A ‘Level Playing Field’ Produces ‘Inequality’

We have heard, again and again and again, how beneficial it is to have ‘a level playing field’. But is that true?

There are some ‘playing fields’ which level themselves, such as swimming pools. It is unimaginable that such a ‘playing field’ could be other than level. Clearly, it would be rather nonsensical to have cricket pitches and football pitches which have big humps and hollows in them. I leave it to your imagination to calculate the results of such humps and hollows. On the other hand, it is perfectly acceptable for golf courses to have huge humps and hollows, ditches, streams, lakes and deep holes full of sand. But even on golf courses, the greens are fairly level, even though they slant and have minor undulations.

Thus, ‘level playing fields’ are appropriate only in those circumstances where such level playing fields are appropriate.

——

Let us now consider the idea of a ‘level playing field’ when it comes to the application of smoking bans. When the Health Bill was brought to Parliament, there were exceptions to the ban, most notably wet-led pubs (being those which did not serve food) and private clubs. At the last minute, the Government Minister Herself contradicted Her own Bill and proposed an amendment to remove the exemptions. The pretext was that workers in those places were just as subject to SHS as other places, so why should they be exempted? But that must already have been OBVIOUSLY obvious.

The fact is that the exemption promised was a trick to lull the sheeple in the pub trade into a stupor – and it worked. It worked partly because publicans believed the junk science of surveys, which purported to show that non-smokers would flood into pubs if smoking was banned. There is a simple test of the value of such surveys, which is this:

“If the cost of having a meal in restaurants was reduced by 50%, would you be more likely to go to such restaurants?”  The answer ought to be 100% “Yes”. Even a person with a family in desperate circumstances would have to say “Yes”.

But it need not have worked. Independent  publicans had an association, or seemed to have had. That association must have comprised of chickens rather that geese (at least geese fight); or rather the equivalent of Roman Slaves. They (if they existed) were fearful of a charge of ‘provoking civil disobedience’. But is such a charge possible, since there is now no such thing as ‘treachery’?

——-

We have seen genuinely desirable level playing fields, such as the standardisation of USB connections in mobiles.But competition continues in mobiles in lots of ways. There is a ‘level playing field’ in the USB connections, but competition in the services.

=====

I assert that the demands of Tobacco Control have already reduced ‘equality’ in the provision of tobacco products. The ‘equality’ of which I speak is that of competitive products. The ‘level playing field’ is actually ‘unequal’, since only the wealthiest players are permitted to engage. In fact, EU Public Health and Public Health England, and the Charlatans therein, are promoting the most viscous attack on citizens for centuries.

There is no doubt. All the blather, especially on the BBC, about the Commonwealth Games just illustrates the reality , which is ‘bread and circuses’.

====

I am just thinking aloud, but I think that it is important. There are no natural ‘level playing fields’. Such fields need to be contrived. Because they are contrived, they are suspect.

=====

I sincerely believe that certain MPs stood for election, with the blessing of their constituency commissariats, whose sole intention was to persecute smokers. That I truly believe. In evidence, I would quote the vicious, Nazi, attacks on smokers by XXX.

====

Before I fall over via red wine, I might also state the crux. It is only now becoming apparent that the Doll ‘Doctors Study’ has no relevance to anyone under the age of seventy or so.

‘Level playing playing field’ equals compliance. That is what we elect politicians to fight against.

About these ads

4 Responses to “A ‘Level Playing Field’ Produces ‘Inequality’”

  1. garyk30 Says:

    I would say that calling for a ‘level playing field’ is the whine of losers!

    • beobrigitte Says:

      In which case you are perfectly happy with e.g. universities replacing tobacco industry funding with that of the tobacco control industry?

  2. beobrigitte Says:

    I assert that the demands of Tobacco Control have already reduced ‘equality’ in the provision of tobacco products. The ‘equality’ of which I speak is that of competitive products. The ‘level playing field’ is actually ‘unequal’, since only the wealthiest players are permitted to engage.

    This is it. Lobbyists dictate competition.

  3. junican Says:

    GaryK is essentially right (I think that Beo misinterpreted his comment). How can a General recognise his troops? The only way is to force them to wear a specific uniform. In fact, he has no other way.
    ‘Levelling the playing field’ equals ‘no competition’. Thus, PP is intended to reduce competition between tobacco companies. However, it also destroys the possibility of competition from other providers, unless they are filthy rich.

Comments are closed.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 101 other followers

%d bloggers like this: