Thinking About Positives

A very generalised title, I think. Really, this is just a ramble.

It isn’t always easy to differentiate between what is a positive thing to do and what is negative. I should imagine that Zealots believe that the smoking ban was a very positive thing to do, and yet it was a ban, which, by its nature, is negative. ‘Thou shalt NOT …..’ is negative.

ASH et al are always talking about ‘a step backwards’ should anyone suggest that perhaps the smoking ban was a tad harsh. ‘A step backwards…..’, another negative. Mind you, if you were about to be run down by a car, a backwards step would be a very positive step to take.

It has been quite noticeable in recent decades, how negative Government has become, and often in respect of trivialities. There is, apparently a massive problem with obesity, and yet the Zealots mask the extent of the problem by using the phrase ‘obese or overweight’. Why do they do that? Sure, that enables them to massage statistics to their advantage, but if there is a serious problem, would it not be better to define the problem as precisely as possible?

Perhaps they do in private. But if they do, why do they think that a tax on sugary drinks will specifically attack the obesity problem?

I suppose that you could compile a list of trivialities. How about the 5p change on plastic shopping bags? Again we see the manipulation of statistics. The Green Zealots shout about the millions of plastic bags which are thrown away daily. One might ask, “So what? What do you expect in a country of 60,000,000 inhabitants?”

We get our groceries delivered by Asda. They collect back your used carrier bags, and yet we still have to pay to have our stuff delivered in bags rather than loose. And we do not get a refund on the returned bags. How fair is that?

Further, the local authority expect us to sort our rubbish and put bottles, glass or plastic, and our tins, in a separate bin. Why not also put plastic bags in that bin? Why not anything made of plastic? 

But perhaps I am falling for ‘the trick’. The trick is to get you to confine yourself to their narrative. Carl Phillips discussed the trick extensively. For example, as regards sugar and obesity, it is not enough to simple argue about whether sugar is a factor or not. You have to look at the whole methodology. Are there assumptions which are not justified? I was reading something today about some report which said that HnB products should not be taxes as if they were cigarettes, because, although they are not risk-free, they are lots less dangerous than cigs. But I do not recall seeing any evidence at all that there are any significant risks at all, within the lifetime of a human being. There was a vague mention of pregnant women being, perhaps, at risk as regards the fetuses, but no actual evidence of any such risk. AKA, a frightener.

For some reason that I cannot understand, the Government fall for every narrative trick in the book. Not content with charging for plastic carrier bags, they now want a war on ALL plastic. But it is all trivial. That is the problem with the narrative. It is all trivial. 60,000,000 people will use a lot of wood, brick, steel, electricity, etc. And plastic.

All is negative. Even the Brexit negotiations are portrayed as negatives. They should not be because the narrative is perfectly clear and simple – The People Decided. Despite the vote being negative (to LEAVE the EU), the results should be very positive.

Could I announce a few very POSITIVE things that the Gov could do?

  1. Repeal the smoking ban.
  2. Repeal the sugar tax.
  3. Repeal the plastic bag charge.
  4. Abolish Duties – all duties.
  5. Reverse ‘the Big Society’ idea which funded ASH and similar parasites.
  6. Repulse invasion of our country.
  7. Abolish drug control.
  8. Defund the FCTC and IPCC and downgrade the UN and all its works.

Note that all of those recommendations are negatives, but they are positives in their effects. They would enhance the happiness of citizens. But there is a problem. How would the taxation income forgone be replaced, especially as regards Duties?

No problem! Since the savings in customs officers and the army of civil service staff would more than offset the losses. Further, simplification of Government would do away with another army of lawyers and such.

Government has become very complex BY CHOICE and not by necessity. Is it any wonder that it is a gigantic flop? Is it any wonder that, day after day, Government failures, such as Carrillon, come to light? It is not elected politicians who failed – it is Civil Servants who did not give a toss provided that the right boxes were ticked.

Politicians MUST be aware of the mess. But I am not sure of that. It may be that they are blissfully unaware.

I must admit that I cannot have any faith in what PM May says. She seems to be a caricature of a PM. How could a Prime Minister involve herself in the eradication of plastic, disposable coffee cups and the like, whilst negotiating Brexit? Surely she has a junior minister to handle questions of waste, including the radioactive waste from nuclear power stations.

There is so much silliness that it is hard to know how Government can POSITIVELY improve the prospects of The People.



4 Responses to “Thinking About Positives”

  1. Timothy Goodacre Says:

    Teresa May has turned into an absolute car crash premier. The Tory Party seemed determined to hand our government ovet to Corbyn and his Marxists. Your list of positives Junican i absolutely agree with.

  2. Philip Neal Says:

    Teresa May identified the problem, that the Tories are seen as the nasty party, but her solution is always to act in a way that the left regards as nice. President Trump, for all his faults, has made more headway against left wing domination of public opinion.

    • junican Says:

      I suspect that ‘focus groups’ do not reflect reality, even as regards the members of the focus groups.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: