Have a nice day ...

I shall be out most of the day in meetings or driving around the M25 so I shall leave you with this. Yesterday someone called Gina commented on a post that I wrote on October 13, 2009. The post was entitled "Is it time to ban Duncan Bannatyne?" and you can read it HERE.

Gina's response would probably have gone unnoticed had I not spotted it on our "Most Recent Comments" facility (which is not visible to you). Here it is:

Oh my fucking god, you would have to be as a group the stupidest and i mean the stupidest group as a people i have sadly have had to experience. The reason smokers no longer get to sit at the back of the bus is that as addicts you are THE most selfish and arrogant of drug addicts and think your addiction surpasses anyones elses right to freely exist without exposure to lethal and addictive side affects. Clearly eveyone of you that wrote on this site is in complete denial to the fact that you're all addicted to cigarettes and by association corporate agencies that fist you with no regard. Before you all dismiss what Bannantyne has to say why not recognise first that as smokers you strip others of rights by just lighting up!!!

Have a nice day.

PS. Feel free to talk among yourselves about anything else ... as long as it's not libellous or a party political broadcast on behalf of UKIP.

Policy Exchange, ASH and YouGov

Last word (for now) on the Policy Exchange story (see previous posts). It was only a matter of time but I see that people are beginning to question the source of funding for PE's report.

At 06:25 this morning, for example, the following comment was posted on THIS ConservativeHome thread:

So if the 'research' wasn't financed by ASH, Mr Featherstone, who WAS it financed by? A pharmaceutical company looking to make millions out of free prescriptions for NRT products, perchance? Or a medical charity funded by them as a 'front'? Will you be transparent - or are you ashamed of your funding source. Answer, please.

It's a reasonable question. Forest is very open about the fact that most of our money comes from tobacco companies. (See our website HERE.) The same rule should apply to Policy Exchange.

I've no reason to believe that Henry Featherstone's Cough Up report was funded by pharmaceutical money (for example), but it would be nice to know if Policy Exchange receives ANY donations from Big Pharma (and how much).

Also, I was intrigued by Featherstone's comment, last night, in response to a question about whether the research was funded by ASH. "No it wasn’t. But we would have no problem taking their money."

THEIR money? What is the man talking about?! A sizeable chunk of ASH's money comes from the taxpayer - you and me!!! So, a leading centre right think tank is happy to accept taxpayers' money, is it? Has the world gone mad?

BTW, Featherstone's second post on ConservativeHome also gives the result of a poll of three thousand people, showing their net support for raising various taxes. "The most unpopular tax is council tax. But there is strong support for an increase in tobacco taxes, and they are bottom priority of all the possible tax cuts."

The poll, Featherstone tells us, was conducted by YouGov. Older readers of Taking Liberties may remember me writing about the strong links between ASH and Peter Kellner, president of, er, YouGov. You can read about HERE.

Update on Friday, March 19, 2010 by Simon Clark

08:20 ... There is no evidence (or suggestion) that the "Cough Up" report was paid for by Big Pharma, but Policy Exchange HAS received money from at least one pharmaceutical company.

In February PE published a report called "The Cost of Cancer". Written by Henry Featherstone (whatever happened to him?) and Lilly Whitham, it contains the following acknowledgement:

This report has been funded by Roche for the purpose of the non-partisan advancement of education of the public understanding of economic, social and political sciences and their effect on public policy. Editorial control has been wholly retained by Policy Exchange.

You can visit the Roche Pharmaceuticals Division website HERE.

ASH and Forest AGMs: spot the difference

Further to my previous post and the photograph of Henry Featherstone at the 2009 ASH AGM, I couldn't help noticing the difference between that meeting and the 2009 Forest AGM which took place at Boisdale of Belgravia.

Click HERE. Can you spot the difference?

ASH and Policy Exchange - the plot thickens

Great find by Dave Atherton Mark Wallace of The Taxpayers Alliance (see comment below and on the previous post).

It seems that Policy Exchange's Henry Featherstone, author of the report that calls for a five per cent increase in tobacco taxation, not only attended the ASH AGM on December 10, 2009, he even tweeted about it:

At ASH AGM last night. Smoking still bad for inequality ... something must be done ...

Well, well, well. (Click HERE for the evidence.)

The plot thickens.

PS. Henry doesn't tweet much. I don't think he'll be tweeting very often in the future either.

Update on Thursday, March 18, 2010 by Simon Clark

22:15 ... Policy Exchange still getting an sbsolute roasting on ConservativeHome. Good.

Update on Thursday, March 18, 2010 by Simon Clark

For some reason Featherstone has been allowed a second post on ConservativeHome, this time in response to Matthew Sinclair's post which was in reaction to Featherstone's first post.

Looks to me like he should stop digging. As one commenter says, "Give it a rest Featherstone you self righteous bore."

Click HERE.

Update on Thursday, March 18, 2010 by Simon Clark

At the top table: Henry Featherstone, head of the Policy Exchange health unit; Deborah Arnott, chief executive of ASH; and Donald Reid, out going chair of the ASH Board of Trustees at ASH AGM at the Royal College of Physicians, December 10, 2009. I've seen more people at an old age pensioner's tea party. And they were a hell of a lot livelier!

H/T Dave Atherton and, of course, ASH

Update on Friday, March 19, 2010 by Simon Clark

See Smokers are patriots by Alex Massie on The Spectator blogs. Alex recommends that you read what Dick Puddlecote and Chris Snowdon have to say on the subject. I do too. The headlines offer a clue: That Policy Exchange nonsense and Policy Exchange make fools of themselves.

Policy Exchange: words fail me, too

Last year, at the Conservative party conference in Manchester, I was a panellist at a fringe meeting organised by the influential Conservative think tank Policy Exchange (see HERE).

My words obviously carried some weight (I'm being sarcastic) because Policy Exchange has today joined ASH in calling for a five per cent increase in tobacco taxation.

In an email to supporters, Neil O'Brien, director of Policy Exchange, writes:

Dear Friend

Whilst tax on tobacco contributes £10 billion annually to the Treasury coffers, the true costs to society from smoking are far higher, at £13.74 billion, think thank Policy Exchange’s latest report finds. This cost is made up of the cost of treating smokers on the NHS (£2.7 billion) but also the loss in productivity from smoking breaks (£2.9 billion) and increased absenteeism (£2.5 billion); the cost of cleaning up cigarette butts (£342 million); the cost of fires (£507 million), and also the loss in economic output from the deaths of smokers (£4.1 billion) and passive smokers (£713 million).

The report, Cough Up, calculates that of this £13.74 billion, cigarettes – which comprise 93.3% of the tobacco market - cost us £12.82 billion a year. Currently, a pack of cigarettes costs just £6.13. But this would need to be increased to at least £7.42 for cigarettes to be revenue neutral to society and their true cost reflected by their price.

Henry Featherstone, Head of Policy Exchange’s health and social care unit and author of the report, said:

“Smoking is the single, largest preventable cause of serious ill health and kills tens of thousands of people in England every year. It is a popular myth that smoking is a net contributor to the economy – our research finds that every single cigarette smoked costs the country 6.5 pence. In order to balance income and costs, tobacco duty should be progressively increased until the full societal cost of smoking is met through taxation.

“As a start, the next Budget should increase tobacco duty by 5 per cent – this will reduce tobacco consumption by 2.5 per cent, and provide an additional £400 million for the Treasury. A proportion of this extra revenue should be put towards helping people quit, and in particular reaching hard-to-reach groups like pregnant teenagers. Targeted action like this would help reduce England’s growing health inequalities, whereby those on lower incomes suffer more ill health, which can largely be attributed to smoking.”

In the words of Julian Harris, director of Liberal Vision, "Words fail me."

Click HERE for a full copy of the report. Cough, splutter.

H/T Julian Harris

Update on Thursday, March 18, 2010 by Simon Clark

Henry Featherstone, head of Policy Exchange's health unit, has written about his report on ConservativeHome HERE. You may wish to comment.

15.45 ... we have just sent THIS email to Forest subscribers.

Update: the Tobacco Manufacturers Association has THIS to say.

Update on Thursday, March 18, 2010 by Simon Clark

Rob Lyons has written about a related issue on Spiked! HERE:

"This tax on fizzy drinks stinks: whether it is cigarettes, booze or soda, it’s not the place of the taxman to dissuade us from our enjoyable bad habits."

I couldn't agree more.

Update on Thursday, March 18, 2010 by Simon Clark

20:05 ... Matthew Sinclair of The Taxpayers Alliance sent me THIS link this afternoon but stupidly - although I acknowledged it - I didn't read it because I was busy and I was thought it was a link to the original post on ConservativeHome by Policy Exchange's Henry Featherstone.

Please read it because it is in fact an excellent response to Featherstone's piece. (And how encouraging that a high profile lobby group with a genuine desire for less government has come out fighting on the subject.)

In fact, I'm delighted to see Policy Exchange taking a hammering this evening - on ConservativeHome and elsewhere. Great piece too by Dick Puddlecote. Click HERE.

I wonder if Neil O'Brien, director of Policy Exchange, is aware of the terrible damage a report like this has done to Policy Exchange's reputation in centre right circles. I won't forget it in a hurry, and nor will a lot of other people.

Update on Thursday, March 18, 2010 by Simon Clark

James Delingpole has written this blog post on the Telegraph website: Is Policy Exchange the most loathsome think tank in Britain?

This is fast becoming a public relations disaster ... not just for Policy Exchange but for what Delingpole calls "Cameron’s progressive Conservatives". Hilarious!

Pledges for progress

Ahead of the Institute of Ideas' Pre-Election Summit: The Battle for Politics on Saturday, the IoI has published a manifesto - or what it calls "21 Pledges for Progress" - including a pledge to "allow pubs and clubs the option of permitting smoking".

Unfortunately, however libertarian the IoI may be (and the likes of Claire Fox, who runs it, is one of the most libertarian people I know), their leftist republican leanings scream from the rooftops with pledge number 12: "Abolish the monarchy and the House of Lords in the interests of a fully elected legislature and executive."

Change, perhaps, but progress? Doh!

So while I support many if not most of the pledges, I'm not sure I want to go the whole hog and sign up. Anyway, the full list is HERE. Make up your own mind and let me know what you think.

Details of the Pre-Election Summit: The Battle for Politics can be found HERE. No-one can ever accuse an IoI conference of being dull so whatever your politics I warmly recommend it as an antidote to most political conferences, not to mention the rehearsed spin we hear every week on Question Time and other TV programmes.

Show of hands offers (a little) encouragement

Last night's meeting hosted by CAMRA and the All Party Parliamentary Save The Pub Group at the House of Commons (see yesterday) was dominated, inevitably, by issues such as the beer tie, minimum pricing, beer duty, planning permission etc etc.

Thanks however to my colleague Karen McTigue - who was there to represent Forest and the Save Our Pubs and Clubs campaign - and freelance journalist John Porter, the meeting did, albeit briefly, address the smoking ban.

As I mentioned yesterday, questions from the audience (which included publicans, members of CAMRA and other campaigners) had to be submitted in advance and no-one was allowed to speak from the floor. Consequently the meeting was in its final stages when chairman Greg Mulholland (Lib Dem MP for Leeds North West) finally announced: "And we have two questions on the smoking ban, one from John Porter of A Pie and A Pint and one from Karen McTigue, representing Forest”.

According to Karen's report:

JP’s question asked the panel what they thought of public health minister Gillian Merron's recent statement that the smoking ban is not responsible for any pub closures.

Forest’s question was: "Given the negative impact of the smoking ban on many pubs, especially those without an outdoor facility, would members of the panel support an amendment to the legislation that would give landlords the option of offering their customers a separate, well-ventilated smoking room so that those who wish to smoke can do so in comfort, indoors?"

After reading out the questions GM then threw it open with “Is anyone prepared to put their head over the parapet on this one?” Much laughter ensued, and eventually Tobias Ellwood (Conservative MP for Bournemouth East) said that it was “naive of anyone to think that the smoking ban did not have an impact on pubs”. He noted that the consequences of the ban were not properly thought out. He thought the way in which the ban was issued dealt a “hammer blow” to the trade and the effects of the ban along with the recession created a “double whammy which has definitely hurt the pub trade”.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat MP for Bath) said that, for all this, if a free vote was held again he would still vote the same way (ie for the total smoking ban). He did however say that it would be “crazy” to impose a doorway ban, but he thinks it was an important step in improving the health of the nation to introduce the smoking ban.

GM then asked for a show of hands to see how many agreed with DF and just 10 or so hands went up in favour of rescinding the ban entirely.

GM then rephrased the question to ask how many would support an “amendment” to the ban (ie by introducing separate smoking rooms). This time about 40-50 hands went up.

GM then turned to licensing minister Gerry Sutcliffe (Labour MP for Bradford South) to ask what the government’s current position is. GS replied that the industry and the government needs to find more "creative ways of dealing with the issue" and called for a proportionate response. He said quite clearly that if a landlord has provided an outdoor garden for smokers then he "sees no problem with that, and will support them" and that there should be no extensions of the smoking ban into doorways. CAMRA’s Mike Benner did not comment.

The Morning Advertiser's report of last night's meeting has no mention of the smoking ban, or the above exchange, so we have to accept that the ban is not uppermost in the minds of most landlords, but it remains a serious issue for a substantial minority - and our job, through the Save Our Pubs and Clubs campaign, is to give those proprietors (and their customers) a voice.

To support the campaign click HERE and invite friends and family to do so too.

Update on Wednesday, March 17, 2010 by Simon Clark

The Publican reports that:

On the smoking ban, a vote was taken in the room on who wanted to see the legislation overturned. Only a handful wanted this. However at least half the room voted for the idea of having a separate room for smoking in pubs.

Full story HERE.

Update on Wednesday, March 17, 2010 by Simon Clark

CAMRA reports on the event HERE. No mention of the questions about the smoking ban or the fact that half the people in the room, according to our own witness and The Publican, voted in favour of separate smoking rooms following Forest's question to the panel.

CAMRA say they "look forward to hosting similar events in the future". Hmmm, if we're going to get the smoking ban back on the political agenda, I think we'll have to organise one of our own.

Gaunty talks to Nick Hogan

Today on SunTalk Radio, "Gaunty talks to Nick Hogan, the pub landlord who was jailed after breaching the smoking ban, and discusses whether he has reformed his opinion after serving time." Listen to it on a podcast HERE.

CAMRA: what's brewing in Westminster?

Tonight the Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA) and the All Party Parliamentary Save the Pub Group are hosting a debate in the Palace of Westminster. "Who will save the pub?" they will ask.

The event will be chaired by Greg Mulholland MP (Lib Dem) with a panel consisting of Tobias Ellwood MP (Conservative), Don Foster MP (Lib Dem) and Mike Benner, CAMRA's chief executive.

The invitation also lists John Healey, the government's recently appointed "pubs minister", but I understand he's not coming. (Oddly enough, he didn't come to a recent Private Members Debate on "The future of the British pub" either. See HERE.)

I wouldn't say tonight's event is being stage-managed, but questions from the audience were required in advance (the deadline was 5.00pm yesterday). Forest, on behalf of the Save Our Pubs and Clubs campaign, submitted the following question:

"Given the negative impact of the smoking ban on many pubs, especially those without an outdoor facility, would members of the panel support an amendment to the legislation that would give landlords the option of offering their customers a separate, well-ventilated smoking room so that those who wish to smoke can do so in comfort, indoors?"

I understand that one other question has been submitted about the smoking ban. If either is put to the panel it will be interesting to hear their replies. Ellwood (the shadow tourism minister) and Foster both voted for the ban. Mulholland (I imagine) will be more sympathetic but it's Benner's response I really want to hear.

You see, I was told a couple of weeks ago by the former editor of What's Brewing, the CAMRA newspaper, that in 2005 CAMRA's AGM passed a motion opposing a comprehensive ban, and this remains CAMRA's official policy today.

You'd never know, though, because they keep very quiet about it. In fact, you're more likely to hear members argue that thanks to the ban you can now taste the full flavour of real ale!

Frankly, we will be fortunate if there is any discussion on the smoking ban tonight, but I hope to be proved wrong. Report to follow. Watch this space.

PS. Ann Main is the Conservative MP for St Albans where CAMRA has its headquarters. Last month Main declared herself to be a "lifelong supporter of CAMRA". Fact: in February 2006, contrary to CAMRA's official policy, Ann Main voted for a comprehensive ban on smoking in pubs and clubs.

Filth column: the politics of hate

The film director James Cameron, criticised for allowing a character to smoke in his blockbuster Avatar, defended himself by saying that he knows that smoking is a ‘filthy habit’ – he just doesn’t think he should be forbidden to show it.

"Thanks, James. With friends like you, who needs enemies?" So says musician Joe Jackson in his latest article for The Free Society website, published today. Joe writes:

I took a shower this morning and put on clean clothes. My teeth are brushed and my nails manicured. Can anyone tell me – I mean, in a reasoned, logical way – why I am so ‘filthy’ for smoking tobacco?

Is ‘filth’ a kind of euphemism, by which some people mean that that smoking is aesthetically unpleasant to them? If so, it’s purely a matter of taste, and to insult people just because you don’t share their pleasure is just plain rude.

Personally, I can’t stand dogs – I’m allergic to them, and think they’re smelly. But I can see that many people love them, so I bite my tongue and try to be tolerant. I certainly don’t want the government banning dogs from every pub in the land.

Living in the UK today, Joe concludes, is a bit like being back at school:

Rules and regulations, bullying and humiliation. Except that this is a school in which the teachers actually encourage the bullies to beat up the fat kids, or the kids who don’t like sports, or the kids who don’t like the food ...

One thing’s for sure: so much meanness, intolerance, divisiveness and hate must inevitably provoke a backlash. I can’t wait.

Full article HERE.

TICAP conference - live broadcast

Currently watching a live broadcast of the TICAP conference in The Hague. Dick Puddlecote is writing a live blog HERE.

Forest versus Smoke Free North West

On Monday I was on Tony Livesey's late night chat show on Five Live. My direct opponent was councillor Pat Karney, NHS director of Smoke Free North West.

One or two of you have heard it already. For those who haven't, The Big Yin recorded it and has kindly given me the code to reproduce it here.

Have we got a Guy News exclusive for you!

Thanks to Guido Fawkes for a sneak glimpse at this week's Guidogram which offers exclusive footage of the moment Nick Hogan was released from jail.

If you're not a subscriber you normally have to wait a few days to see the Guidogram. To avoid delay, click HERE.

Have a good weekend!

Nick Hogan - behind the scenes

It's almost time to move on from the Nick Hogan story but the past week has been surreal - and no more so than yesterday when I found myself entering a category B prison with a man wearing a green Guy Fawkes mask and carrying a suitcase containing £9,000 worth of used £10 notes.

Anyway, some of you were asking questions about the length of time it was taking to get Nick out. All I can say is, Old Holborn worked around the clock from the moment on Friday when the fund reached its target, but it proved far harder to get the money out of PayPal than it did to spring Nick from jail yesterday.

Without exception, the prison officials we spoke to were polite, friendly and helpful - even with a group of journalists and photographers on their doorstep, which seemed to make some more senior officials a little nervous.

We had been warned, in advance, that Nick might not be released for two or three hours after the money had been counted and verified. In the event, he was fast-tracked out within 45 minutes.

Rewinding the clock, we wanted to get Nick out as soon as possible, but some obstacles proved insurmountable. Old Holborn and I discussed travelling to Manchester on Monday night and meeting at the prison at 8.30 the following morning. The money, however, was still stuck in a PayPal account and there was nothing anyone could do about it.

On Monday at 16:23 I got the message: "Alas, the funds have not arrived in the bank." On Tuesday at 07:59 it was a similar story: "Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but no monies came in overnight." At 16:35 I was told: "Money hasn't come in here yet but should do after midnight."

And then, at 7.15 yesterday morning, I finally got the email that told me the money had arrived and we were on our way: "Meeting Tory Bear and Lazy Hyena at Stansted at 10am. Be in Manchester as fast as I can."

(Tory Bear? Lazy Hyena? Don't ask. Or, if you have to ask, click HERE.)

And so to yesterday's events. To be honest, there's not a lot more to add.

We arrived at HMP Forest Bank shortly after two o'clock. We had already tipped off the local media - hence the journalists and photographers gathering outside. I had also spoken, the previous day, to Robert Hardman, a journalist on the Daily Mail.

Robert is (I think) an ex-smoker but years ago, when he worked for the Telegraph, he contacted Forest to see if there were any airlines that would allow him to smoke while flying from Britain to Australia. He now writes feature article for the Mail and I thought the debtors' prison angle (and the fact that we were having to travel a couple of hundred miles with a suitcase full of cash) might appeal to him.

Robert couldn't come but he passed it on a colleague who did. Hence the story in today's paper.

Once we knew that Nick was definitely coming out, Anna Raccoon contacted Denise, his wife, to tell her and Denise joined us 30 minutes later, sitting quietly, drinking coffee, in the visitor's lounge.

Shortly before four, we were told that Nick was out. It was done with the minimum of fuss. Officials wanted him off the premises as quickly as possible but we wanted him to speak to the press and have his photograph taken. We reached a compromise.

And then we were told that Nick didn't want to speak to the media. Aaaagggghhhh!

Fortunately, by the time we found him he had been reunited with Denise and was calm, if a little shaky. (He clearly needed a cigarette!) We had a quick chat and agreed that OH would read out a short statement on Nick's behalf, with Nick and Denise by OH's side.

And that's what we did.

Inevitably, one reporter wanted to ask a question ... and then another piped up. And before long the questions were coming thick and fast. And Nick answered them all. In fact, I think he enjoyed it.

"Did I do OK?" he asked me later, when I joined him for a drink in Denise's pub in Chorley.

Nick, I told him truthfully, you did just great. And so did Anna Raccoon, Old Holborn and all the other bloggers who helped promote the campaign.

And to everyone who contributed to the appeal fund, I'll say just this: without your donation, however small, Nick Hogan would today be facing 21 hours in a claustrophobic (his word) prison cell, bored as hell and moderately depressed.

Instead, thanks to you, he's almost certainly nursing a sore head and enjoying yet another bottle of Budweiser. So thanks to everyone and, well ... cheers!

Update on Thursday, March 11, 2010 by Simon Clark

Media coverage includes:

Bolton smoking ban landlord freed from jail (BBC News)
Landlord who defied smoking ban freed from jail after punters pay his fine (Daily Telegraph)
Jailed smoking ban martyr is freed by a mystery crusader's cash (Daily Mail)
Landlord who defied smoking ban released from jail (Manchester Evening News)
Freed smoking ban rebel thanks blogger who led £8,500 release fund campaign (Bolton News)

Old Holborn: the money shot

Old Holborn (left) prepares to deliver almost £8,500 in £10 notes to the authorities at Forest Bank prison in Salford to secure the release of prisoner number DN5431 (aka Nick Hogan - see previous post). A few minutes later - while OH was talking to journalists outside - I handed the money to a prison officer in the reception area.

Five minutes later:

OH: "Where's the case?"
SC: "I've given it to them."
OH: "Aagh, it's got my laptop in it. I'll never see that again. There's some dodgy people in here."

Photo H/T Manchester Evening News