Monthly Archives: May 2007

Food for all, planning ocntrols, and the “countryside”.

An exchange occurred on the yahoo group eurorealist last week, about the effect of “out-of-town shopping centres on the countryside, land use and small urban businesses. A gentleman from
Bristol posted the following,

“I used this as my sig some years back. Given the Labour intention to
destroy sensible planning constraints, maybe it’s time to bring it back:

“Out-of-town shopping centres are the retail equivalent
of slash-and-burn agriculture.”

If you agree, please share widely. Regards,   Simonm.” 

We are doubtless by now all aware of the orchestrated hate-campaign against the “Supermarkets”; that is to say, the most successful providers-to-the-UK-poor-and-working, of cheap food of all kinds and seasons in all history. We are now encouraged to think that they do us all a disservice thereby – mostly by people with more than one home, who work in the public sector, have no real duties that matter, and can afford to shop elsewhere through availability of time or privilege. 

I replied as follows;
“Out-of-town shopping centres are the result of two socialist measures.
These are being forced through in the TEETH of ordinary people and their normal ingrained habits, which are (a) to drive, because it’s nice and convenient, and (b) to want to shop within towns, because it is a natural and social thing to do in free liberal societies.

Out of town shopping centres are the only way that “ordinary working people” with “families”, who have not time to scratch their sodding arses, can buy any bloody stuff whatsoever.

(1) The first socialist measure, that has caused out of town shopping centres, is the destruction of English Farming, thus “releasing” “land”.
Cheap mechanized food for all (is gone) and an example of how to farm, for all the world to follow (is gone.). Kulaks, natural enemies of the socialist regime in power here ( are gone). Free people (are gone). Natural conservatives and therefore anti-socialist Voters (are gone, to
Canada or somewhere else anyway.) In the words of Herbert Morrison, they will have been able to “BUILD THE FARMERS OUT OF THE COUNTRYSIDE”. (They can then pretend it has to be used for something else such as “farm theme parks” like Farmer Ted’s at Downholland, (clever man! Shallow glossy place! EU funding!) and naturally also “developers” and “industrialists” will schmooze them up the arse like they did to the socialists in power in National Socialist Germany in the 1930s.

(2) The second socialist measure is to hate “The Private Car”. Thus, they make it impossible to park (or now, with “street furniture” and “traffic calming measures”) even ENTER your average town centre except in the small hours, when you would not want to anyway. At this time all the “smallbusinessmen who are the “backbone of our towns and a major strategic focus of our planning” (of course they are! they are for paying through the nose until they are gone!) are knackered and in bed, or else just defending their properties against marauding hoodies who walk (stagger) everywhere and only use “public transport” as a mobile robbing-arena.

The solution to “out of town shopping centres” is;

(a)   Abolish ALL parking and driving restrictions in ALL urban areas.
(b)   Remove ALL “calming measures” in same.
(c)   Take the bloody (empty) buses away.
(d)   Abolish opening hours legislation, especially Sundays.
(e)   Let the Market discover how many drivers and when, can get into such places. Congestion is good; it indicates desire for facilities presented to customers (or no desire, if it does not occur) and it signals to drivers about when to drive and not to drive. It will force the extension of opening hours (good), plus an increase in employment of staff (good), and it will drive prices down at congested times.
(f)    Abolish DEFRA and close it down, so farmers can be allowed to be paid by customers, to grow a bit of mechanised food now and again that someone will want to buy; not this earthy, mudspattered, emaciated, expensive organic animal-food. This will get the price of agricultural land up high enough so “developers” (whom I guess Simon does not like!) can’t make a “turn” from it so easily.”
(g)   Allow traffic wardens to “seek for opportunities for retraining”, or “look for work” (in a Stalinist way I am meaning) as farm hands.
(h)   Abolish “planning departments”. These are just machines for finding out what “local people” don’t want, getting bribed by “developers”, and forcing the “local people” to have what is bribed for. I like Tesco; maybe you do not. but Sir Terry Leahy would find it much harder to build so many superstores if the decision really was in the hands of “local people”. They mostly want their countryside to be working agricultural, and mostly want to be able to drive and park easily in their nearby towns and cities.

My measures above would satisfy all these points at once, while at a stroke abolishing  up to 100,000 “jobs” in the socialist “salariat” that Gordon Brown hopes will vote for him in perpetuity.
Two or three times more, if you shut down DEFRA  and the DoTER in ther entirety, and shredded the records and malleted all the hard disks. DD


Northern Affairs (no, not THAT kind!)

To my delight and surprise, I find myself offered the directorship of the Alliance’s Northern Affairs. Shades of the long-surviving Old Kingdom of Northumbria come to mind, and when you drive inland a bit, and climb the straignt and narrow roads, and gaze over the long dark hills that in geologically modern times but in humanly ancient ones the Roman legions exhaustedly tramped, it’s very nice to be such a director. Yes, the North is good, and I cannot thank God enough that we now live here, that He was pleased to show us this place in time for our children to enjoy it properly, and for me to find such charming people (mostly) living here.

 So that’s what I will principally write about, but also always with a global and liberal perspective. I want to share with you a thing we noticed on moving up here to the North West some years ago. The people I ask here can’t answer the question sufficiantly articulately for me, becuase the emotion that gave rise to the phenomenon is just, sort of, in their blood.

I refer to the predilection for personalised car number plates. It fascinates me as a native Londoner, where you had to be as anonymous as possible. Discounting the few dozen Big Men who live around here, whose wives don’t work (locally unusual) and who “run” the clubs (and other matters) in Manchester and Liverpool, about one in four cars sports things like BI6 RJD, BI6 PAM, JB41, A4 NDD, 26L, LOV3 X, T700 RON, A1 (yes, really, me, I saw it on Saturday), M155 SXY,  

X 4 DC X,  T8 5EXY, W16ANM, W16ANW (one behind the other in a traffic queue) etc etc.

 When I ran my business in London, and if I had purchased a “private plate”, three things would have happened simultaneously;

(1) All my 5 staff would have complained that I could therefore easily afford to pay them more, and some might have given notice. this would have been an inconvenient pain, and hurtful.

(2) Customers on noticing, would have stated that I was clearly making too much profit, and would have demanded discounts.

(3) Local nameless hoods would have keyed the side of the car.

Yet here, it seems the “thing to do”. Students of mine, even, get prsented with their own plate on their 18th birthdays or similar. I have discussed the matter with some of the more approachable parents and students, who say “it’s cool!”. And….”People will know who we are!” And….”It’s the next best thing to getting my “pic” (sic) in the paper!”

From where I am coming from, that sums up the very risk and the exact problem of having such a plate. Plus the increasingly important fact of not thereby being able to deny a charge of speeding through a camera.

Is it something to do with being near Liverpool? Is Boris Johnson a reader of this? Can readers help me here with an insight or two, about the differential psychologies of the South and the North-West?

8 June 2007 LA Putney Debate: Brian Micklethwait’s Thoughts on the Surveillance Calculation Debate

The speaker at the LA Putney Debate on Friday 8 June 2007 will be the British libertarian activist and blogger Brian Micklethwait who will talk about his ‘Thoughts on the Surveillance Calculation Debate’.

Today, Britain is awash with private and publicly funded cameras and surveillance. As technology abounds and individuals and institutions are increasingly able to watch and spy on each other what does the future hold for traditional notions of freedom and privacy?

As important a debate as Ludwig von Mises’s Socialist Calculation Debate of the 1920s and 1930s what insights and lessons can libertarians offer for this most pressing of contemporary debates?

For more information email

Education, education, education

Hey all you libs out there.

 Diddy David has just shot himself in the foot today and yesterday about education, again, being the Heir of Blair. It seems that education is still going to remain nationalised, even under a conservative-New-Labour Gumment,  in spite of Blair-the-Slair having “renounced Clause 4” some time in the dark ages before we all collectively wet ourselves, in August of Year Zero, over the death of the poor, sad tormented Witch Diana.

It seems that “poor-people” and their children are still to be regarded as grateful-voting-fodder, under whichever socialist adminisration wins the next election. Does anybody reading this (does anybody read this?) have any views about how parents could be incintivised to put more pressure on our oppressors so that they would introduce more “selection”, preferably earlier like age about 7? Or about 6? or 5? (We need to hammer home the need to socialise children early, in liberal Christian principles and the educational patterns that will define this, for capitalism to survive.) 

 I thought that libertarianism was all about maximizing individual responsibility. The state is not only not your master, but it also does not exist! Or, at least, it ought not to be Very Big. Certainly, it ought NOT to educate; I think this is terribly, terribly dangerous, don’t you all…………? You are ON YOUR OWN. YOU Must Make Shift For Yourself, And Yours Who Come After You.

 If so, then this move would show up bad parents quicker, who have simply sat their children – sons especially – in front of plasma sceens and playstations at the age of 18 months just to keep them quiet?

I meet young boys of 3 on the street, with hard-no-hair haircuts, wearing “Foot  Baller’s shirts”, who swear, and point things at you and shout “you’re dead!”. You could just roll on them accidentally and squash them if you could get away with it, and they would learn, but what about in 11 years’ time?

 Does anybody have any views about re-socialising people, preferably before the time they go to school, in supposedly civilised countries?

Radicals for Capitalism:

I have just read Brian Doherty’s ‘Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement’. A truly great book that examines the rise and development of the American libertarian movement during the twentieth century I cannot recommend it too highly.

Touching on the personal lives and ideas of leading libertarians including Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman the book not only examines what is after all a broadly based intellectual movement but it provides many insights into the characters, love affairs and flaws of its key leaders and players.

Ultimately, this is a unique, brilliantly researched and well written book.

Brian Doherty (2007) Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement, New York, Public Affairs Books is available from Amazon 



Johnny Munkhammar, author of European Dawn: After the Social Model, who will be speaking on The EU’s Cancer: the welfare state and the decline of Europe.

Prof. Marie Theres Tinnefeld, professor emeritus, Department of Informatics/Mathematics, FH Munich, who will speak on “Security Laws: A Challenge to Privacy Rights.”

Prof. Christian Kirchner, Humboldt University. Topic: The European Constitution – A Failed Project?

Ernst Beck, Biologist and member Europäisches Institut für Klima and Energie who will speak on The Falsified History of European CO2 in the Global Warming Controversy.

Edgar Gärtner, director of the Centre for New Europe Enivornment Forum. Topic: Ecological Nihilism.

Shane Frith, managing director of the Stockholm Network, a network of free market think tanks in Europe. Topic: 

“Better Health Through Freedom”.

Sascha Tamm, Liberales Institute of the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom. Topic: “Sin Taxes – Immoral Government Action in the Name of Morality.”

Kristian Niemietz, Graduant of Economics at Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, who will speak on “From Bismarck to Friedman: Privatizing Pensions.”

Total cost for conference plus tea breaks, two lunches and one dinner: €124.95. Scholarship for students, of up to €100.00 are available. Non-students in need of financial assistance to attend should email. All scholarship requests, including students, can be made to

All presentations are in English

Additional information including hotel options, public transit in Berlin, conference location, schedule, and how to register can be found at  and at Or call +49 30 8187 47824 or email



Hackesche Höfe

Entrance 5

Rosenthalerstraße 40/41,

10178 Berlin, Germany 

Tonight’s Putney Debate: Antoine Clarke on Nicolas Sarkozy

The speaker at tonight’s Putney Debate – Friday 11 May 2007 – will be Antoine Clarke who will give a talk on the ‘Nicolas Sarkozy and the Future of France.’

With the incoming French President being increasingly strident in his comments on the need for France to liberalise and change what can we expect in the months and years ahead? Will he lower taxes and abolish the 35 hour week as planned? Will he usher in a range of free market reforms put France on track for a better future?For more information email