Jeremy Hunt And The Bourgeois Pudding Police

I'm sure Jeremy Hunt might think this a clever political move to appease the insatiable health fascists instead of bowing to demands for "fat taxes", but I don't think I've ever seen anything more evil and sinister from the UK government as this. Ever.

From The Times who I understand carried it on their front page.

Restaurants ordered to reduce size of puddings

Cut calories or be named and shamed, Hunt says 

Restaurants, cafés and pubs will be named and shamed unless they make food portions smaller or less sweet, the government has said. 

Chains such as Pizza Express, Starbucks, McDonald’s and Gourmet Burger Kitchen have been told to “step up” by cutting sugar from food and reducing the size of desserts, cakes and croissants. Calorie-reduction targets for fatty, savoury foods will also be set.

Ordered to reduce the size of puddings. From a Conservative party which claims to believe in free markets, personal responsibility, and freedom of choice?

Un. Fucking. Believable!

Jeremy Hunt, the health secretary, told a private meeting of more than 100 food companies yesterday that “going out to eat is no longer a treat” because it is so common. Takeaways and sandwich shops would therefore be expected to take the same action as supermarkets and food manufacturers in tackling Britain’s obesity problem, he said.

What Hunt failed to mention, though, is that some of the most fat-laden, sugar-encrusted, high calorie/low-health dishes, served - soaked in butter, carbs and with lashings of other delightful nasties - in Michelin star restaurants, high-end eateries, swanky hotels and niche bistros selling to the posh; the well-paid middle class snoboisie; and the perennially arrogant types who sneer at working class tastes, won't be on this 'shame' list.

Yet I wonder when was the last time Jeremy Hunt last cooked a home meal from a few simple ingredients instead of being wined and dined. How many MPs routinely eat out so that it is "no longer a treat". I'd wager far far more than those on mediocre means who eat the puddings that this fuckstick wants to shame.

It won't matter to him or his cohort, because they're not the targets. Nope, it's just you proles and your irritating habit of choosing what you like to eat for yourselves every now and then instead of bowing to the will of the revolting people who can't abide anyone of the lower castes enjoying the same choices.

The contempt just oozes out of his disgusting fans.

Just saw a guy have a glass of coke, a cappuccino, a croissant and a ham & cheese sandwich for breakfast #OurNHSistoast #worldgonemad

— Kirstie Mary Allsopp (@KirstieMAllsopp) September 28, 2016

Beating up on others has never been more fashionable, has it?

It is genuinely terrifying how many people think it's OK to consume a cappuccino, a coke, a ham & cheese sarnie & a croissant in one meal.

— Kirstie Mary Allsopp (@KirstieMAllsopp) September 29, 2016

Terrifying? No. Terrifying is that there are people who believe that a) it is now acceptable for rancid bastards to express their shameful bigotry in public and b) that the government is on their side.

Because this is actually the case, backed up by those ghastly overpaid wankstains at Public Health England.

Public Health England (PHE) has promised this will be its priority and yesterday revealed the target would apply to all the main sources of sugar for children apart from soft drinks, which will be subject to a sugar tax.

Yes. It is now a "priority" to tell you what size pudding you should be ordering. Over and above the pointless and class-based impending sugar tax.

Cereals, confectionery, yoghurts, ice cream, sweet spreads and jams, cakes, biscuits and breakfast foods such as croissants must all become less sweet or smaller, PHE told the meeting.

You, the underclass, are too stupid to enjoy the good things in life. Know your place and eat small portions of gruel. It's for your own good, after all.

We used to tackle malnourishment, but now our government is trying to destroy the signals of economic success, simply because a few state-paid prohibitionists have whipped up the prejudices of a minority of anti-social bigots who don't like seeing the average citizen enjoying the fruits of our prosperity.

I know I say that things like this are none of their business quite a lot, but this really isn't. The choices have already been made. Businesses don't offer large sizes of puddings because they are bullying people into eating more, it is is the result of competition because the public have demanded them.

Hunt is effectively saying that consumers are not entitled to make choices for themselves and businesses are not allowed to cater for those choices. Well, unless they are charging fortunes for high-end products for people who really do eat only rich food at restaurants 7 days a week ... like, erm, politicians. In which case it's fine and dandy.

I couldn't put it better than Action on Consumer Choice:

In effect, the government has now decided that we're getting too much food for our money. For our own good, it will pressure food producers, takeaway joints, restaurants and pubs to serve us less. 

This is an unwarranted attack on freedom to choose what we eat. It's quite easy to regulate how much sugar we consume. We can choose different products that contain less sugar, pick a portion size that suits us or simply not clear our plates. There is no mystery here. We should have the right to make those decisions and take responsibility for the consequences of them, too. (And that includes ignoring the wild scare stories about how what we eat is killing us.) Yet the government is insulting our intelligence by suggesting that we can't make such decisions for ourselves. 

Just a few years ago, the idea of the government deciding how much we eat would have been regarded as ludicrous. Yet politicians are so desperate to be seen to be 'doing something' about obesity that they want to make chocolate bars, puddings and other sweet treats smaller. Never mind that childhood obesity has plateaued, even fallen, over the past 10 years. Politicians need something to have a crusade about, and today's crusade is against sugar. So we can look forward to ever-blander food - and less of it, too.

The state is increasingly not just not your friend, but actively despises you. I can only hope that he is playing some political game where the public gets angry and bites back against the health nazis that plague decent society.

If Jamie Oliver and his insane hypocritical dishes are on the name and shame list the fair enough, but if not this is just a load of malodorous elitists telling you you're not allowed to spend your money in the same way that they do.

Marie Antoinette was slaughtered for less.

See also: A Triumph For Repulsive Anti-Social Snobbery

Who Is Misinforming Jane Ellison About E-Cigs?

Today, anti-smoking group Fresh North East issued a press release which expressed worries about how e-cigs are being portrayed.

In 1976 Prof Michael Russell wrote that 'smokers smoke for the nicotine but die from the tar. When we urge people to stop smoking, we explicitly mean to quit smoking tobacco. 

It is a worry that concern among smokers over the perceived dangers of electronic cigarettes and vapourisers appears to be rising compared to the much more harmful product which is tobacco.  A significant number of people hold incorrect beliefs about the harm from electronic cigarettes and nicotine - believing that part or most of the health risks from smoking are from nicotine.

Unusually for a tobacco control industry press release, this is actually true. Nicotine has been described by the RCP as a "very safe drug", by NICE as "relatively harmless", and Waldum et al concluded that "our study does not indicate any harmful effect of nicotine when given in its pure form by inhalation". So who is spreading all this alarm about nicotine?

Well, for one, step forward Jane Ellison MP (someone so in thrall to the WHO that she believes their COP6 where press and public were banned was 'transparent') speaking in Westminster Committee Room 11 on Monday.

This was in response to a question from Cheltenham MP Martin Horwood about why there was no mention of direct harm from e-cigs when passing laws against their sale. Interestingly, Horwood's wife works for Public Health England which might have prompted the curiosity.

In case the embed doesn't work, Ellison stated in reply - along with a contemptuous chuckle - that "addiction to nicotine, we would consider harmful", thereby ignoring the RCP, NICE and principled researchers, whilst also illustrating the damaging ignorance Fresh North East felt necessary to address in their press release.

Now, considering nicotine is on a par with caffeine when it comes to dependence and harm, I hope Ellison didn't drink any coffee on the day she uttered that nonsense. But more importantly, who on earth is advising her if she is so badly informed?

"Call Me Janus"

David Cameron 2008:

"The era of big, bossy, state interference, top-down lever pulling is coming to an end."

2015:

MPs vote to enforce standardised cigarette packaging

David Cameron's official spokesman said: "The Prime Minister voted in favour of this change. He is pleased that it has gone through."

As leader of the Conservative Party, he's a great advert for UKIP, isn't he?

The Detached State

Tell us something we didn't know, Express.

Eighty per cent of Britons ‘hate the meddling nanny state’

BRITONS hate the nanny state and think the Government should stop meddling in people’s lifestyle choices, says a survey. 

Researchers found significant opposition to stealth “sin taxes” on products such as tobacco, alcohol or sugary drinks. 

Instead more than 80 per cent of those questioned, excluding ‘don’t knows’, believe it should be down to individuals to make their own lifestyle choices without official interference from Government.

There's life in the British public yet.

Sadly, though, there is nothing but entrenched denial in the ranks of the establishment.

Speaking at his party’s Spring Conference, Mr Pickles said: “We have stood up for (protecting) hard-working people from stealth taxes and nanny state interference. 

“Come the general election, I’ll be very happy to defend the record of Conservatives in Government against all-comers.”

He means the Conservatives in government who installed the tobacco display ban despite being staunchly against it in opposition? Because, you see, they were very clear what was going to happen if they were elected in 2010.

Shadow Health Minister Mike Penning said the Conservatives would seek to repeal Labour’s move if they win the election.

And they certainly can't blame their coalition partners on this one ... unless to say that the Lib Dems are bigger liars than the Tories.

Liberal Democrat Shadow Health Secretary Norman Lamb said it was "the nanny state going too far."

Both parties simply waved it through.

As for the "record of Conservatives in government", they boast the Chancellor who increased tobacco duty by 50p per pack in 2011, 37p per pack in 2012, then 26p in 2013 and 28p earlier this year. They have since brought in a ban on smoking in cars (which will be all cars including e-cigs at some point), and laid legislation in front of the EU for pointless plain packaging.

This is just on tobacco. We could list this government's incessant nagging about alcohol, unapproved foods, sugar, fizzy drinks etc too, but what's the point? They don't listen to us.

Instead, their austerity 'cuts' have actually increased the wasteful shovelling of our taxes to the people they do listen to. State-funded quangos and fake charities which holler for more and more intrusive laws against our free choices are now better funded than they were in 2010 - in fact, this government proudly created Public Health England and its £500 million per annum budget - and they have even delved into freely chosen aspects of our sex lives.

This is protecting us from nanny state interference, is it? And they wonder why we increasingly despise every man jack of them. Sheesh.

Anna Soubry Blamed For 900 Northern Ireland Job Losses

Last night in Westminster, DUP MP Ian Paisley quite rightly ripped into incompetent former health minister Anna Soubry over the loss of 900 jobs in his constituency at an annual cost of £160 million to the UK economy (emphases mine).

The Prime Minister answered a parliamentary question earlier last year on minimum pack size, which is what the tobacco directive is all about. He said: 

“It does not, on the face of it, sound a very sensible approach. I was not aware of the specific issue, so let me have a look at it and get back to my hon. Friend.” - [Hansard, 9 October 2013; Vol. 568, c. 160.] 

The Prime Minister was answering a question from a Government Member, and I believe that he has been let down by a failure of his party and colleagues to negotiate the matter appropriately in Europe. 

While the then public health Minister, Anna Soubry, had control of tobacco products directive negotiations for the UK Government, she was required to keep Parliament informed of developments via the European Scrutiny Committee. When she was brought to that Committee on 17 July 2013, she had to apologise for poor political practice, saying: 

“I do not hesitate to apologise for the fact that this Committee has not been fully informed. I only wish that, as a Minister, I was aware of all the things that happen within my portfolio.” 

That is an appalling indictment of a Minister who took her eye off a brief and allowed the policy to be rammed through with the consequences that we are feeling today. We will reap a terrible harvest in Northern Ireland as a result. 

The provisions under the TPD on the minimum pack sizes that may be manufactured have the direct impact that 82% of the output of my constituency’s factory will be made illegal. The Government have done that with the sweep of a pen - it is little wonder that 900 people are being told that it is over for them. The Government could have said, “Let’s continue to manufacture, but not sell in the United Kingdom,” or looked at other options, but instead they implemented a policy even though their Minister said that she was not fully aware of what was happening. That is a betrayal. It is a scandal that the Government were not paying proper attention.

Indeed, she was not only disastrously negligent in not considering the consequences of the EU TPD for jobs in Northern Ireland, she was also - as reported here last July - completely ignorant of the terms of the TPD itself, wrongly believing e-cigs had been removed from the process entirely.

At the time, Soubry found herself in a unique position where she could have protected those jobs, but - as Paisley referred to in his speech above - she instead effectively threw 900 Ballymena workers on the dole by deliberately hiding EU proceedings from the European Scrutiny Committee and other government departments.

Incredibly, it emerged there had been no correspondence between Soubry and the Scrutiny Committee for six months between January and June 2013. Oddly enough, this is the very period when the Committee would have been expected to scrutinise the draft TPD which was published in December 2012. 

Officials (and Soubry) decided there was no time for proper scrutiny of a Directive that will affect millions of consumers in Britain, not to mention thousands of small businesses. 

So they asked for a waiver from the scrutiny committees in both Houses of Parliament (Lords and Commons). The Lords agreed but the Commons Scrutiny Committee said no. 

Concerned that any delay might delay the revised TPD (which includes plans to ban menthol cigarettes and restrict pack sizes) or tie the UK government's hands on plain packaging, Soubry and Black travelled to Luxembourg determined, it seems, to support the draft TPD regardless of any concerns elected members of parliament may have had. 

If I am reading this correctly, they failed even to seek clearance from other government departments.

It turns out that Soubry held something of a casting vote in proceedings, but rather than defend the UK's interests, she instead chose to cast it in favour of her own prejudices.

Soubry said she took full responsibility for the decision she took, and she was sorry that things were not done in the way that they should have been. 

“If we had not made a decision there was a danger that the moment would be gone for a very long time."

Just as 900 people in Northern Ireland will be ruing Soubry's incompetence for 'a very long time' - she may as well have signed their P45s herself. In case she pops by, here's what the hard-working people she unilaterally betrayed look and sound like.

EU-enthralled Conservative Soubry has since been shifted to organising the UK's defence. I'm sure that will make you feel safer in your bed tonight, eh?

Jane Ellison And The "Transparent" #COP6

Many of you will have seen the Sunday Express article today (also covered by the Mail) of an incredibly expensive party laid on by the potless WHO in Russia recently.

'Broke’ WHO host £1.6million caviar-fuelled beano

The Sunday Express can reveal the dinner gala, held last Monday, offered delegates Salmon carpaccio with cucumber tartar, Salmon as the main course, Vitello Tonnato beef with tuna fish sauce, Red caviar, Scallop with white wine sauce, a fish late of smoked halibut, smoked sturgeon, eel mix; Smoked eel, and Salmon under white syrup with flying fish caviar.

Very nice.

Of the five hotels assigned to delegates, two boast five-stars including the Government-owned Golden Ring Hotel, self-proclaimed as “one of the most luxurious” in Moscow, and the city’s Crowne Plaza which commands a majestic £1,169-a-day for a suite, though the WHO has secured a small corporate discount. 

Guests were even offered official excursions, including a visit to the Kremlin’s armory chamber. 

The article focusses on the cost of the whole shebang and sets it against the WHO's poverty pleas regarding the Ebola outbreak. All well and good, but much of the cost could have been covered by that nice Mr Putin, I suppose.

BIG NEWS - UN pockets "bribe" from Russia: The WHO accepted $800k handout from Putin to put the #COP6 tobacco control convention in Moscow.
— Drew Johnson (@Drews_Views) October 17, 2014

Or maybe even those even nicer (to the WHO) people in the pharmaceutical industry.

It’s the traditional ill wind that blows somebody good. The pharmaceutical companies bought a seat at the Moscow conference through its contributions to anti-tobacco nonprofits that have “observer” status, and were enabled to sit with delegates and lobby them where neutral observers were not allowed. The pharmaceuticals make nicotine patches, gums and mints that will become more popular if prohibitive tobacco taxes are imposed.

Considering the above and that the public were banned from the conference, closely followed by the press being physically restrained and excluded after a single negative article by the only US journalist covering the event, I don't think anyone could call COP6 "transparent", do you?

A $40,000 wifi facility was also wasted when tweets dried up on the second day, and Instagram accounts which had been sharing pictures went silent soon after. It seems that the WHO were desperate to ensure nothing escaped to the outside world about what they were discussing.

This was perhaps because of the other astonishing abuses of transparency and democratic procedure getting out of the sealed room - courtesy of the Washington Times's Drew Johnson - some deeply sinister.

During the debate over the UN/WHO global tobacco tax, a delegate from Kyrgyzstan was held down & silenced when he tried to oppose. #COP6.
— Drew Johnson (@Drews_Views) October 15, 2014

EU,Japan,China & others oppose WHO's proposed e-cig regulations, but leaders are currently attempting to pass policies without a vote #COP6
— Drew Johnson (@Drews_Views) October 17, 2014

I'LL TELL YOU WHEN TO SPEAK: Discussion was cut off when a UN/WHO tobacco convention delegate raised questions about the global tobacco tax.
— Drew Johnson (@Drews_Views) October 16, 2014

With all those dissenters out of the way; with the hall packed with pharma lobbyists and security forcibly silencing any flies in the ointment, I suppose it made it quite easy for the FCA's original recommendation on e-cigs - for caution and a postponement of recommendations pending further study - to be steamrollered out in favour of encouraging wholesale bans. Then, world governments were ordered to implement these proposals - from a meeting which was compromised by pharma lobbying, exclusion of press scrutiny, lack of proper voting, intimidation of delegates and utter disregard for evidence - immediately.

This is the FCA, by the way, represented in Moscow by state-funded {cough} 'vaper's friend' Deborah Arnott of ASH. I kid you not.

Where this puts the Department of Health in the context of its government imposing sanctions on Russia - and the civil service code of conduct demanding impartiality - who knows? They certainly don't seem to be bothered by any accusations of hypocrisy, that's for sure, as our Phil rightly points out.

Last night Philip Davis MP questioned why Britain had sent two top-level dignitaries, including the Department of Health’s head of tobacco policy [Andrew] Black. 

Speaking to the Sunday Express, he said: “It’s quite worrying that, when we have an emerging Ebola crisis in the world, the WHO sees fit to waste money discussing tobacco controls. 

“I am asking why we continued to send British dignitaries to this showcase event when both the US and Canada saw fit to boycott it after it became clear that it would be hosted by Mr Putin.”

The whole thing should be shameful for the WHO and the Department of Health, but Under-Secretary of State for Health Jane Ellison sees absolutely nothing wrong with any of it!

Grahame Morris (Easington, Labour) 

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assessment he has made of the transparency and accountability of the Moscow Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

Ellison replied by stating when it occurred (I think Morris may have known that), listing some of the countries who attended and therefore concluding that it was transparent and accountable.

In addition, the next Conference to be held in 2016 will consider options that would further maximise transparency

"Further maximise" transparency? To describe a conference which minimised transparency on a Soviet scale and plans to do exactly the same again in two years time? Incredible!

Apparently, Jane Ellison is perfectly comfortable with delegate intimidation; denial of a free press; DoH staff enjoying hospitality possibly paid for by bribes from states in conflict with the UK; evidence-free demands from industry-entranced bodies; and global taxation regimes being decided without even so much as a vote from delegates to an unelected clique. In her book, this is termed as "maximising transparency".

The mind boggles as to what she would class as not being transparent.

Mascot Watch #30: Questions A Tory Minister Can't Answer

Our esteemed blog mascot/knight has been ruffling feathers again.

Philip Davies (Shipley) took aim at Public Health Minister Jane Ellison in the Commons as he railed against plans to introduce cigarette plain packaging, stop smoking in cars where children are present and alcohol taxes. 

Tory backbencher Mr Davies told Ms Ellison: "You are pursuing a long list of nanny state proposals which we might have better expected from (Labour), including plain packaging of tobacco, outlawing parents smoking in cars and having higher taxes on alcohol. 

"Could you give us a list of which policies, if any, you're pursuing which have a Conservative flavour to them?"

Predictably, Jane didn't answer the question.

Ms Ellison replied: "Well, following on from (Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt's) previous answer, tobacco control is an integral part of tackling cancer in our country and I'm delighted to let the House know that smoking prevalence among adults in England fell to 18.4% in 2013. 

"This is a record low which means that the Government has hit its tobacco control plan target for 2015 two years early. 

"I'm sure even you would welcome that news."

No, Jane, our Phil was asking if you have any policies which could remotely be described as 'Conservative'.

These generally involve respecting freedom of choice, not crushing it; educating personal responsibility, not dismissing it; condemning coercion, not partaking in it; reducing taxation, not increasing it; and lessening bureaucracy, not encouraging it.

I might add that Jane's party also used to not be too happy about handing taxpayer cash to unaccountable groups with which to lobby government; acting on half-baked policies for which there is no evidence whatsoever of efficacy; counting liars amongst their parliamentary party; and the claiming of credit for something which had diddley squat to do with their un-Conservative policies.

OK, forget that last one, every politician likes to pretend they had a hand in events that occurred naturally, it's just how they roll. Silly me.

So, Jane, I have another question. Why do you think it is that voters are abandoning the lying, deceitful, question-avoiding, principle-abandoning, old parties en masse? Take your time, I left you some clues above.

Vote Tory, Get Labour

I take it that today's news means Boris has by extension placed himself in Room 101?

He is absolutely correct. The evidence of harm from secondhand smoke indoors is stratospherically exaggerated, so his gesture of lighting up a cigar as a signal of freedom was welcomed in the video's comments by all but a sparse few.

The evidence of harm from smoke in a huge open air park, though, is non-existent. So what's all this pony about, Boris?

Trafalgar and Parliament squares smoking ban call

Smoking could be banned in Trafalgar and Parliament squares as well as the city's parks if a report by London's Health Commission is implemented. 

The smoke free plan would see the mayor use his by-law powers over Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square and his influence over the Royal Parks, the board of which he appoints.

If it's not backed by evidence of harm to others, the only possible goal of this for the Mayor and his unelected report writers is to dictate to others how they should be living their lives. With fines and menaces.

Couple this with his other proposals - amongst a huge list - of pointless poor-bashing minimum alcohol pricing, mandatory and costly traffic light labelling of restaurant menus, and banning fast food outlets within 400 metres of schools - all without the inconvenience of having to be passed through a parliamentary vote - and the last vestiges of Boris's liberal credentials just flew down the khazi.

But get this! The a la carte menu of unelected lefty quangocrat policies (see Word doc download here) is being announced today at County Hall by Tory Boris and ... Labour peer Lord Darzi!

Vote Tory, Get Labour!

Labour and Conservative, bessie mates in ordering you about

Last mention of Lord Darzi on these pages was when he was caught deliberately lying to parliament - with eager help from ASH - about the cost of the tobacco display ban to convenience stores.

Other cheerleaders for this extremist manifesto are the incompetent and embarrassingly gullible Chief Medical Officer Sally Davies, and world-renowned public and democratic process-ignoring health fascist Michael Bloomberg.

In light of the recent big strides by UKIP, is this part of the big plan to regain credibility for professional politicians in the main three parties? By joining forces to declare war on what people freely choose to eat, drink and smoke?

They just don't get it, do they? No wonder the voting share for the entrenched - and on this evidence, allied - political establishment is going down faster than a nympho in a rugby club locker room.

Losers Weepers

By way of update to Sunday's post on "weird" UKIP policies, my transatlantic fellow jewel robber NorCal David G took me to task for not remembering this (as usual, click to enlarge).

So, UKIP's "weird" policy of amending the smoking ban to something more reasonable and grounded in common sense was once considered by the Conservatives too, an admission in itself that the law was excessive. More fool them for discarding the idea.

What's more, Andy Burnham admitted that his constituents were still angry at their communities being ripped apart twelve months afterwards and did absolutely sod all about it (I note that he has never sued the Sun about the article).

I reckon most people would find it very 'weird' that politicians would ignore all the obvious protests being thrown their way and, instead, listen to a comparatively tiny clique of unaccountable, anti-social state-funded loudmouths.

If UKIP then come along and pick up the ball (and the accompanying millions of votes) that the other - obviously utterly detached from the public mood - parties have dropped, then there can hardly be complaints. Now can there?

Zombie Politics

Imagine you're a Conservative politician reeling at your party conference after a defection and a resignation. What you really need is a fresh new policy to throw at an adoring populace, so what do you do?

Well, Iain Duncan Smith obviously thinks he's onto a winner here.

People will be barred from blowing benefits cash on booze and gambling under a controversial scheme to hand out welfare money on “smart cards” announced today. 

Instead of handing claimants cash, they would have credits put on a card that could only be used to buy food and other essentials. 

Iain Duncan Smith is certain the scheme, to be fully piloted if the Tories win the election, will help alcohol and gambling addicts stay on the wagon.

Because this is the same policy he 'announced' two years ago, netiquette surely excuses me for re-publishing what I said about it back then too.

You see, this is how IDS views the world of the underclass: (cue idyllic 1930s English countryside ditty)

Bert: 'Ere, Joe. The social 'av just given me this 'ere smart card. Instead of me benefits, I gotta use this in shops and it won't work if I try to get me fags and booze!
Joe: The bastards! So what yer gonna do, then?
Bert: Nuffink I can do, is there? I'm just gonna 'av to give up the drink and smokes and go get a job!

Whereas anyone who has ever lived amongst or near the type of people IDS is targeting know the conversation would, more likely, go like this:

Bert: 'Ere, Joe. The social 'av just given me this 'ere smart card. Instead of me benefits, I gotta use this in shops and it won't work if I try to get me fags and booze!
Joe: The bastards! Anyfink I can do to help, mucker?
Bert: Well, I suppose. You can still buy that stuff, can't ya?
Joe: Yeah. 'Ere, tell you what. Why don't I get your baccy and beer, and I'll give you a food shoppin' list for the same amount. Then I just come round your gaff and we swap.
Bert: Sorted! Cheers, mate.

So, in short, IDS's plan will only work for those who can count on no-one trustworthy enough to do a deal with. Not so much smart cards for the feckless as for the friendless. It also shows his astounding lack of understanding as to the resourcefulness of working class (or, indeed, non-working class) folk. They've been dancing round the - mostly class-motivated - avalanche of sin taxes and government regulations on their way of life for millennia, why would they stop when faced with something as poorly thought-out, and easily counteracted, as selective smart cards?

A convenient headline grabber for the Daily Mail contingent, then, while also gently introducing the idea of smart cards as a means of lifestyle control to a largely bovine public.

But that's only tackling the utter absurdity of a state thinking it can effectively enforce such a silly idea. What about more practical - and fundamental failures - of the policy?

Firstly, only the most ridiculous of 'public health' tax spongers deny the overwhelming evidence that moderate alcohol consumption is beneficial to health, trumping teetotalism which is comparatively more dangerous.

So in IDS's crusade to inhibit a minority of welfare claimants from unhealthy consumption, is he really going to prevent the majority drinking moderately and thereby enhancing their health? Yes. Yes, I think he is.

Who knows why this effect happens with alcohol, but considering happiness and an absence of stress are universally accepted as good things for our well-being, that's a possibility. And I'd be astounded if a flutter on the dogs, football, or Grand National once in a while doesn't create the same beneficial effect.

Additionally, where will these smart cards be accepted? Not your local small shop or farmers market, that's for sure.

A smart card scheme will almost certainly require smart card readers and/or “approved outlets” where these cards can be used.  No point in a smart card system if the shop can sell you anything it has on its shelves. Either the stores will need to be on a Government “approved list” and agree not to sell a list of forbidden items to the card holders, or at the very least the purchases made will have to have a bar code such that information is somehow be fed back down the line to Big Mother (and the computer says no). 

Whilst I am sure that Asda, Tescos, other large retail outlets  (and indeed the IT giants behind the Smart card system) will all bend over backwards to facilitate this scheme, what of the small independent shop keeper of market trader? They almost certainly have neither the time, wherewithal,  or language skills to go through the bureaucratic nightmare that will almost certainly be entailed in complying with this scheme.  And I don’t know about your local market, but at mine only 2 out of about 30 of the stalls even have credit card machines. 

The consequence of this scheme will be to place a huge number of outlets off limits to those forced to use such cards for at least part of their purchases.  Rich and middle income parents are able to call into the market at the end of the day to pick up the fresh fruit and veg bargains, but the poor who have used all their cash and left only with their smart cards till the end of the week will effectively be barred.

Only in statist circles can a policy be sold as somehow "helping" the less well off while simultaneously barring the majority from healthful behaviour; harming outlets such as local shops and farmers markets in favour of restricting all purchases to multi-chain conglomerates; and ignoring the obvious and simple avoidance strategies which will form a new black market in both the smart cards themselves and trading of the benefits, with claimants having to pay a commission for the privilege.

There used to be a time in my youth when politicians were detached enough from public health extremists that they could take a considered view of their rantings in light of all evidence - the moral contempt which we have always suffered from the most anti-social in society was always tempered by the legislature recognising the problems which would come with pandering to them. This no longer seems to apply.

Duncan-Smith's plan is as barmy as it is ill-judged and spiteful. He sees votes in endorsing self-satisfaction and superiority complexes amongst the sneering and bullying self-installed righteous. It doesn't matter that the only potential of his policy is to harm, and it makes a mockery of the Tories' claim that their party is one which espouses common sense and isn't populated by bigoted 'fruitcakes and loonies'.

The way it looks to me, it's going to be a long time before politicians 'get' why they're despised if this is the crap they're coming out with.

Politicians: Please Lie Responsibly

I know it's not an earth-shattering revelation, but a Cabinet minister has been caught lying.

Desperately trying to justify poking her nose in where it has no business, Theresa May came out with this whopper yesterday.

But the Home Secretary Theresa May said: 'Alcohol-fuelled harm costs taxpayers £21 billion a year. It is therefore right that the alcohol industry is taking action to help reduce this burden, without penalising those that drink responsibly.'

Except it doesn't cost the taxpayer that amount at all, nor anything even close to it as Snowdon pointed out when Sarah Wollaston told this particular lie to the House in 2012.

This would be a reference to the British Cabinet Office report of 2003 which found a total social cost of around £18-20 billion. 

Of these costs, £4.7 billion were intangible costs (ie. they are hypothetical - they do not need to be paid by anyone, let alone the taxpayer). 

A further £5.5 billion were lost productivity costs which, again, do not represent a bill that needs to be paid. 

A further £5.1 billion were private costs related to crime which, once again, do not need to be recouped through the tax system, and the author of the report stressed repeatedly that these costs were at the absolute top end of any realistic estimate. 

The only costs which can be considered as "to the taxpayer" are £1.7 billion in healthcare and £2.2 billion in crime and punishment, but since the exchequer receives £9 billion a year in alcohol duty, that hardly makes a compelling case for a compensatory sin tax, does it?

Indeed. And it also doesn't make much of a case for a Tory-led government to applaud choice being restricted for the entire population, on the back of selective lies and a booze epidemic that quite simply isn't happening.

As he has admirably done before, our esteemed blog knight Philip Davies stuck up for common sense over puritanical finger-wagging from his own party, but what good will this petty tinkering do anyway? As was discovered when nicotine was reduced in tobacco, smokers simply smoked more to achieve the same level in their blood. So why would drinkers not react in the same way? Drinkers will self-administer just as smokers do and will simply drink more wine to reach their preferred level of intoxication - whether that be mild, merry, wobbly, shit-faced or comatose.

What I find far more worrying from a societal perspective, is why politicians are so lethally addicted to binge-lying in order to interfere in our personal choices. Perhaps we need a pressure group to wean them off this damaging behaviour by urging them to lie responsibly with a view to quitting the filthy habit altogether.

H/T RooBeeDoo via Frank Davis

Heads The Public Sector Wins, Tails The Public Loses

As anyone who follows me on Twitter will be aware, I was out of the country on Thursday when the government finally announced its latest pretence at listening to the public over plain packaging two months late.

The previous one showed that a significant majority think the idea to be pretty silly [pdf pg 31] ...

... but since when were the public listened to in a public consultation, eh?

What happened after the original consultation was that the Department of Health ignored all those hundreds of thousands of rejections and only focussed on what they called "detailed responses" for their big announcement.

Many thousands of responses to the consultation were received, and the views expressed were highly polarised, with strong views put forward on both sides of the debate and a range of organisations generating campaigns and petitions. Of those who provided detailed feedback, some 53% were in favour of standardised packaging while 43% thought the Government should do nothing about tobacco packaging.

Lo and behold, a majority in favour! It's almost like magic, isn't it?

Of course, if you were to download the full report, the true view of the public - which was ignored in the official statement, and about which Anna Soubry claimed ignorance - is crystal clear.

In total, 665,989 campaign responses were received from 24 separate campaigns. Around two-thirds of campaign responses received were from people who are opposed to the introduction of standardised packaging (total of 427,888 responses) and one-third of campaign responses received were from people who are in support (238,101 responses) as shown in figure 5.1 (that's that pretty pie chart above - DP). 

Hence the gerrymandering by only quoting the detailed responses in official communications.

However, by way of contrast, let's look at what happened when the government 'consulted the public' about banning tobacco displays in 2008.

Over 96,000 responses were received ... the largest ever response to a consultation of this kind. Responses overwhelmingly supported removing tobacco displays in shops, and tough action to restrict access to vending machines. Since the ban on tobacco advertising, retail displays in shops are the main way in which tobacco products are marketed to children

No mention of "detailed responses" back then, because the result went the 'correct' way. Or, as the Filthy Smoker observed at the time.

Of the 96,000 responses, only a handful came from private individuals. The rest came from block-voting by state-funded pressure groups and charities. 

Sure enough, SmokeFree NorthWest - with 49,507 votes - is entirely funded by the DoH. Direct Movement by the Youth Smokefree Team - with 10,757 votes - is entirely funded by SmokeFree Liverpool who are entirely funded by the DoH). SmokeFree NorthEast - with 8,128 votes - is entirely funded by...yes, the DoH. 

Weighing in with a further 1,562 votes were SmokeFree Action. 

Not so much a public consultation as a public sector consulation.

And that's not even mentioning the fact that the DoH airbrushed out 35,000 responses that they didn't like, as admirably reported by Medical News. 

So, what we can gather from what modern politicians laughably call public consultations is that if a postcard or quick click response is in favour of what they and their pet powerful vested interests want to do anyway, they'll shout it from the rooftops. But if it's not, it's time for plan B and to only look at the "detailed responses" which - of course - are mostly submitted by organisations whose only job is to do so on state-supplied wages. 

It stinks, as I'm sure you'll agree, and not something restricted to just this issue - this kind of abuse of democracy is happening every day in any number of different government departments, most of it beneath the radar of anyone but those who are paid to lobby Westminster. This is why, as well as adding your name to the No Prime Minister campaign if you haven't already, you should also consider adding a "detailed response" to this new second consultation. Regular readers of this blog will remember that many of us did exactly this for the original consultation back in 2012, which I'm sure had an impact in restricting the biased farce to only a narrow 53%/43% split.

Just like last time out, when I'm less busy I'll be drafting a consultation response on this site for anyone who wants to crib, or you can just go ahead and submit your own. You have a few weeks to mull over exactly how you want to word it as the process runs until August 7th, but do make sure you seriously consider doing so. The alternative is that, yet again, the state-funded public sector gets to dictate terms to the rest of us without fear of being challenged, and politicians get to find yet another way of lying to us ... as they repeatedly illustrate with their sham ploy of public consultations.

Full details are here (in many languages), with the online submission form available at this link. Do go have a look. 

Politicians Partying Like It's 1992

Back in the early 90s, during public distaste for the poll tax, Tory Home Secretary Ken Baker was heckled in the street by protesters while on a political engagement. Employing his smuggest grin - Baker was, of course, famously lampooned by Spitting Image as a slug because smug was his stock-in trade - he pointed at those booing him and said to the attendant TV media "look at them, just look at them!". His point was to show how pathetic he thought the protesters' opinions were in the most condescending manner possible, even while the country was almost unified against his government's policy.

After the 1992 general election, when the Tories were famously rescued from defeat by Kinnock's last-minute Sheffield grandstanding and John Major's soapbox man-of-the-people image, I remember Kenneth Baker emerging from Tory HQ in Smith Square in the early hours of the morning and saying "we have listened, we understand" or some such platitudes.

They did to some extent. Major's government scrapped the poll tax and replaced it with council tax - albeit at a level more than double the rates system that had gone before it (the confusion and lack of transparent comparison had led councils to spend like they'd never been able to before). However, nothing much else changed and the 1997 election saw the Tories swept from office by a landslide. The problem with the Tories was far more deep-seated than the poll tax, they just didn't recognise it.

Of course, this was back when voters truly believed they had a clear choice. We really thought it would make a difference if we voted for Thatcher or Kinnock; for Major or Blair.

Since then, though, we've had our civil liberties systematically stripped away by Blair and a period of boom years where the state had cash to inflate the public sector by a phenomenal degree. Government protected itself from criticism with quangos and state-paid sock puppets which pretended to act on behalf of the people, and its "investment" in state authorities installed nodding dogs in every municipality up and down the country at our expense. During all of this, the EU claimed more and more of the powers over legislation previously decided in Westminster as one directive after another rendered UK politicians fairly redundant in many areas (in my industry for example, transport, in the past 15 years all but one area of regulations - one involving external vehicle lighting - that we are to adhere to is now by order of an EU directive which replaced UK legislation and expanded on it massively).

However, the number of politicians in our country didn't change, neither did the huge number of spin doctors, advisers, quangos, fake charities, tax-sponging lobbyists, and other bodies whose existence - and the salaries of those within them - relied on regulation and legislation (in fact, they increased and spawned newer versions of themselves).

Fewer and fewer areas for Westminster to lord over us, coupled with a huge state machine designed to regulate in those fewer areas, has led to a toxic situation where these forces are focussed on an ever-decreasing low hanging fruit. An avalanche of political correctness was spawned to control what we think and say; health and safety became an industry all of its own to dictate how we work, rest and play to sometimes absurd levels; and social engineering has evolved rapidly to tell us what we can eat, drink and smoke. Common sense and tolerance died a sad slow death.

In 2010, a lot of voters had had quite enough of this and the diminishing few who continue to vote gave the politicians one last chance. We were promised the Great Repeal Bill, which didn't materialise; a "bonfire of the quangos", which left intact those who actually harm the public; and a red tape challenge which has not noticeably improved anyone's everyday life. Meanwhile, we have seen new legislation brought in which has united both Daily Mail and Guardian readers in condemnation of career politicians, but still they press on.

The last chance then became, for hundreds of thousands, the last straw.

UKIP have just scared the bejeesus out of the three main parties but I see echoes of 1992 in the ensuing reaction. Labour say they need to reconnect with the working man, we can be sure they won't; the Tories see UKIP as a reason why they must urgently renegotiate with Europe, but that's only part of the problem; while the Lib Dems seem to think that they're doing brilliantly!

They all say - just like Ken Baker in 1992 - that they understand, that they are listening. Cameron says that his party "share our frustrations", but they really don't while they keep ignoring their backbenchers who actually do. Miliband says his party is "making progress" and must "answer the call for change", but they won't. They will, instead, carry on nagging and dictating to us about what we choose to consume while their Welsh counterparts continue to try to ban e-cigs. The vulgar, illiberal Lib Dems will do the same because they don't think they're doing anything wrong.

The life experiences of everyone in this country have been diminished for a very long time now because career politicians simply can't stop meddling, and the only people who don't seem to have noticed are the career politicians themselves. The EU meddles - as it is a regulatory machine specifically designed to do just that - but the UK government has been doing extra meddling in its ever-expanding spare time and we have all had enough of it.

Or, as Suzanne Moore termed it last week.

Never mind the threat of Ukip, the electorate has been consumed with anger and alienated for years

I can, with some confidence, tell you who represents the majority of people in this week's elections. No one. Most people will not vote. For all the headlines and hoo-ha of the political/media class, the big story is not Ukip and whether Farage worships Satan in a smoking jacket. The real issue is that people neither know what they are supposed to be voting for, nor see any point in doing so.

They can address immigration and offer a referendum on the EU if they like, but it won't cure the underlying cancer of a political elite blithely ignoring the public and - just like Ken Baker 20 odd years ago - considering their views as irrelevant. This superior attitude to the people who pay their wages will carry on the moment they next step through the doors at Westminster and Whitehall.

Back in the 90s, the answer to Tory Baker's arrogant dismissal of the public and his party's failure to change attitude was to vote for Labour. Now, it seems, the public believe that the only answer to arrogant paternalism from the main established parties is to vote UKIP.

Is it really too much to expect our elected leaders to leave us alone to live our lives as we see fit within the law; and to actually listen to us - not state-funded quangos and lobbyists - once in a while? I suspect that we will discover in the coming weeks, months and years that, yes, unfortunately it is.

When The Candidates Come Knocking ...

This time last week, Labour's former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith was telling her lefty mates why simply kicking UKIP was not going to work in their favour.

If I were a candidate, the last thing I would be doing is talking about or tweeting about Ukip. I would be out on the doorstep listening to those who think they are being ignored, responding with local facts and evidence and talking up Labour plans to ensure that the cost of living crisis is tackled and that everyone benefits from EU membership and economic growth. 

Ukip are growing their support by claiming to represent the disenfranchised – the last party to successfully do this was Labour. [...] we have the economic message and the local campaigning strength to re-engage those losing faith in politics and economics. I will do my bit by spending less time on Twitter and more time on the doorstep.

Seems a fair point. In short, she is saying that insulting UKIP and their supporters for objecting to career politicians is not a great way of encouraging potential UKIP voters to like Labour. Instead, says Jacqui, activists should get out and tell the public all about the wonderful things Labour have planned for us.

Well, after yesterday, we know a little bit more about what they are offering when they knock on our door, don't we?

Banning alcohol sponsorship; telling supermarkets to make their products harder for us to find; taking the tasty ingredients out of food; raising the cost of booze; dictating what you can do in your own car; banishing Walker's crisp to the naughty step till after 9pm; bringing in plain packaging despite it tanking in Australia; forcing adults to be fit; and banning Frosties.

According to Labour MP Chuka Umunna, all the above will be "empowering people", not ordering us about, absolutely not ... and this from someone said to be leading a "revolt" against the proposals!

As Frank Davis muses, one can only assume that the objections are because these ideas are not hideous enough.

But I'm puzzled that the Labour party is revolting against Red Ed’s fascist health plans. I can only suppose that the bastards actually want the health plans to be much more draconian than Ed is proposing, perhaps with compulsory P.E. for the entire UK population, with everyone assembling daily under barked loudspeaker instructions on village greens and town squares to perform a regime of press-ups and knee-bends and marathon runs specifically designed to kill off unfit smokers and drinkers and fat people (who oughtn't to be alive anyway). 

I'm sure they will want something along those lines. Or maybe something even worse.

Comments on all media platforms yesterday - whether they be right, left or centre - have been significantly opposed to this kind of wholesale nannying, perhaps why Labour are trying to back-track a tad.

Not that much though. Umunna can only say that "a lot" of the Mail's story is "garbage", despite at least half of it already being demanded by MPs in Westminster if you even only skim debates held there recently. Meanwhile their spin doctors are claiming that this is "not official policy" despite the Mail publishing the Labour document in its entirety, and the proposals looking very much like a milder finished article after the even more insane suggestions had been rejected.

So this is what Labour MPs - as Jacqui Smith suggests they should do - will be taking to doorsteps up and down the country prior to May 2015, is it? This is how their politicians are going to woo an electorate which despises them and is deserting the main parties in droves? By saying that a vote for Labour is a vote to be infantilised and have your life dictated to by members of the country's most untrustworthy and despised profession?

Leg Iron describes it perfectly (in the middle of last night, as is his wont) when he points out that if Labour believe this is going to be popular, they've been listening to the wrong people.

All the politicians hear these days are the whining of the lobbyists. “There is massive public support” for smoking bans, plain packs, booze control, diet control, and all the rest and it is all entirely fabricated. As the swing to UKIP – despite the constant portrayal of that party in the press as being composed of people almost as insane as those in Wastemonster now – should demonstrate to a politician with a brain. Even if it’s in a jar on his desk with ‘For emergency use only’ stencilled on it. 

That’s all they hear since they stopped listening to real people. “There is massive public support for this new measure we haven’t yet told anyone about. Look how many signatures we have written, um, collected.” Now the effects are filtering through. Moribund must genuinely believe that turning the country into a less appealing version of North Korea is what the public want. Either that, or he really does not want to win the next election.

We're a long way from that May 2010 post-election optimism in the back garden of Number 10, aren't we? You know, when Clegg was talking about "rolling back our liberties" and Cameron was hinting at a new era of liberalism now the demons of Labour had been vanquished.

If anything, things have got a lot worse and each of the three main parties are engaged in a game of one-upmanship with the winner being he who can boss us around the most; where the ingenious plan to stem the flood of voters to UKIP by insulting them has failed; and where the remedy is now to turn up on our doorstep and tell us that they're sorry they haven't butt-fucked us enough but they promise to try harder if we can just give them another chance.

Perhaps Labour's proposed manifesto should be welcomed, though, especially if all parties follow Jacqui Smith's sage advice to promote their message to us personally. Because most of us will be seeing candidates of all parties knocking on our doors in the run up to May 22nd and, since they're just not getting it, we should be asking them - not just Labour, but Tories, Lib Dems, Greens and yes, UKIP too - a simple question.

Will you leave us alone?

Personally, I shall also have props behind the door as exhibits. A pack of Winston Blue, a bottle of cheap plonk, an e-cig, a packet of crisps, a can of Red Bull and, of course, a fucking chocolate orange. And I shall ask them why they think they have any right whatsoever to interfere in our choice to purchase and consume any of them.

If the answer is "blah blah, obesity crisis, blah blah, binge-drinking epidemic, blah blah, pocket money prices, blah blah, for the children, blah blah", tell them you won't even consider voting for them and expand at great length. We are in a very rare period in the electoral cycle where they come begging us for something, so make sure you use it. It's the only possible way - and I know that even that is a long shot - that these people will learn to listen to us instead of the cocktrumpets they pay out of our taxes to lobby them.

Back To The Future With Grant Shapps

I'm sure most of you will have seen the Mail on Sunday's big scoop today.

Labour's nanny state plan for drinkers, smokers and 'unhealthy' eaters sparks revolt in party: Red Ed says we will FORCE you to get fit (so that's no Frosties, fags or 'pre-loading' booze)

It perfectly illustrates that Labour are no longer interested in defending the working man/woman - preferring instead to kowtow to middle class quango lobbyists - and deserves fisking at some point, but the response from Grant Shapps is most intriguing to me at the moment.

He said: "They claim they're worried about prices - but want to put up the cost of a drink. 

"Not only would that make a drink after work more expensive, it would hit pubs hard, putting many out of business."

Minimum pricing, as it is currently being touted, wouldn't hit pubs at all of course. But it will do in the future, because the Sheffield University policy-based evidence behind minimum pricing plans for the same idea for pubs too [page 6].

Differential minimum pricing for on-trade and off-trade leads to more substantial reductions in consumption (30p off-trade together with an 80p on-trade minimum price -2.1% versus -0.6% for 30p only; 40p together with 100p -5.4% compared to -2.6% for 40p only). This is firstly because much of the consumption by younger and hazardous drinking groups (including those at increased risk of criminal offending due to high intake on a particular day) occurs in the on-trade. It is also because increasing prices of cheaper alcohol in the on-trade dampens down the behaviour switching effects when off-trade prices are increased.

I'm absolutely certain, though, that Shapps was blissfully unaware of that. His comment was undoubtedly a result of being asked to gush forth at short notice on something about which he has no clue (that, or he uses a Tardis of a weekend).

Still, he should mothball that reply as it will be a brilliant put-down in around three to five years' time when minimum pricing for off-sales doesn't work (because it can't) and 'public health' moves onto their - already planned - next logical step.

A Seedy End To A Seedy Campaign

I suppose the campaign for plain packaging - riddled throughout as it was with cronyism, corruption and lies - could only possibly end with the same tawdry values being exhibited in the House of Commons itself.

Yesterday's post-statement debate has been well reported and can be read in full here, but a couple of contributions stand out for their jaw-dropping gall. Firstly, Jane Ellison in reply to our Phil.

No one is bringing forward measures to ban smoking; rather, we are all now able to show our support for measures that might have the potential to stop children taking up smoking. I cannot believe that he cannot agree with that. The vast majority of the public are with us, and I fear that in this case he is in danger, very rarely, of being an unpopular populist.

This is, of course, a lie. The government's own consultation document says so [page 31].

And one for the vapers from decrepit Newport anti-smoking/pro-drugs loon Paul Flynn (on Twitter here).

Of course, this is not a Conservative statement, because it is evidence-based, prejudice-free and intelligent. Will the Minister add further lustre to her reputation by starting an investigation into the potential danger of electronic cigarettes normalising smoking?

I think he means that it's not a Conservative statement precisely because the piss poor evidence behind it is policy-based, motivated purely by prejudice, and the statement itself strikingly unConservative and stupid beyond belief (unless the goal was to increase the Ukip vote). But Paul's old, bless 'im, perhaps he just got confused.

Still, on e-cigs he's sharp as a tack, already jumping at the chance to commission more policy-based evidence for the next illiberal and entirely unnecessary assault on the public he is supposed to be serving.

See, this is the main problem with politicians. They're venal and repulsive liars but we're not allowed to shoot them.

What We Learned From Ellison And Chantler Today

We learned some interesting facts about the way our country is governed today.

We learned that politicians don't listen to honest argument or debate, and that the best way to sway them is to rig consultations and silence the opposition; we learned that people who encourage corrupt practices and make false claims are respected whereas the public is not; we learned that misrepresenting research is considered acceptable behaviour; we learned that MPs lying in parliamentary briefings and hiding meetings from public record is considered to be scrupulous governance; we learned that government lobbying government is spectacularly more likely to succeed than ordinary people expressing their opinion; and, above all, we learned that if you are a member of the electorate paying taxes to the state, you will be ignored, but if you are paid by the state to bully the public, the establishment will hang on your every word.

How else can you describe this ...

... translating into this?

The government is moving forward with plans to ban branding on cigarette packs, Public Health Minister Jane Ellison told MPs.

The commenters at the BBC article aren't conned by this folly - the highest rated are unanimously of the opinion that it is pointless and won't work - yet a spokesman for ASH claimed this evening that the policy enjoys "strong cross-party support in both houses".

Can you see a bit of a disconnect there? You know, perhaps a reason why voter turnouts are at an all-time low; hatred of politicians at an all-time high?

Unsurprisingly, Labour are fully behind the idea - they do so love depriving working class people of their meagre pleasures - but the plan was announced by a Tory minister, for crying out loud, the main coalition party led by a man who once proudly boasted of how "big bossy state interference is coming to an end" and, once elected, promised "no more of a government treating everyone like children", while Deputy Clegg vowed to "roll back the power of the state" and "restore British liberties".

So what compelling new evidence has convinced these fine, upstanding defenders of freedom to abandon their deeply-held beliefs, then? Well, I really haven't a clue. The Chantler review - as Snowdon points out - offers nothing new except an almost child-like trust of policy-led junk research produced by those who imagined, lobbied for, and whose salaries depend upon, hypnotising daft politicians into legislating for plain packs.

Chantler's methodology throughout is to categorically believe everything the tobacco control industry has ever published on the matter - even if, as he admits, much of it has limitations and some hasn't even been finalised or peer-reviewed - while dismissing every opposing item of evidence as "unconvincing" ... and citing tobacco control industry rebuttals as his reason for saying so!

As for the Tory front bench, they seem content to plough on with this despite their own backbenchers and supporters identifying it as bunkum, and without assessing wider issues as Jane Ellison promised in January.

Now, you could almost understand the public being ignored if the evidence being presented was so overwhelming that it merited public opinion being sidelined, but the Chantler review cannot remotely be described as such. Its summary declares that "research cannot prove conclusively" that plain packaging will work, but that Sir Cyril reckons - after having his ear bent by his tobacco control industry pals for four months - that it may have a "modest" effect. Surely, then, the best course of action would be - as was the wise conclusion last year - to wait and see how the real world experiment in Australia pans out ... especially since the British public are significantly opposed to it.

Or - and I know you're going to laugh at this - allowing us poor saps, who have to pay taxes for this shower of professional politicians, to have the casting vote considering the justification for it is so desperately poor and inconclusive.

Instead, it looks like we'll be ignored once again, as always. Not only that, one of Chantler's findings opens a can of worms which you will be seeing again and again as it is going to delight Alcohol Concern, Action on Sugar, and any number of other state-funded prohibitionists.

"The tobacco industry argues that all of its marketing activity, including packaging, aims solely to persuade existing adult smokers to switch brand and never targets children or new smokers. However, in my opinion, whatever their intent, it is not plausible that the effect of branded packaging is only to encourage brand switching amongst adult smokers, and never to encourage non-smokers from taking up smoking. I have heard no coherent argument as to how this purported separation occurs in practice and in my opinion a ‘spillover effect’ is highly plausible whereby packages that are designed to appeal to a young adult, also, albeit inadvertently, appeal to children. It seems to me that children and non-smokers are not, and cannot be, quarantined from seeing tobacco packaging and in my view once they are exposed to this packaging, they are susceptible to its appeal whether it is intended to target them or not. In the light of these and other considerations set out in my report I believe that branded packaging contributes to increased tobacco consumption."

This may as well have been written with other bansturbators in mind. If plain packaging is introduced as a result of Chantler's review, every repulsive prohibitionist the world over will be quoting it and saying - quite rightly - that the same applies to their particular consumer product.

When marketing aimed at adults is described as being impossible because "in practice" it "inadvertently" appeals to children who will be "susceptible to its appeal whether it is intended to target them or not", no marketing at adults will ever be possible and must therefore be banned.

And that is just one more thing we have learned about politicians today. Not only are they supremely incapable of resisting the lure of state-funded single issue lobbyists and contemptuous of the public who pay their wages, they are also astonishingly brilliant at inviting every miserable tax-sponging 'public health' crank to park their tank on the government's lawn.

Well done, Chantler and Ellison. You utter klutzes!

Mascot Watch #27: State Jackboots In Your Property Edition

Real life has got in the way in Puddlecoteville so there's been no time to comment on how the country's most vacuous woodentops failed to see beyond the end of their snouts and voted for a ban on smoking in private vehicles. For teh chilrenz, natch.

However, I can't let this pass without comment. You see, mere mascot status is looking a tad miserly for our Phil after reading his contribution to the pathetic charade debate. Here are some highlights.

Philip Davies (Shipley, Conservative) 

I have no quibble at all with Luciana Berger, who represents the smug, patronising excesses of new Labour. They think that the only reason they came into Parliament was to ban everybody else from doing all the things that they happen not to like. What perturbs me is that Conservative Ministers appear not to have grasped the concept, even though they claim to be Conservatives, that we can disapprove of something without banning it. This is just another in the long line of triumphs for the nanny state. 

The Conservative party used to believe in the rights of private property, and that people could do as they pleased in their own private property. Their private vehicle is their own private property. If people wish to smoke in a car with children, that is a decision for them to take. As Conservatives, we should not interfere with that. 

We all know where this is going to end up. The people at Action on Smoking and Health, who appear to be the only people the Department of Health listens to, are not going to hand over their company car keys when this measure gets passed tonight—they will be campaigning for the next one, which is of course to get smoking banned in everybody’s homes as well. Once we have agreed to the principle of banning smoking in people’s private cars, how on earth can we logically say that there is a great difference regarding people’s homes?

Do go read the whole thing, including this part of his denouement which lays bare how comprehensively unfit for purpose the current fuckwitted catastrophe (the correct collective noun, I believe) of modern career politicians now is.

The Minister said that it would be a constraint on the Minister’s power to accept my amendments. Well, I make no apology for trying to constrain the Minister’s power. That is what the House of Commons is all about—trying to make sure that sensible decisions are taken based on evidence, not just on the latest whim of the nanny state brigade whom she has listened to. We are supposedly here to try to defend the freedoms of people in this country. This Government want to trample over every single one of those freedoms.

Which, by a stunning coincidence, is precisely why the entire country despises politicians and wouldn't lose sleep if each and every one were to be strung from a lamp post tomorrow.

Bravo, Mr D! As of now, you are no longer my mascot - instead, arise Sir Philip, official blog Knight.

Watch out, too for an eloquent contribution from Ian Paisley Jr and a Tory MP rubbishing Deborah Arnott's foul bullshit from the green benches of the House.

Charles Walker (Broxbourne, Conservative) 

My hon. Friend will know that one of the main scourges for young people is alcohol. Why are the Government not proposing standardised packaging for alcohol?

Don't know about Debs, but that certainly looks like a domino theory come true to me.

And lastly, kudos to this Labour MP for delivering a speech which is brilliantly ahead of its time (after three tiny edits).

David Winnick (Walsall North, Labour) 

I was also around when we debated banning smoking in vehicles with children, which it was argued at the time was a grave restriction on freedom. Who in the House of Commons today, in 2019, would argue that, apart from the hon. Member for Shipley and a few others? The ban, which was so controversial at the time, has been widely accepted in the country. People said that it would not be accepted and that the law would be broken, but has it been? Where is the evidence that the law on smoking passed in the previous Parliament has been broken? 

I accept entirely that it may be difficult to implement the measures that have been suggested on smoking in private homes, and I do not underestimate the difficulties. I do, however, say simply that it is worth a try. Every organisation that has been mentioned and is concerned with public health has argued that the amendment should be put into law, as I believe it should be. It provides an opportunity to protect children in the way it describes, and it is likely, however difficult it may be to police, that people will accept that the law has been passed by Parliament, and that there will be a greater desire to ensure that it is observed. This measure is worth a try, and anything that can protect children from the dangers of smoking should certainly be supported tonight.

I wonder where he got his Tardis from?