Oh! The Inhumanity in Bolton!

With apologies, I'm a week or so late on covering this -- I am still playing catch-up with all that's happened since I went on holiday.

About a month and some change ago, the Royal Bolton Hospital (Bolton NHS Foundation Trust) asked the Bolton News to run a poll on its website asking whether smoking shelters should be rebuilt on site at the hospital. I wrote about that here.  The Bolton News unequivocally stated that "Trust bosses have promised they will abide by the result of the vote."

When the on-line poll was over, a small majority of 53% wanted the smoking shelters to rebuilt -- 1,522 people for and 1,327 against -- this doesn't include the postal ballots received. The total tally was 1,629 for rebuilding the shelters, and 1,580 truly hateful people against building them. It was a close vote, certainly. But a promise is a promise. Right?

So what are NHS Trust promises worth?  Absolutely nothing, the Bolton News reports:

HOSPITAL bosses have made a dramatic U-turn — and will NOT build smoking shelters at the Royal Bolton.

And why has the Bolton NHS Foundation Trust broken its promise to the good people of Bolton?  Because they hate you, smokers. They despise you. Oh, they'll never say that much, none of them will ever admit how much they despise you, so instead they'll say something about being obligated to protect you from yourselves. But really, for the Trust, it's all about standing "shoulder to shoulder" with evil. For instance, the article in the Bolton News said this:

It comes following weeks of pressure from council chiefs and outraged people over the hospital’s decision to reinstate the shelters following a public vote.

Dr Bene said the reverse decision was made in order for the trust to “stand shoulder to shoulder” with public health — despite 1,629 people voting in favour of the shelters in a poll held last month.

[...]

“We have just undertaken the exercise but having reflected on that and heard a lot of views, we feel perhaps we need to look at this in a different way and stand shoulder to shoulder with our public health colleagues.”

In other words, the Public Health crusaders demanded (perhaps even threatened, although there is no evidence of that) that the Trust break its promise to the fine, upstanding citizens of Bolton. And the Bolton NHS Foundation Trust capitulated to the demands of Public Health. Because in Bolton, it is plainly evident that smokers don't deserve to be treated like human beings, and that if you make a promise to smokers, you don't have to keep that promise, because smokers aren't worth your time or attention.  In Bolton, smokers do not matter, all thanks to the Bolton NHS Foundation Trust's comrades in Public Health. Welcome, Bolton, to the New Inquisition.

If you live in Bolton, you might be tempted to contact your councillors. This would be an error, because your councillors hate you, too, smokers.  The Bolton News article said (emphases added):

The decision [to not build the shelters] has been welcomed by Town Hall bosses.

Cllr Sufrana Bashir-Ismail, cabinet member for public health said: “We are grateful they have listened to concerns raised.

“As a council with responsibilities for promoting healthier lifestyles we were concerned the decision would send out the wrong message and felt the hospital could instead offer advice and support on stopping smoking."

Sufrana Bashir-Ismail (centre)
Source: Bolton News
She's not going to listen to you, smokers.

Well, councillor Sufrana Bashir-Ismail supports Public Health. She is no friend of any smoker in Bolton, that's for certain, and she cannot be trusted to support the will of the public, evidently.

Another Bolton councillor regrets that we live in a representative democracy, possibly. Meet "Conservative" Cllr Andy Morgan, who is disappointed that the public was asked to vote on the smoking shelters (emphases added):

Cllr Andy Morgan, who sits on Bolton Council's health scrutiny, said the shelters should never have gone to a public vote.

[...]

“We have all got a part to play in public health and the hospital is no different. This has been a complete and utter waste of every body’s time and resources."

Bolton Councillor Andy Morgan
Source: Twitter 
"We have all got a part to play in public health..." Andy says.
Jay says, Well, don't let 'em see that beer, Andy. I'm confident that's over the Public Health nutters' recommended daily limit.

Thanks, Andy, for looking out for Bolton's citizens. They're all so very lucky to have you. Your Italian holiday pics look fab, by the way.

Clearly, in Bolton, your councillors do not work for you, instead they choose to work for Public Health or perhaps for their own personal gain -- some, like Andy Morgan, don't even want to let you vote on issues that matter to you, or maybe that's just the issues that matters to smokers. Is there any real difference? I suppose public opinion is irrelevant in Bolton, thanks to the insidious nature of Public Health's denormalisation programme against smokers, and thanks to town hall bosses who support anti-smokers.

Well, I feel bad for Bolton's smokers, who don't deserve compassion, who don't deserve to be treated like human beings by those you voted for, or by those who are supposed to treat you when you are ill.  You cannot trust your doctors, and you cannot trust your councillors, and you must never trust anybody who works for or supports Public Health. They all despise you and want you to shiver in the cold, wet weather, unsheltered from the elements.

There is no humanity left in Bolton. Evidently.

Vote for Ray Hall

My previous post about the Beer, Baccy and Crumpet party rocketed into second place of all time popular posts on this blog, with most of that traffic being referred from Google searches on the party name. When I hastily wrote the post, I had no idea who Ray Hall was or why he was running. I certainly did not expect the post to receive much attention. I was wrong, though. I am also pleased to report that my tongue-in-cheek assumption that "Crumpet" could refer to the slang usage for woman was indeed incorrect.

According to this article in the Eastleigh News, "Crumpet" is an acronym, although I'm unsure what that acronym actually is -- the article doesn't say and only mentions the letter T (for taxes).  If anybody knows the full meaning of the acronym, drop me a line in the comments and I'll update accordingly.


One thing I am very sure about is that if I lived in Eastleigh, I would definitely vote for Ray Hall. If any candidate understands the general public, the common folk as it were, then it's Ray Hall. He is not a career politician, and that fact alone endears me to him. More important, he understands that the pub trade in Britain has been decimated and wants to change that. He believes that smokers, who pay an enormous amount of tax, should be treated with respect, and he would like to see ventilated smoking rooms in pubs where it is practical to do so. A very reasonable compromise. Mr Hall, who is 73-years-old, also hopes to see the BB&C party go national for the 2015 general elections, and based on his common sense views, I would certainly like to see that happen, so if you need any help now or in the future, Ray, I'm sure we can find plenty of like-minded volunteers.

Anyway, do read the whole article linked above and be delighted.

If you live in Eastleigh, you might consider giving your vote to Ray Hall. Reportedly, the odds of him winning are 1000 to 1 (Hall has bet a fiver on himself to win and I say good luck, sir!). But really, who doesn't love an underdog?  There is no such thing as a wasted vote.

Thanks to Virginia, a stalwart defender of common sense and liberty on social media and author of the Hell Nanny blog, for posting the link to this article on Facebook and Twitter.

Beer, Baccy and Crumpets

In case you hadn't noticed, there is a candidate in the Eastleigh by-election named Ray Hall, who is running for the Beer, Baccy and Crumpet party. I don't know anything about Mr Hall, but I love the party name. One assumes, perhaps incorrectly, that "crumpet" refers not to the actual foodstuff but rather the older slang usage -- woman. £500 well spent, if you ask me. 

In honour of beer, baccy and women then, I give you this delightful photo album comprised of 21 glorious images, all of which are certain to enrage the nannies.  If you have a favourite, let me know in the comments.




Several images were stolen (with thanks!) from the Women Drinking Beer blog on Tumblr.  Enjoy.

The Game

Dick Puddlecote's recent blog post, titled "Democracy Does Not Equal Freedom," has led to me thinking about the world we live in.  Just a little bit.  If I thought too much about it, I might actually be spurred in to action. And wouldn't that be something?  Anyway, I figure if you come to my blog, there's a 99% chance you've already read DP's post, but if you haven't, it's well worth your time. 

One line DP wrote particularly stands out for me:

"Democracy destroys altruism in governance and replaces it with naked self-interest backed up by a tyranny of the majority."

It's a great line. I agree with it in principle, but with sincere apologies to DP, I would gently and slightly modify it to:

"Democracy destroys the remote possibility of altruism in governance and replaces it with naked self-interest backed up by a tyranny of majority."

When altruism does reluctantly rear its head, it's nearly always to protect the survival of one or many whilst sacrificing your own chances of survival. In other words, you need to unselfishly risk your life or well-being to ensure that others will survive. Altruism is most often an instinctual reaction requiring little or no conscious thought or decision making.  And this, in my view, describes no politician that I know of. This does not mean that politicians are inherently duplicitous or even bad people. They are simply self-serving, like most of us are.

Any person who willingly enters the political arena initially out of genuine concern for others will be corrupted by the system as a matter of course.  Once the game begins in earnest, politicians fight for their own survival in the arena, and we citizens become their pawns -- sacrificial gambits on a geographical chessboard to further the politician's career.

When a politician utters "we must protect people from" whatever genuine or imaginary harm, what he or she is saying is: "I seek to convince you that I am genuinely interested in your well being, so long as this action does not hurt my political career."  They may indeed have genuine concern for some harmed group; there may even be sympathy. But this is not altruism.

Altruism cannot exist in any system of governance. Politics does not reward altruistic game players.  These concepts are incompatible.

Politics is a game of a million compromises and trade-offs. For the politician to win a victory for one battle often requires a sacrifice in a different battle. This is not altruism. It is advantage and leverage via the mechanism of compromise. Ideals must be abandoned, perhaps temporarily, and promises too often are broken.  Few politicians will survive in the arena with their integrity intact or unscathed.

There are far too many players in the political game; there are hundreds of thousands more standing on the sidelines awaiting their turn, with a near limitless amount of moves that can be played to effect control.  Ultimately, it is a game that can neither be won nor lost. It is a game of ego and power, of foolish bravado and insincere gestures. It is entirely a human construct and it is our greatest folly.

Yet with all the attention the political game receives, for all its players and its scandal-hungry spectators, it pales in comparison to the greatest game of all:  The game of life.  It has only one rule, and that rule is to survive.

Eventually, we are all sacrificed in the game of life, irrespective of how we played it.

So What Should Tobacco Companies Do?

There's quite a bit of chatter about what tobacco companies should do in Australia in the wake of the plain packs ruling.  While the sentiment of completely withdrawing from the Australian market is interesting in the "give-them-all-two-fingers" sense, it's really not a good idea for many reasons.

First, it's no way to run a business.  Every business makes money by selling it products at a profit. If you do not sell your products, you go out of business.

Second, companies have legal obligations to their shareholders and stakeholders.  If a company spitefully withdraws from a market where it can still legally sell its products, it will be sued by its own shareholders.

Third, withdrawing from the market is exactly what the tobacco control industry wants to happen. Remember, this is their plan -- it has been their plan since the 19th century, perhaps earlier. The complete abolition and prohibition of tobacco is what they want. Why the hell would anyone ever give them the satisfaction of that happening?

While I understand and can sympathise with how some of you feel, tobacco companies are not going to voluntarily withdraw from a market. Ever. Best to push it out of your mind...

So what should tobacco companies do?  Lawsuits. Hundreds of them, perhaps thousands. So many different lawsuits that the costs to the government are enormous.  Will tobacco companies actually do it, though? Well, they will need to part with a good portion of their profits in the short term.

The first and obvious thing to do is to sue the Australian government for the costs of all their intellectual property or trade marks in class 34 (this is the tobacco goods class) that incorporates some kind of design or stylised element. Word marks must be excluded, since you can still use a word trade mark on the pack.  But the other trade marks that tobacco companies registered with the Australian IP office that tobacco companies can no longer use, these are the ones they should sue for costs.  For instance, costs should be recouped for:

• Legal fees during the pre-registration phase (application examination, i.e. prosecution costs)
• Registration fees
• Renewal fees

A quick check of the Australian IPO indicates there are well over 3000 registered and pending trade marks in class 34.  Many of these are word marks, but many are also stylised designs of an entire pack. That's a lot of money we're talking about. And that's only the class 34 stuff. Other marks are also registered in other classes, like 16 (packaging) or various technology classes. Big money.  If the government first grants you a right to use a trade mark on particular goods, and you jump through all of the hoops to do that,  and then the gov't takes that right away, the government must compensate you. And it should be noted that companies all over the world register their marks with the Australian IPO.  At a stroke, the Australian government has appropriated the private property of companies worldwide and has essentially negated all international trade laws with those companies in other countries. Not suing the government would be foolish.

Coinciding with trade marks, costs should also be recouped for any patents and designs registered with the Australian IPO that can no longer be used.  Tobacco companies hold a variety of patents and designs, say for a particular packaging layout.  Patent prosecutions are incredibly expensive, and the annual renewal fees for granted patents are also expensive.  Attempts at getting all of these costs recouped are paramount.

Next, tobacco companies need to go on the attack, and for once they need to begin to work together rather than fighting each other all the time. (Yes, you're competitors trying to sell more than the others, but for now you need to set that aside and work towards the long term goals. If you win, then you can go back to being nasty to each other.)

The last three decades have seen big tobacco companies accept pretty much all negative legislation against tobacco products because they decided that in the end it would not hurt their profits.  The big companies realised that excessive legislation as well as excessive taxes would help them trounce the smaller companies and put the little guys out of business. If it doesn't hurt your market share, why fight it?  For instance, display bans benefit the big companies with established, popular brands. People are still going to buy the brands they already use. They will be less likely to try other brands.  But this attitude needs to change right now if the big tobacco companies want to survive the onslaught against their brands.

So, how to attack? What are the fronts?

The first front is taxes.  Tobacco companies must aggressively sue to reduce the taxation or duty imposed on tobacco products. Plain packs + high taxes will increase the counterfeit and illicit markets substantially. Therefore, a marked reduction of the duty on tobacco will help to reduce the incentives for counterfeiters and help to protect your market share from criminals (and protect consumers, by the way).

The second front is the right to fair representation in governments. The FCTC aims to exclude tobacco companies from any meaningful dialogue with government.  I would go as far as saying that not only is this clause of the FCTC illegal, but it violates the principles of a representative democracy, fairness and the right to representation.  Every person, indeed every organisation who pays taxes has a right to be heard.  So, tobacco companies must sue to re-establish their rights to be represented in government. They must attempt to abolish the FCTC (which is not legally binding anyway, but that's another matter for a later time) or convince governments to abandon it.

The third front is trade sanctions against Australia.  Concerted efforts must be made to convince governments (or politicians) around the world to enact legislation to increase the duties on all Australian exports to make Australia less competitive, to really hurt them fiscally. In effect, we should treat Australia as a communist regime, as we do with North Korea. We should not even trade with Australia. That won't happen, but we can try to make every Australian exporter suffer by increasing their costs because of the actions of their government. If the exporters suffer, they themselves will take action against their government. 

Organising grass-roots boycotts of all Australian goods, or as a suitable holiday destination, is another tactic that should be employed. Basically, make Australia a pariah country.  If that can happen, then other countries will be unlikely to follow with plain packaging laws.  It won't be nice, it won't be pretty, but it needs to happen.

The fourth front is the media.  The mainstream media, in my opinion, is the greatest enemy of all. If it weren't for media collaboration, the tobacco control industry would be nowhere.  The tobacco control industry has used the media to great effect to perpetuate untruths and lies, to stigmatise consumers, and it has far too much influence over editorial decisions.  There are a number of reasons why this is so, but this needs to change. Tobacco companies need to work a lot harder than they have been in getting the media to at least present a fair viewpoint that isn't dominated by tobacco control.  Tobacco companies should have their fair say. Buy editorial space if you have to.  If the media refuse to work with you, find a novel point of law and sue their asses. Likewise, if a health columnist knowingly cites dodgy stats, demand a retraction, or sue both the paper and the reporter.  Will you win all the time? No. But you can make life very difficult for them if you're willing to go the extra mile here.

The fifth front is the retailers. Tobacco companies must now, more than ever, give greater incentives to retailers who sell tobacco products. Not just in Australia, but everywhere. The absolute bare minimum margin for a tobacco retailer must be 10%.

The sixth front is lawsuits against the so-called charities and anti-smoking organisations, and dickheads like Chapman and Glantz. For years these charities and their figureheads have got away with saying anything they like without repercussions.  That has to change.  Now I'm mindful that some companies may not want to deal with the discovery process because they've been burned by it in the past.  But if that's case, then get your house in order first. Many of their websites often infringe on your intellectual property and unfairly use your brands. Do something about it. Make their lives very difficult.

The seventh front is better dialogue with the consumers who actually buy tobacco products.  Prohibitive legislation aside, tobacco companies are doing a terrible job at communicating with those who legally buy tobacco products. Find a way to engage with us, and we'll continue to buy your goods. In other words,we are sick and tired of being marginalised in the debate. We are weary of being denormalised and treated as a sub-human species by the tobacco control industry and its stooges in the media. This must change, and it has to change right now.

One final front is to be more proactive in other countries that are likely to consider plain packaging laws. Tobacco companies need to work very hard right now with alcohol, fast food, and soft-drink companies to ensure laws are passed to prevent the appropriation of everyone's brands in the future.

So will tobacco companies do all of the above? Probably not.  But they should at least try.  They might do some of these things anyway, like the IP costs stuff. And the list above is not exhaustive. There are more fronts, more avenues, and tobacco companies need to seek out all of them and utilise all of them. Yes, these things will eat into your profit margins big time for the short term. But the long term view is what you now need to think about. Oh, and you're going to want to hire much better lawyers, solicitors, legal counsel, advocates, etc. You're going to need them. Spend the money.

I can only show you the door, Big T.

The Utter Desperation of Stephen Williams MP

Imagine for a moment that you're an elected member of Parliament, the chairman for the all-party group on smoking and health committee, and a feckless, parroting stooge for the tobacco control industry.  Your ultimate job is to whinge and moan about Big Tobacco's influence on all those gullible women and children (not to mention the poor and working class people you've been happily raping via tobacco duty for years) to your right honourable colleagues in Parliament so that you can enact legislation that destroys freedom and liberty.  It's a good gig, makes you feel all warm and glowy inside. You're convinced that you are doing good work! You've spent shed loads of taxpayer money on social media campaigns, billboards, and advertising on the side of London buses to support your illiberal views on plain packs. Now imagine you've been absolutely trumped -- no, that's not the right word ... Imagine you've been absolutely "pwned" by a magazine cover that all your fellow parliamentarians received.  How would you react?

Like this?

Image via prokit.co.uk

And then perhaps like this?

Image via hellogiggles.com

There, there little one. Let mummy Milton wipe those tears away and soothe you.

Once the screams echoing through the chambers of Parliament have subsided and the tears have dried from the rosy-red cheeks, your next action would be to pen a letter crying foul to the publisher of the magazine who dared to publish a paid advertisement against plain packs. You might demand a correction or a retraction of such an outrageous use of free speech. You would probably demand an apology. You would probably demand a right of reply. In the interest of being fair and balanced, that magazine of course would offer to allow you to present an opposing viewpoint, if only to shut you up.

And we suppose that is pretty much what happened, because Stephen Williams MP's response to the magazine advert appeared in the June 28th issue of The House magazine on page 15. Here are the first three paragraphs.

You may have noticed, two weeks ago, that the cover of House magazine was not adorned as usual with the face of a fellow MP. This is because Imperial Tobacco, a well resourced cigarette manufacturer based near my constituency in Bristol, had spent a large and undisclosed amount of money trying to convince readers that plain packaging of cigarettes is “bad for business, good for criminals”.

This is despite the fact that there is no evidence that plain packaging would lead to an increase in illicit tobacco. Tobacco packs are already easily counterfeited which is why the industry put covert markings on all tobacco packs. Plain packs may not have tobacco brand logos and colours but will retain the health warnings and other markings; they will be no easier to counterfeit.

The tobacco smuggling argument has been reinforced by claims that illicit tobacco is already spiralling out of control. In fact the market share of illicit cigarettes has halved over the last decade, from 21% of the market share to 10% according to the latest figures. This fall has been achieved by a tough anti-smuggling strategy. So why are tobacco companies, such as Imperial, spending so much money to stop plain packaging? They fear it will put off young people from buying their products, which is exactly what I and the Public Health Minister, Anne Milton, want.

Stephen Williams said, "This is despite the fact that there is no evidence that plain packaging would lead to an increase in illicit tobacco." This is what the tobacco control industry always says, but it's a statement without basis in fact, and Williams provides no evidence to support that assertion.  In other words, he is saying: "We say there's no evidence, so there must be no evidence."  In point of fact, there is plenty of evidence that plain packaging will lead to an increase in illicit and counterfeit tobacco products -- at least 50 MPs think it will. Even the police say it will. So who to believe? A ratbag politician who works for the tobacco control industry, or the police who see the illicit market first-hand?  I know who I'm going to believe in this instance.

Williams also said, "Tobacco packs are already easily counterfeited which is why the industry put covert markings on all tobacco packs."  The claim easily counterfeited is also untrue. Perhaps Williams missed this blog post. The packet designs that are counterfeited are always the most popular brands, and they rarely if ever attempt to counterfeit slim cigarettes. So criminals go to great lengths and expense to counterfeit the popular brands because it is worth it in the long run. The machinery that manufactures legitimate high-quality packaging is expensive -- too expensive for even the counterfeiters. So the counterfeiters use very old machines with a much lower-quality printing process. My research indicates that the difference between these printing processes provides the means for how HMRC and tobacco companies to determine whether a product is legitimate or fake. There are no covert markings -- there are production or manufacturing codes, but no special covert markings.  Stephen Williams lives in fairy tale world of magical covert manufacturing processes.  I doubt he has ever spoken to a packaging manufacturer.

Furthermore, Williams does not give an accurate picture of the illicit market for tobacco products. He cites only cigarettes.  He said, "In fact the market share of illicit cigarettes has halved over the last decade, from 21% of the market share to 10% according to the latest figures."  First this is an HMRC estimate and they admit they don't know the actual value, and their data show it could be as high as 20% (PDF). It is a mean average on estimates, to be fair. Yes, due to increased border checks and anti-smuggling strategies, smuggling and illicit non-UK duty paid tobacco has decreased (not a bad thing at all), but there are other factors to consider, like a weak pound against the euro or people not travelling as much as they used to. Moreover, Williams's statement neglects the illicit roll-your-own tobacco market, which HMRC estimates to be 49% of the UK market for hand-rolling smokers.  So Williams is not telling the whole truth. He's cherry picking the data that suits the agenda of tobacco control. This is what they always do. Ignore the truth, distort the facts.

Finally, Stephen Williams said, "So why are tobacco companies, such as Imperial, spending so much money to stop plain packaging?"

I'll answer that one. Because you and the tobacco control industry are openly trying to destroy businesses, including shopkeepers and retailers, which will in turn increase crime, not to mention further ostracising smokers at every opportunity. Who wouldn't fight against someone trying to destroy your legal business that is taxed higher than any other product sold? This plain packaging campaign is dressed up as a "protect the children" measure, but it really has nothing to do with children.  It's about demonising smokers for using a legal product that you don't like. It is yet another black-booted goose-step into the nanny state, a precursor to the plain packaging of anything that the health zealots deem unhealthy.  It is always about control.

Let's face facts. Stephen Williams MP got "pwned" big time by The House magazine cover. It embarrassed him and his campaign, and so it came to pass that out of desperation he wrote a response that makes him look like a whining, crying chump.  And that brings a substantial amount of joy to my life.

I Really Do Not Do Politics

Despite the giant-ass graphic to the right that gently suggests that you should Vote Them All Out, I really don't do politics, nor do I align myself with any political party despite my strong libertarian leanings.  I am a free-thinking individual, perfectly capable of deciding what is or is not best for me.  I do not need anyone or a group hive-mind to tell me how to live my life, and I do not respect any group or person who will insist that you should live your life in a particular way.  Politicians therefore have not earned my respect. 

But it's election time, the votes are counted or almost counted, and people are all worked up about it, so I thought I should write a small something-something on the matter.  It really does not matter which party you vote for, in my opinion.  They will, all of them, screw somebody over at some point and it will likely be you.  Ultimately they will let you down.  It is the nature of politics after all.  It has always been like this, and it will always be like this.  It cannot be avoided.  Because it is the nature of people to want to control something or someone.  It is, however, ironic that politicians are completely unable to control themselves whilst they control our lives.

I view elections as if they are high-speed train wrecks waiting to happen.  There is the promise of going somewhere exciting, only to find out somewhere along the line that you've been violently thrown from the carriage and are now lying in a bloody, whimpering heap 100 metres away, left there to die an agonisingly slow and painful death, completely ignored because the rescuers are busy searching the flaming, twisted wreckage for survivors, because that makes for a better news story at 10 p.m.

That's why I don't do politics.

Occupy LSX - You Missed

Unsurprisingly, the Occupy London Stock Exchange thing lasted only a few brief hours last night.  Without getting into the politics of it all, the Occupy thing is destined to fail no matter where you hold it.  There are lots of reasons for this, but the most important one, in my opinion, is that any successful revolution and occupation requires the real threat of force and violence at a minimum.  I am not suggesting that anyone should use force or violence, I'm just telling you how these things have actually worked in the past.  We're not talking about protests at universities here.  We're talking about a proper revolution.  Think what you like, but occupying LSX isn't going to change anything.  Ever.

You want to change the world for the better?  You need to get rid of the politicians who are screwing you over every day.  It is your politicians who are taking your money and giving it to the banks to prop them up instead of letting the banks fail.  It is your politicians who pass the laws that restrict your freedoms and civil liberties to support big businesses, who in turn support big, powerful governments.  So if you're going to occupy anything, you might consider:

Image via LondonVisitPlaces.com

Image via Oxford University

Or, if you prefer a more democratic route, you can Vote Them All Out.  I like the latter, personally.  No one gets harmed by violence and the career politicians, who are responsible for this dreadful mess we find ourselves in, are out of a job.  As they should be.

Meet Your Democratically Elected Nannying Tyrants

If you aren't going to VOTE THEM ALL OUT -- and why aren't you? -- then at least know which ones hate smokers and are happy to parrot ASH's shite, and do not vote for them ever again.  Note that their quotations for the first few are the same - these are directly from their web sites.  Wow.  What kind of brainwashing machine does ASH own anyway?  How do we get one of those?  Do click through to all the links.  Parrots -- sheep-minions of ASH, all of them.

Anyway, despite all of my investigations I can find no evidence of collusion with Tobacco Control at all here, people.  I cannot find any evidence that their support of plain packs will benefit them in any way, either.  Obviously, their own free will is at work.  It is curious, though...  Are these really the politicians we would want to entrust our children's future with?  I wouldn't trust these people to fill a paper sack with chips. That's me, though, being kind again.

Can I ask for your help in finding more MPs who are supporting plain packs, please?  Leave a note in the comments and I'll udpate this page.  Ta! This page will be permalinked on the header of this site under "Sheep-Minions".

Here we go, in no particular order (scroll down past the bulleted list for their comments and links):

UPDATED 21 May 2013

• Fiona O'Donnell MP - East Lothian
• Alex Cunningham MP - Stockton North
• Ian Mearns MP - Gateshead
• Alison Seabeck MP - Portsmouth
• Bill Esterson MP - Sefton Central
• Kevin Barron MP - Rother Valley
• Stephen Williams MP - Brixton
• Justin Tomlinson MP - North Swindon
• Diane Abbot MP - Hackney
• Anne Milton - MP - Guildford
• Dr Sarah Wollaston MP - Totnes
• Michael Dugher MP - Barnsley East
• Roberta Blackman-Woods MP - City of Durham
• Dawn Primarolo MP - Bristol South
• Caroline Lucas MP - Brighton Pavilion
• Andrew Lansley MP - South Cambridgeshire -- (formerly the Secretary of State, Health)
• Geoffrey Robinson MP - Coventry
• Dr Dan Poulter MP - Central Suffolk and North Ipswich
• Mel Stride MP - Central Devon
• John Denham MP - Southampton, Itchen
• Annette Brooke MP - Mid Dorset & North Poole
• Dr Liam Fox MP - North Somerset, -- Secretary of State, Defence
• Dan Rogerson MP - North Cornwall
• Hilary Benn MP - Leeds Central
• Fiona Bruce MP - Congleto
• Lindsay Roy MP - Glenrothe
• Iain Wright MP - Hartlepool
• Anne McGuire MP - Stirling
• Chris Huhne MP - Eastleigh -- Former Secretary of State, Energy and Climate Change
• Glenda Jackson MP - Hampstead and Kilburn
• Michael Dugher MP - Barnsley East
• Andy Burnham MP - Leigh
• David Burrowes MP - Enfield, Southgate
• Dame Anne Begg MP - Aberdeen South 
• Tom Clarke MP - Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshil
• Christopher Leslie MP - Nottingham East
• Ann Coffey MP - Stockport 
• Nicholas Dakin MP - Scunthorpe
• Andrew Miller MP - Ellesmere Port and Neston
• Norman Lamb MP - North Norfolk

Total Confirmed Sheep-Minions to date: 40
Total Unconfirmed Possible Sheep-Minions to date: 13

5 Feb 2013 Update Note:  Due to the increasing number of large images on this page, which was somewhat bandwidth intensive (especially for those using mobile phones / mobile Internet) I have changed the layout to an image gallery instead.  If there any issues, do let me know, but I hope you'll find it easier to use than it was.

Confirmed Sheep Minions

This image gallery shows MPs who have pledged their support for plain packaging, despite that the government supposedly has an "open mind."  To see their comments and links to the original pages, put your mouse cursor over the words "Mouse over for image description" under each photo.

Unconfirmed and Possible Sheep Minions

The following image gallery shows MPs who posed for a photo holding a plain packaging propaganda box with CRUK's ambassadors.  I have not yet confirmed if they truly support plain packs, however just posing with the plain packaging propaganda box is akin to proudly holding up a photo of Hitler, so they should all be ashamed.

The Agenda - Plain Packs Are Daft

Poker goddess and smoker Victoria Coren weighs in with her views on plain packs on ITV's The Agenda yesterday.  You can watch it here (it starts about 1 minute in or so), but fair warning:  Ed Miliband is on the panel of guests, and yes, he's still a moron. 

Watch It, Ed! We're coming for you nannies!

The Devil's Kitchen: The Day The Coalition Went Mad

Over at The Devil's Kitchen, The Nameless Libertarian wonders “when did scrotums begin to walk and talk?”

The Devil's Kitchen: The Day The Coalition Went Mad: Now, after just two short years in power, the coalition seems happy to openly endorse the sort of utter shit that they used to rightly decry when it came from the last Labour government. Last Friday was not just the day the coalition went mad; it was also the day they became Nu Labour. The terrifying implication of this is not so much that nothing changes, but rather than nothing can change while the three main parties have a monopoly on power in this country.

Remember to vote them all out.

Vote Them All Out

One of the greatest dangers to a free society is the career politician.  Politics is often a nasty, petty business, filled with back-biting, childish taunts, and sensationalised propaganda unfit for even a schoolyard.  The mechanisms of "compromise" corrupt those who began their political careers with the very best of intentions, and even the most stalwart defenders of civil liberties and freedom may vote against their core beliefs and conscience in order to secure a victory for something else later.  It is almost unavoidable.  The longer one remains in politics, the more likely their integrity will be eroded.  Without genuine integrity to guide the politician's decisions, votes are likely to be ego-driven and self-aggrandising.  The career politician must toe the party line and curry favour with big businesses and special-interest groups. In return, the politician gains more power, greater influence and wealth.

Our democracy is representative, meaning that we voluntarily elect citizens to act on the people's behalf.  A true democracy, where every citizen has an equal voice and could vote freely on every issue, would be an impractical and logistical disaster for most every country and society.  And the honest truth is that most people simply cannot be bothered to care.  If someone else can do the job for them, all the better.  So we hire a few select citizens and grant them very special privileges to take care of all of the things that should keep society running smoothly.  In effect, we pay them to do our dirty work for us.

When you think about it, making decisions for vast swathes of the populace is an awesome responsibility.  It is not a duty that should be taken lightly.  Livelihoods are often at stake.  No one decision will please everyone and the politician should ideally proceed by weighing up the opinion of the majority and carefully considering the impact any given law will have on a minority.  Unfortunately, we find that the politician's responsibility has been delegated to party leaders with particular agendas at play.  The politician is told what to think, what to say, how to act, and how to vote on any given law or proposal.  The duty of being a politician for the people is therefore corrupted by the selfish interests of the few for short and long-term gains of the party.  Decisions are not made in the bests interests of the people, they are made for the best interests of the politicians we've elected, and they are too often made for special interest groups and big businesses which would profit by certain legislation.

On the other hand, what if every politician actually voted for what they and the people they represent believed?  If there were no parties to align oneself to, would chaos ensue during debates and votes?  Is the party system a necessary mechanism of politics in order to get things done as it were?  It probably is.  If all of the MPs were given equal time to debate every proposed regulation and law, allowing for rebuttals, and further rebuttals, it could likely take years before a vote occurred.  Nothing would be achieved efficiently. So the party system could be seen as a further representative device within government to delegate the authority of the many to the party leaders.  It's difficult to imagine a working system of government without a party system in place to speed things up a bit.

So if we want a somewhat functioning government (and I'll leave it to you to argue what that means), we should accept the limitations of a democracy.  Right? Can we do representative democracy better?  Is there another system that would ensure efficiency and integrity? I really do not know.

The real trouble isn't the party system despite its flaws.  The trouble is that we have people who make careers out of being politicians. Some stay in for life. I suppose it's easy to argue that experience with the system makes for a more effective politician; that the older pols will train the newer pols how to work within the system; that the contacts made over the course of many years are vital in greasing the wheels of democracy. The truth is that the system is gamed to reward those who stay in politics.  It is this way because all of the politicians in the past have set it up to be like that.  It's protectionism at a grand scale. Think of it as a labour union.  The job of the union is to protect as many of its members as possible.  And so it is with politics.

Because the system is gamed, there are no limits for how long a politician can remain in power.  And you can bet that very few of them would accept term limits. How many of us would accept being forced out of our jobs every five years, especially when we loved our work?  Probably none of us.  So our options are limited, but we can do something about it.

We vote them all out.  They need our votes to keep their jobs.  We should not give our votes to those who want to remain in office, regardless if they did a good job while serving.  Many, if not most, will become corrupted by the system, if they were not already corrupt to begin with.  We could use our power of democracy to enforce term limits on those who would seek to profit from their responsibilities.  We should vote them all out in put in new recruits at election time.  We could effectively limit the corruption to a short amount of time.  Since they won't change the system, we can try to do it for them. 

To me, it doesn't matter which party you want to vote for.  I view them all as pretty much the same with a few minor variations.  Just get rid of all of the politicians currently serving and start fresh, every time, because they have, every last one of them, let us down spectacularly.  I don't imagine that doing this will be the panacea for everything that is wrong with politics.  Indeed, I can already see a host of other problems that it would create.  But it's a start in a new direction.  By limiting the time they can serve in office, we can begin to limit the influence of special interest groups and big businesses who influence the debate unevenly and unfairly.  We can effectively end some of the cronyism and we can bring a little more integrity to our political systems.

One further caveat:  It does require that you begin to care.  Just a little more than you might already do.  I sincerely believe getting people to care will be the greatest hurdle of all.