The limits of democratic tolerance of stalinisation while we sleep … perhaps I ought to have said “skeletonisation” …

David Davis

What ought Western Libertarians to do, when they suspect that their electoral system and its numbers are being man-handled, to produce a particular result? Like a new-Laborg-win, in the next general “election”?

There are no conditions under which (to use a great literary construction by Jeffrey Archer, used by him several times in books by him which I am proud to own) the Laborg can win an election this side of 2012 with the current figures. unless they cheat, lie, do “ppostal voting”, or “sign up” lots of client-votariat.

North Korea and Cuba and Russia – and now the UK – describe themselves as “democracies”. This is not what liberals mean by democracy. (For the benefit of North American readers of this blog, when I say “liberal” on here, and elsewhere, I MEAN liberal – that is to say, one of us who might write here: free-market/libertarian/non-socialist/non-Nazi. When I refer to Hilary Clinton as a “liberal”, I mean that this means “socialist”, which is to say, illiberal.)

There is now going on a rapid and feverish addition to what we call our “electoral rolls” – people who are registered to vote in “elections”. The observed trend is of inclusion of hundreds of thousands of people who might be expected to vote for the continuation of the extisting pork-barrel policies of handing money and facilities to “immigrants”.

I have nothing against immigrants. My mother was one, from Lebanon, a paternal great-great great (etc) grandfather was a Huguenot, and my wife is one. Anglo-Saxons, used a a term of racist abuse by  the Brussels/EU and also by Hitler and Stalin frequently (go figure) are immigrants. We ought to be proud that people want to cross water and come here when they could so easily stay the other side.

But using them as a stick with which to not care about what “British” think, in a democracy, is underhand and socialist. Why am I not surprised?

TELEGRAPH   8.4.08
One million join electoral register in two years 
By Christopher Hope, Home Affairs Correspondent

One million voters have been added to the electoral register in only two years following the introduction of the Electoral Administration Act.
New applicants do not have to provide documents proving their identity or even whether they are in the country legally. Instead, they simply fill in a two-page form and declare that the details are correct.

The surge in voter numbers coincides with hundreds of thousands of immigrants coming to Britain from eastern Europe and elsewhere.

After the introduction of the Electoral Administration Act in 2006, the roll increased by 513,054 and a further 463,340 in 2007.
EU nationals can vote in local and European Union elections but not in general elections. A record 46 million people can now vote in the local elections on May 1.

Bridget Prentice, the elections minister, said: “Democracy underpins the fabric of our society and provides a voice for those who are vulnerable and marginalised. No vote means no voice.”

Turnout in elections has declined in recent years. Ken Livingstone, the London mayor, was elected on a turnout of 36 per cent in the 2004 London mayoral elections. Turnout was only 34 per cent at last year’s local elections.

Last night, a spokesman for the Ministry of Justice said: “There are all sorts of reasons why people join the electoral register and it is just not correct to say that the pattern of migration is the sole, or even most significant, reason.”

And no, this is not the only paper to notice this shenannigan. I just go there first because I can’t stand the Guardian – and am so pleased that it is about to be sued for unlimited damages by Tesco. Of all people: why are we not humiliated that the fundamental truths about our civilisation ought to be allowed to operate have been reduced to being defended by a supermarket, for Christ’s sake?

We are coming to the point, as I said on Eurorealist today, where we have to decide how much it matters that

(1) letters to the editor of the Much-Binding-in-The-Marsh-Masturbator (probably owned by the Trinity Mirror Group) about the EU and directives, asking for “moderation” and “common sense”,

(2) complaining politely about “political correctness gone mad”

(3) civilised petitions of “more than 11 signatures”

(4) peaceful demos more than 1 kilometre (what’s that?) from the Houses of Parliament

are of no use whatsoever, since this outfit does not care what we think.

if it does not matter, why waste the effort? if it does matter, what are we going to now do?




4 responses to “The limits of democratic tolerance of stalinisation while we sleep … perhaps I ought to have said “skeletonisation” …

  1. Pingback: » The limits of democratic tolerance of stalinisation while we sleep … perhaps I ought to have said “skeletonisation” …

  2. Pingback: Pages tagged "feverish"

  3. It does matter David, it’s just a case of needing to make people accept reason, and that means correctly articulating it.

    Look at Ron Paul for instance. He comes into the fold, speaks the truth and puts everything to rights, but now he’s just been brushed aside. I think at least part of that has to do with him always trying to sell everyone on his views at every opportunity.

    You’re right though, about not going on with the ‘political corectness gone mad’ method. Nobody listens. I’ve taken to saying, very politely, to these people “no, I’m afraid you’re not politically correct, you’re not liberal, and yes you are racist, divisive and manipulative, and all the genteel mannerisms, policy statements and newspeak cliches in the world aren’t going to change that.”

    Believe me, it is very good for the blood pressure!

  4. PS I think the Conservatives will win the next General Election so that’ll make you what, Home Secretary David? :-)

    Honestly though, will it really be any better under David Cameron? And if so, by how much?