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]
|
“Middle Class Britain is bulking with aging radicals who are desperate to relive the heady days of their youths protesting the Vietnam War or patriarchy or capitalism. They possess an abundance of the resources necessary for the life of demonstrating — spare time, spare cash and, having left the job market, a willingness to acquire a criminal record.”
– Adrian Wooldridge
There’s the point made a few years ago by P J O’Rourke that there is a reason why centre-right folk tend to avoid demonstrations – they’ve got jobs to do and they are intelligent enough to be able to sign a petition, write to their MP, and considerate enough – mostly – to avoid irritating ordinary folk going about their business. There are a few exceptions if the cause is seen as big enough. In my lifetime, I recall that exception to the rule: the Countryside Alliance one in the Blair years, where the ostensible cause was to protect the hunting of foxes with hounds (you can still shoot them with a rifle, by the way). And the rural angle returned when farmers recently drove their tractors into Whitehall to protest against inheritance tax on their businesses. But the vast majority of demos are for banning things like fossil fuels, and supporting enemies of Israel. (I haven’t come across many demos about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine lately.)
The Islamophilia of King Charles is fast becoming all of our problem.
– Tim Black
The UK’s recent seemingly modest agreement with France over illegal migrants crossing the English Channel prompted this article at the CityAM news service:
Clearly this is an entirely inadequate response to the Channel crisis: five per cent of current numbers of illegal migrants, who are themselves only five per cent of overall immigration. The idea that this will move the dial on an issue which is now regularly cited as one of the public’s biggest concerns is positively outlandish.
But it is also a patently and laughably poor deal for Britain. It bears comparison with paying Mauritius billions of pounds to induce it to accept sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory, or in domestic terms awarding huge, above-inflation public sector pay deals with no conditions attached. I sometimes wonder whether civil servants now check that the Prime Minister still has his loose change, watch and shoelaces when he returns from the negotiating table.
I suppose the question that also lingers about Keir Starmer is this: is he “Sir Shifty” (to borrow the phrase of former Sun political editor, Trevor Kavanagh) or is he “Sir Stumbler” (Bruce Anderson)? Is he a berk or a knave?
(Correction: It is Trevor Kavanagh, not Patrick. My berk moment.)
There is a story in the UK media (see here for the Daily Mail version) about how local residents in the Bournemouth area of southern England have banded together to form “vigilante” groups – working with local police, it should be noted – to deal with crime.
When temperatures hit the mid-30s last month, brawls broke out in broad daylight, while a woman in her late teens was raped in a beachside public toilet just days later leading to the arrest of a man who has now been released on bail.
And many residents have had enough, with more than 200 volunteers including security professionals and first aiders signing up to the Safeguard Force to tackle the tourist hotspot’s descent into lawlessness.
The group, set up by local businessman Gary Bartlett, aims to ‘protect the most vulnerable in our town – especially women, children and the elderly’.
They have already raised more than £3,000 through a GoFundMe campaign to buy body cameras, stab vests and radios.
It would be easy to focus on the continued degradation and decline of the UK, the nastiness, nihilism, scruffiness and genuine shitty state of it all. Reeves. Starmer, etc. But I want to take a slightly different tack.
The tack – hauling in the mainsail, lads! – is that this shows that when pushed sufficiently, people can and do band together to bring certain outcomes about, and seek to frustrate others. A few weeks ago I re-read, after many years, Alexis de Tocqueville’s famous book, Democracy in America. He noted the enthusiasm with which American citizens formed associations of all kinds, from the frivolous to the deadly serious. Around the time he wrote that book (in two volumes, the first was completed in the 1830s, the second in the 1840s) the UK had gone through the experiment, under Sir Robert Peel, of forming official police forces, starting with the Metropolitan Police, aka “The Met”. His principles of how a police force should operate are still referred to. In the 18th and 19th centuries there were societies for the “prosecution of felons” – a classic case of a private provider of a “public good”.
There is, in most developed countries, a sort of social compact: The State will take on the role of seeking to catch and deter criminals, and in return, the citizens will abjure the freedom to take the law into their own hands. This compact has to work to a certain level of effectiveness. When police become distracted by politically motivated rubbish, such as “non-crime hate incidents” and so forth, and morale is damaged (many coppers have left the forces, because they are angry about such nonsense), you get a problem. Crime clear-up rates are low; I come across complaints that people rarely bother to log crimes out of cynicism that not much will be done. And then there are worries that crimes against persons and property appear to be treated more leniently than fashionable concerns. Result: the compact is fraying to the point of breakdown.
And so we have what is happening in Bournemouth. This will spread. I can expect to read more articles about people learning self-defence, increased community patrols, and controversies about what the limits are in being able to enforce laws. (It is worth remembering that at this point, it is legally difficult for UK citizens to use lethal force in self-defence.)
Nature abhors a vacuum, in public policy as much as anything else. There are going to be consequences. Edmund Burke’s “little platoons” are going to be more in evidence.
These two things were separate items in the Spectator newsletter.
A wave of directors have left the UK since Labour abolished favourable tax treatment for non-domiciled residents. Some 3,790 company directors left, compared with 2,712 in the same period a year earlier, the Financial Times reports.
… and…
The number of civil servants earning between £150,000 and £200,000, putting them in the same pay bracket as the Prime Minister, has increased 114% since March 2023, according to Cabinet Office data.
But of course these are not separate at all. This only ends if the UK gets a factory reset, a literal non-figurative revolution. I really hope we can vote our way out of this, but with the rise of sectarian politics inexorably turning the UK into something akin to Ulster writ large, I am by no means confident that is going to be the case. If so, I wonder what will kick off the 1642 moment? What will the sides even be?
News comes to me that an advert, a video in the style of a musical, for something called Coinbase, which I understand is some form of crypto set up, which is why the advert has been banned, and about which I know nothing more, (and this is not advice or recommendation on financial matters) is not permitted in the UK by the regulator, OFCOM. Not that I doubt that OFCOM are interpreting the regulations correctly. That the advert might be termed mildly satirical would be a fair description, and take a look at the shop names. It’s almost an updated Oliver Twist. Has it been made by people familiar with modern Britain? I would say so.
As Burns said in his ode ‘To a louse’:’O wad some Power the giftie gie us / To see oursels as ithers see us!’.
Thanks to comedian Andrew Lawrence for the tip.
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 (£)
War Footing Latest, against you that is, not the Russians
– Think Defence
The BBC says “According to Ofcom, platforms must not host, share or permit content encouraging use of VPNs to get around age checks.”
I encourage the use a VPN to get around all state abridgement of people’s right to access the internet, including age checks. Say no to police state Britain, not to mention a VPN enhances your security online.
But here’s the rank hypocrisy that makes Kyle’s bile choke in his own throat: if anyone’s “on the side of predators,” it’s Labour’s sordid history with child protection scandals. For years, Labour councils and figures turned a blind eye to grooming gangs terrorising vulnerable girls in Rotherham, Rochdale, and beyond, all to avoid “racism” accusations. Starmer, as DPP from 2008-2013, oversaw the CPS dropping Savile investigations despite evidence. Labour MPs voted against Tory and Reform calls for a grooming gangs inquiry in January 2025, only U-turning in June after relentless pressure. Reeves defended the delay as Starmer “assuring himself”, code for political cowardice. These are the types who opposed national accountability for decades of cover-ups, letting predators roam free. Kyle’s party fought tooth and nail against exposing the truth, yet he dares sling Savile slurs at Farage? It’s spectacular hypocrisy, a deflection from Labour’s own filthy laundry.
And what of Kyle himself? This isn’t a man driven by pure principle. Peek at his financial backers, and the picture muddies. Kyle’s register shows donations from the Tony Blair Institute (£1,694 in 2023), that globalist echo chamber pushing tech regulation and surveillance agendas. He’s pocketed from unions like CWU, and Labour MPs, including Kyle, have raked in over £280,000 from the Israel lobby for trips and perks. Big Pharma and US healthcare lobbyists have chipped in too, via the Blair outfit. Most seriously In February, his department gave a £2.3 million contract to Faculty AI, a company that had donated £36,000 to him in May 2024. Worse still is the case of Emily Middleton, formerly an employee of Public Digital, who was seconded to his office alongside a £66k donation who has been appointed a Director General in his department (via @StarkNakedBrief)
– Gawain Towler
I cannot recall a more disgusting article being published in a mainstream newspaper than this one written by His Majesty’s Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology:
Farage is siding with disgusting internet predators – Peter Kyle
Last year, Nicholas Hawkes sent photos of his erect penis to a 15-year-old girl. It’s sadly too common an occurrence, making victims feel exploited, disgusted and unsafe.
But in this case there were consequences. A month later, Hawkes was convicted under the new offence of cyber-flashing created by the Online Safety Act – the first person to be convicted.
So when Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform UK, boasts about his plans to repeal the Online Safety Act, it makes my blood boil.
Repealing the law would benefit men like Hawkes, a registered sex offender, and other disgusting predators who contact children and groom them online.
[…]
But as well as blocking disturbing and upsetting images and messages from children’s feeds, it [the Online Safety Act] also makes huge changes to the online environment children inhabit.
For the first time, it gives social media platforms an obligation to proactively keep children safe. It forces them to detect and remove horrific child sexual abuse material, which has shamefully lurked on the internet, barely hidden from those sick enough to seek it out.
[…]
And these are not just warm words – it’s a regime with teeth. If companies don’t follow the law, then Ofcom, our independent regulator, has the power to fine them up to 10 per cent of their global turnover.
For the most serious of offences, allowing child sexual abuse to run riot on a platform could even see someone criminalised. Plus it gives our police forces new offences to go after online criminals.
I cannot understand how anyone can be against these measures. How could anyone question our duty to keep children safe online – particularly when it comes to child sexual abuse content and from online grooming?
“Why do you hang back from punishing the traitors, comrade? Is it because you are one of them?” Demagogues have used that line for centuries.
Over at Bloomberg, columnist Matthew Brooker notes that a mix of policies have caused London’s housebuilding sector to almost stop.
Homebuilding in London has all but ground to a halt. The capital is on track to deliver less than 5% of its annual target of 88,000 homes with half the year gone, by far the worst performance in two decades. Such a collapse in the UK’s largest and richest city would be a poor omen for economic growth and productivity at the best of times. For this to be occurring under a one-year-old Labour government that arrived in office promising a generational uplift in housing supply is extraordinary.
The figures almost defy belief. Housing starts have fallen by more than 90% compared with the financial year ended in 2023, official data from the Greater London Authority show.
The reasons:
Why is this happening and what can be done? The words “perfect storm” crop up frequently. A thicket of interlocking factors is at play, some of which have built up over years. On the supply side, the immediate trigger is the creation of a new Building Safety Regulator, or BSR, with a set of more stringent requirements for high-rise buildings in the wake of the 2017 Grenfell fire, which killed 72 people. Delays in approvals have compounded post-pandemic challenges of inflated construction costs and higher interest rates.
Meanwhile, successive tax changes, some dating back more than a decade, have driven away offshore investors, according to Molior founder Tim Craine. Developers build only in response to demand, he points out. Investors who buy apartments “off plan” before they are complete play a crucial role in financing construction and providing a signal of likely end-demand. Their declining presence has raised speculative risks and undermined the financial viability of projects.
Former Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne targeted a series of tax measures at buy-to-let investors in the belief that they were driving up house prices and squeezing out first-time buyers. The trouble is that the private-led investment model is intimately connected to the delivery of affordable housing for deprived communities. London boroughs grant planning permission for apartment complexes on condition that developers designate a portion, typically 35%, as affordable. These are bought by housing associations that then sell or rent them out at discounts to the market. If there are no private buyers, there will be no affordable housing either.
The article makes no reference to the current immigration issue in the UK, but it is fair to say that even without large net inflows of people to the UK, the low level of house building and new residential accommodation is a problem if we want a refurbished, modern housing stock. Add in the immigration issue, then we have a crisis. The current UK government made much of housing when it was elected last July. The data for London is lamentable.
The article also reminded me of the planning dysfunction, among other things, that was identified as problems in last year’s major “Foundations” report into why UK seems unable to get anything built, and certainly erected on time, and on budget, these days.
|
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.
|
