But that’s not quite why it has taken nearly a week to piece together the story of a spate of muggings and sexual attacks carried out that night by seemingly organised gangs of young men. Many Germans are asking why politicians, police and broadcasters seem so reluctant to discuss what happened under cover of the crowds (the state broadcaster EZF apologised for not covering the attacks until Tuesday), and whether it’s because the attackers are widely described as looking Arab or north African. Which is why, of course, liberals like me are reluctant to talk about it.
The first comment from that article sums up a lot of what people are feeling:
"Finally, after several days of refusing to report the biggest story of 2016 so far because it does not fit with its highly ideological driven narrative, this paper is allowing comments on a story which has shown its contempt for victims of sexual assault. It's predictable enough that the first writer to tackle this does not ask why the Mayor of Cologne and many on the left are blaming the victims themselves for their own rapes. The writer should at least acknowledge the only solution left available to citizens, when the police cannot protect them from clear danger and politicians blame victims for the crime simply because the perpetrator was a foreign male of arabic extraction, is to arm themselves. Please never print another article on women's rights ever again, you have no credibility on this issue and owe those on the opposite side of the political spectrum who have now been proved correct a massive apology. I write this as a guardian reader and buyer of 17 years and someone who has always voted for left of centre parties (both of which I won't be doing ever again)."
It is a disgraceful cover up. The Guardian and the BBC have a lot to answer for over Rotherham as well.
"I didn't really blame the men involved, because the attitude to women is clearly so ingrained in their culture and the poverty and unemployment was plain to see."
But that’s not quite why it has taken nearly a week to piece together the story of a spate of muggings and sexual attacks carried out that night by seemingly organised gangs of young men. Many Germans are asking why politicians, police and broadcasters seem so reluctant to discuss what happened under cover of the crowds (the state broadcaster EZF apologised for not covering the attacks until Tuesday), and whether it’s because the attackers are widely described as looking Arab or north African. Which is why, of course, liberals like me are reluctant to talk about it.
But that’s not quite why it has taken nearly a week to piece together the story of a spate of muggings and sexual attacks carried out that night by seemingly organised gangs of young men. Many Germans are asking why politicians, police and broadcasters seem so reluctant to discuss what happened under cover of the crowds (the state broadcaster EZF apologised for not covering the attacks until Tuesday), and whether it’s because the attackers are widely described as looking Arab or north African. Which is why, of course, liberals like me are reluctant to talk about it.
The first comment from that article sums up a lot of what people are feeling:
"Finally, after several days of refusing to report the biggest story of 2016 so far because it does not fit with its highly ideological driven narrative, this paper is allowing comments on a story which has shown its contempt for victims of sexual assault. It's predictable enough that the first writer to tackle this does not ask why the Mayor of Cologne and many on the left are blaming the victims themselves for their own rapes. The writer should at least acknowledge the only solution left available to citizens, when the police cannot protect them from clear danger and politicians blame victims for the crime simply because the perpetrator was a foreign male of arabic extraction, is to arm themselves. Please never print another article on women's rights ever again, you have no credibility on this issue and owe those on the opposite side of the political spectrum who have now been proved correct a massive apology. I write this as a guardian reader and buyer of 17 years and someone who has always voted for left of centre parties (both of which I won't be doing ever again)."
It is a disgraceful cover up. The Guardian and the BBC have a lot to answer for over Rotherham as well.
The Guardian has been one of the best UK media outlets for reporting it.
Though to be fair, the BBC's coverage has been pretty dismal (on Tuesday when the story really broke, they spent no more than 20 seconds on it in one of their round-ups on the 10pm News).
What we are seeing is hopefully the implosion of the SJW movement and their inherently repressive ideology.
More and more people are coming to see how public and private debate has been stifled by those who wish to push their extreme illiberal views on a wider society.
It is awful that it takes widespread rape, sexual exploitation and assault to force the issue - but we need to have open, honest discourse and we have to fight to get it.
And that means the defeat of the SJW control freaks - as well as the ideologies they protect.
None of this is a surprise. Many of those responsible for causing chaos in the Middle East and elsewhere, are now here, and they expect to be provided with homes and money in exchange for nothing, it seems. All the benefits of the West, without the responsibilities of integration and abiding by the law.
Well done Merkel and Co. History will not be kind.
The first comment from that article sums up a lot of what people are feeling:
"Finally, after several days of refusing to report the biggest story of 2016 so far because it does not fit with its highly ideological driven narrative, this paper is allowing comments on a story which has shown its contempt for victims of sexual assault. It's predictable enough that the first writer to tackle this does not ask why the Mayor of Cologne and many on the left are blaming the victims themselves for their own rapes. The writer should at least acknowledge the only solution left available to citizens, when the police cannot protect them from clear danger and politicians blame victims for the crime simply because the perpetrator was a foreign male of arabic extraction, is to arm themselves. Please never print another article on women's rights ever again, you have no credibility on this issue and owe those on the opposite side of the political spectrum who have now been proved correct a massive apology. I write this as a guardian reader and buyer of 17 years and someone who has always voted for left of centre parties (both of which I won't be doing ever again)."
It is a disgraceful cover up. The Guardian and the BBC have a lot to answer for over Rotherham as well.
The Guardian has been one of the best UK media outlets for reporting it.
Though to be fair, the BBC's coverage has been pretty dismal (on Tuesday when the story really broke, they spent no more than 20 seconds on it in one of their round-ups on the 10pm News).
It took them far too long. The Telegraph have been reporting it for days on their front page, the Mail opened up comments on their articles days ago and the Times have run loads of excellent pieces on it. The Guardian have run one good piece which SeanT linked to, this is not one of them. It seeks to excuse the perpetrators of these crimes as poor and uneducated, as it pointed out in the comments time and again.
The BBC has been disgraceful, the national broadcaster has ignored the biggest story in Europe, and how it has developed from one city in one country to multiple cities in multiple countries, all with the perpetrators of the same ethnic backgrounds. People I know are talking about it and many are wondering why it hasn't hit the main bulletin and why the news is still only online.
"Energy Minister Andrea Leadsom confirmed that the government will look again at the level of support for solar installations available through the feed-in tariff (FiT) if as feared EU rules force the government to increase VAT on solar panels from five per cent to 20 per cent."
Mr. Simon, I think you underestimate the capacity of the self-righteous for cognitive dissonance and general bullshit.
I appreciate that - but we can hope that they can be returned to the depths of their own Tumblrs and their influence on public and private discourse can be reduced. It will be a long battle but one that needs to be won.
Labour is not "my own side" and I criticise them often, including in the first few minutes of this thread.
In the comment you objected to, I cannot see how my statement of Mrs Thatcher's historical monetarist views should be viewed as either controversial or partisan. She did not keep it a secret.
Spot on. Those opposing Corbyn don't have A Big Idea. They need to go away and come up with a Social Democratic Manifesto In An Age Of No Money. Unfortunately for them, when the voter pool is (to be kind) economically uncomplicated, then Corbyn's Let's REALLY Shake That Money Tree will always be top trumps.
A social-democratic manifesto will ALWAYS inevitably cost some money. That none of the moderates were prepared to advocate that last summer, and allowed themselves to be intellectually cowed by the Tories "live within our means" rubbish, is exactly why Corbyn was elected
I don't "live within my means", in the sense that I have an outstanding mortgage; if I'd started getting hysterical about how evil any debt is and how I needed to pay off my mortgage immediately, I would be considerably worse off right now.
You clearly struggling on debt vs deficit. Nobody is advocating paying off the mortgage immediately, not paying it off ever. not even Osbornes fantasy figures suggest we start making any repayments off the capital for another 4 years. But you know all of this already.
If running a deficit is so evil, why did Thatcher run one for 9 of her 11 years in office?
Err...she came to power in 1979. Winter of Discontent and all that. Bit like griping at Ozzy for not chopping more than a hundred billion off the mess he inherited from Gordo already. EVERY Tory government faces the same problem - it comes after a Labour one - and the money is gone.
Ironically, Mrs Thatcher blamed the previous Conservative government, not Labour. The Barber Boom under Ted Heath's government unleashed inflation and caused unemployment. Monetarism, innit.
Mr. Simon, I think you underestimate the capacity of the self-righteous for cognitive dissonance and general bullshit.
I appreciate that - but we can hope that they can be returned to the depths of their own Tumblrs and their influence on public and private discourse can be reduced. It will be a long battle but one that needs to be won.
And I don't care if it triggers them!
We all like a good triggering.
I think the worst thing about the SJW slur is that most people don't really know what it means - it just means a striving for income equality i.e not a lot to do with race and gender which I'm sure most people misunderstand.
For shame the slur has made it this far into PBland
It's not that people fighting for social justice are the problem, it's that they pursue their extreme ideologies with social justice as a disguise. With virtue-signalling and playing the race card as a means to censure or limit any opposition.
''People I know are talking about it and many are wondering why it hasn't hit the main bulletin and why the news is still only online. ''
A poster on here was scolded for going onto a Danish right wing site for news, but you can see why people are looking for alternatives when the main news channels are so politically driven.
"Energy Minister Andrea Leadsom confirmed that the government will look again at the level of support for solar installations available through the feed-in tariff (FiT) if as feared EU rules force the government to increase VAT on solar panels from five per cent to 20 per cent."
Indeed. I think this gets to one of the unspoken reasons why we entered the EU in the first place and why we should leave it now.
We entered in large part because we had a series of dreadful UK governments (both Labour and Tory) and we thought being part governed by Europe would improve overall governance of the UK.
We want to leave now because we are confident that we are better at governing the UK than the EU bureaucrats (and an EU Council where the hands out states who are net EU funding recipients can outvote us).
The lack of any clear vision of what to do in a world where there is next to no new money to spend and tough choice after tough choice on existing expenditure to make is what sunk Miliband and Corbyn's opponents in the leadership competition.
Corbyn and his joke of a shadow Chancellor don't see the dilemma because they don't see limitations on the role of the State. So, for example, in Leeds the answer as to why a particular flood defence scheme which, as it turns out, might have been useful was not there cannot possibly be, well, we chose a different one. The only sensible answer was to build them all, apparently.
The problem, which Scots are extremely familiar with, is that there are a significant minority who genuinely believe that resources are pretty much infinite and only the wickedness of the Tories who want to restrain the size of the State for "ideological" reasons which have, allegedly, nothing to do with economics. In the UK this view is held by something between 20 and 25% of the population but they are inevitably not evenly distributed across the political spectrum. In Labour they are either a majority or very close to it.
The consequences of this are that it is very difficult for someone in Labour to go against the party majority view and this puts Corbyn in a strong position. Of course the majority of the population as a whole are simply baffled at such innumeracy. This is reflected in the trust in the economy figures.
If moderate Labour are to survive they first need to find a way to win the internal argument about spending and budgets without sounding like Osborne. One obvious way to do that is to accept that the need for higher public spending does indeed require higher taxes on the better off. By being candid about that they would force the delusionists to actually engage in the issue rather than occupy a fantasy land where these choices do not have to be made.
Curiously, Scotland is a potential testing ground for this argument. In Dundee City Council 6000 of the 7900 staff have been invited to apply for voluntary redundancy. This is a consequence of the SNP freeze on CT combined with cuts in budgets that have flown through from the Westminster settlement. Labour, locally, are arguing that the services that are going to be cut are important and that CT should be increased to fund them. At the moment any such increase would simply be deducted from the central grant in accordance with SNP policy. I think Labour are going to go into May arguing that the CT freeze is no longer sustainable. If that argument gets any traction Labour moderates need to build on it nationally.
I broadly agree with the thrust of what @DavidL said (FPT). But I would add 3 important caveats:-
1. Given the number of refugees there are with a legal entitlement to asylum under the current rules, these rules are no longer tenable. In theory, if every persecuted person in Syria landed in the UK, we are legally obliged to give them asylum. This is not practical & would not get the consent of people in the UK. The relevant Conventions are going to have to be rewritten so that the asylum seeker's need is not the only determinant. There will have to be a numbers cap i.e. we are only obliged to take asylum seekers up to a limit that we - not anyone else - determine.
2. Asylum seekers who are themselves criminals or people with disgusting habits/views should not have an automatic right to entry & settlement. We need to have some sort of qualitative assessment made of those seeking to live in this country. Being generous to those in need is a good thing but you cannot say to the homeowner: you must continue being generous to someone who defecates on your carpet the minute you've let them into your house. People feel - rightly IMO - that their generosity is being abused & taken advantage of & it is not the politicians who bear the brunt but - as always - the most vulnerable (cf: German women). Whatever obligation we choose to take on to refugees must come second to the state's primary duty to its citizens, which must come first.
3. I absolutely agree with DavidL's statement that we must be very explicit about making a refugee's right to come & stay here conditional on them accepting our views of what is right & wrong. But this can only work if we can enforce this i.e .we are willing to deport them & have the ability to do so. If we don't, then no matter how much we are willing to spell this condition out, it won't work because the refugee knows that they won't be deported no matter how badly they behave. So the rules on human rights/deportation are going to have to be changed & we are going to have to organise practical ways of actually deporting people to their countries of origin.
If this cannot be done - or we don't want to - then I am coming to the view that we don't let people in from communities/countries where we know - from experience - there are or are likely to be integration issues. If we are unable to remove & the risk of misbehaviour is high or too high for us to tolerate, then better not to let them in at all.
Otherwise we end up in the absurd position that @NickPalmer described that we have to lock up in a way that offends against our own values nasty people whom we should never have let into the country because we are not able to deport them. One aspect of Labour's slide into abolishing some basic civil liberties was that it was a direct consequence of its inability & unwillingness to get a grip on immigration coupled with its naïve implementation of human rights legislation. It let in foreign terrorists to whom it had to give human rights & then tried to get round the consequences of this by seeking to introduce detention without trial. Quite how Labour has the chutzpah to boast about its human rights credentials in the face of that beats me. But it's a problem which affects governments of all colours.
Mr. Simon, I think you underestimate the capacity of the self-righteous for cognitive dissonance and general bullshit.
I appreciate that - but we can hope that they can be returned to the depths of their own Tumblrs and their influence on public and private discourse can be reduced. It will be a long battle but one that needs to be won.
And I don't care if it triggers them!
We all like a good triggering.
I think the worst thing about the SJW slur is that most people don't really know what it means - it just means a striving for income equality i.e not a lot to do with race and gender which I'm sure most people misunderstand.
It really doesn't mean 'striving for income equality' - it has a far broader scope than that. It is an ideological movement which is about controlling the debate on so many issues.
It is something that I have explored in a lot of depth. And it is not a movement that is driven by income equality issues - it is repressive, bullying and deeply illiberal.
I'm starting to wonder whether the answer to Europe will be out, even if Dave gets every last word of what he wants.
It's quite easy to find people who dislike the thing and can mention many things wrong with it. It's much harder to find those who are dead keen on it who can provide a persuasive argument in it's favour.
I've thought for a long while that we will walk. The strongest sentiment and motivation is towards out. Stay is soft.
Labour is not "my own side" and I criticise them often, including in the first few minutes of this thread.
In the comment you objected to, I cannot see how my statement of Mrs Thatcher's historical monetarist views should be viewed as either controversial or partisan. She did not keep it a secret.
Spot on. Those opposing Corbyn don't have A Big Idea. They need to go away and come up with a Social Democratic Manifesto In An Age Of No Money. Unfortunately for them, when the voter pool is (to be kind) economically uncomplicated, then Corbyn's Let's REALLY Shake That Money Tree will always be top trumps.
A social-democratic manifesto will ALWAYS inevitably cost some money. That none of the moderates were prepared to advocate that last summer, and allowed themselves to be intellectually cowed by the Tories "live within our means" rubbish, is exactly why Corbyn was elected
I don't "live within my means", in the sense that I have an outstanding mortgage; if I'd started getting hysterical about how evil any debt is and how I needed to pay off my mortgage immediately, I would be considerably worse off right now.
You clearly struggling on debt vs deficit. Nobody is advocating paying off the mortgage immediately, not paying it off ever. not even Osbornes fantasy figures suggest we start making any repayments off the capital for another 4 years. But you know all of this already.
If running a deficit is so evil, why did Thatcher run one for 9 of her 11 years in office?
Err...she came to power in 1979. Winter of Discontent and all that. Bit like griping at Ozzy for not chopping more than a hundred billion off the mess he inherited from Gordo already. EVERY Tory government faces the same problem - it comes after a Labour one - and the money is gone.
Ironically, Mrs Thatcher blamed the previous Conservative government, not Labour. The Barber Boom under Ted Heath's government unleashed inflation and caused unemployment. Monetarism, innit.
''People I know are talking about it and many are wondering why it hasn't hit the main bulletin and why the news is still only online. ''
A poster on here was scolded for going onto a Danish right wing site for news, but you can see why people are looking for alternatives when the main news channels are so politically driven.
Yes, that was me. It is a common affliction on the left, if they don't like the content, attack the source. The problem is that there are so few sources now that are willing to publish articles on this kind of crime committed by asylum seekers and the one's that do are obviously going to have the anti-immigrant agenda.
Mr. Simon, I think you underestimate the capacity of the self-righteous for cognitive dissonance and general bullshit.
I appreciate that - but we can hope that they can be returned to the depths of their own Tumblrs and their influence on public and private discourse can be reduced. It will be a long battle but one that needs to be won.
And I don't care if it triggers them!
We all like a good triggering.
I think the worst thing about the SJW slur is that most people don't really know what it means - it just means a striving for income equality i.e not a lot to do with race and gender which I'm sure most people misunderstand.
It really doesn't mean 'striving for income equality' - it has a far broader scope than that. It is an ideological movement which is about controlling the debate on so many issues.
It is something that I have explored in a lot of depth. And it is not a movement that is driven by income equality issues - it is repressive, bullying and deeply illiberal.
Well as a former LD I guess I have to accept some of this.
But I was academically tought that 'Social Justice" was income equality related. (I think)
Anyways - it's all about the purple hair nowadays.
'The BBC has been disgraceful, the national broadcaster has ignored the biggest story in Europe, and how it has developed from one city in one country to multiple cities in multiple countries,'
If it had been white German men attacking Muslim women on an industrial scale it would have no doubt dominated BBC headlines.
If this cannot be done - or we don't want to - then I am coming to the view that we don't let people in from communities/countries where we know - from experience - there are or are likely to be integration issues. If we are unable to remove & the risk of misbehaviour is high or too high for us to tolerate, then better not to let them in at all.
Otherwise we end up in the absurd position that @NickPalmer described that we have to lock up in a way that offends against our own values nasty people whom we should never have let into the country because we are not able to deport them. One aspect of Labour's slide into abolishing some basic civil liberties was that it was a direct consequence of its inability & unwillingness to get a grip on immigration coupled with its naïve implementation of human rights legislation. It let in foreign terrorists to whom it had to give human rights & then tried to get round the consequences of this by seeking to introduce detention without trial. Quite how Labour has the chutzpah to boast about its human rights credentials in the face of that beats me. But it's a problem which affects governments of all colours.
I broadly agree with the thrust of what @DavidL said (FPT). But I would add 3 important caveats:-
1. Given the number of refugees there are with a legal entitlement to asylum under the current rules, these rules are no longer tenable. In theory, if every persecuted person in Syria landed in the UK, we are legally obliged to give them asylum. This is not practical & would not get the consent of people in the UK. The relevant Conventions are going to have to be rewritten so that the asylum seeker's need is not the only determinant. There will have to be a numbers cap i.e. we are only obliged to take asylum seekers up to a limit that we - not anyone else - determine.
2. Asylum seekers who are themselves criminals or people with disgusting habits/views should not have an automatic right to entry & settlement. We need to have some sort of qualitative assessment made of those seeking to live in this country. Being generous to those in need is a good thing but you cannot say to the homeowner: you must continue being generous to someone who defecates on your carpet the minute you've let them into your house. People feel - rightly IMO - that their generosity is being abused & taken advantage of & it is not the politicians who bear the brunt but - as always - the most vulnerable (cf: German women). Whatever obligation we choose to take on to refugees must come second to the state's primary duty to its citizens, which must come first.
3. I absolutely agree with DavidL's statement that we must be very explicit about making a refugee's right to come & stay here conditional on them accepting our views of what is right & wrong. But this can only work if we can enforce this i.e .we are willing to deport them & have the ability to do so. If we don't, then no matter how much we are willing to spell this condition out, it won't work because the refugee knows that they won't be deported no matter how badly they behave. So the rules on human rights/deportation are going to have to be changed & we are going to have to organise practical ways of actually deporting people to their countries of origin.
[Split into 2 parts]
If we have a good process for assessing the claims of asylum seekers, 2 is not a problem. Asylum seekers are by definition seeking refugee status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol, which have clear definitions. Being on the run for criminal activities would not count as a refugee. And we should only have to consider asylum cases for those arriving in the UK directly from the country of persecution.
If we applied the definitions rigorously, there would be very few refugees to resettle. It is our own fault if we do not.
Mr. Simon, I think you underestimate the capacity of the self-righteous for cognitive dissonance and general bullshit.
I appreciate that - but we can hope that they can be returned to the depths of their own Tumblrs and their influence on public and private discourse can be reduced. It will be a long battle but one that needs to be won.
And I don't care if it triggers them!
We all like a good triggering.
I think the worst thing about the SJW slur is that most people don't really know what it means - it just means a striving for income equality i.e not a lot to do with race and gender which I'm sure most people misunderstand.
It really doesn't mean 'striving for income equality' - it has a far broader scope than that. It is an ideological movement which is about controlling the debate on so many issues.
It is something that I have explored in a lot of depth. And it is not a movement that is driven by income equality issues - it is repressive, bullying and deeply illiberal.
Well as a former LD I guess I have to accept some of this.
But I was academically tought that 'Social Justice" was income equality related. (I think)
Anyways - it's all about the purple hair nowadays.
In essence, social justice (to my mind) should be about fighting for equality in all things. But the SJW movement is a different beast.
We are only now beginning to see how far their repressive ideologies have poisoned political and social debate in Western democracies. And by exposing it, we can move beyond it. It will take time but it is a fight that those on both left and right need to join in order to achieve success.
I don't know why anyone uses NPXMP as a yardstick for any opinion. I thought the observation that he'd eat his own feet was a bit OTT. Now I see it as accurate.
At the higher end of the debate, Nick Palmer seemed to declare himself for the rebels when he said: "I'm not going to support unprincipled opportunism!" It would have been a spectacular rebel gain as Mr Palmer would eat his own feet if the whips asked him to.
If this cannot be done - or we don't want to - then I am coming to the view that we don't let people in from communities/countries where we know - from experience - there are or are likely to be integration issues. If we are unable to remove & the risk of misbehaviour is high or too high for us to tolerate, then better not to let them in at all.
Otherwise we end up in the absurd position that @NickPalmer described that we have to lock up in a way that offends against our own values nasty people whom we should never have let into the country because we are not able to deport them. One aspect of Labour's slide into abolishing some basic civil liberties was that it was a direct consequence of its inability & unwillingness to get a grip on immigration coupled with its naïve implementation of human rights legislation. It let in foreign terrorists to whom it had to give human rights & then tried to get round the consequences of this by seeking to introduce detention without trial. Quite how Labour has the chutzpah to boast about its human rights credentials in the face of that beats me. But it's a problem which affects governments of all colours.
'We entered in large part because we had a series of dreadful UK governments (both Labour and Tory) and we thought being part governed by Europe would improve overall governance of the UK.
We want to leave now because we are confident that we are better at governing the UK than the EU bureaucrats (and an EU Council where the hands out states who are net EU funding recipients can outvote us).'
I think that is very accurate, up to a point. There was certainly a very defeatist attitude in the early 70s in C(c)onservative circles about the UK's prospects and this still lives on in some of the pronouncements of e.g. Ken Clarke (who famously argued for the EU on the basis that it would make Labour Party policies illegal).
Among the political elite and the upper echelons of the civil service there is another strand as well, though. This is the notion that the EU is an alternative, bigger stage for them to forge careers and strut their stuff. It's become ingrained in their minds as part of what people 'like them' do. Needless to say the EU encourages this, much as the Roman Empire once dangled the benefits of Roman Citizenship to select members of conquered states to tighten its hold on such territories.
A third, more idealistic strand is the idea that Britain if 'fully engaged' can somehow 'lead' the EU and recover some of its geopolitical importance. This particular strand is in decline I think, though it occasionally rears its head as the amusing fantasy it is.
There was a bit like that on the Sky Newspaper Review yesterday AM by some comedian, claiming rape was an offence everywhere so we must talk only about gender.
Yes .. but no. Culture and religion (including political religions) *are* also relevant.
But even in eg the UK, the definition of rape is a movable feast, in law but even more in rhetoric. Rape, unfortunately, is not rape is not rape, even in law.
''The problem is that there are so few sources now that are willing to publish articles on this kind of crime committed by asylum seekers and the one's that do are obviously going to have the anti-immigrant agenda. ''
Quite. Breitbart is an example. Its political bias is very strong and sometimes unpalatable, but it undoubtedly was among the first to break the Cologne story, if not the first.
Please could we have a PB.com EU Remain/Leave poll, repeated say every three months in the period leading up to the referendum, to gauge how opinion is moving. The first such poll might also ask the question: "Have you changed your opinion over the past three months?"
If this cannot be done - or we don't want to - then I am coming to the view that we don't let people in from communities/countries where we know - from experience - there are or are likely to be integration issues. If we are unable to remove & the risk of misbehaviour is high or too high for us to tolerate, then better not to let them in at all.
Otherwise we end up in the absurd position that @NickPalmer described that we have to lock up in a way that offends against our own values nasty people whom we should never have let into the country because we are not able to deport them. One aspect of Labour's slide into abolishing some basic civil liberties was that it was a direct consequence of its inability & unwillingness to get a grip on immigration coupled with its naïve implementation of human rights legislation. It let in foreign terrorists to whom it had to give human rights & then tried to get round the consequences of this by seeking to introduce detention without trial. Quite how Labour has the chutzpah to boast about its human rights credentials in the face of that beats me. But it's a problem which affects governments of all colours.
Excellent post.
I wonder whether it would be possible to make ECHR facilities available to citizens/residents only. It would make it much easier to deport illegals and people who break our laws.
Honestly, the people who committed this crime need to be deported from Germany and the other nations back to Syria. They hold our way of life in the same contempt as ISIS.
It's quite easy to find people who dislike the thing and can mention many things wrong with it. It's much harder to find those who are dead keen on it who can provide a persuasive argument in it's favour.
I've thought for a long while that we will walk. The strongest sentiment and motivation is towards out. Stay is soft.
The problem is the 'moaning about my bank' point mentioned in Dan Hannan's article of a couple of days ago. There's a big difference between moaning about something, and actually switching, especially when there doesn't seem to be any even vaguely coherent attempt to explain what we'd be switching to.
Surely, by now, with the referendum only months away, we'd expect there to be some indications from the Leave side of their position on - or at least some grown-up discussion of - points such as:
- EEA or not EEA? - Signing back into freedom of movement or not signing back in? - Free market in services or not? - Free movement of capital or not? - Signing back into the EU VAT regime or not? [I was amazed a few nights ago to see a discussion here which assumed we wouldn't, which made me realise it's never mentioned] - Continuing with EU product-type approvals or not? [I'd assume yes, but is that what everyone else assumes?] - Protection for the City against Eurozone land-grabs
I broadly agree with the thrust of what @DavidL said (FPT). But I would add 3 important caveats:-
1. Given the number of refugees there are with a legal entitlement to asylum under the current rules, these rules are no longer tenable. In theory, if every persecuted person in Syria landed
2. Asylum seekers who are themselves criminals or people with disgusting habits/views should not have an automatic right to entry & settlement. We need to have some sort of qualitative assessment made of those seeking to live in this country. Being generous to those in need is a good thing but you cannot say to the homeowner: you must continue being generous to someone who defecates on your carpet the minute you've let them into your house. People feel - rightly IMO - that their generosity is being abused & taken advantage of & it is not the politicians who bear the brunt but - as always - the most vulnerable (cf: German women). Whatever obligation we choose to take on to refugees must come second to the state's primary duty to its citizens, which must come first.
3. I absolutely agree with DavidL's statement that we must be very explicit about making a refugee's right to come & stay here conditional on them accepting our views of what is right & wrong. But this can only work if we can enforce this i.e .we are willing to deport them & have the ability to do so. If we don't, then no matter how much we are willing to spell this condition out, it won't work because the refugee knows that they won't be deported no matter how badly they behave. So the rules on human rights/deportation are going to have to be changed & we are going to have to organise practical ways of actually deporting people to their countries of origin.
[Split into 2 parts]
If we have a good process for assessing the claims of asylum seekers, 2 is not a problem. Asylum seekers are by definition seeking refugee status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol, which have clear definitions. Being on the run for criminal activities would not count as a refugee. And we should only have to consider asylum cases for those arriving in the UK directly from the country of persecution.
If we applied the definitions rigorously, there would be very few refugees to resettle. It is our own fault if we do not.
Good old Article 8 of the ECHR is what stymies attempts to deport foreign nationals who are guilty of serious crimes. Spin out the appeals process, father a child, and lo and behold, deportation breaches your "right to a private and family life" in the country of your choice.
''The problem is that there are so few sources now that are willing to publish articles on this kind of crime committed by asylum seekers and the one's that do are obviously going to have the anti-immigrant agenda. ''
Quite. Breitbart is an example. Its political bias is very strong and sometimes unpalatable, but it undoubtedly was among the first to break the Cologne story, if not the first.
Yeah, I saw a link to a Breitbart story a couple of days before SeanT put it up here, I (stupidly) thought it must be an exaggeration so didn't read it.
I broadly agree with the thrust of what @DavidL said (FPT). But I would add 3 important caveats:-
1. Given the number of refugees there are with a legal entitlement to asylum under the current rules, these rules are no longer tenable. In theory, if every persecuted person in Syria landed in the UK, we are legally obliged to give them asylum. This is not practical & would not get the consent of people in the UK. The relevant Conventions are going to have to be rewritten so that the asylum seeker's need is not the only determinant. There will have to be a numbers cap i.e. we are only obliged to take asylum seekers up to a limit that we - not anyone else - determine.
2. Asylum seekers who are themselves criminals or people with disgusting habits/views should not have an automatic right to entry & settlement. We need to have some sort of qualitative assessment made of those seeking to live in this country. Being generous to those in need is a good thing but you cannot say to the homeowner: you must continue being generous to someone who defecates on your carpet the minute you've let them into your house. People feel - rightly IMO - that their generosity is being abused & taken advantage of & it is not the politicians who bear the brunt but - as always - the most vulnerable (cf: German women). Whatever obligation we choose to take on to refugees must come second to the state's primary duty to its citizens, which must come first.
3. I absolutely agree with DavidL's statement that we must be very explicit about making a refugee's right to come & stay here conditional on them accepting our views of what is right & wrong. But this can only work if we can enforce this i.e .we are willing to deport them & have the ability to do so. If we don't, then no matter how much we are willing to spell this condition out, it won't work because the refugee knows that they won't be deported no matter how badly they behave. So the rules on human rights/deportation are going to have to be changed & we are going to have to organise practical ways of actually deporting people to their countries of origin.
[Split into 2 parts]
Some interesting points there. Although regarding point 1, it is worth bearing mind if everyone put numeric limits in place this could actually backfire. Bear in mind Turkey has 2.2m Syrian refugees, Jordan 1.4m and Lebanon 1.2m
None of this is a surprise. Many of those responsible for causing chaos in the Middle East and elsewhere, are now here, and they expect to be provided with homes and money in exchange for nothing, it seems. All the benefits of the West, without the responsibilities of integration and abiding by the law.
Well done Merkel and Co. History will not be kind.
The website linked to is 'infowars' which is run by a nutjob radio host. He starts by saying ''Prior to the mass rape by Arab and North African migrants on New Year’s Eve, '' As far as I can see there was no mass rape - there was without doubt riot and molestation and robbery. But it suits the nutjob to talk up (or down) the attacks. It is beginning to suit too many PBers to believe what they want to believe.
''The problem is that there are so few sources now that are willing to publish articles on this kind of crime committed by asylum seekers and the one's that do are obviously going to have the anti-immigrant agenda. ''
Quite. Breitbart is an example. Its political bias is very strong and sometimes unpalatable, but it undoubtedly was among the first to break the Cologne story, if not the first.
Yeah, I saw a link to a Breitbart story a couple of days before SeanT put it up here, I (stupidly) thought it must be an exaggeration so didn't read it.
Mr. Vale, it is important to state the very large totals taken by those countries (especially Lebanon), but also that they're culturally similar and geographically adjacent to the warzone. Once refugees reach safety and keep going, they've become migrants (arguably asylum seekers in some cases).
Mr. Vale, it is important to state the very large totals taken by those countries (especially Lebanon), but also that they're culturally similar and geographically adjacent to the warzone. Once refugees reach safety and keep going, they've become migrants (arguably asylum seekers in some cases).
I understand that. My point is if those countries said they were not going to allow any more refugees to stay, it would force more to make the journey to Europe
BTW, if we are talking about Social Justice, I'm sure I have a couple of essays on John Rawls' work I could post on the thread...
Do it
OK - here is a sample extract:
From a premise that all humans have a right to justice, John Rawls developed an argument to justify the inclusion of all humans within the political world. Rawls identified a conception of one’s own good and the possession of a sense of justice as the features of a moral person – the Factor X – which give an entitlement to justice (Rawls, 1972). Rawls goes further, anticipating potential criticisms that there are sectors of society, including children and those with severe mental impairment, that do not possess these features. He states that it is the potential not the realisation of moral capacity that is the key characteristic of humankind, and therefore gives the right to justice (Rawls, 1972). However, this in itself has drawn criticism, with suggestions that Rawls’ desire to extend justice to all and only humans means that he is stretching his argument to meet a predetermined boundary. Rawls does consider that animals have a right to protection and compassion, but specifically excludes them from a right to justice as they are not human and do not possess the necessary Factor X (Rawls, 1972).
"Earlier, police arrested two men "of an immigrant background" in connection with the sex attacks. One of the men was carrying a note in German and Arabic with translations of phrases including “Beautiful breasts”, “I want to have sex with you” and “I’ll kill you”, according to police."
''Yeah, I saw a link to a Breitbart story a couple of days before SeanT put it up here, I (stupidly) thought it must be an exaggeration so didn't read it. ''
Somebody posted once that incredible interview between (I think) Gavin Esler and Nick Griffin where the later talked about Muslim rapists in the North. It just seemed so far fetched.
None of this is a surprise. Many of those responsible for causing chaos in the Middle East and elsewhere, are now here, and they expect to be provided with homes and money in exchange for nothing, it seems. All the benefits of the West, without the responsibilities of integration and abiding by the law.
Well done Merkel and Co. History will not be kind.
The website linked to is 'infowars' which is run by a nutjob radio host. He starts by saying ''Prior to the mass rape by Arab and North African migrants on New Year’s Eve, '' As far as I can see there was no mass rape - there was without doubt riot and molestation and robbery. But it suits the nutjob to talk up (or down) the attacks. It is beginning to suit too many PBers to believe what they want to believe.
I believe that you should not by birth be head of state. There should be a second chamber that is not appointed. A debate should be held over Trident. As I support an Independent nuclear defense, but the cost and if it truly independent is open to question now. I support that if governments of both colours could build hundreds of thousands of houses after the second world war, they could now. The housing crisis for the young without wealthy parents is a dreadful scar on this countries values.
But I also know you will never win an election on my views in England by FPTP. Blair and especially Blair should have brought PR in with a 179 majority, from a position of strength , when it would have been seen in a good light.
Corbyn seems a thoughtful man, but in his heart he must know he will never win an election. However maybe a new bright thing with less baggage, might stand a chance if enough people are excluded from a property owning democracy. A sense a fairness might prevail.
Mr. Max, as did a Danish court after sentencing someone who whipped a woman in the face with chains to two months [I believe they'd served that on remand].
Europe's been wallowing in luxury for so long it's forgotten how to fight for its values. Very Western Roman Empire.
I love these PC BBC slogans like; militant or activists to describe the doers of unbelievable barbarity and evilness.
I think it shows the banality of evil, how such barbarity can be perpetrated by people who are otherwise pretty mundane, and thus makes it more frightening. There are endless numbers of 'militants' out there, who knows how many might also be like that guy, so hopefully the world is more inclined to stop all militants, rather than 'evil barbarians', of which the number is seemingly fewer and so, while awful, not as pressing a problem.
BTW, if we are talking about Social Justice, I'm sure I have a couple of essays on John Rawls' work I could post on the thread...
Do it
OK - here is a sample extract:
From a premise that all humans have a right to justice, John Rawls developed an argument to justify the inclusion of all humans within the political world. Rawls identified a conception of one’s own good and the possession of a sense of justice as the features of a moral person – the Factor X – which give an entitlement to justice (Rawls, 1972). Rawls goes further, anticipating potential criticisms that there are sectors of society, including children and those with severe mental impairment, that do not possess these features. He states that it is the potential not the realisation of moral capacity that is the key characteristic of humankind, and therefore gives the right to justice (Rawls, 1972). However, this in itself has drawn criticism, with suggestions that Rawls’ desire to extend justice to all and only humans means that he is stretching his argument to meet a predetermined boundary. Rawls does consider that animals have a right to protection and compassion, but specifically excludes them from a right to justice as they are not human and do not possess the necessary Factor X (Rawls, 1972).
It does seem somewhat ad hoc for him to exclude animals. It's a long time since I read A Theory of Justice but iirc he doesn't explain there why persons in the Original Position can be assumed to minimax so as to choose the least bad worst outcome for humans but not, say, cows. Well, it's because the Original Position is set up so that you know you're human, just not what place in society you'll have? But the OP does seem pre-tailored to support the conclusion he wants.
While Corbyn obviously isn't working out, the German SPD also offers a cautionary tale about what happens if you go to the opposite extreme and surrender to the main opposition party on absolutely all the issues: you remain permanently stuck in the doldrums even when the government is going through a crisis.
It's quite easy to find people who dislike the thing and can mention many things wrong with it. It's much harder to find those who are dead keen on it who can provide a persuasive argument in it's favour.
I've thought for a long while that we will walk. The strongest sentiment and motivation is towards out. Stay is soft.
The problem is the 'moaning about my bank' point mentioned in Dan Hannan's article of a couple of days ago. There's a big difference between moaning about something, and actually switching, especially when there doesn't seem to be any even vaguely coherent attempt to explain what we'd be switching to.
Surely, by now, with the referendum only months away, we'd expect there to be some indications from the Leave side of their position on - or at least some grown-up discussion of - points such as:
- EEA or not EEA? - Signing back into freedom of movement or not signing back in? - Free market in services or not? - Free movement of capital or not? - Signing back into the EU VAT regime or not? [I was amazed a few nights ago to see a discussion here which assumed we wouldn't, which made me realise it's never mentioned] - Continuing with EU product-type approvals or not? [I'd assume yes, but is that what everyone else assumes?] - Protection for the City against Eurozone land-grabs
Oh, Lord! Are you still going on about needing a definite statement of what leaving would mean? You well know, not least because it has been discussed on here umpteen times before, that it is impossible for anyone to state what the future relationship with the EU would be. That relationship can only be decided after the UK has said it is leaving (Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, if you have forgotten).
Should anyone do as many on here have said and actually come up with a statement of "What leave would actually mean" they would, rightly, be attacked by cries of "You can't say that because the future relationship has to be negotiated". It is the Remain's catch-22.
However, just like the Heller's original Catch-22, it is possible to cut through by taking a step back on concentrating on principles.
While Corbyn obviously isn't working out, the German SPD also offers a cautionary tale about what happens if you go to the opposite extreme and surrender to the main opposition party on absolutely all the issues: you remain permanently stuck in the doldrums even when the government is going through a crisis.
The problem isn't that they have surrendered the issues so much as they are a party to the grand coalition stitch up of German politics.
If Labour went into a coalition with the Tories (I know it would never happen outside of a war of survival) and the Tories were in the ascendancy with 275 out of the 375 seats in said coalition Labour voters might start to wonder whether it is worth voting Labour given that the government which they have indirectly voted for is going to be implementing a very Tory heavy agenda and a Tory will sit in No. 10.
This is what is happening to the SPD, they stopped being a serious party of government the day they agreed to a grand coalition with the CDU instead of telling Merkel to get lost and now they are slowly being hollowed out by the Left and Greens while the CDU are safe because their leader is PM and their policies form the bulk of the government's agenda.
Look at what happened to the Lib Dems as a good example of what is going on in Germany to the SPD.
If moderate Labour are to survive they first need to find a way to win the internal argument about spending and budgets without sounding like Osborne. One obvious way to do that is to accept that the need for higher public spending does indeed require higher taxes on the better off. By being candid about that they would force the delusionists to actually engage in the issue rather than occupy a fantasy land where these choices do not have to be made.
Curiously, Scotland is a potential testing ground for this argument. In Dundee City Council 6000 of the 7900 staff have been invited to apply for voluntary redundancy. This is a consequence of the SNP freeze on CT combined with cuts in budgets that have flown through from the Westminster settlement. Labour, locally, are arguing that the services that are going to be cut are important and that CT should be increased to fund them. At the moment any such increase would simply be deducted from the central grant in accordance with SNP policy. I think Labour are going to go into May arguing that the CT freeze is no longer sustainable. If that argument gets any traction Labour moderates need to build on it nationally.
Personally, whilst I would have no problems at all with increased taxes to pay for extra spending, I suspect it would be a harder sell to the public than "run a modest deficit to increase spending".
However, the worst position of all would be what some so-called Labour moderates are saying we should do which is to say social-democratic aims can be achieved without increasing spending at all. If I went onto a doorstep and said "a Labour government would improve the NHS and schools, but don't worry, it would all be for free, it won't cost any money", I would be laughed out of town. The public (rightly) knows that improvements in public services will inevitably come with a price tag attached; left-wingers will just have to man up and constantly try to persuade people that the improvements are worth the price tag, rather than trying this nonsense about "how to improve things without any money".
Afternoon all. I should clarify that my mother's family are non-conformist stock, so I have no particular axe to grind against Puritans. Indeed, the church that my mother attends can trace its lineage back to the early 17th century, when no doubt it would have been as fervently Puritan as corners of twitter are Corbynite.
Mr. Simon, I think you underestimate the capacity of the self-righteous for cognitive dissonance and general bullshit.
I appreciate that - but we can hope that they can be returned to the depths of their own Tumblrs and their influence on public and private discourse can be reduced. It will be a long battle but one that needs to be won.
And I don't care if it triggers them!
We all like a good triggering.
I think the worst thing about the SJW slur is that most people don't really know what it means - it just means a striving for income equality i.e not a lot to do with race and gender which I'm sure most people misunderstand.
It really doesn't mean 'striving for income equality' - it has a far broader scope than that. It is an ideological movement which is about controlling the debate on so many issues.
It is something that I have explored in a lot of depth. And it is not a movement that is driven by income equality issues - it is repressive, bullying and deeply illiberal.
According to a redditor:
Social Justice Warrior Well SJW originally referred to the crazy tumblr types who would say things like "White people wearing dreadlocks is cultural appropriation", or "I was mentally raped by a man yesterday because he looked at me in the subway". That sort of thing.
I love these PC BBC slogans like; militant or activists to describe the doers of unbelievable barbarity and evilness.
To be fair, the BBC journos are forced to write militant or activist. If they use terrorist, they are sent for re-education, because the higher ups have declared that nobody can determine exactly what a terrorist is. It is up there with "we can't be seen to be showing bias towards groups opposed to ISIS".
However, I don't understand the incessant use of ' '.
Oh, Lord! Are you still going on about needing a definite statement of what leaving would mean? You well know, not least because it has been discussed on here umpteen times before, that it is impossible for anyone to state what the future relationship with the EU would be. That relationship can only be decided after the UK has said it is leaving (Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, if you have forgotten).
Should anyone do as many on here have said and actually come up with a statement of "What leave would actually mean" they would, rightly, be attacked by cries of "You can't say that because the future relationship has to be negotiated". It is the Remain's catch-22.
However, just like the Heller's original Catch-22, it is possible to cut through by taking a step back on concentrating on principles.
Well, the Leave side can please itself, but be in no doubt: without some coherent answers to these questions, they will lose badly. If they can't even answer the most basic questions, notably my first two, how on earth do they expect to convince people that leaving would be better?
Of course you are right that it's a Catch-22, but that's because reality is a Catch-22: You can't have your cake and eat it. They need to decide on a coherent story (and, crucially, a plausible one). Otherwise the Remain side will quite rightly be able to point to the ludicrous contradictions.
And, as you imply, yes I've been saying this for a long time. The fact that it's difficult was exactly why I recommended some threre years ago, when the referendum because Conservative policy, that they should start. Instead they faffed around trying to get Ed Milband into No 10, and they're still faffing around.
The lack of any clear vision of what to do in a world where there is next to no new money to spend and tough choice after tough choice on existing expenditure to make is what sunk Miliband and Corbyn's opponents in the leadership competition.
Corbyn and his joke of a shadow Chancellor don't see the dilemma because they don't see limitations on the role of the State. So, for example, in Leeds the answer as to why a particular flood defence scheme which, as it turns out, might have been useful was not there cannot possibly be, well, we chose a different one. The only sensible answer was to build them all, apparently.
The problem, which Scots are extremely familiar with, is that there are a significant minority who genuinely believe that resources are pretty much infinite and only the wickedness of the Tories who want to restrain the size of the State for "ideological" reasons which have, allegedly, nothing to do with economics. In the UK this view is held by something between 20 and 25% of the population but they are inevitably not evenly distributed across the political spectrum. In Labour they are either a majority or very close to it.
The consequences of this are that it is very difficult for someone in Labour to go against the party majority view and this puts Corbyn in a strong position. Of course the majority of the population as a whole are simply baffled at such innumeracy. This is reflected in the trust in the economy figures.
If moderate Labour are to survive they first need to find a way to win the internal argument about spending and budgets without sounding like Osborne. One obvious way to do that is to accept that the need for higher public spending does indeed require higher taxes on the better off. By being candid about that they would force the delusionists to actually engage in the issue rather than occupy a fantasy land where these choices do not have to be made.
Curiously, Scotland is a potential testing ground for this argument. In Dundee City Council 6000 of the 7900 staff have been invited to apply for voluntary redundancy. This is a consequence of the SNP freeze on CT combined with cuts in budgets that have flown through from the Westminster settlement. Labour, locally, are arguing that the services that are going to be cut are important and that CT should be increased to fund them. At the moment any such increase would simply be deducted from the central grant in accordance with SNP policy. I think Labour are going to go into May arguing that the CT freeze is no longer sustainable. If that argument gets any traction Labour moderates need to build on it nationally.
David, they have been compensated for the council tax freeze by central government. They are pretty incompetent at saving money or providing efficient services.
If moderate Labour are to survive they first need to find a way to win the internal argument about spending and budgets without sounding like Osborne. One obvious way to do that is to accept that the need for higher public spending does indeed require higher taxes on the better off. By being candid about that they would force the delusionists to actually engage in the issue rather than occupy a fantasy land where these choices do not have to be made.
Curiously, Scotland is a potential testing ground for this argument. In Dundee City Council 6000 of the 7900 staff have been invited to apply for voluntary redundancy. This is a consequence of the SNP freeze on CT combined with cuts in budgets that have flown through from the Westminster settlement. Labour, locally, are arguing that the services that are going to be cut are important and that CT should be increased to fund them. At the moment any such increase would simply be deducted from the central grant in accordance with SNP policy. I think Labour are going to go into May arguing that the CT freeze is no longer sustainable. If that argument gets any traction Labour moderates need to build on it nationally.
Personally, whilst I would have no problems at all with increased taxes to pay for extra spending, I suspect it would be a harder sell to the public than "run a modest deficit to increase spending".
However, the worst position of all would be what some so-called Labour moderates are saying we should do which is to say social-democratic aims can be achieved without increasing spending at all. If I went onto a doorstep and said "a Labour government would improve the NHS and schools, but don't worry, it would all be for free, it won't cost any money", I would be laughed out of town. The public (rightly) knows that improvements in public services will inevitably come with a price tag attached; left-wingers will just have to man up and constantly try to persuade people that the improvements are worth the price tag, rather than trying this nonsense about "how to improve things without any money".
Yes, I agree that is a non starter. But so is the Corbynite position of, well, we will just print the money. Moderate Labour need to get the conversation within the party back into the land of sanity. It isn't going to be easy but acknowledging that there is a price tag to proposed improvements is a step on the way.
Spot on. Those opposing Corbyn don't have A Big Idea. They need to go away and come up with a Social Democratic Manifesto In An Age Of No Money. Unfortunately for them, when the voter pool is (to be kind) economically uncomplicated, then Corbyn's Let's REALLY Shake That Money Tree will always be top trumps.
A social-democratic manifesto will ALWAYS inevitably cost some money. That none of the moderates were prepared to advocate that last summer, and allowed themselves to be intellectually cowed by the Tories "live within our means" rubbish, is exactly why Corbyn was elected
And exactly why he will proceed no further than Opposition. Because those who vote don't consider "living within our means" to be rubbish. It is a totem.
If running a deficit constitutes not "living within our means", then Britain did not "live within our means" for 9 of Thatcher's 11 years in office.
Only works if the borrowing is limited to the level of trust required of the lender to provide it at an acceptable price. And acceptance that it is our children who pay the bill.
So Tory deficits = fine, Labour deficits = evil. Ok then.
You can make a case that a deficit is fine so long as it is lower than GDP growth over the long-term (I was going to say "over the cycle" but Brown redefined that so many times I lost count).
Fundamentally, government debt as a % of GDP should continue to fall over time, even if the absolute amount rises.
If moderate Labour are to survive they first need to find a way to win the internal argument about spending and budgets without sounding like Osborne. One obvious way to do that is to accept that the need for higher public spending does indeed require higher taxes on the better off. By being candid about that they would force the delusionists to actually engage in the issue rather than occupy a fantasy land where these choices do not have to be made.
Curiously, Scotland is a potential testing ground for this argument. In Dundee City Council 6000 of the 7900 staff have been invited to apply for voluntary redundancy. This is a consequence of the SNP freeze on CT combined with cuts in budgets that have flown through from the Westminster settlement. Labour, locally, are arguing that the services that are going to be cut are important and that CT should be increased to fund them. At the moment any such increase would simply be deducted from the central grant in accordance with SNP policy. I think Labour are going to go into May arguing that the CT freeze is no longer sustainable. If that argument gets any traction Labour moderates need to build on it nationally.
Personally, whilst I would have no problems at all with increased taxes to pay for extra spending, I suspect it would be a harder sell to the public than "run a modest deficit to increase spending".
However, the worst position of all would be what some so-called Labour moderates are saying we should do which is to say social-democratic aims can be achieved without increasing spending at all. If I went onto a doorstep and said "a Labour government would improve the NHS and schools, but don't worry, it would all be for free, it won't cost any money", I would be laughed out of town. The public (rightly) knows that improvements in public services will inevitably come with a price tag attached; left-wingers will just have to man up and constantly try to persuade people that the improvements are worth the price tag, rather than trying this nonsense about "how to improve things without any money".
I think that makes a great deal of sense, frankly. It might not be an agenda to appeal to me, personally, but it is clear and honest in intent, and I can see the appeal, whereas the 'can do everything for nothing' type arguments which we do see a lot of.
It's quite easy to find people who dislike the thing and can mention many things wrong with it. It's much harder to find those who are dead keen on it who can provide a persuasive argument in it's favour.
I've thought for a long while that we will walk. The strongest sentiment and motivation is towards out. Stay is soft.
The problem is the 'moaning about my bank' point mentioned in Dan Hannan's article of a couple of days ago. There's a big difference between moaning about something, and actually switching, especially when there doesn't seem to be any even vaguely coherent attempt to explain what we'd be switching to.
Surely, by now, with the referendum only months away, we'd expect there to be some indications from the Leave side of their position on - or at least some grown-up discussion of - points such as:
- EEA or not EEA? - Signing back into freedom of movement or not signing back in? - Free market in services or not? - Free movement of capital or not? - Signing back into the EU VAT regime or not? [I was amazed a few nights ago to see a discussion here which assumed we wouldn't, which made me realise it's never mentioned] - Continuing with EU product-type approvals or not? [I'd assume yes, but is that what everyone else assumes?] - Protection for the City against Eurozone land-grabs
Still undecided?
David Cameron has shown exactly why it is a bad idea for the Leave campaign to campaign on a single option. Cameron recently dismissed EEA/EFTA saying it is not suitable for the UK. If a Tory government is not willing to pursue that option then it will be off the table.
I would love to know from the Remain campaign exactly what staying in the EU will look like. The status quo is not an option. We either leave amicably or remain and accept that we will need to integrate further with the EU.
If moderate Labour are to survive they first need to find a way to win the internal argument about spending and budgets without sounding like Osborne. One obvious way to do that is to accept that the need for higher public spending does indeed require higher taxes on the better off. By being candid about that they would force the delusionists to actually engage in the issue rather than occupy a fantasy land where these choices do not have to be made.
Curiously, Scotland is a potential testing ground for this argument. In Dundee City Council 6000 of the 7900 staff have been invited to apply for voluntary redundancy. This is a consequence of the SNP freeze on CT combined with cuts in budgets that have flown through from the Westminster settlement. Labour, locally, are arguing that the services that are going to be cut are important and that CT should be increased to fund them. At the moment any such increase would simply be deducted from the central grant in accordance with SNP policy. I think Labour are going to go into May arguing that the CT freeze is no longer sustainable. If that argument gets any traction Labour moderates need to build on it nationally.
Personally, whilst I would have no problems at all with increased taxes to pay for extra spending, I suspect it would be a harder sell to the public than "run a modest deficit to increase spending".
However, the worst position of all would be what some so-called Labour moderates are saying we should do which is to say social-democratic aims can be achieved without increasing spending at all. If I went onto a doorstep and said "a Labour government would improve the NHS and schools, but don't worry, it would all be for free, it won't cost any money", I would be laughed out of town. The public (rightly) knows that improvements in public services will inevitably come with a price tag attached; left-wingers will just have to man up and constantly try to persuade people that the improvements are worth the price tag, rather than trying this nonsense about "how to improve things without any money".
That approach would have the advantage of being honest. When I was a young man the basic rate of income tax was 33.333%. If someone wants to argue the rate should go back up to that rather than dumping our social spending on our children and grandchildren then I think they might get a fair hearing, particularly among the 60+ age group. No political party seems to want to argue for that approach. Maybe Labour should.
Afternoon all. I should clarify that my mother's family are non-conformist stock, so I have no particular axe to grind against Puritans. Indeed, the church that my mother attends can trace its lineage back to the early 17th century, when no doubt it would have been as fervently Puritan as corners of twitter are Corbynite.
Worth noting it's not like non-puritans were tolerant either, as we would understand it, outside very rare examples - just generally intolerant of different things (outside the things all were intolerant of of course)
Comments
The first comment from that article sums up a lot of what people are feeling:
"Finally, after several days of refusing to report the biggest story of 2016 so far because it does not fit with its highly ideological driven narrative, this paper is allowing comments on a story which has shown its contempt for victims of sexual assault. It's predictable enough that the first writer to tackle this does not ask why the Mayor of Cologne and many on the left are blaming the victims themselves for their own rapes. The writer should at least acknowledge the only solution left available to citizens, when the police cannot protect them from clear danger and politicians blame victims for the crime simply because the perpetrator was a foreign male of arabic extraction, is to arm themselves. Please never print another article on women's rights ever again, you have no credibility on this issue and owe those on the opposite side of the political spectrum who have now been proved correct a massive apology. I write this as a guardian reader and buyer of 17 years and someone who has always voted for left of centre parties (both of which I won't be doing ever again)."
It is a disgraceful cover up. The Guardian and the BBC have a lot to answer for over Rotherham as well.
@gabyhinsliff: Today is obviously going to be one of *those* days. Report, mute, repeat. https://t.co/ARLF7ED6O3
Here is an even more disgraceful article.
"I didn't really blame the men involved, because the attitude to women is clearly so ingrained in their culture and the poverty and unemployment was plain to see." http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/08/cologne-attacks-hard-questions-new-years-eve
To be fair, almost all the comments under that piece are anti, and the more anti they are the more upvoted.
"Finally, after several days of refusing to report the biggest story of 2016 so far because it does not fit with its highly ideological driven narrative, this paper is allowing comments on a story which has shown its contempt for victims of sexual assault. It's predictable enough that the first writer to tackle this does not ask why the Mayor of Cologne and many on the left are blaming the victims themselves for their own rapes. The writer should at least acknowledge the only solution left available to citizens, when the police cannot protect them from clear danger and politicians blame victims for the crime simply because the perpetrator was a foreign male of arabic extraction, is to arm themselves. Please never print another article on women's rights ever again, you have no credibility on this issue and owe those on the opposite side of the political spectrum who have now been proved correct a massive apology. I write this as a guardian reader and buyer of 17 years and someone who has always voted for left of centre parties (both of which I won't be doing ever again)."
It is a disgraceful cover up. The Guardian and the BBC have a lot to answer for over Rotherham as well.
The Guardian has been one of the best UK media outlets for reporting it.
Though to be fair, the BBC's coverage has been pretty dismal (on Tuesday when the story really broke, they spent no more than 20 seconds on it in one of their round-ups on the 10pm News).
More and more people are coming to see how public and private debate has been stifled by those who wish to push their extreme illiberal views on a wider society.
It is awful that it takes widespread rape, sexual exploitation and assault to force the issue - but we need to have open, honest discourse and we have to fight to get it.
And that means the defeat of the SJW control freaks - as well as the ideologies they protect.
Well done Merkel and Co. History will not be kind.
Social
Justice
Warrior
For shame the slur has made it this far into PBland
The BBC has been disgraceful, the national broadcaster has ignored the biggest story in Europe, and how it has developed from one city in one country to multiple cities in multiple countries, all with the perpetrators of the same ethnic backgrounds. People I know are talking about it and many are wondering why it hasn't hit the main bulletin and why the news is still only online.
"Energy Minister Andrea Leadsom confirmed that the government will look again at the level of support for solar installations available through the feed-in tariff (FiT) if as feared EU rules force the government to increase VAT on solar panels from five per cent to 20 per cent."
And I don't care if it triggers them!
In the comment you objected to, I cannot see how my statement of Mrs Thatcher's historical monetarist views should be viewed as either controversial or partisan. She did not keep it a secret.
If it does, Leave could credibly win. I still don't think it will.
I think the worst thing about the SJW slur is that most people don't really know what it means - it just means a striving for income equality i.e not a lot to do with race and gender which I'm sure most people misunderstand.
A poster on here was scolded for going onto a Danish right wing site for news, but you can see why people are looking for alternatives when the main news channels are so politically driven.
We entered in large part because we had a series of dreadful UK governments (both Labour and Tory) and we thought being part governed by Europe would improve overall governance of the UK.
We want to leave now because we are confident that we are better at governing the UK than the EU bureaucrats (and an EU Council where the hands out states who are net EU funding recipients can outvote us).
Corbyn and his joke of a shadow Chancellor don't see the dilemma because they don't see limitations on the role of the State. So, for example, in Leeds the answer as to why a particular flood defence scheme which, as it turns out, might have been useful was not there cannot possibly be, well, we chose a different one. The only sensible answer was to build them all, apparently.
The problem, which Scots are extremely familiar with, is that there are a significant minority who genuinely believe that resources are pretty much infinite and only the wickedness of the Tories who want to restrain the size of the State for "ideological" reasons which have, allegedly, nothing to do with economics. In the UK this view is held by something between 20 and 25% of the population but they are inevitably not evenly distributed across the political spectrum. In Labour they are either a majority or very close to it.
The consequences of this are that it is very difficult for someone in Labour to go against the party majority view and this puts Corbyn in a strong position. Of course the majority of the population as a whole are simply baffled at such innumeracy. This is reflected in the trust in the economy figures.
If moderate Labour are to survive they first need to find a way to win the internal argument about spending and budgets without sounding like Osborne. One obvious way to do that is to accept that the need for higher public spending does indeed require higher taxes on the better off. By being candid about that they would force the delusionists to actually engage in the issue rather than occupy a fantasy land where these choices do not have to be made.
Curiously, Scotland is a potential testing ground for this argument. In Dundee City Council 6000 of the 7900 staff have been invited to apply for voluntary redundancy. This is a consequence of the SNP freeze on CT combined with cuts in budgets that have flown through from the Westminster settlement. Labour, locally, are arguing that the services that are going to be cut are important and that CT should be increased to fund them. At the moment any such increase would simply be deducted from the central grant in accordance with SNP policy. I think Labour are going to go into May arguing that the CT freeze is no longer sustainable. If that argument gets any traction Labour moderates need to build on it nationally.
1. Given the number of refugees there are with a legal entitlement to asylum under the current rules, these rules are no longer tenable. In theory, if every persecuted person in Syria landed in the UK, we are legally obliged to give them asylum. This is not practical & would not get the consent of people in the UK. The relevant Conventions are going to have to be rewritten so that the asylum seeker's need is not the only determinant. There will have to be a numbers cap i.e. we are only obliged to take asylum seekers up to a limit that we - not anyone else - determine.
2. Asylum seekers who are themselves criminals or people with disgusting habits/views should not have an automatic right to entry & settlement. We need to have some sort of qualitative assessment made of those seeking to live in this country. Being generous to those in need is a good thing but you cannot say to the homeowner: you must continue being generous to someone who defecates on your carpet the minute you've let them into your house. People feel - rightly IMO - that their generosity is being abused & taken advantage of & it is not the politicians who bear the brunt but - as always - the most vulnerable (cf: German women). Whatever obligation we choose to take on to refugees must come second to the state's primary duty to its citizens, which must come first.
3. I absolutely agree with DavidL's statement that we must be very explicit about making a refugee's right to come & stay here conditional on them accepting our views of what is right & wrong. But this can only work if we can enforce this i.e .we are willing to deport them & have the ability to do so. If we don't, then no matter how much we are willing to spell this condition out, it won't work because the refugee knows that they won't be deported no matter how badly they behave. So the rules on human rights/deportation are going to have to be changed & we are going to have to organise practical ways of actually deporting people to their countries of origin.
[Split into 2 parts]
If this cannot be done - or we don't want to - then I am coming to the view that we don't let people in from communities/countries where we know - from experience - there are or are likely to be integration issues. If we are unable to remove & the risk of misbehaviour is high or too high for us to tolerate, then better not to let them in at all.
Otherwise we end up in the absurd position that @NickPalmer described that we have to lock up in a way that offends against our own values nasty people whom we should never have let into the country because we are not able to deport them. One aspect of Labour's slide into abolishing some basic civil liberties was that it was a direct consequence of its inability & unwillingness to get a grip on immigration coupled with its naïve implementation of human rights legislation. It let in foreign terrorists to whom it had to give human rights & then tried to get round the consequences of this by seeking to introduce detention without trial. Quite how Labour has the chutzpah to boast about its human rights credentials in the face of that beats me. But it's a problem which affects governments of all colours.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/tony-blair-and-bill-clinton-phone-calls-fake-transcripts-shared-on-social-media-after-declassified-a6802626.html
It is something that I have explored in a lot of depth. And it is not a movement that is driven by income equality issues - it is repressive, bullying and deeply illiberal.
Remain 46%
Leave 54%
http://www.cityam.com/231884/eu-referendum-majority-of-britons-would-vote-to-leave-the-eu-according-to-new-poll
I've thought for a long while that we will walk. The strongest sentiment and motivation is towards out. Stay is soft.
@steve_hawkes: Hilary Benn says vital humanitarian aid is delivered to people of Madaya. Will Jeremy Corbyn let RAF deliver it?
But I was academically tought that 'Social Justice" was income equality related. (I think)
Anyways - it's all about the purple hair nowadays.
'The BBC has been disgraceful, the national broadcaster has ignored the biggest story in Europe, and how it has developed from one city in one country to multiple cities in multiple countries,'
If it had been white German men attacking Muslim women on an industrial scale it would have no doubt dominated BBC headlines.
If we applied the definitions rigorously, there would be very few refugees to resettle. It is our own fault if we do not.
We are only now beginning to see how far their repressive ideologies have poisoned political and social debate in Western democracies. And by exposing it, we can move beyond it. It will take time but it is a fight that those on both left and right need to join in order to achieve success.
Or the 1% who think Santa would vote Plaid. I mean, obviously Santa is Welsh.
We want to leave now because we are confident that we are better at governing the UK than the EU bureaucrats (and an EU Council where the hands out states who are net EU funding recipients can outvote us).'
I think that is very accurate, up to a point. There was certainly a very defeatist attitude in the early 70s in C(c)onservative circles about the UK's prospects and this still lives on in some of the pronouncements of e.g. Ken Clarke (who famously argued for the EU on the basis that it would make Labour Party policies illegal).
Among the political elite and the upper echelons of the civil service there is another strand as well, though. This is the notion that the EU is an alternative, bigger stage for them to forge careers and strut their stuff. It's become ingrained in their minds as part of what people 'like them' do. Needless to say the EU encourages this, much as the Roman Empire once dangled the benefits of Roman Citizenship to select members of conquered states to tighten its hold on such territories.
A third, more idealistic strand is the idea that Britain if 'fully engaged' can somehow 'lead' the EU and recover some of its geopolitical importance. This particular strand is in decline I think, though it occasionally rears its head as the amusing fantasy it is.
Yes .. but no. Culture and religion (including political religions) *are* also relevant.
eg Countries where maritial rape is criminalised are in a offence are in red. Countries where marital rape is known not to be criminalized are in black.
Source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Marital_rape#/media/File:Marital_rape_criminalized_map.svg
But even in eg the UK, the definition of rape is a movable feast, in law but even more in rhetoric. Rape, unfortunately, is not rape is not rape, even in law.
Quite. Breitbart is an example. Its political bias is very strong and sometimes unpalatable, but it undoubtedly was among the first to break the Cologne story, if not the first.
This is self-evidently true.
David Cameron never rebelled against the Labour leadership.
/ pedant off
I wonder whether it would be possible to make ECHR facilities available to citizens/residents only. It would make it much easier to deport illegals and people who break our laws.
Honestly, the people who committed this crime need to be deported from Germany and the other nations back to Syria. They hold our way of life in the same contempt as ISIS.
Surely, by now, with the referendum only months away, we'd expect there to be some indications from the Leave side of their position on - or at least some grown-up discussion of - points such as:
- EEA or not EEA?
- Signing back into freedom of movement or not signing back in?
- Free market in services or not?
- Free movement of capital or not?
- Signing back into the EU VAT regime or not? [I was amazed a few nights ago to see a discussion here which assumed we wouldn't, which made me realise it's never mentioned]
- Continuing with EU product-type approvals or not? [I'd assume yes, but is that what everyone else assumes?]
- Protection for the City against Eurozone land-grabs
https://twitter.com/TheMal_Content/status/685490933132083201
He starts by saying ''Prior to the mass rape by Arab and North African migrants on New Year’s Eve, ''
As far as I can see there was no mass rape - there was without doubt riot and molestation and robbery. But it suits the nutjob to talk up (or down) the attacks. It is beginning to suit too many PBers to believe what they want to believe.
From a premise that all humans have a right to justice, John Rawls developed an argument to justify the inclusion of all humans within the political world. Rawls identified a conception of one’s own good and the possession of a sense of justice as the features of a moral person – the Factor X – which give an entitlement to justice (Rawls, 1972). Rawls goes further, anticipating potential criticisms that there are sectors of society, including children and those with severe mental impairment, that do not possess these features. He states that it is the potential not the realisation of moral capacity that is the key characteristic of humankind, and therefore gives the right to justice (Rawls, 1972). However, this in itself has drawn criticism, with suggestions that Rawls’ desire to extend justice to all and only humans means that he is stretching his argument to meet a predetermined boundary. Rawls does consider that animals have a right to protection and compassion, but specifically excludes them from a right to justice as they are not human and do not possess the necessary Factor X (Rawls, 1972).
Islamic State militant 'executes own mother' in Raqqa
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35260475
I love these PC BBC slogans like; militant or activists to describe the doers of unbelievable barbarity and evilness.
"Earlier, police arrested two men "of an immigrant background" in connection with the sex attacks. One of the men was carrying a note in German and Arabic with translations of phrases including “Beautiful breasts”, “I want to have sex with you” and “I’ll kill you”, according to police."
They let him walk free. What the hell!?
Somebody posted once that incredible interview between (I think) Gavin Esler and Nick Griffin where the later talked about Muslim rapists in the North. It just seemed so far fetched.
Germany, GMS poll:
CDU-EPP: 32%
SPD-S&D: 24% ↑
GRÜNE-GREEN: 10%
AfD-ECR: 9%
LINKE-LEFT: 8% ↓
CSU-EPP 7%
FDP-ALDE 5% ↑
#btw17 #ltwbw #LTWRLP
"Emily Thornberry: I 'don't know' why Jeremy Corbyn made me shadow defence secretary"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/12089578/Emily-Thornberry-I-dont-know-why-Jeremy-Corbyn-made-me-shadow-defence-secretary.html
So now #Merkel supports plans to restrict welfare entitlement of #migrants. #Europa << too little too late. #brexit https://t.co/lNJbEfkWfV
#Merkel unterstützt Pläne, den Sozialhilfeanspruch von EU-Ausländern zu beschränken: Presseschau https://t.co/DkwyuZqSnr #Europa
My MP has just sent me a weekly email, signing off with a kiss. Tis addressed personally, but I have no illusions.
Do many MPs do this?
https://twitter.com/CHSommers/status/685498448632758273
There should be a second chamber that is not appointed.
A debate should be held over Trident.
As I support an Independent nuclear defense, but the cost and if it truly independent is open to question now.
I support that if governments of both colours could build hundreds of thousands of houses after the second world war, they could now.
The housing crisis for the young without wealthy parents is a dreadful scar on this countries values.
But I also know you will never win an election on my views in England by FPTP.
Blair and especially Blair should have brought PR in with a 179 majority, from a position of strength , when it would have been seen in a good light.
Corbyn seems a thoughtful man, but in his heart he must know he will never win an election.
However maybe a new bright thing with less baggage, might stand a chance if enough people are excluded from a property owning democracy.
A sense a fairness might prevail.
Europe's been wallowing in luxury for so long it's forgotten how to fight for its values. Very Western Roman Empire.
We could do with an Aurelian right about now...
Should anyone do as many on here have said and actually come up with a statement of "What leave would actually mean" they would, rightly, be attacked by cries of "You can't say that because the future relationship has to be negotiated". It is the Remain's catch-22.
However, just like the Heller's original Catch-22, it is possible to cut through by taking a step back on concentrating on principles.
If Labour went into a coalition with the Tories (I know it would never happen outside of a war of survival) and the Tories were in the ascendancy with 275 out of the 375 seats in said coalition Labour voters might start to wonder whether it is worth voting Labour given that the government which they have indirectly voted for is going to be implementing a very Tory heavy agenda and a Tory will sit in No. 10.
This is what is happening to the SPD, they stopped being a serious party of government the day they agreed to a grand coalition with the CDU instead of telling Merkel to get lost and now they are slowly being hollowed out by the Left and Greens while the CDU are safe because their leader is PM and their policies form the bulk of the government's agenda.
Look at what happened to the Lib Dems as a good example of what is going on in Germany to the SPD.
However, the worst position of all would be what some so-called Labour moderates are saying we should do which is to say social-democratic aims can be achieved without increasing spending at all. If I went onto a doorstep and said "a Labour government would improve the NHS and schools, but don't worry, it would all be for free, it won't cost any money", I would be laughed out of town. The public (rightly) knows that improvements in public services will inevitably come with a price tag attached; left-wingers will just have to man up and constantly try to persuade people that the improvements are worth the price tag, rather than trying this nonsense about "how to improve things without any money".
Social Justice Warrior
Well SJW originally referred to the crazy tumblr types who would say things like "White people wearing dreadlocks is cultural appropriation", or "I was mentally raped by a man yesterday because he looked at me in the subway". That sort of thing.
Matches what I thought it meant, at any rate.
1. It was a false flag operation designed to discredit innocent lovely immigrants
2. You can’t talk about these things because it encourages the ‘Far Right’
3. Rape is only a ‘thing’ when white people do it
4. Ooh look some cute kids! And they’re Syrian refugees!!!
5. Nothing to do with Islam. It’s because all men are rapists, obviously
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/01/08/cologne-rapefest-the-best-liberal-excuses-so-far/
I wouldn't unduly chastise Priti Patel for doing it to me.
However, I don't understand the incessant use of ' '.
Of course you are right that it's a Catch-22, but that's because reality is a Catch-22: You can't have your cake and eat it. They need to decide on a coherent story (and, crucially, a plausible one). Otherwise the Remain side will quite rightly be able to point to the ludicrous contradictions.
And, as you imply, yes I've been saying this for a long time. The fact that it's difficult was exactly why I recommended some threre years ago, when the referendum because Conservative policy, that they should start. Instead they faffed around trying to get Ed Milband into No 10, and they're still faffing around.
Fundamentally, government debt as a % of GDP should continue to fall over time, even if the absolute amount rises.
David Cameron has shown exactly why it is a bad idea for the Leave campaign to campaign on a single option. Cameron recently dismissed EEA/EFTA saying it is not suitable for the UK. If a Tory government is not willing to pursue that option then it will be off the table.
I would love to know from the Remain campaign exactly what staying in the EU will look like. The status quo is not an option. We either leave amicably or remain and accept that we will need to integrate further with the EU.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3390168/Migrant-rape-fears-spread-Europe-Women-told-not-night-assaults-carried-Sweden-Finland-Germany-Austria-Switzerland-amid-warnings-gangs-ordinating-attacks.html
But it isn't. It's like a relationship. If it goes on, it gets more serious. If it stops, maybe you're friends, or acquaintances, or even enemies.