Against this, the Restore case. Their central claim, repeated by Rupert Lowe and echoed across social media by his more vigorous supporters, is that all Labour figures are the same, Reform and the Tories are essentially equivalent: that it is all the uniparty, that there is nothing meaningfully to choose between them. I have to say, with respect, that this is patently and provably untrue. Reform’s record in local government, its positions on immigration, on Net Zero, on civil liberties, on the democratic accountability of public institutions, represents a genuine and substantive break from the political consensus of the last thirty years. One may argue about pace, emphasis, internal culture. One may not, in good conscience, argue that there is no difference between a party committed to rolling back mass illegal immigration and a party that presided over it.
|
|||||
|
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] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil Liberties
Commentary
EconomicsPolitics |
Samizdata quote of the day – A cause too good to fight?May 29th, 2026 |
 2 comments to Samizdata quote of the day – A cause too good to fight?Leave a Reply |
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. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
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. |
|||||
The William F. Buckley rule applies – vote for the most conservative candidate who has-a-chance-of-winning.
That is the basic principle in a First-Past-the-Post voting system.
This means that the Conservative Party candidate (the Father of the House of Commons, the longest serving Conservative Party Member of Parliament, urged that no Conservative Party candidate should stand for election – and he was correct) and the Restore Party candidate should stand-down – as, otherwise, they are helping Andrew “Andy” Burnham – who would cause even more harm to the United Kingdom than the present Prime Minister is causing. Yes both are servants of the officials and “experts” – but some servants are worse than other servants.
“But Rupert Lowe is correct about……” – that does not matter, you vote for the most conservative candidate WHO HAS A CHANCE OF WINNING.
All that being said – the errors in the article need to be called out.
“Reform’s record in local government” in relation to councils with responsibility for Adult Social Care and Children’s Services is to promise lower Council Tax and deliver much higher Council Tax – that is not their fault, it is the nature of local government, but they should not have made promises they can not keep – whether on Council Tax, pot holes, or anything else.
Nigel Farage’s position on “Net Zero” is much the same as that of the Conservatives – both now believe that the cost of delivering the policy in the near future is unacceptably high, much the same position – not fundamentally different.
As for immigration – alas if only ending mass immigration would prevent present and future conflict, but it is too late for that.
Both Reform and the Conservatives are now against mass immigration – and both seem to fail to understand that the problem is now really natural increase (births) of existing populations. Mr Powell, back in the 1960s, warned that such a time would, eventually, come – and it has now arrived. And it is no longer just cities and large towns – it is also now starting to hit rural areas – including areas the English consider a central part of their culture.
Nothing like this, in terms of population replacement, has been seen since the arrival of the Germanic tribes to this island in the 5th and 6th centuries A.D. – indeed the demographic transformation that is now happening may be even more radical than that.
If present demographic trends continue (the continuing collapse of the fertility of the British, due to the “Social Revolution” – plus the much higher fertility of the hostile populations) England will cease to exist, in any meaningful sense, in a matter of a few decades – and the Scots and Welsh should not laugh – because the same thing will, eventually, happen to them.
“Paul – all of the above comment could have been written by Rupert Lowe” – yes, but that does not change the fact that his candidate can-not-win.
It is no good being right – if you lose.
Better to influence someone who has a chance of winning.