The Next 15 Years of Conservative Government

I’m house-sitting for my brother for the next few days, and I expect my blog posts will be fairly brief.

Today I’ve been reading that the left-wing Jeremy Corbyn is almost certain to win the Labour party leadership contest. If so it’ll be the triumph of ideological purity over practical politics. It means that they’re not even going to try to win the next election.

It’s what they did after they lost to Margaret Thatcher in 1979. They kicked out middle-of-the-road James Callaghan, and elected left-wing crackpot Michael Foot instead. That in turn led to a split in the Labour party, and the formation of the SDP. And it also resulted in some 15+ years of Conservative government.

I wouldn’t be too surprised if the result is exactly the same this time round. And Tony Blair sees it that way too:

What we’re witnessing now is a throwback to that time, but without the stabilisers in place. The big unions, with the exception of the most successful in recent times, USDAW, are in the grip of the hard left. And the people do not have that same old-time loyalty.

If Jeremy Corbyn becomes leader it won’t be a defeat like 1983 or 2015 at the next election. It will mean rout, possibly annihilation.

And with a radical left-wing Labour party, the Conservatives will probably become more right-wing, like the Thatcher government of the 1980s, as it dismantled and sold off Britain’s state-owned industries. And that will squeeze votes from UKIP.

With luck future Conservative governments will take it upon themselves to dismantle the nanny state constructed under Tony Blair’s Labour government. It’s another example of asphyxiating top down control, much like state ownership. And in shifting rightward, they could do no better than to adopt a few of UKIP’s policies.

For the past 10 or 15 years, UK politics has seen all the parties fighting over the centre ground, and in the process becoming indistinguishable from each other. That looks set to end now. We’ll have a left wing statist Labour party, and a right wing free market Conservative party, and clear blue water between the two.

The task of the Conservative party over the next few years is going to be to attract back the 4 million right wing voters they lost to UKIP in May. If they can get those votes back, they’ll be guaranteed a solid majority at the next election (and the election after that).

How might they do that? By choosing a eurosceptic leader to replace Cameron when he steps down, and by adopting UKIP’s policies wholesale, and offering Nigel Farage a safe Conservative seat and a place in the cabinet, and thereby completely dismantling UKIP.

One of those UKIP policies that would need to be adopted would of course be the relaxation of the smoking ban.


About Frank Davis

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

26 Responses to The Next 15 Years of Conservative Government

  1. harleyrider1978 says:

    One of those UKIP policies that would need to be adopted would of course be the TOTAL REPEAL of the smoking ban.

  2. waltc says:

    From yesterday:
    not that she needs my, or anyone’s, defense but Audrey’s position has been misrepresented. First, what she’s been called upon by circumstances (bans) to do is to argue against …bans…and, in one instance, the rationale behind them that “secondhand smoke” kills. (*) If, in debate, anyone has brought up the alleged lethality of smoking itself she wisely refuses to engage, simply dismissing the subject as irrelevant to the matter (secondhand smoke) at hand.

    I think this is wise as well as valid. No matter where you come down on the scale of whether active smoking is beneficial, neutral or harmful, it is, in fact, a different animal. Altho I’ll agree that shs was a ruse invented to promote the real goal of engineering smokers into quitting (they could never have achieved bans and the resultant denormalization w/o the inane “harm to others”) they in fact painted themselves into a corner with it. That’s proven by the fact that that it doesn’t pass the literal or figurative smell test when it comes to outdoor bans, so they finally have to resort to the cruder, floundering and more revelatory “how does it look” argument. And apply the same to vaping when their secondhand vapor cries topple under the weight of basic chemistry.

    Second, I disagree with the tactic of starting by attacking the motherlode, ie, smoking kills. If an atheist wants to win the argument with a religious, he’d be wise not to start with “there is no God” (unwinnable and an instant turnoff) but rather to step by step and one by one try to dismantle the believer’s proofs that there IS a God. (Just an analogy; I’m not taking the atheist’s side here, nor the other side either.) What I’m saying is, you have to work backwards, peel the onion from outside in. For instance, prove definitively that outdoor smoke is harmless, then apply that to indoor smoke, then go on, if you’re so inclined, to apply that to smoking. That’s how it works if you’re a hard eyed realist and not a windmill tilter.

    My own position, for the record, is that for some, maybe most, smoking is all benefit-no risk; for others, at least arguably , some of each in varying proportions, and for still others, arguably, more risk than benefit. Nobody knows the confounding factors that tip that balance in either direction or knows for sure the role of smoking as either a catalyst or a counter-force or a neutral irrelevance. But it is, however, irrelevant to bans.

    As for the vapers now being praised for their activism, most of them weren’t active back when they were smokers, and most of them were corralled into vaping by the various tactics ( bans, taxes, social disapproval and/or mortal threats) that they didn’t fight. Having done what TC seemingly wanted them to do (quit smoking) they now feel betrayed. Having bought the argument that smokers are scum, they’re now enraged to find themselves again or still labeled as scum. That’s for the most part (for most not all of them) the major motivation.

    (*) In fact, in the last go-round, she skipped over the whole question of shs and went straight to the legal argument of jurisdiction and procedure. Canny as all hell.

    • Frank Davis says:

      Slightly OT:

      For instance, prove definitively that outdoor smoke is harmless, then apply that to indoor smoke, then go on, if you’re so inclined, to apply that to smoking.

      I wish it was possible to prove things like this definitively. But the arguments about smoking and SHS are all statistical or probabilistic, and therefore never definitive or final. There’s no YES or NO: it’s always MAYBE. SHS is almost completely harmless, but there’s always an outside chance that a slight whiff of it will be the last straw for the asthmatic, one-legged child across the street. And that vanishingly small chance is all the antis need to start saying it’s “dangerous”. And the same “reasoning” can be applied to anything, from boiling water to chopping onions or crossing a road: there’s danger in everything. While for most people a one-in-a-million chance is negligible, for the chronically suggestible it’s not far off perfectly certain.

      I’m slowly coming to think that it all comes down to whether you either believe stuff, or you don’t. You either believe what you’re told by experts and authorities and newspapers and TV game shows, or you don’t. You either believe that smoking is harmful, or you don’t. You either believe that carbon dioxide emissions are warming the planet, or you don’t. You either believe that there are fairies living at the bottom of the garden, or you don’t. And these days I almost invariably find myself not believing whatever it is that I’m being asked to believe, and that I never used to believe. And my rejection is becoming more and more forceful.

    • roobeedoo2 says:

      A One Act Play… one wot I wrote


      A balcony overlooking a vast sea of people, looking up expectantly. A group of Public Health officals, dressed in white coats, enter the balcony from a curtain at the rear. One steps forward to address the crowd.

      Public Health Official: (shouts) Vapers of the world. We bring glad tidings. Vaping is not quite as bad as we first thought.

      Crowd cheers uproariously.

      Public Health Official: (Shouts) It is now time for us join together and defeat the evil that is tobacco and eradicate it, and its vile effects from our world, for once and for all

      Cheering grows in volume

      Public Health Official: (Shouts)Go now and let’s kill the smoke! (coughs)

      One by one the crowd starts to disperse to the beat of new chant

      Crowd: Kill the smokers… Kill the smokers… Kill the smokers

      The End

  3. Rose says:

    Also brought forward from yesterday, in hopes that Nightlight looks in.

    The protective effect.

    From the Deposition of Wilhelm C. Hueper 1957

    “The hands of tar workers develop skin cancer, the marked drenchings of the fingers, the skin of the fingers which holds the cigarette, which are sometimes deeply brown stained have never so far as I know, developed cancer of the skin.
    One of the gentlemen, the proponents of the cigarette theory, has tried to explain that phenomenon by saying that the first three fingers of the right hand of man have a natural immunity against cancer.”;jsessionid=BF70E69A371EF020C7B7A5587A3AA2FB.tobacco03

    That gentlemen being Fritz Lickint.


    Many years later, the protective effect confirmed.


    “Researchers at the New South Wales Cancer Institute painted healthy volunteers with a lotion containing vitamin B3 or nicotinamide.
    They found those patients treated with the substance suffered no damage to their immunity when exposed to ultra violet light.

    In another first, the study found men were twice as likely to suffer immune damage from the sun than women.
    Scientists are not exactly sure how vitamin B3 boosts the skin’s defences against cancer.

    Tests so far have shown it is safe and effective as a topical treatment.
    http: //

    Ten years after that

    Vitamin B3 could help reduce skin cancer risk
    May 14, 2015
    “Researchers found that a form of vitamin B3 called nicotinamide could help reduce the chance of skin cancer recurring in patients who’ve had it before.”

    Doctors involved in the study are excited by their findings on vitamin B3 nicotinamide. “It’s safe, it’s almost obscenely inexpensive, and it’s already widely commercially available,” Dr. Diona Damian, the senior author of the study and a professor of dermatology at the University of Sydney, told HealthDay.”

    But she said more research is needed to see if everyone benefits from it. “It’s not something we’d recommend at this stage for the general population,” Damian said. She also noted that the benefits appear to wear off when patients stop taking the supplements.”
    http: //

    Cancer Research UK doesn’t agree.
    http: //

    Niacin and Niacinamide In Flue Cured Cigarette Smoke Condensate


    “Niacin and niacinamide were identified by microbiological and spectral methods in smoke condensate from South Carolina SFX grade tobacco.”

  4. Rose says:

    Well played, Public Health England, that’s the way to close down most of the e-cigarette industry and drag vapers back into the medical fold.

    Free e-cigarettes from the NHS smoking cessation service.

    British smokers urged to start vaping by health officials

    ” E-cigarettes should be available on the NHS, public health officials have said despite conflicting evidence over their safety.

    Britain’s eight million smokers have been urged to start ‘vaping’ after a government-backed report found that the electronic devices are 20 times less harmful than traditional cigarettes.

    So far no electronic cigarette has been licensed by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) or the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice).

    But a new report launched today by Public Health England, Kings College London and Queen Mary London, found e-cigarettes carry just five per cent of the risk of tobacco and should be widely adopted by smokers.

    If every smoker in Britain switched to vaping, around 75,000 lives a year could be saved, they estimate. The experts called for e-cigarettes to be prescribed on the NHS once regulated.”

    • junican says:

      The experts called for e-cigarettes to be prescribed on the NHS once regulated.”
      Finding reasons to take ownership of ecigs via control.

    • nisakiman says:

      Yes Rose, it’s just dawned on them that they can, with a little bit of propaganda, drive a wedge between vapers and smokers and recruit the vapers into the anti-smoking camp, as per Roobedoo’s little scenario above. To date what they’ve been doing is driving vapers into the smoker’s camp.

      I suspect nevertheless PH will still support all bans also applying to e-cigs, though.

      • Rose says:

        No one escapes the TC flyswatter, it’s like watching a cat playing with a mouse.

        I wonder what will be left after e-cigarettes have been “regulated” – nicotine flavour in a nice shade of surgical pink?

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Now that the ecig companies are up to their necks deep in cahootz with tobacco control we can expect another enemy at our traditional cigarettes being attacked and no doubt being funded by ecig companies as TC groups lose funding from other sources. A MARRIAGE MADE IN HELL JUST HAPPENED.

  5. margo says:

    Personally, I’m curious about this constant smearing of Jeremy Corbyn – just as fierce as the down-putting Nigel Farage got. They must all be very scared indeed of his popularity. And I’m as tired of ‘middle of the road/weasel-words’ politics as any of Jeremy’s Corbyns fans. I hope he wins.

    • Marvin says:

      “I hope he wins”, me too Margo…
      All this bollocks about he’ll be a “liability” for the Labour party, reminds me of what they said about Tony Benn in 1981, when he nearly became deputy leader. Yet when he joined the Chesterfield labour party the membership shot up by 16,000!!! – looks like Labour could do with a few more “liabilities”.

  6. harleyrider1978 says:

    Sacks of unread letters hold up India’s fight against tobacco

    Bulging sacks of letters gathering dust at India’s health ministry are the latest obstacle to a push for tougher laws to curb smoking, as more than 100,000…

  7. Toby says:

    I don’t want a Conservative government. There’s nothing worth Conserving anymore.

  8. slugbop007 says:

    Here is another example of a Master of Science Political Science/Social Anthropology graduate morphing into a supposed expert on matters of health, complete with her own blog:
    Julia Belluz
    Another phony Master of Science Student now writing like she’s a Health Expert:
    London School of Economics and Political Science
    London School of Economics and Political Science
    Master of Science, Social Anthropology, Graduated with distinction (highest academic standing)
    2007 – 2008.
    They grow faster than weeds.
    Shakespeare smoked pot. Naughty Willy.

  9. slugbop007 says:

    Here is something that Ms Belluz wrote late last year on WaterPipe smoking:

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.