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 – Liz Truss strikes back It comes after Mrs Badenoch wrote in The Telegraph that Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves were making “even bigger mistakes” than Ms Truss and had not learnt the lessons of her mini-budget.
Responding, Ms Truss says: “It is disappointing that instead of serious thinking like this, Kemi Badenoch is instead repeating spurious narratives. I suspect she is doing this to divert from the real failures of 14 years of Conservative government in which her supporters are particularly implicated. It was a fatal mistake not to repeal Labour legislation like the Human Rights Act because the modernisers wanted to be the ‘heirs to Blair’. Huge damage was done to our liberties through draconian lockdowns and enforcement championed by Michael Gove and Dominic Cummings.”
– Liz Truss as quoted in an article by Daniel Martin (£)
|
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.
|
I would like to say
but it might well be misunderstood as an off-colour instruction.
There’s not a syllable of that article I don’t agree with.
First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they attack you. Then you win.
Of course that requires you to prepare for such reactions and not give in. I rather suspect that the Conservatives are beyond rescue though.
Which reminds me – memo to Nigel :
In the event that you continue to be lucky enough to have opponents as clueless and hopeless and contemptible as the 2025 Labour and Tories, so lucky that you actually win a majority in 2029, please note that the Bank of England (as well as all other parts of the apparat) will be trying to bring you down asap, as they did with Ms Truss.
On the morning of your appearance at No.10 make sure you let everyone know what the apparat will be doing, especially the Bank of England, as sunlight will deter them. For a week or two.
Since the BoE is quite happy to go along with the current government I can assume getting rid of Truss was political.
Yossi, that’s putting it mildly
I’m not sure they’re even prepared for the fourth reaction in your list.
I gather they’re prepared for the first in the list, though.
Liz Truss is quite correct – and her article in the Telegraph newspaper explains these matters fully.
So there is no need for me to add anything.
Nuke ’em ’til’ they glow,
And shoot them in the dark??
Oncoming to an electorate near you!.
Still not quite sure why the Bank of England and the City of London decided to coup her.
Prior to being PM, Truss never openly rebelled and had utterly conventional opinions on almost all issues. She was perhaps more mildly Thatcherite than most but that kind of rhetoric was hardly out of place in the Tory party. She didn’t have any mass insurgent following, as shown by the fact that her post-PM to establish herself as a populist haven’t really taken off anywhere. Left to her own devices, I’m pretty sure the Tories would have still been battered in 2024. Maybe not so bad as Sunak was, but still battered.
Given the right economic mess they’d made following COVID and the fall out from the Russia-Ukraine war, did they think they could just get her scapegoated for it all so the kind of midwit bourgeois who listens to LBC can seethe at her for their mortgage payments rather than face the fact the whole system is completely wrecked?
Another curiosity is how so many of the supposedly ‘classical liberal’ think tank types in London immediately stopped supporting her when the coup happened.
Martin
This article from The Critic and this one from CapX may help to answer your question.
I had huge misgivings about Liz Truss, I think she had been a Liberal Democrat in her youth, which isn’t really something you do by accident. However, she may well have seen the light. She was in an impossible position, given that her MPs would not back her so she could not command a majority in the House of Commons if push came to shove.
However, her error was that she did not tell her MPs back me or it’s a General Election and I will deselect all of those who aren’t loyal, and then carried that through, removing from the ballot all the douchebag MPs in her party. Even if that cost her the election, she could have removed the rotten core of her party and eventually outflanked the (still nascent then) Reform.
What should a future sabotaged government do? If it were serious: Bring in retrospective legislation to make the fund manager types and bankers who engage in a ‘financial coup’ personally liable for losses they manage on criminal bankruptcy terms, with no discharge and imprisonment for debt. Take their houses, pensions, investments shirts and underpants and use them to compensate those whose funds they have mis-managed.
Of course, you would not extend this to the families of those affected, but you might seek recovery of funds from them on the basis of ‘unjust enrichment’ and take away spousal assets as well and then you have a grotesque deterrent to future plotters.