Labour to “win next election”.

David Davis

I have constantly warned that the deliberate communications strategy of “bashing the toffs and the rich” will work. Legiron says it better than I, but I would add this: no possible amount of public philanthropy, hair-shirt-wearing, refraining from hunting with DOGS, selling the Mondeo (Ghia 24v, very economical to run) undergone by these poor liberals will do anything to deflect the GramscoFabiaNazis from their deliberate course.

The important strategy thet Libertarians ought to think about is not “who is the best party to form a government, based on policies?” On this ground it would have to be LPUK or UKIP. But neither will stop new Labour on its own, and both will damage the Tories, as most libertarians (or even people who COULD be persuaded to vote  for libertarians) are conservative in outlook – most think that a conservative/classical liberal/minimal state is the least bad guardian of an environment in which liberty can begin to grow again.

Sadly, although we will have to hold our noses while so doing, a vote for the Tories this time round is the only viable option, to retard the headlong slide into the cesspool, if only a tiny bit. The important election, in reality, will be the 2014/5 one, or the next after that.

10 responses to “Labour to “win next election”.

  1. A New Labour government would not be the worst outcome. After all these years of Gordon Brown they would have nobody left to blame for all the economic ills.

    Whether they chose inflation, currency decline and growth in the public sector or cutting expenditure and borrowing, the penny would eventually drop for a large majority of voters.

    Meanwhile Cameron and his crew of social democrats would be ousted from control of the “Conservative” party. In such circumstances, the next leader of the party would probably be a genuine economic liberal.

    Of course the two likely scenarios are a hung parliament with Blue Labour (the party formerly known as the “Conservatives” and the “Liberal Democrats” in some sort of deal, or a Blue Labour victory.

    The problem with a Blue Labour victory is that it only represents a respite from the economic madness rather than a cure. Blue Labour would most likely cut public expenditure to keep the show on the road, but they would probably only last one term in office, before being thrown out for more of the madness. (And they would have at no point put forward an ideological alternative to large state socialism.)

  2. “At the Conservative Christian Fellowship Christmas Reception in Westminster last night, guest speaker Archbishop Vincent Nichols told his audience of mostly Protestant Conservatives about the failings of “economic and social liberalism”. That went down well. Later one Tory MP said to me that libertarians needed “to be driven out and exterminated” from the party. He said it with a smile on his face”.

    And you think libertarians should vote for these people? Really.

    The Tory Party is not a libertarian party and never has been. It is a statist party, which for a brief period had an unusual leader who introduced some economic liberalism to “fix” the Big State, and who was viciously thrown out of office by that same Tory Party for opposing EU imperialism.

    The Tory Party and “conservatism” are much bigger movements than libertarianism (one hopes a state of affairs we can change). However many libertarians think we need the Tories, they as sure as shit don’t need us. There is nothing to be gained at all from hanging around them offering to carry their books home from school in the hope they’ll smile at us. We just look sad and pathetic. What’s worse, it drives away young liberals who, quite reasonably, don’t want to be associated with the party of miserable old puritanical gits. It may well be that many libertarians consider themselves social conservatives and cleave to the Victorian social contract. But many other libertarians do not, and it is highly likely that one reason we have such a recruiting problem is precisely that the unnecessary association with conservatism drives away young impressionable radicals- the kind of people we need to recruit- who go off and join the Labour movement instead; who, despite themselves being the most miserably conservative bunch of fuckers in the country generate an appealing illusion of being liberals by carefully maintaining a few liberal policies (e.g. pro-gayness).

    Any voter needs to remember that their vote at the election is, effectively, a waste. No one vote will decide the election, so whoever you vote for you’re not going to affect the outcome. If the Tories win by a million votes, your vote is the difference between that and them winning by 999,999. A miniscule effect. Unless one has a strange pathological desperation to be able to boast that one backed the winner afterwards, it is better to use your vote for something more useful.

    The smaller parties, who cannot win, can nonetheless prosper by gaining support in the popular vote. The more votes that go to non-hegemonic parties, the more indication there is of disatisfaction with the status quo and the less the Bastards (whichever faction wins) can declare a “mandate from teh people”. Furthermore, a small party like LPUK need to be able to show they are gaining support in the general populace.

    And finally, if LPUK get no votes, because all their potential supporters voted “tactically” for swapping the grim tyranny of Labourism to the grim tyranny of Toryism, LPUK activists are going to feel they are wasting their time and fall away from the party because it isn’t achieving anything. Then there won’t be an LPUK to vote for at the next election.

    Voting for hegemonic parties is a waste of votes, and, as the saying goes, “voting for the lesser evil is still voting for evil”. It doesn’t matter if Labour or Tories win the next election. The policies will be much the same. An absurd idea has grown up that everything bad has happened since 1997, and we need do is get rid of Labour. Well, back in 1997 everyone was voting “anything but Tory” and look where that got us. If we keep voting for shit, we will continue to get shit. But a vote for a smaller party you generally agree with can actually achieve something; not a change of government this time around, but a step on the long road towards one. That’s worth voting for.

  3. My apologies for writing another long comment, but I don’t have time for a zinger.

    Firstly, a tactical vote need not be for a large party. For example, if UKIP were to get enough votes in some key marginals to deny the Conservative party these seats and a majority, the party would notice. If the resulting hung parliament led to a “New” Labour – “Liberal Democrat” coalition, I’m pretty sure the new leader of the Tories would not be another social democrat.

    Secondly, the “Conservative” party is not a homogeneous organisation.

    One way of looking at it is as having various layers. The top layer is the leader, his key aides and supporters. The next layers is the professional party of MPs, MEPs, agents, advisors, etc.. The third layer is the voluntary party.

    The top layer is currently a bunch of politically correct social democrats. The second layer has a minority of “conservatives”, economic liberals and patriots, however the majority are careerists of few fixed principles. The minority in the second layer includes people like Daniel Hannan, whilst the majority are a bit like John Bercow although not perhaps so shameless, crass and flexible. The third layer – the ordinary members and constituency activists – tends towards actually believing in a variety of things that might actually plausibly be labelled as conservatism of one sort or another.

    In the short term, the party is the top layer, but in due course, usually when a leader fails, the second layer becomes relevant in chosing a new leader. They are capable of chosing almost anyone who happens to be a Conservative MP.

    Thirdly, after Cameron the Conservative party could do the country a great service. Although it is unlikely, it is certainly not impossible that after Cameron the second layer will chose a leader who is in favour of leaving the EU. After all now that Lisbon is in force there is no option of “winning the argument in Europe” or “getting opt outs” or “getting our money back”.

    Fourthly, an opportunistic leader or potential leader of the party can actually appeal to the third layer in a demogogic manner. Such a leader need not set out with the intention of leaving the EU, but like Boris Yeltsin might just take advantage of events.

    Finally, with the EU now there are only two options left salute the flag or spit on it. I suspect that a majority of the third layer of the party – the members and activists – would prefer to spit on the ring of stars.

  4. Regarding the EU, EUphobe that I am, I’m far from convinced that leaving it would be of much use to liberty at this stage, and may well be, in practical terms, more harm than good.

    It seems to me that the narrative on the EU is that nasty foreigners are imposing all these strictures upon us Brits, and we must leave the EU to escape them. There is thus an implication that a free (of the EU) Britain would return to being a free country. I don’t support this narrative. I think it’s demonstrably false. It seems quite obvious to me that anglosphere-based ideological groups are the ones driving the tranzi organisations; that is, the EU and the UN, etc etc. Who is shouting loudest about green issues? The anglosphere. Who is loudest on other moralist issues- drugs, drink, sex, etc? The anglosphere. The majority of the major globalist/statist NGOs are anglospheric in origin, from Greenpeace to Save The Children. We are the drivers of the social tyranny. It thus seems irrational to think that we can escape it by leaving tranzi organisations. If anything, the major benefit of leaving would be to save the rest of the world from us!

    New Labour was not reluctantly forced into regulating every aspect of our lives by foreigners. The Tories are not social authoritarians because of foreign influence. Leaving the EU, while our current ideological hegemony is in place, will not ease the government burden upon us one iota. And it is quite clear that the desire among many conservatives to leave the EU is a desire to escape foreign liberalism, and, locked in our island nation, free the government to ban tits and bums on the telly and take us back to 1900.

    The EU is an undemocratic tyranny, but then so is the UK. Our parliament is sovereign. It wields the power of a monarch. It has no restraints and no checks and balances at all. It could order us all to wear blue hats on tuesdays, on pain of death, should it so desire. It was, prior to 1832, somewhat restrained by its own awareness of its own illegitimacy, but after that the reform began, and we ended up as the statist cesspool we are today. Modern miserable Britain was not invented by foreigners- most other EU citizens look on bemused as Britain imposes regulations with a fanatical fervour that the more relaxed continentials find ridiculous. Nowhere in the world bans things like Britain bans things.

    The enemy is ourselves; or, to be fairer, the enemy is our own ruling class, who are the most miserable, mad bunch of cunts we could possibly be lumbered with. It is the anglosphere- us and the USA primarily- driving the tranzi “global governance” machine. As such, it doesn’t really matter whether we’re inside or outside the EU, since it just reflects back upon us our own ruling class’s madness.

  5. “GramscoFabiaNazis”

    In another milieu, in a time far away, we called our opponents “Statists.” This had the virtue of requiring few keystrokes and easy comprehension. Then some Gramscian had the bright idea of persuading libertarians to use the term “GramscoFabiaNazis.”

    Gramski was imprisoned for defying an authoritarian State. Fabians advocated social democracy as opposed to State control of all economic and social activity. Nazis are a defunct crowd of statist gangsters who were smashed in 1945 when they lost a world war. In Britain, at least, you will be hard put to find a self-described Nazi who actually advocates doing what the Nazis did.

    To describe our opponents (Statists) as “GramscoFabiaNazis” is to hand the opposition a free ride. Nobody seems to know any real “GramscoFabiaNazis” to tell us what they think or want. It is perhaps the most helpful present given to the Statists, along with the mythology of Anti-EU propaganda and the wilful deception of describing them as other than what they really are, and thus making them seem powerful and intelligent, with “history” on their side. Utterly unproductive.

    Give me Sociable Democracy any day.


  6. The legend that Thatcher was kicked out of office by her opponents is absurd. The hated Poll Tax was the proximate cause, leading to her failing to participate in a leadership election. We have John Selwyn Gummer to thank for this: he told her that to lose a leadership election would be an unbearable humiliation. So she bowed out.

    Anyone taking advice from Gummer is unworthy to lead any Conservative Party.


  7. Ian B, of course leaving the EU will not make us free, as we will still have a massive body of legislation to repeal, a bureaucracy to disassemble, tax to simplify and lower, a statist mindset to overturn, etc., etc.. In short, we will have a mountain to climb. Nevertheless we must leave the EU, because as long as we are in the EU, we can’t start that task.

    Whilst it is true that political correctness and various of the vanguard organisations have their origin in the anglosphere that is to miss the point. Political correctness came here out of America. In particular, the obsession with race and anti-racism came out of American circumstances.

    The problem of being in the EU is that the whole toolbox of progressive “problems” and “progressive” solutions in hardwired in to EU law. Often in the treaties and always in the acquis communitaire. For example, equal pay law is based on treaty rights. It is entirely unrepealable without leaving the EU. So we are stuck with the absurdity of “work of equal value”.

    Another fundamental reason to leave the EU is that the legal culture of most European states and their bureaucratic culture are far removed from what their equivalents in Britain were only a generation ago. At its simplest the legal and political cultures of Europe are far more statist in their assumptions.

    In the EU we are stuck with their statist outlook and statist solutions to every problem. To take an example it is one thing for people to have legal rights over their data. It is an entirely different thing to create a data commissioner with whom almost everybody must register.

    Another reason we must leave the EU is that as long as we are in most matters are beyond politics. They are not debated even, because the main political parties and the MSM know that there is no possibility of changing the policy as it is decided at an EU level. For a simple example take light bulbs. There are good arguments why we should not have moved from traditional bulbs to the mercury containing low energy ones. No point in debating it now, as there is nothing that we in Britain can do to repeal it.

  8. At its simplest the legal and political cultures of Europe are far more statist in their assumptions.

    I disagree, Otto. This is part of the blame the foreigners narrative. The simple fact is that Britain has plenty of its own statism and has had for a very long time. The EU didn’t create the BBC, or the BBFC, or the NHS and welfare state. The EU didn’t introduce the licensing laws, the obscene publications acts, our various blasphemy laws, etc etc etc. The EU didn’t illegalise drugs.

    Progressivism is an anglosphere affliction. It started here in the UK as protestant revivalism (e.g. Wesley) and during the C19 metastasised as a slew of “progressive” reform movements. It leapt across the Atlantic early in that century, into religious revivalism, driving such movements as Temperance and Abolitionism and so on.

    The point is, the continent had communism, but that never took off in the anglosphere because we already had our own authoritarian social movement, progressivism. Communism is now dead. What remains is anglo-socialism, progressivism, and it is that which is the enemy. And it’s coming from, in particularly the USA (as you say) because they are the world hegemon, but also from us as the junior partner. I think this is an absolutely key thing we need to get to grips with. We are not drowning under an invasion of foreign ideas. We are the source, not the victims. Anglospheric christian/progressive socialism is what is driving the global ideological hegemony.

    You can easily spot the difference between the two creeds. Marxian communist socialism (like capitalism) is primarily an economic theory concerned with economic outputs. Anglo-socialism is a moral theory concerned with moral outputs. For instance, both capitalists and marxists are interested in how many goods come out of a factory (hence the infamous tractor production statistics). Anglo-socialists see the factory in terms of its moral value and don’t care about its economic output. The purpose of the factory is to provide work, which is good for the soul, not production– and the goods themselves are judged on their moral worth, so under anglo-socialism it is good policy to waste money on wind turbines, because they are moral goods.

    This is all anglospheric in origin. I want to leave the EU, really I do. But the laws which oppress us are home-grown. “We” cannot do a goddamned thing, whether inside or outside the EU, until we can overturn the moral hegemony driving policy, so I’m just saying that in practical terms, it probably doesn’t matter much whether we’re in or out at the moment, because even if we were miraculously to leave, our ruling class would not use the freedom to reduce the state. They would probably increase it even faster.

  9. Otto:

    Marxism is a theory of the evolution of societies, which professes to predict how economic “laws” (like Darwin’s “Laws”) drive social changes. Although Marxism claims to predict the growth of Capitalist infrastructure leading to Socialist Revolution, it does not advocate this transition – the Marxist may welcome the Revolution, but the Capitalists are making it both inevitable and feasible. Sun-worshippers may welcome the sunrise; but few would argue that their welcoming actually causes the sun to rise.


  10. In theory, the Conservatives should clean up. But, they wont. Two problems. They cant play the ‘Labour are crooks’ because they are just as bad and have been caught stealing the expenses as well, also, the largest problem both parties face is the unprecedented numbers of MPs that are stepping down to get their lump sums, pensions and then leave these shores to become tax exiles. Frankly, who can blame them. Their reputations are in tatters, the country is in dire financial shape, failing NHS, failing schools, rising violent crime, rising worker and pensioner poverty. They have created a country that the average Brit would leave if he could afford to. As MPs have the money, they will take it and go. The legacy of the past 10 or so years should haunt them to their graves, in Florida, Spain, Australia or where ever else they run to. Bliar ran to the USA as did Thatcher.