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]
|
As is so often the case, it’s the little things one should watch out for. The nature and effect of seemingly insignificant or passing incidents can so often provide a more accurate insight into the political topography of any country than the sweeping op-eds of the mainstream press.
A good example is provided by Stephen Pollard who has just attended a Conference of Head Teachers in Brighton:
I have seen no more apposite comment on the state of the Conservative Party than this: one of the speakers this year was Damian Green, Shadow Education Secretary. Not only was he relegated to one of the break-out sessions; there were just 19 people present – out of some 300 – at his talk. Even at a meeting of public school heads, most of whom one might reasonably assume are Conservatives, almost no one gives a damn what he or his party thinks.
This is exactly the kind of nugget that speaks volumes about the reality of life on the nitty-gritty ground and yet is not controversial or glamourous enough to inspire editorial column inches. And, in response, I can only agree with Stephen. No-one giving a damn is quite the most damning indictment of the British Conservative Party. Contempt may be damaging but indifference is surely the killer.
Whilst the great and the good still ruminate about the future of the Conservatives in the broadsheet stratosphere, down on planet Earth they are in danger of dropping off the political radar screen.
A more tangible examination is 24 hours away. Tomorrow, May 1st, Britain goes to the voting booths in nationwide Local Council elections. Ostensibly, this is all about local issues such garbage collection, street lighting, libraries and the such. No ‘big policy’ stuff. Still no-one seriously believes that it is not, at least to some degree, a reflection of political support at the macro level as well.
The Labour Party is anxious to see if they benefit from ‘Baghdad bounce’ or ‘Baghdad backlash’ and, realistically, they will lose some seats but probably not enough to seriously dent them. Likewise, the Conservatives will pick up some seats but probably not the several hundred they need to fix the impression in their own minds, as well as everybody else’s, that they are a serious party of opposition.
In other words, business as usual. Except for angry, buzzing little fly-in-the-ointment; the British National Party. Although still a very marginal movement the fact remains that they have been doing alarmingly well in local and mayoral elections across the North of England and the Midlands, thus proving that their plain-talking, tub-thumping brand of whites-only socialism has a certain resonance in the working class heartlands where the ‘cafe latte elitism’ of New Labour is the source of growing irritation and disillusionment.
Tomorrow, the BNP will be fielding a record number of candidates; over 200. They are full of beans and righteous froth and earnestly believe that they are on the verge of some sort of breakthrough. I think that is probably and overstatement but I am disinclined to bet against them doing well.
Come the end of the week, it will still be ‘politics as usual’ but perhaps the wearyingly familiar mummery of the settled consensus will be underscored by the distracting backbeat of a whole host of panic pulses.
If New Labour and the forces of evil are trying to turn the British public into a bunch of politically correct pro-European Marxist-zombie numbskulls, then it appears to be on to a lost cause, according to a recent poll in The Telegraph:
Despite the British-American forces’ spectacular military successes, only 36 per cent of voters “approve of the Government’s record to date”, only 35 per cent believe that Labour can manage the economy better than the Tories, and only 34 per cent “think the Government has been, on balance, honest and trustworthy.”
In other words, whatever the current voting-intention figures, only about a third of voters appear at all impressed with the Government’s overall performance. If anything, people’s underlying attitudes towards the Government are even more hostile.”
What, no “Falklands factor”? Just as Tony Blair was intending to fast-track us all right into the centre of the new EU superstate, the British public don’t agree with him? Oh dear, what a shame…
Well, as The Telegraph points out:
Tony Blair and his colleagues have staked their reputation on their ability to “deliver” on the economy and the major public services.
And does the British public see any delivery? Well, apparently they think that unemployment has improved and boom-and-bust has ended… but on health only 24% can see positive signs of change, and on transport the figure is a pathetic 12%. And after another six months, then a year, then longer, go by and still everyone is looking through their front window at a non-existent postman… you do the predictions.
But what about those stealth taxes, haven’t we idiots been fobbed off with another round of extortion? Maybe not:
The so-called feel-good factor – the difference between the proportion of people who think their household’s financial situation will improve over the next 12 months and the proportion who think it will deteriorate – is also showing sharp falls.
[…] A 13-point fall in little more than four weeks is extremely unusual.
Something to do with the April tax hikes, maybe?
No wonder then that:
only 34 per cent “think the Government has been, on balance, honest and trustworthy”.
We see rising taxes and still-deteriorating public services everywhere. Despite Blair’s inevitable rise in personal popularity as a result of the war, which British people generally supported, (I wish U.S. troops had access to The Sun and The Telegraph instead of the ludcrous and nasty BBC), most Brits wish he could perform as well at home as he has on foreign policy.
So, all we need now is an anti-Europe, pro-capitalist, civil-liberties advocating, free-marketeering alternative political party to vote for, and whey-hey, off we go!
What, the Tories, you say? That bunch of Neanderthals in the corner fighting over an old dinosaur bone? Oh dear…
I am not quite old enough to have been a full-blooded Cold War Warrior but I can imagine what it must have been like poring over the speeches and statements that emanated from the Kremlin, searching out all those coded mendacities and gussied-up ideological postures.
The closest we come to that kind of excitement these days is by listening to someone like the Director General of the BBC, Greg Dyke:
BBC director general Greg Dyke has warned of the risks of crossing the line between patriotism and objective journalism.
Not remotely a risk for the BBC where there is not even a hint of either patriotism or objective journalism.
In a speech to a journalism conference in London, Mr Dyke denounced the “gung-ho patriotism” of one US network covering the Iraq war and said it should not be allowed to happen in the BBC.
Oh that vulgar word again! Such a rank obscenity for a member of the defeatist, vacuous, ethically crippled ruling elite.
“This is happening in the United States and if it continues will undermine the credibility of the US electronic news media.”
Credibility in whose eyes?
“And we must never allow political influences to colour our reporting or cloud our judgement.”
This, from the head of a broadcasting organisation whose chief recruitment ground is the jobs page of the Guardian.
“Commercial pressures may tempt others to follow the Fox News formula of gung-ho patriotism but for the BBC this would be a terrible mistake.”
For those of you unfamiliar with British public-sector-speak, allow me to interpret: “We must oppose a free market in information and ideas as this would severely threaten our role as paternalistic gatekeepers of public opinion”.
“If, over time, we lost the trust of our audiences, there is no point to the BBC.”
I think you ought to have a word with the crew of the Ark Royal, Mr.Dyke.
The BBC has yet to undergo ‘perestroika’.
In a dramatic development, under-fire British MP George Galloway has stunned an audience of journalists at a press conference by stripping off all of his clothes and posing for photographs whilst completely naked.
The controversial left-wing MP for Glasgow Kelvin had called the press conference in order to answer allegations that he accepted substantial payments from the former Iraqi regime. However, during a particularly heated round of questioning, Mr.Galloway suddenly stood up and began to undress himself. The attendant journalists watched in bemusement as Mr.Galloway eventually got down to his underpants which he whipped off with a flourish and draped over the ITN sound-recordist’s boom-mike.
It is the only way for me to fight back against this wicked right-wing American Zionist conspiracy to discredit me…
Said Mr.Galloway who was unrepentant about his unorthodox and shocking gesture:
Sorry? Of course I’m not sorry. It’s one of the most liberating things I have ever done. In fact, I’m already talking to the Guardian about a centrefold spread as part of a special colour-supplement next month.
Mr.Galloway’s gesture was warmly welcomed by a new left-wing organisation called the Campaign for Hindbrained Political Stunts (CHiPS) which is dedicated to pursuing a variety of ‘progressive’ causes with public displays of nudity. Denouncing all clothing as an oppressive construct of late-stage capitalism the group also intends to use bodily functions such as urination, defecation and induced vomiting as a means of protest. The group’s motto is: “Other people discuss, we just disgust”.
Want to know quite what I find so laughable about this story?
Gordon Brown has ordered another inquiry into the funding of the National Health Service, which is expected to lead to a further injection of billions of pounds next year.
In a move that could also pave the way for a further increase in national insurance payments before the next general election, the Chancellor has asked Derek Wanless, the former chief executive of NatWest, to study whether the NHS needs more money on top of the £40bn allocation over five years announced last year.
The answer lies in the way that Gordon Brown has ordered an ‘inquiry’ into NHS funding in order to provide a patina of scientific, objective justification for the tax increases that he has clearly already made up his mind on.
And would you like to hear something even funnier? Well, just wait until the ‘opposition’ (chortle, snigger) Conservatives launch a fierce attack on the government for not spending enough on the NHS. Won’t that be a scream?
Yes, yes I know, it’s not really funny and I shouldn’t laugh. But, honestly, I just don’t know what else to do.
There will be no ticker-tape parades for the returning heroes of Gulf War II and, given the current political and cultural climate, I suppose that is understandable. However, one would have thought that Mr.Blair might at least see the benefit of a suitably discreet pause before publicly shafting them:
Tony Blair is prepared to radically scale down the Royal Irish Regiment as part of his proposals to persuade the IRA to destroy all its weapons and halt all paramilitary operations, army and political sources claimed yesterday.
So it appears as if the Royal Irish Regiment, whose members fought with such gallantry and tenacity in the Battle for Basra as far back as…ooh, let’s see…a few days ago, are to be issued with a whole new set of marching orders. Thanks very much, chaps, now fuck off!
The irony can surely only be desribed as breath-taking. Whilst neither Saddam’s Ba’athist thugs nor his Republican Guards could put so much as a dent in them, their very existance as a fighting unit is about to be sacrificed by a government that will stop at nothing in a (vain) attempt to appease the brooding war-dogs of Sinn Fein/IRA.
The Daily Telegraph is running an impressive scoop of documents allegedly proving that George Galloway MP was in the pay of Saddam’s regime. George Galloway has long been ridiculed as the “Member for Baghdad Central” for his defense of Iraq; now it appears that he was motivated by pure greed rather than just a love of controversy.
It is impossible for outside commentators to be absolutely certain of the authenticity of these documents. Perhaps they have been planted by British intelligence. Perhaps they were written by the Iraqi foreign office as a prepatory insurance policy, for blackmail. Perhaps there is even an innocent explanation, though I do not see how there could be.
Occam’s razor, however, suggests that George Galloway MP was corruptly attempting to change government policy towards an hostile nation from the floor of the House of Commons, that he was giving aid and comfort to the enemy for personal gain.
I believe there is a legal term for that.
Our worst suspicions have been confirmed. The British Chancellor Gordon Brown is suffering from SARS (Severe Acute Robbery Syndrome) but every time he sneezes it’s the rest of us who catch the cold:
Pay increases in the private sector have slumped and are not enough to cover Gordon Brown’s tax increases, figures from the Office for National Statistics showed yesterday.
Economists were alarmed by the news as it could make the recent downturn in high street spending prolonged. It may also be politically significant, especially for Mr Brown.
The last time millions of voters had their pay packets cut because of tax increases was in 1974, when the then chancellor Denis Healey put 3p on income tax. Over 21m people currently work in the private sector.
I don’t know how many people work in the public sector but I do know that the number is much higher than in was in the early 90’s. Since 1997 especially, the ratchet of taxation (both direct and indirect) has gradually been cranked up to fund a staggering growth in government. The Labour Party’s natural constituency, the middle-class kleptocracy, has been showered with money and perquisites as a reward for their loyalty while, even now, they moan interminably about a ‘lack of resources’.
Meanwhile, the 21 million wealth creators have sadly bought the lie that only by accepting an ever-increasing burden can their lives improve. These Atlases may soon want to shrug and give their allegiance to a genuine tax-cutting, government-shrinking political party.
Sadly, we don’t have one in this country.
A legal fight is being waged by a gentleman to avoid having to pay the detestable British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) licence fee. I honestly do not fancy the chances of a successful outcome to this fight, but good luck to anyone, I say, in taking on the BBC.
The BBC, as has been pointed out on this blog many times before and elsewhere by the likes of Andrew Sullivan, is able to get away with its grotesque bias in reporting on current events, its gloom-ridden soap operas and ghastly “sitcoms” because it is able to shrug off the bracing winds of consumer choice and competition. The BBC does actually have good people working in it (trust me on this). But unless and until the licence fee is consigned to the ash heap of history, expect no serious improvement from that organisation.
I always thought it was one of Margaret Thatcher’s greatest missed opportunities that she did not privatize the BBC.
When it comes to the British International Development Secretary, Clare Short, any attempt to analyze her views are bedeviled by the fact she is such a mass of contradictions and illogic. Yesterday at a briefing in London she was asked by a journalist if she thought the death toll of Iraqi civilians was a price worth paying for the overthrow of Ba’athist Socialism, to which she replied:
I do not think that the death of any human being is a price worth paying
Let us ponder that remark… that the Ba’athist regime was mass murderous is beyond doubt and clearly something of which Clare Short would be cognisant. So what is she saying? She is not saying that what even the hilarious Iraqi Minister for Information admitted was a small number of Iraqi civilians killed was too high a price to end two and a half decades of tyranny.
No, she is saying that the loss of even a single life is not a price worth paying… paying for what? To prevent the murder of thousands of Iraqi people every year, that is what. The term ‘absurdity’ seems inadequate somehow.
Face it… Clare Short does not give a damn about the Iraqi people. She is more concerned about preserving the sanctity of her surreal world view. Why else would she say such an idiotic thing if not because trapped within her dogmatic meta-context, she is simply incapable of saying anything else regardless of florescent evidence suggesting better moral theories.
As I have written before, to oppose the war on the grounds that the domestic cost in Britain or the USA in blood, treasure and encroachment of the state is too high a price for the sake of the Iraqi people, is at least a coherent viable argument… but to oppose the war on ostensibly altruistic grounds that the price to the Iraqi people of overturning the Ba’athist Socialist status quo is too high is simply ridiculous, given that the scale of that Saddamite tyranny was hardly a secret.
To have taken such a position at before the war or in the early stages of the campaign was at least somewhat tenable, at least for a person with a poor understanding of the military and technological realities, on the grounds the cost in blood would indeed be mind bogglingly high.
But to still use that argument after we know that the ‘massive casualties’ scenario has not proved to be the case is bizzare. Pictures of tragic little Ali Ismail Abbas are truly heartrending for sure, but how does that change the cold hard facts about the butcher’s bill if Ba’athism had not been overthrown?
To argue on a ‘what is best for the Iraqi people cost/benefit analysis’ means the likes of Clare Short cannot have it both ways… unless all that matters is not that a ‘single life’ is lost to violence but only who did the deed. Although Clare Short’s logic is hard for me to fathom, perhaps she is saying that preventing thousands of Iraqi civilians dying every year in Saddam Hussain’s jails and torture chambers is not worth a single Iraqi death if a British taxpayer funded soldier was the one who ended the ‘single life’ in question. Or maybe she means nothing of the sort.
So who exactly does Clare Short care about? What does she mean when she opens her mouth and makes noises that sound like English? I cannot figure it out.
In what I am sure will be a crashing disappointment to lots of people who go around calling themselves ‘human rights campaigners’, the British legal system has opted not to further persecute a victim:
A burglar has failed in his attempt to win damages from the jailed farmer, Tony Martin, who shot him.
Malcolm Starr, who has led the campaign for Martin’s freedom, said Martin’s lawyers had contacted him to say that a planned legal action by burglar Brendon Fearon had failed.
I cannot really bring myself to call this justice because if there was even a smidgeon of justice then Tony Martin would not have been incarcerated in the first place.
“Tony has probably had more letters about this issue of him being sued for damages than he did after the original shooting incident. He does want the law changed to stop this happening again.”
It is not just the law that needs changing.
Well, what do you expect? They’ve booked all the buses, printed all the placards, made all the sandwiches, they can’t possibly just call it all off. They’ve got momentum now and they just have to keep going:
Up to a quarter of a million protesters will march in London on Saturday despite the apparent success of coalition forces in Iraq, anti-war groups say.
The Stop the War coalition believes public opposition to the conflict is still strong – in spite of scenes of jubilation this week as American tanks entered Iraqi cities.
Jubilation in Baghdad, agitation in London.
But the police, who will have about 2,750 officers along the route, have said they expect fewer than 100,000 people to take part.
Flagrant fascist Bushista propoganda!!!
Speakers will include MPs Tam Dalyell and George Galloway, who face having the Labour whip withdrawn because of their anti-war stance.
Heroic martyrs!!
The group’s spokesman Chris Nineham said he believed “a great deal more problems” lay ahead for the British and US forces as they tried to take over Iraq’s administration.
Now this wouldn’t happen to be the same Chris Nineham who played such a prominent role in Marxism 2001? But I thought this march was supposed to be representative of ‘public opposition’, a great, spontaneous outburst of ordinary people’s sentiments?
The march is underway about now. I’d say 250,000 is probably a gross underestimation. Expect at least half a million. No, two million. No, twenty million….no, the entire population of the Northern hemisphere!!
|
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.
|
