politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Confidence, resilience, determination: the necessary respon

GeoffM said:

Trump has a good point though.

That tweet is from January and refers to the Charlie Hebdo attack

Le Pen Will Never Be President Of The French Republic

LPWNBPOTFR

FPT. If Saddam Gaddafi and Mubarak hadn't been deposed by allied action it's unlikely the carnage we're now seeing in Europe and the Middle East would be happening. Where there was weak government in the Arab world before-notably Lebanon-it existed because of fractured and weak leadership.

George Bush junior and his allies in trying to impose their world vision by force have created a Hell. What Paris is suffering now has been felt on a daily basis in the Arab world since Saddam was toppled. The depressing thing is not only how predictable it was but that it was widely predicted.

I suspect that Anders Breivik is sitting playing Call of Duty with a much larger smile than usual on his smug coupon.

watford30 said:

GeoffM said:

Trump has a good point though.

Trump's a bell end. A greater supply of weapons would only help these murderers in their foul religiously motivated activities.

He's also wrong. In comparison with most of Western Europe, France's gun laws are quite lax. Certainly incomparable to those in the UK, Netherlands or Germany.

Very good article David.

That tweet by Donald Trump is utterly revolting.

felix said:

" It renews confidence in what we stand for. That for all the differences between Cameron and Corbyn, or unionists and nationalists in Scotland, or even between the DUP and Sinn Fein, we recognise a common basic framework for society; a framework that while not perfect and is in places contradictory, is still better than anything else."

I'm really not sure you're right here - I dearly wish you were but I do not think Corbyn has the mindset you describe.

There is a video showing what Corbyn said after 7/7. It was our fault.

Labour wanted a law against 'islamophobia' I believe, Khan wants ethnic quotas, and the Guardian leader writers are doing what they do

'There could be no grosser misconception of the realities than is entertained by those who vociferously demand legislation as they call it "against discrimination", whether they be leader-writers of the same kidney and sometimes on the same newspapers which year after year in the 1930s tried to blind this country to the rising peril which confronted it, or archbishops who live in palaces, faring delicately with the bedclothes pulled right up over their heads. They have got it exactly and diametrically wrong.

The discrimination and the deprivation, the sense of alarm and of resentment, lies not with the immigrant population but with those among whom they have come and are still coming.

This is why to enact legislation of the kind before parliament at this moment is to risk throwing a match on to gunpowder. The kindest thing that can be said about those who propose and support it is that they know not what they do.'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3643823/Enoch-Powells-Rivers-of-Blood-speech.html

Note the Tweet from Donald Trump was from the earlier Paris attacks nearly a year ago. I've taken it down.

This is an attack on how we live. It cannot be allowed to succeed.

GeoffM said:

Trump has a good point though. We'd be safer society if we were armed.

I'm not sure a gun control thread will add much light but suffice to say that if armed terrorists go into a theatre to do a massacre they're not likely to find armed defenders. Guns aid the attackers more than the defenders. One reason we've come off relatively lightly in all this is that procuring weapons in this country is illegal so our security forces can intervene and arrest would-be terrorists when they procure arms rather than not realise what is happening until it happens.

There've been hundreds of arrests and lots of conviction in the last decade without any massacres on our soil. It could always happen again but we're doing something right.

Caught by the new thread

FPT

I do think there is mileage in normalising relations with Iran. Our relationship has been dominated by 3 decades of mistrust following the manner in which the regime their came to power and their involvement in other ME countries - notably Lebanon. But they do appear to have been one of the most stable countries in the region and, as far as other religions is concerned, one of the most tolerant. There are active Christian and Jewish communities and the Government appears to take an active interest in protecting them from possible radicals.

Iran is clearly a long way from what we would consider a free and fair society but at the moment they are probably far and away the best ally we could develop in the region.

SO


"Sadly, I agree. As tim says on Twitter - today Seamus Milne's hardest task is probably to stop Jeremy Corbyn saying what Seamus Milne thinks"

If that's the same Tim it's good to know he's as sharp as ever. Where do you find his tweets?".

felix said:

SouthamObserver said:

Can someone talk me through why that Guardian article - which is one of many published on its website - is so offensive?

I think because the headline is focused on the concern for Muslims which seems out of place at this time. It also includes that standard put-down of the 'far right' response which both hasn't happened rather than concentrating on what did happen. I thought it was their front page at first rather than just an opinion piece.

As a front page it would have been completely wrong. As one opinion piece among many it seems fine to me.

MikeK said:

FPT.

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:
There is always some confusion in reporting this and similar events.
Sky is saying 120 killed, while CNN is reporting at least 153 have been killed.
That's quite a disparity.
---------
This is the EU trying to juggle the horrifying figures and make them as small as possible for internal propaganda. The truth is that there are almost 200 wounded, 80 very seriously and many will still die.

Since when did the EU publish Sky News?

This is simply an on-going event where the news is not clear entirely yet.

MikeSmithson said:

Note the Tweet from Donald Trump was from the earlier Paris attacks nearly a year ago. I've taken it down.

It was revolting then.

AF

"This is an attack on how we live. It cannot be allowed to succeed."

That's true but unfortunately they see it as a direct retaliation against our interferences in the way they live

Richard_Tyndall said:

Caught by the new thread

FPT

I do think there is mileage in normalising relations with Iran. Our relationship has been dominated by 3 decades of mistrust following the manner in which the regime their came to power and their involvement in other ME countries - notably Lebanon. But they do appear to have been one of the most stable countries in the region and, as far as other religions is concerned, one of the most tolerant. There are active Christian and Jewish communities and the Government appears to take an active interest in protecting them from possible radicals.

Iran is clearly a long way from what we would consider a free and fair society but at the moment they are probably far and away the best ally we could develop in the region.

Don't Iran themselves fund terrorist groups and extremist ideology? I thought from memory Iran was friends and sponsors of Hamas and Hezbollah etc?

Allying with them seems as counterproductive to me as allying with Saudi Arabia.

MaxPB said:

Isis told us they were sending and army over with the millions of refugees. My thoughts are with the people who have been failed. The blood is Merkel's hands. She must answer to the families of the deceased, her open door policy is letting terrorists into Europe, unchecked and untracked. I'm thankfulbfor small mercies and that we've opted out of this mess.

Do we know that these terrorists came in with the Syrian refugees?

JackW said:

Mrs JackW is still progressing to Paris next weekend.

That is the response required.

Her mission: to ensure shop takings don't take a dive.....

There is definitely a non-French link with the attackers. Certainly German authorities may have had contact recently with someone on their way to France.

MaxPB said:

Isis told us they were sending and army over with the millions of refugees. My thoughts are with the people who have been failed. The blood is Merkel's hands. She must answer to the families of the deceased, her open door policy is letting terrorists into Europe, unchecked and untracked. I'm thankfulbfor small mercies and that we've opted out of this mess.

We're talking about people trying to escape from exactly this, every day.

MikeK said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MikeK said:

FPT.

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:
There is always some confusion in reporting this and similar events.
Sky is saying 120 killed, while CNN is reporting at least 153 have been killed.
That's quite a disparity.
---------
This is the EU trying to juggle the horrifying figures and make them as small as possible for internal propaganda. The truth is that there are almost 200 wounded, 80 very seriously and many will still die.

Since when did the EU publish Sky News?

This is simply an on-going event where the news is not clear entirely yet.

It's the reverse, dear boy. SKY quoting EU figures. Do use whatever brains you have got.

No Sky are quoting the confirmed numbers from the French (which is not the EU). Confirmed numbers of deaths are frequently lower than the final total which is why it says "At least 120" rather than "no more than 120".

This is standard practice for how they report figures in tragedies, not a political conspiracy.

isam said:

david_herdson said:

Powell cannot lay claim to giving birth to that notion, which in any case is neither quite what I wrote nor, of itself, inherently wrong. It's a pretty poor attempt at guilt by association.

One fact worth mentioning though, given that you've brought up Powell, is that he was complaining against 50000 immigrants a year coming from British Commonwealth countries; places where the intrinsic culture was not all that different from Britain. As noted in the leader, Germany expects twenty times as many immigrants in just three months, most of whom will be far more culturally removed from Germany than Jamaicans were from Britain.

I am not going to get into 'Enoch was right' and all that. Apart from anything else, he clearly missed which immigrant group was less likely to integrate (Afro-Caribbean communities have in general integrated very well across all classes). That speech is a distraction. The problem we have is now.

Sorry I'm not having that

Enoch was motivated by the events in India in the 40s, and by the case of the Sikh bus conductor who refused to wear the uniform on religion grounds... It is a nonsense to say he was talking about Jamaicans or Afro Caribbeans in particular, an absolute nonsense

Clearly you're much more knowledgeable about the man and the speech than am I. However, having checked it out, I stand by my point. Powell makes reference several times to 'black man', 'negro', 'picanniny' and the like. By contrast, he makes just one reference to Sikhs and none at all to muslims, Asians, Indians, Pakistanis or the like.

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Caught by the new thread

FPT

I do think there is mileage in normalising relations with Iran. Our relationship has been dominated by 3 decades of mistrust following the manner in which the regime their came to power and their involvement in other ME countries - notably Lebanon. But they do appear to have been one of the most stable countries in the region and, as far as other religions is concerned, one of the most tolerant. There are active Christian and Jewish communities and the Government appears to take an active interest in protecting them from possible radicals.

Iran is clearly a long way from what we would consider a free and fair society but at the moment they are probably far and away the best ally we could develop in the region.

Don't Iran themselves fund terrorist groups and extremist ideology? I thought from memory Iran was friends and sponsors of Hamas and Hezbollah etc?

Allying with them seems as counterproductive to me as allying with Saudi Arabia.

It was Iran which was one of the sponsors of Islamist aggression when Khomeini issued the fatwa against Rushdie and to which Muslims in this country responded by burning books on the streets of Britain.

Ponder that: British citizens protesting and threatening violence against a British citizen at the behest of a foreign religious and political leader. European citizens behaving like bullies while simultaneously claiming to be victims and attacking anyone suggesting otherwise. In a nutshell that told you all you needed to know about the Islamist world view. And it set the template for countless incidents and atrocities since then.

And, Roger, it was Islamist interference in and aggression against our way of life - and long before Bush and Iraq and 9/11.

''European citizens behaving like bullies while simultaneously claiming to be victims and attacking anyone suggesting otherwise. In a nutshell that told you all you needed to know about the Islamist world view. And it set the template for countless incidents and atrocities since then.''

The formula that islam has used for centuries to spread itself is now being used in Europe.

SouthamObserver said:

As tim says on Twitter - today Seamus Milne's hardest task is probably to stop Jeremy Corbyn saying what Seamus Milne thinks.

He has got his own problems...

@Mr_Eugenides: During the night the Guardian tweeted then deleted this link to an old Seumas “it’s all our fault” column. I didn’t. https://t.co/d2WKKANCdo

This is also interesting from a Labour supporter about Corbyn's inability to condemn terrorists, written about Jihadi John and before Paris exploded

http://www.labourteachers.org.uk/we-alienated-more-voters-today-and-heres-how-oldandrewuk/

david_herdson said:

isam said:

david_herdson said:

Powell cannot lay claim to giving birth to that notion, which in any case is neither quite what I wrote nor, of itself, inherently wrong. It's a pretty poor attempt at guilt by association.

One fact worth mentioning though, given that you've brought up Powell, is that he was complaining against 50000 immigrants a year coming from British Commonwealth countries; places where the intrinsic culture was not all that different from Britain. As noted in the leader, Germany expects twenty times as many immigrants in just three months, most of whom will be far more culturally removed from Germany than Jamaicans were from Britain.

I am not going to get into 'Enoch was right' and all that. Apart from anything else, he clearly missed which immigrant group was less likely to integrate (Afro-Caribbean communities have in general integrated very well across all classes). That speech is a distraction. The problem we have is now.

Sorry I'm not having that

Enoch was motivated by the events in India in the 40s, and by the case of the Sikh bus conductor who refused to wear the uniform on religion grounds... It is a nonsense to say he was talking about Jamaicans or Afro Caribbeans in particular, an absolute nonsense

Clearly you're much more knowledgeable about the man and the speech than am I. However, having checked it out, I stand by my point. Powell makes reference several times to 'black man', 'negro', 'picanniny' and the like. By contrast, he makes just one reference to Sikhs and none at all to muslims, Asians, Indians, Pakistanis or the like.

In that speech he quotes an example of woman who lives in a street with a majority of black people, and refers to "American Negroes" to point out that our problem is not the same as theirs. The words "black man" "picanninny" were not Powells but quotes from constituents

His broader point was that it was the number of immigrants that mattered, not where they came from... actually he said the problem would be the same if the same number of germans were immigrating, though Im not sure that holds true

"Commonwealth immigrants" is the phrase he used most often, and "coloured" which was not controversial in that era as it is now. If you think his speeches and opinions were directed at Afro Carribeans in particular, you have got it very wrong, as you will find if you look properly into his views

You should watch his interview w David Frost, a compelling insight

Mr. Taffys, when people can't win an argument based on reason, they do so on vocabulary.

If you ban the words used to oppose you, then you win by default.

Mockery is a great use of both freedom of speech and to deride those whose opinions are mad, such as ISIS or the likes of CAGE. The de facto blasphemy law we now have (which applies to Mohammed, but not Jesus) is bloody depressing, as was Newsnight's despicable stance.

Jack

"Mrs JackW is still progressing to Paris next weekend.

That is the response required. "

That's the spirit. Send the women in first....

MikeK said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MikeK said:

FPT.

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:
There is always some confusion in reporting this and similar events.
Sky is saying 120 killed, while CNN is reporting at least 153 have been killed.
That's quite a disparity.
---------
This is the EU trying to juggle the horrifying figures and make them as small as possible for internal propaganda. The truth is that there are almost 200 wounded, 80 very seriously and many will still die.

Since when did the EU publish Sky News?

This is simply an on-going event where the news is not clear entirely yet.

It's the reverse, dear boy. SKY quoting EU figures. Do use whatever brains you have got.

Sorry Mike but that is just paranoid lunacy.

chestnut said:

watford30 said:

Cyclefree said:

Scott_P said:

SouthamObserver said:

As tim says on Twitter - today Seamus Milne's hardest task is probably to stop Jeremy Corbyn saying what Seamus Milne thinks.

He has got his own problems...

@Mr_Eugenides: During the night the Guardian tweeted then deleted this link to an old Seumas “it’s all our fault” column. I didn’t. https://t.co/d2WKKANCdo

This is also interesting from a Labour supporter about Corbyn's inability to condemn terrorists, written about Jihadi John and before Paris exploded

http://www.labourteachers.org.uk/we-alienated-more-voters-today-and-heres-how-oldandrewuk/

This is what Corbyn said about 7/7 - //m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQ2D8IBLnJc.

Corbyn's part of the problem. That's clear.

"Corbyns" have been a part of the problem for decades.

The epitome of a useful idiot.

A malicious useful idiot.

isam said:

david_herdson said:

isam said:

david_herdson said:

Powell cannot lay claim to giving birth to that notion, which in any case is neither quite what I wrote nor, of itself, inherently wrong. It's a pretty poor attempt at guilt by association.

One fact worth mentioning though, given that you've brought up Powell, is that he was complaining against 50000 immigrants a year coming from British Commonwealth countries; places where the intrinsic culture was not all that different from Britain. As noted in the leader, Germany expects twenty times as many immigrants in just three months, most of whom will be far more culturally removed from Germany than Jamaicans were from Britain.

I am not going to get into 'Enoch was right' and all that. Apart from anything else, he clearly missed which immigrant group was less likely to integrate (Afro-Caribbean communities have in general integrated very well across all classes). That speech is a distraction. The problem we have is now.

Sorry I'm not having that

Enoch was motivated by the events in India in the 40s, and by the case of the Sikh bus conductor who refused to wear the uniform on religion grounds... It is a nonsense to say he was talking about Jamaicans or Afro Caribbeans in particular, an absolute nonsense

Clearly you're much more knowledgeable about the man and the speech than am I. However, having checked it out, I stand by my point. Powell makes reference several times to 'black man', 'negro', 'picanniny' and the like. By contrast, he makes just one reference to Sikhs and none at all to muslims, Asians, Indians, Pakistanis or the like.

In that speech he quotes an example of woman who lives in a street with a majority of black people, and refers to "American Negroes" to point out that our problem is not the same as theirs. The words "black man" "picanninny" were not Powells but quotes from constituents

His broader point was that it was the number of immigrants that mattered, not where they came from... actually he said the problem would be the same if the same number of germans were immigrating, though Im not sure that holds true

"Commonwealth immigrants" is the phrase he used most often, and "coloured" which was not controversial in that era as it is now. If you think his speeches and opinions were directed at Afro Carribeans in particular, you have got it very wrong, as you will find if you look properly into his views

You should watch his interview w David Frost, a compelling insight

I have better things to do with my time, particularly today.

I will say this though. I heard him speak once, at Durham Union Society, when he was already past 80. I've never seen anyone before or since with such presence.

david_herdson said:

isam said:

david_herdson said:

isam said:

david_herdson said:

I am not going to get into 'Enoch was right' and all that. Apart from anything else, he clearly missed which immigrant group was less likely to integrate (Afro-Caribbean communities have in general integrated very well across all classes). That speech is a distraction. The problem we have is now.

Sorry I'm not having that

Enoch was motivated by the events in India in the 40s, and by the case of the Sikh bus conductor who refused to wear the uniform on religion grounds... It is a nonsense to say he was talking about Jamaicans or Afro Caribbeans in particular, an absolute nonsense

Clearly you're much more knowledgeable about the man and the speech than am I. However, having checked it out, I stand by my point. Powell makes reference several times to 'black man', 'negro', 'picanniny' and the like. By contrast, he makes just one reference to Sikhs and none at all to muslims, Asians, Indians, Pakistanis or the like.

In that speech he quotes an example of woman who lives in a street with a majority of black people, and refers to "American Negroes" to point out that our problem is not the same as theirs. The words "black man" "picanninny" were not Powells but quotes from constituents

His broader point was that it was the number of immigrants that mattered, not where they came from... actually he said the problem would be the same if the same number of germans were immigrating, though Im not sure that holds true

"Commonwealth immigrants" is the phrase he used most often, and "coloured" which was not controversial in that era as it is now. If you think his speeches and opinions were directed at Afro Carribeans in particular, you have got it very wrong, as you will find if you look properly into his views

You should watch his interview w David Frost, a compelling insight

I have better things to do with my time, particularly today.

I will say this though. I heard him speak once, at Durham Union Society, when he was already past 80. I've never seen anyone before or since with such presence.

Anyone interested in politics, particularly the immigration issue, should watch the Frost Interview if they want to be better informed. I'd have thought it would be of interest to a political writer, but your choice of course

MikeK said:

https://twitter.com/DouglasKMurray/status/665327830889201664
I'm betting that they will still try it on.

The response of Theresa May will be interesting.

If there's still a value bet to be had on next Tory leader - even better, next PM - it's her.

Still a bit available on Betfair at 14/1

Curious: Reports Al Qaeda has condemned the attacks in Paris and pointed the finger at IS.

Caution notice, not yet official, my Arabic owes a large debt to Google Translate.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Caught by the new thread

FPT

I do think there is mileage in normalising relations with Iran. Our relationship has been dominated by 3 decades of mistrust following the manner in which the regime their came to power and their involvement in other ME countries - notably Lebanon. But they do appear to have been one of the most stable countries in the region and, as far as other religions is concerned, one of the most tolerant. There are active Christian and Jewish communities and the Government appears to take an active interest in protecting them from possible radicals.

Iran is clearly a long way from what we would consider a free and fair society but at the moment they are probably far and away the best ally we could develop in the region.

Don't Iran themselves fund terrorist groups and extremist ideology? I thought from memory Iran was friends and sponsors of Hamas and Hezbollah etc?

Allying with them seems as counterproductive to me as allying with Saudi Arabia.

They do and that is why I referred to the problems with doing a deal with them. But we need allies in the ME and ones who are ideologically opposed to the radical islamic strand that is underpinning Isis and AQ. Our traditional allies especially Saudi are complicit in all that is happening at the moment whilst Iran and Assad are in direct opposition to them.

Nothing in geopolitics and its extension into war is perfect and there are no untarnished players in the ME. The job of our leaders right now has to be to pick those allies who are most likely to be of help now and who are least likely to cause us problems in the future. It was the policy that Churchill followed in WW2 and we could do a lot worse than follow his lead.

I don't disagree with the logic I'm just not convinced that Iran who have sponsored terrorism, suicide bombings and extremism for decades and still do are the right ally. They're not ideologically opposed to any of this, they just back their own terrorist killers.

To be honest I'm not sure what we can do as a solution other than encourage moderate governments (Israel for one, Egypt perhaps I don't know), try and disentangle from needing oil and stop funding with any nation that sponsors terrorist ideology - which would include both Saudi and Iran.

Morning all

As with others, appalled by the events in Paris overnight and the dreadful taking of innocent lives.

For all David H's fine words, I'm reminded that one of our "values" (well, it's one of mine at any rate) is compassion and for all the hard-nosed talk about how we should treat the exodus from the Syrian battlefields and elsewhere, it seems that fear rather than compassion is winning the day.

The alternatives seem either to condemn people to possibly years of futile existence in refugee camps where we routinely pick and choose those we want from the pool of the displaced and the dispossessed or we condemn those who physically come to Europe to either existence on the margins of society or worse facing a European winter with little or no help.

Ultimately, if we become a fearful, insular society, distrusting of certain groups and relying on endless surveillance and the rule of authority to create a facade of security and comfort for some, then, in some ways, terror will have won as we will have traded tolerance and compassion for security and comfort.

"Fortress Europe" was a term once used in a different context to describe a continent designed to be impervious to external threats (and Britain was that threat). Now, the Fortress is less a physical reality then a mentality - build the walls ever higher, make the surveillance ever more intrusive and perhaps we'll be safe.

As a Londoner, I've lived with the threat of terror most of my life - the response of the general public after 7/7 here and in Paris last night isn't just defiance, it's a re-affirmation of the people we are, not the people terror and fear would make us. Life goes on - I intend to live it in my way, on my terms with my compassion and tolerance intact.