Brian Micklethwait's Blog
In which I continue to seek part time employment as the ruler of the world.Home
Natalie Solent on Victor!
Natalie Solent on Victor!
Peter Briffa on Ashes black out
Michael Jennings on Happiness is Gold Blend at only £3 instead of £4.50
Michael Jennings on Happiness is Gold Blend at only £3 instead of £4.50
Schrodinger's Dog on Happiness is Gold Blend at only £3 instead of £4.50
Tatyana on Victor!
Daniel Hannan on Daniel Hannan's latest book(s?)
Tatyana on Michael Jennings photos the bridges of Porto
Brian Micklethwait on Happiness is Gold Blend at only £3 instead of £4.50
Most recent entries
- La Porte des Indes
- Friend on telly
- Sculpture at St James’s Tube
- Digital photographers holding maps
- More photos of things past
- Father Christmas Aerodrome
- How big should these squares be?
- Daniel Hannan’s latest book(s?)
- The Kelpies of Falkirk
- A quota thought that (luckily for me) went nowhere
- Polish girls in Moscow doing a selfie
- Music classified
- Quota videos
- Happiness is Gold Blend at only £3 instead of £4.50
Other Blogs I write for
6000 Miles from Civilisation
A Decent Muesli
Adventures in Capitalism
Alex Ross: The Rest Is Noise
Another Food Blog
Antoine Clarke's Election Watch
Armed and Dangerous
Art Of The State Blog
Boatang & Demetriou
Burning Our Money
Chase me ladies, I'm in the cavalry
China Law Blog
Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog
Coffee & Complexity
Communities Dominate Brands
Confused of Calcutta
Conservative Party Reptile
Counting Cats in Zanzibar
Deleted by tomorrow
Don't Hold Your Breath
Douglas Carswell Blog
Dr Robert Lefever
Englands Freedome, Souldiers Rights
Everything I Say is Right
Fat Man on a Keyboard
Ferraris for all
Freedom and Whisky
From The Barrel of a Gun
Gates of Vienna
Global Warming Politics
Greg Mankiw's Blog
Guido Fawkes' blog
Here Comes Everybody
Hit & Run
House of Dumb
Iain Dale's Diary
Jeffrey Archer's Official Blog
Jessica Duchen's classical music blog
Laissez Faire Books
Last of the Few
Libertarian Alliance: Blog
Liberty Dad - a World Without Dictators
Lib on the United Kingdom
Little Man, What Now?
Loic Le Meur Blog
L'Ombre de l'Olivier
London Daily Photo
Metamagician and the Hellfire Club
Michael J. Totten's Middle East Journal
More Than Mind Games
Mutualist Blog: Free Market Anti-Capitalism
My Boyfriend Is A Twat
My Other Stuff
Nation of Shopkeepers
Never Trust a Hippy
Non Diet Weight Loss
Nurses for Reform blog
Obnoxio The Clown
On an Overgrown Path
One Man & His Blog
Owlthoughts of a peripatetic pedant
Oxford Libertarian Society /blog
Patri's Peripatetic Peregrinations
Police Inspector Blog
Private Sector Development blog
Remember I'm the Bloody Architect
Setting The World To Rights
SimonHewittJones.com The Violin Blog
Sky Watching My World
Social Affairs Unit
Squander Two Blog
Stuff White People Like
Stumbling and Mumbling
Technology Liberation Front
The Adam Smith Institute Blog
The Becker-Posner Blog
The Belgravia Dispatch
The Belmont Club
The Big Blog Company
The Big Picture
the blog of dave cole
The Corridor of Uncertainty (a Cricket blog)
The Daily Ablution
The Devil's Advocate
The Devil's Kitchen
The Dissident Frogman
The Distributed Republic
The Early Days of a Better Nation
The Examined Life
The Fly Bottle
The Freeway to Serfdom
The Future of Music
The Happiness Project
The Jarndyce Blog
The London Fog
The Long Tail
The Lumber Room
The Online Photographer
The Only Winning Move
The Policeman's Blog
The Road to Surfdom
The Wedding Photography Blog
The Welfare State We're In
UK Commentators - Laban Tall's Blog
UK Libertarian Party
Violins and Starships
we make money not art
What Do I Know?
What's Up With That?
Where the grass is greener
White Sun of the Desert
Why Evolution Is True
Your Freedom and Ours
Arts & Letters Daily
Bjørn Stærk's homepage
Butterflies and Wheels
Dark Roasted Blend
Digital Photography Review
Ghana Centre for Democratic Reform
Global Warming and the Climate
History According to Bob
Institut économique Molinari
Institute of Economic Affairs
Ludwig von Mises Institute
Oxford Libertarian Society
The Christopher Hitchens Web
The Space Review
The TaxPayers' Alliance
This is Local London
UK Libertarian Party
Victor Davis Hanson
WSJ.com Opinion Journal
Bits from books
Bloggers and blogging
Brian Micklethwait podcasts
Cats and kittens
Food and drink
How the mind works
Media and journalism
Middle East and Islam
My blog ruins
Signs and notices
The Micklethwait Clock
This and that
Category archive: Democracy
Mark Steyn may be a grump about such things as the future of Western Civilisation, but he sure can write:
For much of last year, a standard trope of President Obama’s speechwriters was that there were certain things only government could do. “That’s how we built this country - together,” he declared. “We constructed railroads and highways, the Hoover Dam and the Golden Gate Bridge. We did those things together.” As some of us pointed out, for the cost of Obama’s 2009 stimulus bill alone, you could have built 1,567 Golden Gate Bridges - or one mega-Golden Gate Bridge stretching from Boston to just off the coast of Ireland. Yet there isn’t a single bridge, or a single dam (“You will never see another federal dam,” his assistant secretary of the interior assured an audience of environmentalists). Across the land, there was not a thing for doting network correspondents in hard hats to stand in front of and say, “Obama built this.”
Until now, that is. Obamacare is as close to a Hoover Dam as latter-day Big Government gets. Which is why its catastrophic launch is sobering even for those of us who’ve been saying for five years it would be a disaster. It’s as if at the ribbon-cutting the Hoover Dam cracked open and washed away the dignitaries; as if the Golden Gate Bridge was opened to traffic with its central span missing; as if Apollo 11 had taken off for the moon but landed on Newfoundland. Obama didn’t have to build a dam or a bridge or a spaceship, just a database and a website. This is his world, the guys he hangs with, the zeitgeist he surfs so dazzlingly, Apple and Google, apps and downloads. But his website’s a sclerotic dump, and the database is a hacker’s heaven, and all that’s left is the remorseless snail mail of millions and millions of cancellation letters.
And then it disappears behind a paywall. Which is to say a place where links probably don’t work for you. Which is why I never pay to get beyond paywalls. I pay for things I want. But paywalls, walls I cannot direct every single one of my readers through (in the event that they wish to be directed so), I do not want.
But, I’ll bet you anything, at least this paywall works properly.
I just left a comment at Samizdata, on this posting by Natalie Solent (who has been very productive there of late) about the lack of security of the ObamaCare website, and this Guardian story on the subject:
The insecurity of the site, probably incurable in less than several months (from what I’m reading), has always struck me (ever since I first read about it a week or two back) as the absolute worst thing about ObamaCare, though I admit it’s a crowded field. The Bad News letters from insurance companies at least put a number to how much money is now going to be screwed out of you, that Obama said (about forty times) you would not be screwed out of. But all that data lying around for any tech-savvy passer-by to grab means there’s no upper limit to what you just might lose, if you have anything whatsoever to do with this horrible horrible thing.
It took me years to trust Amazon with my bank details. Only when about half the world seemed to be signing up for that deal did I take the plunge, and I still fear that in some mysterious way I might one day regret this. I mean, what if Amazon gets taken over by greedy incompetents, skilled only at crookedness, of the sort now already running ObamaCare (and also “advising” people about it)? I know, there are safeguards in place, but my fear is, although small, real. My fear with Obamacare would now be big, and real. My attitude to ObamaCare would be (a) I want nothing – absolutely nothing – to do with it, and (b) If the President and his gang say I have to have something to do with it, then I hope the President and his gang rot in hell.
Obama, it seems to me, has been treated like a great many other bad black Americans. He has been cut a million miles of slack, never criticised, never taught any morals, and now suddenly, patience has run out and he faces a lynch mob of enraged citizens. He is going to get the political version of a life-time prison sentence, namely a place in the Presidential Hall of Infamy. (I know what you’re thinking: wishful thinking on my part. Maybe. But his friends are all abandoning him now. He surely now realises that he has screwed up big, and that there is no way back.)
Heinlein had things to say about this. If you are going to punish big later, then it is kinder to give your punishee some warning, with small punishments earlier, when he does small things wrong when younger. I’m not talking physical abuse here, just the odd harsh word when the kid does a bad thing. That way he learns, instead of being hit with the kitchen sink, out of the blue, when he turns 18 or 50 or whatever.
Yesterday was an excellent day for me, photographically. Usually, after an enjoyable and productive photo-walk, I show you people only a tiny sliver of what I took, and quite often not even that. But today, Friday, I want to do a bit more than that, with a series of postings of various sorts of things I snapped.
Meanwhile, Friday being Friday, some sensational cat news, which I spotted in one of London’s free newspapers towards the end of the day:
Monopoly fans have voted to give the iron the boot and welcome in the cat as the new token for the much-loved board game.
I guess time was when the Iron was a huge deal in life, far more than mere pets. Not any more.
I recommend googling “monopoly cat”.
A few months back I discovered that there were other Emmanuel Todd fans out there besides me, notably Lexington Green of Chicago Boyz, and James C. Bennett. Emails were exchanged, and I met up with Bennett in London. Very helpful.
Here is a big moment in what I hope may prove to be the long overdue rise and rise of Emmanuel Todd in the English speaking world. Todd is quoted here by Lexington Green, and then linked to from here. Yes indeed, Instapundit. Okay, this is because what Todd is quoted saying happens to chime in with what Instapundit wants to be saying, but … whatever. That’s how Instalaunches work.
The Todd quote:
A double movement will assure the advancement of human history. The developing world is heading toward democracy — pushed by the movement toward full literacy that tends to create culturally more homogeneous societies. As for the industrialized world, it is being encroached on to varying degrees by a tendency toward oligarchy — a phenomenon that has emerged with the development of educational stratification that has divided societies into layers of “higher,” “lower,” and various kinds of “middle” classes.
However, we must not exaggerate the antidemocratic effects of this unegalitarian educational stratification. Developed countries, even if they become more oligarchical, remain literate countries and will have to deal with the contradictions and conflicts that could arise between a democratically leaning literate mass and university-driven stratification that favors oligarchical elites.
Todd’s book, despite its flaws, is full of good insights. This passage was prescient. The Tea Party (“a democratically leaning literate mass”) and it’s opponents, the “Ruling Class” described by Angelo Codevilla, ("oligarchical elites") are well-delineated by Todd, several years before other people were focused on this phenomenon.
This may cause a little flurry of Toddery in my part of the www. Not all of it will be favourable, to put it mildly, because the book quoted is fiercely anti-American, and totally wrong-headed about economics. Todd is one of those people who insists on dividing economic activity into “real” and “unreal” categories, solid and speculative, honest and delusional. Todd’s problem is that he imagines that the making of things that hurt your foot when you drop them is inherently less risky than, say, operating as a financial advisor or a hedge fund manager. But both are risky. It is possible to make too many things. Similar illusions were entertained in the past about how agriculture was real, while mere thing-making was unreal.
Todd believes that the US economy is being “hollowed out”, with delusional activity crowding out “real” activity.
The problem is that Todd is not completely wrong. Economic dodginess was indeed stalking the USA in 2002. But the explanation for the processes that actually did occur and are occurring, which are easily confused with what Todd said back in 2002 was happening, and which will hence make him all the more certain that his wrongness is right, is not that manufacturing is real and financial services unreal, but that for Austrian economics reasons (Todd appears to have no idea whatever about Austrian economics), all dodgy and speculative activities, most emphatically including dodgy manufacturing ventures, have been encouraged by bad financial policies. Todd also seems to imagine that only the USA has been guilty of such follies. If only.
Such are some of the flaws in this book that LG refers to.
But none of that impinges on Todd’s fundamental achievements as a social scientist, which I have long thought ought to resonate in my part of the www. This should help.
My problem (one of my problems) is that I accumulate open windows, to things I don’t want to forget about, and which I am hence reluctant to shut. But these open windows, and all the advertising shite they come with, clog up my computer, or so it feels to me.
Now I am sure there is a better answer to this problem than the one that follows, but for now, my answer, today, is to stick a few such links here, where they won’t vanish in half a day and where anyway I know my way around.
The Web Is Dead. Long Live the Internet. Note, incidentally, the disastrous headline punctuation. Punctuation in headlines says you can’t have a full stop at the end of a headline, but that you can have whatever punctuation you like in the middle of the headline, fullstops included. Bizarre. (Not that that’s why the piece interests me.)
That Codevilla piece about the American ruling class. Actually I think a major part of this story is that it isn’t only the American ruling class. It’s a global, or at least beyond national, class. The entire West that was is starting to be ruled by a united gang of interconnected people. Rulers of The World Unite. You have nothing to lose but the love of your dreary little voters. (To “love”, should I add “consent”?)
On the Validity and Necessity of Atheist Criticism of Islam. I like Edmund Standing a lot. Mostly I agree with this. But, I think he makes too little of the differences between Christianity and Islam. Christianity is bonkers but Islam is downright evil. (Although, I do admit that Christian anti-semitism is deeply embedded in it.) The problem I have with Islam is not only that it is so false. It is that it so nasty. Allah does not exist, but if Allah does exist he should be opposed. This is somewhat less true of the various Christian versions of God, especially nowadays.
The Vanity Fair Sarah Palin piece. I want to read this to see if it actually says anything more than: she’s a politician! Is she going to run for President? If she gets to be President will she be a quite good one, as Reagan (won the Cold War - only talked about stopping the US state spending rise) was. Will President Palin, that is to say, actually stop the US state spending rise?
The Chinese state media global offensive. Were a time traveller from a hundred years hence to invite me to guess what sparked the Big War of 2037, I’d guess China versus someone, rather than Islam versus anyone. Islam has the will to Big War, but looks unlikely at all soon to command the means to wage it. (I include Iran in that judgement. There is more to having a Bomb than just having a Bomb. You must also have the means to attack the other guy’s Bomb, and to defend your remaining Bombs, which you must also have.) And I have long believed that being able to fight wars is more important in their causation than merely wanting to. I mean, few great powers unambiguously want to fight major wars, because they have too much to lose. But, from time to time, they still did, and might one day again. Hopefully The Bomb will continue to work its terrifying magic, and Great Wars Between Great Powers will continue to not happen, but how long will that last?
I want to do a Big Piece on Samizdata about all that, Real Soon Now. Globalisation as we now know it, i.e. the version where we don’t fight global wars against one another, is more caused by The Bomb (which first happened in 1945) than by Modern Electronic Communications (which first happened in 1842). See Global Ruling Class, uniting of, above.
That should clear out my computer’s tubes a little.
The thing is, Chris Mounsey aka DK can be a swear-blogger, or he can be the leader of a political party, but not both. Shame it took a bollocking from the mainstream media to make this clear to him, but he has now made his choice.
On the other hand, the still swear-blogging Obnoxio, who actually saw Mounsey’s telly performance, which I have yet to do, said he thought it wasn’t a bollocking, and that he did very well:
Chris did very well. He is, I fear, a natural media whore.
Let’s hope so.
Last Friday, i.e. on April 9th, I recorded a conversation with Tim Evans, friend of many years, libertarian (in fact President of the Libertarian Alliance) and free market think tanker of growing renown, about what David Cameron has been up to and what he thinks he is doing. It lasts a little over half an hour.
I introduced Tim’s words-to-be as in being opposition to those who say that Cameron is a waste of space and heading for disaster, of one kind or another, electoral or Prime Ministerial. He is a lightweight in a world that has become heavyweight. He is the answer to a question that is not being asked any more. That kind of thing. But actually, although what Tim said was a most convincing explanation of what Cameron reckons he is doing, it was not any sort of proof that the critics of Cameron are necessarily wrong about him, as I somewhat found myself arguing. Britain’s voters seem to be rather unimpressed by Cameron just now. Tim’s picture of what Cameron is doing is very convincing as a description of his state of mind and party political tactics, but that doesn’t necessarily make Cameron’s state of mind either admirable or guaranteed to result in electoral success.
Yes, Cameron’s various Conservative predecessors did not get what they were up against. But Cameron’s strategy (if what now follows is indeed what it is) of waiting until the last possible moment before offering alternative policies to Labour policies, having spent years giving Labour’s - and particularly Brown’s - statist inclinations a deliberate free ride, to sucker them and him into being more statist, struck me on Friday and strikes me now not only as morally dubious, but also, because so morally dubious, also electorally hazardous. What if the voters decide that Cameron is not the nation’s solution, but a mere aspect of the nation’s problem? At one point, Tim said that Cameron will now be reckoning that his current nine point lead in the polls is evidence that he is on the right track. I blurted out at that point that he should be thirty points ahead.
However, the last thing I want to do is suggest that the conversation was other than extremely interesting. It certainly interested me. The central point is that Tim was concerning himself with how Cameron thinks, with how things are. Not with how he or I might like them to be.
What Tim says may also illuminate the rest of the campaign. Tim says that Cameron has just executed a major tactical switch. When in mere opposition, Cameron refused to propose good alternative policies for our disastrous government, because the government would have stolen them. But now, in the heat of the campaign, such policy theft won’t work so well. Too undignified, too fresh in voter memory, making too much of a nonsense of the Labour manifesto of only a few days before. So, Cameron is now, finally, proposing a few anti tax and spend policies, and if Tim is right, can be expected to propose quite a few more in the days and weeks to come. We shall see.
I was not feeling a hundred per cent last Friday, so my performance in particular needed quite a bit of editing, hence the delay in posting this (what with me still not feeling a hundred per cent between then and now), but it should all sound okay now.
I just attached this rather eloquent comment to a Johnathan Pearce Samizdata posting about how he might emigrate out of here if Brown won the next election, Heaven help us:
I think JP is doing us a favour by talking about leaving, and would be doing us another favour if he did leave, if things got that bad.
No number tells politicians more clearly that they have to shape up and stop wrecking the place better than the number of people just buggering off. People leaving is the one number that tends to signify that things are about to get better, because it just can’t be ignored or spun. The number can be lied about, of course, but big queues to get out are hard to pass off as anything else.
It happened like this at the end of the 70s when all those movie stars upped sticks. They did us a favour too. They don’t call this “voting with your feet” for nothing.
Voice and exit.
Unless of course the Brown government builds a Berlin Wall around the country. But that would be pretty hard to miss also, if it worked. The more you have to sacrifice and risk to get out, the more dramatic it all looks, and the more obvious is the damage done by the lying bastards who did it.
And that’s the central problem now, making it clear how much damage is being done. That’s what the Brown gang are now all busy trying to conceal.
JP’s posting helps with this.
I wanted to have a diary entry, so to speak, about how I felt just now about it all. Comments at Samizdata are hard to get back to. Postings here are easier to get back to.
Other eloquent comments are rapidly accumulating.
Wait two months for a Brian Micklethwait Dot Com recorded conversation, and then two come along on the same day, although actually these two were recorded over a month apart.
This one with Antoine, recorded on Tuesday of this week, describes the electoral earthquake that was the victory of Republican Scott Brown over Democrat Martha Coakley in the “special election” they had there, and how the Republicans have now caught up with the Democrats when it comes to applying blogging, Twitter, Facebook, etc., to the winning of such elections.
How does this affect US politics in the months and years to come? And what can we in Britain, in particular we libertarians, learn from all this?
We managed to keep it down to below half an hour this time. Enjoy.
Yesterday I did a bit on Samizdata about a BBC TV discussion show about Barack Obama. They get that Obama is now unpopular, but have no convincing idea about why. Racism and irrational fury, is all they can think of. Biased BBC linked to it. Which was nice.
Further to that, this, from the latest Radio Times, advertising a Radio 4 programme going out this evening called entitled “Turkeys Voting For Christmas”:
Why is it that people so often vote against their own interests? David Runciman looks at the unpopularity of President Obama’s healthcare reforms and asks why so many Americans seem angry about efforts to make them better off.
Because you see, Runciman just knows better than all those Americans what their own interests are. And Obama’s “reforms” could not possibly, even possibly, be a bad idea.
I am also pondering a posting about how hard it will be for the BBC to dig itself out of its bias problem, in the event that it ever decides that it wants to.
Yes, this afternoon, Antoine told me about all the elections they had ... whenever ... not long ago, in the USA. The electoral shine is off Obama, but the Republicans also have huge problems. Listen here.
Antoine’s central explanatory tool was the fact of a great mass of American conservatives, the right nation described by my fourth cousin in a book of that title, subtitled: why America is different. The nightmare scenario for the Democrats would be if this entire demographic voted, election after election, for a political party that was truly congenial to it. The Dems would be out of office for ever if that happened. But the Republicans seem to have mastered the trick of persuading a large, often decisive, proportion of these American conservatives to stay at home and vote for nobody.
The key fact of American politics, and what separates America from most of Europe, is that the Republicans have more to gain by appealing more successfully to these conservatives than they do by making nice to voters who aren’t part of this huge group. They do better by having candidates like conservative Hoffman, in upstate New York, rather than RINO (Republican in Name Only) Scozzafava.
Antoine agreed with many other commentators that whereas the Obama electoral earthquake last year seemed to suggest that this huge conservative group had somehow become a thing of the past, it now looks very much a permanent fact, with Obama, electorally speaking, looking more like a blip. But, as Antoine said, the Republicans still have their problems, problems of the sort that cost them NY-23, which was something of a surprise result, not least to Antoine. He put it down to the timing of Scozzafava’s withdrawal, late enough to get a lot of the postal voters still voting for her. Had they all switched, as they probably would have done had they known she was out of it when they voted, Hoffman would have won.
More from Antoine in a blog posting he did in the early hours of this morning, before we talked, here. Some live blogging by Antoine here, complete with prediction of Hoffman victory, but the news of his defeat. And see also Antoine’s admiring link to a Scot Rasmussen piece.
I referred during the chat to this piece by Roger L. Simon, with which Antoine, on the basis of my summary of it, disagreed.
Not long ago I said here that I don’t read Guido’s comments any more, because most of them are too silly. But is this true, I have more recently been wondering, and am I missing out on some good stuff? So it was that I just read this, which is a comment on this, from Old Holborn:
I follow the Labourlist blog avidly. It is a rich seam of piss boiling authoritarianism written by an ever dwindling number of delusional crackpots and weirdos. It gives me great pleasure to sit back and read the utterly breathtaking weapons grade fizzy bubble poo that spouts out of the mouths of the last few remaining Labour supporters in the land as they struggle to justify what has happened to this country over the last twelve years.
Then I read the polls and see that nearly 80% of the voting population, some 20 million people will not vote for Labour. They’ll be lucky to get 5 million votes in May 2010.
Why? They are desperate to find out over at Labourlist.
Well, over the past 12 years, who has actually profited from Labour?
The poor. Fair enough, you got your minimum wage. What has actually happened is that anybody who is so unskilled that their labour is not worth £5.80 an hour is unemployable. Resulting in millions sitting at home on their arses. They’ll never work again and they know it. To keep them placated, you’ve introduced a massive hike in benefits making it impossible for them to find work and profit from it. They don’t care either way. Using Danegeld, you’ve bought their vote.
Immigrants. An open door policy has allowed every Dick, Tomascz and Mirek to arrive here and take up the jobs you are paying UK citizens NOT to do. Germany were smart enough to block EU new members from seeking work in Germany. You weren’t. So millions sit on the dole, whilst Poles and Latvians work the fields and send the money home. Not counting the million illegals who are currently thoroughly enjoying themselves on out stayed visas.
Minorities. From Lesbians to radical Islamists, you’ve paved the streets with gold for them. You draconian laws and bizarre equality rules means they can shout as loudly as they want, incite violence, demand quotas, funding and “special” allowances that no one else can touch and we sit back and watch them abuse their new rights with a gusto.
The Feckless. Yup. Families ruined, lawless streets, downs syndrome kids with O Levels, feral animals beating us to death, a powerless judicial and legal system, overflowing prisons. Have some tax credits, working family credit, whatever. Just vote Labour.
So there’s your vote. The five million you’ve made life fantastic for. 12 years and you’ve helped 5 million people to “improve” their lives. Non jobs in the State, the unemployable bribed with Stella and benefits to behave themselves (they aren’t) and you expect to win a fourth term?
What have you done for the other 20 million who are paying for the 5 million?
Nothing. Except treat them with utter contempt. You’ve legislated our rights away, you monitor our every move, licence our lives and tax us till we bleed. You regularly insult us, abuse us, search us, spy on us, prosecute us, deride us, laugh at us and then sneer at us.
You are about to be reminded that four out of five of us absolutely detest you for the last 12 years of your “power”. We don’t dislike you, or slightly disagree with you. WE HATE YOU. 80% of the electorate wants you GONE. We don’t care what you say anymore. We don’t care what you do anymore. We just want to be represented again.
So cuddle the poor, the unemployed, the feckless, the worthless, the unemployable and the immigrants, the weird and the wonderful, the “oppressed”, the Islamofacists, the “culturally different” all you fucking want. They’re going to be the only ones voting for you and try as you might, they still only represent one in five of the British Electorate. 20 million of us are going to put you on your bastard arses for treating us like something you walked in. And then we’re going to start undoing the damage you’ve wreaked on this country and it’s hard working, honest, decent citizens who didn’t deserve any of this.
You can stick your CCTV, Police State, wheelie bin Stasi, DNA, WMD, “Social Cohesion”, benefits for all, guilty until proved innocent, don’t do that it’s illegal now, can’t say that, ID cards for all, where are you going, what have you been saying/doing/reading, can’t photograph that, how very dare you, golliwog banning, we know where you live, we’re watching you Soviet Utopia up your arses. Sideways.
I have put down three bottles of very good Champagne to celebrate your demise on May 9th. I intend to party all night. 4 out of 5 people are invited.
I wouldn’t want you thinking I necessarily agree with all this. I quote it at least as much because it is such a well-done rant, as because I agree with most of it. In particular, my prejudices are all in favour of Tomascz and Mirek having come here and worked in the fields. Do you really think that the welfare underclass would have been picking fruit and clambering about on scaffolding for the past decade, if Poles and Latvians hadn’t been? My belief is that the state of Britain would have been far worse without Tomascz and Mirek, and that they helped pay for all the crap described in the rest of this rant.
Which is also, I now find, a blog posting, at Old Holborn’s own blog, and I’m guessing he did it there first and then copied it into Guido. So, it isn’t a real Guido comment. Pity. If he did the rant at Guido, and then turned it into a blog posting: better, I think. But, I don’t think that was it. Cross-posting without saying so is a bit uncool, I think. But not as uncool as our horrible government.
To the above, “TheCourtOfPublicOpinion” adds the following:
“You regularly insult us, abuse us, search us, spy on us, prosecute us, deride us, laugh at us and then sneer at us.”
Don’t forget the big one – “you steal from us”.
I am getting a grim satisfaction from reading this article, linked to today by Arts & Letters Daily, about the travails of the state of California. It’s good to understand things, no matter how depressing those things may be.
The Golden State’s signature optimism may be to blame: How else to explain the delusion that Californians could be taxed like libertarians, but subsidized like socialists? The result, of course, has been a fiscal crisis addressed with slashed spending on public services and increased taxes in the midst of a deep recession - a recipe for yet more discord and trouble. In a grim irony, Californians are now being taxed like socialists and subsidized like libertarians.
With the result, brought home vividly in an earlier paragraph, that:
… from 2004 to 2007 more people left California for Texas and Oklahoma than came west from those states to escape the Dust Bowl in the 1930s. California is in the midst of a man-made disaster.
It’s pleasing to see that this writer, Troy Senik, at least understands what libertarianism is (i.e. uses the word as I use it), and more importantly, assumes that his readers do also. So, some good news.
In Britain, libertarianism is perceived by many as the whining of underclass barbarians, entitled to their state pensions from their teens onwards, as of right, and their right from then on to behave as they please, while others pick up all the bills for the consequences. Libertinism without personal consequences and at public expense, you might say. Libertarianism is perceived, that is to say, as doing to ourselves just what California has done.
Just before my big summer break, I did a piece about Speaker Bercow, predicting the following:
Having grovelled all over the Labour Party to get the job, Bercow may now turn on their government, ...
He might, quoth clever little me:
… do another flip and turn himself into something worth another dozen seats to the Conservatives. He could be another fistful of nails in the Labour coffin.
Watch the looks on Labour faces very carefully, when they talk about Bercow during the dying months of their vile and plundering government, as he turns into yet another torment for them. If he does. And if he does, I’ll definitely be doing one of those I told you so postings, linking back smugly to this one.
And this is it, because, look what Bercow just said:
Says the strongly pro-Conservative Coffee House blog (to whom thanks for alerting me to this):
… Bercow’s statement indicates that despite the controversial circumstances of his election, he is not afraid to confront the people that put him there. He was the wrong man for the job, but he should be allowed to get on with it.
Wrong man. But: should be allowed to get on with it. From Gastly Little Man who grovelled all over the Labour Party to National Treasure who now grovels all over the new dispensation in waiting, in one paragraph.
I told you so.
I think this graph, which I found here is rather revealing:
The story it tells is of Labour going down, rather fast, and of the Conservatives and LibDems inching upwards, more slowly, but not especially well placed now, despite all the Labour government’s travails.
To the far right of the graphs, i.e. just recently, it is to be noted that Labour are as low as they have ever been, and the “other” parties are as high as they have ever been. This was before all the recent dirt came out, and the dirt thing hasn’t yet played out, not nearly. Today, the Conservatives are in the frame, but by the end of it, I think that Labour will end up suffering the most. (There is also the fact that Cameron may turn all this to his advantage by have an upper class thief cull.)
Norman Tebbit is only saying what is already obvious, commanding voters to do what lots would have done anyway. UKIP, the BNP, the Greens, and so on, are now poised to do anything from rather to very well. And maybe the lone UKLP candidate may also do quite well.
This Sensible Party/Silly Party notion is not actually that silly. More like prophetic. British party politics is now moving inexorably from a Spectrum System to a Solar System. In the old days, two distinct but big parties slugged it out. Now, the big parties still slug it out, but more and more by trying to be the same party, the Sun in the Solar System. “We are The Sensible Party” (in New Labour parlance “grown up"), all the big parties now say. So you get these huge lurches every fifteen years or so between this sensible party and that one. All the Conservatives have to do to be the next Sensible Party is watch Labour implode.
Way beyond that battle of the sensibles, the silly parties grow and grow, starting as mere clouds of dusty complaint, but coalescing into planets of political activity. The silly thing about the silly parties is that they believe in, well, things. They believe things which they want to persuade voters to vote for. The winning sensible party still wins, for the time being, but it does it by getting fewer votes than it got in the old days of the Spectrum System even when it lost, and while believing in very little except winning. Which depresses me a lot, but then I always was a bit silly.
The BNP is now silly, but could make a grab for sensibleness rather soon.
The LibDems, true to the only slogan they can all agree about ("vote for us"), have long been both sensible and silly.
Labour could soon break into several quite big fragments of silliness.