And Another Thing…

Never mind all that, there’s just been a murder! RIP Harriet Harman, after her mauling on BBC QT about Scotland.

Jeez, she must have really upset Gordo with her surreptitious leadership campaigning, to be given *that* gig!

This is because the Tories are far too busy preparing for government.

The other 2 parties have time on their hands.
Labour are about to leave so they do not care any more.
The Libs know they have no chance so they have nothing else to do.

So what are you saying here Tom?

Labour have more Twits than the other parties?

I could have told you that.

Bunch of Twits

Though nice to see that labour MPs can do something.

Just read a frightening article, fear for your hearing.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/billy-bragg%2c-warn-economists-200810161329/

It is extremely odd that Dr Jackson and Dr Lilleker have nothing better to do with their time when being paid by the People. Of course, they may be doing this research in their own time, or it may be that this is some sort of student exercise.

The whole thing about this research reinforces my idea that MPs are not DECIDERS; they are PERSUADERS. Even the PM does not DECIDE; Committees and Quangos (and I mean Quangos in a good sense) decide. How can it be otherwise since the World is such a complex place these days that no MP can possibly know enough?

MPs are PERSUADERS because that is their job. They cannot think for themselves because ALL the Objects that come before them are too complex for them (not that they are stupid – it is just a matter of fact). Quangos (or whatever) decide, the Government dictates, MPs persuade. I think that this REALITY is very sad.

I’m not sure that there is any alternative, but there is JUST A POSSIBILITY that MPs could be more involved.

If I may expand.

Because I am a person who enjoys tobacco, I thoroughly examined the reasons for the smoking ban. I found the deliberations of the committee appointed by HMG to examine the passive smoking question. I found that the committee merely summarised the conclusions of the various studies. The committee recommended to HMG that passive smoking was harmful.

But, some of the studies showed that passive smoking was not harmful, or, at least, MINISCULELY harmful.

Now, let us transpose this idea to a motor manufacturer. Let us suppose that there is a new braking system. Let us suppose that nine examiners state that this new braking system is super. But, let us suppose that one examiner says that there is a fault in the system.

Do you think that the manufacturer would go ahead with his new motor without ensuring that the problem highlighted by the sole examiner is thoroughly investigated?

Of course not.

And yet, that is exactly what HMG did as regards passive smoking. 90% of the studies said that passive smoking was harmful. Only 10% said that it was not. Therefore impose the ban. No need to find out why 10% said not. VERY BAD THINKING.

Sorry to be so verbose. I would not be surprised if you delete this post. I just have this idea that the LESS MPs twitter, the more likely it is that they are actually working.

women MPs are more likely to tweet. While they compose just 19.4 per cent of the Commons they make up 29.4 per cent of tweeters.

Must try to avoid making stereotypical comment about women and gossiping.

Opps!

Junican
Anyone who supports smoking or opposes a smoking ban is- unfortunately – a person incapable of logical thought.

Self inflicted torture and slow death is one thing: imposing it on others is the mark of a savage.

Tough.

Who cares?

Surely it’s irrelevant how many MP’s make noise.

It’s whether anyone is listening that matters.

“The Conservatives have 29.8 per cent of all MPs, but provide only 11.8 per cent of tweeting MPs”

Maybe Conservatives MPs are out there trying to win an election, while Labour and Lib Dem MPs have already given up so are sitting on Twitter all day instead?

Just a thought.

Junican I must correct you. 6 out of 7 studies say passive smoke is not harmful. The SCOTH committee representative who produced the report had to add the studies(not all just the ones they chose)together to reach a figure that reached(barely) statistical significance. Not very bad thinking- more like fanatical healthist extremism.

Well, that’s another seat Labour will lose Tom.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/sep/25/smeaton-martin-byelection

The thing is, not all of them are any good at being twimps!

Numbers of twimps are meaningless. What a better study would have done is look at the number of followers each one has to work out the largest audience.

Stop press:
Smokers claim their smoke harms no-one.

Hold the front page..

The word I am looking for describes a dog’s genitalia..

I would like to proclaim an update of Godwin’s Law. Cormack’s Law states (1) that as an internet discussion on Twitter grows, the probability of the use of “twit” as a perjorative becomes 1.
and
(2) People who use “twit” in this way are morons.

Oops.

@Madasafish 3.06pm – not smokers, studies conducted by the tobacco control lobby which, in the absence of the required outcome, indulged in jiggery-pokery to create it. It’s why informed smokers are so angry.

I found the most interesting statistic the fact that 40-odd-percent of the tweets were all about themselves.

I think no further comment is neccessary…

I wonder how many of the older voters (the ones who actually come out to vote in large numbers) are twittering? errrr This obsession with twitter etc is symptomatic of whats going wrong. How about less twittering/whittering and some policy announcements?
Things are going down the pan big time.

Megasafish.

Let us get down to brass tacks. I cannot understand why YOU are bothered about the fact that I enjoy tobacco. My hobby has nothing to do with you, even if it is true that I am injuring myself – that is my right.
Do we agree that? If you do not, then you need to explain why footballers, boxers, etc are allowed to risk serious injury to themselves.

What you see as a problem is that my cigarette smoke may damage YOU.

How do you know?

You rely on the statisticians, epidemiologists, etc to tell you so.

In actual point of fact (and remember that the FACTS are the most important thing), it turned out, historically, that REALITY did not conform to the epidemiologist’s expectations. FAR TOO MANY PEOPLE WHO WERE NOT SMOKERS THEMSELVES, BUT WERE EXPOSED TO SECOND-HAND SMOKE, GOT SMOKING-RELATED DISEASES. When I say far too many, I mean FAR, FAR too many.

The reason that epidemiologists were upset was that passive smokers were only supposed to receive one hundredth of of the effect that direct smokers receive (due to dispersion).

What these people did then was UP THE ANTI. They looked for reasons to explain the anomaly. They found the reason in weird and wonderful new MOLECULES in cigarette smoke.

There is a word for this sort of physics, but I cannot remember what it is. In computer terms, it is a CIRCULAR REFERENCE.

For some reason that I do not understand, the Government swallowed this reasoning hook, line and sinker.

The destruction of our pubs and clubs is a direct consequence of this CIRCULAR REFERENCE.

The FACTS that I have quoted above (re too many illnesses) are described in the evidence put before the Health Quangos circa 2004. You can read it if you want to.

The fact of the matter is that ‘passive smoking’ is, in health terms, totally harmless.

[...] Tom Harris has an analysis of Parliamentary twittering. [...]