Taking Liberties

The following comment, posted by Martin V, appears under THIS post. However, I thought it deserved greater prominence. It says everything you need to know about the "choice" available to voters at the next Election:

Spurred to further action by Dave Atherton's example (well done, that man!!), I decided to phone  Central Office a few minutes ago, and seek some clarification on current Conservative  thinking on this most SIMPLE of issues.

I was put through to a very well-spoken young dame ... and enjoyed the following brief exchange:

"Hello! I notice that under what you describe on your website as the 'Opportunity Agenda' you declare yourselves in favour of 'giving people more opportunity and POWER OVER THEIR LIVES' - so I assume you're rather against the ghastly Nanny-Statism of New Labour?".

"Yes, absolutely!"

"Excellent! In that case, how soon after a Conservative election victory will you give ME the opportunity once again to have a fag with my pint - a freedom I've enjoyed for over 40 years now?"

"Er, we're not!"

"So, you're not THAT committed to individual freedom, after all?"

"Yes, but we've already had a full debate (?) on this subject and blah blah blah ......"

"So, you're not going to allow a sensible segregation of smoking and non-smoking customers, with proper ventillation" etc etc.

"No - we've already tried that, and IT DOESN'T WORK." (?????)

"Well, it hasn't been PROPERLY tried, actually."

Clearly, the lady was allowing no challenges to her unalterable view of the Universe. Why allow an Ugly Fact to  mar a Beautiful Prejudice?

Already - as you may well imagine - I was edging rapidly into White Knuckle mode, and enquired (rather naively) why she felt that SHE and her colleagues were somewhow entitled to tell ME how to lead my life.

Her riposte was finger-waggingly simple:

"Well, it's VERY bad for you, you know!"

So much for 'opposition' to the Nanny State ......

You couldn't make it up.

Today is the 25th anniversary of the introduction of the law that made it compulsory to wear seat belts in cars. I know this because yesterday afternoon I got a call from the Jeremy Vine Show on Radio 2 asking what I thought about the issue.

To be honest, I rarely give it much thought, although the health lobby sometimes use the example of selt belts to molify opponents of public smoking bans. "Oh," they chirp, "people were against compulsory seat belts but everyone accepts them now. The same will happen with smoking bans."

There is a big difference, of course. Wearing a seat belt, especially since the introduction of inertia reel belts in the Seventies (ie the ones that allow you considerable movement), is not a major inconvenience. In fact it's no inconvenience at all, so I am perfectly happy to belt up because it doesn't have a negative impact on the quality of my life.

If I stop and think about it, however, I do object to the fact that if I choose not to clunk click every trip I could be stopped and fined. Whether I wear a seatbelt should be no business of the state. If I am in an accident and smash my head on the dashboard or the steering wheel or, worse, get thrown out of the car because I am not wearing one, that's a risk that adults should be allowed to take.

(Children are a different matter. Always err on the side of caution, I say, although I wonder sometimes how the baby boom generation ever survived childhood, what with the absence of seat belts and all those adults puffing away in their presence.)

It could be argued that being forced to wear seat belts was a small step towards the modern bully state. We meekly accepted what politicians and campaigners told us - that tens of thousands of lives would be saved every year - and assumed that would be an end to it.

Now, 25 years later, it's compulsory to wear seat belts in the back as well as the front of the car. Failure to buckle up in the back of a cab is also an offence (although I don't know anyone who does). Perhaps we should all wear  straitjackets and be done with it.

We have been approached by a leading British independent film and television production company who produce documentary films for, among others, the BBC, Channel 4 and Five.

The company is developing a film about Britain’s nanny state and the people who are fighting against it. They want to speak to people who have a personal story that has affected them in such a way that not only are they unwilling to accept it, they are actively campaigning against it.

Publican Hamish Howitt - who spoke at our Conservative conference event in Blackpool last year - is an obvious example, but it needn't have anything to do with smoking. It might be to do with weight or alcohol consumption. Or something else.

If you have a story to tell - or know of someone who does - drop me a note.

As an existing Audi owner, I have just received a brochure for the new A4 which comes out in February. It looks great but I can't help thinking that today's cars are becoming the automotive equivalent of the nanny state.

For example, the new A4 offers something called 'Audi Adaptive Cruise Control' which not only programs the car to travel at a constant speed (admittedly useful with all those average speed cameras around) but also "lets you set the distance you wish to keep between you and the vehicle in front".

There's 'Audi Side Assist' that "alerts the driver to vehicles moving into the blind spot" when you are moving in excess of 40mph. And there's 'Audi Lane Assist' which alerts the driver before you unintentionally wander out of your lane. Presumably, if you intentionally change lanes (ie overtake) it emits a piercing scream. Last but not least, the new A4 has headlights that "automatically switch on in poor light conditions".

Like the nanny state, these features come at a price. Thankfully they are all options (ie you have a choice) otherwise the cost of a standard A4 (£24k) would be a lot more. My fear is that politicians will see these innovations and make them compulsory. (Why? Because they can!)

Anyway, when was the last time you "unwillingly changed lanes" or were caught out by your blind spot? (Sure, it happens, but is it worth an extra £2-3,000 on the price of your car?) As for "poor light conditions", I can decide that for myself, thank you very much. Mind you, the new daytime running lights look very pretty - damn the expense!

A report to be published today by the "well respected" Nuffield Council for Bioethics will claim that government is not doing enough to help people live healthy lives. The report argues that increasing taxation on alcohol and banning smoking in people’s homes are justified if they improve public health.

Yesterday I was sent an advance press release and gave the following quote to The Times (which they used in their report, HERE):

"People accept the need for government to educate and advise people about their health, but politicians should take care not to over-indulge in social engineering. Potentially, this report is a manifesto for a bully state in which people are increasingly forced to behave in a manner approved by politicians and evangelical health campaigners who want unprecedented control over our daily lives."

I have long argued that things will get worse before they get better. The nanny/bully state brigade is on a roll and it is going to be a major battle to derail it. But derail it we must. The good news is there are some influential voices on our side. For example, a leader in today's Times makes it very clear where they stand:

John Stuart Mill held that the only justification for state coercion was to prevent harm, or “evil”, being done to others. It is a stretch to say that eating too many hamburgers, or smoking at home, meets that definition. Yet in seeking to modernise Mill, the Nuffield group comes dangerously close to arguing such a line.

It is not the British people who need treatment, it is Government - for its hyperactive insistence on interfering in private lives. The sooner that it kicks that bureaucratic habit, the healthier society will be.

Full article HERE. Definitely worth reading.

Following the story that laissez-faire politician Boris Johnson is to stand as a Conservative candidate for mayor of London, more good news. The Daily Telegraph reports that Ed Balls, the new Schools Secretary, "is to tackle the compensation culture which has led to bans on playground games such as marbles and tag".

Children should not be "wrapped in cotton wool" but allowed to have snowball fights in winter and play conkers in autumn, he said as he urged parents to take a more balanced approach to risk.

"The idea you decide as a society that people aren't going to make snowballs because of a compensation culture is not the kind of society I want to live in," he said at the launch of a consultation on how to keep children safe while allowing them the freedom to explore.

At last, another politician talking sense. There are, of course, two issues involved here - the nanny state and the litigious society. Yes, there are lots of interfering, paternalistic do-gooders out there, but there is also a genuine fear of being taken to court. The two go hand-in-hand. In order to roll back the frontiers of the nanny state we first have to remove the threat from m'learned friends.

I still think things will get worse before they get better, but it's encouraging to hear a government minister speak in these terms. Hopefully, Ed Balls and others will realise that this is not just about children (who, I accept, need some protection), it's also about adults being allowed to take risks too, as long as their behaviour doesn't pose a serious threat to other people.

The headline of the Telegraph story is, 'Playtime needs risk if it's to be fun, says minister'. Perhaps The Free Society's motto should read: 'Life needs risk if it's to be fun'. Other suggestions welcome. Full report HERE.