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]
|
Cameron = Blair It is gratifying to see mainstream journalists such as Alice Thomson also pointing out what we have been doing here for quite some time: people who vote for the Tory party under Cameron because they are revolted by the legacy of Tony Blair are in fact just voting for more of the same as Cameron and Blair are largely interchangeable.
I met two key Blairite special advisers from 1997 last night, they were as thrilled with the Tories’ progress as they were by recent sightings of Mr Brown’s psychological flaws. One said that Cameron would never treat the garden room girls at Downing Street in the way that Mr Brown does. Another wondered what job Cameron would give Mr Blair when (not if) he becomes Prime Minister.
All too believable.
|
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.
|
This does seem to be the case.
Both in the obsesssion with style (as in spin) and the lack of substance.
For example, both Mr Cameron and Mr Blair (and newspapers like the Financial Times) often complain about “red tape”, but they refuse to take back any power from the E.U.
So, as more that 80% of new regulations are a response to demands from the E.U., Mr Blair and Mr Cameron are not really interested in deregulation or even stopping the vast increase in regulation (any more that Financial Times or the Economist are).
Of course neither is Mr Brown – but although he sometimes says the word “deregulation” (and other words with the same meaning) he does not really put on much of act pretending he actually believes in limited government. Ever more regulations and commands and ever more government spending and taxes (and ever more complicated taxes) is the Brown way – and unlike Mr Blair and Mr Cameron, Mr Brown does not really hide this.
Mr Blair and Mr Cameron are showmen (although I am not very interested in the show), whereas Mr Brown has no show to put on.
He is not even going to take part in the show on Thusday – the signing of the E.U. Constitution.
Even the Belgium government is going to turn up and sign the document – even though this government was defeated in the general election more than six months ago.
“But it is unconstitutional for a government of Belgium to sign such a document after it has been kicked out by a general election”.
Sadly the powers-that-be are as hostile to the rule of law (as opposed to the power of regulations) as they to democracy.
Nah, there’s a much better comparison, at least for someone who just finished watching it happen a few months back. The Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario had a great leader, Mike Harris, as Premier from 1995-2002 – he cut welfare, cut taxes, cut government, and generally piss off the lefties and unions all across the province(riots at the legislature and all). It was beautiful. Anyways, Harris quit in 2002, and his finance minister Ernie Eves became premier, started waffling on every issue of substance he could find, pissed away all the credibility Harris had earned over the years, got thumped in the 2003 election, and resigned as leader.
The winner of the leadership race was a prominent businessman and back-room dealer named John Tory, who ran as a “moderate” candidate who wouldn’t espouse the “strife” of the Harris years, but who would instead be a nice, lovable, honest guy who could take back government from the dishonest Liberal government in the 2007 election. He toured the province for three years, getting a lot of nice fluffy responses for “reaching out to non-traditional supporters” and “trying to broaden the party”. He even specifically mentioned Cameron as his favourite non-Canadian politician. So it gets to be 2007, and he releases the election platform, and it’s just empty. 60 pages of fluff, containing about two promises most people could even remember, and those were funding religious schools, and rolling back a Liberal tax hike at a rate slower than the socialist NDP wanted to. So, the election came around this October, and Mr. Electability himself gets thumped even worse than Eves was. I was there, and it was a train wreck like I’ve never seen before. It turns out that when people have the choice of someone who is like a Liberal but honest, they prefer to go for the person who is honestly a Liberal. Of course, I was saying that as far back as 2002, but maybe we’ll learn that as a party this time. At that rate, the British Tories might even make it back in around 2020.
Very instructive Alsadius.
I am glad I managed to get back to Samizadata before this post was no longer on the screen – otherwise your comment would not have come to my attention.