Monthly Archives: April 2008

Bioethanol crime burning food atrocity murder children corn life

David Davis

Libertarian Alliance quote of the day….from our good and right friends at Delaware Libertarian…

The Stupidity of Ethanol in a single sentence

Peg, at A Secondhand Conjecture

, finds a sentence that cuts to the heart of the matter:


Every fill of the tank with ethanol uses the same amount of corn a child would eat in a year, and let’s not even talk about the amount of potable water used to grow the corn in the first place.

Sort of makes fossil fuels seem more rational, huh?

And this is what peter Hitchens thinks of the Tories, in his Mail on Sunday thingy


David Davis

A BLAST FROM THE PAST… libertarianism versus Conservatism – a debate.

This was published by us in 1989, as “Libertarian Alliance Pamphlet number 14″ – that takes you back, doesn’t it; we were young then, Thatcher was in power, Gorbachev obeyed every word she said, the Berlin Wall was about to come down, and all was sweetness and light!

“Bliss was it, in that very dawn, to be alive”.

Here as a pdf

Here’s what it broadly contains:-

I Gerry Frost: What Good Is The State?

II Chris R. Tame: The Bankruptcy of Conservatism

III Gerry Frost: Libertarians Versus Liberty

IV Chris R. Tame: Libertarianism Versus Conservatism

V Chris R. Tame: Some Second Thoughts

Chris Tame and Gerry Frost debate the relevance of Libertarianism to practical conservative politics, or to anything at all. A good read.

It is especially relevant in the context of the London mayoral elections tomorrow. Whether or not you think that cities ought to have powerful “Mayors”, or whether the sorts of things they try to get their teeth into can be sorted out by free markets, everybody elegible to vote in London ought to read this stuff today.




Is Libertarianism inseparable from the cause of upholding the British Nation? Roderick Moore writes a re-appraisal of British History…

…on a Grand Canvas. I personally agree with him.

Libertarian Alliance Showcase Publication No 1:

David Davis

Here’s how he begins. Readers will be familiar with the Gramscian deconstruction of (especially) British history, for nefarious and anti-liberal purposes.

Please remember that Moore was writing in 2001, and matters have moved much, much further down into the cesspit, as indeed he predicted:-

In the next few years, the debate about Britain’s membership of

the European Union is likely to intensify, as Euroscepticism gradually

grows in strength and the Eurofanatics start getting desperate.

It would be wise for us to anticipate the kind of arguments

that the Eurofanatics are likely to use against us, and prepare our




Their main propaganda tactic will probably be to attempt

to destroy our morale by persuading us that Britain is not

worth fighting for, because we have got nothing to be proud of in

our history and everything to be ashamed of – in other words,

they will step up the smear campaign against Britain which the

Guardian-reading intellectual elite have already been waging for

the last forty years.



As Oliver Cromwell once said, a good soldier should know what

he is fighting for and love what he knows. That also applies to

the war of ideas. Before we can regain our national independence,

we have to regain our national pride, and before we

can regain our national pride, we have to rescue our history from

the smears and distortions of the socialist intellectual establishment.



This essay is intended to be a small step towards that

goal. In it, I propose to examine some of the most important

events in British history and attempt to vindicate our reputation as

a nation.




“Perhaps the noblest task of the popular historian should be

to make us ashamed of our forefathers … now that the hilarious

residue of the White Man’s Burden has been chased

out of the reading books of schoolboys.”

(Dennis Potter, 1967. Quoted in James 1994, p. 602)

Dennis Potter was one of the few men in Britain who could use

more words than Neil Kinnock to say even less…..


…….so read more here:-


A half-hour trip into any British State secondary school, by which age the child-inmates are thoroughly deconstructed historically, will confrim the truth of what he says.

Plants, animals and “Climate Change” – two ruminations on the environment, published by the Libertarian Alliance

David Davis

Good paper by Joe Peacott, in 2006, now in the Libertarian Alliance archives of free publications.

A number of years ago I wrote a couple of pamphlets

about the politics of AIDS.




At the time there was a (read more at the above link)

There’s another good one here:

This is called Global Warming: Inventing An Apocalypse, 1994, 4pp by Kevin McFarlane.


The opinions and beliefs of “pop” “stars” ought to influence us all, every day, so we become a better and better “people”, increasingly elegible for dissolution and re-election.

David Davis

There is some quite remarkably frank and plangent stuff in here about green-ness and global jet travel (on a tip from Moonbattery) even from the mouth of a “pop” “star’s” wife.

Libertarian Party of the UK to debate policies at Trinity College, Oxford, in May 2008

David Davis


IT’S TOMORROW 23RD MAY 2008 ……..

I am pleased to resyndicate this from Devil’s Kitchen. The event ought to be as widely publicised as possible.

In May, the UK Libertarian Party has been invited to engage in a debate at the political society of Trinity College, Oxford. Ahead of that, the student paper, Cherwell, has published an article on the party’s policies

.Which is, of course, all very well except that it demonstrates just how pissing ignorant students are, even at our “top” universities. And so, since they have fired the opening salvo, I feel duty-bound to reply (oh, and it is a pleasure too).

Let us take the first idiot into our stride, shall we…..?



Read more here.

 Devil does more than credit to his usual self in this demolition of widely-held modern-day political myopias, about such things as taxation policy, and er, liberty.



I hope that he is right

David Davis


“When the people feel they are being made subject to laws in which they feel they have played no part and taxes to which they have never consented, respect for both law and government is undermined. Our tradition for order and peaceful change is based not only on the character of our own people but on an enduring, if tacit, bargain between Government and governed that the former will play fair and will be scrupulous in how they deal with the people’s rights. But if Governments do not play fair, if they behave in a way people consider to be in itself
unconstitutional, there is evidence enough in British history to show we are not a docile people but a very determined and fierce one indeed”.
Lord Peter Shore 1992

Quote of the Day – Milton Friedman

David Davis

A society that puts equality – in the sense of equality of outcome – ahead of freedom, will end up with neither equality or freedom.

The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom.

On the other hand, a society that puts freedom first will, as a happy by-product, end up with both greater freedom and greater equality. Freedom means diversity but also mobility. It preserves the opportunity for today’s less well off to become tomorrow’s rich, and in the process, enables almost everyone, from top to bottom, to enjoy a richer and fuller life.

Whose side exactly is the “News of the World” on? In a socialist world, it would be closed down, the male journalists shot and the female journos (many, many I think) raped – and then shot.


I do not think that North Korea, Red Ken’s favourite country after Venezuela (pretty girls and oil to seize for his heavies’ limos) and Cuba (pretty girls for the price of a Pepsi but no oil to seize for his heavies’ limos), and the objective toward which he ploughs, using the money of Londoners, has many newspapers like the “News of the World”.

David Davis

This afternoon I chanced on this:-


I do not know who “Lord Laidlaw” is – never heard of him. Apparently he has a “Sex” “addiction”, and has had it for years.

What a great guy! How lovely for him, and for the rest of us as human beings, for it to be realised that sex is so nice.


He’s learnt what it’s about.

He has had the good fortune to chance upon the knowledge, sufficiently early in life to come to a fixed policy-position which he has clearly followed to the end of his strength. That is to say, that the exquisite thrill you get when having sex, with a girl – as is natural. I mean, who else, as a Man, can you have sex with?


I'm not denigrating homosexuals, who may very well be sincere human beings, and many are indeed libertarians, but what they (say that they) are having is not actually sex, which is strictly defined by Scientists - is, er, ummmmm, great.

Apart form anything else, no functioning or living Libertarian would kill, stone-to-death or sacro-religiously push walls over, onto anyone who described himself/herself as a homosexual/lesbian. It's your choice, people, coz' you said so, and it's your lives and not ours.]

But anyway, to business: this “Lord” has decided he likes sex with girls. A lot. Wonderful!  (They might even be pretty – I do hope so for his sake, and for their earning power….) Why does he have to apologise, and to whom, and what business is it of a British “national” “News” “Paper” what he does in his spare time?

And all this sad business about praising his “long-suffering wife….” ….they all do it. Why? Is that what the PR firm tells them to do, to hide the hypocrisy of the report being in the open in the first place?

As the great departed comedian Benny Hill, the greatest debunker of “political correctness” since Churchill or Dave Allen, said once (if not more often that that even):

“Never put off till tomorrow what you can do today. If you enjoyed it today, then you can always do it again tomorrow.”

It is not exactly clear to me what business it is of “The News of the World”, or indeed its readers, how “Lord Laidlaw” spends his money and his free time. They ought not to be execrating it. They should be extolling it. 

If “Lord Laidlaw” (must be a made-up name, unless he is from the Scottish Lowlands) wants to shag several “working girls” at once, or even invite his friends to help out, and pay for them like a good host ought, then should not the paper then be declaiming the delights of this activity, and its rewards (a lovely feeling for a few seconds at a time, for the man, every few hours, and lots of money for the woman/women) to the “deserving poor” – so that they can aspire towards something to achieve in this life, and to work for? 

A point that ought to be made about “Sex Addiction” is that, unlike (arguably) Alcohol, Drugs or Tobacco addiction, it disadvantages nobody and has no ill-health effects, not even for the people nearby to the addict. The “addict” is very happy all the time because he has a lot of sex, he suffers no bodily ill-effects (quite the contrary in fact) and the other participant, if of the right sex, get a lot of fun too, if willing. (If not, then it’s called rape, and we have lots of laws about that, so there!)

Moreover, if the “News of the World” wants to continue to sell copies of its “News”  “Paper”, then it ought to be promoting the benefits of “Sex Addiction”, particularly in “Tories” – and especially near election times – otherwise it will have nothing for its journos to write about on the dead-tree-material it uses.

I hear about all this stuff, and I really get PISSED OFF, that the entire world gets to think that the British people, the progenitors and originators of the idea of liberalism, and the idea that nobody else ought to interfere in your life’s arrangements unless you hurt them, actually get exercised about this sort of news……

…..After all, aren’t we, according to the same paper, supposed to be having acres of delicous sex, all the time, with all sorts of people? So if so, what’s the news in this report?

Sean v Archbishop’s Man re Poverty

(Note: this was published in 2009, but since the current Archbishop of Canterbury has also sold his soul to the GramscoFabiaNazis, and is a critic of liberal capitalism having madee lots of money in it previously, we have retrieved this post.)

Sean Gabb

I’ve been invited on the radio tonight to debate with one of the senior advisers to the Archbishop of Canterbury on whether high salaries should be “capped” in order ot help the poor.

I shall probably be allowed about three discontinuous minutes, while the majority of time goes to some clerical communist droning on about “compassion”. However, what I will try to argue is as follows:

The salaries of those who work for the State come from a forcible transfer of wealth, often form the poor. Such slaries should be capped at £20,000. The salaries and rewards of those who run big business and the City are often based on a grant of state privilege. Such people should be exposed to real market competition.

But most people who do well in this country do so by offering goods and services on terms that others find attractive. Their wealth is justly acquired, and it is immoral to call for it to be taken away. Continue reading

Sean Gabb on the Radio tonight Saturday 26th April, BBC Radio 5 Live, after 23.45 BST

David Davis

From Sean Gabb,
Director, the Libertarian Alliance,
to: Yahoo Group: Eurorealists

Dear Fellow Eurorealists,

I’ve been invited on the radio tonight to debate with one of the senior
advisers to the Archbishop of Canterbury on whether high salaries should
be “capped” in order ot help the poor.

I shall probably be allowed about three discontinuous minutes, while the
majority of time goes to some clerical communist droning on about
“compassion”. However, what I will try to argue is as follows:

The salaries of those who work for the State come from a forcible
transfer of wealth, often form the poor. Such slaries should be capped at
£20,000. The salaries and rewards of those who run big business and the
City are often based on a grant of state privilege. Such people should be
exposed to real market competition.

But most people who do well in this country do so by offering goods and
services on terms that others find attractive. Their wealth is justly
acquired, and it is immoral to call for it to be taken away. Certainly,
what I earn is for me and my wife and daughter. It is not for some
feckless prole in a council flat. The modern Church of England would
never dream of calling for the regulation of what consenting adults do
with each other in bed. Why therefore call for controls on what they do
with their cash?

Beside this, the whole idea of capping the rich is based on evil
premises. The assumption behind these calls is that England is like some
gigantic ant heap in which the few own and control the many. This
assumption destoys all scope for exercising the free will on which
salvation is supposed to depend.

Now, I shan’t be able to say much of this. But YOU CAN HELP!

Please tune in, either with your wireless or via the Internet. Try to
call, e-mail or text your points across. You will probably be filtered
out to make room for more whining communists. But it’s worth the effort.
Do this if you live in england. But why not give it a try from abroad? If
you think the Christian Faith is worth saving from the Left, here is an

Here are the details:

From 10pm onwards – though me probably around midnight: 22:00 Stephen
Nolan Show

Wireless frequency: 909 or 693 khz AM

Call 0500 909 693 [free from BT landlines; charges for mobiles and other
networks will vary].

Text 85058 [network rates].


Good luck.


No blogging today, had to get the crops in for the coming famine (see biofuels)

David Davis

See “biofuels”. We have to eat. Later this year, when there is nothing in the shops as all the world’s food’s been burnt by stalinist guvmints who worship the evil fascist pig “Al” “Gore”, who has grown nothing in his life.

“Join British Army”

A search-engine string that hit us today, suddenly, on the port beam, in a heavy following sea……they do that, you know. You just don’t see them coming, the radar’s sort of quiet, but then you find you have to say something, to plug the hole in the hull. Hard business, running a Ship. Better call the Pusser to issue Grog to the Men. Everyone in the port/after-PO’s mess is soaked through, and angry.

The point about the British Army is that, if one is into armies and is either a libertarian, a liberal or a conservative (what is the practical difference in political terms?) and therefore knows truly what armies are for in this new, slightly un-nerving 21st-century world in which humorous but badly-challenged mountebanks like “Al” “Gore” and somebody else called “Putin” or “Ahmadinejad” or “Mugabe” or whatever it is, are disporting themselves for the benefit of the wireless tele bumboys at the BBC,  then it is the real thing.

Sorry, that sentence was too long. I will re-edit it. Later.

David Davis

Now I wonder why anybody, today, would want to do that thing, given the following:

(a) No body-armour (not like working for proper Defence-Ministers like in the USA or France)

(b) Calumnical criticism by non-combatant Maxist turds and toads, masquerading as “teachers”, who go round schools telling you how nasty and horrid the British Army is.

(c) No proper American or South-African vehicles (I bet the Israelis have got some too, God bless them! Let’s make them an offer) to protect you from “mines” (MINES for God’s sake? How low-tech can you go? No t*******d’s mine can be THAT big, even if bought from North Korea and pretending to be nuclear) or IEDs – I thought these were contraceptives until I listened to that Iranian madman who captured our whole navy last year.

We were complimented the other day on some poetry we published (not ours!) So here’s some more, also not ours.

David Davis

I have no clue who wrote this (it wasn’t one of us, I just found it saved on here somewhere) but I believe it to be recent, that is to say, inside the time of the current interregnum between the full demise of the UK and the full rise of the Fourth Reich. It’s author is probably “Ethnic English”, and may have some slight historical knowledge of folk-lore, predating the current British State-directed Schools History Syllabus.

The rhythm of the scanning is really quite wonderful, if you say it properly. It brings back memories of the olden-times, when the proper appreciation of poetry was also believed to contain an understanding of mathematics and, er, all that other stuff that is now not taught. No wonder that britain’s modern schoolchildren, in especial boys, have neither the understanding nor the will to encompass grand, polemical English.

It has, so far as I am aware, no title:-


Arrow of Agincourt! War-axe of Hastings!

Grey-Goose-feather’d Bodkin thro’ armour and bone!

Shall we of such forefathers be but as playthings?

Meekly accepting the crumbs that are thrown?

(See CHORUS below for every verse if wanted)



They fasten upon us their fetters of paper

and bind us in chains of their Treaty of Rome….

They claim us as vassals! By pen of foul traitor

rule over the Land that our Fathers call home.



Rise, Yeomen’s fury! Come, Seawolves in Longships!

Let us fling to the skies the fierce Viking “Ahoy”!

Scream fierce the wild Pibroch! Sing loud Men of Harlech!

O these are the mem’ries they cannot destroy!



By guile they would flail us, who could not assail us

but reeled from the steel of the Eorl and the Gael!

Shall we bow to such masters? Across our bright waters

yet guarding our freedom? Our Moat without fail?



Can paper bonds bind e’er the strong limbs of giants?

Can traitors or treaties make warriors tame?

Let us cast off their bonds like the mists of the morning!……




In the Roar of the Lion, the leap of the Leopard

the Truth Will Prevail! And our Freedom Proclaim!


(These last two lines can be sung or shouted, double-speed, after every verse if desired.

A quantity of beer is also required to be provided as this is a friendly and benign song, to be shared in the company of mates, such as in the Pub.)

Kelvin Mackenzie in the Telegraph today…very acerbic about jackboot-nannies and Soviet council jobsworths…and money.

David Davis

Wonderful turn of phrase, that man has.

I feel in my bones, the time ‘a-coming, when the remaining 23 people in Britian who care about liberty will rise up – and (blog about pretending to) throw out the bureauweenies, jackbootists and uncaring socialist kurwy that we have allowed to infest us while we slept.

Motor(ists): are they somehow bracketed now with rap(ists), terror(ists), smoke(ists), Wykeham(ists) or “right-wing” journal(ists)? Is the “Green” “Levy” just another tax? Duuuuuuuuuuuuh……

David Davis

Tell the DT what you think.#


Would a teacher who didn’t read or like the Guardian (believed to be a “News Paper”) or didn’t want to go on strike today, even if HE was a member of the NUT, be called a…

TEACHIST ? (Perhaps he’d also be an “extremist”…)


11 wives, and he’s not happy. “government should have done more to help” says stressed husband…

David Davis

From the DT:


An Ethiopian man who has 77 children by 11 wives has urged others not to get married and has taken to dispensing advice on family planning to his neighbours.

Ayattu Nure, 56, says he used to be a wealthy man and married out of a desire to share his money around but claims he is now peniless because of the competing demands of his brood.

“I want my children to be farmers but I have no land, I want them to go to school but I have no money,” he says….


Read more (it gets better…)

NUT (case) “State” teachers on strike today. No change in how much will be learned by the pupils, then.

Our younger boy’s school has one class operating today, his. He was not very gruntled.

Older one’s outfit operating normally, as far as we could tell; just fewer newish cars in the staff car park.

Much less school run traffic, so therefore good. Will lead to less global warm-mongering.

If the State made it its business to not do anything about education (not even “provide” any) and Marxism was deleted from the “Fiction” syllabuses of British “Teacher Training Colleges”, all this fuss would be irrelevant.

More to the point, how does one “train” a teacher, for goodness’ sake?

St George’s Day, again. Things become old, because they are good. This is old, from Mark Steyn.

David Davis

Englishness”, whatever that is, includes a gift for self-deprecating humour. We can even be funny about the acts of people who hate and fear our culture so deeply, for what it shows about the ultimate realisation and fate of theirs, that they’d really like to bury ours under a mound of forgetfulness.

Seasons of Steyn
Wednesday, 23 April 2008
April 23rd is England’s unofficial national holiday – unofficial because, under Blairite devolution, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and selected Muslim neighborhoods of Greater London, Yorkshire and the Midlands are all nations, but English nationalism is a dark demon that must never be loosed upon the land. This whimsical if-the-English-were-like-the-Irish column first appeared in Tony Blair’s pre-Iraq heyday seven years ago:  (17th March 2001, Daily Telegraph, copyright Mark Steyn) 

England on the march

New York, 2051 – The annual St George’s Day parade dominated the city today as thousands of English-Americans proudly marched up Fifth Avenue led by Mayor Chelsea Clinton in the colourful garb of the English community’s traditional mascot, “Ken-John Peel”. (Peel was a mythological figure who used to roam the countryside with his “goat so gay” – an animal in the advanced stages of BSE.) Other parade members dressed as St George, the small “cheeky chappie” known as a “leperchaun”, a word deriving from a notorious denunciation of the English 50 years ago this month, when Irish Cabinet minister Hugh Byrne referred to the country as “the leper of Europe”. St George is usually accompanied by his “dragon” – an intimidating female figure in a blue suit swinging a giant “handbag”.

The good-natured throng, including many prominent English-American political leaders, sang such well-loved favourites as “Let’s All Go Down The Strand (‘Ave A Banana!)”, the old rebel song commemorating a march on government buildings during the dark days of the “meat famine”, when the haughty Celtic governor Tony Blair dismissed the emaciated peasants and advised them to become vegetarian. As in the less popular St Patrick’s Day parade, participants march under the banners of their ancient English counties – “Avon”, “Humberside”, “Salop” and “West Midlands”. Many of these were abolished when Governor Blair, in a cynical attempt to crush the nationalist movement, “partitioned” the kingdom of England into different regions. Most marchers regard these divisions as artificial and waved placards calling for a “United England”.

St George’s celebrations are still outlawed in England under Draconian measures dating back to the Blairite regime. In the late 20th century, many Scottish families – the Blairs, Browns, Cooks, Darlings – settled in England, seizing the rich pasture land of north London, driving the local chieftains from the Palace of Westminster, and forcing the native population to work in servile, degrading jobs such as “Leader of the Opposition”. Many still speak of the effete decadent sadistic viceroy, Lord Irvine, who had entire herds of cattle slaughtered merely so that he could use….

read more….



On St George’s Day, England is wiped off the map. The best day to reveal “secret” EU plans which our traitorous politicians have known about for years.

David Davis



Here’s the Daily Torygraph’s map:-

The wet bit in the middle is to be called the “Channel sea”. Miserable toads, all of these “énarques”, so they are… with their heads. 

And here’s The-Sun’s map:-


I can’t copy-paste it as The Sun has copyrighted it, but you can go there I suppose. The Dead-Tree-Press has still got a lot to learn about the viral nature of the blogosphere.

Interestingly, on The Sun’s map, there is a little white bit in the middle of England which corresponds approx to Oxfordshire/Bucks/Northhants/Warwickshire/Worcestershire/Leicestershire/Bedfordshire, and which seems to belong to no “EU Region”. Perhaps this will be called “England” – or can anyone enlighten me?

I seem to remember that John Prescott, about whom we have recently blogged in a kindly way, was in favour of these “regions.”

Tomorrow is St George’s Day. In the twilight of nations, it’s good to think on what we’ve done and could do.

David Davis

I would like “England” to be an idea. Really. It is so good and so right, so inevitable if you take to its logical conclusion the philosophy of Natural Rights together with ordinary conservatism, which is to say “liberalism” (our definition, not the Democrats’) which is what humans do when left alone to get on with stuff that needs to get done. 

We ought to be so deeply proud of what we (really) are and what we have done, and can still do, that the entire world of all human beings ought to be given the chance to be part of it.

We nearly did it, so very nearly. This was the closest that Man got to “take-off”, ever. (Read Paul Johnson’s “Enemies of Society“.) The British Empires (the Second one, ended 1776, and the Third one, possibly still alive?), the latter originally meant to be run by a man and a couple of boys just out of Oxbridge, did more good, to more people, for less loss of life per billion people per unit time, than any other human institution – and it wasn’t even planned.

The great truth that England – the UK, whatever’s your bacon here – is an idea, is behind the last 60 years’ institutionalised destruction, by Marxo-Gramscians including tragically many, many native ones, of whatever can be dubbed an “English” (or even British?) icon, custom, saying, object, word, or place (such as Southern Rhodesia) or even a joke.

Never, never underestimate your enemy. If he is this thing, then he has probably realised that you are so right that he has to Invoke the Devil in order to destroy you. All the evidence points to the fact that this civilisation to which we belong, and to which we gave birth, engenders hate in pre-barbarian-blood-ridden competitors that is out of all proportion to our size, population, and age.

Long Live St George, whoever he might have been.


Scurrilous ditty about that forbidden thing, Englishness and England, the home and birthlace of libertarianism

David Davis

From: tess nash
Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2008 11:19 AM

Apr 19th 08
The Last Laugh
David Prowse – The Cornwall Poet
pub WESTERN MORNING NEWS – 19 April 08
More needless legislation, that’s the answer to our ills!
As the credit crisis deepens and we wrestle with our bills,
But never mind the real world, the new approach to care
Is to sidestep other problems for the one that isn’t there.
So by courtesy of Europe, via Harriet’s brigade,
We shall seek out innuendo in establishments of trade.
And we’ll pounce upon employers, whose poor beleaguered staff
Detect offensive mischief in a giggle or a laugh.
Thus ogling at the barmaid, though she wears a see-through dress
Could constitute behaviour causing anguish and distress!
Her boss could be in trouble for the sparkle in your eye,
So don’t ask to see her etchings or they’ll ship him to Shanghai.
A phrase like “Here you are my love” when paying at the bar
Is the sort of sexist chatter that takes friendliness too far!
Forgo your foolish banter and remove that silly grin!
Or mine host will be reported, and the fuzz will run him in.
It seems our lords and masters find suspicion in a smile.
They’d rather we were fashioned in their own robotic style,
To pull our carts submissively like oxen in a yoke;
To pay our tithes and taxes, but never share a joke.
To smile away our troubles was a British thing to do!
It was humour that sustained us and would bring its people through.
We laughed at one another, we would give and we would take,
Yet we all linked arms together when the storms began to break.
You somehow get the feeling with each order and decree,
They don’t want us to be British in the way we used to be.
They don’t want us to be different or, in any way, alone,
For they denigrate all reference to a culture of our own.
We have laws already with us for the idiots within,
Whose ridicule is based upon the colour of your skin.
We have laws that deal with sexists and the bigots of our time!
Do we need another statute making levity a crime?
Offence is all around us if offence is what we seek -
We can conjure it from innocence wherever people speak.
Well, I, too, am offended, by pomposity’s pretence,
As another lawyer’s charter takes the place of common sense.

Happy Earth Day”! Mark Steyn (whom you all love) celebrates it. I didn’t know there was one, so hopeless I am. The Socialists will be wanting an “Armed Forces Day” next…

David Davis (not that one)

Mark Steyn is a daily read for all of us sad middle-aged white male bourgeois nerds.

Here’s the thingy for “Earth Day” – I have to admit I was not even aware of its existence – the collectivist-smugfest that is, not the Earth itself.

Here’s Mark:


April 22nd is Earth Day but, alas, with all the “climate change”, we only have a few Earth Days to go before the entire planet goes belly up. So here, as a reminder of the perilous state of our earth, is my tribute to the bottom of the food chain, as written for The Daily Telegraph in 2004:

Professor Lloyd Peck of the British Antarctic Survey is worried about – stop me if you’ve heard this one before – global warming. For this year’s Royal Institution Christmas lecture, he’ll be warning that the merest smidgeonette of an increase in temperature in the south polar seabed will lead to the loss of a zillion species. As the oceans warm, the ice shelves that extend from the polar depths into the sub-Antarctic light will shrink, and the thick mats of algae on their underside will vanish, and the billions of tiny krill that feed on them will perish, and pretty soon, up at the scenic end of the food chain, all those cute seals and penguins and whales will be gone.

And all this will happen if the temperature goes up two degrees, from butt-numbingly freezing to marginally less butt-numbingly freezing. “It is going to be really unpleasant,” Prof Peck tells The Guardian. “We are going to lose things – we just don’t know how much.”


Read more here…..

David Davis

Just to advise all you people that we have added to our blogroll the
fine folks at, the most successful liberty-oriented
podcast. They do 6 shows a week and are on thirty or forty radio
stations in the USA.


More about “Fairtrade is a fraud” – nice pamphlet by the Institute of Economic Affairs

David Davis

Last month one of our experienced writers said that “Fairtrade is a Fraud”.  While this IEA pamphlet here today does not deny the inherent and (very) inconvenient truth of this statement, it enlarges on some of the relationships involved in the whole “Fairtrade” scam, and explains why the entire “Fairtrade” flim-flam-branding exercise has the welfare of the “growers” as the least of its concerns.

Or you can see it here.

John Prescott: One Hand in Our Pockets, Another Down His Throat

News of John Prescott’s “eating disorder” gave me my best laugh of the week – until I went out shopping: food for Mrs Gabb, Miss Gabb and me from Sainsbury cost £90, and that was without alcohol or meat.

It’s bad enough that this worthless man spent a decade shovelling food and drink down his throat at our expense. Now it emerges he was straightaway pushing his head into a toilet bowl and puking it all out again.

What a waste of the taxpayers’ money!

Indeed, what about those children in Africa we were all told about when confronted with a plate of inedible greens? At a conservative estimate, Mr Prescott must have been feeding 8,000 calories a day to the sewer rats. That could have kept a family of five from starvation.

Above all, though, I feel cheated. There was an Anglo-Saxon King – I think it was Hardicanute – who died when his stomach burst one night at dinner. For some of us, the only compensation in the grim years of Blairism was that the same might happen to Mr Prescott.

Bah – New Labour: old fraud!


How utterly embarrassing

David Davis

British Government “survey” of people’s sex lives, partners, children – living or dead – and incomes. What have these got to do with each other except as an extremely perverted form of coercive socialist pornography?

David Davis

The title says it all. Here’s the thingy in the Daily Torygraph. I believe the Mail on Sunday yesterday 20th April carried it as front-page.

It’s serious Political-Correctness gone sane.



(Wish it WOULD go mad, fall off a cliff, and die.)

Of course he got fired. What else would you expect nasty Gramscian neo-Marxists to do to one who tells it like it is, not like they want to want you to want it to have been?

David Davis

Hat tips from Free Market Fairy Tales, and Kathy Shaidle.

David Bullard was fired from the Times for saying the following:



Uncolonised Africa wouldn’t know what it was missing


So David Bullard the ‘controversial’ Sunday Times columnist has been given the boot. Turns out the bad boy of South African writing ruffled a few feathers with his column “Out To Lunch” on Sunday. In his last offering of Out to Lunch, Bullard graphically detailed how Africa had “benefited” from colonialism, an argument that drew criticism from readers and social commentators. “He wrote a racist column on Sunday. I had a conversation with him on Tuesday, I told him that what he wrote was unacceptable,” Sunday Times editor Mondli Makhanya said last night. “It went against the values of this newspaper. “He told me he believed what he had written. I took a decision as editor to discontinue his contract.”


Business Day Friday 11/04/2008


& here is the piece in question


Imagine for a moment what life would be like in South Africa if the evil white man hadn’t come to disturb the rustic idyll of the early black settlers. Ignored by the Portuguese and Dutch, except as a convenient resting point en route to India. Shunned by the British, who had decided that their empire was already large enough and didn’t need to include bits of Africa.

The vast mineral wealth lying undisturbed below the Highveld soil as simple tribesmen graze their cattle blissfully unaware that beneath them lies one of the richest gold seams in the world. But what would they want with gold?


There are no roads because no roads are needed because there are no cars. It’s 2008 and no one has taken the slightest interest in South Africa, apart from a handful of botanists and zoologists who reckon that the country’s flora and fauna rank as one of the largest unspoilt areas in a polluted world. Because they have never been exposed to the sinful ways of the West, the various tribes of South Africa live healthy and peaceful lives, only occasionally indulging in a bit of ethnic cleansing.

Their children don’t watch television because there is no television to watch. Instead they listen to their grandparents telling stories around a fire. They live in single-storey huts arranged to catch most of the day’s sunshine and their animals are kept nearby.

Nobody has any more animals than his family needs and nobody grows more crops than he requires to feed his family and swap for other crops. Ostentation is unknown because what is the point of trying to impress your fellow citizens when they are not impressible?

The dreaded Internet doesn’t exist in South Africa and cellphone companies have laughed off any hope of interesting the inhabitants in talking expensively into a piece of black plastic. There are no unsightly shopping malls selling expensive goods made by Asian slave workers and consequently there are no newspapers or magazines carrying articles comparing the relative merits of ladies’ handbags.

Whisky, the curse of the white man, isn’t known in this undeveloped land and neither are cigars. The locals brew a sort of beer out of vegetables and drink it out of shallow wooden bowls. Five-litre paint cans have yet to arrive in South Africa.

Every so often a child goes missing from the village, eaten either by a hungry lion or a crocodile. The family mourn for a week or so and then have another child. Life is, on the whole, pretty good but there is something vital missing. Being unaware of the temptations of the outside world, nobody knows what it is. Fire has been discovered and the development of the wheel is coming on nicely but the tribal elders are still aware of some essential happiness ingredient they still need to discover. Praying to the ancestors is no help because they are just as clueless.

Then something happens that will change this undisturbed South Africa forever. Huge metal ships land on the coast and big metal flying birds are sent to explore the sparsely populated hinterland. They are full of men from a place called China and they are looking for coal, metal, oil, platinum, farmland, fresh water and cheap labour and lots of it. Suddenly the indigenous population realise what they have been missing all along: someone to blame. At last their prayers have been answered


Published: Sunday Times Apr 07, 2008

AND… on Kathy Shaidle…






For having the nerve to actually say it…

“Columnist David Bullard made a good point, and one

we have made here in the past: compared to the

stone age – or to anything else, Western civilization

is a gift.”



More silly numberplates

David Davis


There is some point to the second one, for the gentleman concerned is a “Hair dresser”. But the poor woman who owns the first will go about with the handicap that everyone will know who she is. it just does not seem very British, to my way of thinking, to do this. Does the Queen go about with a plate that says QUEEN1 on it?

Judith Hatton – Rare Video Footage from 2005


David Davis

Tomorrow is the 40th anniversary of Enoch Powell’s earth-shaking public demolition, of the “rentacrowd”-fascist-anti-liberal-fabian-nasty-precapitalist-barbarian “consensus”. He was referring, in his speech to the Wolverhampton Conservative Assiciation, in particular to the ways in which a civilisation ought to handle the influx of people to itself – not in itself a bad thing, and he never said it was. Quite the contrary, if you read it below. 

It’s just that the buggers who want to destroy us because our nation has shown them to be hideous archaic destroyers themselves, got uppity that the truth would be out. The fascist murdering pederast traitorist pig  “Ted” Heath, who ought to be disinterred and publicly burnt, and was possibly an even worse Prime Minister than Gordon Brown, thought that Powell was letting the side down by exposing the agenda of the ruiners.

Here’s the speech. he never said “Rivers of Blood”, as a phrase. Powell’s great handicap in the emerging society whose policies he was criticising, was to assume that all readers, everywhere, would understand his classical allusions, and would automatically know that if his enemies said he said “Rivers of Blood”, then they would be discounted as liars and turds:



Enoch Powell’s speech to the Annual General Meeting of the West Midlands Area Conservative Political Centre, Birmingham, England, April 20, 1968.

[VDARE.COM NOTE: Everyone refers to this as the “Rivers of Blood” speech. As you can see below, he didn’t quite say that. Simon Heffer’s excellent biography of Powell was not called Rivers of Blood, it was called Like The Roman.]


The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils.



In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature. One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: At each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future. Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: “if only”, they love to think, “if only people wouldn’t talk about it, it probably wouldn’t happen”. Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the thing, the name and the object, are identical.




At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it, deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after.




A week or two ago I fell into conversation with a constituent, a middle-aged, quite ordinary working man employed in one of our nationalized industries. After a sentence or two about the weather, he suddenly said: “If I had the money to go, I wouldn’t stay in this country.”




I made some deprecatory reply, to the effect that even this Government wouldn’t last for ever; but he took no notice, and continued: “I have three children, all of them have been through grammar school and two of them married now, with family. I shan’t be satisfied till I have seen them settled overseas. In this country in fifteen or twenty years’ time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man.”




I can already hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a horrible thing? How dare I stir up trouble and inflame feelings by repeating such a conversation?


The answer is that I do not have the right not to do so.


Here is a decent, ordinary fellow Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town says to me, his Member of Parliament, that this country will not be worth living in for his children. I simply do not have the right to shrug my shoulders and think about something else.


What he is saying, thousands and hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking—not throughout Great Britain, perhaps, but in the areas that are already undergoing the total transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history.




In fifteen or twenty years, on present trends, there will be in this country 3 1/2 million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants. That is not my figure. That is the official figure given to Parliament by the spokesman of the Registrar General’s office. There is no comparable official figure for the year 2000, but it must be in the region of 5-7 million, approximately one-tenth of the whole population, and approaching that of Greater London.




Of course, it will not be evenly distributed from Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by different sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population.




As time goes on, the proportion of this total who are immigrant descendants, those born in England, who arrived here by exactly the same route as the rest of us, will rapidly increase. Already by 1985 the native-born would constitute the majority. It is this fact above all which creates the extreme urgency of action now, of just that kind of action which is hardest for politicians to take, action where the difficulties lie in the present but the evils to be prevented or minimized lie several parliaments ahead.




The natural and rational first question with a nation confronted by such a prospect is to ask: “How can its dimensions be reduced?” Granted it be not wholly preventable, can it be limited, bearing in mind that numbers are of the essence: the significance and consequences of an alien element introduced into a country or population are profoundly different according to whether that element is 1 per cent or 10 per cent.




The answers to the simple and rational question are equally simple and rational: by stopping or virtually stopping, further inflow, and by promoting the maximum outflow. Both answers are part of the official policy of the Conservative Party.


It almost passes belief that at this moment twenty or thirty additional immigrant children are arriving from overseas in Wolverhampton alone every week—and that means fifteen or twenty additional families of a decade or two hence. Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population.




It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre.


So insane are we that we actually permit unmarried persons to immigrate for the purpose of founding a family with spouses and fiancées whom they have never seen. Let no one suppose that the flow of dependants will automatically tail off. On the contrary, even at the present admission rate of only 5,000 a year by voucher, there is sufficient for a further 325,000 dependants per annum ad infinitum, without taking into account the huge reservoir of existing relations in this country—and I am making no allowance at all for fraudulent entry.


In these circumstances nothing will suffice but that the total inflow for settlement should be reduced at once to negligible proportions, and that the necessary legislative and administrative measures be taken without delay. I stress the words “for settlement”. This has nothing to do with the entry of Commonwealth citizens, any more than of aliens, into this country, for the purposes of study or of improving their qualifications, like (for instance) the Commonwealth doctors who, to the advantage of their own countries, have enabled our hospital service to be expanded faster than would otherwise have been possible. These are not, and never have been, immigrants.





I turn to re-emigration. If all immigration ended tomorrow, the rate of growth of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population would be substantially reduced, but the prospective size of this element in the population would still leave the basic character of the national danger unaffected. This can only be tackled while a considerable proportion of the total still comprises persons who entered this country during the last ten years or so. Hence the urgency of implementing now the second element of the Conservative Party’s policy: the encouragement of re-emigration.




Nobody can make an estimate of the numbers which, with generous grants and assistance, would choose either to return to their countries of origin or to go to other countries anxious to receive the manpower and the skills they represent. Nobody knows, because no such policy has yet been attempted. I can only say that, even at present, immigrants in my own constituency from time to time come to me, asking if I can find them assistance to return home. If such a policy were adopted and pursued with the determination which the gravity of the alternative justifies, the resultant outflow could appreciably alter the prospects for the future.


It can be no part of any policy that existing family should be kept divided; but there are two directions in which families can be reunited, and if our former and present immigration laws have brought about the division of families, albeit voluntary or semi-voluntarily, we ought to be prepared to arrange for them to be reunited in their countries of origin.




In short, suspension of immigration and encouragement of re-emigration hang together, logically and humanly, as two aspects of the same approach.


The third element of the Conservative Party’s policy is that all who are in this country as citizens should be equal before the law and that there shall be no discrimination or difference made between them by public authority. As Mr. Heath has put it, we will have no “first-class citizens” and “second-class citizens”.


This does not mean that the immigrant and his descendants should be elevated into a privileged or special class or that the citizen should be denied his right to discriminate in the management of his own affairs between one fellow citizen and another or that he should be subjected to inquisition as to his reasons and motives for behaving in one lawful manner rather than another.



There could be no grosser misconception of the realities than is entertained by those who vociferously demand legislation as they call it “against discrimination”, whether they be leader-writers of the same kidney and sometimes on the same newspapers which year after year in the 1930s tried to blind this country to the rising peril which confronted it, or archbishops who live in palaces, faring delicately with the bedclothes pulled right over their heads. They have got it exactly and diametrically wrong. The discrimination and the deprivation, the sense of alarm and resentment, lies not with the immigrant population but with those among whom they have come and are still coming.




This is why to enact legislation of the kind before Parliament at this moment is to risk throwing a match on to the gunpowder. The kindest thing that can be said about those who propose and support it is they know not what they do.



Nothing is more misleading than comparison between the Commonwealth immigrant in Britain and the American Negro. The Negro population of the United states, which was already in existence before the United States became a nation, started literally as slaves and were later given the franchise and other rights of citizenship, to the exercise of which they have only gradually and still incompletely come. The Commonwealth immigrant came to Britain as a full citizen, to a country which knows no discrimination between one citizen and another, and he entered instantly into the possession of the rights of every citizen, from the vote to free treatment under the National Health Service. Whatever drawbacks attended the immigrants—and they were drawbacks which did not, and do not, make admission into Britain by hook or by crook appear less than desirable—arose not from the law or from public policy or from administration but from those personal circumstances and accidents which cause, and always will cause, the fortunes and experience of one man to be different for another’s.




But while to the immigrant entry to this country was admission to privileges and opportunities eagerly sought, the impact upon the existing population was very different. For reasons which they could not comprehend, and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country. They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to the immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the native-born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more voices which told them that they were now the unwanted.




On top of this, they now learn that a one-way privilege is to be established by Act of Parliament: a law, which cannot, and is not intended, to operate to protect them or redress their grievances, is to be enacted to give the stranger, the disgruntled and the agent provocateur the power to pillory them for their private actions.




In the hundreds upon hundreds of letters I received when I last spoke on this subject two or three months ago, there was one striking feature which was largely new and which I find ominous. All Members of Parliament are used to the typical anonymous correspondent; but what surprised and alarmed me was the high proportion of ordinary, decent, sensible people, writing a rational and often well-educated letter, who believed that they had to omit their address because it was dangerous to have committed themselves to paper to a Member of Parliament agreeing with the views I had expressed, and that they would risk either penalties or reprisals if they were known to have done so.




The sense of being a persecuted minority which is growing among ordinary English people in the areas of the country which are affected is something that those without direct experience can hardly imagine.




I am going to allow just one of those hundreds of people to speak for me. She did give her name and address, which I have detached from the letter which I am about to read. She was writing from Northumberland about something which is happening at this moment in my own constituency:




Eight years ago in a respectable street in Wolverhampton a house was sold to a Negro. Now only one white (a woman old-age pensioner) lives there. This is her story. She lost her husband and both her sons in the war. So she turned her seven-roomed house, her only asset, into a boarding house. She worked hard and did well, paid off her mortgage and began to put something by for her old age. Then the immigrants moved in. With growing fear, she saw one house after another taken over. The quiet streets became a place of noise and confusion. Regretfully, her white tenants moved out.




The day after the last one left, she was awakened at 7 a.m. by two Negroes who wanted to use her phone to contact their employer. When she refused, as she would have refused any stranger at such an hour, she was abused and feared she would have been attacked but for the chain on her door. Immigrant families have tried to rent rooms in her house, but she always refused. Her little store of money went, and after paying her rates, she had less than £2 per week. She went to apply for a rate reduction and was seen by a young girl, who on hearing she had a seven-roomed house, suggested she should let part of it. When she said the only people she could get were Negroes, the girl said “racial prejudice won’t get you anywhere in this country”. So she went home.




The telephone is her lifeline. Her family pay the bill, and help her out as best they can. Immigrants have offered to buy her house—at a price which the prospective landlord would be able to recover from his tenants in weeks, or at most in a few months. She is becoming afraid to go out. Windows are broken. She finds excreta pushed through her letterbox. When she goes to the shops, she is followed by children, charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies. They cannot speak English, but one word they know. “Racialist”, they chant. When the new Race Relations Bill is passed, this woman is convinced she will go to prison. And is she so wrong? I begin to wonder.




The other dangerous delusion from which those who are wilfully or otherwise blind to realities suffer, is summed up in the word “integration”.




To be integrated into a population means to become for all practical purposes indistinguishable from its other members. Now, at all times, where there are marked physical differences, especially of colour, integration is difficult though, over a period, not impossible. There are among the Commonwealth immigrants have come to live here in the last fifteen years or so, many thousands whose wish and purpose is to be integrated and whose every thought and endeavour is bent in that direction. But to imagine that such a thing enters the heads of a great and growing majority of immigrants and their descendants is a ludicrous misconception, and a dangerous one to boot.




We are on the verge of here of a change. Hitherto it has been force of circumstance and of background which has rendered the very idea of integration inaccessible to the greater part of the immigrant population—that they never conceived or intended such a thing, and that their numbers and physical concentration meant the pressures towards integration which normally bear upon any small minority did not operate. Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow immigrants and then over the rest of the population.



The cloud no bigger than a man’s hand, that can so rapidly overcast the sky, has been visible recently in Wolverhampton and has shown signs of spreading quickly. The words I am about to use, verbatim as they appeared in the local press on 17 February, are not mine, but those of a Labour Member of Parliament who is a Minister in the present Government.


The Sikh communities’ campaign to maintain customs inappropriate in Britain is much to be regretted. Working in Britain, particularly in the public services, they should be prepared to accept the terms and conditions of their employment. To claim special communal rights (or should one say rites?) leads to a dangerous fragmentation within society. This communalism is a canker: whether practised by one colour or another it is to be strongly condemned.




All credit to John Stonehouse for having had the insight to perceive that, and the courage to say it.




For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed in the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish. Here is the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organize to consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons which the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided.




As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see “the River Tiber foaming with much blood”.




That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect.


Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century. Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now.



Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know.




All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.







Ethanol burning food … more food burnt

David Davis

Well, there you go. I finally, finally work out how to upload video to this blasted blog, and Youtube take the video down….my apologies; “Normal Service will be resumed as soon as p-p-p-possible.” In the meantime, it was on Youtube as “biofuels, backlash” or something like that. You guys may be able to locate it again, or find it elsewhere and tell me?



Sean Gabb on “The Politics Show”, BBC1, 13th April 2008

“What about the poor?” At last, a masterful rebuttal of socialist claptrap in under 300 words…awarded “Quote of the Day” status.

David Davis

Everybody ought to read Samizdata every day. “That’s how it’s done, that is the real thing” (as an Israeli General said while regarding British squaddies quelling unrest in somewhere-or-other by simply looking smart, well-turned out, polished and armed, very businesslike, and nice to the locals – and no poncy sun-specs!) That red stuff’s not a link by the way – I could not find one in time, I just wanted to say it loud.

Jonathan Pearce does what is needed for dealing with the “what about the poor starving in the streets” obstacle, which lefties – and even those good-hearted people who you could never describe as “left”, just “worried by inherent uncertainty” – will always begin with whe  they encounter you, and find you are some disgusting cold-and-bright freemarketeer capitalist toad.

Good for you. Quote of the day coming up:

As history has shown, mutual aid and philanthropic societies typically thrive because of, not in spite of, a powerful pro-freedom, pro-free enterprise culture. The belief that we are entitled to pursue our self-interest (so long as it does not involve aggression, theft or fraud) does not clash with the idea that it is good to be generous and helpful to those who have been dealt a crap hand in the cardgame of life.

As we in the Alternative Bookshop used to say: “Liberty is the mother, and not the daughter, of order.”

Passive drinking …. here we go down to the cesspit again! Next, it will be “passive driving”. Wonder when we will have to admit to “passive sex” as a way of reducing “teenage pregnancy”?

David Davis

Here we go. The stalinist bastards have got out of bed before us, as ever (‘coz they izz boring turds who don’t write computer-games or run silicon-valley firms.) Perhaps we should design less comuter games, and have less long hair and lip-piercings; and instead carry more real guns and point them while loaded at bureaucrats who have no sense of humour.

Why don’t bureaucrats laugh at anythng? When did you last see a “public employee” laugh?

I though so.

Here’s some of it:-


The war on ‘passive drinking’

Posted by Bruno Waterfield on 17 Apr 2008  at 21:27 
Crime, EU, public health, Alcohol


European Union and United Nations officials are plotting to make drinking as socially unacceptable as smoking.


Your drink could endanger others, claim UN and EU officials

Hectoring campaigns over “passive smoking” are credited for Europe’s almost total smoking ban. Now alcohol is in the sights of the public health miserablists and they have invented the concept of “passive drinking” as their killer argument.

The Daily Mail takes up a report in New Scientist to trumpet a new “guilt campaign” that is heading our way. “The World Health Organisation’s global strategy will aim to match the success of campaigns which have made smokers feel guilty about the harm second-hand smoke does to others,” says the report.

Ian Gilmore, president of the Royal College of Physicians is wheeled on to confirm the new approach. “The tipping point for banning smoking in public places was third party damage,” he said.

The EU public health brigade are not far behind, in fact Brussels miserablists in the European Commission’s DG SANCO have been trying to poison the drinking debate with this new assault on reason for years.

I took up the EU “passive drinking” debate around two years ago in response to strident claims, in a Commission report, about the high environmental or social toll of alcohol, the “harm done by someone else’s drinking”.

“The total tangible cost of alcohol to EU society in 2003 was estimated to be €125bn (€79bn-€220bn), equivalent to 1.3 per cent GDP, and which is roughly the same value as that found recently for tobacco,” said the report written by Dr Peter Anderson, who has a background in the World Health Organisation (WHO) and who played a leading role in Tobacco Free Initiative Europe.

“The intangible costs show the value people place on pain, suffering and lost life that occurs due to the criminal, social and health harms caused by alcohol. In 2003 these were estimated to be €270bn, with other ways of valuing the same harms producing estimates between €150bn and €760bn.”

On Thursday, at an informal meeting of health ministers in Brdo, Slovenian Health Minister, Zofija Mazej Kukovič dusted off the report – and its language.

“Harmful and dangerous alcohol consumption causes more than seven per cent of the premature morbidity and mortality in our countries. The annual costs stemming from this have been estimated at as much as €125 billion for the EU as a whole. However, the harm caused by alcohol is still underestimated,” she said.

The figures are meant to be pretty scary. Drink is responsible for 2,000 homicides, four out of 10 of Europe’s annual murders. “The economic cost of alcohol-attributable crime has been estimated to be €33bn in the EU for 2003….while the intangible cost of the physical and psychological effects of crime has been valued at €9bn – €37bn,” said the Anderson report.

Children, too, are passive victims of drinking. “Many of the harms caused by alcohol are borne by people other than the drinker responsible. This includes 60,000 underweight births, as well as 16 per cent of child abuse and neglect, and five to nine million children in families adversely affected by alcohol,” says the EU report’s summary.


The link made by between alcohol and crime today, whether violence or child abuse or other social ills, follows not from hard facts but from an outlook that sees human characteristics as damaging in general. And if human beings, particularly when under the influence of stimulants, are destructive, then, the argument goes, social intervention must follow. The idea that almost any activity – drinking, eating, speaking, even thinking – can cause harm is often blown out of proportion and used to generate frightening figures and policies.

The sheer absurdity of the idea of “passive drinking” would be funny if the public health lobby was not so powerful and unpleasant. I found that in a twist of irony, probably lost on po-faced public health types, that the expression “passive drinking” seems to have originated as a spoof in two Peter Simple columns in the Daily Telegraph in 2002 and 2003, written by the late Michael Wharton.

Mocking the rise of nonsense research to justify social measures, he wrote about research work being carried out by “Dr Ron Hardware of Nerdley University”.

“They were the first to discover the scourge of ‘passive drinking’, showing by painstaking experiments and finely adjusted statistics that it was just as deadly as ‘passive smoking’ and equally capable of causing cancer and innumerable other ills,” he wrote.

It is no longer a joke or satire – do read more here on Spiked.

We need to stand up to these people.

Posted by Bruno Waterfield on 17 Apr 2008 at 21:27






Judith Hatton RIP

Sean Gabb

It is with deep regret that I announce the death last Thursday the 10th April of Judith Hatton. She was for many years one of the most formidable defenders in our Movement of the right to smoke. One of her last achievements, indeed, was to advise the makers of the film Topsy Turvy on smoking habits in Victorian England. Thanks to her, this remarkable film is drenched in alcohol, nicotine and other recreational drugs. She turned a film about Gilbert and Sullivan into a window on how life was lived in a free country.

Her death is to be lamented. However, bearing in mind its great length, and its general richness, we ought much more to celebrate her life.

David Myddleton on “Slimming down the State”

Professor David Myddelton, “Slimming Down Government”: The First Chris R. Tame Memorial Lecture, held at the National Liberal Club, London, on the 18th March 2008
Personal Perspectives No 23.


Text at:


Today, we welcome Harriet Harman MP to our blogroll

David Davis

This is of course to show that we want to be inclusive, and not just a saddo bunch of ageing white mysogynist tory suburban non-differently-abled male prats. So we’ve chosen to feature, in “eyecatching initiatives with which this blog can be associated”, a prominent lefty blog. Go on, go and give the Horrid Hardbint a rough time, then. I’m sure she’d come to appreciate it.

Debunking junk science. THIS IS HOW to use numbers in the blogosphere, to trash lefty propaganda and brainwashing…

…that is engineered to force approved behaviour-patterns on unwilling human beings.

David Davis

Read The Remittance Man, on alcohol and breast cancer here.

This is how it ought to be done – a fast, well-thought-out attack, based on a fair bit of general knowledge and common sense, plus correct use of statistics and “real numbers” in their right contexts and having regard to how small some things are and how big are others. All of us in the liberal Blogosphere ought to have thses simple skills, or we’d not be here.


David Davis

Getting used to a new lasermouse thingy is harder than you think. You’d not believe the stuff I’ve involuntarily trashed in the last half hour, against my will.

To whom does an individual human being belong?

I only ask, because I want to know.

David Davis

Yesterday we had this health scare. Today we have this one. And that’s just in one UK newspaper, on two consecutive days.

Libertarians ought to discuss what is to be done about powerful special-interest-groups – and that does not just include doctors grifting for state-paid-non-work, which claim to be acting “for people’s good”.

Smoking and drinking will be at their highest of course, as is natural, among those populations labouring under socialist governmant burdens, and thus having nothing else to occupy their robbed, miserable lives. The USSR was, and is yet as it still exists, a major case in point.

I have been worrying about Australia for some time since that funny little Kevin-lap-dancing-chappie took it over, so I do hope it is still all right.

How does a person elect a Prime minsister called Kevin?

How does that stand up, presentation-wise, in say Russia or North Korea or ….. Indonesia, where certain people take their opposition to Australia and Australian men and women rather more seriously…..? What were you Okkers thinking, for f***’s sake?

They have to be “John”….. (what you lot dun wivv’ ‘im by the way?)

…….. or “Margaret” or “Winston” or I would even buy a “Harold” or a “James” but the trouble is these two were socialists, so it won’t do either. “Benjamin” or “Willliam” or “Robert” perhaps? Or “Boris”? Certainly not a “Gordon”, not “Ed”, not “David the milliperson” or a “Nick”, all utterly wrong for the role. Another “David” might just cut it, or else the other “David” (no not me….)

Sorry, I’m talking as if we were but one country, not two….

David Davis

From Moonbattery:

Here it is in original.

Here’s an exerpt from Moonbattery:

Posted by Van Helsing at 9:25 AM | Comments (12) | TrackBack (0)

<!– –>

Australian Environazis Employ High-Tech Garbage Monitoring

In Australia, Big Brother has begun to equip trash cans with radio frequency identification tags, to determine whether citizens are recycling sufficiently. [This is called "RFID", and I thought it was only us in the UK who were suffereing. Is it the whole Anglosphere then, and if so, then what has gone wrong? Why are our own firms selling this technology in order for it to tyrannise, against our own people? What is in it for them, except money, which I could forgive? Why do they take a wrong moral position just for money? Or do they believe it is right to profit from tyrannisation, and they do not then care? - Ed.]

The bizarre and frightening phenomenon into which environmentalism has deteriorated really does create economic opportunities. Soon we will have businesses that deliver recyclable garbage to your bin in time for the government to pick it up. That way, you won’t get in trouble for not recycling when you go on vacation.

On a tip from Oiao.

I was worried enough by the rubbish-spies here in the UK, but I thought that our Children-across-the-World were still free. Maybe not. 


Does Britain Need a Libertarian Party?

Does Britain Need a Libertarian Party?
Marek Kleinwald

Tactical Notes, No. 31

ISSN 0268-2923 ISBN 9781856376112

An occasional publication of the Libertarian Alliance,
Suite 35, 2 Landsdowne Row, Mayfair, London W1J 6HL.

© 2008: Libertarian Alliance; Marek Kleinwald.

Marek Kleinwald is a European political writer and activist.

This essay was entered for the 2007 Chris R. Tame Memorial Prize sponsored by the PROMIS Unit of Primary Care and announced at the Libertarian Alliance/Libertarian International conference held in London on the 27th and 28th October 2007.

The views expressed in this publication are those of its author, and
not necessarily those of the Libertarian Alliance, its Committee,
Advisory Council or subscribers.



Libertarianism is in retreat. Or perhaps—given that libertarianism has never been anywhere remotely close to being in the ascendancy in recent decades—it is fairer to say that libertarianism has made no significant advance from its contemporary position in the political bunker. The three major political parties have coalesced around an irritatingly vague—but deeply pernicious—brand of social democracy, ancient liberties have been incinerated in the name of the war on terror, government expenditure and waste continue unchecked and the state’s intrusion into trivial aspects of people’s lives—such as whether they smoke cigarettes in their local pub—has reached maniacal proportions.


All of this has happened with barely a murmur of public resistance, and often with the civilian population’s enthusiastic support.


I suppose the prospects for libertarianism could be worse—indeed they seem to keep getting worse with each passing year—but it would require a truly heroic level of optimism to believe that this long dark night is about to be broken by a bright new dawn. An even stronger dose of the happy pills would be needed to believe that a Libertarian Party would be likely to meet with any major electoral success in the short term.


But despite this bleak outlook, there are three very good reasons for libertarians to seriously consider forming their own political party and start electioneering forthwith. The two serious arguments against such a move merit analysis, but can be rebutted. Finally, there is an important question over timing. Our country may need us, but that does not mean we are obliged to answer that calling. At least not yet.





Libertarian Alliance strategy has not met with success


Despite the noble and often brilliant efforts of the Libertarian Alliance’s leading lights, the strategy of seeking to influence intellectuals and opinion formers1 has not brought the libertarian movement anywhere close to the levers of power. None of the three major political parties have embraced libertarianism since the LA’s formation in 1979, and a good case can be made that the Conservative Party has moved further away from it. The number of libertarian Members of Parliament can be counted on the fingers of one hand—and probably on the fingers of one thumb.2


Of course, supporters of the existing strategy can raise a number of objections to this analysis. They may claim that although the strategy has not propelled libertarians into high office, it was still the optimal course of action to follow. They can point to the enormous amount of media coverage—surely tens of millions of pounds worth in advertising equivalent terms—secured by LA spokespeople on a shoestring budget. They could say—as Mao Tse-Tung did of the French revolution—that it’s still “too early to tell”. Nevertheless, the brutal truth is that if the last three decades of effort constitute relative success, it doesn’t bear thinking about what failure might look like.


In such circumstances, alternative political strategies—including the formation of an electoral vehicle for libertarianism—merit serious consideration. The prima facie case for a Libertarian Party is that engaging in and winning the argument is simply not enough and that libertarianism—or even concessions in a libertarian direction—requires an identifiable and measurable electoral force.


Political radicalism is “in” and there is no other libertarian option on the ballot paper

A detailed analysis of the breadth and depth of libertarian support amongst the wider electorate is beyond the remit of such a short essay.3 It could be relatively large—or fairly tiny. It could be growing, diminishing or remaining static. But we can say with confidence that whatever the size of the libertarian vote, it is homeless.4 Of course, it is no one’s duty to provide libertarian voters with a box they can cross, in good conscience, on a ballot paper. A hard-headed—and potentially expensive—assessment would need to be made by the putative founders of the Libertarian Party about whether there were enough potential crosses to be collected to make the considerable time and effort of marshalling them in one box worthwhile.


I’m neither a pollster nor a statistician, but I believe there are reasons to be cheerful. Minority parties5 representing a plethora of different ideologies and causes have experienced sustained and significant growth in recent years. This appears to be a long-term trend—perhaps fuelled by an increasing disillusionment with “mainstream” politics in general. Nearly half a century ago, in the 1959 General Election, 1% of the electorate6 voted for minor parties. In the 2005 General Election, this had risen to 10.3%, the highest proportion in modern times.7 In 1959, the share of the vote for the Conservative and Labour parties was 93.2%. In 2005, it was just 67.6%.

In other major elections, the rise of minority parties has been even more dramatic and—because of the increasing use of proportional representation—more profitable in terms of winning seats. In the 1994 UK elections for the European Parliament, 11% voted for minority parties. In 1999—the first such elections held under a proportional voting system—this had risen to 23.5%. In the last European elections in 2004, the proportion had increased further still to 34.8%. An interesting aside is that those elections also saw the two largest parties score less than 50% of the nationwide vote between them,8 the first time this has happened since the advent of universal suffrage.


The elections for the Greater London Assembly tell a similar story. In 2004, both the Respect Party and the British National Party came within a whisker of securing elected representation.9 In the 2000 elections, the obscure Christian Peoples Alliance polled 3.3% of the vote—falling just 1.7% short of securing an assembly seat. According to their latest submission to the Electoral Commission, the Christian People’s Alliance is hardly a mass movement—it has less than 400 members.10


Of course, this sort of number crunching doesn’t conclusively prove that a newly founded Libertarian Party would have a good chance of electoral success. Perhaps the various ideologies and interests represented by these relatively successful minor parties have a firmer, more committed base of support than libertarians could presently hope for.


It is also fair to say that even if a Libertarian Party did secure, for sake of argument, a seat in the European Parliament and the Greater London Assembly in 2009, this would not constitute a quantum leap towards control of either the executive or the legislature. Nevertheless, the gains in political credibility, and media impact, could be considerable. The arena of British electoral politics is clearly one in which small, poorly funded groups of determined and motivated individuals are starting to meet with modest forms of success. The mounting evidence is that libertarian absenteeism from this arena shouldn’t be taken lightly.


The electoral cycle can inspire libertarians to become advocates

Brian Micklethwait is one of my favourite libertarian writers. His writing usually makes me smile and always makes me think. I am rarely entertained or educated in the same way, or to the same extent, by any other political commentator. I don’t know Brian at all well—I have met him perhaps half a dozen times—so I’m particularly loath to criticise him personally. But, duty demands it Brian is one of those highly effective libertarians who seem to produce a highly engaging product, but laments—or perhaps even celebrates—his lack of self-discipline. He readily concedes that LA mailings he oversaw often went out late and/or haphazardly, and on his blog11 he casually refers to how he hasn’t got round to writing very much recently.


I think Brian proves my counter-intuitive assertion that libertarians need more collective discipline in order to increase our political influence. In his touching—almost pained—defenestration of the Independent Libertarian Party in 1999,12 Brian rails against the perpetual, externally-enforced, tedious administrative deadlines which require those seeking to garner electoral votes to act in certain (slightly odd) ways at certain (largely arbitrary) times.


But, I may well have been a more effective libertarian crusader over the past ten years if—rather than being kindly asked to commit to paper some of my ill-considered thoughts about Rawls’ veil of ignorance13 at a time of my choosing—I’d been encouraged to assist in a Libertarian electoral effort that was strictly time-limited. I can’t write as well as Brian Micklethwait. I’m not nearly as witty. But I’m pretty good at persuading ordinary folk in the pub or on the doorstep that libertarianism is a pretty good thing and that they should back it. I’m just guessing that there are a lot of libertarians like me. Why haven’t I set up the Libertarian Party myself? Well, I think I can confidently say that my own lack of self-discipline dwarves even Brian’s.


The truth is that the electoral cycle—with its clear deadlines and potential dramas—could act as a real incentive for those who don’t have the skills, knowledge, self-discipline or dedication of the LA’s leading lights. We might well see more libertarians talking face-to-face to more “undecided” people than seems imaginable at present. This is only a potential prize, but is a valuable one.




The essential case against a libertarian electoral vehicle is that (a) the skills and talents of libertarian activists will become internally focused on trivial matters such as the need to raise substantial funds to meet the administrative criteria for participating in the electoral process and (b) contentious, obscure, ideological conflicts which have been satisfactorily—even productively—contained within the LA, would rip apart a formal political party.

Neither of these are real barriers to the formation of a Libertarian Party. Firstly, the idea that time and effort spent on tactical questions about how best to communicate the libertarian message to the wider public is necessarily less productive than an open-ended discussion between libertarian objectivists and libertarian utilitarians is misguided to the point of self-indulgence. The question (asked here) is not which activity is more intellectually fulfilling or better fun—but which is more productive. Shoving leaflets through doors, trying to explain your case on the doorstep, filing papers with the Electoral Commission to get a Libertarian onto the ballot paper—these are tedious and often tiresome pursuits. But they may well be what are needed to more successfully prosecute the Libertarian case.



Amongst those libertarians interested in acquiring political power before this century is out, ideological differences will—at some point—have to be resolved, or put aside. There is little reason to believe that continual discussion of our philosophical distinctions will create unity on these matters. One person might change his mind at one seminar. Another may hone their ideas at another conference. Such gatherings perform a genuinely valuable and fulfilling function. But they are not barriers to the formation of a political party. Libertarianism contains many strands—but for electoral and organisational purposes, we are considerably less divided than the bile and hatred that exists amongst our opponents.



We may be needed, but we might not be ready

For all the reasons stated above, I believe the case for creating—and supporting—a new Libertarian Party is strong. But it is not overwhelming. The British Libertarian movement could suffer real damage if there was a serious split along tactical lines.14 Those who favour the formation of a new party need not rush. There are—thankfully—no formal voting mechanisms to press for such a strategy, but therefore also no way to measure exactly “when to go for it”. I suspect that the Brian Micklethwaits might change their mind in the next few years. Britain does need a Libertarian Party. But we should take our time in forming it.




(1) Libertarian Alliance Executive Committee, Purpose and Strategy of the Libertarian Alliance, Tactical Notes No. 1, London, Libertarian Alliance, 1981.

(2) Numerous Conservative MPs are described in as being “closet” libertarians. Richard Shepherd MP seems to be the closest to being a publicly declared libertarian.

(3) Nigel Meek (The Libertarian Party of Great Britain: An Idea Whose Time Has NOT Come, Tactical Notes No. 22, London, Libertarian Alliance, 1998) and Antoine Clarke (The Independent Libertarian Party: An Idea Whose Time Has Come (Being Among Other Things, A Reply to Nigel Meek), Tactical Notes No. 25, London, Libertarian Alliance 1999) explored—and disagreed about—these issues in depth. Clarke relies on IEA research suggesting that 19% of the population might be classified as libertarian. Brian Micklethwait, What Is Wrong With a Libertarian Political Party, Tactical Notes No. 26, London, Libertarian Alliance, 1998.

(4) The United Kingdom Independence Party appears to have pretensions to claiming the libertarian mantle, but at its last conference, it debated the imposition of tariffs and the re-introduction of national service,

(5) I use the term “minority party” or “minor party” to mean a political party other than Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat (or the Lib Dems’ predecessor parties). A fair case can probably be made that the Liberal Democrats are—or have been in the past—a minority party. But I use the term consistently to mean political parties other than these three.

(6) I use this term loosely—all stated percentages are of votes cast, not of all those eligible to vote.

(7) It is difficult to make comparisons with post-war elections prior to 1959, as the National Liberal vote is listed separately but should probably be considered a subset of the Conservative vote.

(8) The Conservatives scored 26.7% and Labour 22.6%.

(9) Respect polled 4.57% on the party list vote and the BNP 4.71%—the “threshold” is 5%.

(10) CPA Statement of Accounts, 31st Dec 2006,

(11) The excellent


(13) John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1972. It’s still as ridiculous now as when I first read it.

(14) The split in the LA in 1982 is still only discussed in hushed tones, if at all.

Solution to dog-shit problem revealed … we knew it all along.

David Davis

Lamp-post electrocutes dog. You read it here first.

Hot dog-shit watch update horror pictures “God angry – report”

David Davis

Are not Mayors supposed to come round and clean up dogshit? Er…oh, sorry, that’s a Nazi assumption. You see how difficult it can be to do the cold-turkey and de-statify yourself. Of course the perpetrator ought to do it (her)self. Dogs are walked around Lancashire by women, and not by “Mayors”. Believe me, I know.

Following on from yesterday, here’s what someone did in the night.


1. Lib. 1. v.13:

“And God descended from Heaven in the night. And lo, He was Wroth, that His Word had been ignored and passed-by, and He smote the moochers and slairs of which the animals had defiled the Way of the Lord. “

1. Lib.1. v.14:

“Yea verily, He flung them from Him, and He cast them, together with their beasts which knew not the Road from the temptations of Beelzebub, into the Outer Darkness, and into a Pit of Fire”.

1. Lib.1. v.15:

“And God caused to be revealed Letters of Fire, saying; >Behold! I know all that Man can knoweth. Whosoever shall sin, and whichever of his chattels of his house, and whichever of his beasts shall have sinned, then his sin is known unto me!”<


“Vengeance is Mine, saith the Lord. >I will repay<“.

London Mayoral election 1st May 2008: your opportunity to annoy the politerati and cause a stir …

David Davis

We all agree that insofar as city-states need to be “run”, there should be as little government as possible – as indeed the first front cover of “Free Life” said;

“What we want is a government so small that it doesn’t matter where it is, what it does, who they are or how they got there”.

Having of course said that, the least potentially-destrucive of all the candidates is Boris. (I bet you all 5p that my good friend Tony Hollick will disagree with me, but then this statist-bashing is all good knockabout fun and I don’t mind at all, I’m sure he don’t either. Tony will of course remember the cartoon, I think he was there when it was being drawn?)

American readers, who I believe are still allowed to elect lots of different sorts of local bureaucrat or county factotum and quite frequently too, may perhaps not understand the rumpus in the UK about tis particular contest in London. London matters because:

(1) It is a model for stalinists trying to exert their surveillance/control/general-socialism culture nationwide,

(2) It is one of the few places here that has something as important as a “Mayor” that you can actually elect,

(3) It’s about 25% of the British economy (a guess, I could be a bit wrong there) and if hived off, would have the economy of a fairly large country on its own, such as Holland or Spain, or California even.

Now, the existing Mayor, a well-known fascist pigtsnouter and Stalinist Jew-baiter, has “previous” – he got himself grifted in as “leader” of the “Greater London Council” (I think he meant “Leader” to be seen in the North Korean sense, even then) in 1980, after someone else, an Andrew Mackintosh (also a lefty but not a bad smelly evil-doing stalinist one, just a “democrat”) had been publicly elected to the post.

Thatcher at least managed to close down the GLC, but sadly she did not manage to gain agreement to have all its senior leaders tried for crimes against London, and shot in Trafalgar Square. This was an oversight on her part which Londoners now have lived to regret in spades.

“Ken”, whose face I saw grinning malevolently all over billboards when I last visited poor benighted London in 2006 – I think he was exhorting “citizens” to “save water” (together we are working towards….mumble groan whinge rhubarb knickers etc etc etc) has turned London into a fiefdom of his own highly paid lazy moochers (see Ayn Rand for who they are.) Nothing works properly, everything smells, there are raging giant articulated buses everywhere which won’t tell you where they go to,won’t let you on if you just want to pay with metal money (my boy and I found that terrifying and foreign and decided to take tubes, but that was worse and we spent £30 on nothing) and then the passengers scream at you to bugger off so they can be driven on  – oh, it’s mad I tell you) and you have to have “ID” – whatever that is, to do anything.

Here’s what a friend relayed this morning – for London readers of this blog, and for the instruction of our friends overseas:

Subj: London Mayor tactical voting!! 
Date: 16/04/2008 09:59:39 GMT Daylight Time

For those readers in the London area who have had no guidance as to how the system of voting for the London Mayor works…
… here’s the guide!  

The long and the short of it is that the actual choice will be between Boris Johnson and Ken Livingstone.  These two seem bound to lead in 1st preferences and it therefore will depend on 2nd preferences (in the 2nd column)  as to who finally wins.

Therefore there are a number of options open to voters.

IF you are determined to do everything to herlp one of the two above give first preference votes to Boris or Ken.  You do NOT have to give a second preference.  

If you have a dream of a English Democrat or BNP or Green or UKIP mayor give first preference to them but give 2nd preference vote (in the 2nd column) tpo either Ken or Boris, whicvhever you prefer.

IF you prefer Ken or Boris as Mayor but want to cause a stir and wake up the political establishment give your first preferences to BNP and the 2nd preferences to Ken or Boris.  

If you do the last option the media will scream blue murder and the politicians might notice.  Doing the same tactic with any other party will go totally unnoticed!


Since the BNP is the only major party in the UK (apart from LPUK of course) that behaves actually as if it’s listening to voters who are drowning, franchistically-speaking, in the tide of corporato-leftist-big-government, the last two short paras above may be for you. I don’t think the Libertarian Party of the UK is fielding a condidate this time, but I could hope so. I have always advocated the formation of a UK Libertarian Party as you all know.




More about dog shit on streets, and how not to fall into Nazi ways

…of dealing with it.

David Davis

Here’s what we do in cloggie-land, ‘oop-north….the yellow paint will persist for a number of days as it is acrylic-based.

Whoever it was who left it, forgot that is was bang in the middle of the pavement, right outside our property. I am sure this was an oversight on (her) part; I know who it is…I (er) think. The shit is the right size and general composition to be from a particular dog which I would recognize.

I think it was the poor woman at whom I had a go a few days ago, see this earlier post. The nazi thing to do is to invoke the Law as it stands and to call the state-dog-exterminators to go round to her, seize her computers, take her DNA (which ought to be her Copyright) and generally make her life miserable, but I don’t think that’s right, if we think we ought to live in a Free World. She should come and remove it herself.

And as the State owns the pavements, this means that “nobody” does, so if they have paint on them it is “nobody’s” responsibility…it’ll wash off in time, long after the dogpoo is gone, and will act as a reminder of civil behaviour.

The borders of the Anglosphere? (the last best hope of liberty in a darkening world)

AND… (as WordPress would not let me make the title longer) How Everyone Can Join … if their statist bastard rulers allow them the institutions and the freedom to use them unimpeded ….

David Davis

I chanced upon Daniel Hannan’s stuff today, here. Very good of course as always, for he is mostly a liberal such as Thatcher is, which is accurately in all important respects to say, a conservative, and his heart is in the right place; even if currently he sups with the Devil in Brussels. Don’t worry Devil’s Kitchen, of course I didn’t mean you, you know that! Just the fascist bugger down below whose agents up here that we fight. I hope Hannan uses a long spoooooooooooooooooooon and always wears a condom (ITEM: how does one “wear” a “condom”? I have never regarded such a thing as an item of clothing, somehow. Might blog about condoms sometime, their ancestry (no pun intended) and their utility, either to persons or to fascist states who want to nationalise children.)

Now you know I have been referring to India for some time on here. There is no reason why India could not, with its ally Australia, be the defender of the Free World, in the likely coming melee. Pity about Malaya and British North Borneo being a bit iffy in the meantime for their bases would be useful.

But Hannan hits the spot right now. This bit at the end of his, is good…

There’s an Indian restaurant in Brussels whose owners speak French rather than English. Every time I we talk, I feel that there is something wrong: the owners are delightful people, but I can’t wholly repress the idea that they’ve swapped sides. I once went there with an Indian friend and mentioned how I felt. “You do a double-take?” he exclaimed. “How d’you think it makes me feel?”

Posted by Daniel Hannan on 15 Apr 2008 at 18:56