Category Archives: elections

I get worried sometimes when repellent people in other countries do repellent things, and we seem to have no power to prevent the fucking bastards from behaving in pre-capitalist-barbarian ways.

David Davis

My dear colleague Sean has had relayed onto his facebook a somewhat exciting post, by someone called Chris White (who I do not know) regarding some scumbags crucifying other people (who they might or might not know, for all I know).

I do not have any information about whether the victim, videoed, was also a scumbag or not, sadly. This might or might not have been the case, but at this time we cannot know if he was a scumbag or not, as he is unable to say.

My gripe with this situation is that, here we are, sitting in what’s really a fairly OK country, with most of what we want, and not really starving or wanting for much, most of the time. OK, you could rue the lack of a Bugatti Veyron or, if desperate and needy, a Range-Rover HSE Sport Overfinch, and perhaps you might be pissed off at not owning somewhere like one of these. But really it’s not that bad, quite yet.

Should we care if various unsocialized scumbags, arguably desocialized recently and on purpose when it wasn’t a requirement – by a “certain religion which has held their people’s social development back 1,500 years” –  are ritually-slaughtering each other somewhere else?

I think we ought to care. As the English People, we did actually teach the world how to live. I’ve been saying this off and on for eight years on this blog, and about 50, shambolically, elsewhere. This is not to say that the right thing to do is to “go to war in Syria”…and “for who or what? Also we have no vital British Interest in what goes on in Syria. But as a human being, one’s visceral response is to ” arrive in might, find the perpetrators, arrest and then (ideally) dispose of them in public (to make a point), and then _occupy the place, for perhaps decades or hundreds of years_ . This is necessary for mere years (such as the eight or so of Iraq) won’t do the job.

The GramscoFabiaNazis knew, even in 1884 when they began shagging each others’ wives and daughters, that they would have to occupy Britain for decades, and decades and decades, after their victory. The one which they have scored over us, gradually, between 1948 and the present day. They know their war is not over by a long chalk. I’m not making value-judgements about whether they ought to have engaged in those sexual past-times which I stated,

But having “gone into Iraq”, perhaps we should have stayed for 100, 200, 300 years. We stayed in India for just short of 350 years, for example, and even that was barely enough to turn a place like that into a semi-functioning pluralist democracy.

One day I’ll tell you stories about what my old dead father said, about stuff in the Gold Coast (now Ghana) when  he was there with the RAMC in The War, and what the African Tribesmens’ “big-men” said to him when their fears about “White Man Going To Leave Us After War” were sadly confirmed by him.

Perhaps we should have “intervened in Syria”. But :-

(1) Not this government

(2) Not in the way they thought they might.

It’s probably good Cameron was stopped, but then what do we do about this awful stuff going on?

Should Voting be Compulsory? (Sky News), Sean Gabb

On Monday the 26th May 2014, Sean Gabb, Director of the Libertarian Alliance, took part in a Sky News debate on compulsory voting. Chaired by Kay Burley, he was opposing a proposal put by Suzy Boniface.
Sean made these points:
  • We live in a Potemkin democracy. However we vote, we still live in a police state ruled by parasites and traitors. Not voting is effectively a vote against the system. Let the turnout drop far enough, and it brings on a crisis of legitimacy. That is its function. Also, if it does drop far enough, those of us who still vote give a big push to parties like UKIP. That changes nothing, but is very embarrassing to the ruling class.
  • Compulsory voting papers over the cracks. Indeed, add it to state-licensing and state-funding of political parties, and the lie is restored that we live in a functioning multi-party democracy with high levels of support. Sooner or later, we may turn from grumbling to counting the lamp posts in Westminster. But that will be for another generation of parasites and traitors to worry about.

Miss Boniface responded to these points with a spray of insults and alleged facts cribbed from Wikipedia.

UKIP and the European Elections

UKIP and the European Elections:
The Earthquake
(Unedited version of article published on VDare, 26th May 2014)
Sean Gabb

The votes have now been counted in the European elections, and even the BBC is admitting that the result is “an earthquake.” No one is now able, without lying, to claim there is a consensus in Europe for “ever closer union.”

These are the headline facts. However, I am writing largely for an American audience. So far as I can tell, the American media is both limited and selective in its foreign coverage. And most Americans show little interest in news from outside their own borders. Let me, then, explain something of the background to what has happened. Continue reading

Today’s the Day the Ukippers Have Their Picnic?

by Stewart Cowen

Today’s the Day the Ukippers Have Their Picnic?

As the nation – or a fraction of it – goes to the polls today to vote for the next round of MEPs, UKIP are seen by some to be favourites to poll the greatest number of votes.

Could this be the springboard to even greater things in next year’s general election? Continue reading

Breaking Britain, and the vote-rigging that will go against UKIP (RIG FOR VICTORY)

David Davis

You all know by now that a pessimist is some one who is an optimist but who is also in full possession of the facts.

It’s probably too late to make any sensible suggestions for preserving a nominally-conservative (and not more than harmlessly-and-merely-nugatorially-socialist) United Kingdom. The GramscoFabiaNazis have realised at least one of their strategic objectives, which in their hatred of English civilisation and culture is to, out of spite, break up our country. Whether or not the ScotzNazi-Party manages to rig a majority for Scottish “independence”  later this year or not, the cracks in the structure will takes years if not decades to repair.

Not only do the GramscoFabiaNazis hate us – and for this too they could be called _racists_ under their own terms of use of their manufactured word – but they want to actaully destroy a nation, in public, in the GramscoFabiaNazi circus-games, while _FORCING ITS CITIZENS TO WATCH_ . I believe that the celebrated author Richard Blake wrote about events of this kind, in the “public games” in his novel “The Terror of Constantinople”.

Let the GramscoFabiaNazis deny this charge against them if they will. But you and I, and we and they, know that they know in their hearts, that I have spoken the truth on this one. It is their punishment delivered onto classical-liberalism: delivered for showing how they, the looters and moochers, were always and everywhere redundant, leeching and mooching and looting, upon the living bodies of ordinary working people and other humans.

The current open-season on UKIP, the general-media-assault on anybody even _thought to have been seen or slightly-heard_ saying something sort of-vaguely-not-PC_ goes on. Here’s a quote off Guido today….or maybe it was yesterday, who cares? :-

Marina Hyde on the pious left and UKIP…

“…all right-thinking people to the left of UKIP – from Tories to commies – are supposed to regard it as a triumph each time a news outlet’s exposé forces Nigel Farage to outlaw some  //_nobody_//  (my italics – ed) for a vile thing they said on social media three years ago. This, apparently, is a win, even though the evidence suggests it simply calcifies the sense of asymmetric warfare against UKIP out there in the unreachable spaces where all those rising numbers of people who are going to vote for the party are living their unknowable lives.”

Can you imagine how, if polling so far is correct, and if you analyse all MSM comment-threads except the Guardian and the Independent, UKIP will not sweep the board in the euro-elections, gain hundreds of “council” (whatever those are for) seats, and possibly get one or more MPs in 2015? Will the Tories have any MPs left at all in “The North”?

The “pollsters” all bend over backwards (sorry…) to emphasise how very, very, very accurate they all are, even if they say (very very slightly) different things, very slightly…er…differently…

It’s not what the MSM and LiblabCon can’t say: it’s the way it can’t say it…RIG FOR VICTORY.



The recent German election and what British libertarians, true conservatives and UKIPpers can learn from it

By Mustela nivalis

The general election in Germany last Sunday generated a result that can only be called paradoxical (but only by people who assume that the world consists of a logical sequence of cause and effect): A majority of the electorate voted for (nominally) centre-right parties (‘conservative’ CDU, ‘liberal’ FDP and the upstart euro-critical ‘Alternative für Deutschland’ or AfD). Despite heavy losses for the FDP, the centre-right gained a net share of 2.7%, while the centre-left and left-wing parties lost net 2.9%. However, due to FDP and AfD remaining just below the parliamentary 5% threshold, the result in terms of seats is a majority of centre-left and left-wing parties: SPD, Greens, and ‘Die Linke’, the ex-ruling party of the ex-GDR. (The fact that the latter are even allowed to stand tells you a lot about present Germany.) See here for full election results. Continue reading

The end of Left-Wing-Conservatism: was it an “infantile disorder”, or just Alzheimer’s?

David Davis

Top Point:- Libertarians working in a statist “democratic civilisation” – which is to say: an imperfect democracy corroded by the presence, vestigial or worse, of socialistNazi components of allowed public discourse – regard political parties as advertising agencies whose job is to service, effectively, the “Liberty Account”. If they would not do the job adequately, then we would fire them and hire another one.

The Chimpanzee Type-writers have not been as active as they used to be. Perhaps, as a fellow I knew once in London said “it’s the heat” that affected their keyboard speeds. But we need to get things going again for the coming Arctic Winter, since warble-gloaming has ceased for the last 17 years, so we are now told by those who know the truth.

However, the Ukip conference is on, or was. I don’t really know if it’s more than a day. What does it matter how long Party Conferences really are? “Do all animals really fly?” is a more important question. They wree only charging £35 for a day ticket, compared with £520 from the Tories. I guess the Tory charge was that steep so as to deliberately keep out anybody who wasn’t a “lobbyist”.

You need to have money these days, to “access ministers”, I guess. I feel a “Piers Gaveston moment” coming on: ministers better beware I think.

Here’s what I wrote to the dully Tory-graph about the problem of Ukip for the British Conservative Party. I use the discriminator “we”, not because I am a member of Ukip (I am not – at least not yet) but because I think it is now speaking for the British working masses of people that live in that class that today’s MetropolitaNazi politicians find difficult to “relate to”. These are people that may not have “senior public sector, public-administrative and media jobs”.

They may drive 53-reg Ford Mondeos.  Or even older. I drive Y67LNE – that dates me…They may work in some smallish private business, a few or many miles from home, and thus have large fuel costs, mostly excise taxation. They may not have had “a pay rise” for years.

So here it is:-
It’s actually too late to do anything aout Ukip. We may win the odd Parliamentary seat, or we may not. I’d guess one, or at a push, two. We’ll clean up anyway in the EuroNazi “elections”, and Ukip will e the largest UK party in StrasNazi-bourg or wherever the thing is “sitting” now, and it will be dedicated to getting arguably the most important caged-EuroNation our of the EUSSR.

You see, Tories, you have betrayed the People of Britain. You’ve tried to be a leftyparty, thinking it’d get you elected. And even that nearly didn’t work in 2010, and you’re saddled with LeftoNazi limpDemNazis who actually hate and despise you – the despising is actually worse than the hating – _Even More that the LabourNazis do_ if that were conceivable.

We in Ukip really, absolutely, don’t give a fuck if we Continue reading

UKIP and the Tories…what will the Toryawayday say tomorrow?

David Davis
It’s actually too late to do anything aout Ukip. We may win the odd Parliamentary seat, or we may not. I’d guess one, or at a push, two. We’ll clean up anyway in the EuroNazi “elections”, and Ukip will e the largest UK party in StrasNazi-bourg or wherever the thing is “sitting” now, and it will be dedicated to getting arguably the most important caged-EuroNation our of the EUSSR.

You see, Tories, you have betrayed the People of Britain. You’ve tried to be a leftyparty, thinking it’d get you elected. And even that nearly didn’t work in 2010, and you’re saddled with LeftoNazi limpDemNazis who actually hate and despise you – the despising is actually worse than the hating – _Even More that the LabourNazis do_ if that were conceivable.

We in Ukip really don’t give a f**k if we tip Ed Miliband into power. We know how bad he will be, and all the trolls and orcs he’ll let back into the farm to continue trashing stuff. You are no better so far.

We also don’t give a f**k if your party becomes toast permanently after a 2015 defeat. You had the chance in 2010 to give the Queen an ultimatum, and say that you were NOT prepared to go into government with either of the other groups of thuggish Nazi gangsters, and that you would _refuse_ to allow Parliament to be restarted until she called another election, which you would then have won. Of course, you still sere not going to give us our promised referendum on Lisbon and the EUSSR so it wouldn’t have made any difference, but at least you’d still have people’s respect to a tiny extent.

Face facts: you’re going to lose seats to Ukip, and probably to the LibDemNazis and Labour Nazis, because Ukip will make a point of targetting your marginals. If we get in, it’s a bonus. If you’re out, at least you’re punished. we’ll all be in the shit whichever Nazi party gets back in.

If you manage somehow to do, we’ll be only marching to the deathcamps slightly less fast than if one of the others was at the wheel.

Everyone said “You can’t unseat the Political EnemyClass by voting them out. Well, I say: “it has never been tried before, and we shall have to see.”

David Davis

Clown or fruitcake?

(from Matt at the DT)

Today, for the first time a rather historically large number of British voters get to be able to elect, if they like, candidates for “Council Seats” (this to say in honest countries – “socialist Soviets”) from the United Kingdom Independence Party. Now, the Libertarian Alliance goes out of its way to be perennially nasty to all the parties extant in the UK, from time to time, and sometimes all at once. But it’s natural that a little more of our ire and frustration is reserved for those which are more truly socialist than others: for I at least can’t figure out how it might be possible to be what some people call themselves, which is “libertarian socialists” (yes I have heard that one) or even “left libertarians”, although that might just be possible.

This round of elections for regional soviets councils is notable for the frantic and public attempts by other parties, particularly the Tories, to make direct and sometimes ad-hominem attacks on the reputations and backgrounds of rather a lot of UKIP candidates. I’ve been watching British elections since 1959, more or less, and haven’t noticed any such thing on this scale ever before. If they occurred, such assaults tended to come from the socialist left.

The entire British political-class, ably egged on by the BBC, appears to have taken fright at the idea that, for once, letting people vote for who they’d like might actually change things, and not to that class’s liking. As I type, there are no results yet from vote-counting, but the morning may be interesting.

I want to continue by offering a libertarian-based policy position document for a party such as UKIP, were it to, let us say, win a majority in a regional soviet, or even a general election. But as rheumatoid arthritis is making my elbows increasingly non-functional tonight, typing is a little strenuous and exciting. So I’ll save that for a post in the next couple of days or so when the painkillers have kicked in.  Meanwhile, commenters might like to add their own suggestions.


(Incidentally, the headline owes a little credit to Air Marshall Arthur “Bomber” Harris”, who used a similar expression when someone suggested that “you can’t win a war by bombing the enemy alone”.)

The good is oft-interr-ed with their bones

David Davis

Since Margaret Thatcher is to be in-terr-ed tomorrow, I just thought we’d throw one last punch at her enemies and ours. I found this wonderful piece on The Last Ditch the other day, and one para deserves to be highlighted in our usual way:-

“If you want to know who freedom’s enemies are, mention her with approval. Mad eyes will light up all around you and foul sentiments will fill the air. Note their names and never leave them alone with anything you value; material, spiritual or ethical.”

Yes of course, I _know_ that we object to her having

(a) made the British State more efficient – as a recipe for disaster one would recommend this since the British-Political-Enemyclass is efficient already at making a powerful tyrannical state, and

(b) because she failed to absolutely destroy socialism at home and in the world, before members of that same EnemyClass destroyed her.

But I think that Tom Paine’s paragraph sums up who we are up against, whatever we as classical liberals think of Thatcher herself. I think we can lay her to rest now. May The Iron Lady Rust In Peace.

A Brief Argument for English Independence

A Brief Argument for English Independence
by Sean Gabb

The normal English response to Scottish nationalism is to ignore it, or to see it as an irritation, or to try shouting it down with reminders of all that shared history, or to point out the value of English subsidies and to wait for common sense to win the argument. None of these, I suggest, is an appropriate response. None takes into account that England and Scotland are different nations, and that the loudest and most energetic part of the Scottish nation has decided that the current union of the nations is not in Scottish interests. This does not make it inevitable that the union will be dissolved. It does, however, make this desirable. Scotland may or may not have suffered from the union. But the union has done much to bring England to the point of collapse, and it strikes me as reasonable to say that England can never be safe while there are Scottish members in the Westminster Parliament. Continue reading

This is the main problem with “austerity”

by His Grace The Devil

Note: I disagree with His Grace. We can all agree that the Tories are crap, and for the reasons he gives. However, there is an abiding hatred of Labour as the party of English destruction. I voted UKIP in the Police Commissioner election. I’d vote UKIP if there were a bye-election tomorrow in my constituency. I will vote UKIP in the European and council elections – I always do. I send my Conservative MP nasty e-mails about once a week. He’s even stopped replying to them. But I know I’ll vote Conservative in the general election – and it doesn’t matter how often I say I won’t. I’ll get to the day, and then ask if I really want Labour back. It doesn’t matter how awful the Cameron Government is between now and then. I don’t think I’m alone in this.

Add to this the following: (1) the disinclination of many Moslems to vote for a party led by a Jew, even after his nose job, and despite his lefty atheism; (2) the general apathy of non-white voters; (3) the probability that a Tory/SNP deal will pass a redistribution bill to cut the number of Labour constituencies; (4) a strong SNP performance in Scotland; (5) a LibDem meltdown.

I predict a big Conservative win in England, if on a lowish turnout. This should be enough to give an overall majority in the Commons. Independence for Scotland will then smash Labour for good – which will be our opportunity to stop voting Tory in general elections. Until then, Mr Cameron has every reason to look smug. SIG Continue reading

It’s the Demographics, Stupid.

by Anna Raccoon
It’s the Demographics, Stupid.

It has been an interesting week for the Establishment. And a bad one for the Republicans.

The Republicans lost an election because there are too many Hispanic, black and female voters and too few white, working and lower middle class men. The so called Rainbow coalition will continue to grow. That is the nature of “the American Demographic” and it is irreversible. This is the nature of history. Continue reading

Why Obama is Good News For England

Why Obama is Good for England

by Sean Gabb

November 12, 2012

I can understand that American conservatives and libertarians are upset at Mr. Obama’s reelection. It means another four years of government by someone whowants to make their country into a Third World dump. But my view as an English libertarian and conservative is that he is very good news for England…..


by Thomas Knapp

That’s my tentative estimate (based on Google election result and population statistics) of the percentage of Americans who voted for nobody for President of the United States on Tuesday. Continue reading

My Trip to the County Courthouse, by Kevin A. Carson

Note: I suppose we still have it easy in England. Here in Deal, I just shuffle into the polling station and tell one of the clerks who I am. He draws a line through my name on the electoral register and gives me a ballot. No formalities. The only pig is lounging outside, only there in the unlikely event that the party tellers start arguing over who gets first look at the polling cards. You might almost think that voting didn’t matter any more in England. It doesn’t of course – but this manner of holding elections dates back to a time when voting did count for something.

As for postal votes, you just write in – for yourself and all your wives and other women, alive or dead or still unborn, in many parts of the country – and the papers come back within five days. SIG Continue reading

The Joke of Democratic Accountability

by Kevin Carson

Note: Since I don’t have to pay his taxes, or be beaten up by his uniformed thugs, or impoverished by his money printing, or live through his cultural revolution, I can appreciate Mr Obama’s comparative lack of enthusiasm for starting wars. SIG Continue reading

Democracy Does Not Equal Freedom

by Dick Puddlecote

Note: I agree with every word of this. England was a much freer country when it was ruled by a committee of hereditary landlords. The old ruling class would turn nasty about protection of their game, and were perhaps overly protective of the Church of England. They never tried telling us what to smoke or drink, and only interfered in what we did so far as they could be prodded by middle class busybodies who had to collect their own funds and never got control of the enforcement agencies. Letting everyone vote has allowed the emergence of a new ruling class of totalitarian puritans. Since we can’t go back to the good old days, I suppose the only answer is radical decentralisation and appointment of all representatives and most officials by sortition – oh, and possibly frequent referenda for the actual making of laws. SIG Continue reading

Oldish Speech – I Think I Got It Just Right at the Time

The Conservative Challenge
By Sean Gabb
(Text of a Speech Given to a Conservative Association
On Friday the 16th October 2009)


On Friday the 16th October 2009, I spoke to a Conservative Association in the South East of England. Though I did not video the event, and though –on account of the heated and not always good natured debate the followed my speech – I was asked not to identify the particular Association to which I spoke, I think what I said is worth recording. Therefore, I will write down my words as best I can recall them. I have suppressed all the questions, but carried some of the answers into the main text. Otherwise, I will try to keep the flavour of the original. Continue reading

Capitalists Criticize Obama for … Capitalism?

by Kevin Carson

Note: If I were unfortunate enough to be an American, I’d happily vote for Mr Amabo. Unlike the various Liberace impersonators the Republicans specialise in putting up for election, he doesn’t claim to speak with Jesus, and hasn’t once suggested it would be a good idea to blow the world up. SIG Continue reading

All around is fire, and yet the buggers won’t leave the burning building

David Davis

These are very interesting times. The Euro is toilet-paper, Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Cyprus are really absolutely quite fully-bust, Germany’s central bank is saying “sort yourselves out”, and yet….and yet….

This country’s government has already given £14 billion in aid to a currency that we don’t belong to, were nearly bullied into joining, and have no interest in….and furthermore, it says “there is no popular support for a referendum on the European Union”.

The current shift of Chimpanzee-Type-writers in the draughty Lancashire Nissen Hut is really not sure what to make of this. Or perhaps they are: When this government (or any for that matter) says the magic word “The People”, it probably means “the people that it has victoriously elected in the latest round of _people’s elections_ “, which is to say: itself.

I don’t recall any recent polls asking about the EU that said anything other than a clear majority of the British People would like to leave it. Does anybody else have any different information?

As Brutus said…”I pause for a reply”.

If politics was a dog

by Richard North

It is easy to be wise after the event, as is Brendan O’Neill, editor of Spiked. But we were right before the event, and have been consistently so.

But you can give O’Neill his moment of glory, letting him say exactly what we have said so many times, as he acquaints us with “further proof” that the political class inhabits a different moral universe to normal human beings. Continue reading

The rot sets in, but be of good cheer, for it usually takes quite some time.

David Davis

The Last Ditch is worth visiting from time to time. Sadly, since Tom Paine’s (that’s his screen name, as it were) wife died, he’s been writing less. I hope he recovers his former zeal for intellectually-flogging the guts out of our enemies, the GramscoStaliNazis.

A recent one is good reading, about the awful slow-motion-descent of the USA into modern British-style post-socialist horror and unredemption.

A Progressive Writes about Democracy

Quoted by Sean Gabb

“…progressives should be very wary about referendums. They are rarely instruments for change – and almost never on the actual questions posed. If we had proceeded by referendum, most of the social advances of the past 100 years would have been stopped in their tracks.” (Julian Priestly, “Regressive referendum a rallying point for reactionary xenophobes”, Tribune, 22nd April 2011, p.19.)

Murdoch is not a libertarian, the Devil

Sean Gabb

Murdoch is not a libertarianAccording to the BBC

Rupert Murdoch is a libertarian—against too much state control, and in favour of individuals taking responsibility.

For the record, I agree with everything that The Appalling Strangeness has to say on this—Murdoch may be an economic liberal but that is not the same as being a libertarian.

Economic liberalism is, in fact, only one half of the equation: a libertarian is also socially liberal and I have yet to see The Scum (for foreign readers less familiar with the British National Press, this is a liberal/conservative slang-word for “The Sun”, which is a mass-market-tabloid newspaper) for instance, backing the legalisation of drugs.

But worse than that—Murdoch is a corporatist. His rags back whichever party Murdoch thinks will enable his News Corporation to wield the most power. Further, he deliberately backs parties in a way that makes them grateful and thus more likely to serve his agenda.

In other words, Murdoch gains legal advantage for himself and his businesses through effectively buying the legislators—he is, as I have said, a corporatist.

And there is nothing libertarian about corporatism.

H/t The Devil’s knife
TheDevilsKitchen?d=yIl2AUoC8zA TheDevilsKitchen?d=dnMXMwOfBR0 TheDevilsKitchen?i=rrjcUnwWwW4:jnu4Gi8iB2A:V_sGLiPBpWU TheDevilsKitchen?d=qj6IDK7rITs TheDevilsKitchen?i=rrjcUnwWwW4:jnu4Gi8iB2A:gIN9vFwOqvQ

Talking to ourselves

Michael Winning

I don’t know about you, but I don’t know nobody round here who reads this blog, or any other libertarian or liberal blog. Not one. My nearest reader is DD I think, and Fred Bloggs who live about 40 miles away. I hear that Freds gone to 6th form college somewhere in Leicestershire so he wan’t be doing much here for a while.

yes there are maybe lots of libertarians out there. Some of them blog, some blog regularly, some get high traffic, like The Devil, Guido and Legiron and so on. The LA here even runs a famous conference, which I guess I won’t be able to go to as it’s busy pigs time. Got a breeding run set to go about then.

Ok so what to do? DD and Sean say that the Enemy Class has got hold of all the media outlets and more or less controls what is said and even thought by “the masses”. yes its true, you just ask my farmhands and their families. They can’t even get their heads round the idea of a smaller state, let alone none, they just shake their heads sadly and look at the ground and think I’m a [paranoid wingnut. Go to the Post Office 3 miles down the hill and the woman there who runs it says “but who’ll pay all the Girocheques if there’s no government?” Talk to the schoolmums at the local primary about free dinners and they’ll ask you “but what about those too poor to pay for their kids dinners?”

This bloggin lark is all very well. We can keep each other’s spirits up I suppose, while the world darkens. But there isn’t much time left, we have to get this out either before we are all stopped, likely if Labour got back in, or the damage has gone too far to be repaired whether they do or not. I tend to agree that all this what we complain and whinge about was deliberate. the socialists aways knoew what they were doing, on what plan and what would happen to what by when. Som of them even pretended to be stupid tearful welsh windbags like Neil Kinnock, and threw an election on purpose, now there’s a thought! Clever guy to end up rich like he did now. Some pretended to be sceptical about the USSR like Wislon, while coying up to it in private. One even pretended to be an autistic psychotic, there’s Brown for you!

The time for talking to ourselves is past. Time to get back to something like we remember this place to be is running out. The LPUK appears to be dying on its feet, sorry chaps, I don’t think it’ll recover from the pasting Andrew Neil gace the Devil a while ago.

I’d advocate civil disobedience if I didn’t think the State was now so powerful we’d all get rounded up. Does anybody of you have any ideas?

Libertarian Alliance Statement on the New British Government

Free Life Commentary,
A Personal View from
The Director of the Libertarian Alliance
Issue Number 193
16th May 2010
Linking url:
Available for debate on LA Blog at

Two Cheers for the Coalition:
The Libertarian Alliance on the New British Government
By Sean Gabb

I have been asked, as Director of the Libertarian Alliance, to make a response to the forming of a coalition government last week in Britain by the Conservative and Liberal Parties. In making this response, I do not claim to speak in every detail for the other members of the Executive Committee. But what I will say is broadly the opinion of the majority.

Briefly put, we welcome the new Government. However dishonest the individual Ministers may be, however bad may be their ideological motivations, we believe that, in its overall effects, this Government may, by its own compound nature, be compelled to move the country in a more libertarian direction. We understand the dejection of our conservative friends. These regard the Coalition as a disaster. They were hoping for a Conservative Government led by conservatives. Instead, they have a coalition government that will not withdraw from the European Union, will be easily as politically correct as Labour, and that will push forward the Green agenda regardless of cost and regardless of the scientific evidence. This seems a fair assessment of how our new masters at least want to behave. Nevertheless, we believe that the Coalition – assuming it can hold together – is immeasurably an improvement on the Blair and Brown Governments that went before it, and that it may even be rather good. We may find much that is objectionable, and we have no doubt that there will be more. But there is no point in denying that we are quietly pleased.

The worst possible outcome of the general election would have been another Labour majority. The Blair and Brown Governments had created a police state at home, and had involved us abroad in at least three wars of military aggression. They had on their hands the blood of perhaps a million innocents. That had turned the police and most of the administration into arms of the Labour Party. They had doubled, or tripled, or quadrupled, the national debt – no one seems to be quite sure by how much, but the debt has undoubtedly exploded. Though lavishing huge taxpayer subsidies on the Celtic nations, they were far advanced to destroying England as any kind of recognisable nation. Their commitment to the European Union was solely for a procedural device for ruling by decree. They had abolished habeas corpus and the protections against double jeopardy. They were working to abolish trial by jury. It is impossible to find any other government in British – or, before then, in English – history that had destroyed so comprehensively and so deliberately in so short a time. When I saw that Labour had lost its majority, I rejoiced. When I thought it might cling to power in some coalition of the losers, I trembled. When Gordon Brown finally resigned, I opened a bottle of champagne

Nor, however, would we have welcomed a Conservative majority. David Cameron is – unless constrained – an arrogant and untrustworthy creature. Our conservative friends may have expected much of him. Or they may have thought they could extract much from him. But they were always deluding themselves. We knew, from the way he slithered out of his promise of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, that he had no intention of looking at British Membership of the European Union. We knew that he would never lift a finger against coercive multiculturalism, and that he would drive on the Green agenda. In these respects, a Conservative Government would have been no different in its actions – rhetoric being another matter – than the actual Coalition Government will be.

From our point of view, indeed, a Conservative majority would have been far worse than the Coalition. The Conservatives had promised to roll back much of the Labour police state. They promised to scrap identity cards and the national identity register. They promised to look at the thousands of new criminal offences created since 1997, and to restore many of the procedural rights taken away by Labour. We always regarded these promises as worthless. Conservatives – Thatcherite or Cameronian – have never had much commitment to civil liberties. They know something about economics, and have some regard for the national interest. But they have never been enthusiastic about substantive freedom and its procedural safeguards. If they denounce police states, it is usually because they think the wrong people are in control of them. The Labour police state, after all, was built on foundations laid down by the preceding Conservative Governments. The commitments on civil liberties were simply intended as bargaining counters between Mr Cameron and his traditionalist wing. He would deny his traditionalists any shift in European policy. He would buy them off by shelving the abolition of identity cards, and by cancelling any efforts to bring the police and bureaucracy back under the rule of law.

And an outright Conservative win would have strengthened Mr Cameron’s position within the Party, and the position of all the worthless young men and women who had attached themselves to him. They would have regarded this as a mandate for their own remodelling of the Conservative Party. The purges and centralised control that began when Mr Cameron took over would have been carried ruthlessly forward.

But, thanks to his general dishonesty and to the particular incompetence of his election campaign, Mr Cameron did not get his majority. Instead of being carried in shoulder high, he and his friends were forced to crawl naked on their bellies into Downing Street. He was forced to enter a coalition with the Liberal Democrats. These, to be sure, are not as liberal or democratic as they like to claim. Their belief in liberty is often little more than political correctness. Many of them are state socialists. Their cooperation with the Brown Government to deny us our promised referendum on the European Constitution shows what they think of voting when its result might not go their own way. No one can blame them for threatening Mr Cameron that they would go into coalition with Labour if he did not give them what they wanted. But we can doubt the sanity and goodness of those who continue regretting that there was no “progressive” coalition – a coalition, that is, with tyrants and murderers. Even so, the Coalition Government has now been formed; and there is some chance that it may compel each party to behave better than either might have by itself.

There probably will now be a considerable rolling back of the Labour police state. Identity cards and the national identity register will almost certainly go. We do not believe that the extension of detention without charge will be formally reversed. But we do believe that it will be surrounded with safeguards that effectively reverse it. We hope it will be the same with juryless trials and the DNA database, and with police powers in general. There will be at least a limited return to freedom of speech as it was enjoyed before 1997, and of the right to peaceful protest, and of security of our homes from arbitrary searches and seizures. As said, we never believed any of the Conservative assurances about civil liberties. But the Liberal Democrats will demand their full implementation – plus a little more. They will demand this to settle their own consciences for supporting cuts in government spending.

Turning to the economy, here as well the Coalition may do good work. The Labour Ministers never understood economics. They were fundamentally Marxists in expensive suits. Intellectually, they never appreciated the nexus of individual choices that is market freedom as other than some aggregated box called “The Economy” into which they could dip as they pleased. What they described as their promotion of enterprise never went beyond trading favours with big business.

The Conservatives and many of the Liberal Democrats do seem to understand economics. They know that taxes and government spending are both too high, and that the objects of government spending are often malign. They believe not only that the current nature and scale of government activity is unaffordable, but also that it is immoral. They will deregulate.

Now, economics was always the Conservative strong point, and it may be thought that the Liberal Democrats have nothing of their own to offer. However, we in the Libertarian Alliance have never liked the Conservative approach to economic reform. Their tax cuts favoured the rich. Their deregulations turned those at the bottom into casualised serfs. Their privatisations turned state monopolies into income streams for their friends in big business. They were better in all these respects than Labour. But we are interested to see what the Liberal Democrats will now be able to contribute with their belief in raising tax thresholds for the poor at the expense of the rich, and their belief in mutual institutions to provide public services in place both of the State and of big business.

As for political reform, we hear the complaints of our conservative friends that the Constitution will be overthrown if the electoral system is changed, or if the lifetime of a Parliament is fixed. We are also astonished at these complaints. We are not about to suffer a revolution. We have already had a revolution. Since 1997, Labour has come close to destroying the whole constitutional settlement of this country as it emerged after 1688. However unwise or evil it may have been to do this, it has been done, and there is no going back to the old order. We need a thorough reform of our political institutions to safeguard such liberty as we retain, or such liberty as may be returned to us. We see nothing wrong with any of the changes so far suggested.

Our conservative friends defend the current electoral system as ensuring “strong government”. We know what they really mean. Their fantasy is that they can stage some coup within the Conservative Party and then get a majority in Parliament on about a quarter of the total possible vote. We are still waiting for them to take over the Conservative Party. While waiting, we have endured thirty one years of strong – and usually disastrously bad – government. If neither the Conservative not Labour Parties had got a majority since 1983, it is hard to see how this country would be worse off than it is. It might easily be better.

Another objection we hear to electoral reform is that it would put the Liberal Democrats permanently into government. This claim is based on the assumption that the three main parties would continue in being. In truth, all of these parties are diverse coalitions brought together by history and kept together by the iron logic of the first-past-the-post system. Give us some less random – or perhaps less biased – correlation of seats in Parliament to votes cast, and all these parities will be gradually pulled apart, and their parts may then be recombined into more natural groupings.

We will not comment on the proposed fixed term to the current Parliament, or on the enhanced majority needed to bring down the Coalition. We understand that these proposals extend to this Parliament alone. If they are found to be convenient, they may continue by statute or by convention. If not, they will not continue. But these are not libertarian issues.

In conclusion, the Libertarian Alliance wants more – much more – than all this. We want the full relegalisation of drugs. We want the right to keep and bear arms for self-defence. We want complete freedom of speech and association, and this includes the right of consenting adults to free expression of their sexuality. We want the removal of all corporate privilege from the rich and well-connected. We want the poor to be given free opportunity to make themselves independent of both state welfare and wage labour. We want taxes and government spending cut back to where they stood before the Great War – and that is only a beginning. We believe in freedom in the fullest sense. The Coalition will not come close to giving us what we want.

Nevertheless, we do welcome what we have so far seen of the Coalition. Its nature may force both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats to do better than either would have done given complete freedom. The Conservatives may be compelled to deliver on their civil liberties promises. The Liberal Democrats may be forced to think seriously about their mutualist leanings now that their preferred state socialist option is off the table. The British electorate is not a single creature. It is only a singular noun that describes several dozen million individuals and a system that allocates votes to seats almost randomly. But we can understand those who claim that the British people, in all their wisdom, have stood up at last and given themselves the very best government that was on offer.

NB—Sean Gabb’s book, Cultural Revolution, Culture War: How Conservatives Lost England, and How to Get It Back, can be downloaded for free from

Morning Has Broken

William Hague as Foreign Secretary? Yuk! He was the worst ever Tory Leader apart from Churchill and Cameron. However, I suppose he’ll enjoy visiting all those foreign parts.

A Time for Unity

Sean Gabb

I will begin spewing venom at our new rulers tomorrow morning. For the moment, I will observe a dignified silence.

Robert Henderson on Coalition Building

There are 29 minor party and independent MPs in the newly elected House of Commons. The 5 Sinn Fein MPs can be discounted because they never take up their seats. That leaves 24. Hence, a grand coalition of all parties bar the Tories – very unrealistic because of the large number of different players involved  – would only be able to muster  339 votes, a paltry majority of 14.

Such a majority  would not sustain the coalition for long if at all, because (1) there would inevitably be regular rogue votes against coalition policy by members of the coalition because of the number of different parties involved and their disparate ends  and (2) any Parliament  suffers a gradual erosion of the general election personnel through death, serious illness and resignations for other reasons.

There would also be the complication for the Celtic Regional Parties (especially those in Ulster) of being constantly on call for votes when they are (1) a long way from London and (2) some are  members of  both their regional assemblies and the Commons.

The Tories having almost all their seats in England would find it much easier to maintain a full presence and could stuff the coalition by refusing pairs. RH

Sean Gabb – Longer Election Analysis

Everyone Loses In Britain’s Election. Could be A Good Thing.

By Sean Gabb

I have been asked to write for VDARE.COM’s mostly American readership about the British general election of May 6 2010. In trying to do this, I am at a double disadvantage. First, most Americans naturally know little about Britain. Second, this is a drama unfolding by the hour. Whatever I write now (Sunday evening, May 9) will be out of date shortly.

I will arrange my comments under three headings: How the System Works in General: How the System Worked on This Occasion; What the Meaning of All This Might be for Liberty and Tradition.

1. How the System Works in General

The House of Commons is the central body of British government. It is made up of 650 Members, including the Speaker. Each Member of Parliament [MP] represents one geographical district of roughly equal population, called a “constituency”. He is elected by the “first past the post system”, which means that the winner of the seat needs to gain a majority of one over any other candidate. In other words, it is elected on the same basis as the U.S. House of Representatives—which, however, shares power with the U.S. Senate and the President.

Theoretically, this election process can lead to overall outcomes in which one of the main parties gains a majority of the total votes cast, but another wins a majority of seats in the House of Commons. This happens rarely in Britain. But over the last half-century or so, the British political party system has fragmented to a much greater degree than has happened in the U.S. (yet). As a result, it has become common for a party to get a small majority in overall votes cast, but a large Commons majority. Thus in the last general election, Labour won 356 seats and a substantial Commons majority with 36.9 per cent of the vote—which, on a turnout of 61.3 per cent, meant that it won with just over 22 per cent of the total possible vote.

A further consequence of this system: small parties are effectively blocked from the House of Commons. For example, in the 2010 general election, the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) got around a million votes and the British National Party (BNP) got around half a million votes. (Both are fiercely opposed to immigration). But these were votes picked up across the country as a whole. Because neither party won a majority of the vote in one specific constituency, neither party has any seats in the House of Commons.

Indeed, even the smallest of the three main parties is at a disadvantage. In the 2010 general election, the Liberal Democrats won 23 per cent of the votes cast and got 57 seats, while Labour won 29 per cent, and got 258 seats.

There are about a dozen nationalists from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—referred to in Britain as the “Celtic” fringe. Otherwise, every seat is held by the three main parties—Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat.

For all they squabble over secondary issues, these are what may be called parties of the Regime—they are committed to the present order of things.

Whatever the democratic legitimacy of the outcome, the party that wins an overall majority of seats in the House of Commons is allowed to form the Government. That is, the leader of the largest party becomes Prime Minister, and then appoints all the other Ministers.

And whoever controls the House of Commons has absolutely unlimited power over the life, liberty and property of everyone in the United Kingdom.

Britain has no written constitution, no entrenched bill of rights, no counterbalancing institutions. Back in 1776, the British Constitution was regarded as a balance of Crown, Lords and Commons, each able to check the other. Many judges and politicians also believed that there were certain fundamental laws that the courts could uphold against combined attack by Crown, Lords and Commons. This was the template for the American Constitution.

Since then, however, the Lords have lost their blocking veto. The Crown—especially during the reign of “Elizabeth the Useless” (1952-)—has given up all attempt to preserve the Constitution from attack. The courts have accepted the doctrine of the absolute legislative supremacy of Parliament—which means of whoever controls the House of Commons.

In theory, an Act of Parliament—even passed by a majority of one in a Commons where the governing party received perhaps ten per cent of the total possible vote—could order the execution of every man in the country with red hair. It could make it an offence to whistle in the streets of Paris. It could repeal the Government of India Act 1947, and try sending out a new Viceroy to govern India. It could declare that three plus five equals nine. Regardless of its morality or physical means of enforcement, such an Act would be regarded by the courts as absolutely binding within the United Kingdom.

For a long time, this peculiar doctrine was allowed to do little harm. The House of Commons was dominated by members of the old ruling class, and these made sure to govern as if constrained by an entrenched constitution. By a process of gradual change during the 20th century, however, the old ruling class was displaced first in its personnel and then in its values.

This was a gradual process, and no single year can easily be chosen to mark the transition. Whatever year is chosen, despotic laws can be adduced from before, and successful insistences on the old norms can be adduced from after. But perhaps the two most important dates were the election years of 1979 and 1997.

In the first of these, Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative Government was elected at a time of crisis. It believed its agenda of economic and political change should not be limited by any constitutional norm.

In the second, Tony Blair’s Labour Government was elected. It used the precedents set by the Thatcher and Major Governments to carry out a Politically Correct coup d’état.

Since 1997, Britain has been turned from a reasonably free country into a police state. I have a good legal background. Even so, I no longer know what the laws are or how they are enforced. Indeed, it probably no longer matters what the laws say, as the police and administration often make them up as they go along.

Around 5,000 new criminal offences have been created. In the name of “equality” and “anti-racism”, government power has been imposed into every area of private life. Call someone a “bloody immigrant”, and go to prison. Refuse to accommodate homosexuals in your hotel, and go to prison. Refuse to employ an atheist in your religious school, and be shut down. Smoke in your own business premises, or allow others to smoke, and go to prison. Photograph a police officer while he is breaking the law, and go to prison. Upset a police officer, and be arrested, and have your DNA taken and stored on a database that is shared with several dozen foreign governments. Keep a firearm in your home for self-defence, and go to prison for five years.

Since 1997, habeas corpus has been abolished. We have serious criminal trials without juries. [First trial without jury approved, BBC News, June 18, 2009] The rule against double jeopardy has been abolished. Hearsay and similar fact evidence can be introduced. The police and 20,000 civil servants have the right to conduct warrantless searches of our homes. The police can authorise each other to break into homes to plant listening devices. Despite solid opposition, Labour is about to force to carry biometric identity cards that will give the authorities the ability to spy on—and therefore to control—every aspect of our private lives.

Nobody knows how many Third World immigrants have been encouraged to settle in the country. The official population of the United Kingdom is about 60 million. Based on sales of basic foodstuffs, the supermarkets believe the true population to be closer to 80 million. . [City Eye: Facts on a plate: our population is at least 77 million, By Martin Baker, October  28, 2007]It is impossible to say, as the true figures are either not collected or are hidden.

We know that the great majority of immigrants who have been granted citizenship vote for the Labour Party. There is also much anecdotal evidence—though this is not mentioned in the Main Stream Media—that illegal immigrants and “asylum seekers” are being registered to vote so that they can increase the Labour share of the vote.

Our registration laws date back to a time when nearly everyone in the country was a citizen. Registration to vote was a formality for when someone reached the age of majority or moved house. The law is based on trust—and this trust is easily abused by a little perjury that is then connived at by the pro-Labour administrators who control most of local government.

As a libertarian patriot, I take a less pessimistic view of immigration than other patriots. However, what we presently have is state-sponsored mass-immigration. This has been a deliberate policy of the British ruling class to break up resistance to despotism—recently admitted by Andrew Neather, one of Tony Blair’s speechwriters. When people are sufficiently balkanised, they will suspect each other more than the authorities.

None of the Regime parties will do anything about immigration. It must be said, though, that of the three the Conservatives have dropped the strongest hints that they might.

Oh—and the country has been formally enslaved to the centralised, bureaucratic European Union, which now makes most of the laws not mentioned above. And the country’s foreign policy has become a matter of slavishly assisting in whatever act of imperialism and mass-murder the U.S. Government may see fit to begin. The Iraq and Afghan Wars serve no British interest. They have resulted in perhaps millions of deaths. They were opposed by solid majorities of British opinion. They went ahead nevertheless.

3. How the System Worked on This Occasion

How any main opposition party could fight an election campaign against our Government of unindicted traitors and war criminals, and not win an overall majority of 300, is a cause for astonishment. But that is what the Conservative party has just managed. It got 36 per cent of a 65 per cent turnout—that is, it won just over 23 per cent of the total possible vote.

The Conservatives did emerge as the largest single party in terms both of votes and seats. But of course a party needs 326 seats in the House of Commons to have an overall majority. The Conservatives got 306 seats, making them twenty short of a majority.

The cause of this astonishing failure was the leadership of David Cameron. It would be hard to think of anyone who could not have led the Conservatives to victory after thirteen years of what we have had. The problem is that Mr Cameron is just that person. He refuses to discuss Europe or immigration except in the mildest and most plainly fraudulent terms. He claims to be a fanatical environmentalist. He has accepted nearly the whole of the Labour Revolution.

His disagreements with Labour have not been entirely cosmetic. He and his party are better than Labour on many issues. But these are not issues critical to national survival.

And there is no doubt that several million people who would have voted to save their nation decided it was not worth the effort of voting for a Conservative Government led by someone who looks and tries to sound depressingly like Tony Blair.

Why bother voting for a different man to front the same policies of treason and destruction?

And so no party can be said to have won the election. Here, for the sake of completeness, are the results so far:

  Seats Change Vote %
Conservative 306 +97 36.1
Labour 258 -91 29.0
Liberal Democrat 57 -5 23.0

It will be seen that, while the Conservatives did not get an overall majority, the Labour Party was badly hit, and the Liberal Democrats lost seats. Nobody won in the usual sense. So far as this is possible within a zero-sum game, they all lost.

It is worth asking why no other party made a breakthrough in this election. UKIP promises to withdraw from the European Union, and does well in elections to the European Parliament. The BNP promises the same, plus a much more radical approach to immigration and multiculturalism, and also does well in European elections. There is much anecdotal evidence that Europe and immigration and multiculturalism were the main election issues in many parts of the country. Yet neither party won seats in this election, and neither did outstandingly well in terms of votes.

The answer is, again, the electoral system. Small parties are so ruthlessly squeezed that hardly anyone feels much incentive to vote for them. Anyone can stand for election in this country. But the rules of the game give a decisive advantage to the three Regime parties. I might, for example, have voted for UKIP on May 6. That party seems best to represent my opinions. But one vote for UKIP is one vote fewer for the Conservatives—which might let in a Labour Member of Parliament. I must choose between a party that I want and a party that can keep out another party that I hate and fear.

It would take much more discontent than there now is among the British people to bring about a revolutionary change in party representation. Until then, the majority of votes will continue going to the three Regime parties. Unlike the minor parties, these have agreed among themselves not to argue over the issues of most critical importance to national survival.

At the same time, they do offer just enough variety on lesser issues to make it arguably worth voting for them.

What the Meaning of All This Might be for Liberty and Tradition

There are two further matters to discuss. These are what will happen, and what should libertarians and traditionalists want to happen. The first question seems easy to answer. If we add the Conservative and Liberal Democrat seats together, we get 363—which is enough for stable control of the House of Commons. Whether the parties co-operate in a formal coalition, or whether the Liberal Democrats simply agree to let the Conservatives govern with a minority, is unimportant. What does matter is that these two parties together can enable reasonable stability of government.

This being said, the Labour Government has not gone away. Gordon Brown remains Prime Minister, and he is desperately offering the Liberal Democrats anything they might want, if only they will support his continuation in office.

Brown’s problem, however, is that the Labour and Liberal Democrat do not together add up to an overall majority. That could only be got from including the “Celtic” nationalists. Their price would be a wash of English tax money over their own regions even greater than is now the case. The resulting coalition of four or five parties would have an overall majority, but would be unstable and often paralysed.

And so, what almost certainly will happen is some kind of agreement between the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties. As said, this is a drama unfolding by the hour. Anything might yet happen. But I really cannot see what else can happen but some kind of Conservative and Liberal Democrat agreement.

Now, to the more interesting question of what we should want to happen. I will emphasis that this was not an election from which any attractive government was likely to emerge.

The likely options were and are varying degrees of the undesirable. The worst outcome, of course, would have been a re-elected Labour Government. This would have led straight to the abolition of what little remains of this country.

But a hardly less desirable outcome would have been an outright Conservative majority. This would have allowed David Cameron to announce that he had a mandate to carry on almost exactly like Labour. Nothing substantial would have changed—except there would have been a fresh team to drive on the work of destruction.

The least bad outcome would have been a big Conservative majority—rather like Labour got in 1997. This, paradoxically, would have weakened David Cameron. Almost every Conservative candidate likely to win a seat at this election had been hand-picked by him. Right up to a majority of about thirty, Conservative Members of Parliament would have been ready to vote exactly as directed.

But the bigger the majority beyond that, the larger the number of real conservatives who would have been elected—ready to demand action on the most important issues. These could have formed a bloc of several dozen Members, able to embarrass or even to threaten the Government.

The next least bad outcome—is the one we seem likely to get. A Conservative and Liberal Democrat agreement will not change policy on the European Union, the American alliance, immigration, multiculturalism, the response to alleged man-made climate change, the dominance of big business corporatism, or much else. But, on other issues, there will be a few welcome changes. Such a Government probably will abolish identity cards and the database state that it fronts. It will probably not regulate home schooling. It may rein in the police and the bureaucracy.

These are things already promised by the Conservatives. Since they are also promised by the Liberal Democrats, there is every reason to suppose some good will happen.

Most important, however, is that the Liberal Democrats will demand reform of the electoral system. The existing method of electing Members of Parliament will be replaced by something that less randomly correlates votes cast to seats gained.

The Liberal Democrats have been arguing for this almost since the collapse of the old Liberal Party in the 1920s. But neither of the larger parties had any interest in changing a system that worked so much to their own alternating advantage. Now, it may well happen.

The Liberal Democrat—indeed, the general—assumption is that electoral reform will simply mean that the Conservative and Labour parties will continue to exist, but will need to go into routine coalition with an enlarged Liberal Democrat bloc in the House of Commons.

But rather more likely is that any change in the electoral system will corrode the glue that holds all the main parties together. Without the iron logic of the first-past-the-post system, what else could force Burkean Tories, classical liberals, semi-libertarians, and Christian democrats into one Conservative Party? The same question might be asked of the factions that make up the Labour and even the Liberal Democrat parties.

At the same time, bringing some proportionality into the electoral system would allow the minor parties into the House of Commons. UKIP, the BNP, and perhaps the English Democrats and others, would now have a greater chance of winning elections.

These might never add up to a majority of Members. They would, even so, provide a radical opposition to the Regime that is not now provided.

There is a further outcome that might not actually be too bad in the long term. This is an agreement between Labour and the Liberal Democrats. As said, this could only exist with the additional support of the “Celtic” parties. It would, from the start, be a useless Government—rather like the more exotic coalitions that come to power in Israel, though without the shared belief in national survival. It would terrify the financial markets.

But at the same time, it would be so obviously a “coalition of the losers”, and so obviously a fraud on the English—who unlike the Scotch and Welsh, did vote mostly Conservative—that it might delegitimize the whole system and bring about a fundamental reconstruction much faster than would otherwise be the case.

From here, though, we pass beyond the realms of what seems possible. For the moment, it is enough to say that the political drama presently to be seen in London is entertaining, so far as it shows the varying defeat of all three main parties.

But its outcome seems predictable. And that outcome, dire though it will seem in the short term, may not be so bad in the longer term.

Sean Gabb – BBC Interview on Compulsory Voting

Libertarian Alliance Comment on Election Result

Sean Gabb, Director, Libertarian Alliance

This was not a general election in which a distinctively libertarian force was likely to win power. There was also no chance of a win for traditionalist conservatives. We were not seriously consulted on the European Union, the American alliance, immigration, multiculturalism, drugs, due process civil liberties, the response to alleged man-made climate change, the dominance of big business corporatism, and many other issues of great importance. Instead, given the electoral system we have, we had a choice between difference emphases within a single consensus.

I chose to vote Conservative because, on balance, I believed that the Labour Party was the most likely to turn the country into a naked police state. I am glad that Labour lost. At the same time, I am glad that the Conservatives did not win an overall majority. Given that anything short of a huge and unmanageable majority would have given David Cameron all reason to suppose he was the Anointed One, a hung Parliament is the best outcome.

A Con-Lib pact or whatever sort will not address the issues mentioned above. But it probably will abolish identity cards and the database state that it fronts. It will probably not “regulate” home education. It may rein in the Police and the bureaucracy. Even if the country does not become a better place, it may not grow worse as fast as it would under a Labour Government.

Above all, a majority Labour Government would have fixed the system to keep itself in power forever. It would have used its own creatures in the Police and the bureaucracy to harass and perhaps even to murder its opponents. A Con-Lib pact will do none of these things. It will allow a free and fair election at the end of its term, in which some distinctively libertarian or traditionalist force may have a better chance of making its voice heard.

Sean Voted Conservative – Twice….

Sean Gabb

I cast a proxy vote this morning for a friend. She had told me ot vote Conservative, and I did so. On my way out, I spoke to the Conservative teller. I told her i’d be voting UKIP later in the day. She told me she had already done so. I gave her a funny look and went about my business. Later, I saw some Labour people in the street. They didn’t seem at all put out by my abuse, and even boasted that Gay Gordon would be in till 2015. That got me thinking. Deal is a Labour marginal that needs only a smallish swing to go Tory.

So I voted Conservative for myself. I feel rather bad about this. Even so, I do think – and I accept I may be wrong – that getting rid of Labour is a step in the right direction. The Tories may be only slightly better. But slightly better is still better. The lesser of two evils is still less evil….

We shall see what happens. As I write, there is only an hour left of voting.

Spot the difference…

Christopher Houseman

As an Election Day, May 6th 2010 reveals yet another important difference between a toddler and an adult.

A typical toddler may emerge triumphantly from the toilet today with the words “Mummy, I’ve done a poo!” Granted, the volume control may need a bit of work but, hey, it’s a start.

By contrast, as an adult I may emerge triumphantly later today from a voting booth, and tell the world by a variety of means (including a Facebook app) “Look! I’ve voted!”

Mummy may ask the toddler whether he’s flushed the chain or perhaps even washed his hands.

By contrast, I need tell nobody who I voted for or why I voted as I did.

Thanks to the wonders of modern plumbing and sanitation, the toddler’s mess will be flushed away and (hopefully) dealt with at a sewage works.

My vote will be put in a pile with a bunch of other pieces of paper in order to “choose” a local MP, who may (or may not) be part of a governing party. If my chosen candidate wins, I’m supposed to get a warm feeling that I’ve forced a bunch of total strangers to listen to me, before all the bits of paper are disposed of. If my chosen candidate loses, my wishes will be ignored completely and my vote will simply be disposed of as a waste product.

The toddler’s poo may be turned into fertiliser to help grow plants for food and/or aesthetic pleasure.

I have no idea whether or how my ballot paper will be recycled, but I’m pretty sure there are laws against the use of 100% “recycled” ballot papers.

The plants produced with the aid of the toddler’s recycled poo may help to alleviate a range of problems including global hunger, air pollution and clinical depression. In the meantime, the processes involved in recycling the toddler’s poo will have involved honest, productive work by a wide range of people.

Whichever party “wins” will try to spend the next 4 or 5 years generating a big pile of steaming poo legislation (stet?) to dump on the statute books, and on the lives of millions of people who may never have voted for any of the governing party’s members in the first place. The results will include yet more waste, fraud and misery.

I conclude the toddler is ahead on points.

Voting Advice from the Libertarian Alliance

Sean Gabb

I may vote Conservative. Or I may vote for one of the minor parties. It all depends on the exit polls and how I feel tomorrow evening.

However, there is one party that I and the Libertarian Alliance can unreservedly recommend.

If you live in the constituencies of Sutton & Cheam or Devizes, please consider giving your vote to Libertarian Party General Election candidates Martin Cullip and Nic Coome.

Robert Henderson and the Last Telly Debate

Another 90 minutes of evading the important questions by Tweedledom,Tweededee and Tweedledem. Gordon Grim was his usual dysfunctional self with  a particularly ghastly example of his I-am-an-alien-revealing  smile at the end of the debate, NuTory Boy was a little better than before although embarrassingly feeble when dealing with immigration and the leader of the Party for Adolescents Hello-I’m-Nick- Can-You-Identify-Yourself-Questioner-So-I-Can-Pretend-To-Be-Taking-You- Seriously was, well, very, very adolescent.

Yet again I was appalled by how badly prepared they were when it came to facts. The worst moments were when NuTory Boy was banging on about his proposed “cap” on immigration and Hello-I’m-Nick butted in with “Your cap won’t work because 80% of immigration to Britain comes from the EU”. This was seriously wrong as the majority comes from outside the EU. Not only was Hello-I’m-Nick not in possession of the facts, NuTory Boy wasn’t either,  because he did not contradict him but came out with a shriekingly feeble riposte about transitional arrangements for new applicants to the EU being Tory policy.  What NuTory Boy did not mention was that the most favoured  new entrants under a NuTory Government would be 60 million Turks.

The important issues which got no airing at all in the three debates were:

1. Devolution and especially the democratic deficit caused by England’s lack of a parliament.

2. The differential in Treasury funding between England the  Celtic Fringe with the Celtic Fringe getting per capita approximately £1,600 per head more than the England.

3. The countryside in general and farming in particular.

4. Why we have a military designed not to defend the country but to support NWO escapades such as the war in Iraq.

5. The amount of sovereignty lost to Brussels.

6. The amount of sovereignty lost through other Treaty agreements such as that of the UN Convention on Refugees and the European Declaration of Human Rights.

7. The Effects of the Human Rights Act.

8. The institutionalisation of political correctness through such measures as the Race Relations Amendment Act (2000)and its relentless promotion within our educational system.

9. The gross abridgement of our liberties through a raft of terrorist legislation.

Important issues which were raised but not discussed honestly were:

1. Immigration. None of the three parties admitted that while we were in the EU no meaningful controls could be operated. Clegg did obliquely refer to it by his false claim that 80% of immigration to Britain was from the EU, but did not explicitly point out that immigration was in effect uncontrolled. None of the party leaders was so vulgar as to suggest mass immigration might be an ill in itself.

2. Iraq and Afghanistan. There was no discussion of the futility of the invasions, their legality  or any suggestion a future British government would not do the same.

3. The economy. There was no serious attack on Gordon Grim’s overspending, the Tories support for NuLabcur’s “light touch” regulation of the banks and their ilk or the silence of all parties on the destruction of manufacturing.  Of the hypocrisy shown in the third debate none was more profound than their calls to increase manufacturing when all three parties have done nothing to prevent its destruction and often lauded the shift from manufacturing to service jobs.

4. Housing. This is the issue which more than ever poisons British economic life for it has become impossible for even those on above average wages to buy a house, massively  pushed up rents and removed security of tenure from most rented properties.

5. The falling standards of living through housing costs, petrol prices, the under cutting of wages and employment through the recession, off-shoring and immigration.

Richard Littlejohn understands the GramscoFabiaNazi mind

David Davis

He has to: he must attend more than one drinks-potty a week with the bastards. But it does shine through.

“Wait for Us to Fail, Then Vote BNP” The Conservative Hidden Agenda?

Free Life Commentary,
A Personal View from
The Director of the Libertarian Alliance
Issue Number 192
28th April 2010
Linking url:
Available for debate on LA Blog at  
“Wait for Us to Fail, Then Vote BNP!”
The Conservative Hidden Agenda?
By Sean Gabb

I think we can all agree that the Conservative campaign in this election has never been more than uninspiring. We have a Labour Government that has come close to bankrupting the country and to destroying it politically. It is run by a collection of unindicted war criminals and traitors, who have plainly been hard at work for the past decade enriching themselves on a scale unknown since the 18th century. All this, and the Conservatives are trying hard to avoid a hung parliament in which Labour may be able to carry on with Liberal Democrat support. 

This could be the effect of incompetence and general dishonesty. In part, I am sure it is. However, there may be another explanation, and I feel the time has come for me to make my own small offering in the election campaign. 

On Monday the 5th March 2007, I had coffee with someone I will call XYZ, and who was and still may be an associate of David Cameron. Why he wanted to see me, and why he thought it might be useful to tell me all this, I have never been able to explain. I can only say that the meeting did happen – it happened, I might add, in the hotel where Andrew Gilligan had his meetings with the unfortunate David Kelly! Afterwards, as is my custom, I made a record of the meeting in my diary. 

Started in 1977, and kept since 1991 in various computer formats, this diary has become a confession of my doings as scandalous or simply bizarre as anything in the novels of Richard Blake. When he was alive, Chris Tame used to lecture me on the value of taking a tape recorder into such conversations. I always refused his advice. Taping conversations is dishonourable. Anyone of intelligence will know that he is being recorded. And recordings are actually less useful for any legitimate purpose than written accounts made shortly after the event. They are certainly less useful practice for the analytical faculties. You may respond that writing out private conversations is as dishonourable as taping them. You are welcome to your opinion, but I do not share it. Where would history be without such accounts of what was said? Or you might say that it is dishonourable to publish such accounts while the relevant parties are alive. You may be right here. On the other hand, where written accounts are concerned, it is always open to an embarrassed party to deny that the conversation took place, or to insist that he was seriously misrepresented. 

But this is a digression brought on by the triumph of self-importance over the promptings of conscience. Without further attempts to justify myself, what I give below is the relevant diary entry, edited only to maintain a reasonable anonymity for the person I met. 

The Diary Entry 

Meeting with XYZ, The Charing Cross Hotel, Monday the 5th March 2007. 

[After some small talk irrelevant to this entry, XYZ moves to an explanation of the Conservative strategy] 

XYZ – The central fact of this nation is that its political and media classes are rotten to the core. These classes are made up of ageing radicals who’ve spent the past 30 years marching through the institutions, and of younger apparatchiks who don’t fully believe, but who accept the framework within which they operate. And it’s worse than this. A fish rots from the head down, and the rot in this nation has spread deep into the body. Key parts of the electorate may not consciously have embraced the statist and green and politically correct ideologies of the Establishment. But they have been desensitised to them. They regard any alternative as eccentric or even alarming. 

SIG – This is, of course, your fault. You did nothing when you were in office about the capture of ideological hegemony by these people. You have certainly been the only political force able to make any serious challenge to it since 1997. You have entirely failed to do this. We are now a couple of years from yet another election in which you will take part as outsiders. 

XYZ – You may be right, but that doesn’t change things now. What matters is that a Conservative Party that talks openly about a conservative agenda will be ruined by the Establishment. It will also not be believed even by the uncorrupted parts of the electorate – these have been lied to too often. Our only option is to announce a superficial acceptance of the new order of things. We must become as politically correct as everyone else. We must embrace blacks and gays and the public sector. We must give the Establishment no excuse for destroying us. This has succeeded so far as the Conservatives are now accepted as the next Government. 

SIG – And you suppose that lying your way into office will give you a mandate for radical change? If you run as “Blue Labour”, that is how everyone will expect you to behave in office. Besides, I’ve seen no evidence that your friends are as clever as you doubtless are. Very few people can consistently say one thing while believing something else. The problem with any hidden agenda is that it gets forgotten. I saw this with all those Tory Boy politicians who drifted through the libertarian movement in the 1980s. Perhaps they did believe all their early protestations of libertarian purity. Long before they’d crawled their way over broken glass into Parliament, they’d come to believe all the authoritarian platitudes that had been the price of success. I don’t believe what you are saying is a credible strategy for doing more than getting yourself and your friends back into office. 

XYZ – I’m not talking about a political coup. The next Conservative Government may do some of the necessary work of restoration. It will do this by undoing much of the centralisation of the past quarter century. [He refers at this point to a deeply unpleasant argument we had over dinner in May 1989. He accepts the critique of the centralisation and constitutional vandalism of the Thatcher and Major Governments, but tries to justify all this as a failed but honourable Leninist strategy of trying to smash the left. He accepts that this strategy was a failure and that it needs to be reversed.] 

XYZ – Giving control of police forces to locally elected chiefs will ensure that some parts of the country will escape the political correctness of central government. There will be no scaling back of the police state, but it might be used more for its alleged purpose of fighting what everyone regards as actual crime. This means that safe Labour areas will continue their descent into the gutter. But places like Kent and Surrey will be allowed to save themselves to some extent. 

XYZ – Taxes will be cut—but only by a division of the fruits of economic growth with continued high spending on health and education. 

XYZ – All else will be done by engineering circumstances in which radical action will seem to have been forced on an unwilling Conservative Government. For example, the European issue will be settled by a strategy that beings with all the Majorite “heart of Europe” rhetoric. Our Government will make solidly Europhile noises, and will give way on matters that cause outrage within the wider Movement. However, we will then engineer a crisis in Brussels, where we are bullied into accepting what we say is unacceptable. The crisis will proceed to the point where we announce we have no choice but to call a referendum on continued membership. And there will be unacceptable demands from Brussels – that is how these things work. We can portray ourselves as forced by circumstances into actions that we find unwelcome but also unavoidable. 

SIG – And suppose the people do not vote for withdrawal? 

XYZ – Then we face facts. If we can’t engineer a vote for withdrawal – not even in our own carefully chosen circumstances – we’ve lost. 

XYZ – We will tackle illegal immigration in the same way. Already, there are calls from within the Establishment for an amnesty of all the illegals. If granted, this will add at least ten million Labour voters to the electorate, and we shall be lost forever. In office, we will do nothing to check these calls. At last, we will give way to them – but only after calling a referendum. We will announce that a measure so bold and so unpredictable in its effect must be put to the people, not decided within the Establishment. We will then produce a ballot paper with a range of options. One of these will be for a complete amnesty. Another will be the rounding up and expulsion of all the illegals. Our Government will insist of having these options included on the ballot paper, and will then be scrupulously neutral during the campaign. We are sure that 80 per cent of the electorate will vote for expulsion. This will give the necessary mandate for getting them out. There will be room for exceptions so that the Establishment is not able to seize on the usual hard cases and discredit the whole policy. But that is our real policy on immigration. 

XYZ – Again, we expect something like an 80 per cent vote for expulsion. That will give us the mandate to force the bureaucracy into ruthless action. It also gives us the excuse for ruthless action when the lefty complaints begin. 

SIG – Even supposing I wanted any of this, I don’t believe a word you are saying. You forget everything Chris Tame and I were told in the 1980s about how the State could be scaled back by taking advantages of its own inner contradictions. All we got was a more efficient state. Why should I take any of what you are saying as more than self-delusion to lubricate a Tory sell-out to the ideological hegemony of the left? 

XYZ – Look, it may fail. If, however, the next Conservative Government does nothing good, that still moves the argument forward. At the moment, most of our people are anaesthetised by a decade of prosperity and by the vague belief that all problems created by Labour can be sorted out by voting Conservative next time, or by voting UKIP. A Conservative failure will be a shot of cold water in the face. It will force people to make serious choices they don’t presently think are necessary. 

SIG – The purpose of voting UKIP is mostly to put pressure on a Conservative leadership that understands no other argument than measuring the haemorrhage of its core vote. Indeed, it shows no sign of having understood that argument. 

XYZ – Sean, UKIP has imploded. [He refers to an expenses dispute with the Electoral Commission that appeared set to bankrupt the UK Independence Party: this conversation took place two years before the UKIP victories in the 2009 European elections.] This attack was not wholly an outside job. The Electoral Commission bent over backwards to avoid taking the action it did. The problem is that the UKIP leadership is generally arrogant and shambolic. The party is not a serious alternative to the Tories – we never lose large numbers of votes to it in any election that matters. But the impending collapse of UKIP is to be welcomed in terms of short term electoral advantage. Our loss of votes to it is not critical, but is annoying. More importantly, that – plus your anticipated Tory failure in government – clears the way for what may be the next step in British politics. 

SIG – This being another two decades of useless Conservative Governments? 

XYZ – No. The UKIP collapse is good in the long term so far as it allows the BNP to move further into the political running. UKIP is a useful safety valve. But its leaders are too stupid – or too controlled – to present any serious threat to the Establishment. The [British National Party] is different. It can’t be smashed. The Establishment has tried and failed. Its leaders have known each other for decades, and are used to working together in ways the UKIP leadership and activists could never manage. It cannot advance far at the moment because the Conservatives stand in its way. If the next Conservative Government is the sort of failure you believe it will be, we shall be pushed aside, and the path will be clear for the BNP. 

SIG – So that’s your argument. We keep our mouths shut while your people lie their way into office. If they mess up, the way is cleared for the BNP to do the job for you? 


That is what XYZ told me. You can be sure this is not a verbatim record of our conversation. It is a summary, made on the same evening, of a long conversation that went back on itself and over itself, and covered several other issues. It is possible that I misunderstood what was said to me. It is possible that I missed something out, and that this is a seriously unbalanced account of what was said. But I have been keeping a diary since I was a boy; and several million words of narrative have given me the ability to record events and conversations with acknowledged accuracy. What I give above is the essence of what I was told. 

Now, I will say nothing about the morality of what was said. The real question is what was its meaning? I do not believe I am, or was, a person of sufficient importance to deserve this kind of private briefing. All else aside, I am not sure why I should have been thought to require a promise of what amounts to ethnic cleansing. But, once we move into this sort of backroom intrigue, the range of explanations can be endless. 

One possibility is that I was being used as a conduit for propaganda that the Conservative leadership was not able to make for itself. Perhaps I was supposed to publish all this at the time as part of an effort to reconcile the core vote to a strategy that has never been popular. Or perhaps I was supposed to publish it to further some private intrigue around David Cameron. Or perhaps XYZ wanted to spend an evening telling me falsehoods of which he hoped thereby to persuade himself. Was I simply the most convenient excuse for a guilty monologue? I could fill whole pages with speculations that go nowhere. I did not make the conversation public at the time. It was, indeed, the inspiration for my book Cultural Revolution, Culture War, published a few months later. This should be read as my extended response to the conversation. 

All I can say now is that the Conservative leadership has spent the past three years of relentlessly accepting the present order of things. I think this conversation was before David Cameron’s embrace of Polly Toynbee. It was certainly before his announcements of – so far unrequited – love for the BBC and the National Health Service. This might really be the Conservative hidden agenda. 

If, however, it is the hidden agenda, it is not working. As said, its principals may already have gone native: they may have come to believe their own propaganda. And it does seem that, even otherwise, it has failed. The proposed victims of the strategy have not been sufficiently lulled into acceptance of a Conservative victory; and the Conservative core vote has not held up in the manner required. The Conservatives are just over a week away from an election that they should win more convincingly than the Liberals won in 1906, and there is a serious chance that they will lose. 

Why am I publishing this now? It may explain what the Conservatives are really about. Otherwise, though, the conversation did take place. XYZ was at the time a person of some importance in the Conservative leadership. This makes the conversation of some historical importance. I am not fully aware of the arguments that took place within the Conservative leadership before David Cameron had made himself entirely supreme. But, even if I cannot say anything of who was putting it or of its weight, what I recorded in 2007 may have been one of those arguments. Oh – and it may get me a footnote in one of the more scholarly histories of our age. 

Of course, I refuse to discuss the identity of XYZ. I will ignore any private questions. If anyone puts names to me in public, my response will be “No comment”. And, of course, all the other many sensitive conversations I have recorded over the years will remain confidential. Some of them, after all, might be embarrassing to me! 

NB—Sean Gabb’s book, Cultural Revolution, Culture War: How Conservatives Lost England, and How to Get It Back, can be downloaded for free from

More on the BNP Manifesto

Sean Gabb

There is quite a lot in the BNP Manifesto that is worth liking: its rejection of the climate change nonsense, its promise to raise motorway speeds to 90mph, its policy on guns and smoking and tax and government spending. Then there is its promise to withdraw at once from the European Union and to withdraw all British forces from Afghanistan, and never to join in any invasion of Iran. I don’t like the proposal to put drug dealers to death – or the proposal to make it a criminal offence to publish “false information”: that sort of thing sets alarm bells ringing in my head.

I suppose I should hysterically denounce the BNP line on race and immigration. Not to do so, after all, invites smears from the pro-Regime left of wanting to stuff people into gas chambers. However, the party doesn’t seem to be committed to ethnic cleansing, and its policies on immigration seem to be no firmer than those of the Conservative Party before 1970. And I am more interested in what else the BNP has to say.

I think the most interesting disagreement between libertarians and white nationalists is over visions of the future. A nationalist sees the white race as politically and demographically verging on extinction. The best he can imagine is to make the West into a fortress and, at best, somehow get through the next few generations without being submerged. A libertarian looks forwward to a future of limitless scientific and technical and moral progress. We want more wealth and more freedom, and believe that differences of race and culture and religion will be of decreasing importance in a world based on free contract.

This being said, we do often begin from a shared analysis of how the present ruling class is destroying our civilisation. We may also share a certain pessimism about the chance that this ruling class can be dislodged before it is too late. However, the main difference is that libertarians are fundamentally optimistic about the future, and white nationalists are not.

I might also note that the British and American nationalist movements – now they have dropped all nostalgia for the 1930s – are borrowing wholesale from libertarianism. As yet, these borrowings often look like gold teeth in an otherwise indifferent mouth. But what will be our response if the gold teeth begin to outnumber the others? Those of us who are libertarians need to prepare for the day – one or two elections hence – when the BNP Manifesto may be the least statist on offer. If that does happen, we can look forward to some sharp disagreements.

Oh, I notice I’ve already been smeared on on some left-fascist blog almost certainly funded somewhere along the feeding chain by the taxpayers:

Here is the BNP Manifesto:

BNP Election Manifesto

Sean Gabb

I like BNP policy on climate change, Europe, guns, smoking, multiculturalism, taxation, and so forth. I don’t like the idea of putting drug dealers to death, though. I think the time has come to stop denouncing the BNP for what it used to be saying, or for its alleged hidden agenda, and to start looking at what it is saying now.

Sean Gabb et al, CIB Meeting, Birmingham, 17th April 2010

How do I insert Vimeo videos?

Saturday 17th April 2010
2.30pm to 4.30pm 

Carrs Lane, Birmingham B4 7SX 


In the Chair

GEORGE WEST Chairman, Campaign for an Independent Britain


FIONA McEVOY The Taxpayers Alliance, West Midlands
“Our Money Under Our Control”

 Dr. SEAN GABB Director The Libertarian Alliance
“The Old Order Yielding Place to New”

 STUART NOTHOLT Vice-Chairman Campaign for an Independent Britain
“General Election “Candidate 2010”


DELE OGUN Solicitor in England & Wales
“Democracy Gone Wrong”

A Modest Proposal

Sean Gabb

Since 1997, Gordon Brown has presided over an explosion of state spending – and of the taxes needed to fund this. He has also more than doubled the British national debt. Most of the money has been spent on salaries and pensions for the ruling class and for its various clients. One of the main issues in British politics is how to stop this haemorrhage of our money into their pockets, and also how to get some of it back to help pay off the principal of the debt.

Here’s a proposal for quick and easy spending cuts.

No one in the public sector should be allowed to earn more than £40,000. No one in the public sector should be allowed to collect a pension of more than £20,000. This should include everyone from dustmen all the way down to Cabinet Ministers. Well, it should include everyone but those tax eaters – Trevor Phillips, Peter Mandelson, et al – who would just be sacked and deprived of all pension expectations.

This is a proposal that might allow cuts to some of the grosser salaries, but doesn’t, in itself, touch those pensions already granted. Everyone in politics seems agreed that the “public faith” shouldn’t be broken by arbitrary changes to contractual rights and obligations – as if the tax payers have an obligation to pay every bill run up by our tribe of hand-in-till politicians! Indeed, as if faith had ever been kept in more than the formal sense with the rights and expectations of those targeted by the State.

However, we could achieve the proposed reductions for everyone in the public sector by using the tax system. We don’t need to unpick contracts and tear up old pension agreements. The Government simply needs to impose a supplemental tax on everyone whose income is derived from the State. Therefore, Rupert Snottleigh, former Chair of the Lifestyle and Social Engineering Directorate for the South West Region, may feel snug with his £120,000 a year pension. My proposed supplemental income tax would take that straight down to £20,000. In the same way, the salary of the Prime Minister would be cut from £194,250 to £40,000 – would that cause any shortage of candidates for the job? Could it possibly reduce the quality of candidates? Of course, “Dame” Betty Woad, Head of the England Walking! Initiative at DEFRA, would see her salary cut from £247,000 to zero. She could also go sing for her pension.

These people have spent the past few decades talking rapturously about what high taxes can enable in the way of state solutions. Well, here are some taxes that certainly enable a few solutions. It would cut public spending by billions upon billions of pounds. It would also make me very happy!

Why should these people have pensions when ours have been made worthless by the burden of paying theirs? Or when our pensions have been made worthless by their regulatory efforts?

It might be worth imposing the same kind of tax on the management of all the banks we were forced to bail out the year before last. Certainly, my proposal is not restricted to those directly and wholly employed by the State. It also applies to everyone in the various quangos and executive agencies set up over the past quarter century. The test should not be formal corporate status, but the origin of an organisation’s budget. Therefore, the proposal also covers the BBC and the Church of England.

Bearing in mind how utterly useless she has been at remembering her Coronation Oath, it might also cover the Queen and her various hangers on.

So come on, Mr Dave – give us a reason for voting Tory!

Sean Gabb on the Tories back in 1998

Free Life Commentary,
an independent journal of comment
published on the Internet
Issue Number 13
28th February 1998
How to Get Rid of New Labour,
and Why it Will Probably not be Done:
An Open Letter to William Hague

Sean Gabb

Dear Mr Hague,

This Open Letter is being faxed to you at Conservative Central Office. It is at the same time being sent out by e-mail to about a thousand subscribers to Free Life Commentary; and it will, in the next few days, be placed on my Web Page.

My reasons for writing to you now are that as of tomorrow, Britain will have had a Labour Government for ten months. This will be celebrated by Labour in the usual way, with a flurry of news releases and pictures of a smiling Tony Blair. There will be good reason for them to celebrate. just about every other British Government in living memory has been at least sliding into trouble after so long in power. With this one it is different.

On the current evidence from the opinion polls, an election tomorrow would produce much the same outcome as last May. There would be some recovery of seats by the Conservative Party—especially from the Liberal Democrats. But there would be no real impact on the present Labour domination of British Politics.

Of course, there are exceptional circumstances at work here. The Conservatives were kicked out last year in a wave of popular revulsion that has almost no equal in a modern democracy. The Major Government had discredited itself in almost every respect; and Tony Blair had made sure that no middle class voters needed to repeat the teeth-gritting required in 1992—that is, to overlook the awfulness of the Tories in the knowledge that Labour would be far worse.

As after 1832 and 1945, it will take time for the Party to recover; and it would be unreasonable if anyone were to judge your performance as Leader since last summer on the basis of the present opinion polls.

This being said, I am disturbed by what I have seen of your performance as Leader. I may refuse to blame you for the depressing state of today’s opinion polls, but I will question your ability to do what is needed to change these polls next year or the year after. We have different reasons for wanting another Conservative Government. So far as I can tell, you simply want to be Prime Minister. For myself, despite increasing—and lately almost overwhelming—reservations, I have remained committed to the Party as the best vehicle for advancing an agenda of liberty in economic, social and political matters. But while our reasons may be different, we do both want to ensure that the New Labour Government will not remain in power too far into the next century.

The problem is that I cannot see how the Tories under your leadership can win another election. You do not seem to recognise the new circumstances of British politics, and seem determined to keep yourself and the Party out of power for at least the next generation.

The New Circumstances of British Politics

Your prime fault is to see Tony Blair as just another Harold Wilson, and “New” Labour as a clever marketing trick that has put a nice facade over what remains essentially the Party of Michael Foot and Tony Benn. The resulting strategy is to wait until “true” Labour shows through in an orgy of tax rises and nationalisations, and hope for a return to power with nothing learnt and nothing forgotten.

Now, this is a false view—a laughably false view. Tony Blair must really be seen as John Major with the brakes removed. Rather than an interloper who has taken advantage of Tory disunity, he represents the Thatcher consensus in ways that you do not and cannot.

This is clearly the case in economic policy. He can do things that the you and your colleagues wanted to do while in power, but never dared imagine possible. You always wanted to cut welfare, but were frightened of what Labour would say and do against it. Had you and John Major done to single mothers and the disabled what Mr Blair is now doing, there would have been mass-demonstrations in Trafalgar Square, and all the concerned interests would have lined up against you in the media. Mr Blair can get away with it. The concerned interests are emotionally committed to Labour, and cannot imagine opposing a Labour Government. They may turn nasty in the next few years, but for the moment feel required either to keep quiet or to turn the necessary intellectual somersaults.

As for opposition in the House of Commons, people like Stephen Dorrell and Peter Lilly have tried to make their hearts bleed in public—but no one really believes they give a damn about the poor.

It is the same with what is obviously the privatising of schools, and the continued introduction of private finance into health and other public services. The agenda is almost relentlessly Thatcherite. No wonder people like Madsen Pirie of the Adam Smith Institute are looking so happy. They have spent the past eight months brushing the dust of plans that made Tory Ministers throw up their hands in terror.

Turning to social matters, here also the old restraints have been taken off. Michael Howard was a thoroughly nasty Home Secretary who came close to scaring the life out of me with his Criminal Justice Acts and his talk of identity cards. But there were limits to what he could actually get away with. In Tory hands, Thatcherism was always formally about freedom—it could be nothing else for a Party that historically is a coalition of English traditionalists and classical liberals. This was hardly ever reflected in legislation outside the economic sphere, but it did have the effect of hobbling the more drastically authoritarian initiatives.

New Labour, on the other hand, has no such inhibitions. Its leaders have dumped Old Labour for good and bad. They have become masters of expediency. If they want to crank up the War on Drugs, or censor the racists, or advance the health fascist agenda against smoking and cars and enjoyable food, or unleash the social workers against parental freedom, or make illiberal gestures to the greens – they will go ahead without regard for the libertarian streak that did run through Old Labour no matter how bad it was on economics.

The Conservative Response

This being said, what can the Conservative Party do to shake Labour’s grip on power? Your answer so far has been simply ridiculous. There is no point trying to challenge the Government from within the Thatcher consensus. The present Government is manifestly better at working this than the Tories were under John Major. From a Thatcherite point of view, Gordon Brown is an excellent Chancellor, with his determination to keep taxes and spending within a tight corset. Other Ministers, as said, cannot be faulted on their plans to privatise the State and deregulate and bully the unemployed into jobs.

Looking at personalities, the New Ministers are equally unassailable. They stand head and shoulders over the seedy non-entities who sit beside you on the Tory front bench – non-entities who messed up when they had the chance, and who would probably be just as bad if ever given another chance.

How about Europe? Here, you think you have an advantage, with your talk of opposition to European Monetary Union. You are wrong. I hate the idea of a single currency and further integration, but I also doubt if Tony Blair much likes these. For all his emollient language on Europe, he knows that it gets in the way of economic Thatcherism. The lectures he likes giving European leaders on labour market flexibility are a flat challenge to the Continental economic consensus. Many Tories insist—and perhaps rightly—that Europe has become the most important issue in British politics. But it is not a party political issue, because there has been no fundamental change in policy since the election. Or if there has been a change, it has been the replacement of a Prime Minister who painted himself into a corner at Maastricht by one who can do as he pleases. On Europe, Tony Blair is not so much an advance beyond John Major as a reversion to Margaret Thatcher at her most Euro-sceptic—which is surely why both she and elements of the normally pro-Tory media did nothing for the Tories at the election.

And look at current events in the Persian Gulf. On a superficial level, there is no British advantage to had from siding with the Americans. We have no imperial interests in the region nowadays, and no national interest whatever in who dominates the Middle East. Nor since the end of the Cold War have we had any need of American goodwill. British policy on the Gulf only makes sense at the moment as a symbol of English-speaking solidarity against Europe. A Britain that follows America, in policies to which the Continental powers are opposed, is advertising its incompatibility with any pan-European foreign or defence policy.

You and your colleagues talk about opposition to EMU as if it were a potent weapon against the Government. But the Government has declared its intention not to consider joining until after the next election—by which time it will either have collapsed or have been revealed as an obvious and avoidable attack on national independence.

The Transcending of Thatcherism

The only way to break the New Labour stranglehold on power is for the Conservative Party to repeat its intellectual revolution of the late 1970s. It may then have established what has become the Thatcher consensus, but this plainly no longer works in Tory electoral interests. Equally important, that consensus was, in Conservative terms, not so much a final destination as only a staging post on the road to something more radical. That something—call it free market libertarianism or, more accurately in local circumstances, liberal English nationalism—is what the Tories should now be embracing.

They did sort of embrace it in the 1970s. As said above, it was the window dressing of Thatcherism, and it often got in the way. For Thatcherism was never really about freedom even in the purely economic sense. It was a minimal solution to relative economic decline. It liberalised just enough to make British economic management slightly better than that in other countries. Bearing in mind how collectivist most other countries remain, this meant far less than liberalism in the 19th century sense. It meant making life easy for big business—with tax breaks and a mass of regulations to shield it from unfettered competition. This was an improvement on the Attlee-Macmillan consensus, and on the mismanagement of the Wilson-Heath-Callaghan years. But it remains no more than a stabilisation of the social democratic mixed economy that grew up after the 1930s. And it is open to a savage and effective attack from a truly free market position. It is time for the window dressing to take over the shop.

In social matters also, there is now room for a more libertarian alternative. The intellectual case for the War on Drugs is has been largely recognised by the voters as nonsense on stilts. And the War has been lost. On any weekend night in London, two tons of cannabis are smoked. The street price of all drugs has fallen in the past two decades, and their purity has improved. The War smashes lives and benefits a range of special interests—drug dealers, the Police, the banks who launder the proceeds, and the authorities set up to try stopping the laundering. With its imperative of increased police powers and powers of inspection and control over financial transactions, it is the biggest single enemy of freedom today, far eclipsing even the health fascists and the greens.

If you stood up and told the truth about drugs, your party would lose scarcely one vote. The notion of a British public foaming at the mouth over drugs is an illusion created by a few newspapers. It remains a fiction even applied to the remaining membership of the Conservative Party. Bear in mind that perhaps a majority of Tory activists have been exposed to libertarian arguments in the past two decades, and are prepared at least to debate applications of these in a fairly sensible matter.

At a stroke, though, by talking about legalisation, you would cause uproar in the Labour Party, as its more libertarian fringes turned in rage on people like Jack Straw—who would in turn be forced to make a serious defence of arguments that have no defence.

Much the same can be said about pornography, and video censorship, and Internet regulation, and consenting sexual acts, and the continued degradation of the criminal justice system from a machine for enforcing the Common Law into an instrument of despotism.

Turning to the Union, the idea of a United Kingdom is probably dead. Devolution is only the first step to full independence. It is in Tory interests to embrace this fact. It should abandon what remains of its organisation in Scotland and Wales and become an English Party. This would put Labour on the defensive—a transnational Party drawing much of its support from nations increasingly independent of London. An English party talking of English traditions of limited government and free markets might win an election in England next time round, and could tear a Labour Government to pieces that survived on non-English votes.

An additional argument in support is that, freed from Central Office control, the Scottish and Welsh Conservative Parties might revive and challenge Labour in those places where it has been supreme since the 1960s. Their conservatism would be far less liberal than the English sort; but a decent regard for the Scottish and Welsh peoples involves helping them towards the best government of which they may be capable.

The Chances of Success

There are obvious risks to this strategy. The English people might not be entirely ready for libertarianism; and you might not win the election after next—the next one being written off in any event. On the other hand, the present Tory strategy is only more secure in the sense that it will certainly not win you the election after next, or even perhaps the one after that.

So what holds the Party back? Part of the answer is the scale of the defeat last May. In the 1970s, the revolution was achieved by dumping enough of the Heathites to let Margaret Thatcher appear a break with the past. This time round, there are no young alternatives to the Majorites. Their grip on the Tory front bench rests on the fact that they really are the brightest and best the Parliamentary Party has to offer. And what could we think of Michael Howard and Peter Lilly arguing for spending cuts and limited government, when they delivered neither when they had the chance?

But where there is a will, there is usually a way. The real answer lies in the fact that in you, the Tories may have chosen the least imaginative and most intellectually timid leader since records began. What else are we to think of a man who, unbidden, has actually gone on record as saying he will never even consider legalising drugs? Despite your wild ambition, your faults may already have condemned you to being the first Tory Leader in the past 200 years not to make it to Downing Street.

And that is why we have—and may continue far into the future to have—the once unlikely spectacle of a Labour Prime Minister clothed in the purple of the Thatcher consensus, and not a hope in hell of doing anything about it.

I may have reason to change my opinion about you and your strategy in the future. If that happens, I will make a full retraction. But this is how I see things at the moment.

Yours sincerely,

Sean Gabb

Free Life Commentary, number-164, 09.11.2007: politicians, elections, and leadership

Sean Gabb

Free Life Commentary

Free Life Commentary,
A Personal View from
The Director of the Libertarian Alliance
Issue Number 164
11th September 2007…

…republishes some reflections in the light of an impending General Election in 2010….

Some Reflections
on the Failure of Political Leadership
by Sean Gabb

Bearing in mind the date, I could write about the American Bombings of September 2001. But I really have nothing to say about these and the consequent wars that I have not said many times already. Besides, just about everyone else is writing about these things; and I am vain enough to think myself a soloist and not part of a chorus. And so I will write about what I see as the main failure of political leadership in this country since the forced retirement of Margaret Thatcher in November 1990.

I grew up in a country where nearly everyone voted, and where of those who did vote nearly everyone voted for one of the two main parties. Since 1997, there has been a collapse in turnout. In 2001, fewer than two thirds of the electors bothered to vote. There was little improvement in 2005. At the next general election, it is conceivable that less than half the electors will vote. And perhaps half of these will not vote for either of the two main parties. Certainly, in elections other than to Parliament, the voting figures have become a scandal that casts doubt on the democratic legitimacy of whoever wins. Indeed, we are looking now at a general election in which the most relevant question is not who will win, but who will not lose.

For some while into the 2001 Parliament, Labour politicians could excuse low turnouts with the claim that people were too satisfied with the new order of things to worry about voting. Since then, it has been generally accepted that something is wrong. The debate is between those who are wrong and those who are half right.

Those who are wrong are headed by the Liberal Democrats. For them, all can be made good by a combination of proportional representation and regional assemblies. They have been pushing the first of these ever since the old Liberal Party began losing elections under the present system. They appear to believe that the changes they want can solve every problem from public drunkenness to alleged global warming. The truth is that these changes will solve nothing, but only raise up further problems. A more moderate approach is to suggest that changing election days from Thursday to Sunday, combined with enabling voting by text message and via the Internet will raise attendance figures. This might improve the official turnout, but raises further problems of electoral honesty.

Those who are half right realise that people do not vote because there is no one in or near office worth voting for. Politicians are corrupt, incompetent, generally out of touch, and increasingly unattractive. I agree with this. Where I disagree is that the solution is for the politicians to keep asking the people what they want, and to try looking and sounding like ordinary people. This would only increase the present vulgarity of politics, and produce further lurches into a mad authoritarianism that will make people even less happy with the political leadership we have.

Let me summarise what I see as the true reasons for popular disenchantment with politics. We have a ruling class that sees itself not as a committee of trustees for the nation but as a committee of proprietors. This ruling class has increasingly stripped us of our traditional freedoms and of our national independence. With the legal changes of the past two decades, even I have given up on keeping track of what it is still legal to say or do. Anything the authorities do not like is either overtly against the law or subject to indirect punishment through the laws on town planning or consumer protection or health and safety or child welfare. The tax gatherers are rapacious. Other officials enforce regulations that crush individuality and that frequently cannot even be explained.

Political authority no longer emanates from a sovereign Parliament elected by us and accountable to us, but from the unaccountable institutions of the European Union or various other international institutions that are often invisible to ordinary people. We have been subjected to several generations of mass immigration that has changed the face of the country in ways on which we were never consulted. The presence of these newcomers has been made an excuse for claiming that the historic nation into which we were born no longer exists and that new institutions and laws are needed for its management. We have been pushed into wars in the Islamic world that defend no national interest and that have driven parts of the new population to the verge of rebellion. Recently, the wave of immigration has quickened—and let me say that I am thinking here mainly of entry from parts of the world where I have a strong family connection—to the point where working class living standards are in open decline, and where even the middle classes are feeling the pressure on property prices and public services.

All this, and our ruling class responds with a combination of denial and repression. Little wonder that increasingly few people bother voting. Little wonder that increasing number of those who still do vote no longer vote for the main parties.

Now, I had tea a few months ago with a Conservative Member of Parliament. I put parts of this case to him. His reply was that his constituents—and he meets hundreds of these every month—barely ever mention these heads of complaint. He would love them to complain about Europe and political correctness. Instead, they complain about poor standards in the schools and about hospital closures. I was an intellectual, he told me. I might want the world to be as I claimed it was. But he was a politician. He had to deal with a very different real world in which people had fundamentally changed even since 1997.

The conversation moved after this to matters on which we could talk more amicably over the teacups. But he was wrong and I was right. The truth is that few people think very well, and most people do not think at all. They are unhappy with England as it has become. But they are not able to say what are the causes of their unhappiness. On immigration and political correctness they are frightened to say what they probably do think. On the other issues they are unable to speak because they do not know what to say.

There should be nothing strange about this fact. A man can moan about the weather and the burden of advancing years, and never realise that the cause of his tiredness and dizzy spells is the hardening of his arteries. He may not even know about the circulation of the blood. It is the purpose of a doctor to diagnose and suggest treatments for conditions of which his patients understand nothing, but from which they suffer much. It should be the purpose of those who offer themselves for election to do the same with regard to ills of the nation.

This is not to say that individuals are incompetent to run their own lives, or should be regarded as such. Most people, in fact, manage to shuffle through life without making themselves and those around them particularly unhappy. Even otherwise, it would be still worse to give direction of private life to a class of guardians convinced of their ability to make us happier than we can make ourselves. It may be sad that so many people smoke or drink or eat themselves into early graves, or watch mind-rotting television programmes, or listen to morally corrupting music, or contract unhappy marriages, or do less than they might for their children. But the consequences of taking control of their lives are always worse. Some individuals do rather badly. But no one else would do better. And, again, most people do rather well.

It is different when it comes to politics. People may not give much informed thought to the nutritional value of the fish fingers they buy. But they give far less to the matter of the laws and institutions of their country. Everyone wants to live in a country where his chances of making himself and those around him happy are maximised. That does not qualify him to know how the country should be governed.

Again, this is not to say that ordinary people should be allowed no say in government. Given the minimal intelligence that most European populations seem to possess and some national feeling, representative government is generally better than despotism. But there is more to restoring our democracy than trying to guess what a majority might want on any particular issue and giving effect to it in Acts of Parliament. I suspect that a plebiscitary democracy in this country would—assuming the right media frenzy—give us ethnic cleansing and on the spot castration of accused paedophiles and the renaming of London as St Dianaville. None of this would make for a set of laws and institutions likely to enable the public good. It would probably lead, in the long intervals between each frenzy, to the sort of disgust for politicians that a foolish heir traditionally feels for the whores and panders who grant his every wish.

A political leader, as opposed to a demagogue, has a duty to listen, but also to educate. This means on occasion resisting the will of the majority. It means the sort of patient explanation of truth that I last saw in the early 1980s, when several dozen Conservatives, in or out of office, went about the country telling often hostile audiences why the calls for reflation had to be resisted. Now, it means explaining—among much else—why government spending must be cut, and why we need to go back to a system of criminal justice in which real criminals are generally punished with great severity, but in which they seem to have every chance of getting off.

We do not have this. Instead, we have politicians who claim simply to be listening. In fact, those who talk loudest about listening to the people only want to listen to the echo of their own babbling. I do not believe that the English people have fundamentally changed since 1997—or since 1979. Perhaps millions joined in the collective mania that attended the death of the Princess of Wales. More millions, however, did not lay flowers outside Kensington Palace, and did not grieve for a stranger more than they grieved for their own dead. Most people look at what their country has become and are revolted by the sight. The English nation exists now much as it always has. The problem is that the best people to whom the nation has entrusted its thinking and political leadership have neither imagination nor courage. And the worst are obvious traitors and petty tyrants.

I think the Queen made a serious mistake ten years ago when she was persuaded not to face down the demands for that tasteless funeral in Westminster Abbey. She should have made a firm appeal from the people drunk to the people sober. There would have been some personal risk in this—though I fail to see how it would have made any permanent increase to the body of republican sentiment. But it might have done much to frustrate the culture of shallow and unEnglish sentimentality that has prevailed ever since.

Just as importantly, the Conservatives missed an opportunity that will not be repeated for intelligent thought of how to counter the Blair Revolution. I did write about this at the time—see Free Life Commentary 13 from February 1998. They were out of office. They would be out for some while. That gave time to think about the mistakes of the Thatcher and Major years and to purge themselves of the corporatist and authoritarian that had accompanied and undermined the relative liberalisations that, even now, make us the preferred destination for almost every foreigner who wants a better life. Opposing the totalitarianism of public life that Labour set out to complete would have made them unpopular at the time. But I cannot see how a tenacious and intelligent defence of liberty and tradition would have put them in a worse state at the end of ten years than the jumble of short term gimmickry on which they did embark.

Of course, this assumes that the Conservative leadership was not by nature corporatist and authoritarian. For the most part it was. The Conservative failure of the past decade stems in large part from their inability to disagree with more than the incidentals of what Labour has done. But not every Conservative politician has been a Quisling Rightist. The one with whom I had tea is no villain.

However, the Conservatives really have missed their opportunity to set out a proper case. With David Cameron, they do seem to have embarked on a rebranding from which there is no going back. It may be that, whatever follies he commits, Labour will lose the next election—and this means he must become Prime Minister. But this will not give him the mandate—and I do not believe he will have the inclination—to do anything very conservative. If, on the other hand, the Conservatives manage to lose, I do not believe that any further rebranding will be accepted. A broadsheet newspaper can turn itself into a sensationalist tabloid. This may gain it more readers than it loses. But if the gamble fails, it cannot simply turn itself back into a broadsheet. The old readers will not easily forget the intervening horrors. It could be the same with the Conservatives.

And so, we have politicians, but no leaders. The main parties, indeed, seem structurally designed to prevent the emergence of leadership. Sooner or later, a leader may emerge. He will come, of necessity, from outside the mainstream. More likely perhaps, he will be a demagogue. Whether and when and who are not questions I feel competent to discuss. But I end this run of political commentaries without any of the offers of comfort that may often be found in my earlier efforts.

Libertarian Alliance quote of the day…a rave from the grave…blast from the past…now and for ever.

From our own comment thread on here.

David Davis

Stuff was in red, because at the time when the Nissen-Hut-chimps lifted stuff bodily from what people other than they themselves had typed, the supervisor-chimpanzee insisted that it ought to be highlighted. Chimps, while being ever so politically-savvy, are not – by socialit-Nazi-standards very intelligent: and so it was merelydecided that the colour of the text would be altered to show external authorship – a rather simple solution. All the chimps agreed, and gyrated about in return for bananas, so it just sort of, er, happened.

Ian B // 7 April, 2010 at 2:42 am (edit)

Sean, I don’t think voting makes much difference at this stage, but as I said before, better to vote counter-hegemonic (UKIP, LPUK, even BNP) than pro-hegemonic. Cameron’s entirely a creature of the Enemy- indeed his plan for 5000 state activists, funded via the Proggie Network, will just broaden and deepen their power. A Tory government certainly won’t help us a single jot. A Tory lose however may throw that useless bunch of quislings into terminal disarray.

I also don’t think Chris Tame’s worthy plan- of influencing the ideological hegemony- is going to ever work. It simply isn’t in their class interest to listen to us, even if the occasional maverick does. The reality is that the Gramscian methodoloy works for people seeking to expand state power, in their own interests. We need a better political strategy that will work for people trying to abolish the ruling class.

So one way of looking at it is, we have to achieve what the Marxists failed to achieve, which is the mobilisation of the proleteriat- in our case, our proleteriat being everyone outside the government, rich or poor. The big problem is that over the past century the state has expanded into every area of life. It’s not going to be easy.

One thing in particular libertarians have to stop doing is attacking weak people. You mentioned in your book the political error of banging on about welfare recipients, and I entirely agree. The Enemy succeed because they always, always, ally themselves with some perceived weak group (the poor, blacks, gays, etc) so that even when they’re doing something ghastly, it’s “in a good cause”. Attacking poor people etc is equivalent to being seen kicking a cripple in the head. Even when you explain he stole your wallet, people will still think you’re a bastard. No wonder the “right”, or the non-left, or whatnot, have consistently lost with such dunderheaded ignorance of human nature.

We may need to rebrand ourselves. We certainly need to start working under non-libertarian banners. Greenpeace may be a socialist group, but they don’t call themselves that. We need to pump out philosophy and propaganda, we need to make whatever alliances we can, and we need to pull together realistic programmes that show how a society can transfer from state dependence to liberty without millions collapsing into poverty, rather than the libertarian habit of arguing constantly about what the Glorious End State will be after some miraculous transformation. We’re in the position of wanting to free some poor desperate population from a ghastly Victorian institution. But the fact is, they’ve lived there their whole lives. They don’t know how to cook, or get a home, or go to the shops. If we threaten to fling the doors open and turf them out onto the streets, we’ll just get terror, not gratitude.

Five more years of Labour, or five of the Tories, it makes no real difference. Whichever we get, things will be more desperate and ghastly in 2015 than they are now. But, things are better for us than they were five or ten years ago. The message is getting out. The Methodist State is reaching its apotheosis, the political class become more transparently fascist and disconnected with every day.

And, we must always remember that the State we’re in is not the inevitable consequence of government. It has the form it has because of specific politicking by specific groups that stretch back a century and a half or even two- kicked into gear by evangelists from nutty sects (Methodists, Quakers etc here, Yankees in the USA (Rothbard wrote a lot on this without quite following it through)). They are our enemies, and they have to be rooted out of the nests they’ve built. The dumb politicians who do their bidding are barely of consequence. Their grotesque schemes nearly fell to bits in the twentieth century, and it was only the marxists who saved them. Well, the marxists are gone now. Once people have lived a while under the new progressive puritanism, that’ll start collapsing too (it’s cracking in places already) and this time there are no marxists left. This time, it must be us who are waiting to take the opportunity.

We can win this thing.

The Election: Three Parties, One Regime

Sean Gabb

The more I see of David Cameron, the bigger the sick bag I’ll have to take with me if I’m to vote Conservative. I still think there is no choice but to vote for these people. But I fully understand all those friends who tell me it doesn’t really matter which of the Regime parties wins, and that we should try to puff up the vote for whichever real party we’d one day like to lead us out of this mess.

Marmite Runs anti-British Adverts

Has anyone noticed how the Hate Party, made up by Marmite for its latest advertising campaign, shows how hateful it is by putting a Union Flag behind the Party leader?

This may be an attack on the British National Party. However, it is certainly an attack on the flag and traditions of this country. It seeks to associate the flag of this country with hatred.

I suggest an immediate boycott of Marmite, and a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority, which is a provate body overseeing the suitability of advertising:

Sean Gabb: Speech on Libertarianism

Given on the 17th March 2010 to the Politics Society of Haberdashers’ Aske’s School for Boys Gabb, Speech on Libertarianism

Sean Gabb: Defending the Rights of the BNP

It Happened There (3): Court Cripples British National Party For Being Too, Well, British

[Peter Brimelow writes: The Orwellian news that a British political party is being forced in the name of “equality” to admit members who oppose its principles got me thinking about another recent victim of what Roland Huntford called “The New Totalitarians”: American Renaissance and its disrupted attempts to hold its biannual conference. So I called AR Editor Jared Taylor and asked what was happening. Answer: nothing—no police inquiries into the left’s death threats, no outrage or even news reports in the Main Stream Media or  Establishment “conservative” and libertarian (!) outlets. (We hope to publish an update from Jared soon.) Diversity may be strength, but clearly it is not equal protection of the law.]

By Sean Gabb

On the most charitable view, Britain has, in recent years, become the world’s largest open air lunatic asylum. You only need open a newspaper to see the evidence—someone arrested for defending his life or home against attack; anti-terror laws used to stop the carrying of hairdryers in public; employers told not to advertise for “reliable” workers, so as not to discriminate against the unreliable.

And so it goes on. The stories almost jump off the page. Some of these may be touched up for a market that is greedy for them. Others may not bear much scrutiny. But enough are true to let people realize that this country has, over the past generation, become a very strange and perhaps a frightening place.

This strange and frightening quality, though, is not the product of insanity. The belief that our leaders have gone even barking mad, if worrying, is preferable to the truth—which is that, regardless of their party affiliations, they have, since at least 1960, been working for the total destruction of Britain as a country and the enslavement of its people.

As evidence for this, look at the way in which the British National Party has been treated.

For those unfamiliar with British politics, the BNP is this country’s most important white nationalist party. It denounces mass immigration and multi-culturalism, and the Politically Correct censorship and persecution that have been used to smother opposition. In the past few years, it has won elections to local representative bodies, and has two seats in the Parliament of the European Union. It may also, in the next few months, win a seat in the British Parliament.

The response of the British ruling class has been wholly rational. Given that these people want a police state and a population too Balkanized along racial and religious lines to offer any concerted resistance, they cannot tolerate a party like the BNP. Before 1999, when Nick Griffin became its leader, the BNP was broadly a national socialist organization. In those days, it had limited electoral appeal, and could safely be ignored, or sometimes held up for ridicule or execration. Now that Mr. Griffin has changed its core ideology, the party is an increasingly credible threat. Therefore, it must be destroyed.

During the past few years, it has been made illegal for members of the BNP to be policemen or prison workers. It is proposed that they should be prevented from working with children. Membership lists have been stolen. Many of those on the lists have come under pressure. Mr. Griffin himself was put on trial under our new hate crime laws for calling Islam—in a private meeting infiltrated by a media spy“a wicked, vicious faith”. If convicted, he would have faced seven years in prison: after two trials, he was acquitted.

The main effort now is to destroy the BNP from within. Not surprisingly, its rules always confined membership to indigenous Caucasians. But a U.K.  Government body called the  Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) decided in 2009 that this rule broke the Race Relations Act 1976 (as amended), and took the party to court.

Needless to say, the EHRC had done nothing about, for example, the various black police organizations, which confined membership to black people. Indeed, the EHRC has never responded to one complaint of discrimination by these associations against white people. Then again, starting with its head, West Indian-descended Trevor Phillips, the EHRC is filled with supporters and nominees of the ruling Labour Party. Its whole function is to hound enemies of the New Labour ruling class through the courts.

Quite obviously, the prosecution of the BNP was not intended to promote “racial equality” as this might reasonably be defined. Its purpose was to destroy. According to the Blog of Operation Black Vote,

Nic Careem, [Email him] a former Labour activist from Camden in north London, who is now with the Conservatives, said he originally argued that black and Asian people should join the BNP en mass [sic] to cause chaos and expose the extent of racism inside the party of Nick Griffin.”

In other words, the BNP is to be flooded with non-whites, who will then use further legal action—assuming the internal structures of the party are insufficient—to destroy it.

The courts forced Mr. Griffin to drop the restriction on membership. The BNP’s first non-white member was an elderly Sikh opponent of Islamic fundamentalism.

However, Mr. Griffin did impose two conditions on new members to block flooding attempts. First, he ruled that prospective members should be visited in their homes by BNP officials, to see if they were suitable for membership. Second, all members were required to declare support for “continued creation, fostering, maintenance and existence” of an indigenous British race, and action towards “stemming and reversing” immigration.

This second rule seems to have been used to stop a rich Pakistani called Mo Chaudry from joining. He had said he would join the party to fight them from the inside. [Asian businessman fights to join BNP, Channel 4 News, March 12 2010]

This did not suit the EHRC. It took the BNP to court again, arguing that the requirement amounted to indirect racial discrimination.

Last Friday, 12th March 2010, Paul Collins, the most senior County Court Judge in London, agreed with the EHRC. He outlawed the requirement for home visits, saying that this might lead to intimidation—though admitting that there was no evidence it ever had. He also outlawed the requirement to declare support for party principle and policy. The Judge said:

“I hold that the BNP are likely to commit unlawful acts of discrimination within section 1b Race Relations Act 1976 in the terms on which they are prepared to admit persons to membership under the 12th addition of their constitution”. [New BNP membership rules judged to be biased, Manchester Evening News, March 12, 2010]

The basis for this reasoning, the Judge claimed, is that, while no BNP policy breaks the law, no non-white person could support these policies without compromising their “personal sense of self-worth and dignity as a member of their racial group”.

And so the BNP is now required to accept members regardless of whether they agree with BNP policy.

Nick Griffin was forced on the spot to change his party’s membership criteria, or face jail for himself and forfeiture of party assets.

Of course, this is a bizarre ruling. In the first place, the claim that non-whites cannot support the policies of the BNP is untrue in fact. Some do. It is also patronizing for any outsider to tell people how they should view their “personal sense of self-worth and dignity as a member of their racial group”. That is properly a matter for every individual to decide for himself.

In the second place, the principle stated by Judge Collins leads to absurdity. If I am a white supremacist, I will be deterred from joining Unite Against Fascism, because I shall be expected to support policies contrary to my own sense of my “self-worth” and “dignity”.  If I am a devout Christian, I will be deterred from becoming a Moslem, because I shall be required to say that Mohammed is the Prophet of God. If I am a devout Moslem, I will be deterred from becoming a Christian, because I shall be required to believe that Christ was the Son of God. If the principle enunciated by Judge Collins is to be consistently applied, all these groups must be compelled to accept their opponents.

But the principle will not be consistently applied. As in Zimbabwe, the British courts are increasingly creatures of the ruling party. The Judge had no choice but to rule as he did.

Britain is no longer a free country. It is a police state, in which freedom of speech is being narrowed to allow nothing more than polite disagreement with the authorities over things not regarded as central to the 1997 New Labour Revolution—and in which freedom of association means nothing at all.

Within the next few years, it is likely that the BNP will be banned. This may be an honest ban, in the sense that the party is directly outlawed by Act of Parliament. But, more likely, all candidates will be forced to take an oath of loyalty to the established order before they can stand for election. Any candidate who does falsely swear support for the creation and fostering of “diversity, and who is elected, will then face being unseated and prosecuted the moment he opens his mouth.

For the moment, however, the BNP can be flooded by its political opponents. This may be enough to finish the party as a threat. It will not happen in time to prevent the party from fighting its campaign in the general election that must be held within the next few months. But Mr. Griffin was presented the other day with a legal bill variously estimated at between £60,000 and £100,000—is it any coincidence that this money must be handed over just weeks before a general election, and by a party that is already short of money?

Of course, all of this scandalous.

What I also find scandalous is that so few people other than supporters of the BNP are prepared to speak out against it. I am a libertarian, not a white nationalist. I have never voted for the BNP or any similar party. And I seem to be the only person of my kind, and with any degree of prominence in my country, who is willing to complain.

What is being done to the BNP is unfair in itself, and sets a frightening precedent. We have now reached a point in Britain where no one can truly claim to believe in freedom of speech or freedom of association unless he is willing to stand up in public for the right of Nick Griffin and the British National Party to speak their minds and to organize in support of what they believe.

Dr. Sean Gabb [Email him] is a writer, academic, broadcaster and Director of the Libertarian Alliance in England. His monograph Cultural Revolution, Culture War: How Conservatives Lost England, and How to Get It Back is downloadable here. For his account of the Property and Freedom Society’s 2008 conference in Bodrum, Turkey, click here. For his address to the 2009 PFS conference, “What is the Ruling Class?”, click here; for videos of the other presentations, click here.