Tag Archives: government

How soon will the Euro implode?


UPDATE:- I said this the other day, too.

David Davis

About 12 years ago, or it may be 13, I bet a YEM* person £25 that the Euro, recently issued, would sink to UD$1.00 by that Christmas. It did fall, a bit: my prediction was only wrong in degree –  but I lost my bet and ponied up.

Now Peter Oborne thinks the project is at last about to come undone.

* “YEM” was the “Young European Movement”. God knows what’s happened to that.

Very interesting…


Michael Winning

…That this very conservative old-Labour man should at last be asked to contribute, which is what that Blair fella wanted but got slapped down.

I don’t go for “czars”, me. But if those buggrs down south are tring to pretend that they are trying to pretend that they care, then I guess they could do worse. Field is a good MP up here in Birkenhead and the chaps like him because he is an honest fella.

The Brown bugger’s down, but…


David Davis

This is a rather threatening small cloud on the horizon.

Anarcho-Capitalism versus Minarchism


David Davis

Interesting analysis over at CountingCats, of a problem which has been bugging me for some years: how to ensure Order becoming the inevitable daughter of Liberty, as she really is, instead of people thinking that Liberty arises out of imposed order.

Very bad news…a death to be soon announced


David Davis

The death of the USA as a free and un-socialistically-encumbered nation will be announced in the next few decades. The rot sets in, although happily I suppose (as Enoch Powell once told some of us) “it takes quite some time.”

The Obamessiah’s healthcare “reforms” will soon, it is feared, take place.

You’d think they would look in horror across the Atlantic, to what has happened to us since 1948, and recoil. perhaps it adds evidence to my thesis that GramscoFabiaNazis like Obama do what they do on purpose.

Captain Ranty: good read on the theory of sovereign individuality


David Davis

This just found….

Constitutional Monarchy, government and liberty


How can these co-exist, you might ask?

David Davis

Obnoxio the Clown has answered it very tightly in about 500 words. Wish I could do it that fast. I think this is such a good essay that, as well as putting is link in, I’ll reviralise it here:-

Abandoning constitutional monarchy

There was a vote held at the House of Twits about whether or not Britain should abandon the constitutional monarchy. Contrary to what one might expect from a libertarian and, even worse, an Anarcho-Capitalist, I voted no. In fact, if I had my druthers, I’d undo that shameless huckster Blair’s “reform” of the Lords and re-instate hereditary peerage as well!

It’s crucial that I explain why. A constitutional monarchy is not the endgame objective of any Libertarian. It is profoundly unlibertarian that someone can rule over you by accident of birth. However, through happy accident, it transpires that having a ruling monarch that is required to give assent to laws, along with two strong chambers of debate is a pretty good mix for reasonable governance in a democratic, rather than an anarchic state.

And while a lot of libertarians resent the land-ownership of the hereditary peers, the fact that they weren’t all from the grasping, venal classes actually made them quite good custodians of our rights. If you look at the regime of New Labour, for instance, the official opposition was utterly useless in the Commons and all the serious defence of the common man ironically came from the Lords. And if we look at the rapid increase in common petty theft in the Lords, is it any surprise that it has all come about since Labour started throwing the money out there to be taken and then appointing people from the grasping, venal classes?

I’m not saying the Lords were saints before, but because they were disinterested and there wasn’t really anything in it for them, they tended to either not bother at all or take it seriously for its own sake. Sure they could influence big deals for their own back pocket, but they weren’t inspired to enact draconian laws because they’d get a chunk of cash for pitching up and then being “whipped” to vote.

Whether you regard it as class, or breeding, or just some kind of good sense and disinterest, the peers have acquitted themselves much better than our elected representatives, who do not represent us, but rather the interests of their party. And really, for this to work properly, you do need a stronger monarch. Unfortunately, Brenda has really screwed the pooch here and I positively fear Charlie. We need a monarch who would not give Royal Assent to draconian laws, or bad laws. The ideal situation is where all three are strong, because then it’s difficult for any one of them to overwhelm the others. At the moment, the party in power has a toothless opposition and the Queen just gives the nod to any old shit. In fact, she doesn’t even need to rubberstamp anything, as they can now just implement a statuatory order without debate or anything. Not that there’s ever any debate anyway.

Anyway, I’m rambling now. Ultimately, I didn’t really have a problem with the pre-’97 constitutional monarchy, because no one group of the government had too much power. Blair screwed that completely by abolishing hereditary peerages and every other “reform” he did. Now the Commons dominates and is only held in the vaguest of check by the Lords.

Having seen any number of elected-only government models around the world, the UK’s odd mixture of Crown, hereditary peer and elected thief was a very good one. If I had to endure a government, I would rather it was that one.

I would rather endure no government at all. But that wasn’t what was asked.

Socialist-derived inactivity…because you can’t afford to work


Michael Winning

The British-State laments the fact that “Eight million people are economically inactive”. I quote:-

Public sector jobs increased by 5 per cent over a year to 6.09 million. In all, the state gained 290,000 employers (sic: he meant employees!) from September 2008 to Sept 2009.

During the same period, private sector jobs fell by 735,000 to 22.82 million.

They cna come and work here if they want, on the moor, pushing pigs around. But i could not pay them the minimumwage, so I guess they wont be allowed to come then…the job’s worth in reality about £2 an hour for the price i get for the animals…I cuould have queues of Afghan immigrants doing it and they’d be good too and feel rich, but it’s not allowed so I can’t.

I tell you, this socialism lark will end it tears, itwill. It always does. Can’t think why we rubb our noses in it willingly every election.

1959 conviction still haunts gay man seeking work – Yahoo! News


Sean Gabb says:

This is disgusting. No one should ever be punished for consensual activity. And a bad law is only half repealed when convictions under it are allowed to stay on the record.

John Crawford, 70,  poses for photograph at his home in central London, Tuesday,

AP – John Crawford, 70, poses for photograph at his home in central London, Tuesday, Feb. 16, 2010. Crawford …

By GREGORY KATZ, Associated Press Writer

Tue Feb 16, 12:51 pm ET

LONDON – He was convicted of a crime more than half a century ago, but what he did in 1959 — have consensual sex with another man — would be perfectly legal today.

So John Crawford, 70, wants his criminal record cleaned up for good, so that he doesn’t have to disclose his conviction when he seeks volunteer work, and because of a deeply held belief that he should not be punished for his sexual orientation.

“I came into this world without a criminal record and I’d like to leave this world without one,” said Crawford, a retired butler. “The police beat me and beat me and forced me to confess to being gay, but I know in my heart I did nothing wrong.”

Crawford’s bid to clean up his record is backed by gay organizations looking to help others who were convicted under Britain’s once draconian anti-homosexuality laws, which only began to be eased in 1967, as social values changed, and sex acts between consenting adults began to be decriminalized.

“These laws were homophobic in the first place: that’s why they were rescinded, but the laws are still penalizing people,” said Deborah Gold, director of Galop, a gay rights group that has helped Crawford. “We’ve always had a regular trickle of people asking about it, how to get their records cleaned up.”

She said Crawford suffered horrific treatment from the police and should not have to disclose his criminal conviction when seeking employment or volunteer work.

His lawyers wrote to Justice Secretary Jack Straw last week asking that the law be changed so that Crawford and others in his position would not have to disclose their convictions during the job interview process.

If no action is taken by March 12, attorneys will seek a formal judicial review because the policy is not compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, said lawyer Anna Mazzola.

“John Crawford wants to do it, to change the law for other people,” she said. “Others are in exactly the same position. The justice secretary has the power to do this, without going through Parliament.”

Mazzola’s firm has also filed a freedom of information request for data about the number of people convicted of consensual sexual offenses that would now be legal.

“I think there are quite a lot,” she said.

Crawford’s legal campaign has already been productive. In response to a letter from his lawyers, police have removed the record of his conviction from the criminal database, meaning it will not turn up during a computerized criminal records search.

“We are very sympathetic to Mr. Crawford’s concerns,” said a Hampshire police spokesman, who asked not to be identified under department policy. “We recognize that this is an exceptional case and have acted quickly to resolve it.”

The spokesman said the conviction is no longer relevant and has been taken out of the Police National Computer database. The special ruling applies only to Crawford, however, not to other gay or bisexual men with similar offenses in their past.

This welcome decision removes one substantial obstacle Crawford faces in his retirement as he pursues voluntary positions, such as hospital work where he would be helping to feed ill people.

He is not satisfied, however, because he is still legally required to reveal the 1959 episode when asked if he has ever been convicted of any criminal offence. This happens frequently on questionnaires when applying for volunteer work with vulnerable persons.

“I think it’s ridiculous,” Crawford said.

His lingering anger comes in part from the humiliation he suffered at the hands of police officers in 1959. He said they abused him physically and harassed him with vulgar taunts, then coerced him into pleading guilty by threatening to continue beating him if he did not cooperate.

As a result of that plea, he said he was saddled with a conviction that would not have been possible otherwise, especially since he was not accused of having sex in public.

“I wanted to plead not guilty, and the case would have been thrown out and I wouldn’t be talking about it now,” Crawford said. “Until the police drop it completely, I won’t be happy. I’ve got to be able to put my hand on my heart and say to the world, I haven’t got a criminal record, and I can’t say that now.”

1959 conviction still haunts gay man seeking work – Yahoo! News

Libertarian Britain


David Davis

Go to conservativehome and take part in the lively discussion thread about whether “Britain is becoming more conservative – or perhaps more libertarian?

Worth a (bath) plug


David Davis

This via The Last Ditch via Dick Puddlecote, is hilarious:-

How can a drug be “wicked”?


David Davis, harrumphing…

The government is to “apologise” to the UK’s 463 remaining sufferers from birth deformities caused by their mums being prscribed Thalidomide. It’s going to give them some of our money too. I thought Distillers had paid out £28 million some time ago, when money was worth quite a lot more than now?

Listen: I hate governments, and specially this one, as much as any self-respecting upright human should. But it’s not clear to me that it’s the government’s fault that these poor people suffer as they do.

Boris Johnson on Taxation


David Davis

True words, but nobody will listen except the rich who can leave anyway.

Taliban “claim responsibility”…now we know [that they know] that they are winning.


David Davis

Libertarians don’t do wars. Not really. We all go about in a sort of drug-like RothbardoHayekian Haze, claiming never to want to initiate force or fraud, because of course that’s what States do, right? Of course they do, and of course it’s why we’re broadly all more or less in favour of small, controllable-by-Law, states, (some of us are in favour of no states at all, but not me, I have decided) which only do things like basic law-and-order, courts that anyone can apply to, impartial judges, possibly a small, efficient and uncorruptible Police Force of authorised civilians, and the like. And of course no ID cards or “passports” or any crap of that sort.

We also as a group are broadly against Britain’s involvement in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, since it can be argued that Britain has “no vital foreign policy interest” in what may or may not go on in those places. As I have never tired of repeating, I do not agree, and never have done, that Britain has no business being there as an armed force. I am a Jihadist turned upside down: I take the view that it is the Jihad obligation, the absolute foreign-policy-duty no less, of liberal Classical States to actively destroy un-liberal scumbags, wherever they may be, if the nominal “State” on whose writ they scamper is unable so to do. If this was done, socialism, and also pre-capitalist death-cults which periodically use sex anda sort of yearning neo-pastoralism to infect rational civilisations, would simply melt away and disappear. But that’s the subject of another debate. What I mean to briefly dissect today is a change in the type of signals the “Taliban”, whatever that says it might be, is sending. The exceptional glaring tautology in what I have just said, namely the presence of British soldiers doing what I have described, at the bidding of a scumbag GramscoFabiaNazi administration at home here, is a result of the British State going GFN, and not a refutation of my premise.

In my long experience, terrorists, and other warlike agents of counter-revolution and people’s progress, tend to “claim responsibility” for dastardly deeds when they are ready to start dictating terms to what they see as the losing side. It’s a case of “we did this and we can do it some more: do you want that, and ultimate defeat, or shall we talk?” In the inverted scenario, such as, say, the Dambusters Raid, the Allies claimed responsibility globally from the rooftops, which wasn’t mechanically necessary I admit since there were crashed Lancasters scattered from Holland to the Ruhr, but it was a moral point being made, in front of an audience of spectators,  just like what this Taliban-man has just done.

The problem of wars is that there are only two ways out: victory or defeat. No “third way”, sorry Tony-B. If either Britain, or “The West” or indeed any individual ally involved in Afghanistan (Spain! Take Note, although you left earlier when some buggers who you tried later to say were Basques blew up all your trains) leaves before the Fat Lady Sings, it will be counted as a defeat, with all the malign foreign policy and (at home) inter-racial, and inter-precapitalist-barbarian-survival-guidetype issues that will flow from that.

Our own government today is the main difficulty, for this Taliban fellow knows it is on his side in the end, and wants him to win for Gramscian reasons. They’ve done a deal. “I’m Gordon…I’ll tell you what – I want to deconstruct and demoralise my Queen’s Armed Forces, so I can re-staff them with the right sort of Officers and persons so that I can then dissolve the People and elect another in their place. This is because  these forces are currently mostly viscerally opposed to me and my “getting on with my job”, and may refuse to “regulate” their own people back home here later. So I’ll send you periodic batches of good ones, which you can then kill a lot of, because I’ll deliberately make sure that you can, by only allowing them really really crap gear. When you think you’ve killed enough, and when enough of the present officers and squaddies have resigned in disgust, we’ll talk about me bowing to public opinion and “bringing the boys home”, and also about you getting hold of Afghanistan, and any industrial cities in the UK that you want your religious and legal writ to run in. And the monetary contribution you could reasonably make, to The Political Arm Of The British People, will be £…………………”

Talk about the German Army in 1918 being “stabbed in the back”!

Libertarian Alliance and Libertarian International Conference, London 24th-25th October 2009


David Davis

As and when we arrive at the event, outer-London-parking-controls and tribulations permitting, we shall attempt to “live blog” parts of this (whatever “live-blogging” might be: I hope someone will tell us!) We are armed with laptops which I guess is a requirement, and we assume that modern trendy venues like the National Liberal Club have some kind of internet connection…

Why there will never be a Libertarian government, ever


David Davis

Good analysis on The Volokh Conspiracy here.

Dr Sean Gabb’s phrase “The Enemy Class” says it all too.

But there is always another strategy. Libertarians, heavily disguised as pork-barrel-opening, largesse-distributing statists, could stage an election-led dawn raid on the legislature. Having got elected, hopefully looking vaguely like compassionate conservatives who “love the NHS”  – but specifically after some particularly spectacular failure and cock-up by the ordinary stalinists of the day, such as affects us now – they could strip off their statists’ clothes revealing the lithe muscular form and leotarded bewinged saviour….

….SUPER-MARKET…. !!!

Immediately, they could get to work sacking most departments of State (and Councils people’s Soviets), malleting the hard disks, shredding and burning the records, and turning the bemused “staff” onto the street. Within about two days the country could resemble a somewhat chaotic Hong Kong, only without any bureaucrats at all.

But I don’t think David Cameron has any such plans – do you? Ah well, never mind, it’s fun to dream.

Private policing begins….


….but I doubt it will take off, as there are too few people left in the UK who have the will and the ability to make a large difference, and we have so little time left: the U-bend atop the cesspool is nearly up to us.

David Davis

Birthday Greetings to Hans-Hermann Hoppe


Sean Gabb

Professor Hoppe was sixty on the 29th July. At a private celebration of this occasion in America, he was presented with a Festschrift – that is, a book of essays by those he has influenced. One of these essays is by me, and I republish it here. The whole book can be found here: http://www.stephankinsella.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/hulsmann-kinsella_property-freedom-society-2009.pdf

On behalf of the Libertarian Alliance, I wish Professor Hoppe a happy birthday, and many more years of happiness and of creative activity.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe
And the Political Equivalent of Nuclear Fusion
By Sean Gabb

I have been invited to contribute a chapter to this book of appreciations of Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Now, he is a person of forbidding achievements. He has made important contributions to economics, to political theory, to law, and to epistemology, among much else. He is also a person of much organisational ability, and the conferences he runs at Bodrum for his Property and Freedom Society have rapidly established themselves as one of the high points in the libertarian calendar.

This makes it difficult to know where to start when it comes to writing a single chapter about his achievements. What I have decided to do, however, is to try and show how what he might regard as one of his minor achievements is contributing to a new and potentially significant consensus within the libertarian and conservative movements.

The End of the Cold War: A Victory Denied

In the ideological sense, the Cold War was fought between the defenders of liberty and tradition and their most open and comprehensive enemies. Yet in the settlement that followed the defeat of Communism, the main losers have been libertarians and conservatives.

Those who still regard this defeat as one for the enemies of liberty and tradition have failed to see beneath the surface of things to the underlying reality. Orthodox Marxism-Leninism, together with its numerous heresies, was mostly important not in its own terms, but as an excuse. In every generation, there are people who want to live at the expense of others, or to make them unhappy, or both. Unless they are able to be predators by act of conquest—the Assyrians, for example, or the Mongols—these people always need arguments to persuade their victims that being robbed or murdered will make the world a better place. Most of them need themselves to believe these arguments.

Long before the Berlin Wall came down, Marxism had become an embarrassment. Its historical and economic underpinnings had crumbled. Its predictions had all been falsified. Its promises were all broken. Its body count and the poverty of its survivors could no longer be denied. It no longer served to justify the actions or the existence of the Soviet state. Its disestablishment after 1989 was less a defeat for the enemies of liberty and tradition than a release.

The accelerated rise of politically correct multiculturalism since then, and the rise from almost nothing of environmentalism, should not, therefore, be seen as ideologies of asylum for dispossessed Marxists. Rather, they are ideologies of transformation and control more in keeping with the spirit of the present age. Just as Marxism once did, each provides a shared narrative, a shared terminology, and shared feeling of doing good for those whose objects are anything but good.

They are, moreover, better than Marxism, so far as they are less threatening to the powers that be in the West. Diversity and sustainability requirements raise up bureaucracies that allow a cartelisation of costs that privilege established wealth against the competition of new entrants. They otherwise provide jobs and status in organisations that look reassuringly like conventional businesses.

The New World Order

The result has been the emergence since 1989 of a new order in which broadly liberal and democratic institutions are being transformed into the agencies of a police state, and in which traditional ways of life and real diversities are being swept aside in favour of centrally-directed homogeneity.

There is nothing unusual about what is happening. There is nothing that should not have been at least dimly perceived back in 1989. At the end of every real war, the winning alliance tends to break up, as the often radically different interest groups that comprised it find that what brought them together no longer exists to hold them together. New alliances then form between interest groups on the winning and losing sides.

This happened at the end of the Napoleonic wars, when Britain and France found themselves increasingly on the same side against the Central European powers. It happened again at the end of the Second World War, when the Americans and Russians fell out, and both recruited their zones of occupied Germany as allies in the new struggle. It has now happened with the new ideological that emerged at the end of the Cold War.

Whether or not this was to be expected, libertarians and conservatives have reason to feel aggrieved. They were perhaps the two most prominent ideological groups in the battle against Communism. Libertarian economists provided the most devastating weapons of attack. Conservatives did most to articulate the revulsion that ordinary people felt when confronted with the kleptocracy and mass-murder at the heart of Communism. They are now jointly surplus to requirements in a world where ex-Trotskyites and even former Communist Party members have put on suits and become government ministers, and now sit happily at dinner with the heads of global corporations.

There are three possible responses to this state of affairs. Libertarians and conservatives can whine piteously about the unfairness of things. Or they can carry on, as if nothing had changed after 1989, addressing arguments to the same allies and against the same enemies. Or they can recognise that the world has changed, and that promoting the same values requires differences of approach.

New Times, New Ways

Let me now drop the impersonal tone. I will not speak directly for the conservatives. But I will speak for the general libertarian movement. There is no orthodoxy here. Libertarians disagree with each other almost as much as we disagree with our various opponents. Even so, it is possible to see an emerging consensus—first that there is need of a new approach, and second of its nature.

In explaining this, the logical place to start is with our thoughts on the free market.

Limited Liability: The Worm in the Free Market Bud

Everyone knows that libertarians believe in free markets. Something we have not always made sufficiently plain—something that we may not always have been clear about ourselves—is that when we talk about free markets, what we mean is markets of free people. It does not mean that we endorse markets simply because they are efficient, or even because they are creative. In particular, we have no affection for big business.

Though there can be no doubt they have enriched the world, companies like Microsoft and General Motors and ICI are not natural institutions. They are creatures of the State. They came into being and are sustained by incorporation laws. These laws permit individuals and groups of individuals to act not as themselves, but as servants of a fictitious entity. The directors and shareholders are not legally responsible for the debts of the entity. Nor need they feel morally responsible for their actions or inaction on its behalf.

Because of limited liability, business corporations can attract large amounts of investment. Because they are not natural persons, they need not follow the cycle of growth and decline normal to unincorporated businesses. Instead, one generation of directors and shareholders can give way to another. These devices allow business corporations to grow much larger than unincorporated businesses.

It might be argued that incorporation laws are similar to marriage laws—that is, that they gather what would otherwise be a number of complex agreements into a single act. If there were no state, people would still cohabit. Each partner could still make the other next of kin. There would be agreements or customary rules to regulate the management of common property and the rearing of children.

But this is not the case with incorporation. Certainly, the owners of any business could agree with their suppliers and customers that they are servants of a fictitious entity, and that their liability for debt is limited to their investment in the entity. But they could not contract out of liability in tort. This fact alone would put off any investor who was not able to buy a controlling interest. I and countless millions of people like me own shares in companies of which I know nothing. If we knew that we were to be regarded, in the event of a large award of damages, as jointly and severally liable for payment, hardly any of us would risk being shareholders.

Now, except for anarchists, to say that something could not exist without the state does not make it in itself illegitimate. But it is a reasonable presumption.that whatever cannot exist naturally needs a strong justification in terms of utility. It is not enough to point to the achievements of big business. Libertarians have faced similar arguments for centuries now about the state. In most countries, the state provides education. In my country, the state provides most healthcare. Obviously, this does not mean that education and healthcare would not be provided without the state. It is the same with business corporations. All pharmaceuticals and most computer software have been developed by big business corporations. But there is no reason to suppose they cannot be otherwise provided.

And even if it could be shown that there would be fewer of these things in a world without incorporation, the costs of incorporation must be weighed against the benefits.

Crony Capitalism

When the number and size of business corporations grows beyond a certain limit, they tend to become part of the ruling class. To create a new business and make it grow large requires entrepreneurship, which is most often a quality of outsiders. To administer what is already established and make it bigger require skills similar to those required by politics and state administration. Between the state and the larger business corporations, therefore, there will be an overlap or a continual exchange of personnel.

This will make it possible for business corporations to externalise some of their costs of growth. They will, as political insiders, press for state involvement in the building of roads and railways and other transport infrastructure that allows them to enjoy greater economies of scale than would otherwise be possible. They will press for the political control of foreign markets. They will be best placed for securing government contracts—often to provide things that they themselves insist are necessary.

Given an ideological climate favourable to active intervention, they will fashion the tax and regulatory system to the disadvantage of smaller competitors.

There are then the cultural costs. Anyone who works for any length of time in a large business corporation tends to become just another “human resource”—all his important life decisions made for him by others, and encouraged into political and cultural passivity. To do well here, he needs to become a receiver and transmitter of orders, to accept authority and avoid arguments with superiors, and to regard success in terms of steady income punctuated by steady advances. He must essentially be a bureaucrat. He will know nothing of how real business is transacted. He will care nothing about laws and taxes that stop others from transacting real business. He will not be inclined to resist paternalism in the political arrangements of his country.

An End to Compromise

As said, this rejection of what may be called “actually existing capitalism” is only an emerging consensus. There are still many libertarians who see nothing wrong with business corporations in themselves. And until quite recently, people like me were on the fringe of the libertarian movement. But, then, until recently, it was not unreasonable for libertarians to look favourably on business corporations.

Until 1989, all politics were shaped by the great ideological tug of war over socialism. We had little choice about joining that tug of war, and none in which direction we would be pulling—and none about with whom we would be pulling. The Communists wanted to destroy business corporations as well as market freedom. Even corrupted markets are better than no markets. And it should never be forgotten that “actually existing capitalism” works. It may constrain both markets and the human spirit. But it has been better than any other system of economic organisation offered in the last hundred years. It has been fantastically productive. It has raised, and is raising, billions from poverty to prosperity. A libertarian world of small and unprivileged business units would be better. But what we has was pretty good, and was to be defended against all its mainstream rivals.

But times are altered. Business corporations have become increasingly global since the end of the Cold War. They have been moving steadily out of their entrepreneurial phase into the bureaucratic. They are increasingly demanding naked privilege. They are demanding intellectual property rights laws that go far beyond what any ordinary person might think reasonable. Through what are called “free trade” agreements, they are promoting regulatory cartelisation at the world level. Nobody of consequence wants to nationalise the corporations. They work happily with governments of every apparent persuasion. Their leading personnel are, more than ever, members of the ruling class.

The more libertarians doubt the legitimacy of the business corporation, more we reconnect or connect with other traditions of resistance to state power. There is nothing anti-libertarian about strong working class organisations. So long as there is no grant of legal privilege, libertarians can have no objection to trade unions, or cooperatives, or other institutions. We might have nothing against the break up of large landed estates—country and town.

Big business no longer needs or deserves our support. We can now safely emphasise the radical elements of our ideology. We are no longer in danger of supporting alternative institutions that may turn out to be Communist front organisations.[1]

Outreach to Conservatives: Old Friends in New Times

So much for the first part of our emerging strategy of resistance. But there is now the matter of our relationship with the conservatives. I do not mean by this the neo-conservatives. Generally speaking, the prefix “neo” has a negative meaning. And these people are less interested in tradition than in keeping up a military-industrial complex that may have been necessary to face down Soviet Communism, but which now is simply a standing danger to freedom at home and peace abroad.

No—what I mean is real conservatives in the English-speaking sense. Their defence of tradition is necessarily a defence of limited government, of due process, of civil liberty, and of market freedom. They were natural allies in the past. There is no reason why they should not continue to be in the future.

The problem so far has been that there are certain differences between libertarians and conservatives that have prevented full-hearted cooperation. With the ending of the Communist threat, it did seem for a while as if we might go our separate ways. Even now, it is not commonly accepted that there is a new threat just as deadly and just as much in need of co-ordinated resistance.

The main difference is one of vision. The libertarian utopia is one of maximum choice in a world of rapid technological progress. What we ultimately want is an order not wholly based on this planet, in which people live for at least a very long time. We are not very interested in keeping up old ways of life simply because they are old.

Conservatives, of course, are interested in keeping up these old ways. They hated socialism as an attack on their ideal order. They sometimes regard libertarianism as barely less of an attack. In particular, they do not believe in mass immigration, which they perceive as a threat to their organic nation state. And they are dubious about a freedom of trade that may prevent their country from feeding itself or from producing its own manufactures.

Here we come at last to what I see as the main achievement of Hans-Hermann Hoppe. I am not ualified to assess his economic work. Because my own philosophical outlook is bounded by the Greek sceptics and by Epicurus and the British empiricists, his epistemology does not really answer any of the questions that I have ever asked. Nor will I claim that he agrees with my own dislike of business corporations. But his clarification of what a libertarian order might be is something that I can appreciate. And it is this that I think his greatest contribution to the joint cause of liberty and tradition.

The Problem of Immigration

Let us consider his work on immigration. Until the end of the twentieth century, there was a libertarian consensus over immigration that had emerged during earlier concerns about the entry of Jews and Irish Catholics to England or of the southern and eastern races of Europe to America. Libertarians insisted, and gained agreement over time, that the problems raised by these immigrations were either imaginary or short term; and that policies of benign neglect would turn strangers into citizens.

With the rise of mass immigration from outside the European world, this opinion has had to come under review. If every Jew in Eastern Europe had moved to England before 1906, it would have raised the population by perhaps three million. If every Slovak in Europe had moved to America before 1920, it would have raised the population also by three million. These were peoples whose appearance and values were reasonably similar to those of the native population, and who could be expected in time to become largely indistinguishable from the native population.

It may be different with non-European immigrants. These look different. Their values are often radically different, and even hostile. There are potentially unlimited numbers of them. Their simple presence seems likely to displace cultural patterns that have long been vaguely favourable to freedom, and to place a strong downward pressure on the incomes of the poor. They are, moreover, being used as an excuse to create an order in which freedom of speech and contract and in which democratic accountability are being set aside in the supposed interests of public order.

The mainstream libertarian response has been to deny that there is in itself any problem at all, and that the experience of past immigrations will simply be repeated. Their only policy recommendations are to raise louder objections to the multicultural police state that was already growing before the quickening of non-European immigration. They also point out that much dispute between newcomers and natives takes place within areas controlled or influenced by the state. Let there be no state education, and there need be no argument over whether some schools should allow teachers to wear veils and others should teach the inerrancy of the Bible or the non-existence of God. Let there be no welfare state, and there need be no argument over taxes on natives to maintain the children of strangers or over taxes on strangers to pay the pensions of natives.

As for the argument over falling wage rates, this is countered by the observation that greater market freedom would after a while check or even reverse this trend, or by denying the legitimacy of any state concern with the living standards of the poor.

What Professor Hoppe does is to ignore the polarity of the debate as it has been set up. Those who want an anarchist order have so far had to accept the legitimacy of mass-immigration. Those who have been worried about mass-immigration have had to accept the need of a state to control the border. Professor Hoppe walks straight through this debate.

The State; Not Guardian but Traitor at the Gate

He regards the mass immigration of the past half century into western countries as an instance not of libertarian open borders, but of “forced integration”. It is different from free trade in goods and services so far as it is not a free choice of individuals to associate as they please. Instead, it is a product of anti-discrimination laws and state welfare policies.

In a democracy, politicians will have an interest in importing those most likely to vote for big government, or those most likely to lend themselves to an electoral balkanisation that puts an end to the accountability of rulers to ruled. Given enough pressure by the majority, these politicians will make immigration laws that look tough. But these will lead at best to random acts of oppression against the sorts of immigrant who, in any rational order, might be welcomed. The policies of indiscriminate welfare that attract paupers into the country, and of political correctness and multiculturalism that prevent the majority from resisting, will continue unchecked.

But let us imagine a society in which there is no state. Obviously, there would be no welfare provided by the tax payers. Nor would it be possible to frighten the natives into passivity. Nor, though, would there be unchecked immigration.

Professor Hoppe says:

“[L]et us…assume an anarcho-capitalist society…..All land is privately owned, including all streets, rivers, airports, harbors, etc.. With respect to some pieces of land, the property title may be unrestricted; that is, the owner is permitted to do with his property whatever he pleases as long as he does not physically damage the property owned by others. With respect to other territories, the property title may be more or less severely restricted. As is currently the case in some housing developments, the owner may be bound by contractual limitations on what he can do with his property (voluntary zoning), which might include residential vs. commercial use, no buildings more than four stories high, no sale or rent to Jews, Germans, Catholics, homosexuals, Haitians, families with or without children, or smokers, for example.

“Clearly, under this scenario there exists no such thing as freedom of immigration. Rather, there exists the freedom of many independent private property owners to admit or exclude others from their own property in accordance with their own unrestricted or restricted property titles. Admission to some territories might be easy, while to others it might be nearly impossible. In any case, however, admission to the property of the admitting person does not imply a ‘freedom to move around,’ unless other property owners consent to such movements. There will be as much immigration or non-immigration, inclusivity or exclusivity, desegregation or segregation, non-discrimination or discrimination based on racial, ethnic, linguistic, religious, cultural or whatever other grounds as individual owners or associations of individual owners allow.

“Note that none of this, not even the most exclusive form of segregationism, has anything to do with a rejection of free trade and the adoption of protectionism. From the fact that one does not want to associate with or live in the neighborhood of Blacks, Turks, Catholics or Hindus, etc., it does not follow that one does not want to trade with them from a distance. To the contrary, it is precisely the absolute voluntariness of human association and separation—the absence of any form of forced integration—that makes peaceful relationships—free trade—between culturally, racially, ethnically, or religiously distinct people possible.”[2]

Indeed, he does not stop with immigration. He argues that a libertarian world would have room for highly traditional communities in which conservative views of morality would be the norm.

Now, I repeat, this may be a theoretical contribution that Professor Hoppe rates lower than his work on Austrian economic theory. For me and for anyone else who wants a fusion of libertarian and conservative movements, it is a contribution of first class importance.

Resisting the New World Order: The End of the Beginning?

Conservatives might not be wholly pleased by such a world. Their organic ideal has room for a powerful state. But the answer to this at the moment—and for some time to come—is that any state able to intervene in matters of personal morality will necessarily be run by the kind of people who now run the state that we have. This will not be a conservative state. Therefore, libertarianism must, for the foreseeable future, be a strategy for conservatives.

We are talking here about a debate that is taking place between a few hundred people, and that is ignored by almost everyone else. There is no chance, either in England or in America, of a libertarian or even of a really conservative electoral victory.

But, if regrettable, this is not necessarily important. What is important is that two groups of intellectuals should arrive at the truth and agree between themselves on that truth and how it should be promoted. If what they decide is the truth, it will eventually have its effect.

I have said that those who enjoy living at the expense of others hardly ever argue honestly about what they want. They hardly ever admit to themselves what they want. Instead, they operate from behind the most presently convenient ideology of legitimisation. Attack these ideologies hard enough, and they will crumble. That may provoke the oppressed to stand up and demand their rights. More likely, it will confuse and weaken those who benefit from such ideologies so that they eventually give in to less violent demands.

Libertarians and conservatives may have lost the Cold War. But the battle continues. And, thanks in part to the work of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, what just a few years ago might have seemed a futile last stand may be the prelude to a dazzling counter-attack.


[1] [1] None of the above should be regarded as original. There is a large, though mostly American, literature on this point. See, for example, Murray Rothbard: “Every element in the New Deal program: central planning, creation of a network of compulsory cartels for industry and agriculture, inflation and credit expansion, artificial raising of wage rates and promotion of unions within the overall monopoly structure, government regulation and ownership, all this had been anticipated and adumbrated during the previous two decades. And this program, with its privileging of various big business interests at the top of the collectivist heap, was in no sense reminiscent of socialism or leftism; there was nothing smacking of the egalitarian or the proletarian here. No, the kinship of this burgeoning collectivism was not at all with socialism-communism but with fascism, or socialism-of-the-right, a kinship which many big businessmen of the twenties expressed openly in their yearning for abandonment of a quasi-laissez-faire system for a collectivism which they could control…. Both left and right have been persistently misled by the notion that intervention by the government is ipso facto leftish and antibusiness.” (Murray N. Rothbard, “Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty,” Left & Right 1, no. 1, Spring 1965.

For further discussions, see: Gabriel S. Kolko, Railroads and Regulation, 1877-1916, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1965 and The Triumph of Conservatism: A Reinterpretation of American History, 1900-1916, Free Press, New York, 1965; Murray N. Rothbard, “War Collectivism in World War I” in Ronald Radosh and Murray N. Rothbard, eds., A New History of Leviathan, Dutton, New York, 1972; Robert Higgs, Crisis and Leviathan: Critical Episodes in the Growth of American Government, Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York, 1987; Paul Weaver, The Suicidal Corporation: How Big Business Fails America, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1988; Butler Shaffer, In Restraint of Trade: The Business Campaign Against Competition, 1918-1938, Bucknell University Press, Lewisburg, 1997; John T. Flynn, As We Go Marching, Free Life, New York, 1973; Roy Childs, Big Business and the Rise of American Statism, unnamed publisher, 1971; Joseph Stromberg, “Political Economy of Liberal Corporatism” and “The Role of State Monopoly Capitalism in the American Empire”, both from the Center for Libertarian Studies, New York, 1978; Kevin A. Carson, The Iron Fist Behind the Invisible Hand : Corporate Capitalism as a System of State-Guaranteed Privilege, Red Lion Press, Montreal, 2001; Kevin A. Carson, Austrian and Marxist Theories of Monopoly-Capital: A Mutualist Synthesis, Economic Notes 102, The Libertarian Alliance, London, 2004.

I particularly commend the works of Kevin Carson. See also Appendix Two for a more extended discussion of these matters.

[2] Hans-Hermann Hoppe, On Free Immigration and Forced Integration, 1999—available at: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/hermann-hoppe1.html (checked September 2008)

“Lobbyists”: what are they for?


I feel quite sure that some carefulyl-chosen and very very pretty barmaids – must have exquisite boobs as is inevitable  in this situation – would get government policy changed for you, far quicker and far cheaper in the long run, like about a couple of nights days. (Didn’t Harold Wilson, the old traitor, say that a week is a long time? A barmaid with nice boobs oculd get your defence policy changed in about 23 minutes, for about £200 in London. So why do you need someone like Weber Shandwick for £25,000 a month? Or is it more now? Westland “was going to pay” Reggie Watts £20,000 a month in 1987, as I was told on being offered emmployment at his…)

Truly, Sean Gabb’s assertions that “Big Business”, and its involuntary (or otherwise) desire for association with Big Statists, is not intrinsically friendly to individualism and liberty, are being borne out by fact.

David Davis

And the following extract from the Fabian trotskTimes says everything about these people:-

Lobbyists are engaged in a “desperate” scramble to secure people close to David Cameron, as companies shake up their public-relations operations to prepare for a Conservative government.

Tory officials are being offered double or triple their salaries to move to the private sector, jumping “from five figures to six figures pay for top people”, say industry insiders. Companies are waking up to the fact that links cultivated over 12 years of New Labour may be largely redundant after the general election, which must be held by next June.

Now the race is on to secure people close to the Cameron inner circle – insiders who help the Conservative leader to determine the opposition party’s policies and strategy.

“There are a lot of desperate lobbyists suddenly deciding that they’re going to try and suck up to the Tories as hard as possible, in a very overt and slightly vacuous kind of way,” said Neil O’Brien, director of Policy Exchange, a think-tank with close links to the Tory leadership.

Libertarians mostly agree that if “government” either would not or could not “do much”, then there would be no need for all these superfluous walking deadweights, consuming “resources” and at the same time egging big-statists on to initiate “initiatives”: about 100% of which cost large sums and produce no benefits.

This is all very interesting and inevitable in Iran just now, it is very sad and sooooo post-colonial (wake up Lefties: Bandung was _SO_ over, even in 1955.)


David Davis

The silly Iranianstate-buggertroids, while being very good about talking to the Foreigners-Office and the BBC, have failed to get the fine and important historical detail of the Union Flag precisely correct. Especially if they were going to burn it, it should importantly be the right Flag…someone else who is  __much__  more powerful than us, and who was offended, might sue them if it was incorrect:-

More control of the internet, coming soon to a computer near you…


David Davis

Look here chaps.

If Al-Quaeda (whatever they may be or have been) want to attack your interweb facilities – or whatever is being proposed by our dear leaders that said “Al-Quaeda” is doing – then WTF do you keep the characters whom you dub “Special Forces” for, eh?

If GCHQ (whatever and wherever that may now be) [and I quote here:-

Another new development will see the creation of a "cyber-forensics" team based at GCHQ, the Government's eavesdropping centre in Cheltenham, Gloucestershire.

The Cyber Security Operations Centre will constantly monitor, analyse and counter cyber attacks as they happen.

Lord West said the terrorists' capability to launch attacks was something he believed "will develop" in future.]

…then surely our spooks must know where the attack-droids are?

The problem, to me, looks like a setup for more control and surveillance of internet use by ordinary individuals in their offices and homes, not exactly a proposal to go out and get the buggers who  __may__  actually be attacking it.

What, pray, is the SAS for then?

The best way to avoid having to take on “government contracts” is to behave normally….


David Davis

…and not “observe gender and race quotas“. Harriet Hardbint I am sure is a Tory sleeper. She has been “in place” for years, if not decades – it has been a really really clever strategy, and she has never ever been outed.

Well, that’s nice.


David Davis

The supreme leader is re-elected unanimously.

Nightjack is shutting shop, but there’s still lots to say


David Davis

There are, some say, 130 million blogs. I have no idea, and it doesn’t matter really, for 129,900,000 are read by one person a day, and you can guess who. I don’t even bother with “David Davis” and “Ordure! Ordure!” – not yet anyway, for I write nothing there at this time, being busy enough with this one. (We do try to think about what to write, you know.)

But via The Landed Underclass, our primary eyes and ears in the foremast director position, for he spends much time there, and from whom we learned first I think about Nightjack. Nightjack states that he now has said everything he thinks he ought to, and has other plans, such as a book which is fair enough – he does have a job to hold down too.

Says Nightjack:-

It is still fun but  I have now written  down everything that I think is worth me writing. In some areas I am conscious that I am starting to repeat myself.  If I keep on going I believe that I will end up spending the next year or so attack blogging the government rather than blogging about policing.  I don’t want to be all about that. There are plenty of other people doing that better already.

But, attack-blogging the government will provide everyone who wants to, and more besides, with more than enough material, almost for ever….sadly. In an ideal world, none of us liberal blggers would need to do what we do: we could become rich instead by selling things people want to buy, such as electricity, burgers deep-fried in goose-fat, tungsten, cars, steel, space-rockets, cigarettes, and sex. Furthermore, if we do not attack-blog the government, stridently, enthusiastically and with relentless ferocity, then it and lookers-on will start to think that it is winning, and we are losing heart.

Governments know, with perfect clarity, what they are doing, and they are doing it all, without exception, on purpose. They are composed of GramscoFabiaNazis, which is the sort of person who wants to be a GoverNazi – and that’s it, just it.  And thus everything is pre-planned and pre-agreed by them, from the first places where they meet each other: for these are astonishingly bright people we are up against, and not only that, but they have been to the finest education establishments you can buy, and have met each other and have been Eagletonized, and vulcanised, to (jack)boot (sorry.).  

For example, there was no “mistake” or “oversight”, or “error”, on the part of the husband of “Jacqui” “Smith”, a “Bair Babe”,  in claiming for whatever passed as “pornography”: it was claimed for deliberately, to check if it would get through, so that other MPs would know thereafter that they could do it also, and that this sort of expense would pass. There is no other reason – as the bugger is the Home Secretary, and his wife the “Bair Babe” sits in Parliament and does his wishes, this must have been the plan.

Nightjack’s loss to us in The Line is sad: his perspective as a proper Serving Police Officer was useful and illuminating, but his ceasing to write will not be a disaster. Others will come. But if you have any favourite Nightjack posts, I guess you’d better copy-paste them down to your Type Writing Machine as soon as you can, for as he says, his blog will self-destruct in not many days, as they do.

Electronic search terms;

Babes; Blair; parliament; guy fawkes; police; right to roam; farming; common fisheries policy; silver iodide; rain; acid; road access; education;

I have more GCSE science and maths papers issued under New Labour


UPDATE1:- Teachers want a day off “for admin“….yep, you’ve guessed it – it’s the GramscoMarxiaNUT.

And here’s a comparison paper from 1957:-

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=old+O+level+papers+university+of+london+1957&btnG=Search&meta=

(Sorry about the above – I could not separate the top item on that search from the rest of the googlepage.)

Try this here:-

o_level_1957

http://www.btinternet.com/~mathsanswers/html/o_level_papers.html

David Davis

We got a pingback this morning from Whoops, about the state-denial of dumbing-down, within State-directed education syllabuses. They quoted The Devil, and I have added Obotheclown, as secondary sources of comment about whta we said.

Here are some more papers you might like to try on an intelligent, home-educated 10-year-old from China, or indeed such a person from the UK who may be the same age or just a tiny bit older – there are some.

 

This is the “unit 3″ paper (“higher”), taken by fairly bright 16-year-olds. Not that many get this far:

http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/gcse/qp-ms/AQA-PHY3H-W-QP-JAN08.PDF

And this is the “mark scheme”:-

http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/gcse/qp-ms/AQA-PHY3H-W-MS-JAN08.PDF

This is a “unit 2″ paper (“higher”) – probably a larger proportion of candidates would take this one:

http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/gcse/qp-ms/AQA-PHY2H-W-QP-JUN08.PDF

And this is its “mark scheme”:-

http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/gcse/qp-ms/AQA-PHY2H-W-MS-JUN08.PDF

I fully expect that John Band will scrag me. But he cannot deny that these papers contain facile and shallow questions, glibly skating over real science, and which are about largely non scientific material, substantially answerable without having to understand anything more than the very basic equations of Newtonian mechanics….or worse.

Is Harriet Harman a concealed classical liberal after all?


While you think about that one, here’s the earth rotating:-

David Davis

The article here by Jeff Randall poses an interesting and humorous conundrum.

But I doubt that he is right: the woman is merely a particularly thick-skinned and galumphing form of leftist, sadly prodiced in rather larger quantities than were ever needed, through Keynesianly-distorted mechanisms of supply-and-demand management, and large errors in stock-control methods.

I’m a bit late with poor old nigel Farage, but here he is, ripping yet another outfall-pipe in the Prime Minister:-

Enjoy Daniel Hannan one more time, tearing another hole in Gordon Brown:-

Death by paper cut.


Mummylonglegs

It’s Me, Mummy. Mr D has only gone and asked me to rant on here as well. This Mummy is very, very flattered. So here is my first post on The Libertarian Alliance : BLOG.

Who does this sound like?………..

“It is unacceptable that the pursuit of targets was repeatedly prioritised, alongside endless managerial change and a ‘closed’ culture, which failed to admit and deal with things going wrong.”

Sounds like a description of the Labour government to me. Unfortunately this is a description of Stafford Hospital which is run by Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust. The actual statement said……..

“It is unacceptable that the pursuit of targets – not the safety of patients – was repeatedly prioritised, alongside endless managerial change and a ‘closed’ culture, which failed to admit and deal with things going wrong.”

Can you spot the difference?.

This is a shocking but not very surprising story. What the hell did Alan Johnson expect? For the last 12 years Labour have messed around with the NHS and have just about destroyed it. Why? How? Because they could. No other reason really. Because they are control freaks. Because they think if you set a target and tick a box every thing will be just fine. Because they think that the NHS can be run like a private Doctors surgery, maximum profit for minimum out put. Because tax payers money/NI contributions are an endless pot to be dipped into, as and when you need it. Because not one of the idiots that dreamt up the million and one targets/tick boxes/schemes/ideas/drives that will bring this institution to it’s knees has ever set foot in an NHS hospital, let alone been treated in one. They don’t use NHS GP’s, NHS Polyclinics, NHS Nurse Quacktitioners, NHS Direct, NHS Dentists, NHS Paramedics, NHS Ambulances, NHS Midwives, NHS Mental Health Services. In fact they don’t use anything NHS at all. They go to Harley Street, they go to The Priory, they go to The Portland Hospital, they go to the States, they go private, they go anywhere but to the NHS. I wonder why?

Lets fisk shall we………….

It said there were deficiencies at “virtually every stage” of emergency care and said managers pursued targets at the detriment of patient care – Managers, not Doctors, not Nurses. Managers chased targets. Managers forced their staff to obey these targets, regardless. Targets set by who? ah Labour.

Mr Johnson said: “On behalf of the government and the NHS I would like to apologise to the patients and families of patients who have suffered because of the poor standards of care at Stafford Hospital”. - Sorry seems to be the word of the week. Nice of you to apologise on behalf of the hospital, Mr Johnson, How about apologising on behalf of all those that ‘Targeted’ this Hospital right into the ground?

“There was a complete failure of management to address serious problems and monitor performance. This led to a totally unacceptable failure to treat emergency patients safely and with dignity”. – It’s them pesky Managers again.

Its report cited low staffing levels, inadequate nursing, lack of equipment, lack of leadership, poor training and ineffective systems for identifying when things went wrong. – Let’s look at this bit here. Low staffing levels – Why?, you have money, employ staff. S*** nursing – that’ll be because Nurses don’t nurse anymore, they quacktition. So nursing is left to Non-nurses aka Plebs. Lack of equipment – again why? Lack of leadership – that’ll be even worse now, since you sacked most of the Doctors (MTAS etc). Poor training – well what can I say, we have Plebs doing nursing, Nurses doing doctoring, Doctors doing nothing cos they can’t get a job and Sally from accounts running the whole s*** and shebang. They are all trained, but they are doing jobs that don’t relate to their training – duh, it’s not rocket science.

It said that:

  • Unqualified receptionists carried out initial checks on patients arriving at the accident and emergency department - Receptionists are not Nurses.
  • Heart monitors were turned off in the emergency assessment unit because nurses did not know how to use them - What Nurses?, they are too busy being quacktitioners, I think you mean Plebs.
  • There were not enough nurses to provide proper care - All the Nurses were on 4 week courses learning how to do the job of a Doctor, can’t blame the Nurses, they weren’t there. So it must have been the Plebs (or the Managers).
  • The trust’s management board did not routinely discuss the quality of care - Who would they discuss it with, the Doctors are unemployed, the Nurses are on quacktitioner courses so that just leaves the Plebs. And most of them don’t speak English.
  • Patients were “dumped” into a ward near A&E without nursing care so the four-hour A&E waiting time could be met - And who’s fault is that. Did the Managers, Doctors, Nurses or Plebs come up with these targets. No. Labour did.
  • There was often no experienced surgeon in the hospital during the night - There was often no experienced ANYBODY in the hospital at night. Or during the day for that matter. You could have had a squillion surgeons but with no Doctors or Nurses to make initial diagnosis they would have been pretty idle.

The trust’s chairman Toni Brisby and chief executive Martin Yeates resigned earlier this month. The interim chief executive, Eric Morton, said lessons had been learned and that staffing levels had been increased. - It appears that neither Tony or Martin were Doctors, I am certain if they were they would have had Dr before their names, but they may just be shy. If so Eric is the shy type aswell. He doesn’t appear to be a Doctor either, but hey, that’s cool. You don’t really need to be a Doctor to understand how to run a medical facility do you. As long as you hire more Plebs staff it’s cool isn’t it.

The health secretary added: “The new leadership of the trust will respond to every request from relatives and carry out an independent review of their case notes. This will be an essential step to put relatives’ minds at rest and to close this regrettable chapter in the hospital’s past.” - Oh, with 400 cases on the books, and quite possibly many hundreds/thousands more to come it sounds like Eric isn’t gonna have much time left to actually run ANYTHING.

So, what have we learnt from Mummies Fisk. Well I think it is safe to say that Labour has F***** the NHS. Big Time. I could extend this fisk to all other aspects of the NHS. GP’s, Dentists, Emergency Peeps etc but it would just take too long.

I know that out there in the blogosphere there is a list of pointless NHS jobs, many peeps posted it up a while ago but for the life of me I cannot find it now, Sorry. If some one has this link, please could you give it to me. After 12 years of Labour the NHS has a multitude of Managers and Plebs but not many peeps that understand the whole medical/caring side of the NHS. And it is very sad, and it results in stuff like this.

I am not a medical person, but I got into blogging via the likes of

Dr Crippen

Tom Reynolds

Stuart Gray

Mark Myers

Spence Kennedy

and of course last, but by no means least, the very lovely, very funny, very georgous in pink tights,

Kal

These guys are on the Front Line of what is left of the NHS. Every day and every night. If you take a moment to check their Bloggs you will find out that this problem is not just in Stafford Hospital, it’s in the NHS as a whole. Those that work the Front Line hate it. Those that work the Front Line get up every day to do their jobs. They do it because they care. And no amount of Managers, Quacktitioners or Plebs will ever be able to replace those Front Liners, so please Labour, stop trying to.

Nice Message to Mr D – I hope this is ok. If there are any problems with this please edit as you see fit, I reckon the only bit I may have messed up was the Do it in Dark Blue, Italic.’ I couldn’t understand this bit so I put my name, Mummy, made it Italic and then linked it to my blogg. If this is not what you meant, please change it. Thank you for letting me be a Guest Blogger here. I hope you will ‘have me again’

Mummy x

p.s I think I remove all the swear words.

New writer joins Blog….yep another one….identity to be know shortly…


David Davis

Yup, here we go….

Thought so…. It’s Mummylonglegs, of “And There Was Me Thinking…” who has very, very, very kindly agreed to rant for us, here, from time to time, when it pleases her so to do. 

She’s a trooper, and therefore likes this sort of stuff. So buy her one, please – we can’t afford to although we’d like to help.

Do go and see her own stuff too. Here’s her take on minimum enforced State Prices for alcoholic drinks – that’s booze to you and me…

My old joke, borrowed fromPeter Simple in the 1970s and used on here when I want to irritate people, about  £50  bottles of  “State Wine-Substitute”, is becoming all too frighteningly real.

The point of libertarianism: relevant contemplation by The Devil


David Davis

Please read the entire thing. Libertarianism _must_ win, or humanity is doomed.

War on drugs


End it now, says liberal Conspiracy.

David Davis

We couldn’t agree more. Tip Guido.

Worrying stuff


We have been alerted to this by an Ian Parker-Joseph piece, flagged also by The Landed Underclass. As many foreign readers as possible had better know what’s going on and rumbling suspiciously under the surface here. This must be before the BBC (and other almost equally-reprehensible News channels) tell them something quite different in their usual oily authoritarian tone.

Bloggers, and especially liberal and libertarian ones, are specially sensitive people, reading a lot as one does, and also ignoring – largely – the MsM, which we find to be increasingly unhelpful and useless as a real information source. We have sensed tension “in the air” for some time now.

Dungeekin had a go at this idea also, back-end of last year. And Legiron, on 26th February, warned people _not to_ riot or even “take to the streets”, as this would give the British régime just the excuse it wanted in order to invoke all its “special powers” it has awarded itself while everyone’s back was turned. you have to wonder where the Queen stands in all this – not that there’s any hope she could arrest the seemingly inevitable course of events which we now mostly suspect.

(I don’t know why that’s all underlined, and I can’t get rid of the underscoring, sorry.)

We guess that what should be done, to anyone who is ostensibly _not_ some form of “Interior Ministry Troops” and who appears to be trying to stir up trouble, is this: that they should immediately be bundled by five or six burly brickies into the nearest white van, and taken somewhere quiet, in order to spend a period of reflection in the company of people determined to find the truth. Although the future life of the brickies may be nasty and short, at least information will be gained about what is to be faced.

Corruption and politicizing of GCSE “science”, in favour of Gramsco-Marxianism.


David Davis

I am obliged to An Englishman’s Castle for bringing to wider notice some ideas I have been banging on about for some time: since the “New” GCSE science syllabuses his the schools in September 2006. The “updated and relevant” “syllabus” consists mostly of repetition of prevailing orthodoxy about issues such as GM foods, global warming, stem cell research, MMR vaccination, the placing of mobile phone masts, and the like.

It’s worth reading the entire thing by the student. preferably before Tomes Online takes it down, as it is wont to do with stuff that gets up the noses of the Enemy Class. In fact I will save it just in case, and it’s here to save time:-

 

February 26, 2009

Can we please have less politics in our GCSE’s: a plea from a 16 year old…..

XXXXXXX is 16. He’s about to do his GCSEs and hopes to study Latin, German, Further Maths and English or History at A Level (so he’s no slouch). After that, he’s thinking of studying Classics and Modern Languages at University. But he’s not happy with the school curriculum, and was inspired to write for School Gate after the Cambridge Primary Review criticised the restrictions for children at a younger age. He thinks that there’s too much politics, that these are pushing out proper learning, and that social issues are being pushed far too hard…

So, over to Joe:

“In recent years, it seems that the school curricula are featuring more and more in public debate. There was considerable press coverage of a study last week which revealed that in primary education, the focus has been steered away from the arts and humanities leaving children “tied to their desks” struggling with the nine times table. The report claims this has “squeezed out” other areas of learning, rendering children’s artistic capacities under-developed and neglected. Furthermore, the report claims not only that the curriculum has been narrowed, but that what remains has become heavily “politicised”.

As a current GCSE student, I can identify with this “politicisation”. It seems to me as if the GCSE curricula, above all for science, no longer focus on understanding the subject. The core biology science curriculum now calls for very little knowledge of the biology that we had studied in the years preceding GCSE, but seems to be a governmental attempt to raise awareness of current social issues. For example, section A of the core biology exam concentrates on contraception, drugs, alcohol, smoking, obesity, anorexia and the MMR vaccines, whilst section B tackles broader issues such as global warming, GM crops, creationism vs Darwinism and alternative energy sources.

Perhaps this is the best solution to the some of the social problems that Britain faces today. Maybe through education, education and education, Labour may finally succeed in reducing teenage pregnancies, child obesity and begin to steer Britain towards a greener way of life. 
Perhaps indeed, learning about the advantages and disadvantages of wind and solar power is vastly more useful to the average sixteen year old than a full understanding of the differences between prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells. In this way, the younger generation may begin to have a much clearer idea of current affairs, enabling us to partake more readily in the critical issues of the day, making us more informed voters and leaders of tomorrow.

An important aspect of the “politicisation” of the curriculum is the use of exams. Not only are the social issues agenda studied in class, but students must take exams on these topics, requiring an in depth analysis of the themes, and also meaning that students’ grades at GCSE depend on their knowledge of the subject in hand, encouraging a much more motivated and engaged learning process.

However, one of the key problems with sitting exams about topics of this nature is that the exam board are required to write mark schemes clearly detailing the answers that they want within a rigid framework. This leaves no room for debate on the part of the student, meaning that instead of producing insightful, perceptive and interesting answers, pupils tend towards putting down what they think the mark scheme is most likely to have as an acceptable response. For example, in a question about embryo screening, the advantage of screening embryos in accordance to the mark scheme was to reduce health care costs for the parents. I found it a little disconcerting, if not positively concerning, to discover that my answer that it would improve the quality of life for the child, did not feature. Is it right to present these issues to pupils in such a way that they are blinkered into one channel of thought? Is it not more productive to allow pupils to debate current affairs in such a way that they are able to access all viewpoints and form their own opinions? Arguably, the government is now more concerned with indoctrination than discussion.

In my view, it must be asked if the science curriculum is really the right place for these social issues to be debated and taught. Indeed, if education is really the process by which someone’s innate intelligence is led out, then perhaps topical issues should be addressed elsewhere. Arguably, in the hours that we spend in full time education, it is more important to develop an understanding of the basics of the world around us; to understand the science behind the issues as opposed to an awareness of the actual issues, and indeed problems, that science can both cause and solve.

Furthermore, those who are employed to teach Biology, Chemistry and Physics may well become frustrated by the deviance of the curriculum from their chosen subject. Thus, their passion for the subject, presumably because of which they chose teaching in the first place, diminishes. Can pupils really find a topic which frustrates their teachers engaging?

For the pupils, this intervention and politicisation can become annoyingly transparent. Having studied global warming in all three sciences, Geography, English, French, German and Spanish, I have found that its initial shock has now ceased to have an impact. The topic has become stale, and my will to change for the better has been weakened.

There is no doubt that there are a number of social issues, concerning young people, which need to be addressed in one way or another. My question is whether GCSE science is really the place for it. Maybe PSHE is a more obvious option, but the problem is that PSHE is not regarded with anywhere near the same level of importance. I think that as young people, we do need to understand the current topics being debated, but it is possibly more beneficial to be invited to participate seriously in balanced discussion, as opposed to having to show we know the effects of smoking in part b) of question nine.”

Read School Gate on:

How secondary schools stop kids from being creative

Should we have academic selection at 14?

Why do so many bright teenagers drop out of education?

POSTED AT 09:03 AM IN EXAMSSECONDARY SCHOOL |PERMALINK

More on Sean Gabb speech to Conservative-Future: trenchant comment


David Davis

I take the liberty of using this comment (freely available on the thread for this post) as a new post:-

And here’s me been trying to impose a commenting moratorium on myself. Oh well, here I go again.

Sean’s prescription for what to do when power is gained, while perhaps or perhaps not perfect in the detail, is a good one, and is the kind of thought experiment which may bring one temporary cheer. However it does not (nor, one must absolutely acknowledge attempt to) answer the question of how such a position may be gained. As such it is much like discussing which stars to visit in a starship, while ignoring the hard problem, which is how to build a warp drive.

The problem is that by not discussing in the same breath the gaining of that position, we overlook the fundamentally recursive nature of the discussion. If a government of libertarians, or of “the right” (I dispute that label, but let us let it pass for now) or of “real conservatives” (I dispute that even more as I said before) has gained office in our thought experiment, then the war is already won. That which should be done by such government then becomes a trifle, as it will have the authority to do whatever it wishes.

Unless it has gained power by subterfuge, rather than gained office by honest campaigning, this imaginary government has already told the populace that it will slash government to ribbons, immediately leave the EU, abolish the BBC, hound the enemy out of local government, strangle all the quangos and so on. It can only thus gain office if it has the support of the majority of those citizens who care. To achieve that, it must have gained a cultural hegemony and, more significantly a moral hegemony.

It will have become moral to support small government and immoral to support big government. It will have become moral to support tax cuts, to despise the enemy class, and so on.

To achieve the initial conditions for such a libertian cultural revolution, the public morality must have already become libertarian, rather than the current secular evangelical statism.

This is the Hard Problem, and it would seem at this juncture to be entirely intractable, since altering the moral hegemony requires cultural hegemony, while the cultural hegemony is driven by the moral hegemony.

What is oft mistakenly believed is that the statists/Left/whatever invaded the institutions- government, education etc, from outside. This is not true. There were always socialists inside the elite; indeed it is an elite project and always was. We, on the other hand, have no insiders; and the defenders against whom we wish to move are entirely alert to the possibility of any counterhegemonic entryism and are thus able to nullify it before it gains purchase. The Hard Problem is thus profoundly hard. 

Sean Gabb: Speech to Conservative Future


Groan:- I don’t know what that smiley is doing there, but I can’t remove it. It’s none of my doing.

UPDATE3:-Please read this response-post, and _in particular_ the comment posted thereupon by an informed member of the blogateriat.

UPDATE2:- Here’s Sean Gabb’s thoughts earlier this year on holocaust denial, a hot subject.

Earlier comment from Blogmaster just after main post filed:-

(1) A direct link from the young Conservatives, who were kind enough to report the event charitably, is here.

(2)  This post by Sean is not for the faint-hearted: that is to say, those who may quail when the real assaults finally come. The prognosis for liberty in the UK is not currently good, and may not get better.

I have just read this on another forum, and would have published it unilaterally had not Sean Gabb done so already. You will find, on reading down, that the floor-response to Sean’s address was not as positive as a rational person would have hoped from today’s Tories, in Britain, embattled as they seem not to realise – or else prefer not to know, and pretend that all will be well if only they take power.

I think we can expect that, on ZanuNewLieborg being thrown out, as they will be, but not decisively (as we fear) then the British Conservative Party will remain a less certain but still definite enemy of individual liberty. this was not always the case as Sean points out. But it is now.

Free Life Commentary,
A Personal View from
The Director of the Libertarian Alliance
Issue Number 181
16th February 2009
Linking url: http://www.seangabb.co.uk/flcomm/flc181.htm

Text of a Speech to Conservative Future,
Given in The Old Star Public House, Westminster,
Monday the 16th February 2009
by Sean Gabb

I’d like to begin by praising your courage in having me here tonight to speak to you. I am the Director of an organisation that tried hard during the 1980s to take over the youth movement of the Conservative Party. The Libertarian Alliance provided a home and other support for Marc-Henri Glendenning, David Hoile and Douglas Smith, among others, when it looked as if libertarians might do the same to the Conservative Party as the Trotskyites nearly did to the Labour Party. Sadly, our efforts failed. Since then, the Conservative Party has become more watchful of people like us. It has also, I must say, made itself progressively less worth trying to take over.

I did say that I would come here and be rude to you. But that would be a poor thanks for your hospitality. Besides, while your party leadership has consistently ignored my advice during the past twelve years – and has, in consequence, been out of office during this time – there is no point in dwelling on what might have been. We are where we are, and I think it would be useful for me very briefly to outline my advice to a future Conservative Government.

Now, this is not advice to the Government that looks set to be formed within the next year or so my David Cameron. I may be wrong. It is possible that Mr Cameron is a much cleverer and more Machiavellian man that I have ever thought him, and that he plans to make radical changes once in office. But I do not think he is. I think what little he is promising to do is the very most that he will do. In any event, he is doing nothing to acquire the mandate without which radical change would lack legitimacy. And so this is advice that I offer to some future government of conservatives, rather than to any prospective Conservative Government. It may even be a government formed by the people in this room.

My first piece of advice is to understand the nature of your enemy. If you come into government, you will be in at least the same position as Ramsay MacDonald, when he formed the first Labour Government in the 1920s. He faced an Establishment that was broadly conservative. The administration, the media, the universities, big business – all were hostile to what it was believed he wanted to do. The first Labour Governments were in office, but not fully in power, as they were not accepted by the people with whom and through whom they had to rule the country. To a lesser degree, Clement Attlee and Harold Wilson faced the same constraints. A future Conservative Government will find much the same.

Over the past few generations, a new Establishment or ruling class has emerged in this country. It is a loose coalition of politicians, bureaucrats, educators, media people and associated business interests. These are people who derive income and status from an enlarged and activist state. They have been turning this country into a soft-totalitarian police state. They are not always friendly to a Labour Government. But their natural political home is the Labour Party. They will accept a Conservative Government on sufferance – but only so long as it works within a system that robs ordinary people of their wealth and their freedom. They will never consent to what should be the Conservative strategy of bringing about an irreversible transfer of power from the State back into the hands or ordinary people.

A Cameron Government, as I have said, seems willing to try coexistence with the Establishment. The Thatcher Government set out to fight and defeat an earlier and less confident version of the Establishment – but only on those fronts where its policies were most resisted. It won numerous battles, but, we can now see, it lost the war. For example, I well remember the battle over abolition of the Greater London Council. This appeared at the time a success. But I am not aware of one bureaucrat who lost his job at the GLC who was not at once re-employed by one of the London Boroughs or by some other agency of the State. And we know that Ken Livingstone was eventually restored to power in London.

If you want to win the battle for this country, you need to take advice from the Marxists. These are people whose ends were evil where not impossible. But they were experts in the means to their ends. They knew more than we have ever thought about the seizure and retention of power. I therefore say this to you. If you ever do come to power, and if you want to bring about the irreversible transfer of power to ordinary people, you should take to heart what Marx said in 1871, after the failure of the Paris Commune: �the next attempt of the French Revolution will be no longer, as before, to transfer the bureaucratic-military machine from one hand to another, but to smash it, and this is the precondition for every real people�s revolution�.�

The meaning of this is that you should not try to work with the Establishment. You should not try to jolly it along. You should not try fighting it on narrow fronts. You must regard it as the enemy, and you must smash it.

On the first day of your government, you should close down the BBC. You should take it off air. You should disclaim its copyrights. You should throw all its staff into the street. You should not try to privatise the BBC. This would simply be to transfer the voice of your enemy from the public to the private sector, where it might be more effective in its opposition. You must shut it down – and shut it down at once. You should do the same with much of the administration. The Foreign Office, much of the Home Office, the Commission for Racial Equality, anything to do with health and safety and planning and child protection – I mean much of the public sector – these should be shut down. If at the end of your first month in power, you have not shut down half of the State, you are failing. If you have shut down half the State, you have made a step in the right direction, and are ready for still further cuts.

Let me emphasise that the purpose of these cuts would not be to save money for the taxpayers or lift an immense weight of bureaucracy from their backs – though they would do this. The purpose is to destroy the Establishment before it can destroy you. You must tear up the web of power and personal connections that make these people effective as an opposition to radical change. If you do this, you will face no more clamour than if you moved slowly and half-heartedly. Again, I remember to campaign against the Thatcher “cuts”. There were no cuts, except in the rate of growth of state spending. You would never have thought this from the the torrent of protests that rolled in from the Establishment and its clients. And so my advice is to go ahead and make real cuts – and be prepared to set the police on anyone who dares riot against you.

I fail to see how you would face any electoral problems with this approach. Most Conservative voters would welcome tax cuts and a return to freedom. As for those who lost their jobs, they do not, nor ever will, vote Conservative.

Following from this, however, I advise you to leave large areas of the welfare state alone. It is regrettable, but most people in this country do like the idea of healthcare free at the point of use, and of free education, and of pensions and unemployment benefit. These must go in the long term. But they must be retained in the short term to maintain electoral support. Their cost and methods of provision should be examined. But cutting welfare provision would be politically unwise in the early days of our revolution.

I have already spoken longer than I intended. But one more point is worth making. This is that we need to look again at our constitutional arrangements. The British Constitution has always been a fancy dress ball at which ordinary people were not really welcome, but which served to protect the life, liberty and property of ordinary people. Some parts of this fancy dress ball continue, but they no longer serve their old purpose. They are a fig leaf for an increasingly grim administrative despotism. I was, until recently, a committed monarchist. I now have to admit that the Queen has spent the past half century breaking her Coronation Oath at every opportunity. The only documents she has ever seemed reluctant to sign are personal cheques. Conservatives need to remember that our tradition extends not only through Edmund Burke to the Cavaliers, but also through Tom Paine to Oliver Cromwell. We live in an age where it is necessary to be radical to be conservative.

But I have now spoken quite long enough, and I am sure you have much to say in response. I therefore thank you again for your indulgence in having invited me and the politeness with which you have heard me.

[A combination of silence and faint applause]

Comment 1: You accuse the Conservatives of having ignored you for twelve years. From what you have just said, it is a good thing you were ignored. Under David Cameron’s leadership, we have a Conservative Party that is now positively desired by the people. Your advice is and would have been a recipe for permanent opposition.

Response: I disagree. There is no positive desire for a Conservative Government. If there were, the polls would be showing a consistent fifty point lead or something. What we have is a Labour Government that is so dreadful that I have trouble thinking what could be worse.

[In a private conversation before my speech, I said that the Labour Party had turned out to be about as bad in government as the Green Party or the British National Party or Sinn Fein.]

There are two ways of doing politics. One is to listen to focus groups and opinion polls, and offer the people what they claim to want. The other is to stand up and tell them what they ought to want, and to keep arguing until the people agree that they want it, or until it is shown not to be worth wanting. I think I know what sort of politicians will run the next Conservative Government. What sort of politicians do you want to be?

Comment 2 [from an Irishman]: What you are saying means that the country would be without protection against obvious evils. With no child protection services, children would be abused and murdered. Without planning controls, the countryside would soon be covered with concrete. Without planning controls, cities like Manchester would be far less attractive places.

I will also say, as an Irishman, that I am offended by your reference to Oliver Cromwell, who was a murderer and tyrant. You cannot approve of this man.

Response: You have been taken in by the Establishment’s propaganda. This is to insist that we live with vast structures of oppression, or that we must accept the evils they are alleged to curb. I say that that these structures do not curb any evils, but instead create evils of their own. We have, for example, seventy thousand social workers in this country. They appear to have done a consistently rotten job at protecting the few children who need protecting. instead, they are taking children away from grandparents to give to strangers, and are setting the police onto dissenting ministers who allow their children to climb onto the roof. None of this should be surprising. The Children Act and other laws have created a bureaucratic sausage machine that must somehow be filled. I say let it be destroyed along with all else that is evil in our system of government.

[What I might have said, but was too polite to say: As for Oliver Cromwell, he was one of the greatest Englishmen who ever lived. It is partly thanks to him that we have just had around three centuries of freedom and political stability. When you refer to his actions in Ireland, you are repeating Fenian propaganda. What he did in Ireland has been exaggerated by the enemies of England, and in any event was in keeping with the customs of war universally admitted in his own time. If you want to throw an offended fit every time an Englishman in London praises an English hero to other Englishmen, you should consider moving to Dublin where all the letter boxes have been painted a reassuring green, and your own national sensitivities never need be offended again.]

Comment 3: All you speak about is winning and the destruction of enemies. Yet you are willing to consider keeping the welfare state. You are nothing but an unprincipled trouble maker. Thank God the Conservative Party no longer has any place for people like you.

Response: If we were facing the sort of Labour Government we had under Clement Attlee and Harold Wilson, you would be right. However, we have an Establishment that has already given us the beginnings of a totalitarian police state. Today, for example, the authorities will start collecting details of every telephone call, text and e-mail sent in this country. Children are about to have their details stuffed into a giant database that will enable them to be monitored by the authorities until they are adults – and probably through their entire lives. We live in a country were privacy is being abolished. Speech is increasingly unfree. The police are out of control. Everything is getting rapidly worse, and it is easy to see the end state that is desired, or total control.

If a government of radical conservatives ever does take power, it will have one attempt at saving this country. That means radical and focussed actions from day one. Anything less than this, and it will fail. I am suggesting a revolution – but this is really a counter-revolution against what has already been proceeding for at least one generation. If we are to beat the heirs of Marx, we must learn from Marx himself.

Comment 4: You are wasting our time with all this radical preaching. People do not want to hear about how they are oppressed by the Establishment, and how this must be destroyed. What they want to hear is that taxes are too high, that the money is being wasted, and that there are ways to protect essential public services with lower taxes. That is why the Taxpayers’ Alliance has been so much more prominent than the Libertarian Alliance. We must have nothing to do with the ranting lunatics of the Libertarian Alliance.

Response: You may have a desire for electoral success that I do not share. But I am the better politician. All debate is perceived as taking place on a spectrum that has a centre and two extremes. If the Libertarian Alliance did not exist, the relevant spectrum would simply reconfigure itself with the Taxpayers’ Alliance at one extreme, and the centre would be still less attractive than it now is. Since most people consciously take centrist positions, it is in your interest – regardless of whether I am right – to say what I do. It makes you and your friends moderate in relation to me.

[At this point, some unfortunate woman began screeching that I was a fascist, and the debate came to an end.]

[I normally like to comment on these events once I have described them. I think, however, the above stands by itself.]

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 http://tinyurl.com/34e2o3

Czars, inept stalinist-collectivist western governments, and spin. Who will over-Czar the Czars?


David Davis

I had been wondering about this very problem for some time, until I came accidentally across this post on Manhattan Capital. I have no clue what Manhattan Capital is generally about, but if they are scurrilously ironic about today’s Western (should be but aren’t) liberal governments and their fixation with “appearing to do something about” “problems” by appointing “Czars”, then they are on the right side.

I couldn’t resist reprinting it:-

Über Czar to be Renamed

By Jennifer Kerfuffle, Universal News Co, Feb. 11, 2008. 1.1PM

The Federal Agency for Renaming Solutions, which is working overtime to find a more attractive title for the bank bailout program TARP, will also tackle the task of renaming the Czar Czar—the Czar that rules over all other Czars. 

The office of the US Czar Czar was recently created to oversee the exponentially growing army of czars appointed to control all aspects of existence. The czars are being given distinctive names, such as Autocrat for the Car Czar, Munarch for the Municipal Bond Czar, Bail Boss for the Bank Czar and Morticia for the Mortgage Czarina. 

“Our staff is working 24 hours a day searching for appropriate names,” said Snaky Mox, the director of FARS. “These are very complex issues for which there is no precedent, so we need to be free to make judgment calls along the way.”

One possible new name for the Czar Czar has cropped up in the blogosphere, where several stories were posted to the effect that FARS has already decided on the new title, which is to be Cza Cza Gabor. 

Ms. Mox said she cannot comment because new names have to get security clearance before they can be made public. She says malicious clones are spreading rumors that are not true, such as the rumor that the Space Czar is named Captain Kirk. FARS announced yesterday that the Space Czar will in fact be named The Great Big Head. 

State camera blatancy: the gloves come off


The Landed Underclass published this yesterday. On the basis several other bloggers and we here think it’s astonishingly perceptive, it will probably go viral on the interweb thingy before long. But with Sir’s permission, we happily republish it in full and unedited here:-

The following:-

©The Landed Underclass,  http://landedunderclass.wordpress.com 2009

BLATANCY AWARD (live linked back in title, for originator)

One of the advantages of living in the country is that one is unlikely to encounter anything like this [the Times, found by the outraged Obnoxio]:

The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) has approved a new generation of cameras that are linked wirelessly and operate in clusters, meaning that speeding drivers will be caught whichever route they take across a wide area… they read numberplates automatically and transmit data instantly to a penalty-processing centre… They are harder to vandalise than Gatso cameras because they are suspended from arms on six-metre poles.

Quite apart from the vandalism aspect (ain’t any of you all heard of a lariat?) there is the usual difficulty.

Valley Bottom is a sedate bit of road, and only about six feet wide by the sheep field, but it is not a cul-de-sac. Once in a while one of the local youths drives along it, as fast as he possibly can, a rusty Citroën Saxo (or it might be a Fiat Punto; all this car talk is really rather soiling, isn’t it?), its intrinsic gasps, rattles, squeaks and waterpump scarcely competing with the exhaust, which instead of a silencer now has part of an euphonium attached to it, and the stereo, the alternator loading of which being the reason why the car can manage no more than 58mph (at 139dB(A)/10m).

Because the driver has (as is his wont) omitted such petit-bourgeois poltroonery as insurance, driving licence and vehicle registration, it will not matter if he is on every visit tracked from low Earth orbit by some huge American spy satellite. Nothing will happen to him; it never does, thanks, no doubt, to his customary precaution of having different number plates, stolen from different cars, on each end of his ungentleman’s conveyance.

The big disadvantages of speed humps as a ‘rat-running deterrent’, or whatever, are that they cost only a modest amount to install (and generate work only for council mateys, not for shadowy surveillance-and-security companies run as sidelines, via holding companies in Switzerland and the Cayman Islands, by members of ACPO, as if policemen would ever do such a thing; for shame), they don’t generate a revenue-stream for anyone, and they might even impede official vehicles.

That the tired old chestnut of ‘global warming’ has to be trotted out to defend this desperate fundraiser probably indicates roughly how blatant it is.

Obnoxio:

More lamp-posts, more piano wire! Will there be enough?

If I may say so: typical young software chap; lives in a dream world. Just you try attaching anything, my lad, let alone piano wire, to any of this modern streamlined, aluminium, low-pressure-sodium type municipal street lighting. If it doesn’t slide straight off then the wretched thing will simply buckle. What we simian, brachiating, favourite-spanner-dragging hardware types call ‘not man enough for the job’.

If this lynch-mob thing is going to work someone is going to have to do one of those GPS-assisted surveys about where to find the surviving proper, traditional, ladder-bracket-equipped, cast-iron Victorian gas-standards, with, given the nature of the beast, an SWL of about 3cwt or so (as opposed to tacky, undersized imitations thereof made in China out of monkey-metal and sold in Bodgitt & Quickley’s to people with plastic Georgian porticos, self-adhesive bullseye windowpanes and fairtrade garden gnomes), and someone else is going to have to organise some kind of booking system, doubtless computerised, for their use, otherwise it’ll be complete chaos when the time comes.

Personally I’m opposed to capital punishment. Such a waste in a case like this, when many hours of harmless family televisual entertainment (and/or a very popular website) could be had from little cameras covering the Jobcentres patronised by our erstwhile ‘leaders’. Their answers to the inevitable questions about ‘aptitudes’ might even be worth putting on the side of a bus.

Stalinist filename 3578-A/b-crat-5z.NHS.dll : “National Dementia Strategy.rtf”


David Davis

You have to wonder what the mindset is, of persons who link together these three words. “National” + “Dementia” + “Strategy”. It makes me think of dudes who work under the Ministry, in Richard Blake’s new historical novel, “The Terror of Constantinople“, to be published by Hodder & Stoughton on this coming Thursday (5th Feb 2009.)

“I thought that “national dementia” was something invented and posthumously exploited by “Princess” Diana, and then algorithmically-developed and extended by slebs and also by Peter Bazalgette, until I read the DT today.

You have to wonder what a “dementia czar” would look like, or do in his office. As regards what the Libertarian Alliance thinks about czars, we have two things to say:-

(1) We approve of czars IF and only _if_ they are autocratically appointed within and for private organisations, in which environment those who disagree are free to leave, _and_, importantly, the appointing agents are free to dismiss the czar at any time.

For example, I, the editor of this blog, am the LA Blog Czar.

(2) We disapprove of czars as they are commonly employed these days: which is to say, as used by the British State to act as fall guys and take the blame create spinnable headlines for ZanuLieborg by ordering other less powerful robots about so that it looks in the MSM as if something is being done about some intractable problem that the State has compulsively taken on.

There is something profoundly paradoxical about the left’s use of the word “czar”, considering its masturbatory obsession with the theoretical idea of democracy as it imagines what it persists in calling “people power” to be. I’d have thought that the very concept of “czar” – both as derived from the word “Caesar” which came to mean “Emperor”, and from its Imperial Russian connotations, ought to be in the same token profoundly distasteful to the Gramsco-Marxians.

Perhaps we ought to devil up a list of czars. Here’s some:-

Tech czar

http://www.boingboing.net/2008/07/29/uk-techczars-ridicul.html

it-theft czar

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/08/id_theft_czar/

drugs czar

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1184845.ece

children’s czar

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2005/nov/13/childrensservices.pupilbehaviour1

the “crime czar” wants us all to stop calling children “yobs”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/may/22/schools.ukcrime

and here’s sovereignty, which has already spotted thr tyrants of triviality:-

http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/features/eco/czars.html

and it looks like the Yanks have got a touch of Czarrhosis of the whatever, as well:-

http://artblog.net/?name=2009-01-26-08-07-czar

Rewarding Failure


How the internet will be regulated and throttled, at an ISP near you, and soon.

http://www.littlemanwhatnow.com/2009/01/payments-for-failure.html

Gramsco-Marxian bastards destroy yet more glue holding free and liberal communities together…


in Bristol, near you.

David Davis

Just read this crap:-

Sports club removes ‘sexist’ word from name

A sports club in Bristol has been forced to remove the word “boys” from its name after councillors ruled that it was sexist.

Broad Plain Boys’ Club, which has gone under the name since 1894, faced the loss of funding unless it could show it was inclusive, so submitted an alteration.

The sports club, which does now have girl members, has changed the name to Broad Plain Working With Young People Group.

Club leader Dennis Stinchcombe MBE, 53, who ran the group for 33 years, said the rebranding was “a tragedy”.

He told the Western Daily Press: “There was a lot of history in that name and we are all very disappointed we’ve been forced to change it, especially the older lads.

“We need the funding so we have to back down. We haven’t even had any additional girls coming down – it seems another case of political correctness gone mad.” (NB he must NEVER NEVER SAY THAT – for PC is _NOT_ mad: it is directed on purpose.)

The club says it has helped thousands of youngsters since it began and relies on its £11,600 of authority funding. In 2004 Mr Stinchcombe was honoured for his efforts in helping the community.

The Labour-controlled council does fund single sex clubs including the Bristol and Avon Chinese Women’s Group.

Tory leader Councillor Richard Eddy said the club had simply been “bludgeoned into submission” by the bureaucrats.

The centre also had to recruit up to two part-time female club leaders, meaning more expense, he added.

A Bristol City Council spokesman said: “The criteria is that if you want funding, you have to show that you are meeting the needs of all young people, not a specific group of people. The name change was agreed some time ago.

“It’s all about being inclusive.”

The phrase “it’s all about…..”, as used by Gramsco-Marxians, will be listed, when uttered, as a War Crime. later.

TESCO, government and markets: two (2) cheers for Sir Terry Leahy


David Davis

I am not in the pay of Tesco – really I am not – honest, guv.  But it deserves two cheers or at least its CEO Sir Terry does (not three  –  for reasons I will explain, and which Sean Gabb has explained below) for his spirited defence of Markets discovering the best way to allocate resources, as opposed to governments decreeing (see Sean again.)

I expect this piece by him was absolutely as far as his own “in-house” Communications Department apparatchiks would allow the poor bugger to go. Everyone knows of course that, to a first approximation, 99% of all “communications executives”, which is to say PR girls people, are left-leaning graduates of things currently called “universities”, who have studied “journal-ism” or “media studies”. There will be enough exceptions to prove me almost not quite totally right, so I await brickbats, but I feel that Sir Terry’s private views on these matters are stronger than he was allowed to express.

Because Tesco, and its plans for giving people what they want to buy, is the prime target for assaults by greenies and anti-shopping Stalinists (who like “local” shops and “car free town centres” – an oxymoronic position if ever I saw one) it falls to poor Sir Terry to do the defence. I urge you all of you who appreciate crypto-Stalinist circumlocution, to read the whole thing here about why the local Stalinists bureaucrats don’t want Tesco to expand an already successful store where parking is free – but want it to take a site nobody wants (it’s been empty for three years!) in a town centre nobody can park in except for money to the Soviet.

Sir Terry does not get the full three cheers, for he tries to defend Government’s action in propping up a gasping banking system, which, like Hitler’s Generals who first shunned him – then lauded him – then were in hock to him, ought to have seen through this government’s debauchment of money earlier. Then, they should of course have opposed it in the first instance – but they didn’t, so here we now are. (Like Hitler’s generals in the Bunker.)

Sean Gabb: Another Rant about the Recession


Free Life Commentary,
A Personal View from
The Director of the Libertarian Alliance
Issue Number 179
28th January 2009
Linking url: http://www.seangabb.co.uk/flcomm/flc.179

The Car Industry Bail Out:
Are There no Politicians Now Who Understand Economics?
by Sean Gabb

The British Government has just announced what may be £2,000 million of subsidies for the car industry in this country. Responses to the announcement range from gratitude that jobs and manufacturing capacity are to be saved to complaints that the subsidies do not go far enough. My reading and viewing may not be comprehensive, but I have seen nothing in the mainstream media denouncing the subsidies as at best politically motivated – much of the car industry being located in constituencies held by Labour – and at worst economically illiterate. Since the first grounds of denunciation ought, after nearly twelve years of these people, to be self-evident, I will devote myself here to the second.

We are continually told at present – which is somewhat more than usual – how government spending had created, or will create, so many jobs. Therefore, the immense expansion of the British State since 1997 has created three hundred thousand jobs or whatever. Some deplore this because most of those employed can be expected to vote Labour. Hardly anyone denies there has been a net addition to the number of employed. The same reasoning underlies all discussion of how we are to get through the recession on which we have now started.

The truth is, however, that government spending does not so much create as displace employment. Every pound spent by the Government must first be taken from the people, who cannot then spend it for themselves. If the money is taken is taken through taxes, it exactly reduces the ability of the people to spend or invest it for themselves as they wish, or to save it for transfer, via the banking system, for others to spend or invest as they wish. If the money is borrowed, it again exactly reduces the amount of money that the people can borrow to spend or invest.

It is more complex if the money is printed by the Government – or, more likely nowadays, borrowed from the banks in a fractional reserve system. But if its effects are often hard to trace until after the event, inflation is no less a tax than any other means of providing money to governments. It may reduce the actual purchasing power of money left in the hands of the people. Given the downward pressure on manufacturing costs we have seen during the past generation, inflation will at best reduce the potential purchasing power of money that already exists.

This being so, the argument that government spending creates employment relies on a blindness to the concept of opportunity cost – that every pound spent on paying one salary is a pound less to spend on another salary. Put more simply, it is a case of what Bastiat described as “what is seen and what is not seen”. We see the jobs created by the Government in it “regeneration” projects. We do not see the jobs that would otherwise have been created to supply things that people actually would have bought had the money been left in their own pockets.

For the past six months, the argument has been reinforced by the claim that government spending is needed to make up for a disinclination by others to spend or invest. This being so, it will not be a zero sum game, but will create net employment. There is no doubt that there has been a deflation. People are borrowing less and saving more. The banks have been increasing their financial reserves. But it does not follow from this admission that government spending is needed to make up the deficiency. The fall in spending is not the cause of the problems we face, but is a symptom.

For perhaps the past decade, many central banks in the rich world have kept interest rates below the level needed to balance the supply of savings and the demand for loans. When other prices are forced below their equilibrium – rent control, for example – the result is shortages. In the fractional reserve system that we nowadays have, however, pushing interest rates below their equilibrium has simply enabled the commercial banks to create money out of nothing. In the past, this would have led almost at once to price increases. This time, with most consumer goods made in countries where supply curves are very elastic, and with exchange rates only loosely related in the short term to the financing of foreign trade, and with financial and property markets able to absorb what long seemed to be limitless amounts of money, the result was a speculative bubble, in which consumer prices hardly rose, and in which most of us were persuaded that we were growing richer.

These bubbles never last. The new money is brought into being through bank lending that cannot continue forever. There comes a point where people have taken as much debt as they can service, or  where they have invested on the basis of trends that stop rising. It is then that some event that would otherwise have been overlooked becomes the excuse for a panic. The bubble bursts. Net borrowing turns negative. Prices of overbid assets fall. Prices of securities fall to the value of their underlying assets – assuming there are any that can be identified. Much investment in new capacity is shown to have been unwise.

On this reasoning, the present fall in spending is not an event in itself that needs to be and can be cured by higher government spending. What we now have is really part of a cycle that began with the artificial lowering of interest rates, and that will end with the liquidation of the unwise investments and the correction in asset prices. The British Government’s policy of trying to halt the deflation with higher spending and even lower interest rates cannot do better than lengthen the cycle during its unpleasant phase. It also increases the size of the State – which already takes far too much of our money and spends it on things we would never buy given a free choice.

But I return to the bail out of the car industry. This is not a case of limiting collateral damage. The car industry is not a fundamentally sound victim of circumstances. It is instead one of those sectors in which unwise investments were made. There is no shortage of finance for businesses that really are considered sound. Even I still receive one or two pre-approved loan offers from banks I never knew existed. If the car companies cannot borrow to maintain their working capital, it is because no one believes in their fundamental soundness. Even at the height of the boom, it was claimed that there were too many car makers, given present and future demand for cars. There will now be several years when hardly anyone with an ounce of common sense will spend money unless he must on a new car. No one seems to care if estate agents all over the country are losing their jobs. If car workers are now to lose their jobs, it is for the same reason.

Of course, there are things the Government could do and ought to do to help the car industry. These are all negative. For the past twelve years, it has been running propaganda campaigns and piling taxes and regulations that have tended to make driving less attractive than it might otherwise have been. These propaganda campaigns should be ended. The road excise and petrol duties should be cut. The cameras and yellow and red lines should be taken away. The police officers now deployed to harass drivers should be dismissed – there being, in any event, more policemen than needed to enforce the laws of a free country.

I move back now to the general difficulties we face. With increasing desperation, Gordon Brown is denouncing anyone who questions his policy of inflation as wanting to do nothing. Well, doing nothing at all would be an improvement on what he has been doing. However, there are things the Government could do. None of it would take us back straightaway to the prosperity we have lost. But it would shorten and moderate the pain that stands between us and recovery. I suggest the following:

  • The Government should balance its budget – and do so not by increasing taxes, but by spending less. This would tend to restore confidence to markets that are presently working on the assumption of a soft pound, and where default on the national debt is no longer thought impossible.
  • The Government should force all banks that have limited liability to reveal their true financial position. This would not be an interference in their private affairs, as limited liability is a privilege bringing responsibilities that may be varied as thought reasonable. This would again tend to restore confidence, and it would do more than printing money has to persuade the banks to start lending to each other.
  • The Government should return to a fully convertible gold standard. Unless otherwise contracted, it should be regarded as fraud for a banker to take a deposit and not have sufficient reserves to redeem it at once on demand. This would prevent the periodic explosions of credit that are behind the trade cycle.
  • Of course, the Government should also abolish income tax, valued added tax and excise duties. If this does not cut the tax burden by three quarters, it should abolish some other taxes. To keep the budget balanced, it should also cut spending.

I could go on, making more and more claims unlikely ever to be conceded by the British Government or any other. But the first two, plus a few cuts, would go far to shortening the recession. Sadly, even these will not be tried – not at least until the Keynesian remedies everyone wants have been tested to destruction.

Further Reading:

Murray Rothbard, America’s Great Depression
Henry Hazlitt, Economics in One Lesson
Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Credit Creation or Financial Intermediation?: Fractional-reserve Banking in a Growing Economy

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 http://tinyurl.com/34e2o3

Mr Eugenides guesting at The Devil does “climate change” wonderfully well.


Update1:- (from the Devil today 29th Jan 2009) where he picks up from Tom Nelson that more and more people are noticing the glaring contradictions and total lack of scientific rigour emanating form the warmists’ camp.

David Davis

We ought to use him to warm the planet for it will need it. Antarctica is of course getting both colder and warmer at the same moment, so the “mystery of global warming’s missing heat” is of course solved: the models predicted it all along. So pay up, taxpayer-suckers.

Not a bail-out


No, not at all, at all at all at all.

David Davis

Lord Mandyperson of Rumba of Rio, who I cannot find it in my heart to like or trust at all, although Tony my old mate insists he is very bright and interesting and I’d be charmed to have the bugger (sorry) to dinner***, is going to not bail out the UK car industry. What he has just found out is that all the workers live in Labour constituencies Pocket Boroughs, and if the same fate befalls their firms as did nearly Northern Wreck, then he’ll have some explaining to do in front of the Gorgon.

Can’t have the electorate labour voters suffering from our polices, now, can we.

***I’m sure he’d be charming to have as a dinner guest. I’d dispute amicably with him till Kingdom Come. The trouble is, I don’t know anybody else who likes or who trusts the bugger or who – more to the point – would turn up, if Mandy was scheduled to appear. He and I and Tony would have to scoff the grub ourselves.

“Celebrity-ness” analysed….


….along with “Politician-ness”, on The Landed Underclass.

David Davis

When “Landed” and I were young fellas, not only did we not know each other but also civilisation did not really contain what we now call “celebrities”. It’s true, there was The King – only briefly in my case – followed by his daughter  The Queen, and her various children who began to appear, and Sir Winston Churchill, and possibly the Queen Mother, but that was about it. Pop singers didn’t really feature in the 50s, they only earned dosh in the rather princely band of about £50 to £100 a week, and probably it was the Beatles in about, er, 1963?…who got most close to celebrity status first.

Politicians, Mr Churchill apart, who we were taught was the greatest man who had ever lived as was indeed correct with the possible exception of Barnes Wallis, were sort of, er, nowhere. They were “men in grey suits”: they were little different from the town’s librarian who stamped your books each week – whom of course nearly everybody knew by sight and name (think about it.) They just went to Parliament, and has “our interests” at heart, for us. They weren’t even paid much either.

On celebrities, their making and their breaking today: one thinks of the Incas – or was it the Mayans? (who cares?) – who sculpted all those gigantic scowling stone heads to show how advanced they were, and who publicly butchered living young men and women in bloody ways on top of very large stone structures built out of whatever was to hand. Celebrities nowadays seem to occupy the same niche, as “the people” serially worship them and then trash them a few years afterward.

The problem that Landed tries to address is why the families and children of politicians and celebrities are going to be _not_ on various “databases” which are to be set up by the State the Stalinists who tyrannise us today, and are to be for our delectation, our security and our enchainment.

Is it that politicians envy the celebrities’ perceived status, power, wealth and ability to have whatever they desire (pace the Mayans or whoever!) and therefore automatically desire the same privileges? Or is it as Old Holborn says Penguin thinks, which is that politicians have been in control of the whole process of viral-mass-idolatry all along?

Are the politicians who enslave us, been Wireless Tele Visually artificially creating phantasmal celebrities out of the fabric of real people, for some years (it coincides with the Diana-Witch-Mania and the subsequent Nationalised-synchro-Grieving-Terror that was commanded to be visited upon us all, and the real rise of the “Hello!” culture too) as a cover for themselves to hide behind, later?

The comment thread which has been allowed on Old Holborn in regard to this specific matter is, I think, vituperative and unhelpful. The State watchers will target blameless white-van-men instead of us as a result. We should approach this strategic matter in an atmosphere of calm and reasoned and cold deliberation.

RAEDWALD added


David Davis

Added here.

The Stalinist terror-drink-police will come for you next…


UPDATE:- Lots of useful links out, from The Devil, to other state fake-charities etc, specially those which castigate you for drinking more than you oughta on “at least one day a week”….disaster: all that excise tax-take, and they don’t even thank you.

David Davis

….arriving at a “supermarket” or “off-licence” near you. They’ve done the pubs, kicking them into the bloody dust, so now it’s the turn of the “middle class professionals”. I wonder which fake charity staffed by State-sponsored-scumbags is behind this one? Obviously not a real one then, they have better things to do.

And here’s the Beeboids, direct. And why do nasty gestapoid-Gramsco-Marxians always, always always get so het up about “strong lager”? Eh? Eh? Who ya’-lookin’ at then? Gorra-problem?

USA: more on bailouts. Mattlb2000 is sceptical


David Davis

So he is, to-be-sure, to-be-sure.

If you didn’t think you’d know what to do in the job, why did you go for it in the first place?


David Davis

The “Public Services” are the country’s biggest users of “consultants”. We buggers who have to pay, and who watch all the sadness and crap, and tyranny that results, since the “consultants” have the same warped, inverted and dirigiste enemy-mind-set as their hirers, have known this for years.

It now transpires that this is being trailed. the prose is wonderfully spinnable:-

The Scottish Government is wasting up to £13m a year by not using consultants efficiently, a report has claimed.

Audit Scotland has estimated that government bodies spent about £114m on 1,200 consultancies in 2006-2007.

But it said there was no clear strategy and savings could be found if the planning, management and purchasing of consultancy services was improved.

The Scottish Government recently issued guidance on the use of consultants, saying they should be used sparingly.

Auditor General for Scotland Robert Black said consultancies can be an expensive option.

He said: “Central government bodies need to plan their use of consultants so that they use their knowledge and skills where it brings greatest value for money.

“They should gather and share consistent information on what consultancy services they buy and why.

“Bodies should consider when it is better to use their own staff, and how best to ensure public servants learn from consultants when they are hired for projects or in advisory roles.”

‘Damning report’

Of the £114m spent in 2006-07, £41m was spent by government directorates. Quangos spent £38m, which includes £35m spent by Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise.

A further £35m was spent on consultancy services by government agencies, with Transport Scotland spending £12m.

The Audit Scotland report said: “There is a need to better plan the use of consultants.

“Use of consultants is rarely linked to wider planning about when and how to get the services needed and the best way to purchase them across the organisation as a whole.”

It said the work done by consultants was not always evaluated and suggested the government should carry out “consistent and formal evaluation”.

It recommended government bodies should take opportunities to learn from consultants and that staff should also fill key roles in projects where possible.

And if that’s just in Scotland, where the “send for the Scotch Accountants” mentality – faced with waste, and also with not enough recycled loopaper drying on the washing lines, must inevitably prevail a bit, despite rampant socialism in public life, where then England?

The point we want to bring to bear against Statist “Employees” of the State is that:-

(1) If you did not know best how to carry out the tasks which you thought you were applying to do, or had been elected to bring about, than why did you apply for the job/stand for the council/parliament(s)?

(2) Given that you then admitted, in office or power, that you had no clue, why then did you not resign your post/office? Did your CV/manifesto not state how well qualified you were to do the job/stand and represent your voters?

(3) Worse, why then did you retain flash/self-regarding buggers who must have been sacked from a corresponding job description…?…otherwise they would not now be calling themselves “consultants”, now would they – and so protecting their inept brains and arses through your front-screen? They would be DOING it profitably, and selling it, for money, in the Market (which you all so execrate) to things called “firms”.

OR….

in working for the State, and in using other people’s money in the greasing of the palms of those who say they are your friends, while pretending it is “work”, are you not just a common bully?

Interesting thought about libertarians…..


…..here.

David Davis

Obesity: it gets worse – now, tasty foods are to be banned!!!


David Davis

The robotic-Gramscian-cockroach-troidatron known as “Tam” “Fry” has surfaced again. We did him just recently here, and the Landed Underclass is to be thanked for spotting it first. We and Landed did him for having stuff like “National” and “Forum” in his junta’s title, when it’s certainly no forum, and “National” when used by socialists implies “Nazi” – as I keep on being belaboured on-line for pointing out.

Now, the Tam-Fry troid is saying that it’s not enough for the “food industry” to “give £200 million” to the anti-obesity campaign, so as ot try apparently to deflect legislation. The Tamtron-Machinetroid (it clearly does not eat, and is clearly not a humanoid) is going to enforce what it likes anyway – that’s the gist.

What, oh what, OH WHAT is it? About people who run private sector companies that do things which people want – like food and cigarettes? WHY do they cravenly crawl, and cave in, and play up to the Stalinist nonsense with which they are threatened?

The correct answer to this troid-tron-challenge would have been to say:-

Look. Fats and salt and sugar makes foods taste nice. That’s what people want. If they could eat tasteless starch and protein, then mammalian genes would have eveolved to make bodies that found this stuff nice. fats are esters, which are the only molecules that taste of anything, except salt and some sugars. So, f*** off to your concentration camps and health farms, Mr Fry.

Sue us!

Just look at this Nazi stuff:-

Ben Bradshaw, the Health Minister, warned that obesity was rising so fast that by 2050 four out of 10 children and nine out of 10 adults will be overweight or obese.

He promised that the Government would not shy away from bringing in new rules to force food companies to play a part in changing the country’s eating habits. Limits could be imposed on the amount of fat and salt in certain products.

He said: “We have already made progress on things like labelling and fat and salt content working with the industry. But … if this three-year campaign does not succeed, we don’t rule out regulating in future.”

Tam Fry, a National Obesity Forum board member, told the BBC that greater regulation of the food industry was needed to tackle rising obesity.

He said: “What we fear is that the industry is very willing to give £200 million to the campaign as a way of deflecting the Government’s interest in regulation.

“Unless you get the food to the right quality and unless you avoid the prospect of advertising junk food to children, you are going to have a continuation of the problem.”

The Government’s Change4Life campaign will begin tomorrow with television, magazine and national advertisements urging people to adopt a more healthy lifestyle.

The action is being taken after forecasters said obesity was rising so fast that by 2050 four out of 10 children and nine out of ten adults will be overweight or obese.