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 death of the Tories

Literary critic Cyril Connolly said that the war between the generations is the only war in which everyone changes sides eventually. He was wrong. Politics is war, of course; and the Conservative Party switched en masse years ago. Unencumbered by any meaningful philosophy, they just marched from right to left.

Theresa May sounds for all the world like a Labour back-bencher buttering up the party big guns. It’s difficult listening. That said, I fully understand her desire to put the boot in. Who wouldn’t?

The death of the Tories is not a tragedy in and of itself. The carcass can rot for all I care. It’s what they haven’t done. What they failed to deliver. And all the fucking about.

One thing they did manage to do? Create a hell-ish environment in the institutions. Everything is in place. Labour will REALLY be able to wreak their identitarian havoc. Just wait and see. We’ll probably be asked to express our gender preferences through the medium of interpretive dance. And that’ll be the sensible option.

Seriously though – they’ll finish their revolution. And with it, the country. Nobody will be able to do a damn thing about it.

Dr Philip Kiszely

22 comments to Samizdata quote of the day – the death of the Tories

  • Steven R

    Seriously though – they’ll finish their revolution. And with it, the country. Nobody will be able to do a damn thing about it.

    Stacking bodies is always an option.

  • Marius

    Willy Hague was writing in the Times today, some blather about more banning and regulation for the food industry. Exactly the sort of guff you’d expect from a Labour politician.

    Where Dr Phil is wrong is in suggesting the problem with the Tories is they failed in office to push back the inflated Blairite state. In order to fail, you have to try. The overweening state, the hectoring, the nannying, the unlimited immigration, the Net Zero madness is the Tories doing what they want. The only area where they actually failed was getting forced into Brexit.

  • NickM

    I recently had to sign up to the NHS online to get a repeat prescription. To call it a palaver would be to insult palaverists. I was asked three times what my gender identity was. The drugs in question have nothing to do with that in anyway shape or form. Fortunately, my doctor offered me her PA’s number because she said, “It’s shite isn’t it?” That is a direct quote from someone who isn’t a rocket scientist. Nah, she’s merely a Professor of Neurology at Manchester University.

  • Stonyground

    Being a type two diabetic, I have had an NHS app on my phone for several years. It is called Patient Access, I don’t recall having any problem registering for it, which suggests that they have screwed up something that used to work ok. I’ve mainly used it for ordering repeat prescriptions which is a doddle to do. Theoretically it can also be used to book appointments but there never seem to be any online appointments available. Of course you then have to book by phone and spend half an hour listening to a recorded messages reminding you that you can book online.

  • I was asked three times what my gender identity was.

    I hope you told them “Attack Helicopter”!

  • Paul Marks.

    The truth is rather different – and much more concerning.

    Unlike, the dreadful Mrs May, some Conservative ministers actually are Conservatives – real Conservatives.

    But it makes little difference – as policy is often not made by elected people.

    So “get the Tories out” would have as little effect nationally as it does locally in, for example, Boston Lincolnshire when they elected new people.

    “If we have the majority we can…. ” – well not much really, you can change some details (most certainly you can) – but basic policy remains. Policy is presented to the elected – it is not, on many important matters, made by them.

    It is very difficult to explain this to people who have never held elected office.

    “But if you are elected then you decide policy – and the officials have to do what you say”.

    It does not work out that way – it may have done once, but not so much these days.

    Take the World Health Organisation power grab – Members of Parliament may vote the new treaty, but the 2005 agreement can be changed without any vote in Parliament (thanks to Andrew Bridgen for this example).

    This is just one example out of a Legion – there are all sorts of agreements and regulations, they may have (at one time) depended on Acts of Parliament – but they have had a life of their own for many years.

    In theory Parliament could repeal all of this – that is true.

  • Paul Marks.

    What interests me is whether the United States is like the United Kingdom in this respect – if it is also true there that policy is, generally (not in everything), presented to elected people, rather than them making policy.

    Certainly the American bureaucracy, especially at the Federal level, is terrible – making Presidents (and so on) to-some-extent prisoners of the system – rather than being in charge of the government.

    But, I think (I stand ready to be corrected on this) elections still matter a great deal in the United States – after all if elections did not matter a great deal, why would the Democrats go to such great lengths to rig the elections.

  • mkent

    ”But, I think (I stand ready to be corrected on this) elections still matter a great deal in the United States…”

    Due to the American principle of federalism, regulation of most aspects of everyday life is still handled at the state or local level, so local elections in the States still matter a great deal. Roads, bridges, schools, police and fire departments, planning and zoning commissions, business licenses, and petty crime are all handled at the local level. Highways, major crime, gun laws, etc. are handled at the state level.

    This results in major variation in laws throughout the country. For example, in roughly half the country you do not need a permit or license to buy a handgun, shotgun, or rifle. You can even carry one either openly (such as in a holster on your hip) or concealed (such as in a pocket or purse) without a permit. But don’t try this in the other half of the country, or you’ll be looking at hard time.

    Even federal elections matter. With just a five-vote majority in the 435-member House, the Republicans have prevented the Democrats from forcing fraudulent elections on all 50 states. While there is definitely a Deep State, especially at the federal level, elections for the time being most certainly do matter.

  • Kirk

    What happened was pretty simple… Gramscian elite capture, which they accomplished by taking over the education system.

    It’s a workable program, except for one thing. Reality.

    The thing that Gramsci et al. neglected to consider in their plotting and planning was the entire question of “Does it work?”, when they decided to put their ideas into effect.

    We have before us copious evidence that it manifestly does not work. What remains is for the body politic represented by the people to recognize that it doesn’t work, and to abandon it wholesale. That process almost mandates that the idiot class putting Gramsci’s ideas into effect has to succeed long enough to utterly discredit their ideas entirely. Which has the implication of utterly wrecking what there is existing of society, and living in an interregnum where we have to put up with their BS before enough people recognize the essential unworkability of their ideas…

    I honestly have to blame the “intellectual class” for all of this. They’re the ones with the ideas, and the unmet aspirations that drove the majority of their fellows to making this choice.

  • Paul Marks.

    mkent – yes that is also my impression. Although the Federal Government has vastly more power over the States and local governments than it used to have (before 1965 such things as the Federal and State partnership programs such as Medicare and Medicaid did not even exist) – but it is still has less power than in the United Kingdom.

    Here such things as DEI (Diversity, Equality and Inclusion – Frankfurt School “Woke” Marxism) and New Zero (ESG – Environmental and Social Governance, more Henri Saint-Simon, French Collectivist of two centuries ago, style Collectivism NOT Marxism) are not really optional – but there is also Kirk’s point.

    Yes it is Gramscian style elite capture via the education system – even though Gramsci was an Italian Marxist, not a German one, he also worked to update Marxism – keeping its objective of Collectivism (tyranny), but changing its tactics (changing its tactics a great deal).

    Conservative ministers (and some ministers really are Conservative – both economic and culturally Conservative) are, basically, powerless against all this.

    Although, as Dr Kiszely points out, some “Conservatives”, for example the appalling Mrs May, willingly go along with it.

    The “Cultural Hegemony” (Gramsci) of the left. It should be made clear that most officials and so on do NOT (not-not-not) know this stuff is Marxism – that is what “Cultural Hegemony” is about, making people, including Big Business, serve the Collectivist cause – without-even-knowing-they-are-doing-it – for example Mrs May does NOT (not-not-not) know she is pushing a “Critical Theory” agenda – she has not got a clue that she is doing that.

    In 2010 only six (6) Members of Parliament voted against the Equality Act – but the others did NOT (not-not-not) know what the Act was really about.

    What can be done to roll it all back? The economic and cultural Collectivism.

    Well, in theory, Parliament could repeal all of it – 2010 Equality Act, “Woke” (Critical Theory Marxist) influence – and all the rest of it, including the Civil Service and the accursed “independent agencies and authorities”.

    But we are no where even close to most of the House of Commons understanding what is going on.

    Most are still at the “you are being paranoid” stage.

    The end of the first “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” film springs to mind – the man screaming hysterically to passing drivers that they and their families are at terrible risk, that they are going to be destroyed.

    The drivers do not believe him – they think he is insane.

  • Paul Marks.

    On the economic side….

    David Mellor on the “right wing” GB News just blamed “Liz Truss and her reckless Chancellor” for the economic problems of Britain – to the nods of the supposedly “right wing” morning show people (none of them challenged the utterly absurd statement of Mr Mellor – a stupid claim that he has made on “right wing” GB News many times before).

    The tax cuts of Liz Truss and her “reckless Chancellor” did-not-happen – taxation is at a record high. There was not a word of criticism from Mr Mellor for the Chancellor (now Prime Minister) who spent between 400 hundred and 500 hundred Billion Pounds (“not much if you say it quick”) on utterly misguided, indeed incredibly harmful, Covid policies. And not a word of criticism from Mr Mellor for Chancellor Jeremy Hunt – who wanted an even more insane lockdown, and has never met a tax increase he did not like.

    Whilst people like Mr Meller (and that dreadful ex Daily Mirror editor, I can not remember his name, with the sneering voice, a person who never tells the truth on any subject) remain – GB News will not be a true alternative to the leftist “mainstream” television stations.

    Ask Mark Steyn.

    To get rid of Mark Steyn and keep David Mellor (and that ex Daily Mirror editor – whatever his name is) shows a company that is not serious about challenging the establishment – including the despicable “Ofcom”.

  • Paul Marks.

    “Stop obsessing about the Covid spending – look to the future”.

    Between 400 and 500 hundred Billion Pounds is rather a lot of money – but let us play the “water under the bridge” game and “look to the future”.

    Can we have an end to the money paid to France for NOT keeping migrants from coming to Britain? Can we have the migrants not-allowed-in – rather than put up in hotels (at taxpaying expense) and given XYZ. Will “Border Force” actually do its job and keep migrants OUT, rather than escort them in so they can be given endless taxpayer funded benefits and services? No, that would be a “violation of their human rights”.

    There were 600 thousand (legal and illegal) migrants last year – net. Mr Cameron in 2010 promised there would be 20 thousand a year – not 600 thousand. Can we please have the number of, net, migrants reduced to the 20 thousand that the British people voted for – or does there have to be a massive water shortage (blamed on “Climate Change” – not the millions of extra people), and does what is left of the fields and woods of England have to be turned into endless housing estates and warehouses – by an establishment that keeps going on about how “Green” they are.

    What about the 100 Billion Pounds (on top of the Billions already wasted) that is going to be spent on the utterly demented “HS2” – will you please NOT spent that money.

    “But we have to do it – it is POLICY”.

    Who makes “policy”? Why can not elected people make “policy”?

    It is like sitting on local council finance and audit committees and being told there is nothing you can do about a 27 million Pound overspend (over and above an agreed, and very large, budget) on children’s care. “It is an independent trust – the council has no control over how much it spends, and must fund anything it asks for”.

    Well at least that is an honest answer (no pretence that elected people are in charge) – but, if so, why have elections?

  • Jim

    “What happened was pretty simple… Gramscian elite capture, which they accomplished by taking over the education system.
    It’s a workable program, except for one thing. Reality.
    The thing that Gramsci et al. neglected to consider in their plotting and planning was the entire question of “Does it work?”, when they decided to put their ideas into effect”

    Yes, this gives me hope. The whole edifice of State power is useless if it can’t do anything. And thats pretty much where we are now – it doesn’t matter if Labour get in and do loads more of the same sh*t the Tories have been doing, because all that will do is make the levers of power do even less than they do today.

    In fact I say bring it on, because its only out of total collapse of the State sector will any change for the better come. We should want there to be a 4 day week in State employ, why not 3? Or 2? Hell, come in once a week and we’ll pay you for the full five. Want to spend your entire day arguing about how to stick it to the patriarchy while dressed as a cat? Feel free. Want to make the entire country dependent on the wind blowing? Lets have it. Then when it doesn’t and grid goes down those ‘in charge’ will be the ones who get it in the neck, maybe literally if things go really pear shaped.

    There is no improvement from this position we are in, there is only destruction out of which can grow something new.

  • john in cheshire

    “There were 600 thousand (legal and illegal) migrants last year – net. Mr Cameron in 2010 promised there would be 20 thousand a year – not 600 thousand.”
    In addition, what if (because I haven’t seen any data on this aspect):
    Incomers = 1 million
    Outgoers = 400 thousand
    Net incomers = 600 thousand
    But if
    Outgoers = 400 thousand indigenous people
    Incomers actually = 1 Million
    the actual injection of the unwanted and unneeded into our country is almost certainly much, much higher than the already appallingly high number the rats in power have revealed.

  • Stuart Noyes

    The other day I made the point that people should be responsible fir the state of their countries and rather than run away to let them fester, should fight to improve their lot. Didn’t get much if a response?

  • Steven R


    On the one hand, I think that’s absolutely correct. They should fix where they live rather than hopping a border and immediately putting a hand out for benefits.

    On the other hand, we in the West aren’t doing anything to fix where we live. We let the corruption continue, the hordes pour over the border, the whole blessings of liberty slip away to the whims of bureaucrats, and we’re doing nothing about it.

    At least the masses showing up have some sort of a plan on how to improve their lots in life. All we do is complain on the internet and remind ourselves to vote harder next time because somehow we’re totally going to vote our way back to sanity.

  • Stuart Noyes

    Steven R.

    My plan is the Harrogate Agenda.

  • jgh

    The teatime news today announced that Government Debt is now greater than the entire GDP for the first time since we crawled out of the aftermath of the second world war in 1960.

    Similarly, at our parish council audit meeting yesterday one councillor was complaining vigourously that we didn’t borrow anything. “We have infinite capacity for borrowing” he asserted. I was screaming silently in my head.

  • Marcus R.

    I was screaming silently in my head.

    Why silently?

  • Paul Marks.

    Jim – it depends what you mean by “does it work”.

    If you mean “will it make the lives of ordinary people better” – no, of course it will not.

    But, whatever Dr Karl Marx himself may have wanted, modern Marxists do not give a damn about improving living standards – they want Collectivism regardless-of-the-consequences, it is about POWER for the sake of POWER. They want to stamp and grind their boot on the face of people – for ever.

    The non Marxist Collectivists, the Henri Saint-Simon types with their ESG (Environmental and Social Governance) do not care about living standards either – they want their “Smart Cities” with every aspect of the lives of ordinary people controlled by the Corporate State – they do not care if vast numbers of people die, why should they care? They also want to stamp and grind their boot on the face of people – for ever (that is what the World Economic Forum and all the other organisations and gatherings, are about).

    “But the voters will revolt” – will they?

    I California the voters had the evidence of decay all around them – yet the voted to re elect Gavin Newsom (a typical Corporate State type – small stores must close “Covid”, vast Hollywood “Woke” Corporations must be kept open and vastly subsidised) by some 60% of the vote.

    Brainwashing works – and ordinary people are bombarded by endless brainwashing, the education system (schools and universities), the “mainstream media” (including the entertainment media) and-so-on.

    Go into a book shop – see how many pro Donald John Trump books you will see (many have been written – but you will not find them in the corporate owned book shops) – but you will find many anti President Trump books (filled with lies – lies pushed every day by the mainstream media).

    Empirical evidence is not enough on its own – the human mind must have a framework of rational ideas (principles) in order to be able to make sense of the evidence. And that is exactly what the American education system (schools and universities) and the media (including the entertainment media) works to DESTROY. And that did not start last week – it started when the American “Pragmatist” philosophers (ironically the “does it work” types) gained influence in the very late 19th century – they replaced the Common Sense philosophers, the rational principles people, and have taught generations of students that Common Sense (natural reason) either does not exist or is wrong – instead filling the minds of generations of the elite (and the non elite) with lies and absurdities.

    Knowledge of the past is also totally distorted, indeed inverted. For example, under President Herbert Hoover taxes were pushed to a record peacetime HIGH. In 1912-13 income tax had been NOTHING (zero), in 1928-8 the top rate had been 25% – in 1932-1933 the top rate of income tax was at least 60% (a utter Revolution over a mere 20 years before), taxes on imports were also incredibly high (a peace time record) – and, for the first time in American history, a President (Herbert Hoover) went around PREVENTING business enterprises from reducing real wage rates to adjust to the change in the Labour Market – in short this government interventionism (actively preventing Real Wage Rates being reduced to meet the conditions of supply-and-demand) created and maintained MASS UNEMPLOYMENT.

    As for the Credit Bubble bust of 1929 – how many times do I have to point out that banks lending out money that DOES NOT EXIST (creating a Credit Bubble) is not a free market practice. Ponzi schemes are not a free market – and the Federal Reserve (created in 1913) made the Credit Bubbles BIGGER not smaller.

    Yet President Hoover is presented as a “conservative” figure, who practiced “laissez faire” policies – the opposite of what he actually did.

    The United Kingdom?

    “Throw the Tories out” – and get the Labour Party, which will put up no resistance at all to the Collectivist agenda.

    “But Paul – Mr Sunak and Mr Hunt are terrible” – and Labour will be worse, and is Dr Philip Kiszely himself admits.

    I wish I had some hope to offer you – but I do not see it.

    Still perhaps I am WRONG – perhaps Donald John Trump will be elected (for the third time – in reality) and mock the World Economic Forum Corporate State (yes the F word – Fascist Corporate State forces) and reverse all their policies in 2025.

    A nice dream.

    And the British people will see this and demand the same “Trumpism” here.

    Again – a nice dream.

  • Paul Marks.

    Before anyone points it out – ironically Herbert Hoover was one of the few people in the late 1920s who had doubts about the Credit Bubble economy the Federal Reserve (and its pet banks) had created, he did not understand that the “financial industry” “Wall Street” was a vast Ponzi scheme – but he did sense that something was wrong and said so. That does not excuse the interventionist policies of Herbert Hoover – especially the terrible intervention to PREVENT wage rates adjusting to the bust, preventing Real Wage rates from falling – President Hoover believed in the “Demand” fallacy, he thought that allowing Real Wages to fall would make the Depression worse, thus ignoring the evidence of every previous bust from 1819 to 1921. But it should be stated that Herbert Hoover had doubts in the late 1920s – he was not a groupie of Benjamin Strong (New York Federal Reserve) and Montague Norman (Bank of England) – and most people in public life were groupies of these terrible two.

    Even many years later Milton Friedman still could not grasp that Benjamin Strong had followed utterly dreadful monetary policies – as long as the “price level” was not going up, neither Irving Fisher at the time, or Milton Friedman (decades later) could see the problem – they could not see the vast Credit Bubble in front of their eyes.

    There is nothing economically wrong with being a money lender – but there is a lot wrong (dreadfully wrong) with lending out “money” that does not exist, lending out “savings” that are not Real Savings.

    That is not being an honest Shylock – that is being a Bubble Blower, and Bubble Blowing destroys economic life.

  • Paul Marks.

    The late historian Paul Johnson, in his book “Modern Times”, described the late 1920s as “not in front of the children” interventionism.

    Instead of printing “money” and handing it out to everyone (the mad plan of Major Douglas) the Anglo-American elite (the bankers and government officials) preached free markets – whilst creating “money” from nothing (the “gold standard” – what is that word “standard” for? The word “standard” is there to allow this massive FRAUD) and handing it out to their mates.

    We have a financial system like that right now – except that it is worse (vastly worse) than the late 1920s

    Indeed for a period we had the Major Douglas stuff as well – the “furlough” scheme.

    I wonder what happened to the Chancellor who rubber stamped that utterly insane scheme – if he opposed what the Civil Servants came up with (paying most of the population money-for-nothing) he has never said so.

    The magic word “Covid” does not make Major Douglas “Social Credit” policies any less insane. Anyone who supported the “furlough” policy and the rest of the 400 to 500 Billion Pounds of “Covid” spending (the human mind can not even grasp a number that big) has no standing to comment on policy.

    Just as the magic word “Covid” does not make breaking the election laws of many States in the United States (turning a win for President Trump into a “win” for Mr Biden) acceptable.

    If someone refuses to denounce the massive election fraud that occurred in some States in 2020 and in 2022 (was it “Covid” in 2022 as well? so much for “we will only do it to get Trump out”) I am not interested in anything they say about “democracy” or anything else.

    And yes that includes the Wall Street Journal – they refuse to denounce the election fraud, indeed they sneer at people who complain about the election fraud. So the Wall Street Journal, and Wall Street in general, can burn-in-Hell.