I went to a series of talks on Sunday at Birkbeck College. They are part of the Weekend University programme established by Niall McKeever — an excellent initiative that I commend to you. They were about the psychology of behaviour change and I thought they might help me in my quest to establish healthier habits as I seek to address my long standing weight problem.

I did glean some useful ideas but one price I paid was to sit, horrified, through the presentation of Dr Paul Chadwick of the UCL Centre for Behaviour Change. I don’t doubt the quality or value of Dr Chadwick’s research. He seemed very intelligent and competent. I am sure as a clinical psychologist he can be very effective in helping people who want to change their behaviours. But from his anecdotes it seemed that CBC’s main focus is on assisting government agencies such as Public Health England and the NHS in changing behaviours non-consensually.

I listened aghast as he spoke at length about what “we” need to do to change the behaviour of the stubborn “people” who are so stupidly resistant to doing “the right thing”. Who, I wanted to ask, is included in this “we” of whom you speak? All I could tell from his smug, arrogant, flippant demeanour is that it was emphatically *not* the addition of me or anyone I care about that makes it the first person plural. As for this mysterious “we’s” right to determine “the right thing”, that was a given; something his fine mind never apparently questioned — not even when a programme of behaviour change (for example the government’s “Sure Start” policy) turned out to have unintended results.

The truly scary thing to a classical liberal like me is just what a nice chap he seemed to be. I don’t doubt his good intentions or his good humour. If he were my son, I would be proud of him. Which raises the terrifying question; just how far has our society slipped that a clever young man like him, full of scientific rigour and desire to make a better world, only addresses moral questions accidentally? He did address the question of volition but only in terms of avoiding a “backlash” (his word) if measures had not been the subject of “consultations” (in the formal public sector sense) with “stakeholders”.

He doesn’t mean to be a monster and I don’t want to see him as one, but in his presence my blood ran cold. I was afraid of him. I was even more afraid of the way the earnest folk in the room laughed as he joked about the unintended consequences of various programmes to clean up the act of the idiotic, self-destructive great unwashed, I realised that I might be the only one there who included himself in the category of “the people” to be shaped as opposed to the smug elite doing the shaping.

No one seemed remotely concerned for the freedoms of those on the receiving end of Dr Chadwick’s mind bending, “nudging” and manipulation — the benighted mugs who ultimately pay to have such well-shod professionals sneer about them behind their backs.

I am reading "God or Nothing", which is described as being by Robert Cardinal Sarah but takes the form of a long interview with him. Relax, I have not "got religion" yet, but a good friend who is trying to steer me that way gave me the book as a gift some time ago. I am at a health spa in Turkey making a start on trying to solve my weight problem and, away from my daily routine, have finally found time to read it.  It's healthy to read about things I would not necessarily have sought out myself. The late Mrs P. used to point me down paths I would never have taken and I miss that. A man unguided is in danger of living in a bubble of his own ideas – or delusions!

I am not going to talk to you about God. I am not qualified and anyway He has his own long-established PR service and can speak to you directly if He chooses. Rather I am going to draw your attention to the words of Alexander Solzhenitsyn, in his book "Warning to the West", quoted by the Cardinal when asked why he is so critical, even harsh, about the development of "Old Christian Europe"

I am not the only one critical of the West. Alexander Solzhenitsyn had harsh words for those who perverted the meaning of liberty and set up a lie as a rule of life. In 1980 .... he wrote: "The Western World has arrived at a decisive moment. Over the next few years, it will gamble the existence of the civilisation that created it. I think that it is not aware of it. Time has eroded your notion of liberty. You have kept the word and devised a different notion. You have forgotten the meaning of liberty. When Europe acquired it, around the eighteenth century, it was a sacred notion. Liberty led to virtue and heroism. You have forgotten that. This liberty, which for us is still a flame that lights up our night, has become for you a stunted, sometimes disappointing reality, because it is full of imitation jewellery, wealth and emptiness. For this ghost of the former liberty, you are no longer capable of making sacrifices but only compromises ... Deep down, you think that liberty is won once and for all, and this is why you can afford the luxury of disdaining it. You are engaged in a formidable battle, and you behave as though it were a ping pong match" This man who experienced repression in the gulags of the former USSR can use such language. He knows first hand what true liberty is.

This speaks to me. I thought, gentle reader, it might speak to you. 

davidthompson: The Year Reheated.