Tobacco control has created a generation of vaper haters

As some of you know I was on Good Morning Britain yesterday.

Following the implementation of a workplace vaping ban in New York State producers wanted to debate the issue on the not unreasonable grounds that what happens in New York (the smoking ban, for example) could be adopted in the UK.

The item was scheduled for Wednesday but on Tuesday it was pushed back 24 hours. During that time my opponent changed. It was originally going to be an occasional Channel 4 presenter I'd never heard of.

The following day I was told I'd be debating the issue with someone else – journalist Nilufer Atik who I discovered is an occasional guest on This Morning, the ITV programme that follows GMB.

There has been a lot of criticism of Atik on social media. Her anti-vaping, anti-nicotine stance was certainly extreme and – in the view of many people including me – wholly unjustified, but she did the job she was asked to do.

As she admitted to me after the programme, when I put jokingly it to her, she's a professional gob for hire.

Inevitably, and quite naturally, some vapers have also questioned why GMB didn't invite a vaper or vaping advocate to take part.

As it happens, when I was contacted on Monday my first response was to suggest they might invite a vaper instead of me but they were keen for me to appear and I don't like turning down such offers because you never know when they might dry up.

To put it in perspective their first choice was Forest patron Antony Worrall Thompson but he was out of the country on holiday and unavailable. I was therefore their second choice.

As for the daily 'debate', the idea, I think, is to have a bit on a bunfight early in the morning so the more argumentative it is the better.

For that reason the producers are not looking for 'experts' or people with a direct vested interest. They merely want to kick start a discussion that will generate a response while the programme is on air and, later, on social media.

They would prefer celebrities but in the absence of a 'name' they want people who have a track record for being reasonably combative on air.

I've been on GMB several times and I probably fit that category. The nature of my job means I'm also easy to get hold of.

TV producers like that. It means they can confirm their schedule and the names of guests promptly and without delay.

Anyway it was made very clear to me that the GMB producers like "really strong, lively debates ... They like anything that gets people talking."

Unusually they went to some lengths to keep Nilufer Atik and me apart before we went on set. Instead of fraternising in the green room I was ushered away to a smaller hospitality area where I sat alone reading the papers and drinking a cup of tea.

The aim, it seems, was to keep our debate "fresh". To be fair there's some sense to this. Whenever I encounter Deborah Arnott before a head-to-head interview, more often than not she wants to debate the issues before we even go on air. By the time we get in the studio it's all gone a bit flat and our best bits are left, unloved and unrecorded, in the green room.

Yesterday, seconds before we went on set, I was told not to wait to be invited to speak. If I wanted to respond to or interrupt my opponent I should do so, hence my rather shouty performance.

More seriously it's very clear, reading the comments on social media in reaction to the GMB debate, that a lot of people do not like people vaping in public places.

It may be a small minority but it's a very vocal minority, similar to the minority that supported a public smoking ban.

What strikes me is that the online vaping community is failing to respond to these comments.

Instead vapers (and vaping advocates) generally restrict their comments to 'safe spaces' like vaping forums and blogs where they are preaching almost exclusively to the converted.

Alternatively they attend vape fests where, again, they’re surrounded by like-minded people.

In the 'real' world it's rather different. A vocal minority of the general public – driven by an irrational hatred of smoking that has been fuelled by decades of anti-tobacco campaigns and regulations – considers vaping to be the bastard cousin of smoking. Like smoking, they want to expunge it from normal society.

You can bang on all you like about vaping helping smokers to quit. The anti-smoking, anti-vaping minority couldn't care less. All they know is, vapers are exhaling something unpleasant and possibly toxic. At best it's anti-social, at worst it’s harmful. Either way it should be banned.

Those are the comments that are being picked up by bar owners, employers and local councils. Intolerance of smoking has bred intolerance of vaping.

I've been going on about this for years, explaining why vapers must oppose smoking bans and other anti-tobacco regulations, but too many have chosen to remain silent or, worse, condemn smoking as a dirty, disgusting habit they are proud to have given up.

The irony, as I have often pointed out, is that many vaping advocates are actually anti-smoking campaigners whose efforts to prohibit smoking is now fuelling a similar paranoia towards e-cigarettes and nicotine generally.

My advice to vapers is that it's not enough to surround yourselves with like-minded people on vaping forums or attend 'pro-vaping' conferences that allow you to bask in mutual backslapping and the knowledge that you've fought your smoking addiction and won.

A small but vocal minority of the public hates you. They hate you for the same reason they hate smokers so get out of your comfort zone, engage with them and fight back.

To win that battle however you must forget the narrative that works so well with public health and anti-smoking campaigners. You know, the personal stories of how vaping has "saved your life".

That argument doesn't wash with vaper haters. As far they're concerned you're still an addict exhaling "toxic" or obnoxious fumes in their presence.

You need to go on the offensive – and I mean that literally. You need to be as offensive about their intolerance as they are about your nicotine habit. You have to challenge them on their own habits and behaviour, their piousness and their ignorance.

Yesterday on the GMB Twitter feed vapers were bullied almost into silence by a flood of anti-vaping comments. Over many years that's exactly what happened to smokers. So my message to vapers is this.

It helps, obviously, to win the support of public health campaigners but it's not enough (and I would treat it with suspicion anyway).

Most important, you have to win the support of the public and that's going to be a far tougher battle.

This morning's big debate was whether the UK should follow New York's example and ban vaping.

Watch more here: https://t.co/LXaXSMuwBK pic.twitter.com/Z9hPJxR31M

— Good Morning Britain (@GMB) November 23, 2017

The Budget, then and now

As a small child my heart sank on Budget day.

In those days we had a black and white TV that offered a choice of BBC1 or ITV.

We rarely watched ITV because to do so meant retuning the TV. To do this you had to get up and rotate a plastic dial on the front of the set.

Although this was simple enough there was no guarantee that the quality of the picture would stay the same, so it was best left as it was, permanently tuned to BBC1.

Anyway, I’d come home from school expecting to watch the usual children’s programmes only to find that BBC1 had been commandeered for extensive analysis of the Budget while the shows I wanted to watch had been moved to BBC2, which we didn’t have.

Every year the Budget is a reminder of the disappointment I felt as a child.

Today’s statement is of course the second one this year following Philip Hammond’s decision to move the Budget from March to November.

There has already been one hike on tobacco duty this year (inflation plus two per cent) and today could see another which would allow Britain to leap frog Ireland and reclaim its position as the most expensive country in Europe to buy tobacco.

Some are arguing it would be a third price rise following the EU-inspired ban on ten packs that forced smokers to buy the larger and more expensive packs of 20.

In advance of the new Autumn Budget Forest has been lobbying the Treasury to reject a further tax increase on the not unreasonable grounds that it would unfairly target the less well off, including those who, in the words of Theresa May, are “just about managing”.

A paper published by Forest last month revealed that tobacco duty costs the poorest households 2.3 per cent of their disposable incomes compared to 0.3 per cent in the wealthiest households:

Measuring expenditure on tobacco duty as a percentage of disposable income, in 2015/16 tobacco duty cost the average household in the lowest income bracket almost eight times what it cost the average highest earning household.

Although the average household among middle earners spent 38 per cent more on tobacco duty than the poorest households, as a percentage of disposable income the poorer households were still worse off.

A subsequent poll, commissioned by Forest and conducted by Populus, found that 76 per cent of adults thought the current level of tax (over 80 per cent on an average packet of cigarettes) is either about right (44 per cent) or too high (32 per cent). Only 24 per cent (one in four) thought it was too low.

A huge majority – 68 per cent – also thought that buying illicit tobacco was an "understandable" response to the soaring cost of tobacco purchased legally. Only 22 per cent found it "not understandable".

That’s not to say they condone it but it’s clear that purchasing illicit tobacco doesn't carry the stigma associated with most other offences. As a result many otherwise law-abiding people will happily buy black market tobacco without a care in the world and the evidence that they’re doing that is overwhelming.

According to a recent TMA survey, nearly three-quarters of smokers in the UK have avoided paying tobacco duties, some more regularly than others:

• 72.5 per cent or around seven million smokers have bought tobacco from sources where UK taxes won’t be paid including illicit tobacco and from abroad
• 41 per cent of smokers have bought tobacco from illicit tobacco sources
• Smokers on higher incomes (over £60,000) were as likely to buy illicit as those on low incomes (under £6,000)
• Smokers are stockpiling cheap or illicit tobacco with 53 per cent of cigarette smokers buying 200 or more when they buy from sources that won’t have paid UK tax.

As a result of its anti-tobacco policies the Treasury forfeits billions of pounds in revenue while the cost of combatting smugglers and criminal gangs continues to rise.

Children, of course, are particularly vulnerable to the sale of illicit tobacco, hence the rank hypocrisy of anti-smoking activists who lobby government to raise taxes further while shedding crocodile tears for children who smoke.

Equally nauseous is their persistent claim that smoking pushes people into poverty, ignoring the fact that a concurrent factor is the punitive level of tobacco duty that unfairly targets those who can least afford it.

(Tobacco control campaigners like to have their cake and eat it. On the one hand they say smoking is seriously addictive, on the other they want to punish smokers who find it hard to quit.)

If anyone is guilty of forcing more smokers into poverty it’s the truly despicable tobacco control industry.

We’ll find out later today whether the government intends to intensify the war on smokers or give them the smallest of breaks, as Forest has been calling for.

Before then, if the Chancellor has any doubts about the wisdom of a further increase in tobacco duty, he should read the tweets below. Nuff said.

If Chancellor @PhilipHammondUK raises tobacco duty again more smokers will buy cigarettes abroad. https://t.co/l9hf9btvrN

— Forest (@Forest_Smoking) November 21, 2017

Always enjoy packing after a holiday in Spain & counting the £1000s I've saved in UK tobacco tax. Hope to be able to do so after #brexit pic.twitter.com/lgDxQk9RJD

— Mark Littlewood (@MarkJLittlewood) July 31, 2017

Great speech but actions are louder than words

I was going to go to the E-Cigarette Summit in London on Friday but something cropped up and I didn't.

Instead I followed the nine-hour event online. This gave me a flavour of the main presentations without the aggravation of an additional four-hour round trip or listening to people I’ve heard many times before.

I've previously criticised the E-Cig Summit for becoming just another public health conference with consumers being marginalised or, worse, patronised and given the smallest possible roles.

I wasn't alone in voicing those concerns but this year the criticism appears to have been heeded. For the first time, I think, a consumer representative was given the opportunity to give an actual speech.

That said, when I saw that Sarah Jakes of the New Nicotine Alliance had been given the late afternoon slot when many delegates would have been struggling to stay awake (I speak from experience) it seemed yet another case of the consumer being relegated to the fag end of an event in which they should be playing a leading role.

Credit then to Jakes for grabbing the opportunity and giving a speech that, if Twitter is to be believed, did more than wake delegates from their afternoon slumber. It threatened to light a blue touchpaper under public health.

To put this in perspective, I've not seen eye-to-eye with the NNA on a number of issues, notably their reluctance to acknowledge that many smokers don't want to quit and their silence on smoking bans and other anti-tobacco initiatives.

I've been unimpressed too that some members of the NNA have apparently succumbed to pressure from the public health industry to distance themselves from Forest. That struck me as a bit cowardly.

On this occasion though I can't fault most of what Jakes said and I admired the passion and directness with which she spoke. I particularly welcomed the unambiguous declaration that:

We are all ex-smokers and let me make this clear, we are resentful of the way that smokers are treated. We naturally rail against coercive methods of forcing smokers to quit, and detest the stigmatisation of smokers that always goes hand in hand with those methods.

Having spent a significant amount of time promoting The Pleasure of Smoking: The Views of Confirmed Smokers, a report that includes valuable sections on smokers' attitudes to addiction and why more smokers won't switch to vaping, I also applaud her demand that public health campaigners engage with smokers as well as vapers:

Talk to vapers. Listen to and learn from their experiences. Get a better understanding of what motivates people to smoke and to vape (here's a hint: it’s not all, or evenly mostly, about addiction). Talk to smokers and find out what the barriers are to switching, and work out how to help them overcome them, if that’s what they want to do.

If Jakes' speech is the catalyst for a more open and honest discussion about smoking, nicotine, harm reduction and smoking cessation that involves all parties – smokers, vapers, public health campaigners, Big Tobacco, the independent vaping industry and government – I will welcome it even more.

Unfortunately the cynic in me suggests this won't happen. Why? Well, there are still far too many people in government, public health and even the independent vaping industry who are reluctant to engage with every stakeholder.

Hatred of the tobacco industry is one reason.

Another is a misguided commitment to Article 5.3 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control that anti-smoking activists insist prohibits engagement with the tobacco industry when it does nothing of the sort.

A third reason is a stubborn refusal to acknowledge that many adults enjoy smoking, know the risks and still don't want to quit. (There's nothing as off-message as hearing that so it's best to exclude the heretics from the conversation.)

I sincerely hope Sarah Jakes' speech makes a difference but I'll only believe it when I see the tobacco companies and what Sarah calls "pro-smoker groups" like Forest invited to share a platform with vaping advocates, public health professionals and the independent vaping industry at similar events and forums including, dare I say it, next year's E-Cigarette Summits in Washington and London.

In the meantime the New Nicotine Alliance could take the lead and invite all interested parties to a roundtable discussion or seminar. As good as the speech was, actions speak louder than words so let's engage.

Full speech: Sarah Jakes' keynote speech at the E-Cig Summit 2017 (NNA).

By the way it's interesting to note who 'liked' or retweeted links to Jakes' speech on Twitter and who didn't.

I haven't made a comprehensive list but if you have time it's quite illuminating.

For example, even though they were at the event (CEO Deborah Arnott was a speaker), ASH noticeably failed to endorse Jakes' speech with a 'like' or retweet.

Even more reason, in my view, to read it!

Claire Fox targets public health in “rollicking speech”

It's been a busy week.

Unfortunately there was a clash of events and I couldn't attend both the Golden Nanny Awards in Dublin and the latest Forest event in Brussels.

I therefore missed what Politico Europe described as a "rollicking speech" by Claire Fox, director of the Institute of Ideas, founder of the Battle of Ideas, a regular panelist on Radio 4's Moral Maze and author of I Find That Offensive!.

According to Politico, Claire delivered an "excoriation of public health devotees". Defending "the adult joys of smoking against the nanny state", she finished her talk with the provocative claim that "Anyone who has ever told you they're addicted to smoking is lying."

Her talk, at a restaurant close to the European Parliament, attracted a full house including European Commission and European Parliament staff plus journalists, NGOs and trade associations.

The format of these events includes a free burger (and several beers) in a private extension that opens on to a dedicated smoking area. As you can see below, it's proving very popular.

The next 'Burning Issues' event takes place in Brussels on Thursday December 7 and features another great speaker – Sinclair Davidson, professor of institutional economics, finance and marketing at RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia, senior fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs, and academic fellow at the Australian Taxpayers’ Alliance – who will discuss 'How to torture data to justify public policy’.

Given the proximity to Christmas there will also be free mulled wine. I definitely won't miss that – come and join us!

Charm offensive

Further to my previous post the Irish Daily Star published this report about Forest's Golden Nanny Awards:

Senator wins 'nanny-in-chief' award.

Several people – here and on Facebook – have queried why Noone would want to accept such an accolade, even a tongue-in-cheek one. One described her as "arrogant" for even showing up.

I don't agree at all. Far from being arrogant or calculating her response to our invitation was refreshingly artless:

"Thanks for your email. Didn't know this was a thing. Where is it on? Is it black tie? I'll see what I can do. Think it'd be a bit of craic to be honest – I'm not afraid!"

The worst that can be said is that it was a shrewd move by an intelligent politician. By turning up and entering into the spirit of the occasion she charmed everyone, including some of her fiercest critics. By the end of the evening they were queuing up to have their photo taken with her.

At the Forest table there was a particularly amusing moment when she suddenly realised that the man she was talking to was one of her bêtes noires, journalist Ian O'Doherty.

"Oh, it's you!" she exclaimed. To the rest of us she wailed, "He hates me!"

That may have been the case before but it's not true now. A professional curmudgeon, O'Doherty subsequently began his own speech by proposing a toast to Noone for having the balls to turn up.

He wasn't alone. Similar comments were posted by others on Twitter and Facebook.

A smidgeon of charm goes a very long way and I'm amazed so few people in the public health industry use it to their advantage. The truth, I suspect, is that most public health campaigners are self-righteous bores who don't have an ounce of charm in their bodies.

There are exceptions, of course. Linda Bauld, of Stirling University and Cancer Research fame, is one of them and I must confess that having been met with a smile rather than a sullen scowl I do find it harder to be as critical of her as I once was. (And I know others who feel the same way.)

It's human nature, I suppose. You can still disagree but if you like someone it's more difficult to put the boot in, metaphorically speaking. Thankfully it's not a problem I have with most tobacco control activists, the majority of whom make little or no attempt to engage or be friendly on any level.

Catherine Noone understands this, I'm sure, but I don't think her appearance at the Golden Nanny Awards was driven by any ulterior motive. I think she genuinely thought it might be a bit of laugh and her subsequent tweets, including the one below, suggest a sense of humour that should be welcomed not used as stick to beat her with.

Meanwhile, what did Forest and the groups supporting the event get out of it? Rob Duffy (Students for Liberty) hit the nail on the head when he tweeted a picture of himself and Noone and wrote, 'Myself and the great sport @senatornoone at The Golden Nannies award ceremony last night. Let's build bridges!'

Belittling, insulting and attacking the opposition will get you only so far. More often than not the animosity it generates will entrench people's positions to the point of no return.

Long-term it's important to build bridges and engage. On Monday night the Golden Nanny Awards did precisely that.

Proud recipient of the Golden Nanny Award 2017 - proud moment 😂😂😂 pic.twitter.com/fCoWTMghIx

— Sen Catherine Noone (@senatornoone) November 13, 2017

Libertarians, contrarians, barbarians ... the Golden Nanny Awards 2017

Congratulations to Catherine Noone.

The deputy leader of the Seanad (the Upper House of the Irish Parliament) was awarded star prize at the inaugural Golden Nanny Awards in Dublin last night.

Better still, while other nominees failed to respond to our invitation to attend, Noone not only replied but turned up in person to collect her trophy (above).

The Times (Ireland edition) has a report here – Senator wins award as head of Ireland’s ‘nanny state’.

'The Nannies' were part of a 'Farewell to Freedom' dinner hosted by Forest with the support of the Hibernia Forum think tank, Students for Liberty Ireland, Consumer Choice Centre and the Dublin Salon debating group.

It was the first time we'd attempted anything like this in Ireland. The venue was important because we wanted to mimic the annual Freedom Dinner in London, albeit on a smaller scale.

A cosy smoking terrace was essential and there aren't many of those around. Suesey Street, the restaurant we hired, has one of the best smoking areas I've seen either side of the Irish Sea.

I won't go into detail but it's fabulous. Last night, despite the rain, it was warm, dry and perfect for a drinks reception prior to dinner.

Sixty guests had registered (56 turned up) so the restaurant was pretty full. Hibernia Forum brought 17 guests, Students for Liberty ten.

As well as Catherine Noone, the Forest table included The Times' reporter Catherine Sanz, Irish Independent columnist Ian O'Doherty and Forest Ireland's John Mallon.

Welcoming us to Suesey Street, general manager John Healy was an excellent host.

Apart from Noone it turned out his was the most familiar face in the room owing to his long-running role as maitre d’ on TV3’s The Restaurant in which "six celebrity chefs take on the critics".

I acted as MC and rather like the Oscars I ended up getting slightly confused. One envelope containing the nominees and winner of the Golden Nanny Lifetime Achievement Award went missing so we quietly dropped that award, although we still announced it in the press release.

Before the awards Keith Redmond, co-founder of Hibernia Forum, gave a short speech. He also presented Catherine Noone with her award and the funny thing was he had written a fairly scathing citation oblivious of the fact that she was going to be there in person. He only found out when she arrived.

The good news is, even though she was sitting only a few feet away, he didn't tone it down. She in turn responded admirably, beginning her acceptance speech with the words, "Libertarians, contrarians, barbarians, thank you."

She later tweeted, "Proud recipient of the Golden Nanny Award 2017 – proud moment."

The awards concluded with some pithy words (and gags) from Ian O'Doherty, columnist for the Irish Independent and the Irish Daily Star, and then it was back to the smoking terrace for another drink or two.

I left shortly after midnight and I wasn't the last to leave.

Thanks to the following for their help in making this event happen: Eamon Delaney and Keith Redmond (Hibernia Forum), Rob Duffy and Beatriz Giethner (Students for Liberty) and Justin Smyth (Dublin Salon).

Hats off too to Luca Bertolleti, European affairs manager at Consumer Choice Center, who flew in from Brussels and flew back on a 6.30am flight this morning.

And let's not forget law student Eimhear Macfarlane (national coordinator for Students for Liberty in Northern Ireland) who had to catch a late night coach to Belfast in order not to miss an early morning lecture.

Thanks to Eimhear, Luca and everyone else who supported the 'Farewell to Freedom' dinner. I hope they enjoyed it as much as I did.

See also Senator wins 'nanny-in-chief' award (Forest).

Tax and tobacco

The Autumn Budget is only two weeks away.

As you probably know the Chancellor has switched the Budget from spring to autumn. It means therefore that taxes on tobacco could rise twice this year.

A couple of weeks ago we published a short document that highlighted the way increases in tobacco duty discriminate unfairly against households on low incomes. (It's not rocket science but it still needs to be pointed out.)

This morning we published the results of a poll conducted last week on another Budget-inspired theme:

The survey, conducted by Populus for Forest, found that 76 per cent of adults think the current level of tax – over 80 per cent on an average packet of cigarettes in the UK – is either about right (44 per cent) or too high (32 per cent). Only 24 per cent (one in four) think it's too low.

A huge majority – 68 per cent – also said that buying illicit tobacco was an "understandable" response to the soaring cost of tobacco purchased legally. Only 22 per cent found it "not understandable".

Simon Clark, director of Forest, said: "Tobacco duty in the UK is exceptionally high compared to most other EU countries.

"Another tax hike will discriminate against the less well off and those who are just about managing.

"It will also encourage more smokers to buy tobacco on the black market because there isn't the stigma associated with other illicit transactions.

"We urge the Chancellor to give smokers a break, take public opinion into account and freeze tobacco duty at the current levels."

In a more pragmatic, less censorious world the government would reduce tobacco duty to a fairer level but it's unrealistic to think the Chancellor will succumb to common sense, hence our call for a tax freeze.

See Tobacco tax: give smokers a break, says Forest.

Inevitably the tobacco control industry takes a very different view and is calling for further tax hikes, but what really sticks in the throat are the crocodile tears concerning their position on illegal tobacco.

Take Fresh (formerly Smokefree North East). According to their website:

Illegal tobacco has helped over half of underage smokers in the North East get hooked on smoking, a new survey released today suggests.

55% of children aged 14 and 15 who smoke say they buy illegal tobacco from sources like "tab houses" and shops - while 73% say they have been offered illegal tobacco.

The figures, from the 2017 North East Illegal Tobacco Survey, are released as Fresh launches the new 'Keep It Out' campaign aimed at helping the public to spot illegal tobacco, report it and to encourage smokers not to buy it.

How hypocritical is that? If it wasn't for punitive taxation on tobacco, a policy Fresh supports, there wouldn't be a thriving black market in tobacco and there would be far less risk of children getting their hands on cigarettes.

But the group isn't content an increase in tobacco duty alone:

Fresh is calling on the Government to introduce a licensing system for tobacco manufacturers and retailers to provide funding for improved enforcement and other measures to reduce smoking prevalence. The measure would be popular in the North East with 76% of adults strongly in favour of businesses needing a valid licence to sell tobacco.

Aside from the fact that the cost of a licensing system would almost certainly be passed on to the consumer (forcing more smokers further into poverty or towards the black market), what could Fresh possibly mean by "other measures"?

My guess is that "other measures" include more funding for parasitic groups like Fresh because that's the Kafkaesque world we live in.

More funding means more campaigns like 'Keep It Out' in which a tobacco control group 'helps' the public "to spot illegal tobacco, report it and encourage smokers not to buy it" while lobbing government to increase taxes that inevitably push consumers towards the black market.

Wilfully ignorant or in denial about the irony of their position, Fresh declares:

As well as helping children to start smoking, people supplying illegal tobacco are often involved in drugs or loan sharking. Buying it means supporting crime and can bring children into contact with criminals.

For crying out loud! Punitive taxation drives illicit trade. How hard is that to understand? If there's a single group that's supporting crime and bringing children into contact with criminals it's tobacco control campaigners and their counter-productive policy on tax.

See Illegal tobacco bought by more than half of teenage smokers (Fresh).

Farewell to Freedom Dinner fully booked

Delighted to report that Forest's Farewell to Freedom Dinner in Dublin on November 13 is fully booked.

Organised with the support of Hibernia Forum, a classical liberal think tank, Dublin Salon, Students for Liberty Ireland and Consumer Choice Centre, the evening features our first Golden Nanny Awards.

The Taoiseach Leo Varadkar, health minister Simon Harris, and former health promotion minister Marcella Corcoran Kennedy are all shortlisted for services to the nanny state.

ASH Ireland and Alcohol Action Ireland, a government-funded 'charity', have also been nominated.

A smaller version of our Freedom Dinner in London, the event will start with a drinks reception on a smoking terrace that has its own fireplace. This will be followed by a three-course dinner in the adjacent restaurant.

In addition to the awards guest speakers are Keith Redmond, forthright libertarian and co-founder of Hibernia Forum, and Ian O'Doherty, a famously outspoken columnist for the Irish Independent and Irish Daily Star.

Can’t wait!