Sean Gabb named Lord Protector in Swift Military Coup

Keir Martland

At 11AM GMT, Dr Sean Gabb was named Lord Protector after a short meeting with the Queen. Dr Gabb, the frontman for this morning’s military coup, was invited to Buckingham Palace for tea and cakes only an hour ago. Dr Gabb declined the light refreshments, stating “Dr Atkins wouldn’t approve.” After this joke, the Lord Protector was invited to form a government.


At 11:05, Lord Protector Gabb was driven to Number 10 where he dismissed the entire Home Civil Service. Next, he granted his first interview as Lord Protector to the BBC, taking this opportunity to announce that he was taking it permanently off air as of this evening.

Next, the Lord Protector, keen not to have to run a modern state and the Libertarian Alliance – the charity of which he is director – gave a press conference where he unveiled his Council, which handed control of the British state over to a few libertarians. The new War Secretary, David Davis, was keen to make it clear that  “No, I’m not that David Davis!”

By 11:20, the Lord Protector had shut down perhaps half of the British state and felt he could return to his home in Kent to continue with his writing. War Secretary Davis, too, had done enough work for the day and so returned to Southport (some say that he left some monkeys in charge of the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office).

At 11:25, the Lord Protector confirmed what were unconfirmed reports that he had invited Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Kevin Carson, and Keith Preston to serve as his Lord Lieutenants.


(Lord-Lieutenant Hoppe and his secretary)

At 11:30, Queen Elizabeth and her family were seen on the Eurostar heading towards France. Their decision to leave may have been based on rumours that Lord President Kersey had invited Duke Franz of Bavaria to his home in London for tiffin.

At 11:35, the Council issued a decree, stating that Wigan is now to be the capital of the United Kingdom. Another of the Lord Protector’s colleagues from the Libertarian Alliance has been made joint Sheriff and Mayor of the new capital city.


Will the British people put up with Lord Protector Gabb’s libertarianism?

Will Lord Protector Gabb put up with the British people?

Will Lord President Kersey, as they are already saying, replace Justin Welby as Archbishop of Canterbury?

Was Tony Blair really seen, bound and gagged, being dragged into the House of Lords to await the verdict of Lord Sudeley?

Will Britain return to the gold standard?

Is Stephan Kinsella really sat in the White House?

What has happened to the Adam Smith Institute?





  • Wickedly funny….

  • Golly. That was quick. Probably better that way.

  • I would perhaps have let the Queen stay on. She provides gaiety and a sort of comfortable continuum to matters, for lots of _Those Sorts of The People_ which we _Have Not Had To Dissolve And Replace With a Re-elected People_ . But if the Lord Protector suggested without rancour or recrimination that she might be happier elsewhere, then it’s OK with me.
    Remember that, as War Secretary, I am responsible for ensuring that the serving officers and other ranks of the Armed Forces fulfill their oath to the Queen as their Commander-in-Chief in her legal capacity as Head of State. I’ll have to take legal and Parliamentary advice as to the correct jurisprudentiality of the automatic transfer of their oath’s obligation to the Lord Protector instead.

    But I expect it can be quite easily agreed.

    • HM is not yet across the Channel. A couple of hours and we can try to get her back. Duke Franz has not yet claimed the throne.

      • Ah, that’s all right then. Can you as the Capital’s Sherriff get her on the phone?

        • Don’t be silly, David. It was all a joke. April 1st is over. We must return to being serious now.

  • Much better than an “Easter Message” from that smelly leftoid dude Justin Welby, isn’t it, in which he’ll lecture us hectoringly about what we shouldn’t like or have.

    • I look forward to Archbishop Kersey’s first Easter Message as Archbishop of Canterbury.

      • Anything is better than that Welby dude. I had high hopes for John Sentamu, who really ought to have got it on mere seniority. But he’s gone rather leftoid in his old age as well. Funny, that; I thought lefism was an infantile disorder….

        • I had never heard of Welby before his translation.

  • Paul makes his standard speech about “not a gold standard – gold-as-money not a standard which is really…..”, you have all heard it so often I do not need to repeat it.

    I was going to warn the Lord Protector not to appoint Major Generals to help rule the country – as their actions helped ruin the reputation of the last Lord Protector. But I am too late – “Lord Lieutenants” have been appointed (and the Lord Protector has retired to the unconquered county). Lord Lieutenant Hans Herman Hoppe and Lord Lieutenant Kevin Carson will be engaged in bitter warfare – of course neither is actually a British subject, but if Duke Franz is to be the new King…. (well I suppose he will favour Lord Lieutenant Hoppe, and Lord Lieutenant Carson will be executed – I will try and contain my grief).

    Hopefully Lord President Kersey, being someone with a grasp of what the word “feudal” actually means (the word has need have nothing to do with, for example, “serfdom”) will make sure that the monarchy of Duke Franz will not become an absolute one – an “enlightened” despot is still a despot, and no “receiving” of Roman Law please (at least not Imperial Roman Law – or what developed from it, with the central idea being that the ruler or rulers is above the law, and can change the law whenever they like and however they like).

    Of course in the long run Lord Lieutenant Hoppe will try and change the feudal monarchy into anarcho capitalism, but that could be done without any nastiness.

    For example, in old Scots Law a “noble” (with high sounding title and all) was just the owner of a landed estate – and if the estate was sold the title went with it (without any reference to the King of Scotland). By the 18th century the legal position has changed – but Dr Johnson noted that people in Scotland still called Boswell by the name of his estate, and treated him as an aristocrat (which by old Scots custom he was – but by English custom he was not).

    Also a King need not have any taxation or special powers – the “Thrain” of the Tolkien’s “Shire” springs to mind. Someone who had no power to tax or to change the traditional law – but was just there…. (farming their traditional estates) and sometimes proved useful.

    As for cutting the state in half.

    It would be nice – but as someone who spends most of his time trying to find savings in local government spending, actually cutting government spending in half would be a tall order.

    I would love to see details of how it could be done – and I am not mocking (I am quite serious).

  • It occurs to me that someone, somewhere, has not heard or read the point about “do not say gold standard because…..”.

    A gold “standard” does not prevent a credit-money bubble such as the Benjamin Strong (New York Federal Reserve) one of the late 1920s – or the various banker credit-money boom-busts of the pre World War One period.

    Money does not have to be gold – but whatever the commodity used as money is, stick to the commodity, A “standard” confuses the issue – and is a open door to abuse.

    Only lend out real savings – and actually lend out money (physical money), no “crediting to the account” or other such antics.

    This is no way prevents the use of electronic cards and so on – as long as it is made clear that what is being transferred is the ownership of commodity money that physically exists in a defined place (not a “promise” – the commodity must actually be there).

  • Julie near Chicago

    What a welcome piece of news to excite the Provincial Pixels on this Day of All Fools. I must congratulate the reporter, Mr. Martland, on his wondrous piece, which, although I’m sure it is simply a straightforward, honest piece of reportage, also strikes me as marvellously humourous. Well done, sir!

    Also, I love the photo of HM. In that one she looks both taken aback and amused, as well as a good-natured sort. A bit as if a humming-bird had interrupted its snorkelling amongst the hollyhocks to speak to her.

    Personally were I Lord Protector Gabb I would have made some rather different personnel choices, but then I probably would never have gotten the job in the first place, so there’s that.

    Thanks very much, Keir!

    • Julie, the English Liberal Government-in-Waiting does takes its forthcoming responsibilities to the People of the UK (who will have to pay its bills although vastly less than those from previous outfits) rather seriously.

      We are composed of blokes who all agree that “The Supreme Function of Statesmanship is to Provide Against Avoidable Evils”, and nothing more than that. (Guess who said that then…?)

    • No Julie, it wasn’t a hummingbird.

      Looking at her expression, I wouldn’t want to be that corgi!

  • Quite so David Davis.

    As for cutting government spending (the question I asked) – the leader of a party opposed to mine made a few suggestions last night.

    Small steps certainly – ending overseas aid, and the money given to the E.U., and projects such as HS2, would only save about one per cent of the budget (not 50% as the Lord Protector somehow managed).

    But it is a lot better than repeatedly saying “I want to save one Pound out of every hundred Pounds that the government spends” without saying how this is to be done.

    Repeating something multiple times does not make it real. When dealing with saving money one must be specific.

    I had better stop – as I am turning into the classic grumpy middle aged man.

    Anyway round here the Conservative candidate supports all these specific policy ideas anyway – indeed he has been suggesting them for years.

    Dramatic government spending cuts have been done – for example by Warren Harding in 1921, or by the so called “do nothing Congress” in the late 1940s – which abolished a lot of the schemes that Franklin Roosevelt had imposed in the 1930s.

    But we need a BRITISH example – and we need it now.

    • Did the British government of the 1930s not provide a reasonable example? Did they not impose a 20 percent paycut across the board for all government employees?

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s