SeanT. Much though I like your writing, there are one or two points in your last posting with which I'd quarrel. The burqi is arguably Muslim, although in my lifetime it was mandatory upon women to wear a hat in Church. FGM isn't; Bangladeshis and Indonesians for example have, I understand, the same view that we ... post Christian westerners .... do. Cousin marriage is Indian subcontinent, Hindus as well as Muslim. I can't think of a cutlure where "endemic rape" is sanctioned. You might, for example, think about what happened in Berlin in 1945.
How's Bhutan? On my bucket list,although I'm not optimistic about getting there.
You ask how Bhutan is? I'll tell you. Happy. One reason for this was explained by my perfectly agreeable guide Kuenzang. He said: "We have no Muslims here".
A bigot? Perhaps. Yet he looks at nearby China or India or Thailand or Burma and sees nothing but trouble or strife from Muslims.
Then there's the Malay Hindi manager of my hotel in Punakha. Yesterday. He told me he left Malaysia and says he will never go back "because the Muslims are practising apartheid" - and they are, it's called
He was open in his contempt for Islam, in its modern incarnation.
I could go on. And this is one five day trip. The entire world is reacting against Islam like an organism reacting against an invading and very dangerous cancer which is virulently metastasizing. Most sensible countries are taking severe preventive actions.
Europe, especially Britain, does nothing. This inaction will not last.
I've got to say that after some 12 trips to Thailand, not by any means all in tourist resorts, I've aware of only one possible problem which just have been Muslim related.
Equally I know of a prominent Muslim in UK who is horrified by what he sees from some of his co-religionists who does all he can to promote good relations between "us" and "them".
It's a mindset that thinks that something exists only if the state provides it, as if health, education, human rights could not otherwise exist. The fact that rights - human rights - could have arisen through the common law, as happened in the UK and subsequently in the US (see Locke, Paine et al) is something not really understood in much Continental philosophy and jurisprudence.
It's a mindset which assumes that the state and society are one and the same. And they aren't. The more the state takes over, the greater the risk that it crowds out society and the activities of individuals and of groups who come together voluntarily (the original collective action - and a very good thing IMO).
Not everything that needs doing needs doing by the state. But what the state should do - defence against internal and external threats, control of borders - it should do well.
By doing too much, it does too much of it badly or not at all.
This is a fairly standard small-c conservative argument, albeit expressed by you more elegantly than usual, as usual. At the margin it may sometimes be true, but on the whole I don't think it is. The existence of fairly good free health care doesn't prevent the existence of countless charities to provide extra support for the sick. The provision of universal school education doesn't stop all manner of adult classes, and indeed private schools. If people are minded to do stuff, they will, and won't usually be put off by the thought that the state is already doing some of it.
There are two dangers in relying on voluntary activity. The first is that it is only patchily available, sometimes with mixed motives (e.g. some religious groups seeking converts) and often in places that need it least. The richest area of Broxtowe has a Befriending Association, people who will keep you company if you're lonely. They say they can't find enough customers and are considering winding up. The poorest area has nothing similar, but they aren't inclined to set out to help there - it's half an hour's drive away, and a totally unfamiliar community, like setting out from Chelsea to give a hand in Brixton. Ideally they should want to anyway, but they don't.
The second is that it essentially taxes the good and the generous, who make up for the gaps left by the state. Prewar hospitals managed to get by with heroic efforts by underpaid doctors and volunteer helpers. It shouldn't have been necessary. Rather, the state should provide the basics for everyone who needs them, and voluntary action should enrich the fabric of society on top of that.
Kasich is still in the race, is polling increasingly well, and yet is still being mostly ignored. Could he pull something off in Michigan? Is there any value at the current prices? He certainly seems a bit cheap compared to a fading Rubbio or even a Trump that the RNC would love to block at the convention, or even before if possible. Thoughts?
In terms of providing another twist in this bizarre contest, I hope there's something in it at least.
It doesn't matter if Kasich pulls something off in MI. At best it's going to shift an extra 10 delegates into his column...
I'm not sure I agree with that. Many of the public health initiatives such as childhood inoculations, good maternity care have done a great deal to improve the nation's health. Good diet is a part of good health but not the only thing that's needed.
It's not the only thing, there's also being active, and not placing the body's systems under other undue forms of stress/assault, mental or physical. But it is a huge proportion.
Childhood inoculation is probably a cul de sac I don't particularly want to go down. As a general point, of course medical advances in the treatment of sickness are to be welcomed - triumph over infectious diseases like cholera and tb has been fantastic. But in their stead have emerged explosions in levels of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, asthma, allergies and intolerances, hosts of auto-immune disease, all caused by our malnourished/toxic/imbalanced diets and lifestyles, and all gladly treated by our friendly neighbourhood NHS and pharmaceutical industries. Look at the HUGE focus on cancer research. Zero focus on cancer prevention. It's the National Sickness Service. Let's not pretend it's making us healthy when it isn't.
Kasich is still in the race, is polling increasingly well, and yet is still being mostly ignored. Could he pull something off in Michigan? Is there any value at the current prices? He certainly seems a bit cheap compared to a fading Rubbio or even a Trump that the RNC would love to block at the convention, or even before if possible. Thoughts?
In terms of providing another twist in this bizarre contest, I hope there's something in it at least.
It doesn't matter if Kasich pulls something off in MI. At best it's going to shift an extra 10 delegates into his column...
I'm sure that's right - just looking for a brief extra diversion.
The referendum is a mess. Leave have all the best arguments but the worst campaign. I suppose the upside is that it means a decent campaig could add ten points to Leave next time around.
With a Brexit premier, and UK Government behind him/her with a clear roadmap for Leave, this wouldn't even be close.
The referendum is a mess. Leave have all the best arguments but the worst campaign. I suppose the upside is that it means a decent campaig could add ten points to Leave next time around.
There will not be a next time if Remain win comfortably, Leave at least need to make it close (which I still think it will be no matter how inept their campaign)
Just for the lolz: someone out there in the infinite cosmos there is a parallel universe where David Cameron came out for Leave, and Richard Nabavi is defending him vociferously on pb.com against a handful of our regular Labour posters who think him opportunistic.
SeanT. Much though I like your writing, there are one or two points in your last posting with which I'd quarrel. The burqi is arguably Muslim, although in my lifetime it was mandatory upon women to wear a hat in Church. FGM isn't; Bangladeshis and Indonesians for example have, I understand, the same view that we ... post Christian westerners .... do. Cousin marriage is Indian subcontinent, Hindus as well as Muslim. I can't think of a cutlure where "endemic rape" is sanctioned. You might, for example, think about what happened in Berlin in 1945.
How's Bhutan? On my bucket list,although I'm not optimistic about getting there.
Wearing a hat or covering one's hair is not the same as the burqa. The difference is significant.
Rape occurs for lots of reasons and in lots of situations e.g. war etc. But it is unarguable I think that in much of the Middle East, where Islam is the predominant religion and culture, the approach to female sexuality is one which we in the West find distasteful, in part because we have made great strides in moving on from similar attitudes to women held here in the past. That means that there is a clash when the two views collide and it is those who are the most vulnerable - women and young women in particular - who suffer. That is wrong. A state that ignores that and that thinks that is an acceptable price to pay for some other larger goal is quite quite wrong and failing in one of its principal duties. It is entirely fair of us to say to the state: don't just hand out cards and give lessons on sexual ethics to people who are harassing women. Think about whether they should be let into the country at all. Women are not second-class citizens to be sacrificed just so that others can feel good about what they are doing to help the suffering masses. Charity begins at home.
i get the impression that the situation for women is, sadly, far worse in Hindu India.
See? SeanT is honest SeanT says Muslims should stay out of Europe and Muslims in Europe should leave for his sake - implicitly, he is fully entitled to Europe and Muslims are not, even if they have been in Europe making no trouble all their lives, while he was being a white guy in Thailand. Work that one out But, you know, Bhutan would be just as good
Leave is conducting the most lamentable campaign imaginable.
Moaning about the risks of staying in is necessary but not sufficient, not by a long way, simply because those advocating change must present a case, a good case, for change. People are much more likely to choose inertia by default unless both the push and the pull factors are there.
Someone on the Leave side must see this, surely.......
Would you not concede that when LEAVERS have diametrically opposed views on where we will be re immigration and free trade post BREXIT it is going to be very difficult to improve their campaign, which I agree, is lamentable.
I agree. T immigration and those who have other reasons for leaving and are not primarily motivated by immigration. It will take the wisdom of Solomon to do this and I don't see one on the horizon
I did actuerious doubts whether the UKIP tendency are going to quietly accept no change to immigration.
I would suggest the campaign IS about immigration. See those young guys setting fire to camps, smashing down borders and sexually assaulting women across Europe? We don;t want them in Britain.
That is the crux of it.
Those people specifically are unlikely to arrive in the UK I presume you mean you don't want to live near Muslims in general Might be more honest to say so
Given the fundamentalist psychosis now gripping global Islam, along with all the other social problems attached to Islam, from the burqa to FGM to cousin marriage to endemic rape to anti-west terrorism, it is safe to say Muslim immigration into Europe has been an unqualified disaster.
It should therefore end now. And we should be seeking ways to REVERSE the flow, i.e. to actively reduce Muslim populations in Europe.
If they want to live in the 13th century, then they can go do that, in some flyblown 13th century toilet, east of here.
I do not believe Islam has a future in the West, in its present state of madness. This will either be sorted democratically, or undemocratically. This has nothing to do with race. We are facing a global religion which has reverted to primeval Nazism.
I download Radio4 dramas and listen whilst out training, I listened to a drama, I think it was called "Cutting it", about FGM, it really disturbed me, I felt ill. I have 2 grand daughters and to think of them being mutilated is horrific. Later I heard an interview on Jeremy Vine, yes I know, but it was Mrs Jay who had it on,it was equally upsetting. I have no answers...
Just for the lolz: someone out there in the infinite cosmos there is a parallel universe where David Cameron came out for Leave, and Richard Nabavi is defending him vociferously on pb.com against a handful of our regular Labour posters who think him opportunistic.
Cheered me up.
Or the one where Richard is a kipper and laying in to Cameron and I'm defending George Osborne :-)
The referendum is a mess. Leave have all the best arguments but the worst campaign. I suppose the upside is that it means a decent campaig could add ten points to Leave next time around.
There will not be a next time if Remain win comfortably, Leave at least need to make it close (which I still think it will be no matter how inept their campaign)
As long as its not 70-30 for Remain then there will have to be another referendum if the Eurozone integrates. The EU will become a very different beast, with a central superstate and a handful of outerlying territories it governs.
This is a fairly standard small-c conservative argument, albeit expressed by you more elegantly than usual, as usual.
[Snipped]
There are two dangers in relying on voluntary activity. The first is that it is only patchily available, sometimes with mixed motives (e.g. some religious groups seeking converts) and often in places that need it least. The richest area of Broxtowe has a Befriending Association, people who will keep you company if you're lonely. They say they can't find enough customers and are considering winding up. The poorest area has nothing similar, but they aren't inclined to set out to help there.
The second is that it essentially taxes the good and the generous, who make up for the gaps left by the state. Prewar hospitals managed to get by with heroic efforts by underpaid doctors and volunteer helpers. It shouldn't have been necessary. Rather, the state should provide the basics for everyone who needs them, and voluntary action should enrich the fabric of society on top of that.
The two can co-exist. And as you will have noted I said that it was a risk - rather than a given. But I think the state should ensure that no-one falls below some basic level - note that it should ensure not that it necessarily needs itself to provide.
The key issue for me is that the state should work out what it absolutely must do and do that as well as possible. If it does too much, it risks losing focus and doing too much badly. That helps no-one. I think the state has got so big that it is both expensive and ineffective in areas where it needs to be much more effective and, yes, efficient given that it is spending other people's money.
I also disagree that the state doesn't crowd out private action. There is a risk of this. The "why aren't social services doing something about that elderly person" mentality rather than popping round to your neighbour to check up on them yourself. It can sometimes make it too easy for people to outsource their responsibilities to their neighbours and communities, to moan about litter on the street rather than bloody well picking it up and putting it in a bin.
It's the difference between people thinking that there ought to be benefits for their children when they are 18 or care for their elderly parents rather than thinking that it is your responsibility (not others) to look after your family. (I find this contrast very marked between here and Italy, I have to say.)
If people pay for something then there is a risk of focusing on whether they are getting what they pay for rather than focusing on what needs doing and what they can do to help. There is a risk that collective action is viewed as a transaction only, an irony given how much the left values the collective.
Just for the lolz: someone out there in the infinite cosmos there is a parallel universe where David Cameron came out for Leave, and Richard Nabavi is defending him vociferously on pb.com against a handful of our regular Labour posters who think him opportunistic.
Cheered me up.
The alternate universe where pb.com has a significant presence of Labour posters! Seriously, if pb.com comments were anywhere near a balanced reflection of the UK, it would have been as riled-up as now, all the time. It's just that it has been a happy garden for the winning side in UK politics for the last eight years, which gave it an apparent air of getting-on
Kasich is still in the race, is polling increasingly well, and yet is still being mostly ignored. Could he pull something off in Michigan? Is there any value at the current prices? He certainly seems a bit cheap compared to a fading Rubbio or even a Trump that the RNC would love to block at the convention, or even before if possible. Thoughts?
No value in Kasich. He's playing for a VP spot.
Laying Kasich (for the nomination) is my main move at present. I think he has a very small chance of success and the 10/1ish odds seen today are nuts. He needs a brokered convention then the choice to light on him. I can only see that happening if there is a real surge to him in the final weeks. I don't see his chances as better than 1 in 40.
I would be very interested to hear arguments to the contrary, of course.
For now but if it is Remain I think Osborne would fancy his chances against Gove if he can orchestrate that as the final round
There's been a sea change. Osborne and his chum Dave seem like yesterday's men, I can't wait to see the back of them both.
If it is Leave there will certainly be a Leave backer replacing them, if it is a strong Remain a Cameroon will succeed, if a narrow Remain it could go either way but Osborne is still most likely in my view
Don't be stupid. It's Islam. 800 or 120 years ago it could have been Christianity.
You need the power of a fundamentalist, revelatory religion to get this power, to harness humanity in this way. A secular political ideology (e.g. Marxism) which cannot promise salvation, purpose and an afterlife pales in comparison.
This is why Christianity and Islam rule billions today whereas Nazism and Marxism are dead.
Ally religion in a fascistic, growing, supremacist mood with the power of the internet and global communications and you have modern Islamism, from ISIS to Saudi to Malaysia to Rotherham.
I'm sorry, I don't agree. You are still putting everything down to antecedents, when the majority of human behaviour is governed by consequences. In Rotherham, of course there were antecedents - perversion, religious ideology etc., but the main reason the situation developed as it did, was consequences - or in this case, the lack of consequences. These men were able to live out their sick fantasies (that probably became sicker with time), in the total absence of negative consequence. As were (incidentally) Jimmy Savile and others like him. The total lack of any check on behaviour is the common thread that links these awful stories.
Imagine if every man over 6 ft tall, could push their shopping trolley past the till without paying and say 'fuck off I'm over 6ft tall'. Some of us would continue to pay 'because that's how we were brought up', but a large and steadily growing number of us (as we saw others) would take advantage. I'm not trying to absolve these men of their wicked crimes, but I am saying, that in a tragically ironic way, police inaction designed to preserve the status quo and sweep these incidents under the carpet actually metastasised this scandal. Crack down on these things hard and swift, and they won't happen in quantity - no-one bangs their head deliberately against a brick wall. The same goes for FGM.
That's why I believe we need to look to ourselves in all this. 'Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for THEE BERNARD'
Emily Pankhurst's great grand daughter has refuted Patel pretty strongly saying " I believe that my great-grandmother would have been the first to champion what the EU has meant for women, including equal pay and anti-discrimination laws.”
Another stunning success for the LEAVE campaign!
I hate to imagine my great grandchildren being able to speak for me.
And its Emmeline isnt it??
Correct, well spotted, I was mixing her up with the one who threw herself under a horse (Emily Davidson)
Leave is conducting the most lamentable campaign imaginable.
Of course there are risks with Brexit. No course of action is free from risk. The question is whether the advantages outweigh the risks, in the short, medium and long-term.
Moaning about the risks of staying in is necessary but not sufficient, not by a long way, simply because those advocating change must present a case, a good case, for change. People are much more likely to choose inertia by default unless both the push and the pull factors are there.
Someone on the Leave side must see this, surely.......
Would you not concede that when LEAVERS have diametrically opposed views on where we will be re immigration and free trade post BREXIT it is going to be very difficult to improve their campaign, which I agree, is lamentable.
I agree. The campaign needs taking by the scruff of the neck and being given a good shake. But this should have been done months, if not years ago.
Just as the Remain case is making no positive case for staying in the EU - and will therefore do nothing about resolving the long-standing issues between Britain and the EU - the Leave campaign, if it wins will find itself having to reconcile two broad camps: those who want to eave because of immigration and those who have other reasons for leaving and are not primarily motivated by immigration. It will take the wisdom of Solomon to do this and I don't see one on the horizon
I did actually start on the LEAVE side 6 months ago and am now 60-40 REMAIN and that is because LEAVE seems clueless as to what will actually happen if we BREXIT.
I applaud you for acknowledging the problem with the two camps as I think this is the very core of LEAVES' problem but most people sympathetic to LEAVE seem to just want to ignore it or brush it under the carpet.
With 3 months to go LEAVE is in danger of sliding into a strident and messy anti-immigrant campaign. Some of the posters on here already do LEAVE no favours IMO. Their best remain hope is that once the lead LEAVE campaign gets appointed that organisation gets a grip and provides a clear indication of what they want to happen post BREXIT. I hope that would be to join EFTA but I have serious doubts whether the UKIP tendency are going to quietly accept no change to immigration.
I would suggest the campaign IS about immigration. See those young guys setting fire to camps, smashing down borders and sexually assaulting women across Europe? We don;t want them in Britain.
That is the crux of it.
Perhaps Boris, Gove & Galloway didn't get the memo.
Emily Pankhurst's great grand daughter has refuted Patel pretty strongly saying " I believe that my great-grandmother would have been the first to champion what the EU has meant for women, including equal pay and anti-discrimination laws.”
Emily Pankhurst's great grand daughter has refuted Patel pretty strongly saying " I believe that my great-grandmother would have been the first to champion what the EU has meant for women, including equal pay and anti-discrimination laws.”
Another stunning success for the LEAVE campaign!
I didn't realise the EU were responsible for the Equal Pay 1970... even their legislative wheezes would struggle to pass a law three years before we joined.
Even the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 appears to have been a UK law, not one proposed by Brussels.
Funny how the Remain camp don't seem to care about things like facts and logic
Comments
Equally I know of a prominent Muslim in UK who is horrified by what he sees from some of his co-religionists who does all he can to promote good relations between "us" and "them".
There are two dangers in relying on voluntary activity. The first is that it is only patchily available, sometimes with mixed motives (e.g. some religious groups seeking converts) and often in places that need it least. The richest area of Broxtowe has a Befriending Association, people who will keep you company if you're lonely. They say they can't find enough customers and are considering winding up. The poorest area has nothing similar, but they aren't inclined to set out to help there - it's half an hour's drive away, and a totally unfamiliar community, like setting out from Chelsea to give a hand in Brixton. Ideally they should want to anyway, but they don't.
The second is that it essentially taxes the good and the generous, who make up for the gaps left by the state. Prewar hospitals managed to get by with heroic efforts by underpaid doctors and volunteer helpers. It shouldn't have been necessary. Rather, the state should provide the basics for everyone who needs them, and voluntary action should enrich the fabric of society on top of that.
Childhood inoculation is probably a cul de sac I don't particularly want to go down. As a general point, of course medical advances in the treatment of sickness are to be welcomed - triumph over infectious diseases like cholera and tb has been fantastic. But in their stead have emerged explosions in levels of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, asthma, allergies and intolerances, hosts of auto-immune disease, all caused by our malnourished/toxic/imbalanced diets and lifestyles, and all gladly treated by our friendly neighbourhood NHS and pharmaceutical industries. Look at the HUGE focus on cancer research. Zero focus on cancer prevention. It's the National Sickness Service. Let's not pretend it's making us healthy when it isn't.
Cheered me up.
SeanT says Muslims should stay out of Europe and Muslims in Europe should leave for his sake - implicitly, he is fully entitled to Europe and Muslims are not, even if they have been in Europe making no trouble all their lives, while he was being a white guy in Thailand. Work that one out
But, you know, Bhutan would be just as good
Later I heard an interview on Jeremy Vine, yes I know, but it was Mrs Jay who had it on,it was equally upsetting.
I have no answers...
The key issue for me is that the state should work out what it absolutely must do and do that as well as possible. If it does too much, it risks losing focus and doing too much badly. That helps no-one. I think the state has got so big that it is both expensive and ineffective in areas where it needs to be much more effective and, yes, efficient given that it is spending other people's money.
I also disagree that the state doesn't crowd out private action. There is a risk of this. The "why aren't social services doing something about that elderly person" mentality rather than popping round to your neighbour to check up on them yourself. It can sometimes make it too easy for people to outsource their responsibilities to their neighbours and communities, to moan about litter on the street rather than bloody well picking it up and putting it in a bin.
It's the difference between people thinking that there ought to be benefits for their children when they are 18 or care for their elderly parents rather than thinking that it is your responsibility (not others) to look after your family. (I find this contrast very marked between here and Italy, I have to say.)
If people pay for something then there is a risk of focusing on whether they are getting what they pay for rather than focusing on what needs doing and what they can do to help. There is a risk that collective action is viewed as a transaction only, an irony given how much the left values the collective.
Seriously, if pb.com comments were anywhere near a balanced reflection of the UK, it would have been as riled-up as now, all the time. It's just that it has been a happy garden for the winning side in UK politics for the last eight years, which gave it an apparent air of getting-on
NEW THREAD NEW THREAD
I would be very interested to hear arguments to the contrary, of course.
Imagine if every man over 6 ft tall, could push their shopping trolley past the till without paying and say 'fuck off I'm over 6ft tall'. Some of us would continue to pay 'because that's how we were brought up', but a large and steadily growing number of us (as we saw others) would take advantage. I'm not trying to absolve these men of their wicked crimes, but I am saying, that in a tragically ironic way, police inaction designed to preserve the status quo and sweep these incidents under the carpet actually metastasised this scandal. Crack down on these things hard and swift, and they won't happen in quantity - no-one bangs their head deliberately against a brick wall. The same goes for FGM.
That's why I believe we need to look to ourselves in all this. 'Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for THEE BERNARD'