Bonfire of the bureaucrats

Iain Dale, Britain's premier political blogger, an upwardly mobile political commentator, and a friend of The Free Society, has a column in today's Daily Telegraph. Headlined 'We need a bonfire of the bureaucrats', it begins:

It's difficult to pinpoint when the era of "big government" began, but it is sure that government plays a bigger part in the everyday life of the ordinary citizen than ever before. The Blair/Brown decade has seen an explosion in government interference, nanny statism, political correctness and an over-zealous health and safety culture.

Bravely, for a prospective parliamentary candidate for the Conservative party, he accuses the Tories of sometimes paying lip-service to the concept of a smaller state. I couldn't agree more.

Actions speak louder than words, but I really do believe that if we can get more people like Iain into parliament there is reason to hope that we may yet push back the frontiers of the nanny bully state. It won't happen overnight (I predict 10-15 years) but there is a light at the end of a long dark tunnel.

Full article HERE.

Smoking and science

Thoughtful article in this week's Spectator. "It’s four months since the smoking ban was imposed in England," writes Tessa Mayes, "and most smokers I’ve met in that time seem to be quietly adapting. But if many smokers seem to be adapting to the ban, there is still plenty of strong opposition.

"Groups like Forest continue to campaign for the right to smoke. In August a crowd of people including pub entertainers marched through Glastonbury in protest against the ban. Dave West, owner of the HeyJo nightclub in St James’s, London, wants to ‘eyeball the authorities’ by taking the government to court over it."

Few would deny that smoking can be harmful to the health of smokers, says Mayes, but that doesn't mean that smokers should be barred from lighting up in public places. There has been precious little rational argument. Science has been allowed to determine and justify policy, even when the scientific evidence itself is flawed, or wrongly interpreted. Full article HERE.

Media myths and big fat lies

It's the sort of article - published in one of numerous sections in the weekend papers - that is easy to overlook. But Vivienne Parry's 'Obesity: the big fat lie?' in today's Times is worth reading. It doesn't give Britain a clean bill of health (see HERE) but it explains that this week's apocalyptic headlines about obesity were based on a report by Foresight, a "highly respected science think-tank", and "didn't reflect what it had said at all".

According to Parry (who is debating the subject at next week's Battle of Ideas in London), the suggestion that this generation will die before their parents as a result of obesity is a "myth":

It always was a myth and there is no science to support it. But it has become one of those statements taken up with gusto by the media, and assimilated into popular consciousness ... Death clearly has good headline value, but is there any need for exaggeration?"

It's easy to blame the media for misreporting, but everyone needs to take a reality check. I've lost count of the number of studies whose findings are "exaggerated" by the media - until you read the press release and understand perfectly why a journalist, battling against a deadline, has taken a particular line.

Politicians too need to be much more considered in their response. (They could at least check and stick to the facts.) Unfortunately, everyone wants column inches. Without media coverage, politicians, researchers and lobby groups find it harder to get elected or attract funding. (I speak from experience.)

As a general rule, you don't get publicity (least of all a front page splash) by issuing a press release or commenting in a way that suggests there is little to worry about. (When was the last time you saw the headline, 'Not many dead'?) 

One politician who responded in a less than excitable fashion to a national "crisis" was prime minister Jim Callaghan in 1978 - and we all know what happened to him. It is therefore regrettable but hardly surprising if politicians are reluctant to adopt a similar laissez-faire attitude to health and other issues, regardless of the facts.

Opportunity knocks

Also in today's Telegraph, an interesting article entitled 'Labour's steady path to authoritarianism'. It's important because the author is none other than John Kampfner, editor of the (left-wing) New Statesman. When all sides of the political spectrum start to talk of a "pattern of Whitehall bullying, of a Big Brother approach that has gathered pace under this Government", it shows how serious the situation really is.

"The issue of liberty [writes Kampfner] cuts across all parties. Labour's steady path to authoritarianism is a matter of shame for anyone such as myself. It also presents a tailor-made opportunity for its political opponents, one that they should have the courage to pursue."

Has he been reading this blog?!! Full article HERE.

Moaning minnies

Latest word on the Top Gear pipe smoking story comes from Ian O'Doherty. Writing in the Irish Independent, O'Doherty comments:

Jeremy Clarkson is one of those guys that you know you should loathe, but his ability to get up the noses of so many people is his one saving grace. The latest group of thin-skinned pygmies to have their precious feelings hurt come from the perennially pissed off anti-smoking brigade ASH, an organisation so shrill and petty that they make the good folk at Peta look like irresponsible party animals.

Full article HERE. Personally, I think it's marvellous the way ASH have reacted. It underlines just how humourless, po-faced and abnormal they really are. And stupid. Fancy commenting on something that was clearly intended as a joke! Get a life. 

PS. If you haven't seen the clip yet, click HERE, and pass it on.

Controlling influence

My Forest colleague Neil Rafferty (left) - who formerly worked for the Press Association, Business AM and the Sunday Times and is co-founder of the satirical Daily Mash - has written an excellent article for the party conference issue of Freedom Today, the in-house magazine of the Freedom Association. Here's a taster:

During a recent on-air joust with the good people at ASH, the government-sponsored anti-smoking group, I uttered a 21st century heresy. I declared that I and thousands of others across the UK enjoy tobacco. And I really do. I have particular fondness for compact, tightly rolled and ever so smooth Dominican cigars. Of course, I expected to be scolded by my adversary, but instead the ASH foot soldier went further and informed me that what I was experiencing was not in fact enjoyment, but simply a chemical response to the noxious ingredients of my delightful Vega Finas. At Forest we have become conditioned to ASH's more spurious positions, but this was uncharted territory. Now, it seems, they are able to define and then decree what is and is not enjoyable.

If ASH was just a rag-bag collection of wide-eyed zealots confined to the fringe it would almost be amusing. But instead they are an ever-growing, highly organised and professional lobby group backed by millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money with a direct line to the Department of Health. ASH and other self-appointed public health guardians like the British Medical Association are enjoying greater influence over the direction of public policy, and the distribution of public funds, than at any time in their history.

As well as appearing in Freedom Today, the full article will be available as a downloadable pdf on the new Forest website, to be launched next month.

Suicide watch

Tom Utley, a Forest award winner in, I think, 2004, had THIS to say in his op-ed piece in Friday's Daily Mail.

I should add that Tom is notoriously pessimistic on many subjects, including smoking. Earlier this year he attended one of the private dinners that Forest hosts as part of our political and media lobbying work. We outlined our future plans, including the launch of The Free Society, and invited him to comment.

Within five minutes I wanted to slit my wrists. Former MSP Brian Monteith, who had just given a rousing sermon in support of TFS, felt the same. I hope we can give Tom something to be less gloomy about in future, but (in order to preserve our sanity) we won't be asking him back for a while!

Assault on decency

On the Forest website we have a section called 'Writing Worth Reading' with links to what we think is useful reading if you're interested in the smoking debate. Today we have added three articles. In the first, the Independent's Philip Hensher speaks for many of us when he writes:

"There must be some limit to the expansionist ambitions of the [anti-smoking] campaign - I would think that they must concede that it isn't actually reasonable to demand that people be prevented from smoking in the open air, or when they are alone at home. But who knows?"

 In the Guardian, David Hockney (a member of Forest's Supporters' Council) derides the smoking ban and concludes:

"In England people should speak up more, defend themselves, but it's hard against all the forces at work. Two million anti-smoking signs are going up on July 1, including inside Westminster Abbey. The uglification of England is under way by people with no vision. I detest it."

The third article was published yesterday on the online daily magazine First Post. What Hockney calls the "uglification of England" is far more serious than unappealing no-smoking sign. Barry Goodman reports that he has been physically assaulted three times while smoking in perfectly legitimate places - twice at street tables outside cafes, and most recently in a restaurant when there was only one other table occupied.

"I've never in my life experienced such hatred among strangers and I shudder at what it bodes for the future, and not just for smokers."

Remember those words, the next time you hear the anti-smoking lobby whine, "We're not against smokers, just smoking."