Taking Liberties

Last week I had dinner with Shane Frith, director of Progressive Vision, a new classical liberal think tank, and his colleague Mark Littlewood. Mark is former head of media for the Liberal Democrats, and before that he worked for the civil rights group Liberty.

On today's Free Society blog, Mark addresses a fundamental truth when he writes:

If the essential premises of the welfare state – universal healthcare free at the point of use from cradle to grave and the education of children paid for and controlled by the state – continue to go unchallenged then as night follows day, our own lifestyle choices will be abdicated to the state too.

Unless individuals are obliged to bear direct personal financial responsibility for their own actions, the state will inevitably seek to ban – or at least deter – activities that lead to increased public expense or diminished revenues.

If we really want to roll back the nanny state, we need to tackle the cosy, welfarist consensus that gives rise to it.

Full article HERE. Comments welcome.

Further to my post below, which he featured on his own blog, Iain Dale has attracted a number of comments HERE. One person (who inevitably prefers to remain anonymous), writes of my original post (are you following this?):

If you invite yourself to a meeting the purpose of which is to discuss how to reduce smoking, and your raison d'etre (don't be frightened, it's a French phrase) is to oppose the purpose of the meeting, then being told to go away is not exactly surprising. He [Simon Clark] fails to say whose meeting it was - perhaps because this would undermine his role as "victim".

The same comment, now written by someone called "Simon" (good name!), also appears on The Free Society blog. To clear up any misunderstanding I have replied - on both blogs - as follows:

The meeting was organised by the European Commission's Health & Consumer Protection Directorate-General. Officially it was called a "consultation meeting with EU experts, civil society and social partners on an impact assessment on smoke-free environments". Informally, it was described as a "stakeholder consultation on Commission's smoke-free initiative".

Forest was not originally invited, but that doesn't mean to say we shouldn't have been there. (I don't know about you, but I would have thought that the consumer is a fairly obvious stakeholder in such a discussion.)

When we queried why we had not been invited (bearing in mind that, last year, we contributed to the EU Green Paper consultation on the subject), we received, from the Health & Consumer Protection DG, the following email: "Please accept my apologies for this oversight. You will find enclosed the background document and the agenda of the meeting. Could you kindly confirm who will represent Forest at the meeting?"

I think that's an invitation. Don't you?

As it happens, the facilitator made a similar claim during the meeting when she turned to me and said (in a rather accusing tone), "You invited yourself to this meeting." There were a number of thoughts racing through my head at the time so I let it pass, but the more I think about it the more annoyed I am because it was clearly designed to undermine my position at the table.

The full story is that I initially asked if I could attend a different meeting, but after a flurry of emails it was suggested to me (by the Health & Consumer Protection DG itself) that a more appropriate meeting for Forest to attend would be one involving "civil society and social groups".

If people still want to say I invited myself, so be it. Personally, I don't see a problem. If Forest was to sit around waiting for "invitations" to do this or that our voice would rarely if ever be heard. In short, we wouldn't be doing our job. Is that what people want? (I think we know the answer.)

More to the point, how come four major pharmaceutical companies were allowed to attend a meeting for "civil society and social groups" while Forest - representing the consumer - was asked to leave? Questions must be asked and, believe me, we won't let it rest.

BTW, I was delighted to receive, late last night, the following cheery message from a friendly MEP.

"Well done Simon! You couldn't make it up, could you?  There is an emerging theme here.  The EU hates dissent, and simply cannot tolerate it. Lisbon Treaty, climate change, smoking.  Either you're on message, or you're a non-person."

Now there's a man who knows what he's talking about!

The Daily Telegraph reports that "MPs may be given an extra 12 days holiday over the next year after the Government ran out of legislation to put before Parliament" (full story HERE).

The tone of the report ("increase takes annual leave to more than 90 days ... more than three times that of the average worker ... will embarrass Gordon Brown" etc) suggests disapproval. Personally, I think it's something to celebrate. In fact, if it means a reduction in legislation (ie less government), I would happily let MPs enjoy 180 days off each year - on the same salary.

I know this is simplistic, but what this country needs is fewer MPs working fewer days, especially in Parliament. In general, less legislation equals more freedom. It's hardly rocket science.

Politics just got very, very interesting again. I was listening to PMQs on Five Live and couldn't believe what I was hearing - a prime minister well and truly on the ropes. Whatever my political colours (which are not a secret, as it happens), this has to be good news. Suddenly, everything is up for grabs and the winner has to be the electorate - as the Chancellor's hilarious U-turn on inheritance tax has shown. It just goes to show the benefit of competition, in any field you care to mention.

The good news - in a wider sense - is that the events of the past week give hope to those of us (myself included) who saw nothing but a long-term continuation of the present government's policies, whoever was in power (Labour or Conservative). The lesson for David Cameron, surely, is that there is clear electoral advantage to be had from pursuing a different path to Labour.

Our job is to persuade Cameron's Conservatives that there are also votes in pursuing a more liberal, less intrusive regime on issues such health and personal responsibility. (You never know, it might force another about turn from Labour!) Education not coercion is our mantra. Roll back the bully state! I may be wrong, but I swear I can see a tiny chink of light at the end of a long dark tunnel.