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]
|
Samizdata quote of the day – elected politicians are there to promote state policies The modern view of a councillor is that they are there to promote state policies, such as Diversity and Inclusion (see, for example, the Equality Act 2010 – and the duties it lays down).
A councillor, or even a Member of Parliament, is not there, according to the modern view, to represent ‘reactionary’ residents or constituents – not AGAINST the state, but rather the elected representative is there to help the resident or constituent get benefits or services from the state. And to promote Progressive attitudes and behaviour.
I am not saying I agree with the modern view – I am just explaining what it is.
After all supporting ‘reactionary’ residents might imply that one shared their opinions and, therefore (according to the modern view – of the training colleges and so on) deserved to share their punishment.
– Paul Marks
|
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.
|
It will take nothing less than a counter-revolution to change this.
In other words, the elected representative (councillor, member of parliament, senator, congressman, etc.) is an agent from the central govt to the constituancy, not an agent of the constituancy to the central govt.
Fromage du Nord – to-some-extent, for example I would represent “reactionary” residents if they were being persecuted (as long as they used civil language – I do NOT support swearing and threats) partly because I am a “reactionary” myself – but also because I dissent from the Modern View (if I may use capital letters) of what the role of a councilor is. Of course, this could get me into trouble – very serious trouble.
Even if we turn to taxation and government spending – the role of an elected representative is much more limited than it used to be. For example, local council tax will normally go up by 4.9% – as to increase it more requires either a referendum or special permission, and to increase it less means that Adult Social Care and Children’s Social Care, both mandated by national law (and largely controlled by professional managers – who are often not “hired and fired” by elected people, being part of “trusts” and so on), will outstrip revenue – thus leading to de facto bankruptcy and the calling in of commissioners, who would cost local residents a fortune. This does NOT mean that an elected representative has no power at all over tax-and-spend – but the power is much more (vastly more) limited than it used to be – or that most people think it still is.
This clashes with the old view that it was for elected representatives to decide the level of taxation and what the money was spent on (the “no taxation without representation” slogan assumed that the “representation” would actually make the decisions). Again elected people have some power (it is not the case that they have no power at all) – but very much less power than most of the public seem to believe.
This is increasingly true at national, not just local, level – with such things as the “Office of Budget Responsibility” and the Bank of England (neither of which is elected) basically overruling elected politicians such as Prime Minister Liz Truss – whose very name was made a sneer, by a highly effective smear campaign in the media. People still believe that someone who was Prime Minister for only a few weeks, and who was not allowed to do anything, “crashed the economy” – and that this “crashing” had nothing to do with almost half a Trillion Pounds that had been spent on bizarre (and counter productive) Covid policies.
Also government spending at the national level is increasingly mandated by rights to services and benefits that are included in international conventions and treaties.
The carpetbagging of democracy comes from exclusive political parties, voters have the illusion of choice, in reality it is the secret cabal of inter-government operatives in the local political party that decide who gets to “represent” us, in reality the monkey in the correct coloured rosette represents them.
Ban exclusive political parties.
Runcie Balspune – I think you miss the legal situation, which I have tried to explain.
The legal position is not changed by what political party a candidate is a member of, or by what candidates a political party picks. The law is the law.
Of course, Parliament (not local councils – but Parliament) could change the laws – it could repeal the Equality Act and the Climate Act (and all the other Acts), it could abolish the Bank of England (founded in 1694 – so it has been about a long time), it could pull us out of the various international treaties and conventions – but I see no chance of Parliament doing any of these things.
Some people thought that Mr Farage might, if he had a majority in the House of Commons, go down this road of a “Great Repeal” but Ben Habib and Rupert Lowe have exposed that as a false hope.
There are quite a lot of people in the Conservative party who are supportive of a “Great Repeal” – but the leadership has NOT committed to this, which is unfortunate.
By the way – the former MP for Kettering, Philip Hollobone, was very “right wing” and I was one of the “secret cabal” who selected him.
Whilst the legal and institutional structure remains what it is (and it is, increasingly, an INTERNATIONAL legal and institutional structure) what difference do the personal convictions of the Member of Parliament make?
My own MP, kit malthouse, has zero moral right to represent the people of North West Hampshire. He had never lived here. He has no ties or family here unless anyone knows otherwise. I wrote to my local paper pointing these issues out and stated he’s not our representative to parliament. He’s their representative here. In fact I don’t think we’ve had an MP from this constituency for over 100 years.
I hold them all in contempt. Maybe the coming civil war will sort this country out.
Good luck with a “civil war”. Such things are ANYTHING but “civil”
The names of anyone remotely “suspicious” of the “state” will already be in the hands of the 3AM door-breacher teams.
Attitude Adjustment of the “guilty bastards” will surely follow, if the game is played in the same old way.
I think it was one Arthur Wellesly, Duke of Wellington, who uttered the line:
“They came on the the usual way and we beat them back in the usual way.
See also an overabundance of “false flags”.
Time for a new “Narrative”?
Cheers from the Penal Colonies,
Bruce
Paul Marks: what difference do the personal convictions of the Member of Parliament make?
Not much, but the personal convictions of 326 MPs, if aligned, can achieve quite a lot. Getting there is, of course, the hard part.
Stuart Noyes: Maybe the coming civil war will sort this country out.
Unfortunately, a pure heart does not always provide the strength of ten; that hope is somewhere on a par with hoping for a lottery win, plus the chance of ending up against a bullet-pocked wall if you lose. It is still worth trying for a parliamentary majority in favour of a Great Repeal before that happens.
By the way – the former MP for Kettering, Philip Hollobone, was very “right wing” and I was one of the “secret cabal” who selected him.
Was there a reason more than one person could not have stood for your party on the ballot and then let the voters decide which was best, rather than your “cabal”?
Mr Hollobone may then have needed to invest more in his potential constituents interests rather than those of the selective committee.
You vastly overestimate the state. Moreover, the door-breacher teams are full of overweight diversity hires who identify as unicorns these days.
Perry – you are mistaken about the physical fitness of many police officers and other members of the security services. Many of them are fit and strong.
Overall I would say you vastly underestimate the British state. For example, when the state feels threatened all the delays in the legal system vanish and the people the state dislikes find themselves in prison (for years) very quickly – as the Prime Minister said last year about “right wing” protesters and social media posters, “they will go to prison” – he said this before the trials had even started (the presumption of innocence has, de facto, gone). Many people were convinced to plead guilty – as they were told there was no chance of being found innocent, and they would just get more time in prison if they did not do as they were told.
On the legal situation – the laws (the Equality Act, the Environment Act and-so-on) are what they are. In theory Parliament could change the laws – but, as Ben Habib, Rupert Lowe (and, now, many others) have pointed out – Mr Farage is not going to change the basic legal position, regardless of whether he has 5 (now 4) Members of the House of Commons or any other number of Members of the House of Commons.
Kemi Badenoch? Well I did not vote for the lady as leader of the Conservative Party (I voted for Robert Jenrick) but the lady might (might) go in a “Great Repeal” direction – IF (if) there was a lot of work into making that direction attractive. Certainly Kemi has made good speeches in the past denouncing, for example Critical Theory “Woke” Marxism – but speeches without actual changes in the law, repeal of basic pieces of legislation and getting OUT of various international treaties and conventions, do not deliver real change.
As for the local situation – my opponents (regardless of political party – as my opponents are saying the same things – regardless of political party) are promising more spending on roads and schools (and so on), whilst, at the same time, denouncing the level of the Council Tax.
We here in Australia are suffering from a Federal Election, due on May the 3rd. We also have members being ‘parachuted’ into electorates. I don’t know if ‘bald’ is the new look, but our local Liberal candidate moved here a short while ago, and has scarce hair, like the Liberal leader, Dutton. Here in Australia ‘liberal’ is used by small-government people who support (so they say) businesses. We have proportional voting, so I might vote for a small party (Liberal Democrats?) as well as the Libs.
Nicholas – the thing to examine is whether or not the elected people actually decide basic policy matters.
I do not know the position in Australia – how much the officials, including the judges (and the Central Bank), allow elected persons to decide.
At the start of the 1970s some conservative and libertarian Americans considered moving to Australia – as life under the Nixon Administration, price controls and so on, was becoming less free in America than it was in Australia.
With the decline of Freedom of Speech and the decline of the right of once free citizens to have weapons to defend themselves and others, in Australia – few conservative and libertarian Americans would want to move to Australia today.
Although I should be careful not to exaggerate – Australia is not Britain.
Paul Mark’s – I can only hope the safeguard against state internment for political reasons aka jury trials, saves those who decide to fight the tyranny we live under.
I have met and chatted with both Ben Habib and Rupert Lowe (I quite liked the former & took a strong dislike to the latter), and I must say both are possessed of excessive ego & an inability to see the big picture. Lowe in particular is not a ‘details man’ & is driven by his deeply prejudiced gut feelings, even if I do actually agree with him on many issues. So, not convinced their opinions about Farage are particularly important or insightful.
Pre Brexit I heard from many people that the difference between us and the European model of state was the British state is subservient to the people. The state is downstream from the people. I think that is turning out to be a myth.
I agree with the clauses and conclusions of the Harrogate Agenda. Unless we have a document that’s states the people are the sole source of sovereignty within the British Isles, we will always be slaves. Unless we have direct democracy, our political class will always be our masters.
From what I could gather the whole Farage-Lowe spat is a bit of a shit shower at all sides. I do suspect the bullying/harassment accusations are likely groundless and getting the cops to seize Lowe’s gun collection is a dick move. On the other hand, Lowe does seem to attract the Tommy Robinson crowd, which isn’t good because TR is a grifter and a cop magnet.
Of course, if Reform had 200 rather than a handful of MPs, a spat between the leader and an MP would likely not register much with the media. I mean Labour have an MP who has just been arrested for paedophilia charges but the press aren’t using this a cudgel against Starmer.
Perry – the principle witness against Mr Farage is Mr Farage himself. Both on personal tactics – such as pushing the smear that Rupert Lowe has dementia, and, on his recent visit here, accusing me and other councillors of running up debts of 400 million Pounds spent on pay and expenses (in reality debts are inherited – the budget has been balanced for each of the four years North Northants Unitary Authority has existed, but you can search 4 Northumberland Road if you wish – if I have really stolen hundreds of millions of Pounds I will, deservedly, go to prison) and on POLICY – for example, giving in on mass deportation of illegal immigrants – and, yes, giving in on Islam. Like the Duke of York he marched his troops to the top of the hill, and then he marched them down again – so, for example, no to the promised Rape Gang inquiry.
Stuart Noyes – juries can indeed sometimes work, but they are not as good as one might hope. Juries have changed – but then the country has changed.
“The living will envy the dead” – and we do.