Forest versus ASH ... seconds out

Well, I enjoyed a bit of a humdinger with my old friend Deborah Arnott of ASH on the BBC News Channel on Saturday.

Great fun. See for yourself HERE. (Apologies for the picture/sound quality.)

H/T Dave Atherton.

Dave, it was your comment on THIS post (which I read on my iPhone moments before going on air) that prompted my reference to the Irish Times article.

As you can see, it went down a treat!

Update on Monday, March 8, 2010 by Simon Clark

PS. I almost didn't make it to the studio in time. I went to the WRONG address because no-one told me that the BBC had moved to new premises (the other side Cambridge) three months ago!

So there I was, standing outside an empty building, when I got a call asking me where I was. It was 4.20 and I was due on in ten minutes!

Fortunately the producers managed to delay the item. This allowed me to drive across town as fast as I could and I was on air - slightly breathless - at 4.47.

Can you tell?

Update on Monday, March 8, 2010 by Simon Clark

I'm not sure if I should mention this but a News Channel producer later rang me and left this message:

"Simon, that was among the most entertaining pieces of TV that we've seen all day, and very informative and balanced ... We really appreciate your input, so thank you very much for participating. We really hope to do business with you again sometime soon."

I've always liked the BBC!!

Help! I'm confused ...

The Office of Fair Trading has issued a statement alleging that certain tobacco manufacturers and retailers may have engaged in unlawful practices in relation to retail prices for tobacco products in the UK. It is suggested that deals between cigarette companies and supermarkets may have restricted the retailers' ability "to determine its selling price independently".

I can understand that the OFT (a government quango) doesn't like price-fixing, but if they really want to help the consumer I suggest they also look at the government's policy on tobacco taxation. In the UK, 80-89% of the cost of tobacco products is pocketed by the Treasury. I'm not an economist, but I can't believe that encourages competitive pricing.

What I really can't get my head around is the extraordinary response from ASH. According to the Financial Times, "Action on Smoking and Health, the anti-smoking pressure group, said it was concerned that cigarette prices were rising faster than justified by levels of taxation and inflation."

Since when did ASH become the voice and friend of the consumer?

Help! I'm confused. (Full story HERE and HERE.)

Update on Friday, April 25, 2008 by Simon Clark

The government wants to ban the display of cigarettes behind the counter - out of sight, out of mind. What could be more anti-competitive than that? How the hell can the consumer choose between different brands (and prices) if he can't see what's on offer? I can't wait to read what the OFT thinks about that.

No taxation without representation?

On The Free Society blog today Robin Butler asks, does this government have a moral right to collect a tobacco tax from people it is trying to airbrush out of society? Smokers, he adds, are not represented by government, so why should they pay an additional £10 billion a year on top of income tax and National Insurance?

If there was ever a social contract, guaranteeing personal freedoms as a condition of meeting our social responsibilities and duties as citizens, then in the case of many millions of citizens, the state has just torn up its part of that contract.

Full article HERE.

Tax and tobacco

We will hear today what Alastair Darling has in mind for smokers in his first Budget since he succeeded Gordon Brown as Chancellor. In recent years - after a disastrous experiment known as the "tobacco escalator" which forced the tax on tobacco to rise, each year, by inflation plus three (and later five) percent - tobacco taxation has increased, more modestly, in line with inflation.

But that's not enough for the likes of ASH. Anti-smoking campaigners have been lobbying the government to re-introduce the so-called "real-price escalator" which would see the tax on tobacco increase by at least 10p per pack above the rate of inflation.

I can't believe that Darling would embrace a discredited policy that, when it was previously implemented, led to a smuggling epidemic that cost the Treasury £3 billion a year in lost revenue, caused chaotic scenes in many of Britain's ports, had little effect on the smoking rates, and hit the elderly and low paid the hardest - but you never know.

Politicians, and their advisors, are curious creatures and we may find that Darling - hitherto a rather anonymous figure - wants to be "his own man". Smokers are an easy target and hitting them where it hurts (in the pocket) may be too hard to resist, especially on No Smoking Day. We'll find out shortly.

Update on Wednesday, March 12, 2008 by Simon Clark

Duty on tobacco up 11p per pack of 20 cigarettes, in line with inflation. Could have been worse. At least the Chancellor has resisted the demands of the anti-smoking lobby. Bad news for drinkers, though. Tax on alcohol up 6% above inflation now, plus a further 2% above inflation for the next four years. Better buy shares in cross-Channel ferries!

Update on Wednesday, March 12, 2008 by Simon Clark

Forest press release:  "We welcome the Chancellor's decision to reject an increase in duty above the rate of inflation, but the increased cost of cigarettes will still hit those who can least afford it, especially the elderly, the low paid and the unemployed.
 
"The biggest loser, however, is the British taxpayer, because under this government the tax on tobacco has risen to record levels. The knock-on effect is a huge increase in smuggling and a major loss of revenue to the Treasury.
 
"The problem will only be solved when the Chancellor is brave enough to freeze or reduce tobacco taxation to a level that is prudent rather than politically correct."

Double whammy for smokers?

The Treasury announced yesterday that the Budget will take place on Wednesday March 12 at 12.30pm. I don't want to worry you, but that's the same date as No Smoking Day. No doubt the Chancellor will be expected to pull a rabbit out of the hat for our rabid anti-smoking friends. I can't believe that any politician - knowing the impact it has on smuggling - would be stupid enough to raise tobacco taxation above the rate of inflation, but you never know.

Then again, he could choose to abolish VAT on nicotine replacement products. I don't have a problem with that, even though the main beneficiaries would be the anti-smoking industry pharmaceutical companies. At least it would address the original purpose of No Smoking Day which was to help those who wish to quit.

Today No Smoking Day is indistinguishable from any other anti-smoking campaign. It's just another part of the denormalisation process, another act in the anti-tobacco circus. A little more respect for those who choose to smoke and don't want to quit wouldn't go amiss. But I'm not holding my breath.

Money talks

Other guests at the wedding included my old boss Michael Forsyth (former Secretary of State for Scotland and now Lord Forsyth of Drumlean). Michael gave me my first job. I was just out of university, looking to break into journalism, when I was introduced to him in a pub in central London. A week later I was working as a (junior) account executive for a PR company with offices in Fleet Lane, a stone's throw from St Paul's Cathedral.

Michael is currently chairman of the Tax Reform Commission which last year published a report calling for a "fairer, lower, less complex and more competitive tax system". For some reason, most politicians today are allergic to cutting taxes - or even talking about it. I have always believed that low taxation is essential to a free society. In 2007, Tax Freedom Day was on June 1. In 1963, using the same formula, TFD (had it existed) would have been five weeks earlier, on April 24.

It's not just the money. It's the sense that much of the revenue raised through taxation is poorly spent and there is nothing we can do about it. Hell, I don't mind paying a good whack if only I could see more benefits. Beyond very basic services, I'm not sure that I can.

For some reason we're not giving politicians a hard enough time on the subject. Personally, I would like a wealth warning that makes it clear - when you buy petrol or tobacco, for example - how much of the retail price goes to the government. The more information we have, the more likely it is that people will do something about it.

Tory paternalism a threat to freedom

The Conservative party's Social Justice Policy Group will tomorrow publish a 200,000-word report, commissioned by David Cameron (above) and written by former party leader Iain Duncan-Smith.

Weekend reports say that in order to tackle Britain's "binge drinking culture" IDS will recommend increasing tax on alcohol, adding 7p on the price of a pint of beer and 20p on a bottle of wine (ie 4p a glass).

Now, I don't pretend to know much Britain's "binge drinking culture" (other than the fact that I am one of those who undoubtedly consume more than the "recommended" units of alcohol each week), but I do know that politicians whose knee-jerk response to any 'problem' is to tax and legislate must be challenged. If - after rigorous debate - they can justify their actions, fine, but there has to be a full and open discussion that is not dominated by "experts", campaigners and woolly thinking paternalists.

Worryingly, a reader of this blog reports that when he wrote to David Cameron about the smoking ban he received the following response:

Dear Martin,

The Government's ban on smoking in public places has now come into force. Whatever one's own views, it is very clear that public opinion has demanded a ban on smoking in public places for some time. There is also a considerable body of scientific evidence to point to the harmful health effects of second-hand smoke.

While the smoking ban certainly does place restrictions on where people can smoke, it does not ban what is still a lawful activity and people are free to smoke in their own homes and outdoors where the impact of their smoke on others will be minimal. The Government has now published five sets of regulations which set out the detail of smokefree legislation. You can view these within the policy and guidance section of the Department of Health website.

They are all currently being considered by Parliament, where we have raised some reservations, for example about smoking in vehicles, prisons and mental health units. Nevertheless we hope that the Bill and its regulations will play a positive role in reducing exposure to second-hand smoke and, in turn, help to improve public health.

It is clear that we need to tackle smoking, just as we need to tackle the other causes of ill-health. Without action, what should be preventable ill-health in its various forms will cost the country an extra £30 billion a year by the 2020s.

It is important to remember that we're all in this together - individuals, families, communities, and Government, as well as employers, have a social responsibility to ensure that we do not place unnecessary pressures on our stretched NHS services in the years to come. Of course, employers will have to come to their own decisions about whether it is worth their while to provide stop smoking support.

While stop smoking advice at work is a matter for employers, we can say what a future Conservative Government would do. Three-quarters of NHS bodies are currently cutting their 'stop smoking' budgets as a result of the NHS financial crisis, so we would ring-fence these budgets to ensure that they are used for what they were intended: helping people to stop smoking.

The author of this letter is someone called 'Alice Sheffield' but, as Martin points out, "It could just as easily have been penned by the icy fingers of the sadly departed Patricia Hewitt herself." Forest will be writing to David Cameron, taking issue with many of the points in Alice Sheffield's letter. I strongly suggest that others do too.

Scotland gets a wake up call

Ex-MSP Brian Monteith was in London yesterday promoting his new book Paying The Piper (Birlinn, £6.99). It's not what you might call a page-turner, but it's an important contribution to the political debate, especially in Scotland where social and economic liberals like Brian are an endangered species.

A member of the Scottish Parliament for eight years (1999-2007), Brian wants to confront the "collectivist consensus" that dominates Scottish politics and promote a "liberal open society". In particular, he makes the case for lower taxes, a single rate of income tax, the abolition of inheritance tax, less public spending and less regulation. He wants more "small government thinking", adding, "It requires brave politicians from all parties to turn their backs on yet more legislation that interferes with our personal lives and inhibits our economic growth."

Brian's views are summed up by Mark Twain who quipped, "What is the difference between a taxidermist and a tax inspector? The taxidermist only takes your skin." Likewise Winston Churchill believed that, "For a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle." More recently, Ronald Reagan commented: "Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases. If it moves, tax it; if it keeps moving, regulate it; and if it stops moving, subsidise it."

Perhaps the most pertinent quote is an endorsement by Times columnist Matthew Parris who wrote: "Scots should wake up. Monteith is pointing the way back from extinction." Let's hope so.