THE LAST DITCH An Englishman returned after twenty years abroad blogs about liberty in Britain
Housekeeping request

The future

Quite a few readers have kindly told me how much they missed my trip updates since I returned from the USA. Some of them however only started to read this blog to follow my American journey and would be surprised and perhaps even shocked if I returned to my old subjects.

I rather embarrassed myself at dinner at a friend's house last week. Another guest was a retired senior civil servant and now a substantial London rentier on his savings from the money extorted for him over decades from taxpayers. Predictably, I laid into him about how out-of-control the British State has become.There was some satisfaction, when citing the scandal of the wasted billions at the Ministry of Defence, to find that he had been in a responsible position there - perhaps even (though he was reticent on that point) at the time. However, it's always bad manners to talk about religion, sex or politics at a British dinner party and I spoiled the evening for my hosts. I wrote a sincere apology to my hostess and have felt much chastened since. I like to think I am a pleasant enough chap, but it seems I have become unfit for polite society.

Some of the ex-mandarin's arguments were routinely ridiculous. The "social contract" and "consent to taxation" are the crumbliest of political figleaves. It's a simple lie to describe as "a contract" something even one party never chose to be bound by. His suggestion that I consented by not fleeing these islands did not help. That's just smug leftist code for '**** off if you don't like it' and that's all I hear when they say it. To say my living in Britain is itself 'consent' is like saying the stag I saw being devoured by a flock of vultures in Louisiana consented by not running away from the truck that had hit him.

He had no answer to my simple thought experiment of asking, if legal obligations to pay tax were suspended for a year, whether takings would go up or down. Statists never want to answer that question because it exposes the myth of "consent". The only material group of people who consent to taxation are those - like him - whose loot from others' contributions exceeds any they make themselves. The vultures, in short. No matter how many more vultures there may be than stags, it's never going to make it right.

He was right though when he said that there is no appetite among the majority of my fellow-citizens for scaling down the state. When I blogged from Russia and China I felt sorry for the British people as I thought they were being exploited by cynical politicians. Since I have returned to live amongst them, I rather feel sorry for the politicians. Their voters don't want to hear truths, even arithmetical ones, and their careers therefore depend on palatable lies.

I was also affected by the arguments of another new acquaintance I made last week; a businessman friend of a friend. He told me he aspired to make a billion because that would allow him to make a political difference. Money changes its nature when it is owned in such quantities - as the power of a state with a budget of many billions darkly demonstrates. It ceases to represent pints of beer yet to be bought and becomes raw power. As I was not successful enough to accumulate transformative amounts, why should I mess about fruitlessly arguing for change? Better perhaps to cash in my beer tokens happily in the company of friends, while hoping my ambitious new acquaintance needs a speech writer when he achieves his goals.

As you may have detected, I was a happier man on my US Tour. I was fully enjoying my life for the first time since Mrs P. died. Not because justice and reason had returned to Britain, but because I was thinking about something else. I accept a duty to oppose error for the good of my fellow-man, I really do. But only if my opposition has some hope of making a difference. There is no point in complaining powerlessly as smug, arrogant bastards like my dinner party companion - cheered on by would-be parasites like our resident statist Mark - continue to rape us economically, destroy our liberties "for our own good" and laugh at those of us who see through their claims of benevolence.

There is certainly some demand for a libertarian political rant as witness the 20 places The Last Ditch slipped in the blog rankings while I was happily chirruping about the fun I was having in the States. But there's nothing in it for those of us meeting that demand. The social-democratic state will collapse eventually under the weight of its debts. Those debts must mount if you punish those who create wealth and reward parasitism - as Britain has done since 1946. I would love to spare my fellow-citizens the horrors that will attend that collapse, but nothing I can say or do will achieve that. So why not, as the USAF Chaplain I was talking to in New Jersey recently has done, invest on the worst assumptions and just enjoy life while awaiting the inevitable?

I don't want to stop writing, however. I enjoy the process and the mental stimulation it brings. I also enjoy the social aspects of blogging and have missed my readers' contributions as they fell silent during my trip. So perhaps I should just blog about other things?

I have started to write a book about my tour; a frothy travelogue with a magical realist twist. It will have some political commentary because that's in my nature, but I will keep it as light as my skills permit. I also have seriously in mind to make other such trips in future, especially if I can secure some sponsorship to cover the considerable costs.

I could blog about writing, about photography, about my trips or about travel in general. I could blog about things I love, in short. That was really what I intended when I started The Last Ditch, but the things I loved were liberty, the rule of law and the economic democracy of the free market. Most of what I have actually written has been about things I hate; the vile forces destroying those treasures.

Life is short and I don't have the genes reasonably to expect many more active years of it. I have spent most of mine so far serving the interests of others - either for love or for money. Maybe it's time to serve my own?


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


If you do a road trip of any scale, you will be very welcome to use this blog for your travelogue.


I couldn't believe my eyes when I read the fool in charge of this big chain of supermarkets in the UK, Morrisons? was begging the government to invent a whole new tax to charge internet companies, to balance business rates and rent he had to pay. "Level the playing field"


I thought, well shouldn't he be demanding they slash business rates or something?

With "friends" like him _none of us_ need enemies.

If I were you I'd move back to the States. I guess the sheeple to human ratio in the electorate and I guess business "community" also is not quite so bad there.

PS. If I sponsor anyone it will be me! By saving up for another road trip of my own. Nice try tho ^_^


Thanks for the words of encouragement. I am unlikely to give up entirely but it's time to take stock of what I am doing and why. I have a new life. I didn't choose it but there's no reason why - now that I have it - it shouldn't be as good and interesting as the old one.

I am having a go at writing my travel book. If I have the skills for that (and I really don't know) this could become the blog of the book. If anyone is interested in sponsoring future expeditions (I don't think that's too big a word for what I did in the States) then maybe there's an entertaining future for me in that; blogging the trips as I do them and then following up with a book. Travel photography might be my thing too. I love the whole process (and post-process) of photography but don't have the personality for street photography. The American trip taught me that. Travel shots to illustrate a book, however, might be do-able.

Really at my time of life I am trying to stitch together a set of projects that involve all the things I enjoy; meeting new people, travelling - especially driving - writing, photography and so on. I know a bit about food and wine, which could add a dimension to my writing too. I am not sure if I am good enough at any of these things to make it work, but I can have a lot of fun trying and failing so have nothing to lose. 

I liked the person I was on my American trip rather more than the political grouch I was becoming in England. I am essentially a positive, can-do sort of person and don't have the psychological strength (or brick-headed ignorance) necessary for permanent victimhood. I need to find some way to be American Tom all the time, rather than just running off to be him as an escape. I would sacrifice my health and happiness to save my nation, but my nation doesn't seem to want to be saved. I have only one friend in real life who feels as most of us in the libertarian blogosphere do. The internet has brought us together and saved us from thinking ourselves mad for still believing in the classical liberal ideas that made Western Civilisation great, but we are widely-scattered and not enough of a force even to tickle the scaly skin of the beast now devouring it.

I just took a call from someone looking for a sage old grey-haired lawyer to run a billionaire's private family office. In all modesty, I am exactly who they are looking for. I could hardly believe hearing myself say that I wasn't interested - even for the ridiculous money on offer. I told the headhunter I wanted to stay free to do future things like my American trip. I will try to introduce a friend to the role and maybe he will give me a few hours consultancy here and there by way of saying thanks. That would suit me just fine at this stage. I have had an interesting professional life but having been stopped in my tracks by the loss of my wife, I find to my surprise that I have no desire to get back on the treadmill on which I was such a proud and happy hamster for so long. 

With tax as it is in Britain (and getting worse, not better) there is really no incentive to earn more money than I need anyway. If I could make my children rich too, I would go for it and die happily in harness. As the only people my working would make rich are state parasites, however, there really seems to be no point in it. To leave them 15p, I would have to earn £1, if you take account of income tax and Inheritance Tax. Sod that for a game of conkers, frankly. 

The only political point I would still like to get over is really that there are a few thousand, maybe a few tens of thousands, of people just like me who have been taken out of production by state gangsterism. We are the people who make it all work, much maligned though we are by the masses - or at least their self-appointed spokesmen. I listened with despair to Vince Cable on the radio today trying to claim that his department's promotional efforts around the Olympics had driven billions to GDP. I couldn't even hate the old fool for it. He just sounded ridiculous and pathetic. He and his civil servants are - in truth - pure cost and produce no economic benefits at all. Businesspeople will allow themselves to be sucked up to and keep an eye open for opportunities to liberate money from a spendthrift, dozy state, of course - but the idea that some shopping centre in Croydon was opened because billions were spent on an overblown school sports event in Stratford last year is just too stupid for satire. Only someone who has never put a business plan together could even imagine it, but sadly that's most people in this socialist country. 

If England awakes, I am up for a rumble. But I am tired of being England's alarm clock when she just keeps hitting the snooze button. I am off to enjoy the metaphorical sunshine while she frowsts her way to an unnecessary grave.


You talked about writing. Don't give up your blog please. It makes a person think if they are open minded. Along with one or two others it has genuinely changed my mind or maybe got me to think something through more than once.

So there you are, changing the world one small piece at a time.

Why not write fiction, but geting in libertarian ideas?

Maybe a thriller about a tiny country that breaks away from a bigger one, or one that kicks out a bad government.. Maybe even the UK ^_^.

Have them introduce libertarian ideas and they work better than anything else. Like a lab to show them off to a new audience.

Scotland is having that referendum (how come it is so limited who votes) but I figure the Scots are probably too politically left wing authoritarian (Labour/Nationalist) to go libertarian. Maybe you could see how they might?

Or maybe some steampunky thing? There are all those steampunk worlds in sl and isn't that sort of libertarian? Can't just be driven by the fashions ^_^


^_^ now I just have this picture of you, in your football outfit, at the party ^_^. I shan't be tempted well I was sure tempted but I gently refrained (great word) from giving way to the inuendo on offer.

Meanwhile feel free to continue to beat yourself up on it. I didn't give you a get out of jail free... just allowed you some mitigation.

I liked your "freedom from the power of others comment". That is a difference in how people see the world I think,


"with no laws we all have perfect freedom..."
By this measure, *with laws*, banning speech we still have freedom of speech. I am still able to make a choice, I am still able to say something illegal - I will simply have to accept a punishment.
By the same token, if there are no laws restricting the actions of others, I am free to do whatever I wish, I will simply have to accept whatever punishment they individually choose to deal out to me.

I suppose they might kill me... what would happen then?

It is good to reduce the number of superfluous laws - O don't think a law protcting freedom of speech is ncessarily superfluous though.


If he were a former genocidal warlord I guess I would question my hostess's judgement in having him as a friend but it would still not be the right venue to tackle him. I am not at all sorry about having been direct with the ex mandarin. I am sorry about having spoiled my hostess's party. That was clearly wrong. She didn't intend it to be a venue for political debate any more than she intended a football match, so I was as wrong as if I had showed up in Fulham strip and played keepie-uppie amongst her dinnerware.


I think that's a good example of what divides us. I don't aspire to be free from the opinions of you and others like you. I do aspire to be free of the consequences of your errors, but I can only achieve that, since I eschew political violence, by trying to reason with you and those who might believe you. That's what I have been trying to do here for eight years. The idea that power can give me freedom just doesn't make sense to me. Above all I want freedom from the power of others, especially those who believe (ridiculously) that they know better than others how those others should live their own lives.


PS. Maybe the "establishment of religion" part wouldn't work so good for the UK constitutionally?, maybe just have "the prohibiting the free excercise of religion"?


Mark, Surely not so much a law, as that is the state granting what it's absence would include anyhow and would be subject to change. Like taking something away assuming ownership and rights over it and then grudgingly giving it back in some part to the owner like it was some sort of gift. A bit like tax money I guess ^_^

Maybe having free speach enshrined in a constitution? Something that morally sits above the state and the law and guides both.

I could go with something like this...

"No ruler, parliament, Council or governing body, shall make any law, or treaty, or delegate or surrender any rights; respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"


Welcome back btw.

You called him on it. Why should he get a free pass?

If it were a bit more obvious, say if he were a former genocidal warlord at a dinner party would you feel obliged to be, or comfortable being, nicey-nicey? Or would you have some private critical thoughts about who invited him?

Because the Hostess has a duty to exclude the unacceptable from polite company. Maybe she wasn't up to judging? or just doesn't think about stuff like that, or maybe she thought it out and was looking for "interesting conversation".

Whatever, I think you may less need to feel in the wrong than you allow.


To resort to namecalling is the act of a child. I may well be stupid and an idiot, but I doubt you know me well enough to make that judgement.

Mark, I did read your comment, and I am quite certain I understood it. Again, to use your words 'a law restricting people from interfering with freedom of speech' is nuts.

Can you not see that without any laws at all, we have perfect freedom of speech? To start to use laws to in effect grant to a citizen that which he already holds is superfluous? Secondly, the method of granting the law, and enforcing it, is inherently flawed based on the system of government, and enforcement of the law - my inelegant reference to politics and jurisprudence.

Far, far better to reduce the number of superfluous laws. It seems to me those who advocate expanding the number of laws, and seeing only a legal solution to a perceived problem, do indeed equate power with freedom, but only in the context of the power of deciding who has rights, and when.


On a less pessimistic note to the general tenor of the above, it seems to me that the Select Committee system in Parliament is working better than anticipated (or intended?)

In particular the Committees on Banking and Public Accounts seem to be holding the wealthy and powerful to some account. In fact, doing what elected representatives should.

Our "democracy" may be improving, slowly.


You are an insult to your own name.

You are telling me that everything I have written is false.

So most of the productive capacity in our society is not due to cultural or mechanical inheritence...? Each person fucking develops the ability to produce things individually? A person working without machines is as productive as someone working without?

Good grief... I may well resort to vulgar words... but when confronted with this level of vulgarity of thought I believe it is justified...

Actually all experiments withh a basic income have shown no reduction in production... check it the fuck out.
I dare you.
Search basic income examples.


Everything you have written is categorically false.

The vast majority of productive capacity is and always will be the mundane goods and services created by workers who get out of bed each day for the opportunities, comforts and freedoms their wages afford them.

"Is their any reason to believe that providing a minimum will prevent people from being creative."
Yes, all of human history.


I just realised how stupid you are.
I'll explain.
Your first paragraph seemed to suggest that it was crazy for me to suggest a law restricting freedom of speech as an example of protecting freedoms.
However, if you read (with comprehesion) what I wrote, i was talking about a law restricting people from interfering with freedomof speech. I wrote " stopping me and my statist friends" as a kind of joke.. i thalt people here always acuse me of being a "statist" seeking to restrict freedoms even though i don't recognise myself as such.
So the part of the first paragraph (your "main point"? ) which was based entirely on your own idiotic misunderstanding was ignored. I thought t would be more polite to allow you to realise your own mistake.
Your other point about freedoms being inherent was addressed.

Please try harder.


What the fuck are you talking about "navigator"?

Sorry, I really don't have a clue and I don't want it to end at this.

Tell me why I'm being stupid here, damn it.


Oh well. I tried. You politely ignore my main point, and try and deal with the rest of my comment, which, no doubt inelegantly, expanded on the main point! One cannot have a dialogue with the deaf.


I think that what is nuts is that you can read what I have written and then respond with that (your first main paragraph)
Quite frankly, it is illustrative of the paranoid mentality I am dealing with here.

Anyway, I'm going to politely ignore that one and deal with the rest.

So, laws ensuring freedom of speech are a restriction of freedom? Fair enough... I'm not sure that this concept of "freedom" is useful in allowing us to determine the best way to live though. At best you are saying that one mans freedom is anothers obligation, at worst, nothing at all.

What I mean by freedom is power is that both words mean the ability to do things (normally in a social setting).


Perhaps I am confused.

You assert, responding to my comment that any rules limit freedom - 'no, freedom is power' and then you go on to use an illustration suggesting that make a rule (you mean law) preventing someone from freedom of expression grants more freedom. That is, frankly, nuts. On your example, I have perfect freedom to post whatever I like, before the new rule you hypothesise; the rule you propose therefore would not grant any freedom, but merely (and I would suggest imperfectly and improperly) at best codify that freedom.

If I understand you, I think you are wrong on two counts. Individually we all have perfect freedom, limited only by our conscience and by law. Most now ignore the first, or at worst suggest that the law provides the moral limits to our conscience. Every single law is a restriction of freedom, even where it purports to 'secure' a freedom.

Secondly, one needs to look at the system creating the law - political and jurisprudential. What validity does the system have - in a democracy, in theory, we all exchange our submission to the law to the right to vote and participate in the legal system and the shaping of the law. Jurisprudentially one considers the validity of the law - is it universal, how is it applied and enforced etc. Both of those systems are checks and balances to limit the abuse of the law, which restricts freedom.

Freedom is power if you are talking about the creation of laws, but even the ability to create a law only derives from the granting of those rights by the subject (citizens) of the law.


Freedom is power.

If you make a rule that me and my statist friends are not allowed to stop you from posting subversive material on the nets you have more freedom.


I believe I have... but anyway....
I shall do it again...

The vast majority of productive capacity is not due to labour *in itself* but a cultural and mechanical inheritance. As such, those who gain control of capital have a capacity to produce far beyond thei native talents.

As for growth, the future productive work which we need, isn't drudge work which can be done by semi-willing drones. It is creative work done by people with an interest or service jobs done by people who like their customers.

Is their any reason to believe that providing a minimum will prevent people from being creative?
Or stop people from liking people?
Quite the opposite.



Any rule, of itself, limits freedom.

The idea that they are the only basis of freedom is fundamentally flawed, whatever one's political ideology.


Well, I can't see that there is anything I have to say worthy of publication, but if it keeps you in the game I would do my best!

To pull you up on one point: it is not that the law needs to comply with the 'common moral viewpoint', but rather that it must comply with with the Truth, and the natural law. Otherwise it is not a just law, and therefore I cannot support it or support the system behind it, although of course I must comply with it. You are quite right that is no longer 'common'.

To round that out, my concern with Libertarianism generally is the absence of the recognition of the natural law and the Truth as being a valid limit on all our behaviour, whether by choice (through our conscience) or through civil law (through our obligation to comply with civil law - render unto Ceasar). Naturally i prefer a society where the former prevails, reducing to the absolute limit our laws.


...and you in turn have never once addressed the need to create wealth before you can selflessly steal it and give it to the unproductive.



The only argument you have ever provided is "*****ing bandits".

Why haven't you responded to my point about inflation?


Ok... I'm a statist in comparison to you... but actually my primary political interest is opposing those with an excess of power. So to say that I am a cheerleader for corrupt mandarins is *very* far from the mark (gettit?).

I think the state has a role in providing a basic minimum for people so that they are in a position to make their own choices - there must be rules to enable any freedom.


I love reading and commenting on blogs, which is why I do it.

If you only write political blogs as a means to an end, I think you should only spend an amount of time appropriate to the probability of success doing it.

If you write political blogs because you feel it i th write thing to do and you love it, you should do it more.


Oh fiddlesticks!

They aren't arguments, they are sentiments.

Even if Tom actually wants to have a discussion, it certainly doesn't come across like that - I've made several, I feel, interesting points with regards to property ownership, the morality of redistribuion etc. and all of them have been met by the standard "bandits" response.

Freedom is power, and if libertarians aren't prepared to address that then they are nothing more than children repeating an appealing sounding word again - and again - and again....


I have never understood what to discuss at a dinner party if not politics, sex or religion!

What else can stimulate any sort of interesting discussion?

Probably why the invitations are scarce!


No tragedy yet. I am thinking out loud and hoping for guidance from my esteemed readers. I have offered guest spots before, but had no takers. Some of the commenters here - Cascadian, Diogenes and yourself are three examples - seem perfectly capable, judging by the elegance of their comments, of crafting a monthly or weekly post that would vary the tone and advance the discussion.

You and I have discussions over beers in Chiswickian meatspace that might interest readers here. You are as close to a libertarian as Catholicism would seem to permit. Your religion leads you to want the law to reflect a common moral viewpoint broader than libertarianism's simple creed of "no force or fraud". I don't think that moral viewpoint is any more "common" now (sadly) than ours, which is where I think your arguments fall down. There are many Leftist Catholics whose authoritarianism does not assist the cause of freedom and a populace that has had the religion thoroughly propagandised out of them would be frighted to put power into the hands of leaders influenced by clerics. You only have to watch Mock the Week, HIGNFY or Live at the Apollo (all of which I enjoy, while wincing at the ideological underpinnings) to see "right on" comedians making all religion, but especially Christianity, out to be a kind of intellectual AIDS.

I don't want to rival the Huffington Post, but I would be very happy if I had a group of co-authors who would share the heavy lifting while I either eased off or blogged about other things instead. I suspect I would contribute even more, because other views appearing here would stimulate me! The alternative is, I suppose, to keep my own blog for lighter stuff and to become a contributor to a suitable group blog.


The guilt trip, coupled with praise! The former always worked when I was being brought up and the latter is a lethal addition. I am imagining the nationwide metaphorical bludgeoning of statists with weapons forged here and absolutely loving the idea - utterly opposed to actual violence though I am.

I hope you are right about young people. I have seen some signs of it, but most - inevitably - sup at the same poisoned bowls of Marxist education and left-liberal mass media that we do. What Britain needs is a libertarian who looks and sounds like a mainstream thinker not a contrarian, which is how I fear I come over. The best thing I can say about my blogging career is that I have been able, through crafting my posts more carefully than my conversation, to seem less contrarian than I do in the flesh. That's why I think my best possible contribution to political debate in Britain would be as a speechwriter to a classical liberal politician. If only we had one!

Thank you for the kind words. I do have to defend Mark, our resident statist, though. He's not a troll. His contributions are welcome at my metaphorical dinner table and he's not just (though he lapses into vulgarity sometimes) throwing out abuse. He almost always tries to explain and justify his opinions and I sometimes think he has stimulated more interesting discussions here than I have. Unlike my harmony-seeking dinner hosts, I welcome the strop he provides on which we can all sharpen the swords of our arguments. I wish we had more statist contributors so we could vary the tunes here even more.

My saddest reflection on eight years of blogging is not my own ineffectiveness, but the failure to develop any genuine debate anywhere. I tried in my first year to shatter these blogging "goldfish bowls" as I called them and get people in the political blogosphere to participate in the discussions at each others' sites. I was simply driven off leftist sites with abuse. Only one attempted to adopt the stance I have taken to Mark and his readers wouldn't play ball with him.

"****ing Tory" was considered by most of them as a fully-reasoned response to any anti-Left argument. I hope we are better than that. We need to be because theirs is the established "normal" view now. They would delight in no debate, but whether we enjoy it or not, we need it to change hearts and minds.


Thanks. I will follow your blog once my RSS reader (I used one based on Google Reader that was supposed to survive its termination but didn't quite make it on time) is working again. I have taken this delay as a sign and have deliberately not sought out a functioning replacement so I am not reading *any* blogs at present. I am rediscovering classic literature instead.


The dining rooms of Chiswick and the rest of the metropolitan elite need more uncomfortable silences - it shouldn't just be us Catholics who make them squirm!

And I second Diogenes' words - a tragedy indeed.


I don't believe blog rankings are indicative of much at all.

It is easier (for me) to comment when the subject matter is considered controversial (to some), whilst your travelogue was mostly educational to us all and I observed mainly without comment. From my own perspective I consciously minimized commenting because I did not wish to monopolize your time when you obviously had more important things to do. Maybe that thought process was wrong, but I do not think you should interpret that as indifference.

As to the question to the form of your future efforts, I think that both themes could be accommodated, giving you a respite from unrelenting issues "you hate".

In the end, you must do as the the good chaplain has done and please yourself first and always.


Tom, you must do what makes you most happy.

But the dining rooms of Chiswick are no place to feel despair, they are not representative.

The libertarian seed will fall on stoney ground if that ground has increased in value by £800,000 under the last government. Their gardens are rosey and they generally got that way by playing by the rules not questioning them.

This blog may sometimes appear an echo chamber with a pet troll but your arguments have been used to bludgeon statists on the web, in schools, student unions, pubs, clubs, kitchens and dining rooms up and down the country.

I honestly think the wit and wisdom of the UK libertarian blogosphere and its troops below the line have had a massive impact on the attitudes of young people in this country. Certainly the ones I meet regard big state socialism with contempt, they speak to me of personal responsibility. They didn't learn that from the BBC. No one now trusts politicians to control their lives the way they did at the turn of the century.

It saddens me that the web's libertarian wit and wisdom is greatly depleted. It would be a tragedy to lose this centre of excellence too.


I applaud your optimism!


I would like to do Australia next, but first I want to have a serious crack at the book of the US tour. As there's no dramatic tension, it will have to be funny. I am not sure I have the skills but it would be good to find the limits of my abilities in a new direction. If you are not failing, you are not pushing far enough, as I used to advise my colleagues! Time to take my own advice.


The readership stayed steady but the rankings depend on interaction. My readers are political, I guess, so the change of tone silenced them. Thanks for the encouragement.


Is it possible to arrange a Blog Post Comment Standing Order ?

After everything you write it would automatically enter a comment saying --- " Bloody marvellous blog post---well said---that you care so much and can put in words exactly what I think but could never find the words to say so well as you---this lifts my spirits. Thank you"

I so enjoyed the posts from America. Is the idea of trips to other places a goer ? Germany or France or Spain could be good. I can recommend New Zealand. Syria maybe later. Much later.

Nick Timms

I agree with Fred. I have enjoyed your political rants and I also looked forward each day to your travel update. More of both please.

It may be that the majority of the population are completely disengaged from the political process but so what? The difference will be made by just enough people who are committed to libertarian philosophy and Austrian economics. How many really committed socialist activists are there? The herd will go with the zeitgeist. Change the zeitgeist a little at a time.

I am coming to believe that the small cabal that are at the centre of the Fed and BoE are perfectly aware that the debts cannot be paid back. Hence the hidden inflation through QE. They cannot afford to allow the interest rate to rise more than a point or two, certainly not to its free market level, as half the country would go bust. The majority of the public do not see that they are working harder and harder to have less and less buying power as it is incremented in such small and regular doses. I doubt the cabal's policy of trying to inflate the debt away will have any effect other than to delay the inevitable fall off the cliff. Of course people like your dinner acquaintance will try to push all the wealth creators off the cliff first, parasitical scum that they are.


I recently closed down my blog because of corporate leaning on me.
However, for me my blog was my little way of pin-pricking our political and coprorate elites, a reminder someone was watching them. Keeping tabs on them, being available should someone wish to learn the unvarnished truth and keeping a record for my family.
So I'm back.
Taking it a bit more easily for the old BP but I'll wield the old pin as and when I feel they need a pricking.
By the way, I loved your American saga and enjoy your own time now.

Fred Thrung

I'm surprised to read that your readership went down during your USA trip. I enjoyed the installments (bl**dy US spell checker) greatly.
Please keep up the gripes here in the UK


Maybe it's time to serve my own?

Absolutely. You've earned it, as we all have after a certain time in our lives.

The comments to this entry are closed.