Wednesday 12 November 2008

1984(14): Tobacco rationing

From "Nineteen Eighty-Four" by George Orwell:

He [Parsons] had lugged out a huge and filthy pipe which was already half full of charred tobacco. With the tobacco ration at a hundred grammes per week it was seldom possible to fill a pipe up to the top. Winston [Smith] was smoking a Victory Cigarette which he carefully held horizontally. The new ration did not start till tomorrow and he had only four cigarettes left.

One hundred grammes per week = half an ounce per day (what we smokers colloquially refer to as 'half an ounce' is in fact slightly less, or 12.5 grammes in NewSpeak), quite enough for thirty or so rollies, which is roughly what I get through. So if George Orwell saw this as a cruel restriction, it does beg the question as to how much he smoked. But never mind, George Orwell saw tobacco rationing as just one of a thousand ways in which an authoritarian State would infringe individual liberties.

So it's interesting to note that one of Paul Flynn MP's* most noteworthy comments on being sent a copy of 1984, just to remind him that it was a warning not an instruction manual, was "Previously, the anti-smoking ban people have traded on the concept of 'freedom' rather than the ban. Reading the document that came with the book I formed the impression from the final sentences that the smoking ban was the main complaint."

* Who can't spell Leg-Iron.

5 comments:

Leg-iron said...

No, he can't spell my name, but I note he has made use of 'surveillance of neighbours' by adding 'from hell' to it. He seems to think that putting your bin out early is the work of Satan.

He's just posted in support of the Gorgon's calling Cameron's baby P question a party political point.

The man has no shame.

Mark Wadsworth said...

That surveillance of neighbours point had me wondering what level of reality he operates on.

Nulab are totally on the side of neighbours from hell. Perhaps Labour councils get bonus points and extra funding for every complaint about them, or something?

John Pickworth said...

I've been trying to engage Paul Flynn as he seems at least partially open to a debate... possibly wishful thinking on my part I'll admit. However credit to him for leaving his comments open.

I have to say though I just can't quite grasp his thinking? I'm reading some of his responses and they appear to be an eclectic mixture of the party line, ignorance and earnest belief.

Whatever happened to the intelligent politician? I seem to recall we used to be blessed (for good and bad) with a cadre of mostly decent, independent thinkers on both sides of the House? Where did they all go?

Anyway, the biggest disappointment I have with Flynn is the oft repeated refrane of the "I'm right and you're wrong" tone voiced by most of his ilk. Almost all the commenters on his blog are trying to tell him something but he just refuses to see it. Instead he explains them away with a terse accusation they (we) are a bunch of Libertarian crazies or Daily Mail letter writers - which is certainly not true in my case.

Still, I'm not giving up... he will listen and so will his mates in the bunker.

By the way Mark, you're correct. There's an entire micro-industry within local Government geered to creating or discovering 'problems' that need solving... the incentive is to access additional central government funds that pay for 'results'. Its a total scam mind. The outcome is rarely a better environment or service for tax payers or consumers, but rather an increase in jobs within the organisation. Its job creation at our expense... although officially its self-funding (yeah right).

Anonymous said...

Never heard of this MP before. I like him. Okay, he keeps accusing everyone of being a Daily Mail reader but consider this post. He's not without sense. I need more Labourites saying this so I don't keep getting chewed up in Council about the fact that I....errr...look at the facts.

Mark Wadsworth said...

PT, fair enough, he gets a bonus point for that post.