Has Osborne learnt the right lessons from Adam Smith?

Read in the Spectator Coffee House here. 

Summary

Dr Eamonn Butler writes in the Spectator on the lessons the Chancellor should learn from Adam Smith to help the working poor. 

Should government intervene in business?

Dr Madsen Pirie appears on the BBC Radio 4's Today Programme arguing that government should not intervene in business, but instead should get out of the way, deregulate and lower taxation and create the optimum environment for private sector growth.

You can listen to his debate with Will Straw at the IPPR here. 

Entrepreneur's wish list for Wednesday's budget

Read in CityAM here. 

Summary

Dr Madsen Pirie details in City AM the proposals needed in the 2012 budget to support entrepreneurship in the UK.

Planning for growth and prosperity

Read on ConservativeHome here. 

Summary

ASI author Tom Papworth details his proposals for the radical reform of the planning system to unlock growth in the UK on ConservativeHome. 

Scrap Green Belt to boost GDP growth

Read in CityAM here.

Summary

City AM covers our latest report arguing that we need radical reform of the planning system and calls for the Green Belt to be scrapped to prevent a housing crisis. 

Will structural reform save Europe?

Dr Eamonn Butler talks on BBC World Service about the need for European countries to get real. We can't continue to subsidise ourselves with high taxes whilst placing extra costs on business through excessive regulation. He also talks about the need to free up labour markets for a healthy economy.

You can listen to his interview here. 

Why the tax take fell when top rate went up to 50%

Read on dailymail.co.uk here.

Summary

Dr Eamonn Butler writes in the Mail on Sunday on why tax take fell when the 50p tax was introduced and argues that a government running a huge deficit must cut tax rates. 

Media on our plain packaging report

BBC R4 Today Programme: Would plain packs cut smoking?

Radio Five Live: Breakfast show & Victoria Derbyshire (from 1hr11mins in)

City AM: Plain cigarette packets could damage health

Daily Mail: Anti-smoking plain packaging zealots will just boost smuggling

Metro: Tobacco arguments plain for all to see

Daily Express: Plain cigarette packets 'illiberal'

Press Association: Plain cigarette packets 'illiberal'

ConservativeHome: Plain packaging proposals for cigarettes may actually harm the public

Politics.co.uk: Plain packing could fuel youth smoking, opponents warn

The report also received coverage in the Yorkshire Post, Evening Standard and a range of regional newspapers, on BBC London, BBC Scotland, BBC Leeds radio and in the Telegraph and Sunday Times.

Summary

The release of the Adam Smith Institute's report 'Plain packaging: Commercial expression, anti-smoking extremism and the risks of hyper-regulation' received widespread media attention. Below are some of our media highlights.

Government’s plain packaging proposals for cigarettes will bring no benefits to public

20th February 2012

·     There is no evidence that the proposals will reduce consumption or give any public health benefit.

·     Plain packaging may lead to an increase in the counterfeit cigarette trade, making cheap tobacco more easily available to young would-be smokers.

·     The policy creates a dangerous precedent – plain packaging could be extended to other products such as alcohol and fatty foods.

Ahead of a public consultation on the plain-packaging of cigarettes, the Adam Smith Institute have released a report today (Monday) arguing that the proposals will do nothing for public health and are profoundly illiberal. There is no evidence that plain packaging will have any effect on existing smokers or the smoking rate. The policy represents a desperate attempt by the public health lobby and government officials to be seen as ‘clamping down’ on tobacco in an increasingly maniacal war on smoking.

No Health Benefits

The plain packaging rule is aimed at stopping non-smokers from making a decision to engage in a habit. However, there is no evidence that the colour and logos on a pack of cigarettes is an influencing factor on people choosing to start smoking. Indeed, in the case of increasing the graphic warnings on packs, a comprehensive Canadian study found that “the warnings have not made a discernable impact on smoking prevalence”. Previous studies show that packaging design does little to impact the smoking rate.

Smoking numbers have not changed since 2007 with the rise of the ‘denormalisation’ of tobacco and aggressive anti-smoker policies. Aggressive anti-smoking policies don’t appear to work. Furthermore, plain packaging has been recognised as the weakest and least popular of ASH’s (Action on Health and Smoking) 12 anti-smoking policies proposed in 2008.

The Slippery Slope

Apart from the lack of health benefits there is also the risk that such a policy would be introduced for alcohol, fatty foods or sugary drinks. What happens today in tobacco tends to happen to other unhealthy products tomorrow. In fact, this slippery slope trend has already started in Australia, where they are currently planning to introduce plain packaging. As soon as the Australian government had approved the policy they swiftly moved on to look at how this could be applied to alcohol. Once plain packaging is enshrined in law for tobacco it will be easily extended to other lifestyle choices. That’s why the Adam Smith Institute argues the nanny state juggernaut must be stopped in its tracks.

Counterfeiting and intellectual property

In order to introduce plain packaging the government would need to breach international trade rules and confiscate tobacco companies’ intellectual property, without any proof that this would yield public health benefits.  Furthermore, there is reason to believe the policy will have a negative effect both on public health and the tobacco industry.

Already 1 in 9 cigarettes around the world is counterfeit, with counterfeit cigarettes often having two to three times the level of heavy metals found in legitimate brands. Plain packaging will mean the standardising of cigarette packaging, which will help illicit trade. The policy is likely to boost the black market in the UK, offering cheaper cigarettes more likely to lure young and new customers. Any illicit trade can only hinder efforts to reduce smoking, so plain packaging proposals may in reality be damaging for public health.

Plain packaging, if introduced, would be a triumph of a dogmatic minority over the public. It would be an indiscriminate, illiberal law with no basis in evidence, reason or commonsense, whilst masquerading as a public health initiative.  Author of the report Plain Packaging: Commercial expression, anti-smoking extremism and the risks of hyper-regulation, Christopher Snowdon, adds:

“It is extraordinary that a government which claims to be against excessive regulation should be contemplating a law which even the provisional wing of the anti-smoking lobby considered unthinkable until very recently. It seems that fanaticism has become institutionalised and a handful of extremists have become the de facto policy makers in matters related to tobacco. The public are gradually waking up to the fact that these neo-prohibitionists will never be satisfied. There is always another cause to campaign for, always new demands to be met. If it is not smoking, it is drinking. If it is not drinking, it is eating.

“Plain packaging is the most absurd, patronising and counterproductive policy yet advanced under the disingenuous pretext of ‘public health’. It will serve only to inconvenience retailers, stigmatise consumers and delight counterfeiters. Those who would dictate what we eat and drink are already incorporating plain packaging into their plans. It’s time to say ‘Enough.’ The monomaniacs have had their own way for too long.”

Government Cannot Create Sustainable Jobs

Read the full article in Wall Street Journal Europe here. 

Summary

Arnold Kling writes in Wall Street Journal Europe on his report for the Adam Smith Institute: 'Patterns of Sustainable Specialization and Trade'. He argues against the Keynesian argument that government should create jobs to tackle unemployment and that we should look to the theories of Adam Smith and David Ricardo when understanding employment patterns.