They're all centrists now: and we are but piggy-banks

Stephen Pollard's article in the Daily Mail is not the first to sound the death knell for the Labour Party—but it is one of the more scary ones for those of us who are libertarians.

One by one, Labour's leadership candidates are rapidly disowning every element of Miliband's manifesto, and pretending that they never really had anything to do with it. 

They realise – and you'd have to be spectacularly blinkered not to see it – that Labour's programme was comprehensively trounced on May 7.

True enough—and good news for those of us who despise socialism as a mechanism of destruction, powered by spite. But are the alternatives better?

It was, after all, the new deputy chairman of the Conservative Party, Robert Halfon, who suggested immediately after the Election that his party's name should be changed to the Workers' Party. The suggestion was entirely serious and shows Labour's fundamental problem. 

With the Queen's Speech promoting a series of measures designed to help people who work hard – such as removing tax for anyone working 30 hours a week on the minimum wage, and doubling childcare – and David Cameron talking all the time about working people and One Nation Conservatism, it's clear the Tories are fully focused on keeping control of that space. 

It's the Tories who speak for Mr and Ms Average Brit, who know what they want and offer it to them.

And what are these centrist parties offering? They are offering to increase the size of the state, to take more money from those people who are not part of their favoured cliques, and to continue the expansion of welfare for "hard-working families".

And what of those of us who are not "families"—merely hardworking? What of those of us who don't believe that the state is the answer to every question?

The answer is clear: we are to knuckle down, to submit, and to fucking well thank the centrist parties for the opportunity to fund their ambitions.

In other words, the Conservative Party has simply reinforced the idea that only those whom they favour—whether that be economically or socially—should be rewarded. Those of us who do not subscribe to their ideology should be ignored and brutalised—our dreams treated as nothing, our work nothing more than an income stream, and our aspirations to be harnessed to the ambitions of their voters.

Fuck me, but the Labour Party were a terrible bunch of bastards—but what are we now left with?

• Conservatives—believe in increasing state power by rewarding "better" behaviour;
• Labour—believe in increasing state power by rewarding "better" behaviour;
• LibDems—believe in increasing state power by rewarding "better" behaviour;
• UKIP—believe in increasing state power by rewarding "better" behaviour;
• Greens—believe in increasing state power by rewarding "better" behaviour.

Not one of these parties believes that people should be able to live their lives as they themselves wish; and not one of them really believes that people should have to stand by their own decisions.

This is why, for instance, small business-people are so turned off by their politics. Those of us who run businesses are responsible for our mistakes—because our mistakes might lead to penury for others.

Politicians have no such qualms—their mistakes punish people they don't know and, fundamentally, don't care about. If they need more money, they need only pass another law.

Truly, we are faced with a stark choice, my libertarian friends. We cannot now pretend that any mainstream party—despite the proliferation in recent years—might represent our views.

We are now nothing more than milch cows for our political and social masters. Despite, in many cases, being the brightest thinkers and the most profitable risk-takers in society, our voice does not matter anymore.

And libertarians? We are piggy-banks to pay for mistakes that are not our own.

The battle-lines are drawn: it is libertarians vs. everyone else. And I fear that we have lost even before we have begun.

From the Archives: the lobbyists fight back (2009)

Although the Filthy Smoker has moved onwards and upwards, he is responsible for some of your humble Devil's favourite posts. This little sample, from a 2009 post in which he discusses the tactics of fake charities, shows why...

The government funds these groups because they help it create a fake compromise while bypassing public opinion. Here's how it works:

1. The government feels like giving you a good kick in the bollocks.
2. You don't want to be kicked in the bollocks. You just want to be left alone.
3. A fake charity turns up wielding some bogus study and demands that you be kicked in the bollocks and pelted with turds.
4. The government conducts a bullshit consultation with some other fake charities and, in the spirit of compromise, concludes that you will be kicked in the bollocks but not pelted with turds.

Result: you get kicked in the bollocks. The government wins.

And if the charity is very good at its job, this will be quickly followed by the fake loophole:

1. The fake charity produces a study showing that being pelted with turds is not as bad as taking one in the Jacob's. They say that the government is being inconsistent by allowing people to kick you in the plums but not pelt you with turds.
2. The government agrees and, having set a precedent, it can't be seen to allow one and not the other.

Result: you get kicked in the bollocks and pelted with turds. Democracy has prevailed.

Although the fake charities site is no longer up (I know—I keep meaning to sort that out) nothing has fundamentally changed in the tactics employed by these organisations.

For more on these insidious lobbyists, why not have a look at Chris Snowdon's excellent (and free) IEA monographs on the subject:

• Sock Puppets: How the government lobbies itself and why;
• Euro Puppets: The European Commission’s remaking of civil society;
• The Sock Doctrine—What can be done about state-funded political activism?

As I always say, the phrase—and highlighting of—"fake charities" has been your humble Devil's sole effective contribution to public discourse—other than making it coarser...

At last, a comprehensive report on Fake Charities...

Some years ago, your humble Devil and his Kitchen colleague, the Filthy Smoker, noticed that more and more charities were being cited by news media—and, most especially, the BBC—in connection with government initiatives.

These charities almost always reinforced these policies: and these policies were almost always ones that aimed to reduce freedom and liberty in this country.

Out of curiosity, we started to investigate these charities in a very simplistic way: when a charity was quoted as being in favour of yet more grossly invasive legislation, we went to the Charity Commission website and looked up the public accounts.

In the majority of cases, we found that these quoted "charities" were, in fact, largely funded by the government whose policies they were enthusiastically endorsing.

I would like to say that what we unearthed shocked us, but that would be a lie. What did surprise us was just how many of these organisations there were.

People tend to think of charities as being... well... voluntary organisations, doing actual, physical good deeds in the community—whether that be running soup kitchens, cancer hospices or homeless shelters.

But most of these organisations were indulging in little more than flat-out lobbying. And they were using our money to do it. In our view, these charities were being deliberately disingenuous.

And we came up with a name for these organisations—"fake charities".

We came up with a definition of what a fake charity was:

We define a Fake Charity as any organisation registered as a UK charity that derives more than 10% of its income—and/or more than £1 million—from the government, while also lobbying the government. That lobbying can take the form of calling for new policies, changes to the law or increases in (their own) funding.

And then we set up the fakecharities.org website, in order to inform people about these organisations, and to enable them to search a database in order to satisfy themselves as to whether the charity that they gave money to was, indeed, a fake.

Some of these organisations spend a large amount of their time lobbying the state to curtail our freedoms and not all charities are upfront about the amount of money they receive from the state.

When an ‘independent’ charity takes a political stand or attempts to sway public opinion on matters of policy, we think you have a right to know whether they are being funded by the generosity of the public or by the largesse of the state. We think you have the right to know whether you’re listening to a genuine grass-roots charity or are being fed PR from an astro-turfed lobby group. This site exists to help you make up your own mind about who these campaigners are really working for.

A great many other people—mostly recruited through The Kitchen—helped to build up the site's database; but it was a colossal task. There seemed to be so many of them and, in order to keep things current, the accounts had to be checked every year.

As such, fakecharities.org website is now somewhat out of date. I hope to switch the site to a wiki-style format over the next couple of months, and I am immensely grateful to those people who have already offered to help.

In the meantime, however, the Institute of Economic Affairs has now published a report on these fake charities. Sockpuppets: how the government lobbies itself and why is a new publication, written by the excellent Chris Snowden.

• In the last 15 years, state funding of charities in Britain has increased significantly. 27,000 charities are now dependent on the government for more than 75 per cent of their income and the ‘voluntary sector’ receives more money from the state than it receives in voluntary donations.
• State funding weakens the independence of charities, making them less inclined to criticise government policy. This can create a ‘sock puppet’ version of civil society giving the illusion of grassroots support for new legislation. These state-funded activists engage in direct lobbying (of politicians) and indirect lobbying (of the public) using taxpayers’ money, thereby blurring the distinction between public and private action.
• State-funded charities and NGOs usually campaign for causes which do not enjoy widespread support amongst the general public (e.g. foreign aid, temperance, identity politics). They typically lobby for bigger government, higher taxes, greater regulation and the creation of new agencies to oversee and enforce new laws. In many cases, they call for increased funding for themselves and their associated departments.
• Urgent action should be taken, including banning government departments from using taxpayer’s money to engage in advertising campaigns, the abolition of unrestricted grants to charities and the creation of a new category of non-profit organisation, for organisations which receive substantial funds from statutory sources.

Commenting on the report, Christopher Snowdon, its author, said:

“It is appalling that for so long the government has got away with debasing the term ‘charity’. Many so-called ‘charities’ are little more than fronts for state-funded campaigns or providers of state-funded services. It is vital that more transparency is introduced so the public know exactly what the government is funding. We also need much greater measures to prevent government squandering our money on trying to manipulate our opinions and behaviour.”

The report [PDF] is very comprehensive, tracking the rise of this practice—stemming, almost inevitably, from a relaxation of the laws about the amount of political campaigning charities can do. I commend it to you all.

Having read the report, it is no wonder that the few volunteers at fakecharities.org were unable to keep on top of the site—27,000 fake charities is an awful lot of organisations to keep track of on a yearly basis.

But it is essential that we continue to try to do so: these organisations are taking large sum of money from the government—money that is taken from us by force. Then these same organisations are then using that money to lobby the state to pass legislation to oppress us.

These fake charities are—in collusion with the state—using our own resources against us: they must be stopped, and the proper meaning of "charity" restored.

This new IEA report is a welcome start in bringing this scandal to a wider audience.

Watching your fall

This is the massively-foreheaded face of our enemy. And—look!—isn't it a stupid face, a weak face, a detestable face? But don't be deceived—this man holds you all in utter contempt. Mark him: he is the enemy of all free-born British people everywhere.

Oh look—here is proof positive that no matter who you vote for, the cunt politicians always get in.

The government will be able to monitor the calls, emails, texts and website visits of everyone in the UK under new legislation set to be announced soon.

Internet firms will be required to give intelligence agency GCHQ access to communications on demand, in real time.

The Home Office says the move is key to tackling crime and terrorism, but civil liberties groups have criticised it.

As The Mail points out, this kind of monitoring was thrown out when Labour proposed it—not least because the Tories and LibDims thought it was absolutely beyond the pale.

In 2006, Labour was forced to abandon similar plans in the face of fierce opposition from Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and privacy groups.

Well, how the tide has turned, eh?

Does anyone remember this interview from 2011—a mere year ago?

Early in our interview, he says disarmingly, "I need to say this – you shouldn't trust any government, actually including this one. You should not trust government – full stop. The natural inclination of government is to hoard power and information; to accrue power to itself in the name of the public good."

He hasn't changed his views since we met five years ago when he was home affairs spokesman for his party and I was beginning to get to grips with the attack on liberty and privacy by the Blair government. We were both astonished then at the range, depth and stealth of the campaign and the surprising truth that few people seemed to notice or care about Blair's authoritarian project, which did so much to reduce the citizen's standing in relation to the state. Clegg is passionate on this: "It was the outright derision towards the criminal justice system… and extreme disdain for due process. For Blair the criminal justice system was an impediment to keeping people safe."

Five years after that meeting it seems extraordinary that he now occupies such a pivotal role in government and is in a position to lead the restoration of civil liberties. Were it not for his performance in the TV debates during the election campaign, which put the Lib Dems in the game, and the need for the coalition partners to find areas in which they could bond, it is certain that this Protection of Freedoms Bill would not exist. Although I have some concerns about what has not been included in the bill, it is true that the conditions that brought it into existence are near miraculous.

Yes, that is Henry Porter's interview with Nick Clegg, from February 2011. It is entitled—ironically, it now seems—Why we should believe Nick Clegg when he promises to restore liberties stolen by Labour.

Predictably, the BBC have interviewed David Davis and he is not in favour—although he does not condemn Cameron and his merry band of twats as "a collective sack of shit".

As a reminder—because memories are short—David Davis resigned his seat in protest against the 42-day detention law. At the time, he gave a speech outside Parliament, announcing his intention and the reasons for his action. Please, go and listen to it: everything that he said then applies now.

Despite David Cameron's pontifications and Nick Clegg's protestations, this government is leading our country down precisely the same dictatorial route that NuLabour did.

In a couple of decades, when people asked what went wrong with Britain, they will identify David Cameron's victory over David Davis as the decisive factor—when the man of spin won over the man of principle.

And, given the Coalition's activities over the last few months—on booze, and smoking, and surveillance—then I issue this edict: if you are a member of Labour, LibDems or Conservative then you are a traitor and an enemy of the British people.

You have marked yourselves as fit for nothing but a public hanging—and one day we, the people, will ensure that is what you will get.

UPDATE: Norman Tebbit asks why the vote for all of the Big Three collapsed in Bradford...

More than ever before the mainstream party leaders need to be asking themselves why their one time voters have joined the ranks of the 'None of The Above' moment...

Well, Norm: I think that this latest news answers your question—does it not? It is because the Big Three are all the same: they are the enemy class, united in a conspiracy against the ordinary people of Britain.

So why on earth would those same people connive at their own destruction by voting for their executioners—do you think we are stupid...?

UPDATE 2: is anyone else surprised that EU Referendum can point to an EU motive behind this travesty?

Now this may be a coincidence, but don't we have a Data Retention Directive, otherwise known as Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006?

Isn't this the directive which requires member states to oblige providers of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks to retain traffic and location data for between six months and two years for the purpose of the investigation, detection and prosecution of serious crime?

And didn't the EU commission last year start a review of the rules, with a view to proposing an improved legal framework? Wasn't that then followed by a proposal for a comprehensive reform of the system?

Then, a few months later, up pops the UK government with some proposals of its own. Are we supposed to believe that this is a complete coincidence? Does anyone believe that, with data retention being an occupied field, the British government is working entirely independently, and has not consulted with the commission on this?

Yup: it seems our Mother of All Parliaments EU regional government is simply obeying the instructions of its puppet-masters. Well, what a surprise.

Can we leave yet?

Cameron reveals his true colours

So, it seems that there will be a debate in the House of Commons on whether we should have a referendum on our membership of the European Union.

So here it is. On Thursday October 27th [Monday 24th October—DK], the House of Commons will vote on the following motion:

"This house calls upon the government to introduce a bill in the next session of parliament to provide for the holding of a national referendum on whether the united kingdom:

1. should remain a member of the European Union on the current terms;


2. leave the european union; or


3. re-negotiate the terms of its membership in order to create a new relationship based on trade and co-operation"

Of course there might be some spolier amendments tabled to try to confuse the issue. Perhaps the whips might try a few tricks. But regardless, we know that there will be a division of the House of Commons on the motion above.

Well, let joy be unconfined! Not.

In some ways, this motion is welcome: for starters, by the time of the proposed referendum Bill (sometime in the next session), the EU should be even more of a basket-case than it is now. And, as regular readers will know, your humble Devil has argued against a referendum until the full damaging horror of our membership this institution has been properly realised by the British people.

However, there are many things about this supposed triumph that very much fail to register on my "whoops—that's fucking amazing"-ometer.

First, the third option simply isn't an option: as EUReferendum puts it...

... we can no more have a relationship with the EU than can Tim Montgomerie have a relationship with his left foot – or vice-versa.

And our EU colleagues are most certainly not going to allow a "renegotiation"—for which read "the UK contributes less cash" (just for starters)—at a point when they need all of the piggy-banks that they can get their hands on.

Second, however, the whole issue has revealed Cameron to be the lying fucking shitbag that your humble Devil has always maintained him to be. That's right: Dave "cast-iron" Cameron has issued a three-line whip to his MPs—to vote against the motion!

Even as MPs agreed to hold a Commons vote on a referendum, government sources made clear that the Tories would be whipped to vote against a poll.

Mr Cameron's decision to impose a three-line whip has angered many MPs, since the vote was called under rules the Coalition promised would give backbenchers more freedom.

The back-bench business committee yesterday voted to hold a debate on the issue on Oct 27 after more than 100,000 people signed a petition demanding a choice.

The Prime Minister, who has expressed his desire to take back some powers from Brussels, is publicly opposed to a referendum and will order his MPs to vote against it.

But why?

The Buttered New Potato has always maintained that he wants to "repatriate powers from the EU": well, what better mandate could he possibly have if he could persuade the majority of people to vote for the (non-existent) third option?

And if everyone voted to maintain our relationship with the EU, then Dave could happily restate his intention to "repatriate powers" but actually do—as has been the case so far—less than fuck all.

For two out of the three possible answers, Dave hits a winner.

So why on earth would he oppose such a referendum—especially when he claims himself to be such a believer in the power of democracy?

Could it be...? No! No, surely not!

Could it really be that Call Me Dave believes that the British people would vote for withdrawal? And could it be that Big Dave believes that, even if they did, that he should ignore the result?

No. It can't be.

It must be because... Um. Well...

But, even if the above motion were passed, the decision would not be binding on the government: they wouldn't even have to hold a referendum—let alone abide by its result. So what is Dave so scared of...?

Can it be that our massively-foreheaded, "cast-iron promise" Prime Minister is, in fact, a ravening EUphile who has been attempting to quell the ever-increasing contempt in which the EU is held by promising a tough stance that he has no intention of delivering?

Yes—I think it can.

The EUsceptic Conservative Party leadership is now exposed for the myth that it always was.

The only question now is... How many of the Conservative Party MPs actually have the belief and balls to defy the whips and vote in the right way—on the side of decency, of sovereignty and of democracy—and how many will betray this country in favour of their own, selfish careers? Cameron has revealed his true colours—how many of our MPs will now have the courage to back theirs?*

This will be a referendum on more than our membership of the EU: the vote on the motion itself will decide the intrinsic value—or, as I suspect, lack of it—of our entire system of "representative" democracy...

* Yes, Douglas, Steve and John—I am looking at you in particular...

UPDATE: Hmmm. Thanks to Katabasis in the comments, it seems that our Lords and Masters might be rather more scared than we thought...

The road to hell

[NB: I am not the Devil]

Yes, I know I'm on a break. No, I honestly do mean it: I'm just putting my head round the door. But really, shit like this just fucking boils my piss:

A driver prosecuted for flashing his headlights to warn motorists of a mobile police speed gun has defended his actions as his "civic duty".

Michael Thompson, 64, was pulled over by officers in Grimsby in July after warning several oncoming cars. He was fined £175 and ordered to pay £250 costs after being found guilty of wilfully obstructing a police officer in the course of her duties.

It's worth teasing out the implications of this case, which for the sake of clarity I shall henceforth refer to as Cunts et al. v Thompson. Because it now seems as though warning someone not to break the law is itself against the law. Worse, it would appear that what the authorities want us to do in these cases is quietly to connive in the lawbreaking behaviour we see going on in front of us - even though that behaviour is supposedly endangering the lives of other road users. We are through the looking glass, people.

When I see someone committing, or intending to commit, a crime, then following the precedent laid down by Cunts et al. v Thompson I'm clearly supposed to look the other way because it's none of my business. But that is absurd. If I see an anti-war protester sneaking up behind Tony Blair to kick him in the nuts, am I supposed to say nothing and just let the assault take place?

OK, bad example. But Mr Thompson was warning motorists to obey the speed limit. The reason he chose to do this is entirely fucking irrelevant. There are many reasons we choose to obey laws; because of our moral beliefs, out of habit, or because we fear the consequences of being caught. Mere observance of the rules is enough; it doesn't fucking matter why and it's none of your business why, you jobsworth shitballs.

The finding of guilt in Cunts et al. v Thompson says it all, really: "wilfully obstructing a police officer in the course of her duties". Get this, you spunk-gargling fucktrumpets; your "duty" is to stop people from driving too fast on the motorway. Your "duty" is not to entrap people to juke up your arrest stats because you're a miserable lowlife excuse for a human being whose most meaningful moments in life have exclusively centred around sitting on the sofa with a bottle of Lambrusco whacking off to The Bill.

Michael Thompson was doing your fucking job for you, Plod. "Civic duty"? Damn right.

There is something fundamentally wrong with the legal system

Gail Cochrane: five years in the slammer for harming not one single person. What a triumph for the Scottish justice system.

I am a little late to this one—and the Libertarian Party and Dick Puddlecote have both posted good examinations of this case—but I felt that it was worth commenting on because it strikes at the very heart of what the criminal justice system is for.

A grandmother has been jailed for five years for possessing a "family heirloom" World War II pistol.

Gail Cochrane, 53, had kept the gun for 29 years following the death of her father, who had been in the Royal Navy.

Police found the weapon, a Browning self-loading pistol, during a search of her home in Dundee while looking for her son.

She admitted illegal possession of the firearm, an offence with a minimum five-year jail term under Scots law.

Cochrane told the High Court in Edinburgh that she had never contemplated she might be committing a crime by keeping the gun or that she might need to get a licence for the weapon.

She said: "I thought it was just a war trophy."

Taking this case as reported, this is a disgusting travesty of justice. No, not of the law—I am sure that the law was observed—but of justice.

For starters, the idea that there should be a minimum sentence for any crime is, I think, deeply suspect.

That there should be a minimum sentence for the committing of a crime in which no person or property was harmed is absolutely fucking wrong.

This case highlights quite how perverted the criminal justice system has become and, yes, much of it is down to NuLabour—but let's not pretend that Our New Coalition Overlords™ are going to do stuff all about it either.

Let us go back to my first principle and my single law: as far as I am concerned, there should only be one single law—you shall not initiate force or fraud against life, liberty or property.

The criminal justice system should only be concerned if someone is accused of doing so, and the accused should have their day in a jury court, which will decide whether or not said person did initiate force against someone's life, liberty or property.

Now, did Gail Cochrane initiate force or fraud against life, liberty or property? No.

Did Gail Cochrane even threaten to initiate force against life, liberty or property? No.

Should this be any business of a criminal court? No.

Should she have been sentenced to prison simply for possessing a fire-arm? No.

In England, of course, any crime carrying a prison sentence of more than (I think) six months would be held in the High Court, with a jury trial. I am certain that had she pleaded innocent in front of a jury, they would have refused to convict.

Some people have said that she shouldn't have pleaded guilty to the crime but Dick Puddlecote explains why she did.

Just to clear something up for the cynical. The reason that Cochrane would have pleaded guilty is that there is, officially, no defence as the law currently stands. Possession is possession and that's that.

Now, we have seen this before with a guy called Paul Clarke. However, the differences in Clarke's case are twofold. Firstly, he managed to escape the mandatory 5 year prison sentence, and secondly, he was only arrested In the first place because he attempted to hand the weapon in.

Yet Gail Cochrane is now behind bars for not only not knowing that she had committed an offence, but also for not trotting down the police station with her family keepsake, which could have resulted in the same zero-tolerance 'possession' charge anyway if Clarke's experience is to be taken as a guide. What's more, her ignorance of the need to declare her serviceman father's weapon was used against her.

Indeed it was.

Defence solicitor advocate Jack Brown argued that the circumstances surrounding the case were exceptional and that it would be "draconian, unjust and disproportionate" to jail the grandmother-of-six.

However, Judge Lady Smith said: "I am not satisfied that a reasonable explanation has been put forward for not handing this gun into the authorities throughout the 29-year period she says she has had it in her possession."

The judge said she was unable to find herself satisfied that this was one of the rare cases in which exceptional circumstances existed.

She said: "The result is I have no alternative but to sentence Mrs Cochrane to a period of five years."

If this is true, then our criminal justice system is utterly broken: jailing Mrs Cochrane simply serves no public good at all. It is, in fact, "draconian, unjust and disproportionate" and one of the fundamentals of any justice system is that the punishment must be proportionate to the crime committed.

But, actually, Judge Lady Smith could have used her judgement—that is, after all, what judges are supposed to be for—and ruled that this was, in fact, "one of the rare cases in which exceptional circumstances existed": she simply chose not to.

Either there is something that we are not being told, or Judge Lady Smith is a disgusting travesty of a human being and should be stripped of her position as a judge—since her judgement is so utterly impaired—and then beaten through the streets of Edinburgh, continuously, for five years.

I forget which total bastard of a Home Secretary introduced this law—probably that blind arsehole Blunkett—but he should then be dragged in front of a baying crowd who would be invited to stone him. And then he should be joined by Theresa May—the current Home Secretary.

The criminal law in this country has become so twisted and perverted that the whole lot needs to be swept away: rip it all down and start again. Repeal every single criminal law ever introduced and simplify the lot into a single law...

You shall not initiate force or fraud against life, liberty or property.

No one then could claim ignorance of the law, for there would only be one; no one could claim that they were unable to understand the law's meaning; it would capture those who are a danger to society, whilst ensuring that grandmothers who have harmed no one were not jailed for a crime with no defence.

But the simple truth is that the government wants you to be afraid; the government wants you to break laws. The reason is as articulated by the character of Dr Floyd Ferris in Ayn Rand's dystopian nightmare, Atlas Shrugged.

"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against—then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be enforced nor objectively interpreted—and you create a nation of law-breakers—and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.

Please discuss this quote, with special reference to NuLabour's creation of an unprecendented number of new laws and criminal offences, and especially focusing on the particularly badly-drafted laws that make it almost impossible for said legislation to be codified—or "objectively interpreted", if you will.

Our New Coalition Overlords™—with their supposed enthusiasm for civil liberties—are proposing to do something about all of this, with their Great Repeal Bill. Maybe they will, and maybe they won't.

But even if they do, whilst they take their time deciding what, exactly, they are going to scrap (and, remember, they've already had thirteen years to think about it), real people's lives are being destroyed.

How many more, I wonder...?