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 – Farage’s Vision Thing First came energy: “We will ditch the insane net zero agenda,” he thundered, “and we’ll get the North Sea operating again.” A pragmatic pitch for sovereignty through self-sufficiency, part Thatcherite nostalgia, part defiance of metropolitan eco-piety. Tying this to a blast for agricultural sufficiency, backing our farmers whilst condemning the vast solar deserts to the slop bins.
[…]
And whether you loathe him, love him, or wish he’d just go back to LBC, you have to admit: Nigel Farage is once again setting the weather. The Birmingham speech marked the moment he stopped being a political meteorologist, and started auditioning to be the storm itself.
– Gawain Towler
For me, Reform setting itself unequivocally against Net Zero is a defining moment that had me cheering the telly. And unlike the Tories, with the Conservative Environmental Network being one of largest party associations, Reform will actually do it without being sabotaged by a Blue Blairite party within a party.
|
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.
|
Yes, it was a good speech with sufficient meat content
Clear opposition to “New Zero” is indeed very important.
It will also be interesting from a Constitutional point of view – in Britain’s “unwritten constitution” the House of Commons is supposed to be dominant – but can a Reform Party majority in the House of Commons, in practice, override every other institution in the country – for the Civil Services, to the “independent agencies” (and they are independent – that is the problem), to the Monarchy? And what of the International Community – will they allow trade with a Britain that violates “Net Zero”, Censorship, “Diversity”, and the other doctrines of the “Rules Based International Order”?
“America violates these doctrines – it has rejected Censorship, Net Zero, Open Borders, and so on” – yes, but this is under President Trump whom the international Corporate State (the totalitarian “Rules Based International Order”) is fanatically determined to destroy – and pumps out propaganda against (even on GB News) every-day.
The next United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland General Election will be in May 2029 – President Trump will be gone by then, most likely replaced by a servant of the totalitarian “Rules Based International Order” tyranny, with its Censorship, “Gun Control” (but not the guns of the state or of criminals – certainly not), “Diversity”, and, of course, “Net Zero”.
But still – let us see what happens.
People are freezing to death in New York City – but the commitment of Mayor Mamdani to Net Zero remains the same – totally uninfluenced by the obvious evidence that the theory is FALSE.
And it is the same with the “moderate” Democrats – such as the “ex” CIA lady the media insisted was a “moderate” in the election for Governor of Virginia (the Republican candidate was black and female – but the media did not care, they only support Collectivists – to them a non Collectivist woman or black person is not “really” a woman or black).
The agenda of censorship (for example removing the few conservatives who remain on the boards of universities), “gun control” (but not for the state or private criminals – only honest people are to be disarmed), and “Carbon Dioxide is evil” marches on.
And the State Attorney General in Virginia – his support for killing conservatives, and killing their children, is a matter of record – and he was elected anyway. There is a “Climate Crises” you see – so sacrifices have to be made, and conservatives are “racist oppressors” as the Chinese Congressman down in Texas recently explained in his little video essay on white people (by which he meant conservatives of any skin tone).
Remember if a black person is conservative they are not “really” black, and if a women is conservative she is not “really” conservative – to dissent from this position is “racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, Climate Denial” and must be punished.
The media, and the education system which produces the media, have led to vast numbers of people, including in the United Kingdom, holding this totalitarian “Rules Based International Community” position.
Was there a reason he was still going on about ‘work from home’ being a big issue? Had a very 2022-3 culture war feeling to it. The press are disingenuous of course but I’m not surprised they’ve latched on to focusing on this as it is easy to accuse Farage and Reform of hypocrisy given they’ve advertised jobs as working from home and Farage even had his wife working from home at one point apparently. Would be a lot simpler to just say there’s no one size fits all approach regarding WFH (it really depends on the roles, enterprises and people involved) and it’s up to employers and employees to sort out.
For those who hold the view that the CIA is “right wing” – remember that John Brennan, a supporter of the Communist Party, was not only in the CIA – he was Director of it.
There is a conservative Director of the CIA now – but how much influence does he really have?
The United States has no conservative institutions – and neither does the United Kingdom.
Indeed the leftism of British institutions is so total (so all embracing) that it is like the water that fish swim in – it is taken for granted as the obvious reality, a Reform Party government – if elected in 2029 would be in a very vulnerable position – it would have to destroy every institution, or be destroyed by these institutions – Bank of England and all the other servants of the International Community.
Such a sweeping attack on all the institutions of the country has not been seen since Oliver Cromwell – but as the institutions are corrupted, totally corrupted, what is the alternative?
If Reform (is allowed to) gain power then repealing Net Zero and defunding the BBC would probably be enough to gain a second term. Although the hysterical resistance would increase.
Discovered Joys – NO, that would not be enough.
If the Reform Party gained a majority in the May 2029 General Election (assuming there is much a nation left by then – and there may NOT be – almost everything is falling apart, this is indeed “Broken Britain” or soon will be) it would have to destroy the institutions – or they would destroy the Reform Party government.
It is very important that you understand this – getting rid of Net Zero and defunding the BBC would not be enough – certainly not.
Destroy the, corrupted, institutions – or they will destroy you.
It is later than you think Sir.
And it is much the same in many other Western nations.
I suspect he has the civil service in mind
Perry – Mr Farage would have to destroy the Civil Service, and the Independent Agencies, not get them working from offices.
Take the example of the Bank of England – it destroyed Liz Truss (by deliberate, calculated, sabotage) in a matter of weeks – and the media (not just the BBC – every media outlet) pushed the establishment line – so the public still think that “Liz Truss crashed the economy” – even though the lady got to do nothing-at-all.
But if Mr Farage got rid of the Bank of England (and he would have to get rid of it – not just replace the Governor, all the staff would have to go) what would the United Kingdom use as currency? The fiat “Pounds” are tied to the Bank of England.
Germany has had a several new currencies over the last century – but a new currency in Britain would be something the British people have no experience of.
All the institutions are corrupted – including the “justice” system, the courts and so on.
One problem is that the teaching of history is corrupted.
Even conservative historians talk of the “public spending cuts” of Margaret Thatcher – when, in reality, government spending went UP every year under Margaret Thatcher, indeed from 1979 to 1983 government spending even went up as a proportion of the economy.
So there are long discussions of “cuts” that-never-happened, just as there is, endless, discussion of “laissez Faire” in the Ireland of the mass death of the late 1840s (supposedly this discredits limited government) – when, in reality, there was crushing Poor Law taxation (not “laissez faire”) in a land where the Poor Law Tax had only been introduced in 1838 (government schools came after 1831). People such as Lord Russell are described as supporters of laissez faire – when they were really fanatical interventionists, in both Ireland and Britain (everything from teacher training to bank bailouts). How many history books even mention that Ireland was crushed by heavy taxation? I have never found even one history book that has said this.
On money – currency……
Even conservative historians, such as Andrew Roberts, do NOT say “Napoleon restored gold and silver coinage” they say, as if it was an achievement, that “Napoleon created the Bank of France” (a useless, indeed harmful, piece of bureaucracy).
So even the “well educated”, indeed even the “conservative well educated”, do not understand the history of other countries, or even of their own country.
People who have a false view of the past – tend to have a false view of the present, they do not understand what needs to be done – because they do not understand what has been done before.
“But creating the Bank of France was necessary in order to have gold and silver coinage” – no it was not.
By the way – although the exchange rate of gold and silver coins was roughly correct in 1803, fixing the exchange rate was folly.
There is no need to fix the exchange rate – and such fixing always, eventually, drives either gold or silver off the market. All that people need to do is specify whether payment is to be in gold or silver – voluntary contract.
He didn’t mention that with regard to WFH.
I suspect it’s just cheap slopulism. WFH is something that got a bit OTT several years ago due to COVID lockdowns. Like everything from that time it descended into culture war. I don’t think it’s a major issue now and best left for employers and employees to figure out, not politicians.
And there are far bigger issues with the civil service than any WFH arrangements, and they existed before COVID.
The United States had private mints up to the 1850s – there is no real reason for government to be involved in the production of money, although that does not mean that Credit Bubble Banks should be involved in it.
As the 19th century saying goes – “free trade in banking is free trade in swindling” – the reason that “bank licenses” have long existed is that, under both Roman and Common Law, an ordinary person who went around lending out money that did-not-exist would be guilty of fraud.
Banker Credit Bubbles always, eventually burst, and Sir Robert Peel’s Banking Act did not change this – indeed Prime Minister Russell suspended the Act (so he could bail out the banks) only a few years later.
The great fault of the Economist publication in the 19th century is that it understood none-of-the-above.
Paul Marks, you are not what I would call a ray of sunshine. Sometimes, after reading your posts, I feel as though it would be appropriate for me to open a vein.
You need to get out more, sir. Get drunk, get laid, go crazy, throw chili. Stop living in your head, stop reading books — at least for a little while.
I say this with love, and respect. Truly.
1. Pack the House of Lords
2. Pass a Great repeal Bill/Act (yes that would include all Net Zero legislation and much else) and introduce a 1-year sunset clause for all regulation.
3. Institute 5 day work from the office rules for civil servants (sounds minor but would cause many to leave). Then make all civil servants (ultimately) answerable to Cabinet (the executive).
4. Abolish all QUANGOs (if you want to include the BoE I don’t mind but I would prefer to “renationalise” it).
Would that make a start?
Note: 1 has to come first. Without that, legislation would be held up for so long that all momentum would be lost.
Oh:
5. Impose a 5-year near-total moratorium on inward migration.
6. Deregulate the rental market.
@Paul Marks Would that do?
Well, I’ll be buggered. Yes, Emmanuel Macron is right!
What I bolded is priceless though. I mean you don’t have to be Nikola Tesla to figure if you aren’t generating enough electricity then there shall be power cuts…
This from Google Gemini…
Yes, the likes of EDF are about the only thing keeping Eduardo “Windy” Millipede’s little legs going…
Paul, if no books mention the taxation on Ireland, what sources do you have access to in order to know the truth? It would be nice to know what to read and where to find it.
“unlike the Tories …, Reform will actually do it without being sabotaged by a Blue Blairite party within a party”
– so long as they don’t let themselves be swarmed by “blue Blairite” Conservative defectors.
“People are freezing to death in New York City “ because they are infidels and it is Gods will that they do.
Paul,
This, I think, is a vital point. Britain is, in effect, subject of an nameless empire. Think Rome vs Judea. You may, through enormous effort and sacrifice, eject the Romans, but you have not defeated Rome, merely made it angry.
Perry : For me, Reform setting itself unequivocally against Net Zero is a defining moment that had me cheering the telly
But I suspect Perry is already a Reform voter, or would be if he lived in the UK. What does Reform officially coming out against Net Zero do for the swing voter ?
Starting with rough current poll figures we have something like, from left to right :
Greens 14 Labour 19 Lib Dems 12 Tories 17 Reform 28, (leaving 10 for the Nats, and Others)
That would give Reform a comfortable working majority of about 65. Assuming no significant tactical voting. But that is a big and probably erroneous assumption. Most voters these days are fairly loosely attached to their current party preferences. So where are the swing possibilities starting from here ?
Tory voters are an interesting block, because they’ve stuck with the Tories even after the disasters and ignominy of 2010-24. Who’s left ? My guess is that they’re probably mostly actual conservatives rather than Lib Dems in disguise. So in an election where it looks like it’s Reform v Labour, I’d guess maybe 5% out of 17% is the maximum that Reform could get. I doubt too much would go to the left parties, because the Lib Dem-ish Tories have probably gone already. The other big swing zone is between Labour and Green (and maybe a bit Lib Dem.) But I would guess that a lot of the Green vote could swing to Labour in a Reform v Labour dogfight. Maybe more than half its current total. And the Reform stance on Net Zero might well help some Lib Dems as well as Greenies into the Labour camp.
Which might leave us with something more like :
Greens 8 Labour 27 Lib Dems 10 Tories 14 Reform 31, (leaving 10 for the Nats, and Others)
Which interestingly – and surprisingly to me – gives Reform a (slightly) bigger majority, even though the Reform lead over Labour has fallen from 9% to 4%.
Of course the tactical switching would vary according to constituency, so Greenies in Labour v Green inner city battles would stay Green.
Anyway it looks like Reform getting over 30% is more important than the Reform-Labour gap (unless it closes to zero) so peeling off more Tory voters to Reform may be more significant than Labour recapturing voters who have gone to the Greens. So, somewhat surprisingly, No to Zero might be an electoral plus for Reform.
Maybe Reform could encourage more Tory voters to defect by standing down in maybe a couple of dozen rural constituencies where the Tories are more likely to win than Reform. But not ones where the Tory candidates are fully paid up members of the Blob.
Note though that the French left and centre combined very effectively last time out to beat the Le Pen team. More difficult in an election with lots of parties in each district like the UK, but the potential for anti-Reform tactical voting is strong.
I would guess most people here think that the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) hypothesis is a crock. I very much fall into that category. However, it might be true. I would be a lot happier calling for the end of Net Zero if CAGW were to be disproved or at least brought into doubt.
The question is how to do that.
“I don’t think it’s a major issue now and best left for employers and employees to figure out, not politicians.”
How about the poor old customer gets a say in the matter?
What face to face physical customer serving roles are being done from home?
Patrick Crozier – let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the Carbon Dioxide is evil theory is entirely TRUE – the amount of Carbon Dioxide produced in the United Kingdom would still make no-difference.
In short this self-harm serves no purpose even if the theory is true.
@Martin: what’s face to face roles got to do with it? Its blatantly obvious that service levels of all manner of office based organisations has cratered since covid, and WFH is largely to blame. But of course the customer can go f*ck himself, because he’s got nowhere to else to turn. Everyone is doing the same WFH thing, so all the ‘competitors’ are in effect in collusion, there’s nowhere the customer can go that isn’t just as sh*t.
I’ve been using solicitors a lot in the last few years, service levels are appalling, because everyone is working on their own little silo, with no communication between people who nominally work in the same organisation but now have little in common with each other. No one is responsible for anything any more, they just fire off emails, and as far as they’re concerned thats it, not their responsibility any more. If the recipient never responds so what, not their fault. Entire tasks just fall into cracks, not to be seen again until the poor old customer has to chase everyone in the process up to do their f*cking jobs. You know the ones they are charging the customer handsomely to do, and then not doing it because thats too stressful or something.
Its no wonder the economy is on its knees, half the workforce is doing SFA 50% of the time.
I’ve worked for several large companies. In my experience customer service was declining long prior to COVID and WFH, largely due to farming it out to outsourcing firms like Capita and/or shipping most such roles to cheap labour countries like India, Bulgaria and Philippines. In the organisation I was working during COVID, CS roles were largely the first departments brought full time back to the office. Now AI chatbots are increasingly being used, these just seem to wind up customers and make them angry by the time they speak to a real person. All of this has been done in response to market forces though, ie save money by cutting costs. Every major operator in the industries I’ve worked in are doing exactly the same things, anyone who did anything different has been swallowed up by the competition or went broke.
Rour le Jour.
Yes – we voted for independence (for independence – not meaningless “Brexit”) in 2016, but we did NOT get independence – we did not even see an end to mass immigration, indeed there was MORE of it.
Mr Farage knows all this – he knows that the establishment continued to follow the “Modern”, “Progressive”, policies of the International Community (the “Rules Based International Order” of creeping totalitarianism).
The question is – will Mr Farage establish independence?
Rupert Lowe and Ben Habib say “no”, Perry de Havilland says “yes”.
I do not know – I just do not know.
If Mr Farage opposed Islam, Islamic doctrines, it would be a good sign – but he seems committed to a policy of working with it (at least with some followers of it), and that is not good.
Still perhaps this, his alliance with followers of Islam, is not as it seems – it would be unwise to speculate further on a public forum.