Are Politicians Just ‘Spokespersons’?

In 2007, a comprehensive smoking ban was imposed on private property via two ruses. The first was the exaggeration of SHS harm; the second was the redefinition of private property as ‘public places’.

I still do not understand how the Health Zealots got away with either of those ruses, but the second one is hardest to understand. You would have thought that EVERY BUSINESS IN THE COUNTRY WHICH HAS DEALINGS WITH THE PUBLIC would have objected in the strongest possible way against such a definition. The objection would have been very, very simple – private property, by definition, is not ‘public’ in any sense of the word. You could go further. You could say that the only ‘public’ places are outdoors. Libraries and hospitals are not ‘public’ places.

And so we get the irrational idea that the authorities could ban smoking in parks and on beaches because they are ‘public places’, but cannot ban smoking in libraries because they are ‘private property’. That does not stop the owners of libraries and such banning smoking. They are their properties, and they can ban smoking if they wish to.

Everyone with any sense at all knows that SHS danger is vanishingly small. According to Doll’s Doctors Study, it takes thirty years or more for even heavy smoking to seriously affect the health of a smoker. He himself poo-pooed the idea of SHS harm, and not without reason. Only prohibition hype turned SHS into the equivalent of sarin gas.

So why did the Esteemed Prime Minister at the time, Tony Blair, and his esteemed cabinet of esteemed worthies, intelligentsia and life-experienced experts, agree to the accept the ruses?

It can only be that all the adjectives in the last paragraph are false descriptions. None of those people were ‘esteemed experts’ at all. It follows that they must have done what they were TOLD to do. But being ‘elected representatives’, why did they feel obliged to do what they were TOLD to do? In fact, why did most of the 650 elected representatives also feel obliged to do what they were TOLD to do?

I don’t want to be cynical, but I must ask, once again, how David Cameron rose through the Conservative ranks to become party leader and then Prime Minister. His ‘history’ seems to place him as a university student who got a degree, and then worker for a couple of years in management, and then a Tory party researcher, and then an MP, and then Prime Minister. What expertise or experience did he have?

Do any of my readers watch ‘Eggheads’? At first, I did not like it because the introduction made the panel out to be ‘Bigheads’. I’m glad the the bosses dropped that segment which described what wonderful achievements the panellists had totted up in the realms of quizland. “I am X and I won Mastermind in 1995” was a typical introduction. But, eventually, I began to enjoy it. But there is still a rankling doubt in my mind. The doubt is that the quiz demands ‘memory’ and not ‘brains’. ‘Brainy’ people ‘work things out’. Such people build aeroplanes and space vehicles and magnificent buildings. Most of all, why are those magnificent brains on the panel of Eggheads not multimillionaires?

No. There is a huge difference between remembering things that you have read and projecting future events.

Our elected representatives know bugger all about the EU Autocracy. It must have been a terrible shock to them to find themselves in a position where they have to think after the Brexit vote. No wonder that Cameron resigned. He had no idea whatsoever what to do. No one could TELL him what to do. The result of the referendum was totally unexpected and threw all the ignorant cabinet ministers into confusion. Who could TELL them what to do? No one could tell them what to do.

I have read that the Government (not necessarily MPs) does not have ‘experts’ to negotiate our exit from the EU. That is not surprising since no one expected The People to vote for exit.

And here is where we come to the crunch. Theresa May has no expertise at all. She has always done what the ‘experts’ have TOLD her to do. She has always been a ‘Spokesperson’, standing up in Parliament and telling MPs what she has been TOLD to tell them. It seems as though such people are like Eggheads – they have very good memories but little else. Perhaps I am insulting Eggheads.

===

The devastation caused by ‘Experts’ never ceases to amaze me. But it is not the opinions of ‘Experts’ which causes the devastation. It is the acceptance of the status of ‘spokesperson’ by politicians that causes the devastation. They are the people who have power, but act only as though they need to be TOLD what to do.

And so, it is reasonable to assume that not one single MP has any real idea what to do about anything. They need to be TOLD. Only that idea can explain the ascendance of certain academics into Godlike oracles, whether it be tobacco, sugar, alcohol, salt, or whatever.

I get the impression that our elected representatives, at every level, are terrified. In which case, why do they stand for election?

It may be that many elected representatives would like to regain power from the modern autocrats. Perhaps they could do so, if they rely upon principles and not detail. For example, it would be cowardly not to rail at length against a stupid smoking ban on a beach.

It seems to me that there comes a point where civilised discussion breaks down. SHS danger is such a point. Anyone who supports SHS danger must be ridiculed again and again and again.

===

I hope. I hope. But we have entered into a new phase which is totally different. It is the ‘overweight or obese’ scenario. I await with bated breath for a politician to demand that the ideas of ‘overweight’ and ‘obese’ MUST be separated. But I guess that such a fundamental  idea would not occur to a person who needs to be TOLD what to do.

 

Advertisements

4 Responses to “Are Politicians Just ‘Spokespersons’?”

  1. Ed Says:

    “So why did the Esteemed Prime Minister at the time, Tony Blair, and his esteemed cabinet of esteemed worthies, intelligentsia and life-experienced experts, agree to the accept the ruses?”

    I think it was because unlike the earlier labour party through the 50’s to the 70’s which had many anti-European and anti-globalist advocates who championed the working class and the victims of globalisation. New labour on the otherhand, (The Blairites and Brownites) signed us fully on to the UN, WHO, IMF, WTO, NATO, globalisation and further European integration and became a party expressing the middle class (or rather that part of it that did not suffer from globalisation).

    With the encouragement of successive governments, both Labour and Conservative, we have ceded sovereignty to a variety of external powers,including the EU, over many years. Foreign-owned multinationals determine levels of investment and jobs in this country as a consequence of decades of British national institutions and businesses being privatised.

    It’s an illusion to believe that leaving Europe will restore national sovereignty when our energy security is largely dependent on the French and Chinese governments deciding whether or not Hinkley C is built or Canadian multinationals deciding how many aerospace jobs there will be in Northern Ireland, and Indian entrepreneurs preside over the survival of our steel industry. These same Indian entrepreneurs, and their German and Japanese counterparts, will decide the long-term health of our automotive manufacturing. Similarly, decades of privatisation of the public sector has seen outsourcing contracts (particularly in the NHS) let to US corporations, amongst others.

    Brexit will not diminish the power and influence of these institutions over our economic future and our elected representatives. Nor will the government suddenly be in a stronger position to persuade them to pay a fairer contribution towards our civil society through taxation.

    The fight in front of us all is for genuine national and economic sovereignty, which is incompatible with globalisation and the integration of the country into the NWO and its institutions, such as the EU.

    As you have mentioned in other posts, we need to break not only with the EU but also with the other transnational institutions of the NWO (WTO, IMF, NATO and so on) In particular,participation in NATO led Britain to a series of wars in the last quarter of a century or so (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya) at the behest of transnational elites. All the politicians who are just lapdogs of these transnational elites, need to go.

    • junican Says:

      It is hard to comment on your ideas, Ed. They are logical, but are they true? I don’t know.
      As regards globalisation, the important thing for our government is not to be intimidated. Globalisation has always existed in the sense that Empires, within their sway, have always imported the cheapest stuff from wherever, and exported other goods. EG, The Roman Empire imported grain from Egypt. I do not know what it exported. Probably bureaucrats.
      The New World Order is a recipe for Civil War of the most horrendous kind.

  2. garyk30 Says:

    “In fact, why did most of the 650 elected representatives also feel obliged to do what they were TOLD to do?”

    Seems to me that this is all about ‘accountability’.

    When politicians only do what the experts tell them should be done, they can avoid ‘accountability’ when things go wrong by claiming the fault lies with the advice of others.

    It is a ‘win-win’ policy for them.
    They can take credit when things go right and blame the advice of others when things go wrong.

    Brexit scares them; because, there is no way for them to avoid ‘accountability’ if things gone wrong.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: