In a piece titled “Ukip’s Rochester win shows voters no longer trust the main parties,” Charles Moore writes in the Telegraph about Cameron’s ‘modernisers’ :

…modernisers have two great faults. The first is to assume that what is modern is inevitable. Soviet Communism was modern once, and part of its power lay in its claim that it was inevitable. It wasn’t, and now it is dead.

The second is to equate modernity with virtue and so to treat its critics as moral inferiors. In Britain, the saga of same-sex marriage is a classic case. Parts of the Western world are heading in that direction: “therefore” it must be welcomed: “therefore” its opponents are bigots: “therefore” they should be virtually disqualified from public office.

All those “therefores” are wrong. A moderate conservative approach would try to balance the age-old, universal view that marriage is between a man and a woman with tolerance of homosexual relationships. This balance was achieved by civil partnerships, but violated by the way that Mr Cameron casually imposed gay marriage. His approach insulted settled beliefs, and therefore wounded him politically more than people like to state directly.

In a similar vein:

Those who berate the Ukip nostalgists the most are those who most uncritically believe that the European Union is the future. Isn’t there more and more evidence that they are wrong? We have now lived beside the eurozone long enough to realise that it truly, madly, deeply does not work. It cannot correct its original flaw: most of its members cannot be like Germany, and so the single currency has become a machine for joblessness, recession and political alienation across half the Continent. Far from being modern, the eurozone is the product of a mid-20th-century, top-down, bureaucratic Utopianism. It cannot deal with the connected, competitive, global character of the 21st century.

It’s all very insightful. He’s not wrong. But as he chews over immigration, gay marriage, and the EU as issues which, ” if you get angry [about] , you are much more likely to vote Ukip,”  this top Telegraph columnist still can’t see the elephant in the room, even though he’s more or less walked right up to it, and tugged its tail.

It’s another bit of ‘modernisation’, which is also widely regarded as ‘inevitable’, ‘long overdue’, and which has been loudly welcomed by almost everyone who’s anyone, and its opponents ignored as moral inferiors. And it’s also another piece of modernisation that people get angry about, and which makes them particularly likely to vote UKIP.

And it’s one that has had a direct and powerful impact on some 25% (maybe more) of the adult population of the UK. Does immigration directly affect that many people? Have that many people been directly affected by the EU’s directives?

I think if Charles Moore were reading these words (which he won’t be, of course), he’d be scratching his head wondering what on earth I was on about. The internet? Mobile phones? Global warming? Paedophilia? Islamic terrorism?

Shhhh!!! Don’t tell him, anyone!

It’s something that is never ever discussed. Pundits and politicians may talk about immigration, the EU, gay marriage, and all the rest. But they never ever discuss this particular subject.

And in large part that’s because those 25% on whom this other modernisation fell did not protest much about it. Instead they all (or almost all) accepted it stoically and phlegmatically, and got on with their lives despite it as best they could. The British are not a nation of complainers. They didn’t complain 100 years ago when millions of them were sent off to Flanders, and fight in the trenches. They just got on with the job, even if it was cold sitting in a freezing tent with the wind whistling through it. And they’re the same today. They also sit quietly and uncomplainingly outside in the freezing rain.

And it’s also because the other 75% simply didn’t notice what was happening to the 25%. Because they’d kicked those habits a long time ago. And they never think about it.

For I doubt if someone like Charles Moore ever goes to pubs. And when he does, he orders a glass of wine. And a plate of tapas.  Or sushi. And I doubt if he has porridge for breakfast either. Or cocoa at night. Or puts hot water bottles in his bed on winter evenings. Or lights a fire every morning, with lumps of coal and wood. He probably never ever touches a lump of filthy, dirty, stinky coal, let alone tries to light one. He’s moved on.

And everyone he knows is just like him. They’ve all got central heating, and electric cookers, and all the other mod coms. They’ve moved on too.

And if Brigitte or Rose or somebody were to blurt it out before I could clap a hand over their mouths, his eyes would go blank with incomprehension.


I like to think that one day they’ll all suddenly wake up to it. But I imagine that, when and if they do, they’ll all say they “knew it all along”, and they’d been “saying so for years”, and it was “perfectly obvious to anyone with even half a brain inside their skull”.

I sometimes think it’s Nigel Farage’s secret weapon. Because he doesn’t talk about it either. In the last UKIP manifesto, it appeared as the very last line. And yet it may well be what’s winning him 25% of the adult vote, in addition to the votes of all those people who’re angry about immigration and the EU.

It’s certainly why I’m going to vote for him.

About Frank Davis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

41 Responses to Shhhh!!!!

  1. “You have reached your 20 article limit for this month.”

    But I can keep reading in a different browser. Ha-ha!

    (I’m sure I must’ve read 50 articles in the Telegraph already in November in Firefox.)

    Anyway, the blurb about the hack, Charles Moore, reads that he covers politics with the wisdom and insight that come from having edited The Daily Telegraph, The Sunday Telegraph and The Spectator and yet he calls the SNP the “Scottish Nationalist Party”.

    Aren’t journos a bit like politicians? They pontificate and the rest of us are meant to be blown away by their wisdom and moral superiority? Especially the leftie reporter and blogger to whom those of us who are politically incorrect are “bigots”, those who don’t want to suffer (unnecessarily) “for the planet” are selfish and want polar bears and South Sea islanders to drown, those who want controlled immigration are “racists/xenophobes/Little Englanders”, those who want lower taxes hate the poor and so on.

    It’s probably why Cameron asked all the lefties in Labour and the LibDems to vote with the lefties in his own party to gang up on UKIP in Rochester (and Strood). That they seem to have done so must surely explain their poor showing, as smokingscot considered a couple of posts back.

    But, “Shhhh!!!!”. Never a word about the elephant. After all, it’s either African or Indian/Asian, so talking about it might be construed as being racist. It might be a big pink gay elephant. They just don’t know, so can’t take the chance of mentioning it, even if they break their specs walking into it, saying they are, “Terribly sorry, old chap. Didn’t see you there” and depart, instantly forgetting the “illusion”.

    “Progressives” are just subversives, but they are deluded into believing that they inhabit the moral high ground. I know, for I was once a socialist. I would say that “socialist superiority complex” should be classified as a mental disorder. These brainwashed elephant-swervers are so deluded that they believe, contrary to all available evidence, that socialism works. They go against the created, natural order and try to deny that men and women are different. They believe that people with some sort of faith (the majority) should just shut up, give up their property rights, right to conscientious objection, freedom of speech, etc., and take orders from the humanist minority.

    The room is now full of elephants. The dung is four feet high and it is difficult to walk through, both physically and due to the stink and that’s what it feels like living in their socialist “Utopia”: almost impossible to navigate and do business in and the stench of national, moral and economic decay is unavoidable as it is all around us.

    The elephant in the smoking jacket is particularly good at hiding. He must be camouflaged against the velvet curtains. It’s the love that dare not speak its name, but it’s standing by the window having a quiet smoke (nose exhales take quite a while). People are scratching their heads wondering where the “stink” is coming from, oblivious to the four-foot high pile of progressive pachyderm poop they are fighting their way through to get anywhere.

    • someguy says:

      just delete the telegraph cookies –

      • It’s that simple, is it? It’s not that I’m so tight that I wouldn’t pay a mere £4 a month to subscribe, but I refuse to fund the mainstream media. Using different browsers should satisfy my needs and it won’t feel like I’m cheating. Not much, anyway. Come to think of it, why would anyone pay for propaganda?

  2. harleyrider1978 says:

    Modernisation its just another name for progressive BS………….

  3. harleyrider1978 says:

    The Guardian’s Polly Toynbee says “The trouble with UKIP voters is they don’t watch BBC News and read newspapers for “the truth” about where political parties stand.

    Is that the same truth that the state BBC / ITN / Sky News hides about the paedophile network in Parliament, judges, police, security services?

    Excuse the people on why they do not trust the UK press to tell “the truth.”

  4. nisakiman says:

    There’s an article on ‘plain’ packaging on the BBC website here, extolling the virtues of gruesome images and ugly packs.

    I keep coming back to the question: “What the fuck has it got to do with Public Health what my cigarette pack looks like? Why are they so hell bent on making it as ugly as possible when it’s been shown to make no difference to their goal of stopping people smoking? Why does their puritan ideology trump my right not to have to look at their photoshopped medico-porn?”

    And as for the images……. I have neither seen nor heard of any of those diseases so graphically displayed, so they must be exceedingly rare, and of course all of them (if they do indeed exist in the form displayed) can apply to non-smokers too.

    I get so tired of self-righteous do-gooders trying to dictate other people’s lives.

  5. Oh wonderful post, Frank. My after breakfast treat! Thank you.

  6. prog says:

    Yet there has been no mention of the nanny state, let alone persecution of smokers, by UKIP or members of the public during the run up and aftermath of the recent by-election. Well, I haven’t seen anything and I’ve been following the news and discussions quite closely. Strange, because this has nothing to do with racism, which is what UKIP is constantly trying to deny and distance itself from. I don’t think people realise that all the control shit is emanating from non elected orgs, which in some ways appear to have more power and influence that whoever has to pass the message on. The Tories came to power promising a bonfire, but seem to have almost completely buckled under the influence of government advisors.

    • The government “advisors” and the astroturfing “charities” are all part of the charade. They legitimise what the gov’t/EU/UN are going to do anyway.

      I don’t think UKIP really talk about the smoking ban because the LibLabCon will likely pick up on it and use it against them. Either that or UKIP aren’t serious about repealing it?

      • prog says:

        UKIP couldn’t repeal it unless they took parliament by storm. It’d be an uphill struggle anyway. Unless they got rid of those behind the ban – ASH et al – then it might be a different story. If you want to reduce problem you’ve got to reduce the cause – something the puritans preach everyday.

        • carol2000 says:

          The food fascists employ the same scientific fraud that the anti-smokers use, so broadening the appeal to anti-health fascism in general would work. The scientific fraud perpetrated by government-funded charlatans is what’s behind the smoking bans, etc., not the yappy little dogs like ASH that are just a front group to create the impression of public support. So purge the government of the charlatans and dry up the government funding sources for health fascists outside the government.

        • Frank Davis says:

          ASH (UK) doesn’t have much public support. It’s a fake charity that only gets 1% (or less) of its funding from donations from the general public.

          I’m all for closing it down. But eugenicist doctors need to be kicked out of the BMA and RCP too. In fact, it might be better to just close down the BMA and RCP and set up a new body.

          I’m all for closing down the WHO as well. And maybe the UN as well.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Agreed Frank because if it isn’t abolished the UN and WHO along with much of its mechanics thru out the world another world war is very likely to begin.

          How many times will people lay down and be beaten into submission before they rise up.
          It only takes a single leader who responds to this swarm of hate against oppression to score total victory……..perhaps the reason for UKIPS success if theyd just openly say we are here to end the world controllers and return your freedoms and your country back to you!

        • beobrigitte says:

          But eugenicist doctors need to be kicked out of the BMA and RCP too.

          The public can now access their success/failure rate – I suggest we all do. I believe that especially these medics are having a problem with transparency.

        • roobeedoo2 says:

          Maybe it’s not for UKIP to tell them, it’s up to us. We have six months until the General Election, we shouldn’t waste it. How about each of us do a petition to send to our MPs saying the reason why we’re voting for Ukip is their smoking policy? Or something at constituency wide level?

          Why are we still being victims here? It’s votes they want, need, crave are shitting themselves over. We own them and their ours to give away. We could call it ‘Don’t Push Us Away’ or ‘Nudge Back’, something like that. Remember that Mirror article about UKIP’s ‘weird’ policies and the smoking one was least weird one there?

          Anti smoking started small, selling a huge risk. We’re now perceived as small, even though we’re not. Single issue politics works as we’re finding to our cost. The General Election is the Fulcrum (they fixed it in place) and UKIP is the lever for us to use.

          It has to be UK and as real life as possible; single issue but with broad appeal.. What do you think? Any ideas?

        • Frank Davis says:

          I’ve written to my MP many times. They’ve all been completely indifferent. They pay no attention whatsoever. They’re oblivious. The only way is to vote them out.

        • prog says:

          Frank, no good writing to the incumbents. I’ve done that with mine and 40-50 of the more libertarian MPs. It’s the UKIP candidates that should now be targeted.

        • Frank Davis says:

          I think the UKIP candidates already know. It is after all party policy to relax the smoking ban.

  7. prog, I’m 99% the way the Act is written WOULD allow for provision of smoking rooms in pubs. ie taken from the Health Act 2006

    Smoke-free premises: exemptions

    (1)The appropriate national authority may make regulations providing for specified descriptions of premises, or specified areas within specified descriptions of premises, not to be smoke-free despite section 2.

  8. and…

    (6)The regulations may provide, in relation to any description of premises or areas of premises specified in the regulations, that the premises or areas are not smoke-free—
    (a)in specified circumstances,
    (b)if specified conditions are satisfied, or
    (c)at specified times,or any combination of those.

    • prog says:

      Yes, room for manoeuvre but the anti shit would really hit the fan – as you probably know, the fundamental (though obviously not admitted at the time) motive for the ban was to exile smokers from indoor social environments, pubs being the prime target. The SHS nonsense was merely an excuse to get the denormalisation legislation approved by parliament. The frightening thing is that the majority of MP’s actually believe the passive smoking crap.

      UKIP offer the greatest hope, but people power and the destruction of fake charities is needed. If TC’s grip was loosened there’d be far less will to enforce the law and folk would start to ignore it. The ONLY reason it’s been successful is the threat of huge fines for owners and managers.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        They only can do what they do as long as they have funding to keep the lie alive……….

        6 weeks with no propaganda films running on media would do the trick………

    • junican says:

      Great find, Mike. Most of us are aware of the exemptions but have not connected the dots. Thus, the efforts of the Zealots to use their power over mental health establishments, prisons, cars and outdoor areas are not backed up by the law. If the Government wished to, it could very easily create new exemptions without a parliamentary vote.
      The problem, of course, is that there is no political will to do so at the moment.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        no political will to do so at the moment.

        I wouldn’t be so sure of that Cousin…………………theres always a group waiting in the wing to move on a moments notice to make certain things happen. You know as I do having lived as long as we have that change when it happens is usually overnite.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Its just like in Tenn I know of 3 legislators with Bills already written to repeal the state indoor smoking ban. They are just waiting for the right moment and its getting close……….Tennessee is in near riot mode over the nanny state laws!

    • jaxthefirst says:

      Except, Mike, rather irritatingly, the antis clearly thought of the ramifications of any Secretary of State (who is the person chosen as said “appropriate authorising officer”) implementing the paragraph you highlight, and have sneakily inserted the following clause in the same section as you highlight, viz:

      “(3) The power to make regulations under subsection (1) is not exercisable so as to specify any description of—
      (a) premises in respect of which a premises licence under the Licensing Act 2003 (c. 17) authorising the sale by retail of alcohol for consumption on the premises has effect,
      (b) premises in respect of which a club premises certificate (within the meaning of section 60 of that Act) has effect.”

      They damned well knew that pubs and clubs would be the places where the majority of people would most dislike the ban, and where there’d be most pressure for reform or relaxation. So basically changes can be made, but not for pubs or clubs without referring back to Parliament for a specific amendment to the Act. Cunning, huh? I guess that’s to sidestep the terrifying prospect of a future Secretary of State (Shock! Horror!) feeling some pity for beleaguered smokers or, indeed, for struggling pubs, and stepping in unchecked and amending their precious Act without their having a chance to stop him/her. Couldn’t have that happening, could they?

      More positively, the following clause might be arguable from the point of view of pubs being a rather unique circumstance of the bar area (which is, of course, open to the public) nevertheless comprising part of the landlord’s home – hence the term “public house.” As opposed, for example, to a shop, where the shop is definitely a place of business open to the public, but the flat above is definitely private accommodation for the owner/manager of that shop:

      “(4) But subsection (3) does not prevent the exercise of that power so as to specify any area, within a specified description of premises mentioned in subsection (3), where a person has his home, or is living whether permanently or temporarily.”

  9. harleyrider1978 says:

    Owen Paterson calls on David Cameron to say he would quit the EU – Telegraph

    The former Environment Secretary will use a speech to urge the Prime Minister to ensure that “our Government is brought back within the control of our own…

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      The former Environment Secretary will use a speech to urge the Prime Minister to ensure that “our Government is brought back within the control of our own Parliament” instead of Brussels

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        David Cameron’s reluctance to campaign for a European Union exit is because he “doubts Britain’s ability to represent itself on the world stage”, Owen Paterson will suggest.

        Mr Paterson, who was sacked as Environment Secretary in the last reshuffle, will use a speech to call for Britain to leave the EU and “see our Government brought back within the control of our own Parliament”.

        His intervention will be seen as a major challenge to Mr Cameron, who is in the coming days expected to make a major speech setting out his plans for renegotiation with the EU ahead of an in-out referendum scheduled for 2017.

        Mr Paterson will call on the Prime Minister to invoke article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, triggering a two-year period of negotiations if Britain wants to leave the bloc.

        He is understood to believe that threat would ensure that Brussels give Britain the reforms it is demanding to freedom of movement rules.
        A number of senior Conservatives are urging the Prime Minister to use his upcoming speech to confront the threat posed by the UK Independence Party by saying that he would personally be prepared to campaign for an EU exit if he is unable to secure meaningful reforms.

        In an address to the Business for Britain campaign group, Mr Paterson will say: “I would like to see our Government brought back within the control of our own Parliament. Ministers should be properly accountable to Parliament for all aspects of Government. This would give the British people the ability to remove their real rulers by voting. Our politics would be reinvigorated.

        “I find it extraordinary that many in our establishment mock this prospect. As a nation we are second to none in so many spheres of human activity. Our universities, scientific research, medicine, arts, music, literature and sports lead the world. Why do we doubt our ability to represent ourselves on the world stage?”

        He will add: “Our democratic institutions and not just our common law system but our respect and adherence to the rule of law, have been exported around the world. We simply do not need to have our lives ruled by an organisation in which our own elected politicians can be overruled by unelected civil servants and whose concept of government emerged from the horrors of the First World War.”

        It came as Mr Cameron was criticised by a number of Tory Party grandees over his handling of the immigration issue.

        Lord Tebbit, the former Conservative chairman, said that Mr Cameron has not handled the “misgivings” of voters over immigration “in a sensible way”.

        He criticised Mr Cameron for labelling Ukip members as “fruitcakes” and “loonies”.

        Lord Tebbit said that the odds are now against a Conservative victory in May’s general election.

        Meanwhile, Ken Clarke, the former Conservative Justice Secretary, said that Mr Cameron’s approach to Ukip is to blame for the poll surge that saw Nigel Farage’s party win the Rochester and Strood by-election last week.

        “I do think the tactics of the two major parties of government – the serious parties of government – of trying to imitate Ukip since then have actually made them more credible and has gifted them two by-elections,” Mr Clarke said.

        He added: “We’ve got to get back to a serious agenda where Ukip have no policies worth talking about – on the economy, on the health service, on education – and remind people that you are electing somebody who’s got to govern the country in the middle of a rather serious crisis still in May.”

        Mr Clarke said talking about the economy was “a damn sight more sensible than ‘how can we be rude to Europeans to cheer up Ukip?”‘

        • nisakiman says:

          David Cameron’s reluctance to campaign for a European Union exit is because he “doubts Britain’s ability to represent itself on the world stage”…

          I think it’s more to do with Cameron’s inability to represent Britain on the world stage. He’s an ineffectual twat who lacks any personal conviction and just bends with the wind. The Conservative party hasn’t had a convincing leader since Thatcher. If the Tories had had any sense, they would have made Tebbit the leader. He at least has a brain between his ears and knows how to use it.

  10. harleyrider1978 says:

    Ukip is now MORE popular than LABOUR: Nigel Farage gets polls boost as Ukip surges ahead

    NIGEL Farage won a fresh boost today when an opinion poll pronounced his party the second most popular after the Conservatives, pushing Labour into third place.

  11. smokingscot says:

    Having checked out Mr. Charles Hilary Moore, I do believe you may be correct about him not having cause to enter a spit and sawdust, or working man’s pub. Possibly a country inn that happens to have something similar to a pub, though I do believe he would not complain if he happened to sit in close proximity to a smoker whilst in the beer garden.

    But I doubt he’ll be much of a sushi enthusiast, more a late onset vegetarian. And in his defence he loathes the BBC and got nailed for not paying his TV licence fee – and that’s okay with me! Pity he got caught – daft numpty!

    With due respect – and I note you say it was in their last manifesto – their intent to amend the smoking ban may be last but one entry in the Culture section, however there’s another section that follows. Employment & small business – and that contains six lines. And I don’t feel it’s listed in any order of priority. To me 90% of what they propose sounds good and they do say it’s not an absolute, they may add more as time goes by.

  12. beobrigitte says:

    A moderate conservative approach would try to balance the age-old, universal view that marriage is between a man and a woman with tolerance of homosexual relationships. This balance was achieved by civil partnerships, but violated by the way that Mr Cameron casually imposed gay marriage.
    Why can’t I rather than marry choose a civil partnership? I have only two options: co-habit or marry. Homosexual people have all three options.
    Although I personally do not have a problem with gay marriage, again, this is something that was decided over peoples’ heads. I have a problem with that. I left childhood behind a long time ago.

    Those who berate the Ukip nostalgists the most are those who most uncritically believe that the European Union is the future.
    I used to think that the European Union was a great idea. I seriously (naively) thought that trading with less restrictions would be good for all, you could apply for jobs easily before you go to the EU associated country (it was a bit of a pain applying for my first job [even though it was a shit job] whilst still living in Germany) and all our governments would work together.
    The latter has been simplified: Brussels – which obliterates the requirement of individual governments.
    They just do not know where to stop and make a good thing get really bad!!!!

    And if Brigitte or Rose or somebody were to blurt it out before I could clap a hand over their mouths, his eyes would go blank with incomprehension.


    With all due respect, Frank, ‘blurting something out’ to me means saying something that is true without knowing it and realizing it, when it’s too late.
    Therefore I would like to take the opportunity and speak R-E-A-L-L-Y S-L-O-W (so the deafest of the deaf can lip read), to make it obvious that I MEAN TO SAY it:

    S-M-O-K-E-R-S A-R-E V-O-T-E-R-S

    As mentioned on numerous occasions, the LibLabCons do their best to exclude me from society, but they want my vote?
    Don’t make me laugh!

    • “Gay marriage” was an act of subversion, rushed through Parliament without the usual protocols, as you know. We understand that Cameron was ordered to implement it – because the EU knows – and ex KGB subversion agent, Yuri Bezmenov would have confirmed – that it is to help destroy our culture. Plus, it is a perversion of marriage and totally illogical.

      Extending civil partnerships to everyone would also have the effect of weakening society. The Fabians have been trying to destroy the family for 130 years and these things are just extensions of that philosophy because it’s the only way to total socialist control – destroy families and religion and add a large amount of divide and conquer.

  13. beobrigitte says:

    S-M-O-K-E-R-S A-R-E V-O-T-E-R-S

    (There you go, I’ve said it twice!!)

  14. cherie79 says:

    Funny thing with the Telegraph, it is restricted on my iPad but I can get it all on my desktop, no idea why,

  15. Tony says:

    Who knows? Maybe ISIS’ anti-smoking stance will help destroy them:
    A French jihadist left the Islamic State just two weeks after arriving because he could not handle the terror group’s strict no-smoking policy.

    Or maybe not:

  16. chris says:

    One can’t seriously expect tolerance and respect if one is busy expressing bigotry towards others.

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.