Common sense and compassion

MPs will vote today on the assisted dying bill.

Five hours have been allocated for the second reading of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which many people - including some MPs - feel is not enough to fully explore all the pros and cons.

I am torn on the issue, and if push came to shove I would probably side with those who think Kim Leadbeater’s private member’s bill is not the right vehicle to introduce such a groundbreaking piece of legislation.

I am nevertheless sympathetic to the aim of the Bill which seeks to give people greater autonomy over their own bodies, and the manner of their own death.

Here’s a post I wrote in April 2011, 13 years ago. It covers a similar area and is vaguely relevant to today’s debate:

According to a story on the front page of the Sunday Times today, 'Woman commits suicide to avoid old age'.

Nan Maitland, 84, took her life at a Swiss clinic by swallowing a lethal solution. She "suffered from arthritis but was active and not terminally ill".

It's actually quite a nice story. The night before she died she "enjoyed a three-hour meal with friends in a five-star Swiss hotel". She left a message saying, "I have had a wonderful life and the good fortune to die at a time of my own choosing".

What I don't like is the repeated use of the word "suicide" in the article. Suicide suggests desperation, hopelessness, even mental instability at the time of death. Yet the paper reports that "When [Maitland] said goodbye to loved ones in London, her final farewells were calm and unemotional".

This wasn't suicide as we generally understand it. It was an "assisted death", something quite different. There is a stigma attached to suicide. None should attach itself to assisted death.

What also annoys me is the sentence that reads: ‘Her case has led to accusations that relaxation in the law on assisted suicide will lead to people dying who could have continued in meaningful lives.’

Who decides whether someone's life is meaningful? The state? Certainly not. Campaigners who think they know what's best for you? Think again.

If people choose to end their lives prematurely via an assisted death it should be up to the individual in consultation, perhaps, with immediate family. Ultimately and within reason (age and infirmity should, I think, be taken into account), it must be your choice.

I am interested in assisted death because I don't rule it out for myself when I am older. Frankly, I don't fancy a long retirement if my health is poor and I have very little money. Having family and friends around me may keep me going but I wouldn't want to depend on them (for their sake) and if I was on my own, spending long hours in and out of hospital or confined to a small apartment or care home ... well, you get my drift.

Some years ago I read a story about a retired couple, both university dons, in their seventies but beginning to suffer from long-term ill-health. While they were still compos mentis they made a pact and travelled to Inverness where they caught the overnight sleeper to London.

The following morning the steward knocked on the door of their compartment (first class, I hope!) and when there was no answer he opened it and found both of them in their beds, dead. Back home they had left messages for their family, and all their affairs had been put in order. Their credit cards, I believe, were neatly laid out on the kitchen table along with their wills and other information.

They had also left a message for the steward, apologising for the shock he must have felt when he found their bodies, and assuring him that there was nothing he could have done to stop them.

I thought that was a pretty good way to go. The only thing to beat it, in my view, would be dying in your sleep of natural causes. And how many of us can look forward to that?

In a way it’s a pity that we even need legislation to confer legitimacy on assisted death.

I have mentioned this before but my grandfather (on my mother’s side of the family) was a GP before and after the war (ie before and after the introduction of the NHS in 1948).

According to my mother, it wasn’t uncommon in those days for doctors to ‘help’ terminally ill patients who were in severe pain die by discreetly administering a fatal dose of morphine to end their suffering.

The difference then was that family doctors - for whom home visits were a normal part of the job - almost certainly knew the patient and the family pretty well so there was a bond with the family that rarely exists now.

Today few if any GPs would risk prosecution, so decisions that were once made by individual doctors will now be made by a committee of people representing the state, and those decisions could take months, prolonging someone’s suffering, and for what purpose?

I accept that this is not a black and white issue. There are grey areas that need to be addressed, and for that reason I think it’s important the Bill is not railroaded through.

The principle of assisted dying is not, however, unreasonable. It’s humane. It’s just a pity the state has to intervene in an area where qualified doctors once exercised their common sense and compassion.

See: The Assisted Dying Bill: A guide to the Private Member's Bill process (Hansard Society)

Debating matters

Founded in 2014, the 104 London Debaters club organises an impressive programme of events, online and in person.

Debates take place every second and fourth Tuesday of the month, with in person events taking place at The Windsor Castle pub in Victoria, central London.

Close to Westminster Cathedral, it’s a short walk from Forest’s old office in Palace Street. Despite that I don’t remember ever going there, but it looks very traditional, very Victorian.

According to the website:

The pub has ornate interiors with a high corniced ceiling, brilliant cut glass, stained glass skylight as well as an interesting collection of artwork depicting the eponymous royal residence. 

It also has a ‘beautiful upstairs function room’ which is where 104 London Debaters, part of the Toastmasters International network, host their events.

I found out about the club after a member, William Hagerup, posted a note on the Forest Facebook page drawing our attention to a debate on the subject, ‘This House Would Allow Smoking In Privately Owned Public Spaces’.

That was last week and the debate took place on Tuesday, two days ago. I would like to have gone but it was the same day as the second reading of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill and I had to follow that to its conclusion, and then write about it.

Anyway, Will has kindly sent me the following report:

Swing To Smoking But No Cigar

104 London Debaters is a debate club founded 10 years ago by Paul Carroll and others, meeting twice a month at The Windsor Castle pub in Victoria. It is part of Toastmasters International, a US-based international network of public speaking clubs with thousands of clubs across the world. 104 is the only one specialising in debating in the UK.

On Tuesday 26th November the club met to debate the topic ‘This House Would Allow Smoking In Privately Owned Public Spaces’. The motion had been suggested by William Hagerup, the club’s VP PR, who has never smoked cigarettes but who believes in freedom of choice and is an enthusiastic occasional cigar smoker.

Two teams, one Proposing the motion and one Opposing it, with three speakers each, had prepared the various arguments in advance, following a process of rigorous research. When the vote was taken before the debate it was clear that the Proposing team had their job cut out: out of the 27 people present, only five voted in favour, 12 opposed, with the rest abstaining.

The Proposition put forward the case that business owners should have the right to decide what happens on their property, as long as they take reasonable care to look after the health of employees and non-smoking guests. People should also have the freedom to choose, and thirdly that the draconian 2007 law has contributed to the rapid decline of pubs, especially small ones that couldn’t transition to become restaurants.

The team therefore proposed the Danish model, where you can have separate smoking rooms in larger establishments as well as allowing smaller establishments where they don’t serve food to permit smoking if they so wish.

The Opposition called on the memory of smoky times past when people lit up anywhere and everywhere, which was a bit of a straw-man fallacy, or perhaps I should say a smoke screen, as that is not what had been proposed. But they went on to say that most people are now happy with the current arrangements, there are no great calls for a change, and that smoking is very addictive and therefore all efforts to curb it are to be welcome rather than be weakened.

When the vote was taken after the debate there had been a slight swing in favour of the Proposition, with two votes added, so seven in all, but the Opposition still managed to defeat the motion with 13 votes opposed and the rest abstaining.

During the Open Floor part of the debate, many audience members spoke of how they were in favour of freedom of choice, BUT … many were concerned with smoking as a health issue, and this is for many allowed to trump personal liberty. But at least the debate showed that people are willing to consider a more relaxed smoking regime, and some important facts were spread, such as the slowing rate of smoking cessation after the 2007 law came in, the California study showing that the health risks of second-hand smoke is probably overstated, and the worryingly increased rate of pub closures after 2007.

As the current government seems ready to push much further than most people are happy with, the debate about government overreach and individual freedom in this area is one that will continue to be important and current.

So motion defeated. Well done to the Opposition but, with a small swing to the Proposition, well done to us as well.

According to the 104 Debaters website:

After debates at the first floor function room of the charming pub, The Windsor Castle, we stay back for a drink and a chat, and perhaps even to continue the discussion. 

It is a nice and convivial atmosphere, and you are more than welcome to come as a guest to see if you like it before you commit.

I’m sorry I missed what sounds like an enjoyable evening, even if the vote didn’t go quite as one might have wished!

PS. If, like me, you are asking why the club is called ‘104’ London Debaters, I asked Will who replied:

‘As we are part of Toastmasters Int., they have various rule books and instructions for the various types of public speaking meetings one can hold. The rule for debating is Rule 104, hence we are the 104-club.’

Below: William Hagerup (far left) with his two Proposition teammates, the debate chair, and (on the right) the Opposition team

In memoriam

Sad not to be visiting Cork this month because I enjoyed our annual pre-Christmas trips to see John Mallon.

John (on the left of the picture above) was Forest’s spokesman in Ireland from 2010-2023 but he died a few days after Christmas last year following a long illness.

The last time we saw him was twelve months ago, in November 2023, when we met him for lunch at The Montenotte hotel overlooking Cork.

Despite his failing health, John was as warm and affable as ever, and I do miss our chats, whether in person or on the phone. (Few people could talk like John!)

I miss Cork too.

Before John came on board I had visited Dublin several times, and cities like Galway and Kilkenny at least once, but never Cork. From 2010 I went there once a year at least, flying direct from Stansted.

Initially I stayed at the Imperial, a 'timeless landmark in the heart of Cork City', but thanks to the smoking area outside an adjacent pub I found it a bit noisy late at night because people were smoking and drinking in the covered courtyard until well after midnight!

Thereafter, until we switched to The Montenotte last year, we stayed at the River Lee hotel on the banks of the, er, River Lee.

The hotel was a short walk from the small but appropriately named Liberty Grill restaurant where we had a pre Covid dinner in 2019, and a post Covid dinner in 2022.

Opposite the Liberty Grill was a traditional Irish pub with an outdoor smoking 'room' that was invariably full.

Even after he switched to vaping, John always gravitated to the smoking area. That, he insisted, was where the best 'craic' was, and I think he was right.

Below, for example, is a rather grainy photo I took in the smoking area of another pub in Cork in December 2014.

Oddly enough, I don't remember very much about that particular evening, but I will always remember John (and Cork) with enormous affection.

Sleepwalking to prohibition

The second reading of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill took place in the House of Commons yesterday.

415 MPs voted for the Bill, 47 against.

The uninspiring, rather flat, three-and-a-half hour ‘debate’ consisted of a series of MPs giving short speeches in favour of the Bill, with occasional interventions by other MPs, a few of whom raised issues such as civil liberties and the difficulties that could be faced by shop workers if a generational ban is introduced.

The former included the extraordinarily self-satisfied Bob Blackman, Conservative MP for Harrow East and co-chair of the APPG on Smoking and Health which he referred to as the “All Party Parliamentary Group on Action and Smoking and Health”. (Hansard appears to have corrected him.)

The few opponents of the Bill who were prepared to stand up and be counted included fellow Tory Andrew Rosindell. Fair play to Rosindell and the handful of MPs who, like him, got to their feet to voice their concerns.

Watching on the Parliament TV channel I counted a maximum of 30 MPs in the chamber at any one time - usually less - until more began to drift in ahead of the vote in the evening.

Talking of which, here are some observations on the voting:

Labour
The party’s 402 MPs were whipped to vote in favour of the Bill so, predictably, of those who voted every single one (317) voted aye.

Conservative
Just as she did at the second reading of Rishi Sunak’s Tobacco and Vapes Bill in April, the party’s new leader Kemi Badenoch voted against the Bill.

In total, and taking advantage of being given a free vote, 37 out of 131 Tory MPs voted against, with 23 voting in favour. However, almost half the parliamentary party (59) didn’t vote.

Clutching at straws, at least the majority of those who did vote voted against, but the proportion who didn't vote at all is pretty shameful. So much for a party that once promoted freedom of choice and personal responsibility.

To their credit, three other shadow cabinet ministers voted against the Bill – Badenoch’s leadership rival Robert Jenrick, shadow secretary of state for justice; Andrew Griffiths, shadow secretary of state for business and trade; and Kevin Hollinrake, shadow secretary of state for levelling up, housing and communities.

Against that, three shadow cabinet ministers voted in favour of the Bill – shadow chancellor of the exchequer Mel Stride; Victoria Atkins, shadow secretary of state for environment, food and rural affairs; and Mims Davies, shadow secretary of state for Wales and shadow minister for women.

Worse perhaps were the many shadow cabinet members who didn't vote at all – Priti Patel, Chris Philp, James Cartlidge, Alan Mak, Ed Argar, Jesse Norman, Claire Coutinho, Helen Whateley, Laura Trott, Gareth Bacon, Stuart Andrew, Alex Burghart, Andrew Bowie, and chairman of the party Nigel Huddleston.

I'm prepared to give Priti Patel the benefit of the doubt. She is, after all, shadow foreign secretary and may have been otherwise engaged. She also voted against Rishi Sunak's bill.

But the rest (including former leadership hopefuls James Cleverley and Tom Tugendhat who also failed to vote)? Spare me.

The new leader has a hard job reforming this illiberal bunch of turnips.

Liberal Democrat
Two weeks ago the Scottish Liberal Democrats’ conference backed a motion opposing a generational ban on the sale of tobacco. Sadly, the party’s MPs failed to follow that example, with 38 (out of 72) supporting the Bill, and just seven voting against. Credit, though, to those magnificent seven, one of whom was former Lib Dem leader Tim Farron.

Reform
Party leader Nigel Farage was in the chamber for the second reading of the Bill, but only briefly. For some reason he didn’t speak, and nor did he vote, presumably because the vote clashed with the programme he presents on GB News. C’est la vie.

To their credit however the other four Reform MPs - Richard Tice, Lee Anderson, Rupert Lowe, and James McMurdock - all voted against the Bill. McMurdock was also one of the few MPs who intervened to make a point.

Other parties
All four Green MPs voted for the Bill.

Seven of the nine Scot Nat MPs voted in favour including Stephen Flynn, leader of the parliamentary party. The other two didn’t vote.

All four Plaid Cymru MPs supported the Bill.

Two of the five Democratic Unionist MPs voted in favour (the other three didn’t vote); likewise the sole Ulster Unionist MP (Robin Swan), and the Traditional Unionist Voice MP (Jim Allister).

Fourteen (of the 15) independent MPs also voted for the Bill, notably Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell, Rebecca Long-Bailey, and Richard Burgon (all former Labour MPs who were once members of Corbyn’s shadow cabinet).

The Bill will now proceed to the Committee stage, where amendments will be considered. These could include raising the age of sale to 21 instead of a generational ban, but it’s unlikely to succeed because too many MPs love to parrot the line that the UK is a “world leader” in tobacco control.

Pity we’re not a world leader in civil liberties.

The worry is that amendments could be introduced at the Committee stage regarding even stricter outdoor smoking regulations.

After the Committee stage (rumoured to be two days in January) the Bill will return to the House of Commons for the third reading before heading off to the Lords where a cabal of anti-smoking peers lie in wait with, potentially, amendments of their own.

After that the Bill will return to the House of Commons for final approval, but - significantly - only after Royal Assent has been given will there be a consultation to consider the exact nature of the outdoor smoking bans the Government has been empowered to introduce.

That’s right. As I understand it, the Tobacco and Vapes Bill gives government (now and in the future) the power to extend public smoking bans to almost any outdoor space without the inconvenience of further legislation.

That’s the direction of travel and it’s clear that the UK is not only sleepwalking to prohibition, but most MPs either welcome it or have chosen to sit this one out.

See also: 47 lions (Chris Snowdon)

PS. One of the Conservative MPs who voted for the Bill is someone I once worked for.

When I found out he had voted for Rishi Sunak's Tobacco and Vapes Bill in April I sent him a note: 'I can't believe you voted for the generational smoking ban!'.

He didn't reply.

We've been sending each other Christmas cards for 40 years. I'm not sure I will be on his list (or he mine!) for very much longer.

Update: Since I posted this it’s been reported that Nigel Farage admits he missed smoking ban vote to present GB News show (HuffPost).

Not sure why he couldn’t have spoken during the second reading, though. Disappointing.

Burying bad news about illicit trade

Ahead of the second reading of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill this afternoon, the Health and Social Care team has sent a 12-page briefing paper to all Labour MPs.

I have just seen a copy and it's quite interesting. There are six sections including 'Tobacco and Vapes Bill Top Lines', 'Health and Social Care Top Lines', and 'Background', plus a 'Recent Departmental Press Release'.

The Tobacco and Vapes Bill top lines, which will no doubt be repeated ad nauseam, are:

• This bill will deliver a world-leading landmark smoking ban to stop the cycle of addiction and protect children.

• This government is taking bold action to create the first smoke-free generation, clamp down on kids getting hooked on nicotine through vapes, and protect children and vulnerable people from the harms of second-hand smoke.

• Unless we act to help people stay healthy, the rising tide of ill health in our society threatens to overwhelm and bankrupt our NHS. Prevention is better than cure.

• Labour is committed to protecting children from becoming hooked on vaping, through a ban on vape advertising and sale of vapes in vending machines, in addition to restricting vape flavours, packaging and shop display.

• Smoking is still the biggest killer. It claims around 80,000 lives a year, puts huge pressure on our NHS, and costs taxpayers billions.

• Smoking costs the NHS £3.1 billion pounds a year. The cost of smoking to our economy is even greater, £18.3 billion lost in productivity every year, with smokers a third more likely to be off work sick.

• This bill will extend indoor smoking ban to certain outdoor settings such as playgrounds and outside schools and hospitals, to protect children and the most vulnerable.

Under 'Background' there are two sections, one on smoking, the other on vaping. On smoking it reads:

• Today is an important step towards our aim to create the first smoke free generation.

• Smoking is the number one preventable cause of death, disability and ill health in our country. It is responsible for one in four of all cancer deaths and kills up to two thirds of its users.

• Smoking still claims around 80,000 lives a year in the UK, putting huge pressure on our NHS, taking up appointments, scans and operations. It costs taxpayers £3.1 billion a year.

• The Government’s plans to progressively increase the age at which people can buy cigarettes, so no one born on or after 1 January 2009 can ever be legally sold cigarettes.

• The cost of smoking to the economy is £18 billion lost in productivity every year, as smokers are a third more likely to be off work sick.

• Tobacco is a uniquely harmful product, responsible for a quarter of all cancer deaths and killing up to two-thirds of its long-term users. Smoking substantially increases the risk of many major health conditions, such as strokes, diabetes, heart disease, stillbirth, dementia and asthma.

• Almost every minute, someone is admitted to hospital because of smoking. Up to 75,000 GP appointments can be attributed to smoking each month - over 100 every hour.

• There is no safe level of exposure to second-hand smoke. This is particularly true for children - whose lungs and immune system aren’t as well developed as adults - as well as
pregnant women and those with pre-existing health conditions.

• No smoker wants to harm people, but with second hand smoke, they do, and the only way to stop that is to stop smoking around others. 88% of the public are non smokers. There is no safe level of exposure to smoke. If you can smell cigarette smoke you are inhaling it.

• The Government will be given powers to extend indoor smoking ban to certain outdoor settings such as playgrounds and outside schools and hospitals, to protect children and the most vulnerable.

As you can see, the Government is at pains to list, at length, what it considers to be the 'positive' aspects of the Bill.

Leaving aside some blatant falsehoods ('There is no safe level of exposure to second-hand smoke', for example), the glaring omission is the absence of any reference to illicit trade and the impact of even more consumers being driven to the black market by creeping prohibition (ie the generational ban on the sale of tobacco).

Last month the Tobacco Manufacturers Association published the latest TMA survey of 12,000 UK consumers. It found that a record number of UK smokers bought illegal tobacco in 2024 (83% of respondents compared to 71% when the survey first ran in 2016).

According to the TMA:

The Government’s desire to pass a ‘generational ban’ on any adult born after 31 December 2008, from ever legally being able to buy tobacco, will have severe and long-lasting repercussions (62% of respondents did not think a ‘generational ban’ on buying tobacco would be enforceable) as in due course the whole UK tobacco market is pushed underground into the hands of organised criminals.

Prohibition of a legal tightly-controlled, taxed and regulated industry (which delivered over £11 billion in taxes in 2023) will be replaced by an ever-expanding illegal market, uncontrolled, untaxed and unregulated, trading in cheap unchecked, potentially contaminated products.

As the weight of responsibility for enforcing a generational ban will fall on the shoulders of retailers, the real fear is that shopworkers will have had enough and will choose to walk away from retail, rather than try and enforce a law that will bring misery to their working lives (according to the latest research from The Retail Trust 4 in 10 shopworkers want to quit their roles in retail entirely due to the soaring levels of violence and abuse that they receive).

The Government claims that the illegal tobacco market is in decline. This year’s TMA Anti-Illicit Trade Survey paints a very different picture with the purchasing of illegal tobacco becoming not only normalised, but a preferential alternative source for a growing number of consumers.

Clearly, the Government has no answer to the argument that the Tobacco and Vapes Bill could fuel illicit trade to even greater levels otherwise the Health and Social Care team would surely have included a response in its list of 'interventions' to Government and Opposition.

Instead, MPs will today vote on a major piece of legislation and the Government is doing its very best to bury a significant argument against the Bill that could result in a significant loss of revenue whilst harming thousands of legitimate retailers.

Go figure.

Majority opposed to generational tobacco ban

The second reading of the new Tobacco and Vapes Bill will has its second reading in the House of Commons tomorrow.

If you remember, Rishi Sunak's Tobacco and Vapes Bill got to the same stage in April before it was aborted ahead of its third reading when the former PM called a general election.

Labour whipped its MPs to support Sunak's Bill so it passed the second reading relatively comfortably, although there was some opposition from Conservative MPs who were given a free vote.

Fifty-eight Tories voted against the Bill, including Kemi Badenoch who was the only Cabinet minister to do so.

Unfortunately many of the rebels lost their seats or retired at the general election so it's impossible to judge how many of the 121 Tory MPs who made it back to parliament (including the newbies) will vote against the new Tobacco and Vapes Bill.

It would be nice to think they will take their lead from their new leader – a certain Kemi Badenoch – but I suspect that the parliamentary Conservative Party is still full of paternalists or, worse, authoritarians who will be only too happy to support the Bill.

One of them, sadly, is an MP who is (or was!) a personal friend of mine. I was shocked that he voted in favour of Sunak's Tobacco and Vapes Bill and sent him a note saying exactly that, but he didn’t reply. (I shall be watching closely to see how he votes tomorrow!)

Anyway, last month – having commissioned a poll on the proposed ban on smoking outside pubs that demonstrated strong opposition to the plan (which was subsequently dropped) – Forest commissioned a further poll on the subject of the generational tobacco sales ban.

Conducted by Yonder Consulting, 60% of respondents said that if people are allowed to drive a car, join the army, purchase alcohol, and vote at 18, they should also be allowed to buy cigarettes and other tobacco products.

Fewer than a third (31%) said they should not be allowed to purchase tobacco when legally an adult, while 9% said 'don't know'.

We have just released the results of the poll, with this comment:

“A generational ban on the sale of tobacco is unnecessarily divisive because it will create a two-tier society in which some adults have different rights to others.

“Eventually it will create the absurd situation whereby a 40-year-old can purchase cigarettes and other tobacco products, but someone born a few days earlier will be denied the same right.”

“MPs need to think very carefully about the unintended consequences of raising the legal age of sale of tobacco.

“Denying future generations of adults the right to buy cigarettes and other tobacco products legally won't stop people smoking.

"Creeping prohibition will simply drive the sale of tobacco underground and into the hands of criminal gangs and illicit traders.”

Apart from the generational sales ban, the Tobacco and Vapes Bill will also give government the power to extend the smoking ban to outdoor spaces including outside schools and hospitals.

If passed without amendments, the Bill will also give government the power to ban or restrict the marketing of vapes, and restrict eliquid flavours.

It's not too late to write to your MP on the subject. To find your MP (and their email address) click here.

Hidden connections

I think it’s time for another tenuous connection post.

Shel Talmy, who produced The Kinks’ ‘You Really Got Me’ (1964) and The Who’s ‘My Generation’ (1965), has died in Los Angeles, aged 87.

Talmy was American but spent 17 years in the UK after coming here in 1962.

Although he largely stopped producing pop music in the Seventies, if he heard something he liked he might offer a helping hand, which is how he came to produce ten tracks by Hidden Charms, a young London band, several of which were released as singles in 2014/15.

The first track I heard was ‘Sunnyside’ and I was thrilled when we were able to book the band for Forest’s 35th anniversary party at Boisdale of Belgravia in November 2014.

The person who recommended them was Boisdale MD Ranald Macdonald, and the reason he recommended them was because on vocals, bass, keyboards, and guitar was his son, also called Ranald Macdonald.

Sadly, Hidden Charms split up a year or two later following the death of their manager, a development Shel Talmy commented upon in a Facebook post only a few months ago:

In 2014, my good friend Chris Carter, who has presented the “Breakfast With The Beatles” show on SiriusXM for what seems like forever, turned me on to Hidden Charms, an English band that he said had some good songs-- and he was correct!

I brought them to L.A. and we recorded an LP’s worth of songs. Those that got released received a very good critique, as did their live performances.

Hidden Charms were a quartet from London: Vincent Davies on vocals and guitar, Ranald Macdonald on keyboards and vocals, Josh Lewis on bass, and Oscar Robertson on drums.

All really nice guys and good musicians who were then, I can only say, “snake bit”.

Their manager, who was a very nice guy … also managed another band and was on tour with them in Sweden when, on a very bad winter’s day, the van they were in ran off a frozen bridge, and all inside perished. The tragedy affected Hidden Charms to such a degree that they broke up.

Today Ranald (Ranny) Macdonald is an artist as well as a musician, with his paintings exhibited both home and abroad.

See also: Shel Talmy, producer for the Who, the Kinks and David Bowie, dies aged 87 (Guardian)

Below: ‘Sunnyside’ by Hidden Charms, produced by Shel Talmy

50 years of Squeeze

My daughter went to the Roundhouse in Camden last night to see Squeeze.

She was one of the younger people there - and possibly the youngest female - because most Squeeze fans are my age, and counting.

The Roundhouse was the final gig of a two-month UK tour, and before that there was a six-week tour of America.

Together they marked the 50th anniversary of a band that was formed in 1974, although the first record - an EP - wasn’t released until 1977.

The first time I saw Squeeze was in Aberdeen in 1978 when the headline act was Eddie and the Hot Rods.

Also on the bill was a band called Radio Stars who had a minor hit with ‘Nervous Wreck’ (see below).

They were great fun live but split up after releasing a disappointing second album a year later.

Since then I’ve seen Squeeze at a very sweaty Hammersmith Palais (1981), Hammersmith Odeon (1985 and 1989), Glasgow Concert Hall (1993), Royal Albert Hall (2011), Harrogate Conference Centre (2015), and Ipswich Regent Theatre (2022).

I have most of their albums too, my favourites being East Side Story (1981), Some Fantastic Place (1993), Cradle To The Grave (2015), and an excellent 2CD compilation, Excess Moderation (1996).

There have been multiple line-up changes over the years (the band had a brief hiatus between 1982 and 1985, and a longer hiatus between 1998 and 2007) but Glen Tilbrook and Chris Difford, the songwriters and vocalists, have remained constant throughout.

Unlike many ‘heritage’ bands, Squeeze continue to record and play new music. There were new albums in 2015 and 2017, and two albums are due out next year.

One is an album of new songs, the other will feature songs written in those very early days but never recorded.

The problem that bands like Squeeze face is that recording and releasing albums today simply isn’t profitable, hence the need to tour or play the festival circuit, year after year.

The band’s resurrection over the past decade is quite an uplifting story however because it’s only 20 years ago that Tilbrook was touring America in a temperamental Winnebago, performing solo in tiny venues with even smaller audiences who he would lead out on to the street - like the Pied Piper - still playing his guitar and singing.

A video of that period, One For The Road, is worth watching, and you can’t help but admire someone who is prepared to suffer so many indignities to do what he clearly loves most - playing music.

One of my favourite Squeeze songs is the title track from the 1993 album Some Fantastic Place. Apart from dedicated fans few people will be aware of it, but thanks to Bob Mortimer and Ade Edmondson it has featured on Desert Island Discs at least twice.

Ten more Squeeze tracks you may not know:

‘If I Didn’t Love You’ from Argybargy (1980)
‘Mumbo Jumbo’ from East Side Story (1981)
‘Vanity Fair’ from East Side Story (1981)
‘Striking Matches’ from Babylon and On (1987)
‘Cigarette of a Single Man’ from Babylon and On (1987)
‘Letting Go’ from Play (1991)
‘Little King’ from Domino (1998)
‘A Moving Story’ from Domino (1998)
‘Sunny’ from Cradle To The Grave (2015)
‘Open’ from Cradle To The Grave (2015)

See also: Squeeze review — brasher, louder and more muscular than ever (The Times, October 2024)

PS. The only time I have been to the Roundhouse was 15 years ago. It was a glitzy corporate event that featured an after dinner set by Bryan Ferry.

For that reason alone it was one of the more memorable corporate events I have been to, but I can’t remember who hosted it, or what the purpose of it was.

Goodness knows how much it cost the organisers but I hope it was worth it!