Badger cull - politics or health?

It was reported this week that Britain's chief scientist has called for large numbers of badgers to be culled to stop the spread of tuberculosis among cattle. I don't think the word 'epidemic' has been used (yet) but according to Sir David King, who will today give evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs select committee, "now was the time for action".

Various parties have lined up on either side of what could become a pretty bloody battle (literally). Wildlife supporters are up in arms, while farming leaders support the cull. As one who is now automatically suspicious of the many fanciful claims made by scientific and medical "experts", I'm firmly on the side of the badgers.

The Daily Mail reported that:

Critics of culling, including the RSPCA, accused Sir David of advocating 'senseless slaughter' and relying on political rather than scientific arguments.

Professor John Bourne, who wrote the report of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB, said Sir David's advice was not consistent with current science. He said such a policy was more in line "with the political need to do something" about the problem.

The RSPCA said a cull would mean "senseless slaughter, enormous suffering and would be scientifically bankrupt". Rob Atkinson, the charity's head of wildlife science, said: "This latest report seems to be less about science, and more about caving in to pressure to do something even if that something is the worst possible option.

I am further persuaded, not only by my own healthy scepticism (born of experience), but by comments attributed to Meurig Raymond, deputy president of the National Farmers' Union, who said: "Now that we have scientific endorsement for the principle of badger culling, there can be no further excuse for the Government not to act."

"Scientific endorsement ... no further excuse for the Government not to act." Now, where have I heard that before?

Full story HERE and HERE.

"Libertarian paternalism" unveiled

The Independent today leads with a report concerning a stunning speech given last night by Professor Julian Le Grand (left), chairman of Health England and a former senior Downing Street aide to Tony Blair. The full article is HERE but this is the bit that will attract most attention:

Professor Le Grand said instead of requiring people to make healthy choices – by giving up smoking, taking more exercise and eating less salt – policies should be framed so the healthy option is automatic and people have to choose deliberately to depart from it.

Among his suggestions are a proposal for a smoking permit, which smokers would have to produce when buying cigarettes, an "exercise hour" to be provided by all large companies for their employees and a ban on salt in processed food.

The idea, dubbed "libertarian paternalism", reverses the traditional government approach that requires individuals to opt in to healthy schemes. Instead, they would have to opt out to make the unhealthy choice, by buying a smoking permit, choosing not to participate in the exercise hour or adding salt at the table.

By preserving individual choice, the approach could be defended against charges of a "nanny state," he said. "Some people say this is paternalism squared. But at a fundamental level, you are not being made to do anything. It is not like banning something, it is not prohibition. It is a softer form of paternalism."

Before we dive in and ridicule his grand scheme, I should mention that I have a certain regard for Julian Le Grand because (a) I've met him and, (b) unlike many people in his position, he appeared to listen.

Three years ago, when John Reid was health secretary and struggling to come up with a policy on smoking in public places, I was invited - together with Forest chairman Lord Harris of High Cross - to meet him and three of his advisors. It was a private meeting, just the six of us, and the senior advisor was Julian Le Grand (who Ralph Harris knew of old).

For five uninterrupted minutes Ralph and I talked about passive smoking, epidemiology, the major studies, how the evidence didn't support a comprehensive ban etc etc. When we had finished, Reid turned to Le Grand and asked, "What do you think?" Le Grand replied, "I agree with them."

For the next 30 minutes we had a very agreeable discussion (Reid, it has to be said, doing most of the talking). Nevertheless, we were struck by their open-mindedness, their refusal to lecture us about the impact of smoking, and by John Reid's obvious desire to find a compromise that would give smokers some element of choice, although he made it clear that further, significant, restrictions were inevitable.

A few weeks later came the policy announcement - later included in the Labour Party's 2005 election manifesto - that smoking would be banned in all enclosed public places with exemptions for private clubs and pubs that don't serve food.

Personally, I welcome Le Grand's latest ideas - this is what politics is about - and I'm certainly not going to reject them out of hand without considerable thought. The (very clever) phrase "libertarian paternalism" is clearly designed to appeal to both camps, and especially middle England. That said, I believe that "libertarian paternalism" is an oxymoron and any attempt by government (or anti-smoking campaigners) to hijack the word "libertarian" for their own (restrictive) ends must be challenged and defeated.

At the same time, government needs our help: we have to relieve the pressure on politicians, civil servants and advisors by demonstrating that many of the health scares we read about are grossly exaggerated and the measures that are being taken (or proposed) are out of all proportion to the risk. 

It's a garantuan task - the momentum is with the prohibitionist health lobby - but I wouldn't be writing this blog if I didn't think that, one day, those of us with genuinely libertarian views will prevail.

Taking Liberties on DVD

I forgot to mention, last week, that Taking Liberties (the movie), which I wrote about at length earlier in the year (see HERE), is now available on DVD.

Although it got a huge thumbs up from the critics, a cheap as chips, documentary style film highlighting the way civil rights are being abused in Britain was never going to be major box office.

With Tony Blair consigned to history, it would be easy to dismiss Taking Liberties as yesterday's news. That would be a mistake. John Kampfner's article in the Telegraph on Friday (HERE) reiterated many of the points that were made in the film. Issues such as ID cards, CCTV cameras, freedom of speech and the right to protest will not go away.

The truth is, Taking Liberties barely scratched the surface. As director Chris Atkins admitted in the summer, there was so much more they could have included, but they had to draw a line somewhere. Nevertheless, it was a brave effort and I recommend the DVD.

The question is - apart from a handful of newspaper columnists and a smattering of lobby groups, who is going to take up the baton and run with it? As Kampfner put it:

The issue of liberty cuts across all parties. Labour's steady path to authoritarianism is a matter of shame for anyone such as myself. It also presents a tailor-made opportunity for its political opponents, one that they should have the courage to pursue.

BBC in alliance with anti-alcohol group

A new lobby group has been set up to spearhead a major drive against alcohol. Headed by the Royal College of Physicians (which founded ASH in 1971), the Alcohol Health Alliance will comprise 21 bodies, including Alcohol Concern, Action on Addiction, the Royal College of General Practitioners, Royal College of Nursing, and the Royal College of Surgeons.

The alliance is expected to call for a 10 per cent increase in alcohol taxation and government regulation of the drinks industry, including health warnings on alcohol advertising and other promotions.

According to one report, "The alliance plans a launch in late October or early November in conjunction with a BBC survey looking at the availability and use of services for those suffering from alcohol-related illnesses."

In conjunction with the BBC? Just fancy that! Story HERE.

Why? Because they can get away with it

Another thought-provoking article on Michael Siegel's tobacco-related blog, The Rest of the Story. In recent years, Prof Siegel's site has become required reading for anyone with an interest in the smoking debate. According to his blog profile:

I am a physician who specialized in preventive medicine and public health. I am now a professor in the Social and Behavioral Sciences Department, Boston University School of Public Health. I have 20 years of experience in tobacco control, primarily as a researcher. My areas of research interest include the health effects of secondhand smoke, policy aspects of regulating smoking in public places, effects of cigarette marketing on youth smoking behavior, and the evaluation of tobacco control program and policy interventions.

Tobacco industry stooge? I think not. The title of his most recent post asks, 'Why has the tobacco control movement lost its scientific integrity?'. He addresses this question (which, you will notice, includes a very clear statement) before concluding:

This is the new era of tobacco control ... And it has truly become a free-for-all for anti-smoking organizations.

Imagine this: the anti-smoking groups can actually claim that 30 minutes of secondhand smoke exposure is enough to cause hardening of the arteries. They can actually claim that 30 minutes of secondhand smoke exposure increases your risk of a fatal heart attack to the same level as that of an active smoker. They can actually claim that two hours of secondhand smoke increases your risk of sudden death from a cardiac arrhythmia.

And they can get away with it. That's why I think the anti-smoking groups have lost their scientific integrity. Because they can get away with it.

Full post HERE.

Update on Monday, October 22, 2007 by Simon Clark

Further to Michael Siegel's comments (above), I have just received an email thanking me for attending the Towards a Smokefree Society Conference in Edinburgh last month. Most of the presentations are now available on the conference website - click HERE. As you can see, it was a pretty comprehensive programme - if you enjoy being brainwashed. Debate? Don't be silly. In their world, there is no debate.

Dinner with David Cameron

Forest has negotiated a special 'Friends of Forest' reduced price ticket to attend a timely black tie dinner with David Cameron. Organised by Conservative Way Forward, the CWF Annual Dinner is at the Sheraton Park Lane Hotel, London, on Monday November 5. The price (£100, reduced from £125) includes complimentary wine and a complimentary pre-dinner drinks reception supported by Forest.

I appreciate that, even with the reduced rate, this still isn't cheap. These are interesting times, however, and it is important that groups such as Forest take every opportunity to engage in the political process and support other groups, many of whose members are, by and large, on a similar libertarian wavelength. If more like-minded people can join us at these events, so much the better.

For additional information and to order your tickets online click HERE, or telephone 020 7403 3990 (Monday to Friday 9.00am to 5.30pm). All you have to do is say you are a 'friend of Forest' and you qualify for the reduced price. Over half of all available tickets have been sold and remaining tickets are selling fast – so book now to guarantee your place.

PS. We'll be handing out some promotional items - CDs, t-shirts etc.

Bristol protest march

Paul Toole (above) leads a protest march against the public smoking ban. Following protests in Wells and Glastonbury, marchers gathered in Bristol yesterday where they were joined by local students. Story HERE. Paul and his partner Chris now plan to take their protest to London in the new year.

Battle of Ideas at the Royal College of Art

Claire Fox (left), director of the Institute of Ideas and a regular panellist on Radio 4's The Moral Maze, has been a friend for many years. We first met at Auberon Waugh's Academy Club (see HERE) shortly after I was appointed director of Forest. Later I tried to win her support by sending her a giant sponge cake that resembled a packet of her favourite Silk Cut. Somehow our friendship survived and over the years she has chaired or spoken at numerous Forest events - most recently our Revolt In Style dinner at The Savoy Hotel in June.

I mention this as the preamble to publicising the latest Battle of Ideas at the Royal College of Art, London, next weekend (October 27-28). Described as a "two-day festival of high level, thought-provoking debate", the Battle of Ideas is Claire's creation. As you would expect, there is a strong libertarian theme - but the emphasis is on intelligent debate so don't go expecting some sort of mindless political rally.

Subjects include arts & culture, health & well-being, liberty & law, lifestyle & society and much, much more. Full details, including ticket prices, HERE. Warmly recommended.

Auberon Waugh and the Academy Club

I was digging around some old files yesterday when I came across some pictures taken in the short-lived Academy Club in Soho. It may sound frightfully posh but - as I recall - the 'club' comprised two dingy rooms with bare floorboards, a smattering of wooden tables and chairs, and absolutely no heating. It was straight out of the 19th century - but it had charm and, most important, a bar.

It also attracted some very interesting people. This was because the founder of the Academy Club was Auberon Waugh (above left), whose equally Dickensian office - where he and a small team edited the Literary Review - was right next door. "Seeing Bron in the Academy Club drinking and smoking over the bridge table," wrote writer and broadcaster Charles Glass, "brought Hogarth's city back to me like nothing else. So wonderful to be, and be with, scoundrels and cads and rakes, while, outside, the dullards count their lives in coins."

Bron was a long-standing supporter of Forest and after I became director he invited me to the club for a drink and a chat. (This was an enormous thrill because, as a student in the Seventies, I was a huge fan of his columns in The Spectator and Private Eye.) I had no idea what to expect - I half thought he was going to offer us a substantial donation - but it turned out HE wanted Forest to give HIM money so that, each month, he could organise a party at the club and invite his friends (and contributors)!!

He did this in such a charming way that I couldn't possibly refuse. (I also thought it would be an opportuntity to mix with the great and the not so good.) And so, for a year until his death in 2001, Forest 'sponsored' a series of parties at the Academy Club.

Once a month we would climb the rickety staircase and 40 or 50 people (journalists and authors, mostly) would squeeze into this tiny space and bottles of red and white wine would pass - liberally - from one table to another. Inevitably, it was very smoky - even when we opened all the windows - but no-one seemed to mind. Guests arrived early (before seven) and rarely left before eleven.

Sadly, the parties stopped when Bron died (see obituary HERE). He was the glue that held us together and without him few guests had much in common. I would love to revive the concept - on a well-heated, rooftop patio, perhaps. We just need a host who is known, loved and admired by thousands of people. And available. Not much to ask.

Media myths and big fat lies

It's the sort of article - published in one of numerous sections in the weekend papers - that is easy to overlook. But Vivienne Parry's 'Obesity: the big fat lie?' in today's Times is worth reading. It doesn't give Britain a clean bill of health (see HERE) but it explains that this week's apocalyptic headlines about obesity were based on a report by Foresight, a "highly respected science think-tank", and "didn't reflect what it had said at all".

According to Parry (who is debating the subject at next week's Battle of Ideas in London), the suggestion that this generation will die before their parents as a result of obesity is a "myth":

It always was a myth and there is no science to support it. But it has become one of those statements taken up with gusto by the media, and assimilated into popular consciousness ... Death clearly has good headline value, but is there any need for exaggeration?"

It's easy to blame the media for misreporting, but everyone needs to take a reality check. I've lost count of the number of studies whose findings are "exaggerated" by the media - until you read the press release and understand perfectly why a journalist, battling against a deadline, has taken a particular line.

Politicians too need to be much more considered in their response. (They could at least check and stick to the facts.) Unfortunately, everyone wants column inches. Without media coverage, politicians, researchers and lobby groups find it harder to get elected or attract funding. (I speak from experience.)

As a general rule, you don't get publicity (least of all a front page splash) by issuing a press release or commenting in a way that suggests there is little to worry about. (When was the last time you saw the headline, 'Not many dead'?) 

One politician who responded in a less than excitable fashion to a national "crisis" was prime minister Jim Callaghan in 1978 - and we all know what happened to him. It is therefore regrettable but hardly surprising if politicians are reluctant to adopt a similar laissez-faire attitude to health and other issues, regardless of the facts.

On the march

Good luck to Paul Toole, Chris Elliot and others who are demonstrating in Bristol today against the public smoking ban (see HERE). Check here later for pictures.

Opportunity knocks

Also in today's Telegraph, an interesting article entitled 'Labour's steady path to authoritarianism'. It's important because the author is none other than John Kampfner, editor of the (left-wing) New Statesman. When all sides of the political spectrum start to talk of a "pattern of Whitehall bullying, of a Big Brother approach that has gathered pace under this Government", it shows how serious the situation really is.

"The issue of liberty [writes Kampfner] cuts across all parties. Labour's steady path to authoritarianism is a matter of shame for anyone such as myself. It also presents a tailor-made opportunity for its political opponents, one that they should have the courage to pursue."

Has he been reading this blog?!! Full article HERE.

At last, something to celebrate

The Daily Telegraph reports that "MPs may be given an extra 12 days holiday over the next year after the Government ran out of legislation to put before Parliament" (full story HERE).

The tone of the report ("increase takes annual leave to more than 90 days ... more than three times that of the average worker ... will embarrass Gordon Brown" etc) suggests disapproval. Personally, I think it's something to celebrate. In fact, if it means a reduction in legislation (ie less government), I would happily let MPs enjoy 180 days off each year - on the same salary.

I know this is simplistic, but what this country needs is fewer MPs working fewer days, especially in Parliament. In general, less legislation equals more freedom. It's hardly rocket science.

Why should we defend BBC News?

Before writing about the BBC, I must declare an interest. For five years (1985-1990) I ran a small, London-based research group called the Media Monitoring Unit. The MMU was founded by Dr Julian Lewis (now Conservative MP for New Forest East) and Lord Chalfont, a former Labour minister. My job was to expose what many observers felt was the systematic (or institutional) bias against right-of-centre political opinion on national television current affairs programmes. See HERE and HERE. 

As a result of this work - which once resulted in a front page, Evening Standard headline, 'YES, THE BBC IS BIASED' - I developed a serious love-hate relationship with the Beeb. (Bizarrely, the Independent on Sunday later ran a front page news story suggesting that I was motivated by the fact that I had failed to win a place on the BBC's news training scheme when I left university!!)

Although I am an ardent free marketeer, I accept the concept of public service broadcasting and I support some sort of licence fee if that is what is needed to keep the BBC afloat. I like the BBC - in principle - for lots of reasons. In particular, I like the fact that there are TV programmes and sporting events that are not interrupted by ad breaks. This comes at a price that I am willing to pay, although I accept that people who rarely watch the BBC may baulk at this.

I also like the idea that the BBC should provide a benchmark for broadcasting excellence to which others should aspire, emulate or even exceed. But that's another debate.

What I hate about the BBC (News and Current Affairs in particular) is the raging, institutionalised bias that is as evident now as it was in the Eighties. Today, commentators are rushing to the defence of BBC News, arguing that 'news' is what the BBC does best and that, if there are to be budget cuts, they should be made elsewhere. I'm not so sure.

If news is what the BBC does best, I'm a Martian. I could write thousands of words of the subject, but you only have to look at the way the BBC treats the issue of health (smoking, obesity, drinking) or climate change to appreciate just how biased the corporation is. On matters such as passive smoking (or smoking in public places generally), the BBC completely failed in its public duty to debate or report the issue fairly, impartially or in depth. I don't recall a single item on Newsnight (the corporation's flagship current affairs programme) that discussed the issue in any detail. As for a serious documentary on the subject - forget it. It never happened.

On a whole range of social issues, the BBC has been happy to dance to the tune of the environmentalists, the health lobby and the government. If we're going to defend it, BBC News should focus on fact not speculation or individual (and often perjorative) analysis. With regard to current affairs in general, now is the time argue for a new, genuinely independent BBC that looks at issues fairly (if not 100 per cent impartially), and leaves the viewer to draw his own conclusions.

Instead, people are getting their knickers in a twist about Jonathan Ross's (alleged) £18m three-year contract. That's a smokescreen. The real issue is: does BBC News and Current Affairs deserve or justify the money it receives from licence payers like you and me? I'm not sure that it does.

Moaning minnies

Latest word on the Top Gear pipe smoking story comes from Ian O'Doherty. Writing in the Irish Independent, O'Doherty comments:

Jeremy Clarkson is one of those guys that you know you should loathe, but his ability to get up the noses of so many people is his one saving grace. The latest group of thin-skinned pygmies to have their precious feelings hurt come from the perennially pissed off anti-smoking brigade ASH, an organisation so shrill and petty that they make the good folk at Peta look like irresponsible party animals.

Full article HERE. Personally, I think it's marvellous the way ASH have reacted. It underlines just how humourless, po-faced and abnormal they really are. And stupid. Fancy commenting on something that was clearly intended as a joke! Get a life. 

PS. If you haven't seen the clip yet, click HERE, and pass it on.