The former Prime Minister, Cameron, agreed to plain packaging. It has been said the he only agreed to it because Clinton Cosby, his publicist, used to work for a tobacco company, and that it was said that Cosby persuaded him not to proceed with that wonderful, game-changing ‘advertising’ ban. Thus, simply for the most minute of political advantages, Cameron distorted choice and recognisability beyond comprehension. Only the most stupid of people do such things. Here is a bottle of red wine. The label shows rotting lungs or whatever. There is no proof that red wine rots lungs, but that does not matter. Cameron has permitted those statements, and he has said so, therefore the claims must be true. As PM, he would not tell lies, would he?
But he did tell lies, again and again and again. He was a cyborg.
The only way that political cyborgs can cease to be applauded and given power is if their manifestos have some power of law. Sure, circumstances will change, and manifesto proposals will change. But, wait a minute. Neither Labour nor Tory manifestos around 2007, proposed ANY SORT OF SMOKING BAN. Either top politicians at that time were ignorant of the FCTC and all its works (well-paid apparatchiks), or they were charlatans. I prefer the latter.
We must imagine a candidate for election at the GE. He/She says, “I am a Labour Candidate. I support the Party’s proposals. I am also the local candidate, and I shall do my best to help local people”.
What “I support the Party’s proposals” can only mean is that he/she supports the manifesto. He thus commits himself.
But what, may I ask, became of the Tory or Labour manifestos?
You see, not many years ago, it did not matter what the Parties said in their manifestos because hardly any of the population knew what the manifestos proposed. The manifestos were window-dressing.
I think that Democracy is becoming more specific. I don’t mean local politics. I mean TELL US THE TRUTH. Don’t try to spin, exaggerate and propagandise. Just tell it as it is and suggest solutions. What we do not want is solutions without the statement of the problem.
A perfect example of the the solution without the problem occurred today. Much glorification of PM May occurred at a Cabinet meeting where she pronounced about inequality, and publicised a supposedly thorough examination of all the things which are detrimental to the poorest of people.
But what are the things that she is talking about which will reduce COSTS? Or better, in respect of the things that she was talking about – like why more black youths were prosecuted than white youths – what will her massively costly investigation produce? The probability is that it will produce increased costs. Why does she not also propose an investigation of the horrors of the WHO, the IPCC, the FCTC, and all the rest?
Why are those important things not in the manifestos?