Snowdon on the Moral Maze
Wednesday, November 24, 2010 On Monday evening I took a call from the BBC Radio 4 programme Moral Maze. They were looking for someone to take part in a live debate in a central London studio between 7.30 and 8.40pm on Wednesday 24 November (tonight).
They wanted, they explained, to explore certain moral and ethical issues around plain packaging. What is the Government's role? Should the Government be getting involved? Is it a question of freedom of choice or nudge?
I thought about it for a few minutes. A couple of telephone calls later it was settled.
And so tonight, at 8.00pm, Chris Snowdon, author of Velvet Glove Iron Fist and The Spirit Level Delusion, will be grilled by two of the programme's resident team of experts.
Full details HERE. Recommended.
Simon Clark
Listened in the car as I was driving home. I thought Chris did really well. Good to hear James Delingpole too. The real star of the show, though, was Michael Portillo. I was a huge fan of his in the Nineties before he lost his way politically, but after listening to him tonight all is forgiven!!
I thought too that Michael Buerk's introduction was as fair and balanced as it could have been - good enough, in fact, to reproduce here if I could get a transcript.
Oh, and don't be too hard on the resident panellists who questioned Chris and James. Remember, the format of the programme calls for the expert witnesses to be cross-examined so you must expect some serious verbal jousting. Believe me, I've heard a lot worse.
Reader Comments (33)
Wonderful! It will also be worth listening to to hear how the pro-nudging 'witness' justifies it.
For a long time there hasn't really been a debate about these issues: smoking is bad and it shoiuld be stopped and anyone whop disagreed was an outcast. I am encouraged that the debate is being increasingly picked up by the media. I think there are two main reasons for this change - the libertarian blogs (such as this one) which are alive and well despite wishful thinking of their demise recently by the Guardian - and going by a totally unscientific study of my colleagues in the office - increasing concern of the extension of government control in our lives. I have actually managed to convince 2 people in the office - who were BIG fans of the smoking ban - that actually, these do-gooders would start to move into other areas such as alcohol and junk food. They agree and now believe that the smoking ban should be relaxed and the trend to control should stop.
The Moral Maze is one of the best discussion programmes on the radio. Probably the best. Intelligent and rational debate on a range of topics. It will be interesting to see how Fox and Langley and the others cope with this one. These days I usually switch off when the smoking issue comes up as I have become bored with all the stale and bigoted arguments. Not this time I suspect. My only regret Simon is that you have not put yourself forward.
The whole subject of plain packaging is a farce. Chips are sold in plain white packaging, does that stop people eating them? This is just the next step in the denormalisation process of tobacco products; make them look like "contraband" and people will start to believe that anyone buying this "filthy stuff" must be some sort of a criminal.
Look at what happened in the USA with prohibition. When it ended, the politicians finally woke up to the fact that drinking had not killed half the population and ruined marriages and business, as had been predicted. They found out, after loosing billions in revenue, that you cannot educate through force. Force only creates an underbelly of society that will do anything to provide the service the people want, and in doing so the Government ends up losing revenue, and many thousands of people end up dead.
Long after prohibition ended in the USA, certain States, especially those in the Bible belt, were still very cautious regarding liquor sales. In Oklahoma for instance, as long as thirty years after prohibition ended, people still bought their liquor from convenience stores, packaged up in a plain brown bag. It was regarded almost as a sin to be seen buying a bottle of whiskey, so plain brown bags became the order of the day.
But did the plain brown paper bag solve the drinking "problem"? Like hell it did. It became the norm, with drunkards on the streets, swigging from the bottle within their bag.
Knowing these facts, someone still has the temerity to ask if "plain packaging" for cigarettes is the answer. It is absolutely ludicrous to even contemplate such an idea. I personally think that some of our politicians need wrapping up in plain packaging, to see if that might make them more responsible and sensible people.
As for "all those people exercising their freedom to smoke are then clogging up the NHS demanding that the rest of us pay for the treatment of their self inflicted illnesses". We all know the answer to that one, as do the politicians and even the brain-dead at the BBC.
These people who are being accused of "clogging up the NHS" are the very people who pay more towards propping up the NHS than any other group, and without them, we would either all have to pay more in taxes, or the NHS would fail completely.
There isn't even a sensible question there. Who on earth devised this subject for what is supposed to be an intelligent programme like this? This is just another example of wasting the tax payers money.
Oh good, a reason to listen to The Maze once more, even in the absence of Janet Daley, David Starkey and Rabbi Hugo Gryn - who between them really could set brushfires in the minds of listeners. Like so much else in our society, it's become pretty bland these days. As to Claire Fox, surely there's only ONE way she could jump on this one ?
Peter - I don't think that the entire programme is being devoted to plain cig packaging. The issue under discussion is the extent to which government ought to try to engineer behaviour with plain cig packaging used as an example because it's topical. The Beeb's contacting Simon, however, suggests that it recognises that smoking is the prime example of 'nudging' (or bullying) and I hope that the programme highlights that the ban was part of this engineering agenda rather than to 'protect the innocent'. In fact, when the programme discussed the smoking ban just before its implementation, Michael Buerk, in his introduction said that 'everyone knew' that SHS was just a smokescreen to camouflage the engineering agenda.
I have high hopes that Chris Snowdon will clearly demonstrate the real agenda and that it doesn't work, not least because people are increasingly wakening up to the nonsense spouted by TC to justify its continual demands.
Martin says "Oh good, a reason to listen to The Maze once more"
Why not listen to "Today in Broadmoor", with Ian Brady and Peter Sutcliffe in the chair?
They are talking about the day the smoking ban came into force, and how their Broadmoor bosses threw a party for the killers and perverts inside the prison to pacify them before the smoking ban came in.
Ian says the question is, have the authorities taken away our human rights, and Peter joins in by asking if it is fair to ban displays of "Murderers Weekly Magazine"
I'll tell you what Martin, you would probably get more sense out of such a programme than you would listening to the rubbish that they intend to spout on the Maze tonight.
PS The programme's blurb mentions the government's Behavioural Insight Team about which Spiked wrote recently:
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/printable/9840/
Be afraid, be very afraid....
Peter T -
Well, of course I expect Rubbish (from the usual suspects). But I also expect some intelligent (and passionate) counter-arguments from Our Side. We shall see, and I trust Mr Buerk will referee a good, clean fight.
Joyce -
Thanks for the 'Spiked' article (I've about twenty thousand to get through) by Mr O'Neill. Scary stuff, indeed - but does it/should it really surprise anyone here ? When crypto-Fabians like Cameron witter on about The Big Society and Communitarianism, to say nothing of their flirtation with the Common Purpose Creeps, what on earth did people think he/they MEANT ? These are, after all, Pretty Big Clues. Let's be perfectly clear on this. Cameron may CALL himself A Conservative, he may call himself the Maharajah of Rajipur for all I damned well care. But ALL his sins - both of commisssion and omission - mark him out quite clearly as ONE thing: a COLLECTIVIST. And as such, he'd have been as happy in Mao's China as he obviously is in 'modern' Britain. And the same goes for all his ghastly chums. "We're all in this together.". Yes, 'Dave' - but how do I and my oxygen-starved friends bloody well get OUT, please ? It’s not so much a ‘maze’ we’re in as a cell. And (unless my perceptions deceive) the walls are closing in. But in Cameronland, it seems, no-one can hear you scream……………………….
I hope this will be available at a later time for those of us who don't get BBC.
Best wishes from the USA!
Well done to Chris Snowdon...but who was that arse that wouldn't let chris finish a sentence before shouting him down? This same individual said that smoking harms smokers and others as well, but before Chris could come back this t**t had moved on quickly not giving him time to respond.
This is precisely why you need a differnent format, so that when someone is asked a question they can then answer it properly without being talked over.
In a courtroom setting this would never happen.
Hmm, perhaps time constraints precluded challenging the notion that it's the proper business of government to modify individual behaviour in the first place, but it certainly seemed to be acceptable to the panellists, the only issue being the ethical way to go about it... Am I deluded in believing that once upon a time governments concerned themselves with Society as a whole and limited their duty of care to indivdual members to providing information/education? Government interference once seemed confined to public information films on the dangers of ponds and using the green cross code (sigh).
And how on earth did Rosemary Gillespie ever reach the dizzy height she so smugly occupies when she's so dense?
And well done, Chris for trying to show how cig packaging is part of a long term sinister agenda.
Yes, the Gillespie woman was insufferably (but predictably) smug, especially in her ludicrous assumptions about young people and the 'coolness' of fag packet design. My cigarette of choice as a youngster was the dreaded 'No 6' - approximately the size of a thick matchstick, and with an appalling aroma. Anything less cool it would be hard to imagine (and only wage-earners could afford Rothman's and B and H).
Prof Thaler struck me as rather confused (or possibly bemused by his intelligent interrogation).
Chris Snowdon was excellent, of course, and it was pleasing to hear Michael Portillo echo his sentiments that the entire 'nudge' philosophy is founded on the assumption that it's the right and duty of a few Powerful (Cro-Magnon) Experts to dictate matters of private choice to the many Powerless (Neanderthal) Proles.
But the key moment for me was when the ever-sensible Melanie Phillips rounded on voluble arch-Blairite Matthew Taylor as "someone who simply wants to control how people think and behave." Yep, that's really all there is to it. All the rest of it is just horse-shit in a bouquet.
If it were otherwise, then all the tobacco-control agencies throughout the land could be wound up - and replaced (at considerable saving to the taxpayer) with a single telephone help-line for those who really want to quit. As Joyce indicates above, that's the way we used to do things here - when 'Hamlet' TV commercials cheered the entire nation (smoking and non-smoking). Ah, Happy Days ! Will they EVER return ?
What a strange programme that was!
In the first couple of minutes, Prof whoever NUDGE as ‘helping people to achieve their personal goals’. Thus, if a person wishes to give up smoking, then ‘nudging’ is the process of helping them to give up. As regards organ donation, the ‘nudge’ is to provide opportunities for them to ‘opt in’.
After the first couple of minutes, the definition of ‘nudge’ changed. It became ‘force’. And then the discussion began to revolve around how much force was justified, and not about whether force was justified or not (although, occasionally, that idea almost intruded.
I feel for Chris Snowdon. He seems to have been briefed that the discussion was about Prof whoever’s book. He liked the book. But, in the event, the panellists changed the emphasis and turned the discussion into one about the right of the Government to interfere. The general idea was that, if the Government have the right, for example, to insist on ‘clean’ water, then it has a right to insist on ‘smokefree pubs’. But, ‘omne comparitudo claudicat’ (translated from the Latin, that phrase means ‘every comparison limps’). ‘Clean water’ and ‘Smokefree Pubs’ are not the same thing at all.
Throughout the discussion, I found myself constantly exclaiming, “Rubbish!”, “No!”, “Crap!”. Essentially, this was because of the AUTOMATIC ASSUMPTION that the enjoyment of tobacco is akin to heroin addiction, and that SHS is only slightly less damaging. ADDICTION!, the panellists repeated, again and again.
The other thing that struck me was the lack of definition of ‘children’. Again and again, the first woman who spoke said ‘children and.....erm..... young people’. Again, we see the lack of definition. No intelligent person would accept such a fudge.
The good thing is that the panellists did differentiate between ‘educate and persuade’ and ‘force’ overall. The impression that gained (vaguely) at the end of the programme was that ‘force’ is not a good thing.
Link for anyone who missed it:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00w2190
Well done Chris, especially when the lefties wanted to interupt you everytime they asked a question and you answered. Could it be that they at heart know they are wrong and just tring to cover it up?
The problem is Dave, that there are no rights and wrongs in the lefties book, there is their agenda, which of course must be obeyed at all times, and there is common sense, which under no circumstances must be listened to or sensibly debated.
I said yesterday that this programme would be a complete farce, and from what I have read (I didn't listen to it) it seems I have been proven right.
I have never heard any so called "debate" on this subject yet, where pro-tobacco gets a fair hearing or a fair say. They are shouted down by the moronic left every time.
@Peter
I thought it was a balanced debate to be honest and smokers/smoking was not demonised by all and sundry. The equal footing with 2 from either side, plus I thought the opposition cames across as inarticulate and incoherent. When Gillespie was whaffling on about the colour of the packets she looked foolish for example.
I am also aware of other BBC and television initiatives where we get a good say on the horizon and I believe it includes my pet subject SHS.
As I said Dave, I didn't listen to the programme, but from the comments I read above, it sounded the usual biased nonsense that we have all come to expect.
One commenter (Bill) stated the following:
"Well done to Chris Snowdon...but who was that arse that wouldn't let chris finish a sentence before shouting him down? This same individual said that smoking harms smokers and others as well, but before Chris could come back this t**t had moved on quickly not giving him time to respond"
Peter T -
The problem for us is that The (Collectivist) Left is NOT 'moronic' - but highly intelligent, persistent, far-sighted, ruthlessly dedicated to its cause, and wholly amoral in terms of the tactics it employs to achieve its ends. There was nothing stupid about the Lenins, the Laskis, the Webbs, the Wellses, the Russells etc - and their scientistic (qv) philosophy has swept all before it like an unstoppable tsuname. For years, they've been running circles around the Tory Party, and now they've taken it over - just as they did the Labour Movement: the Politics of the Tapeworm - and there is an abundant supply of short-sighted voters and taxpayers to keep it well-fed and nourished (at their own expense).
And what is their dream for the Perfect Society ? Why, a smooth-running, machine-like ORGANISATION - in contradistinction to the notion of Society as a Living ORGANISM which you (I hope) and I believe in. This most Prussian of concepts has served them well, and unless WE get 'organised' , too - in terms of our opposition - we've had it.
No - it's the foot-soldiers and the camp followers who are more often than not the 'morons'. But they have ALWAYS been expendable, anyway – once they’ve served their purpose.
In the meantime, Nudge Politics is the latest shiny artefact to be offered to the Mechanics like Cameron and his friends. And they’re simply DYING – like the Good Modernisers they are - to try it out on the rest of us !
My definition of the left being moronic, Martin, stems from the left in politics, never being able to achieve anything. They have grand schemes and dreams, but all I am afraid, come to disastrous ends.
Look at people such as Lenin (who you mention), where did his grandiose schemes get him? The Soviet Republic collapsed, and has since been taken over by right-wing ideals. Or just look at what is happening with the European experiment; it is collapsing around their feet as we speak.
But it is here, in this country that the left live up to their "loony" name more than anywhere. They seem to believe that they are some sort of conjurors, that they can snap their fingers and money will appear, with which to run any scheme they dream up. Brown tried it, like a bad housewife, hiding the real figures and living off credit cards for years. But in the end anyone who thinks they can run a country or a business or even a household, on constant credit, is nothing less than a moron.
The only way the left can keep their projects on the move, and themselves in jobs, is to tax, tax, tax, and to hide, hide, hide, and control, control, control. But this sort of deception can only last for so long, as with the European experiment, it has to eventually collapse, because it does not take into account the will of the ordinary man. It takes the ordinary man and woman for fools, and like its left-wing counterparts here, works only for its own self interest.
Do you want a good example of the British left, a real moron who loves money and control more than anything else? Bob Crow is a perfect example.
I think Frank Davis sums it up, nicely. But it is good to see the issue being introduced, however guardedly. There isn't a debate on this issue atm, it's a test of strength and Parliament will go whichever way it feels the wind to be blowing.
But we're slowly and ever so painfully, getting there.
Peter T-
Yes, I obviously agree about the various loony schemes that have foundered, and been abandoned. But not all have (often they're just testing the water, anyway): just look at the dire state of our public education, the burgeoning of our bureaucracy, and the level of our fiscal servitude (aka 'taxation'). However, I was referring more to the PROCESS itself - and that continues, and is gathering momentum as we speak. Like it or not, we are already living in a Socialist system - as are the Americans, who at least can still claim to be living in a ‘country’ rather than a mere province - and only one political leader thus far has had the vision and the courage to attempt a reversal. We need another - and soon. I’m just worried about how much more destruction and misery we have to endure before more people get angry (or, at least, start asking some hard questions).
PS (and slightly off-topic):
I've just noticed at my local petrol station that the 'Daily Express' has declared itself as 'the first national newspaper' to call for a complete withrawal from the Euopean Union. I find that mildly cheering. One straw in the wind, perhaps ?
Another little straw in the wind, perhaps Martin, is the news that Greece have now also decided to amend their ban, see here
Bear in mind Holland has already done so, and from what I hear from friends, you can smoke wherever you want in Berlin, not the rest of Germany I am told, just Berlin...stange but apparently true.
With this type of thing now seemingly taking place, I cannot see the proposed Spanish ban ever really taking off, and with the current political problems surrounding much of the EU countries, I think they would be absolutely crazy if they did go ahead with it.
It looks like the dominoes could be starting to tumble.
Not here apparently Peter. According to the government there is little evidence to show the smoking ban has hurt pubs and therefore there will be no amendment.
Basket cases.!!!
Talking about the EU, here is a heart-warming recording of an altercation between a smoker and 'Customs' at a UK airport when they try to challenge him on the 'excessive' amount of tobacco he's brought back:
http://nothing-2-declare.blogspot.com/2010/11/exclusive-first-time-ever-audio.html
Very interesting that Joyce. I am pleased that I have seen it. I have often wondered how I would respond in a similar situation. How many of us have vague feelings of guilt and apprehension as we pass through customs? Now I see that there is no need for these feelings since there is nothing to feel guilty about and nothing to fear.
Can't wait for part 2.
Yes, Joyce - it is cheering. But it's still a bloody disgrace that H M Customs (or whatever it's called these days) should be allowed to reverse the burden of proof, by (in effect) demanding that a UK traveller establish his innocence. This is, of course, wholly contrary to the spirit of English Law, where the principle of 'reasonable cause' (on the part of any would-be prosecutor) has long been established as a vital method of protecting the subject from arbitrary arrest, and the general caprice of the State.
In the States, too, the notion of 'probable cause' is increasingly treated as some sort of weird anachronism that can be ignored in favour of Executive expediency. And as for Habeas Corpus (one of England's greatest gifts to the freedom-loving)........
The 'Americans' (ie colonial British) may as well never have fought for Independence, and we may as well never have fought the Civil War.
Sometimes I wonder whether History isn't beginning to flow backwards ! But in these Progressive Times, that's QUITE impossible, of course.
Peter T -
Thanks for that. Two straws, then..................................
I wondered when they would get round to it.
Today, in the DT, was a small column on page 2 "Exhaust toxin linked to MS".
First sentence: 'A pollutant found in cigarette smoke and car exhaust fumes may be the hidden cause of Multiple Sclerosis.' I thought it would not be long (My wife has MS, you see).
A couple of days ago, I saw a similar column linking Alzheimer's with smoking.
I predict that it will not be long before Rooney's lacklustre performance in the world cup will be linked to his smoking. Expect it soon.
I was rather under the impression that is the role of the electorate to modify Government behaviour.
It used to be John - now the electorate's behaviour is modified by Govt :(