting to read some of the comments that followed my post about Margaret Thatcher HERE. One of the prime movers behind Maggie's successful policy of privatisation was Dr Madsen Pirie (left), co-founder of the Adam Smith Institute.

Madsen and I go back a long way. The first time we met I had just left university and was in London for a job interview. We were in a pub when a mutual friend introduced us. There followed what I can only describe as a chain reaction.

After a brief chat Madsen introduced me to the person sitting next to him. This turned out to be Michael Forsyth, later Secretary of State for Scotland and now Lord Forsyth of Drumlean. Back in 1980 Michael was director of a London-based PR company. The following day he offered me my first job (initial salary £4.5k a year) which I accepted, even though I really wanted to be a journalist. Or I thought I did.

I think I was seduced by the prospect of living and working in London so soon after graduating. Truth is, I didn't really enjoy PR but I kept in touch with Madsen and a few years later he came to my rescue - again - engineering a job (editing a magazine for a high profile membership organisation in which he was a leading member) that lasted 14 years.

Madsen, meanwhile, went from strength to strength. With the help of Dr Eamonn Butler, the ASI became Europe's most famous political think tank. In the Eighties the launch of an ASI policy document was often headline news. Government ministers jostled to attend ASI receptions.

Today, the ASI keeps the flame of economic liberty alive through events, publications, a thriving blog and, most important, The Next Generation which takes the free market message into schools and colleges. If The Free Society could achieve, on social issues, a fraction of the success of the ASI, I would be thrilled.

All this is a preamble to say that Madsen has written his first article for The Free Society blog. I'll forgive the shameless plug for his new book, Freedom 101, on the grounds that I am genuinely looking forward to reading it when it is published by the ASI next month. For the full article, click HERE.

No change, no chance

The following comment, posted by Martin V, appears under THIS post. However, I thought it deserved greater prominence. It says everything you need to know about the "choice" available to voters at the next Election:

Spurred to further action by Dave Atherton's example (well done, that man!!), I decided to phone  Central Office a few minutes ago, and seek some clarification on current Conservative  thinking on this most SIMPLE of issues.

I was put through to a very well-spoken young dame ... and enjoyed the following brief exchange:

"Hello! I notice that under what you describe on your website as the 'Opportunity Agenda' you declare yourselves in favour of 'giving people more opportunity and POWER OVER THEIR LIVES' - so I assume you're rather against the ghastly Nanny-Statism of New Labour?".

"Yes, absolutely!"

"Excellent! In that case, how soon after a Conservative election victory will you give ME the opportunity once again to have a fag with my pint - a freedom I've enjoyed for over 40 years now?"

"Er, we're not!"

"So, you're not THAT committed to individual freedom, after all?"

"Yes, but we've already had a full debate (?) on this subject and blah blah blah ......"

"So, you're not going to allow a sensible segregation of smoking and non-smoking customers, with proper ventillation" etc etc.

"No - we've already tried that, and IT DOESN'T WORK." (?????)

"Well, it hasn't been PROPERLY tried, actually."

Clearly, the lady was allowing no challenges to her unalterable view of the Universe. Why allow an Ugly Fact to  mar a Beautiful Prejudice?

Already - as you may well imagine - I was edging rapidly into White Knuckle mode, and enquired (rather naively) why she felt that SHE and her colleagues were somewhow entitled to tell ME how to lead my life.

Her riposte was finger-waggingly simple:

"Well, it's VERY bad for you, you know!"

So much for 'opposition' to the Nanny State ......

You couldn't make it up.

Now that's what I call freedom

Talking of The Free Society (below), I have just received an email bemoaning the fact that the site has a section on motoring. According to our correspondent, "Motorists are the most pampered and cosseted group in the country. Compare their moaning about petrol prices while the rest of us have no choice but to fork out more and more for public transport. Pity they've inviegled themselves into what would otherwise be an organisation well worth supporting."

I must hold my hand up. I have a particular fixation with motoring, especially fuel tax, speed cameras and speed bumps. The car gave millions of people a freedom they could only dream about 100 (or even 50) years ago. There's a downside (as anyone who lives and owns a car in London will know), but it remains a hugely important symbol of individual freedom.

Nothing, to my mind, can compare with the joy of driving a car in the Highlands and islands of Scotland - enjoying the scenery yet insulated from the cold, wet and wind while listening to the radio or your personal choice of music. You're in control. With few restrictions, you can go where you want, when you want. Now that what's I call freedom.

Like smokers, motorists are an easy target for politicians and campaigners. I can understand why, if you don't drive (or can't afford to), you don't much care about motorists. But you HAVE to care, just as non-smokers should care about what is happening to smokers. One day the government will target something that you DO care about. And when that day comes, you will want and need our support - and we will gladly give it.

Genuine liberals must stick together and support one another, regardless of our personal preferences. That is the whole point of The Free Society - a loose coalition of libertarians who want a fairer, less regulated approach to issues such as smoking, eating, drinking and, yes, motoring.

Number one with a bullet

It's four days since we launched The Free Society website and if you Google the words "free society" you get 49.5 million results and TFS is ranked number one. 

Apart from the UK, the site has attracted visitors from the United States, Canada, Spain, France, Australia, South Africa, Netherlands, Norway, Japan, Germany, Ireland, Hungary and more.

For the time being we intend to stay focussed on the UK, but - if you're reading this in another country - stick with us and join in the debate.

Those were the days

Founded in 1836, the Reform Club in London is currently hosting an exhibition dedicated to the history of smoking in its palatial Pall Mall home. Keen to see it, I gratefully accepted an offer of lunch at the club and yesterday - after a very pleasant meal (guinea fowl and claret, if you want to know) - we went in search of "All Puffed Out" (or was it "Out Of Puff"?).

It was probably the smallest "exhibition" I have ever seen. Nevertheless there were some nice touches. I was amused, for example, to read this notice from March 12 1935:

We have received this morning cable advice from our Mr Kay, who is at present in Hanava, stating that a General Strike of makers has taken place in all cigar factories in Havana. We give you this information which may be of interest to you.

From the Club Suggestion Book came the comment:

On a recent occasion there were no cigars in the Club although the appropriate shops are well stocked. Could the bad housekeeping of the Club be improved in this respect, or do members have to bring their own cigars just as they have to bring their own bread and cheese at weekends?

In 1934 another member had thoughtfully suggested that:

"In future smoking should be allowed in the Morning Room at all hours. I feel sure that 99 per cent of members would agree to this.

It took 18 years but finally he got his wish:

Smoking was permitted in the Morning Room from 1905 and after 12.00 [midday] from 1938 until 1952 when all restrictions were lifted [my italics].

Those were the days.

Excuse me while I throw up

Allied to a "smoking ban: special report", yesterday's London Evening Standard reportedthat "nearly 22,000 Londoners are believed to have given up smoking". Claiming that this is a public health victory, the paper argues that it is "good news for former smokers" and welcome for "those who inhaled smoke in pubs and bars andare now free of that danger to their own health".

There is no evidence, the paper says, that the ban has encouraged people to smoke more at home and "there has been little evidence that companies have been driven out of business by the ban alone". A leading article (entitled "Smokers saved") concludes:

This picture puts into perspective the fears expressed by many that basic rights were being infringed by the ban ... Now, the fact that those who continue to smoke can adapt demonstrates that there was no fundamental right at risk. As a society, we should perhaps allow ourselves a moment of quiet satisfaction that change for the better has been achieved at no great cost.

Rarely have I read such smug, self-satisfied [insert a word of your choice here]. I think I'm going to be sick.

Taking liberties with The Free Society

By the time you read this the new Free Society blog will be up and running. The first thing you will notice is that there are very few articles on the site and there are a number of sections that are entirely blank. This is deliberate.

I'm told that best practise is to begin modestly and build the site gradually. If you're too ambitious at the start you end up with a site that is difficult to maintain and quickly goes stale. Each day, therefore, there will something new - a news item, opinion piece or feature article - but we're not going to overwhelm you with stuff. In due course there will be plenty of material on the site and - we hope - lots of lively debate, but this is a long-term project and we want to avoid running out of steam.

If you have arrived here via The Free Society blog, a very warm welcome. Taking Liberties was launched in March 2007 and taking my cue from master blogger Iain Dale (a supporter of The Free Society) I have tried to post every day. (I haven't always succeeded.)

Early on I attracted criticism from some visitors who - encouraged by my role with Forest - got quite cross when I dared to comment on issues other than smoking. When I had the audacity to write about iMacs, iPhones and coffee machines, one or two almost self-combusted.

Frankly, single issue politics can get quite boring and repetitive and, anyway, there's more to life than politics, single issue or otherwise. At Forest we've always had an eye on the bigger picture - hence The Free Society campaign which, as Brian Monteith notes on the blog, is long overdue. Individual freedom comes in many shapes and forms and we want Taking Liberties and The Free Society blog to reflect that.

There's an important role for you too. In order to create a lively, interactive forum, we need your help. Don't be a passive observer. If you have something to say, don't hesitate to post a comment here or on The Free Society blog. And invite your friends and colleagues to join the debate too.

I don't expect or want everyone to agree with us. I have no interest in preaching exclusively to the converted so if you disagree with anything that appears here or on The Free Society site, write and say so. In the words of the irrepressible Mrs Merton, "Let's have a heated debate!"

NB. Please forward this URL - www.thefreesociety.org - to family, friends and colleagues, today.

Forest facts and figures

January and August are usually the quietest months for websites, at least in terms of visitors. Nevertheless the Forest website still attracted 107,837 unique visitors in January (13.3 million hits). The largest number of visitors in a single day was 5,800 on Monday January 21.

The most popular download in January was Joe Jackson's The Smoking Issue. It was downloaded 2,632 times. We estimate that since it was first published in 2004 The Smoking Issue has been downloaded from the Forest site over 50,000 times.

With the exception of MySpace,  the most common referring sites were search engines - namely Google (UK), Google (USA), Google (Canada) and Yahoo.

Sheffield steel's herself for press attention

If you write to David Cameron to complain about the public smoking ban and enquire about Conservative policy on the issue you will get a reply not from the great man himself but from someone called Alice Sheffield. It will almost certainly read:

The Government's ban on smoking in public places came into force on 1st July 2007. Smoking is now banned in all enclosed public spaces and workplaces. Whatever one's own views, it is very clear that public opinion has demanded a ban on smoking in public places for some time. There is also a considerable body of scientific evidence to point to the harmful health effects of second-hand smoke.

While the smoking ban certainly does place restrictions on where people can smoke, it does not ban what is still a lawful activity and people are free to smoke in their own homes and outdoors where the impact of their smoke on others will be minimal. The Government has published five sets of regulations which set out the detail of the smokefree legislation. You can view these within the policy and guidance section of the Department of Health website.

If you require any further information about the ban you can contact the SmokeFree England information line on 0800 169 1697, or find more information at www.smokefreeengland.co.uk.

Conservatives have expressed some reservations about the ban, for example about smoking in prisons and mental health units, and about the requirement on all public places and businesses to display no smoking signs. The Government Minister previously responsible for the smoking ban, Caroline Flint, has assured us that the Government are committed to a review of the legislation, so if any problems occur which were not expected while the legislation was being formulated, the legislation may be reconsidered.

We hope that the new measures will play a positive role in reducing exposure to second-hand smoke and, in turn, help to improve public health.

According to the front page of today's Daily Telegraph (which features an extremely fetching photograph of the lady in question), Alice Sheffield works three days a week as Cameron's correspondence secretary. Interestingly, she is also David Cameron's sister-in-law. Full story HERE.

Double whammy for smokers?

The Treasury announced yesterday that the Budget will take place on Wednesday March 12 at 12.30pm. I don't want to worry you, but that's the same date as No Smoking Day. No doubt the Chancellor will be expected to pull a rabbit out of the hat for our rabid anti-smoking friends. I can't believe that any politician - knowing the impact it has on smuggling - would be stupid enough to raise tobacco taxation above the rate of inflation, but you never know.

Then again, he could choose to abolish VAT on nicotine replacement products. I don't have a problem with that, even though the main beneficiaries would be the anti-smoking industry pharmaceutical companies. At least it would address the original purpose of No Smoking Day which was to help those who wish to quit.

Today No Smoking Day is indistinguishable from any other anti-smoking campaign. It's just another part of the denormalisation process, another act in the anti-tobacco circus. A little more respect for those who choose to smoke and don't want to quit wouldn't go amiss. But I'm not holding my breath.

Margaret Thatcher - freedom's friend

David Cameron has gone up another notch in my estimation. (Don't worry, he still has a long way to go.) This morning the Telegraph reports that he "heaped praise" on Baroness Thatcher when he presented her with the Morgan Stanley Great Britons Lifetime Achievement Award in London last night.

Writing in today's paper, Cameron says:  "Today we know exactly what Thatcherism meant for our country: a victory in the Cold War, victory against unbridled trade union power, the sale of council houses, the liberation of the British economy."

My only concerns are: (a) some of us have known this for years - what took you so long, David? and (b) does he actually mean it? You see, with Cameron (like Blair before him), you're never quite sure if he believes what he's saying, or is he driven by some political motive to say what he thinks (some) people want him to say?

The jury is still out.