I've got a little list

Journalists love lists, hence the interest in the IEA's Nanny State Index.

I have some experience of this because in 1998 I was editing the monthly Mensa magazine (I was a hired hand not a member) when I came up with the light-hearted idea of evaluating each member of the Labour Cabinet for their 'political quotient' (PQ).

The aim was to rank the 20 politicians by assessing their perceived intelligence and political acumen.

The theory was you could be intelligent but lack political ability, and vice versa. The politicians with the highest PQs would be those with the highest combined scores. We came up with a soundbite for each person and released our report, and accompanying league table, to the media.

Examples, in order, included:

Peter Mandelson, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry
Political ability - 10
Intellectual ability - 8
Political Quotient - 90
"Brains behind New Labour but not universally liked."

Jack Straw, Home Secretary
Political ability - 8
Intellectual ability - 7
Political Quotient - 75
"Likeable man of genuine conviction and decency."

David Blunkett, Education Secretary
Political ability - 7
Intellectual ability - 7
Political Quotient - 70
"Good all-rounder, able to brief and be briefed by his officials."

Tony Blair, Prime Minister
Political ability - 8
Intellectual ability - 5
Political Quotient - 65
"Man of action rather than man of letters. Excellent communicator."

Gordon Brown, Chancellor of the Exchequer
Political ability - 6
Intellectual ability - 6
Political Quotient - 60
"More comfortable with Old Labour agenda. Henchman Charlie Whelan has not been his greatest asset."

John Prescott, Secretary of State for Environment and Transport
Political ability - 6
Intellectual ability - 3
Political Quotient - 45
"Does what his officials say, no matter how ridiculous."

George Robertson, Defence Secretary
Political ability - 4
Intellectual ability - 4
Political Quotient - 40
"Team player who runs the most right-wing department in government."

Robin Cook, Foreign Secretary
Political ability - 1
Intellectual ability - 6
Political Quotient - 35
"Regarded as arrogant; considered to be a series of accidents waiting to happen."

Clare Short, Secretary of State for International Development
Political ability - 2
Intellectual ability - 4
Political Quotient - 30
"Mouth is bigger than her brain; lacks political finesse."

It was complete bunkum of course but we had a lot of fun doing it.

The outcome was spectacular. Our league table, with Peter Mandelson at the top, was featured in numerous newspapers. One or two reports are still available online. 

One or two referred to an "anonymous jury" of 12 people being responsible for our PQ table.

By coincidence the Nanny State Index was also compiled by an unnamed panel of 'experts'. The similarities end there, I'm sure.

Happiness and the nanny state

Interesting.

Following the publication this week of the first Nanny State Index, it has been brought to my attention that Sweden and Finland, the countries that top the European table for excessive regulations on smoking, drinking, eating and vaping, are amongst the happiest in the world.

The idea that people like being told what to do is nothing new. Choice is a burden for some people. It complicates life. Indeed, the worry that you may make the wrong choices creates unnecessary stress. So let the government make those decisions for you.

I understand the theory but whether that makes you happier is a moot point. Meanwhile it's worth pointing out that the UK, which ranks third out of 28 European countries in the Nanny State Index, failed to make it into the top 20 'happiest' countries.

Then again, the Netherlands, which rates highly as one of the world's 'happiest' countries, is near the bottom of the Nanny State Index.

So, what do we make of the inconsistencies? I'll leave you to decide.

Do nanny state initiatives actually work?

The anti-smoking group Tobacco Free Futures yesterday re-launched itself as Healthier Futures.

As I revealed on Tuesday, Healthier Futures is expanding its remit to address not only smoking but other public health issues such as alcohol misuse and obesity.

The question is, why?

According to their most recent annual report (2014/15) Tobacco Free Futures received an income of over £857,265, up from £764,113 the previous year (2013/14).

Funding is credited to "councils across the North West" which seems extraordinary in this era of so-called austerity.

If I was a councillor in the North West I'd want to know exactly what Tobacco Free Futures has achieved in return for these annual injections of taxpayers' money.

Glossy brochures highlighting a number of PR initiatives are all well and good but, like Smokefree South West before them, can TFF really claim credit for the decline in the number of smokers in their region?

I find it odd too that many of TFF's 'partners' are councils outside the region (Essex, Hull and Cambridgeshire, for example). What's that all about?

No, if I was a councillor in Blackpool, Blackburn, Manchester, Liverpool or wherever, I'd be asking a lot of questions – chiefly, what is the point of Healthier Futures?

I don't have the answer but I suspect the new initiative is an attempt to broaden the group's appeal to quizzical councillors who must be asking the very same questions.

I'm not convinced btw (and neither is the general public) that local councils should be prioritising people's lifestyles when there are so many other issues to tackle.

Remember that poll we commissioned a few weeks ago? No, not the Scottish one. I'm talking about the survey that found little support for further increases in tobacco tax.

One of the other questions we asked was:

Thinking about Local Government priorities, how important ror not important do you think each of the following are:

Respondents were then given a list of ten issues:

Investing in roads and pavements
Tackling alcohol misuse
Investing in street cleanliness
Tackling smoking
Improving job prospects
Tackling obesity
Addressing crime and anti-social behaviour
Improving facilities for young people
Tackling traffic congestion
Providing sports and high street facilities 

The result was interesting.

Only 14 per cent of the public believe that tackling smoking is a very important priority for local government. The issue also came second bottom in a list of ten priorities for local government. Respondents rated tackling crime and anti-social behaviour as the highest priority. Other issues that were rated more important than tackling smoking included investing in road and pavements, improving job prospects, investing in street cleanliness, and improving facilities for young people.

Anyway, here's Forest's response to the re-branding of Tobacco Free Futures:

Forest has urged local councils in the North West to review their funding of a regional anti-tobacco campaign group.

Following the announcement (31 March) that Tobacco Free Futures, formerly Smokefree North West, is to rename itself Healthier Futures so it can address other public health issues, the smokers' group Forest has questioned the group's function and the use of public money to fund its activities.

Simon Clark, director of Forest, said: "Whatever name they use, what purpose does Healthier Futures serve?

"During a time of severe financial pressure councils cannot afford to fund yet another campaign group lecturing people about the risks of smoking, drinking and obesity, and nor should they be expected to."

The rebranding of Tobacco Free Futures follows a similar initiative by another anti-tobacco group, Smokefree South West. In November the Bristol-based group became Public Health Action. In February however the group announced that it was to close after eleven councils withdrew funding.

According to Clark: "Figures show the use of stop smoking services in England and Wales has fallen by over 50 per cent since 2010.

"Anti-smoking groups are rebranding and embracing other public health issues because they are desperate to find new reasons to justify their existence.

"But why should local councils fund regional campaign groups when we already have high profile bodies such as Action on Smoking and Health, Alcohol Concern, Cancer Research UK, the British Heart Foundation and Public Health England, to name a few?

"Councils should review their funding of Healthier Futures, and the sooner the better."

Meanwhile may I suggest politicians at all levels consider this:

As the Nanny State Index, published this week, points out, state intervention across Europe around smoking, vaping, alcohol and food has been ineffective - 'there is no correlation between nanny state regulation and higher life expectancy'. Yet these obesity figures will surely be used to justify even more interference in our lives.

Even though we are living longer than ever before - in the period covered by the report, global life expectancy at birth has increased from less than 59 years to more than 71 years - and even though the number of people who are chronically malnourished is at a historic low, the control freaks within the health community are using figures which should be a cause for celebration as an excuse for more state intervention.

See Going large on obesity scares (Action on Consumer Choice).

The Nanny State Index

Today sees the launch of an idea so brilliantly simple and media friendly I wish I had thought of it.

The Nanny State Index is described as "the first comprehensive evaluation of paternalistic lifestyle regulation in Europe. Using 32 criteria related to food, soft drinks, alcohol, tobacco and e-cigarettes, it identifies the best and worst countries to eat, drink, smoke and vape."

Published by the Institute of Economic Affairs and the European Policy Information Centre (Epicenter), the Index gives every EU country a score out of 100 according to how it regulates private lifestyle choices.

From a UK perspective the key findings are:

Excessive regulation and punitive 'sin taxes' have resulted in the UK sitting third in the league table [behind Finland and Sweden]. Ireland takes the fourth spot. The Czech Republic gets the lowest score, making it officially the most liberal country in the EU.

Finland is the EU's number one nanny state thanks to its taxes on chocolate, soft drinks, alcohol and tobacco. Finland also has an outright ban on e-cigarettes, a ban on happy hours and heavy restrictions on advertising.

The UK has the highest rates of tax on wine and cigarettes in the EU. Its beer duty is second only to Finland and its smoking ban is more draconian than any other member state. In total, it ranks 1st for tobacco, 4th for alcohol and 7th for food and soft drinks. Britain takes a more liberal approach to e-cigarettes, however, giving it a final ranking of 3rd.

Fingers crossed the Index will get the publicity it deserves. Newspapers love league tables but I hope editor Chris Snowdon's comment gets some prominence too because the final sentence in particular is a gem.

"Britain is the third worst country in the EU for lifestyle freedoms. Only Finland and Sweden are worse places to be a drinker and nowhere is worse to be a smoker.

"The UK's only saving grace is its liberal approach to e-cigarettes but all in all the results make depressing reading for those of us who want the government to keep out of our private lives.

"Unless you are a teetotal, non-smoking vegetarian, my advice is to go to Germany or the Czech Republic this summer."

Click here for the IEA press release. Full details of the 2016 Nanny State Index can be found here.

Should the Nanny State Index ever go global it will be interesting to see how the UK rates in relation to countries outside the EU.

I imagine we'd still be near the top, which is pretty depressing for a so-called 'liberal' democracy.

Anyway, by coincidence, I have just received an email from a friend who wrote:

"I thought of you on my travels in Hong Kong and Tokyo last month where all and sundry were puffing away like chimneys in bars, hotels, restaurants ... God, it was awful."

There, in that single sentence, are two more destinations you might like to visit.

Tobacco Free Futures to re-brand as Healthier Futures

Fancy that.

Five months after Smokefree South West became Public Health Action, Tobacco Free Futures (formerly Smokefree North West) is changing its identity again.

From Thursday (March 31) TFF will be known as Healthier Futures.

According to chief executive Andrew Crossfield, it marks the "start of the next chapter in our story":

In addition to tackling tobacco – which is still a vital part of our work – we are excited to now be taking on responsibility to tackle a range of health issues. Our new mission is to help people live longer, healthier, happier lives.

Readers will recall that a last minute re-launch couldn't save Smokefree South West.

In February, just three months after it became Public Health Action (adding alcohol to its portfolio), SFSW aka PHA was forced to announce its imminent closure.

Does the same fate await Smokefree North West aka Tobacco Free Futures aka Healthier Futures?

And what about Smokefree North East aka Fresh?

More important, why are they doing it? The simple answer has to be – money.

Local authorities appear to be growing wise to the fact that dedicated tobacco control groups offer poor value for money.

Most of the time they are merely parroting the same messages as bodies such as ASH, Cancer Research UK, the British Heart Foundation, the British Lung Foundation and Public Health England.

Therefore, to justify their funding and keep themselves in business, groups like Tobacco Free Futures have decided to diversify into alcohol and obesity.

Re-branding came too late to save Smokefree South West. Can it save Tobacco Free Futures?

What is clear is that after many years sucking eagerly on the public teet, dedicated stop smoking services and lobby groups are coming to the end of the line.

According to a recent report, the use of stop smoking services is down 51 per cent since 2010.

As for lobby groups like Healthier Futures, without public funding they wouldn't exist because there's no demand for them.

Do we really need another campaign group advising us about the dangers of smoking or alcohol?

What makes me laugh is the fact that people like Andrew Crossman and, before her, Fiona Andrews at Smokefree South West, are arrogant enough to think they can switch overnight from being 'experts' on tobacco to become 'experts' on obesity and alcohol as well.

But when did expertise ever come into it? Tobacco control campaigners are rarely experts on health. Their real strength is hectoring or bullying people to change their lifestyle.

For more information on Healthier Futures, TFF have kindly provided an information sheet. Click here to download.

Message to BBC Scotland

To the BBC Scotland online newsdesk:

I have just read your report 'Benefits of smoking ban hailed 10 years on' which is currently the lead story on the BBC News (Scotland) page.

It includes not a single dissenting voice – no mention, for example, of the 1200 pubs that have closed since the ban was introduced, the jobs lost, the many social lives ruined etc.

Nor is there any mention of a recent poll that found that 54% of adults living in Scotland would allow designated smoking rooms in pubs and clubs. (40% were opposed to the idea.)

Forest has sent two press releases to the BBC Scotland online newsdesk in the past week:

Poll: Majority of adults in Scotland would allow smoking rooms in pubs and clubs

Allow smoking rooms in Scotland's pubs and clubs, say campaigners

STV News took the trouble to interview us for their evening news programme Scotland Tonight and STV News online today featured our comments alongside those of ASH Scotland, the real ale group CAMRA and the anti-smoking commentator Archie Macpherson:

Ten years on from the smoking ban: Was it the right decision?

The Populus poll mentioned above was featured by the Scottish Mail on Sunday (with quotes from Forest). We have also been quoted by the Scottish Sun and the Dundee Courier.

Why does BBC Scotland think it's acceptable to ignore opposing views and publish what is nothing more than propaganda on behalf of the tobacco control industry?

Update: I received this response at 9:17.

Thank you for your feedback.

The story currently on the BBC website is the first version which went up overnight but will be added to today. I take your point that we should include both sides of the argument and will endeavour to have info and quotes from Forest added asap.

We have also gathered an interview with Paul Watterson of the Scottish Licensed Trade Association and his quotes are being added to the story now.

All well and good. What a pity whoever wrote the original report (posted eight hours ago) didn't think to include our quotes in the first place.

BBC John, the Mighty Atom (1937-2016)

I attended a funeral in Southend on Wednesday.

It was a sad occasion because the death was unexpected and followed what I understand was a relatively short illness.

On the other hand, like many funerals, it was also a celebration of a life well lived.

I had known John Hosken for more than 20 years. I was editing the monthly Mensa magazine (he was a member, I was merely a hired hand) and he rang to tell me, in his characteristically urbane way, that a clue to one of the puzzles contained an error.

I couldn't have been less interested, to be honest, because puzzles weren't my thing but John loved to talk and so we chatted and I quickly discovered he was a broadcaster and writer who had enjoyed a long and successful career at the BBC.

He agreed to be interviewed and that led to our first meeting, at the old BBC Club at Broadcasting House in London.

I discovered he was a proud Cornishman whose first job in journalism was with the West Briton newspaper. Thereafter he moved to Manchester and joined the BBC.

John may not have been a household name – although he did sit in for Jimmy Young on Radio 2 on several occasions and presented his own programme, Late Night Friday, for a few years – but he was a distinguished industrial correspondent, well thought of by unions and bosses alike.

He later moved to air and then transport but one of his proudest achievements career wise was being asked to commentate on state occasions including the State Opening of Parliament, royal weddings and the Remembrance Day Service at the Cenotaph when his knowledge and attention to detail were a winning combination. Unlike many of today's broadcasters, he didn't dumb down or regard his audience as simpletons.

John officially left the BBC in 1988 but continued making programmes for the corporation as a freelance broadcaster. Many were broadcast on the World Service and one or two concerned his beloved Cornwall.

In 2011, in recognition of his "promotion of Cornwall through the media", John was made a Bard of the Cornish Gorsedh, an organisation that exists "to maintain the national Celtic spirit of Cornwall".

That same year, aged 73, he also published Sophie Storme, a children's book that was set, naturally, in Cornwall.

At his funeral on Wednesday the tribute was given by a schoolfriend who had known John since they were five years old. Even though life took them in different directions they remained close friends.

I was aware of John's nickname, The Mighty Atom (in recognition of his long distance running ability). I didn't know he was known locally in Essex, where he lived for many years, as "BBC John".

After the tribute we heard some clips from John's broadcasting career. As his mellifluous Cornish voice filled the chapel, the contrast with today's more excitable style of broadcasting was clear to all.

Long after I met and interviewed him, John and I kept in touch. When I was a journalist I commissioned him to write a number of articles on issues that interested him (Concorde and the first jet aircraft are two that spring to mind).

It was an annual treat to get a Christmas card from the Hoskens because John was a keen photographer who made his own cards using a print of one of his own photographs, seasonal or not!

Once or twice we met for a drink. His wife Gillian, who also worked for the BBC as a producer, would join us. John was an irrepressible raconteur and mimic and I always enjoyed their company.

Together they attended several Forest events – our annual boat party, Smoke On The Water, and one or two events at Boisdale.

If I have a regret it's that I was often too busy on these occasions to have more than a cursory chat.

RIP, John. Thanks for your friendship and support.

Smoking ban on Scotland Tonight

Here's the clip I said I'd post earlier.

It's a report about the tenth anniversary of the Scotland smoking ban and was broadcast on Scotland Tonight (ITV) last night.

It features an interview with former first minister Jack (now Lord) McConnell whose Labour government introduced the ban.

There's also a short soundbite from me.

For those who like to know these things (not many, I grant you), I was filmed in the car park outside the ITV studio in Great Shelford near Cambridge.

Well, it was either that or travel to Aberdeen for my ten seconds of fame.