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]
|
And there goes the only reason to vote for Cameron The only substantive issue on which David Cameron declaimed that made him in any way preferable (or to be more accurate, distinguishable) from the Blairite Labour Party was the issue of ID cards.
Cameron (eventually) came down against them once he realised just how unpopular the scheme was. Well it seems that the impending Brown government is also going to give ID cards the heave-ho, which if true is indeed a good thing.
So, no excuse left for actual conservatives not abandon the Tories and vote UKIP then.
|
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.
|
And you believe him? Brown is more New Labour than Blair. Today’s promise, forgotten tomorrow, given again the day after, broken the day after that, and finally spun as fulfilled! He speaks only to manipulate. I would not take his word that water was wet.
This may be one of the reasons that Mr Reid is leaving the Home Office.
However, it is hard to see how Mr Brown will square this judgement to ditch the I.D. card (or the “entitlement card” or whatever it was to be called) with commitments made to the E.U.
Unless he is simply going to call the E.U.s bluff.
As for voting:
On Monday I face a choice between two men to be leader of Kettering Council.
Both candidates have been open and honest in their support of the local “manifesto”, which is full of what I consider to be bad, money wasting, policies.
Therefore my only logical course of action is to abstain (although what logic will have to do with the matter has yet to be seen).
This should be a warning to those who hold that one can work through the existing party system.
How I became a candidate at all is a complex and rather weird story (which I am not sure I fully understand myself – for example I let my membership lapse ages ago, and then found myself a member again).
“It is a funny old world”.
Paul Marks is right. Brown cannot ditch cards althogether, but it is politic to ditch the ID card in its present form.
He has commitments to the EU that need to be fulfilled, and an eID programme has been signed up to.
I reported back in Feb that Brown would do this, and it will be replaced by a tax card. The systems that the NIR will run on are ALREADY there. HMRC, DWP and DVLA.
All the interrogation centers have been built on HMRC premises for a reason, and that is that the new tax card will be put in place through them.
If you want a job, tax card, if you want benefits, tax card, if you want a car, tax card. and so it will begin that if you want anything, any service including banking, you will need a tax card.
People are more likely to accept that a tax card is less invasive, because they have all this info already, and can be spun in such a way that it is less big brother than the ID cards scheme.
http://thejournal.parker-joseph.co.uk/blog/_archives/2007/2/11/2727000.html
Aside from the fact that Brown was on the Today program this morning enthusiastically saying that the ID card programme would be going ahead…
Here’s an idea from across the pond.
What if David Cameron pledged to abolish the BBC TV licence fee if he were elected ?
If the BBC is as biased in news reporting as it appears to be, let the public decide whether the Beeb sinks or swims based on its merits, instead of on a public tax.
Then he would lose.
Two reasons:
1 – An astonishing number of people actually like the propagandist protection racket, and
2 – After years of laying into them at every (and I mean every) available opportunity, the BBC has only recently started giving the Tories the occasional fair hearing. Threaten to take its meal ticket away, and they’d be back to square one. They wouldn’t be able to cough without being accused of planning to close schoolsanhospitals (amongst countless other sins).
Of course, as any fule truly know, only a handful of the population- a mere 25,000 or so- will ever vote or Cameron, so the point is limited.
The rest of us will be voting for our own constituency MPs- thankfully, in many cases.
James, in a centralist parliamentary system, voting for the man in your local plot is voting for their party leader to be the national leader. To think otherwise is to mistake the nature of what is really going on in the British system.
This is the nightmare: a Brown government does ditch the ID card thereby wrongfooting the Tories, hoodwinking the general public, claiming to be civil libertarian, and confusing the dimmer end of the liberty lobby – but keeps centralised state management and control of your identity through a national register and broad datasharing across government.
Brown has both to repeal the Identity Cards Act 2006 (and all the database and data-sharing powers therein), and to abandon the Serious Crime Bill (and all the database and data-sharing powers therein) to persuade me he’s remotely serious about civil liberty.
Perhaps Brown thinks it is politically wise to dump the ID card because it ain’t popular. But from what I know of the man he must really, really not want to scrap the plan. It would be the crowning achievement of statism because it means we’re all part of the syndicate and nothing can be done without the syndicate.
These people never change. I heard Prescott on the radio defending his record of utter crapulence a few days back. He’s a total copper-plated bastard. He even stood by his English regional government idea. He’s got the hide of a dragon and the humility of Posh Spice.
They never change. If Brown ever announces he’s dropping the ID cards then watch for his Dr Strangelove-style ticks and involuntary movements.
Albion,
I can assure you, in an election, I vote for the local candidate.
How you vote is, of course, entirely down to you.
James – local council policy is mostly laid down by national (and international) government so who you vote for is of very little (if any) importance.
As for Westminster elections. There have been a few brave backbench M.P.s (who at least say interesting things – although they can not stop the various wicked things being done). If you have such an M.P. you should vote for him.
However, I suspect, you have a Conservative M.P. who tells you (in private) how much he agrees with what you say, but (oddly enough) never gets round to saying this in public.
Of course if your M.P. is one of the few who speak out in public I apologize.
On the B.B.C. tax:
Actually David Cameron (and his people) boast about the good relations they have established with the B.B.C.
That they should be ashamed of this does not cross their minds.
Abolishing the TV licence fee would have no effect on the BBC. Funding from the licence fee would simply be replaced by funding from general taxation. The theft would simply become less overt.
If people value the B.B.C. then let them pay for it – by donation.
If we can not convince most voters that taking money by threat of violence from the taxpayers and giving it the overpaid leftists of the B.B.C. is a bad thing – well then we can not convince them of anything.
As for “the B.B.C. would attack the Conservatives if they campaigned for an end to tax money going to the organization”. On the contrary – this is the only way to stop a B.B.C. campaign against a Conservative party that was interested in free market ideas in anything else.
This is because any B.B.C. attack (on education, health or whatever) could be dismissed on the grounds of “they are just saying this because we plan to defund them”.
As the B.B.C. would be seen as having a financial interest in attacking the Conservatives its attacks would be undermined – if they were made at all.
I watch 4 channel terrestrial TV on a 20+ yr old 14″ Sony. I haven’t upgraded because TV is very much in a state of flux. High quality streaming over the internet is just around the corner, the Blu-Ray/HDDVD format war hasn’t really got going because of people like me not wanting to buy a Betamax, flat panel technology is dropping in price quickly but the LCD vs Plasma issue isn’t quite settled (personally I suspect LED will trump them both), Virgin are slugging it out with Sky… So I’m confused. I suspect I’m not the only one. And it’s not just the technology (technology I can deal with) it’s issues relating to DRM… It’s a terrible (slightly exciting) mess. Yes, I shall upgrade, but when the time is right.
The business-models of all TV companies are going to change dramatically over the next few years.
To give the BBC it’s recent ten year license renewal in such circumstances with a remit to basically do more of the same is bonkers.
Perhaps the BBC has signed it’s own death warrant? It may be a big and impressive monster but then so was T-Rex.
Abolishing the TV licence fee would have no effect on the BBC.
Probably not, but it would have two highly beneficial consequences.
1. It would end the pretence that “the unique way the BBC is funded” exempts it from government pressure.
2. The bullying bureaucracy of the TV licensing authority would have no reason to exist. The extraction of the funds via general taxation would continue but the compliance burden of that taxation would not be increased.
Guy is quite correct.
Even if the B.B.C. was funded from general taxation the special administration (and private tax farmers – like New Labour’s best friend “Capita”) would end.
Also it would mean that the idea is “independent” or “not funded by tax” would be discredited.
It would then be less difficult to defund these people totally.
However, I would still go for an end to all forced funding.
As I have said, if we can not convince most voters that taking money by the threat of violence and giving it to the overpaid leftists of the B.B.C. is a bad idea – we can not convince them of anything.
I am as happy to chant “we are doomed” as the next man (indeed more happy than most) – but I would at least like to try and convince the public before writing them off as evil statist orcs who are unreachable.
I still think a policy of being against forced funding for the B.B.C. (have it rely on donations instead) could be made to popular.
And any party that supported such a policy (whether it was the Conservative party, or the Independence party) could then say that any B.B.C. attack upon them (on any issue, health education whatever, or in relation to individual conduct) was motivated by financial concerns.
“They are only saying such and such because they want to keep the money they steal from you”.
This would keep the B.B.C. on the defensive.
Paul: I certainly hadn’t looked at it that way, and it’s a good point. But I have an awful feeling that the Great British Public’s inexplicable affection for the BBC would lead them to believe its propaganda over the Tories’ explanation. It would be interesting to find out, though.
Nick M: It’s an intriguing possibility. And I suspect you might be right about LED, too.
IanP, the banking scenario is already here and has been for years.
You need two forms of photo ID to open any account.
I prefer taxes to be bullying and the compliance costs high. It makes the nature of the theft more open, it imposes a discipline (of sorts) on government spending, and it makes people more irate. ALl good stuff when it comes to tax.