France conducted 23 arrests and seized 31 weapons in overnight raids in the wake of the Paris attacks, Bernard Cazeneuve, the interior minister, has announced.
It carried out 168 raids and has assigned 104 people to house arrest. A rocket launcher and a Kalashnikov rifle were found near the southeast city of Lyon.
Just for personal use officer, we have terrible cockroach problem.
"Corbyn’s power within LAB will soon hinge on perceptions of his likely general election performance"
I disagree. The hard left does not hold, and never has held, electoral success as the prime political objective: they are instead devoted to control of party. Corbyn's opponents in parliament have no realistic route to removing him.
Good morning all.
I seem to be harping on about 'the long game' a lot nowadays. If the hard left get control of Labour party mechanisms, they simply have to wait for their opportunity. The Tories won't last forever. The Lib Dems aren't credible as a Labour replacement. They might have to wait for 2025, or even 2030. Doesn't matter. Rome wasn't built in a day etc.
Similarly, militant Islam just has to be patient. Democracies have no stamina.
If the Labour types are basing their hopes that the pendulum will one day swing back because only Labour or The Conservatives ever form a government, then they may be disappointed. There is no reason why the same two parties must have power and, as the Liberals demonstrated nearly a century ago, the voters are quite capable of casting a party out into the darkness of irrelevance.
Wasn't Nawaz caught heading into a strip club earlier in the year, or was it my imagination that the Twitterati poured seven buckets of shit over his head ?
Interesting (I'm assuming if Article V is invoked this would be the only way of doing this)
@AlanDuncanMP: The Prime Minister should be released from the obligation to come to Parliament ahead of any urgent action against ISIS targets in Syria.
Funny how PB Tories think the current ISIS problem is all Jezzas fault.
The primary reason for ISIS existing IMO is the slaughter of Muslims in wars such as Iraq.
Remind me which side were you on in those decisions.
I was on the same as Jezza.
I think a certain Ken Clarke said at the time you will create thousands of OBL's with the pursuit of this war. He was right.
No one thinks ISIS is Corbyn's fault. Like almost every other topic he is not relevant to their success or failure.
All it demonstrates is the poor judgments he has made in the past; the sort of people he wanted to associate with and support; his basic stupidity in giving these sort of people credence on the basis that if they were anti-American or anti-British they were probably right about other things as well; the futility of his basically pacifist stand when faced with such murderous villains and the problems his party has caused with multiculturalism, uncontrolled immigration from alien cultures and its tolerance of behaviour and attitudes incompatible with our core values for electoral advantage.
'The simple answer, and it is simple but with a large basis of truth, is that the Labour Party wanted immigration to boost their voter numbers. That is why they removed almost all barriers to large scale immigration in 2004/5
EU nationals can't vote in general elections.'
As you well know a large portion of immigration under New Labour's open door policy was from Commonwealth countries,whose citizens are allowed to vote in UK general elections even if they have not become UK nationals.
They largely went to live in what were already safe Labour seats and were arriving before 2004/05.
Clearly the Tories are also doing it, given current levels of immigration.
The mastermind of terror: Officials say Paris massacres were planned by Belgian who once recruited his 13-year-old brother to fight for ISIS in Syria and posed smiling next to decapitated bodies
Not a fan of Gramsci, but the WWC appear to be obvious here.
In his Prison Notebooks, Antonio Gramsci describes the fate of political parties in times of crisis.
‘At a certain point in their historical lives, social classes become detached from their traditional parties. In other words, the traditional parties in that particular organizational form, with the particular men who constitute, represent, and lead them, are no longer recognized by their class (or fraction of a class) as its expression.’
But being British, or any other nationality, isn't something that can be learned in a textbook, it didn't come about through planning and diktat but through a free market within a fixed number of people...
Not sure I follow. "a free market within a fixed number of people"?
Well you have a certain, limited amount of people and let them do what they like
Britishness was, as Dair would tell you, a very carefully constructed concept.
Scotland at the beginning of the 18th century had some resemblances to a failed state in the modern middle east. It was bankrupt, riven by religious conflict and was dominated outside its few big cities by tribal groupings that were impenetrable to the outsider. It was eventually absorbed very successfully into the British state, but the process wasn't a smooth or quick one. It took generations.
I would disagree that any nationality is a carefully constructed concept, although I don't really think of Britain as a country or myself as particularly British
I always come back to the question, regarding the immigration of the last 40 odd years; was it worth it? Do the upsides outweigh the downsides? Why create the problems we are facing when they were obvious and avoidable?
The simple answer, and it is simple but with a large basis of truth, is that the Labour Party wanted immigration to boost their voter numbers. That is why they removed almost all barriers to large scale immigration in 2004/5
EU nationals can't vote in general elections.
Any lawful resident can vote in General Elections if they become British citizens. Labour's initial targets were Asians who generally voted Labour until they became fed up with Labour's wars.
Presumably you believe the Tories are now importing voters.
'No, it's still a means to an end; it's just that the end they desire is much bigger than the IRA's'
That's right. Dismissing these people as mad psychopaths is a mistake. They have definite goals. The problem is here in the West we simply can't understand the way their minds work.
Yes we can. We may not like how their minds work but it is not beyond our whit or comprehension to understand what they are thinking. Especially given the volumes of material on their ludicrous ideology that they release.
To throw up your hands in despair at the first step (understanding the problem) is to completely abandon any chance of coming up with a working solution.
The foundation of ISIS ideology is their division of the world into "Crusaders" and "Islam". The way to break the ideology is to repeatedly and publicly show them that this division is false.
But being British, or any other nationality, isn't something that can be learned in a textbook, it didn't come about through planning and diktat but through a free market within a fixed number of people...
Not sure I follow. "a free market within a fixed number of people"?
Well you have a certain, limited amount of people and let them do what they like
Britishness was, as Dair would tell you, a very carefully constructed concept.
Scotland at the beginning of the 18th century had some resemblances to a failed state in the modern middle east. It was bankrupt, riven by religious conflict and was dominated outside its few big cities by tribal groupings that were impenetrable to the outsider. It was eventually absorbed very successfully into the British state, but the process wasn't a smooth or quick one. It took generations.
I would disagree that any nationality is a carefully constructed concept, although I don't really think of Britain as a country or myself as particularly British
I always come back to the question, regarding the immigration of the last 40 odd years; was it worth it? Do the upsides outweigh the downsides? Why create the problems we are facing when they were obvious and avoidable?
The simple answer, and it is simple but with a large basis of truth, is that the Labour Party wanted immigration to boost their voter numbers. That is why they removed almost all barriers to large scale immigration in 2004/5
EU nationals can't vote in general elections.
Any lawful resident can vote in General Elections if they become British citizens. Labour's initial targets were Asians who generally voted Labour until they became fed up with Labour's wars.
Presumably you believe the Tories are now importing voters.
Interesting (I'm assuming if Article V is invoked this would be the only way of doing this)
@AlanDuncanMP: The Prime Minister should be released from the obligation to come to Parliament ahead of any urgent action against ISIS targets in Syria.
Personally I think article 5 can be invoked here. But it is a decision for France to decide if it wants to push that within NATO. If she does, and it is art 5 we should play our part. I think that goes above the head of parliament.
But being British, or any other nationality, isn't something that can be learned in a textbook, it didn't come about through planning and diktat but through a free market within a fixed number of people...
Not sure I follow. "a free market within a fixed number of people"?
Well you have a certain, limited amount of people and let them do what they like
Britishness was, as Dair would tell you, a very carefully constructed concept.
Scotland at the beginning of the 18th century had some resemblances to a failed state in the modern middle east. It was bankrupt, riven by religious conflict and was dominated outside its few big cities by tribal groupings that were impenetrable to the outsider. It was eventually absorbed very successfully into the British state, but the process wasn't a smooth or quick one. It took generations.
I would disagree that any nationality is a carefully constructed concept, although I don't really think of Britain as a country or myself as particularly British
I always come back to the question, regarding the immigration of the last 40 odd years; was it worth it? Do the upsides outweigh the downsides? Why create the problems we are facing when they were obvious and avoidable?
The simple answer, and it is simple but with a large basis of truth, is that the Labour Party wanted immigration to boost their voter numbers. That is why they removed almost all barriers to large scale immigration in 2004/5
EU nationals can't vote in general elections.
Any lawful resident can vote in General Elections if they become British citizens. Labour's initial targets were Asians who generally voted Labour until they became fed up with Labour's wars.
Presumably you believe the Tories are now importing voters.
I thank my lucky stars that my suicide vest has never accidentally gone off
I mean we all go for a nice Friday evening stroll through the centre of Paris wearing our explosive laden vests, right? I mean it is getting quite nippy at this time of year, you wouldn't want to catch a cold.
The most worrying thing is like the family, they see no evil, hear no evil. The mosque saw no evil, heard no evil...Just a nice boy, who went on a vacation to Syria for the cracking weather and then had an accident and it is a tragedy that he has been killed.
But being British, or any other nationality, isn't something that can be learned in a textbook, it didn't come about through planning and diktat but through a free market within a fixed number of people...
Not sure I follow. "a free market within a fixed number of people"?
Well you have a certain, limited amount of people and let them do what they like
Britishness was, as Dair would tell you, a very carefully constructed concept.
Scotland at the beginning of the 18th century had some resemblances to a failed state in the modern middle east. It was bankrupt, riven by religious conflict and was dominated outside its few big cities by tribal groupings that were impenetrable to the outsider. It was eventually absorbed very successfully into the British state, but the process wasn't a smooth or quick one. It took generations.
I would disagree that any nationality is a carefully constructed concept, although I don't really think of Britain as a country or myself as particularly British
I always come back to the question, regarding the immigration of the last 40 odd years; was it worth it? Do the upsides outweigh the downsides? Why create the problems we are facing when they were obvious and avoidable?
The simple answer, and it is simple but with a large basis of truth, is that the Labour Party wanted immigration to boost their voter numbers. That is why they removed almost all barriers to large scale immigration in 2004/5
EU nationals can't vote in general elections.
Any lawful resident can vote in General Elections if they become British citizens. Labour's initial targets were Asians who generally voted Labour until they became fed up with Labour's wars.
Presumably you believe the Tories are now importing voters.
Importing?
Tut tut
It is the favoured term, is it not?
I have no problem with it, just that you have chided me for using it previously
'No, it's still a means to an end; it's just that the end they desire is much bigger than the IRA's'
That's right. Dismissing these people as mad psychopaths is a mistake. They have definite goals. The problem is here in the West we simply can't understand the way their minds work.
Yes we can. We may not like how their minds work but it is not beyond our whit or comprehension to understand what they are thinking. Especially given the volumes of material on their ludicrous ideology that they release.
To throw up your hands in despair at the first step (understanding the problem) is to completely abandon any chance of coming up with a working solution.
The foundation of ISIS ideology is their division of the world into "Crusaders" and "Islam". The way to break the ideology is to repeatedly and publicly show them that this division is false.
Bernard Lewis's 'What Went Wrong?' is a short (190pp) work that puts ISIS into perspective (despite being written in the early noughties).
When a culture or people have hit a losing streak (as Muslim countries have for the last 400 years or so) - especially when they believe that they are chosen by God as a special people, a common response is to hark back to simpler, purer times. That the reason for current misfortunes is due to a turning away from God (or gods).
You can find examples in Biblical Israel, late Imperial Rome, late Imperial Spain and so on. ISIS are a particular manifestation of that yearning for purity. I appreciate that their barbarism might obscure that.
It's an interesting article with some strong points, and he's not wrong about the "shining City on a hill" comparison. But as I said below, most members are now IMO unwilling to support a leadership which is purely managerialist/pragmatic. Moreover, I don't think the electorate are willing to support it either, when it comes down to it - what happens is that Labour does well in mid-term in reaction to Tory failures, but then the media rally round and attack Labour credibility (and any party and leader will have weaknesses to attack if they want to), and without any particular positive project to support, the potential Labour voters don't turn out in sufficient numbers.
I don't think the membership insists on pure socialist virtue. But the glaring lack of opportunity for people in the bottom half of society followed by even more glaring inequality of outcomes needs to be addressed by any left-of-centre party. If it doesn't, then no amount of bland slogans and smooth leadership will suffice, and we might as well stick to core left-wing values.
Of course, the issue wouldn't arise if we had PR (which I've always favoured on fairness grounds anyway). We'd have a "City on a hill" party and a "pragmatic centrist" party, and they'd both get 20-25%, potentially enough for a coalition. The difficulty is that with FPTP we have to either find a way to combine the two, or achieve a difficult victory with one section alone. That's why I think that at present the centre-left needs to focus on producing an attractive project, rather than just sit around waiting for election setbacks to deliver the leadership back to them.
'No, it's still a means to an end; it's just that the end they desire is much bigger than the IRA's'
That's right. Dismissing these people as mad psychopaths is a mistake. They have definite goals. The problem is here in the West we simply can't understand the way their minds work.
Yes we can. We may not like how their minds work but it is not beyond our whit or comprehension to understand what they are thinking. Especially given the volumes of material on their ludicrous ideology that they release.
To throw up your hands in despair at the first step (understanding the problem) is to completely abandon any chance of coming up with a working solution.
The foundation of ISIS ideology is their division of the world into "Crusaders" and "Islam". The way to break the ideology is to repeatedly and publicly show them that this division is false.
Bernard Lewis's 'What Went Wrong?' is a short (190pp) work that puts ISIS into perspective (despite being written in the early noughties).
When a culture or people have hit a losing streak (as Muslim countries have for the last 400 years or so) - especially when they believe that they are chosen by God as a special people, a common response is to hark back to simpler, purer times. That the reason for current misfortunes is due to a turning away from God (or gods).
You can find examples in Biblical Israel, late Imperial Rome, late Imperial Spain and so on. ISIS are a particular manifestation of that yearning for purity. I appreciate that their barbarism might obscure that.
Explains the resurgence of morris dancing after the fall of the British Empire.
It's an interesting article with some strong points, and he's not wrong about the "shining City on a hill" comparison. But as I said below, most members are now IMO unwilling to support a leadership which is purely managerialist/pragmatic. Moreover, I don't think the electorate are willing to support it either, when it comes down to it - what happens is that Labour does well in mid-term in reaction to Tory failures, but then the media rally round and attack Labour credibility (and any party and leader will have weaknesses to attack if they want to), and without any particular positive project to support, the potential Labour voters don't turn out in sufficient numbers. *snip for brevity*
Ah, the media. Luckily the Mail and Murdoch have no barrier to their propaganda other than the almost invisible BBC, Guardian, Observer, Mirror and Express.
1) This was a direct assault on the way that we live, . 2) It was well-organised and in large parts well-executed. 3) These were not the actions of Muslims as a whole. The great bulk of Muslims in Europe would be appalled by these actions also. 4) However, a significant minority of Muslims would not be appalled or would be ambivalent or, in a few cases, would actively supportive of these actions. The number of each of those groups of Muslims is far too great to ignore or simply to discount.7) We have been pretty good at containing the ability of adherents to do the harm that they wish to do and far poorer at containing the ideology itself. We need to do both. 8) The harder battle is in working out how to take on an idea. Setting up cricket tests to apply to a minority that already feels excluded and picked on is unlikely to douse the flames: the reverse. 9) We therefore need a much wider-ranging conversation about what Britishness means - where the acceptable parameters of behaviour lie and, importantly, what is incompatible with being part of British society. What are the limits of tolerance? These probably need much more patrolling than they have received to date. They also need to be seen to be colour blind and ideology blind in their enforcement if they are not going to foster much greater resentment. 10) So far as military action is concerned, it needs to be taken with a clear and achievable set of aims. We have not been given a clear set of aims for British involvement in Syria beyond "everyone else is doing it so why can't we?" 11) There are going to be no quick solutions. It is easier to change behaviours than ideas. We should be settling in for the long haul. [Snipped for length]
A very good post Antifrank. Point 4 has to be understood and not ignored. Points 8 and 9 are key. 8 above all. The way to defeat bad ideas is by challenging them and providing better ones. We have in the West been very bad at that. We have not challenged Islamism or even Islam. We have not provided better ideas because too many of us have subscribed to cultural relativism or a sort of pathetic Western colonial guilt and have refused to say that our way of life, whatever faults it has, is better and it is ours and it depends on the values underpinning it, grew out of them and will wither without them. And if people don't like them that's their choice and the can go somewhere else more to their liking.
I am not a great fan of defining Britishness with cricket tests and the like. But we can I think clearly say what is not British or Western and say no those things which are not Western or which undermine Western values.
I came up with some ideas in January after Charlie Hebdo. I may dig them out.
'No, it's still a means to an end; it's just that the end they desire is much bigger than the IRA's'
That's right. Dismissing these people as mad psychopaths is a mistake. They have definite goals. The problem is here in the West we simply can't understand the way their minds work.
Yes we can. We may not like how their minds work but it is not beyond our whit or comprehension to understand what they are thinking. Especially given the volumes of material on their ludicrous ideology that they release.
To throw up your hands in despair at the first step (understanding the problem) is to completely abandon any chance of coming up with a working solution.
The foundation of ISIS ideology is their division of the world into "Crusaders" and "Islam". The way to break the ideology is to repeatedly and publicly show them that this division is false.
Bernard Lewis's 'What Went Wrong?' is a short (190pp) work that puts ISIS into perspective (despite being written in the early noughties).
When a culture or people have hit a losing streak (as Muslim countries have for the last 400 years or so) - especially when they believe that they are chosen by God as a special people, a common response is to hark back to simpler, purer times. That the reason for current misfortunes is due to a turning away from God (or gods).
You can find examples in Biblical Israel, late Imperial Rome, late Imperial Spain and so on. ISIS are a particular manifestation of that yearning for purity. I appreciate that their barbarism might obscure that.
Explains the resurgence of morris dancing after the fall of the British Empire.
I was tempted to add the Labour party to my list of examples, but I don't believe in kicking someone when they're down .
It's an interesting article with some strong points, and he's not wrong about the "shining City on a hill" comparison. But as I said below, most members are now IMO unwilling to support a leadership which is purely managerialist/pragmatic. Moreover, I don't think the electorate are willing to support it either, when it comes down to it - what happens is that Labour does well in mid-term in reaction to Tory failures, but then the media rally round and attack Labour credibility (and any party and leader will have weaknesses to attack if they want to), and without any particular positive project to support, the potential Labour voters don't turn out in sufficient numbers.
I don't think the membership insists on pure socialist virtue. But the glaring lack of opportunity for people in the bottom half of society followed by even more glaring inequality of outcomes needs to be addressed by any left-of-centre party. If it doesn't, then no amount of bland slogans and smooth leadership will suffice, and we might as well stick to core left-wing values.
Of course, the issue wouldn't arise if we had PR (which I've always favoured on fairness grounds anyway). We'd have a "City on a hill" party and a "pragmatic centrist" party, and they'd both get 20-25%, potentially enough for a coalition. The difficulty is that with FPTP we have to either find a way to combine the two, or achieve a difficult victory with one section alone. That's why I think that at present the centre-left needs to focus on producing an attractive project, rather than just sit around waiting for election setbacks to deliver the leadership back to them.
This is one of the most interesting paragraphs IMO:
"The support for Corbyn is a distilled version of Labour’s shrinking electoral coalition. It is made up of the middle class, socially liberal, baby boomer generation who secured its influence in the public sector particularly the teaching profession, the arts, and academia. Its powerful moral politics of altruism provides it with limited but strong definition and intellectual consistency. It is a politics that valorises the ‘other’ – the oppressed, deprived and the immigrant – but without the actual involvement of these people."
1) This was a direct assault on the way that we live, . would be ambivalent or, in a few cases, would actively supportive of these actions. The number of each of those groups of Muslims is far too great to ignore or simply to discount.7) We have been pretty good at containing the ability of adherents to do the harm that they wish to do and far poorer at containing the ideology itself. We need to do both. enforcement if they are not going to foster much greater resentment. 10) So far as military action is concerned, it needs to be taken with a clear and achievable set of aims. We have not been given a clear set of aims for British involvement in Syria beyond "everyone else is doing it so why can't we?" 11) There are going to be no quick solutions. It is easier to change behaviours than ideas. We should be settling in for the long haul. [Snipped for length]
A very good post Antifrank. Point 4 has to be understood and not ignored. Points 8 and 9 are key. 8 above all. The way to defeat bad ideas is by challenging them and providing better ones. We have in the West been very bad at that. We have not challenged Islamism or even Islam. We have not provided better ideas because too many of us have subscribed to cultural relativism or a sort of pathetic Western colonial guilt and have refused to say that our way of life, whatever faults it has, is better and it is ours and it depends on the values underpinning it, grew out of them and will wither without them. And if people don't like them that's their choice and the can go somewhere else more to their liking.
I am not a great fan of defining Britishness with cricket tests and the like. But we can I think clearly say what is not British or Western and say no those things which are not Western or which undermine Western values.
I came up with some ideas in January after Charlie Hebdo. I may dig them out.
Surely 'Britishness' isn't an abstract idea but an snapshot of the views of the population? What people refer to as British values are what Britain was 50 years ago. A significant proportion of British values today are Islamic, whether the rest of the population like it or not... If Islam became the majority religion in Britain in 50 years or so, British values would be sharia law etc
'They largely went to live in what were already safe Labour seats and were arriving before 2004/05.'
But only a fraction of the numbers prior to 1997,New Labour's mass immigration opened the door for all dependents to come in and was based on their pet multiculturalism policy as confirmed by Andrew Neather
'He wrote: "Earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.
"I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn't its main purpose – to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date."
The "deliberate policy", from late 2000 until "at least February last year", when the new points based system was introduced, was to open up the UK to mass migration, he said. '
But of course you knew that, however much you try to pretend it was not the case.
'The simple answer, and it is simple but with a large basis of truth, is that the Labour Party wanted immigration to boost their voter numbers. That is why they removed almost all barriers to large scale immigration in 2004/5
EU nationals can't vote in general elections.'
As you well know a large portion of immigration under New Labour's open door policy was from Commonwealth countries,whose citizens are allowed to vote in UK general elections even if they have not become UK nationals.
They largely went to live in what were already safe Labour seats and were arriving before 2004/05.
Clearly the Tories are also doing it, given current levels of immigration.
In fact, the current levels are higher. But I thought most Indians voted Tory anyway. That's the claim, at least. Somehow does not show up in Brent or Ealing Southall.
1) This was a direct assault on the way that we live, . 2) It was well-organised and in large parts well-executed. 3) These were not the actions of Muslims as a whole. The great bulk of Muslims in Europe would be appalled by these actions also. 4) However, a significant minority of Muslims would not be appalled or would be ambivalent or, in a few cases, would actively supportive of these actions. The number of each of those groups of Muslims is far too great to ignore or simply to discount.7) We have been pretty good at containing the ability of adherents to do the harm that they wish to do and far poorer at containing the ideology itself. We need to do both. 8) The harder battle is in working out how to take on an idea. Setting up cricket hi tests to apply to a minority that already feels excluded and picked on is unlikely to douse the flames: the reverse. 9) We therefore need a much wider-ranging conversation about what Britishness means - where the acceptable parameters of behaviour lie and, importantly, what is incompatible with being part of British society. What are the limits of tolerance? These probably need much more patrolling than they have received to date. They also need to be seen to be colour blind and ideology blind in their enforcement if they are not going to foster much greater resentment. [Snipped for length]
A very good post Antifrank. Point 4 has to be understood and not ignored. Points 8 and 9 are key. 8 above all. The way to defeat bad ideas is by challenging them and providing better ones. We have in the West been very bad at that. We have not challenged Islamism or even Islam. We have not provided better ideas because too many of us have subscribed to cultural relativism or a sort of pathetic Western colonial guilt and have refused to say that our way of life, whatever faults it has, is better and it is ours and it depends on the values underpinning it, grew out of them and will wither without them. And if people don't like them that's their choice and the can go somewhere else more to their liking.
I am not a great fan of defining Britishness with cricket tests and the like. But we can I think clearly say what is not British or Western and say no those things which are not Western or which undermine Western values.
I came up with some ideas in January after Charlie Hebdo. I may dig them out.
This is one of the most interesting paragraphs IMO:
"The support for Corbyn is a distilled version of Labour’s shrinking electoral coalition. It is made up of the middle class, socially liberal, baby boomer generation who secured its influence in the public sector particularly the teaching profession, the arts, and academia. Its powerful moral politics of altruism provides it with limited but strong definition and intellectual consistency. It is a politics that valorises the ‘other’ – the oppressed, deprived and the immigrant – but without the actual involvement of these people."
I saw a comedian on Friday night that was exactly this in action. His whole routine comprised of things like how wrong [unofficial] profiling of Muslims at airport security is. He was a upper middle class white guy banging on about oppression, deprivation, etc. It is about a credible as George Osborne liking / understanding NWA back in the day.
Unsurprisingly he writes most of the gags for Radio 4 comedy programmes.
'They largely went to live in what were already safe Labour seats and were arriving before 2004/05.'
But only a fraction of the numbers prior to 1997,New Labour's mass immigration opened the door for all dependents to come in and was based on their pet multiculturalism policy as confirmed by Andrew Neather
'He wrote: "Earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.
"I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn't its main purpose – to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date."
The "deliberate policy", from late 2000 until "at least February last year", when the new points based system was introduced, was to open up the UK to mass migration, he said. '
But of course you knew that, however much you try to pretend it was not the case.
Poitnless trying to engage with SO in his current mood. You need to understand the deep angst inside the mind of a moderate left-winger who naturally wants to vote Labour faced with a party led by Corbyn.
'They largely went to live in what were already safe Labour seats and were arriving before 2004/05.'
But only a fraction of the numbers prior to 1997,New Labour's mass immigration opened the door for all dependents to come in and was based on their pet multiculturalism policy as confirmed by Andrew Neather
'He wrote: "Earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.
"I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn't its main purpose – to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date."
The "deliberate policy", from late 2000 until "at least February last year", when the new points based system was introduced, was to open up the UK to mass migration, he said. '
But of course you knew that, however much you try to pretend it was not the case.
And you know Neather was providing an opinion, not confirming a policy. People will believe what they want to believe. I think Labour got it very wrong because it did not think through the full implications of liberalising the immigration regime. Once it realised it rowed back very quickly, which is why asylum became the big issue it did. However, the bottom line is that if Labour did seek to open the doors to up its vote it was a spectacular failure.
'The simple answer, and it is simple but with a large basis of truth, is that the Labour Party wanted immigration to boost their voter numbers. That is why they removed almost all barriers to large scale immigration in 2004/5
EU nationals can't vote in general elections.'
As you well know a large portion of immigration under New Labour's open door policy was from Commonwealth countries,whose citizens are allowed to vote in UK general elections even if they have not become UK nationals.
They largely went to live in what were already safe Labour seats and were arriving before 2004/05.
Clearly the Tories are also doing it, given current levels of immigration.
In fact, the current levels are higher. But I thought most Indians voted Tory anyway. That's the claim, at least. Somehow does not show up in Brent or Ealing Southall.
It shows up in Harrow and Barnet. The more middle-class Indians voting Tory, the working-class ones in Southall voting Labour.
'The simple answer, and it is simple but with a large basis of truth, is that the Labour Party wanted immigration to boost their voter numbers. That is why they removed almost all barriers to large scale immigration in 2004/5
EU nationals can't vote in general elections.'
As you well know a large portion of immigration under New Labour's open door policy was from Commonwealth countries,whose citizens are allowed to vote in UK general elections even if they have not become UK nationals.
They largely went to live in what were already safe Labour seats and were arriving before 2004/05.
Clearly the Tories are also doing it, given current levels of immigration.
In fact, the current levels are higher. But I thought most Indians voted Tory anyway. That's the claim, at least. Somehow does not show up in Brent or Ealing Southall.
It shows up in Harrow and Barnet. The more middle-class Indians voting Tory, the working-class ones in Southall voting Labour.
The allegation is that Tory Sam Armstrong hid in the foliage outside the East India Club with a polaroid camera hoping to take snaps of the pair following a love-making session. It is understood that he missed the pair after being stung by nettles and thus the plot failed.
'They largely went to live in what were already safe Labour seats and were arriving before 2004/05.'
But only a fraction of the numbers prior to 1997,New Labour's mass immigration opened the door for all dependents to come in and was based on their pet multiculturalism policy as confirmed by Andrew Neather
'He wrote: "Earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.
"I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn't its main purpose – to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date."
The "deliberate policy", from late 2000 until "at least February last year", when the new points based system was introduced, was to open up the UK to mass migration, he said. '
But of course you knew that, however much you try to pretend it was not the case.
And you know Neather was providing an opinion, not confirming a policy. People will believe what they want to believe. I think Labour got it very wrong because it did not think through the full implications of liberalising the immigration regime. Once it realised it rowed back very quickly, which is why asylum became the big issue it did. However, the bottom line is that if Labour did seek to open the doors to up its vote it was a spectacular failure.
It was a spectacular failure because it showed complete contempt for the existing WWC Labour vote. "Ah, fuck 'em - who else are they going to vote for - the Tories?"
Wasn't Nawaz caught heading into a strip club earlier in the year, or was it my imagination that the Twitterati poured seven buckets of shit over his head ?
it was years ago. The twitterati can go f**k itself.
This is one of the most interesting paragraphs IMO:
"The support for Corbyn is a distilled version of Labour’s shrinking electoral coalition. It is made up of the middle class, socially liberal, baby boomer generation who secured its influence in the public sector particularly the teaching profession, the arts, and academia. Its powerful moral politics of altruism provides it with limited but strong definition and intellectual consistency. It is a politics that valorises the ‘other’ – the oppressed, deprived and the immigrant – but without the actual involvement of these people."
Yes - this is one of the most perceptive points. Labour's new members are completely unrepresentative of the wider electorate. A few are dedicated hard left activists but most are merely a flashmob of white middle class people who are more interested in the politics of protest than the politics of power.
1) This was a direct assault on the way that we live, . would be ambivalent or, in a few cases, would actively supportive of these actions. The number of each of those groups of Muslims is far too great to ignore or simply to discount.7) We have been pretty good at containing the ability of adherents to do the harm that they wish to do and far poorer at containing the ideology itself. We need to do both. enforcement if they are not going to foster much greater resentment. ... 11) There are going to be no quick solutions. It is easier to change behaviours than ideas. We should be settling in for the long haul. [Snipped for length]
A very good post Antifrank. Point 4 has to be understood and not ignored. Points 8 and 9 are key. 8 above all. The way to defeat bad ideas is by challenging them and providing better ones. We have in the West been very bad at that. We have not challenged Islamism or even Islam. We have not provided better ideas because too many of us have subscribed to cultural relativism or a sort of pathetic Western colonial guilt and have refused to say that our way of life, whatever faults it has, is better and it is ours and it depends on the values underpinning it, grew out of them and will wither without them. And if people don't like them that's their choice and the can go somewhere else more to their liking.
I am not a great fan of defining Britishness with cricket tests and the like. But we can I think clearly say what is not British or Western and say no those things which are not Western or which undermine Western values.
I came up with some ideas in January after Charlie Hebdo. I may dig them out.
Surely 'Britishness' isn't an abstract idea but an snapshot of the views of the population? What people refer to as British values are what Britain was 50 years ago. A significant proportion of British values today are Islamic, whether the rest of the population like it or not... If Islam became the majority religion in Britain in 50 years or so, British values would be sharia law etc
I would say Britishness was more like the views taking the middle 50% of the population on a particular issue. A small minority isn't going to have much effect and therefore the effect of the Muslim population is relatively minor - rather than saying they are the views of 50 years ago.
However if the Muslim population continues to increase that would change, as the average person now has, say, a dimmer view of homosexuality.
A very good post Antifrank. Point 4 has to be understood and not ignored. Points 8 and 9 are key. 8 above all. The way to defeat bad ideas is by challenging them and providing better ones. We have in the West been very bad at that. We have not challenged Islamism or even Islam. We have not provided better ideas because too many of us have subscribed to cultural relativism or a sort of pathetic Western colonial guilt and have refused to say that our way of life, whatever faults it has, is better and it is ours and it depends on the values underpinning it, grew out of them and will wither without them. And if people don't like them that's their choice and the can go somewhere else more to their liking.
I am not a great fan of defining Britishness with cricket tests and the like. But we can I think clearly say what is not British or Western and say no those things which are not Western or which undermine Western values.
I came up with some ideas in January after Charlie Hebdo. I may dig them out.
Surely 'Britishness' isn't an abstract idea but an snapshot of the views of the population? What people refer to as British values are what Britain was 50 years ago. A significant proportion of British values today are Islamic, whether the rest of the population like it or not... If Islam became the majority religion in Britain in 50 years or so, British values would be sharia law etc
I disagree profoundly with this. The idea of Britain and of British values outlast and to a certain extent are independent of the people within the territory at any one particular moment. Your view is a rather passive one - and I don't mean this as a criticism of you - that says that because some people come here with different views we are obliged to accept those views. I thik British culture and history and tradition and values are matters which we pass on, we build on. We have a duty to do so. Of course it adapts and changes but there are some core values which need to endure, which we must ensure do endure.
I am a Gaullist in this. Just as he had "une certaine idee de la France" I have a certain idea of Britain which I think is of great value and which I am not willing to see ruined or defeated by worse ideas.
Wasn't Nawaz caught heading into a strip club earlier in the year, or was it my imagination that the Twitterati poured seven buckets of shit over his head ?
it was years ago. The twitterati can go f**k itself.
Nawaz is one of the brightest spots out there.
The simplest political message is "Ignore prevailing opinion on Twitter."
"The support for Corbyn is a distilled version of Labour’s shrinking electoral coalition. It is made up of the middle class, socially liberal, baby boomer generation who secured its influence in the public sector particularly the teaching profession, the arts, and academia."
Exactly, you can call them the JIF, the Jezzarite International Front. Their specialities are an exaggerated feeling of self-importance and a proclivity for virtue signalling, the Little Jack Horner syndrome - 'what a good boy am I'.
I am not a great fan of defining Britishness with cricket tests and the like. But we can I think clearly say what is not British or Western and say no those things which are not Western or which undermine Western values.
I came up with some ideas in January after Charlie Hebdo. I may dig them out.
Surely 'Britishness' isn't an abstract idea but an snapshot of the views of the population? What people refer to as British values are what Britain was 50 years ago. A significant proportion of British values today are Islamic, whether the rest of the population like it or not... If Islam became the majority religion in Britain in 50 years or so, British values would be sharia law etc
I disagree profoundly with this. The idea of Britain and of British values outlast and to a certain extent are independent of the people within the territory at any one particular moment. Your view is a rather passive one - and I don't mean this as a criticism of you - that says that because some people come here with different views we are obliged to accept those views. I thik British culture and history and tradition and values are matters which we pass on, we build on. We have a duty to do so. Of course it adapts and changes but there are some core values which need to endure, which we must ensure do endure.
I am a Gaullist in this. Just as he had "une certaine idee de la France" I have a certain idea of Britain which I think is of great value and which I am not willing to see ruined or defeated by worse ideas.
I wouldn't say we were obliged to accept the views of all the people that arrive here, but, and this is my main point re immigration in general, once their number exceeds a certain level it is impossible for those views not to be accepted... That's why I think we should control immigration extremely tightly, so your idea of British values is privileged and maintained.
We have to disagree on my original point... I would say the values of Tower Hamlets in 2015 are not the same as they were in 1965... They've changed because the population has changed
Near the end of R4 Today programme this morning we had Naughtie interviewing two french experts. This pair of lefties waded straight into all their concerns about lurches to the right etc etc.... Not a single cohesive idea about what to do.
'They largely went to live in what were already safe Labour seats and were arriving before 2004/05.'
But only a fraction of the numbers prior to 1997,New Labour's mass immigration opened the door for all dependents to come in and was based on their pet multiculturalism policy as confirmed by Andrew Neather
'He wrote: "Earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.
"I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn't its main purpose – to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date."
The "deliberate policy", from late 2000 until "at least February last year", when the new points based system was introduced, was to open up the UK to mass migration, he said. '
But of course you knew that, however much you try to pretend it was not the case.
And you know Neather was providing an opinion, not confirming a policy. People will believe what they want to believe. I think Labour got it very wrong because it did not think through the full implications of liberalising the immigration regime. Once it realised it rowed back very quickly, which is why asylum became the big issue it did. However, the bottom line is that if Labour did seek to open the doors to up its vote it was a spectacular failure.
It was a spectacular failure because it showed complete contempt for the existing WWC Labour vote. "Ah, fuck 'em - who else are they going to vote for - the Tories?"
Actually, not you.
Yep, no-one stopped to think for one moment what the effects might be on established communities. Labour took its vote for granted and deservedly paid the price. The Tories have learned that lesson very well: immigration does not have to be a deal breaker as long as you look after your core.
Ed Miliband was rejected as being too weak to be prime minister in waiting. Hell would have to freeze before Corbyn as seen as a possible PM.
For all Miliband's faults, and those of his predecessor Brown, I don't believe anyone suspected them of not liking Britain and the British.
Orwell pointed out that British leftist intellectuals almost invariably despise Britain and its institutions.
The Orwell/Milne OE/Wykehamist type, yes.
Immigrants? Not usually. Or certainly not as much. Especially as they are often not so far removed from the generation that came to Britain for safety.
The allegation is that Tory Sam Armstrong hid in the foliage outside the East India Club with a polaroid camera hoping to take snaps of the pair following a love-making session. It is understood that he missed the pair after being stung by nettles and thus the plot failed.
This is wonderful stuff and, if i may make a topical remark, quite clearly, to my mind, demonstrates the superiority of "our" values over "theirs"
A very good post Antifrank. Point 4 has to be understood and not ignored. Points 8 and 9 are key. 8 above all. The way to defeat bad ideas is by challenging them and providing better ones. We have in the West been very bad at that. We have not challenged Islamism or even Islam. We have not provided better ideas because too many of us have subscribed to cultural relativism or a sort of pathetic Western colonial guilt and have refused to say that our way of life, whatever faults it has, is better and it is ours and it depends on the values underpinning it, grew out of them and will wither without them. And if people don't like them that's their choice and the can go somewhere else more to their liking.
I am not a great fan of defining Britishness with cricket tests and the like. But we can I think clearly say what is not British or Western and say no those things which are not Western or which undermine Western values.
I came up with some ideas in January after Charlie Hebdo. I may dig them out.
It's been debated on PB before, but as someone with an interest in politics I'm mainly interested in what Governments can do. Obviously there is scope for a lively debate on what's right and wrong, and always will be, but do we start to make adherence to core values a condition of residence in Britain, as SeanT has suggested openly and many here seem to want in some nebulous way? You and I both think that it's nicer here than in Saudi Arabia, but do we think that someone who disagrees should be forced to leave?
We can agree some things - e.g. it's trivial to say that we expect everyone to obey the law. We can agree that attending English classes should be a condition of residence. But arguably a core British value is tolerance. What are we prepared to tolerate? If it boils down to "We tolerate things we are comfortable with", it's meaningless. Do we think that people have a right to opinions we believe are repellent (hoping Britain will one day be an undemocratic caliphate, for instance), so long as they express them peacefully, or do we wish to legislate for what residents are allowed to think, and how will that work?
We can already argue against things we don't like - every thread here has people saying they disagree with Islam, for instance. Beyond that, what specifically would we like the Government to legislate for?
A very good post Antifrank. Point 4 has to be understood and not ignored. Points 8 and 9 are key. 8 above all. The way to defeat bad ideas is by challenging them and providing better ones. We have in the West been very bad at that. We have not challenged Islamism or even Islam. We have not provided better ideas because too many of us have subscribed to cultural relativism or a sort of pathetic Western colonial guilt and have refused to say that our way of life, whatever faults it has, is better and it is ours and it depends on the values underpinning it, grew out of them and will wither without them. And if people don't like them that's their choice and the can go somewhere else more to their liking.
I am not a great fan of defining Britishness with cricket tests and the like. But we can I think clearly say what is not British or Western and say no those things which are not Western or which undermine Western values.
I came up with some ideas in January after Charlie Hebdo. I may dig them out.
I'm mainly interested in what Governments can do.
Then why are you supporting a party that values ideological purity over the chance of becoming the next Government?
Surely 'Britishness' isn't an abstract idea but an snapshot of the views of the population? What people refer to as British values are what Britain was 50 years ago. A significant proportion of British values today are Islamic, whether the rest of the population like it or not... If Islam became the majority religion in Britain in 50 years or so, British values would be sharia law etc
I disagree profoundly with this. The idea of Britain and of British values outlast and to a certain extent are independent of the people within the territory at any one particular moment. Your view is a rather passive one - and I don't mean this as a criticism of you - that says that because some people come here with different views we are obliged to accept those views. I thik British culture and history and tradition and values are matters which we pass on, we build on. We have a duty to do so. Of course it adapts and changes but there are some core values which need to endure, which we must ensure do endure.
I am a Gaullist in this. Just as he had "une certaine idee de la France" I have a certain idea of Britain which I think is of great value and which I am not willing to see ruined or defeated by worse ideas.
I do think that the concept of "Britishness" is a moveable feast and that is a good thing in many ways. I remember, about the age of 10, going to see the Black and White Minstrels in Southampton at the instance of my parents who had been keen. Afterwards we all looked at each other and thought, nah, that's not right. Even when I started work 30 years ago homosexuals were persecuted and blackmailed with threats of criminal charges for consensual acts. When my mother got married in 1960 she had to leave the Bank because they did not think it appropriate to employ married women.
These have all changed massively in our lifetime and, in my view at least, they have all changed very much for the better. I think we are lucky enough to live in an extremely socially liberal society today and I would do all I can to support and maintain those values. But the idea that at any one time there is a view of Britishness which is independent of the people who live here at the time troubles me.
BBC line on Daily Politics show to a UKIP chap "but only one terrorist has been linked to the migrant crisis"....
So one is not of concern?
Well I guess they have moved on from not willing to accept that it was even one.
BBC DP (Jo) then moved into an attack on something Suzanne Evans had tweeted about folk needing to wake up to islam. Real Guardianista lines from the BBC. Time they read a wider range of views. We miss Andrew Neil's balance.
BBC line on Daily Politics show to a UKIP chap "but only one terrorist has been linked to the migrant crisis"....
So one is not of concern?
Well I guess they have moved on from not willing to accept that it was even one.
BBC DP (Jo) then moved into an attack on something Suzanne Evans had tweeted about folk needing to wake up to islam. Real Guardianista lines from the BBC. Time they read a wider range of views. We miss Andrew Neil's balance.
Was that then by but but but think of the backlash, we need more funding for community cohesion etc etc etc, and the classic this has nothing to do with Islam.
BBC line on Daily Politics show to a UKIP chap "but only one terrorist has been linked to the migrant crisis"....
So one is not of concern?
Well I guess they have moved on from not willing to accept that it was even one.
BBC DP (Jo) then moved into an attack on something Suzanne Evans had tweeted about folk needing to wake up to islam. Real Guardianista lines from the BBC. Time they read a wider range of views. We miss Andrew Neil's balance.
That was a bit odd... Jo Co looked astonished that anyone could possibly think to link the attacks with Islam... Was as though Suzanne Evans had blamed tax credits!
I say this cowering in fear from the ban hammer, but it'd be nice if moderators would say why a user has been banned (temporarily or not). Can't see anything that @isam has said as particularly ban-worthy.
I say this cowering in fear from the ban hammer, but it'd be nice if moderators would say why a user has been banned (temporarily or not). Can't see anything that @isam has said as particularly ban-worthy.
BBC line on Daily Politics show to a UKIP chap "but only one terrorist has been linked to the migrant crisis"....
So one is not of concern?
Well I guess they have moved on from not willing to accept that it was even one.
BBC DP (Jo) then moved into an attack on something Suzanne Evans had tweeted about folk needing to wake up to islam. Real Guardianista lines from the BBC. Time they read a wider range of views. We miss Andrew Neil's balance.
Was that then by but but but think of the backlash, we need more funding for community cohesion etc etc etc, and the classic this has nothing to do with Islam.
Just the BBC Guardianista line of how could Islam have anything to do with this.
I say this cowering in fear from the ban hammer, but it'd be nice if moderators would say why a user has been banned (temporarily or not). Can't see anything that @isam has said as particularly ban-worthy.
I say this cowering in fear from the ban hammer, but it'd be nice if moderators would say why a user has been banned (temporarily or not). Can't see anything that @isam has said as particularly ban-worthy.
I say this cowering in fear from the ban hammer, but it'd be nice if moderators would say why a user has been banned (temporarily or not). Can't see anything that @isam has said as particularly ban-worthy.
I say this cowering in fear from the ban hammer, but it'd be nice if moderators would say why a user has been banned (temporarily or not). Can't see anything that @isam has said as particularly ban-worthy.
BBC line on Daily Politics show to a UKIP chap "but only one terrorist has been linked to the migrant crisis"....
So one is not of concern?
Well I guess they have moved on from not willing to accept that it was even one.
BBC DP (Jo) then moved into an attack on something Suzanne Evans had tweeted about folk needing to wake up to islam. Real Guardianista lines from the BBC. Time they read a wider range of views. We miss Andrew Neil's balance.
Was that then by but but but think of the backlash, we need more funding for community cohesion etc etc etc, and the classic this has nothing to do with Islam.
Just the BBC Guardianista line of how could Islam have anything to do with this.
I am not sure how anybody can think to utter that kind of nonsense. It doesn't mean all Muslim's / interruptions of the Islamic faith, but these f##kers as my very good Muslim friend says want to turn the world back to medieval times with a literal interruption (with some twists to fit their actions where necessary) of the Koran. It has everything to do with Islam. They aren't doing this in the name of the tellytubbies and they aren't signing people up who follow bonkers stories about golden plates that only Joseph Smith could read.
I was hoping when the likes of Sajid Javid started to say this, we might actually be getting somewhere on this. Until we actually address this we get nowhere.
Corbyn's interview on LK: he was actually making an interesting point, if you delve deep enough through the ephemera. Our social history is writ large all around us: from the buildings to the bridges, from the sewers to the post boxes. Much of our modern world was built by large municipal organisations.
And it still matters to this day.. You drink water in Birmingham? It might well have been delivered from Wales via the Elan Aqueduct. Go to the loo in London? It's probably still using Bazalgette's sewers.
I can see how he, as a socialist, would enjoy 'reading' the urban landscape to see the great works many of these municipal and other public organisations did. He probably wishes they still existed in that form and were still doing great works.
I'm just not sure it's the best use of his interview time on LK ...
I say this cowering in fear from the ban hammer, but it'd be nice if moderators would say why a user has been banned (temporarily or not). Can't see anything that @isam has said as particularly ban-worthy.
Seconded.
OGH did. He said words to the effect of "Do not attack PB Moderators". Its his site and his rules. OK?
Just look at the society they have created for us.
Created and now calling names of anybody who dare to question it.
It is perfectly natural for people with things in common to want to live side by side, Luton and Bradford are good examples. However that rule doesn't apply when white, loosely Christian, British people choose to live and work amongst themselves.
I say this cowering in fear from the ban hammer, but it'd be nice if moderators would say why a user has been banned (temporarily or not). Can't see anything that @isam has said as particularly ban-worthy.
Comments
@AlanDuncanMP: The Prime Minister should be released from the obligation to come to Parliament ahead of any urgent action against ISIS targets in Syria.
All it demonstrates is the poor judgments he has made in the past; the sort of people he wanted to associate with and support; his basic stupidity in giving these sort of people credence on the basis that if they were anti-American or anti-British they were probably right about other things as well; the futility of his basically pacifist stand when faced with such murderous villains and the problems his party has caused with multiculturalism, uncontrolled immigration from alien cultures and its tolerance of behaviour and attitudes incompatible with our core values for electoral advantage.
That's all.
Clearly the Tories are also doing it, given current levels of immigration.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3320224/The-mastermind-terror-Officials-say-Paris-massacres-planned-Belgian-recruited-13-year-old-brother-fight-ISIS-Syria-posed-smiling-decapitated-bodies.html
https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/666211650693820418
To throw up your hands in despair at the first step (understanding the problem) is to completely abandon any chance of coming up with a working solution.
The foundation of ISIS ideology is their division of the world into "Crusaders" and "Islam". The way to break the ideology is to repeatedly and publicly show them that this division is false.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3320157/Mother-Paris-suicide-bomber-says-son-did-not-mean-kill-claims-blown-STRESS.html
Tut tut
The Mother's Obit of murderers since Year Dot.
The most worrying thing is like the family, they see no evil, hear no evil. The mosque saw no evil, heard no evil...Just a nice boy, who went on a vacation to Syria for the cracking weather and then had an accident and it is a tragedy that he has been killed.
When a culture or people have hit a losing streak (as Muslim countries have for the last 400 years or so) - especially when they believe that they are chosen by God as a special people, a common response is to hark back to simpler, purer times. That the reason for current misfortunes is due to a turning away from God (or gods).
You can find examples in Biblical Israel, late Imperial Rome, late Imperial Spain and so on. ISIS are a particular manifestation of that yearning for purity. I appreciate that their barbarism might obscure that.
I don't think the membership insists on pure socialist virtue. But the glaring lack of opportunity for people in the bottom half of society followed by even more glaring inequality of outcomes needs to be addressed by any left-of-centre party. If it doesn't, then no amount of bland slogans and smooth leadership will suffice, and we might as well stick to core left-wing values.
Of course, the issue wouldn't arise if we had PR (which I've always favoured on fairness grounds anyway). We'd have a "City on a hill" party and a "pragmatic centrist" party, and they'd both get 20-25%, potentially enough for a coalition. The difficulty is that with FPTP we have to either find a way to combine the two, or achieve a difficult victory with one section alone. That's why I think that at present the centre-left needs to focus on producing an attractive project, rather than just sit around waiting for election setbacks to deliver the leadership back to them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RL8IzAq7rQc
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/6138/david_cameron_braced_for_newsnight_investigation_into_tory_suicide
This article is a good start - http://www.standpointmag.com/features-january-february-2015-great-betrayal-liberals-appease-islam-nick-cohen-the-left
I am not a great fan of defining Britishness with cricket tests and the like. But we can I think clearly say what is not British or Western and say no those things which are not Western or which undermine Western values.
I came up with some ideas in January after Charlie Hebdo. I may dig them out.
The wealth is tied up primarily in final salary pensions and property.
As an example
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/09/redistribution-britain
"The support for Corbyn is a distilled version of Labour’s shrinking electoral coalition. It is made up of the middle class, socially liberal, baby boomer generation who secured its influence in the public sector particularly the teaching profession, the arts, and academia. Its powerful moral politics of altruism provides it with limited but strong definition and intellectual consistency. It is a politics that valorises the ‘other’ – the oppressed, deprived and the immigrant – but without the actual involvement of these people."
'They largely went to live in what were already safe Labour seats and were arriving before 2004/05.'
But only a fraction of the numbers prior to 1997,New Labour's mass immigration opened the door for all dependents to come in and was based on their pet multiculturalism policy as confirmed by Andrew Neather
'He wrote: "Earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.
"I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn't its main purpose – to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date."
The "deliberate policy", from late 2000 until "at least February last year", when the new points based system was introduced, was to open up the UK to mass migration, he said. '
But of course you knew that, however much you try to pretend it was not the case.
Gung ho fighting, murder and rape are always going to be more attractive to certain young men than anything we can offer.
We need to be much more ruthless. We need to say that you may choose that way if you want, but be prepared to accept the consequences.
1. We reserve the right not to admit you back.
2. We reserve the right to turn you into strawberry jam in Raqqa.
Now you choose.
Makes the threat feel very real.
Unsurprisingly he writes most of the gags for Radio 4 comedy programmes.
Like it has come back to haunt the Yazidis and the Kurds...???
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/6138/david_cameron_braced_for_newsnight_investigation_into_tory_suicide
Actually, not you.
Nawaz is one of the brightest spots out there.
However if the Muslim population continues to increase that would change, as the average person now has, say, a dimmer view of homosexuality.
I am a Gaullist in this. Just as he had "une certaine idee de la France" I have a certain idea of Britain which I think is of great value and which I am not willing to see ruined or defeated by worse ideas.
"The support for Corbyn is a distilled version of Labour’s shrinking electoral coalition. It is made up of the middle class, socially liberal, baby boomer generation who secured its influence in the public sector particularly the teaching profession, the arts, and academia."
Exactly, you can call them the JIF, the Jezzarite International Front. Their specialities are an exaggerated feeling of self-importance and a proclivity for virtue signalling, the Little Jack Horner syndrome - 'what a good boy am I'.
We have to disagree on my original point... I would say the values of Tower Hamlets in 2015 are not the same as they were in 1965... They've changed because the population has changed
So one is not of concern?
Immigrants? Not usually. Or certainly not as much. Especially as they are often not so far removed from the generation that came to Britain for safety.
We can agree some things - e.g. it's trivial to say that we expect everyone to obey the law. We can agree that attending English classes should be a condition of residence. But arguably a core British value is tolerance. What are we prepared to tolerate? If it boils down to "We tolerate things we are comfortable with", it's meaningless. Do we think that people have a right to opinions we believe are repellent (hoping Britain will one day be an undemocratic caliphate, for instance), so long as they express them peacefully, or do we wish to legislate for what residents are allowed to think, and how will that work?
We can already argue against things we don't like - every thread here has people saying they disagree with Islam, for instance. Beyond that, what specifically would we like the Government to legislate for?
These have all changed massively in our lifetime and, in my view at least, they have all changed very much for the better. I think we are lucky enough to live in an extremely socially liberal society today and I would do all I can to support and maintain those values. But the idea that at any one time there is a view of Britishness which is independent of the people who live here at the time troubles me.
@JoeWatts_: Ken Livingstone: Western foreign policy 'coming back to haunt us' in Paris attacks https://t.co/d1Jb3Zesmc'
Maybe someone will ask the village idiot what part Yazardi women played in Western foreign policy.
Marchons !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5NvFCzTusM&feature=youtu.be
See you all sometimes never after posting this.
Its a very emotional time for the centre left.
Just look at the society they have created for us.
I was hoping when the likes of Sajid Javid started to say this, we might actually be getting somewhere on this. Until we actually address this we get nowhere.
And it still matters to this day.. You drink water in Birmingham? It might well have been delivered from Wales via the Elan Aqueduct. Go to the loo in London? It's probably still using Bazalgette's sewers.
I can see how he, as a socialist, would enjoy 'reading' the urban landscape to see the great works many of these municipal and other public organisations did. He probably wishes they still existed in that form and were still doing great works.
I'm just not sure it's the best use of his interview time on LK ...
It is perfectly natural for people with things in common to want to live side by side, Luton and Bradford are good examples. However that rule doesn't apply when white, loosely Christian, British people choose to live and work amongst themselves.