The Advance Notice of the Labour Manifesto

I don’t know how many readers will be aware of Labour’s statement about what they intend to put in their manifesto about Public Health. It takes the form of a PDF document, and here it is:

I haven’t actually read it yet, but Dick Puddlecote has taken it apart, and you can read his ‘take’ on it here:

Or you could read Snowden’s opionion here:

For a bit of fun, you could also read the Telegraph’s opinion:

Very briefly, the statement says that Labour will squeeze smokers, drinkers and fatties until they squeak, and all this squeezing will, of course, be ‘helping them’ to give up their bad habits and, of course, has no other intention than to ‘protect’ children, which the State “has a duty” to do. By around the year 2050 (it used to be ‘by the year 2000’), all Britons, except the Elite, of course, will be as fit as fiddles and able to work until they are eighty before they can claim their State pensions.


The whole thing is clearly hogwash. So much so, that it is reasonable to ask why it has been produced NOW rather than as part of the actual Labour manifesto in due course. Why NOW

I smell a trap.


For all intents and purposes, the coalition is dead. It is as dead as Monty Python’s parrot. It is deceased; it is no longer with us; it has passed away; it has been reunited with its maker. From now on until May, it is every party for itself, and every MP for his/her own survival. This means that whatever might embarrass the Tories is to be promoted to the greatest possible extent by both Liberals and Labours.

In this specific incident, it seems to me, there is a repeat of the trap which was set in the Lords when the ‘Children’s Protection Bill’ (I paraphrase) was hijacked by Labour peers under the noses of the Tory peers batter smokers again and again with the ‘no smoking in cars’ trick and the ‘plain packaging’ trick. The Tories fell for it hook line and sinker. They were properly stitched up. Merely to save face, the Tories had to forget their principles (Cameron said that he did not want to invade parents’ ‘space’) and surrender. By ‘surrender’, I mean make the appropriate noises with their tongues.

So what is the trap?

Labour knows damn well that the public are fed up with the nannying. The public have said so in a poll just recently. Thus, Labours (and Liberals) are trying to goad Tories into enacting health zealots’ legislation to make themselves unpopular. Clever, don’t you think? Note that, as yet, these Labour proposals are not actually part of their election manifesto. Thus, the interests of the Health Lobby and the temporary interests of the Labour party coincide.

But the trap will only work if the Tories are stupid enough to fall into it. Remember, as I said earlier, that the coalition is dead. Liberals also have an interest in discomforting the Tories, especially MPs like Williams, who is an anti-smoking zealot of the first order, and who is almost certainly on his way out of parliament at the GE.

What should the Tories do?

To answer that question, it is necessary to ask the question, “Do the Tories either believe the poll which showed that people are sick to death of the nannying, or do they accept the sort of polls produced by YouGov which state that 70% of the people love and welcome bans?”

I would advise the Tories thus:

1. The people who welcome bans are not the people affected by the bans, apart from those who have been brainwashed.

2. When people say that they want to stop smoking (or reduce their alcohol intake or want to slim) they are stating their second preference and not their first. Their first preference is to continue to enjoy tobacco (or booze or food), but it is an expensive habit due to the vicious taxes. I have personal experience. When I was a single ‘man about town’, the cost of cigs was well within my ‘budget’ (what budget? I mean that with ‘spending money’ of £5 per week, 10p for a packet if fags was not important around 1960). However, when I married and had children and had a mortgage, etc,  the cost of smoking became a factor in our household costs. True, I was ‘addicted’ to tobacco – in a sense. Giving up was painful for a few days – ‘the black hole of despond’ opened up. But I did give up smoking for a full year and was able to buy my first car as a result. But what really happened? All that happened was that I exchanged the cost of smoking for the cost of owning a car and of driving. Had I conquered the ‘addiction’? Well, surely after twelve months, I must have? But I started smoking again. Why? There can only be one reason, which is that I really, really enjoyed smoking and that the addiction element was not the most significant element.

3. Labours (and Liberals) want you to commit suicide by rushing legislation through to ban smoking in cars and introducing PP. The 70% of the population who are non-smokers do not really give a shit one way or the other. If they were told that banning smoking, increasing the cost of alcohol, taking out sugar foods would increase the taxes that they themselves would have to pay, those people would rapidly change their minds. “Dear Mr Cameron. Use your brain rather than your tongue. Do NOT enact legislation which will make Tories unpopular. Get a grip”


Finally, we have a serious problem. If we accept that Labours are serious about persecuting smokers, drinkers and fatties, how can we stop the tyranny? If the Tories actually go ahead and fall into the trap, then the solution is easy – vote UKIP since there is no alternative. But suppose that the Tories do NOT fall into the trap? Should we smokers, drinkers and fatties vote Tory to stop Labours persecuting us (assuming that Labours really mean what they say)?

My thinking is this. If the Tories do not actively contest the illiberal waffle, then they are fools, and so I shall vote UKIP. If they do contest it, then I might just vote Tory. BUT, in my constituency, Labour rules, OK. For me personally, only UKIP makes sense. In marginal constituencies, whom I would vote for would depend upon how the Tories react to this Labour trap. If the Tories call the Labour bluff, then I would vote to keep the Tories in power. If they fall into the trap, then I would vote UKIP.

The result of GEs depends upon the marginal constituencies, but ‘marginal’ is stretchy. The smaller the difference between Tory and Labour, the more significant the votes for UKIP.

Bla. Bla.

Are we seeing deliberate, concerted efforts by the three main parties to disseminate confusion and uncertainty, with the intention of maintaining their individual party allegiances? It seems quite likely to be so to me. Why else would they keep constantly changing their stances?


Finally, OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM STINKS. Why? Because of precisely the deliberate intention of the current political parties to create general confusion to maintain their collective control overall.

Is there a space there for a new political party which we could call “THE TRUTH PARTY”? I chuck that idea out because it just this second popped into my mind. I wish that I was twenty years old than seventy five years old.

What could be better than a political party that is called “The Truth Party”? A lovely idea, I think, but the idea has a major fault, in that the ‘opposition’ would have to be “The Untruth Party”.


However, there is some traction in that idea in the sense that part of the problem with our current, stinking political system is that politicians can deliberately lie and cheat, as we have seen with the expenses scandal. They cannot be trusted, but there is no system which can punish them for their support of tyrannical laws due to the monopoly.

That is the reason that REVOLUTIONS occur from time to time. We are due for a revolution. The first step must be that THE PEOPLE of England take ownership of the land. I have mentioned it before, but got shot down because people did not understand what I meant (probably my fault).

What I mean is that it should be clear beyond doubt that the only people who own the land of England are all the people as a group. The land can be leased and, sometimes, that lease can be free of costs. (My ground rent has become so ridiculously important that the landowners have stopped bothering to collect it, HOWEVER, if I sold the house, the vultures would demand their their back-dated cut – without doing a thing to earn their cut). Just imagine how much money is being creamed off the economy by landowners, who do no work at all to justify their income. How and why did the Labour, shortly after WW2, not SEE that the ownership of the land is absolutely critical to everything that happens in our country? The present situation as regards land ownership is medieval.

There is no doubt in my mind, even though I am not paying a land rent because the landlords cannot be bothered to collect it, that land rents, which are currently paid to parasites, could thoroughly change our economy and our competitiveness in the world if the rents were paid to ‘The People’ in the form of The Government.


Our political system stinks. Cameron, Miliband and Clegg emit pongs which are worse than farts.Why? Because they regard themselves  as Gods.


%d bloggers like this: