Tory paternalism a threat to freedom
Monday, July 9, 2007 
The Conservative party's Social Justice Policy Group will tomorrow publish a 200,000-word report, commissioned by David Cameron (above) and written by former party leader Iain Duncan-Smith.
Weekend reports say that in order to tackle Britain's "binge drinking culture" IDS will recommend increasing tax on alcohol, adding 7p on the price of a pint of beer and 20p on a bottle of wine (ie 4p a glass).
Now, I don't pretend to know much Britain's "binge drinking culture" (other than the fact that I am one of those who undoubtedly consume more than the "recommended" units of alcohol each week), but I do know that politicians whose knee-jerk response to any 'problem' is to tax and legislate must be challenged. If - after rigorous debate - they can justify their actions, fine, but there has to be a full and open discussion that is not dominated by "experts", campaigners and woolly thinking paternalists.
Worryingly, a reader of this blog reports that when he wrote to David Cameron about the smoking ban he received the following response:
Dear Martin,
The Government's ban on smoking in public places has now come into force. 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 now published five sets of regulations which set out the detail of smokefree legislation. You can view these within the policy and guidance section of the Department of Health website.
They are all currently being considered by Parliament, where we have raised some reservations, for example about smoking in vehicles, prisons and mental health units. Nevertheless we hope that the Bill and its regulations will play a positive role in reducing exposure to second-hand smoke and, in turn, help to improve public health.
It is clear that we need to tackle smoking, just as we need to tackle the other causes of ill-health. Without action, what should be preventable ill-health in its various forms will cost the country an extra £30 billion a year by the 2020s.
It is important to remember that we're all in this together - individuals, families, communities, and Government, as well as employers, have a social responsibility to ensure that we do not place unnecessary pressures on our stretched NHS services in the years to come. Of course, employers will have to come to their own decisions about whether it is worth their while to provide stop smoking support.
While stop smoking advice at work is a matter for employers, we can say what a future Conservative Government would do. Three-quarters of NHS bodies are currently cutting their 'stop smoking' budgets as a result of the NHS financial crisis, so we would ring-fence these budgets to ensure that they are used for what they were intended: helping people to stop smoking.
The author of this letter is someone called 'Alice Sheffield' but, as Martin points out, "It could just as easily have been penned by the icy fingers of the sadly departed Patricia Hewitt herself." Forest will be writing to David Cameron, taking issue with many of the points in Alice Sheffield's letter. I strongly suggest that others do too.
Reader Comments (36)
It seems that Cameron ultimately has no new ideas. Tax it! is one half of labour's "solution package", with the other half being "ban it!". I wonder how long before Cameron's policies expand to include that half as well.
But here's the question I will be asking Cameron; Why should *I* have to pay more because some people don't drink responsibly? Why does Cameron feel justified digging into my pockets because of the bahaviour of other people?
Binge drinking isn't a problem in its own right. For most it's a phase they pass through before developing a more responsible attitude to drinking.
The problem with bind drinking is the anti-social behaviour it induces in some people; and the violence that sometime ensues.
If the people responsible for that knock on effect of binge drinking were caught and appropriately punished (rather than just recieving a slap on the wrist and sent on their way) then it wouldn't be a huge problem any more now would it?
Oh, and here's the thing that morons like Cameron fail to figure out; the more expensive they make alcohol the more people drink BEFORE they go out! Ultimately 7p on a pint will do nothing but prove to be a stealth tax on social drinkers.
It's obvious to me what's going on. I listened to a guy on Radio 4 a few months ago, he projected our population 10 years ahead. This was a worrying figure, that the NHS would not be able to deal with at current rates. I think it's all about back door tax. Rather than having to say to people, "we will have to raise the main levels of taxation" (income tax), they tell us, " we must look after your health.
People enjoy alcahol, many always will, what could possibly be easier. TAX THEM.
I still think the ban on smoking is based on potential law suits. The Americans started all this legal stuff a few years ago. What if non smokers took the government to court claiming seconhand smoke gave them cancer. Governments don't give a hoot about our health, they care about there big houses, flash cars etc. EVERYTHING IS ABOUT MONEY.
Andrew, the point on litigiousness was raised in the Lords debate. Some of the Lords raised all the pertinent issues. The questions as to why their words were not heeded will puzzle me for the rest of my days:
Extract:
"We examined each of those concerns and found no evidence to support the view that British society had become increasingly litigious or that people hold unreasonable views about risk."
You can read the full text here:
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-
office.co.uk/pa/ld200405/ldhansrd/pdvn/
lds06/text/61106-gc0001.htm
Reduce the strain on the NHS - that's a laugh, for the past year, to my knowledge, there has been an immense increased strain on the Mental Health Department, what seems to be the forgotten arm of the NHS. Many people with minor to severe mental health problems smoke and for many it is beneficial, however other problems of mental health can be that people who suffer feel isolated or are not inclined to go out and socialise. This is not good for them and they need to be encouraged not to hide from the world and to have as much of a social life as they can. This smoking ban has completely knocked that on the head for many sufferers, as for them, to socialise would possibly mean a drink and a smoke in a pub or cafe - such a simple thing for most people, but this can be very daunting and difficult to others.
The harsh reality of mankind is that it's numbers need to be CONTAINED. Our often brutal history, with many wars, capped numbers. This equilibrium no longer exists (thank god).
So are we to believe the powers that be, want us to all live longer lives, and burden the State more. They would much rather we all popped our clogs at 65. So the smoking and general health argument are a lie.
So why do they tell us, "we are doing this for public health".
Answer: "We've told them how bad this thing is", this will lead to drinkers and smokers costing the NHS more. So people will agree we can tax them to the hilt.
This country will not sustain prolonged life, and burdens on the state. Let's plan for this now, and STEALTH TAX THEM.
This is truly shocking. I have never voted for any other party than the Tories and have been a member on and off for 20 years. I think it is time to get the Basildon Bond out. I have tracked down this on Google, she is one of Cameron's correspondence secretary and the daughter of a Baronet so it seems.
Alice Sheffield
Office of David Cameron MP
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA
Isn't Alice Sheffield some relation of Cameron's wife? I believe she belongs to the Sheffield family.
Well seems like the Tories under "call me Dave" have no ideas of their own so I shall be considereing voting for someone else in the next election unless Dave scraps the Green policy and goes back to old conservative values.
andrew there is no way passive smoking can be proven and the Tories need to understand that which is why we should get writing!
Further to Andrew's comment about the need for population control, I heard on the radio that a "green think tank" I think called the "Optimum Population Trust" (what an Orwellian name) has decided that, in view of climate change, it is morally wrong to have more than two children and that it should be frowned upon. Are we heading towards banning sex, compulsory sterilisation, having to apply to the government for permission to exceed your quota - I wouldn't put anything past today's politicians in their reactions to the latest hysteria.
Joyce
How about this scenario. When we drink, smoke, have a good time, what are we more inclined to do??? On the other hand don't drink don't smoke, then fall asleep. POPULATION CONTROL.
Let's have an indepth study of stress related deceases related to WORK. Can't see the benefits of reduced work being published.
My first thought was this could be someone's idea of an intermediate solution for the loss of income from tobacco taxes. Still have to work out the longer term solution as if tobacco sales go down and then alcohol too then we will be in the shit.
Regarding Mr Alice Cameron's letter, I'm so glad Forest is writing to her as it is plainly an insult to the reader's intelligence. I enlarge...
What is this idea that we can somehow control the health of the nation?
What is the relationship between "the health of the nation" and NHS expenditure?
These are issues of a very complex and interrelated nature and Mr Cameron or his Alice seem to expect that a smoking ban will improve the health of the nation and so decrease NHS expenditure. I'm afraid they've got some surprises coming because neither of these things is true neither are they related to each other as simply as they believe they can make us believe they believe!!!!!
In some ways, smokers are their own worst enemy. Stand outside the pubs and railway stations and you'll hear plenty of well-reasoned arguments and feel the seething anger. But this has translated into very little in political terms.
The Conservatives are unlikely to risk a major confrontation with the BMA etc for the sake of a group whose 13Million members' sole achievement so far has been to create the (unfortunately highly unsuccessful) Publicans Party in Scotland.
Perhaps more of us need to write to Mr Cameron, raise petitions etc. At the moment we're literally out in the cold but manage to be practically invisible and inaudible.
Im afraid binge drinking in pubs is not a concern as since the government banned smoking in them I refuse to enter unless I can enjoy a cig with my pint.
I have written to Alice Sheffield and my main point to her has been, frankly if you believe Labour’s spin and lies, what hope is there for the rest of the electorate? I am absolutely livid.
This country is in such a mess i do not know how the hell we are going to get out of it can any one remember what Tony Bliar siad in 1997 grenral election ( things can only get better )
the labour party promised so much and every since they have lied to the people of this country take the smoking ban for example at the last election they said a partly smoking ban but i have heard they was intending to bring in the full ban if they got back in then they promised better eduction (lied) more money towards the NHS(lied) crack down on crime(lied) better standed ofliving (lied) everybody in debt why don't they make drinking smoking illegal if it is bad for you why are they still making drinking look glamours on the tv ads when they know about binge drinking and children ending up in A&E though drink at least with smokers they do not cause damage to our streets or to each other my grandmother used to say when your time is up its up and they is nothing you can do about it i read in a news paper early this year it is the genes (IE) how long you live, what illness you will have even if you are obese its in your genes and unless this government as got a wonder drug to take away you genes and make you live for ever then the sad thing is that we are all going to die one day and i want to die happy knowing i have had a good life and not being told by any government what i can and can not do
All these people in westminster is bothered about is there image fast cars big houses they are not bothered about us and lets not forget them who fought in 2 world wars for FREEDOM for the people of this country and for furture grenrations but now thats all gone we live by the government is telling us we should not do this we should not do that one day they will not be any pleasure we will be going to work then come home and sit in our homes and go to work our ancesters would not have sat there doing nothing they would have been riots by now and protest it about we all starting sticking up for oursleves before it's too late
Simon, and all Freedom-Lovers,
Just a quick note to express my rather wicked gratification at your various responses, and my hope that some of you WILL indeed harry the New Conservatives (as I suppose we must now call them) on this point. The Smoking Ban is emblematic of much that is going wrong both in this country and the States, and its implications extend FAR beyond my selfish desire once again to be able to enjoy a simple fag with a pint of Summer Lightning at the end of a long working day down at my local.
I fear that I am STILL too blisteringly angry to construct the impassioned-but-well-reasoned reply that such a declaration merits. Sadly, however, the Little Controllers who now seem to permeate every stratum of our public life are as immune to Reason as they are to Passion - and, one might add, to Civility, Humanity, and Common Sense.............
Perhaps I should also add 'A Sense of Humour'...?
On the day of the final vote in Parliament on this issue, I wrote a rather bad-tempered e-mail to David Cameron in which I suggested that he and his chums should consider - in view of their adoption of a Green Splodge as the new party logo (cost: £46,000) - the re-branding of Britain as 'Airstrip One'. I rather suspect the allusion was wasted on them.................
'Bright' people, I fear, aren't always very 'intelligent' - as I discovered in my university days.
Raise taxes on smokes, to deter teens from smoking.
Raise taxes on booze, to deter adults from binge drinking.
Politicians will use any excuse to raise taxes.
Politicians were not elected to control and manipulate our behaviour.
They are in office to serve us, not the other way around.
Sorry, but I don't understand anybody wanting to put a tax on a pint of beer to curb binge drinking. Having spent most of my adult life enjoying a pintertwo - or more, looking at the binge drink artists in the wild, honsetly, I have NEVER ever seen them indulge in draught beer. Whack a fiver on all those alcopops and 'shots' of wierd alcohol and you'll stop the bingers, but please, oh pretty please, leave my beer alone!
Mike, no you won't. Singling out a single type of drink for high tax will only result in a shift to another type of drink.
I'm *just* young enough to remember my youth when I used to go out with the intent of getting drunk - this was before the rise of alcopops and I used to drink "Diamond White", which, to be frank, I though was rancid filth, but it was better than lager. Despite the awful taste I managed to get drunk without enjoying the process.
These days I'm not a big fan of getting drunk, but I do enjoy a few jars every now and again, and I don't see why people like myself should be punished because some people haven't learned how to properly enjoy alcohol yet.
Young people bing drinking isn't a problem in its own right, its the violence that SOME of them cause whilst under the influence. A radical idea might be to actually punish them properly than to nudge a stealth tax up a bit higher.
Oh, incidentally, any more than 4 pints in an evening is binge drinking btw.
OH MY GOD. You people have got to be joking.
SMOKING SHOULD BE BANNED.
SO ALL YOU FUCKEN SMOKERS CAN GET FUCKED CAUSE I WILL FUCKEN KILL YOU ALL.
To ban smoking - wouldn't do that if I were you, you might have to share a cell with a smoker.
SO ALL YOU FUCKEN SMOKERS CAN GET FUCKED CAUSE I WILL FUCKEN KILL YOU ALL.
The Office of David Cameron ?
Ban Smoking is obviously someone who is the product of the current education system - can't spell and encouraging violence towards people who smoke - could a supporter of any of the three mainstream parties of today!
BAN SMOKING
You advocate murder, then say smoking should be banned. You are A TRUE PSYCHO.
Jenny -
Re: "could (be) a supporter of any of the three mainstream parties of today!"
Quite ! Perhaps it IS time for a new 'party' - one that cuts across the old Tribal Loyalties ?
Just as long as it DOESN'T have the word 'New' in its title................
Martin states: "Perhaps it IS time for a new 'party' - one that cuts across the old Tribal Loyalties ? Just as long as it DOESN'T have the word 'New' in its title"
A new political party is exactly what I have suggested on another site. If you are interested and haven't seen it or cannot find it, I will post my original post on here, let me know?
I've seen it, Peter, and voted in favour of it. Sorry Martin - you are correct - I left (be) out of 'could be a supporter of any of the three mainstream parties.' We've had a taste of New Labour for over 10 years and now Cameron's New Conservatives are going down the same route. As for Liberal Democrats I've encountered, they are the most politically correct bunch of loonies I have ever had the misfortune to meet. I'd vote for something anti-puritanical and anti-political correctness.
Peter -
Re your ideas on a new political party - yes, please re-post.
Two things have become apparent to me over the past ten years:
First, so far as Political Discourse is concerned, there just ain't any !
Second, the REAL tragedy is that a genuine consensus DOES exist among thinking people of (hitherto) ALL political affiliations - one that would welcome policies based on the simple old-fashioned principles of Freedom, Humanity, and Common Sense (principles which have been ruthlessly ignored by this silly anti-smoking legislation in particular).
Since NO political party, as presently constituted, is willing to accomodate my views on ANYTHING I feel pasionately about, I have decided to join the Freedom Association. Health and Security are all very well, but I have no desire to live on a Prison Hospital Ward, thank you - even if they DO make Hattie Jacques matron.
With every freedom that dies, a bit of US dies too. If only more people were able to recognise this rather obvious truth.
You'd think that, with all the freedom-eroding insanity of the Blair years, the new Conservatives would seek to outflank New Labour
on one wing by promoting once again the ideals of Liberty. But, the closest thing we find to THAT concept on Dave's website (with so much green on it it makes me feel seasick, frankly) is 'Freedom With Responsibility'. Now, at a personal level, that's something most of us probably agree with. However, as a rallying cry to an embattled electorate, it doesn't QUITE stir the blood, does it ?
"Cry God for England, Harry and - er - Freedom-with-Responsibility". I rather think not......
And Jenny: a typographical error does NOT make you a Bad Person - or so I've been advised ;-)
Martin, here (below) is my original post which, as I said, I put on another website. Unfortunately, because of this website's rules, I cannot put the name of the other website on here, but if you do not know it, please read between the lines and hopefully you will find it.
I said from the very beginning, before the ban came into being, that we needed to organise ourselves more. It is very nice having a website like this where we can all commiserate with other, but we do need more that that.
Sometimes I feel like a member of a family which has just lost a loved one, and we are all gathering to relate our personal fond memories of him, which is all very nice, but it won't bring him back will it.
Unlike Doctor Frankenstein, or the book "The Monkey's Paw" we cannot bring back our good family friend, Mr Tobacco. But together, we can force this government into making important changes in this law.
It is no good calling for the law to be abandoned. What government is ever going to admit that they have made a total cock-up? Certainly not this one, that's for sure, and from the stories now emerging about the Conservatives, I am sorry to say that I am not expecting much better from them either.
There are millions of smokers in the UK and if we cannot overturn the ban, we can certainly overturn the government, and we need to make them aware of this.
I think that we need to set up our own political party. Maybe it could even be called "The Freedom to Choose Party". Why not, after all, isn't that what democracy is supposed to be about, and isn't that what is being denied to us more and more? Not just about the smoking ban but about everything that affects our lives.
Let's have a vote on it here and see how many people are for it on this site, that's a start isn't it?
Peter -
Many thanks for that - AND your none-too-cryptic
clue !
I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments.
Sadly, however, I must confess that I don't know which frightens me more - the Daleks who now constitute our Political Class, or the Muppets who constitute our Electorate.
A 'generalisation', of course. But the point about generalisations is that they are GENERALLY true.
Remember the Bandit Chief's line in 'The Magnificent Seven' ?
"If God had not wanted them to be sheared, he would not have made them Sheep". He may have had a point................
Do sheep bite..................?
I am slowly getting sick to death of the idiots that think they can run our country. binge drinking first started when the big supermarkets were allowed to sell boose. people would buy from them cheap, go home, meet up with their friends there, get tanked up then go out.then hey presto, the pubs get the blame yet again. when are these polotitions going to learn that to stop binge drinking all they have to do is stop the supermarkets selling boose, then consumption will me monitored by the publicans, which is what we do now.!!!
but no..........
how much funding do HMG get from the big supermarkets..........
millions.!!!
Tony,
It is sickening. Governments never actually ask people on the ground who *know*. They would rather spend thousands of pounds (maybe even millions for all I know) on research that either leaves one feeling bewildered by the results which are totally out of touch, or shouting at the television "I COULD HAVE TOLD YOU THAT FOR NOTHING!"
Martin - I had to laugh at your daleks and muppets - so true, and sitting right at the top... THE MASTER!! (Well he's regenerated now - we'll just have to see how the new one pans out).
I received exactly the same response (from the same person) a few weeks ago after I emailed central office following a piece on Radio 4 where boy David was bleating on about making citizens more responsible for their own actions. My email (which prompted the said response) asked whether, in furtherance of this aim, he intended to either reverse or at least modify the smoking ban if he came to power.
Alice clearly has a template for any would be Tory voters who have the temerity to test such fine words.
How ludicrous this country has become was demonstrated yesterday to me when my sons and I decided on a day out in the West End of London followed by the boxing at the 02 Arena.
Standing outside the Wetherspoons pub in Leicester Square enjoying a pint and a cigarette we were approached by one of the bar staff who told us that we could SIT outside the pub smoking and drinking but could not STAND doing the same thing.
So we duly found a seat and then proceeded to look on with a mixture of resignation and sympathy for the barman charged with this task as he tried to explain this strange state of affairs to bewildered foreign tourists.
We then moved on to the 02, which, of course, is a completely "smoke-free zone" - and no re-admission so you can't pop out for a ciggie and then come back in again, despite being in possession of a ticket stub (although, strength in numbers was the key, with so many poeple smoking in the toilet that one could barely find one's way to the urinal for smog, and the "security" clearly deciding that discretion was the better part of valour).
The 02 is not however just a smoke free zone, but an onion free zone as well.
Upon ordering onions on our hotdogs we were advised that onions had been banned because some people found the smell offensive. This is absolutely true I assure you.
You really couldn't make it up.
Further to Terry's post, Thomas Hobbes had something to say that is of direct relevance to the issue of living in society. He said that when we live in a society we give up the right to behave however we like in order to be protected from certain behaviours. So, for example, we give up the right to commit murder in order to be protected from being murdered. If, therefore, we demand the right of protection from a behaviour then we must give up the right to indulge in that behaviour. There are some behaviours that we all agree that we want protection from, for example, murder, and so we all agree to legislation which prohibits it. The problems arise when what is considered good and bad is a matter of personal preference. If people demand the right to be protected from the smell of cigarette smoke or onions then they must give up the right to indulge in behaviours that offend the sensibilities of others. Taken to its logical conclusion, a society which tries to function by legislating on the basis of personal preferences must eventually break down. To cope with this problem, we used to have good manners and tolerance.
Terry -
I was rather amused (if that's the right word) at your suggestion that "Alice clearly has a template for any would be Tory voters.........".
I had the strong feeling that I had been sent one of those awful 'generic' e-mails that these jobsorths are apt to send out to awkward buggers like me who ask QUESTIONS (and who would like some ANSWERS, please).
Just before the final vote in the Commons, I sent her an e-mail in similar vein - but she had clearly mis-read my position. She seemed to have assumed that I was a member of the Anti-Smoking Class, and even mentioned that if the Government didn't pull its socks up and ban smoking in 'public places' TOTALLY, then - inter alia - the Chief Medical Officer would RESIGN (No, Liam - no)!!!!!
Well, we couldn't have that - could we ? I couldn't even LOOK at a cigarette for days afterwards for thinking of the awful consequences that may yet befall one of the Nation's Best-Loved Civil Servants......
Obviously, the overworked Alice had pushed the wrong button.
Anyone recall 'The Invasion of the Body Snatchers'............? I think it entirely possible that Alice may have come out of one of those pods.
On the other hand, she MAY just be a Sanctimonious Prat.