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]
|
One detail that perhaps got lost in the recent UK decision about the Indian Ocean group of islands containing Diego Garcia – taken very fast and over the heads of the Chagos Islands locals (which hardly fits with ideas about decolonisation) – was that President Biden applauded the move. In way this isn’t surprising. Pr. Biden doesn’t particularly like the UK, and like a certain kind of American politician, has a grudge about the old, post-imperial network of relationships and territories that the UK has, or had, around the world. More fool him.
In this transfer and lease deal (which is not, as far as I know, formally signed and there has been no formal debate or legislation about this in Parliament) the UK is transferring taxpayers money in a payment programme to a tax haven (Mauritius). If the Tories had done this, the tax haven angle would have been constantly mentioned.
It seems ironic that Labour, a party not exactly known for its love of tax havens (unless Tony Blair uses one) or such international conduits, feels it is okay to deal with Mauritius financially in this way. Don’t get me wrong, I am for tax havens, and the more of them the better, because they deter otherwise high-tax governments from going crazy when capital is mobile, although as UK finance minister Rachel Reeves is proving, that’s not a solid protection. Tax hikes are likely in the 30 October UK budget. People are leaving.
Biden’s support for what’s happened should give pause, given what a poor President he is on foreign affairs, in my view. Also, he hasn’t made much disguise of his distaste for Brexit and the UK’s independence out of the bloc, and neither did Barack Obama. There’s no enthusiasm from that quarter for the UK to engage in new trade and other deals with countries outside the EU. And Biden’s own recent judgement about foreign affairs is spotty at best: half-decent on Israel and Ukraine, and shockingly inept over Afghanistan, with the rushed departure and loss of billions of dollars of equipment.
Those on the Republican side are, apparently, far less happy about the Chagos islands deal, and the potential risk to security of the Diego Garcia airbase jointly used by the UK and US. They know how porous leasehold deals can be, and have seen that Mauritius has used all legal pressure to change the terms of its independence settlement with the UK of 1968. The US Air Force has used the base in recent conflicts; if it wanted to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities, for example, and do so via Diego Garcia, the situation becomes dicier than it might have been. One has to wonder about the role of China in all this (Chinese money flows through Mauritius.)
This whole saga also shows that if the UK is to pursue a more “blue water” foreign policy in future as it expands trade links with countries outside Europe, particular in Asia, that getting its defence arrangements locked down is essential. And we need to lose our illusions about how special our relationship with the US really is at times.
Daniel Hannan has this excellent overview of just what a shockingly poor transaction the UK has made with Mauritius. Hannan argues that Mauritius has never exercised sovereignty over the islands, a fact that is so shocking it is hard to argue how on earth we reached this point and how the Mauritius government thought it could bully its way ahead on this. However, a future, different UK government should certainly revisit the terms of this deal, and press hard on Mauritius if, for example, that country’s anti-money laundering standards are questioned in future. Time for a bit of nastiness behind the smiles.
It may be too late now to change course on this specific, shabby deal, at least under the current Starmer government. I fear it is. And now there’s speculation about what happens to the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar. The UK has shown itself to be weak. People tend to notice.
But the U.K.’s climate agenda is now decades old. The Climate Change Act (CCA) was made legislation in 2008, 16 years ago, but the drive towards decarbonisation started much earlier in the days of the Blair Government. The years ahead of the CCA saw the formation of a cross-party Westminster consensus on climate change, rather than a conversation with the public about what it would require of them and to seek their support. Consequently, the apparatus for the climate agenda was established through intergovernmental agencies and agreements, deals with the EU, legally-binding legislative measures to allow the enforcement of the green agenda by wealthy interests in the courts, and the construction of domestic carbon bureaucracies.
Gary Smith was the sole member of the panel at what was intended to be a debate for the same reason that it has not been possible for critics of Net Zero to get answers out of the likes of the U.K. Climate Change Committee (CCC). The CCC, as with any other agency or organisation, does not debate because it does not need to. The matter is settled. The cross-party consensus was established by green lobbyists without debate. And consequently, ostensibly democratic institutions have been wholly aligned to green ideology and the Net Zero policy agenda. It’s not up for debate.
– Ben Pile
Those who suffer injustice can be compensated:
Non-binary customers win compensation for being asked if they are male or female
Financial services firms have been forced to pay hundreds of pounds in compensation to non-binary customers over “discriminatory” application forms.
MoneySuperMarket (MSM), the comparison website, and Transunion, a credit union, were hit with separate complaints because their application forms did not include options for non-binary customers in their gender section.
Both cases were escalated to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) which awarded the complainants compensation for “distress and disappointment” incurred from the forms.
MSM was ordered to pay £200 to unnamed non-binary customer Mx B who was asked if they were male or female.
And those who commit injustice can be punished:
Council rejects appeal of mother fined £500 for leaving free cabinet out for neighbours
A council has rejected the appeal of a mother who was fined £500 for leaving a free cabinet outside her house for neighbours to take.
Isabelle Pepin, 42, placed the white piece of furniture from Ikea in front of her house in Southbourne, Bournemouth, in August.
However, three weeks later she was given the fly-tipping fine by Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council because she had put it on the pavement.
Both stories come from today’s Telegraph.
Heraclitus said that “The people should fight for their law as for their city wall.” With laws like this, little wonder that decreasing numbers are willing to fight for their city wall.
Strange times we live in. A British newspaper, the Daily Mail, has published a damaging allegation about the spouse of the US president*, but so far I haven’t seen a word in any British or American newspaper about a damaging allegation about the UK prime minister. Given the relative strength of the libel laws of the two countries, one would think that “the shape of the PM’s family” would be all over the American press.
I must stress that at this stage both allegations are merely allegations. If the one about Sir Keir Starmer turns out to be true, I am not sure it will make much difference. Gone are the days when Cecil Parkinson had to resign as a minister because he impregnated his secretary. Boris Johnson’s behaviour imitated that of a medieval lord siring a bastard child in every nearby village without eliciting any noticeable political effect other than mild envy. Given that Starmer’s popularity has already suffered one of the steepest falls in recent political history, it might actually improve his polling. And get people calling him by his first name.
The allegation against Mr Emhoff is a slightly different nature, as if substantiated it would almost certainly be a crime. I repeat that it has not yet been substantiated. On the other hand, as the Daily Wire‘s Mary Margaret Olohan pointed out,
The #MeToo allegation against Doug Emhoff has more corroboration than Christine Blasey Ford’s allegation against Brett Kavanaugh, which Kamala Harris herself aggressively defended.
*Edit: Commenter Barracoder reminded me that Kamala Harris is not the president of the United States. I literally, genuinely forgot that Joe Biden still holds the office of president.
“And when Sue Gray, the former civil service head of “Propriety and Ethics”, having improperly and unethically defected to be his chief of staff, demands a salary larger than his own, Sir Keir gets furious with the journalists who ask him about it. “I don’t believe my staff should be the subject of political debate like this,” he told the BBC.
Though Prime Minister, he seems not to know that it is the first duty of our elected Parliament to question how and why public money is spent.”
– Charles Moore in the Telegraph.
Sue Gray was the civil servant, at the time much lauded for her impartiality, who wrote the “Partygate” report that brought down Boris Johnson. If she had then retired, or stayed in the civil service, or got any other private sector job than the one she did, her place in history as a minor avenging angel would have been secure. But what she actually did was leave the civil service to become Sir Keir Starmer’s chief of staff. Her failure to declare that she had been in communication with Labour over this job offer while still a civil servant was a breach of civil service rules. Even if it had been within the letter of the rules, it was an obvious breach of their spirit, as more than one angry civil servant has said to me. Of course her salary is up for debate. She did not pass out of politics by going to work for the Labour Party, she passed into it. And her salary in her current position of Downing Street Chief of Staff is paid by the taxpayer.
May have overstated. May!?!
Chief medical officer Chris Whitty has admitted that the government may have overstated the danger of Covid at the start of the pandemic.
Well, it’s a start, I suppose. However, they massively overstated it, destroyed our liberties and economy on the basis of their own panic and inability to follow through with a sensible, rational plan that was already in place. No may about it. They did. Big time and every one of the fuckers should be doing jail time including Half-Whitty.
– Longrider, with whom I agree entirely. There needs to be professional, financial and social consequences or nothing changes. Instead, the fuckers get knighted.
The wedding scene from Flash Gordon:
Celebrant: “Do you, Ming the Merciless, Ruler of the Universe, take this Earthling, Dale Arden, to be your empress of the hour?”
Ming: “Of the hour, yes.”
Celebrant: “Do you promise to use her as you will?”
Ming: “Certainly.”
Celebrant: “Not to blast her into space…” [Ming gives him a warning look] “…until such time as you grow weary of her?”
–
Sadiq Khan’s deputy mayor for environment pledges to curb plane trips after clocking up 40,000 air miles, the Standard reports.
Mete Coban, a 32-year-old former Hackney councillor, was appointed to the £147,769-a-year City Hall role in July that involves him leading efforts to make London “net zero” in terms of carbon emissions by 2030.
While Hackney’s cabinet member for the environment, Mr Coban was revealed to have clocked up 40,000 air miles in two years.
I didn’t know that the London Borough of Hackney had a cabinet, let alone a cabinet member for the environment with worldwide responsibilities.
He said the “majority” of trips related to his job at an organisation, My Life My Say, that aims to get young people interested in politics and democracy.
But asked by Tory assembly member Thomas Turrell at a City Hall meeting about his travel habits, Mr Coban pledged to avoid “unnecessary” flights and to “lead by example”.
He told the London Assembly’s environment comittee: “I’m very clear that the majority of those flights relate to my previous role as chief executive of My Life My Say, where we are standing up for young people across the country, but also globally, to stand up for democracy.
“I don’t make any apology for making sure I am banging the drum for young people at some of the highest institutions, including the United Nations.
The need to make speeches at “the highest institutions” located in Miami, Dubai, Guatemala, Istanbul, Washington DC and Malta allowed “High Carbon Coban”, a member of the political class, to have 40,000 unapologetic air miles before he felt obliged to say that he would “avoid” flying while in his present role. Except when flights are absolutely necessary for his work as Deputy Mayor of London for Environment and Energy, obviously.
Leftists weaponise these so-called ‘local identities’ by trying to emphasise their supposed distance from other ‘local identities’ in England. In the process of doing this, they (if only tacitly) also try to decrease the distance of these ‘local identities’, and indeed Britain as a whole, from genuinely foreign cultures: ‘a Cockney, a Brummie, and a Pakistani; all totally unique, but all Very British in their own way.’ An alternative, though slightly different, formulation of this strategy can be found in the attempt by left-wing Welsh nationalists to completely distance ‘Welsh’ from ‘English’, while readily accepting people into ‘Welshness’, no questions asked, with zero connection — ancestral or otherwise — to the British Isles as a whole. It is telling that one of the favourite pastimes of these socialist deviants is to have ethnic minorities put on a performance for them, getting them to memorise a few words of their funny language, entertaining the Welshmen while also stroking their egos. This is quite obviously unethical behaviour, although no-one has called them out for it yet.
– Pimlico Journal
I did not expect to see anything like this on a fairly mainstream site like “Conservative Woman”: “Mystery of Andrew Bridgen’s vanishing votes” (Via Sara Hoyt on Instapundit.) Andrew Bridgen, for those not familiar with him, is the former MP for North West Leicestershire. He has had a chequered career. He was expelled from the Conservative Party after criticising the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines. He then joined the Reclaim Party but resigned from it a few months later. He then lost his seat in the 2024 election – which in itself was no surprise, but the spectacular scale of his loss, dropping from 63% of the vote to 3.2%, was unusual.
I said I did not expect to see this piece on the CW website. I would not be entirely surprised if I am soon unable to see it anywhere but Twitter/X. After the US election of 2020, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter (before it was owned by Elon Musk) had a policy of deleting any discussion whatsoever of the possibility of electoral fraud. Even arguments that fraud had not been significant were censored. Most of the UK media followed suit, as it usually does.
If anyone reading this has power or influence over the censorship policies of British media organisations, I humbly beg you not to repeat that mistake. My argument does not depend on taking any view on how many votes Andrew Bridgen got in the UK election of 2024.
When “Stop the Steal” and similar Facebook groups with hundreds of thousands of members were deleted overnight after the American election of 2020, what effect do you think it had on the beliefs of members of those groups? Do you think they concluded that since they could no longer discuss their suspicions, those suspicions must be groundless?
Of course it had the opposite effect. A majority of US voters think it is “likely” that cheating affected the outcome of the 2020 election. That includes 45% of Democrats. The censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop story and of the hypothesis that the Covid-19 virus leaked from a laboratory (the first of which is no longer contested and the second of which is accepted as a probable hypothesis by the US and UK governments) only reinforced this.
Censorship destroys trust, and the loss of trust is not limited to the subject being censored. Once people know they are being censored in one thing, they inevitably ask, “What else aren’t they telling us?”
And they can work out that if all accusations of a particular crime are censored, it makes it more likely that that crime will be committed in future.
Related posts here, here and here. In fact, that entire category of “Deleted by the Woke Media” is related.
Edit 25th September: The man who replaced Andrew Bridgen as Conservative candidate in North West Leicestershire, Craig Smith, has responded strongly to the Conservative Woman piece:
Mr Bridgen seems to overestimate the weight of any candidate’s personal vote. In elections most people vote for the party with a personal vote of – somewhere around – a couple of thousand votes for the candidate themselves. It’s arguably why I did marginally better than Conservative candidates in demographically similar constituencies elsewhere, because I had something of a personal vote as a truly local candidate. A personal vote is why Mr Bridgen received around 1,500 votes. To provide Mr Bridgen with a similar example to his own in 2015 Rochdale’s MP, Simon Danczuk, then standing for Labour received 20,961 votes. In 2017, expelled from Labour and and standing as an independent he received 883 votes. Using Mr Danczuk as a base Mr Bridgen could argue that he outstripped expectations!
Mr Smith goes on to say that of course he was not happy with the result – he lost to Labour – but he is convinced it was fair. He then makes some quite detailed observations about electoral procedures, both in general and specifically for that constituency. I thought he came across well. His use of Simon Danczuk in Rochdale as a comparator for assessing whether it is credible for an MP expelled from their party to have such a large drop in votes was reasonable.
That is how it should be done. That is how it should have been done in the US. Don’t forbid discussion, contribute to it. I repeat my plea for there to be no censorship of the claim that the election was rigged against Mr Bridgen.
“Cambridgeshire council admits to discrimination after a woman was labelled transphobic for criticism of a ‘gender-fluid’ dachshund”, reports the Telegraph, with relish.
Tim Sigsworth’s report says that:
A lesbian social worker was harassed by her colleagues after making “non-inclusive and transphobic” comments about a co-worker’s “gender-neutral” dog, a tribunal ruled.
Elizabeth Pitt, who worked for Cambridgeshire county council, was awarded £63,000 after bosses reprimanded her for expressing gender-critical views at a meeting of the authority’s LGBT+ employee group.
She had disagreed with a male colleague who claimed his dachshund was “gender-fluid” and that he put a dress on the dog to provoke “debate about gender” in January 2023.
Ms Pitt, 62, was formally disciplined by management after complaints were made accusing her of making “non-inclusive and transphobic” remarks.
However, the council later admitted liability for direct discrimination on the grounds of her beliefs.
I am glad that Ms Pitt won her case, but how did we get to a state of affairs where a county council actually believed that one of their employees taking a less than respectful view of another employee putting a dress on his wee dog and declaring it to be “gender-fluid” had had a “detrimental impact on the mental health and well-being of the complainants”?
When I read this account, I was surprised to find out that it happened as late as January 2023. Poor old Cambridgeshire County Council, puffing to keep up with trends that more with-it London bodies like the Royal Academy of Arts dropped in 2021. But the greater question is how and why this particular form of absurdity swept round the developed world so quickly. The wave is receding now, less quickly than it arose, but still very fast in historical terms. The “dropped in 2021” link describes how the Royal Academy of Arts abruptly withdrew the work of the textile artist Jess de Wahls from sale in its gift shop because she said “humans can not change sex”. After bad publicity, it backtracked. There is a certain irony about the way that progressive artists such as Ms de Wahls (“Her work is part of a movement to depict vagina and vulva in art”) spent their whole lives changing cultural norms with such success that their vulva-themed embroideries ended up in the Royal Academy gift shop, a development which might have surprised Sir Joshua Reynolds, only to see the wind change against them in an instant. Why did that particular memo go around in 2020? It wasn’t directly related to Black Lives Matter, but maybe that movement had something to do with it.
Politicians of all stripes like to talk about “sustainability” – although I’ve noticed that some of the enthusiasm for this when it comes to the “green” angle has been dented by rising energy costs and worries about how we keep the lights on when the wind does not blow and sun does not shine. The realities of how to produce energy when fossil fuels are off the table and nuclear is not taken seriously are going to bite us, and hard, in the years to come.
Even so, sustainability is a useful word, and it is a shame that it gets tainted as the word “liberal” does by association with bad ideas. (The same goes for “progressive”, while we are at it.)
Well, one point I come across in my day job in covering business and finance is how family-owned/run firms can often show superior returns, when compounded over time, and be more robust, and more sustainable, than those that don’t have a family connection. That’s not cheesy sentimentality about how a business is better when Grandad, Mum and the cousins are around. (There can be very tricky succession and control issues with families; wealth advisors often earn big bucks advising families in how to resolve conflicts. And we’ve all seen Dallas.) Even so, for all the caveats, family businesses are important. They employ millions of people. In countries such as Germany and Italy, family-run firms have been the norm; the fashion houses, specialist sportscar firms, and many others, have deep and long family connections. Same goes for agriculture and food, for example. Here is some UK family business data that shows how big these firms are, in aggregate.
Well, it seems that one thing that the UK government is thinking of is ending the business property and agriculture reliefs from inheritance tax. At present, the tax – 40 per cent above a “nil-rate” threshold of £325,000 – does not hit if you inherit a family business, including a farm. In the US, such tax is called Estate Tax, and thresholds are far higher than in the UK.
But apparently, Rachel Reeves, the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, is considering sweeping some of these reliefs away. It means family businesses where the stake in a business are high might get broken up and sold, such as to corporations and private equity firms, when a founder or business holder dies. Family-run farms will be a one-generation gig. And corporates, sovereign wealth funds and big groups such as pension funds will consolidate their ownership of business, including the land. Wealth becomes more centrally concentrated, not more dispersed. This seems a very paradoxical outcome from a supposedly egalitarian government. Maybe Ms Reeves does not understand this point or is indifferent to it.
However, ignorance is only part of it, I think. There’s a general hostility towards inheritance of any kind in our culture today, from my impression. There is a lot of the “tall poppy” mindset around. Years of central bank QE also inflated asset prices, and certain groups did well, but that’s not really what is going on, in my view, because things such as QE are too abstract for the average voter.
I think resentments are given more respect today, when in fact they should be called out. I think we allow jealousy of others’ good fortune to be given the time of day, when in the past that would be seen as a bad thing.
There are many good, consequentialist reasons why this dislike has bad outcomes when used as a motor for public policy, but there are important moral arguments against this attack on inheritance: the rights of those of those who own the property and want to give it to this or that cause are being violated. If I want to give my sons and daughters a business, or a 400-acre farm, for example, that’s my affair, period. Whether those persons “deserve” what I give them, in the eyes of some sort of social justice advocate, is irrelevant. If economics is not a zero-sum game, such demands for redistribution are just thieving.
What inheritance taxes do, at root, is make it clear that ownership of wealth and control of it is at the sufferance of the State. The justifications of insisting on this servile relationship may vary – sometimes by reference to the flawed ideas such as those of a Thomas Piketty – but the underlying position remains.
The argument seems to say that you don’t really ever own anything absolutely and control it. You have to defer to the crowd if it, and its elected representatives, wants your stuff, however virtuously you acquired it in the first place. It is only one step from saying that because we don’t “deserve” our brains or bodies, that we don’t have grounds for objecting to other coercive measures to take the fruits of our mental and physical labour, either at source, or when we die. (The dystopian novel, Facial Justice, by LP Hartley, shows where this leads when it comes to beauty and physical appearance.)
I see little by way of fundamental critiques of this assault on inheritance of honestly acquired wealth. The Tories, now in opposition, don’t really take the discussion to this level; neither do other supposedly more conservative parties in other parts of the world. But the monstrosity of what attacks on inheritance amount to needs to be more widely remarked on than it is.
On the subject of the family and why protecting it is subversive of overweening authority, I can recommend this book, The Subversive Family, by former Downing Street policy unit figure and journalist/novelist Ferdinand Mount. He’s deeply influenced by the Origins of English Individualism, by Alan Macfarlane, for example.
On a more prosaic level, the ever-widening burden of tax in much of the developed world, and particularly in the UK, means that even people who are not by any means well off are going to learn about the joys of inheritance tax and all that goes with it. That might ultimately shift the needle against the tax. But a lot of hard work in changing attitudes is also needed.
The big political story in Britain at the moment is the Labour Prime Minister accepting free clothes on behalf of his wife from a benefactor – an act that the cruel – and cruelly funny it must be said – have thought worthy of ridicule.
But would you know it! A hundred years ago (where I live) the big story is also the Labour Prime Minister accepting free stuff from a benefactor. In James Ramsay MacDonald’s case the free stuff is a car (a Daimler no less) and the means to maintain it. At this point things take a turn for the better for Keir Starmer’s predecessor. The benefactor, a Sir Alexander Grant happens to be an old friend of MacDonald’s and also happens to be a biscuit millionaire. Sir Alexander claims that he was moved to his act of unbidden generosity when he heard that MacDonald was travelling around London by Underground Railway which he felt was tiring him out and undermining his efficiency. I suppose the equivalent today would be if his modern-day counterpart had discovered that Sir Keir and Lady Starmer were wandering about in garments made of sack cloth.
By the way, I am not sure what travelling around on the London Underground says about Ramsay MacDonald but I can’t help feeling that it says a lot about the society of the time.
 Hello Jim, got a new motor?
|
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.
|
