Tobacco product Rate.
Cigarettes 16.5% of retail price plus £184.10 per 1,000 cigarettes.
Cigars £229.65 per kg.
Hand rolling tobacco £180.46 per kg.
Other smoking tobacco and chewing tobacco £100.96 per kg.
It appears that there is a proliferation of individuals who have been importing dried leaves and thus depriving the Revenue of vast amounts of duty taxes. It is not easy to calculate the actual losses to the Revenue since, among other things, cost of collection of Revenue is ignored. The fact is that when the UK had Tobacco Manufacturers, it was easy, and cheap, to extract vast amounts of Revenue from them with insignificant costs.
I mention the above because the Zealots and Charlatans in The Tobacco Control Industry seem to be intent upon stopping people buying ‘raw tobacco’. They claim that such people are ‘avoiding duty’.
Perhaps they are, but they have the human right to be as self-sufficient as is humanly possible.
The Zealots claim that about 60 tons of ‘raw tobacco’ is imported every year. They claim that such imports cost the treasury millions of pounds. Perhaps they do. But that figure is inconsequential when compared with the billions of pounds paid by very stupid people who buy cigs in shops and supermarkets.
One might ask why I have drawn attention to this matter. Regard this:
It is crazy. There is no such thing as ‘raw tobacco’. Only complacent and compliant politicians could put up with the denial of free people to be self-sufficient.
It seems that the EU has re-calculated the GDP of the UK and demanded a couple of billion pounds more in contributions to the its coffers. Note that the demand is not for the purpose of anything specific, but rather a sort of tax, which is based upon National Economic Activity, or Gross Domestic Product (GDP), if you prefer. Of course, Cameron pulls his face, looking stern, and says that he will refuse to pay.
But he will pay, once the fuss has died down.
He will pay because he has no alternative. Gordon Brown signed the Lisbon Treaty and committed the UK to these obscene demands. Did Brown know what he was doing? I doubt it, just as much as I doubt that the person in the Foreign Office who signed the FCTC knew what the implications were.
Cameron and co are very fond of claiming that they make decisions in ‘the national interest’. But they have ‘the idea’ completely wrong, and they do not understand. As regards the EU, ‘national interest’ is subsumed to ‘the common interest’ of EU States. It is contradictory to talk about ‘national interests’ when the whole point of EU regulations is concerned with ‘common interests’. It is hard to know whether or not Cameron is lying or is ignorant. Essentially, by accepting the Lisbon Treaty, the UK gave away ‘national interest’. Thus, Cameron cannot demand ‘national interest'; there is no such thing.
Reform of the EU must entail the abolition of anything and everything which is eugenicist.The simple answer to the funding problem is to concentrate upon waste. Accept the revised contribution requirements and refuse to pay because of the waste.
“A Proper Smoking Hotel” could be misconstrued as meaning an hotel which has not been got at by the Holy Zealots and Thieving Charlatans of The Tobacco Control Industry. Mallorca is not such a place. But, even so, a small amelioration is better than none. Imagine my surprise, when I entered my hotel room to find not only an ashtray on the balcony table, but also one on a table in the room! Further, there was also a small ashtray in the bathroom. Not only that, but there was one of those small gift-boxes of matches in the ashtray in the room!
Let me explain why this was a surprise.
The hotel I usually stay at is a Sol hotel. For whatever reason, that hotel decided to close early and I was offered a couple of alternatives nearby. My normal hotel is 3 star and one of the alternatives was 4 star, so I elected to go there (on the same terms). It was a good hotel with superb views and excellent cuisine, but very quiet. That suited me fine. The room that I was allocated was big compared with the norm. It had a double bed and space for a separate table an easy chair, and there were lots of drawers. That too was a Sol hotel (of course).
People will be aware, probably, that Sol hotels are part of a huge group named ‘Sol Melia’.
You would expect that such a huge group would have defined smoking policies, which might differ from country to country, but you would expect that the Group’s hotels in Mallorca would have the same policy. My usual hotel has an unwritten policy of ‘non-smoking’ in rooms, which is why there is only an ashtray on the table on the balcony. I asked the public relations manager about this once some years ago and he sort of ‘winked and yawned’ – that is, “What the eye does not see…..”
So you see why I was quite shocked at the difference in policy between the two Sol hotels. The second hotel was not only ‘tolerant of’ but ‘welcoming to’ people who enjoy tobacco.
It makes you wonder what is going on. Let’s face it, the difference in policy between the two hotels is huge. I stayed in an hotel in Benidorm a couple of years ago. There, smoking was totally prohibited anywhere inside the hotel, including the balcony. Perhaps readers will remember this pic:
It looks as if the sign is over the bed and is ENORMOUS, doesn’t it? It fooled Michael J McM! It amused me taking that pic. The clue in in the arm with the watch on it. The sign is stuck on the mirror and I am taking a pic of the mirror! The bed in the background is reflected in the mirror. But also notice the diagram of the bed under the ‘no smoking’ sign. Clearly, what is supposed to be represented is that the ‘no smoking’ sign refers to smoking in bed, but it is a trick, is it not? It is intended to discourage smoking in the room altogether.
It is amazing what tricks are being pulled these days. Some of them are hard to believe. For example, Palma airport has always had seats outside the airport entrances. In fact, in summer, there was a small cafe outside selling coffee and snacks. On this occasion, not only had the small cafe disappeared but also had all the seats. Amazing, don’t you think? You can understand the cafe closing late in the season, but the removal of all the seats? It can only be a deliberate ploy to ‘encourage’ people to go inside and spend money in the terminal in the abundant shops which you are forced to walk through. I don’t know about the Dear Readers of this blog, but if there is anything more likely to ensure that I do not buy anything in the airport’s shops, it is tricks like that. One cup of coffee and that’s it.
Oh….. And here is an amusing thing. That airport has really been got at. In a specific terminal, there is a bar. That bar has been closed for ages. It has an exterior patio. I remember some years ago when you could go and get a drink from that bar and take it outside, where there were tables and chairs in the open air. Was there a security problem which caused the ‘authorities’ to close that bar and patio? Well, there wasn’t before the smoking ban. In another terminal, there used to be a special ‘box’, which was enclosed, with tables and chairs. It was specially constructed for smokers and was ‘air-conditioned’ (special extractor system). That disappeared.
You wonder why, and then you remember that Spain has required substantial assistance from the World Bank and the EU Bank, and then you know why.
It doesn’t matter to me that much because I have a secret. In this specific terminal, there is one end which is hardly used. I think that it is almost entirely reserved for German airlines. Right at that end, there are toilets. Hardly anyone ventures down that end. The gents toilet always has a window wide-open. I cannot believe that it is not deliberate………..
Back to the hotel and the ‘welcome to smokers’ exhibits. The little ashtray in the bathroom is the clue. Why would they put a little ashtray in the bathroom without there being a specific reason? There are all sorts of reasons, such as marks on the sink surrounds or even blocked sinks, which may also relate to the ashtray in the main room – burn-marks. Which may also relate to the ‘welcome’ box of matches – “smoke but use the ashtrays” – sort of message.
It makes sense. No laws have been broken. Simple ‘implied suggestions’ have been made. “Here is a box of matches for you to light cigs with. You are welcome, but please use the ashtrays” Winks and nods and yawns.
Since I returned from my trip, I have been reading up on my favourite blogs (see sidebar). There is a lot to catch up on. The WHO antics in Moscow are still receiving lots of attention despite its attempts to preserve the Iron Triangle by ignoring the reality. Has not that been the method for several years?
The ‘Iron Triangle’ consists of The Tobacco Control Industry, Big Pharma and Bureaucrats. It hardly involves politicians other than as useful idiots. The Triangle has been feeling some heat, but not sufficient to melt it as yet. But sooner or later, the truth will out. The truth is that people only smoke because they enjoy it. They enjoy it. And it also true that “children (meaning anyone up to the age of 18 and possibly up to 21)” will not seriously take up the habit, in the main, before they are earning enough to do so. Those economical considerations are always ignored by TC. The Zealots put it about that one cigarette hooks a person for ever. Tosh, I say!
I must to bed. It has been a long day. The Academics are playing a sort of game of chess amongst themselves, and whoever checkmates the King gets to bamboozle the politicians.
It is fortunate, regardless of the misery, that only politicians can make laws.
The site administrator is away for a week or so from tomorrow.
mikef317 alerted me in the comments yesterday that the WHO has emitted a release. Here it is:
Totally propaganda, of course. It starts thus (second paragraph):
“In her opening speech, WHO Director-General Dr Margaret Chan said that “as implementation of the Framework Convention reaches new heights, the tobacco industry fights back, harder and through every possible channel, no matter how devious those channels and practices are.”
That’s the Dr Chan who preferred to preach to the converted rather than work on solutions to the Ebola epidemic. And what were the important decisions which were taken to combat Big Bad Tobacco Industry?
“These decisions include:
Proposals for regulation of smokeless tobacco and water pipe products;
Recommendations for entry into force of the Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products;
Continuing to work on Article 19 on liability of tobacco companies;
Articles 17 and 18 principles addressing sustainable alternative livelihoods for tobacco growers;
Trade and investment issues related to FCTC implementation;
Assessment of the Convention’s impact on tobacco epidemic.”
Nothing at all. Not a word about shutting down the Tobacco Industry. But why kill the goose? Better just to shout at it.
But what I found most appalling was this:
“One of the first decisions approved by the Parties was on the Article 6 guidelines, devoted to tax measures to reduce the demand for tobacco. Tobacco taxation is a very effective tool for influencing the prices of tobacco – higher taxes usually lead to higher prices, which in turn lead to lower consumption.”
Without batting an eyelid, the delegates deliberately demanded that people who enjoy tobacco must persecuted by being forced to pay more tax. They even deliberately state that their intention is to persecute the poorest people the most:
“Noting that the heaviest burden of tobacco related diseases is borne by the most vulnerable population groups……”
Needless to say, they stepped outside the remit of the FCTC by demanding regulation of e-cigs in the following words:
“The decision acknowledges the need for regulations along the lines of policies concerning other tobacco products, including banning or restricting promotion, advertising and sponsorship of ENDS.”
What was the treaty title again – ‘Framework Convention on Tobacco Control’?
Back next week.
I haven’t seen any, nor have I seen reports of any. There are rumours that the conference demanded that our Rulers rule that tobacco taxes must be in the region of a million percent of original retail price. There again, that may be just a rumour. Whatever the percentage tax increase might be, it is clearly going to affect the least well-off the most. But to the Public Health Dr Mengele-s of this world, persecuting the poorest people is ‘a good thing’, because ‘they know not what they do’ because they are too stupid and, in any case, they are pathetic addicts.
Forcing Helping such pathetic excuses for human beings can only be a good thing, especially as it may will reduce NHS costs.
Taken to the logical extreme, if no one smoked, they everyone would be perfectly healthy from the day they were born until the day that they dropped dead suddenly from unknown causes. The USA Surgeon General said that a whiff of tobacco smoke in the street can kill a person instantly. I suppose, in that case, so could a whiff of diesel fumes. A lot of costs could be saved if that were true. All that would be required would be a ‘corpse removal squad’. I suppose that such a squad exists in Liberia at this time to dispose of corpses lying outside hospitals. In fact, the NHS could introduce a ‘best practice’ of just throwing corpses into the street and let the binmen clear up that rubbish. In fact, why not have special bins labelled ‘CORPSES’ so that the remains could be rendered into useful fertiliser? They could be coloured pretty pink and have pictures of healthy people on them, so that children would learn how their parents did not die in vain when they pegged out from inhaling a whiff of tobacco smoke on the street.
It is rather obvious that COP 6 is on the back-burner for now. But do not be fooled. It is a temporary measure until the fuss over this ebola nuisance drops out of the news. THEN the press releases about COP 6 will come thick and fast. A massive publicity event will be orchestrated about tobacco danger, culminating in a justification of COP 6 ‘legal’ demands.
And our Political Government, which never learns, will fall for it.
“Which never learns” is appropriate because politicians are like babies when first elected. They are newborns. It takes at least one 5 year parliament for them to get to the age of 5 years, and learn ‘parliament speak’ a little. If they survive another 5 year term, they might become fairly fluent in ‘parliament speak’. At that point, they can hold there own with the other 10 year olds. None, however, will attain ‘majority’ age because they will be ousted before they can.
But “experts” will continue to use the juveniles in parliament and feather their own collective nests.
Is the above too cynical? In a way, it is. People like Cameron are not actually stupid. I suspect that they simply lack any sort of managerial and organisational skills. They need to be ‘helped’. They have been used to having discussions and debates, but know nothing about ‘plan, organise, lead and control’. The only bit that they know anything about is ‘plan'; for legislation passed in parliament goes no further than ‘a plan’. As we have seen to our immense cost, such plans are forever collapsing when the ‘organise, lead and control’ is attempted. In those areas, politicians are utterly out of their depth.
At this point, I shall rest.
Have the Zealots and Charlatans finished yet? Have they finished their secret decision-making jollifications in Moscow?
The WHO is under siege over Ebola, and in any normal Industry, heads would roll. But that is hardly likely in the WHO. That is because it is not like any other Industry in that it is an Absolute Monopoly. It is a little like an Absolute Monarchy, except that no one knows who the Monarch is. Further, in the current climate over Ebola, one would think that the WHO would be fully occupied by it and that Tobacco Control would take a back seat. But don’t expect that it be so. The probability is that COP6 will be exploited with the fullest enthusiasm, once it has completed its secret cogitations. After all, the WHO President decided to avoid a conference about Ebala and attend a conference about ‘the tobacco epidemic’ instead. She rated ‘the tobacco epidemic’, which is in fact no more that a statistical chart on a computer screen, to be more important than several thousand real deaths, here and now, with the potential for exponential growth.
Meanwhile, over in Australia, the Zealots have made fools of themselves over an opera which has tobacco ingredients. Great Art has been subsumed to politically correct ideology, which is the product of a few crazy Zealots. One of the greatest Zealots is Daube, and it was he who said that nothing is more important that Public Health – nothing. Does this not remind you of something? Do you remember how the Taliban smashed up that thousand year old statue in Afghanistan just for fun?
Further, we have had, here in the UK, the thoroughly disreputable spectacle of a “Lord” spouting the usual bumph which equates ‘help’ with ‘force’. “Forcing” smokers to desist from smoking in the open air in parks is not ‘using force’, it is ‘assisting’. I suppose that thrusting Jews into gas chambers was also portrayed as ‘giving them a helping hand’.
It is reasonable to say that Daube, Chapman, Glantz etc are not significantly different from the Taliban. They have the same suicidal tendencies (but not themselves!), the same ideology, the same rapacious money-making scams, the same world-wide infiltration, the same inhuman persecution, etc.
So do not expect COP 6 to be quietly consigned to the archives. The Zealots and Charlatans in the monopolistic and aristocratic Tobacco Control Industry cannot help themselves, you see. They are a multinational conglomerate with totalitarian and fascist tendencies.
So COP 6 will be declared to be an overwhelming success. Recommendations for world-wide taxes on tobacco will be declared to be International Law (‘proceeds’ to Daube, Chapman and Glantz). And not one national leader, such as Cameron/Clegg/Miliband, will say, “Bugger off”.
I’m not sure whether Cameron etc lack courage or are ignorant. It is hard to say. Certainly, Government Minster Milton MP (Health Minster) thought that the FCTC was “International Law”, when it is nothing more that a temporary treaty.
Because the FCTC is a treaty ratified by so many nations (probably because they did not realise what it involved), it is almost impossible to ‘reform’ it. Nor is it possible (for the UK) to control the waste of money.
Is there an answer?
Yes there is, and it is extremely simple. Simply withdraw funding until acceptable reforms have been made. Other nations can do as they wish, but the UK will act in that way.
But there are other organisations which need similar reforms. The World Bank and the EU Central Bank come to mind. Does anyone know who controls those organisations? And yet they seem to be able to force Nations to do as they wish.
Answer? Very simple. Those organisations are supposed to be politically neutral. Ensure that they are so. The UK should demand it, or withdraw support, along with allied Nations. We abhor Aristocracies. We shall not tolerate them.
Four males with moustaches.
People will recognise the first two – Enoch Powell and Harold McMillan; both English politicians of some fame. For readers from other countries, Enoch was a forthright Tory politician who was a Minister for a while. His fame lies in his ‘the Tiber will flow with blood’ speech (words to that effect) regarding immigration. There is no doubt of his intellectual power. I once went to listen to a lecture which he gave at Manchester University concerning the economy. The only thing that I can remember about that lecture was that he was of the opinion that Government causes inflation, which I have no doubt is true. Harold McMillan was Prime Minister for a good while. He was, I think, I good PM. He was of the classic mould of cautious advancement in the prosperity of Britain. It was he who told the Royal College of Physicians to get lost when they proposed that smoking should be done away with. He must have used phrases something like:
“If you are right that smoking kills lots of people, then if we force them to stop smoking, they will cost a fortune in increased pension payments. Why should we stop them from enjoying tobacco if they wish to, even if it does shorten their lives? Also, smokers pay loads of tax. Where would that money come from if we forced them to stop smoking? Buzz off” The logic of that statement cannot be denied, but the logic hinges upon, “Why should we stop them from enjoying tobacco….“
I don’t really know anything about the third pic. His name was Jas Christie who was a politician in Queensland, Australia. I just thought that he looked quite ‘distinguished’ with a ‘powerful’ moustache.
The fourth is ‘Kamil Pasha’. I think that Kamil Pasha is in the nature of a surname, so there are lots of them. But his uniform looks pretty, don’t you think? And what a ‘commanding’ moustache!
Some of the pics I found are terrific. How about this one:
Don’t you think that Cameron looks far more ‘impressive’, thus adorned?
And how about this:
Cameron and Bojo with moustaches!!
There are lots more such pics here:
What is the point of this post?
For some reason or other, the ‘feminista’ keep appearing here and there. There is no doubt that some of our female MPs derive from the ‘female empowerment’ movements in universities over the past three decades or so. In so far as the ‘feminista’ rightly disputed arguments that women were ‘not capable’, I sympathise. The problem is that, according to stuff that I have read, many female university students went into politics purely to fight against male domination, and this ideology colours lots of their policy inclinations. They joined the Labour Party, mostly. But no one can be certain that there was not a deliberate ploy among these female university students to join the other parties also, and gain advancement therein. Ideology is very, very, very powerful, as we have seen in the ISIS situation. It is very odd how many people are prepared to kill themselves to prove a point, as with suicide bombers.
Now then. Ask yourselves. Is it not true that the clean-shaven Cameron, Clegg and Miliband only need to dab a bit of rouge on their cheeks, a bit of mascara on their eyelashes and a bit of lipstick on their lips to become ‘feminista’? In fact, all they need to do is don blonde wigs. Look again at the pics above and tell me that the moustaches DO NOT absolutely and comprehensively denote MALE. So, instead of Cameron, Clegg and Miliband appearing to be girly-boys, they could transform themselves over a few days into MEN.
There is also a good argument to be made that they should grow beards, but I am not sure. I tried growing a beard several decades ago, but the attempt failed on several counts:
a) At the beginning, the growth was very itchy.
b) The hair on my head was black (then, and still mostly is), but my beard was grey.
c) I have a rather pointed chin, and the beard was sprouting horizontally in the manner of Abraham Lincoln.
d) It made me look old.
For those reasons, I shaved the damned thing off. So, a beard is optional.
Cameron, Clegg and Miliband look like baby-faced boys. It’s about time that they grew up. Only then will they be able to take on the ‘feminista’.
For the ‘feminista’ are, by virtue of the difference between men and women, more emotionally inclined to support bans of this and that if the bans are argued as protecting children. That statement is not sexist. It is realistic. The Tobacco Control Industry exploits the female emotional protection of children explicitly.
Englishmen should grow moustaches to protect themselves. They must ensure that they are seen to be MALE. No amount of ‘tripping the light fantastic’ on ‘Strictly Come Dancing’ will enhance their MALENESS.
Girls like to be kissed by men with moustaches, but the ‘feminista’ politicians would be enraged if Cameron, Clegg and Miliband grew moustaches. The ‘feminista’ do not want to be kissed – they want to be obeyed.
I see that Bojo has kicked the ban on smoking in parks etc into the long grass. No credit to him for that since it should never have been proposed in the first place. Narzi and Dame ‘Silly’ Davies have shown themselves up, carried away, as they were, by the sense of their own ‘eminence’. Neither of them are ‘eminent’. Narzi might have been a decent surgeon and Davies might have been good at whatever she did, but neither of them have fought valiantly in defence of their country or produced some scientific breakthrough, or helped to create the Internet, or arrest the advance of contagious diseases in Africa, or ….. well, anything at all. It is pretty obvious that the Medical Establishment propose favoured people for ‘honours’, and that the Government accept those recommendations. That gives those individuals a veneer of ‘Authority’. It reminds me of Nathanson’s acquisition of the title “Doctor”. It was ‘honoris causa’ – equals, she was regarded as ‘a good brick’ by the people at the medical meeting which conferred the title. Her title is meaningless. The same would apply if a really successful sewerage engineer was created “A Doctor of Environmental Health”. Titles used to have something heroic about them, but they have been debased into recognition of ‘expertise’. Thus, footballers become OBEs merely because the are ‘expert’ footballers. But they must also be liked and appear on a lot of TV programmes as nice people. Lord Nelson defeated the combined might of the French and Spanish navies and was killed in that conflict. Dame ‘Silly’ Davies has ……….
I understand that Bojo has issued a statement saying that he has no intention of enforcing the recommendations of this committee. Narzi has been battered by accusations of silliness, and has claimed that the stuff in the ‘Report’ is much more devoted to other things, and that smoking in parks and Trafalgar Square are only minor suggestions.
No, ‘Your Lordship’, you have made concrete proposals which have the intent of persecuting smokers. The idea that children might take up smoking because they might see a person smoking in Trafalgar Square is manifestly nonsense.
It never ceases to astonish me that the Political Government constantly underestimates the influence of the Administrative Government. By the phrase ‘Administrative Government’, I mean the unelected controllers. This fracas about smoking in parks etc has shown, in no uncertain terms, that the Administrative Government (in respect of tobacco especially, but not alone) has overridden the Political Government. The AG has seized the opportunity to diminish the PG. People like like Bojo should be incandescent with rage.
It never ceases to amaze me that, whenever the Political Government seek some sort of ‘independent enquiry’, they always seem to appoint people who are far from independent. For example, in the PP enquiry, they appointed an anti-smoking Zealot Paediatrician as Boss. Since the enquiry was entirely statistical, why did they not appoint a ‘Statistician’?
The fact is that the Political Government has no idea what to do about anything. Cameron, Clegg and Miliband are ignorant (in the sense of lacking in knowledge). That is not necessarily a bad thing, provided that they themselves understand. That is why we have a Parliament. It exists to STOP persecution rather than CREATE it.
What follows clearly is that the UK must stop allowing international prohibitionist movements from inflicting their divisive intents upon the People of the UK. Such divisive intents are clear in respect of the Millennium Goals. Oddly enough, I do agree that ‘population’ is an issue. Let us not go there tonight.
I am not the only one to ridicule the latest anti-smoking blather from The Tobacco Control Industry. It seems that they want massive “NO SMOKING” notices on Nelson’s Column in Trafalgar Square. I’m surprised that they have not also recommended that a windmill should be placed upon Nelson’s head to power the lights which illuminate the statue, and/or that the statue should be coated with solar panels to generate electricity to power the lights. Better still, switch off the lights and thus reduce global warming.
Who the heck is Nelson anyway? Surely his statue should be replaced by Arnott? Has she not saved the kingdom from SHS danger? It is true that she is just a propagandist, but why should propagandists not have statues erected in their honour if they ‘save the children’?
Which brings us to the point. Dame ‘Silly’ Davies thinks that children seeing people smoking in Trafalgar Square is different from children seeing smoking anywhere else. The ‘quango’ that Boris inadvertently created to think about the health of Londoners has come up with the same balderdash that other idiocies have come up with to improve the health of Londoners. AKA PERSECUTION AND PROHIBITION.
Now, as a result of his own incompetence, he is stuck with a ‘for the children’ demand which the Zealots will not allow to go away. Even the Chief Medical Officer, Dame Silly Davies, jumped onto the ‘for the children’ bandwagon.
There seems to be a ‘blockage’ in the minds of politicians when they have to confront what is best for children. They seem to wish to ignore the 99% of what parents do for their children and concentrate upon the 1% which demands public funding.
I can’t be bothered to investigate this Boris Johnson ‘faut pas’ thoroughly. Let us just say that he is an amusing chap who blunders about. It does not matter as long as ‘The Elite’ are in control, because ‘The Elite’ will control things, which includes the efforts of Boris.
I am surprised at the antics of Boris. I thought that he was actually a Human Being.
The more that I think about it, the more astonished I am by the recent by-election results. For decades, when a by-election is held, voters have tended to vote against the incumbent Government, but not to any great extent. There will always be a group of people who, for one reason or another, are dissatisfied by the current Government’s performance. Occasionally, the majority will be small enough for the current MP to lose his seat. Generally, the protest votes have moved to the Liberals, since they provided the ‘alternative’ which was not either Labour or Conservative, or to minor parties. The question that comes into my mind is whether or not the fact that the Liberals are actually in government has played any part in the movement to UKIP. I suppose that it must have, to some extent. But, somehow, it doesn’t ring quite true. Failing a ‘lib-alike’ party of some substance to vote for, it would have been far easier for such dissatisfied voters to just stay home and not bother voting at all. After all, the extent of the UKIP surge, apart from the the special situation of Clacton, was a shock.
What could the reason be? Immigration? Perhaps, but the the complaints about immigration have been around for years and years. Why now?
I should imagine that UKIP itself is curious. If you were Farage, what would you do? If I was Farage, and if I had the money, I would have a reputable polling company knocking on doors in Clacton and Middleton to find out why people voted UKIP. I would seriously want to know what was in people’s minds. It may be just immigration, but it could also be immigration and the EU. And it could be immigration and the EU and the EU trampling on our sovereign rights. And it could also be empty pubs and bans and local authorities buggering things up. Who knows? Also, I wonder to what extent the Scottish ‘near-thing’ influenced English people in their decision-making? Should our English politicians be looking after England first and foremost? Perhaps people in large numbers are suddenly beginning to see that the Elite are just making our lives more difficult and miserable with every step the take. Don’t listen to what they, say – watch what they do.
People reading this blog (‘people like us’) highlight the smoking ban, and rightly so. It had an immediate awful effect by turning pub staff against their customers. I remember a 17 year old bar-lad trying to tell me to get out of the porch, even though it was open to the outside. I remember a bar-girl trying to tell me that I had to be five yards away from the pub doorway to smoke. They had been co-opted and, what was worse, seemed to be revelling in their new-found power. If a publican locked the doors of his pub at the end of the night and had a lock-in, he was in danger of being raided by environmental officers backed up by the police – for committing the heinous crime of permitting smoking in his own ‘home’. That is our gripe, which must also be shared by many others. But there will be those who have seen their local close down as a consequence of the smoking ban, or seen the mass exodus of smokers, and are unhappy about what has happened. Thus, for them, it is not so much the smoking ban itself which has upset them but the consequences of the ban. Those people may not be many in number, but the numbers are beginning to add up. there might also be many who have seen the anti-smoker ads on TV and have been disgusted by them, and the pictures on cig packets. Another group of people who are disgusted. The trouble is that many of these influences might be almost subliminal due to their number.
Yes, if I was Farage, I would want to know, and I would want the polling company to try its best to reveal all the possible influences. For example, I would ask people who voted for UKIP to comment on all the matters which the UKIP ‘manifesto’ contains in the form of a short questionnaire of the form, “What influenced your decision to vote UKIP”:
1. Immigration: Very much, somewhat, neither yes or no, not much, not at all.
2. Smoking ban:………………………..”……………………………………………
3. The EU:………………………………..”……………………………………………
And so on.
But it must also be true that Con/Lib/Lab Elite want to know. They may be doing such surveys even as we speak (metaphorically, of course – definitely not at midnight). But it is also not unlikely that they will be looking at the UKIP ‘manifesto’ to see how they can steal UKIP’s thunder. Relaxing the smoking ban and anti-PP are both there. Why are they there? If they were not important, they would not be mentioned, would they? Why have UKIP put those two policies into their ‘manifesto’? It stands to reason that UKIP must have some information that those two policies are significant. I could guess that they are significant, and that is why Lab/Con/Lib are avoiding them completely. Lab and Lib are hopelessly compromised, in view of their support for the ban and PP. But the Tories are not quite so compromised, even though they have failed to do anything about the persecution of smokers, or the damage to businesses. But how could they when they have had to rely upon the Libs? Better to go along with the ‘omerta’ until something breaks.
But there has been a ‘break’. The Mirror conducted a poll asking if readers thought that UKIP policies were ‘weird’. Among them was a relaxation of the smoking ban. The vote was that only 7% thought that the relaxation of the ban was ‘weird’. But I’m not sure that I understood that poll correctly. It could have asked ‘which of these policies do you think is MOST weird’. I don’t remember. Even so, only 7% thought that the amendment was ‘weird’, and it was the lowest. I’ve been trying to find that poll again, by without success. It may not even have been in the Mirror.
There are people who got themselves elected at the 2010 GE who, I’m convinced, were not true Tories, but who were anti-tobacco zealots and happened to be doctors. They got themselves elected purely to push healthist policies. They got themselves onto the HoC ‘All Party Health Committee’ and pushed madly for smoking bans, alcohol restrictions, sugar and salt restriction, etc. Tory selection committees should rid their parties of the ‘pretend’ conservatives.
But an even greater problem is the embedded Zealotry in the Civil Service, especially as regards Health and the Environment. Both of those subjects have the backing of the UN and the WHO, both of which are not democratically accountable. But a ‘weird’ thing has happened. The WHO took its FCTC COP meeting to Moscow, and the USA and Canada withdrew their delegations, but the WHO carried on regardless. Further, the WHO banished the Press and others, including Interpol. Secrecy is their byword, even though public funds sustain them. The arrogance of the WHO (and, implicitly, the UN and EU) is there for all to see. It is beyond my comprehension that States like the USA, UK, France, Germany, etc can put up with it.
But there are very simple answers to the problem of ‘arrogance’, which is to DE-FUND. Put the UN back into a peace-keeping mode. Put the WHO back into a contagious disease prevention mode. Put the IPCC back into an investigative mode. They DO NOT rule, OK?
It must happen eventually. But leaders will have to ‘emerge’ who have the strength to stand up to the self-serving medical establishment and climate gang. Universities, in particular, must revert to being places of learning, and not political activists.
I think that we are seeing a groundswell of change, but it is hard to see what the direction is. It seems that the collapse of the Roman Empire (aka ‘Pax Romana’) was the result of the massive growth of bureaucracy in Rome, and the intrigue thereof. In some ways, we are now seeing much the same thing.
We must remember at all times that the EU is merely the result of Treaties. The law of the UK is the law of the UK, and the Government of the UK can accept or reject any suggestion of the EU. It is as simple as that. For example, there is no ‘international law’ which might force the UK to adopt the EU ‘recommendations’ about ecigs – or anything else, for that matter. The UK can, if it wishes to, just let the matter lie on the table. I do not think that people like Cameron, Clegg and Miliband understand this. The EU is a miasma created by Treaties. But it is no more than a miasma.