Our diagnosis is that what really worries The Guardian here [about Argentina] is that this will all work. For where would the progressives be if classical liberalism were shown – once again – to work?
|
|||||
Our diagnosis is that what really worries The Guardian here [about Argentina] is that this will all work. For where would the progressives be if classical liberalism were shown – once again – to work? “Yes, like any philosophy, neoliberalism has its limits, and as with any philosophy, some of its adherents get overexcited and take things a bit too far. But given where we currently are, and where we are likely to go in the near future, focussing on the risk of “too much neoliberalism” seems bizarre to me. It is as if you were lost in the desert, and your main worry was that if you find an oasis, you might end up drinking too much water, and get overhydrated. Maybe one day, neoliberalism will be so popular that there really will be a non-trivial risk of taking it too far. If so – that will be a good day.” – Kristian Niemietz, Editorial Director, Institute of Economic Affairs. (Part of his commentary is this recent apologia to libertarians from Noah Smith, a US centre-leftist who appears to have some intellectual honesty and grit, which is refreshing, and so it appears, rare.) It might be helpful of critics of neoliberalism bothered to define it clearly. (Tim Worstall has a related takedown of George Monbiot’s recent forays into this territory. Worstall is, as you might expect, unimpressed.) In The Times, no less:
Safety is one thing. The article goes on to discuss consent and the risks to female athletes of speaking out on this topic. Before it’s possible to suggest a solution to a problem, it’s necessary to grasp the root cause of the problem itself. A sort of Reverse Chesterton’s Fence exercise. So, what has gone wrong? As we never tire of repeating it’s the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 and successors. That is, for the past 78 years we’ve had that coherent national plan. With a long term vision. Run by the Rolls Royce minds of the Men in Whitehall who know best. Which is how we’ve ended up with the output we’ve got, something that would disgrace a Trabant factory. As it is national control of planning – the TCPA really does define who may build what where, is the nationalisation of land use – that is the problem then the solution is to get rid of what caused the problem. Blow up the TCPA, proper blow up – kablooie. After a recount, the Reform Party were declared the winners of the Runcorn and Helsby by-election by six votes. The first time they counted, Reform’s margin of victory was four votes. Assuming the second result is accurate, the first result was off by two. Not bad considering 32,740 votes were cast. Not a bad result for Reform, either. Sarah Pochin is Runcorn’s first MP from any party other than Labour in 52 years. If that result had come from the bowels of a voting machine many Labour supporters would have distrusted it. Because the count and the recount took place under the eyes of multiple observers – courtesy of the Sun live-streaming it, you can watch all three hours and twenty one minutes of the process here if you want to – few now will. The Press Gazette reports: Essex Police loses accuracy complaint versus Telegraph over Allison Pearson questioning
(The tweet in question criticised two-tier policing of Pro-Palestine marches.)
Why does it matter whether it was or was not a “non-crime hate incident”? Because Essex Police tried to claim that because Pearson was – ludicrously – being investigated for an actual crime (someone had complained that the tweet had incited racial hatred), that meant that the Telegraph could not report on their own columnist having the rozzers turn up unannounced at her door on Remembrance Sunday.
|
|||||
![]()
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |