Mascot Watch #33: The Tripping Over Edition

If you ever needed proof that politics has been turned upside down in the past couple of decades, this clip from the Victoria Derbyshire Show provides it.

Watch as Labour's Tristram Hunt - product of an elite private school and Cambridge - debates Donald Trump with our esteemed mascot, Conservative Philip Davies, who went to a state school and worked at Asda.

With the Emily Thornberry fiasco still in recent memory, our Phil makes this excellent observation.

There’s an awful lot of people in this country - and clearly in America - who feel under-represented. They’re called white working class people and actually the Labour party that was once set up to represent working class people are now a million miles away from that, they wouldn’t recognise a working class person if they tripped over one.

He's not wrong. sadly the modern Labour party sees working class people as just a mob who are there to look down on and boss about. It's notable that in the areas that we discuss on these pages, it is invariably Labour politicians who are most likely to ignore the voices of the public and just carry on with their overbearing bans and restrictions anyway, while obsessing on subjects which are entirely irrelevant to the working man and woman in the UK.

And Davies is right that it is not exclusive to Britain, a Democrat on Radio 5 the other day was bemoaning the fact that his party lost in working class areas of his state because "people here want jobs, a good wage so that they can afford a holiday and, eventually, to be able to retire with dignity; Democrats were more worried about which bathroom people should use.".

We are living in curious times. Do watch brusque northerner Phil in action against silver spoon-accented Hunt, and enjoy.

H/T AB via Twitter

Mascot Watch #32: Definition Of 'Independent' Edition

I haven't written much about our esteemed mascot here recently, but he posed an interesting parliamentary question on Tuesday. 

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will undertake an independent review of the cumulative effect of tobacco control measures introduced by his Department in the last decade before moving forward with a fresh smoking strategy.

Well, it would be a good idea wouldn't it? To assess how successful - if at all - graphic health warnings, the vending machines ban, tobacco display ban and plain packaging have been before embarking on more splashes of taxpayer cash on funding even more self-enriching makework for the likes of ASH and their fellow hideous tobacco control industry tycoons.

Nicola Blackwood replied for the government (emphasis mine):

The Department assesses the impact of all proposed measures before laying legislation using standard government methodology. These assessments are set out in Impact Assessments which are scrutinised by the Regulatory Policy Committee before publication alongside the Statutory Instrument. A number of the tobacco measures contain commitments to further review the impact of the legislation within five years of them coming into force.

So, Davies asked if there was a plan to study if those policies had been successful after implementation, and Blackwood's reply is that they don't need to because an impact assessment was done before the law was passed.

It's also interesting that Blackwood proudly states that Impact Assessments are scrutinised by the Regulatory Policy Committee, because last I heard the RPC were not at all happy with the IA for plain packaging.

And as for the five year reviews, well we know how 'independent' they are don't we. Because, y'see, Davies did specifically ask about "an independent review" and not fantasy garbage thrown together by the same tobacco control industry grant-gobblers who lobbied for the policy in the first place.

Blackwood continues ...

The 2013 report An Audit of the impact of the Department of Health’s Regulations upon business concluded that there is a robust cost-benefit case for the tobacco control regulations considered and experience shows that initiatives to reduce smoking prevalence work best in combination, with cumulative effects over time.

In other words, they haven't actually got a clue if any of those policies were responsible for the decline in smoking. They just did stuff and other stuff happened or, as the report itself put it.

[B]ecause tobacco control measures are mutually reinforcing, it is difficult, retrospectively, to disentangle the impact of single initiatives, particularly when they have been implemented as part of comprehensive strategies, the effects of which have built up over the years.

So, government don't really have a Scooby. They have observed a correlation between smoker bullying and declines in prevalence and just assume it must be solely down to their inspired policy-making.

It could be equally argued - in  fact, I think there is a far bigger case to make - that the explosion in e-cig use has driven the decline in smoking. But why would government and those who profit from lobbying the government with government cash (taken from us, natch) want to admit that?

That way lies the gravy train graveyard.

Mascot Watch #31: ASH In The Trough Edition

There have been many stories in the press about MPs getting their noses in the trough, but this is one about a Lib Dem MP using his influence to get someone else's nose into a very lucrative trough indeed.

Paul Burstow is a particularly oleaginous, one-track minded anti-smoker who is Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Smoking and Health. This group is secretaried by ASH and acts as the political arm of their lobbying operation.

With this in mind, here is what Burstow presented to Westminster yesterday on the subject of George Osborne's proposed annual levy on tobacco companies (which he stole from Labour).

The potential benefits to public health can be fully realised only if the levy is used to fund tobacco control action, which is designed to increase the rate of quitting tobacco use over and above what might otherwise be expected as a result of price rises. 

If the programme of research proposed in this Bill were carried out, it would show that the recurring cost of tobacco control activity at every level - local, regional and national - could be met from the proceeds of the levy.

Or, to put it another way, the government should steal money from legal businesses and hand it to Burstow's pals at ASH and other already state-funded fake charities and lobbying quangos. You know, just in case anyone were to make a case that we shouldn't be paying for their huge salaries when the country is struggling with a deficit.

Now, we know all about government lobbying government - whereby tax receipts are transferred to the likes of ASH etc who then use it to influence MPs - but have you ever heard of an MP using his position to lobby government himself for state receipts to be handed over wholesale to single issue trouser stuffers?

Of course, lobbying by organisations which receive public money is not permitted, so it's staggering that Burstow should be using his influence - also paid for by us - to beg for more cash on ASH's behalf. Because that's exactly what is going on here, as our esteemed mascot pointed out in reply.

I see that the right hon. Gentleman is putting himself up as the spokesman for ASH, as it is its campaign that he is advocating

Yes. ASH are lobbying advocating for this policy which could benefit their bottom line, and Burstow is simply their pimp parliamentary mouthpiece. In fact, when the levy was first announced in Osborne's Autumn Statement, Deborah Arnott described it as “like Christmas come early” - Burstow is just trying to make sure that the proposed ill-gotten gifts go to his tobacco control industry friends instead of the treasury and country as a whole.

However, our Phil was in great form, and came out with one of his most contemptuous responses to ideological anti-smoking nonsense yet. Read and enjoy.

I particularly wanted to oppose the Bill because the right hon. Gentleman has done us all a great service. He has let the cat out of the bag. Of course, the Government have already accepted ASH’s campaigning on banning smoking in cars where there are children, which is completely unenforceable. They have also accepted the plain packaging of tobacco, which is completely idiotic. Of course, the Government accepted those policies because ASH told them that if they did so the amount of smoking in the country would plummet. We were told that if we introduced plain packaging it would be absolutely fantastic because all of a sudden cigarettes would not appeal to young people and children and that would close the gateway into tobacco use. The whole policy was based on that premise. 

That policy has not even been implemented and already the right hon. Gentleman is saying, “Actually, that was all a load of tripe. It won’t make any difference whatsoever. What we need now is a levy on the tobacco industry so that we can do some research to find out why young people smoke and then try to stop them smoking.” Well, what on earth was the plain packaging campaign about, if not that? I am grateful to him for letting the cat out of the bag by telling us that the whole premise behind plain packaging was a complete load of old codswallop. Unfortunately, the Government idiotically accepted that codswallop in a mindless fashion without even thinking it through, because they, too, are in the pocket of ASH and, rather than making up their own policies based on evidence, just want gleefully to accept anything ASH tells them. 

The point is that this is just the latest campaign from ASH. Every time it advocates the introduction of another measure, it tells us that that is what the Government need to do to tackle tobacco, but as soon as it is implemented we are told that actually it was a load of old cobblers and now we need something else. It is like those companies that tell us their washing powder is absolutely magnificent, only to bring out a new one a couple of years later and tell us that the previous one was actually terrible and that really we need to buy the new one. ASH cannot now hand over the keys to the company car; it has to keep going and justifying its role. It will keep coming up with new, innovative solutions to try to keep its jobs, which no doubt the Government will accept, because they do not have a mind of their own and just have to do what ASH tells them to do.

Yep, that just about sums it up. Respect.

Mascot Watch #30: Our Phil Investigates #COP6

Our glorious chewy-faced hero in the sidebar has been having a little delve into the Department of Health's involvement in that recent farce in Moscow.

Reading between the lines, it would appear that the idea of boycotting COP6 - despite simultaneously talking tough on applying sanctions on Russia - didn't even cross the UK government's mind.

Philip Davies (Shipley, Conservative) 

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what representations his Department received urging them to boycott the conference of the parties to the World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. 

Jane Ellison (The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health; Battersea, Conservative) 

The Department received no such representations.

Well, they certainly received many comments on Twitter suggesting just such a course of action, but I suppose we don't count.

USA refused to go, Canada was 'proud' not to attend, and even Australia considered it, but the Department of Health ignored all that. So eager were they to be welcomed by Putin and do the complementary tour of Soviet monuments, they happily flew there and put all thoughts of air passengers being shot down in transit behind them.

Our Phil also asked a question about how much it cost us as taxpayers. Now, I don't know about you, but I don't reckon Ellison answered the question adequately here.

Philip Davies

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how much his Department spent on attendance at the conference of the parties to the World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in Moscow; and whose travel, accommodation and other expenses related to attendance at the conference his Department paid for. 

Jane Ellison

The sixth Conference of the Parties (COP) of the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control was held in Moscow over 13-18 October 2014. To be able to participate in the full range of business at the COP, the United Kingdom was represented by two officials. 

The United Kingdom’s delegation travelled on economy class flights to Moscow and stayed during the COP in the hotel where the conference was held, however total costs are not yet available.

The question requested two answers; who went and how much it cost. It seems that Ellison doesn't want to say who went and - incredibly - doesn't yet know how much it cost!

We do now know, though, that the two delegates - Andrew Black and one other - stayed not in just any hotel. No, they stayed in the most expensive one. Well, if you're breaking sanctions you may as well take the right royal piss, eh?

Remember that the question allowed Ellison to sidestep the attendance of ASH's Deborah Arnott - also a beneficiary of your taxes - who went claiming to be the vaper's friend, but returned clutching a recommendation that e-cigs should be summarily crushed after a summit which was conducted in the midst of staggering censorship, denial of free speech, bribery, bullying, and abuse of democracy. Which expensive hotel she stayed in while selling out is not yet clear.

Hopefully, Mr Davies will keep prodding this blistering sore in the heart of government. The actions of Department of Health officials are starting to look a lot like institutionalised treachery.

Politicians: Please Lie Responsibly

I know it's not an earth-shattering revelation, but a Cabinet minister has been caught lying.

Desperately trying to justify poking her nose in where it has no business, Theresa May came out with this whopper yesterday.

But the Home Secretary Theresa May said: 'Alcohol-fuelled harm costs taxpayers £21 billion a year. It is therefore right that the alcohol industry is taking action to help reduce this burden, without penalising those that drink responsibly.'

Except it doesn't cost the taxpayer that amount at all, nor anything even close to it as Snowdon pointed out when Sarah Wollaston told this particular lie to the House in 2012.

This would be a reference to the British Cabinet Office report of 2003 which found a total social cost of around £18-20 billion. 

Of these costs, £4.7 billion were intangible costs (ie. they are hypothetical - they do not need to be paid by anyone, let alone the taxpayer). 

A further £5.5 billion were lost productivity costs which, again, do not represent a bill that needs to be paid. 

A further £5.1 billion were private costs related to crime which, once again, do not need to be recouped through the tax system, and the author of the report stressed repeatedly that these costs were at the absolute top end of any realistic estimate. 

The only costs which can be considered as "to the taxpayer" are £1.7 billion in healthcare and £2.2 billion in crime and punishment, but since the exchequer receives £9 billion a year in alcohol duty, that hardly makes a compelling case for a compensatory sin tax, does it?

Indeed. And it also doesn't make much of a case for a Tory-led government to applaud choice being restricted for the entire population, on the back of selective lies and a booze epidemic that quite simply isn't happening.

As he has admirably done before, our esteemed blog knight Philip Davies stuck up for common sense over puritanical finger-wagging from his own party, but what good will this petty tinkering do anyway? As was discovered when nicotine was reduced in tobacco, smokers simply smoked more to achieve the same level in their blood. So why would drinkers not react in the same way? Drinkers will self-administer just as smokers do and will simply drink more wine to reach their preferred level of intoxication - whether that be mild, merry, wobbly, shit-faced or comatose.

What I find far more worrying from a societal perspective, is why politicians are so lethally addicted to binge-lying in order to interfere in our personal choices. Perhaps we need a pressure group to wean them off this damaging behaviour by urging them to lie responsibly with a view to quitting the filthy habit altogether.

H/T RooBeeDoo via Frank Davis

Mascot Watch #29: Not Letting It Lie Edition

You may remember that our Phil was seriously questioning government funding of ASH a couple of weeks ago.

Philip Davies MP, said: "It is perfectly clear from the bid documents from ASH for Government funding that some of this money is used by ASH for campaigning activity to lobby the Government to implement ASH's demands. 

"For the Government to in effect spend money to lobby itself is ridiculous and unjustifiable in equal measure. This improper funding relationship should stop and the Government should investigate this and any other similar arrangements to ensure taxpayers' money is not abused in this way".

You'll be pleased to know he hasn't left it there either. Earlier this week saw the publication of a written parliamentary question probing further.

Philip Davies (Shipley, Conservative)

To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether funding allocated to Action on Smoking and Health may be used for campaigning purposes by that body under the terms on which it is allocated. 

Jane Ellison (The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health; Battersea, Conservative)

Since 2011, the conditions for the grants provided to Action on Smoking and Health under the Department of Health’s “Section 64 General Scheme of Grants to voluntary and Community Organisations” arrangements have explicitly set out that none of the funding provided by the Department should be intended or used for political lobbying or campaigning purposes.

Advocacy work in support of the implementation of existing Government Tobacco Control policies and programmes of work is acceptable.

Hmm, interesting. So it seems that using government funds to shout "huzzah!" about government policy is considered to be fantastic use of taxpayer cash, apparently. Personally, I find that quite corrupt in and of itself, but hey ho.

More to the point, though, is the first paragraph of Ellison's response. It states categorically that no funding from the DoH should be used for political lobbying or campaigning, something that ASH exists solely to do.

I'm sure they will claim that cash they receive elsewhere is used for campaigning, whereas the Section 64 money is only used to shout "huzzah!" at every infantilising pronouncement from Westminster. But unless they have many separate bank accounts for storing income from different sources (a child's starter account would do for donations from the public, such is ASH's definition of 'charity') it all goes in the same pot, I expect.

All of which begs the question why government funds them at all. Surely the best way for politicians to keep their hands clean and be free of accusations of foul play would be to cut Debs and her mates off without a penny. Then, and only then, would the stench of corrupt use of our money go away, doncha think?

Keep on pushing Philip, we're all behind you.

Mascot Watch #28: Government Lobbying Government Edition

Over at Breitbart London, the spotlight is being shone on ASH in an article entitled "MP demands action over 'improper' government payments to lobbyists". The lobbyists in question are ASH and - I'm thrilled to note - the MP is our very own esteemed blog knight Philip Davies.

An MP has called for an investigation into the "improper funding relationship" between Britain's Department for Health (DH) and an anti-smoking lobby group. Philip Davies MP made the demand after revelations that DH granted money to Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), which the group subsequently used to lobby for tobacco control measures under consideration by the department.

Now, we've known for a while that ASH receive grant cash from the government - I've mentioned it here from time to time - but what Breitbart bring newly to the table is a grant request where ASH admit that they will use that money to lobby the government.

Or, as our Phil puts it.

Philip Davies MP, said: "It is perfectly clear from the bid documents from ASH for Government funding that some of this money is used by ASH for campaigning activity to lobby the Government to implement ASH's demands. 

"For the Government to in effect spend money to lobby itself is ridiculous and unjustifiable in equal measure. This improper funding relationship should stop and the Government should investigate this and any other similar arrangements to ensure taxpayers' money is not abused in this way".

Quite. What's more, in light of this new information, it is difficult to see how this fits in with ASH laughably calling itself a charity, rather than a political lobbying organisation.

ASH considers plain packaging to be a top policy priority, and has been supportive of standardised packaging laws introduced in Australia and New Zealand.

They do indeed, and this is just the latest in a long list of their recent politically-motivated 'top policy priorities', something which Charity Commission guidance says is not acceptable (emphasis mine).

"A charity cannot exist for a political purpose, which is any purpose directed at furthering the interests of any political party, or securing or opposing a change in the law, policy or decisions either in this country or abroad."

Their previous political activity could hardly be more blatant. In 2006, they were part of the Smokefree Coalition which lobbied for a change in law to bring in the smoking ban. Debs Arnott and Martin Dockrell even boasted - after bullying Blair's government into changing their minds - at how good they were at this political lobbying lark in this document. 

Following that, ASH also lobbied government for the ban on tobacco displays, a ban on vending machines, massively increased taxation, the medical licensing by MHRA of e-cigs, and they are now nearing the end of their extensive, mendacious and central role in the grubby and corrupt campaign to bring in plain packaging.

Deborah Arnott will then trundle off to Moscow in the autumn to attend the unelected WHO's COP6 to talk about how governments all over the world can be browbeaten into changing their "laws, policies and decisions" too. 

In fact, it's difficult to find anything at all that ASH do which isn't political lobbying.

So well done to our Phil for raising the issue. The only problem being that ASH's abuses are so wide-ranging it's hard to know who to write to and complain about it. The Charity Commission? The National Audit Office? The Department of Health? Eric Pickles? 

Where to start?

Mascot Watch #27: State Jackboots In Your Property Edition

Real life has got in the way in Puddlecoteville so there's been no time to comment on how the country's most vacuous woodentops failed to see beyond the end of their snouts and voted for a ban on smoking in private vehicles. For teh chilrenz, natch.

However, I can't let this pass without comment. You see, mere mascot status is looking a tad miserly for our Phil after reading his contribution to the pathetic charade debate. Here are some highlights.

Philip Davies (Shipley, Conservative) 

I have no quibble at all with Luciana Berger, who represents the smug, patronising excesses of new Labour. They think that the only reason they came into Parliament was to ban everybody else from doing all the things that they happen not to like. What perturbs me is that Conservative Ministers appear not to have grasped the concept, even though they claim to be Conservatives, that we can disapprove of something without banning it. This is just another in the long line of triumphs for the nanny state. 

The Conservative party used to believe in the rights of private property, and that people could do as they pleased in their own private property. Their private vehicle is their own private property. If people wish to smoke in a car with children, that is a decision for them to take. As Conservatives, we should not interfere with that. 

We all know where this is going to end up. The people at Action on Smoking and Health, who appear to be the only people the Department of Health listens to, are not going to hand over their company car keys when this measure gets passed tonight—they will be campaigning for the next one, which is of course to get smoking banned in everybody’s homes as well. Once we have agreed to the principle of banning smoking in people’s private cars, how on earth can we logically say that there is a great difference regarding people’s homes?

Do go read the whole thing, including this part of his denouement which lays bare how comprehensively unfit for purpose the current fuckwitted catastrophe (the correct collective noun, I believe) of modern career politicians now is.

The Minister said that it would be a constraint on the Minister’s power to accept my amendments. Well, I make no apology for trying to constrain the Minister’s power. That is what the House of Commons is all about—trying to make sure that sensible decisions are taken based on evidence, not just on the latest whim of the nanny state brigade whom she has listened to. We are supposedly here to try to defend the freedoms of people in this country. This Government want to trample over every single one of those freedoms.

Which, by a stunning coincidence, is precisely why the entire country despises politicians and wouldn't lose sleep if each and every one were to be strung from a lamp post tomorrow.

Bravo, Mr D! As of now, you are no longer my mascot - instead, arise Sir Philip, official blog Knight.

Watch out, too for an eloquent contribution from Ian Paisley Jr and a Tory MP rubbishing Deborah Arnott's foul bullshit from the green benches of the House.

Charles Walker (Broxbourne, Conservative) 

My hon. Friend will know that one of the main scourges for young people is alcohol. Why are the Government not proposing standardised packaging for alcohol?

Don't know about Debs, but that certainly looks like a domino theory come true to me.

And lastly, kudos to this Labour MP for delivering a speech which is brilliantly ahead of its time (after three tiny edits).

David Winnick (Walsall North, Labour) 

I was also around when we debated banning smoking in vehicles with children, which it was argued at the time was a grave restriction on freedom. Who in the House of Commons today, in 2019, would argue that, apart from the hon. Member for Shipley and a few others? The ban, which was so controversial at the time, has been widely accepted in the country. People said that it would not be accepted and that the law would be broken, but has it been? Where is the evidence that the law on smoking passed in the previous Parliament has been broken? 

I accept entirely that it may be difficult to implement the measures that have been suggested on smoking in private homes, and I do not underestimate the difficulties. I do, however, say simply that it is worth a try. Every organisation that has been mentioned and is concerned with public health has argued that the amendment should be put into law, as I believe it should be. It provides an opportunity to protect children in the way it describes, and it is likely, however difficult it may be to police, that people will accept that the law has been passed by Parliament, and that there will be a greater desire to ensure that it is observed. This measure is worth a try, and anything that can protect children from the dangers of smoking should certainly be supported tonight.

I wonder where he got his Tardis from?

The Laughable Delusion Of Sarah Wollaston MP

Apparently, the government shelving minimum alcohol pricing is not because it's a ridiculous idea; is deeply unpopular across party voter preferences; would effectively tax the poor; and is backed by the worst junk science imaginable. No, according to Sarah Wollaston MP, it is a conspiracy, no less, facilitated by hiding crucial data.

Why on earth then did Sheffield University agree to delay the publication of the important research which so clearly set out that a ban on below-cost selling of alcohol would have a meaningless impact compared with a modest minimum price of 45p per unit? Why for that matter were they asked to do so in the first place?

It comes on a day when, coincidentally, a load of alcohol prohibitionists wrote a letter to the same newspaper condemning the government's "deplorable practices". And, you know, I think she was fully aware of that and was helping to create an angry smoke screen.

It's the usual desperate stuff from public health bullies. File junk science and hope politicians will roll over but, if they don't, resort to plan B and accuse them of being a shill for Big [insert popular consumer industry here].

The result has been a cacophony of ignorance from gulled newspaper journos and the faux outraged on Twitter. Predictably, the Bad Science guy again lined up to defend the honour of, err, bad scientists.

Fab piece from @drwollastonmp on how gov research into effects of minimum pricing for alcohol were suppressed http://t.co/Tx97XrRDXg
— ben goldacre (@bengoldacre) January 8, 2014

Why Goldacre would want to identify himself with government-funded junk science designed exclusively to promote a particular policy is anyone's guess. I thought he didn't like that sort of corruption of data for a pre-conceived ends, as described by licensing law expert Stephen McGowan in 2009 and again in 2012.

The Government seeks to implement policy based on facts; but the Sheffield research is not positivism or empiricism, it is speculation.  It is also a re-hash of their previous statements commissioned by Westminster and published in December 2008. I have some difficulty with Holyrood’s decision to instruct Sheffield University when they already knew what the results were going to be. 

[...]  

The results of the Sheffield research are, after all, a totem carved from conjecture and guesswork (something which the authors of the report have themselves point out).

But then, I don't understand Wollaston's gripe either. You see, she knows very well that the Sheffield 'research' was available - yes, open access - for years before July 2013. I know this because I read it in full at the start of 2012.

What she is now complaining about is the delayed publication of these updated figures. I don't see why seeing as they were far less compelling than the nonsense the Home Office were already aware of.

2009: 45p minimum price would cut consumption by 4.3%
2013: 45p minimum price would cut consumption by 1.6%  

2009: It would save 344 lives in year 1 and 2,040 lives a year by year 10
2013: It would save 123 lives in year 1 and 624 lives a year by year 10  

2009: Alcohol admissions would be down by 66,200
2013: Alcohol admissions would be down by 23,700  

2009: Year one direct health savings of £58.6m and cumulative ten year saving of £1,074m
2013: Year one direct health savings of £25.3m and cumulative ten year saving of £417.2m  

2009: Total societal value of harm reduction £6.6bn
2013: Total societal value of harm reduction £3.4bn

The Sheffield University report was, in itself, already policy-led rubbish, but when a BBC Panorama episode had to be pulled from iPlayer last year, the incompetence of the temperance lobby's lead researchers was laid brutally open to ridicule.

The School of Health and Related Research at the University of Sheffield has confirmed to Panorama that unfortunately, due to human error, figures they produced specifically for the programme Old, Drunk and Disorderly?  broadcast on 10th September 2012 were incorrect.  The figures are in fact 4-5 times lower than those originally given to Panorama. The University emphasised the human error was wholly on their part and has apologised unreservedly to the BBC.

Then came the news that the level of reduction in consumption predicted by Sheffield is being exceeded by the drinks industry's responsibility deal without any need for regulation.

Support from public health's usual stalwarts then dried up as Left Foot Forward took the unusual step of agreeing with Boris Johnson that evidence for minimum pricing is a nonsense, quickly followed by the lefty New Statesman agreeing that it is a fact that it would have "a disproportionate effect on the poorest".

As if that wasn't enough, Sheffield were then forced to revise their predictions embarrassingly downward and spirit the previous guff - which the Home Office had access to for around four years - off the internet.

Now, I don't know about you, but I'd say the government probably took all that into account and decided that they couldn't propose a policy based on deliberately contrived fake science; written by a university team which has been proven to be woefully incompetent; which has already been rendered irrelevant by intervening events; which is most likely illegal under EU law; and which will undoubtedly tie up taxpayer cash in straitened times defending damages claims from justifiably aggrieved legal businesses.

It is astonishingly delusional of Wollaston to believe anything else. But then she's not averse to talking arse-biscuits in parliament too when she feels like it, so what else is new.

Wollaston pretends to be a Tory, but if you want to know what a real one looks like do read our esteemed mascot giving her a kicking on minimum pricing here, here and here.

Mascot Watch #26: Rose Amongst Thorns And Another Gong

The latest update on our esteemed mascot can only be properly served visually. Here is just a small exchange during Thursday's debate on plain packaging  (click to enlarge).

A policy which also encompasses concerns such as effects on UK retailers, international trade, brand recognition, consumer choice, intellectual property, border control, the nature of government lobbying government and corruption in state-funded evidence is apparently not complex to this screaming prohibitionist posing as a 'liberal'.

I will have a lot more to say on this when I get some time, but it's worth highlighting our Phil's pithy contributions to what you can probably imagine was a procession of idiot MPs who all think along similar lines to pillock Pugh.

You'll be delighted to learn that he also got his barbs in first at the start of the debate, before others contrived to retch up the usual policy-led bullshit spoon-fed to them by the tobacco control industry and their equally mendacious pals.

Idiotic, nanny state proposals such as the plain packaging of tobacco are what we expect from the Labour party. What we expect from Conservative Ministers is for them to believe in individual freedom and individual responsibility, and to stand up to the health zealots and nanny state brigade who, if they could, would ban everything and have everything in plain packaging. Will the Minister commit to sticking to those Conservative principles and to ignoring the nanny state brigade of Labour Members?

She didn't, of course.

To be continued.

PS Our Phil also collected his second Spectator Parliamentarian of the Year award last month.

The Parliamentarian of the Year was shared between the fifteen Tories who rebelled against statuary regulation of the press.

Yes, of course he was one of them. I have now duly amended the sidebar.

Mascot Watch 25: BBC Badgering Edition

It's been a while since the last update on our esteemed mascot, but his contribution to yesterday's Culture Media and Sport Committee grilling of Tony Hall and Chris Patten deserves highlighting.

In early exchanges he broached the subject of the 'shelved' Panorama investigation into right-on charity Comic Relief (from 11:01:40 below) - not a great favourite of this blog - before moving on to questioning the presumed political impartiality of the BBC in general.

Watch (from 12:57:05) as he enquires why the Guardian, with its minor readership, is disproportionately referenced by a majority of the BBC; why right of centre think tanks come with a "health warning" but left of centre ones don't: and why the BBC news team routinely use Labour sound-bites in their political reporting.

Also, and of particular interest here I reckon, he asked why an EU press release on immigration was reproduced without question by Mark Easton despite it being unrepresentative of the report itself. Mark Easton, as you may remember, is the guy who desperately spun - a la Guardian - to deny that pubs were closing in their thousands because of the smoking ban.

We, of course, are very well aware of how the BBC reproduces propaganda without question. Just a few examples this year include Adam Brimelow repeating the 'heart attack miracle' lie without bothering to delve into the stats; unquestioning regurtitation of Ian Gilmore's support for minimum alcohol pricing based on fatally flawed 'evidence'; Nick Triggle celebrating NHS smoking cessation success ... from a 'study' blatantly produced by pharma shills and filleted even by tobacco controllers themselves; and 'exclusive' interviews - for no identifiable reason whatsoever - with two Aussie proponents of plain packs, without the remotest nod to providing balance by way of a differing opinion.

Perhaps, if our Phil stumbles across this 'ere article, he might be nudged into asking questions next time of the BBC's quite appallingly biased adherence to public health industry lies and spin. Including why they saw no reason whatsoever to double and treble check a Panorama episode - unlike in this week's Comic Relief case - which spouted nonsensical statistics they were later forced to apologise for and which led to the iPlayer re-run being pulled (but after millions had been led to believe it).

By contrast, our Phil is a model of impartiality. He doesn't solely target the BBC ... he is equally consistent in monstering Channel 4 too.

Alastair Campbell Sups With His Devils

Former Labour spinmeister Alastair Campbell woke up yesterday morning and decided he was going on a one man crusade to spin for minimum alcohol pricing. His Twitter feed mentioned nothing else all day except the evils of alcohol and how hammering the poor with higher prices on their tipple would make everything hunky-dory.

It was all designed to lead up to an ITV article (complete with handy plug for his new book, natch) where he lectures on "Britain's booze problem" - you know, the problem that continually declines faster than anti-alcohol preachers can ramp up the moral panic - while condemning Cameron for ditching minimum pricing.

On his blog on Sunday, he was also not too enamoured with alcohol company sponsorship of sport.

If you watch as much football as I do, you notice trends: a booze ad, then a gambling ad, then a payday loans ad. Might there be a link between the three? When the England football team played recently, hoardings around the pitch told us that Carlsberg was ‘the official beer of the England team.’ The American PGA has an ‘official vodka’ sponsor. Whisky sponsors are in sports as varied as Formula One, rugby, golf, polo and rowing. FA Cup sponsored by Budweiser.

But he doesn't blame them, according to the ITV piece.

I'm not going to slag off the alcohol industry because they are legitimately selling a legal product that rakes in billions of pounds to the Exchequer. If they are allowed to sell it 24 hours a day, why shouldn't they?

Refreshing, don't you think?

Or perhaps he feels duty bound to say that seeing as he is "strategic counsel" to Portland Communications, a company registered as lobbyists by the Association of Professional Political Consultants (APPC).

Listed as a paying customer of Portland by the APPC is none other than AB-inBev ... makers of Budweiser, the FA Cup sponsors. (click to enlarge)

Now, if he were serious about his anti-booze campaign, shouldn't he consider not working for lobbyists for companies he blames for "Britain's booze problem"?

Note, too, that another client of Portland is the Association of British Bookmakers, which makes this Twitter exchange with our esteemed mascot a classic of the hypocrisy genre.

@PhilipDaviesMP forgive me if I give this GCSE politics exchange a miss. You get back to promoting gambling drinking and punishing the poor
— Alastair Campbell (@campbellclaret) September 18, 2013

Which, of course, one could never accuse Campbell of.

Err ....

Mascot Watch 24: Educating Anna Edition

Amongst all the hysterical exaggeration in the House on Friday following the correct decision to shelve plain packs, Anna Soubry seemed very coy about a certain statistic.

Our esteemed mascot was on the case.

Philip Davies (Shipley, Conservative)

I congratulate the Government on this decision. The Minister will recall that the last time I raised this subject in the House, she told me that I would see the light, and I am delighted that she and the Government are the ones who have seen the light on this issue. She cherry-picked some numbers of people in favour of and against standardised packaging from the consultation. Could she tell us the figures from the full 688,000 responses? How many of those were in favour and how many against? 

Anna Soubry (Broxtowe, Conservative)

Forgive me; I do not have that information at my fingertips. I am more than happy to supply it to my hon. Friend by way of a letter, or any other mechanism.

Any other mechanism than admitting it in public, that is.

You see, it looks a lot like this ...

... and it would quite obliterate the one-sided agenda Anna was presenting.

She was, however, very clued up about what is happening in a dustbowl 11,000 miles away.

I have spoken to the Australian high commissioner ... I also spoke with one of the leading experts who have been involved in the legislation in Australia, and I was quite surprised that even after about three or four months, they could not give me a picture of any emerging evidence. 

[...] 

I thought that we might see some sort of change quite quickly in Australia, but we have not seen it yet; I am surprised about that.

Oh? So all the hyperbolic claims of hundreds of thousands of kids dying through lack of a law are more than premature then, wouldn't you say?

This, sadly, is the intellectual bankruptcy of yer average modern idiot politician. No initial evidence which wasn't rigged; not even the remotest sign of imminent evidence even from corrupt nanny state central; huge potential costs to businesses; a large majority against the proposal which none but the reality-based want to talk about; but let's squawk about fantasy deaths and demand a pointless law anyway. 

Little wonder, then, that very few think it's worth voting for such knuckle-dragging, anti-democratic dickheads, doncha think? 

Mascot Watch 23: Thatcher Tribute Edition

Apologies for the lack of content this week, just got back from a couple of days in Amsterdam with flaky WiFi.

I managed to catch this cheeky contribution to the Thatcher tribute debate from our esteemed blog mascot though.

"Margaret Thatcher was my political inspiration. I only wish that I had been here in Parliament when she was Prime Minister, as it would have been a rare treat indeed to be on these Benches and able to support a Government with whom I agreed from time to time."

Oof! Right in the love spuds, eh Cameron?

Give A Good Guy A Seasonal Pat On The Back

As we wind down for Christmas, you might like to consider doing something modest to pat a good man on the back for protecting our interests in 2012.

If you look to the sidebar on the right, you'll see that our esteemed mascot is described as Spectator Readers' Representative of the Year 2011. This accolade was awarded to our Phil last December after we pointed out his outstanding efforts in the previous twelve months.

It was described by Conservative Home as "a very good choice" at the time. That's handy, because I think he'd make a very good choice for Con Home's Conservative Parliamentarian of the Year Award 2012 too. So I have nominated him and hope some of you may see your way to doing the same.


As if you needed any justification, our Phil has been just as principled and busy this year as in 2011 hence why I reckon he deserves more encouragement.

He appeared in many articles opposing minimum alcohol pricing as the consultation was announced, and got in early with his condemnation of the policy when opposing arch-alcohol prohibitionist Sarah Wollaston in the Spring.

He was also prominent in the debate against plain packaging, with quotes of his being picked up by the BBC and a number of other media outlets. Six months ago, he was also front and centre in a collective letter to Andrew Lansley slamming the idea and expressing "serious concerns".

He has continued his insistence that the UK should be given a referendum on the EU, and for the second year in succession called for a cut in the EU budget. It's interesting to note that last year he was one of 37 MPs who did so, while this year it was 51 with others feeling emboldened by the courage of those like our Mr D.

In September he also put his name to a bill designed to cut to the heart of the EU problem by repealing the European Communities Act 1972. It is partly through action such as this that yesterday saw David Cameron claiming that a Tory eurosceptic stance is back on the agenda.

And as if that wasn't enough, he also called for expenses cheat Denis MacShane to face criminal charges; defended the press against state intrusion; gave the BBC's Lord Patten a torrid going-over in committee, resulting in his being called 'impertinent' for having the cheek to ask how our money is spent; described George Orwell's 1984 as a book that "best sums up 'now'", and still had time to express his wish to be a Gruffalo.

How can it possibly be anyone else, eh?

If you have a moment spare, you can nominate by clicking this Con Home article and simply adding your choice, and reason behind it, to the comments.

Mascot Watch 22: Hands Off Our Taxes, WHO

It may have escaped your attention - because that's precisely what it's designed to do - that the World Health Organisation is convening in Seoul on Monday at the start of a six day conference.

Despite never having received a single vote from anyone, anywhere, one of the items on the agenda is to massively ramp up tobacco taxes. Not just in a few countries, but in all of them.

The World Health Organization (WHO) is considering a global excise tax of up to 70 percent on cigarettes at an upcoming November conference, raising concerns among free market tax policy analysts about fiscal sovereignty and bureaucratic mission creep.

This initiative was under the radar until just a few months ago, but having now started to leak out in many places the WHO are furiously spinning to convince us that they're just having a laugh, really. It's not going to be mandatory. Oh no, not at all.

[WHO spokesman Tarik Jasarveic said] "implementation of national tax policies remains the full sovereign right of the Parties"

Err, so why discuss adding it to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control if you aren't intending to apply pressure on sovereignty of national taxation?

This is how these unelected bastards work. Hold a meeting that no-one knows about (with prawn sarnies and much more provided by pharmaceutical companies); pass a resolution; send it out to heavily-funded tobacco control minions worldwide to bully spineless governments into submission.

That's modern democracy, folks.

Of course, as with all hysterical anti-smoking initiatives, this would smash open the door of national taxation for any number of single issue cocktrumpets to quote as a precedent. It's bad enough that the EU is firing compulsory directives from Brussels which our parliament is only empowered to rubber stamp, without yet more unelected bureaucrats taking their slice of our self-determination.

Fortunately, our esteemed mascot has spotted this and directed a pertinent question to the Treasury.

Philip Davies (Shipley, Conservative) 

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he plans to take to ensure UK sovereignty over the setting of excise duty rates, and use of that revenue, during negotiations on the draft guidelines for the implementation of Article 6 of the World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, in Seoul in November 2012. 

Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove, Conservative) 

Article 6 of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control and the draft text of the guidelines for implementation of that Article make clear that the guidelines currently under negotiation are non-binding and that States Party to the Convention retain full sovereignty over fiscal matters, including how revenues from tobacco taxation are spent. The issue of a threat to UK sovereignty over the setting of excise rates and the use of that revenue does not therefore arise.

Duly noted, Sajid. That's firmly in the memory banks, sunshine. "The issue of a threat to UK sovereignty ... does not arise", is something I hope we never have to quote back to you in the future.

If that's the last we hear on the matter, I'll be surprised, though. The time when anyone could trust politicians as far as we can throw them died around the time Giant Haystacks did.

Mascot Watch 21: 'In Your Face' BBC Edition

It's been a couple of months since the last update on our esteemed mascot. Our previous granting of his wish to be The Gruffalo was well received in his office, sources have told me.

His mood was less frivolous, though, when featured by Guido this morning requesting Ofcom investigate whether the BBC should be considered a "fit and proper" organisation to hold a broadcasting licence in light of the Jimmy Savile revelations. His letter can be read below.

Letter to CEO of Ofcom

For anyone (me included) who witnessed how the BBC led a lefty feeding frenzy during Leveson, it was hilarious to see their not-so-subtle stoking of flames against Murdoch potentially come back to bite them painfully on the arse, courtesy of our Phil.

The hacking scandal - awful as it was - revolved around reporting of stories in an illegal manner which caused much offence. Allegations in the BBC's case involve people actually being harmed while BBC bosses looked away.

I'm sure the BBC will pursue their own nasty skeletons in exactly the same aggressive manner that they subtlely went after their main broadcasting competitor, eh? They are, after all, impeccably impartial, aren't they?

Glorious.

Mascot Watch 20: Gruffalo Phil Edition

Our esteemed mascot has been somewhat popular with the media of late. Last month jovially guesting on Radio 4, and now being gently quizzed on his book preferences in The Spectator.

Some unusual choices there, but I think we can all concur with our Phil on this answer.

4) Which book do you think best sums up ‘now’?

1984 by George Orwell

Quite.

The article also affords us a chance to give something in return for his sterling efforts on our behalf.

3) Which literary character would you most like to be?

The Gruffalo!

Thanks to the craft of Lawson, your wish is our command, Philip (albeit from the stage version).

H/T Lleweton via FB

Mascot Watch 19: That's Handy, Nick

I'm sure he is vacantly unaware of it, but Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg did something indirectly Liberal yesterday by threatening to keep decent people in parliament.

Although proposals to make constituencies roughly the same size have already been approved in principle by MPs, they require a further vote on their implementation in time for the next election.

Mr Clegg added: "I have told the prime minister that when, in due course, parliament votes on boundary changes for the 2015 election I will be instructing my party to oppose them."

Please do, Nicky boy! It means our esteemed mascot would be off the hook.

Six of Yorkshire's most high profile MPs will find themselves looking for new seats under radical proposals to reduce the overall number of constituencies in the county.

The Shipley constituency of outspoken Conservative backbencher Philip Davies will [...] be abolished.

It just goes to show what a masterful politician our Phil is. It just took a few cleverly-placed words in Nick's shell-like last December and the seed was sown. Obviously.


Remember, guys and girls, we got him on that stage so he could perform his woo and fill us with hope for more barnstorming efforts, like this, post 2015.

The only spot on the horizon, as far as I can see, is that Clegg isn't the best at keeping promises.

Still, it's been a good couple of days for our man. Long may they continue.

Mascot Watch 18: "Rebel, Rebel" Edition

"Sorry, but I ain't having that!"

I don't know whether to be proud or disappointed.

Our esteemed mascot was on BBC Radio 4 last night defending his record of rebelling against the government on numerous occasions. But he only came in at number three of coalition MPs! For shame. We strive for excellence here!

Quips aside, it's incredibly refreshing to hear one of our elected rabble saying that he does/did "what I genuinely thought was the right thing to do", however unpalatable that may be to the idiots we have running the Westminster agenda. Precisely the reason we found it so easy to vote him the Spectator's Reader's Choice Parliamentarian of the Year, eh?

In discussion with Labour MP Jeremey Corbyn, our Phil managed to squeeze the little nugget in that boundary changes could lead to honest and proper-thinking MPs like himself being cut out of parliament altogether.

It's a 15 minute slot conducted in a non-confrontational - and sometimes humourous - manner so well worth a listen. Especially since our top geezer gave up part of his Sunday night to do it.