Wednesday, 17 July 2013

Mascot Watch 24: Educating Anna Edition

Amongst all the hysterical exaggeration in the House on Friday following the correct decision to shelve plain packs, Anna Soubry seemed very coy about a certain statistic.

Our esteemed mascot was on the case.
Philip Davies (Shipley, Conservative)
I congratulate the Government on this decision. The Minister will recall that the last time I raised this subject in the House, she told me that I would see the light, and I am delighted that she and the Government are the ones who have seen the light on this issue. She cherry-picked some numbers of people in favour of and against standardised packaging from the consultation. Could she tell us the figures from the full 688,000 responses? How many of those were in favour and how many against? 
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe, Conservative)
Forgive me; I do not have that information at my fingertips. I am more than happy to supply it to my hon. Friend by way of a letter, or any other mechanism.
Any other mechanism than admitting it in public, that is.

You see, it looks a lot like this ...

... and it would quite obliterate the one-sided agenda Anna was presenting.

She was, however, very clued up about what is happening in a dustbowl 11,000 miles away.
I have spoken to the Australian high commissioner ... I also spoke with one of the leading experts who have been involved in the legislation in Australia, and I was quite surprised that even after about three or four months, they could not give me a picture of any emerging evidence. 
I thought that we might see some sort of change quite quickly in Australia, but we have not seen it yet; I am surprised about that.
Oh? So all the hyperbolic claims of hundreds of thousands of kids dying through lack of a law are more than premature then, wouldn't you say?

This, sadly, is the intellectual bankruptcy of yer average modern idiot politician. No initial evidence which wasn't rigged; not even the remotest sign of imminent evidence even from corrupt nanny state central; huge potential costs to businesses; a large majority against the proposal which none but the reality-based want to talk about; but let's squawk about fantasy deaths and demand a pointless law anyway. 

Little wonder, then, that very few think it's worth voting for such knuckle-dragging, anti-democratic dickheads, doncha think? 


PJHH said...

"Could she tell us the figures from the full 688,000 responses? How many of those were in favour and how many against? "

Hmm - was there something stopping him from rephrasing that question thusly:

"Could she confirm that of the full 688,000 responses, two thirds were against and only one third for"

... or similar?

harleyrider1978 said...

I am sure the Nazis led by Simon Chapman are busily knocking heads trying to come up with ideas to manufacture new evidence for plain packs.......




PJHH said...

Hmm - just noticed something in her answer which you didn't quote Dick:

"... and if there is a criticism that I would make, it is that we went to consultation first. All good legislation needs a good, healthy debate, followed by, perhaps, wider consultation" (Emphasis mine.)

So, Ms. Sousbury would prefer to discuss the issue among her peers, then decide whether or not to have a consultation among the general public. And I rather suspect for issues like this it will be "or not."

That's just... so... wrong!

harleyrider1978 said...

They dont want any debate,they want a closed door debate with the answers and questions already decided upon and a quick vote already guaranteed........Isnt that how they did our folks at a recent meeting over ventilation and allowing smoking which the Macedonians are fixing to do this 22nd of July by yesterdays report!

smiffy01 said...

The saddest part of all this is that the dimwitted asswipes never even considered that Joe Public might just get together for once and totally destroy their supposed "very much in favour" "Jo Public" quoted figures!
For them to quote the much lesser (because it was well hidden) petition was far more acceptable as that clearly showed a % in their favour.
Shame Phiip D did not simply respond with "err.................why not?" (fingertips etc ;)

PJHH said...

"Shame Phiip D did not simply respond with "err.................why not?""

Not allowed. Looks like here MP's were are only allowed one 'slot' with which to make a statement/ask a question. Once you've had your slot, that's it.

Dick_Puddlecote said...

Oh, I'm certain that you're correct.

Dick_Puddlecote said...

I expect she'd have trotted out "tobacco industry interference yadda yadda" or some such but, yes, at least the figure would have been in Hansard.

Dick_Puddlecote said...

Yes, I noticed that bit and was quite surprised. As I've said before, she isn't really up to the job. They all probably think like that, just don't blurt it out in public.

Kit Fell said...

The wretched woman is my MP and she's a local laughing stock. Her primary mission in life seems to be ensuring that building housing estates on green belt means lots of lovely dosh for her SO, who is MD of one of the biggest house builders in the UK. Allegedly. Must take up a lot of time and mental energy, that...

castello/ed west said...

great article Dick! What the hell is she doing?