Deborah Arnott is like a dog with a bone.
I can’t remember the last time time we were interviewed together when the CEO of ASH didn’t raise the issue of Forest’s funding or refer to my salary (which is significantly less than hers, I believe).
The not-so-subtle implication is that when I open my mouth I am speaking not for myself or Forest but on behalf of the tobacco industry. I am, in other words, a puppet.
The same argument is used by others against those who work for free market think tanks like the Institute of Economic Affairs whose donors are said to include tobacco, alcohol and gambling interests.
But the IEA’s Emily Carver made a good point on LBC the other evening. Responding to Adam Bienkov, political editor of Byline Times, she said:
“It’s no surprise that someone who believes in free markets in general might wish to work for a think tank that also believes in that.”
In the same vein I wouldn’t have accepted a job with Forest if I didn’t agree with the group’s fundamental philosophy which has nothing to do with selling cigarettes and everything to do with freedom of choice and individual liberty.
As a result, in 20+ years I have never said anything I don’t personally support or believe in. I'm not Nick Naylor in Thank You For Smoking or Don Draper in Mad Men, although I sometimes wish I was!
In fact my commitment to the freedom of choice cause goes back long before I began working for Forest or had any connection with the tobacco industry. And the same is true of my interest in the smoking debate.
In 1984 for example I interviewed Stephen Eyres, the first director of Forest, for a national student magazine I was editing.
You can read the 'The wit and the wisdom of ... Stephen Eyres' on an earlier version of this blog.
It was my choice to interview him for the simple reason that even then I sympathised with Forest's position, and that was almost 40 years ago.
In 1989, a full ten years before I joined Forest, I also researched and published a report called ‘Smoke Out: How the quality press covers the smoking debate'.
At the time I was director of the Media Monitoring Unit which monitored current affairs programme for political bias but this was a separate project, conceived not by the tobacco industry but by me because I thought it was an interesting subject.
The implication therefore that I only parrot what the tobacco companies want me to say is not just false but insulting, but before Deborah chalks that down as a win I can honestly say I’m not aggrieved because I genuinely don’t care what she says!
I could of course have replied to her jibe by pointing out that at least Forest gets its donations exclusively from the private sector.
And unlike ASH we’re not a burden on the taxpayer.
The reason I didn’t say it is because I prefer not to get involved in a tit-for-tat squabble about funding because it’s (a) petty and (b) a distraction from the subject we’re supposed to be talking about.
In future however I may make the point that the most recent grant awarded by government to ASH is substantially more than the combined donations Forest currently receives from the tobacco industry.
According to a TaxPayers Alliance report published earlier this year (Taxpayer funded lobbying and political campaigning 2022) ASH received a grant of £140,000 in 2018-19, a further £140,000 in 2019-20 and £191,680 in 2020-21, a total of £471,680 over three years.
The most recent figure (£191,680) is a substantial increase on the two previous years which begs several questions including:
Why? What was the extra £51,680 for? Was there a proper tendering process? Has the work ASH carried out in return for that and previous grants been fully evaluated?
Did it represent value for money to the taxpayer and who makes that judgement? Is there, for example, an independent auditor or assessor?
Last but not least, has ASH been awarded a grant for 2021-22 and, if so, how much and for what purpose?
ASH loves to bask in its holier than thou charitable status but a substantial part of its work is not charitable (like education) but straight up political lobbying.
Questions have been asked in the past about ASH’s status and whether a lobby group should receive public funds and lobby government and there has never been what I would call a satisfactory answer.
With regard to the grants ASH receives from government, we’re led to believe the money is effectively ring-fenced for specific projects and is not used to fund other activities including lobbying.
Either way the optics aren’t good (in my opinion).
Meanwhile, given Deborah's latest dig at the principal source of Forest’s funding, a quick reminder of another interview - on Sky News in June - that I wrote about here.
Predictable as ever she told presenter Emma Crosby, “Well, first of all what Simon doesn't tell you is that he is a non-smoker, that he has made a very good living for over 20 years from being paid by the tobacco industry …"
On that occasion she was put firmly in her place by Crosby who told her, "Let’s not get personal, OK."
But that’s what Arnott does and she’s been doing it for years. Back in 2010 during another interview she said, “Well, to start with, Simon forgets to mention that his organisation is funded by the tobacco industry so his salary is paid out of their profits.”
Twelve years apart yet the words are almost identical. The irony, as I pointed out in June, is that:
Aside from the yawn-inducing tedium of such comments (which I generally ignore on the grounds that it makes me look better than her!), what’s so hilarious is that I am pretty certain that my salary (which I shall keep private, thank you very much!) has never exceeded that of Deborah’s and has usually lagged a considerable distance behind.
In other words, if I’ve made a “very good living” from tobacco (my wife might disagree, looking at the modest size of our house not to mention my pension!) Deborah has arguably made an even better living from tobacco control.
Fancy that!