I wanted to comment on “Crush Crime” and sentencing. Posting anonymously as I sit as a part time judge myself.
First, some of us - but I don’t think that many - get it. When I am confronted by career criminals I always give them as long as I can without being appealable. My view is that they have had their chance, come their 20th conviction or whatever, and the best thing for me to do for their community is to subtract them from it for as long as I can. What’s telling is that they are often visibly shocked that I haven’t fallen for the traditional claims that at last they get it, they will turn their lives around etc, as they go straight inside.
But second, the extent to which judicial hands are tied by mandatory sentencing guidelines- and mandatory discounts for early guilty pleas no matter how strong the evidence - isn’t widely understood. And the guideline are an absolute classic illustration of a general Cummings theme: the silent usurpation of democratic law making by an unaccountable and unscrutinised committee.
Judges have to follow the sentencing guidelines if an offence falls within them. Many of them utterly emasculate the sentencing options Parliament has prescribed. Take burglary. Parliament has given it a maximum sentence of 14 years. Under the guideline, the top-of-range sentence for the most serious category of the offence is… 6 years. A reduction of 57%. And the starting point sentence for that most serious category is… 3 years. A reduction of 78.6%.
To these sentences you then have (no discretion even if they are caught red-handed) to apply a one third discount for an early guilty plea. So the starting point sentence for the most serious of category of burglar who is pleads immediately becomes 2 years. Almost 86% less than the maximum sentence.
These sorts of figures are common across the board. Criminal damage - maximum sentence 10 years; highest sentence in the guidelines - 4 years. Interestingly, where an offence is the sort where there is a strong activist presence rather than a boring old offence like burglary, the guidelines are less out of kilter. Stalking with fear of violence for example is max sentence 10 years, highest guideline sentence 8 years.
I have thought for some time that crime, net zero and migration forms a perfect trifecta. It just needs a politician who can cut-through, and who unlike Farage can work strategically and build a competent machine, to exploit it.
Interesting comment. I know nothing of the history of sentencing guidelines. What prompted this? Were judges hands always tied in such a way, or did the constraints begin at a defined point?
My thanks for the link. Imagine my utter lack of surprise at finding Tony Blair behind the creation of the Sentencing Council. Everything that man touched has poisoned our country and brought misery to our people.
TSP could have a simple manifesto pledge to rescind all legislation enacted under Tony Blair. All of it. Every quango. Every department. Every last word. Tear it out by the roots.
Another absolute corker. This Substack is the only thing that keeps me sane and optimistic about the future. You've definitely challenged my own thinking over the years and made me reassess where I've gone wrong on issues. Plenty to digest and think about!
The decoupling of the ruling class from objective reality cannot be cured. Pariah status is a powerful compliance tool that will be brought to bear against all players. The personnel pool that TSP will draw from will necessarily have be be from outside SW1-adjacent circles. Nobody from Oxbridge. Nobody from Eton. Nobody who lives in London.
> Crush Crime.
I am entirely convinced that justice is the route to TSP victory. It is the oldest duty of a government to its people and the lynchpin of all economic prosperity. Add to this the longstanding native obsession with fair play and I think it is a message that can deliver on both rhetorical and dialectic messaging across all demographics. Justice is something that evreybody wants and fortunately is not subject to resource scarcity.
However, I am not convinced that the justice system can be reformed. Personnel is policy and SW1 has been busy appointing judges since the Blair years. This is the system that brought forth Keir Starmer as its star player. The ideological cancer of human rights has infested the entire system from top to bottom, rendering incapable of its original function of delivering justice. Unlike various ministries where parallel organisations can be fired up to grow and assume workload over time, competing justice systems running in parallel within a single state are fundamentally incoherent and will inevitably result in conflict.
The best solution I can come up with something akin to a lottery for legal professionals where applicants are chosen at random (to prevent corruption/infiltration at scale) and given an exam based on Blackstone's original text, together with sample cases for judgement where applicant's judgement can be compared against that of legitimate legal giants like Lord Denning. The King has the power to remove judges and the TSP should make a point of publicly appealing to him to remove judges whose verdicts are counter to justice.
Yougov has polling data which shows that the public endorse much, much harsher punishments for criminals, including the death penalty. Turning the justice system into an instrument of righteous terror would make SW1 froth at the mouth whilst being tremendously popular with the demos. If TSP can find personnel who embody the Chad Yes meme and simply hold frame in public discourse, I think the voters would flock to the banner.
EDIT: I also think there is room to drive discourse on the utility of prison. Prison was only a punishment for debtors in the past, not common criminals. Prior to prison, the justice system makde extensive use of corporal punishment (stocks/pillory/flogging) as an immediate and low-cost negative feedback for criminal behaviour. For recidivists, there was the noose. Northern Europe killed 1% of its population annually via the courts and this produced very, very orderly and pleasant cultures.
Prison was a reform driven by the Quakers who thought that a custodial sentence would produce repentance and change. After more than 200 years of use, I do not see a convincing case that prisons serve the purpose of either prevention or reform. Prison used to be a genuinely horrific place and society rightly revolted at the conditions of early prisons, but making prisons pleasant has nerfed prison as an answer to criminal conduct. It is time to critically examine the case for imprisonment as a viable punishment.
Yes can imagine justice working well, would generate a ton of media coverage about how it's cruel with lots of pushback from politics/media people whilst vast majority of public would be in favour.
Prison works in that it incapacities recidivist criminals from committing crimes on the outside. El Salvador's experience proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt. I am perfectly happy with Scandinavian style cushy prisons provided we send a LOT more people to them and for a much longer time.
My objection to the ""cushy prison" is that the worst-case scenario for any criminal, no matter how heinous, is that they spend the rest of their lives in a comfortably warm building, fed, watered, educated and entertained at the taxpayer's expense. This does not present an adequate disincentive. I have to work a full time job to provide these living conditions for myself.
Plus earlier prediction "prepare for a pandemic" plus at Vote Leave and after that EU would move further right than anyone else was thinking about plus at same time that leaving would show up for everyone just how inept our politicians and civil servants are when EU cover is taken away.
“Are they all lying? Or are they delusional? On any given story it’s hard to know how much is lies and how much is delusions. I think generally it’s something like <5% lying and >95% are simply mimetic NPC nodes in the network.”
The only thing I disagree with in the above: I still think more likely the US (not Ukraine) blew up Nord Stream. This immediately after being so uniform (the best compilation/media/gaslighting reel): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSZyKYitC3M
We had a discussion about employment for myself initiated by you. I asked questions regarding important workplace details including reasonable adjustments for disabled employees (particularly those on the autistic spectrum) and I have not heard from you since.
Does this mean your organization DOES NOT support autistic employees despite multiple promotions claiming that TSP was “the party for autistic people”? Silence is concerning. Please reply.
"I am watching for the first person to accept this challenge."
Depressingly i don't think many in the UK media will take this up, just look at the reaction of Campbell and Stewart on the Rest is Politics, Sandbrook was right on the money with his reflections.
One ray of hope i see is Matthew Syed at the Sunday Times, who has been writing and tweeting quite well lately (even re-tweeting you). What do you make of him Dom?
he seems to be shifting - many will just from the pressure of events.
but overall there'll be continued polarisation - many will desert existing elites but those elites and their NPC network will keep doubling down in blindness/hate etc.
Look at most of my NPC twitter list - most decamped to bluesky where they scream at each other all day about the need for censorship
“Visit their website, give the campaign your name and postcode, they’ll email MPs on your behalf, and give them a small donation. Just 60 seconds and you can add to pressure — stop reading, do it now!”
This seems like 38 Degrees all over again. This campaign may well be successful but if it is it won’t be through mass emailing MPs with identical emails - they just slap a filter on this stuff and delete as from their perspective it may as well be a bot.
I recognise the suspicion about 38 degrees. They seemed to go very quiet during lockdown, and resurfaced with a bit of an agenda, or so it seemed to me. Anyway, that didn't stop me from giving crush crime a spin.
Like the “fine people” thing, another great example of a Trump myth is that he has never condemned white supremacists - watch this great compilation of him doing exactly that + liberals saying he had never condemned them https://youtu.be/RGrHF-su9v8?si=NMi79DZ2SN5naMDN
Another element of why the left have people, particularly young men, is because the messaging to them has been incredibly toxic. Articles like “37 things white peoples need to stop ruining in 2018” https://www.buzzfeed.com/patricepeck/37-things-white-people-ruined-in-2017 . I think stuff like that has been toned down a bit over the years, but it has had a lasting impact on progressives reputations.
In a recent interview you gave in Oxford, you mentioned you'd been reading accounts from Pitt's tenure in the late 18th Century, and being surprised to learn how much like a modern startup the government was in those days. Which accounts were these? Are there particular writings you'd recommend for an insider's view of operations?
Aware you’re busy rn so don’t have time for reading these or posting but seriously - there is an army of us waiting to destroy the traitors, retards and pompous dickheads running the shitshow atm. Most in comments here are on board. All that is needed is a vehicle and an Ataturk or Cromwell to lead, ie with clear vision and without mercy. We can trust the plan and that the right live players, money men and high placed defectors are getting into position. But anyone with a pulse can feel the potential energy built up like a coiled spring. Chagos, 5 star hotels and that *fucking* No10/Sun piece blaming Amazon for Southport - the breaking point is very near. Say the word, let it rip, I’m in. Whatever it takes to win, no excuses no distractions. Anyone else feel the same?
Dominic: I sense progress in advancing the TSP concept and embracing items that will strongly resonate with people (eg on crime). The obvious synergy with Elon Musk especially when “building” things is excellent but a less tangible vote winner. The YouTube output -impressive but obviously talking to the converted and not yet going mainstream, although Labour obviously sniffing.
The Aug 23 posting on the ethos of the TSP - pretty compelling and vote catching with big messages to get over to voters. Needs hell of a front-person to tell a hell of a story. However the “vision-thing” of doing politics better – “navigate by voters” as you say - not there.
In fact you don’t say very much about the people. All wisdom exudes from Dominic Cummings and the incredible folk at the heart of government. You overlook the collective will and wisdom of the people – for steerage you think it enough to listen to what focus groups say about ideas from the very select few? This can be perceived as a fundamental arrogance and potentially a downfall.
You and most of the subscribers shy away from setting out a new mode of governing – beyond our current democratic practices. Elections and voting to appoint the power-hungry to rule persists. As is very evident democracies complete with their autocratic tendencies are not delivering at all well as we rattle through the 21st century – in fact delivering division within nations and arguably also between nations, and possibly ultimately ending human civilization as we know it.
Human nature evolved out of the struggle to survive. The physical labour needed to access often scarce resources necessitated short-term thinking just to live the next day. This created a distinct competitive streak in homo sapiens which influenced the protocols in formating modern democracy. But man’s other innate traits, to agree and to trust and thereby to collaborate allowed civilization to emerge.
Centuries on, the future has little to do with the past. It is to do with AI-driven solutions to virtually every aspect of human behaviour and endeavour. A revolution in agency and efficiency is on our doorstep which will also be greatly enhanced by the availability of inexpensive and abundant clean energy right across the planet. Such a new energy technology I believe will soon be unveiled. This new script for man’s very existence allows the empathetic side of human nature to come to the fore. Demilitarization needs be on the agenda but if culture clashes persist these will be exercised by AI-driven drones.
If we continue to look backwards to move forward then I believe us sapiens on earth will soon be doomed. A fellow physicist, Elon Musk, has worked this all out – that’s why he is lining up rockets to save our precious humanity on some other planet.
But with due respect - Elon has overlooked the final and most important prize for AI. For it enables a long overdue evolutionary step in the only form of governance that fits this new age, that brings all the people on board to inspire the tiny proportion that makes things happen, that creates a future generally free of the angst and division that so dominates and diminishes today’s world.
That form of governance is democracy, but not the “broken, rotten” version operated in the West – “Government by Majority Rule” but a new 21st century genre “Government by Majority Agreement”. It's not Utopia - it’s a new trajectory - initially for the UK, and if enacted, Mars will have to wait.
All, I put together some foundational questions I’d want a TSP/any other political movement to answer… It’s no more than a starting point and me spending two hours promoting ChatGPT.
But these are answers I’ve never seen a politician answer methodically and we have a chance to do so.
Anyone curious, please read. It’s fully editable - so feel free to add new questions or categories!
1 Assuming you could apply the questions on the link and got answers, what would you want to do with them? How could they be acted on?
2 How would you expect to apply the questions? Interview, 'Town Hall' meeting, compare with a manifesto?
3 Do we want an individual politician's view or an organisational level response?
I think it would be useful to have a standard check list to apply to the existing parties and potential parties and do a sort of Myers Briggs profile for each.
1. I think it’s our duty to get answers from TSP on this. If we do commit to this and we are to potentially govern better because we are better, than I feel these foundational kinds of questions are the part of the price of entry.
Would love to get Reform, Tories and Labour to do this as well but won’t hold my breath on others doing - it’s not a two hour job (despite the fact I think it’s essential). It’s a large part of the ‘why do we exist’ beyond bitching that others are terrible at governing and power and immigration is too high. I think these kinds of questions push for a far deeper and more meaningful sense of self/party reflection.
2. Don’t quite follow this. My sense is these questions help the party/movement draft their own constitution/principles deck (like Netflix for the techies in here) but in a more deeper, foundational and more detailed sense.
3. For me it’s getting everyone who has a thoughtful opinion that is in these earlier movements (specifically TSP and Reform) to share, converse and try to align at something concrete that people can get behind.
For Tories and Labour it’s unlikely to get a response so I won’t hold my breath… For TSP, which I care most about frankly, by answering these as a group (assuming something like this got Don’s support) it will ensure every member is going in with their eyes wide open on the bigger vision and and not just an election cycle tactical level.
Anyway, just some thoughts and I’m more than happy for people to challenge the point of it and eg make the case that policy is all what matters (I believe this is would be a mistake).
OK, I've had a poke around. I'm put off by the lack of anonymity in Notion, so I'll confine my comments to here.
I spent the best part of the day working through the sections and writing comments. It's probably the influence of ChatGPT but I struggled to make sense of what the document was about, who it was for and who might act on it. There are a lot of provocative talking points embedded in the questions, but my enthusiasm for the structure was diluted by what I perceived as a lack of coherence, and too many assumptions.
I started with the assumption that the choice of questions defined your principles and one thing that emerged from wrangling with the sections and their various questions was that the discussion of state needed to be balanced by a discussion of nation, to the extent that the crises in the state pose risks to the well-being of the nation.
It could benefit from a brief scope section at the start: the document needs an introductory paragraph or two to say what it is, what it applies to and who should read it and why. Is this a manifesto, or a discussion or briefing paper?
A taster comment: section 2 - Rediscovering Capitalism. Can we say up front what role this plays in rebuilding the state? Perhaps consider that most of this section is on innovation, growth and competitiveness and break into two sections. One on capitalism, and the government's role in shielding the nation from predatory transnational entities while not discouraging 'inward investment'. The other section focusing on the business side of things.
Some points about the business side of things:
* UK businesses have long fallen behind foreign competitors in funding training and supporting R&D and innovation in their businesses, whilst our education system has typically focused on degrees at the expense of vocational training.
* Maybe dust off some of the old DT&I resources and reboot RDAs.
* Venture capital is not always a great deal for startups. The timelines for ROI are short and entrepreneurs will see their stake substantially diluted if they hang around in the business.
* Regulation: without regulation, things will get short, nasty and brutish fast. Perhaps you could provide a list of particularly onerous regulation.
* Global competitiveness: before attracting talent from outside, perhaps we could focus on nurturing talent at home and stopping another brain-drain.
This is really good feedback, thanks for the care and attention… is there a way of getting you in and letting rip without being dox’d?
I’m more than happy for you to copy paste the whole thing in word and send it to me on a burner email? 😅
As you say, it’s an ok draft that on closer inspection belies my political / libertarian tilt and with that many connected assumptions… The point re: shielding nation from predators is a good one - worth integrating
Anyway, DM me if you’re happy to pick convo up. Lots of good feedback here.
This looks rather convincing and I like how you've structured it. How does editing work on Notion? Is it destructive or do you get lots of parallel versions?
I'd rather comment on individual chunks like Word's document review. I'll poke it with a metaphorical stick and see.
You can do either or... When you want to comment, just highlight a section of text and right-click to see the comment option... Or edit directly - I've duplicated this current version in case of any accidents. Honestly, there's nothing to be overly precious about. Just add anything you think is missing.
To your question, it's destructive but you can always roll back. Kind of like coding on master with some light version control!
I wanted to comment on “Crush Crime” and sentencing. Posting anonymously as I sit as a part time judge myself.
First, some of us - but I don’t think that many - get it. When I am confronted by career criminals I always give them as long as I can without being appealable. My view is that they have had their chance, come their 20th conviction or whatever, and the best thing for me to do for their community is to subtract them from it for as long as I can. What’s telling is that they are often visibly shocked that I haven’t fallen for the traditional claims that at last they get it, they will turn their lives around etc, as they go straight inside.
But second, the extent to which judicial hands are tied by mandatory sentencing guidelines- and mandatory discounts for early guilty pleas no matter how strong the evidence - isn’t widely understood. And the guideline are an absolute classic illustration of a general Cummings theme: the silent usurpation of democratic law making by an unaccountable and unscrutinised committee.
Judges have to follow the sentencing guidelines if an offence falls within them. Many of them utterly emasculate the sentencing options Parliament has prescribed. Take burglary. Parliament has given it a maximum sentence of 14 years. Under the guideline, the top-of-range sentence for the most serious category of the offence is… 6 years. A reduction of 57%. And the starting point sentence for that most serious category is… 3 years. A reduction of 78.6%.
To these sentences you then have (no discretion even if they are caught red-handed) to apply a one third discount for an early guilty plea. So the starting point sentence for the most serious of category of burglar who is pleads immediately becomes 2 years. Almost 86% less than the maximum sentence.
These sorts of figures are common across the board. Criminal damage - maximum sentence 10 years; highest sentence in the guidelines - 4 years. Interestingly, where an offence is the sort where there is a strong activist presence rather than a boring old offence like burglary, the guidelines are less out of kilter. Stalking with fear of violence for example is max sentence 10 years, highest guideline sentence 8 years.
I have thought for some time that crime, net zero and migration forms a perfect trifecta. It just needs a politician who can cut-through, and who unlike Farage can work strategically and build a competent machine, to exploit it.
This is the sort of thing I want to be able to save. Fascinating insights: thank you.
Interesting comment. I know nothing of the history of sentencing guidelines. What prompted this? Were judges hands always tied in such a way, or did the constraints begin at a defined point?
History here: https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/sentencing-and-the-council/about-the-sentencing-council/history/
My thanks for the link. Imagine my utter lack of surprise at finding Tony Blair behind the creation of the Sentencing Council. Everything that man touched has poisoned our country and brought misery to our people.
TSP could have a simple manifesto pledge to rescind all legislation enacted under Tony Blair. All of it. Every quango. Every department. Every last word. Tear it out by the roots.
Another absolute corker. This Substack is the only thing that keeps me sane and optimistic about the future. You've definitely challenged my own thinking over the years and made me reassess where I've gone wrong on issues. Plenty to digest and think about!
The decoupling of the ruling class from objective reality cannot be cured. Pariah status is a powerful compliance tool that will be brought to bear against all players. The personnel pool that TSP will draw from will necessarily have be be from outside SW1-adjacent circles. Nobody from Oxbridge. Nobody from Eton. Nobody who lives in London.
> Crush Crime.
I am entirely convinced that justice is the route to TSP victory. It is the oldest duty of a government to its people and the lynchpin of all economic prosperity. Add to this the longstanding native obsession with fair play and I think it is a message that can deliver on both rhetorical and dialectic messaging across all demographics. Justice is something that evreybody wants and fortunately is not subject to resource scarcity.
However, I am not convinced that the justice system can be reformed. Personnel is policy and SW1 has been busy appointing judges since the Blair years. This is the system that brought forth Keir Starmer as its star player. The ideological cancer of human rights has infested the entire system from top to bottom, rendering incapable of its original function of delivering justice. Unlike various ministries where parallel organisations can be fired up to grow and assume workload over time, competing justice systems running in parallel within a single state are fundamentally incoherent and will inevitably result in conflict.
The best solution I can come up with something akin to a lottery for legal professionals where applicants are chosen at random (to prevent corruption/infiltration at scale) and given an exam based on Blackstone's original text, together with sample cases for judgement where applicant's judgement can be compared against that of legitimate legal giants like Lord Denning. The King has the power to remove judges and the TSP should make a point of publicly appealing to him to remove judges whose verdicts are counter to justice.
Yougov has polling data which shows that the public endorse much, much harsher punishments for criminals, including the death penalty. Turning the justice system into an instrument of righteous terror would make SW1 froth at the mouth whilst being tremendously popular with the demos. If TSP can find personnel who embody the Chad Yes meme and simply hold frame in public discourse, I think the voters would flock to the banner.
EDIT: I also think there is room to drive discourse on the utility of prison. Prison was only a punishment for debtors in the past, not common criminals. Prior to prison, the justice system makde extensive use of corporal punishment (stocks/pillory/flogging) as an immediate and low-cost negative feedback for criminal behaviour. For recidivists, there was the noose. Northern Europe killed 1% of its population annually via the courts and this produced very, very orderly and pleasant cultures.
Prison was a reform driven by the Quakers who thought that a custodial sentence would produce repentance and change. After more than 200 years of use, I do not see a convincing case that prisons serve the purpose of either prevention or reform. Prison used to be a genuinely horrific place and society rightly revolted at the conditions of early prisons, but making prisons pleasant has nerfed prison as an answer to criminal conduct. It is time to critically examine the case for imprisonment as a viable punishment.
Yes can imagine justice working well, would generate a ton of media coverage about how it's cruel with lots of pushback from politics/media people whilst vast majority of public would be in favour.
Prison works in that it incapacities recidivist criminals from committing crimes on the outside. El Salvador's experience proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt. I am perfectly happy with Scandinavian style cushy prisons provided we send a LOT more people to them and for a much longer time.
My objection to the ""cushy prison" is that the worst-case scenario for any criminal, no matter how heinous, is that they spend the rest of their lives in a comfortably warm building, fed, watered, educated and entertained at the taxpayer's expense. This does not present an adequate disincentive. I have to work a full time job to provide these living conditions for myself.
Can you do another QnA sometime?
P.s. it really has been amazing how much shit you have predicted on this substack.
yes i will
You’ve just made another prediction
Plus earlier prediction "prepare for a pandemic" plus at Vote Leave and after that EU would move further right than anyone else was thinking about plus at same time that leaving would show up for everyone just how inept our politicians and civil servants are when EU cover is taken away.
on the @pmarca/Rogan podcast Cicero fishponds were mentioned, so either Marc was listening to your recent Sprectator interview or Cicero trending
Cicero is trending globally!
Cf. Londsdale piece too
Have definitely heard some strong Cummings themes from both Andreessen and Jenrick
Wondered the same myself!
Awesome summary.
“Are they all lying? Or are they delusional? On any given story it’s hard to know how much is lies and how much is delusions. I think generally it’s something like <5% lying and >95% are simply mimetic NPC nodes in the network.”
The only thing I disagree with in the above: I still think more likely the US (not Ukraine) blew up Nord Stream. This immediately after being so uniform (the best compilation/media/gaslighting reel): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSZyKYitC3M
And Biden acting so suspicious: https://x.com/KimDotcom/status/1575580365418549248 (months before Seymour Hersh’s piece)
The Ukraine story coming months later, and this being how it was handled the day after, does not make sense to me!
*
Indeed: “Fuck Peloton!” https://edwardmdruce.substack.com/p/digest-32-fuck-peloton 😂
I suspect probably both UKR & CIA involved - so a combined op.
It seems some UKR nationals have been traced but I havent followed the story for months
👍
Hi Mr Cummings,
We had a discussion about employment for myself initiated by you. I asked questions regarding important workplace details including reasonable adjustments for disabled employees (particularly those on the autistic spectrum) and I have not heard from you since.
Does this mean your organization DOES NOT support autistic employees despite multiple promotions claiming that TSP was “the party for autistic people”? Silence is concerning. Please reply.
I’m an autist too - autists for Cummings unite!
Podcast version of the blog: https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/c560b396-1525-4d97-b52a-1c26112c8c77/audio
This is excellent.
"I am watching for the first person to accept this challenge."
Depressingly i don't think many in the UK media will take this up, just look at the reaction of Campbell and Stewart on the Rest is Politics, Sandbrook was right on the money with his reflections.
One ray of hope i see is Matthew Syed at the Sunday Times, who has been writing and tweeting quite well lately (even re-tweeting you). What do you make of him Dom?
he seems to be shifting - many will just from the pressure of events.
but overall there'll be continued polarisation - many will desert existing elites but those elites and their NPC network will keep doubling down in blindness/hate etc.
Look at most of my NPC twitter list - most decamped to bluesky where they scream at each other all day about the need for censorship
“Visit their website, give the campaign your name and postcode, they’ll email MPs on your behalf, and give them a small donation. Just 60 seconds and you can add to pressure — stop reading, do it now!”
This seems like 38 Degrees all over again. This campaign may well be successful but if it is it won’t be through mass emailing MPs with identical emails - they just slap a filter on this stuff and delete as from their perspective it may as well be a bot.
I recognise the suspicion about 38 degrees. They seemed to go very quiet during lockdown, and resurfaced with a bit of an agenda, or so it seemed to me. Anyway, that didn't stop me from giving crush crime a spin.
Like the “fine people” thing, another great example of a Trump myth is that he has never condemned white supremacists - watch this great compilation of him doing exactly that + liberals saying he had never condemned them https://youtu.be/RGrHF-su9v8?si=NMi79DZ2SN5naMDN
Another element of why the left have people, particularly young men, is because the messaging to them has been incredibly toxic. Articles like “37 things white peoples need to stop ruining in 2018” https://www.buzzfeed.com/patricepeck/37-things-white-people-ruined-in-2017 . I think stuff like that has been toned down a bit over the years, but it has had a lasting impact on progressives reputations.
Another good article about the times that a white supremacist website pretended to worship celebrities and brands, so that stupid journalists believe it and would give them media coverage https://shiningstar22.substack.com/p/how-the-online-white-nationalist
In a recent interview you gave in Oxford, you mentioned you'd been reading accounts from Pitt's tenure in the late 18th Century, and being surprised to learn how much like a modern startup the government was in those days. Which accounts were these? Are there particular writings you'd recommend for an insider's view of operations?
look at my blog on Napoleon Pitt Whitehall etc running over last months, click to bottom summary
Britain Against Napoleon: The Organisation of Victory, 1793-1815, by Roger Knight.
Aware you’re busy rn so don’t have time for reading these or posting but seriously - there is an army of us waiting to destroy the traitors, retards and pompous dickheads running the shitshow atm. Most in comments here are on board. All that is needed is a vehicle and an Ataturk or Cromwell to lead, ie with clear vision and without mercy. We can trust the plan and that the right live players, money men and high placed defectors are getting into position. But anyone with a pulse can feel the potential energy built up like a coiled spring. Chagos, 5 star hotels and that *fucking* No10/Sun piece blaming Amazon for Southport - the breaking point is very near. Say the word, let it rip, I’m in. Whatever it takes to win, no excuses no distractions. Anyone else feel the same?
Exactly. The country is crying out for a leader.
Love what you have achieved-never thought I would see the words 'Pat McFadden' and'Start up' in the same sentence!
Dominic: I sense progress in advancing the TSP concept and embracing items that will strongly resonate with people (eg on crime). The obvious synergy with Elon Musk especially when “building” things is excellent but a less tangible vote winner. The YouTube output -impressive but obviously talking to the converted and not yet going mainstream, although Labour obviously sniffing.
The Aug 23 posting on the ethos of the TSP - pretty compelling and vote catching with big messages to get over to voters. Needs hell of a front-person to tell a hell of a story. However the “vision-thing” of doing politics better – “navigate by voters” as you say - not there.
In fact you don’t say very much about the people. All wisdom exudes from Dominic Cummings and the incredible folk at the heart of government. You overlook the collective will and wisdom of the people – for steerage you think it enough to listen to what focus groups say about ideas from the very select few? This can be perceived as a fundamental arrogance and potentially a downfall.
You and most of the subscribers shy away from setting out a new mode of governing – beyond our current democratic practices. Elections and voting to appoint the power-hungry to rule persists. As is very evident democracies complete with their autocratic tendencies are not delivering at all well as we rattle through the 21st century – in fact delivering division within nations and arguably also between nations, and possibly ultimately ending human civilization as we know it.
Human nature evolved out of the struggle to survive. The physical labour needed to access often scarce resources necessitated short-term thinking just to live the next day. This created a distinct competitive streak in homo sapiens which influenced the protocols in formating modern democracy. But man’s other innate traits, to agree and to trust and thereby to collaborate allowed civilization to emerge.
Centuries on, the future has little to do with the past. It is to do with AI-driven solutions to virtually every aspect of human behaviour and endeavour. A revolution in agency and efficiency is on our doorstep which will also be greatly enhanced by the availability of inexpensive and abundant clean energy right across the planet. Such a new energy technology I believe will soon be unveiled. This new script for man’s very existence allows the empathetic side of human nature to come to the fore. Demilitarization needs be on the agenda but if culture clashes persist these will be exercised by AI-driven drones.
If we continue to look backwards to move forward then I believe us sapiens on earth will soon be doomed. A fellow physicist, Elon Musk, has worked this all out – that’s why he is lining up rockets to save our precious humanity on some other planet.
But with due respect - Elon has overlooked the final and most important prize for AI. For it enables a long overdue evolutionary step in the only form of governance that fits this new age, that brings all the people on board to inspire the tiny proportion that makes things happen, that creates a future generally free of the angst and division that so dominates and diminishes today’s world.
That form of governance is democracy, but not the “broken, rotten” version operated in the West – “Government by Majority Rule” but a new 21st century genre “Government by Majority Agreement”. It's not Utopia - it’s a new trajectory - initially for the UK, and if enacted, Mars will have to wait.
All, I put together some foundational questions I’d want a TSP/any other political movement to answer… It’s no more than a starting point and me spending two hours promoting ChatGPT.
But these are answers I’ve never seen a politician answer methodically and we have a chance to do so.
Anyone curious, please read. It’s fully editable - so feel free to add new questions or categories!
https://shorturl.at/QncrP
Some questions:
1 Assuming you could apply the questions on the link and got answers, what would you want to do with them? How could they be acted on?
2 How would you expect to apply the questions? Interview, 'Town Hall' meeting, compare with a manifesto?
3 Do we want an individual politician's view or an organisational level response?
I think it would be useful to have a standard check list to apply to the existing parties and potential parties and do a sort of Myers Briggs profile for each.
1. I think it’s our duty to get answers from TSP on this. If we do commit to this and we are to potentially govern better because we are better, than I feel these foundational kinds of questions are the part of the price of entry.
Would love to get Reform, Tories and Labour to do this as well but won’t hold my breath on others doing - it’s not a two hour job (despite the fact I think it’s essential). It’s a large part of the ‘why do we exist’ beyond bitching that others are terrible at governing and power and immigration is too high. I think these kinds of questions push for a far deeper and more meaningful sense of self/party reflection.
2. Don’t quite follow this. My sense is these questions help the party/movement draft their own constitution/principles deck (like Netflix for the techies in here) but in a more deeper, foundational and more detailed sense.
3. For me it’s getting everyone who has a thoughtful opinion that is in these earlier movements (specifically TSP and Reform) to share, converse and try to align at something concrete that people can get behind.
For Tories and Labour it’s unlikely to get a response so I won’t hold my breath… For TSP, which I care most about frankly, by answering these as a group (assuming something like this got Don’s support) it will ensure every member is going in with their eyes wide open on the bigger vision and and not just an election cycle tactical level.
Anyway, just some thoughts and I’m more than happy for people to challenge the point of it and eg make the case that policy is all what matters (I believe this is would be a mistake).
Thank you: that's really helpful.
Working on it...
Forgive th e typos/bad writing - banging out quickly whilst family in the room! 😅
OK, I've had a poke around. I'm put off by the lack of anonymity in Notion, so I'll confine my comments to here.
I spent the best part of the day working through the sections and writing comments. It's probably the influence of ChatGPT but I struggled to make sense of what the document was about, who it was for and who might act on it. There are a lot of provocative talking points embedded in the questions, but my enthusiasm for the structure was diluted by what I perceived as a lack of coherence, and too many assumptions.
I started with the assumption that the choice of questions defined your principles and one thing that emerged from wrangling with the sections and their various questions was that the discussion of state needed to be balanced by a discussion of nation, to the extent that the crises in the state pose risks to the well-being of the nation.
It could benefit from a brief scope section at the start: the document needs an introductory paragraph or two to say what it is, what it applies to and who should read it and why. Is this a manifesto, or a discussion or briefing paper?
A taster comment: section 2 - Rediscovering Capitalism. Can we say up front what role this plays in rebuilding the state? Perhaps consider that most of this section is on innovation, growth and competitiveness and break into two sections. One on capitalism, and the government's role in shielding the nation from predatory transnational entities while not discouraging 'inward investment'. The other section focusing on the business side of things.
Some points about the business side of things:
* UK businesses have long fallen behind foreign competitors in funding training and supporting R&D and innovation in their businesses, whilst our education system has typically focused on degrees at the expense of vocational training.
* SMEs can be considered as the backbone of the UK economy (60% of UK employment and 48% of business turnover - https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06152/SN06152.pdf). It makes sense to support innovation and training for SMEs.
* Maybe dust off some of the old DT&I resources and reboot RDAs.
* Venture capital is not always a great deal for startups. The timelines for ROI are short and entrepreneurs will see their stake substantially diluted if they hang around in the business.
* Regulation: without regulation, things will get short, nasty and brutish fast. Perhaps you could provide a list of particularly onerous regulation.
* Global competitiveness: before attracting talent from outside, perhaps we could focus on nurturing talent at home and stopping another brain-drain.
This is really good feedback, thanks for the care and attention… is there a way of getting you in and letting rip without being dox’d?
I’m more than happy for you to copy paste the whole thing in word and send it to me on a burner email? 😅
As you say, it’s an ok draft that on closer inspection belies my political / libertarian tilt and with that many connected assumptions… The point re: shielding nation from predators is a good one - worth integrating
Anyway, DM me if you’re happy to pick convo up. Lots of good feedback here.
Cheers. DM sent.
This looks rather convincing and I like how you've structured it. How does editing work on Notion? Is it destructive or do you get lots of parallel versions?
I'd rather comment on individual chunks like Word's document review. I'll poke it with a metaphorical stick and see.
You can do either or... When you want to comment, just highlight a section of text and right-click to see the comment option... Or edit directly - I've duplicated this current version in case of any accidents. Honestly, there's nothing to be overly precious about. Just add anything you think is missing.
To your question, it's destructive but you can always roll back. Kind of like coding on master with some light version control!
Thanks!