Who's who on the bloggertarian right

Here's the non-Taxpayers' Alliance guest list.

This is who the Lib-Dems are in bed with now. Rather them than me.....

Bloggertarian trounced

I'm a bit surprised at the way that a few good bloggers have got a bit teary-eyed about Chris Mounsey being slapped around by Andrew Neil:



The bloggertarian troll has had it coming to him for a while, indeed, if his site was still visible you'd be able to see the thread where I told him what was going to happen to him.

Mark says:

"I am disappointed to see that Mounsey offered his resignation to his party's national committee straight after the interview. I am also however pleased to see that they refused to accept it."

Personally, I'm very pleased that they didn't.

Oh, one other thing: Has anyone else visited the 'Devils Kitchen' blog? Does anyone else think that the claim that the 'one post that was picked up' was not representative of the wider site?

Now come on Chris. The comments box is just down there..... call me a c*nt! You know you want to.....

Culture wars update

As weathervanes go, it's worth following the moderate US Republican @davidfrum on Twitter for little gems like....

Just heard Glenn Beck describe Friedrich Nietzsche as a Marxist. [here]

Reading this post (not by Frum himself) on his site, it's possible to believe that the consolidation of the Tea Party right within the US Republicans is gradually driving them into a position of political irrelevance. My political contacts within the US are so sparse, I've got no idea if it's a reliable bit of analysis - but if it is, it's interesting.

Frum has also posted a link to the Heritage Foundation's 'Index of economic freedom'

I use the 'Best in the world index' tag on this blog to keep track of these different comparisons. This is one table on which I hope the UK will aim to move downwards.

The Tories: Id v Super-Ego. The Ego needs to master the Id.

While I won't vote for them, I can identify with the Conservative Party this weekend. I'm a bit like they are. My Id is a bit shouty and sweary. It likes the sound of it's own voice and it likes to try the odd outrageous argument. It prefers drinking with other similar Ids. And in my career-concious moments, I'm constantly aware of the verbal side-swipes that I've thrown at the people who could have hired me.

Like me, senior Tories know that they have to keep a lid on the Id. And I don't know how it will affect short-term poll ratings, but this has been something of a watershed weekend for the Tories - in a bad way. Nothing significant has happened on its own, but lots of little chinks in their armour have widened. It's not my job to feel sorry for the Tories when things aren't going the way they want them to, but if I were one of them, I'd be a bit worried at the moment.

In 1994, Tony Blair laid the groundwork that he thought was needed to secure an election victory a few years later. The 'Clause IV moment' was an important one strategically, whatever you think to the outcome as a political manoeuvre. By 1997, I don't think anyone seriously believed that - in voting Labour - they were going to get some Maoist dystopia imposed upon them by the back door.

More to the point, I don't think many people believed that Labour was going to govern even an inch to the left of the position that it fought the campaign on. Two friends of mine wrote what I think was a very under-rated portrait of the opportunity that Labour were passing up to do this.

Few of us had real expectations that Labour would run much further than the key pledge that it made to us as members - that it would deprive the Tories of power (on the 'First, do no harm' way of looking at things, this as an achievement in itself). We may have wished for more, but we'd been read the Riot Act in 1994 and we'd swallowed it.

The Tories have done no such thing. OK, they've raised £72m to fight with this time, but above the line campaigning has never been as unattractive as it is today.

Like New Labour in the 1990s, the Tory Ego knows that it needs to be able to hang on to it's existing voters and appeal to people that are soft supporters. The Tory Id, however, wants to make the minimum number of concessions needed to get into Downing Street, and then it would like to row back on as many of them as possible once it has it's feet under the table.

In 1997, Labour, with it's massive majority, had a coherent Super-Ego in the driving seat. It had all of the power that Machiavelli attributed to people who had proved themselves in recent battle.

With the Tories, the Super-Ego is nowhere near as coherent and it is unlikely to have much of the honeymoon that Blair enjoyed. What is worse (for the Tories), this is all glaringly obvious. In an election, the voters are very likely to tumble this fact. The contrast between Labour's downbeat 1990s left and the rampant Tory blogosphere couldn't be more pronounced.

Like Blair, Cameron has had to fix his backwoodsmen with a steely glare and tell them that they don't get any omelette unless they let him break a few of their eggs. The Tories are already treading on broken shells and they're doubtful that even a thin pancake will be forthcoming. In terms of party unity, this is not a good place to be. The moment the poll-lead dips below the 8% level, the big story will be who gets to inherit the corpse.

Now, it seems that Cameron's whole whiter-than-white card is going to blow up in their faces thanks to Lord Ashcroft's dodgy tax-status. In an election fought against the backdrop of economic mayhem caused by the opaque dealings of billionaires, the Tories will be spending a lot of the campaign defending an opaque billionaire to the voters.

In a remarkable article, soft-Tory Julian Glover seems to be saying to people who are not natural Tory voters that they have a duty to vote Tory to save the party from ..... er... most of the party.

Meanwhile, Cameron has been walking a fairly tight line on issues like climate change. His party are about as rational on this subject as they are on Europe. Cameron, however, knows that the only position to you can credibly take to the voters is the 'Pascals Wager' one that I outlined here recently. For years, the public told pollsters that they wanted hanging brought back. History shows that they weren't prepared to buy the whole hanger package though.

The same is true of climate change. People may be sceptical of a science they don't understand. They may have had distrust pricked by climategate. But they also know that no government could simply pretend to be certain that there is no potential catastrophe in the post because it is certain that the whole concept is a forgery. The Tory Id, however, does believe climate change to be some kind of smart ass budget-maximising conspiracy and this tension won't survive the heat of an election.

The Tory Id is already locked in a growing civil war with the urban metrosexuals that have the potential to reach beyond the older, whiter constituency that voted Tory in 2005. Illustrating all of this, this article (and the comments beneath) about Cameron's Cuties shows what is at stake here.

No-one who reads their newspapers and listens to their backbenchers (never mind their frontbenchers) thinks that they'll not seize the first opportunity to dish the BBC up to it's rivals. In the European Parliament, they're in bed with a shower of nutters, foreshadowing a potential period of government in which they have to kowtow to Unionists, Bloggertarians and Thatcherite fruitcakes to maintain a slender majority if they can win one. Does this ring any bells?

The Tory Id will be exposed over the coming months as an out-of-control force that will elbow a weak leader aside as soon as it gets a toe over the line. This has become apparent the weekend.

I'm not saying that they can't win in May. But it became clear over the last few days that it will be a lot harder than they had hoped.

The Stupid Party - a litmus test

If there is a god, surely s/he will give Dan Hannan a fair wind. They really need to fully understand the many benefits that direct democracy can bring to a political party.

I mean, just ask Tony Benn about how the CLPD made Labour stronger and more electable.

And the Ulster Unionist Party are the force that they are today because of this.

Please please please god, turn the Conservative Party bloggertarian?

(Tony Benn pic from here).

Happy birthday

The Other Tax-Payer's Alliance is one year old today. No expense has been spared in the celebrations (see pic).

There's a handy comparison sheet for you to follow if you want to work out whether the TPA or the OTPA is your preferred source.

If I had more time, I'd love to curate a project whereby every month an award is given to the journalist who uncritically uses one of the TPA's routinely dishonest press releases.

Blogger of the year: New candidate

I must admit, I thought Roger had this title in perpetuity with David Lindsay in close second. But it seems that they both have a worthy rival.

In fairness, Roger and David have both actually been involved in the setup of a political party, and this should give them the edge. Probably only one of these parties is destined for a thousand year hegemony and I'm not certain which one ... yet.

Neil hasn't set up his own party, though this quote....

"... LibDems expelled me, officially on the grounds that I approve of free markets (which in their Orwellian world is now officially "illiberal")"

... suggests that he may be a worthy addition to Roger's lot?

However, Neil's shortcomings on the 'setting up your own political party' front are counterbalanced by the way that he offers us a lengthy post containing all of the rejected letters that he's written to newspapers.

As a single post, it just gives and gives. Roger. David. Time to get your fingers out. Your reign may be close to an end....

(Hat tip: Matt Wardman)

Update: This Blogger software is serving up ads based upon the post that you submit to the site. When I added this post the first time, I was offered a link to this site. I hope that at least one of their founders is a blogger? Please god.....

Four Taxpayers Alliance-related links for anyone who missed them

The comments threads here and here don't really leave the TPA with anywhere to hide. And here's two posts from Labour and Capital about their Tory funders.

Libertarianism explained

By Kevin

(via Will)

Fat thieving bastards

You can learn everything you need to know about the delightful Taxpayers' Alliance from this story.

What a vile shower of shitheads these people are. More detail here.

Crowdsourcing

Seeing as there's no shortage of 'transparency campaigners', here's a suggestion:

I'm completely flat out at the moment, but if you've got time, why not go over to the Taxpayers Alliance hagiography Wikipedia page and add a bit of detail.

Here's what's missing:

• Details of who funds them - and we want details - details details details!
• How much tax those who fund them pay
• When their tax freedom day is
• Details of their dishonest campaigning and the comprehensive rebuttals that they have been given
• Who works for them - everyone - details. Who else they work for, what evidence we have of their other personal agendas, etc
• Which lazy stupid journalists re-print their press releases uncritically- details of their other stupid lazy journalism as corroborating evidence
  

A fair bit of this can be moved over from the Other Taxpayers Alliance website, but if you want to dig, feel free.

If there is any information that is not freely available or in the public domain, ensure that the Wikipedia page lists it all.

Every trade union should commit some of it's research, campaigns and press time to this information gathering. Every local authority and governmental body that has it's message disrupted should ask it's press officers to contribute any information that crosses their desks.

Because we deserve to know. It's our right! Transparency is a wonderful thing!

Next off: Media owners, their commercial interests and how it correlates with the editorial line that their organs adopt.

Ad hominem argument fallacy

I've been teased in another thread for an alleged use of this fallacy.

So it is with some reluctance that I link to this endorsement of the Henry Porter Movement Convention on Modern Liberty.

eDemocracy - like TOTALLY in ACTION!!?!?!

This is what the internet is for! To MAKE MPs disclose how much of, like, OUR MONEY they've, like, TOTALLY WASTED on POTPLANTS!!?!?!?!

I mean ... I couldn't have, like TOTALLY put it better myself!!?!?!?

If they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear!! A bit like 42 days detention, eh? Eh??!?!?!

Who are those masked men?

I've just seen Labourist - a hostile reaction by 'libertarian crusaders' to Labour's attempt to encourage it's elected representatives and spokespeople to step up to the blogosphere in numbers.

I've left this comment on one of their posts, but I don't want to lose track of it, so I'll reproduce it here:

So Labourist is all in favour of free and open debate and transparency and deplores the opacity of Labour List?

OK. I buy that. Now who - exactly - developed this website? The thing is, people do things for a reason. Building a site like this takes a bit of time and energy, and a bit of resource. It’s definitely a clever idea. Just saying you are ‘nobody’ is - patently - a lie.

Who are you- exactly? What have you written elsewhere? What other blogs are you involved in? Do any of you belong to a political party?

This initiative definitely won’t be welcomed by The Labour Party, and as ‘libertarian crusaders’ I suspect that you will not be surprised by this. Libertarian crusaders are rarely impressed by the way that political parties try to ‘control the message.’ So are there any examples of ‘libertarian crusades’ that you are conducting against any of the other political parties? Or or you just tories really? In my experience, most ‘libertarians’ - like Lord Hailsham moaning about an ‘elective dictatorship’ during the Wilson government before joining the most centralising cabinet the UK has ever seen in the 1980s - are just Tories. 

Their ‘libertarianism’ evaporates as soon as the ‘natural party of government’ is restored. So, come on - out with it! Are you Tories really? And are you going to harass the other political parties with the same vigour?

Have you been encouraged to develop this site by anyone? Have you been provided with either financial resources, access to technical advice or facilities by anyone? You say… “we have been described as ‘online libertarian crusaders’.” By whom? When and where? And why? What other examples of libertarian crusading have you been involved in?

More importantly, why don’t you enable comments on your FAQ page? We should be told.

Minarchists

Anthony's found a ranking list of 'economic freedom'. Guess what? There's largely in inverse proportion to the quality of democracy on offer.

I was on the wireless a while ago with our mutual friend Guido Fawkes. I did my usual thing of asking him what he was in favour of (amazing how often people manage to avoid answering that one) and to his credit, he said that the political model that he'd like most like to see applied to the UK was that of Hong Kong (which, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit (PDF) gets a paltry overall score of 5.85 compared to the ZaNuLieBore Police State (!!!?!??!?!) ranking of 8.15.

Minarchists. Anti-politics (they say). Anti-democrat, more like. Remember that next time you read anything from any of them about political corruption in the UK.

The fault of the government.

It would probably be wrong to link to the spEak You're bRanes site every day, though it's a bit tempting.

There was this, just before Christmas though.

Missing action

For some reason I must have accidentally deleted Andreas from my RSS reader. I've fixed it now, and during that time, I missed some very-good posts. Here he is digging into the nauseating Taxpayers Alliance and their ludicrous line on education. And there's plenty more worth a look as well.

The thick end of the wedge

Just popping back to add a quick observation on all of this 'police state' business: The sheer ludicrousness of most claims (and Henry Porter on Damian Green really does just show how wind-up-and-go this rubbish is) masks a more serious charge.

In the absence of much by way of yer actual totalitarianism, it seems to me that most of it is less a complaint about any actually existing illiberality, and more the question of how apparatus is being put in place that could be abused by a future government. None of this stops current ministers being written up as though they were in the KGB.

That a police state is being constructed in the wings, and once it's been completed, it can be wheeled on centre-stage so that someone can crank it up. The upside to all of this is that Henry Porter does, indeed, get arrested and has his fingernails pulled out.

The downside is that Parliament would jump in and reverse unacceptable legislation (as it did, unwisely in my view, on the 'right' to protest outside Parliament).

The thing about these 'thin end of the wedge' arguments is that you'd take them seriously if they weren't written from the thick end of it.

The Terror NuEuLieBoreNazi Police know where you live

I'm bowled over by the bravery of some writers. I mean, Olly shares Henry Porter's grave concerns about the terror police. At times like these, dissident writers must live in fear of the nightly knock at the door. The foot on the stair. Being dragged off to face god knows what grisly fate.

And when you want appeasment and spin, you always turn to ZaNuLab apologist Will Rubbish who offers a pathetic alternative definition of the term 'police state' - here.

I don't know if I've ever linked to this piece by Conor Gearty before, have I? The memory is a bit flaky since I had my head caved in by rozzers during that Poll Tax demonstration back in the day. At least they didn't ask anyone in Trafalgar Square that day about 'grooming'!

Police states ain't wot they used to be, gawd bless 'em.

Bloggertarian game invented

Here.
Meanwhile, further proof that all of this financial difficulty is caused by big government, NuLab and over-regulation. Via DSTPFW.