Vote for Anybody Else

It’s supposed to be the most important election for a very long time, and I’d expected to be interested in it, but actually I’m not. There’s only one thing I want to do on Thursday week, and that is go and cast a vote for UKIP, and then go home.

I’m currently house-sitting for my brother, and have access to his TV. But I’m only really watching it to follow the Snooker World Championship. Everything else seems to be a quiz show of one sort or other.

I came across Boris Johnson and Ed Miliband arguing furiously on TV today. I couldn’t raise any interest in what they might have been arguing about, so I didn’t follow up.

I gather that on Thursday the Conservative, Labour, and Lib Dem leaders are going to answer audience questions on Question Time. I won’t be watching. I’m not going to be voting for any of them. And there’s nothing any of them could say to induce me to vote for them. So why bother watching?

The only thing I’m hoping is that Nigel Farage wins Thanet South (and he currently seems quite confident of doing so), and that UKIP wins as many seats as possible. They’re cautiously confident of getting into double figures, I gather. Triple figures would be better.

As for the rest of them, I hope that the Lib Dems are wiped out, and that Nick Clegg loses his seat in parliament. I used to vote for them once, God knows why. I also hope that Ed Miliband and David Cameron lose their seats, but that’s probably too much to ask.

Apart from that, I hope that Labour are wiped out in Scotland.

Above all I hope that the share of the vote taken by Conservatives, Labour, and Lib Dems contracts substantially. If that results in shaky coalitions, I don’t mind. It’s not going to make much difference to me. The more people who vote for Anybody Else (than the political class), the better.

If UKIP can make progress in this election (and come second in a lot of constituencies), it’ll probably be the next election that will be much more interesting than this one.

Or maybe something will happen over the next week that will grab my attention? Maybe all the fun will start after the election?

P.S. Zerohedge: Is Nigel Farage The UK Election’s “Kingmaker”?

About Frank Davis

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

25 Responses to Vote for Anybody Else

  1. Some French bloke says:

    “I think the slight panic the other day was a sign of how emotionally bruised we have become…” (Rose’s remark about the nightmare scenario of an anti-smoking Farage)

    This reaction surely is to be put down less to frayed nerves or paranoia (which conditions are untypical of current smokers), than to a sound assessment of the situation regarding the persistent and ubiquitous anti-smoking prejudice. After all, on this very blog, some eminent contributors are still impressed by the “Original Lie”, and maybe Farage himself is convinced he’s dicing with his health by keeping on smoking, even if to a lesser extent than the antis pretend, which would make him a mere moderate anti-anti-smoker. If so, he (and countless others) has most probably been impressed chiefly by two things:
    1) The magnitude of the purported relative risk for direct smoking (a X 23 increased risk may be exaggeration, but it can’t be a complete fabrication, and even a twofold increase in risk should give us pause).
    2) Confirmation bias, in its various dimensions: horizontal (ad populum, bandwagon), vertical (appeal to authority) and, more unusually, temporal (“you can’t fool all of the people all the time” and look: the propaganda blitz has been going on upwards of half a century, spanning three generations!). Not to mention the attitude of the Big Tobacco bigwigs, not uttering a squeak of dissent since the Master Settlement Agreement.

    A further note on those oh-so-impressive Relative Risk values: in a post script to his recent post,
    MikeF317 reminded us that a huge relative risk in the 1964 SG report was arrived at by averaging the apparent excess risks in the results of 7 studies: “5x, 10x, 15x, 20x – less than 5, or more than 20. What is the truth?… What causes this wild swing in the numbers?”
    A sound meta-analysis, if such a thing can exist, should endeavour to explain very different Odds Ratio rather than just averaging them out and calling the result “Relative Risk”. Otherwise all it tells us is that important factors have been overlooked, and no attempt made to identify them. Put another way, if one/several uncontrolled confounder(s) caused 15 extra cases in the “20x” study as compared to the “5x” one, why wouldn’t it/they also be capable of causing 4 extra cases in the “5x” study? That would bring the result down to unity, i.e. no extra risk…

    • waltc says:

      That’s always been the trouble with meta-analysis.

      On Frank’s “why bother watching?” I –admittedly a political junkie–would say “know thine enemy.” These guys and their parties aren’t going to disappear so it’s helpful to know what they’re up to, what ploys they think will play with your fellow citizens (itself a measure of the citizenry) and to know fully and exactly why you detest them.

      • Rose says:

        Quite agree, know thine enemy and try to work out what new assault he’s planning.
        I am watching them like a hawk.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        In home smoking bans even if its a single house in the farm and the abduction of your grandkids followed by laws that criminalize grandparents who………….did I miss anything less short of outright prohibition and pocession yet. Personally I think the asses have more fun finding new ways to fuck with smokers than simple prohibition of the product.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      First understand Doll studied Nazi statistical methods and reintroduced then after the war emotion had quelled. Then the bigotry began not all at once but at once all over again. Their so called studies because of their very hatred of us is enuf to not only bias every result but every deception that can be employed in a study can and has likely been done.

      If tobacco were a person it never got a fair shake at politically biased studies ever and these studys were created but for one purpose to shake down tobacco companies,make lawsuit lawyers rich,satisfy haters and to create BELIEF SYSTEM in the public mindset……

      Bernays tactics 101…………….It started with DOLL.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        We should all be reading how propaganda works to create BELIEF SYSTEMS and how to destroy them with the truth. They aren’t out to just create belief systems against smokers,no its much greater than that. Its to create a belief system aimed at eugenics and the one word socialist agenda from the UN and every blasted other son of a bitch that’s in its payroll or beliefs……..

        The Koch brothers have done a lot to quell the BS but then again they’ve also financed the Nazis themselves. Youd think gates and Bloomberg would see thru it all. How they can push it finane it and then create foundations against the people is beyond any utopian society. Its a society of plebes and slaves for the Controllers……….

        Or did capitalists and communists decide back in 1988 to come together and say ok Im in if we got socialist together thru the UN…………

      • Some French bloke says:

        every deception that can be employed in a study can and has likely been done.

        Reminds me of those words taken from Jérôme Deshusses’ The Observatory of Babel (a chapter in his 1978 essay The Eighth Night of Creation). Simply substitute “anti-smoking” to the three occurences of the term “psychoanalysis”…

        “Following the example of many other authors, I must now denounce a pseudoscience: psychoanalysis. Even more remarkable for its intellectual dishonesty than for the infinite indulgence with which it is still welcomed and cultivated (especially among the literati), psychoanalysis is a fake from A to Z, from its first principles to its final conclusions. Determinant prejudices, the quantification of quality, the unwarranted extension of terms, reasoning by analogy, question begging, pleonasm—all the defects possible in a theory are in it. Various and innumerable as these defects are, it is unnecessary to attack them methodically. If the fragmentary criticisms that follow are not enough to bring the whole structure crashing to the ground, it’s because one cannot refute faith. From the start psychoanalysis has been a sect rather than a science…”

  2. virtualbarman says:

    This will be the first time ever (I’m 55) that I am going to sit up and watch the results… Well, some of them anyway…

    I think there is a chance for real change this time…

    UKIP obviously can’t win, double figures would be fantastic. But whoever gets in it will be a disaster for the country and UKIP have a real chance to be game-changers in 2020.

  3. harleyrider1978 says:

    Tokyo wards creating more indoor smoking areas

    The Japan News/Asia News NetworkWednesday, Apr 29, 2015

  4. Rose says:

    Something that caught my eye the other day.

    Just as most people these days would think twice about admitting to being a smoker on an official form, it seems that people who agree with UKIP’s policies, after being dismissed as “fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists” and worse, are reluctant to expose themselves to further abuse.

    Nigel Farage
    “Earlier he had told BBC Radio Five Live’s John Pienaar that Ukip’s support was being underestimated by pollsters because many were “shy kippers” who were reluctant to admit they were voting Ukip.

    Condemning the “establishment” for saying that Ukip is full of “racist, bad, nasty, inward looking, backward looking people”, he said this was why “people are actually frightened on telephone polls to say what they really think”

    “Later, speaking to around 100 supporters in a Hartlepool hotel, he appeared to lose his temper when two reporters asked again whether Ukip was a racist party.

    He said the questions were “wholly unjustified, grossly unfair”, adding that they led to “people out there who agree with Ukip to almost feel shy about talking about it such is the level of demonization”.

    • prog says:

      I think you may be right. UKIP in many people’s minds is politically incorrect and, even if they intend to vote for it. won’t admit so before and after polling day. The last local elections may have been testament to that. Such is our electoral system that perhaps 20-25% or more of the electorate will vote UKIP yet only win 5 or so seats in the HOC. One’s things for sure, no one will have voted for whatever mongrel gov we end up with.

  5. Bucko says:

    I’ve already voted UKIP by post as I’m on holiday on the day. I’ll probably stay up all night watching the results like I did last time.

    Much more interestingly though, the snooker is cracking this year, isn’t it?

  6. Rose says:

    What were you saying about nightmare scenarios, Frank?

    Election 2015 health debate: UKIP on park smoking ban

    “Smoking should be banned in public parks – but not in pubs, according to a UKIP spokesman in a TV debate.
    Angus Dalgleish was the only one of five speakers to back the move in a Daily Politics debate on health policies in England hosted by Andrew Neil.

    The presenter went back to the UKIP spokesman to ask why he would back a New York-style ban on smoking in open places, but not in pubs.

    Mr Dalgleish said he adopted the position to protect children’s health, but said “it does sound paradoxical.”

    That’s going to take some undoing and on the BBC too.

    Ukip – what a shambles

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Sorry Rose didn’t see you already had it up

    • beobrigitte says:

      Rose, I was wondering what happened to our “friends” from tobacco control; they have gone awfully quiet lately.
      I suspect they are busy trying to cause disruption within UKIP – and a UKIP member like Professor Dalgleish (a clinical oncologist) is someone they would home in on.
      As a medic I would expect him to be good at his job, but this does not mean he known much about ‘impressive research’ which can easily be cobbled up with the aid of a computer programme. Neither do I expect him to understand meta-analysis above graduate level.

      I have been told that Paul Nuttal is NOT known for changing his mind – this is from UKIP’s site:
      Moves to ban smoking in public parks “are nonsense”, UKIP Deputy Leader Paul Nuttall has said today.

      “What a gross infringement of people’s liberties and where will it end? There is already a rapidly diminishing number of places were people can smoke, which must go against the rights of personal freedom.

      “I don’t want to encourage anyone, particularly children, to smoke but we live in a free society and banning smoking in public parks will make no difference to whether kids take up the habit or not.”

      Is Farage known to change his mind?

      a commenter wrote:
      Just for the avoidance of doubt. Dalgleish (a clinical oncologist remember) was talking of his own personal opinion, both on the issue of smoking in public spaces, parks and the like, and on the issue of a sugar tax.

      UKIP has no policy, nor does it have any intention of introducing any policy that would restrict smoking, either in public spaces, public houses (where it would introduce the idea of smoking rooms, a policy that Professor Dalgleish supported) or private spaces such as cars.

      I hope that is clear.

      I am getting the impression that tobacco control&friends are rather busy right now – they do know that SMOKERS ARE VOTERS.

      • Rose says:

        Brigitte, he was there as a spokesman for UKIP’s policies, not to give a lecture on his own authoritarian ideas.

        • beobrigitte says:

          I just overheard the word ‘smoking’ in this BBC kind of ?debate. Unfortunately I was not fast enough to make sense of why they mentioned it.

          I do agree, if he was there as a spokesman for UKIP policies, his own opinion has nothing lost there.
          The fact that he did points (rightly or wrongly) to our anti-smoking “friend” being rather busy right now….

          Fact is: I came to Britain when the tories were in power. I am still grateful to the offers I was able to take up thus become a taxpayer, able to support my offspring, pay my mortgage and live state independent to this day.
          Things with respect to becoming self sufficient started to change rapidly when Labour took over. It landed my offspring with a (NOT INTEREST-FREE!!!) substantial University education debt; how on earth will they be able to get a mortgage before they are 50 + years old? On top of it, Labour created these absolutely, utterly idiotic ‘University Degrees’ which pushed the average graduate wage below that of e.g. plumbers.

          The Liberal promised to abolish student loans – we saw what happened when they got a sniff of power. Clegg’s farce of ‘asking-the-public’ ended with the many, many, many calls for the amendment of the smoking ban being lumped in with the very few calls for re-instatement of the death penalty – as NON-NEGOCIABLE.

          The tories ignited a little hope – some of the Tory MPs were asking for the amendment of the smoking ban. Cameron did the opposite. Opened the doors for the anti-smoker to invade MY property. I will NEVER adhere to a smoking ban in MY car!

          The Liberals can join the Tories and Labour and go singing for votes of people like me!!!

          The anti-smoking advocates do KNOW that smokers are getting fed up and are ready to vote – regardless of the nonsense the BBC bleats. It is in their interest to move in on UKIP members who happen to be in a leading position at work….

          The result shows that being a medic does not necessarily mean that you are reasonably bright – Dalgleish obviously has no questions and accepts rather questionable ‘science’.
          He definitely lacks curiosity and finds a comfortable niche in political correctness?

  7. harleyrider1978 says:

    I guess we got our answer now UKIP has been taken over by the NAZIS as a party

    Election 2015: Ban smoking in parks, UKIP candidate says
    A cancer expert who is standing for UKIP says the smoking ban should be extended to public parks.

    Prof Angus Dalgleish said his stance sounded “paradoxical” given his party’s support for “smoking rooms” in pubs.

    UKIP said a park smoking ban was not party policy and that Prof Dalgleish, who is based at St George’s hospital in London, was giving a personal opinion.

    He was speaking in a BBC health policy debate alongside representatives of the Tories, Labour, Lib Dems and Greens.

    During the Daily Politics clash, Conservative Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt said the government’s NHS reforms “weren’t very popular”.

    And Labour’s Andy Burnham said his party had gone too far on private sector involvement with the service.

    They were joined on the panel by Lib Dem Care Minister Norman Lamb and Jillian Creasy from the Green Party.

    During the debate, each panellist was asked whether the smoking ban should be extended to private parks. They each said no apart from Mr Dalgleish, who said it should.

    “I am thinking of parks where there are lots of children around,” he added.

    UKIP has pledged to amend the smoking ban to allow pubs to open “smoking rooms”, provided they are well ventilated and separate from the rest of the premises.

    In October, the party’s deputy leader Paul Nuttall described a proposal to ban smoking in public parks as “nonsense” and a “gross infringement of people’s liberties”.

    A party spokeswoman said: “There is no written policy from UKIP on banning smoking in parks. Prof Dalgleish, as one of the country’s leading oncologists, was giving his personal opinion as he is more than entitled to do”.

    Each party representative agreed that 24-hour alcohol licensing, introduced by the Labour government, had been a “mistake”, while Prof Dalgleish agreed with the Green Party’s Jillian Creasy on the need for a “sugar tax”.

    In another part of the debate, Mr Hunt said the Health and Social Care Act, put in place by his predecessor Andrew Lansley, should have been better communicated. But he said the changes had “disbanded huge bureaucracies” in the shape of primary care trusts and strategic health authorities, and led to more doctors and nurses.

    Labour’s Andy Burnham said the 2012 Act had “pulled the rug from under the NHS” and gone back on a commitment of no “top-down reorganisations of the NHS” from the Conservatives.

    Mr Burnham, who has repeatedly attacked the government over the extent of private sector involvement in the NHS, was asked about his party’s record in government, when 5% of services were contracted out. He said he had “changed Labour’s policy” since taking over as health secretary.

    Lib Dem Care Minister Mr Lamb said independent exerts had found claims of privatisation resulting from the government’s reforms had “not been borne out”.

    Ms Creasy called for the removal of private firms in the provision of services in the NHS, saying the “bureaucracy of the market system” was to blame for the pressures on the health service.

  8. harleyrider1978 says:

    BTW Rand Pauls burning up the opposition across the board lately…………

  9. c777 says:

    Eight days away.
    Mcruin lost the election with one loose sentence.
    The fates having their sport.
    This time however there are some real Black Swans paddling around out there.
    Maybe one will turn up, there’s no election on the continent at the moment.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s