Who Voted for PP?

Lists of Tory MPs who voted either for or against PP are available at:


The actual names do not matter much in themselves other than the possibility that your MP might be one of them. However, it is worth noting some of the names. Cameron voted for, Osborne (chancellor) voted for, Pickles voted for.

I was a bit surprised by Pickles. He seems to be more down to earth than most. It was that, perhaps, which made me think that some pressure had been applied. I don’t mean threats – I mean the need to support the government. How would it look if Tory members of the cabinet voted against a measure proposed by the Tory-ish government? The word SPLIT would be shouted far and wide. Thus, it is quite possible for the apparent support for this measure has been much exaggerated.

I must admit to being something of a ‘conspiracy theory’ advocate in a small way. For example, it seems odd to me that the main proponents of fascist laws re smoking are countries which did not suffer the jackboot of Nazi rule, such as Ireland, Australia, UK, USA. And some of the others are very much still under the control of totalitarian regimes, such as Russia.

Personally, I see studies like the Doll and Hill ‘Doctors Study’ as somewhat similar to a modern day confession derived by torture. I mean that in the sense that the whole object of the exercise was to produce the desired result. For example, the number of non-smokers in the original cohort of 34,000 male doctors was comparatively small. Actually, after ten years, several thousand people had been ‘lost’, so that, by 1961, there were about 5400 non-smokers and 25800 smokers, giving a total of some 31200 doctors.

The interesting question, to me, is: “Why were the 5400 non-smokers non-smokers, when almost all of their contemporaries were smokers?” In other words, I could reasonably ask, “WHAT WAS WRONG WITH THEM?” Why did they deprive themselves of the pleasure of smoking? Frank Davis has given us a clue in his descriptions of Dr W, who was big in the BMA. He seems to have been one of those people who are driven by ‘duty’. They do not need fun and laughter, booze and cigs, dancing and sex – happiness comes from being ‘perfectly correct’. What is more easy to be ‘perfectly correct’ in than gardening, which Dr W enjoyed? Because plants cannot complain, even failures are ‘perfectly correct’ because the failures are ‘natural’. Nature is always ‘perfectly correct’.

I can see that. I can understand it. For example, Michael Faraday, the greatest experimental scientist of all time, belonged to a fundamentalist Christian sect. He refused a knighthood for that reason. Whence did he derive his pleasure in life? It must have been from the success of his experiments – the success of his life’s work.


The horror situation that we have at present is that ‘gardening’ (in the sense of playing with nature), in the form of PP, is the ‘fun in thing’ for politicians to play with. ‘Feel Good’ is the same as pottering about in the garden.


OK. It is getting late.

In my constituency, the Labour MP will be re-elected. There is no doubt. So I will vote UKIP, if there is a candidate. But there are some constituencies which are marginal. Smokers should look at the voting record of the candidate, and vote for the other guy who will win. It does not matter what the views of ‘the other guy’ are. The important thing is to remove the Zealot. For example, in Bristol, it is more important to get rid of Williams MP than to vote for UKIP, so vote for the best alternative. The same goes for Dr Sarah Wolhastome (I can’t be bothered). In a constituency where there is the merest chance of a UKIP victory, vote UKIP. In every constituency where the sitting tenant has a big majority, vote UKIP.

I think that there is a real prospect that Cameron, Clegg and Miliband, being artificial products of universities and Common Purpose, will be the catalysts of wholesale revolution in due course. It is to be hoped that the revolution will be peaceful.


6 Responses to “Who Voted for PP?”

  1. Rose Says:

    My new favourite quote, pity I only found it last night.

    Sarah Wollaston – 2013 in a heart-felt plea for “plain” packaging.

    “What it means is that we are handing someone a packet with a picture of gangrene”


    Can you imagine any normal person wanting to do a thing like that? Or even thinking of such a thing?

    She adds that it is “a crystal ball” perhaps as a GP she practiced voodoo.

    • junican Says:

      It wouldn’t be quite so bad if the gangrene was caused by smoking. She could just as easily have captured pics from old etchings of scenes from the black death and claimed that they too were caused by tobacco smoke.
      I have a cig case which I was given by the place in the US where I got my first cig-making machine from (I was ripped off because it was second-hand, heavily used, and broke down after a couple of months). It is a plain, maroon coloured box. But I like it because it has a ‘flip top’.
      I was thinking about putting pictures on it, but I cannot decide what sort of pics. Glamorous film stars? Perhaps. Even more disgusting body parts? Perhaps.

  2. Ed Says:

    I came across your blog by accident (teaching myself how to grow tobacco) and it’s been a welcome breath of smokey, nicotine filled air,with a smidgin of wholesome niacin thrown in, so thx! 🙂

    The way it’s going it makes me think that Pastor Niemoller should have amended his poem to include the smokers who were persecuted alongside the socialists, trade unionists and jews, but he probably thought it was a nasty, filthy habit that needed stamping out anyway, like communism. It’s a pity he didn’t, because it could have saved us all a bit of grief.

    Yesterday to my dismay, I heard some horse of a feminist journalist predicting the total and utter demise and eventual total illegality status of tobacco in the not too distant future. All this on sky news during their daily newspaper review ramblings. She was talking to some born-again, ex-50 a day habit, anti-smoking tosspot, who couldn’t have agreed more with her. This occurred when their attention got focused on the subject of the PP vote. Judging by the self satisfied, smug look on her face, she knew something I didn’t, which I find quite worrying, as I pretty much resent being turned into a criminal without anyone giving me the nod beforehand.

    Also, (Yes, i know it’s the Daily Fail, but..) when you have reporting (and I use the term loosely here) like this from last year;

    where you have, “Humanity has never developed anything more deadly than the cigarette, said Tim Crocker-Buqué, a registrar working in Tower Hamlets.” It makes you wonder just what type of mindset we’re dealing with to come out with such a statement. Obviously, Tim Crock-o-Shit really needs to get out more, but you can see where all this is going and it’s got nothing to do with them looking after our health.

    It’s interesting times, innit.


    • junican Says:

      Good to hear from you, Ed. Thanks for the compliments.
      There is no doubt that the Zealots are moving more and more towards FORCE. They have to, since ‘persuasion’ is failing. But I think that they are fearful because their predictions are not working, and their ‘slogans’ have lost their ‘horror’ effect. “Half of smokers will be killed by their habit” is wearing a bit thin. Yawn. What habit will kill half of non-smokers?
      You have to look at growing your own as a hobby. You put time into it because you enjoy it. Thus, the time you put into it is not ‘a cost’. There are real costs, of course, like compost, fertiliser and electricity. Results are not always perfect. But I regard it as rewarding, as a hobby, as having a vegetable plot. In fact, it is far more rewarding since the value of the produce is significant.

  3. garyk30 Says:

    “1961, there were about 5400 non-smokers and 25800 smokers, giving a total of some 31200 doctors.”

    When the study was terminated, there had been 2,917 non-smoker deaths and 22,429 smoker deaths.

    That means that 54% of the non-smokers had died vs.87% of the smokers.

    Not a true comparison of deaths when you are looking at such a large difference in % of the total possible deaths.

    I believe you showed that the non’s were about 5 years younger, on average, and that may also have influenced the ’causes’ of death.

    Most smoking ’caused’ diseases are diseases of old age.

    Since at termination of the study both groups had the same % of total deaths from the diseases ’caused’ by smoking, it would seem probable that at the end of dying the non’s might well have had a higher % of deaths from those diseases.

    There would have been no way to hide such a result.

    • junican Says:

      Well, gary, I think that we have talked about this before.
      I could not understand why Doll and Peto decided to end the study, after 50 years, when there were still quite a lot of the original cohort still alive. Why did they stop collecting the death certificate data? It would not have been hard to continue for, say, another ten years to finish off the project properly. What they did was build a house but not put a roof on it.
      I think that they did not want it to be known that the remainder of the cohort, such as it was in view of losses, pegged out from ‘smoking related diseases’. Thus, ALL of the doctors (give or take a few accidents) would have died from ‘smoking related diseases’, meaning that non-smoking doctors died from smoking, according to their theory.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: