A Bit More About the Election

Last night, I forgot to include the most important thought. If the Scottish National(ist) Party (SNP) replace almost all of the 50 or so Labour MPs, and Parliament is hung in such a way that Labour could form a Government in coalition with the SNP, and the SNP agreed, what would have been the point of the SNP replacing the Labour MPs? OK. The difference might be that they want special treatment for Scotland, but, surely, they could not, in the next five years, call for another referendum? So, why should Scotland be treated differently? Or, to put it another way, why should Nicola Sturgeon demand that England pays tribute to the defeated Scots? I hope you see what I mean. Extra privileges for Scotland, at the expense of England, are tribute – as though English tribes had been beaten in battle by a Scottish army.

It has been suggested that Sturgeon has said that she hopes that Cameron forms the next Government. It may not be true, but you could see why she and her party would wish it. It would spare the embarrassment of a potential Lab SNP coalition for all concerned, and her 50 or so MPs could snipe away in the interests of those who live in Scotland, without considering the interests of the English, Welsh and Irish.


Thrust independence upon the Welsh, Irish and Scottish! England has a population of 50,000,000 compared with a combined 10,000,000 for the rest, or thereabouts. Off you go, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – become regions of the EU. Cheerio!


Let us be as reasonable as we can. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are poverty sinks, by and large. In ‘The Debate’, the Welsh and Scottish representatives said so. Both of them demanded money from England.


England, and English MPs are not asserting their rights. They have a right to demand ‘no special treatment’ for SNP MPs.



Needless to say, the forgoing is whimsical. What the debate revealed to me is that our Nation has become a squabbling kindergarten of nannies, bullies and squalling babies. You might like to watch this video (H/T VGIF):

In it, Dr Patrick Basham shows that there is a disconnect between:

a) The scientific facts, and

b) The moralistic demands that people should be good little boys and girls.

His point is that the science does not justify the morality. Even if it is true that smoking causes death and diseases, that fact does not justify the persecution of smokers, or indeed, the choices of adults to do as they wish. In fact, one could go further; the science does not justify State inference in family affairs, such as whether or not parents permit their children to enjoy tobacco. There are other considerations. For example, I have knowledge of parents who deliberately bought their 17 year old an ecig. It was one of my extended family.


Further, Dr Basham said that the fundamental demand from the Zealots was merely longevity.

If we think about the Doll ‘Doctors Study’, it showed that ALL THE DOCTORS DIED, AND THEY DIED FROM THE SAME CAUSES AS SMOKERS. The only difference was that non-smokers survived longer, except that there were still smokers alive after the non-smokers kicked the bucket. Thus, the only significant difference between smokers and non-smokers was length of life, and not cause of death. Although many more smokers died from LC, they were only about 7% of all deaths. Few heavy smokers died from LC.


I am wondering when some sort of rationality will be externally applied to ‘Public Health’. Clearly, it is impossible to expect the salaried nincompoops to cut their own financial throats.

Why is there no control?

It may be that visible costs are small compared with gains. What is not clear is the invisible costs, such as ‘work-place’ smoking bans causing the massive bankruptcies of pubs: not just closures, but bankruptcies.


It is becoming more and more obvious that it does not matter which political party, or parties, have the majority. None of them are able to exert control because ‘the system’ is in control. The ‘system’ might mean the ‘Civil Service’. Or it might mean Big Business, cooperating with the Civil Service, or it might mean both of those cooperating with Judges and the EU.

What is absolutely clear is that all of us citizens are being defrauded by the EU. The EU people are depriving us of our money, and Cameron etc are complicit in the theft. Our collective PEOPLE’S WEALTH is being drained. And our wealth is not only being drained by the EU. It is also being drained by the WHO and the UN. I would suggest, without any sort of evidence, that ALL those organisations take at least 95% of their income in administration costs. Is the Ebola disaster evidence?

Of course it is! But, as with the EU, we do not have politicians with either the knowledge or courage, or the lack of personal enrichment, to fight.


2 Responses to “A Bit More About the Election”

  1. Some French bloke Says:

    “Thus, the only significant difference between smokers and non-smokers was length of life, and not cause of death”

    Or, rather, those researchers made sure that no other “significant difference” (aka confounders) was apparent in the results, or even the bulk, of their ‘study’. Doll and Hill were ‘begging the question’ (assuming as true the very point the speaker is trying to argue for) when they restricted the classification of their subjects to their smoking statuses. There existed other, more important differences, between the two groups, like the fact that the non-smokers were five years younger on average, as GaryK was reminding us recently:

    There seems to have been a slowing down of the aging process through most of the 20th century (i.e. even at a time when smoking cessation wasn’t all the rage), with the modal age of many diseases and conditions increasing, regardless of the lower or higher prevalences of said diseases and conditions (see, e.g. Professor Burch’s Biology of Cancer (1976), pp 317-319).
    We are also told that life expectancy in the developed world has been increasing by about three months every year for decades… That means that simply being born 5 years later may account for a full year of extra longevity.

    Moreover, the urban-rural gradient has been consistently disregarded by most life-style epidemiologists, although it accounts for earlier onset of heart disease and higher prevalence of respiratory ailments far more convincingly than a silly smoking status does.

    • junican Says:

      As I read your comment, you mention three points:
      1. That the onset of diseases has been happening at a later age as the 20th century passed.
      2. Life expectancy has been increasing, which benefited the younger set.
      3. That the rural/urban gradient has been ignored.

      As regards 1 and 2, I have little doubt that better nutrition, housing, etc and medical advances have played a large part.
      Your 3rd point is perhaps the most important.
      As I understand it, Doll and Hill sent their questionnaires to the doctors’ homes. That means that they could have monitored ‘place of residence’ at the same time as deaths and causes of deaths. Doll said that he deliberately kept the questionnaires as simple as possible, ostensibly to encourage as much participation as possible. But one wonders if the reality was that he wanted to avoid even having information which might indicate confounders.
      There is something about Doll which I distrust.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: