Plain packaging – the idea that by removing all branding from cigarette packs, leaving only the health warnings on the packet – is wrong on many levels. Cigarettes and other tobacco products are legal – tobacco companies ought to have the ability to differentiate their product from rival brands. Denying them the right to do so sets a worrying precedent. What next – plain labels on alcoholic drinks? The MacDonalds double arch to be outlawed?

Moreover, the removal of branding prohibits the consumer from differentiating between products. Rather, the move assumes that all smokers are dupable fools attracted to cigarettes only because they’re housed in colourful boxes. So evangelical is the anti-smoking brigade that they can’t fathom that people choose to smoke their favourite brand because they enjoy it, not because they’ve been tricked by a tobacco industry hell-bent on reeling in unsuspecting members of the public with shiny text and attractive patterns.

Not only will this inconvenience smokers and retailers, it is also likely to have a counterproductive effect. Far from dissuading smokers to smoke (beyond the harrasing message that this sends to smokers, which may well put off a few), plain packaging will make it easier for criminals to forge cigarettes and their packets. That’s bad news for HM Treasury, but it’s also bad news for smokers who may be unaware that they are not smoking the genuine product – and will not know what is in the cigarettes that they are smoking.

To find out more about the campaign visit www.handsoffourpacks.com, and don’t forget to sign the petition against this deeply illiberal initiative.

According to the article, “Companies in Canada, Ireland and France also receive government support for producing TV animation at home and in some countries there is protection against imported products. If the situation was the same in the UK it would be “a tremendous boost to our industry”, said Mr Bullough.”

With growth flatlining and our national debt rising, it certainly is a problem that companies are being forced to move out of the UK. The article doesn’t mention which of the business’s costs are rising, but rising costs are indeed a worry. Particularly as, if they’re down to the poor economy and rising inflation, or regulation and high taxes it’s likely that this pattern is being repeated across industries.

But the government funding that Mr Bullough asks for is not likely to fix the problem. In fact, if the protesters down at the OccupyLSX (surely a misnomer as they’re not actually occupying the Stock Exchange, incidentally?) are protesting against anything, surely the corporatism that this request represents is it? Obviously it’s unlikely that they’d see it that way as ‘The Arts’ are considered worthy and moral in a way that ‘Banking’ is not, even though both (when not involved in corporatism) contribute to the economy.

Anyway, if we want to keep Wallace and Gromit in the UK and buying British cheeses, the solution is not to ask for tax credits for selected industries, which do nothing but skew the market, but to lower taxes across the board to make industry more competitive by lowering their costs. Enough special pleading for this area or that industry – time to make the whole of Britain’s economy more competitive so that growth can, at last, start to take off and this debt can finally start to be paid off.

Not content with smoking bans and alcohol pricing fixes, ‘fast’ or ‘junk’ food seems to now be firmly in the sights of various authoritarian health campaigners and once again draconian measures are being called for. So today on the BBC we have a report that a study by Oxford University shows that if the Scots, Welsh and Irish adopted a more ‘English’ diet (ie, more fruit and veg, less high salt high fat food), 4000 lives a year could be saved. This from the news agency that was broadcasting end-of-the-world scenarios regarding the world population reaching 7billion only a few days ago. And how to encourage this diet? The article is adamant: junk food must be taxed, fruit must be subsidised; the authorities must do more. No other options are even explored.

This despite the university’s researchers freely admitting that they have no basis for claiming that taxes and subsidies would have any affect whatsoever:

“Dr Scarborough told the BBC that while the study did not consider the effectiveness of policies and interventions, the area should be investigated. He said: “Junk food taxes and subsidies of fruit and veg could be a very important tool in addressing health inequalities in the UK.”"

They could, but equally, they could not. He’s just made a wild assumption, one that the BBC are reporting as fact. And almost no-one will publicly question.

Meanwhile, last week a Ms Kane has been sent a letter by her local authority advising her that her five year old son is ‘almost obese’, advising her that she would soon be getting a phone call offering her tips on how to maintain a healthy lifestyle. Ms Kane, interviewed by her local paper, said

“You only have to look at Tayler to see he is a normal boy. He is no fatter or taller than anyone else in his class. Not only have they told me my perfectly healthy son is overweight and almost obese, they just assume I feed him rubbish and need to get lessons in cooking. Tayler is a fit and healthy little boy, he loves fruit and veg and all of our family eat well. He does weekly dance and football sessions. I don’t need tips on how to keep him active and healthy! … in my view this whole scheme is a waste of time and money.”

Quite right, too.

That they are willing to do so shows a severe lack of imagination in policy making by Scotland’s ministers. Yes, alcohol misuse is a problem and yes, it costs the public purse. But regressive measures that hit the poor not the irresponsible only serve to highlight the prejudicial assumptions being made by ministers in pursuing this policy. Indeed, the Scottish Government has insisted that the measures would not affect the ‘quality drinks favoured by responsible drinkers’. In other words, in the eyes of Scottish ministers, anyone buying cheap alcohol from supermarkets must be doing so with the intention of drinking irresponsibly, and not merely looking for the lowest price for the product they want (a perfectly rational thing to do).

The policy will see the price of a 2litre bottle of supermarket own brand cider more than tripling from £1.20 to £3.75, and a 70cl bottle of gin rising drastically from £6.95 to £11.85. Reading the information on the Scottish Parliament’s website (here), a very rosy picture is painted as regards the expected outcomes. “The Chief Medical Officer believes that – like the smoking ban – minimum price would save lives within a year” we are told. No mention is made of the fact that the high taxes on cigarettes have led to a thriving illicit trade in tobacco across Britain: at it’s peak in 2000/1, illicit cigarettes made up 21% of the total trade. Likewise, the experience in Scandanavia, where alcohol prices are high, is that people simply turn to making their own alcohol at home, with all the implications for quality and safety that that holds. There is no reason to believe that the Scottish experience will be any different.

Ultimately, if people wish to drink alcohol for a low price they will find a way to do so. If the Scottish authorities wish to disude irresponsible drinking patterns, they’d do better to look at countries that do combine low alcohol prices with responsible drinking, such as Spain and France, and ask themselves: what are they doing that we are not? The answer is likely to be complex, revolving around societal attitudes. But by applying some imaginative long term thinking to the problem, ministers are much more likely to come up with realistic, practical solutions that lead to positive change, rather than simply picking the pockets of the poor for the sake of being able to claim to have ‘done something’.

Director Donna Edmunds said “The Government needs to do much more to encourage growth in this country, and that includes going much further with it’s reforms to employment law.

A relaxation of unfair dismissal rules would allow companies to take risks by taking on new employees. At a time when 1million young people are out of work, this would be a great boost to the job market.

Current employment law is weighted too heavily against private sector employers and allows unproductive public sector workers to simply coast along. Either way, it is the taxpaying consumer who foots the bill.”

ENDS

But the overwhelming response by the media, as we welcome the 7billionth inhabitant into the world, has been that of doom and gloom. Brendan O’Neill yesterday noted the racist subtext to the stories, all of which are illustrated with pictures of Chinese, Indians and Africans undertaking earth-annihalating activities such as getting on a train, stopping at traffic lights and – heaven forbid – skipping. What strikes me about the tone of the text, however, is how apocolypse-laden it all is.

Population growth “threatens to undermine efforts to save the planet”, forcing us to examine “our planet’s predicament”. The Guardian descends into downright hysteria: “Since we passed one billion in 1800, our rising numbers and consumption have already caused climate change, rising sea levels, expanding deserts and the “sixth extinction” of wildlife.” One quickly reaches the conclusion that the only permissiable response is to scrub the earth clean of the scourge of humanity.

As Guardian journalists tend to live in London (population density of around 4,700 people per sq km) it’s easy to see why they might resort to hysteria. But to assume that the whole world is a replica of Kings Cross at rush hour is to blow matters out of all proportion. England is one of the most densely populated countries in the world at 395 per km sq (2008 figures) and yet David Cameron pointed out in his leader’s speech at conference that only 9% of the country is built upon. That statistic echoes worldwide statistics – globally, it’s estimated that 90% of humans live on just 10% of the earth’s surface. We’re not about to run out of space.

Most often, it’s the impact on resources that causes the most hand-wringing. Just imagine, all those people eating, clothing themselves, using fuel for all sorts of activities like staying warm and getting around. How ghastly. But this view completely ignores the fact that throughout history we have found ways to use resources more efficiently, even imaginatively so. Take energy as an example: we in the western world have progressed through a range of technologies from the least energy dense wood, through coal, to the highly energy dense nuclear technology, thus freeing ourselves of the need to chop down forests or dig out coal mines. There is absolutely no reason why, as our population rises and more human minds add to our collective ingenuity, we should fail to keep innovating in this way, using the earth’s resources more and more efficiently.

But the environmentalists and eco-handwringers don’t like to acknowledge human achievement, and they most certainly don’t like human development. Yearning for a mass-return to yurts and organic living (all of which is highly resource intensive) they have already told the developing world that they are not allowed to benefit from the sorts of technologies that the western world enjoyed during our industrial revolution. Now they are displaying the same hypocracy in criticising developing nations over their expanding populations.

Between the years 1700 and 2000, Britain’s population rose tenfold from 5.5million to over 50million. Despite our well-documented immigration rates over recent years, the most rapid rate of growth was during the latter half of the 19th century. Life expectancy at this time also rose – it was just 40 in 1820; by 1914 it had risen to around 53 (although it dropped again by 1920 due to economic recession and an outbreak of influenza) Today there are just a handful of countries left in the world with a life expectancy that low. A rising population is a measure of progress as modern technologies lift millions out of absolute poverty by providing them with livelihoods beyond subsistance farming, offering access to medicines, giving them warm, dry homes replete with electricity.

So the question to the end-of-the-worlders is this: if wealth gained through progress is the best way of allowing people to live longer, more fulfilling lives, how would you like to inform billions of people in developing nations that they are not allowed to live those lives? And if there are too many people on the planet, how would you like to get rid of the excess?

A ComRes survey has shown that 1 in 10 A-level students are put off university by higher fees, and that one third are considering apprenticeships.

Director Donna Edmunds said “In a flooded graduate job market, it is right that tuition fees prompt students to question the value of their degree. We welcome students opting instead for practical courses or entry-level jobs that will set them on the road to a financially rewarding, stable future.

Our country requires a whole range of skills and industries in order to grow and thrive; degrees, as academic products, aren’t always the best tool for developing those skills and industries. We as a country need to recognise this, and stop forcing students into universities when they would gain more by pursuing other routes into employment.”

ENDS

The media is presenting this as a ‘Tory splits’ story and much of the discussion has been on whether we should be in the EU or not, but to have that discussion at this stage is meaningless. The question before Parliament today is: is it right that the public have a say on our future relationship with the EU?

This motion came to Parliament as the result of a petition on the Downing Street website. Under a new system, any petition that gains more than 100,000 signatures may be chosen for debate during backbench business time. The resulting motion is non-binding – in effect, MPs promise only to debate the subject, not to act upon it.

Some MPs voting against the motion have argued that as we have a representative democracy, a referendum is not required. Indeed, on most issues the representative system we have is adequate and works effectively. But not on every issue. At each election, voters are presented with a basket of policies and are asked to vote for the one that most closely fits with their views. Inevitably this involves a trade-off in the voter’s mind – they may prefer the Liberals policy on higher education, but the Conservative’s policy on the economy and energy, for example. And of course this system allows the three main parties to avoid policy areas entirely – as long as the others take the same line. In the case of Europe, all parties presented a variation on the theme of Britiain’s interests lying within Europe, but possibly with a renegotiated relationship (although the Liberal Democrats did actually promise a referendum). Yet many of the public disagree. Faced with a straight In/Out choice, around 50% of the population would vote to leave, with around half that number voting to stay in. Clearly there is public appetite for politicians to look at our relationship with the EU that wasn’t addressed at the election. With voters facing more policy areas that offer similarly limited choice between the parties as all parties rush to claim the middle ground, is it any wonder that voter turnout has been steadily dropping over the years? It is meaningless to argue that we don’t need a referendum because the voters had their choice at an election, when in reality they were given no choice at all on this issue.

The value of the petition system is that it addresses this gap in democratic choice. On policy areas in which the parties are homogeneous or silent, the public have, for the first time, an opportunity to request that Parliament discuss these questions nonetheless. As these questions are likely not to split opinion down party lines (if they did, they would have been discussed at the election), it is a nonsense to whip the vote on the motions that they produce. Douglas Carswell has said many times this week that he is following a three-line whip – from his constituents. He is absolutely right. On motions that originate with the public, MPs should be talking to their constituents (ie, the public) and conducting the debate accordingly. The vote should not be whipped.

The Intergenerational Foundation (IF) is an interesting organisation. Their aim is to level the playing field between the generations, pointing to the huge amount of spending that has taken place at the expense of the young and generations to come. Their homepage is headed by a quote from Jefferson: “I sincerely believe… that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale”. No arguments here on that.

But in this case, their efforts are severely misguided. They have fallen into the trap of blaming the ‘haves’ rather than asking themselves why there are ‘have nots’. Young people are not able to buy larger houses (or indeed, in many cases any house) because prices have risen beyond their ability to pay. Homeowners of all ages are hanging onto their properties as they feel that they are an investment – and with the perceived value of pensions dropping dramatically and a banking market in turmoil, they may feel that their house is their best investment for the future. Any successful measure the government brought in to coax older people to place their homes on the market, such as the suggested stamp duty exemption for the over 65s, would lower house prices as availability rose and there is no guarantee that people would be willing to sell for less than they think their house is worth. Any other measure, such as a punitive tax on spare rooms, would in essence be a bullying tactic.

What we need is not to persuade the elderly to give up their homes – homes which they worked hard to earn and are likely to have lived in for many years. Rather, we need to address the housing market as a whole so that all who want it have the opportunity to get on the housing ladder. In times gone by, young people didn’t expect to move straight into a four or five bedroom house; people have always started off with something smaller and upgraded as their earnings and savings grew. But it is true that many young people hold no ambition at all to own their own home, as they think that proposition unrealistic. Planning laws must allow for more house building, and a decent range of homes need to be built. Stamp duty does need to be reviewed, as there is evidence that it is slowing the housing market in these tougher times. The ratio between wages and house prices, driven wider by banks’ reckless lending in the last decade may need to be addressed over the longer term. In a wider context, measures such as lower taxes and reduced regulation would get more people into employment and better earning jobs, thus enabling them to spend more on housing.

But let’s not tell the elderly that they have to move out of their homes to make way for the younger generations.

Well, don’t we all? But it’s disingenuous at best for the government to attempt to lay the blame for the current crisis wholly at the feet of the energy companies. Sure, the choice of 400+ tariffs are confusing for consumers. Whilst we all like choice, the concept of ‘too much of a good thing’ certainly applies here. And yes, if asked directly by customers for the cheapest tariff, it should be given. It’s clear that an oligarchy has been allowed to develop in the energy market since privatisation which does the consumer no favours.

But even assuming a profit of £125 per customer, which the companies say is an upper estimate (it was just £15 per customer in June), that gives them a profit margin of 9.3% per annum. This puts them roughly in line with the 10% earned by telecoms providers, or the 8% earned by retailers on the high street.

Yet if the companies were to post a 0% profit and everyone’s annual bill was reduced by £125, we would still be paying an average of £1220 per year for our energy. Where is all that money going? On high energy prices, sure, but what the government isn’t saying – but should be – is that green taxes currently also add about 9% to our energy bills. So if they really wanted to do something about your energy bill they could – by scrapping those taxes.

Chris Huhne insists that they are required in order to ‘invest’ in renewable energies. But the shale breakthrough has made expensive renewable technologies such as wind farms – already unpopular as they rise above the landscape and pose a threat to wildlife – redundant. The minister’s figures which predict that energy prices will come down over the next decade also bank on a huge take-up of ‘free’ insulation, also pushed by Cameron and co at yesterday’s summit. But of course it isn’t free – it’s paid for out of our taxes.

The public won’t look the other way forever. Whilst our bills are steadily rising, ministers are crossing their fingers and hoping that we won’t notice that they are doing absolutely nothing worthwhile about it. We will.