The title of this Telegraph article by Daniel Hannan “Here’s why I’m quitting the Conservative Party” is true – he is quitting – but not for the reason you think. The Reform Party will not be getting its first representative in the House of Lords quite yet. Hannan writes,
Here is the nub of the problem. A majority of the electorate believes that Britain, which has the highest tax rate since the aftermath of the Second World War and whose national debt is about to overtake its annual GDP, is some kind of Hayekian, if not Dickensian, state. The single most unpopular Labour policy since polling day was to seek to remove the winter fuel allowance from better-off pensioners.
Our politician problem, in short, is a manifestation of our electorate problem. Plenty of MPs, including Labour MPs, can see what needs to be done. But they can’t see how to get re-elected if they do it.
For example, almost every politician will privately admit that the pensions triple lock is condemning Britain to penury, yet no party proposes abolition. Why not? Because, by 65 to 11 per cent, voters want to keep it (all figures are from YouGov polls within the last 18 months).
MPs likewise know that the NHS cannot remain a state monopoly. Wes Streeting, Nigel Farage, Kemi Badenoch – all have eyes in their heads. But, having eyes, they are also aware that voters oppose any use of private provision, even within a system free to the user, by 71 to 16 per cent.
Every MP grasps that housebuilding has not kept up with population growth for 40 years. So where are all the new towns that keep being proposed? It turns out that voters (by 49 to 30 per cent) don’t want them.
We are in a vicious circle. As things deteriorate, voters become angry, and blame the political class. MPs lose whatever lingering legitimacy they had, and become even less able to propose unpopular policies.
and
Consider, for example, the idea that rent controls reduce the number of available properties and so drive up rents. It is not obvious, but a few minutes’ thought reveals that, if people cannot make a profit by letting out their homes, they will not do it.
Or consider the idea that you become more secure by buying what you need from around the world rather than by manufacturing it at home. Again, it seems counterintuitive, but we apply that principle to our own lives. Indeed, it is precisely the important things – food, clothing, housing – that we purchase from specialists rather than trying to make them ourselves.
Consider, above all, the idea that cutting the tax rate might encourage more economic activity and so generate more tax revenue. This must, if you think about it, be true. A tax rate of 100 per cent would mean zero revenue, since people would not work for nothing, so it is simply a question of finding where the optimum rate is.
At present, though, voters instead favour any tax that they think will fall on other people. For example, a wealth tax – a textbook example of a levy that drives entrepreneurs away and reduces revenue – is backed by an extraordinary 75 per cent of voters, with just 12 per cent opposed. In the current climate, almost no one in public life is prepared to tell 75 per cent that they are wrong.
Yet it is precisely the counter-intuitive truths that can be profitably taught. That was what Ralph Harris did in the 1950s and 1960s; and it is what I shall be doing from 1 June, when I take over as the director of the IEA.
It’s almost as if the British electorate consists of more than one person.
I have said here before that the problem is not the political parties but the British electorate.
If someone is a drunk, you can offer to help, you can suggest alternatives, but if they are comfortable with their issues as the spiral down there isn’t much you can do. Often they simply have to wake up on the street in a pile of their own vomit before they recognize that they need to make a change. Often though, by then their liver is wrecked, they have lost all their friends, and they have no skills to offer a job, they lost their house and their family has abandoned them in despair, so it is just too late.
The worst thing you can do is try to maintain your relationship with them by telling them everything is fine, by offering them a bottle of vodka, or telling them the people who gathered for an intervention are just nosy busybodies who don’t have your best interest at heart.
Sounds like the British people to me. I mean Nigel is a bit of a miracle worker but if this is true “The single most unpopular Labour policy since polling day was to seek to remove the winter fuel allowance from better-off pensioners”, Jesus himself would be stuck. Water into wine is a cinch compared to fixing this problem. If you can’t even nibble at the edge of the elephant, how the heck are you going to eat the whole thing.
FWIW, it is the same in the USA — DOGE illustrated this so clearly — but at least we have AI and robotics to save us which Britain does not.
Time to go out and argue with people.
There’s no alternative.
How did we get Margaret Thatcher?
Were we cleverer then ( I doubt it).
The US is just beginning to lift the rock and find all the creepy-crawlies of fraud and waste and recycling of tax payers cash via fake charities/NGOs into astro-turfed left wing shite and back into left wing parties.
Worse, it requires 🙁 getting labour out to even begin to consider this and it’s not even close to being on the radar for any of the 3 putative right wing parties. yet…
As a nation, I don’t the UK has enough ingrained mistrust of government – the BBC and NHS are still seen as sacred by large swathes of otherwise economically literate and sensible/moderate people.
We all get the government we deserve.
@Clovis Sangrail
How did we get Margaret Thatcher?
We got Maggie by hitting the bottom of the barrel, AKA “The winter of discontent”. And we would probably not have kept her so long had the Falklands not been invaded or if the Argentinian military been a tiny bit more lucky.
So I’m afraid that is what you are going to get again, and you might not be so lucky this time.
Question for you: in your lifetime as you “go out and argue with people” about politics — how many people’s mind have you managed to change?
I hope I am wrong and Nigel can work his magic. I thought there was no way in hell that Brexit would happen, and the only thing that convinced me was when it actually happened.
The primary reason for population growth in the last 40 years is mass immigration. This is something that voters have consistently voted against, yet it keeps getting delivered whoever is in power because elites want it, and I suspect it’ll keep happening under a Reform government as well. Might be why people are very resistant to new towns, because many people never wanted the mass immigration the towns are being proposed to cater for.
I’m not populist but that also means I aren’t going to blame the masses for things that have been entirely elite driven. Boriswave for example was driven by a dreadful Tory PM, civil service and big business, not the voters.
It is curious Hannan brings up that example when he’s about to become director of the IEA. The last few times I paid any attention to that organisation was when it kept trying to claim that the reason housing was expensive was due to some town and country planning law from the 1940s. I suppose they deserve an A for creatively doing their best to avoid talking about immigration.
“Plenty of MPs, including Labour MPs, can see what needs to be done. But they can’t see how to get re-elected if they do it.”
If they had any principles beyond feathering their own nests and massaging their own narcissistic egos they would tell the electorate the truth and damn the consequences for their own careers. At the very least they could hold their heads up high when they lost. By lying to the electorate they are perpetuating the ‘You can have it all’ attitude ever further.
British electorate is engineered by the Educational Marxist complex and the Media Activist Complex. Unless you take over the BBC or abolish it things will continue as they are until they explode.
This YouTube video claims/states that the birth rate (I suspect among native British people) has been below replacement rate for a long time and is now about 1.5 children born per woman.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mggr0qYojTc
As he points out, without mass immigration, that means that as older people downsize and/or die off, there should be a surplus of 3 and 4 bedroom houses which younger people could afford and bring their families up in a spacious house tailored for those numbers and that demographic.
However, due to over 10 million (and I suspect that that is only the ones we know about) immigrants, the population is increasing so the cost of housing and scarcity is ongoing.
What is to be done? I have seen it suggested that politicians should only serve two terms. The first in Parliament and the second in prison. Unless and until they actually are held responsible for the mess that they created and feel the pain, then nothing will change.
This YouTube video claims/states that the birth rate (I suspect among native British people) has been below replacement rate for a long time and is now about 1.5 children born per woman.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mggr0qYojTc
As he points out, without mass immigration, that means that as older people downsize and/or die off, there should be a surplus of 3 and 4 bedroom houses which younger people could afford and bring their families up in a spacious house tailored for those numbers and that demographic.
However, due to over 10 million (and I suspect that that is only the ones we know about) immigrants, the population is increasing so the cost of housing and scarcity is ongoing.
What is to be done? I have seen it suggested that politicians should only serve two terms. The first in Parliament and the second in prison. Unless and until they actually are held responsible for the mess that they created and feel the pain, then nothing will change.
The electorate is delusional. The key problem was exposed in a recent survey, which found that British people reckoned the country was about as wealthy as Switzerland, or would be in the top 10 of the richest US states. In fact, Britain is poorer than Mississippi and its GDP per capita is half that of Switzerland. Yet, I wager that if you also asked the British people surveyed how they were doing, most would say they were struggling financially.
If the electorate is poor but believes the nation is rich, it will vote for more tax and more spending, because it thinks there’s a huge number of rich people who can cope with being fleeced. This is not the case. There is only the fools voting for their own penury.
That said, the Tories, even ex-Tories, can get in the sea. They lied to the electorate and mismanaged the nation for more than a decade.
Weasel words from a man whose party unleashed third world immigration of such scale that it was impossible to keep up with. When you invite in the population of Birmingham in a year, what do you expect? If someone said: right, we need to build another Birmingham, you’ve got 12 months, you’d have them sectioned.
This kind of avoidance seems standard for Tories, even recent ex-Tories. Some blame the civil service, Hannan blames the electorate.
Alice laughed. “There’s no use trying,” she said: “one can’t believe impossible things.”
“I daresay you haven’t had much practice,” said the Queen. “When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”
(Through the Looking Glass, Chapter 5)
Lewis Carroll.
I used to like Hannan but when he can write such a screed blaming the electorate for what the elected do, when he can write all that without mentioning immigration or the home-grown free riders it is clear he has an agenda to control what is considered acceptable discussion.
And how much does the triple lock actually cost? The greatest of three similar percentages to be applied to the base figure. I’ve seen it estimated at 1.5 billion. Even if it is open-ended in theory in practice it is nothing compared to other spending black holes.
The word “Dickensian” reminds us that the errors started in the 19th century (if not before) – with people such as Charles Dickens.
For example, there is no way that Fagin (in Oliver Twist) would have been hanged in Victorian England – even before the 1820s (when the death penalty was removed for theft) it was very rare for someone to be hanged for non violent theft – yet Dickens just casually has people visiting Mr Fagin before his execution (execution for what? organizing pick-pocketing?) – “but Fagin is a fictional character” – the trouble with that response is that people (even at the time) got much of their “knowledge” from novels – for example the dishonest novels of Disraeli (“two nations – the rich and the poor”) which prepared the ground for the later (and very harmful) “Social Reforms” of the Earl of Derby and Disraeli himself.
As for the attack on the Poor Law Reform Act of 1834 – yes some people were sent (sent IF they insisted on relief) to Workhouses (although twice the number of people remained on OUT relief, NOT in Workhouses), but Mr Dickens is NOT saying that he Poor Law Tax should be abolished (it did not exist in most of Scotland till 1845 and not in France till well into the 20th century) he is saying (if he saying anything – other than just trying to get people to cry and buy more of his stories) that more money should be spent – ignoring the consequences of higher Poor Law Tax in creating MORE (yes MORE – not less) poverty – that is the consequence of “please can I have some MORE Sir” – the consequence is MORE not less poverty than would have otherwise been the case.
In the early 20th century the “Majority Report” on the Poor Law, written by people who had dedicated their lives (their own money – and their own hands) to helping the poor, was rejected by the “liberal” government – and the “Minority Report”, written by socialist ideologues who had never lifted a finger to personally help the poor, followed.
Why? Part of the reason was endless novels and other propaganda in the 19th century.
For example, to someone like Sir Edwin Chadwick (the author of so many government reports – as far back as the early 19th century), voluntary cooperation (voluntary effort) was always wrong, and bigger and more interventionist government was always the answer – the answer regardless of what the question was. His “investigations” and “reports” had predetermined conclusions – a political agenda he got from his master Jeremy Bentham with his (Bentham’s) proposed 13 Departments of state covering most aspects of human life – yet Bentham (of all people) is presented as a supporter of “laissez-faire” by the (demented) history text books – but then so is Prime Minister Russell – a man who never met a problem he did not think a bigger and more interventionist government was an answer to.
“But Ireland – the famine…..” – Johnny Russell (when he was just a minister – not Prime Minister) pushed the Poor Law Tax on Ireland in 1838, just as he and his friend Lord Stanley (later Disraeli’s boss – the Earl of Derby) had pushed a system of state schools on Ireland after 1831 (no such system existed in England or Wales – and Ireland had a national Police Force as well), in the late 1840s the Poor Law Tax exploded in Ireland – and areas that were not dependent on the potato were forced to pay for areas that were, thus dragging down most of Ireland – and leading to millions of human beings either dying or fleeing the country. Yet all this statism is presented as “laissez-faire” – the history books (and films and television programmes) reverse the truth.
So the intellectual origins of the present mess go back a long way – a very long way.
‘Demographics mean we need to import cheap labour.’
‘Ai and automation mean a lot of jobs are going to disappear’
Why are those two proposals not linked?
As for today – yes, of course, mass immigration since World War II has been a disaster, even leaving-aside the basic point of ethnic conflict (the likelihood of which was known long before Mr Powell’s speech in 1968) – everyone used-to-know that you can not have mass migration into a country with government benefits and services – even Clement Atlee (the socialist Prime Minister) understood that.
People, such as the CATO Institute in the United States, who pretend that mass immigration pays for itself because the Third World migrants pay for themselves in taxes, are LYING – their reports are LIES, deliberate efforts to deceive. As for Britain, where government benefits and services are even more extreme than they are in the (post 1960s) United States – anyone who pretends that mass Third World immigration is economically beneficial is taking lying (taking dishonesty) to the ultimate level.
As for ethnic conflict – “interpreting” away such things at the invasion of this island by the Germanic tribes in the 5th and 6th centuries AD (pretending that there was a “cultural change” rather than ethnic conquest) would be silly – if they were not so harmful. And this was not the only ethnic conquest – the one at the start of the Bronze Age was even more brutal, with more than 90% population replacement on the male line.
Yes, obviously, if hostile population groups are allowed into a nation, in-large-numbers, and increase their numbers via natural increase (births) there will, eventually, be ethnic conflict – and no amount of “laws” attacking Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association (a whole series of Acts of Parliament from 1965 to 2010) is going to prevent that happening. This is not just a British thing, the Ottoman Empire (and other Islamic empires) understood this very well – which is why they castrated most African male slaves, and (very often) smashed the heads of children they had by raping African female slaves, is anyone going to suggest that this is a morally acceptable policy? Of course it is NOT – you should NOT castrate men and murder the children of women, which is why you do NOT import different nations into your own nation in-large-numbers. The alternative leads to the sort of ethnic war that occurred in what is now southern Iraq in the early Islamic period – where there was a mass revolt of the (imported) African population which led, after many years of war, to their extermination – how is that (war and extermination) a moral alternative?
And it can occur with no physical (racial) differences at all – for example Jews of Arab origin (the majority of the population of Israel) are physically identical to Muslim Arabs (there is no difference – if they are dressed the same, there is no way to tell them apart) – does this mean that there would not be ethnic conflict if Israel adopted CATO Institute style free migration? Of course NOT – indeed the Jews would be exterminated if they adopted such a policy.
And imagine that the Islamic population of Britain were all “white” – after all Muhammed himself was a pale man (all the sources agree on that). Would this prevent future ethnic conflict in Britain and other Western nations (including the United States) – of course NOT, anyone who pretends that there would not be ethnic conflict if the Islamic population were all “white” (which, by the way, some of them are) is very much in error.
Although it should also be pointed out that the social (cultural) decay of the native population of this island since the 1960s (if not before) must-not-be-ignored – the collapse of fraternal groups (both religious and secular – everything from churches to secular Friendly Societies – adult Fraternities in the United States), and of the family and of basic fertility.
Islam (and other groups) could make the argument that, in expanding into Western nations who are not even reproducing themselves biologically (due to the social revolution, the cultural collapse, that is associated with the post 1960s period), they are expanding into nations that are dying anyway (due to cultural collapse) – and so they are NOT responsible for the death of these nations, these historic peoples.
“How are we responsible for the death of your people – when you are destroying yourselves?” would be the argument.
On economic policy – it is good that Lord Hannan is the new Director of the Institute of Economic Affairs (he is a good man) – but he does have a habit of putting things in unnecessarily negative terms – even by the standards of a Gloomy-Guts like me.
The British people do NOT really want contradictory things – for example what they really want is cheaper energy prices, that could be achieved by getting rid of the “Net Zero” taxes and regulations – so the British people are NOT really demanding subsidies, not if “one thinks about it”.
The NHS is not a “state monopoly” – Lord Hannan seems to have confused the United Kingdom with Canada, where private health care is illegal, private health care is NOT illegal in the United Kingdom – indeed I have private dental care (and I am very poor).
The British people do NOT “defend the state monopoly” (which does not exist – there is no state monopoly on healthcare here in Britain), they do not use private health care more because it is EXPENSIVE – so the thing to do is to get rid of the taxes and regulations (such as licensing) that make it expensive – if it cost less then more people would use private health care.
Also some of the things that Lord Hannan says are just-not-true.
For example, it is not just “counter intuitive” that getting food and manufactured goods from far away “makes us more secure” – it is just WRONG (not “counter intuitive” – wrong), it may be less expensive – but (as World War II and other examples show) it does not make us “more secure” it makes us LESS secure – and it is astonishing that Lord Hannan, a native English speaker, misunderstands the English language so fundamentally.
Also how are these imports to be paid for?
Traditionally food imports were paid for by the export of manufactured goods – but Lord Hannan says “food AND manufactured goods” (my emphasis) – how can we import lots of BOTH? How could that be paid for in the long term? I hope Lord Hannan is not putting his faith in the Fiat Money Credit Bubble antics of “the City” and the general “financial services industries” – the idea that these activities will allow tens of millions of people to afford to import NET (have a large deficit in BOTH) “food and manufactured goods” is Moonshine – it is an absurd idea, a FALSE idea – not just a “counter intuitive” idea. None of the great Free Trade economists thought we could have BOTH a massive deficit in the trade of food and raw materials AND a massive deficit in the trade of manufactured goods. To pretend that such a demented situation is “Free Trade”, as the great economists understood that concept, is false. Obviously the present monetary and financial system (which is insane) can not carry on in the long term – and (contra Lord Keynes) in the long run we are NOT all dead.
Still at least we are spared the normal Institute of Economic Affairs tap dance about how what is left of farmland in the south east of England (the most productive farming area of the United Kingdom) should be destroyed for more housing estates, shopping centres, and distribution warehouses (“sheds”) for imported goods. For a population unnaturally bloated by millions of Third World migrants and the births in these communities (and the second and third generation people are actually, often, MORE hostile – “assimilation” turns out to be a shallow thing, all pop music and Association Football – NOT basic beliefs, “let us go white-water-rafting in Wales as a team-building-exercise, then we will go and blow up the infidels on the tube trains”).
A nation of tens of millions of people that (net) imports vast amounts of food, raw materials AND manufactured goods is unsustainable (and the Credit Bubble antics of “the City” do not change that fact) – it will collapse.
As for the idea of the state paying Corporations or “Non Government Organizations” (“NGOs” – as if these leftist organizations are “charitable” when they are funded by taxation) to provide services ……
Anyone who has experience of government (national or local) or has even just seen British roads (maintained by corporations – paid by taxation) knows this idea is real “pass the sick bag Alice” stuff – it does not work.
Most people need to pay for things DIRECTLY and voluntarily – and the things they need, must be affordable – not so expensive that they can not afford them. So the taxes and regulations (yes – regulations) that make things so expensive, need to be rolled back.
Government subsidies, such as government backed student “loans” for tuition fees, and such things as Medicare and Medicaid (and so on) in the United States, massively increase (explode) costs-over-time.
The government subsidies make things not affordable – because the subsidies (and the regulations) massively increase costs over time.
‘Demographics mean we need to import cheap labour.’
‘Ai and automation mean a lot of jobs are going to disappear’
Why are those two proposals not linked?
Lots of people have looked with pity, anger or contempt at countries such as Japan and Hungary for making immigration difficult. It seems that they might have the last laugh.
I am glad that Dan Hannan is IEA DG (no shade on Lord (David) Frost, but I think Dan is going to be a lot more energetic). He realises that the root problem is philosophy and ideas. Look at the supposed wide support for wealth taxes and other abominations. A large chunk of the British public hold views on certain topics that are shameful in their awfulness and meanness of spirit.
There has also been a bit of complacency at times that I see on parts of the Right. The trope goes that as folk get older, they are less idealistic and less prone to being infatuated by a snaggletooth halfwit (H/T, Rod Liddle) such as Zack Polanski of the Green Party, with his hatred of Israel, industrial capitalism, technology and so on, and will become more conservative and pragmatic.
The whole idea of people becoming less idealistic as they age concedes too much, in my view. Another way of putting it, perhaps, is that ideals remain, but they are different among people who bother to engage their minds and think. If they do that, they realise that youthful support for collectivism, Big Government and so on are not ideals at all. Instead, other ideals become more important lodestones because they are, indeed, noble: freedom under the rule of law, self-responsibility, autonomy, productiveness, legitimately earned pride, integrity, etc.
Johnathan Pearce, I think you may already be familiar with this quote from G.K. Chesterton regarding people becoming more idealistic as they age, but I’ll quote it anyway:
― G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 1908.
But . . .
This is a democracy. The politicians are elected in order to represent their constituents’ views to government. The most direct measure of how closely they are adhering to their constituents’ wishes would seem to be votes.
I don’t really get the idea that a principled politician should ignore his constituents’ desires and vote according to his own.
The basic responsibility for the state of the world still belongs more to the people than to the pols.
The basic responsibility for the state of the world still belongs more to the people than to the pols.
I agree though I think it is fair to say that that is easier said than done. Because of the machinery of party politics it is often the case that the voters are not actually given a choice between two options — in Britain for example, both parties largely supported the crazy immigration policies. Of course now they have an option, but creating a new political party is a herculean task, and most people are too busy living their lives to do that. It is a classic issue of interest groups: people in interest groups have vastly more power per capita in that area of interest because they are far more willing to do the work and commit the resources than someone outside that group who cares, just not as much. So to with politics — political parties are the ultimate interest group (except perhaps the civil service) and have vast resources, time and contacts to overwhelm the wants of the public. And especially so on those cases where the politicians are all, regardless of creed, in alignment. IT is why it is so amazingly hard to fix the civil service — which I think is far and away the largest threat to democracy — because the civil service ensnares the politicians in various ways to support it. And who is going to have the resources to resist the full might of the federal government and the whole political establishment?
But the people are ultimately responsible. After all at Concord a small group of people put their lives on the line to resist the might British Empire. But I do think that that is what it takes — putting your life on the line, forgetting your family, your job, your hopes and dreams, and focusing on that one thing. And there are not to many people who are willing to do that. Moreover, politicians do it slowly over time, so there is no one issue large enough to raise that kind of revolutionary zeal.
Off topic I know, but I read this about a newly elected congressman in the socialist republic of Illinois. “Rep. Delia Ramirez, D-Ill., and Rep. Analilia Mejia, D-N.J., on Tuesday introduced the Living Wage for All Act — a bill to raise the federal minimum wage to $25-per-hour and eliminate subminimum wages.” I strikes me that they forgot couple of words. It should say “a bill to raise the federal minimum wage to $25-per-hour and eliminate [jobs that pay] subminimum wages” where “subminimal” means “whatever some politician pulls out of their ass”.
They went nuts for $15 an hour and largely got it. People at the time jokingly said “why not $20, $50, $100 an hour” which just goes to show that the problem with reductio ad absurdum is that there are lots of people who think the absurd is a really good idea.
But the people aren’t left to simply choose between two candidates from two similar parties by magic. The people make choices in every small election, in every election of individuals for offices, important or not.
If the people truly woke up and became (by my standards) smarter, the Conservative Party would still be populated with actual conservatives. Then, there would be a true choice between philosophies in the important elections.
But that’s not what people decide they want on a daily basis. They WANT to be the recipients of other people’s money, and so they abdicate fairness and justice in every election for the ease and luxury that OPM brings to them in the short term.
It hurts them in the long term, but too many people only vote for short-term goals. The Tories – and our Republicans – didn’t go squish of their own impulses. They were given power because they promised to make people happy in the short term.
As always, in a democracy, we get the government we deserve. We are not being herded. We make the choices that bring us here.
@bobby b: I was not so much thinking of existing politicians suddenly going all ‘you can’t handle the truth’ on the voters, and voting according to their own wishes having stood on a different set of policies, I was thinking more of what platform a party stands on in an election. Rather than devise a manifesto that attempts to be all things to all men, they should stand on one of the truth. If they get voted into oblivion, well the electorate deserve everything they get. But the fact none of the parties is prepared to do that suggests to me that they are purely full of self serving egotists who have no interest in the actual best interests of the country (or indeed the voters, as how can the voters ever vote for the truth if its never offered to them?).
The very worst people to be politicians are the people who want to be politicians.
Yeah, I do have to say that the best org leaders I’ve encountered were the ones who had to be dragged into the position.
One depressing aspect of Lord Hannan’s article, at least the bit of it that is reproduced in the post, is that it suggests no reductions of government spending at all.
There is a massive government deficit, not because taxes are low, taxes are incredibly high, but because government spending is out of control – yet Lord Hannan does not even suggest removing migrants, which would relieve at least a bit of the pressure on benefits and government services – such as the health service.
Instead we get old chestnuts – such as “new towns”, London based people seem unable to grasp that new houses and flats are being built everywhere (even if they do not seem to be recorded in the official statistics) – and that this is NOT a solution to the insane level of migration and the natural increase (births) of hostile communities (who do not “assimilate” – not in terms of basic beliefs).
And “private provision of government services” – i.e. Corporate Welfare, taxpayer money being handed out to vast Corporations and to far-left “charitable” “NGOs” (“non government organizations” – dependent on government money) both religious (the corrupted churches) and secular.
This policy has been followed for many years (so it is hardly new or “ignored by the political class”) and it has been a horrible failure – which should have been easy to predict, as (to work) a market has to be people using their own money voluntarily – not having their money taxed away and handed to various politically connected Corporations (such as those which control the roads), and “NGOs”.
As for a Wealth Tax – I have never met an ordinary person who suggests such a thing, so far from it being “from the people” (“75% of the people”) it is really just another crack-brained idea of the establishment elite – like mass migration into a country with government benefits and public services.
“Do you think the wealthy should be taxed?” or some such question – most people would answer “yes” thinking a “wealth tax” means the same as “the wealthy should be taxed – just like me” – that is where the “75%” comes from.
In California there is such a proposal – but the fine print shows that it is NOT really about “the billionaires” as the measure would give the State Legislature of California (Democrat controlled since the 1960s) the power to levy any tax on assets – of people of any level of wealth, of course everyone would have to their assets (house, car and so on) assessed (by the state – and its pet Corporations) every year.
So not really about “the billionaires” – who have already left anyway, they know that “5%” of assets would soon be 95% of assets.
It is the people with some assets (but not enough to flee and start life somewhere else) who are the long term targets.
“You will own nothing – and you will be happy”.
You will be happy or you will beaten and abused till you say you are happy.
Paul:
For kidnapping the children?
An enormous amount of the problem is a cross-categorisation.
At the end of the day, kids (or young people) are facing very, very real problems – rent and/or mortgages are largely out of bounds for most of them. That’s just fact.
Cost of living is through the utter fucking roof.
And in the meantime, the so-called defenders of liberty and proponents of free-markets are doing…what?
They’re wanging on about Islamic immigration and blaming it on Ahmeena that they know from work, and saying that “yes, we know she’s lovely, but actually, she’s only pretending to be nice – she’s just waiting to be activated and then she’ll kill you” (a great excuse, because it’s utterly bollocks, but can’t be proven if you accept the terms – which one shouldn’t)
Or it’s “Stephanie – used to be Stephen – is now playing bowls at your local club – that’s why you can’t afford a house!”
It’s all such complete nonsense, when the real reason is fricking neo-liberalism with state control instead of actual markets – and we KNOW it is.
That’s it, that’s the bloody reason things are so crap for everyone, but until we admit it, and are honest about it, people are going to hear “this is free markets” (which it isn’t), and then think that “free markets” are the problem. And what, they’ll vote for restrictions – who can blame them if “we” continually lie or don’t understand the problems?
Alisa – good point, although I am not sure that Charles Dickens said that. Or that kidnapping (and YES in the story Oliver Twist is kidnapped at one point) was punishable by hanging when Dickens wrote the story.
Neonsnake – house prices tend to get higher if more people come to an area – there are a vast number of houses and flats being built in England (although the official statistics seem to ignore the houses and flats one can see being built in and around English towns), but with a massive inward migration (and natural increase of these populations) house prices will still tend to go up. The reason that Henry George opposed the building of railways to California was that he argued that more people would then come to California and the price of land would (for farms – and for housing) go up, more people with a fixed amount of land – will tend to push up the price of land.
However, this is not the only reason for high property prices – Credit Money tends to create asset price bubbles, not a new discovery – Richard Cantillon pointed this out some three hundred years ago.
If cash (physical gold or silver) was the only money – then asset price bubbles (in housing, or shares, or other such) would not exist.
Real wages could also be much higher, in terms of what the money will buy, if the state was smaller – if government spending was less and government regulations were radically reduced.
A radical mistake is often made about all this – it is assumed that because Real Wages were lower in, say, 1890 when there was a much smaller government – then a bigger government (such as the one we have now) must be a good thing. In reality inferior technology (and lack of capital growth over time – not enough time) meant that real wages were lower in the past, even though the economic system was BETTER (not worse) than it is today in terms of the size and scope of government. If we today had the level government spending and regulations that existed in (say) 1890 Real Wages would be vastly higher today than they are, and if, in 1890, then had the level of government spending and regulations (“Social Reform”) that we have today – then the economy would have totally collapsed and there would have been mass death by starvation.
As for the basic doctrines of Islam (for example that non-Muslims must be conquered and feel themselves subdued by ritual humiliation) being “utter bollocks” – rather rude of you to say that about what Muhammed taught, and personally practiced (he personally promised peace and friendship to infidel communities – and then launched surprise attacks upon them, killing the men and taking the women as slaves – and he taught his followers that this was morally good behaviour, indeed ordered by God), and his sincere followers have continued to practice for some 14 centuries. For someone to call themselves a Muslim and oppose these doctrines makes them, according to Muhammed, a “hypocrite” – and that (pretending to be a Muslim – and then not helping subdue non Muslims, when-the-time-is-right) is punishable by death – again according to Muhammed.
“Take not Jews and Christians as your friends”, followers of Islam should be (according to Muhammed – or Mohammed or however you wish to spell the name) kind to each other, but hard to people outside the faith – although pretending friendship (in order lull infidels into a false sense of security) is allowed – see above. Again if a someone claims to be a Muslim and acts against Islam (for example warns infidels they are about to be attacked – because they wish to save the lives of friends, or just because they feel compassion) then, according to Muhammed, such a person is a “hypocrite” and that is punishable by death. There have indeed (yes) in history been such “hypocrites” (people willing to risk their lives to save infidels from rape, enslavement and murder) – but, sadly, not enough of them.
Although you may be saying that people who tell the truth about Islam are talking “utter bollocks” in which case, you are mistaken.
Someone who supports Credit Money complaining about the “fucking” cost of living (specifically in housing – Credit Money tending to flow into Property bubbles) is, perhaps, funny (the contradiction is extreme), but someone pretending Islam is not what it is, the day after yet another attack in Britain, this time in London – where people have got horribly used to others chanting for the death of Jews and the rape of their daughters – for years now, is not funny – it is a vile thing to have written, the sentiment behind what was written (the desire to deceive – to pretend that truth is falseness, and falseness is truth) being worse (far worse) than the squalid language (“utter bollocks” and so on) used.
I remember the 7/7 bombings in London – partly because they were on my birthday.
These bombings were not done by a “loner” and had nothing to do with “mental health difficulties” – they were done by a group of people who had just come back from a team building exercise in Wales (white water rafting), and the murders were planned and committed by a group of men who were born and raised in Britain – they were not immigrants. Nor were they targeting Jews – they were targeting all infidels (they did not make a distinction).
Perhaps “Sir Ed” Davey thinks this attack (and all the other attacks) can be explained by “genocide in Gaza”.
No doubt the slave raiding on English and Irish coastal settlements, centuries ago, can also be blamed on the (mythical) “genocide in Gaza” – if one is totally dishonest.
The Liberal party used to include people, such as Gladstone and Winston Churchill, who were honest about such matters – and the Islamic massacres of their own time (in Bulgaria and so many other places) – but that was long ago, it is the party of people like Hobson now.
Paul: I think he was also complicit in a murder, although not involved in it directly.
I am a fan of Dickens, but I was unable to get past the first few pages of Oliver Twist – not sure exactly why (I’m sure though it wasn’t because of “the Jew” thing, in case anyone wonders, because I knew nothing about the Fagin character at the time).
There is also a point about creative license. Dickens appears to have been what today we might call a “bleeding-heart liberal”, with all the expected biases and embellishments – but think that his damning account of the French Revolution makes up for that.
Paul, I really don’t care if I’m being rude to Mohammed. I’m not religious, I find the whole thing to be nonsense, no matter which one we’re talking about.
What I do care about are people tarring all Muslims with the same brush. I care about how individuals actually act, and I’ve lived and worked in Muslim areas for all my life (indeed, I literally lived with a Muslim chap for a bit), and the idea that they’re all secret agents waiting until they’re activated is such nonsense – but it’s perfect nonsense, because it can’t be falsified. The fact that his mum used to make us food because we were poor? Or that my young females Muslim employees’ Mums used to bring me lunch when I worked in retail, because they thought I was too skinny? You’ll just say that only proves that they were being deceitful. They’re people, some are lovely, some are arseholes. Y’know, like everyone else.
I’m a grown white man from a working class East End background. I occasionally use industrial strength language, and indeed sometimes rhyming slang *shrugs*. You’d have to be something of a…berk…to think that’s the important thing to focus on.
….you don’t know what Credit Money is, do you? (hint: it’s not the same as fiat currency – although I don’t know why I’m surprised that you don’t know the difference)
I think as well, there’s an element of
what would you expect one to do?
Like, what? You expected me to creep, commando style, a knife between my teeth, into Mo’s bedroom that I lived with and slit his throat?
Or, with my mate in marketing, who got on very well with my gay mate who was married to a fella and had a coupla adopted kids?
What did you you want me to do to her? Fucking precisely Kill her? Get her sacked because she’s, what? Brown? What, exactly?
If you want to make assumptions about people, then make recommendations on how to handle them.
Alisa – if he was complicit in the murder of Nancy, then he would indeed come under the death penalty for conspiracy to murder (so I stand corrected – if he was).
neonsnake “what to do?”
Two choices – submit to Islam (pay the infidel tax and undergo the ritual humiliations) or resist it (fight against it).
Those have been the two choices for 14 centuries.
Nigel Farage may believe that there is a another choice – but, if he does, Mr Farage is mistaken.
Of course, before a Muslim points it out, I am aware that there IS a third choice – sincerely convert to Islam, but that is not what Mr Farage is suggesting. He seems (seems) to be suggesting that Islam is not Islam – that what Muhammed and his followers taught and did is “Islamism” – and that there is another religion called “true Islam” created by…..
Well created by who? And based on what?
Muhammed (or Mohammed – or however people wish to spell the name) was a genius – no other religion is better designed for both conquest, and for resisting internal subversion of its doctrines.
For example, Marxists (and others) find it easy to infiltrate and control Christian churches – utterly subverting them, yet find it incredibly difficult to control (to subvert – corrupt) Islam. That is not an accident – Muhammed designed Islam to be incredibly difficult to subvert.
It is astonishing that man of almost one and half thousand years ago, and of very limited education, had such a profound insight into human nature – and how organizations (movements) work.
He created something that did not need him to run it – that would just carry without him, and shrug off efforts to “reform” (i.e. corrupt – subvert) it.
Paul: I am not at all saying that you are incorrect, I just don’t know. There are some details about capital punishment during that period here – but please feel free to ignore, as I fully realize that not everyone as curious about Dickens as I am 🙂
Paul: I am not at all saying that you are incorrect, because I just don’t know. There are some details about this here – but feel free to move on, since I fully realize that not everyone is as curious about Dickens as I am 🙂
Alisa – yes the discussion board confirms what I was thinking, namely that the story is set in the 1830s – and does not really make sense in terms of the law as it was in the 1830s. But, yes, Charles Dickens was not writing a legal text – and might well have said that I am like Thomas Gradgrind.
As for the lady neonsnake mentions – the point is not whether the lady comes from a Muslim family, but whether or not the lady believes in Islam.
For example, does the lady believe that people should be killed for “mocking” Muhammed – or is the lady what Muhammed called a “hypocrite” – someone who claims to be a Muslim, but shrinks from the idea of killing infidels?
A couple of hours ago I was watching Matt Goodwin – a Reform Party person, he kept talking about “Islamism” – but he did not define how this was different from Islam, so what he said was just confusing.
The unspoken assumption he seemed to be making was that Islam must be good – so if people believe in morally bad doctrines, this can not be “real” Islam.
Very frustrating.
Paul: they also list there examples of people having been hanged for non-violent crimes during that period after the law was changed, and it also seems to be implied that the change in the law itself generally left it to the judges’ discretion – or something along those lines. Anyway, I better stop flogging this horse before it is even deader 😀
Re Islam and for what it is worth, in certain contexts I also find myself using Islamism instead of Islam, or Islamists instead of Muslims, because I’d really rather not brush all Muslims everywhere with the same Mohammad brush. Instead, I’d rather try and keep the “hypocrites” on the side of humanity by supporting them, however few of them may be out there. Like this guy for example.
Which is not to say that the truth about Mohammad should not be told clearly and often, rather the opposite.