Diane Abbott for “Labour” leader

David Davis

As I have often said on Facebook, it is of no account whatever who is the leader of the “Labour Party”, since it will try to do the same thing over and over again regardless – which is to say: burn down and destroy what semblence of liberalism still exists in the UK.

It must, simply, be shut down and its hard disks malleted, before it can continue to exist to do yet more damage to liberty in the world.

But although people are rating her as a 3%-cert or less, I think all support should be given to her. That will ensure that Labour is unelectable for at least three years.

Bank Holiday caption competition

David Davis

The Gordon gaffe

See it here before it’s pulled.

And his point is what?

Michael Winning

Fixed-term-parliaments? Isn’t that what we already have with a 5-years-max? Nasty man, liar, snake-oil-salesman.

And as of now, we can even get rid of them earlier too

Smoke and mirrors

Michael Winning

But it probably will work and the bastard’ll get in

It does not matter

…whether Gordon Brown stays in after being defeated at the (when?) election or not.

David Davis

Britain’s AAA credit-rating has been lost already. The markets have discounted it by letting Mervyn King buy up all our Gilts for the last year.

The Agencies are merely waiting till after the poll to announce it, for fear of being thought “political”. You’d think that the bear-raid on Sterling that will inevitably follow will be worse if he’s there than if he’s been arrested and sectioned.

No use voting Tory, Sean, not really, not any more

David Davis

Sean Gabb, on this column, bravely defended the position that we ought to vote Tory this time, to give us just a little more time before fully-sliding down into the eternal cesspool of the socialist Endarkenment. Something might turn up: you cannot know unless we could try it. It could be worth the candle, the game could. A few more years to organise, under a State that won’t, probably, actually turn its police’s guns on its own people.

But now we have this. And indeed, when you watch Gordon Brown at PM’s questions, he really does seem like a fighter whho truly believes what he is saying, and who truly believe in the unutterably-irrevocable wickedness of the Tories and others, any others, that oppose him and his. You can see how Simon-Cowell-educated people will wamr to him and will tend to vote for him.

We are truly f****d. But hopefully the setting-in of the true rot will take some time. However, knowledge still exists in distributed form, and we can ameliorate the effects of civilisational decay (barring violence and fire) over the years and decades.

It looks like we have to go down to the bottom, before we can go up. Like the poor Germans. So we might as well vote for whoever pleases us.

Gordon Brown and the Lost Gold

David Davis

It may all come out sometime, but I don’t think it will be soon.

You know something? Sometimes it is quite impossible for me to decide what the individual penalties ought to be, for deliberately carrying through a known and planned Act Of Destruction such as this.

The Poles, in 1945-46, at least got to hang hundreds and hundreds of minor socialist functionaries. The trouble is that they were hung by merely another sort of socialist functionary.

I can’t imagine anything we could do to Brown, Balls and Miliband and their Treasury apparatchiks, that could possibly atone for this amount of loss.

For them to say “Sorry” somehow does not cut the mustard.

We could make their eternal descendants pay, for ever and ever and ever, but this would begin to lose its meaning after a few hundred years and would merely become some sort of annual ceremony, the purpose of which has long been lost in legend by the MSM, such as the Armistice thing is going to be.

Simon Heffer explaining things about nation-breaking

Michael Winning

A slow day today I am back inside early and so I spot this from Simon heffer. The man seems more sensible than other intellectual bods I know give him credit for. Didn’t he write a book about 15 years ago foretelling all this? It was called “Nor Shall My Sword” I think it was.

When Tony Blair said in 1997 “New Labour is none other than the political arm of the British People” I cringed in horror. Wish I’d done more and worse I think.

The Taiwanese media take it more seriously

I personally don’t care if Gordon Brown is alleged to “bully” people or not. But it’s just rather embarrassing internationally. And if Mandelson and Balls are defending him, it seems suspcious.

Even if we’re not allowed an election ever again, cound not we just have somebody else?

Could Mandelson be describing Stalin?

David Davis

Truly, Lord Rumba of Rio wins the circumlocution Grand Challenge Cup 2010, for this statement as part of a defence of his boss puppet Gordon Brown.

‘He is demanding of himself, he is demanding of people around him, he knows what he wants to do, he does not like taking no for an answer from anyone, he will go on and on until he has got a policy and an idea in the best possible form which he can then roll out.”

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1252584/Gordon-bully-claims-Mandelson-PM-accused-abusing-Downing-Street-staff.html#ixzz0gCeEuD06

Truly, also, we The People are just a “human resource”, upon whose supine canvas “policies and ideas can be rolled out”.

Even Prime-Mentalists should not behave like thugs to their stafff

michael Winning

It says in today’s Daily Mail that Gordon Brown has been told off by his most senior Civil Servant to “curb his volcanic temper”. You wonder what else is not stated and what else was told to hm. Where there’s smoke there’s fire or willl be soon.

If the election (if, not when) goes ahead and we are stuck witht his fellow, I don’t fancy five more years of this lot. Prime Ministers even lefty-fascist ones, ought to know how to behave at least to their nearest conspiratoors. We;ll be laughed at even by bemedalled African dictators in sunglasses, at least they wastes no time killing their opponemts.

Protect and survive…Gordon Brown

H/T Old Holborn via Guido

An old small thing…

David Davis

…but I found it by accident. Perhaps what it says in my piece below has a grain of realism in it after all.

h/t The Last Ditch, which was here at the Beginning Of Time, but is now always to be found here.

Let’s hope it’s not just the GramscoFabiaNazis desperately trying to look popular with humans

…and that they really really did mean him to be released on account of bad justice and law.

David Davis

About time this happened, and all.

Watch for excitable PR announcements delivered by newcasters called things like “Kirsty” or “Shan”, and coming from the Home Office Interior Ministry about “Gordon Brown today announced that he has demanded a review of the laws about people defending themselves against intruders…here’s Candy Linkwoman at the Court of Appeal with the the latest…..etc etc etc etc etc….”

It will be interesting to see…

…what grim Gordon Brown and the fun-Chancellor do about this. They’ll either have to increase taxation (even more) or force people to work longer hours….in which case, who pays the employers…?

David Davis

Perhaps cutting your hours to save your job, and thus decreasing your liabilities to the State, will be classed as “Tax Evasion” in the 23,447th  Criminal Justice Bill introduced by This Government. (Queen, offstage: “One is getting a bit bored with these now…can’t one announce something else?)

We were made to “apologise for slavery”, we who were the first to disinvent it. And by the people who support the people who will stand or fall by how much tax revenue they can raise over the next few years decades.

L is for Labour, L is for Lice

The Prime Minister and the grieving mother: This story worries me

David Davis

Although no possible number of Prime-Ministerial calls (and from a New Labour one they’d have to be very many) can make up for the loss of a child, I am in two minds about the rightness of the Murdoch Tabloids in going postal with Mrs James’ pre-recoreded transcript of her conversation with Gordon Brown. You can read it on Guido of course here, for what we here want is the utter demolition and erazement of GramscoFabiaNazi administrations in the UK for all time and for ever.

But, I note that the PM is partially blind, probably has not written a letter by hand for many years, and is actually a PoliticoGeek. He is not a real human being, he probably has forgotten how to spell, and has certainly forgotten how to write letters personally to people: this is since Fascist-left-policy-engenderers must have no personal feeling for anyone, anywhere, ever. They are “movers-and-shakers” – it is their term, they and their “PR” hangers-on in the 1980s invented it, and they will come to be lynched by it in the end-times.

We shall think about the delights of moving them about, perhaps from Westminster to other places, and then we shall think a little bit about shaking them, perhaps on the end of a piece of piano-wire, or string if that’s what’s allowed by health and safety, until they are dead. Then we may, or may not, eat them. That depends on whether they have caused us to starve, freezing in the dark, by then, or not. Thinking about eating them is what they would call a “real-time tactical proactive option”.

That said in Gordon’s defence, and then thinking about our war against GFNs, I think it’s perfectly fair to use all available underhand means to destroy and utterly discredit and mudsling this bastard administration, out of existence.

Will opposition to the EU fragment in the face of new Labour….

...and what ought to be done about it?

UPDATE: there is a good debate going on over at Samizdata, here.

David Davis

There is a school of thought (to which I do not subscribe) that the Tories are cleverly allowing themselves to be the hard-done-by party, courtesy of Labour who has reneged on a referendum promise about Lisbon. The “Labour has boxed us into a corner on this one, so we’ll have to make the best of a bad job” might wash with Old One-Nation-Tories, and perhaps with neo-Labour-voters coming across. But what about the increasingly large constituency of liberals (both Tory and from elsewhere) who think UKIP is more in the right?

There is a danger of fatally splitting the Tory vote in constituencies where it matters, either for the Tories to hold on to them or to throw Labour out on its ear to simply get a bare majority. We must agree that, if Labour failed properly to rig the election-results in its favour (it  _will_  try: you and I both know it) then a Tory majority, however slight, might give sovereign individuals precious time: either to get out to Montana or Alberta with their assets intact, or to continue to oppose GramscoFabiaNazi creep and EuFederalism, for a bit longer – so that there might – just might – be created what Chris Tame used to call “enough people to make a difference”.

More than one of us on here has already stated that we propose to verbally assault the Tories (if they manage to form a government) just as vehemently over their Europhile and other GFN-type policies, and for their flagrant betrayal of liberal ideas. But the election that matters is _this_ one. There may not be another chance after it.

Their election is (a) more probable than that of UKIP,

and (b) the ratchet of GramscoCollectivism will proceed slightly more slowly under tham than under ZanuLieBorg.

Imagine if you will the re-election of a Gordon Brown administration, next June. How do you all think the bastards are going to feel, and therefore to proceed with all their most nefarious plans? And at what sort of pace?

My quote of the day: from Charles Moore in the DT, on Afghanistan

David Davis

I have called this one _MY_ quote, because I know that a majority of libertarians, especially in Britain, think we ought not to be militarily involved in Afghanistan – or anywhere else for that matter. Therefore I will not annoy and insult these people by calling it the “Libertarian Alliance Quote of the Day” (although it ought to be.) I take responsibility for it instead of the august think-tank for which I have the privilege to be allowed to blog.

These libertarians, and others, know that I have never failed to support war in Iraq, or Afghanistan, and that I say [regularly] that the West _must_ take war, if need be everywhere that is required, to all those who cheerfully, frankly and materially oppose individual liberty anywhere. The people the West is trying to resist are not “insurgents”. They are not even “terrorists”, which is why the notion of “The War On Terror” is so glib, shallow and meaningless – these people are willing soldiers for a cause, they really believe what they are saying and they mean to destroy us: they are the willing agents of purposeful and committed deconstructors of everything they think we stand for and love.

Here’s Charles Moore:-

If we truly want to win the war in Afghanistan, we need to challenge its opponents much more fiercely. Politicians such as Nick Clegg, who congratulate themselves on asking the necessary, awkward questions, need to be interrogated about what they actually want. Do they want the first defeat of the most powerful military alliance in history at the hands of a small band of fanatics armed with little more than rifles and IEDs?

Do they have any conception of what such a defeat would mean for the world order, for the stability of countries in the region, or for civil peace in every European city? Do they not understand that this fight will be seen all over the world not as a battle for control of some jagged mountains, but between values, and that, if our values do not win, they will lose?

Please read old Charlie Moore on the whole thing: he puts some sharp perspectives on war, its roles – good or bad they may be – in intercivilisational conflict, and where we ought to go from here. I already said a couple of days ago that the alternatives are only (and ever) victory or defeat, and what it will mean. He’s probably read Sir John Keegan. I doubt most of our present politicians have even heard of the bugger.