RIP Iain Dale's Diary

In the light of his post yesterday mentioning the Forest petition, I was disappointed to read that Iain Dale has given up blogging on a daily basis.

However my disappointment goes a little deeper than that because reading Iain Dale's Diary had become something of a ritual and, dare I say it, an addiction (alongside my all too frequent mugs of coffee).

Money aside (how does an independent blogger attract serious revenue from blogging?), Iain Dale's Diary was a phenomenal success, attracting thousands of readers and even generating spin off events at successive Conservative party conferences.

Indirectly the success of the blog led to its demise because it created the platform from which Iain launched his broadcasting career. (From reviewing the papers on the BBC News Channel and Sky News, he is now hosting a popular daily programme on LBC, which can't be bad.)

What I liked about Iain's blog was the combination of politics with more personal stuff. It's a format I have copied here - albeit less successfully!

Iain has also been a consistent champion of social and economic liberalism so his decision to retire the blog is a huge loss to the liberal community.

In fact, the longer I read Iain Dale's Diary the more I realised that we had very similar opinions on almost every major issue and it was a source of enormous frustration to find that Iain had already commented on a story, expressing exactly what I wanted to say, hours before I could whip out the keyboard.

I should add that I have known Iain for about ten years. In 2001 I approached him with a proposal to produce a magazine for Politicos, the Westminster-based bookshop he owned and ran in what seemed, from a distance, to be a rather dictatorial fashion.

I discovered though that his bark - or at least his glare - was very much worse than his bite. Together we produced several issues of The Politico at quarterly intervals (guest of honour at our launch party was, I think, the Rt Hon Francis Maude MP) but we scrapped the project in 2003 because we couldn't generate enough advertising to make a profit and it was too time-consuming to justify working for nothing. (Sound familiar?) Nevertheless it gave me an insight into Iain's remarkable contact book.

We never spoke about it but I assumed that Iain was a fierce anti-smoker because at that time Politicos combined the bookshop with a small coffee shop and sitting there I would often find myself staring absentmindedly at a sign above the main door that forbade anyone to even think about lighting up.

In fact, although he often claims to "hate" smoking, very few people in the public eye have defended smokers' liberties (as someone called it the other day) as often as Iain Dale, despite the usual vituperative criticism (see some of the early comments in yesterday's post about the Forest petition).

In recent years Iain has chaired a number of our events (never asking for or being a paid a fee), the most recent being a Voices of Freedom debate at the IEA in June.

In short - and he won't thank me for saying this - Forest and The Free Society will miss Iain Dale's Diary, and so should you. You can comment HERE.

Did Roy Castle smoke?

I'm not one of those people who is obsessed by whether Roy Castle did or not smoke. Nor do I wish to attack him (or his memory) because I wouldn't wish lung cancer on my worst enemy and I applaud his efforts, after he was diagnosed, to help raise £12m to build, equip and run an international centre for lung cancer research.

Nevertheless, since his death in 1994 this popular light entertainer has been held up as proof that non-smokers can contract lung cancer as a result of passive smoking, the implication being that he was a victim of working in smoky clubs.

I suspect that no-one knows the truth, but in cases such as this we should certainly consider other factors.

This morning, on the Five Live phone-in, the chief executive of the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation, Dr Rosemary Gillespie, was asked a direct question: did Roy Castle smoke cigars? Her reply:

"I am not prepared to discuss whether Roy Castle smoked."

Given the importance of Roy Castle to the passive smoking debate, I think we should be told, don't you?

Above: Deathbed, the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation poster

BBC Radio and the smoking ban

BBC Radio seems to be going big on the partial lifting of the smoking ban in the Netherlands. This morning both Five Live Breakfast and the Today programme on Radio 4 featured interviews with Wiel Maessen who led the revolt by Dutch bar owners.

Also featured was Cecilia Farren of GASP, a fascinating company described HERE as a "highly successful mail order company stocking everything and anything connected with stopping - or not starting - smoking". Good to know that Cecilia is doing so well from the anti-smoking industry!

While I was tuned to Five Live Dizzy was listening to the Today programme and he reports hearing the extraordinary claim that hose who campaign for the freedom to smoke and the amendment of blanket bans are engaged in a "terror campaign". He adds:

I'm not sure when Simon Clark and Forest were put on the proscribed terrorist list, but I'm sure they'll be very proud to know that their campaigns are being equated with the IRA and crazy Islamists on national radio.

Full post HERE. More to follow.

Update ... Five Live Breakfast has just featured an interview with landlord Nick Hogan who, as readers of this blog know, was jailed in March for failing to pay fines accrued for allowing people to smoke on his premises in Bolton and then released following an Internet campaign that raised £9,000 in less than a week.

09:00 ... The smoking ban is now the subject of the Five Live phone in. Brian Binley MP, a leading supporter of the Save Our Pubs & Clubs campaign, will feature.

Above: demonstrators gather in The Hague in 2008.

Update on Tuesday, December 14, 2010 by Simon Clark

How depressing to hear, on the Five Live phone-in, such extraordinary levels of intolerance towards smokers. I don't like the blame game but I do think that successive governments (and the tobacco control industry) have a lot to answer for.

It is their policies, not public opinion, that is breeding intolerance and creating such a divided society. If any politicians (other than Brian Binley) were listening I hope they were as appalled as I was. What a really unpleasant country we are becoming.

Update on Tuesday, December 14, 2010 by Simon Clark

On the back of the Netherlands story, I am on BBC Radio Newcastle, Sheffield and Cornwall this morning.

Tobacco control: Forest video urges public to fight EC proposals

Here it is ... the campaign video to promote Forest's online petition to oppose further EU-wide tobacco controls. It features Mark Littlewood (Institute of Economic Affairs), Dr Eamonn Butler (Adam Smith Institute), Niki Haywood (National Federation of Retail Newsagents) and David Bowden (Institute of Ideas).

The main video is 2:45 minutes long. It's followed by one or two outtakes that demonstrate that, well, no-one's perfect.

If you haven't signed the online petition please do so now. By midnight last night 1,118 people had signed it.

PS. If you have a blog or website feel free to post the video. The embedded code is on YouTube.

Update on Monday, December 13, 2010 by Simon Clark

Iain Dale has the video on his blog: Freedom for Smokers: Sign the Petition . He's getting a bit of stick in the comments (I suspect the hand of ASH) so you may wish to support him.

Update on Monday, December 13, 2010 by Simon Clark

Tory Outcast has also posted the video.

Update on Monday, December 13, 2010 by Simon Clark

The video has also been posted on the Adam Smith Institute blog where Sam Bowman writes:

Forest, the lobby group which defends the right to smoke, has put together the above video criticizing the EU's proposals to try to disrupt smokers' lives by banning cigarette displays in shops and, incredibly, introduce plain packaging rules to cigarettes. The question of whether you enjoy smoking or not is irrelevant – what matters is that adults are allowed to make their own decisions without meddling from the government. Unfortunately the EU seems to have no regard for civil liberties – their consultation document, outlining the arguments for and against smoking restrictions, doesn't mention these concerns at all.

Update on Monday, December 13, 2010 by Simon Clark

Dick Puddlecote has something to say, in his own inimitable way .... so too Mark Littlewood (on Facebook):

Thanks too to Pat Nurse for promoting the video/petition.

Update on Tuesday, December 14, 2010 by Simon Clark

A further 271 people signed the petition yesterday. By the end of the day (Monday) the total was 1,389.

Judi Dench calls for ban on smoking in cars with children

Expect an announcement from government soon. Meanwhile the Independent on Sunday reports that Dame Judi Dench, vice president of the British Lung Foundation, has joined calls for a ban on smoking in cars, citing the dangers to the health of children.

“Children are still being exposed to passive smoke, which is extremely harmful to developing lungs,” the actress said. “I am happy to offer my support … I encourage anyone who wants the Government to make children’s lung health a priority to sign up to the petition.”

The IoS rang me for a quote yesterday so, anxious not to get into a war of words with a national treasure and someone I greatly admire, I said:

"It's reasonable to encourage people not to light up in a small confined space if children are present, but banning smoking in cars is unnecessarily heavy-handed.

"If you ban smoking in cars with children it's a small step to far more illiberal measures like banning smoking in all private vehicles or, worse, banning smoking in the home. Enough is enough."

I added: "The vast majority of parents who smoke already choose not to smoke in cars with children so why legislate? Education is always better than coercion". But they didn't use that.

I know some of you disagree with me, but I do think it is considerate, if nothing else, to err on the side of courtesy (as my friend Rose Whiteley puts it) when smoking in cars, especially where children are concerned.

I remain however strongly opposed to the prohibition of smoking in cars (with or without children) and all that it entails (enforcement, fines, penalty points etc etc).

PS. In her defence there's a very good reason why Judi Dench supports the British Lung Foundation. Her husband, actor Michael Williams, died in 2001 "after struggling against lung cancer for more than a year" (Independent) so no abusive comments, please.

A respected stage actor, Williams is best remembered for starring with Dench in the ITV sitcom A Fine Romance. I also remember him starring alongside Holly Aird in an enjoyable BBC sitcom Double First that lasted for only one series (in 1988) and has never, to my knowledge, been repeated. I have often wondered why.

The future of smoking in pubs

While (some) students were running amok in Parliament Square on Thursday and MPs were debating the issue of tuition fees in the House of Commons, another debate was taking place simultaneously in Westminster Hall.

The subject was the future of pubs and the sponsor was Lib Dem MP Greg Mulholland, chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Beer Group. However, with the tuition fees debate pulling MPs (especially Liberal Democrats!) in different directions, the two-and-a-half hour debate in Westminster Hall was introduced not by Mulholland but by Karen Bradley, Conservative MP for Staffordshire Moorlands.

Now, I won't pretend that the smoking ban dominated proceedings - far from it - but a number of MPs did make reference to it and despite a briefing note to MPs from ASH (above), the usual anti-smoking/pro-ban propaganda was largely absent. (Interestingly, the strongest supporter of the smoking ban appeared to be Labour MP Jack Dromey, husband of Harriet Harman.)

Anyway, here are those smoking ban references in full. Draw your own conclusions:

Mr Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con): Does my hon. Friend agree that members of the previous Government bear a large share of the blame for the predicament that many pubs now find themselves in, first because of the overly bureaucratic Licensing Act 2003, which means that many pubs are now unable to provide live entertainment, and secondly because of the implementation of the heavy-handed smoking ban?

Karen Bradley: I acknowledge my right hon. Friend's comments. Although I do not believe that we want to make this a terribly party political debate, I think that he has made some very valid points ...

Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con): Does [my hon. Friend] accept that the smoking ban was one major reason why so many wet trade pubs, which focus predominantly on selling beer, closed? Many local pub customers left because the smoking ban was introduced. Although not many people in the industry are calling for the ban to be overturned-I do not think that that is what people want-does she recognise that those pubs have been hit particularly hard?

Karen Bradley: I do not dispute that some pubs have closed as a direct result of the smoking ban, but I do not think that the industry wants the ban to be rescinded. The pubs that have closed as a result of the smoking ban would not reopen if it were rescinded. The wet pubs that are successful have adapted to the smoking ban and compensated for it ...

Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con): I declare straight away that although I am not a pub landlord, I am a member of the Campaign for Real Ale, and so often associate the words 'beer' and 'pub' ... The difficulties pubs face can also be the result of a lack of support and a lack of customers, perhaps because of changes in lifestyle. I think that another Member plans to talk about changes in permitted practice, particularly the ban on smoking indoors, which some have indicated has led to a drop-off in the number of people attending pubs. Anecdotally, I recognise that to be true. As most landlords will confirm, the smoking ban has led to a lack of drinking because people are outside smoking, so there is an element of transactions falling as well ...

Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con): As has been discussed often and at length, the smoking ban probably affects all pubs throughout the land. Overall, the smoking ban has been positive. It has improved the environment of pubs no end, especially for those that rely on serving food as a key part of their business, and it makes for a much more pleasant experience for most people who are non-smokers. It has also made pubs more family friendly. But there needs to be a re-think on having a dedicated smoking area inside buildings, with extractor fans, where no children would be allowed and no food would be served. I realise that this would not be possible in every case, but it would allow many pubs to utilise extra space or even have a smoking bar and non-smoking bar or room/lounge-whatever-and end the practice of smokers being thrown outside in all weathers at any time of day or night, with the problems that can be caused with disturbance to local residents who live close by. That would generate a significant increase in business for pubs that are currently struggling and it could make the difference between a pub staying open or closing ...

Andrew Griffiths: There is no doubt that the smoking ban had a dramatic impact on many pubs throughout the country. Many pubs that were reliant on the wet trade were unable to find alternative income when drinkers who had used their pubs for many years decided that if they could not enjoy a cigarette with their pint they would stay at home with a can of lager and sit in front of the television to smoke. That is regrettable, but we all recognise that the time to overturn the smoking ban has passed.

Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con): My hon. Friend is right to say that there is no chance of overturning the smoking ban, but I like to think that there may be a chance of introducing legislation to allow smoking somewhere inside pubs. Overturning the smoking ban is not realistic, but it is a realistic ambition for people to have the opportunity to smoke in pubs somewhere where other people do not have to go.

Andrew Griffiths: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, and many people support his suggestion. The danger is that if we lose sight of the real problems facing pubs and focus on reintroducing smoking in them, we may lose our focus on the more pressing problems that lead to pubs closing.

Greg Mulholland: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I apologise, Mr Benton, that I did not explain earlier that at the request of the Speaker I must return to the main Chamber after his speech. The Save The Pub group does not have a position on the smoking ban, but we called for a review of its impact on pubs and clubs. That was promised by the previous Government, and it is disappointing that the response by the Department of Health to the save the pub group was that it would not go ahead with that review. We believe that it should take place ...

Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con): I was a Member of the National Assembly for Wales when the smoking ban was passed. My libertarian instincts are such that I was one of only six Members who opposed the legislation. Although I do not want to criticise another parliamentary body, I must say that when we initiated a debate about wanting to retain a smoking room, or a place in which people could smoke without affecting anyone else, there was a comprehensive antipathy towards the whole idea. Although I felt that we were arguing on a rational basis-I thought that the case that we were making was bombproof-it was almost as if there was no willingness at all to compromise or to look at common sense, and it is that attitude that we need to change ...

Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con): Why are pubs closing so quickly? I submit that it is because our way of life is changing, as are social trends. Some 30 pubs close every week, which is 1,500 a year. In the average constituency, a dozen pubs will close before the next election if it is in five years' time. The problem is that we have had not too little red tape and regulation on our pub sector but too much. Very often that results in unintended consequences. Members will know that I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill on 13 October to give landlords the freedom to decide whether or not to have a separate room in which people could smoke provided that no food was being served and proper ventilation was in place. The Bill was defeated, but it is time for the Government to review the operation of the smoking ban.

Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab): There was one point made in the debate that I think should be disregarded. It was absolutely wrong to resurrect the issue of the smoking ban. I say that for numerous reasons, but in particular because, having represented the union members concerned, I knew people who contracted cancer and died as a result of working in licensed premises. I think that that debate should rightly remain closed as we move on ...

Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Robert Neill: I am with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington on the smoking ban. I know that some hon. Members have misgivings about it, but the fact is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands rightly said, that this is not a debate that will focus on the most important priorities for public health. I respect the views of those concerned, but I think that there are other ways to make progress more swiftly and constructively.

So, there you have it. As I say, these comments must be put in perspective. There were issues (the beer tie, supermarket pricing etc) that got far more attention, but the impact of the smoking ban is still an issue otherwise it wouldn't have been mentioned at all.

PS. Prior to the debate Forest sent briefing notes to MPs highlighting the impact of the smoking bans on pubs throughout the United Kingdom. Supporters of the Save Our Pubs & Clubs campaign who attended the debate included Greg Knight, David Nuttall and Simon Kirby. Unless I'm mistaken, supporters of ASH were noticeable by their absence. They were certainly very quiet.

Update on Sunday, December 12, 2010 by Simon Clark

Conservative Home has a report on the debate: Tory MPs line up with ideas to save the British pub

Threatened with violence ... for smoking

Apologies for the lack of blogging this week. Very busy, one way or another. Hope to catch up over the weekend if I'm not Christmas shopping. Feel free to talk among yourselves or you may like to comment on this email which I received this week in response to the Forest petition:

Thank you for all your good work. I have just signed the petition.

I follow your work closely and I wish I could I could do more. At times I feel like resigning from my position as a school principal and focussing on protecting the rights of smokers.

Last weekend, when standing in an open car park, here in Poland, someone came speeding towards me in their car with its horn screaming at me. I had to jump aside, to avoid being hit! It wasn't until the driver got out and threatened me with physical violence that I realised what his problem was .... I was smoking in a public place.

Since then I realised that I was in fact a victim of a hate-crime because I am a smoker. And what's worse is that because there is a smoking ban now here in Poland, he (incorrectly) believed that he had the law on his side.

The harm of the smoking bans is greater than the infringement of our rights. It creates division and hatred in our society.

I can't reveal the name of my correspondent because, as he/she writes:

As the anti-smokers can be very powerful and influential ... my freedom of speech is limited.

Now what does that say about the "liberal" society in which we live?

Forest launches petition against EC proposals on tobacco

The EC’s Tobacco Product Directive dates from 2001. Officials in Brussels believe there may be a need to revise it and a few months ago they launched a "public consultation" ... which is fine except that very few people know about it.

Respondents to this exercise in democracy are invited to select from a range of options that are featured in the consultation document, one of thousands of EC documents that the general public never read.

It includes options to:

• introduce plain packaging
• enlarge the size of graphic health warnings
• ban vending machines
• prohibit the display of tobacco products, and, oh,
• ban ALL smokeless tobacco products

Forest opposes all those options because we are passionate about "unnecessarily restrictive regulations that will threaten jobs and small businesses, inconvenience millions of law-abiding consumers, and are designed to denormalise a legal product".

In recent weeks British retailers have been making their views known courtesy of the National Federation of Retail Newsagents, the Scottish Grocers Federation and the Scottish Wholesale Association. Now it's the turn of the consumer.

Today Forest is launching an online response form to oppose the options listed above. It takes less than a minute to fill in your name and address and Forest will do the rest.

If you prefer you can download a petition. Sign it and fax it to 01223 370040 or post it to Forest, Sheraton House, Castle Park, Cambridge CB3 0AX, and we will send it to the EC on your behalf.

Closing date for the EC consultation is Friday 17 December 2010. If however you are sending your response via Forest we must receive it no later than Wednesday 15 December 2010.

Whatever your view of the EC, the EU or the European Parliament, it is important that the consumer engages in this consultation. Failure to do so will undoubtedly weaken our position.

Tell family, friends and work colleagues about the consultation and invite them to respond too.

We don't make a habit of asking for your help because we are conscious of 'campaign fatigue'. This however is one of those occasions when we need your direct input. There is very little time left so please act on this today.

Update on Wednesday, December 8, 2010 by Simon Clark

The Morning Advertiser has the story here: Pro-smoking group petitions against EU regulations. Ditto Talking Retail: Forest launches petition against EU proposals on tobacco.

As of five o'clock this afternoon 514 people had signed the petition. Our target is 2000. I would be disappointed with less so we do need your help. Please sign, if you haven't done so already, and invite your friends to add their names too. Bloggers, please give the petition a mention and I will link to your post.

Lights, camera, action ...

I'm in London today filming a Forest campaign video. I hope it's not too cold because we're going to be filming in Smith Square, College Green (opposite the Houses of Parliament), Farringdon Road and the Eurostar terminal at St Pancras. Watch this space.

Update on Tuesday, December 7, 2010 by Simon Clark

Why the winner of I'm A Celebrity made me proud to be British

How reassuring to see Stacey Solomon crowned 'queen of jungle' on I'm A Celebrity last night.

You can carp long and hard about the vacuous nature of the programme but it's only light entertainment (think Generation Game with bugs) and year after year the majority of the voting public gets it right with their choice of winner.

This year the public got it spot on again, right down to the last four of Dom Joly, Jenny Eclair, Sean Ryder (a very worthy runner-up) and Solomon herself.

"Dippy" Stacey was a revelation from start to finish. Good-natured, humorous and actually quite smart, she never had a bad word to say about anyone. She radiated warmth and her feel good personality was a tonic for everyone, including viewers at home - an extraordinary achievement.

On a parochial note, it was good to see Ryder, the only smoker in the group, reach the final. OK, that's not the reason people voted for him, but his habit wasn't held against him.

In fact - and this is something I've often noticed about "reality" TV programmes - smoking is rarely an issue among contestants or the voting public. (Politicians and anti-tobacco campaigners, take note.)

In I'm A Celebrity 2010 the only person to have a pop at Sean Ryder for smoking was the truly awful Gillian McKeith. Again, the public did exactly the right thing. They voted for the "World Renowned Holistic Nutritionist" while she entertained us with a combination of hysterics and alleged fainting fits, and then dispatched her to Z-list oblivion as soon as she had outlived her usefulness.

Thankfully, the woman who dominated the headlines in weeks one and two did not even come close to winning. Instead the finalists were two incredibly honest, likeable, down-to-earth characters and the public rewarded them with their vote.

Seriously, it made me proud to be British.

Update on Sunday, December 5, 2010 by Simon Clark

As it happens, the voting public also did the right thing in Strictly Come Dancing this weekend. We had enjoyed Anne Widdecombe's pantomime efforts (or, to be accurate, Anton du Beke's choreography) but enough was enough.

Most people, I think, realised that this year's competition had got to the stage when it would have been a travesty had a far better dancer been voted out. And so the Great British public decided that it was time for Anne to go.

I'm beginning to think that the Government should put more trust in the British people to decide certain key issues. Yes, a few Swiss-style referendums wouldn't go amiss. Now, where shall we start?

Nigel Farage: follow the leader

I still don't 'get' Twitter.

That aside, we've had an influx of emails overnight and this morning confirming that so-and-so is "following your tweets (@Forest_Smoking) on Twitter".

I looked into it and the common denominator (so-and-so "follows a user who follows you") pointed towards UKIP leader Nigel Farage.

And so it proved (see above).

I can only return the compliment. Click HERE to follow Nigel on Twitter.

Btw, did you read this extraordinary story on Wednesday: Crash pilot 'threatened to kill UKIP's Nigel Farage' (BBC News).

Thanks to Rose W for bringing it to my attention.

The defiant snowman

Thanks to Forest supporter Liz Barber (left) for sending me this seasonal photograph ...

To Russia the World Cup - and, frankly, I don't give a damn

Two weeks ago, in response to those politicians and administrators who felt the need to apologise in advance for the Panorama programme about alleged corruption within Fifa, I wrote: "If that's what it takes to win the World Cup bid, you can stick it".

I feel the same way today, although I tend to agree with those print journalists who argued that only the BBC could "hold the front page" for weeks on end. If a newspaper had got hold of a similar story, they said, the editor would have run with it immediately for fear of losing it to a rival publication. In contrast, BBC current affairs doesn't have any competitors so it could choose its moment (when most of the nation was watching I'm A Celebrity).

Anyway, I would be very surprised if Monday night's Panorama programme had a significant impact on the outcome of today's vote. The reality is that England's bid had so little support that it was dependent on the second and third votes of Fifa's governing board.

And you know what - who cares that we didn't win?

If Russia (and Qatar!!) want to build countless new stadiums, that's up to them. Russia, it is said, will also have to build new airports, new hotels and other infrastructure. Well, let them - and good luck, because they're going to need it.

I shall never forget, when I visited Moscow in 1981, what happened on the morning we were supposed to visit the self-styled Exhibition of Economic Achievements.

Shortly after breakfast we were informed by our Intourist guide that the trip was cancelled. Why, we asked.

Embarrassed silence. Then:

"It always shuts on Wednesday."

Really, we persisted, are you sure?

"Well, er, it's shut for cleaning."

Eventually the truth emerged, but we were sworn to secrecy.

"The roof fell in overnight."

What?!

"The roof collapsed."

Some achievement.

What was interesting was the fact that they didn't want anyone to know. It was too much of a blow to Soviet pride and all that.

The following day we visited a space museum that featured a Soviet spacecraft from the Sixties. God knows how they got this thing into orbit because from what I saw it was little more than a Heath Robinson-style tin can.

OK, I exaggerate, but two years later in Washington DC I viewed a US spacecraft from the same era. The difference between American and Soviet technology was like day and night.

Now, thanks to Fifa, we'll have an opportunity to see how much the old Soviet Union has changed. Has the ugly duckling become a swan?

One thing is certain. Don't expect the Panorama team to be welcomed with open arms. Free speech and democracy are not yet seen as virtues in a country that is still governed by an iron fist.

The World Cup? They're welcome to it.

PS. Follow Vladimir Putin on Twitter. Brilliant!

When a man is tired of snow he is tired of life

I love my car but, I have to admit, it's rubbish in winter. It slips and slides all over the place and this weekend I shall be driving to the Peak District where I once drove into a dry stone wall in conditions very similar to this week.

Despite this - I LOVE SNOW!! I really do. It hasn't snowed in Cambridgeshire for two, possibly three, days but it's so cold that apart from the snow on the road, very little has melted.

I love looking at the snow - and the rabbits and the guinea pigs - from the kitchen window. I wish it was like this all the time - well, until March, at least.

Meanwhile, I'm just going to have to bite the bullet and buy some winter tyres. Or a 4×4. No, winter tyres are cheaper.

Cheer up, Christmas is coming ...

... and here's a sneak preview of the 2010 Forest Christmas card.