Politics and power
Thursday, October 22, 2009 I haven't commented on this before but it's interesting to note that the winners of the first two open primary elections to select Conservative candidates have both been GPs.
In August the Daily Telegraph reported that "Sarah Wollaston, a GP with no experience of politics, has been chosen as a Tory candidate in Britain's first "open primary" election" (GP becomes Tory candidate in first 'open primary' election).
Last Saturday, in Bracknell, local residents again opted for a GP - Dr Phillip Lee (Family doctor is Tory candidate, BBC News).
Unlike politicians and estate agents, doctors are clearly held in high regard by the electorate - and I have no reason to doubt that these two candidates will do a perfectly good job, should they get elected.
I do, however, question our slavish devotion to the idea that doctors are always right and cannot be questioned on health and lifestyle issues.
In particular there are huge question marks over the role of organisations such as the British Medical Association which routinely distort medical (and statistical) evidence to justify some of the most illiberal legislation this country has ever seen.
Before they voted for the public smoking ban, a number of MPs told us that they had been heavily influenced by the BMA on the issue of secondhand smoke. The MPs admitted that they knew little or nothing about the subject and if doctors were telling them that passive smoking kills ... well, who could argue with that?
Of far greater concern than a few more GPs in parliament, however, is the knowledge that a future Conservative government will "enhance the Chief Medical Officer's Department to give greater powers and responsibilities over public health" (Mark Simmonds MP, 20 March 2009, and repeated at a fringe meeting at the Conservative party conference on 6 October).
The current CMO Sir Liam Donaldson kick-started the campaign to ban smoking in all public places in 2004. Earlier this year, following Sir Liam's latest intervention in public health, Rod Liddle had this to say about him in The Spectator:
If I were as promiscuous with statistics as is the Chief Medical Officer, I would tell you that, on the latest available figures, doctors are twice as bad for your health as lung cancer and substantially more deadly than a stroke. Sir Liam Donaldson is very fond of waving his figures around so I assume he’d approve of my methodology. Any normal person would argue that I was talking rubbish, that such figures have to be seen in context. Sir Liam, though, doesn’t really do context. He once warned that the death toll in Britain for bird flu would most likely be 50,000 but that a figure of 750,000 was ‘not impossible’. The actual death toll proved to be, uh, nil.
He’s been waving more figures around this last week in support of his wish to see a minimum 50 pence charge per unit of alcohol in order to combat the effects of ‘passive drinking’. I used the phrase ‘passive drinking’ in an article four or five years ago: I thought I’d made it up and was being very bloody satirical. But these days real life out-satirises all satire. Sir Liam has said that his 50p minimum tariff will mean 3,393 fewer alcohol-related deaths per year in Britain. Aw, come on Sir Liam, surely it’s 3,394? There will also be 97,900 fewer hospital admissions. Nothing like a few good, precise numbers, is there?
And the Tories want to give this man MORE powers?
Full article HERE.
My grandfather was a GP. So was my uncle. I have never been treated by a GP I didn't like and I have no reason to believe that the overwhelming majority of doctors are anything other than very decent people who work very hard and deserve every penny they earn.
But they are not infallible and it's about time that the medical profession - especially those who want to restrict our liberties in the name of "public health" - was held to account like any other professional body.
Instead we doff our caps and let them spout any old rubbish. Why?
PS. I understand that many GPs now earn in excess of £100k a year. Perhaps I'm missing a certain public service gene, but why would anyone want to give up a job and a salary like that to become a member of an increasingly discredited and emasculated parliament?
Reader Comments (48)
This is very bad news and has removed any last bastion of hope I had that the Cons would turn their back on health propaganda that aims to exclude and denormalise people who don't comply with "good" health advice.
Put simply - we're fooked. Con or Lab govt? It really doesn't matter so why even bother having an election at all? We don't need the expensive sham put on for our benefit to back up the myth that we actually live in a free country when we don't.
Carefull what we say people if the Political Stazi get their own way you could be tried in secret, see link below ,
I suppose that means we can be dragged out of our homes first.
God how I despise this evil government .
They really are afraid of something are they not.
And all the crooked press are harping on about what a threat to democracy the BNP are ,no this government ,they are the bloody real threat.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/outrage-at-government-plan-for-secret-inquests-1806867.html
I have to say that both my GP and Psychiatrist are at their whits end with all this so called health rubbish that is being spoiuted. Neither of them ever mention to me that I should stop smoking, if it good for me, in my opinion, then that's fine. They also seem to agree when I say that at the end of the day, as far as I am concerned, if I am destined to get cancer then I will get it, regardless of whether I smoke, use HRT or anything else that is supposed to 'cause' cancer!
The psychiatrist in particular is in total despair at seeing so much money being wasted on useless and pointless issues when it could be far better spent on preventing and helping real health issues and the additional ones this government has caused.
Finally, and off subject (sorry) - when I heard on the news this week about further elections in Afghanistan to try and ensure a proper democracy there I suggested to my husband that if that happened, perhaps we would be better of moving there as we no longer have a democracy in this country! Very strange how our dictators seem hell bent on creating democrocies in other countries around the world whilst taking it away from us!
Oh dear, what a disappointment, I was really looking forward to a little BNP bashing. Especially as hardly any other site, newspaper or TV have mentioned them lately.....
My new GP tried to give me a lecture on pipe & cigar smoking. What she didn't realise is that i am a retired maths lecturer, who in his working life working in research for a tobacco company and as an undewriter for a life insurance company.
I think my stern lecturer on the facts of actuarial tables on mortality & morbidity, indicating that if the mortality variation within a group is greater than the difference between groups ( smokers vs non-smokers say) then there is little useful purpose distinguishing between them, rather went over her head
the whole trouble comes down to establishing causality.....statistics are of little or no use without it ( correlations without causality are also meaningless)
example: boys can kick football : fact
therefore a statistical analysis of how far boys and girls of different ages can kick is useful.
how well they can kick however is an opinion
the only real fact we can rely on in smoking is mortality...now then we have to still be extremely careful about using these mortality stats
i can tell you that smokers on the whole seem to enjoy a little lower morbidity than non-smokers, reflected in the fact that the NHS spend per capita on smokers is slightly less than that on smokers. And that the mean age of death of pipe & cigar smokers is about 2-3 years higher than that of non-smokes
if you mention this to doctors they will a) tell you its a blip b) accuse you of being in denial
The trouble is that "doctors" aren't academics, and their education in maths is appalling
Also none of these people seem to understand that statistics are generalisations that cannot and must not be used to assess risk in single events
so if your doctor ever says that you have a 50% chance of contracting this or that, he is talking out the back of his arse
example
the patient has a 50 % chance of dying
NO NO NO...people cannot be 50% dead
I urge all of you to read the penguin book
"The use & abuse of statistics" by Reichmann; perhaps you could give a copy to these idiots from ASH
sorry about the lecture
Very interesting lecture. Thanks John x
John - we need you! Have you, by any chance, personally evaluated the studies on passive smoking?
There are good doctors and then there are many bad ones.
My friend's mother (aged 84) has just given up smoking of her own accord and has been extremely ill since doing so.
Her doctor told her that giving up smoking was the worst thing that she could have done at her age and actually stated some of the benefits of smoking in moderation to her.
If I were a gambler, I'd put my money on these PPCs being career minded and unfortunately following the funding.
Well, that bit of news reduces the likelihood of me voting Tory.
I'd like to vote UKIP, but it seems they've just been fined £350,000 because one of their contributors wasn't registered in the UK at the time.
All of which pushes me, unwillingly, towards the unthinkable.
The BNP.
Very well said, Simon.
This Aura of Infallibility that surrounds the medical profession has always puzzled me.
And - at the risk of belabouring the point - WHO was it who performed all those charming 'experiments' in Auschwitz ?
Certainly not the uneducated camp guards..........
Yes, we're always surprised when a Harold Shipman's exposed because, I think, we have a naive view of doctors. We seem to think that all doctors have a heightened altruistic streak. The reality is probably that many have gone into medicine because they were 'good at science' at school and encouraged to enter a profession that's lucrative and prestigious. As in any other walk of life the profession will have its share of selfish, unscrupulous or criminal members.
The signs aint lookin good.
Looks like the tory's are getting prepared to bring their 'experts' closer to hand, all the better to influence more diktat through their power of suggestion with on the job MD 'experts'.
Giving the perception 'He's a doctor he must be right' dangerous and false credence to spew out more self serving statistics.
The power of suggestion on so called health issues would definitely fall on the side of the 'medical doctor' in any debate.
Nice move Mr Cameron, you're making the BNP look more attractive by the day!
Why not go the whole hog Idlex, and vote for Hitler's great nephew? I hear he is thinking of coming to the UK and starting up a new political party here called the Weiß Rauchern Freiheit Partei
Peter - don't you think that you're blaming the wrong people, here? You can hardly blame the electorate for feeling so unhappy that they're driven from the main parties. If the main parties don't want the BNP to rise in power then they simply must start taking heed of the concerns and wishes of the electorate. The fault lies with them for not actually representing our views.
It is scarey that more and more doctors are getting into parliament because it gives them ever more power to spread lies and disinformation. I have serious doubts about the whole swine flu issue and do believe it is very convenient for the doctors and drug companies.
Given that there was huge unused stocks of Tamiflu after the farce of the 'Bird Flu Pandemic' it is fortuitous in the extreme that we have a new type of flu that oddly enough can be treated with Tamiflu. We have a Chief Medical Officer trying to cause panic so that even more people seek out a vaccine. We have a vaccine that is unproven being given to millions of the population on the sayso of a bunch of quacks.
How much is this costing the taxpayers and is anyone receiving kickbacks for their successful efforts to scare the population?
Thank you, Joyce. I used to vote Lib Dem. Never again after nearly all of them voted for the smoking ban. Voting Labour after their manifesto lie about it is out of the question, of course. That leaves only the Tories out of the three main parties. And they show precious little sign of doing anything at all about this vile law.
So who's left? UKIP and the BNP, as the only parties who oppose the smoking ban. Given a choice between the two, I'll vote UKIP. It's what happens when the BNP is the only choice available that bothers me.
Anyway, who's this Hitler's great nephew chap, Peter? Sounds rather interesting. Has he got a moustache?
I believe the main parties are running scared of the BNP and last night's question time was a disgrace. I turned it on to see what the policies of the BNP were on the likes of the postal strike, Afghanistan, the banking crisis etc and all I got was a series of personal attacks on Nick Griffin and a rehash of commonly known quotations from him.
As an Irishman born a Catholic I am hardly a BNP supporter but I am a democrat and 6% of the population voted for the BNP at the European election. I actually foumd myself sympathetic to Griffin as even David Dimbleby seemed to be picking on him. If the main parties think that this is the way to turn people away from the BNP they are severely mistaken. The public are so sick and tired of all the mainstream politicians that they will vote BNP just for the sheer hell of it.
After watching last night's show I would nearly be tempted to vote for the BNP if I thought it would really p**s off Jack Straw.
I thought Jack Straw was the one that came out worst in last night's programme.
Sorry to go a little off thread Simon - just responding to where the comments have led.
When I was a young child at school, I remember my teacher calling one particular boy to the front of the class, and asking him, "Why did you hit Johnny with your ruler David?" Young David had tears in his eyes as he said, pleadingly, "It wasn't my fault sir, Harry made me do it".
The teacher wouldn't accept this an excuse of course, and David was reprimanded for his actions.
I have always remembered that, and I still apply that logic today, which is why I do not accept the cry of "he made me do it". No one "makes" you vote for a certain political party.
As my teacher said at the time, "it is a poor excuse and I m not accepting it"
"Well, that bit of news reduces the likelihood of me voting Tory.
I'd like to vote UKIP, but it seems they've just been fined £350,000 because one of their contributors wasn't registered in the UK at the time. All of which pushes me, unwillingly, towards the unthinkable. The BNP."
Hold on, Idlex and others, UKIP are not dead yet. Let's put this ancient £350.000 disputed fine into context. The mistake made by the donor was that he had forgotten to put his name back on the Electoral Register. [Probably moved house or something.] It's being seized upon now by the EU controlled TV and media dirty tricks brigade as "new" news.
Here is the UKIP statement last Monday, 19th October:
The UK Independence Party is stunned and disappointed by today's Court of Appeal judgement in favour of the Electoral Commission.
UKIP had already achieved a partial victory in the case, as Judge Tim Workman ruled in August 2007 that the ommission of donor Alan Bown's name from the electoral register of 2005 was "a genuine and inadvertent error".
The Party will now be seeking leave to appeal.
The financial ramifications of the judgement will be significant, with the legal costs on top of the £350,000 forfeiture an added burden to the Party which does not have the funds available to meet the debt at this time.
UKIP Leader Nigel Farage said: "Something extraordinary is going on here. It is acceptable under the rules for Lakshmi Mittal, the Indian businessman, to give millions of pounds to the Labour Party and for the Liberal Democrats to be allowed to keep £2.4 million from an impermissible donor who has since received a lengthy prison sentence, yet the Electoral Commission goes on kicking the smallest boy in the playground!"
We'll be back.
I wonder did the two 'students' who were being dragged by their heels outside the BBC office on TV last night and whose cant against Nick Clegg's appearance was given full coverage, get a promise of a job in the BBC or some PR outfit.
The whole demo looked a bit contrived to me, especially the cop who threw his own hat off his head to the cops standing in the roe behind him.
I wish I had seen the programme you are talking about Ann. I think it is disgusting for the BBC to let Nick Clegg, the leader of the Liberal Democrats onto a family programme like that.
And as for policemen taking off their helmets and throwing them at their mates just because they were standing in some fish roe, I think that says it all. It's about time the BBC and the police-force owned up to being anti-fishy.
If I can get back on topic slightly, my respect for doctors took a dive when I was debating passive smoking with a Registrar. She took great umbridge when I challenged her on her "knowledge." I asked her where she learnt it and the reply was medical school, hence politicisation of the medical profession. I even had to explain to her Relative Risk (RR).
It is like a cross between the Emperor's New Clothes and Galileo explaining to the Catholic Church in Renaissance Italy that the earth is round and revolves round the sun.
This phrase should send to shiver down every smoker and libertarian. Me and Simon have met John Tilley and he is an ill informed jobsworth, who would not know the truth if it came with a free dinner.
"John Tilley from the Department of Health, said:
“Action on smoking in the home will be a necessary part of future strategy on tobacco control."
http://www.lincolnshire.gov.uk/section.asp?catid=24321&docid=80559
I know a retired doctor (still a Leeds Liberal Democrat City Councillor) who is in favour of extending smoking bans to outside areas. He is a patron of a fire station in West Yorkshire and wants to stop firemen having a quiet smoke ouside in the fire station grounds!! Yes, it's that rediculous, but it is completely true! GPs most likely have quotas and targets - stop people smoking, write prescriptions out for patients for x number of patches and gum and, Bob's your uncle, another brownie point!
As for Peter Thurgood's comments regarding votes for alternative parties - you'd better get used to all this Peter, because it (ie. anger and disillusionment) won't go away and fourth party votes will rocket, especially after what happened on Question Time last night.
Interesting to see the comments here about the Question Time programme. I wondered this morning whether I had seen the same programme when I heard and half-heard various pundits saying in effect that it illustrated Griffin's mediocrity as a politician. I did, almost, wonder whether these reactions had been scripted in advance. As to the programme itself, the words 'lynch mob' came to my mind. I see this is a description since applied to the event by Nick Griffin. As for Dimbleby's chairmanship, heaven help any accused person if he ever becomes a judge. To declare my own position I'll say that unless the pious prefects of the Conservative Party promise to enclose the bike sheds, I'll vote for the United Kingdom Independence Party.
Idlex - read this :http://kerry-mccarthy.blogspot.com/2009/10/trains.html
It may put your mind at rest about that UKIP donation.
It's ceratinly not enough to send me to the BNP. No UKIP no vote for me. Simple as that as I can't vote Tory unless they make clear their policy on choice. I could never vote BNP - especialy after last night's QT performance.
Dave - the Lincolnshire link doesn't work
Idlex - read this
I read it, and it doesn't set my mind at rest at all. It just goes to show that there's one law for the LibDems and another for UKIP.
And, as an additional bonus, I learned that Kerry McCarthy voted to ban cigarette machines.
I'm not a BNP member, but having watched Nick Griffin last night,I must admit that the man displayed courage and fortitude. Obviously everyone on the panel was 'at his throat', but David Dimbleby was extremely aggressive and biased instead of maintaining impartiality. There'd been a mob of protesters outside Broadcasting House, and there was obviously a hand-picked audience inside. I'd like to see more politicians from other parties subjected to such vehement aggression, especially the ones who have subjected the people of this country to unjust legislation, increased taxation and unemployment (to name only three issues).
Going back to the original point about GPs - I think there must be some kind of financial reward/gain in all this, because money does tend to be the root of all evil.
The Tories are losing my respect. All-wimmins shortlisting, undemocratic centralised candidate-selection, unelected peers in the shadow cabinet lording it over the plebs, no commitment to overturn nulabor's anti-democratic smoking ban and a weak position on the treasonous Lisbon Treaty.
Last night's QT illustrated, to me, the political-class all ganging up together to unite around kicking a convenient bogeyman outsider who was surely too vain to be able to see the stitch-up he was walking into.
The political class would like us to think BNP are the only alternative to their corrupt gang - that people will unite against a new common enemy, however marginal, and learn to love our disgraced political masters again.
For me, it really is becoming difficult to decide who to vote for.
Labour deserve to be obliterated, never to return - worst government in living memory. That's the easy bit.
Yet, as Basil points out, the Conservatives seem to be doing a really good job of shooting themselves in the foot. In addition to the issues Basil raises is that of so called man made global warming which Mr Cameron seems slavishly devoted to. To me this is one of the biggest scams in history - just Google "Manhattan Declaration" (and, no, it wasn't reported in the UK MSM - I wonder why?).
Cameron makes the odd soundbite about moving away from big centralised government but I still have fears about him effectively being "Labour with a blue rosette". He must do better
as far as I'm concerned.
Lib Dems? - oh please, enough said.
UKIP seems an obvious choice in many ways and they would adopt a much more rational approach on environmental issues. But I fear they may not survive for too long after that court judgement - a blatant case of the establishment ganging up on a small player.
That doesn't leave much. I'm not ready for the BNP but after the circus on QT last night I'm sure they'll gain votes.
Hardly a great choice then as I see it. With so much power now in Brussels perhaps it doesn't really matter anyway.
How on earth did we get to this point?
Labour gave the last of our dignity away. I would say despite the UKIP funding hiccup, it is still the only viable party for me. I cannot vote for the others and I cannot vote BNP.
UKIP offers me, at least, the only hope and the EU has very little to do with it. UKIP is more than just about getting out of the EU. If you care to help make changes, do like I'm doing and go round your local pubs asking if they will put on a fund raising event for the party. Some here are even opening their homes to guests for meals at £10 a head to raise more. There's lots we can do. The one thing we should not do is lose hope. That way, They win.
I went to see my doctor once about something or other before the government propaganda about 'five portions of fruit/veg a day' became de rigeur. On the matter of diet, he said to me that we can get everything our bodies need by eating meat. We are carnivores.
On another occasion, on the subject of cancer, he said that cancer is essentially a disease of old age.
I would rather believe him that tossers like Sir Liam Donaldson, archdeacon of the Healthism Religion.
Doctors ARE capable of acquiring Common Sense - but it can take time.
25 years ago, when my new GP and I were both young men, he dutifully suggested that I take up an alternative form of 'relaxation' such as Yoga.
Since I've always found lighting up a cigarette less strenuous than adopting the Lotus Position, I declined his enlightened idea.
Today, and clearly having lost the Batttle of Wills on this one, he tactfully refers to me as an 'occasional smoker'.
And he's quite correct: I enjoy such 'occasions' only twenty or thirty times a day.
That's MY kind of GP.
As to the entirely predictable 'Question Time', I wonder sometimes whether it wouldn't be more entertaining if someone were to question members of the AUDIENCE for a change - potential (applauding) victims being selected by use of a randomly-programmed spotlight.
Someone MAY even say something original for once.
Or better still - dissolve into an embarassed heap of babbling, bewildered incoherence.
It'd be fun to watch, anyway !
And who IS 'Baroness Warsi' ?
And do I really care..................?
The BBC tonight reported that a poll taken after last night's Question Time showed that one fifth of British voters would consider voting for the BNP, and that two thirds would not consider doing so.
For the John Tilley smoking to be banned in the home try this.
http://www.smokefreeliverpool.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=428:nationalpraiseforsmoke-freehomesconference&catid=34:latest-news&Itemid=57
Dave - John Tilley's wishes are very concerning.
Have you any idea how is he viewed within the Tory hieracrchy? (The situation has gone that far now, that I'm not concerned about the Tory grass-roots and ranks)
Is he viewed as what he really is - an extremist, or is he just viewed as what he diguises himself as - a politically correct do-gooder and so gets everything he asks for?
"Have you any idea how is he viewed within the Tory hieracrchy?"
Maria, it'll probably make no difference at all: the Tory leadership will do nothing on our behalf anyway - whatever their private views.
As the vastly over-rated Shirley Williams once said:
"You can't stop an idea whose time has come."
That 'idea' is now A SMOKEFREE WORLD.
And isn't it just a little spooky that there doesn't seem to be ONE SINGLE COUNTRY or GOVERNMENT speaking out against it ?
Not one.
This must surely be the first time in History that such a worldwide 'consensus' has occurred.
But it won't be the last.
Sheeple, sheeple, everywhere - and not a one to THINK................(apologies to Coleridge).
Very, very sinister.............
@Maria
John Tilley alas is all too representative of the nannies/bullies employed at the Department Of Health. The general problem is two fold. A weak Labour government that has allowed the D Of H to run rampant, unchecked and politicians who support the "something must be done" camp.
The Tories until elected will have to toe the PC and D Of E line and once in I think the nanny state will still continue albeit at a slower rate. Whether the Conservatives will put the nanny state on hold or reverse it, we will see. Yes unelected civil servants are setting policy and running government.
I have got to know a friend of Kennneth Clarke and I am led to believe would like to see the smoking ban amended. If you look at this quote below from March of this year a pro choice poltician like Ken is aware of the vested interests of the health lobby.the good news is that he sees ASH for the liars they are. I am aware of an organisation that are advising the Conservatives on tobacco matters and have been invited to lunch by them to impart as much information that I can that is pro choice. This will include passive smoking, economic effects and political impact. Also through the Progressive Conservatives I hope to influence the debate internally, so maybe some light at the end of the tunnel. Here is Ken Clarke.
"Turning his guns on successful anti-smoking activists, he said he doubted the ban would be overturned.
He said: “I don’t think it will be revisited. Popular opinion is going through a puritan phase and newspapers run health scares twice a week, science and pseudo-science is brought into play for all kinds of puritan causes and I watch with some amazement the way perfectly sensible campaigns about social and health risk get taken to absurd extremes by ardent campaigners.”
He continued: “I do recall how Ash [Action on Smoking and Health] were extremely vehement that the smoking ban would have no effect on the licensed trade at all and produced the completely untrue assertion it had had no damaging effect on bars in Dublin... That seemed to be swallowed by most of the public and unfortunately – what mattered – the vast majority of Members of Parliament.”
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2009/03/21/pub-trade-went-up-in-smoke-with-the-ban-says-ken-clarke-91466-23199701/
Peter, meant to say Nick Griffin, and I enjoyed the cod row I had for my tea!
I was only teasing you Ann, no offense meant!
Dave -
Kenneth Clarke's observations should be directed squarely at the Leadership of the Party.
If Cameron decided to act decisively, he could simply apply a Three-Line Whip and have done with it. Despite a few murmurings among the quislings who voted for the Ban, I doubt that it would make much difference in the post-Victory euphoria, and would bring some of the dopey waverers onside.
And - with any luck - Liam Donaldson would spontaneously combust, and Deborah Arnott turn into a Beautiful Princess.
We then could all get back on with our lives - and Ken with the cataloguing of his jazz records.
Job done !
The trouble with Ken Clarke is that he's going to be dismissed with, "Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?" It shouldn't, of course, be so, but it will.
I think the Tories will let their smoking supporters down. Simples!
Peter, no offense taken.
Some other food for thought - NuLabour brought John Prescott into the cabinet to ensure getting old Labour's working classes on side.
I fear that Ken Clark is the John Prescott of NuConservatism and is only there to ensure old cons stay on side for the next election. It is a con.
I fully agree Pat.
I'm a floating voter at the moment. I don't believe a word the Tories state - in fact , I won't believe a word any of them state anymore now that their manifestos are allowed by law to be ficticious.
I go from what they say before election run-ups. The tories so far are 100% behind the smoking ban now, even though they didn't agree with it at the time. They are weak and have fallen for the health lobby and their quangos. They are ignoring 25% of the electorate. They will never get my vote
There is an old saying that in the nation of the blind only the blind can see, this was abundantly clear at the BBC ,the hunt for Nick Griffen was plain toi see.lets use reverse logic here , dont you just love the BBC program done in Mecca, how the jews , buddhist, christains, exponding, their veiw be for the S arabian, TV, in frout of such a lovely tolerant nation , of arabs, PLATOS LOGIC