Monthly Archives: August 2007

Defending (what bien-pensants say is) the Undefendable; Tesco and loads of cheap food for many poor people, in the Blue corner; and self-regarding high-tax (for everyone else) neo-pastoralists in the Red corner (where else to put the buggers, eh?)

Posted by David Davis 

Tesco is under renewed attack, again, this week, for wanting to open a 30,000 square foot supermarket in Manningtree, “England’s smallest town”. (For foreign readers, 30,000 square feet is slightly less than 3,000 square metres, or about 0.29 of a hectare. this is not exactly very large by today’s standards, and there will probably not be room for selling tellies, kitchen appliances etc.

You should also be aware that the modern British have a very stange character trait. This is to turn collectively and publicly (at dinner parties and in the media at any rate) against any person or enterprise which professionally and systematically achieves a very very great deal of success in its field. Slightly surprised amateurs who succeed, are not reviled and execrated to any like extent – witness Richard Branson and J K Rowling. By contrast, the flawed, wounded deities, who appear to struggle messianically against impossible odds, such as Tim Henman and Lady Diana, and who then severally fail or die tragically, are canonised.

The British have been fortunate to be able to have forgotten what it was like to “Go Shopping” in the 1940s, 50s and 60s. Nowadays, there is a (nearly) free market in retailing, on an American pattern, (except for the mechanics of property development which is quite regulated.) This has spoiled them into needing no memory of what it was like before.

Tesco, one of the “Big Four” with Asda, Sainsbury and Morrison’s (there were five but Safeway underperformed some years ago and was bought for too much money by Morrison’s) has been the most successful and professional in its business model.

That is to say, it has negotiated confidently on price, so being able to undercut much retail competition, while yet having a queue of wannabe suppliers stretching round the world. The result is the highest ROC for sharholders plus generally the lowest overall prices for customers. Couple this with a well-trained friendly staff who know how to “sell”, seem to know their stuff and offer to pack for you, plus not having to drive round for half an hour & then worry about traffic-gauleiters, and you have a winning formula. No wonder certain sections of the British Enemy Class hate Tesco.

Furthermore, they have done the unforgivable; they have (in the words of a lady in the 80s who thrw wine over Sir Terrence Conran at a party) “TAKEN ALL OUR PRECIOUS THINGS, AND YOU HAVE GIVEN THEM TO EVERYONE”.

But I say this: I said it on a Daily telegraph Blog about an hour ago:

Three cheers for Tesco. NO! That’s not enough; four, five, twenty-one! 

Thirty-odd years ago, Tesco was down there in the crud with Kwik-Save, and the rest of the 70s poor-service, dirty-produce losers. Who bothers to badmouth Kwik-save now? (It’s effectively bust anyway – read the business pages over the last few months.) 

More importantly, Tesco has succeeded so dramatically, because it does what we want (And what all you opponents, in your hearts, want too. In your guts, you all know that it is so!) Tesco brings affordable goods, especially food, and especially nice food, to poor British people, which is most of you on this blog! If as many people really hated Tesco as say they do, it too would be bust; it is not – why? Because you all go there, as do I. 

In a sort of pre-capitalist, theoretical, neo-pastoralist world, where there were no “Councils”, and no traffic-Gestapo slobbering their tickets everywhere, and no “pedestrianisation”, and if you could park everywhere in a normal way, then it might be fun to drive into say Much-Binding-In-The Marsh, park outside that lovely little greengrocer that sells fresh local produce every day, queue up to buy it from him/her, have a jolly banter with him and everyone else, then saunter the few yards along the High Street to your car! Great! I’d love it. So would you.

But you were all aslepp on the job while socialist, car-hating Soviets got control of your Town Halls, and stopped your vehicles from even thinking about being anywhere near this poor shopkeeper, so…….he went bust. You also have yourselves all to blame, if you do not like Tesco (and Mothercare, PCWorld, Tiles-R-Us, Staples, Halfords, Currys, Comet, homebase, B&Q….need I go on?) building all these O-O-T shopping centres on farmland and green belt. Enough of you people failed to not-vote-for gumments that allowed local Soviets to allow it.

You also failed to not vote for gumments that cared not a jot for farmers, and used DEFRA as an attack-dog to put them out of business (probably because most of them are naturally conservative – have you thought about that?) Small wonder that they found it more profitable to sell up – their land now vulnerable to “developers” – most of whom are in league with Soviets anyway; foolish not to be! 

If you wanted your “little shops” to survive, then you should have fought politically for the transport and access environment that would let customers (modern ones with less and less time to spend all day shopping for the next day) get at them! But enough of you voted Labour, for long enough, in enough kinds of election, especially local ones (for psychological self-gratification) that you have brought what YOU see as the “Tesco-Monster” upon yourselves. 

Tesco is wonderful. For the alternative, you can either shop in Britain in the 1950s, or go to an average Soviet-Empire town as late as 1990. you could even have European supermarkets, where the checkout assistants don’t smile at you, there are no carrier-bags (until recently), and they complain if you hand them say a 100-Zloty note for Z-68.19 of goods, and you don’t proffer the exact money! 

Think of life without Tesco; absolutely without it, and also without its clones whom you ought in all intellectual honesty to hate equally.  

Or do you all just hate Tesco because it’s successful and that’s what the British do?

The Pedal is going down to the metal. I’m sorry, it’s time for driving forward with some heroes.

I thought I would make the bolg a bit more zazzy.

Here are just six, in order as they appear on the masthead now;

Friedrich Hayek (to be controlled in one’s economic life is… be controlled in…..everything.)

Lord Harris of High Cross (bugger the saddo draggo bozo nazi non-smoker slairs. They are not only evil, but worse, they are boring and sad.)

Chris Tame, as himself (what else can you say?) in the pose we all knew and loved, outside the Bookshop. (Let’s go for a burger afterwards!) 

Arthur Seldon (grand logician and great chap.)

Murray Rothbard (no prisoners to be taken on the way! Press ALL the buttons in front of you, to destroy ALL statism, now!)

And….the Gipper. Sound chap; he, er, saved the World (for a little time, but sadly everybody has now fallen asleep, and has forgotten,and the Hour Is Late) along with The Pope and The Prime Minister (there can be only One.)  All I want to say about him is “and so he passed over, and All The Trumpets sounded for him on The Other Side”. Even if it was only him waiting for us, and he’s fairly unimportant, I’d be chuffed. (I’m a Catholic ,you see.)

Sean Gabb; thoughts on the Human Rights Act.

My first thoughts on this matter;

 These are fairly random jottings put down in haste.
But here go my thoughts on the Human Rights Act.

A declaration of human rights is to be welcomed – especially a declaration
that cannot be overridden by ordinary legislation.  It is hard to place the
exact moment of death, but the English liberal tradition is now dead. This
rested on the notion that people had certain rights to life, liberty and
property, and that laws should not be made, except in limited circumstances,
to infringe these rights.
 However, we live now in a country where the law can be
changed so easily, that there are no laws at all in the old sense. See, for
example, the reaction of the Government whenever a taxpayer wins a case in
the courts. There is no acceptance by the Administration of such judgments. Instead, the
politicians set to work to “close the loophole”.

Or, regarding political rather than fiscal matters, I only ask you to see the first reaction
to the acquittal of Nick Griffin last year. The promise then was to rewrite
the laws so that he could be more efficiently prosecuted next time.

In such a legal environment, laws become a sword for the state rather than a
shield for the innocent. All that blunts them as an instrument of total
despotism is the irreducible effort needed to make changes.

So *a* >Human Rights Act< is to be welcomed, in principle, in a particular sense. To some extent, this means
welcoming *the* “Human Rights Act” – that is to say, the “European” one. The European Convention, from which the
HRA is derived, is a reasonable statement of liberal ideals – that is, it
emphasises the real rights of freedom to be left alone as opposed to the
socialist “rights” to live at the expense of others. Thus, the HRA declares
rights to freedom of speech and association and fair trial etc, and says
nothing about the “rights” to state education or healthcare or whatever.

The main fault of the HRA is that it imports into England the European
notion of abuse of rights.
Therefore, the section dealing with freedom of
speech does not simply affirm a right to say what we like, but adds
something about how this right must be balanced by duties. This is a formula
for censorship, as almost any speech not approved by the authorities can be
called an abuse of rights. That this has not been done very often owes much
to the influence of English judges
in the jurisprudence which is surrounding the
Convention as it stands.

There are complaints about the workings of the HRA – that is makes the
prosecution of crime very expensive. This may be due to various
misunderstandings of how rights should be upheld. It may be due to a more or
less conscious desire to sabotage a law that may do much to limit the power
of the State. But, ultimately, people do have certain rights to due process,
and matters of cost should not come into the question.

To elaborate on this matter of cost, justice is a very small part of the
overall State budget. If there is a shortage of money to prosecute crimes
while respecting suspects’ rights, then cuts should be made in less
essential functions of the State – fewer officials, for example, to check
through our bins or whatever. Otherwise, we should accept that there are too
many crimes, and that most of these do not protect life and property.
Therefore, all laws against the possession and sale of drugs and pornography
should be repealed. So should all other laws that do not seek to secure
individuals from attack on their lives and property.

To sum up, the Libertarian Alliance believes that the Human Rights Act is on
balance a good thing. If asked, we could suggest many improvements. But we
are glad that we at last in this country have some protection of our rights
and the the politicians are, to whatever extent, restrained from oppressing
us exactly as takes their fancy.

Boy of 11 shot on way home from football training (raises various libertarian issues.)

Look, I’m the Director of Northern Affairs, and this happened just kind of down the road (it’s a big place, the North, sonny.) I refer you first to the link. These are the comments I sent the Torygraph in reply.

Everyone knows, but it cannot be said, for fear of retribution, that the causes of these terrible crimes like the death of this poor little boy, are, as follows; 

(1) Very bad (but inwardly cowardly, hence the type of crime) unsocialised young men, caused directly by Marxo-Gramscian socialist education nostrums and saddo-failed theories, that specifically disadvantage white-Western and Black boys, since their prevailing family-structures are the ones specifically able to be weakened by the nonsense pedalled; and that this is probably on purpose (to later expand the population of the client-underclass so that bureaucrats shall have jobs.) Note that Asian boys in Britain have not generally been involved in this kind of thing hitherto (although watch this space) – in their families, the Father is strong as an iconic figure whom the younger family members respect, and deploys his disciplinary weight freely, in my experience of teaching all types. This is good. 

(2) The forced disarming of ordinary people, progressively orchestrated by set-piece-tragedies such as Hungerford and Dunblane. (A conspiracy-theorist could be forgiven for arguing that both incidents were set up deliberately, by………you may well ask…., although we shall have to wait 100 years for the Dunblane facts.) It is quite clear to a child of six that IF nobody can have guns, (or any weapon, you name the next one to be targetted) then criminals and thugs who want one will get them and be the ONLY people to have them. “God created Man in His own image, but Sam Colt made Men all equal” is as true today as in was in the 1860s.  

Until the bad-person realises that any or all citizens whom he can see around him at that moment may not only be armed, but may fight back (it assumes that philosophically they will collectively have re-acquired the will so to do) then this sort of tragedy will happen. Drive-by-shootings done by evil cowards in hoody-stuff are now possible, from a distance, because they know that – statistically – nobody will retaliate.

This particular kind of crime will disappear, after a few robbers and muggers and burglars have been shot dead in cold blood by armed citizens. A further point to make is that as “The War On Drugs” is lost, valuable Police time can be saved. The admirable Police, in Merseyside or wherever, can then go out and crack down onordinary petty villains, who go about wanting to bully young footballers who are doing no harm, but whom they can’t shoot because their parents or other responsible grown-ups, or coach even, may be armed as well! 

So by letting the £100-a-day habit (which is what generates the crime) become the £5-a-day habit whereby addicts can get their drugs at a chemist, they can abolish “Drug-related Crime”. Pharmaceautical firms can then compete in the free market to supply the best (whatever it may be, your particular poison) to the cleanest standards, with the least side-effects, at the lowest price, about 48p a day. Gordon Brown or whoever the Chancellor is now, can then make the 48p drugs £5 or more by taxation, and give the money to the DHSS bureacrats for them to waste in the normal way. 

In addition, the People will be armed, criminals will take fright and wilt, the drugs trade will be – largely -destroyed, and membership of gun clubs will soar; the TA will in the long term reap a bonus from drawing on a basic-weapons-trained population.

The British are the Root Of All Evil (but you knew that….?) So what’s the surprise? It’s the price they have put on our heads!

THIS link will amaze you. Or maybe not. I got it quite by chance form a thread in Samizdata.  31 trillion dollars; that’s what we have cost “the people of the world”, in our murderous, rapacious, imperialistic autistic (I would not be surprised) galumph around the globe…..for five hundred years. And there are actually real, thinking persons, out there, who say that “they”, that is to say, “the people of the world”, want it back. Er?

Five hundred years ago, we had been without our first “Empire”, in what is now France, for more than half a century. About 1776, we “lost” part of our “second” one….

Furthermore, the “Empire” that these clever, clever, articulate, nasty, dangerous, to-be-watched-people on “britishreparations” talk about, never really existed in fact, and came into political being quite accidentally and without the authority of either our people or “our” gumment. I am concerned that a sufficiently large number of computer-connected individuals on this planet is sufficiently ghettoized by anti-truth-Nazis, specially among younger teachers in British State Schools, that this story may “run”, and especially here.

We don’t “do” “empires” in this shop, sorry. Not here. Never did, no demand; this is a grocer’s in the North, sonny. We don’t stock that line. Go and see the French or the Belgians across the road (but you’ll find they’ve “lost quite a lot of stock in suspicious fires in Africa” and stuff like that) or that KGB man Putin whose warehouse overlooks Arab Street, if you want that sort of know-how. He’s got some Empires he might sell you (and……. “it’s all about oil” !!!)

I wanted to put the dangerous buggers on the blogroll, so you could watch how it unfolds – but I guess those of you interested in the aftercare in the community of psychotic madmen who ought to be watched, will do it for us. Please report back to me from time to time.

I am going to tweak the site a bit now. Found the accelerator pedal at last.

The basic two-star unleaded WordPress masthead has gone. I am trying this one now. I may not like it after a couple of days, or I may, or else I may go and “billion-monkey” a few bits of stuff from round these parts; but please comment, for this is a democracy after all.  A few more of other people’s bolgs gone on the bolg-roll too.

A further rider to my Goldwater post (see below):

I remember, aged about 8, 9 or 10, seeing a piece on (black and white) British TV – it must have been the BBC as it was hostile I remember –  of a trailer to a Goldwater television advertisement.

It was very interesting, as it showed film footage of a nuclear explosion; I presume it was either the classic Los Alamos one or a later one. The voiceover I remember perfectly as if is was this morning; it said, in a gravelly Tv voiceover voice that you’d expect Dan Dare*** or other hero to have;


I can only conclude that this referred to Godwater’s alleged remark on the wireless about Vietnam, then only beginning to insert its baleful self into the arses of American political (non) civilisation. he said, in response to the usual question about what should be done; “in my view, we should put in nukes”.

I imagine at this distance, that he was talking about degrading the facilities at Hanoi and Haiphong.

With hindsight, I think that in 1960 or 1961 ish, we could just about have got away with that. It might have sent the message that we in the West were not only the first to do nukes, but that we were also not to be trifled with, as having found ourselves encompassed in the strong arms of science, we would be prepared to not blink first. I think that the pig Brzhezhnievh would have blinked first, and he would have phoned his wicked gestapo-nasty local Gauleiter Hho Chi Mhinh, and htold himh hto givh inh.

But what if we had miscalculated? Wars are started on miscalculations, after all, such as the 3rd world war of 1914-1918 and its second phase of 1939-1991 with an armistice from 1918-1939. Maybe the buggers would not have tried Cuba in 1962; maybe they would, and would even have meant it seriously; who can say?

I do not know, as Auberon Waugh says. However, I also remember a “PUNCH” cartoon, of the same vintage – it showed an embattled Goldwater, surrounded by darkness, and the caption was…

“Extremism in defence of Liberty is no vice”.

The planet is darkening, now, for those who love liberty, as my reader of this bolg knows. Should we adopt the methods of our enemies? Or should we just keep our heads down, and do “The 6th-Century-Irish-Saving-Of-The-World” thing, and just put what we can rescue onto CD-ROM and DVD, for “later”, when “times are better”?

I expect that Waugh would say “I do not know”.

***Did you know? Dan Dare’s creators, and presumably therefore their hero, came from Southport, Lancashire? There was a bronze bust of Dan Dare, in Lord Street, the main shopping thoroughfare,  commemorating his ancestry and town of birth, but it “has been Removed by the Council for Technical Reasons”.