The only reference I can find to the political significance of 100 days in power is Napoleons coup d’etat from the end of March 1815 to his defeat at Waterloo in June 1815  at Waterloo.

This was known as a political byword in energetic activity, where in three months Napoleon seized power, built an army of 280 000 men and marched on Brussels.

Napoleon, by 1815, was a sick man but his star in the eyes of France shone brighter than the corpulent Louis XVIII.

The first 100 days of the coalition has hardly been Napoleonic in thrust and vigour, considering that the Tories have had thirteen years to contemplate what they wanted to do and three leaders. The Liberal Democrats have had one hundred years and three recent leaders.

Where is the big idea ? Where is the uplifting charisma that will inspire ‘that we are all in this together’ feeling ?

All that I can see has happened is that we have had a change of board members of a sclerotic  Plc, with Simon Hughes playing the wannabe board member, who wants to have a personal veto. The product is still the same, 1950’s social democracy underpinned by bureaucratic socialism.

A Napoleonic figure with the benefit of thirteen years preparation would have moved quickly, destroying and out manoeuvring the broken and defeated Blairist Labour Party. A party that is in utter denial that it lost the election, and is in utter denial that it has broken the national bank. Therefore Cameron has left an undefeated army in the field rather than scatter it.

A Napoleonic figure would have announced that the British Army was withdrawing from Afghanistan and Germany within 100 days, instead of denuding the defence of the country, and would ensure that the defence of the homeland was the priority, not fighting foreign adventures on behalf of the USA and standing ovations in the Senate.

The British Forces would be re-equipped and re-organised. What sort of country is it when we have more Admirals than ships?

A Napoleonic figure would have announced that within 100 days, the surveillance State legislation would be swept away in the Bonfire that was promised by the Liberal Democrats.

A Napoleonic figure would have announced a break with the past and announced a new political settlement with a written Constitution and massive decentralisation confirming the relationship between the individual and State. With the State being the Slave, not the other way round.

Finally, in the first thirty days the BBC would have been deprived of its tax raising powers, with a widespread cull of senior executives, followed by privatisation. Currently the BBC is promoting a daily diet of horror ‘cuts’ stories on local and national broadcasting. This is sapping the morale of the country, affecting confidence and business. The BBC has long abandoned any pretence of impartiality and therefore is in breach of its charter. Cameron has left another army in the field.

Napoleon intended to be at the gates of Brussels with the Allied armies crushed in 100 days. Not holding a spending review after 200 days, in which everybody can plead being a special case.

Cameron only had one big idea, and that was to be the next Prime Minister, and now it shows. The policy void means that we have a managerial style of Government, not a representative style or even a leadership style. It is reactive not proactive. He also said at conference that the Conservative Party is not a Libertarian Party, therefore he sees no virtue in a small state and personal responsibility.

Wellington said that Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton, my fear is that this is where this battle is going to be lost. The ‘Endarkening’ of State Bureaucratic Socialism will be ingrained for ever, as liberal values are consigned to the history books.

A bit like Napoleon.

Andrew P Withers

Andrew Withers
(LPUK) August 19, 2010 at 14:12

only vague hope

KB – We cannot continue to live on hope much longer especially when it is a
forlorn hope

Bob- your comment which is much appreciated shows that UKIP is a single
issue party, not all of our problems come from the EU, but some come from a
supine amoral political class that sees the EU as a reserve sinecure for
redundant politicians. Mandelson, Kinnocks et fils etc etc

UKIP has never articulated an alternative, along the lines of Switzerland
or Norway. Due to the Pearson effect it is now in danger of alienating
Libertarian members in favour of malcontents from the BNP (currently going
through another internal purge) attracted by the added Islamophobia.

Kingbingo August 19, 2010 at 16:05

Andrew, how do you envisage us as a country actually achieving a small
state. And for the avoidance of doubt by ‘small state’ I mean a state more
closely resembling its pre-great war size. So in the range of 10-15% of
GDP.

Further, what do you say to people like me who argue that more would be
achieved if all libertarians joined the Tories where they would be part of
the mainstream, then if all libertarians joined lpuk where they would be
marginalised?

Dick the Prick
August 18, 2010 at 20:44

Mr Withers – cheers, man. Top thread.

There’s been praised lavished on the Tories preparation for the co-alition
agreement and shit and I just kinda think, ‘well, what the fuck else were you
up to?’

There is some kinda strategic merit in holding out for the CSR to see where
a relative political assessment can be made. I’ve just spent the last 8 or 9
years doing quite well paid non jobs culminating in resigning as a Tory
political asst for a local council (which, to be fair, wasn’t a complete non
job) but I really do like the idea of watching the non jobbers eat themselves
over the summer with little ability to understand what’s happening next. It’s
quite nicely harsh.

On Afghanistan, well, there is some level of institutional guilt that has
also been co-opted by big oil. Unlike Blighty under Labour who funded the
social bureaucratic edifice the Yanks funded their military with their now
average salary being $122k per annum. It defo is their war but now there are
oil interests and if we don’t get it, the Ruskies will. But the main reason is
Blighty military deployment for some bullshit republican votes and Blair
bought it, packaged it and sold it. Some kinda Catholic shit like original
sin. It would be slightly disrespectful to not listen to the army on their
advice on how to get the fuck out of dodge. Sure, it’s a much better political
decision to scarper but just because there’s been no strategic direction of
our occupation doesn’t give rise to the possibility of massive errors on our
exit strategy.

Now, the EU & ‘the Great Repeal Act’ – yeah, I think that may be why I
quit directly after the election. I proper knew the Tory command weren’t Tory.
Ho diddly hum.

But cheers, top thread.

Costello
August 18, 2010 at 15:58

The significance of the first ’100 Days’ dates back to FDR and the New
Deal.

Bob August 18, 2010 at 15:53

Andrew Withers
“UKIP- A one issue party with no other policy that could
vauguely be called Libertarian, tainted with racist little Englander attitudes
and members. Anti EU no chance of getting a seat in the Westminster
Parliament.”

Andrew, I have a reasonable level of respect for your writings, but please
get your facts right. UKIP is definitely not a one issue party. AND NOR AM I
OR ITS OTHER VOTERS LITTLE ENGLANDERS.

However, even if UKIP had only the single issue of exiting the EU, that
issue alone is the most comprehensive multitude of issues encapsulated in a
single fact. That fact is that VIRTUALLY ALL of todays laws originate from a
foreign power.

Despite the fact that this government made a big song and dance of setting
up a website to garner suggestions for rescinding bad laws, THEY JUST CAN’T DO
IT. The EU won’t give them permission.

Kingbingo August 18, 2010 at 16:05

English
Viking August 18, 2010 at 18:33

What would a Libertarian do about people like Murdoch? He seems to be
creating a near monopoly, and doing a fair amount of brain-washing to
boot.

The Beeb is The Ministry of Truth and should be burned down, and not a
few muppets who work there should be imprisoned for sedition.

Kingbingo
August 18, 2010 at 19:02

“What would a Libertarian do about people like Murdoch?”

Remove the state intervention and laws that favours large businesses
and present barriers to entry to small firms. Creating a Monopoly would
be far harder then.

Indeed, with the internet impossible. I do not own a TV, I consume
nothing from the BBC. I do however get news stories from Anna Raccoon.
With the internet that is now possible. Fifteen years ago it was
not.

English
Viking August 18, 2010 at 19:22

That would have worked if it was applied before companies were
allowed to grow so huge and wield such enormous power that competition
against, say, Tescos, can only be effective by another, massive
multi-national, like Sainsbury’s.

Would you advocate an enforced reduction in the power these and
many other companies can wield? Just wondered, because I most
certainly would.

Thaddeus J.
Wilson August 19, 2010 at
10:10

The true way to ensure that these companies cannot wield so much
power is to deregulate the market completely. And I mean
completely. Governments are not omniscient, despite what they
might believe, and the regulation you perceive as beneficial in
reality only benefits Sainsbury or Tesco, who already have all the
infrastructure and people to deal with swathes of regulation and
have lobbyists who can influence the regulation to make sure it
doesn’t affect them too much but still creates a maximum burden for
anyone who might come into the field.

And if you think that supermarkets aren’t already heavily
regulated, I suggest you spend 5 minutes with the manager of your
nearest Tesbury.

Kingbingo
August 19, 2010 at 13:39

English
Viking August 19, 2010 at 22:55

KingBingo,

Tesco’s has become the central regulator. It has deliberately
bankrupted the smaller competition, pays pathetic wages, subverts
democratic planning processes, etc.

Their main man was in Government not long ago, as was Lord
Sainsbury. It’s not difficult to run a successful business if you get
to make the laws.

Kingbingo
August 20, 2010 at 00:14

“It

English
Viking August 21, 2010 at 00:13

That’s because you are immoral. As are they.

Andrew Withers
(LPUK) August 18, 2010 at 15:02

KB – I vote Tory because they are the least worst of all the viable
options.

For the first time in my life I spoilt my ballot paper at the general
election, because I knew that the Government would get it, and for reasons
that will become apparent in October, I did not stand as a Libertarian
candidate.

Voting should not be equated with Liberty, and the reason I did not cast a
positive vote was because I did not want to give any form of legitimacy to
this form of Government. My Vote has not counted for much in the last thirty
five years, so I used it for the best purpose I could, putting a pre typed
sticker on the ballot carry a note that I did not consent to be ruled by
Government under this flawed ‘voting’ system.

Look at the viable alternatives-

Labour- The party of the dependent on Welfare and ‘public service’ under
Brown there constituency became larger requiring larger and larger diversion
of resources from the private to public sector. EU big Staters par
excellence

Conservatives- The Party of the keep power to ‘ sound’ people, managers of
decline and of the Social Democratic Model. Admitted Authoritarian EU big
Staters

Lib Dems- A Social Democratic party that uses the word ‘Liberal’ under
false pretences. EU big Staters

SNP- ‘Nationalist’ hungry for Whitehall and EU subsidies

Plaid- ‘Nationalist’ hungry for Whitehall and EU subsidies

Non viable because of the voting system

UKIP- A one issue party with no other policy that could vauguely be called
Libertarian, tainted with racist little Englander attitudes and members. Anti
EU no chance of getting a seat in the Westminster Parliament.

BNP- Nationalist and Racist, no economic and social policies, anti EU.
Knows what it is against but after that not a lot. No chance of getting a seat
in a Whitehall Parliament.

Libertarian Party- Libertarian and Constitutionalist, has viable policies,
a huge background of intellectual thought behind it spreading over two hundred
years. Holds that the EU is illegtimate because nobody has consented to it
other than members of a political elite.

Small, insignificant never going to form a Government in the next one
hundred years even though State Socialism failed in 1989, and Bureaucratic
Social Democracy failed in 2008.

Various other socialist and nationalist movements.

All of these should have a voice in a ‘representative’ parliament, however
only large authoritarian big tax, big state social democratic parties that
accept EU vassalage are allowed by the system are allowed to have a say.

Change the system.

Kingbingo August 18, 2010 at 15:26

Pericles
August 18, 2010 at 16:07

Perhaps there is, Kingbingo :  a tyranny.

Oh, not, in the incorrect, modern sense of the word :  a
malign dictatorship.  (Have we not already enough of
those ?  Indeed :  they come in layers.)

No ;  in the correct sense :  a usurpment of
power.  There were rumours of one in the sixties during the period of
the illegal Wilson r

Kingbingo
August 18, 2010 at 18:58

English
Viking August 21, 2010 at 00:16

‘Mildly’?

English
Viking August 18, 2010 at 18:28

I believe both the system and ALL the parties that have the remotest
chance of power in whichever Parliament/Assembly of the Union countries to
be so utterly corrupt, and deliberately so, that voting is an utter waste
of time. Vote Blue, Red, Yellow, Plaid, SNP, etc get Marxist, PC, non
representative EU dictatorship.

The ONLY hope for this nation is that the upcoming economic collapse
will start a revolution. I doubt it will, because the process of ‘divide
and rule’ is so far advanced, people will fight each other for a loaf of
bread, instead of the Government for creating the shortages in the first
place.

Winston (Smith, not Churchill) was right; If there was hope, it lay
with the proles.

Alan August 18, 2010 at 14:56

Why 100 days?

‘cos that’s what American politicians and media whip themselves up into a
froth about and have done for some years.

Kingbingo August 18, 2010 at 13:58

Andrew I agree. I vote Tory because they are the least worst of all the
viable options. But I don

Andrew Duffin
August 18, 2010 at 13:48

A Napoleonic figure would have put down a firm marker also, of our
intention to reform fundamentally our relationship with the EU.

This would strengthen your analogy, too: Napoleon marched on Brussels, and
so will we.