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 – A Cheerful Message of Yuletide Tyranny And what we, the people, need to worry about is therefore that this is merely the start of Project Stop Fascism. Labour were only elected 18 months ago, and they have already reached a position at which they think it sensible to delay elections, mostly abolish jury trials, and begin edging back towards EU member status. What might they do in a year’s time? Two years’ time? Three?
Delaying the next General Election would require primary legislation, and one reassures oneself by thinking that they surely couldn’t go that far. But I’m by no means the only person who has had the thought crossing his mind, and the fact that senior Labour figures are being forced to dismiss the idea publicly – a dismissal which is about as reassuring as your boss telling you that there are ‘currently no plans for compulsory redundancies’ – itself would have been unthinkable two years ago.
– David McGrogan
|
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.
|
Meanwhile, a group of Labour MPs are planning to table an amendment to the Elections Bill so as to require prospective MPs to pass a certain safeguarding threshold with an enhanced DBS check in order to stand for election – which, needless to say, does not only reveal one’s criminal record but also whether one has been recorded as having committed a ‘non-crime hate incident’.
It’s not obvious to me that this assists the Uniparty, unless it can be deployed against Farage personally.
One of Reform’s disadvantages, associated with being a new thing, full of excitable folk, is that it is inevitable that a number of their candidates will be juicy fodder for the hostile media. Which may persuade a few percent to remain with the Tories or Labour or to stay at home, costing Reform quite a few seats. But having these folk weeded out before the election by the quangocracy likely allows Farage to sleep more easily at night.
“Meanwhile, a group of Labour MPs are planning to table an amendment to the Elections Bill so as to require prospective MPs to pass a certain safeguarding threshold with an enhanced DBS check in order to stand for election – which, needless to say, does not only reveal one’s criminal record but also whether one has been recorded as having committed a ‘non-crime hate incident’.”
It never occurs to such fools that measures designed to block out people that they don’t like could just as easily be used against themselves some time in the future.
The excuse for cancelling the local council elections was that these particular councils are being abolished anyway.
But the response to that is that the people did NOT ask for this “local government reorganization”.
For American readers – it would be as if officials and academics had come along and said “Rhode Island is very small – let us make it part of Massachusetts” – with the people having no say in the matter.
As for the idea that that the new councils will “save money” or be “more efficient” – NO they will NOT.
On the next General Election…….
My first thought is “of course they will not cancel the May 2029 [it is likely it will be in May 2029] General Election” – but then I thought – “what if the economy and society is in utter chaos?”
If the economy and society goes the way it very well may (down the plug hole) then the government may say “we can not have a General Election in such chaotic conditions – it is just not possible”.
So the Labour Party Government has an incentive to make things as bad as possible – for then it can say “a General Election is just not possible in these conditions of chaos” – I do not know if they will do that, but it is an idea.
After all, as they keep saying (in relation to Ukraine and so on) “the United Kingdom did not have a General Election in either the First or Second World Wars (the United States did – and during the Civil War, but they ignore that).
“There is precedent – in both the First World War and the Second World War the United Kingdom had no General Election, and there is now hunger and chaos on the streets – a General Election is just not possible in these conditions”.
And the Members of Parliament would get to keep their jobs – and their income, and food and drink and housing allowance, and everything else than they depend upon.
Hundreds of Members of Parliament losing their positions – in a time of mass unemployment, hunger and general chaos, would not be an attractive prospect for these Members of Parliament. They might (might – perhaps) support a delay to a General Election “just till order is restored”.
If conditions become unsafe in London – voting could be done electronically, with Members of Parliament living in safer areas (perhaps no where near the Constituencies they are supposed to represent).
Members of Parliament are human beings – and they often have families to support, as long as they voted the way the officials and experts explain is for the Public Interest, their incomes (food and so on) would be maintained – and, after all, that is the way they (mostly) already vote, and have for many years.
Couldn’t people start a petition to the King asking that he issue rits of ellection?
Much of this would not be possible if we had institutions of government constituted from a single document.
If they introduce DBS checks, can we also have compulsory drug testing, please? Plus continuing random checks of sitting MPs. Otherwise, we may be tempted to think that politicians are less important than footballers.
I followed the link and read the article, but I’ll comment here.
For a while I’ve wondered whether postponing local elections is a kite-flying exercise, to see if it’s practical to cancel the 2029 general election. After all, this Government seems to be almost universally hated. The fact that Labour polled 11% in the recent Caerphilly by-election cannot have been missed by the party’s senior hierarchy. That, in a seat which has been won by Labour at every election since 1918. (If there’s anywhere where the old joke about people voting Labour, even if the Labour candidate were a sheep wearing a red rosette holds true, it’s Caerphilly.) Then there’s the Government’s efforts to cozy-up to the EU – despite support for Brexit being strongest in Labour’s heartlands.
And the author is wrong: postponing a general election would not require primary legislation. The Civil Contingencies Act of 2004 gives an incumbent Government pretty broad reasons to do just that.
To be fair, in a healthy polity, they are.
Paul,
My guess would be that Labour would time the chaos to occur just after the election (assuming Nigel prevails) so they can say “Nothing to do with us, guv, it was working when we gave it to you.”
But of course three and a half years is a long time in politics.
I have commented about this sort of thing here before.
They could but it would have no impact whatsoever.
A lot of countries have a written constitution. Many of them are even more oppressive than Britain. I daresay that while the US constitution in many ways slowed the growth of government in the US, now that they have big government in most reas it now might actually be an impediment to getting rid of it. Divided powers might mean Congress and the courts could restrain a tyrannical president. They could also use same powers to neuter a president who wants to reduce the size and power of the government. It does seem particularly with courts you can almost always find a judge who is able to produce whatever interpretation of the constitution is deemed required.
I’ve often heard Americans say gridlock between Congress and President is good for small government but can anyone point me to a recent example where such gridlock has cut government spending or power? At least in my lifetime the line seems to go one way.
@Martin
I’ve often heard Americans say gridlock between Congress and President is good for small government but can anyone point me to a recent example where such gridlock has cut government spending or power? At least in my lifetime the line seems to go one way.
Gridlock, insofar as it is good, is only good from stopping the government making things worse, not helping make things better. And oftentimes that is about all we can hope for.
Roue le Jour.
The chaos will come long before the election – but it may be in the interest of the Members of Parliament to wink at making it worse, as then it would be possible to “delay” the election and carry on getting pay and perks. They have bills to pay and families to raise.
Steph Houghton.
His Majesty King Charles the Third has made it very clear which side he is on.
It least we know what the position is – just how bad the position is.
Martin.
Good points Sir.
If I were British and young (or had children in their teens), I’d be worried about conscription.
Vinegar Joe.
I doubt conscription will return, although the establishment is playing with the idea of conscription (and has been since Mr Sunak was Prime Minister).
Crushing internal dissent is more their line (and conscripts might be unreliable in crushing internal dissent) – going to war with Russia carries the risk of thermonuclear war, and even the establishment is not crazy enough to risk that.