Alan Titchmarsh: the hot debate!

I have been booked to appear on The Alan Titchmarsh Show next week. The programme will be asking the question “Is it time to put cigarettes under the counter for good”? and I will be debating the subject with Deborah Arnott of ASH and former editor of the Sun Kelvin Mackenzie.

The programme is being recorded "as live" on Tuesday and will air at 3.00pm on Friday 6 November, ITV1.

PS. My previous appearance on the show was in March (above) when we debated the "problem" of binge-drinking. I wrote about it HERE and there is a clip HERE.

No time for blogging

Apologies for the lack of blogging this week. What can I say? Too many meetings, too little time.

It's also half-term which means I have had to "entertain" the troops. Added to that it's my son's fifteenth birthday today so tonight we are going to see The Rise and Fall of Little Voice at the Vaudeville Theatre in London.

Before that, though, he wants to buy a new pair of trainers at Nike Town in Regent Street. The Apple Shop (my personal Holy Grail) is only a short walk away so it could be a rather expensive afternoon.

Ruari's present from his sister was a set of weights. Her idea. Last Christmas she gave him a skipping rope that records the actual number of rotations. Our house is rapidly resembling the local gym.

And, no, I won't be joining him in his daily regime of pull-ups, press-ups and sit-ups. I had to bring the weights in from the car last night and I almost gave myself a hernia.

Littlewood moves to the IEA

Congratulations to Mark Littlewood of Progressive Vision who has been appointed director-general of the Institute of Economic Affairs, one of Britain's leading think tanks. Guido Fawkes has the news HERE.

An ardent smoker, Mark chaired and helped organise our recent event at the Lib Dem conference which was co-hosted by Forest, The Free Society and Liberal Vision. He also helped launch the Save Our Pubs & Clubs campaign in June and appears in the campaign video HERE.

By coincidence the first general director of the IEA was Ralph Harris who became Lord Harris of High Cross in 1979 and chairman of Forest in 1987.

I worked with Ralph for eight years until his death in October 2006. He was a great help but he made no secret of the fact that his number one love was the IEA which he joined in 1957.

In those Keynsian days free marketeers were treated like flat Earthers. It was many years before the IEA's free market ideas were taken seriously but the IEA is often credited with laying the foundations for what became Thatcherism.

In recent years the IEA has been curiously quiet. Mark will, I'm sure, change all that. He has a gift for stirring things up (in the nicest possible way!) and his appointment is a refreshing change of direction for what had become a rather staid and stuffy institution.

I can think of only two problems. What is he going to do with those orange ties? And where on earth is he going to light up when he's at work?

Welcome to the pantomime season

Further to my previous post, Dennis Hayes, founder of Academics For Academic Freedom and Professor of Education at the University of Derby, has this to say about last week's Question Time which continues to arouse strong feelings on all sides.

Writing on The Free Society website, Dennis argues:

That there was a very dull ‘debate’ on this particular Question Time was partly due to the focus of the programme which was a pantomime denunciation of a ‘villain’ who seemingly held nothing but unacceptable ideas. Booing was allowed in case anyone was in doubt about the fact that this was a pantomime debate.

The pantomime inside the BBC was preceded and accompanied by another pantomime outside, a pantomime protest. It was a frolicsome affair, with stunts, fancy dress, face masks and token incident for activists with some arrests. But the protesters were booing not only the BNP but ordinary people, who they saw as stupid and impressionable, so stupid and impressionable that the protesters were worried they would succumb to the BNP’s arguments and go out and commit racial ‘violence’ en masse.

But the real pantomime was the pantomime of protest itself. It was a protest not to achieve any radical social goal but a reactionary act intended to censor and ban. In other words, it was not a ‘protest’ at all ...

But what really came out of the pantomime debate and the pantomime protest was the knowledge that we have all, over sixty-one million of us, lost something. What we have lost is the idea of public debate. That is, debate that takes the public seriously. Debate for participating adults; not debate that is choreographed, or censored, as if it were for children with learning difficulties ...

'Debate' in most of its contemporary forms is nothing more than booing people who have the wrong ideas and pressurising them to adopt the correct ideas through emotional blackmail. This was the sorry truth that was made explicit last Thursday. But that also failed.

The pantomime debate also revealed, in the widespread discussion and the responses of many people, that both the BBC and the banners are wrong. Ordinary people are sensible, thoughtful and up for a debate. The challenge is for the BBC and other institutions populated by our ‘betters’, along with their mobs of banners, to overcome their contempt for ordinary people and engage with them in debate. If they can’t bring themselves to do this they may end up sharing the dustbin of history alongside ‘No Platform’.

Full article HERE.

BBC makes a mountain out of a dunghill

I missed Question Time last night. (I was guzzling champagne and stuffing my face with canapes and "light bites" at the Royal Academy of Arts, but that's another story.) Nevertheless, an article by Richard Littlejohn in the Daily Mail on Tuesday reminded me of something.

"Back when I had a show on Sky TV," Littlejohn wrote, "my producer thought it would be a good idea to invite Griffin to appear. After all, we'd had the Islamist headbanger Omar Bakri on the programme a couple of weeks earlier, so why not?

"Interviewing the shifty and unsavoury Griffin was like trying to nail jelly to a wall ... Afterwards, I felt rather grubby."

As it happens, I was a guest on that very same programme. So, too, was Henry Olonga, the first black cricketer to represent Zimbabwe at international level.

Henry and I were chatting in the green room when we were joined by the BNP leader. I'm not sure if Henry knew who he was, or what he represented, but Griffin's presence certainly put a dampener on the conversation!

In the event, his appearance on Sky came and went without comment. There were no protests, no editorials, nothing (as far as I can recall).

Truth is, only the BBC could make a mountain out of a dunghill.

Politics and power

I haven't commented on this before but it's interesting to note that the winners of the first two open primary elections to select Conservative candidates have both been GPs.

In August the Daily Telegraph reported that "Sarah Wollaston, a GP with no experience of politics, has been chosen as a Tory candidate in Britain's first "open primary" election" (GP becomes Tory candidate in first 'open primary' election).

Last Saturday, in Bracknell, local residents again opted for a GP - Dr Phillip Lee (Family doctor is Tory candidate, BBC News).

Unlike politicians and estate agents, doctors are clearly held in high regard by the electorate - and I have no reason to doubt that these two candidates will do a perfectly good job, should they get elected.

I do, however, question our slavish devotion to the idea that doctors are always right and cannot be questioned on health and lifestyle issues.

In particular there are huge question marks over the role of organisations such as the British Medical Association which routinely distort medical (and statistical) evidence to justify some of the most illiberal legislation this country has ever seen.

Before they voted for the public smoking ban, a number of MPs told us that they had been heavily influenced by the BMA on the issue of secondhand smoke. The MPs admitted that they knew little or nothing about the subject and if doctors were telling them that passive smoking kills ... well, who could argue with that?

Of far greater concern than a few more GPs in parliament, however, is the knowledge that a future Conservative government will "enhance the Chief Medical Officer's Department to give greater powers and responsibilities over public health" (Mark Simmonds MP, 20 March 2009, and repeated at a fringe meeting at the Conservative party conference on 6 October).

The current CMO Sir Liam Donaldson kick-started the campaign to ban smoking in all public places in 2004. Earlier this year, following Sir Liam's latest intervention in public health, Rod Liddle had this to say about him in The Spectator:

If I were as promiscuous with statistics as is the Chief Medical Officer, I would tell you that, on the latest available figures, doctors are twice as bad for your health as lung cancer and substantially more deadly than a stroke. Sir Liam Donaldson is very fond of waving his figures around so I assume he’d approve of my methodology. Any normal person would argue that I was talking rubbish, that such figures have to be seen in context. Sir Liam, though, doesn’t really do context. He once warned that the death toll in Britain for bird flu would most likely be 50,000 but that a figure of 750,000 was ‘not impossible’. The actual death toll proved to be, uh, nil.

He’s been waving more figures around this last week in support of his wish to see a minimum 50 pence charge per unit of alcohol in order to combat the effects of ‘passive drinking’. I used the phrase ‘passive drinking’ in an article four or five years ago: I thought I’d made it up and was being very bloody satirical. But these days real life out-satirises all satire. Sir Liam has said that his 50p minimum tariff will mean 3,393 fewer alcohol-related deaths per year in Britain. Aw, come on Sir Liam, surely it’s 3,394? There will also be 97,900 fewer hospital admissions. Nothing like a few good, precise numbers, is there?

And the Tories want to give this man MORE powers?

Full article HERE.

My grandfather was a GP. So was my uncle. I have never been treated by a GP I didn't like and I have no reason to believe that the overwhelming majority of doctors are anything other than very decent people who work very hard and deserve every penny they earn.

But they are not infallible and it's about time that the medical profession - especially those who want to restrict our liberties in the name of "public health" - was held to account like any other professional body.

Instead we doff our caps and let them spout any old rubbish. Why?

PS. I understand that many GPs now earn in excess of £100k a year. Perhaps I'm missing a certain public service gene, but why would anyone want to give up a job and a salary like that to become a member of an increasingly discredited and emasculated parliament?

Duncan Bannatyne: "He's off his rocker"

I have just taken part in a phone-in on the Ed Doolan Show (above) on BBC Radio WM. There were three guests - me, Paul Hooper (regional director, Department of Health, and a former spokesman for ASH) and ... Duncan Bannatyne (see THIS post).

Much of the discussion concerned children and smoking - especially smoking in cars, smoking in the home, and smoking outside public buildings (like Toys 'R' Us!!).

In the second half of the 45-minute phone-in, when the "debate" moved on to the tobacco display ban, we were joined by Pravin Chauhan of the National Federation of Retail Newsagents.

I don't think Bannatyne liked me very much. At various times during the programme he accused me of being "deluded", "disgusting" and a "hypocrite". Charming.

Something else I said (I can't remember what) then prompted him to retort that it "shows what sort of person he is".

Finally, cackling like a deranged hyena, he dismissed my arguments with the words: "He's off his rocker". Truly, a bizarre performance.

Oh well, I can't complain. It was my idea that they get Bannatyne on the programme in the first place!

Update on Monday, October 19, 2009 by Simon Clark

You can listen to the programme HERE. The phone-in begins about 1hr 15 mins in. I didn't catch it at the time but according to Bannatyne I am also "gutless" and a "coward". Nice man.

How to get an "evil smoker" to quit

This week the European Commission launched a "provocative, audacious and humorous anti-smoking campaign". The Helpers is a 12-episode animated series that depicts "three super-heroes who try to save smokers and non-smokers from the negative effects of tobacco, by giving them bizarre tips and advice".

The first episode is introduced as follows:

There's no apparent reason why Chuck, Skinny and Loona would ever meet up. Until the day when they all decide to take revenge on a cigarette factory, that is. They all blame it for a tragedy that's affected their personal lives and want to get their own back, but once they get there, they are splashed with toxic waste from an explosion, and undergo a crazy metamorphosis that will change their lives for ever. From now on, they have one sole aim in life: to protect people’s health before it’s too late.

The interactive web series is available in 23 languages. It doesn't take a linguist, however, to spot the "evil smoker". Two clues: he's holding a cigarette with one hand and a chainsaw with the other!

Click HERE.

H/T - Alex Deane/Big Brother Watch

Smoking: hospital rebellion grows

Last night at the London launch of The Bully State: The End of Tolerance (see previous post) I took a call from the Dundee Courier who wanted a quote for a local story. I stepped out of the room (it was quite noisy with so many people talking) and we had a quick chat.

Today, under the headline "Call to defy hospital smoking ban", the paper reports that:

"The director of a pro-tobacco lobby group last night urged smokers to rebel against the ban on smoking in the grounds of Ninewells Hospital in Dundee.

Simon Clark, who represents Forest, said measures by NHS Tayside to force smokers off hospital grounds before lighting up were “dictatorial and draconian.”

He also said NHS Tayside had no legal authority to insist hospital staff, patients and visitors should not smoke.

“It’s rather petty and vindictive to enforce a no-smoking policy in an outside area,” Mr Clark said.

“Hospitals are supposed to show compassion and demonstrate a duty of care towards all patients. I’m sure they think they’re acting in peoples’ best interests but they’re actually making people’s lives a misery.”

“There was a hospital in Swindon that actually reversed its policy of smoking off hospital grounds because it forced smokers to congregate beside an A-road.

“The hospital decided this was unreasonable and I think the same thing could happen with Ninewells Hospital, because it is unreasonable to expect staff and patients to go further and further away from the hospital.”

He continued, “It is also quite inhumane to expect patients who are ill to walk some distance just so they can smoke.

“I think hospitals need to show a little humanity because, like it or not, some people smoke as a form of stress relief and being sick or having a relative in hospital can be quite stressful.

“I hope the people of Dundee continue to rebel and refuse to accept this dictatorial and draconian policy—maybe if enough people do then the hospital will have to change its policy.”

Full story HERE.

Update on Thursday, October 15, 2009 by Simon Clark

I have just done an interview for BBC Radio Tay on the subject. And I have spoken to the Dundee Evening Telegraph as well.

According to the report in the Courier, I said that "NHS Tayside had no legal authority to insist hospital staff, patients and visitors should not smoke". To be honest, I don't remember saying that because I actually don't know.

What I told Radio Tay is that the owners of private property have every right to impose a no smoking policy if they want, but the NHS is funded with public money - much of it from smokers - and smokers deserve to be treated fairly.

Update on Thursday, October 15, 2009 by Simon Clark

The Glasgow Evening Times ran a very similar story on Tuesday - Hospital ban has gone up in smoke - in reference to the Royal Infirmary.

The paper invited readers to take part in a poll: "Should it be made illegal to smoke in the grounds of Scots hospitals?" As of this morning the poll reads:

Yes 40.4%
No 59.6%

Update on Thursday, October 15, 2009 by Simon Clark

Ninewells smoking ban: no U-turn (Evening Telegraph)

From bully state to Stasi state

Thanks to everyone who came to the London leg of The Bully State book launch. Last night's drinks party at the Westminster Arms near Parliament Square was attended by a wide range of politicos from a variety of groups including the Adam Smith Institute, the Taxpayers Alliance (and its sister campaign Big Brother Watch), Liberal Vision, The Freedom Association and several more.

Guests also included a number of bloggers – among them Guido Fawkes and Dick Puddlecote – plus one or two corporate visitors, including a consultant to the oil industry aka Big Bad Oil.

Last night's event was noticeably more political than our party in Edinburgh which felt more like a gathering of friends and family (which, in some cases, it was). Within the Westminster village I detect a far stronger desire to fight back against the nanny/bully/Stasi state. In Scotland, one or two individuals aside, there seems to be a general acceptance that nothing can be done about it and we just have to lump it.

BTW, I was driven to refer to a Stasi state by Duncan Bannatyne's article in last Sunday's Observer which I have already commented upon HERE. This passage in particular stood out:

Smoking should be banned in cars, and particularly any vehicle with children in it. On a school visit I met a 12-year-boy who wanted to be an athlete who told me that every morning his mother lit up when she was driving to school, even though he'd begged her to stop. He should be able to report her to the police.

It should also be illegal to smoke at home in front of children. I accept that enforcing such a law would be difficult, but it would send a message that such behaviour is unacceptable.

Last night I pointed out that the only way this could be enforced is for neighbours or family members to report people who smoke in front of children to the police. It makes you wonder what sort of society Bannatyne wants to create. Smoke-free, undoubtedly, but the means of achieving that are so terrible to contemplate that it beggars belief that anyone in public life would promote such policies.

Actually, I think Bannatyne has done us a favour and scored a huge own goal. As president of No Smoking Day he has demonstrated the lengths to which the anti-tobacco will go to achieve a "smoke-free" (sic) world.

Roll on No Smoking Day 2010. Thanks to Bannatyne's appalling comments he has given us all the ammunition we need.

PS. The Bully State: The End of Tolerance can be ordered on Amazon HERE.

Caught between a pig and a poke

This picture was taken this morning, on my iPhone, outside the House of Commons.

Apparently it was a stunt by the Daily Mirror. The paper was (optimistically, methinks) hoping to snap one or two MPs in conversation with the pig. (Snouts in the trough, oink, oink.)

I know some MPs are stupid but they're not that stupid. Are they?

Is it time to ban Duncan Bannatyne?

On Sunday the Observer published an article by Duncan Bannatyne of Dragons' Den fame. It was headlined "I'll only be happy if smoking is banned" and sub-titled "We should no longer tolerate the minority threatening the lives of the majority".

You can read the full article HERE. Here's a taste:

In my view smokers who currently stand outside a pub or restaurant having a fag should have to stand at least several yards away from the front door, to save the 79% of us who don't smoke from breathing in their smoke when we go in or out. We should curtail the rights of the 21% and increase their responsibilities towards the 79%. In other words, we should stop them killing us and our children.

Telegraph blogger Ed West has responded with a piece entitled "A total ban on smoking? The most sinister article I've read in a long time". Read it HERE after you have read Bannatyne's comments.

It echoes my views and tomorrow I will have a chance to express them live on air because BBC Radio Kent is going to interview Bannatyne and then me. Sadly we won't be going head-to-head because Bannatyne is on at 9.30 and I'm being interviewed an hour later.

I believe there is a phone-in after that so if you live in Kent and want to have your say, make sure you listen to the programme and take part.

Update on Wednesday, October 14, 2009 by Simon Clark

When I wrote this I hadn't read Dick Puddlecote's post HERE. It's very good.

Philip Davies: "Very sad day for the House"

Further to my previous post I can reveal that the following MPs attended the NFRN briefing in the House of Commons hosted by Philip Davies MP (left). The meeting took place prior to the final debate and vote on the Government's Health Bill in the House of Commons yesterday.

Philip Davies (Conservative)
Mike Penning (Conservative shadow health minister)
Kate Hoey (Labour)
Steven Ladyman (Labour)
Gordon Prentice (Labour)
Lembit Opik (Lib Dem)
John Leach (Lib Dem)

The briefing coincided with the arrival of 50-60 newsagents to lobby their MPs but despite this a Conservative amendment tabled by Mike Penning to remove the tobacco display ban was defeated by 288 votes to 180.

Worse, the Bill now includes a last minute amendment by former Labour minister Ian McCartney to ban cigarette vending machines as well. (The Government - surprise, surprise - immediately announced that it won't oppose this amendment when the Bill goes through the House of Lords.)

The only comfort we can take is the withdrawal of a Lib Dem amendment to discuss restrictions on tobacco packaging (ie plain packaging).

The amended Bill will now be sent to the House of Lords for debate and final approval before being enacted (timeline to be confirmed).

PS. I have just been interviewed by Nick Ferrari on LBC. I quoted Philip Davies, speaking in the House last night: "This is a very sad day for the House, which once again shows that the Government are one of the most intolerant, authoritarian and illiberal Governments that we have ever seen."

The full quote reads:

I want to say that this is a very sad day for the House, which once again shows that the Government are one of the most intolerant, authoritarian and illiberal Governments that we have ever seen. It is yet another triumph for the nanny state. It will not make any difference at all to smoking rates. Cigarettes are not an impulse purchase. As someone who worked in retail for many years before coming to the House, I can assure people that they are not an impulse purchase like cream cakes. People walk past cream cakes, think that they look nice, and decide to buy them, but they do not buy cigarettes on the same premise.

This is just another authoritarian victory for a Government who want to thrash around looking as if they have done something. It will have a devastating effect on many, many small retailers, small newsagents and pubs. I hope that we will not see crocodile tears from Ministers when many more small shops and pubs go to the wall as a result of the Government’s policies.

Update: I have also been interviewed by Sky News Radio who provide news bulletins for many local radio stations. Again, I made a point of quoting Philip Davies who has been a good friend of Forest for several years and has spoken at several of our events, including a press conference at the House of Commons to oppose the smoking ban.

Update on Tuesday, October 13, 2009 by Simon Clark

Reuters has the story about vending machines HERE. Forest's response is on page 2.

D-day for new anti-tobacco legislation

I have just done my first interview of the day on the subject of the proposed tobacco display ban which will be voted on today in the House of Commons (see HERE).

I made a number of points including the fact that politicians and campaigners in Scotland have openly admitted that there is no evidence that putting tobacco "out of sight" has any impact on youth smoking rates. It is being done for no other reason than politicians on both sides of the border want to be seen as "pioneers".

I also made the more personal point that it is incredibly patronising to suggest that people are so easily manipulated that they will buy cigarettes simply because they see a cfolourful packet behind the counter.

I was a teenager in the Seventies. For most of my life I have been exposed to tobacco advertising or sponsorship. Hardly a day passes when I do not go into a shop to buy milk, newspapers or groceries and not once have I been tempted to buy cigarettes because I have seen them on display behind the counter.

This legislation, I added, has one purpose and one purpose only. It is part of the denormalisation of smoking (and smokers), a process that should alarm non-smokers, especially those who drink alcohol, because they will be next.

Already campaigners want separate checkouts for alcohol in shops. How soon before alcohol too is forced "out of sight". But out of mind? Who are they kidding?

This morning, in the House of Commons, the Government has arranged a special meeting to brief MPs on why they should vote for the display ban. To organise a meeting like this at this late stage is almost unheard of and it shows how rattled the Government is by the counter arguments (put forward by retailers and others), which include the negative impact the legislation will have on small businesses.

[Note: this briefing meeting has been called by Gillian Merron, MP for Lincoln and minister of state in the Department of Health. Retailers and other opponents of a display ban were NOT invited to attend. As a result, Conservative MP Philip Davies - a guest at the Forest party in Manchester last week - is hosting an alternative briefing today when representatives of the National Federation of Retail Newsagents will have their say. I'll let you know how many MPs bother to go.]

For political reasons the Government will probably win the vote quite comfortably. (Labour MPs are not in the mood to rock the boat in this pre-Election period.) Whatever the result, smokers must continue to let MPs and prospective parliamentary candidates know what they think about a display ban.

If David Cameron is true to his word about reducing the role of Big Government in people's lives, his party must make it clear that under a Conservative regime this patronising, anti-competitive legislation will never be implemented.

Update on Monday, October 12, 2009 by Simon Clark

Government faces backbench rebellion over cigarette display ban in shops (Guardian, 11 October). See my comment above. I would like to believe that a significant number of Labour MPs will rebel but I would be surprised if this happens. To my mind it's just as important that the Conservatives demonstrate their opposition to the ban because this will indicate the direction the country will go under a Tory government.

Update on Monday, October 12, 2009 by Simon Clark

Philip Morris to fight ... cigarette display ban. This story appeared last week but I was at the Conservative party conference and I forgot to mention it. A legal challenge would be an interesting development.

Quote of the week

"The meeting was a little like being trapped in a lift with Jeremy Clarkson." Brian Wheeler, political reporter, BBC News, describes The Free Society fringe meeting (which I organised and chaired) at the Conservative Party conference. Full report HERE.