UKIP has acted as the Provisional Wing of the Pub Bore Society for some years. Seated on the far stool of political life, they have droned on endlessly about the failings of the big three parties. ‘They’re all the same as each other’, ‘nothing to chose between them’, ‘ a shower of professional bastards’.

The resident Landlord has tried to shut them up, calling them a ‘bunch of clowns’, and ‘fruitcake racists’.  It had no effect. They droned on. ‘Get us out of Europe’, ‘it’s them thar Europeans that is causing all the problems’, they said as they ordered another pint. A warm, cloudy, British pint.

‘UKIP if you want to’ said the Landlord, ‘nobody is listening to you anyway’.

This morning he found out that 14% of the population were listening. He sent his potman out with something akin to an apology.

“People have sent a message, we get it, we hear what people are saying, people are concerned that we get on with the big issues facing hard-working people in this country, like fixing the economy, sorting out the welfare system, helping hard-working people to get on.

“Ukip have done well, I don’t make any secret about that at all. We need to make sure that we are addressing the concerns of the public.”

Revolutionary stuff! ‘Addressing the concerns of the public’! That is a U-turn of megalithic proportions. When did the last politician even pay lip service to ‘addressing the concerns of the public’? We have a government that is so proud of the ‘nudge unit’, the department that seeks, not to address the concerns of, but to re-educate the public, that they are privatising it, convinced they can make money out of it. We had, for 13 years, a government that was solely concerned with re-educating the public. Can it really be true that the Pub Bore has succeeded in revolutionising government to the point that it might actually act as representatives of its various constituencies and ‘address their concerns’?

The big three parties (though the Lib-Dems seem to have a nasty dose of political anorexia, compared to the over-fed beasts of Labour and Conservative) have relied upon people not ‘kipping’, but ‘sleeping’ their way through the voting process. If they voted at all, it was as their Father had done. The public didn’t seem to get the rather obvious point that if you vote as your Father did, you are liable to end up with the same government that your Father did – an oxymoron, if ‘change’ was what you wanted.

UKIP have done well, most definitely. But are they the answer to Britain’s problems?

It seems to me that our problems are global ones. A global financial crisis, regardless of where it started or who did what. Global weather patterns changing (and no, I haven’t become a ‘ban all aerosols, fight climate change’ enthusiast, just aware that the jet stream is/has been a different position to the one we are used to, as it has been before…) and thus different crops will need to be grown in different parts of the world, and if people wish to keep eating the food they are used to, they might have to get it from somewhere else in the world. Religious affiliation changing, and with our modern inventions of air travel, and television, not to mention the Internet, we are becoming a more global society, with people committed to the eradication of ‘all infidels’ happily studying computer science in the universities of Infidel Central…

Global problems require global solutions. I don’t see how retreating into nationalism and brave little Britain ‘going it alone’ can possibly solve the problem. Nor does that make me a defender of the EU, too small a solution, based on an outdated political modus operandi. So while I sympathise with UKIPs anti-EU stance, I don’t think that they hold the answer.

What they have done is wake up those quietly kipping over their pint, that ‘something’ needs to be done, and not something that we have tried already.

We have to get out of this ‘Fort Little Rock’ mentality, the idea that those who are different are to be feared, outsiders. We are all the human family, and the sooner we stop squabbling amongst ourselves the better. It is a product of democracy, the idea that the majority ‘must’ win. Why must there be ‘winners’, black and white, good and bad, left and right? If we all took responsibility for ourselves and spent our spare time helping others, we would be a lot better off than struggling to make sure that ‘our man’ gets the controlling job.

For sure, someone will come along in the comments and tell me that human nature isn’t like that, that people are selfish, some will take more than others – but isn’t that a product of our conditioning? That if we just vote the right man, our man, into the top job, he will take care of us, his supporters, and we don’t need to think about it anymore? And if somehow the ‘other side’ manage to get their man into the top job, we just have to belly ache long enough and point out all his faults, and along will come another chance to get our man, our protector, into place.

And that is where all our energy goes to. Ridiculous.

Henry May 12, 2013
at 03:38

“Why must there be ‘winners’, black and white, good and bad, left and
right? …someone will come along in the comments and tell me that human nature
isn’t like that, that people are selfish”

So if we act all nice and play ‘fair’, what are the chances that everyone
else will follow suit? Ask our fishermen that. Ask what remains of our
aviation industry (not much).

I’m no fan of UKIP, but there is this idea that if you are not pro-EU, and
pro-immigration, it means you are a “xenophobe”. This is just nonsense, and
tends to be used to obscure proper debate over these issues. Whether we’re in
and ot of the EU we have to consider whether we, our kids and our neighbours
are going to have jobs to go to, and a comfortable life.

carol42 May 7, 2013 at 19:53

Why on earth would a non smoker want to go to a smoking restuarant in the
first place? I may live in Kent now but my early pub experience was in Glasgow
where I grew up and none were that bad, even the rough ones. I spent a couple
of years in Liverpool too and didn’t find any there either, I didn’t like
Liverpool but the pubs I was in were all ok in the 60s/70s. Yea I remember the
blackened buildings well but that was coal fires and factory emissions not
cigarette smoke! I just think there should be room for both without trying to
denormalise one group, didn’t work with already illegal drugs but I would have
more respect for a total ban which gave up the revenue but I doubt we will
ever see that.

binao May 5, 2013 at 19:08

A final thought prompted by’…ban all aerosols…’
A good case for what can
be achieved internationally when the will is there.
Fairly smartly after
the discovery of the ozone hole and chlorofluorocarbon link, international
agreement was reached on discontinuing the use of CFCs in aerosols. And it was
done. In 1987. When did we last hear about Dobson units?
This was the
Montreal Convention. It might be argued that changing to butane and the like
with global warming effects was not a perfect solution, but CFCs were a hard
act to follow as an aerosol propellant.
It might also have been useful to
do something about CFCs in all the old fridges and leaking aircon systems, but
you can’t have everything.
Similarly we might remember the removal of lead
from petrol, and more particularly discontinuing the use of lead solder in the
making of food cans.

Yeah, I know it’s nerdy, but it’s true.

BenSix
May 5, 2013 at 01:23

Global problems require global solutions.

In some cases, yes, but it is worth remembering that global problems can
have had international causes. Terrorism, for example, would not have been so
globalised if the U.S. had not first armed the rebels in Afghanistan and then
stormed into Iraq fifteen years later. Organised crime would not have been
such a global problem had certain European, Asian and African states not been
so dysfunctional. Sometimes the dysfunctionality of states requires the
intervention of other countries, of course, but even then the goal is to equip
different states so that they are capable of dealing with their own problems.

We are all the human family, and the sooner we stop squabbling amongst
ourselves the better.

Nuclear families rarely stop squabbling, and extended families never do.
Sometimes a cause is so great that it can bring them together, such as the one
hundredth birthday of a patriarch, but this does not mean they enjoy good
relationships. Similarly, threats and opportunities can pose such dangers or
offer such threats to different peoples that they will unite to guard against
or seek them but in many cases there will be underlying tensions of such
magnitude that their cooperation must be limited. We are, in many cases, too different to be too close, though this does not mean we
cannot be cordial from a distance.

PERMEX May 4, 2013 at 21:23

Far better to vote UKIP than not vote at all…….the brainwashed apathetic
majotity do not vote; good at complaining but too lazy either to inform
themselves or get off their indolent arses for a walk to the polling station.
We are thus ruled by a very dedicated minority bent on keeping us ignorant
& dumbed-down (starting with the ‘education’ system) & beholden to the
state……….i.e. slaves.
If you’re fed up with the masters for whom you didn’t
vote and/or the travesty which is the EU then get informed & do something
for the children you say you are worried about but fail to protect or
educate.
As good a place as any to start, if you are real & sincere, is
here. http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=83862, where
you can learn about the Harrogate Agenda & how to deal with the EU on its
own Article 50 terms..

Ho Hum May 4, 2013 at 22:38

I wonder how many well educated children, whose horizons may now well
stretch far further than those of their parents, might think UKIP and its
admirers are more likely to be Looney Toons fodder than not?

Woman on a
Raft May 6, 2013 at 10:27

You are Ken Clarke and I claim my £5.

Ho Hum
May 6, 2013 at 14:09

Well done! As I don’t have your address, would you mind if I sent a
cigar to Jonathan Mason instead?

Andrew Duffin
May 4, 2013 at 19:53

“Global problems need global solutions.””

Ah, the old central planning dream again; this time, on steroids – with wet
dreams about global governance.

God preserve us from these lunatics.

right_writes
May 4, 2013 at 19:51

I reckon that you need to read a bit more about UKIP Anna…

Nothing “insular” about ‘em.

PERMEX May 4, 2013 at 14:09

Hello, Anna…Yes, I’m still around & I visit your pub every day without
fail. ….and if I fail to see a new post I become concerned about your health…
If I don’t say much it’s because there’s really nothing new to say. This
thread is a good example of preaching to the (mostly) converted. I have had a
long life and have had the pain & sorrow of watching a nation destroy
itself. The major players in the tragedy weren’t & aren’t dastardly
foreigners but our very own politically correct next-door-neighbourswho, while
knowing what is best for everybody else, haven’t noticed that the house is on
fire.
The EU and the Zero are the worst things to have befallen us since
WW2…….but if anyone thinks we can just opt out & walk away I would point
out that there are literally thousands of highly detailed agreements which
must be unravelled before a break can be made….it will take years to
accomplish.
For those of you who are concerned about your children &
grandchildren………yes, you really should be. Short of a revolution, things are
not going to get any better..

Delphius May 4,
2013 at 13:31

The problem with successive UK Governments and the reason for the rise of
UKIP is they are still setting policies in a pre-EU fashion. They aren’t
embracing the reality that EU membership post-Lisbon has brought to politics,
nor have they decided to totally reject it. They plug away in denial that they
are part of a revised political and economic landscape.

For instance, you can’t say you’ll spend such-and-such on creating new jobs
if you can’t control your borders. Rather simplistically, say you have 5
million unemployed and you have funds to halve that. You spend the money, and
create 2.5 million new jobs. However, because you can’t control who comes into
the country, those 2.5 million jobs may go to new immigrants rather than to
those 2.5 million who were already unemployed and you spend all that money but
still end up with 5 million on the dole. If you want spend the money to get
2.5 million off the dole, them set your policy in such a way that new
immigrants can’t access it or find a way of channelling the new wealth 2.5
million extra jobs creates back into getting people off the dole so that its
not wasted. Understand that simply creating more wealth and opportunity in the
UK means creating it for the whole of Europe to take advantage of, not just
the people of the UK.

That’s not to say I’m against immigration, but its just an example of where
the government have to re-think policy and be radical and take account of the
current status-quo. The same could be said of tobacco, for instance where
prices are so much cheaper in Europe and free trade allows people to buy from
other European countries that the government really have to stop wasting money
trying to stem the tide and stop labelling people smugglers. Its a fact of
life that people will quite rightly buy from whatever source they deem
suitable. Its a fact of life… live with it, move on and re-think your
policies.

Either embrace Europe, understand the new reality and set policies
accordingly, or follow the UKIP path and start to reject Europe
altogether.

Or more likely the third way: carry on as normal but with added UKIP-ness.
In other words carry on as normal but use words that sound like you’re
embracing UKIP values at the same time as completely ignoring them. Yes,
another recipe for disaster.

Bob May 5, 2013 at 12:18

” reject Europe altogether ”
Confusing Europe with the EU is a very
effective “newspeak” trick, like confusing border control with racism or tax
rates with tax revenue.
It prevents clear thought.

John Ward May 4, 2013 at 11:37

Spot on, m’deario.

This sort of thing goes well with curry, I understand. A tres bientot de
dix-neuf heures…
Meanwhile, a small chanson for my supper…

http://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2013/05/04/the-saturday-essay-ukip-its-easy-when-you-dont-know-how/

xx

Absolutely
Passionate May 4, 2013 at 11:37

If Europeans want to develop closer ties and ultimately unite as one
political and economic entity that’s wonderful, encourage it, but let it
happen organically, not by compulsion.
As for Franco German wars, that was
pre NATO. But the indecent haste to force a single currency seems to be
raising the risks of further friction between our European neighbours.

binao May 4, 2013 at 13:02

Agreed.
How many times must we hear …’but the eu has kept the
continent at peace for x decades.’
Which rather ignores (1) the uniting
effect of the Cold War; (2) the consequent presence of very large numbers of
predominately US and supporting UK forces for much of that time.
And the
expectation that the more mature Western states should have progressed in
their governance and their diplomacy, at least with each other.
We are
now as far away from the horrors of WW2 that precipitated Europe’s present
ideological path as the world was then from horse drawn colonial wars
against natives with spears, muskets and assegais.

Mudplugger
May 4, 2013 at 17:01

The EU has indeed not played any role in “keeeping the continent at
peace for x decades” – that may be somewhat closer linked to a couple of
the key players having the availability of nuclear weapons. Even Frau
Merkel understands that military means won’t work a third time, hence the
shift to monetary means.
M.A.D. is good – the EU just makes us
madder.

drsolly
May 4, 2013 at 10:24

We did have a referendum on the Common Market. I remember. I voted in it. I
voted to join, because I was convinced by Enoch Powell’s speech in which he
said “If we join, then it ends the sovereignty of parliament”, which at the
time I thought a jolly good thing (Enoch didn’t) and I still do; the expenses
farrago did nothing to change that view, but the main reason was that they
seem to me to be a bunch of incompetent idiots, and it would be a very good
idea to stop them having absolute power.

And now they don’t. Power is shared between Westminster and Brussels, and
power shared is power halved. Which, I think, is good.

Left to their own devices? You get things like “quantitative easing”, which
is newspeak for “printing money”, which is another way of taxation without
representation. You get “we’re going to reduce the red tape burden on small
businesses” while at the same time HMRC make a new rule that says that EVERY
time I pay ANY employess, I have to fill in an online form to tell them.

The other thought in my mind was that after three rounds of France v
Germany, each ten times worse than the previous, anything would be better than
a fourth.

Alan May 4, 2013 at 07:54

“Global problems require global solutions. I don’t see how retreating into
nationalism and brave little Britain ‘going it alone’ can possibly solve the
problem. Nor does that make me a defender of the EU, too small a solution,
based on an outdated political modus operandi. So while I sympathise with
UKIPs anti-EU stance, I don’t think that they hold the answer.”

Leaving the EU is in no way ‘going it alone’. The UK is a member of various
international bodies such as the UN Economic Commission for Europe and other things deciding
international standards on water quality, car safety, trade rules, etc. At
present we tend to represent whatever the EU position is in line with all the
other EU members. What we have is the chance to influence the EU position on
things. What UKIP want is for the UK to decide our own position.

It is unfortunate that the state is the vehicle through which much decision
making and action (but seemingly very little responsibility) is taken and
politicians and much of the public expect this. It claims ownership of so much
of our lives and distorts our decisions. Communities put a hand our for money
and charities do likewise. Those that don’t and just get on with things (like
the RNLI) are few and far between. After the London riots some people
reclaimed *their own* streets armed with brushes and bins by tidying up and
politicians couldn’t move fast enough to be seen mucking in with them.

JOHYN MALPAS
May 4, 2013 at 02:05

Perhaps UKIP should be a bit wary. When, in Australia, the woman who ran
the ‘one nation’ anti immigration party got a lot of votes she soon found
herself in prison.

banned May 3, 2013 at 23:31

London Mayor Boris as PM supported by deputy Nigel in the Commons.

banned May 3, 2013 at 23:10

“…just aware that the jet stream is/has been a different position…” Back in
the 1970′s my old dad explained to me (in response to my moaning about a wet
school summer holiday) that now and again the Jet Stream came a few hundred
miles further south than usual (then some boring technical stuff) = Rainy
Summer.
Point being a moving jet stream is neither new, mysterious or
permanent.

My prediction for the next general election
1st Labour with a poor
minority
2nd Tory
3rd UKIP with the balance of power
4th LibDem
nowhere

Bye bye Dave.

Ho Hum May 3, 2013 at 23:15

UKIP with the balance of power?

Isn’t Westminster enough of a circus without this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5os4NFeKFFs

Woman on a
Raft May 4, 2013 at 09:17

The song is reference to what has to be done when a show is going very
badly and the audience has to be placated. It is then that the variety
manager yells “Send in the Clowns” i.e. to save the show. The line “Don’t
bother, they’re here” is word-play on this, where the alternative meaning
of clowns is perjorative but it refers to the parties on stage, not the
incoming ones.

It is a perfect song for this morning since the wider analysis of where
UKIP came second tells us how fed-up the electorate are with the present
parties.

Ho Hum
May 4, 2013 at 14:08

Er….

‘The “clowns” in the title do not refer to circus clowns. Instead,
they symbolize fools, as Sondheim explained in a 1990 interview:

I get a lot of letters over the years asking what the title means and
what the song’s about; I never thought it would be in any way esoteric.
I wanted to use theatrical imagery in the song, because she’s an
actress, but it’s not supposed to be a circus […] [I]t’s a theater
reference meaning “if the show isn’t going well, let’s send in the
clowns”; in other words, “let’s do the jokes.” I always want to know,
when I’m writing a song, what the end is going to be, so “Send in the
Clowns” didn’t settle in until I got the notion, “Don’t bother, they’re
here”, which means that “We are the fools.”‘

UKIP are merely another group of fools, adding to the existing ones.
As well as demonstrating the voting public’s lack of discernment

Woman on a
Raft May 6, 2013 at 10:15

How dare people vote for someone you disapprove of.

Ho Hum
May 6, 2013 at 14:07

I disapprove of every caste of clown.

Ho Hum May 3, 2013 at 23:02

‘And if somehow the ‘other side’ manage to get their man into the top job,
we just have to belly ache long enough and point out all his faults, and along
will come another chance to get our man, our protector, into place.’

New theme tune for you Anna…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8StG4fFWHqg

adams May 3, 2013 at 21:41

Quote, ” the idea that those who are different are to be feared, outsiders.
” Nonsense we do not think like that (except about Muslims maybe ) .
What
we do not like is walking down our own streets and feeling like we are in a
foreign country . When even the white people are not English and bellow away
in languages I do not recognise . Then there are the numbers . Moving around
in London is a lot of the time like being in a permanent football crowd . V
unpleasant . This is our home and we do not want to turn it into some
permanent refugee transit camp . Got that Anna in your quiet little town with
your baguette under your arm ?

Ho Hum May 3, 2013 at 22:56

You would just love New York

adams May 4, 2013 at 09:08

I know NY very well . What is your point ?

Ho Hum
May 4, 2013 at 13:47

That, on the basis of your stated distastes, you might be likely to
make a great little Ivy Leaguer

binao May 3, 2013 at 21:24

I have no party allegiances.
I found this year that I couldn’t vote for
my local tory councillors even though one of them is a friend and has served
well.
Nor could I help them as in the past, and they did ask, they’re
desperate..
The increasing burden of regulation and bureaucracy, coupled
with the centralising of control except where big business interests are
concerned has continued with the present administration. The reforms planned
for the nhs and benefits may prove to be the miracles of the age, but I’m not
holding my breath.
I actually don’t care if cold hard logic can be used to
prove that the planned EU federation is the only game in town, or that the
cloned focus group fed Westminster suits really do know what’s best for us.
Though I think it unlikely to be so.
I just don’t want it.
The world is
covered in interdependent trading blocs; I’m unaware of any as diverse as the
eu choosing such a level of integration except historically by military
conquest.
I’ve lived and worked in mainland Europe and elsewhere
abroad..
I’ve made my own mind up.
It’s about belief, not protest.

Engineer May 4, 2013 at 14:11

What he said.

It’s not about disliking Europe. Europe is a fine place with a long,
diverse and honourable cultural, economic and intellectual history, and has
made an enormous positive contribution to the wider world.

It’s about disliking the EU. Dictatorial, unelected and failing to make
Europe a better place. Let the various peoples of Europe decide their own
cultures, economic practices and destinies. Including the people of the
UK.

binao May 5, 2013 at 09:00

Again, no affiliations.
A remarkable vote share achieved by UKIP
here in true blue W Sussex without any obvious campaigning.
The R4
commentators, especially party reps, seem convinced UKIP support is driven
by job insecurity and austerity, which means either they haven’t a clue,
or are in denial.
My guess is that knowing that the whole apparatus of
govt, is on side will be a massive comfort blanket for the parties, and
they’ll simply carry on as before; regardless of professing change, but be
more subtle in their attacks.
A bit like spitting at sharks from the
security of the Titanic.

charlotte May 3, 2013 at 20:44

I’d feel happier if the UK left the European Economic Community. From the
day we decimalised our currency to the day Angela Merkel started pulling the
strings in the UK we’ve been worse off. No one bothered about the question of
Sovereignty back in the early 70′s when we entered the Common Market, the Tory
cabinet just thought it would solve its self in the years to come, even though
Enoch Powel warned about it.
I can’t worry about people in other nations as
much as I should like to because I’m too busy taking responsibility for my
self and using any spare time to help those who live within the UK through my
charitable events. Keeping body and soul together in the UK these days is a
job in its self. The German Nation seem to have overcome their problems of
global recession without much care for other members of the EEC.
The points
you make Anna, for a better world are wonderful but only on paper. The
idealism of a global Shangri-La will never happen in any nation and anyway
yesterday’s election was all about politics at a local level, where local
people take responsibility for them selves. Now I shall calm down with a cup
of peppermint tea.

carol42 May 3, 2013 at 18:27

I would vote for anyone who would just leave me alone! I don’t want to be
told what to eat or drink, I want to enjoy a cigarette in peace without being
treated like a child or a criminal, to be forced to pay high utility bills for
‘green’ energy that doesn’t work. After 40 years I have no debts, no mortgage
and have generally done the right thing and what do I get? hardly any interest
on my savings. The hard earned State pension is all I get although I saved and
have a reasonable private pension. A lifelong political junkie since
university days I now no longer even care, I am utterly disillusioned with
them all.

alan scott
May 3, 2013 at 18:47

Well put, Carol! After a lifetime serving my country overseas (Colonial,
not pampered Diplomatic, Service), I came “home” to a country I hardly
recognise, to a series of Governments which confounds one’s belief in
democracy, to a bureaucracy which as you point out does little but mess us
(stronger word deserved there) about. I wasn’t ever a political junkie, but
I followed the ghastly scene from abroad, with growing disbelief and
horror.
I can only hope that my children, grandchildren and
greatgrandchildren will be able to turn the ship around. But I fear for
their hopes and the possibilities of same.

Jonathan Mason
May 3, 2013 at 20:38

“I want to enjoy a cigarette in peace without being treated like a child
or a criminal…”

I have no objection to that as long as it is not within 30 feet of me,
indoors or outdoors, because the smell of cigarette smoke, or the smell of
someone who has been smoking recently in the same room immediately gives me
sinus inflammation and a lot of mucus, which is unpleasant.

Unfortunately the vast majority of people who smoke are quite
inconsiderate of others. For example, in the hospital I worked at in the US
smoking was forbidden on grounds, and yet some staff would go off grounds on
their coffee or lunch break and smoke in their cars, and come back reeking
of smoke, which was very unpleasant for the patients they were working with,
not to mention other staff who had to be in the same space or office.

Hence, although there are no doubt some clean smokers who bathe and
change their clothing before going into public places, most don’t and so we
end up with laws that may seem unnecessarily stringent. Having said that I
personally IMMEDIATELY notice the difference in air quality between
deplaning in a Florida airport where smoking is forbidden and landing at
Atlanta airport which reeks of smoke which hits you as soon as you take your
first breath. I make a point of avoiding connections there.

Where I live in the Dominican Republic smoking is forbidden in airports
and enclosed indoor restaurants, but allowed in restaurants which are “open
air” which actually covers nearly all the restaurants and can make for
unpleasant dining. What I have found works best is to check if there is
anyone smoking there before sitting down, or if there is see if there is a
table available upwind. If that fails, it is best to go elsewhere or else
get a takeaway.

I don’t know what the best solution is as it is almost impossible to
allow people to “enjoy a cigarette in peace” in a public place without
annoying someone else. Of course people should be allowed to light up in
their own homes if there are no children present, and presumably in open
spaces, because if there is no one else sharing the same air, then there
will be no one to complain. Conscientious smokers will, off course, take
their butts home with them along with the cigarette packets, cellophane,
silver paper, used matches, etc. and dispose of them in airtight containers
for the convenience of garbage collection employees. I see no need to have a
requirement to collect the ash from an open place such as a field or a
beach.

Barman May 4,
2013 at 17:06

I love the idea of getting off a plane and the first thing you notice
is not the stench of aviation fuel from hundreds of flights incoming and
outgoing, nor the BO of people stuck on a plane for a day, nor the fumes
from all the taxis at the rank or any of the other thousands of vehicles
moving around the airport…. but the smell of a little leaf being burnt….

Jonathan Mason I salute you and your hyper-sensitive nose!

Hahahahahaha! What a mong!

Ho Hum May 4, 2013 at 22:47

You’re never alone with this Strand of rant

Kalimar May 4, 2013 at 12:55

Yes, very well put Carol. Ignore Jonathan, his self-centred view of
society is the problem.

carol42 May 4, 2013 at 22:35

Thanks Kalimar, I was going to respond but really you just can’t get
through to such intolernt people so a waste of time. Whatever happened to
live and let live? that’s what I grew up with.

Jonathan
Mason May 5, 2013 at 01:27

But I am all in favour of live and let live and I completely defend
your right to smoke as long as I don’t have to be exposed to it in a
public place, because it makes me sick. I absolutely defend your right
to smoke in your own car or home.

Ho Hum
May 5, 2013 at 01:39

So will you keep your children, cat, dog, mobile phone, laptop,
iPod, newspaper, sandwiches, coffee and above all those dreadful
shorts, indoors too please? I have absolutely no objection to any of
those staying there…

carol42
May 5, 2013 at 22:06

Thanks a lot! so smokers are to be confined to their home or car?
hardly fair is it? I have no objection to theatres, cinema’s etc.
being smoke free , I remember the days where you could hardly see the
screen though I would never have survived a terrible labour without a
cigarette, they were even allowed in hospitals then. However there was
no need for the ban to be so drastic, indeed it was not the initial
proposal. I very much object to Government interference in private
businesses although of course they can decide what they like in their
own premises. I see no reason why we could not have smoking and non
smoking pubs, clubs and restuarants, by licence if necessary, leaving
it to the owner to decide and clearly stating whether smoking is
allowed or not. Everybody would be happy then, still it has saved me a
fortune, I get all my cigarettes abroad, quite legally, only ever go
to pubs and restuarants with a garden in the summer, don’t hang about
town for a coffee unless it is outside so never in winter, don’t need
to but as many clothes as I don’t go out nearly as much. The ban has
isolated a lot of older people as pubs, working men’s clubs and bingo
halls have closed and I wonder what the cost to the economy really is.
Clearly you detest smoke, though not I hope smokers, but with a little
common sense we need never have crossed paths. Incidentally, I have
noticed that nearly all the people I see smoking in town are young so
it doesn’t seem to be working very well. There are ways to live and
let live but I suppose common sense is too much to ask for. What
puzzles me at the moment, especially in America, is the rush to
legalise one natural leaf that is smoked, cannabis, while doing their
level best to almost criminalise another leaf, tobacco, guess we will
have to disguise our cigarettes as joints! The pharmaceutical
companies put a lot of money behind tobacco control to sell their
pretty useless and, in the case of Champix, dangerous for some,
‘cessation products’. but you don’t hear much about ‘big pharma’ some
of thair products have likely injured or killed more than smoking in
my opinion.

Jonathan
Mason May 6, 2013 at 01:13

Ho Hum and Carol42.

As I said above, being exposed to cigarette smoke or the smell of
it makes me sick (ill, in UK terminology). iPods, sandwiches, coffee
and the other things mentioned have no affect on my health at all as
far as I know, which is probably why they are not banned in public
places.

I gave up going to pubs in the UK around 1975 as they all smelled
of beer, urine, vomit, mixed with tobacco. I gather that is no longer
the case, but I haven’t visited the UK for 12 years.

I don’t mind having smoking and nonsmoking restaurants and pubs,
but I imagine it would be bad for business, like having whites only
restaurants and hotels, and so restaurants might lose 50% of their
clientele to the restaurant next door. For 50% of my life I had to
live with smoking restaurants, pubs, airports, etc. and for the second
half of my life, it looks like I won’t, so that seems like a good
example of give and take to me!

However even “separate but equal” does not seem to work very well.
Last week I spent a couple of nights in Florida in a motel room. In
one I asked for a non-smoking room and got one that had a non smoking
sign on the door, however the carpets in the room clearly smelled of
smoke, albeit somewhat masked by air freshener. I did not seek a
change of room as it was already well after midnight and I was very
tired. However, when I woke up the next day I had a lot of nasal
congestion, which persisted the rest of the day. I did mention this at
the check out and of course they said that they did their best, but
sometimes people do smoke in non smoking rooms (which I already
knew).

This is the problem–that smokers often commit acts of aggression
which have a detrimental effect on non smokers, such as smoking in a
non smoking hotel room, whereas the health of a smoker will not suffer
if the previous occupant of their smoking hotel room is a non smoker.
(Of course one solution would be for the hotels to place very
sensitive smoke alarms in non smoking rooms and charge double if the
alarm is triggered by tobacco smoke in the room.)

Even if cannabis is legalized in some way in the US, I think the
right to consume will be limited and I can’t see it being allowed in
public places,especially indoors.

“The Florida Clean Indoor Air Act (FCIAA) was enacted in 1985 by
the Florida Legislature. The purpose of this part is to protect people
from the health hazards of secondhand smoke and to implement the
Florida health initiative in s.20, Art. X of the state constitution.
In November 2002, seventy-one percent of Florida’s citizens voted for
a constitutional amendment to prohibit smoking in all enclosed indoor
workplaces. The smoke free law became effective July 1, 2003.”

carol42
May 6, 2013 at 02:12

If a restuarant or pub loses 50% to the place next door isn’t
that business and freedom of choice? I have never been in a pub here
that smelt of urine or vomit so don’t know what pubs you frequented.
Do you go to BBQ’s, sit in traffic? far more fumes and smoke than
from a cigarette. Amazing how we are the longest lived generation
ever and all grew up surrounded by smoke, steel works and other
factories, and smokers everywhere, shouldn’t we all be dead?
Personally I do not smoke where it is not allowed, the e cig does
for these places, I simply fail to understand your analogy with the
separate but equal argument, smoking or non smoking places are a
choice, aparthied was not.

Jonathan
Mason May 6, 2013 at 20:52

Pubs in Liverpool and Leeds in the 70′s. Not Chef and Brewer
pubs in Kent.

The problem with having both smoking and non smoking
restaurants is that it is perfectly possible for smokers to go to
nonsmoking restaurants as long as they don’t smoke during the hour
or so that they have a meal. (Although when Princess Margaret
visited Bermuda she disgusted many locals by smoking in between
courses at a dinner party at Government House.). It is not
possible for nonsmokers to go to a smoking restaurant and not be
exposed to smoke.

The fumes from traffic are certainly subject to regulation. Do
you not remember the introduction of lead free petrol. Yes we grew
up in a lot of smoke, but have you not noticed that many buildings
in Yorkshire that were completely black in the days of coal fires
are now beige coloured due to controls on pollution and years of
cleaning up?

See photos:

http://leeds.diarystar.co.uk/images/leeds-town-hall1.jpg

http://www.coolplaces.co.uk/system/images/4430/Leeds%20Town%20Hall%202-large.jpg

Kevin B May 3, 2013 at 17:57

So, these global problems. Who are these wise Solons we need to elect in
order to solve them? Which of our demonstrably suberb bureaucrats whose
obvious brilliance has led us to the wonderful position we are in today should
our global politicians select to man person the vast global ministries we will
need to solve these global problems?

Or, and here’s a revolutionary thought, can we let ordinary people, people
like us, get on with solving their own personal problems and let thes vast
global problems take care of themselves? You know like local farmers noticing
that the weather has changed and they could plant different crops in different
places? Or local builders noticing that tides are a bit higher these days and
maybe they should build a bit back from the coastline?

Or are we all so dumb that we have to wait for our elite uncorruptable
global politicians and their elite uncorruptable global bureaucrats and elite
uncorruptable global technocrats to decide for us when we change a light bulb
and what type of lightbulb we use to replace it? Especially in light of the
wonderful job they’ve done to date.

Anna, the global problems are an invention. They are insoluble precisely
because any agency set up to attempt to solve them will be a self-perpetuating
tyranical oligarchy which will rule over us forever.

Anna
Raccoon May 3, 2013 at 18:03

can we let ordinary people, people like us, get on with solving their
own personal problems and let these vast global problems take care of
themselves? You know like local farmers noticing that the weather has
changed and they could plant different crops in different places? Or local
builders noticing that tides are a bit higher these days and maybe they
should build a bit back from the coastline?

That would be my solution – but we are so conditioned to believe that we
need rulers, and specifically rulers to protect us from ‘outsiders’……

John
Galt May 3, 2013 at 19:27

You’ll forgive me for being brusque, but the options on offer seem to
be local, national or global tyranny.

What I want is the “no tyranny” option, but that doesn’t seem to be on
offer, even from UKIP.

Dioclese May 3,
2013 at 17:51

There are many people over here – myself included – who want what the
traitor Edward Heath promised us and which is often referred to as the ‘Norway
solution’. We are happy to have close free trading links with the EU but we
don’t want to be ruled from Europe as part of a political alliance or
federation.

We want what we voted for – a common market. Not a shiny new European
superstate. We’re an independent island race and proud of it.

Brentfordian
May 3, 2013 at 17:29

We’re in a European political union. No one asked us if we wanted to be.
Tammany Hall deals in smoke-filled rooms put us, and have kept us there – OK,
smoke-free rooms these days. We were asked if we wanted to join a Common
Market, not whether our sovereignty should be transferred.

Bit like joining the Scouts and returning from holiday to find they’d
transmogrified into the Hitler Youth, and hell, who are we to complain as the
uniforms are the same, aren’t they?

Democracy requires that we vote on it, and democracy is worth fighting (and
voting Ukip) for.

John
Galt May 3, 2013 at 18:59

“We were asked if we wanted to join a Common Market, not whether
our sovereignty should be transferred.”

But we weren’t. We were taken into the Common Market by the well meaning
but vain Edward Heath on 1st January 1973. There was no substantive
consultation or referendum, it was simply a policy decision of the UK
governments of both Labour and Tories since the late 1950′s.

Labour leader Harold Wilson promised a nationwide referendum on whether
or not to stay in the EEC provided that he was able to renegotiate more
favourable terms. After Wilson won both 1974 general elections, he had
achieved the renegotiation he wanted in early 1975 and called the promised
referendum.

So those under 58 have never had a specific say in whether or not they
wished the UK to be part of the EEC, EU or a federal Europe. It would appear
that using UKIP as a proxy in the absence of being given a direct In/Out
vote is the only choice available – and a poor choice at that.

How do you protest when the mainstream parties all share essentially
small variations on a pro-EU theme.

Mudplugger
May 3, 2013 at 20:18

To those descriptions “well meaning” and “vain” applied to Edward
Heath, one could also add “blackmailed”, for reasons which should be
becoming clear.
With Harold Wilson’s 1975 ‘Stay In’ referendum, one may
also apply the term “CIA sponsored’.

Doesn’t seem quite so attractive, or voter-determined, now, does it
?

Backwoodsman
May 3, 2013 at 17:20

Hello, former Tory foot soldier here – walked many a weary mile knocking on
doors and politely soliciting votes from the punters. I’m now in blissful
exile in sunny Bulgaria and the majority of my former canvassing partners are
now firmly ensconsed in Nige’s tent ! Uniquely, Cameron seems to have
alienated pretty much the entire voluntary working cadre of the Tory party
!
How will it all end ? In an ideal world, we would get back to the
original concept of the Common Market as a free trade area, without the power
crazed unelected EU bureucrats and their relentless push for an EU super
state. Then we can stick Abu quatada on a plane if we decide that wanting to
blow us up is grounds to do so. However , events like Portugal going tits up
are just as likely to influence that, as UKIP in the UK !
Stand by for some
serious re-arranging of deck chairs on the respective Tory Titanic and Labour
Titanic decks. Its going to rapidly sink in that the great unwashed, really,
really don’t like them and their cozy little Westminster bubble.
And the
best bit of it all ? Those ghastly, oportunistic little shits in the limp dims
are toast !

Bill
Sticker May 3, 2013 at 16:38

Anna, I think if asked, you would find that most people are pro Europe, pro
global economy, but would like less of the intrusive bureaucracy that a clique
of busybodies think must be in place to ensure our brave new world. There is
the source of the UKIP vote. This whole ‘little Englander’ thing is a
phantasm, a cheap political label which won’t stick.

Well that’s just this dullards opinion from the far Western end of the bar,
watching the sunshine and the local Hummingbirds squabbling over the feeder.
Imbibing a very pleasant local Viognier. Friends are expected later for a
light hearted evening of ‘curry and sedition’.

Hope I haven’t bored anyone. TTFN

Dick
Puddlecote May 4, 2013 at 12:50

Spot on, Bill. Life is becoming incredibly difficult simply because
government won’t leave us alone for five minutes. Everything we do is
scrutinised and micro-managed by big state and unelected bodies like the EU.
All businesses in Europe are creaking under the weight of a vast bureaucracy
of red tape and unnecessary regulation. Then, when we’re out of the rat
race, government increasingly steps in to dictate to us what we do in our
private lives.

As Anna stated, they call it ‘re-educating the public’. That aspect has
barely begun, by the way, get a load of how the state now views us in this document. We’re not individuals with a huge array of
differing habits, wishes and characteristiucs, we are now a homogenous
throng which big state has decided should be moulded into how the political
elite want us to be. UKIP have some policies which reject that, so I was
glad to see them put a few noses out of joint yesterday.

And it’s true that it’s a global thing, but Italy have seen a similar
shift in electoral terms, so who’s to say the rejection of the current way
of doing things might, itself, become a global phenomenon?

Bill
Sticker May 4, 2013 at 16:22

Dick, I blame it on a glitch in the thought process. This tendency to
assume “We’re all the same” and try to force a hypothetical pig into
metaphorical pyjamas. Even the dullest student of psychology knows that
all people are not the same. Our environments condition us differently
from the day we are born to the day we keel over. We are born with
differing genetic predispositions. Our would be ‘re-educators’ don’t seem
to be bright enough to see this simple reality. That or they lack
tolerance.

No doubt these hyper intelligent beings wander round slapping their
heads in amazement when people reject their machine age one-size-fits-all
philosophy, then completely ignore the evidence and start to consider the
various, and even more unpleasant means of ‘re-education’. Hopefully UKIP,
and its counterparts in other nations are a step away from this path.

GildasTheMonk
May 3, 2013 at 15:34

So good too have you back

GildasTheMonk
May 3, 2013 at 15:48

And my typos are back too!

me May 3, 2013 at 15:33

It doesn’t really matter whether UKIP have the answer to our problems.

It doesn’t really matter if anyone has the answer to our problems…

because at the moment we’re not a self-governing sovereign nation so we
can’t put any solutions in place even if we knew them.

Therefore supporting UKIP is necessary, even if it’s only until we are
independent again, then feel free to kick them out if you like for someone you
think does have all the answers.

Mudplugger
May 3, 2013 at 20:10

Although UKIP may indeed not have the answers, at least they understand
some of the questions.

Duncan Disorderly
May 3, 2013 at 14:31

‘UKIP has acted as the Provisional Wing of the Pub Bore Society for some
years.’ Correct.

UKIP are a protest vote. Their policies are incoherent.

Absolutely
Passionate May 3, 2013 at 14:50

“UKIP are a protest vote” – What are they protesting against?
“Their
policies are incoherent” – Why?

Joe Public
May 3, 2013 at 15:11

Let’s face it, in a National Election, 90% of votes cast are for the
‘negative’ reason of not wanting ‘the other mob’ in.

Moor Larkin May 3, 2013 at 15:21

The 2001 Turnout nadir suggests people vote less when they perceive no
chance of any change…… I was one of them…..

2010 65.1
2005 61.4
2001 59.4
1997 71.4
http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm

PERMEX May 3, 2013 at 13:55

“Global problems need global solutions.”
Indeed they do, just as
national problems etc.
One cannot do global if one is incapable of doing
national..
We have no sense of priorities. Foreign aid at the expense of
domestic.
We need to get our national house in order, from bottom up &
top down.
Will it ever happen?
What do you think?

Anna
Raccoon May 3, 2013 at 14:02

Greetings Permanent Ex-pat, I was getting worried about you, hadn’t seen
you for a while.

Moor
Larkin May 3, 2013 at 14:05

@permex

A quick internet browse seems to suggest turnout has been around 30%,
which suggests the 70% overwhelming answer to your question is:
“Who
gives a shit?”

Mudplugger
May 3, 2013 at 20:08

Remember the old corporate slogan “Think Global, Act Local” – as Mr Punch
would say, that’s the way to do it.

Joe Public May 3, 2013 at 13:44

“The big three parties …….”

In our area with 3 x Divisions, there are more ‘Clowns’ than Conservatives;
and very nearly 8 x more ‘Clowns’ than Lib/Dumps.

Joe Public
May 3, 2013 at 15:37

Should have stated:-

More people voted for ‘Clowns’ than Conservatives; and, very nearly 8 x
more people voted for ‘Clowns’ than Lib/Dumps.

Moor
Larkin May 3, 2013 at 13:32

I well remember a Euro-election in the 80′s when the Greens did so
exceptionally well that Maggie’s government became “greener” almost overnight.
She’s not remembered much for her Environmentalism nowadays however.

I should declare an interest in that my X was green that election….

Anna
Raccoon May 3, 2013 at 13:39

Ah the Green party, remember their spokesman well, David somebody, used
to do sports programmes on Tv…..

Moor Larkin May 3, 2013 at 13:45

John Ward May 4, 2013 at 11:39

Could’ve been worse…could’ve been Stuart…

JuliaM May 3, 2013
at 13:29

“If we all took responsibility for ourselves …”

For the last 30 years (maybe more), the urge and inclination to do so has
been bred out and discouraged by every State organ.

JuliaM May 3, 2013
at 13:27

“When did the last politician even pay lip service to ‘addressing the
concerns of the public’?”

The last time they were trounced in the polls?