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]
|
Labour’s 2024 manifesto was called “Change”. It delivered. 
“Change”, currently on sale at the Labour Party online shop for a mere £12.50. One has to admire the way that Sir Keir Starmer allowed himself to be photographed with his sleeves rolled up, but loosening his tie was a step too far.
The ungovernable country? Why Britain keeps losing prime ministers – Tom Clark in the Guardian.
Britain isn’t ungovernable. Our leaders just can’t govern – Tom Harris in the Telegraph.
|
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.
|
Good riddance. A lying Brit hating gimp of a man.
But… the real problem is the herd of blue haired nose ringed moronic lefty yammering monkeys who sit behind him. There is no majority in parliament for doing the necessary. In fact there is only a majority to deepen the enshittification of our once great country. 😭
The country is not “ungovernable”, it’s just they shouldn’t be aspiring to govern the country in the first place. Just get out of the way, stop trying to “govern”.
I rather liked Tom Harris when he was in Parliament. He came off as a sensible chap, the more so being a Labour MP. His analysis seems quite reasonable.
Much will be said about this sanctimonious and also rather sly individual. I think Andrew Lilico, at CapX, has this justifiably brutal assessment:
Two notions about Starmer’s period in office will probably stick in the imagination. First, he seemed almost pathologically attached to the idea that Britain should submit, in its laws, to some higher power. He tried to give away the Chagos in service of “international law”. The UK refused to assist the US in Venezuela and Iran not because the government had any principled objection in either situation, but because “international law” forbade doing so. International law appeared to stymie any alternative to the Rwanda scheme for asylum-seekers. And of course Starmer did all he could to submit to EU law in his “reset”.
Second was his two-tier approach to everything – earning him the “two-tier Keir” moniker. Two-tier policing. Two-tier attitude to Covid violations (Beer and curry, anyone?). Two-tier political response to gilt market spikes (“crashing the economy” when it was Truss; a normal Tuesday when it was Starmer). It was even two-tier as Starmer was ultimately undone. This was, ironically, the one time he tried something arguably bold – the appointment of Peter Mandelson as US Ambassador.
Read the whole thing.
Meet the new boss . . . . .
llater,
llamas