Big Government and the bully state
Friday, November 20, 2009 
Brian Monteith, author of The Bully State: The End of Tolerance which we published last month (see HERE), has written a piece for Conservative Home. Picking up on David Cameron's pledge to tackle Big Government, Brian writes:
It is not enough to say that overbearing inspectors, prying officials, quality assurance jobsworths and the like will be given their P45s without repealing the screeds of legislation that have brought them into being. I’ve heard it said that thousands of faceless bureaucrats will go, but I’ve yet to hear which of the laws that created them will be abolished.
In fact Conservatives often voice their own ideas about what government can next do in our own best interest such as introducing minimum prices on alcohol and giving more power to the Chief Medical Officer - who is responsible for starting many of the health-based "it’s for your own good" bans and restrictions. And then there’s the idea of just giving a "nudge"- also known as an elbow, push or shove - if you are on the receiving end.
The answer is for a Conservative government to return responsibility for health to the individual by allowing us to make informed choices for ourselves - and adopting the localist agenda where decisions are taken at the lowest possible level rather than by centralised ministries or unaccountable quangos. It can pay electoral dividends. Last year in the New Zealand general election the outrage at the incumbent Labour government’s proposal to restrict shower flow rates caught the public imagination and summed up all that was wrong with an arrogant and petty-minded elite. They were given a cold bath.
Cameron has pledged to stop and demolish Labour’s plans for identity cards - but we are yet to hear if its database backbone will also be dismantled. Campaigns to save our pubs and clubs are in vogue - but where is the willingness to let them offer smoking rooms with licensed air quality standards that would help give them a financial lifeline?
Those who, like me, believe we should be free to make the wrong choices so long as we pay for them ourselves want to hear more from Cameron about how Conservatives will stop the bullying of the state and its agencies. It could be a new second front that Labour - as architects of our Bully State - would find indefensible, and Labour voters in marginal seats that still have to be won would respond with open insurrection.
My experience tells me ordinary punters are just looking for a lead. If Cameron can respond with details behind his end to big government slogan, then the bullies will be on the run.
Full article HERE. You can comment.
Note: The Bully State is available on Amazon HERE.
Reader Comments (31)
Brian M - now THAT's what I call a 'Conservative' !
Have just started reading his book - and it's a wonderful read.
If YOU (at the back) haven't ordered a copy yet.......WHY not ?
Why Cameron HAS to send Ideas-Hunters around the Globe, when there's such a rich crop of Intelligent People With Sound Ideas in THIS country, is a COMPLETE mystery to me.
If he'd only damned well LOOK.
Let's start making the grass greener on THIS side of the fence..............and excite the envy of our neighbours ONCE AGAIN !
And we've plenty of bullshit for fertiliser...........
PS:
Government by Scotchmen like Brian and Irishmen like Dan Hannan would suit THIS Englishman just fine.
And stop him feeling like an EXILE in his own land......................
The last thing we need now is more power given to that pompus bullshitter (sorry) Sir Liam Dumbellson, With his non existent Swine Flu scare stories. I'm still waiting for the 000's of deaths. That guy has cost this country a packet on useless drugs (As WHO and Big Pharma laugh all the way to the bank). Well somebody has made a nice back hander out of it and it is not me.
No more power to the Sir Liams please.
Peter J -
Indeed not.
We've had QUITE ENOUGH 'government' by Scotchmen like Fatty McFatty and the other McPrats thank you.
But which way will The Cameron jump ?
Still The Big Question in my book.............
As I have said before, Cameron and his NuTories are fluff and no substance. Big words mean nothing without action. Cameron will not put his money where his mouth is. He is too much of a coward. A Tory Govt next time will mean further moves towards the eradication of tobacco and the criminalisation of smokers.
If he is such a big fan of freedom - although most politicians are rather exclusive about what the word means - then he should come out and say so. He will not pass one small crumb of comfort to smokers so why the hell should we vote for his Con team.
Cracking article, just one small point though - Brian says: "Those who, like me, believe we should be free to make the wrong choices so long as we pay for them ourselves." We smokers pay twice over for receiving bad or no NHS treatment, how much more should we pay for our 'wrong choices'?
What a load of old rubbish you speak Pat. Youre not interested in what party will offer something to smokers, all your interested in is boosting your own party the Ukippers.
Thats right I do know your a Ukipper as I saw you wright about it elswehere on here. You know as well as me that your Ukippers are not going to do anything about the smoking ban because they are just liars when they tell people they will.
We all know the Ukippers shout and hollar a lot about the ban, but please tell all of us how the Ukippers would actually do anything about it?
The balls in your court Pat.
Ataloss
Why not read the UKIP manifesto for yourself?
UKIP would amend the ban to allow proprietors to run their businesses as they choose.They can have a smoking pub or a non-smoking pub or separate internal sections for both. It would be up to the public to choose which they wish to go to. It would be up to bar staff to choose which they wish to work in.
This is normal all over Europe.
There is nothing preventing the Con/Lab/Libs from doing the same.
"This is normal all over Europe."
Good point, Margot.
After all, our Glove-Puppet Polticians always seem willing to use the 'It's-what-they-do-in-Europe' argument when it suits THEIR purpose (if not necessarily ours).
A good resolve-stiffener for the REAL 'Kippers' in the Westminster Deli:
It's NOT the United Kingdom Independence Party that's two-faced AND spineless........
What planet do you live on Margot and Martin?
You really believe the Ukipppers can do what they want if we vote for them? Do me a favour!
You ever heard of a place called paliament? You can look it up on the internet if you dont know how it works.
Basically it takes someone to put up a proposal, then all the rest have a vote about it. Get it?
In other words it takes the whole bleeding lot of them to get a law through parliament, so unless the Ukippers are about to start a civil war and make all the other parties ilegal then there is no way they can change this law or any other law.
This is what I was asking Pat about before you both answered. My question to Pat was HOW the Ukippers can do all the things, I wasn't asking if they taked about it or wrote about it, we all do that! I want to know HOW they can do it if we still have a parliament?
Ataloss -
The subject of this thread is 'Big Government and the Bully State.'
Subtext: HOW to go about ending it.
On MY planet, there seem to be only two options at present:
1) Vote (in sufficient numbers) for a REFORMED Conservative Party which, in my definition of 'reformed', means a REVOLUTIONARY (yes, it has come to that) Eurosceptic, small-government, freedom-enhancing party that will - over time - lead us away from the perilous road we've been taking since the War. The sort of party in which a Brian Monteith or a Dan Hannan or a Christopher Monckton would be TYPICAL members. Or:
2) Vote (in sufficient numbers) for a party that ALREADY embraces most, if not all, of the principles cited above.
In 1892, Keir Hardie stood as the SOLE Independent Labour Candidate - and won.
In 1893, he helped form the Independent Labour Party.
The rest, of course, is History.
But, SOMEONE had to begin the process.
And now SOMEONE has to reverse the ratchet-effect of Socialism (and its Kissing Cousin, Social Democracy) that has brought us all to this sorry pass.
That's how History (and Change) 'happens'.
On MY Planet..................
I agree with you Martin V.
But I wonder if we've gone too far down the path to big government for option 2 to be workable today.
I light of the Mori poll being so favourable to NuLab, Tapestry has an interesting comment on his blog - see "Eurosceptic Cameron..........." at http://the-tap.blogspot.com/
Ataloss - my stance on freedom is what took me to UKIP. I have never made a secret of my recent support for the party because of its support for smokers. If the Tories had made their views clear, I would have looked there first when switching ideological support from Labour. Even now I would consider Tories because I fear what Peter Thurgood had said about a UKIP vote being a risk of getting NuLab in by default. However, I am also loyal and I must vote with my conscience. I am sorry if that offends you but I don't believe smokers should vote to be turkeys at Christmas... or that there is a fag's paper between the other main parties on all other issues of concern.
Goodstuff -
Thanks for the link.
While I would not rule out entirely the possibility of 'rigged' election results (by tampering with the ballot boxes), I should first like to see any credible evidence that that has ever happened.
The Media Game is something else entirely, of course.
And while the Media focuses on the Economy and The Personalities (when it isn't focussing on Celebrity Trash), people's attentions are conveniently DEFLECTED from the 'issues' that REALLY need addressing.
It's a 'game' that's becoming tediously predictable, and one in which Tactics have practically overridden ANY consideration of Principle.
As things stand at present, 'Party Politics' seems to me to be as much about Real Politics as 'Reality Television' is about Real Life.
But if THAT is what The Public wants.
Frankly, I'm beginning to appreciate EXACTLY how Cassandra (and George Carlin) felt........
Brian Monteith makes his points in a very sensible way. A particular point that he makes regards Quangos. I remember, not long ago, making the point that Quangos only exist because the Government at the time passed laws which needed to be implemented and, although civil servants are the people who draw up the regulations which implement the laws passed by Parliament, the actual implementation and continuous supervision of the implementation requires Quangos. As BM says, you can only get rid of the Quangos if you get rid of laws which created the need for them.
Another interesting point that BM raised was the function of the Chief Medical Officer, Sir Liam Donaldson. He mentioned the idea that the Tories may intend to expand his remit. Frankly, I think that this is simply a ploy to redefine his 'job definition' and thus get rid of him and his woeful predictions (MAD COW DISEASE - Oh My God! Hundreds of thousands will die! BIRD FLU - Oh My God! Do we remember how birds, infected by bird flu, were going to fly over here from Europe and polish us all off?, etc). The idea that his job should be re-defined is a good one.
But it is also true that we need to hear a lot more from the Chief Science Officer (if such a position exists). We seem to hear a lot of stuff from Statisticians, but very little from actual Scientists.
Most of all, BM hints at, but does not actually state categorically, that INDIVIDUAL GROWN-UP ADULTS have to right, and indeed, the duty to look after themselves. Imagine the chaos which would ensue if this idea were not true.
This idea, that grown-ups look after themselves, is basic to our civilisation.
Odd though it may seem, this idea has several weird consequences. It would follow from the idea that grown-up adults can and should look after themselves that those grown-up adults who wish to amuse themselves with heroin and cannabis etc, can do. It is a natural consequence of being a grown-up adult and having the right to decide.
Enjoying tobacco is only one of the rights of grown-up adults. Every grown-up adult has the right to disagree with the projections of 'global warming', for example.
What Cameron and co have to do is quite simple - and that is to allow individual grown-ups to decide for themselves.
Now that the cat is out of the bag re global warming this is an interesting piece on the similarities between this and the passive smoking scam.
http://frank-davis.livejournal.com/35729.html
(I see you've already been there Junican).
Perhaps there is hope yet?
Junican, my understanding is that the Conservatives have indicated to Donalson to expect his P45, should they get elected. The bad news is that I understand that he is hawking his CV round the World Health Organization. He may get a worldwide remit.
Just as I thought. No one can give me a sensible answer about how the Ukippers could give us smokers a change in this rotten law.
The Ukippers cant do it and they are lying to make out they can.
@Goodstuff and everyone else.
I am writing which I hope will be the definitive document on passive smoking. I am about half way through and any contributions from TL readers will be gratefully received. I cover the science, SCOTH report, the cover up and the real reasons why non smokers contract lung cancer. Here is one of my best quotes.
“Yes, it's rotten science, but it's in a worthy cause. It will help us to get rid of cigarettes and become a smoke-free society" so said Alvan Feinstein, Yale University epidemiologist writing in Toxological Pathology in 1999 on passive smoking.
You can contact me on daveatherton20@hotmail.com
@Ataloss
As a committed Tory, there is an unflattering photo of me in the link, I hope you will receive my reply in the right spirit.
Nigel Farage smokes along with his Head Of Communications Gawain Towler. UKIPers tend to be Thatcherite free market liberals, anti nanny/bully state and personal responsibility type people. At their party conference Pat Nurse gave a speech on ending taxpayer handouts to quangos like ASH. Out of the 1006 delegates only 5 voted against it.
Passing an act of Parliament on a 3 line whip to allow spearate smoking rooms will be very simple and Environment Health Officers function will be to see the ventilation is working properly. My suggestion for small or one room pubs would be to allow them to allocate 3-4 days a week when smoking was allowed.
I hope this answers your question.
http://progressive-conservatives.org/web/pages/executive.php
A three line whip and all would be OK...simple!
If this were a simple proposed bill that was completely uncontroversial, then maybe it might slip through the net unhindered. But the smoking ban is so controversial, that only a Government with a massive majority could get ever it through.
As I have said all along, it looks very precarious indeed for the Conservatives to form a 'workable' government at the forthcoming general election. I think they will probably get in by the skin of their teeth, but with such a ridiculously low majority, they will have to rely on the Lib-Dems to back them on everything they want to do, and as we all know, the Lib-Dems are 100% for a whole-out smoking ban, so what chance have we there?
As for UKIP, they haven't a chance in hell of forming a government and we all know it. And anyone with any sense also knows that putting your cross in the UKIP box is giving your vote to Labour. Do you really want Labour back again? I don't, but I do know that there are a number of people on here who do, and for that reason are pushing the UKIP ideology, as if it is the answer to your prayers.
I agree with Ataloss, UKIP are pulling the wool over your eyes, when they tell you they will amend the smoking ban. Ataloss asked how, and he got one answer, which just would not work. It takes a Government with a workable majority to be able to live up to its promises, and at the moment, the only party who looks like getting such a majority is Labour!
Sorry Dave Atherton but all you are doing is trying to talk yourself up. Why do you put a link which shows you belong to a group of about half a dozen wanabee politicians? That don't answer my question.
Why do you talk about Nigel Farage being a smoker? We all know that already.
Why do you talk about separate smoking rooms, when nobody wants them?
Why do you talk about small pubs being allowed smoking for a few days a week only? That is completely unworkable.
I'm not impressed by stuff that has been copied and pasted, and sticking in people's names as if you personally know them. If you want to impress me, then give me straight forward answers of your own.
UKIP also has supportive non-smokers who can see the injustice of the blanket ban and the move, ultimately, towards the eradication of tobacco and the criminalisation of smokers. This goes fundamentally against their ideology of freedom, democracy, individuality and independence.
A UKIP non-smoker put his political weight behind the complaint to the Birmingham PCT to get the vile beat up a smoker video removed. UKIP also hosted an anti-prohibition conference for smokers in Brussels, UKIP also supported a motion to end that ideology that beats us up - smokefree. UKIP regularly attend meetings with northern smokers.
The members of my local branch are all non-smokers - except one - a former smoker who loves being around smokers. They are all happy to do their bit for our cause. The party is made up of smokers and non-smokers who share one thing - common sense.
What support have other parties shown smokers? Lab? Lib Dem? Philip Davies, Tory MP, held one event to my knowledge, and he makes the right noises, but is he typical of the party's thinking? They are too ashamed to say.
To say that a majority govt could not make laws is ridiculous, frankly. If that is the case, then why bother having an election? Govt made law to ban smoking in public, it can amend it. UKIP would if elected. It is putting up enough candidates to win a general election. Lack of votes will be the only thing to prevent it. If people want to waste theirs, or vote tactically because they think that will save them from a bit less opression than they've got with Labour, then that is up to them.
My conscience, my vote, and I know where it's going.
Goodstuff _
Re:
"the similarities between this and the passive smoking scam."
And you can chuck in 'Europe', too.
ALL three follow that old, tried-and-tested formula:
Problem (created)
Panic (stimulated)
Solution (proferred)
Compliance (ensured)
Works like a dream EVERY time.
Especially whilst the Public sleeps.
How well our Masters understand us............
@Ataloss
Do you have something constructive to say about anyone or anything?
A complete reversal of the ban will never, ever happen. We have no choice but to seek a compromise.
Throwing peanuts from the cheap seats at people who are trying their best to influence the debate, epecially in their own time and own expense is a cheap shot. If you think you can get the ban amended quicker than anyone else, I wish you luck,
Compromise is what we all want Mr Atherton, but what makes you think that you have the right to compromise for everyone else? From what I have seen, no one wants to be shut up in some little room like a prison cell. Even Joe Jackson has come out against that one.
This thread is supposed to be about the bully state. I would say that you are being a bully in your own way, by thinking only your ideas are right, and by trying to talk down to everyone else on here, as if you are the only one who is doing anything, and everyone else should agree with you or shut up.
From what I can see, everyone on here does their bit just by being here and having their say. You might think we are all in the cheapo seats, and you are in your expensive one, but at least we feel comfortable in ours, knowing that we haven't just bunked in.
I do think you are being a bit hard on Dave, Ataloss. As much as we all want our lives back as they were, I fear we can only claim territory by taking baby steps. Our action is too late. We sat back and let the antis take their baby steps and then when our backs were turned, they struck full force and we have this one-sided, unfair, exclusive situation that I fear we cannot win due to the sheer volume of hatred and fear against us and the power and money put behind that.
Dave does a lot for this cause out of his own time and money, and many others do their bit as you say in their way. Anyone who thinks that we will go from blanket smoking ban to open smoking everywhere is not being realistic. Sad, but true. We have only just started to fight but it is a long way back to where we were.
A good place to start would be to decide which party deserves our vote with an election coming up because if this ban is not ammended within the next five years, you can forget about it forever. I will say no more than that but a mass of votes to a smoker-friendly party speaks to politcians more than a few exclusive comments and winges on here.
I do believe Joe Jackson is right when he says we should not accept segregation but I think we must accept it first before we can move on.
Pat
You say "but a mass of votes to a smoker-friendly party speaks to politcians more than a few exclusive comments and winges on here."
I always struggle with this logic. Why would a vote for UKIP be seen by politicians as anything other than a vote for withdrawal from the EU? (No bad thing).How would anyone (other than the voter) know that it is a smoking ban protest vote?
Regardless of what we think, the ban isn't a big deal for most people and I suspect the vast majority aren't even aware of UKIP's stance on this. I'm not seeking to be confrontational since I'm on your side but if too many vote like this we could even end up with Liebore back and I certainly don't want that at any cost.
Fair enough Goodstuff but I disagree.
UKIP is growing from the grass roots up attracting people from all ideologies. The word is getting out that UKIP is not just about the EU and it's membership has risen dramatcially since the ban. I know some people in the Tory Party and Labour Party know that their traditional smoker voters have gone to UKIP because they have been told by those who are skipping over to the Party of Freedom, choice, democracy and individualism, in their thousands.
I think the only way we can get anything back is through the ballot box and REAL change. I don't believe that will come through fluffy Cameron
I sense our attitude will be the end of us. The "There's nothing you can do about it" view got us here in the first place while the minority of antis whispered in politicians' ears and worked damn hard to make them believe that the smoking issue mattered when it didn't.
Smokers have always been their own worst enemy. Why should that change now? The next election will be the final time that smokers' voices can be heard. A vote or anything other - in my opinion - than UKIP is acceptance of the ban.
It is your voice, your vote, you waste it if you want.
Sorry Pat, but I must answer you regarding your party political blurb on why everyone should vote UKIP.
There was a great article by Roy Hattersley (of all people) in last Sunday's Guardian, on what happens when we are left with a hung parliament, which we surely will be if this 'protest vote' thing gathers enough momentum.
I will let you read Roy Hattersley's article for yourself, to see exactly what I am talking about, and why everyone needs to think very, very carefully, before letting Labour back in again. Click here
A Tory vote is Labour Vote. You waste yours if you want to. I vote with my conscience.
At least now I know that the smoking issue is not of such great importance to anyone except, perhaps, those with pubs and cafes that are dying and those who really know what freedom means but then they don't matter to anyone, it would seem, even smokers!
I will not vote for further restrictions, I will not vote for another dictator. I would rather not vote if that is my only choice.