Top of the class
Thursday, September 18, 2008 The fringe meeting we organised with Liberal Vision in Bournemouth was a great success - standing room only. Packed into Old Harry's Bar in the Highcliff Hotel, the majority of the audience demonstrated that real liberals do exist within the Liberal Democrats. They just need some encouragement - and events like this.
Speakers were Malcolm Bruce MP (who voted for the smoking ban), Gavin Webb (Lib Dem councillor suspended by the party earlier this year because of his pro-libertarian views), Dr Richard Wellings (deputy editorial director of the Institute of Economic Affairs who worked on the IEA book Prohibitions), and Mark Littlewood (chairman of Liberal Vision and Lib Dem head of media 2004-2007).
Mark took the opportunity to announce the results of a Liberal Vision survey to find the most liberal Lib Dem MPs on lifestyle issues. Based on eleven recent Early Day Motions and nine parliamentary votes (the latter on the specific subjects of smoking, drinking and gambling), the top ten liberals were:
1. Lembit Opik
2. David Laws
3. Paul Keetch
4. David Howarth
5. John Barrett
6. Jeremy Browne
7. Julia Goldsworthy
8. John Hemming
9. Tom Brake
10. Sir Menzies Campbell
Charles Kennedy came 11th, Nick Clegg 15th.
Bottom of the class were:
61. Vincent Cable
62. Mike Hancock
63. John Leech
According to Mark, "Liberal Vision believes that adults should be allowed to make their own lifestyle choices, even if these decisions cause them serious harm. The other two parties take a controlling, patronising and interfering approach on these issues. We hope to persuade the Liberal Democrats to adopt a more philosophicaly coherent and, indeed, liberal approach in these areas."
Report HERE.
Reader Comments (5)
Quite the opposite of liberal intentions: you will have seen I expect the current aims of Ealing Council (or whatever division of it). They will be starting a pilot project to send 'young people' out to pubs, clubs, cafes, to tell smokers all the reasons for stopping their love of tobacco. I want to ask: what powers do we have, either to take THEIR name and address, in the context of considering a civil action against Ealing for breach of human rights and civil liberty?
Would Simon like to consider something on those lines? To the point at least where it could genuinely be said it was being considered? I don't think eff-off quite covers it.
Working in London I often get stopped by chuggers mainly for 3rd world causes. I warn them that they will not be getting any money out of me and then warn them that I am very un-PC. So after giving me their spiel I point out the money will end up causing more hunger, starvation and corruption and will basically be wasted. I am blunter than that, but have applied self censorship.
If some jobsworth from the council comes up to me and tests my CO I will ask what peer reviewed publications these dangers have been identified, what is the ratio of CO2 to CO in non smomkers v smokers, what qualifications he/she has to advise me, what he/she thinks of the BMJ peer reviewed Enstrom/Kabat paper ... I am sure you get the picture.
I will also ask for the contact details of his superiors so I can also put these points to them too.
I think, gawd bless 'em these well meaning but naive people will be regretting their involvement and will be polit too.
Well said, Dave, and very nicely organised!
Something to take forward into the fray.
The chuggers dont approach me any more since I started fixing them with a stare and keeping up my walking pace before they get a chance to start their spiel. If one of them persists I tell them in a low tone to f*** off. And as for the survey brigade, I always ask them first how much do I get for answering their questions and when they say its voluntary I say "not interested" and put the phone down or shut the door in their face. If anyone ever approached me in a place of recreation I would tell them to get a life and f*** off in that order.
As I understand it, unless you're considered to be 'without Mental Capacity' a Doctor cannot test or medicate you without your consent. To do so is considered 'assault'.
Someone with greater knowledge than I might be able to clarify, but I believe 'coercion' towards any particular form of testing or treatment is also unlawful.
These people are not Doctors, of course, but surely the same rules apply?
Anyone here with in-depth knowledge of this area?