The Election

I’m a bit short of bobbins tonight. Nobody is talking about ‘public health’ or ‘health inequalities’, or anything of no great significance in the campaigns.  Odd, isn’t it, that matters which have been ABSOLUTELY OF THE GREATEST IMPORTANCE, like PP and smoking in cars carrying ‘kids’, NOW ARE OF NO IMPORTANCE WHATSOEVER. What happened? Haven’t we still got troops in Afghanistan? How are things progressing in the imposition of ‘democracy’ there – you, know, the reason that we got involved there? Ukraine anyone? The Euro?

I’ve been reading around. The debate is still vaguely worth talking about. It seems that voters in various polls reckoned that Sturgeon came out best. Of course, everyone who was polled would have had their own biases as to what ‘came out best’ means. It all depends upon what ‘qualities’ individuals who watched the debate were looking for in the speakers. Suppose, for a moment, that the quality being tested was courage? I think that Our Nige would have won by a big margin. None of the others had the courage to talk about non-residents with HIV deliberately tricking their way into the UK to get treatment, and, presumably live here, be cared for, receive the appropriate drugs at enormous cost for the rest of their lives at British taxpayers expense. He also had the courage to call into question the massive costs of foreign aid and the EU.

For aplomb, I think that Cameron came off best, but he had obviously been coached.

The Greens, SNP and Plaid Cymru probably defended their niches as well as could be expected. Clegg was nice and Miliband was a pale shade of blue. Oh wait. I have that wrong. If Tory is blue and Labour is red, what is the colour combination? I’ve just looked it up – it is magenta.

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=https://cs.nyu.edu/courses/fall02/V22.0380-001/color_lecture_files/image006.jpg&imgrefurl=https://cs.nyu.edu/courses/fall02/V22.0380-001/color_theory.htm&h=187&w=300&tbnid=ipCX284JtNxmnM:&zoom=1&docid=3VCPkbLdy-oq9M&ei=voggVY__J5bhavGTgcAD&tbm=isch&ved=0CDIQMygSMBI

The colour ‘magenta’ is almost exactly the same as ‘purple’:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=colour+purple&rlz=1C1CHFX_enGB530GB532&tbm=isch&imgil=B8Lp0LHjl8XJNM%253A%253B04GeZhunoAL3QM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.sodahead.com%25252Ffun%25252Fdo-you-like-the-colour-purple%25252Fquestion-3385887%25252F&source=iu&pf=m&fir=B8Lp0LHjl8XJNM%253A%252C04GeZhunoAL3QM%252C_&usg=__ep7tJK5XKDJzs9xOpS7cUN85QL4%3D&biw=1242&bih=585&ved=0CGMQyjc&ei=iIkgVY3DMZLxatO_gJgD#imgrc=B8Lp0LHjl8XJNM%253A%3B04GeZhunoAL3QM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fi250.photobucket.com%252Falbums%252Fgg261%252FRositaloca-908%252Fpurple.gif%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.sodahead.com%252Ffun%252Fdo-you-like-the-colour-purple%252Fquestion-3385887%252F%3B800%3B600

Amusing, is it not, that the UKIP colour, purple, is almost exactly the same as an equal mix of blue (Tory) and red (Labour)!

Could it be true that UKIP policies are a combination of the best policies of Tory and Labour, with the exclusion of the worst polices of both? Perhaps, but not worth bothering about tonight.

====

The trouble with ‘populism’ is that it deflects attention. In a General Election, the purpose of the Parties is to get candidates elected. Therefore, they have no alternative but to advocate what they see as ‘populist’ policies. After the result is announced, those ‘populist’ policies can be shoved into the bottom drawer. Thus, ‘bonfire of the quangos’ just disappears. And yet just such a remedy is required, along with thousands of similar remedies. You cannot reduce ‘Government’ at a stroke. You have to do so gradually, in detail, by revoking thousands of petty regulations, and therefore, a little at a time, removing the need for regulations and regulators.

Does the Government have a Big Department to enable such savings? I don’t know of one, but there should be. And it should be a very important Department.  When the politicians said that ‘there will be a bonfire of the quangos’, they should have meant it. But in the sense of disposing of costs. But what is worse is when the ‘burden of costly regulation’ produces catastrophe, as was the case in the Somerset Levels. Note the double negative – the ‘burden’ and the ‘catastrophe’. It may be that ‘the burden’ of the cost of regulation was only a million pounds, but ‘the burden’ of the catastrophe was a billion pounds. The ‘burden of the regulations’ caused the catastrophe.

The same ‘burden’ has arisen again and again in the NHS, and it is extremely expensive. More time and expense comes from reports and statistics than comes from patient care, to say nothing of smoking bans in hospital grounds and the policing thereof.

There really is no excuse for Government funding the University departments which produce the deformed anti-smoker propaganda, and the propaganda against simple things like sweet drinks. Do they want everyone to drink bitter drinks? How about squashes made with grapefruit or lemons in the raw? WHAT DO THEY WANT PEOPLE TO DRINK AND EAT?

—-

Time for bed.

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

2 Responses to “The Election”

  1. gainny Says:

    “WHAT DO THEY WANT PEOPLE TO DRINK AND EAT?”

    Recirculated toilet water and insects.

    • junican Says:

      LoL. It the ‘health scientists’ recommended a law forcing water companies to put sewerage water in our taps ‘on account of the nutrients in the water’ and ‘to save the planet’, I have no doubt that docile politicians would fall over themselves to enact the appropriate laws.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: