Why are the Liberal Democrats not called the Illiberal Democrats if they are not liberals either? Maybe they should be called the Lino party, as in liberal in name only.
– Commenter Chris H
|
|||||
|
It is has surprised me that David Cameron’s Conservative Party, even though it has been pretty hopeless at resisting or promising to overturn whole assaults on UK civil liberties, has not embraced the idea of a mass repeal of such odious laws more enthusiastically. A commenter called KevinB has raised this point just now. Consider the benefits: it would appeal to liberal-leaning folk who might otherwise not give the Tories a second glance and weaken the challenge from the LibDems; it would go down well with younger people normally less inclined to vote; it would be the right thing to do anyway. So why do they not make a manifesto commitment saying that in the first session of the next Parliament, a Great Repeal Act will be enacted that sweeps away hundreds of encroachments on UK civil liberties, such as the Civil Contingencies Act and the National ID database? Of course, some of this might require the government to pull out of certain EU laws, but remember that the vast bulk of the laws imposed by New Labour have been domestically generated and cannot be blamed on the EU, important though that dimension is. Now at this blog we are not exactly very nice to the Tories, to say the least. But it strikes me that a Great Repeal Act, or Restoration of Liberties Act, would be a nice, catchy idea that even the most authortarian cynic in the Tory ranks might feel would be worthwhile. April 9th, 2009 | 35 comments - (Comments are closed)
 Following from Philip Chaston’s post immediately below, is the point that needs to be repeated as to how bad it is that the authorities are now trying – in vain, hopefully – to ban people from photographing the police. Had such photographing been prevented, then this incident, which threatens to engulf the police in further turmoil, would not have been recorded. I cannot believe I am now writing stuff like this. This is Britain, right? April 9th, 2009 | 13 comments - (Comments are closed)
The state spends vast amounts of money, yet the deficit is ‘more that predicted‘? And the recession will be ‘more severe than forecast’? Well mate, I must be an god-damn oracle then, and Paul Marks too in fact, because it is all going pretty much exactly as we predicted and forecast. Government policy is to suck out vast amounts of wealth from the economy and then redirect it themselves… and borrow money from whatever mugs will lend it to them… and to simply print more money like crazed counterfeiters… so the deficit grows by leaps and bounds and the economy tanks. I find it utterly laughable that this was not the predicted, forecast and indeed desired outcome as no other outcome was even vaguely possible. Economic health was never government policy, either in the UK or the USA. The policy objective is increased political control of people’s lives (‘regulation’) via de facto nationalisation of the economy. The fact some investors actually buy into the notion such lunacy actually benefits them just adds some comic relief to the unfolding tragedy. Government policy is working just fine. April 6th, 2009 | 6 comments - (Comments are closed)
The political atmosphere in Britain is rather peculiar just now. One of the more interesting things to ask of public opinion at any particular moment is: Who exactly does public opinion think are the people who are most blatantly and most undervedly robbing us. It was a decisive fact about the 1979 general election that public opinon’s answer then was: The Unions. It was a decisive fact about the next big electoral upheaval, in 1997, that public opinion’s answer then was: the Conservative Party. Now, public opinion seems to be arriving at another answer to the who-are-the-biggest-plunderers? question. It seems to be deciding that the answer now is: Members of Paliament of all parties. If this opinion solidifies in time for the next general election, it will be very interesting to see what it does to the Conservative vote in particular. What if all the major parties do worse? Since they have all done so badly, this would make sense, I think. But surely the plunderings now being contrived and the further plunderings being attempted by the people who are politically well above the average MP in the plunder pecking order make the petty pilferings of our Members of Parliament look very petty indeed. Has any MP put in a claim for even so much as one billion pounds, to pay for a second West Indian island? If so, I missed the news. It’s almost as if the powers that be want the mere MPs to take all the blame for everything. It’s all a dastardly establishment plot, orchestrated by evil pseudo-libertarian Guido Fawkes! Of course, it could just be that regular people can get a handle on the fraudulent expenses claims of MPs, because these are the kinds of amounts they deal with themselves, and sometimes even pilfer themselves with morally questionable expenses claims of their own. On the other hand, the sums of money being slung at dodgy banks and political-donation-wielding bankers, and now being further unleashed by “monetary easing”, well, these are just way beyond all normal experience. Pile up all those bank notes and they reach far off into the Solar System, or deep into our own galaxy, or the next, or to some such unimaginable never-land. (Thus also does a council planning committee debate a patio extension for an hour and a half, before letting an oil refinery through without further discussion, that being another insight, to add to this one, that we owe to Professor C. Northcote Parkinson.) Speaking of the really serious plunderings that are now being perpetrated, by those at the Obama/Brown level of operations, the other odd thing I have been reading lately, this time said by commentators like Peter Oborne and Fraser Nelson, is that Mr Brown is bad, because he is not stealing as much money as he is pretending to steal, in order to “stimulate” (the new word for wreck) the world economy. Oh Mr Brown claims to be stealing a thousand gazillion pounds! He would, wouldn’t he? But in fact it’s only a hundred gazillion pounds, because he has counted most of the gazillions in question twice or even three or four times. Most of the gazillions he is now promising to steal anew have either been stolen already or won’t be stolen at all. Bad Mr Brown! But surely this is a case where words on their own are greatly to be preferred to words followed by or accompanied by actions. Our best hope now is that, when Obama and Brown and the rest of them promise that they are now taking decisive, radical and above all very big and very expensive actions of various kinds to save the world, they are lying. Heaven help us all if they are telling the truth. April 5th, 2009 | 12 comments - (Comments are closed)
The blogger at Devil’s Kitchen has been doing fine work, as have others, in exposing “fake charities” – those organisations that while claiming to be autonomous, voluntary organisations, receive a substantial amount of funding from the taxpayer via grants and as a result, frequently take positions in terms of public policy that, unsurprisingly, fit in with the fashionable bromides of transnational progressivism, health fascism and environmentalism. The Fake Charities website does sterling work in listing those organisations that should be closely watched. The site is a great resource and well worth bookmarking. I do not give a voluntary penny to any of them. An old girlfriend of mine used to work as a fund-raiser for the NSPCC. She told me that it was a bit like working for the government. The tragedy of all this is that charities, like other once-autonomous institutions drawn into the arms of the state, are valuable parts of a civil society. Opponents of liberalism will sometimes claim that we are “atomists” who have no interest in co-operative ventures. That is mischievious nonsense: a libertarian is in favour of, or at least tolerates, all forms of voluntary interaction and charitable, philanthropic activity is absolutely vital to this. Without a Welfare State to care for the inevitable casualties of life, such organisations are obviously important. In framing the case for moving towards a truly free society rather than the mess we have now, it is in fact particularly important to highlight the examples of where philanthropy, as properly understood, has made a positive difference to people’s lives. It is all of a piece with trying to set out positive, constructive examples of what a free society actually can look like, rather than just moaning about the situation we now find ourselves in. April 2nd, 2009 | 11 comments - (Comments are closed)
Reported by Lucy Bannerman in today’s Times:
In a previous post about loss of nerve in our public services I said, referring to instances in which firemen and policemen had “broken procedure” to save life, that despite their personal courage “institutional gutlessness surrounded them, was embarrassed by them, and will kill off their like eventually. Poisoned soil does not long give forth good fruit.” Seems like the poison has worked its way well in. Note: I do not know whether the Colly family could have been saved had the attempt been made while Mrs Colly was still alive to scream for someone to save her kids. A spokeswoman for the South Yorkshire Police said, “The senior officer in charge is confident we handled this incident as professionally as possible. In a situation like that you could end up with more deceased bodies than you had in the first place.” One of the lesser known sights of London is the Watts Memorial in Postman’s Park. I gather it featured in the film Closer, starring Natalie Portman and Jude Law. No, I am not being funny, suddenly veering off into a travelogue in the middle of a post about the deaths of a family. I wish there were something to laugh about. The memorial was set up by a Victorian artist, George Frederick Watts, to commemorate those who died saving others. It consists of hand made plaques each bearing the name of a person who sacrificed his or her life and a brief citation. Very quaint they are, with their crowded lettering with the extra-large initial capitals and little swirly plant motifs and curlicues in the corners. Even the names are quaint, laboriously given in full. Police Constables Percy Edwin Cook, Edward George Brown Greenoff, Harold Frank Ricketts and George Stephen Funnell are among them. I wonder what PC Percy Edwin Cook, for instance, who perished when he “Voluntarily descended high tension chamber at Kensington to rescue two workmen overcome by poisonous gas” would have made of his successors in the South Yorkshire force. Perhaps the police spokeswoman was right. Perhaps if health and safety had been less comprehensively assured and the Colly incident handled rather less professionally, we would have ended up with more than the three “deceased bodies” – no, make that four, when you count the child expected to be born in two weeks – that we did end up with. Still, more than four dead bodies is quite a lot and quite unlikely, I cannot help thinking. And I also cannot help thinking that there is more to this than just counting the dead under different scenarios. If the critically injured five year old girl does survive she will be burdened by more than just the fact that her family died. She will eventually have to know that those who might have answered her mother’s last desperate appeal were held back on grounds of “health and safety.” Not theirs, obviously. UPDATE: Other accounts give the spelling of the family name as “Colley”. They confirm that the police actively prevented rescue attempts. FURTHER UPDATE: There is a thoughtful discussion in the comments regarding several moral and practical questions, and whether the press accounts are to be trusted. Quite possibly not. Yet I must add that if the South Yorkshire police are trying to convince me that they are not abdicating responsibility in order to follow rote “health and safety” procedure (as commenter “sjv” put it), then best not claim, as they appeared to in the Mail report linked to in the word “other”, that the reason they will not tell us exactly how long elapsed between the arrival of the police and the arrival of the firemen is “‘data protection’ rules.” March 30th, 2009 | 72 comments - (Comments are closed)
I would not want to get on the wrong side of this scribe when words don’t fail him:
Thus does Matthew Parris muse upon the oratical inadequacies of Prime Minister Gordon Brown. If Brown is now the main object of your rage and loathing, then read the whole thing. You will surely enjoy it greatly. But what matters to me is not whether Brown is now a doomed and hopeless failure, for clearly he is. But how much more of my country will he quadruple-mortgage? How much more of my country’s earth will he scorch? And, later, how much of the Labour Party as a whole will he take with him into the history books and nowhere else? Not that much more, not that much more, and the more the better, is what I am now hoping (against hope) for. Now is as good a time as any to confess that I was one of those people who used once to accuse Samizdata sage Paul Marks of not “getting” New Labour. My problem was that I did really believe (and do still believe) that when Blair said that he was not in favour of wrecking my country’s finances, he did truly mean it. Time and again, Blair outfaced his party with that very proclamation. I don’t believe in ruining Britain, he would shout at his massed ranks of idiot followers. So fire me, he kept saying. And the massed ranks of idiots, despite being enraged by this exasperatingly sensible talk, kept not firing him. My problem was not that I was wrong to notice these protestations of fiscal virtue, or wrong to consider them significant. Where I went wrong was in understanding their actual impact. I didn’t think that Blair was ushering in any sort of libertarian nirvana, no way. Nor was I relaxed about the damage being done by Blair to the legal system and to the criminal law and to the regulatory regime. Europe was, as it remains, a continuing disaster. But at least, I thought, this time around Labour will not smash up everything economically. But actually, the whole Blair “political achievement” made it possible for Labour to break Britain with a ferocity and completeness that has no parallel in recent British history. The more we trusters trusted Labour not to scorch Britain’s earth, the more earth they were able actually to scorch, and this scorching, of course, continues. Old-style socialists were not trusted, and as soon as the danger signs appeared, as they inevitably did as soon as each successive attempt at a socialist-inclined government had got its flamethrowers working and scorching, voters and investors reacted accordingly. This time around, too many (me included) thought that it would be different, until such time as even we could not doubt the unique scale of this particular disaster. To the precise degree to which we thought things would be better this time, they were actually worse, and it was cause and effect. Did Blair do this on purpose? As the catastrophe started to unfold, did he realise what he had done, sticking his killer grin on the front of the latest and greatest Labour assault on Britain’s economic viability? Did he care? Does he care? Frankly, I don’t care. I now, still, regard Blair more as a destructive force of nature rather than as a deliberately evil man, but in practice, what does it matter? What matters, as we have become used to hearing as other pettier disasters have unfolded in recent years, is to make sure that nothing like this can ever happen again. The point is not just that Brown has been and is still a catastrophe. That’s a given. The point to ram home, now and for as long as his name is ever remembered, is that Tony Blair was also a catastrophe, and arguably a much bigger one. For without Blair, there could have been no Brown. Burying the Labour Party for ever, as it deserves, does not merely mean keeping the horrid memory of Brown and his cloth-eared blunderings alive. It means remembering how Tony Blair made those blunderings possible. So, let us learn the big political lesson of this catastrophe, to ensure that, indeed, the catastrophe can never happen again. And it is this. When the Labour Party sounds bad, it is bad. When it sounds good, it is even worse. Only the idiots in the Labour Party now can be blamed for Brown, and not even they really voted for him. But they did allow him to clamber unopposed into the driver’s seat of the wrecking and burning machine, and for that they all deserve their particular places in hell. But many more Brits voted for Blair, because they thought that even if things were not automatically going to get any better (as the idiots were singing – remember that?) then at least, fiscally speaking, they wouldn’t get that much worse. Clearly Britain will never “vote Brown” in the future, any more than it did this time around for Brown himself. But Britain did “vote Blair”, and this it must never do again. March 29th, 2009 | 20 comments - (Comments are closed)
Talking of protests – see Perry’s post immedately under this one – there are a number of protests going on in London to coincide with the pointless and expensive Group of 20 meeting of major industrialised and developing countries next week. There could be some serious clashes. It makes me wonder, given the Tea Party anti-bailout protests in the US at the moment – which are starting to get more coverage from the MSM – as to whether there is any understanding on the part of the G20 protesters that they actually might share some common ground with the free marketeers of the Tea Partiers. After all, do the anti-globalistas understand the rage that many Tea Partiers feel at having their hard-earned cash used to bail out banks that were run by often quasi-state institutions and highly paid executives? Of course, a lot of the G20 protesters are Naomi Klein-type socialist buffoons who want to replace what they mistakenly think of as “unregulated capitalism” with central planning etc, but it seems to me that the might be a section of the protesters who might be open to understanding the real causes of the crisis and understand also the injustice of the prudent bailing out the imprudent. Of course this may be unwisely optimstic and that all of the G20 protesters are statists of one sort of another, out to bash at a “system” that they do not comprehend. If there are ugly scenes in these protests and people working for banks are targeted and hurt, I hope that Gordon Brown, a prime minster of a government that once used to fete the City when it suited, feels suitably ashamed for pilloring those same bankers now that the credit crisis has hit. It is now another reason why my loathing of Gordon Brown and his brand of politics has reached hurricane-force level. March 28th, 2009 | 30 comments - (Comments are closed)
I will certainly not be the only one now pointing out the similarity between what this gang of counterfeiters got up to, and British government policy. The biggest difference between the two groups of transgressors is in the scale of it. Our government’s currency printing binge will be on a far more grandiose scale. March 27th, 2009 | 5 comments - (Comments are closed)
The Labour blogger Tom Harris is upset that the Tory MEP, Daniel Hannan, dared – oh the impertinence! – to attack Gordon Brown the other day. The horror. A politician attacks another politician and about policies too – what is the world coming to? But as Alex Massie puts it, this is tosh, and Mr Harris, if he has any self respect, must surely know it. It also makes me wonder what Mr Harris thinks MEPs should do, or if they have any rights at all to criticise leaders of the countries whence they come? I have often watched, in recent times, Labour ministers berate opposition politicians for “playing politics” for having the temerity to criticise some policy or other. This is a totalitarian mindset. In an adversarial system such as the Anglosphere one, rhetorical combat and debate is all part of the system and a necessary part, as well. It is probably also a sign of how the ruling UK Labour Party is now frightened that, when confronted with an example of blazing eloquence by a European MP like Mr Hannan, the best that NuLab can do is moan about the MP’s “lack of patriotism”. At this blog, over the years, we have argued long and hard about the dire state of the Tory Party and the sort of people that have advanced within. I am sure that libertarian purists will be able to unearth unflattering political details about Mr Hannan. But in the current environment, his speech – now a YouTube phenomenon – is like a dash of brandy to a half-drowned man. I hope it galvanizes his colleagues to follow suit. When it comes to drowning, the gurgling guy you see vanishing beneath the waves is Gordon Brown. Developments such as the insufficient bids for UK government bonds suggest the end is now very close. March 26th, 2009 | 12 comments - (Comments are closed)
Does anybody know where the words of this can be copied and pasted? I would hate to have to type it all out – or maybe that should be ‘in’ – myself, but somebody definitely should, and if I or any commenter does find it, I will maybe add it to the bottom of this posting. As Peter Hoskin of the Spectator’s Coffee House blog says, Dan Hannan “absolutely skewers” the PM. (Can you kick someone with a skewer? Never mind.) Guido also piles in. As my fellow scribes here say from time to time: I love the internet. In fact I love it even more than I hate Gordon Brown, and that’s saying something. ADDENDUM Monday morning: Here it is. Thank you commenter Simon Collis, and blogger Stuart Sharpe.
It will be interesting to see what Britain’s mainstream media make of this. My guess is that the blogosphere will be all over this speech not just today but for a longish time, with constant links back, and that many newspapers will also refer to it during the next day or two. But how will the BBC respond? They are in a lose-lose situation, I think. Mention it, eventually, they lose. Ignore it, they look like Soviet-era buffoons, just as Hannan said Brown is. A bit like the US MSM and those tea parties. Presumably, by the time the BBC do mention it, the story will be that the Conservatives are divided. Divided, that is to say, in that some of them think the Prime Minister is mad and evil and believe in saying so, while others merely think it. March 24th, 2009 | 25 comments - (Comments are closed)
|
   |
||||
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. |
|||||