Crowds gather for "liberal" love fest

Tomorrow the Convention on Modern Liberty meets in London having sold in the region of 1300 tickets for a wide range of events. Other co-ordinated meetings will take place across the UK, linking up via video broadcast for a variety of keynote addresses. The aim is to promote the defence of civil liberties in Britain - so my natural instinct is to wish it well. I'm reserving judgement however until I can identify clearly what its true objectives are.

The reason I am cautious is because the main sponsors include the Guardian newspaper group, the Rowntree Trust, and Open Democracy, and I'm not convinced that an event sponsored by what might be called the "progressive Left" will address those areas of civil liberties that are of special interest to Forest and The Free Society.

A lot will be said with which I agree. Many speakers will talk about the threat to our freedoms from the excessive use of CCTV and the introduction of biometric passports and ID cards and so on. But will they address other issues that matter to me and many readers of this blog - attempts, for example, to control our driving, our drinking, our eating and our smoking. I may be wrong, but looking at the programme I can't see it.

A number of libertarian-leaning Conservatives are involved in the Convention, including the likes of Iain Dale who asks HERE "How committed is the Right to civil liberties?". Good question, and one that can be applied equally to the Left. The truth is, most people are extremely selective about which civil liberties they support. (At the Conservative conference last year I was shocked to hear smokers applaud attempts to ban drinking in public parks. What were they thinking?!)

Is the involvement of people like Iain a good thing - giving the Convention some balance - or is it mere window dressing to give the event respectability (what my old boss Julian Lewis MP used to call the "figleaf syndrome")?

I'll return to the subject once the fog has lifted and we can see the outcome of the Convention more clearly. Brian Monteith is also writing an article for The Free Society website.

I genuinely hope that the event will be a force for advancing a more liberal approach to civil liberties in general ... but I have my doubts. What I fear is that we are about to witness a "liberal" love fest, a political Woodstock high on rhetoric, with Shami Chakrabarti as the carnival queen. I hope I'm wrong.

Update on Saturday, February 28, 2009 by Simon Clark

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. I'm off to Cambridge to attend one of the satellite conventions organised by NO2ID. See HERE.

More evidence of the the "tartan taliban"

Dorothy-Grace Elder, former SNP MSP, appeared on Politics Now (ITV Scotland) last night. Alongside her was Brian Monteith (above), representing The Free Society. (That's two pictures of Brian on this blog this week!)

Discussing the tobacco display ban, announced earlier in the day by the Scottish government's public health minister Shona Robison (SNP), Elder was very funny, talking of the "Tartan Taliban" and calling "wee Shona Robison" the "minister for misery". See the last ten minutes of the programme HERE.

Brian has also written about the ban in his Edinburgh Evening News column today. He writes:

There is no reliable evidence that this will make any difference to young people buying cigarettes – even the anti-tobacco campaign group ASH has admitted this. It’s all about denormalising smoking – making smokers feel guilty, turning them into pariahs that people shun.

We will be left with the situation where tobacco MUST be hidden in the newsagents - but pornographic magazines will be on display. Common sense doesn’t come into it – drunk on power, bullies don’t care what anyone thinks.

Tell me this. If the display of tobacco is the reason that young people smoke cigarettes, why is it that so many of our youth take cannabis, cocaine and heroin?

Full article HERE.

Scotland: Forest slams tobacco display ban

Busy, busy day. This morning the Scottish government announced plans to ban cigarette vending machines and tobacco displays in shops. Responding to the publication of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Bill, Forest's Scottish spokesman Neil Rafferty (left), said:

"This is yet another bullying tactic from a government that can't stop interfering in people's lives. Banning the display of tobacco has nothing to do with protecting children. It's designed to denormalise adult smokers until they quit smoking. The ban won't work. Adult smokers will simply ask for their usual brand while the illicit nature of under the counter sales could even encourage young people to start smoking.

"The Scottish Government should follow the example of New Zealand where the government this week decided not to go ahead with a tobacco display ban. Prime minister John Key cited the lack of evidence that a tobacco display ban reduces youth smoking as the main reason for reversing proposals for the ban. He also said that the negative effect on small businesses was a large factor in his decision."

Full story HERE.

Contrary to my post on Wednesday, the Bill does, after all, include an exemption for specialist tobacconists. Good news for Alan Myerthall but bad news for small retailers in general.

New Zealand shelves tobacco display ban

The anti-smoking movement suffered a setback yesterday with the news that New Zealand prime minister John Key has decided not to go ahead with a tobacco display ban.

Key made the announcement during an interview on Australian TV. He cited the lack of evidence that a tobacco display ban actually reduces youth smoking as the main reason for reversing proposals for the ban. He also said that the detrimental impact the measures would have on small businesses was a large factor in his decision.

Wouldn't it be nice to think that the Scottish government follows suit when the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Bill is published tomorrow. Don't hold your breath. All they're interested in is gesture politics. They don't care about the consumer or the small retailer. We can all go to hell.

Tyranny of the majority

I was provisionally booked to appear on BBC Breakfast this morning to discuss a story that appeared HERE in yesterday's Daily Mail. Frank Field, a Labour MP I have a great deal of respect for, is proposing compulsory community service for young people aged 16-25.

"I'm not against the idea of community service," I told a researcher, "but I am 100 percent against it being compulsory."

"That's what I was hoping you'd say," she replied.

Thankfully, I (or the item) got bumped - which was a relief because I only got back from Edinburgh late last night and I would have had to leave home at five in order to get to Television Centre in west London for 7.15.

Nevertheless, I did give it some thought and I am opposed to the idea for so many reasons. For a start, it would take an army of bureaucrats to administer, let alone organise. Young people would have to be mentored, motivated, advised, supervised ... and what if they didn't turn up? How on earth could the scheme be enforced?

If people of any age want to lie in bed all day and do nothing, that's their choice. You can't - in a free society - force people to work or get involved in a "national citizenship programme". (You can remove their taxpayer-funded benefits, but that's another issue.)

What I really don't like is the fact that the scheme is being promoted on the back of a poll for Prospect magazine that found that 64 per cent of Britons support the idea. Even among younger people (aged 18-30) the plan had the support of 52 per cent. (It would be interesting to know what level of support there is among 16-25 year-olds, the group that is being targetted. Less than 50 per cent would be my guess, but that's not a figure they want you to hear.)

Frankly, polls like this annoy me. I don't doubt that many people aged 25+ will support the scheme - because they're not the ones being conscripted!! Even if a small majority of people under 30 support the idea, that still leaves a substantial minority opposed to it.

What we have here - as I would have told BBC Breakfast - is a classic example of the tyranny of the majority. If people want to become "good citizens" and take part in community service, good luck to them. But it's not something that should be made compulsory just because "the majority" supports it.

It's like the smoking ban. Even if we accept (which I don't) that a majority of people supported a comprehensive ban, that doesn't make it right. The minority have rights too. Freedom of choice matters - whatever "the majority" might say.

Scotland's tobacco taliban march on

Alan Myerthall runs The Pipe Shop in Leith. Yesterday (see previous posts), Brian Monteith and I popped in to say hello.

Alan is a member of the Independent Scottish Specialist Tobacconists' Association which was formed last year in response to the threat posed by further tobacco controls. In England and Wales specialist tobacconists were given an exemption from the smoking ban so customers could continue to sample the product. Not in Scotland. "Smoking," a sign above the humidor in The Pipe Shop informs us, "is prohibited within these premises".

Likewise there is talk that if a display ban is introduced in the UK, specialist tobacconists in England may be exempt - but not in Scotland where the tobacco taliban insists that any hint of tobacco (including cigars, pipe tobacco and even snuff) must be covered up or hidden under the counter.

Alan reckons that it will cost £10,000 to alter his shop to meet the proposed legislation - a huge sum for a small retailer. "Who is going to pay for that?" he asks. "The government?"

The Pipe Shop has been in business for 50 years. In the short time we were in the shop there was a steady stream of customers - most of whom knew Alan by name. It was a friendly, vibrant environment. If the Scottish government proceeds with these ridiculous proposals, another small business could bite the dust.

And for what purpose? As Alan Myerthall told me yesterday: "[Public health minister] Shona Robison wants to make Scotland smokefree by 2020. There's as much chance of me winning the lottery, and I buy two tickets every week!"

See also: Tobacconists could be stubbed out

Update on Thursday, February 26, 2009 by Simon Clark

It seems that specialist tobacconists will be exempt after all. See HERE.

The life of Brian

Yesterday morning I took this picture of my old friend Brian Monteith. I've known Brian for a long, long time - almost 30 years. We both went to Scottish universities and met through a mutual friend in student politics. We launched and edited our own student magazines. Later - albeit at different times - we both worked in PR in London for Michael Forsyth (now Lord Forsyth of Drumlean), and later still we shared an office in Leith, a short walk from where this photo was taken.

Today, after eight years as a member of the Scottish Parliament, Brian is a freelance consultant working on a number of projects including The Free Society. Most of his work however takes him abroad, and this year, he tells me, he expects to spend up to ten months in the Caribbean.

I am green with envy. The good news is that he has invited me to visit him. Excuse me while I pack my bags ...

PS. As you can see, Brian has acquired a new habit making him an early contender for Pipesmoker of the Year. You read it here first.

Smokers welcome!

I have just had lunch - well, a pint of beer and a cigar - in what has to be the most smoker-friendly bar in Edinburgh. Hawke and Hunter has only been open a few months but the owners have created a "smoking room" that is even better than Boisdale's famous cigar terrace in London.

It has its own bar, comfortable furniture, tropical plants and no shortage of heaters. I know this is no substitute for being able to smoke inside, but full marks to H and H for looking after smokers as best they can in the current anti-smoking climate.

I'll be back, and next time I may bring a hundred or so people with me. Watch this space.

Smoking and pregnant women

The Evening Gazette in Middlesbrough is running a campaign to try and get women to quit smoking during pregnancy. They have asked Forest if we would support such a campaign.

It's a sensitive subject so I am struggling to think of a suitable reply. I don't condone women who smoke during pregnancy, but I don't condemn them out of hand either. Personally I think you should listen to your GP. At the very least you should err on the side of caution, just as you would with alcohol.

What I don't like are campaigns that go beyond education and become a moral crusade, implying that women who smoke during pregnancy are bad, immoral or, worse, guilty of child abuse.

Hopefully, the Evening Gazette campaign doesn't fall into this category. We'll see. Full report HERE.

Damned trains

It's 6.15pm and I'm on a National Express train to Edinburgh (just arrived in York). Wifi connection is very slow and keeps cutting out. I think I'll read a book (The Damned United) instead.

Update on Monday, February 23, 2009 by Simon Clark

8.45pm ... Somewhere between Dunbar and North Berwick ... my train is stuck behind another train that has "broken down" ... Enjoying my book, though ... can't wait to see the film ... coming soon to a cinema near you ...

Now the Tories want to save the pub!

Now the Tories want to Save The Great British Pub. Last night shadow culture secretary Jeremy Hunt launched a campaign calling on the Government to cut taxes on lower alcohol drinks such as beer and raising taxes on "problem drinks" like high strength ciders and alcopops.

They also want to enforce existing laws to deal with irresponsible drinkers and premises, trust adults to make informed choices, not punish them for the actions of an irresponsible minority, and support the British pub as a vital part of local communities.

I'm beginning to lose count of the number of campaigns that want to save our pubs. There's the high profile Axe The Beer Tax campaign, which is run by the British Beer and Pub Association in association with CAMRA and has the support of the British Institute of Innkeeping and others.

CAMRA meanwhile has its own Save Our Pubs initiative. There's a cheap and cheerful online campaign - also called Save The Great British Pub - which has gained enormous support on Facebook (152,800 members) but has attracted far fewer signatories (55) on its website.

And then there's UKIP which recently launched a campaign to Save The Pub.

No prizes for guessing that only one of these campaigns (UKIP) seriously addresses the issue of the smoking ban and wants the legislation changed. The BBPA? Forget it. The Conservatives? No chance. (Well, not yet.)

The problem, as I have always said, is that UKIP has one MP (a Tory who crossed the floor of the House). After the next election they won't have any. Getting into bed with UKIP just because they support changes to the smoking ban is not the answer. MPs in mainstream parties (who might support us) will run a mile and I can't imagine a UKIP-driven campaign influencing government to change the law - although, to be fair, it may have encouraged the Conservatives to launch their campaign.

What we need is a cross-party initiative that puts the smoking ban at the very heart of the campaign. We're working on it, believe me. Watch this space.

Driver fined for smoking outside his cab

A taxi driver has just rung Forest to say that, this morning, he was smoking a cigarette outside his black cab when a taxi inspector walked up and gave him a fixed penalty notice. His "crime"? Smoking "too close to the cab".

The cab door was open but it seems incredibly petty to fine someone £50 (or more) without having a quiet word first.

I'm not even sure the driver has committed an offence. We'll find out soon enough because I've been in touch with the local paper. Next stop, the council. Who do these tinpot dictators think they are?

Ssshhh ... don't mention "amendments"

Addressing a meeting of around 40 licensees this week, LibDem MP Adrian Sanders said that none of the three leading parties would ever amend the smoking ban. "There is no desire at all in this Government or the other parties to bring any alterations to the smoking ban."

He added: "Even mentioning amendments so members at private clubs can decide to bring any change on their premises has become unacceptable."

Let me get this straight. A member of parliament believes it is now "unacceptable" to even mention amendments to the smoking ban?! Did I miss something? When did that happen? So much for free speech.

Meanwhile, at the same meeting, police Inspector Adrian Leisk confirmed that "despite police having to deal with the hundreds of pub goers and clubbers being forced to stand outside on the pavement, there would not be any U-turn".

He said: "Having to deal with 100 people standing outside for a cigarette is a real challenge for us in term of policing. There is no way out of that."

Wrong. There is a way out of that, and it involves the police giving a full account of the problems - not telling the government what it wants to hear (ie the ban has been a huge success) - so that MPs can, in turn, amend the ban to allow, for example, indoor smoking rooms.

As for U-turns, that's a matter for parliament not the police (or am I living in a different country?).

Full article HERE.

ASH: a little technical difficulty

Having been forced to concede, in a letter to The Grocer (26 January 2009), that the introduction of a display ban in Iceland only "coincided" with a decline in youth smoking (ie there is no direct link), ASH has now made a further confession.

Responding to shadow health minister Mike Penning's post on ConservativeHome earlier this week, a note on ASH Daily News (17 February) states:

"ASH makes claims of causation with great care and for a number of technical reasons, including the fact that display bans were part of a range of interventions, it is not possible to definitely claim causation at this stage."

Read into this what you will, but it's pretty clear to me. For all their blustering, there is no evidence that display bans reduce youth smoking rates. Yet that, we are told, is the primary reason why government wants to introduce such a policy.

PS. Only ASH could refer to the truth as "technical reasons". How inconvenient!!

What does this image have to do with smoking?

A "hard-hitting" new Smokefree campaign - 'Worried' - launches today. A news release from the Department of Health says:

"The ads, aimed at parents who smoke, communicate an uncomfortable message to viewers - that teenage children worry about their parents' future due to the harmful health effects of smoking. The campaign is supported by new findings which reveal that nearly half (46 per cent) of teenagers are more worried about their parents smoking than anything else, including money, bullying and divorce."

Of course they're worried. Anti-smoking campaigners are forever trying to frighten us all to death. Impressionable children are an easy target. But don't tell me that a child who is being seriously bullied, or whose parents are in the middle of a difficult divorce, are more concerned about their parents smoking - because I don't believe it.

Health minister Ben Bradshaw says:

"I hope that these adverts will persuade parents to stop smoking. Smoking results in over 2,000 deaths each week and is the biggest public health challenge this country faces. These new findings should also make parents think twice about the emotional distress their smoking has on their children.

"In addition to feeling a burden of responsibility about their families' health, parents smoking leads to feelings of frustration and anger, with a third (31 per cent) of teenagers feeling most upset with their parents when they smoke and three quarters (75 per cent) of teenagers ask their parents to stop. But 43 per cent of them feel angry that their parents don't listen to them, a third feel confused (32 per cent) about why they smoke and just under a third (29 per cent) feel frustrated that their parents don't know how bad it is for them."

Frustration and anger? They're teenagers, for Christ's sake! If it wasn't their parents' smoking, it would be something else. (And it probably is.) As for "feeling a burden of responsibility about their families' health", what planet does Bradshaw live on? Most of them are far too busy texting their friends - while glued to Facebook and Bebo - to even notice.

Bizarrely, the new campaign features a series of posters and images that includes the one above. Doesn't it strike you as a bit odd that they have chosen to feature a half naked boy in a shower ... Worried? Confused? Call the Department of Health (020 7210 4850) ... or the Advertising Standards Authority (020 7242 8159).

PS. I haven't seen the actual posters but you can see a set of six still images HERE.