Monday, May 6, 2013

Private Eye gives us those UKIP policies in full

UKIP is not a liberal/libertarian party and not a particularly authoritarian; it has stopped talking about the EU and has been talking about being the other lot, not the three main ones, representing ordinary people. All piffle. What they really want is a kind of rose-coloured version of the 1950s as it never existed.

The reality was rather grim with rationing in place for the first half of the decade and large numbers emigrating to Australia, New Zealand and Canada. I suppose narrowness of outlook can seem to be security and happiness as viewed from a distance.

There is also the problem that the fifties ended with an economy that stopped functioning, a growing national debt, an ever more powerful grip on the country by the unions and ... yes, the sixties. But this time, they will get it right and the new and more glorious 1950s will turn into a kind of Brigadoon.

Anyway, here are those policies in full, as published by Private Eye:

1.      Smoking to be allowed in pubs.

2.      Waxed jackets to be made mandatory.

3.      Chaps not obliged to help with the washing up.

4.      VAT on beards.

5.      Massive investment in golf club construction.

6.      Driving gloves to be worn in cars at all times.

7.      Bring back Robertson's Golly on marmalade jars.

8.      Police permitted to give young offenders a clip round the ear.

9.      Black and white TV to return.

10.     Johnny foreigner to get marching orders .... whoops.

You think this is not right? Then you have not been paying attention.


  1. Helen you really do have a blind spot when it comes to property rights don't you. Why shouldn't landlords have the choice whether to let their customers smoke in pubs? The fact that so many have closed since the ban suggests that it was rather popular. If you don't like smoky pubs don't go to them, go to a coffee shop somewhere else on the High Street.

    And btw the same people who stopped pubs being smoky think rationing was a good thing. People weren't as fat then you see, so there were no lifestyle illnesses. So be careful what you wish for, if you think the smoking ban was a good thing you're getting in bed with some truly scary people.

  2. Dear Ian,

    A completely incoherent comment if I may say so. No smoking in pubs has nothing to do with rationing and there never were any links between the two. If that is your best argument, you are losing. But then you are, from the moment you start accusing someone else of not understanding property rights. Exactly how many pubs are run by landlords and how many by managers? Another irrelevance.

    As to why pubs are closing, there are many reasons and even the "let's smoke everywhere and sod people who don't like it" campaigners acknowledge that the ban is low down among the list of reasons, various regulations and changes in social habits coming considerably higher. Noticeably, wine bars and restaurants have not suffered though the ban, presumably, affects them as well. The campaign about smoking in pubs has not proved to be a vote winner for UKIP and they have toned it down a bit in the last election.

    Finally, why pick on that one? Why not the one about wearing driving gloves in cars?

  3. Helen,

    The point isn't whether you call the people who run the pubs landlords or managers, the point is that they are no longer allowed to determine whether their customers can smoke inside their establishments. Smoking is a completely legal activity, though many wish it weren't so, and so this is a denial of property rights. No one is suggesting that smoking should be allowed everywhere, you won't be frisked at the door to make sure you have twenty Capstan on you, it simply means that should the pub owner/landlord/manager decide it is what his customers want, you can smoke. Similarly if he feels the patrons he wants to attract would hate a smoky atmosphere, he can choose to forbid it. At the moment the State makes that choice, this is simply returning the power to the market, something I thought you were in favour of. I'm afraid your mention of wine bars reveals more about your metropolitan bias than anything else.

    On the matter of rationing, it is not as far fetched as you might think. Smoking was simply the issue that allowed Public Health to get their foot in the door. You will have noticed that David Cameron looks set to have abandoned minimum alcohol pricing, although Scotland seems intent on pressing ahead. This is all part of attempts by the State to control, to an extent never before seen in a democracy in peace time, the lifestyle habits of the population. The logical conclusion of this is to ration what food people should eat. This won't happen (probably) but you will see more advertising bans, have ignorant people shout at you in the street if you eat a cream bun, your family doctor will hector you, the BBC will air endless propaganda etc. See for an example of people who are pushing for this.

    As to why smoking, and not glove wearing. Well the latter is a piece of satire, the former is a real concern for millions of people in this country. Despite all the vilification, propaganda, tax rises etc still at least 20% of the adult population of this country smoke.

  4. Right on cue

    There is no pleasure these bastards aren't going to try to take from us. Unless of course biscuits are too 1950's for you.

  5. Public service statement to be broadcast Friday May 18th 2015, after the dear leader and UKIP are declared winners at the general election...

    1. I am afraid I have not been a science fiction fan for a long time. Not since I read Jules Verne and H. G. Wells. Other people might like it.

    2. But I did watch it. Very funny. To be recommended.

  6. We also have the new UKIP election poster...

    1. I quite like Christine Hamilton. Neil, not so much.

  7. VAT on beards sounds good to me however a lower rate on moustaches (Movember excepted) would appeal to UKIP tax fairness.