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]
|
Some cynical commenter I cannot remember who or where said that this weekend our naughty Labour government would choose now to bury some bad news which it would like out there but ignored. Sunday is a bad day for such trickery, but maybe there was something along these lines today.
However, my inclination is to suspect that the real Story That Just Got Buried, at any rate in Britain (Instapundit was all over it from the start, just before the Saddam Captured story broke, i.e just after he was actually captured), so far, is this, in the Sunday Telegraph yesterday. Okay, not buried exactly. The Sunday Telegraph is not buried. Shall we say: temporarily drowned out, by which I mean ignored, for the time being, by the British electronic media.
Anyway, buried or not, it is a huge story, if true:
A document discovered by Iraq’s interim government details a meeting between the man behind the September 11 attacks and Abu Nidal, the Palestinian terrorist, at his Baghdad training camp. Con Coughlin reports.
For anyone attempting to find evidence to justify the war in Iraq, the discovery of a document that directly links Mohammed Atta, the al-Qaeda mastermind of the September 11 attacks, with the Baghdad training camp of Abu Nidal, the infamous Palestinian terrorist, appears almost too good to be true.
So, ergo, it cannot be true. Right? Too good.
But what if it is true? I know, politicians – Tony Blair even – telling the truth, whatever next? But suppose, just suppose, that the Powers That Be have known all along and for absolute sure that Saddam and Al Qaeda were totally in bed with each other, but that they could not reveal how they knew because had they revealed their evidence that would have jeopardised, you know, ongoing operations, i.e. their source(s) close to Saddam? But could it be that this has now changed, what with SH now being safely in the bag? That makes the most sense of everything to me, not least the curious behaviour of our Prime Minister, apparently so willing to hang himself out to dry over this war, but actually sucking his critics into what a spin doctoral friend of mine calls a “killing ground”? “I told you to trust me. You should have.” I can hear it now.
I do not have time to comment at any more length as I am now off to an impromptu Samizdata social, but Melanie Phillips, to whom my thanks for reminding me that I had read this story yesterday and like her been very struck by it, does comment some more. So go read her.
Written in a rush. So apologies for misprints and/or contorted prose, which I reserve the right to clean up later.
“Good evening, this is the news from the BBC, 25th December 2010. Several arrests were made today after a dawn raid on an illegal Christmas celebration in Hertfordshire. Acting on a tip-off, armed officers swooped on the residential premises where they found a secret grotto, a fully-decorated Christmas Tree and up to two dozen suspects unwrapping gifts and singing carols. The police also recovered large quantities of contraband including a plate of mince pies, a string of fairy lights, a whole stuffed turkey and a sackful of toys.
The raid came as a part of ‘Operation Tolerance’ which is designed to curb the alarming spread of Christmas-crimes in the community.”
That’s a joke, right? Ridiculous? Alarmist? Wildly over-the-top? Gross exaggeration? Undue pessimism? Perhaps.
A church has been told that it cannot publicise its Christmas services on a community notice board to avoid offending other religions.
The Church of England may be the established faith of the United Kingdom. But Buckinghamshire county council regards it as a “religious preference group” and the ban was upheld yesterday.
A spokesman for the Tory-controlled council confirmed the distinction, explaining that because the service contained Christian prayers it was against policy.
Margaret Dewar, who is responsible for the council libraries, said: “The aim of the policy is to be inclusive and to respect the religious diversity of Buckinghamshire.”
Peter Mussett, the council’s community development librarian, said his member of staff was right not to display the poster.
“We have a multi-faith community and passions can be inflamed by religious issues,” he said. “We don’t want to cause offence to anyone.”
Well, they managed to offend me.
I disagree almost completely with George Monbiot’s political ideas, but I share his curiosity about the Revolutionary Communist Party, that’s Living Marxism, no: LM (as LM for Living Marxism as in L for nothing M for nothing), no Spiked, that is to say Institute of Ideas. Who are these people?
Here is the Monbiot version, from last Tuesday’s Guardian:
The organisation began in the late 1970s as a Trotskyist splinter called the Revolutionary Communist party. It immediately set out to destroy competing oppositionist movements. When nurses and cleaners marched for better pay, it picketed their demonstrations. It moved into the gay rights group Outrage and sought to shut it down. It tried to disrupt the miners’ strike, undermined the Anti-Nazi League and nearly destroyed the radical Polytechnic of North London. On at least two occasions RCP activists physically attacked members of opposing factions.
In 1988, it set up a magazine called Living Marxism, later LM. By this time, the organisation, led by the academic Frank Furedi, the journalist Mick Hume and the teacher Claire Fox, had moved overtly to the far right. LM described its mission as promoting a “confident individualism” without social constraint. It campaigned against gun control, against banning tobacco advertising and child pornography, and in favour of global warming, human cloning and freedom for corporations. It defended the Tory MP Neil Hamilton and the Bosnian Serb ethnic cleansers. It provided a platform for writers from the corporate thinktanks the Institute for Economic Affairs and the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise. Frank Furedi started writing for the Centre for Policy Studies (founded by Keith Joseph and Margaret Thatcher) and contacting the supermarket chains, offering, for £7,500, to educate their customers “about complex scientific issues”.
In the late 1990s, the group began infiltrating the media, with remarkable success. For a while, it seemed to dominate scientific and environmental broadcasting on Channel 4 and the BBC. It used these platforms (Equinox, Against Nature, Attack of the Killer Tomatoes, Counterblast, Zeitgeist) to argue that environmentalists were Nazi sympathisers who were preventing human beings from fulfilling their potential. In 2000, LM magazine was sued by ITN, after falsely claiming that the news organisation’s journalists had fabricated evidence of Serb atrocities against Bosnian Muslims. LM closed, and was resurrected as the web magazine Spiked and the thinktank the Institute of Ideas.
All this is already in the public domain. But now, thanks to the work of the researcher and activist Jonathan Matthews (published today on his database www.gmwatch.org), what seems to be a new front in this group’s campaign for individuation has come to light. Its participants have taken on key roles in the formal infrastructure of public communication used by the science and medical establishment.
I am in favour of good science, progressive technology, and I’m pretty sure I like genetic engineering insofar as I understand it. Above all, I’m in favour of what Monbiot calls “individuation”, and despise the idea that this makes me or anyone else who believes in it “far right”, i.e. (the old smear) in league with Nazis (who flatly opposed “individuation”). And “confident individualism” sounds great, and I believe that it is restrained by the confident individualism of other individuals. I’m against gun control, and against banning tobacco advertising.
So, does all that make Spiked/Institute of Ideas good guys? Apparently. → Continue reading: Revolutionary Communist Party as in Living Marxism as in LM as in Spiked and Institute of Ideas – I agree with George Monbiot: who are these people?
It annoys the hell out of me when I hear the chattering classes in Britain describe this country’s decrepit socialist National Health System as ‘the envy of the world’… and it astounds me when idiots in the USA think it should be emulated over there.
As someone who has all too much first hand contact with the NHS, as well as having been at the tender mercy of other nation’s healthcare systems when I have broken bones, crashed cars, got shot, fallen through a weak floor, head-butted a flying bottle, been bitten by snakes/dogs/rats/, skied into trees, caught exotic unpronounceable tropical diseases and all the other things that happen to folks such as myself who travel to far off places and foolishly venture out of the hotel… and I can assure you that the NHS is at its best nothing special compared to much of the rest of the world and at its worst, it absolutely sucks. I certainly never saw a dirty ward in a hospital in Croatia or Ghana or the USA like those I have seen in Britain’s state run hospitals.
In reality, not only does the NHS provide indifferent care (an appointment I needed once took 11 months to arrange), it does so at vast cost and in reality a large chunk of the burden of healthcare is done privately. In fact, the NHS could not survive without a large healthcare private sector, the size of which Eamonn Butler points out over on the Adam Smith Institute’s own blog.
When my grandfather was gravely injured a few years ago, the treatment he received from the NHS was adequate – but after it became apparent that he was not able to look after himself any more due to brain damage, my family ended up shelling out well over £40,000 ($70,000) per year to keep him in a private nursing home which did not smell of piss. I am not complaining, after all what the hell is money for if not for something like that? However the role played by the non-state sector is a largely unsung one and I wish more people in Britain realised that the fact the state does not provide a healthcare service does not mean one will not be provided. If the state did not take such a whack of tax money to fund the monstrosity that is the NHS, far more people would have healthcare insurance.
Of course that might not end up costing much less than the existing system but the evidence outside Britain suggests it would certainly produce a higher quality system than the one of de facto healthcare rationing in use in the UK now.
It seems Arthur Laffer’s famous curve is finally starting to bite into Gordon Brown’s economic plans, you know, the ones based on hope, pie in the sky, and getting one solitary day past the next general election date. Apparently Gordon is puzzled by Britain’s steady economic growth, of approximately 2%, but its fall in tax revenues, last year, of around £8 billion pounds.
Well, Gordon, it’s like this. If you borrow £37 billion pounds, plus a few other hidden tens of billions on public-private ‘partnerships’, you’ll get apparent economic growth, because all of the paperclip suppliers in the country have been working flat out to feed all of those nice new shiny government bureaucrats with nice new shiny stationery equipment. But one day all of those paperclips are going to have to be paid for, Gordon. I know, it’s just terrible, isn’t it?
And having hit the wealth-generating sector of the economy with a cornucopia of new taxes and regulations, since 1997, Gordon, the latest being an extension of IR35, and then having thrown the proceeds at your friends in the wealth-spending sector of the economy, you’re about to hit what we credit-card junkies call ‘economic reality’. That’s when the credit card company finally stops letting you borrow any more money from this month to pay off next month’s minimum card payment. Bummer.
If I were you, Gordon, I would get that Tony Blair out of office, right now, or at the end of January at the very least, to take his job. Then land poor old Alistair Darling in at the Treasury, so he can carry the can when it all goes bang. Does that sound like a plan, Gordon? Good. Glad we’ve got it sorted.
I’d send you a bill for fifty quid, for this consultancy advice. However, I sense that although you possess the economics of a half-wit, possessing political cunning to your fingertips you’ll already have the Tony Blair Hutton/Top-up fees assassination plan well in hand. Nice job on preparing his ejector seat excuse, by the way, “for reasons of my health”. Top quality.
The Conservatives have at long last committed themselves to a tax-cutting agenda:
The Conservatives plan to offer tax cuts at the next general election in a shift aimed at highlighting the divide between their policies and the tax increases introduced by Labour.
So is that settled then?
Oliver Letwin issued a statement clarifying the party’s position after earlier appearing to slam the door on a manifesto commitment to reduce the tax burden.
In an interview with the Telegraph yesterday, he surprised senior colleagues by declaring: “We will not go to the polls at the next election saying that we will reduce the tax bill.”
Er… so it’s not settled.
A spokesman for Mr Letwin said: “The Tory party has always and will always be a low tax party.
So they are going to cut taxes?
“We will not make any irresponsible promises or do anything which that put the public services or Britain’s finances at risk.”
Or, they’re not.
So that’s clear then. Or not. They want low taxes. Or they don’t. Or they do. In principle. If nobody minds too much. They have made a commitment. Or not. Well, a bit of a commitment. A qualified promise. More of an aspiration really. An idle thought. Just a suggestion. They are going to run it up the flagpole and see if the cat licks it up. But not yet. Soon. Maybe. Possibly not though. Let’s not be too hasty. The Conservatives are muddled. Well, a bit muddled. Not coherent at all. But they expect to be. Sometime. Cannot promise when. Er, what was the question? Can’t we change the subject? Good grief, is that the time? They have just remembered..er, a very important appointment. Must dash.
[My thanks to Melanie Phillips for the links.]
Taxation is in the news just now in Britain, because the word is that Middle England is finally getting fed up with Gordon Brown and his relentless drizzle of sneaky tax increases and failure or refusal – it doesn’t really matter which, does it? – to keep a lid on public spending. Which is perhaps why, when I supped last night with Alex Singleton, we fell to talking about Tax Freedom Day. And I heard myself saying, the way you do, that there is another way to dramatise the scope and nature of the British tax burden, which is to ask: How many taxes does Britain now have?
Frankly I have almost no idea at all of what the answer to this question is, for Britain. But to ask it might achieve many benefits, I surmise. → Continue reading: How many taxes does Britain have?
Surely this cannot be for real? I can only imagine that our Chancellor, Gordon Brown, is simply tickled pink by the thought of the Brussels elite choking on their morning brioche. Or perhaps someone has bought him a Seethe-O-Meter for Christmas and he has decided to test it out on the Labour Party rank-and-file?
That may be petty but how else can one explain a senior left-wing politician using the Telegraph to set out his ‘big vision’ for Britain?
Now we must build an even stronger and deeper national consensus: a shared national economic purpose that the Britain of the Industrial Revolution should become the Britain of a 21st-century enterprise renaissance.
And, mirroring America, that new consensus for enterprise should embrace not only commerce, finance and science, but all schools, all social groups and all local authorities. There should be no no-go areas and it should include even the poorest inner-city areas, where enterprise is the best solution to deprivation.
Er, come again?
So I want business to seize the opportunities of the upturn in the world economy. The Pre-Budget Report will lock in the stability that is the foundation for growth, sweep aside old rules and regulations, and set out a plan to lead Europe in fighting Brussels red tape.
‘Nurse, nurse…Mr Brown has had a funny turn!’
But more enterprising as we are, Britain still lags behind the American rate of business creation and success. And as the world economy strengthens, this is the time to encourage more start-ups, to provide more incentives for new investment and to build a deeper, wider British entrepreneurial culture that once again rivals America.
Shhh…Gordon, for pity’s sake, keep your voice down. You’re not supposed to say these things.
Starting a business or becoming self-employed in America is not seen as the privilege of an elite, but a chance open to anyone with talent, initiative and the will to get up and go. And in America, failing is merely an interruption and a lesson learnt, not a cause of ignominy or an excuse for inertia.
Listen? Can you hear it? Yes, it’s the unmistakeable ‘popping’ sound of Guardianista heads exploding. → Continue reading: How? Now? Brown? Wow!
I have long since passed the point of being surprised or shocked at the sheer number of my fellow Britons who labour under the impression that we do not have a constitution in this country.
So many ill-informed Brits seem to think that a constitution is something only the Americans have; an impression which is probably driven home by the fact that they so often hear Americans citing and arguing about their constitution while, here in the UK, such talk dropped off the radar of debate years ago.
But Britain most certainly does have a constitution only it is not codified. Instead it has been constructed piecemeal and painstainkingly over the best part of the last thousand years and it consists partly of laws but also of customs, coventions, traditions and respected arrangements.
Previous generations of political elites worked with and even cherished this delicate web of checks and balances. In many cases this was because they genuinely valued and respected them but, even where that was not the case, they were rightly fearful of the consequences of tampering with them.
No so Nulabour who have taken a box-cutter to these time-honoured institutions and arrangements and traduced them with a missionary zeal that has left our constitution teetering on the brink of oblivion. For the Blairites, these most British of traditions were simply too embarrassingly ‘outmoded’ to be tolerated. Besides they could not let anything so ‘unEuropean’ and arcane get in the way of their high-octane personal ambitions.
But because most Britons were unaware that they even had a constitution (much less did they realise its importance) the Blairites were able to get away with their campaign of vandalism unremarked. Except, that is , among those few of us who knew exactly what they were up to and why they were up to it and were prepared to kick up a stink.
At long last, that stink appears to have reached some august nostrils:
A written constitution may be needed to protect judges and citizens from the Government’s “disturbing” legal changes, according to Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice.
England’s most senior judge said he was no longer sure that our present – unwritten – constitution would provide the necessary protection.
Referring to the Government’s plans to abolish the Lord Chancellor and create a Supreme Court, Lord Woolf said: “The fact that changes of the scale now taking place can be decided upon without legislation… is disturbing. It does suggest that additional constitutional protection may be necessary.”
In the past, said Lord Woolf, he had believed that “our unwritten constitution, supported by conventions and checks and balances, provided all the protection which the judiciary, and therefore the citizen, required to uphold the proper administration of justice”.
The governments proposals to abolish the office of Lord Chancellor and establish a new ‘Supreme Court’ cut right through the heart of the principle of judicial independence and render the justice system as the mere catspaw of the executive. In light of the way that the law has already been so politicised, this does not auger well for the future of Britain as a free country.
However, while the sentiments that Lord Woolf has expressed are admirable and timely, I fear that his proposal for a new codified constitution may be a cure that proves every bit as bad as the disease. Any constitution that is carved out under the current hegemonic ideology is highly likely to greatly resemble the kind of monstrosity that the European Union is currently trying to foist on Europe. In other words, a micro-managerial charter chocked full of faux ‘rights’, costly entitlements and pages of nauseatingly modish claptrap about ‘diversity’ and the ‘environment’. Thanks but no thanks.
So what then must we do? To be honest, I cannot point to any specific remedy. But I do think it would be a good start if we could simply get the message to enough of our fellow citizens that the traditional Anglo-Saxon common law freedoms they take for granted are in mortal danger and that they are sleepwalking into a state of despotism.
The time of year has arrived for the annual Turner Prize for modern art: an exhibition of dreary, talentless, post-modernist rubbish fawned over and slobbered upon by a carnival procession of dreary, talentless, post-modernist critics, groupies, poseurs and assorted hangers-on (lots of ‘dog-turd-in-a-bottle’ type installations, hailed as a ‘devastating social critique’).
I don’t care who won it or why but I could not possibly let this scandalously hypocritical bit of dreck pass by without comment:
Described by some critics as “a deeply weird artist”, Perry makes classically shaped pots, which now fetch between £8,000 and £15,000.
But his decorative motifs – transfers, photographs and squiggly drawings – are anything but traditional. Inspired mostly by what he calls his unhappy childhood in Essex after his father left home, many are scenes of child abuse or erotica or angry social comment on class or the consumer culture.
Obviously the ‘deeply weird’ Mr Perry is so angry about ‘consumer culture’ that he could not possibly let one of his home-made pots go for less than 8000 smackers!
As Brian Micklethwait recently observed:
When a government starts to slide seriously into the dustbin of history, the very things which it tries to do to halt the slide become part of the slide.
He was referring to Her Majesty’s Government’s rather comical attempt to shore up its plummeting popularity by launching a ‘Big Conversation’ and, for it is worth, I think he is right.
But does this formula have wider applications? If the answer to that question is ‘yes’ then perhaps it can be applied to the democratic process itself:
A public debate on lowering the voting age from 18 to 16 has been called for by the Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer.
A lower voting age would encourage more young people to become involved in politics, he told the Observer paper.
The Electoral Commission, which advises ministers on how elections can be modernised, began consulting on the voting age in the summer following concern over falling turnouts among young voters.
I can entirely understand why the idea of lowering the voting age to 16 (at present it is 18) should have a certain appeal among the political classes. By every standard that can actually be measured, democratic politics is in steady decline. The membership roles of all main political parties are now so low that corporate donations are the only thing saving them from bankruptcy and voter turnout in elections is dropping year on year.
It is probably to early to pronounce that democracy is in crisis. It is not. Well, not yet. But there is now a sufficiently large block of public indifference to send a shudder down the spines of not just politicians but also the professional classes whose wealth and status is entirely dependent on state activism.
The threat of a creeping but inexorable loss of legitimacy has prompted calls for ‘something to be done’. In the past few years there has been much chundering about making voting complusory. But the trouble with that is that it may, overnight, turn a large block of public indifference into a large block of civil disobedience and that will only make things worse. So, extending the franchise is probably their safest bet.
I am against it, of course. People of all ages tend to vote for three things: more government, more entitlements and more laws. There is no reason to suppose that younger voters will somehow buck this trend. Nor is this merely my customarily gloomy nature at work, it is an analysis borne out by history. From the 19th Century onwards the growth of the welfare/regulatory state has steadily tacked upwards on the same line that marks the growth of enfranchisement. Since governments must respond to the wishes and aspirations of those that elect them, the former will tend to follow the latter.
But if the voting age is going to be lowered then it will be lowered regardless of whether I approve or not. The real question is whether is will achieve its stated aims. Supporters of the lower voting age are hoping that giving 16 year-olds ther right to vote will enable them to express themselves, ignite their imaginations and re-quicken the democratic process.
Well, who knows? Maybe that will be the case. But it seems to me that the opposite effect is just as likely. Namely, that the steps taken to reverse the slide of democratic legitimacy just become a part of that slide as the teenyvoters stay away in droves, thus converting a nagging concern into a slough of despond.
And where do we go from there? Good question.
Gordon Brown is facing voter unrest according to a poll that suggested Middle Britain has grown weary of tax rises and no longer believes higher spending can deliver improved public services.
The ICM survey carried out for the think-tank Reform found that 82 per cent believe services have not improved despite tax rises. Nearly as many – 78 per cent – think they need reform not extra money. Worryingly for Mr Brown, the poll found strong support for the principle of lower taxes, even among Labour voters, nearly three-quarters of whom believe British competitiveness depends on keeping taxes low.
For those who think that the Tory party will now ‘get off the fence’ and trumpet their low-tax message to the world, there is some bad news. As their tiny derranged statist minds catch a whiff of power, the Tories get cold feet on their tax-cut promise (well, more like mumbling).
Despite behind-the-scenes pressure from colleagues, Mr Howard has signalled his determination to move away from Iain Duncan Smith’s talk of tax cuts amid fears they would be difficult to deliver.
Oliver Letwin, the new shadow chancellor, warned at the weekend that such a pledge would be “irresponsible” and even hinted that an incoming Tory government could face “transitional costs” to implement its manifesto that would push up public spending.
‘Irresponsible’ and ‘transitional cost’, oh yes. Bigger government anyone? It woudl be fair to say that Samizdata.net position is that the folks who see the ‘resurgent’ Tory party as ‘just the ticket’ to rescue us from Tony Blair not just wrong but deluded.
|
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.
|
