Tobacco display wars

Further to the Peter Mandelson post below, the Sunday Times reports that the government's proposed ban on shops displaying tobacco and other anti tobacco measures are expected to be abandoned this week "because of fears they will alienate voters during the recession".

If this is true it is very good news - but let's not count our chickens just yet. A very similar argument took place in Cabinet immediately prior to the vote that led to the smoking ban. The likes of John Reid fought hard for exemptions but it wasn't enough. ASH, Cancer Research et al will be working their socks off over the next few days trying to persuade ministers to stick with the original proposals - and of course they'll be lobbying their friends in the media with the argument (which we strongly dispute) that the proposals have huge public support.

The government will be under enormous pressure to do something - anything - so this could still go either way, with cigarette vending machines looking especially vulnerable. In fact, the Scottish edition of today's Sunday Times reports that the Scottish government is to go ahead with a ban on vending machines in pubs, clubs and hotels. Will England, Wales and Northern Ireland follow?

Today's media reports can be found HERE, and HERE. See also the Sunday Telegraph report (HERE)which picks up on the Evening Standard report and claims that "Peter Mandelson is at the centre of a Whitehall row over a planned clampdown on cigarette sales".

Police state Britain

I didn't comment on the Damian Green story yesterday because I didn't know the facts. I'm not going to comment on it today because there's nothing I can add to what has been written in today's newspapers, notably the Daily Mail which has given the story the prominence it deserves (including the front page headline 'POLICE STATE BRITAIN').

Read the following articles - among them the brilliant Richard Littlejohn - and decide for yourself whether this "callous, rotten" government has forfeited the right to govern what is supposed to be a free, democratic country.

Police state Britain
This is a declaration of political war
Speaker Martin must go
Richard Littlejohn

Update on Saturday, November 29, 2008 by Simon Clark

Other articles:
Taking liberties with information (Financial Times)
An outrage that brings shame on Britain (Matthew Parris, The Times)

ASH and the Prince of Darkness

The London Evening Standard reports that Peter Mandelson is blocking moves to ban the display of tobacco in shops. As welcome as it sounds, don't celebrate too soon. There's more than a hint of spin in this story which follows a meeting yesterday between ASH and advisers to the new Business Secretary.

It's clear however that the meeting didn't go as well as ASH would have liked, which is why they have run, bleating, to the press. It's the equivalent of a temper tantrum and it's designed to put pressure on the Cabinet which is meeting today in Leeds (with tobacco control thought to be on the agenda).

According to director Deborah Arnott, "The proposed legislation has attracted huge public support. Now, however, it appears that BERR [Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform] is trying to block it. It is as if Peter Mandelson is putting a block on health policy."

Huge public support? Hmmm. In July 2006 Arnott boasted that getting politicians to support the smoking ban was "literally a confidence trick". It worked once so they're trying it (on) again. Convince ministers there is overwhelming public support for action and it takes a brave politician to say no.

Anyway, when ASH talk about "huge public support", what they really mean is huge public sector support. If my suspicions are correct, this is how it works. The government gives money to ASH who use it to galvanise support not from the general public but from public sector employees, many of them health workers. The result? Tens of thousands of responses to a "public" consultation and "huge support" for legislation.

As for accusing Mandelson of "putting a block on health policy", where is the evidence that banning the display of tobacco (or vending machines, or 10-packs) has anything to do with health? It's gesture politics designed to denormalise a legal activity and stigmatise millions of people.

Worse, it could push thousands of small retailers towards bankruptcy. What about the health of all those businesses - especially in the current climate - or do people's livelihoods not matter?

Oh well, I'm sure ASH know what they're doing. Personally I'd think twice about making an enemy of a man they call the Prince of Darkness. But I'm not Deborah Arnott. And I don't have the arrogance - or the petulance - that working for ASH seems to breed.

Full story HERE.

Smoking ban on trial in The Hague

Colleagues in Holland will tomorrow be taking part in a mass protest against their country's public smoking ban. Organisers of the rally in The Hague hope to attract up to 5,000 supporters.

Earlier this month it was reported that Dutch bar and cafe owners are putting ashtrays back on tables because the ban is driving hundreds of small businesses towards bankruptcy. (Story HERE.)

Tomorrow's event is organised by Red de Kleine Horecaondernemer (KHO), an alliance of Dutch smokers' rights groups and over a thousand bar and cafe owners. Protestors will be addressed by members of the Dutch parliament representing three political parties.

Ton Wurtz, a spokesman for KHO and an old friend of Forest, says the alliance wants the owners of small bars and cafes to be able to choose between smoking or non-smoking - as is currently the case in Spain and (for the moment) Germany.

We are keeping an eye on developments and are in close contact with Ton (and others in Holland). Watch this space.

Lansley - unfit for office?

I've had my doubts about Andrew Lansley for a long, long time. The shadow health secretary is wet with a capital 'W'. Now, it seems, he's stupid as well. Writing on the Tory party's Blue Blog, Lansley said that while said he regretted the "human misery" recessions cause, "On many counts, recessions can be good for us. People tend to smoke less, drink less alcohol, eat less rich food and spend more time at home with their families."

For once I agree with Dr Vivienne Nathanson, head of science and ethics at the British Medical Association, who is quoted in today's Daily Mail: "There is no evidence that people smoke less in a recession. You can see the opposite happening - people might smoke and drink more because they are anxious and depressed. It is very difficult when you lose your job or think you are going to lose your house."

Lansley has now removed the comments (allegedly under orders from David Cameron) and apologised - but what an absolute and utter prat. How depressing to think that this man could one day be in charge of a major government department. Comments like this suggest that he is not only out of touch with many ordinary men and women, but he is unfit for office.

Update on Friday, November 28, 2008 by Simon Clark

Simon Carr of the Independent has a rather different take on Lansley's view of the recession. According to Carr, "That is the only interesting thing Andrew Lansley has said in 40 years and he was made to apologise for it." Ouch!

Strange bedfellows

Last year I attended a dinner hosted by the Reform Club Media Group. Guest speaker was Shami Chakrabarti, the high profile director of the human rights group Liberty.

During Q&As, Chakrabarti was asked why Liberty didn't support Britain's beleaguered smokers. She wasn't unsympathetic but the gist of her reply was that smokers' rights are relatively trivial compared to other human rights issues and Liberty has to prioritise.

Now, in a letter to Talksport management, Chakrabarti has unexpectedly declared her support for presenter Jon Gaunt, sacked last week:

"We understand that the grounds given for summary termination are Mr Gaunt's on-air references to the 'health Nazis' he felt responsible for banning smokers from fostering children in Redbridge.

"This strikes us as the most bizarre and disproportionate approach to someone who was no doubt contracted to excite political debate amongst a whole host of listeners who might not normally engage with news and current affairs programmes.

"For present purposes, we make no comment on the substance of the childcare policy in question. However we would remind you that any court must read Mr Gaunt's contract in the light of his right to free expression under article 10 of the Human Rights Act.

"Whilst this is far from an absolute right (particularly in the context of broadcasting), to be meaningful it must extend to contentious as well as consensual speech and we find it hard to envisage how your actions could possibly constitute a proportionate and lawful response to the present facts."

Top marks to Chakrabarti, especially as Gaunt once called her "the most dangerous woman in the country". Full story HERE.

No respite for smokers

Smokers have more reason than most to be unhappy with Alistair Darling's pre-Budget report. The Chancellor reduces VAT but in order to keep the retail price of cigarettes etc at its pre-Budget level he increases the tax on tobacco. Note: the reduction in VAT is temporary, the increase in duty is permanent.

Once again, the people hardest hit are the low paid and the elderly who rely on state pensions. This may be "the most Left-wing Budget since Labour came to power" (see below), but when it comes to smokers (the majority of whom come from working class backgrounds) the government demonstrates yet again how little empathy it has with its original core vote.

PS. Iain Dale believes there could be a problem with the government's plans to raise the duty on fuel, alcohol and tobacco. See HERE. Interesting to note that the increase in fuel and alcohol duty is due to come into effect on 1 December, whereas the hike on tobacco came into effect last night at 6.00pm, giving consumers no time to stock up. The devil is in the detail - and this mean-spirited government is determined to make life as hard as possible for anyone who dares to light up.

Fine dining

I had dinner last night on the Glass Boat Restaurant which is moored next to Bristol Bridge, the oldest bridge in the city.

The vessel was built in 1924. After many years as a timber barge it began to break up. It was rescued from the mud banks and refitted in 1984 with the aim of turning it into a floating botanical garden. Inevitably the local planning authorities got involved and the owners had to change their plans (and the description) to a "floating cafe with plants".

The idea for a floating cafe evolved and the Glass Boat eventually opened in 1986 as a restaurant and it's been a Bristol landmark ever since. Warmly recommended.

Darling, Dickens and debt

I've just spent the afternoon in a hotel in Bristol watching Alistair Darling on TV delivering his pre-Budget report. I'm no economist but you don't have to be an expert to understand what's going on.

The government is gambling big time with a short-term cut in VAT and other taxpayer-funded incentives in the hope that the economy will start to grow again by the autumn of 2009. Meanwhile the permanent increase in National Insurance contributions won't kick in until 2011 - after the next election. How cynical is that? Whatever happens, and whoever's in government, it's going to be years before Britain starts paying off our accumulated debts.

I wonder what Charles Dickens would have made of it? The BBC is currently featuring a TV adaptation of Little Dorrit. The Victorians had a simple remedy for people who borrowed money and were unable to pay their debts - they chucked the offenders in gaol. (The Chancellor must be happy he's living in more enlightened times.)

Update on Monday, November 24, 2008 by Simon Clark

On BBC2 this afternoon Andrew Neil (or was it Robert Peston?) described it as the "most Left-wing budget since Labour came to power [in 1997]". It's worse than I thought.

Little Britain (5)

A reader writes:

"Where I live most people my age (between 15 and 25) are not going to pubs for a relaxing drink and a fag whilst chilling out, talking, having a laugh, meeting new folk. What these people are now doing (every night) is buying a crate of cheap booze from Asda and going to a mate's [where] they can drink and smoke lots of weed. It does not matter that they are underage as they are in a government free zone.

"Because of the smoking ban and the cost of beer in pubs, partying at home is a lot more attractive and fun. Very often drugs are in their plenty. What will these people turn into in the future? Hard addicts/ All this anti-smoking stuff is doing is encouraging young people to smoke weed at private parties where there are no rules or boundaries."

Comments welcome.

BBC lacks leadership

Last week I was invited to join what the Guardian calls "a small band of conservative malcontents [who] are refusing to pay the BBC's annual licence fee on the grounds that they object to parts of its output".

I declined, not because I am a great fan of the BBC but because I still think the licence fee represents good value for money - especially if, like me, you prefer watching real-time TV without the commercials.

There are loads of things wrong with the BBC (not least the institutionalised 'liberal' bias) but I would miss it if it didn't exist or it ended up like public service broadcasting in the States.

Also, I have no wish to ally myself with those who are determined to see Jonathan Ross axed from the BBC. Like Jon Gaunt at Talksport, Ross knows he went too far. But I don't like witchhunts and that is what this is turning into. (Ross and Brand made a mistake. Get over it.)

By all means let's discuss the size and future direction of the BBC. And while we're at it, let's look at the idea that the BBC should share the revenue from the licence fee with other broadcasters (not a bad idea at all).

But let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. The concept of a publicly-funded British broadcasting service still has a lot going for it. Unfortunately no-one at the BBC, from the top down, seems to be able to communicate what that is.

The problem, I think, is relatively simple. It has nothing to do with preening presenters, excessive swearing or political bias (though these may be symptoms of the malaise). The real problem is leadership (lack of).

Somehow, somewhere, the BBC has to find a chairman or chief executive who can communicate a clear vision of the BBC in the 21st century. That person has to have a passion for public service broadcasting and the bottle to stand up to government, opposition parties and disaffected viewers when the BBC is under attack. He/she also has to be able to put the fear of god into employees as and when necessary.

It is impossible for the BBC to please all the people all the time. But if they want our money they have to earn our respect, and to do that the BBC needs a big man with a big reputation - the Fabio Capello of broadcasting - in charge.

Any suggestions?

Saturday night live

We went to see Aida at the London Coliseum yesterday. I'm not a great opera fan and this wasn't a great production. (The lukewarm applause at the end suggested I wasn't alone in thinking this.)

Nevertheless I enjoyed the evening. It's a while since I went to the Coliseum. (The first time was for Jonathan Miller's brilliant production of The Mikado with Eric Idle in, I think, 1987.) Opened in 1904, the Coliseum was refurbished five years ago at a cost of £41 million. The auditorium looks great. Like most Victoria and Edwardian theatres, however, the public areas are a bit cramped when the place is full, as it was last night.

(My favourite London venue is still the Barbican. Not the most aesthetically pleasing, but you get an underground car park, acres of space, big bar areas, decent-sized seats and plenty of leg room in the main auditorium. What more do you want?)

However the star attraction last night was London itself. In search of a car park that wasn't full we drove up and down the Embankment, across Westminster and Blackfriars Bridges and around the narrow streets of Covent Garden. Eventually we found one close to the London Eye and the Royal Festival Hall. This meant we had to walk across Hungerford Bridge, which links the South Bank to the West End. It was cold, it was dark, but the views in both directions were spectacular.

It's at moments like this that I really miss living in London. Cambridgeshire, on a Saturday night, just isn't the same.

Speed freaks

The government is proposing to award six penalty points to anyone caught driving at more than 20mph above the speed limit. Two convictions for this offence would result in an automatic driving ban. That's fine if you are reckless enough to drive at 50mph in a 30pmh speed zone, but outrageous if you are driving at 90mph on the motorway in clear conditions with a low level of traffic.

I agree with much of what was written HERE in yesterday's Daily Telegraph, including the proposal for variable speed limits on motorways. I also support the idea of a new top limit on motorways - after all, I've been banging on about this for years.

What I don't like is the Telegraph's suggestion that the new limit (the paper suggests 80mph) should be "rigorously enforced with the use of 'average speed' cameras". Average speed cameras have their place, but the idea that they will be used to "rigorously" enforce an 80mph limit on Britain's motorways is preposterous.

I drive 25-30,000 miles a year, up and down the country. My present car has a top speed of 146mph. Sadly, unless I take it on a German autobahn, I will never experience anything like that. It also has cruise control which I often use to regulate my speed on roads where there are 'average speed' cameras. However, travelling mile after mile at 70 (or even 80mph) on a motorway is so boring the biggest danger is falling asleep. At the very least, it encourages the driver's mind to wander and think of things other than the road ahead.

If we are to have variable speed limits they should include the flexibility to drive considerably faster on motorways in certain conditions and at certain times of day or night. Speed limits should be based on road and weather conditions - and the condition of your car. There are lots of factors when it comes to dangerous or reckless driving, and speed is only one of them.

The rigorous enforcement of an 80mph speed limit on Britain's motorways would make many people's lives less enjoyable. (It would certainly reduce my quality of life.) I have been driving for 31 years and I have yet to pick up any penalty points although (like most people) I often exceed the speed limit on motorways. I judge the situation and the conditions and I drive accordingly. It's called decision-making.

Let's not confuse speed with recklessness - and let's have no more talk of "rigorous enforcement" of the speed limit on Britain's motorways. The police - and the courts - have more important things to do with their time.

Brown: new strategy for 2009

From DeHavilland, our political information service:

"In response to a question from David Taylor [Labour MP for North West Leicestershire] on a Cancer Research UK petition calling for plain packaging and similar measures to protect young people from tobacco marketing, prime minister Gordon Brown stated that he applauded the action taken by Cancer Research. He confirmed that there was a consultation on this, and said that there would be a new strategy in 2009. He noted the decrease in tobacco uptake from 28 to 22 per cent, and 13 to six per cent amongst children, but said that this was not good enough and would require a new strategy."

I don't know about you, but the next election can't come quickly enough. Unfortunately, unless he offers the nation a genuine alternative to Labour (economically and socially), there's every chance that Cameron's Conservatives will lose.

It's not too late, but we need clear blue water (no pun intended).

Spot the difference

Final word (for now) on the Jon Gaunt story. A Talksport presenter calls a local councillor a health "nazi" and an "ignorant pig" for banning adults who smoke from fostering children. He apologises immediately, but is sacked.

In another debate about fostering children, a BBC local radio presenter compares smokers to alcoholics and adds that smokers are unfit parents. He apologises, 48 hours later, and keeps his job. (Note: I do NOT want the guy sacked. We all make mistakes. I am merely pointing out the discrepancy.)

Forest sends a mailshot to 18,000 local councillors. One councillor returns our letter with a scribbled message, "I hope you die of cancer". When I report this to the local paper they dismiss it as a story saying, "He's known to be a bit of a character".

Jon Gaunt is a bit of a character - that's why Talksport employed him (or so we thought). The difference is, he was indirectly defending, not attacking, adults who smoke. And now he's lost his job as a result of it.

Update on Wednesday, November 19, 2008 by Simon Clark

See Press Gazette report HERE.