We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata quote of the day … the Greens won an MP in the enclave of Brighton, but their share of the vote fell. I find this quite amazing, really. After five years of relentless environmental yakkery in the mass media, bombarding us on all channels at once, the Greens received a lower share of votes than the BNP. All that most Greens can now look forward to is to return to their yurts, and prepare for recycling.
– Andrew Orlowski, writing in the Register, and reaching the fairly sensible conclusion that the reason every political party did badly was because they are all intellectually bankrupt, and the public is starting to get this. Read the whole thing.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
So it is only natural that Parties which can prove that no one supports them should be rewarded with a seat in Parliament!
I think that the problem that the LibDems have is that Labour and the Conservatives are so obviously polarised. Mention the words “hung parliament” and any waverers are going to run back to their own side for fear that Gleggy will use their vote to put the other lot in power.
None of them could get a fuck in a monkey whore-house if they turned-up with a truck-load of bananas.
Is all.
Surely another reason the Greenies got so few votes was that all the big parties have turned green as well.
If only they would return to their yurts….and stay there
“the Greens won an MP”
You what?
If communication is the companion to logic, there’s one writer that’s circumcised from the neck up. Standards are so abysmally low these days.
Really? Unless I misunderstand you… obviously how? Which of them represents a Vast Regulatory Welfare State? Or more to the point… which of them does NOT represent a Vast Regulator Welfare State? Lets hear it from Dave’s own mouth:
Which of those two parties will make the state spend less in absolute (or even in inflation adjusted) terms than it currently does and which will spend more?
So… more then, not less…polarised you say?
It does not matter a tinker’s damn which of them is in No. 10
Indeed Perry.
But simultaneously, we’ve got our left slavishly copying the American left, as they always do, in doing their best to pretend there is this enormously polarised sitatuation with “conservatives” on the one side, and this new meme of “the progressive consensus” on the other. That is, everybody is a progressive, except for those nasty, evil conservatives.
It’s one of the big problems (besides the numerous others) of the Boy David trying to declare the tories to be “progressive”. He simply isn’t welcome in the progressive consensus, because they need the conservative common enemy, so he ends up like an unpopular kid at school begging to be let into the gang and humiliatingly rejected with a slap and a chinese burn.
I see there’s an astroturf movement- “38 degrees”- suddenly popped up to demand Cleggo get PR to ensure a “progressive consensus” in eternity. They’re funded by Big Progressivism/Big Green, including a sort of shabby Soros called Henry Tinsley who donates to the Labs and Libs. Again, a copy of the Yankee Proggies like MoveOn- hardened activists leading a bunch of “grass roots” single figure IQs around by the nose- “Wave this banner, shout “hope” and “change” when you’re told”.
So anyway, there’s a serious move on the part of The Network to redefine our politics as “progressives vs conservatives”. That’s the polarisation then; a fantasy narrative written by our old friends on the hard, well organised, activist Left.
Surely the greens vote is down because AGW has been shown to be such a crock of sh+t.
“Green-ness” is an indulgence of an affluent and idle society.
Once things start getting serious — eg. war, economic catastrophe and the like — the irrelevant Green nonsense gets put back in the toy cupboard.
I’m with Kim du Toit here: the truth is that Greenery has only grown because we have the (temporary) luxury of “caring” rather than the reality of surviving.
Once we find out that sitting round sipping wine and talking tosh about climate change in polite company has been replaced by something more visceral and way more urgent then the Greens will be even more irrelevant.
The Green vote was down because it was squeezed by the prospect of a Tory win.
Cameron managed to get 9% of the gay vote. I can’t imagine he got a higher proportion of Green vote anywhere (except perhaps in Zac Goldsmith’s seat). Everyone I know who worries about recycling or green miles was voting anti-tory.
Is there such a thing as the “gay vote”? Why should someone’s sexual preference determine the way they vote?
Ian B. – wonderful on David Cameron. He did indeed spend YEARS trying to make friends with the Guardian crowd, and then they rewarded his efforts by savagely attacking him and the Conservative party every day in the campaign.
One would have had to have had a heart of stone – not to laugh.