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]

Well that’s a pity then…

The country needs a Conservative government with a strong majority in order to tackle the enormous challenges it faces, says The Sunday Telegraph

Well then what a pity that none of the main parties are actually offering a ‘conservative’ option to vote for.

Despite the parties’ attempts to capture the all-important middle ground, the differences between them are clear. Labour believes that only the state can solve the country’s economic and social problems. The Conservatives, by contrast, believe that the growth of the central state is the cause of the problem, not its solution, and want to call upon the invigorating power of citizens and communities.

And this, gentle reader, is why the current editorial of the Sunday Telegraph is fit for nothing more than lining the bottom of a bird cage.

Cameron has made it abundantly clear over the last few years that he, just like Labour and the Lib Dems, sees the state as the centre around which civil society must rotate, regardless of selective rhetoric to the contrary. Ignore the dissembling phraseology and just stay focused on the numbers.

And what do the numbers say? They say that risible balderdash like “the invigorating power of citizens and communities” is just code for Tory directed statism, which differs in verbiage and style, but not substance, from Labour directed statism. The litmus test to see if there is truly any difference is very simple to administer:

Will the state’s net take of the nation’s wealth be smaller or larger at the end of David Cameron’s first (and hopefully last) term in office? Will it be less by even so much as a single penny?

Well lets see what Dave has to say on that subject…

Mr Cameron said he would increase government spending from £620bn this year to £645bn next year – rather than the £650bn proposed by ministers

Oh I just never tire of linking to that article, filled as it is with radiant doublespeak but oh so revealing numbers, the empty Tory verbiage of classical liberalism varnished over the numbers of Keynesian statism: that truly epic insincerity that has become Cameron’s trade mark and which the mainstream media simply accept uncritically.

Strange how much “the invigorating power of citizens and communities” of “Big Society” looks like costing even more that the “Big State” we have today, eh?

12 comments to Well that’s a pity then…

  • Nuke Gray

    Dennis Wheatley had the solution years ago! The only way to ‘prune’ the trifid-like reach of governments was to assassinate anyone who works for any level of government. treat them all like occupying powers, or stooges of big Brother. soon, no-one would dare to work for governments, and they would all wither away, leaving the road clear to rebuild.

  • Laird

    Nuke Gray, I presume you’re referring to Wheatley’s “Letter to Posterity“, which is certainly worth a read, but I don’t think that’s a fair characterization of his position. What Wheatley actually called for was “the boycotting, or ambushing and killing of unjust tyrannous officials” (my emphasis). That’s a far cry from calling for the assassination of “anyone who works for any level of government.” If that is truly your position, claim ownership of it yourself; don’t lay it on Wheatley.

  • Nuke Gray

    Perhaps I extrapolated Wheatley too far, but what constitutes ‘unjust’? What would Dennis have made of today’s overgoverned Britain? As I don’t live in Britain, I don’t know how badly council laws have grown, though I did hear of a recent case of a woman being fined for selling a goldfish to an underage child in her petshop. If that is typical, I think, “Bring on the revolution, comrad!”

  • pete

    A Conservative government will almost certainly spend less than the alternatives available.

    That’s why I’m voting for them.

  • A Conservative government will almost certainly spend less than the alternatives available. That’s why I’m voting for them.

    Then you are voting for more state, not less state, and you are part of the problem not part of the solution.

    The Tory Party is full of patronage politicians who want to increase the size of the state… but just a little bit slower than the others… because they know people like you will vote for them regardless even though you (presumably) actually want less state. Can you not see how you and all the “lesser evil” voters like you are entirely responsible for creating this state of affairs?

  • So Pete, you’re quite cheap aren’t you? What’s the math – 5bn over a population of 60+bn.. that’s only a saving of about 80 quid or so. I bet the student nurses in Leith are charging more than that these days…

  • Arrgghh… 60+bn.. should of course be 60+m as in 60 odd million – saw my error just after I clicked post.

  • Derek Buxton

    “Need a strong conservative government” but where can we get one? I can vaguely remember a Conservative government for a short time, scuppered by the “cabinet ministers” in it.

  • Cameron’s government will be nothing in the slightest big Conservative. The difference between his policies and those of Clegg & Co are slight indeed. He is a fully bought up member of the “centrist consensus” and will do little in the way of changing the direction of the country.

    Peter Hitchens has quite a screed on what Cameron actually stands for.

  • Natalia

    agreed i see no conservative in this race.

  • Paul Marks

    John Major (in whose interests I worked my guts out – more fool me) ended up boasting (not admitting in shame – BOASTING) the following:

    “We have spent more money than Labour promised to spend”.

    What is the evidence that Mr Cameron will not be saying the same thing soon?

    By the way even if Mr Cameron is telling the truth and his spending plans (including the National Citizenship Service and other crackbrained “Obama lite” ideas) end up increasing government spending slightly less (rather than MORE) than Labour. It makes no difference.

    Pete – Britain is going BANKRUPT.

    Government spending must be CUT (and cut by huge sums) and it must be done NOW – if bankruptcy is to be avoided.

    All that electing Mr Cameron (with his cunning plan to save the nation by buying slightly fewer extra paper clips for the Ministry of Silly Walks) will achieve is give the “mainstream” media (in Britain and overseas) an EXCUSE for why the British economy collapsed.

    “Some right wing wingnuts say that it was statism that caused Britain to collapse – on the contrary it was savage Tory cuts that were to blame”.

    The fact that government spending went UP (not down) will not stop NBC (and the rest) saying this.

    The narrative (backed up by the schools and the universities – not just the msm) will be “vote for Obama in 2012 or you will get economic collapse – just like the one those right wing Conservatives caused in Britain”.

    Think it can not happen?

    Remember the left (including the history books) blame the “Thatcher cuts” for the terrible recession of 1979 to 1982. The fact that government spending went UP (and up vastly) over this period (and NO it was not mainly on unemployment benefit) is totally ignored.