Something Brewing re Smoker Persecution

Before going to the subject of this post, readers who might want a bit of easy-watching amusement might like to watch the ’25 Hour News’ review of 2014 here (H/T Anna Racoon):

It is quite amusing amidst the horror of political sleight of propaganda and lies.


It seems that a press release is in the offing which will announce further persecution of smokers. The press release is apparently embargoed until 00.01 am Monday, though why the emitters of the press release cannot wait to issue it until that time I cannot imagine. I suppose that the want press interest by telling the press what they are to be interested by.

But one cannot help but suspect that it will be ‘Plain Packaging’. This comment, if it is from someone in the know, give a clue:

Government announce 50 Shades of Grey to be replaced by a single, highly taxed, shade of Public Health approved dun.
Majority of public support the measure claims Nottingham University Computer-Science department. 

“Fifty shades replaced by one”?

Of course, I have absolutely no idea if that is the case, but it would make sense. First an announcement about cars and kids, followed by PP, and then introduce them together. Bash them through the Commons before the next election, and it will not matter it the political parties are bashed or not, will it? Because they will all be bashed the same, won’t they? And it won’t matter much either way which party has the most seats, will it? – because Tory and Labour are used to taking it in turns. What is the consequence of a few Libdems, UKIPers or SNPs here or there?


I’m beginning to have a change of attitude. There are significant signs of some perturbation beginning to appear, even in the MSM, about ‘The Nannies’. What might have been seen to be a worthy cause (anti-tobacco, especially when tobacco companies can no longer advertise), is beginning to look rather shaky as the intolerance spreads. I wonder if the MSM, in which I also include TV News, are beginning to think about how a ban on alcohol adverts might affect their income. By ‘TV News’, I mean commercial channels which feature news programmes (or even not), but, of course, excluding the BBC, which we can assume will continue in its support of the fascist, totalitarian, nanny, bully State. And there are the chocolate ads, and similar. Prettily packaged rabbit food is hardly likely to take the place of Ferrer Rocher, is it? And what about when petrol ads, and car ads are banned? It cannot be too long before the climate control brigade get around to ‘discouraging’ car ownership.


So, I’m beginning to think that a lot of organisations must be waking up to the danger, so we can expect more opposition to the Nannies, although not before the Nannies have done a lot of economic damage.

The curious consequence is that there is little point in spending time bemoaning the introduction of car smoking bans and PP. If they get through, then there is no point in bothering about them any more. Let the Zealots pat themselves on the back. Let their successes go to their heads. Ask yourself – “Will the car smoking ban, whatever form it takes, have any effect of any consequence in terms of reducing smoking?” It might, but what is most likely to happen is that vaping will take the place of smoking in cars. People who enjoy tobacco will continue to smoke where they can. “Will PP stop people smoking?” In Australia, it seems that youth smoking has increased since PP was introduced. I don’t say that one is a consequence of the other – that would be falling into the trap of ‘correlation equals causation’, which we rightly avoid. It simply seems to be true that PP has not had the effect claimed.

So, why should we let these things upset us? What we know for sure, as history tells us, is that the more successful the prohibitionists are, the sooner that they will fall. They think that they are being   very clever, do all these quack doctors and quack professors, and so they are. But that very cleverness will be their undoing. Their salami slicing technique has taken longer than calls for immediate prohibition, and has been covered up for years by “we only want…..”. That technique has been magnificently rewarding for them, but what does that matter? There are masses of hangers-on and leaches. Health Nazis are just another such group.


Here is an interesting theory. (Don’t judge me harshly – I am just thinking ‘new thoughts’ as I go along)

Just suppose that the Trade Unions made it their objective to protect the earning of the their members, not from The Evil Employers, but from The Evil Government? That is, protect their members from excessive taxation? Suppose that UKIP became the political party which represents those interests? Is that idea too far-fetched?

Perhaps it is, but it is possible to re-think the meaning of certain words. For example, there are people like Hastings, Bould, and such academics who are well paid and sit in Universities, who are out-and-out ‘far left’. I hasten to add that I do not define ‘far left’ other than ‘anti-capital’. Note that these people who are ‘anti-capital’ have managed to silence ‘capital’ as represented by Big Tobacco and are on the way to silencing Big Alcohol, Big Sugar, Big Salt, and, via climate change, Big Oil, Big Motor Manufacturing, etc.


In this scenario, who is ‘far right’? In my imaginary situation, UKIP, the Unions and Workers would become the ‘Far Right’. We have redefined terms. The New Political Order would see the ‘Far Right’ (‘Workers’) defending capital in order to defend their incomes, and ousting the ‘Far Left’ (‘Leaches’) out of ‘Control’ and back into ‘Service’, where they belong.


I cannot help but believe that our political system must revert to King and Parliament system. That is, the Administration must be taken out of Parliament. The King organises the Government Departments, which propose laws and developments, but which Parliament have to approve. But the Heads of Departments must be known and must be voted for. It is not impossible for the Electorate to vote for the Administrators and, at the same time, vote for MPs who keep checks on the Administrators.

There would still be political parties in Parliament, which brings us back to the ‘Far Right’ and the ‘Far Left’.

Directly elected Mayors have shown that this system is possible. What could be a more logical consequence than the direct election of a Prime Minister?

I know that this idea mirrors the American Presidential system. But there is a big difference. In the USA, there has been a two party political division with hardly any third party involvement (I know, I know that other parties have come and gone) – the Republicans and the Democrats. What do those words mean? I see little difference in meaning/ meaninglessness. Surely it must be the case that all Americans uphold ‘The Republic’, and, surely, all Americans are ‘Democrats’? It follows that the names of the parties are meaningless. What then should their names really be?


This post has become far too messy. Yawn….

Sod the Zealots. Sod the tame politicians. Sod the Prime Minister, Sod the Health Secretary. Sod Parliament. No matter what they decide, they cannot break us. They can persecute us, as they already do with their taxes and duties, but they cannot break us.



3 Responses to “Something Brewing re Smoker Persecution”

  1. Peter Says:

    You may be onto something here. I’ve often thought that what UKIP needs is to enlist a professional body (e.g. The Institute of Chartered Accountants, solicitors, whomever) to give them enough credible candidates to challenge many seats in the next election. Thse candidatesy would not be required to have strong political views or policies, only to state “We stand only this once, only to get the incumbents out.” But why not Trades Unions? Same logic applies and, if anything, their appeal would be wider than for members of a professional body.

  2. Bemused Says:

    Forget unions. The TUC fully bought into and supported the persecution of 30% of their members. For their own good of course.

  3. junican Says:

    It is hard to know why unions supported the Health Zealots. I suspect that it had more to do with bashing employers. Anything to embarrass Big Business.
    Yes, I am talking about a change of heart. But, what is more important, is the idea of a change in the meaning of the ideas of ‘left’ and ‘right’. It is not inconceivable that it would be in the interests of Capital and Labour to come together to defend their earnings against the leaches of NGOs etc. That is my major point.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: