I’m a bit late coming to this little party, but others have covered the by-election results with thoroughness.

What is notable to me is that the Big Three, as far as I know, have not tried to invoke the ‘one off’ spectre. That is, they have not ‘played the man’, being, in this case, Douglas Carswell, who seems to have been quite popular in his constituency. Why he should be personally popular is not explained. What has he done to improve the lot of the tens of thousands of voters in his constituency? Has he slayed some dragon? What has he done to be be regarded as wonderful?

I don’t believe it.

But even if that were so, the results in the other by-election, in the Heywood and Middleton constituency, counter claims of personal popularity. In that constituency, not a single one of the candidates was a repeat. All the candidates were different people from those who stood at the General Election in 2010. And yet the vote there for UKIP went from 1215 in 2010, to 11016 in the recent by-election.

The actual figures were discovered by Frank Davis and can be seen here:

No wonder that the Big Three are keeping their mouths firmly shut. A couple of simple facts reveal why that is so:

Heywood and Middleton 2010:

UKIP 1215 votes.

Heywood and Middleton 2014 by-election:

UKIP 11016 votes.


Clacton 2010:

UKIP 0 votes (no candidate).

Clacton 2014:

UKIP 21113 votes.


The differences are not a miasma. They are real, and they are HUGE. In both cases, voters actually turned out and went to the voting station and VOTED. This was not an on-line poll. Those who went to the voting station and voted, in person, felt that the issues were so important that they were impelled to go out of their way to vote. This is not a case of a few hundred activists swinging the vote their way.


But one might ask if this ENORMOUS change in attitudes is only about immigration. Where are the ‘academic researchers’ when you need them? Where are the ‘studies’ and ‘surveys’ conducted by eminent ‘Doctors’ and ‘Professors’? Why are they not ‘on the ball’?

Perhaps the answer lies in Frank Davis’s latest post:

The Daily Mirror is a Labour supporting newspaper. It asked its readers, in a poll, how they rated UKIP policies by ‘weirdness’. I wonder if the editorial staff were surprised that the Readers DID NOT regard “Changing the smoking ban to allow smoking indoors” as the least bit weird. In fact, only 7% of Readers regarded that idea as ‘weird’. Thus, by implication, 93% regarded that idea as sensible. If you were ASH ET AL, you would interpret that result as conclusive proof that 93% want smoking in pubs, without restrictions.

And so it should be. It is up to Publicans to make their own rules, if any.

But “what about SHS and the workers?”, one might ask. The answer is very simple even though it involves more than one idea.

The first idea is that the Zealots NEVER include time-scales, even though the ‘Doctors Study’ relied very much upon time-scales. Let me put it thus:

Doctors Study:

A) The more that you smoke, the sooner the devastating health effects emerge.

B) The longer that you smoke, the even sooner the devastating health effects emerge.

C) Combining the two, the resulting health effects are doubly devastating.



A) The more you reduce smoking, the later the devastating effects emerge.

B) The sooner that you stop smoking, the less the devastating effects.

C) Combining the two, after a reasonable length of time, stopping smoking reduces the risk of devastating effects to zero.


But there is a serious, serious logical defect in the above. The defect is quite simple, and it is THAT YOU MUST SURVIVE FOR THE SURVIVAL TO TAKE PLACE.

Do you see? That logical defect in the consequences of the ‘Doctors Study’ is what has given rise to statements that “there is no safe level of smoking”. The fact is that the Doctors Study indicated that THERE WAS a safe level of smoking, even at the heaviest of levels and for the longest period of time, provided that a person stopped smoking and survived. 

Clever buggers like Doll saw the internal contradictions decades ago and cleverly buried them. Garyk has illustrated the negative of these considerations often. He has pointed out, again and again (correctly!), that there are little differences between deaths of non-smokers from ‘tobacco related’ diseases, as compared with smokers. But what is more important is the chance of NOT DYING from of tobacco related disease. When looked at from that direction, the chance of NOT dying from such a disease is almost exactly equal between smokers and non-smokers (something like 99.2% and 99.5%  – the actual figures are not important).


But Smoking Bans are predicated upon ‘immediate’ danger. No studies have supported such a conjecture. In fact, studies such as the Doctors Study support the idea that damage from SHS would take centuries to effect the human body. Thus, for a person to be damaged to death by SHS, he would have to live to the ripe old age of, at least, 500 years (or it could be 5,000 years).


The crux is arriving. We, THE PEOPLE, do not want joisting events between the various Elites.These Elites are Fascist and Totalitarian, and we do not want them. Cameron, Clegg and Miliband represent the “ELITE”. We do not want them. But, most of all, we want the people that we elect to control the “The Government”, and not be controlled by the likes of Arnott, Duggan, Bauld, and co.

And it is so, so easy. For example, we have the Meteorological Department. It is full of experts. Tell me how a university academic named Jones came to be more important than the whole Meteorological Dept? It can only be that the academics HAD ALREADY infiltrated the Met Dept.


What is clear is that ridding the ‘body politic’ of the Zealots and Charlatans will not be an easy task. I suppose that the same must have applied to ridding England of witch-hunters several centuries ago. Removing these people depends upon “The King”. Unfortunately, the best that we have, at the moment, is a “princess”.

3 Responses to “UKIP”

  1. garyk30 Says:

    “C) Combining the two, after a reasonable length of time, stopping smoking reduces the risk of devastating effects to zero.”

    Except that, since never smokers also die from those diseases, the risk never goes to zero.

  2. garyk30 Says:

    “But Smoking Bans are predicated upon ‘immediate’ danger. No studies have supported such a conjecture.”

    Anti-smokers do bang on about SHS exposure causing a 25% increased risk of death from lung cancer and heart attack to never-smokers.

    Wellll, they would not get much support for smoking bans or money for their organizations if they were to say:

    “Exposure to SHS causes a 5/1,000ths of a 1% drop in a never-smoker’s chance of not dying from lung cancer and a 4/100th of a 1% drop in a never-smokers chances of not dying from a heart attack.”

    “Exposure to SHS causes a never-smokers chance of not dying from lung cancer to drop from 99.98% to 99.975% and a never-smokers chance of not dying from a heart attack to drop from 99.86% to 99.825%.”

    Such data would not impress very many average people or politicians.

    A 25% increase does sound scarier.

    • garyk30 Says:

      The 25% increase comes from the US Surgeon General.

      CDC data shows that never-smoker lung cancer death rate is 2/10,000 per year and the death rate for heart attacks is 14/10,000 per year.

      Exposure to SHS would increase those numbers to 2.5/10,000 and 17.5/10,000.

      Current smokers numbers are 7/10,000 for lung cancer deaths and 31/10,000 for heart attack deaths.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: