The Disintegrating Political Class

I’m puzzled.

On the 14th of February 2006, the UK Parliament voted for a smoking ban in enclosed public spaces. The BBC reported:

MPs have voted by a huge margin to ban smoking from all pubs and private members’ clubs in England.

Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt said the change, expected to take effect in summer 2007, would “save thousands of people’s lives”.

I was completely stunned that day. They voted to ban smoking in pubs? How could they do that? I thought of all the smoky pubs I’d known throughout my life. I thought of all the smokers in the local pub – the River – where I was then living. What would happen to them all?

I only found out what was going to happen to us all on 1 July 2007 when I found myself outside the River, beer in hand, “exiled to the outdoors” just like ASH’s Deborah Arnott said I would be. And I’ve remained an exile ever since. And the exile has only ever deepened. I became an exile in my own land. I still am.

And one of the lessons that I learned back then was that the MPs in Parliament who had voted for this draconian ban clearly thought that They Knew Best what was good for the people of England. Maybe they’d ban alcohol next? That would “save thousands of people’s lives” too, wouldn’t it? All I knew was that these MPs didn’t speak for me. I didn’t even think they spoke for the people of England, who I met and talked with daily – most of whom hadn’t wanted this ban either.

So back then I started to think of the “British political class” as being something separate from – and above – the British people. In fact, I started to think of the Political Class everywhere as being separate and above their people. There was an entire European Political Class, a sort of aristocracy, separate and above the peoples of Europe. And nothing brought that home harder that when, in November 2009, the EU parliament voted for a European smoking ban– complete with show trials for prominent offenders. They Knew Best what was good for the peoples of Europe, just like our Westminster MPs Knew Best what was good for the people of England in 2006. The people didn’t tell the government what to do: the government told the people what to do. That’s how things were now, and how they were going to remain.

And that’s how things did indeed remain until the 23 June 2016 EU referendum, when the British people got what was probably their last opportunity to leave the EU – and promptly seized the opportunity with both hands – to the astonishment of the Political Class, and the media, and the pollsters, and the EU, and in fact the whole world.

Now when the Irish people had been given a similar opportunity a few years earlier, and done the same thing, they were simply told to vote again, until they got the right answer. Wouldn’t the same thing happen in Britain? Or, as in other European referendums elsewhere in Europe, wouldn’t the people simply be ignored?

And yesterday, 1 February 2017, the Westminster Parliament had a golden opportunity to do what the Irish Political Class had done to the Irish, and simply overrule the people. I could well imagine all the speeches about Britain’s Place In Europe, and how we were Stronger Together, and how this was the Direction That History Was Going. I even knew who would be making the speeches. e.g. Kenneth Clarke:

So yesterday I was fully expecting that the MPs in Westminster would vote for Britain to remain in Europe. After all, didn’t They Know Best what was good for the British people? Hadn’t they demonstrated that on 14 February 2006?

I’d read that MPs were not expected to vote to remain. I knew that Jeremy Corbyn had placed a three-line whip on Labour MPs to not vote to remain. But I still thought that they’d vote to remain, because most of them, as far as I knew, were fully signed up to EU membership, and – above all – They Knew Best.

So I’m really rather shocked this morning that the UK parliament didn’t override the British people yesterday, and didn’t vote to remain in the EU.

MPs voted by 494 to 114 to back the Brexit bill in the House of Commons after 17 hours of debate. The bill gives Theresa May the go-ahead to formally tell the EU that the UK is leaving, by triggering Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.

What’s puzzling me is: why didn’t they vote to override the people? At what point in time, between 2006 and 2016, did the majority of Westminster MPs decide that they didn’t know best what was good for the people? What happened? Was it just the referendum? If it was, why did they choose not to override the result like the Irish government and several other European governments had done? What had happened to the omniscient Political Class that Knew What Was Best For Everyone?

I’m beginning to wonder if the British Political Class has disintegrated. And if the European Political Class, the political aristocracy in Brussels, has also disintegrated – or is in process of disintegrating.

And perhaps the same thing happened in the USA. Just like with Brexit, the American people were expected by the media and the pollsters and the pundits to vote for the shoo-in insider candidate Hillary Clinton. It was unthinkable that anyone would vote for someone as mad and bad and dangerous as the laughable outsider Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton was the choice of the US Political Class. But the unthinkable happened, and it’s Donald Trump who has instead become the 45th US president.

Are the US Senate and Congress, as filled with members of the US Political Class as the UK Parliament is full of the European Political Class, going to resist the will of the people, and obstruct him at every opportunity? And, at the moment, it looks like they won’t. It looks like they’re going to do what the UK parliament did yesterday, and go along with the will of the people. Perhaps the US Political Class – the Bushes and the Clintons and all the rest of them – has also disintegrated? Perhaps they’ve also decided that they don’t know what’s good for everyone.

If that has happened first in the UK, and then in the USA, and looks like it’s happening in Europe as well, isn’t it very likely that it will start happening everywhere else in the world? In Canada, Australia. Maybe even Mexico and Brazil and Japan. A year or so back, we seemed all set for global government by the UN and the EU and any number of other undemocratic and unaccountable supranational organisations. But what might instead be happening is an upsurge of populism that will oust the entrenched globalist political class everywhere.

Or maybe the idea of a Political Class is an illusion? And there never was a European Political Class or a US Political Class, or maybe even a Russian or Chinese Political Class? There are only loose coalitions, held together by tenuous bonds, that look monolithic from outside, but are actually no more solid than sand dunes, easily blown away by the wind.

Advertisements

About Frank Davis

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

49 Responses to The Disintegrating Political Class

  1. Timothy Goodacre says:

    Lovely to think of this London clique getting their comupence Frank. Serves them right for bullying smokers.

    • Serves them right for bullying smokers.

      So ‘you’ (ie smoking Brexiteurs) decided the best thing to do would be to remove what little oversight there was, what little possible constraint there was upon, those bullies and hand them almost total power to oppress us unhindered further? On the grounds that at least they were OUR own bullies? Sorry but what nationality of foot is in the jackboot is immaterial.
      If you find you need help filling in the application for a licence to smoke don’t ….

      • Roobeedoo2 says:

        You don’t think the bullies, our bullies, felt comfortable in continuing their bullying, and ramping it up, because the EU had their back? As Frank mentioned, it is the EU that has passed legislation for ‘ The objective – a “100 per cent smoke free environment”. Our bullies are cowards, as most bullies are.

        Perhaps ‘smoking Brexiteurs’ weren’t so much cutting off noses to spite faces, rather than cutting the bullies off from the same-o lame-o excuse they’ve used countless times before…

        • Perhaps ‘smoking Brexiteurs’ weren’t so much cutting off noses to spite faces
          No i don’t think that. My personal feeling (and I think Junican rather admitted as much on his blog a while back-although he won’t have ‘seen’ his admission as such) is that those smokers who voted for Brexit betrayed their fellow smokers. Or as a brave man might have said:

          “I know why they did it. I know they were afraid and ANGRY. Who wouldn’t be? Islamic terror, migrants, ‘loss of sovereignty’ . There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt thier reason and rob them of thier common sense. Fear & anger got the best of the them and in their panic, you turned to the now US Ambassdor Nigel Farage..”

          cutting the bullies off from the same-o lame-o excuse they’ve used countless times before…
          You might have a point IF the UK Smoking Verbot had been passed AFTER the EU one. Truth is, we-the yUK- led the way (with some help from the Irish & others). We didn’t ‘lose our sovereignty’ to Brussels over this one, rather we took theirs! Always bear in mind that it is only in the last few months, for example, Merkel (and you can’t get much more ‘EU Elite’ than her I assume) has decided to ban cigarette bill boards in Germany…

        • Roobeedoo2 says:

          You feel betrayed by smokers who voted for Brexit? I, I… I hadn’t realised…

          With regards to the UK being first, of course we were fucking first – we have Scotland…

          … And a unhealthy need to compete with Australia…

        • You feel betrayed by smokers who voted for Brexit? I, I… I hadn’t realised…
          LOL thanks for the Father Ted clip, I hadn’t seen that before. One day, when perhaps The Bestes But Insanest Frau In The Whole Wide Wide has been sectioned again, I shall download the entire series and spend a few days watching it (the wife is, ahem ‘sensitive’,about anything mocking faith, even the faith of those idolatrous Mary worshipping roaming Catholics) . But no there is no need for apologies -sarcastic or otherwise. I work on the principle that everyone voted (or not in my case) as his conscience dictated.
          Thing is though, to misquote the Cree (just to make a change from Niemöller):
          When they won’t allow you to bring back more than 50g from the continent,
          When smoking infront of kids is legally declared ‘Child Abuse’ & smoking in an enclosed space where children are present gets you on the Sex Offenders Register.
          When you have to apply for , and pay for, an annual licence to buy cigarettes and a further licence to have them about your person in a public space.
          When you are forbidden by law from smoking in parks or on the street if children are liable to be there.
          When your employer can pay you less because you smoke at home.
          Then maybe will the smoking Brexiteur finally realise that turkeys really shouldn’t vote for Xmas.

      • Harleyrider1978 says:

        BD I think the EU was just another anti smoking movement aside from ash already doing it to you brits!

        • Frank Davis says:

          Before the EU there was anyway the WHO FCTC. i.e. a treaty made with a non-governmental health organisation.

        • Before the EU there was anyway the WHO FCTC.
          and had we been offered a referendum to exit the WHO and all it’s works, then I might even have put aside my objection to Plebiscides on principle and voted in favour of such a “Brexit”.

      • Marvin says:

        At least ‘our’ bullies can be removed, the EU ones cannot.
        They’re not particularly bright either, but they do know which side their bread is buttered on. Imagine a remain MP whos constituency voted leave, he/she would be toast at the next election. The MPs are acting in their OWN interests, just like they have always have done.

        As it was the useless cretins in parliament who voted for the smoking ban, NOT THE EU (they followed later), the first objective must be to regain control of the useless cretins in parliament. Brexit has emboldened voters, we want a proper representative democracy, not some undemocratic, bought and paid for, EU yes men.

      • or lose their Love for the Thug they blow’st-Clicky
        Thug? Really? Smokers love blowing thugs?
        Or did the usually very literate Roo make a funny that goes right over my head?

  2. oh if only we were a sovereign nation and our Sovereign felt able to do her job and scrawl La Reyne s’avisera
    Looks to me like Parliament confused the terms ‘ will of the people’ and ‘democracy’, they aren’t the same things at all, infact diametrically opposed.

    • Frank Davis says:

      ‘ will of the people’ and ‘democracy’’, they aren’t the same things at all, infact diametrically opposed.

      Please expand upon this. When the people vote in a democracy, they express their will.

      • Without wanting to go in to depth, the murky depths, a very good example of this is the US election. The expressed ‘will of the people’ was for Hilary, right ? She got the most votes (which tells one all one needs to know about Americans) Democracy-or what passes as such in the US- ensured that the ‘will of the people’ did not prevail. Put another way ‘the will of the people’ is nothing but mob-rule with better table manners, democracy is the ‘will of the elected elite’ . Democracy is the expressed will of the majority in choosing their elite, mob rule is the expressed will of the people choosing policy.
        Correct me if I’m wrong, but off the top of my head there isn’t a civilised country run by ‘the will of the people’, and there is a good reason for that.
        Indeed the ancient Greek word for ‘democracy’ means ‘rule of the commoners’ I believe? ie ‘normal’ people being ruled by themselves , by an ‘elite’ they elect from among themselves.
        What would have happened in 1939 if Chamberlain had had a referendum about declaring war on Germany? Was the majority will of the people for war? I doubt it, WW1 was still fresh in everyone’s minds…judging by the way Chamberlain was almost cannonized for “Peace in our time”-albeit briefly.

        • Frank Davis says:

          The expressed ‘will of the people’ was for Hilary, right ?

          In sheer numbers, yes. But how many of them weren’t actually the American people, but were instead illegal immigrants?

          That aside, the election of the US president entails an electoral college, which lends more weight to smaller states to offset against large states. Trump won the electoral college, right?

          Here in the UK with our first-past-the-post elections, a new MP might be elected with 10,000 votes, while the top two losing candidates each got 9,900 votes each. It’s actually a minority who win in many of our elections.

          There are at any one time different rules in operation. The rightful winner is the one who wins while conforming to those rules, and not some other set of rules. Hillary Clinton may have got the majority of the vote, but she wasn’t the winner according to the rules in operation.

        • but she wasn’t the winner according to the rules in operation
          Or put another way, she -‘the expressed will of the people’ wasn’t the winner due to the process of US-style Democracy .

        • Frank Davis says:

          We can only gauge ‘the expressed will of the people’ by applying procedural rules of one sort or other. Counting their individual votes and finding who got the most is one possible procedure. Counting their individual votes and finding who got the least is another possible procedure. Counting the individual votes from inside a number of different constituencies is another procedure. Counting multiple votes (vote early and vote often) is another. Adding up the net weight of voters rather than numbers also. Counting who shouts the loudest is yet another. The possibilities are endless.

          Given all these different possible ways of measuring the same thing, why should one say that only one of them is ‘the expressed will of the people’?

        • why should one say that only one of them is ‘the expressed will of the people’?
          I was being somewhat factious and using the language of the Brexiteurs (at least those at Daily Mail-have you seen today’s disgraceful front page?).
          Assuming Hilary got a majority of the legitimate votes (& i neither know nor care, she didn’t get in, that’s all that matters) then we see very clearly why those Founding Fathers of US Democracy very wisely put in place such Democracy et machina as to prevent a simple majority of votes or ‘expressed wills’ deciding the day. Mind you I expect a lot of it was to do with the sheer bloody size of the US, the slowness of horses and self interest of an Elite….fearful of the plebs gaining too much direct power.

        • waltc says:

          If you read The Federalist Papers–the lead-in to the Constitution– you’ll see that the Founders were indeed wary of the kind of mob rule that could result from a pure democracy and that’s why, from the start, (among other ‘checks and balances’) they set us up as a Republic. The Electoral College was also such a check against a (possibly misguided) majority and a check against the tyranny thereof.

          It’s hard to make categorical calls about whether and when the majority is wiser than its (so-called) representatives. I think BD is right that the majority would have scorned intervention over Czeckoslovakia (“it’s a small country and we hardly ever go there”) and here in the US, Roosevelt had to use strategy and cunning to even get us to Lend Lease. And while racial Jim Crow was a product of Elite thinking (see Woodrow Wilson) busting it had to be done by later Elites and martial –as well as legislated–law.

          I don’t think the election was swayed by illegals voting (I’m sure some did, as did some corpses and some American double-dippers, but not in quantities enough to have an effect) . Nor do I think The Russians affected it (by merely, tho illegally, releasing the truth). Nor do I think it was Comey’s last minute er-wait-a-second. I just think enough people had enough reason to detest Hillary and the horse she rode in on and had had it up to There.

          And, yes, I agree that the closer you are to your governors, the better the shot you have at influencing policy. Tho it’s likely that in places like London, NYC, or SF, if you disagree with the local overwhelming majority, you’re still gonna be screwed

      • garyk30 says:

        1. When the Constitution was written, thanks to Ben Franlin’s postal service, mail went from one end of the country to the other in 3 days.
        George Washington was elected by a ‘direct vote’ and the person with the next highest received became VP.
        That system became unworkable due to personal animosities.

        2. Hillary’s popular vote was only about 27% of the possible vote.
        Going into office on such a vote is not democratic or equitable.

  3. Vlad says:

    Philip Morris in 1994 on how cigarettes are made: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vBtq8-Snm8 Bottom line: modern cigarettes are not made just from shredded tobacco leaf rolled in paper, as they were (most probably) in the first half of 20th century. PM is happy with the result, as it has less nicotine, thus pleasing TC, and also saves on production costs -all at the expense of the smoker who gets overpriced junk. In a normal world, this kind of information would be on the packs, instead of the lies and propaganda of TC.

  4. Clicky says:

  5. garyk30 says:

    Perhaps they’ve also decided that they don’t know what’s good for everyone.

    Nahhh, I suspect they did what they thought was best for their political careers.
    Unless you are in a very safe seat, you are not going to go against the strongly held wishes of the majority of the voters.

  6. Pat Nurse says:

    Let us not forget that Hewitt herself admitted she was ” a taxi for hire” to pharma lobbyists at the time she imposed the smoking ban. She was a consultant for Boots – the very same that sells expensive NRT. Hewitt didn’t work for the voters of this country. She worked for the corporate elite to shove smoker custom their way and away from competitors in the tobacco industry.

    This is the same woman who once fought to normalise abnormal desires to have sex with 10 years olds while denormanalising normal adult behaviour like smoking in a pub.

    She made her money, she didn’t actually care how many lives saved or otherwise. I wonder if she can not only count the alleged “thousands of lives saved”. I doubt she could even name one.

    • Let us not forget
      Indeed, there has been far too much forgetting of such facts. If another person tries telling me that cigarettes are hidden away beyond the sight of minors and feeble women (who would be tempted to smoke by the ‘glitzy’ packets) because the ‘EU’ willed it-nay IMPOSED the law from Brussels upon us freedom loving tolerant Brits- I think i shall say something unpleasant and quite definitely anglo-saxon to them.

      • Rose says:

        No, it was imposed on us by Tony Blair later wannabee president of Europe, he never got the continental cafe style culture he wanted or his casinos to stimulate growth in inner cities, but managed to destroy the whole point of the British pub.

        • continental cafe style culture
          I always wondered about the dichotomy of that one. Blair was anti-smoker yet wanted us to adopt a ‘cafe style’ culture which by definition was having a Gauloises over coffee or a small glass of wine. I spent a fortune every week in cafes here before 2007.

        • Rose says:

          They must have offered Tony Blair something shiny to make us one of the original target countries.

          WHO LAUNCHES PARTNERSHIP WITH THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY TO HELP SMOKERS QUIT
          https://web.archive.org/web/20030211043229/http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1999/en/pr99-04.html

          2002
          “This was a three year project, funded largely by three pharmaceutical companies that manufacture treatment products for tobacco dependence, but managed by WHO Europe and a steering group which included government representatives and many public sector organisations.”
          “They were commissioned by the World Health Organization and have drawn on the experience of a number of European countries, including the four original target countries of the partnership project: France, Germany, Poland, and the UK.”
          http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/11/1/44.full

          2007
          “Labour has achieved more in terms of tobacco control than any other UK government, establishing the UK as a world leader in this respect, and deserves credit for doing so.”
          “Blair promised much for tobacco control but required considerable pressure before he delivered.”
          http: //www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/75557.php

          Of course when our government assured the rest of the EU that the Smoking Ban had been a HUGE SUCCESS as the traditional pub began to die, they naturally followed suit.

        • Rose says:

          I’ve just found a remaining trace of the fabled public consultation.

          What’s the issue?

          Banning smoking in public places
          “The government is running a consultation on the legislation it will introduce to ban smoking in enclosed public places and workplaces. The bill is in favour of smoke free environments, and proposes new rules for establishments such as bars, restaurants and clubs. There would be limited excemptions including certain establishments which do not serve food, membership clubs and living accomodation. This proposal follows the Choosing Health consultation, which outlined the scientific anfd medical evidence on the damaging effects on health from second-hand smoke. If passed, this legislation would come into effect by the end of 2008.”

          “The deadline for responses is September 5 2005”
          https://www.theguardian.com/politics/consultations/page/0,14273,1534150,00.html

          Tony Blair
          “To give one example of many, several years later he agonised about the smoking ban in public places and finally justified the move by suggesting: “The public gave us permission to introduce the ban.”
          http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/iraq-10-years-on-so-you-think-you-know-why-blair-went-to-war-8500265.html

          John Reid
          “We are not talking about thousands of deaths, or even hundreds”, Mr Reid said. “We are talking about the potential of an estimated four to five deaths a year. That estimation will have to be reduced further because we are taking into account we are protecting the bar area from the effects of passive smoking.”
          https://www.theguardian.com/society/2005/feb/24/politics.smoking

  7. Tony says:

    Unfortunately, while the commons vote is certainly good news, we’re not out of the woods (or EU) yet. The core strength of the political class lies in the unelected Lords. They don’t have to worry about upsetting constituents because they don’t have any and they are hideously pro EU. Bear in mind that they were appointed to the Lords as cronies of the likes of Blair, Brown, Clegg and Cameron.

    I don’t know if a date has been set for voting in the Lords but I suspect it will be sometime this month. I am optimistic that the bill will go through but there will be one hell of a fight.

    • smokingscot says:

      Perfectly correct – and they’re beginning to line up to try to block, delay or scupper the Commons vote, with this chap doing so for and on behalf of the poor and less well off!

      https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/20/labour-peer-peter-hain-article-50-single-market

      The hypocrisy of that statement is beyond belief. Indeed it the H of L that was at the forefront to remove part time jobs from pubs, clubs and bingo halls, while revelling in the fact they wholly support pricing tobacco out of reach of the less well off.

      And the Mirror says:

      “Monday 20 February: The House of Lords will start debating the Article 50 Bill. Labour peers have said they will not block the legislation so it should clear the Lords. However, the Lords could amend the Bill in which case it will return to the Commons for approval. The Bill could “ping pong” between the Lords and Commons until the text is agreed.”

      (Just coincidentally the Stoke on Trent by-election is scheduled for the 23rd of Feb, the the H of L could well give UKIP a significant boost if it’s spun that the “establishment” is refusing to accept the referendum results – Stoke voted overwhelmingly to get-the-ferk-out).

  8. Harleyrider1978 says:
  9. junican says:

    Hi, BD.

    Junican here.
    I have been trying to remember what I might have said which could be interpreted as betraying smokers. I remember saying that I voted for Brexit knowing full well that, eventually, it might mean the end of my ability to buy cigs abroad cheaper than at home. I guess that what you are implying is that I should have voted ‘Remain’ because it was in my own personal interests to continue to be able to do that.
    The fact is that I was trying to look at the bigger picture. I remember Milton MP, health minister at the time, declaring in Parliament that the Government had to introduce whatever measure she was proposing because we had signed the FCTC treaty. That statement is burned into my mind.
    The FCTC was signed by ‘an official from the Foreign Office’. Did the Foreign Office have any idea what the implications of the FCTC were? You can bet that the Anti-tobacco Zealots, who had already thoroughly infiltrated the Health Dept, knew precisely what the implications were.
    So my intention, when I voted for Brexit, was to leave the political European Union; to overturn the Lisbon Treaty. If you remember, the French and others had voted against an EU constitution, and Lisbon introduced the same thing via a different route.
    I was conscious at the time that it would be in our interests to continue with free trade, and hope that such a deal can be done. We must also bear in mind that if the UK Government wanted to stop us importing duty paid cigs, I am sure that they could find a roundabout way to do so. They have already partially done so by limiting our ability to personal, physical imports by actual travellers. As you know, the free trade in tobacco has been denied us by the simple trick of requiring that we have a permit. Also, cig packets are to be plastered with medical porn despite the latest TPD not going so far. How long before a law is passed forbidding the import of ‘illicit packets’?
    The really important thing about Brexit is that we can sack our lawmakers and that our lawmakers cannot be overruled by a majority in the EU Parliament.

    What is my hope for the future? It is, vaguely, that some elements of the Tory party, UKIP and a sufficiency of Labour, combine to replace the current crop of MPs, and start to dismantle the ‘Regulation State’.

    Tea time.

    • smokingscot says:

      While you await the constipated short arse.

      It’s all hypothetical. If we remain in the single market and the customs union then EU rules on any amount so long as for personal consumption continue.

      • junican says:

        Don’t be rude, SS! (Although I must admit that your phrase is amusing. I trust that BD will be similarly amused)
        Yes, it is all hypothetical but I simply do not trust any of the bastards.

        • You know me too well, yes I was amused….and didn’t find it rude in anyway. Unfortunately I have been a bit concerned with other matters this evening so really haven’t had chance to digest your rather well thought out earlier comment…but yes that was what i was referring to by ‘betrayed’.
          If i understood you aright, you like others here, voted ‘leave’ in sure and certain knowledge that Brexit would mean, will mean, an increase in all our (us smokers) suffering but with the hope that somewhere down the line there would be jam? Did anyone, does anyone, doubt that after Brexit the persecution of smokers in the UK will increase?

        • junican says:

          I can only speak for myself, BD. There are times when it is better to deliberately expedite the persecution than to just suffer it slowly. That is, to interfere with the deliberate, slow, incremental persecution and BRING IT ON!
          A very simple way, if it were possible to energise a group of smokers, would be to have a ‘smoke-in’ with hundreds of participants just outside a hospital entrance.
          One might reasonably ask why smokers do not have an organisation. Personally, I think that it is because smokers detest themselves. Most of them do not see that the enjoyment of tobacco is very similar to the enjoyment of cups of tea or coffee. Very similar indeed. We drink a cup of tea or coffee when we want to, and we smoke a cig when we want to. What is the difference?
          Our modern-day politicians have allowed themselves to become very similar to ‘Prohibitionist’ politicians around 1900. I would guess that there a very few politicians who would dare to defend the ‘human rights’ of smokers.
          But history has shown that, sooner or later, the worm turns.

      • There are times when it is better to deliberately expedite the persecution than to just suffer it slowly.
        I shall be totally honest and say I have never looked at it from that angle, never occurred me. Hmmm…*the short one from the flat lands with the slow colon will mull that one over at various times today whilst babysitting*

        • margo says:

          May I just say that I voted to leave the EU because the EU is a nasty capitalistic little unelected cabal that I want nothing to do with. My decision had nothing to do with smoking (weirdly enough since most of my decisions in life do have something to do with smoking).

        • May I just say that I voted to leave the EU because the EU is a nasty capitalistic little unelected cabal that I want nothing to do with
          I imagine a lot of ‘Brexiteurs’ and ‘Remainers’ feel the same way. Unfortunately democracy only really works when there are adults, or an unelected cabal if you prefer, present overseeing the kindergarten . Was a time that function was performed by the House of Lords here in the UK but not since about 1913, when the HoC stole the sovereignty of this country. I know a lot of people think that it was the EU what took our virgini…oops I mean ‘stole our sovereignty’ but it wasn’t, that happened before most of us here were born. And now the Mob want to hand back power to the very thieves?
          That’s probably why so many MPs who were remainers have now decided to support Brexit. They have woken up and realised that with no unelected elite around to keep them in check (and even before Blair emasculated them, the HoL was little more than a rubber stamp) they can do whatever they want. Akin to giving teenagers car keys and whisky.

  10. Clicky says:

  11. Harleyrider1978 says:

    Whatever happened to the great British shows like the adventures of Robinhood , the avengers etc etc !

    Even Monty python was great and bennyhill

    Guess it wasn’t pic enuf

  12. Harleyrider1978 says:

    PC

  13. Harleyrider1978 says:

    One thing is for sure worldwide politics is fixing to change big time
    And if globalists won’t give up power we will indeed see war as the people have had enuf
    Everywhere

  14. Lisboeta says:

    we will indeed see war as the people have had enuf

    The only way I can see that happening is if we can persuade all the Revolting Students(TM) to quit fretting about imaginary ‘microaggressions’ and take up smoking. I think present-day smokers are generally too sane to to go around smashing things up.

No need to log in

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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