So much of the response to the attacks in Manchester and London Bridge in the last few days has been of the utterly half-baked "We stand together / It's not about Islam" variety. It's easy to ridicule because like so much virtue-signalling it is a substitute for action.
So what action should be taken?
As long as the security services were able to keep attackers at bay, the status quo was defensible. But as they used to say of the IRA, the terrorist only needs to get lucky once: the police need to be lucky all the time. Events of the last couple of months demonstrate that there are enough would-be terrorists in Britain for the police to need an awful lot of luck. The current situation will not do.
We can't send Muslims home. For most, home is here. But we can come down much harder on those the security services suspect of terrorist involvement. Internment? Perhaps. There would be injustices, although personally I can't think of a greater injustice than that sustained by the murdered and their families. My reservation about internment is that the innocent are locked up along with the guilty, with the inevitable consequences of radicalisation both for the innocent themselves and their associates on the outside. Internment risks making more terrorists rather than fewer.
I think we have to consider how Muslims are radicalised. The most obvious way is via the internet. The software giants who have our society by the balls are privatising the profit they cream whilst shrugging off the social consequences. They do not want to hire moderators, proof-readers and lawyers. Besides, in the Californian La-La Land they inhabit the immediacy and freedom of the internet is part of its hey-guys-this-is-cool appeal. Who wants to be subject to the same responsibilities - er, stifling repression - as the print and broadcast media?
It baffles me that if, say, the Murdoch press provides a platform for defamation or incitement to violence it is subject to the law, but if Google does it they are merely allowed to apologise for failing to take the offending item down sooner. Social media companies must be made to take responsibility for the content they propagate. If this killed the internet (and it wouldn't), I seem to remember we managed OK before.
The other day I watched a lecture by the historian Tom Holland (well worth following on Twitter). Holland knows a good deal about Islam. He said something I've been banging on about for years - Islam needs a Reformation (I think my take was that we need a British form of Islam). I am not an expert, but I gather that a lot of British Islamic teaching is of the Wahabist variety, often funded by Saudi Arabia. The British Government needs to exert pressure on mosques to get their own house in order. It should consider banning foreign funding, if necessary closing down mosques which (or whose members) transgress.
It will be pointed out that this approach is hardly consistent with freedom of speech. But the libel laws already constrain what can be said, and our old principles - that the only other limits should be in circumstances where violence was threatened or likely to break out - worked well for more than a century (until the Blair government started to tinker with them).
The difficulty with some Islamic teaching is that it is essentially non-violent extremism. That's to say it teaches Muslims that the khufar (that's apostates like me) are trash. From there it is a short step to beheadings in Borough Market. Such non-violent extremism is not an exhortation to violence, but it is an act which lays the groundwork for such violence.
I like to draw an analogy with the constraints on freedom of speech placed on white British people in the 1960s. It was undoubtedly necessary in a society trying to assimilate black people that you could no longer refer to them as "nigger" or "Paki" (personally I think we are now approaching the point where such constraints are no longer necessary, since Britain is waking up to the fact that "race" is a pretty pointless way of trying to discriminate, and - as the Muslim terrorism crisis so clearly shows - the real battleground lies in the field of culture). In just the same way, Britain now needs to deal with the assimilation of 2 million British Muslims, encouraged by well-meaning multiculturalists to consider themselves separate. I think controls on what can be taught at the Mosque are now necessary and justified.
If Muslims disliked such controls and wanted to renounce British citizenship for that of Iraq, Libya or Syria, many would be happy to see them go.
In Tom Holland's talk I was particularly struck by his assessment that, although different and competing strains of Islam had been around for centuries, the relativist Reformation he sought was still along way off. He said that although he didn't think the Muslim Luther had yet been born, his parents or grandparents might yet be walking among us.
For me that is very cold comfort. That an enlightened liberal such as Holland (much too wet for my taste), should take such a view of Islam's prospects is bleak indeed.
I hope Mrs May is elected, not because I think she is any great shakes but because the prospect of a pro-immigrant anti-semitic Labour party led by Jeremy Corbyn and Diane Abbot, under the influence of hard-faced "community leaders" in East London and West Yorkshire, will be far, far worse. I hope May now puts her money where her mouth is and beefs up not only the Government's Prevent strategy (which the Labour party opposed) but its Control Orders and scrutiny of Mosques.
It will be said that you actually have much more chance of being run over by a bus than being killed in a terrorist attack; and this is true. But it is to miss the point, which is that unlike fatalities on the roads terrorist attacks have the effect of dividing people from each other. Britain cannot afford such division.
Enoch Powell was wrong in many aspects of his analysis of the consequences of immigration (not the least because he didn't understand the difference between race and culture, and didn't realise that black/white intermarriage would deal with many of the problems he foresaw), but one phrase from the Rivers of Blood speech haunts me. "It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre".
As long as we do nothing to address the growth of British Islamic extremism we are standing by and wringing our hands while others build the pyre.
Monday 5 June 2017
After Manchester, and now London Bridge #1
What are we to make of people who think it's OK to kill children at a concert with a nail bomb? Who will slit the throats of people on a night out without a second thought?
It's useful to understand one's opponents, on the off chance that there might be some way of accommodating them. But opponents who are willing to reduce happy girls to a tangle of bloody meat are beyond the pale. And besides which, as Douglas Murray has pointed out, we know very well why they do it. After all, they will keep telling us.
As a Mancunian, it was tempting to go into town the other day to mark the awfulness of the occasion and pay tribute to the dead. But these events are full of platitudes and are an excuse for doing nothing. "We stand together", the assembled cry. No we don't. If "we" stood together these atrocities would not happen. They happen because in fact "we" are divided. That's to say, years ago we allowed into our country devotees of a religion most of whose adherents lead separate lives to the majority, and a small minority of whom hate everything the rest of us stand for.
I was going to write "we stand for", but in fact the importation of Islam into the UK has made it impossible to write "we" in this context. "We" implies me and all my fellow Britons. But many British Muslims in fact stand for something else entirely, and therein lies the rub.
There are over 2 million Muslims in the UK. If 1% of them are potential terrorists, that's 20,000 people. In fact the security services apparently reckon the number to be more like 2,000, which is a tenth of 1%. That seems more reasonable. According to the Home Office, in the period 2001 to 2012 175 of 241 convicted UK terrorists were Muslim. Not only were Muslims overwhelmingly the majority, but when you consider that this is 175 of about 2 million people it turns out that during the period in question Muslims were about 80 times more likely to commit a terrorist offence than non-Muslims.
It has always seemed obvious to me that if Islam's ideology was not the sole cause of Islamic terrorism, it must at least be an influencing factor. In the UK there do not appear to be many Anglican terrorists. Or Quaker terrorists. Or Methodists, or Jehovah's Witnesses, or, to broaden matters out, terrorist golfers, estate agents or stamp collectors.
The extraordinary over-representation of Muslims amongst convicted terrorists revealed by the Home Office figures is testimony that there is something about Islam which leads some of its adherents to do this kind of thing.
And yet still they come. I'm not referring to Muslim immigrants (the perpetrator of the Manchester outrage seems to have been home-grown in any event). I mean the brain dead apologists for Islam, whose blind devotion to the cause of multiculturalism is such that not only are they willing to overlook the forced marriages, honour killings, FGM and female subjugation, but they make excuses for Islam when yet another pumped up wanker high on the promise of righteousness and six dozen virgins smears "our" streets with blood.
I've written here before about Mishal Hussein's statement that Islam had no more to do with the murder outside the House of Commons recently than Yorkshire did with the murder of Jo Cox MP. Ms Hussein is absolutely typical in her head-nodding stupidity (Yorkshire doesn't have an ideology, Mishal, unlike Islam; now do you see why your comforting comparison is so inept?), but Twitter has been replete with celebrities and opinion-formers like her in the last week or so. When I hear their lame accommodations with the people who are murdering British families it makes me feel sick.
"We all stand together", "The terrorists will never win", "I love Manchester", "It's nothing to do with Islam". These are all just ways of making us feel better while doing absolutely nothing whatsoever. And as long as we do nothing we make repetition of the Manchester bombing more likely.
There are people alive today who are going to be killed in the next terrorist attack. For them, time is running out. And the rest of us just sit on our hands.
It's useful to understand one's opponents, on the off chance that there might be some way of accommodating them. But opponents who are willing to reduce happy girls to a tangle of bloody meat are beyond the pale. And besides which, as Douglas Murray has pointed out, we know very well why they do it. After all, they will keep telling us.
As a Mancunian, it was tempting to go into town the other day to mark the awfulness of the occasion and pay tribute to the dead. But these events are full of platitudes and are an excuse for doing nothing. "We stand together", the assembled cry. No we don't. If "we" stood together these atrocities would not happen. They happen because in fact "we" are divided. That's to say, years ago we allowed into our country devotees of a religion most of whose adherents lead separate lives to the majority, and a small minority of whom hate everything the rest of us stand for.
I was going to write "we stand for", but in fact the importation of Islam into the UK has made it impossible to write "we" in this context. "We" implies me and all my fellow Britons. But many British Muslims in fact stand for something else entirely, and therein lies the rub.
There are over 2 million Muslims in the UK. If 1% of them are potential terrorists, that's 20,000 people. In fact the security services apparently reckon the number to be more like 2,000, which is a tenth of 1%. That seems more reasonable. According to the Home Office, in the period 2001 to 2012 175 of 241 convicted UK terrorists were Muslim. Not only were Muslims overwhelmingly the majority, but when you consider that this is 175 of about 2 million people it turns out that during the period in question Muslims were about 80 times more likely to commit a terrorist offence than non-Muslims.
It has always seemed obvious to me that if Islam's ideology was not the sole cause of Islamic terrorism, it must at least be an influencing factor. In the UK there do not appear to be many Anglican terrorists. Or Quaker terrorists. Or Methodists, or Jehovah's Witnesses, or, to broaden matters out, terrorist golfers, estate agents or stamp collectors.
The extraordinary over-representation of Muslims amongst convicted terrorists revealed by the Home Office figures is testimony that there is something about Islam which leads some of its adherents to do this kind of thing.
And yet still they come. I'm not referring to Muslim immigrants (the perpetrator of the Manchester outrage seems to have been home-grown in any event). I mean the brain dead apologists for Islam, whose blind devotion to the cause of multiculturalism is such that not only are they willing to overlook the forced marriages, honour killings, FGM and female subjugation, but they make excuses for Islam when yet another pumped up wanker high on the promise of righteousness and six dozen virgins smears "our" streets with blood.
I've written here before about Mishal Hussein's statement that Islam had no more to do with the murder outside the House of Commons recently than Yorkshire did with the murder of Jo Cox MP. Ms Hussein is absolutely typical in her head-nodding stupidity (Yorkshire doesn't have an ideology, Mishal, unlike Islam; now do you see why your comforting comparison is so inept?), but Twitter has been replete with celebrities and opinion-formers like her in the last week or so. When I hear their lame accommodations with the people who are murdering British families it makes me feel sick.
"We all stand together", "The terrorists will never win", "I love Manchester", "It's nothing to do with Islam". These are all just ways of making us feel better while doing absolutely nothing whatsoever. And as long as we do nothing we make repetition of the Manchester bombing more likely.
There are people alive today who are going to be killed in the next terrorist attack. For them, time is running out. And the rest of us just sit on our hands.
Monday 22 May 2017
The Tory Manifesto, and taxing inheritance - our final creative act.
So the General Election campaign continues apace, largely ignored by me and by most of the general public. Most people don't make up their minds during the campaign. But every now and again something emerges which makes one perforce sit up.
Such is the Tory plan for social care. Broadly speaking this involves a charge being placed on your house, and the post-death proceeds being used to pay for your care until there's only £100,000 left. The care system is undoubtedly in crisis, but this isn't the answer and won't, I think, stand. For what it's worth, it's already done immense damage to Tory prospects of a sizeable majority (and given Labour's recent surge, may even stop them winning altogether).
What's wrong with it? It's not fair. Firstly, if you get cancer, the state will pay for your treatment. But not if you get Alzheimers (and not if you don't get either). The welfare state was set up to take some of the consequences of ill-fortune away from the individual. The Tory plan breaches that principle.
Secondly, it makes no allowance for how many children you have. An only child? You get the whole £100,000. Four siblings? That's £25,000 each. Unfair.
It's also a form of sequestration. You may not pay it until after death, but the charge is placed on your property while you're still alive. Your asset is effectively confiscated by the state. This is demeaning to the individual and a retrospective tax on assets acquired many years, perhaps even decades, previously. Moreover this is the confiscation of an asset that you worked hard to secure, with money on which you'd already paid tax.
My own parents lived modest and rather frugal lives, but if they hadn't built up an asset, or if their house had been heavily mortgaged, they would escape the Dementia Tax altogether, unlike someone who'd lived large. To be clear, I'm not short of cash and my future plans don't depend on my inheriting all their property. But I saw them last week, and their distress at the prospect of not being able to pass the bulk of their carefully acquired assets to their sons was palpable. Leaving an inheritance is our final creative human act.
Although there was a lot I didn't like about the Tory manifesto, it did, as you would expect, make some attempt to address head on the many difficult problems Britain faces. Unlike Jeremy Corbyn's pie-in-the-sky fantasies it showed distinct signs of being the work of realists. But if social care is a massive problem, this is not the answer.
Instead, make everyone pay a kind of social insurance against the event that they will need care. You could think of a short, snappy name for it. "Tax", perhaps.
PS Within half an hour of my posting this the Tories had done a U turn on the manifesto policy. "This isn't the answer and won't, I think, stand". I'm often wrong, but in the context these words have a certain ring to them. There would additionally be a cap, unspecified, on how much an individual will have to pay. This doesn't look terribly competent, although to be fair to Mrs May the manifesto did speak of a green paper (a consultation in other words, rather than a policy set in stone) and the contrast with the Labour party is telling - their crap policies remain, unchanged.
Such is the Tory plan for social care. Broadly speaking this involves a charge being placed on your house, and the post-death proceeds being used to pay for your care until there's only £100,000 left. The care system is undoubtedly in crisis, but this isn't the answer and won't, I think, stand. For what it's worth, it's already done immense damage to Tory prospects of a sizeable majority (and given Labour's recent surge, may even stop them winning altogether).
What's wrong with it? It's not fair. Firstly, if you get cancer, the state will pay for your treatment. But not if you get Alzheimers (and not if you don't get either). The welfare state was set up to take some of the consequences of ill-fortune away from the individual. The Tory plan breaches that principle.
Secondly, it makes no allowance for how many children you have. An only child? You get the whole £100,000. Four siblings? That's £25,000 each. Unfair.
It's also a form of sequestration. You may not pay it until after death, but the charge is placed on your property while you're still alive. Your asset is effectively confiscated by the state. This is demeaning to the individual and a retrospective tax on assets acquired many years, perhaps even decades, previously. Moreover this is the confiscation of an asset that you worked hard to secure, with money on which you'd already paid tax.
My own parents lived modest and rather frugal lives, but if they hadn't built up an asset, or if their house had been heavily mortgaged, they would escape the Dementia Tax altogether, unlike someone who'd lived large. To be clear, I'm not short of cash and my future plans don't depend on my inheriting all their property. But I saw them last week, and their distress at the prospect of not being able to pass the bulk of their carefully acquired assets to their sons was palpable. Leaving an inheritance is our final creative human act.
Although there was a lot I didn't like about the Tory manifesto, it did, as you would expect, make some attempt to address head on the many difficult problems Britain faces. Unlike Jeremy Corbyn's pie-in-the-sky fantasies it showed distinct signs of being the work of realists. But if social care is a massive problem, this is not the answer.
Instead, make everyone pay a kind of social insurance against the event that they will need care. You could think of a short, snappy name for it. "Tax", perhaps.
PS Within half an hour of my posting this the Tories had done a U turn on the manifesto policy. "This isn't the answer and won't, I think, stand". I'm often wrong, but in the context these words have a certain ring to them. There would additionally be a cap, unspecified, on how much an individual will have to pay. This doesn't look terribly competent, although to be fair to Mrs May the manifesto did speak of a green paper (a consultation in other words, rather than a policy set in stone) and the contrast with the Labour party is telling - their crap policies remain, unchanged.
Friday 12 May 2017
Is Labour now the Stupid Party?
What to make of the General Election campaign, with nearly a month to go?
The Tories have bored us rigid with their "strong and stable" mantra. The press hate it, for it gives them nothing to write about. The Lib Dems are still trying to reverse Brexit. The SNP is struggling with a resurgent Tory party which threatens some of its leading lights in Westminster (has peak SNP already passed? Let's hope so).
And Labour. Oh Labour. Yesterday a draft copy of its manifesto was leaked. Amidst the predictable repeats of socialism's greatest hits, the obvious stand-out fact was that Labour wants a much bigger and more lavishly funded state. It thinks this can be paid for by increased taxation and borrowing. As I've long argued on here, I think they're wrong.
For example, an increase in Corporation Tax, previously prayed in aid by Labour to fund a number of wish-list pledges, is said to bring in £19 billion p.a. So it might, at first. But companies which like the idea of the UK because its Corporation Tax rates are low will be tempted to relocate elsewhere. How much money will be raised after two or three years? Not £19bn. You can raise taxes, yes, but there aren't enough rich people to make a massive difference, and the more you tax wealth creators the fewer incentives there are to do any creating.
Then there's the deficit. Labour is going to borrow a lot more money, it says, but only to invest. But that's what Gordon Brown said too, and he bent the rules to blur the distinction between current and capital spending. Debt is already at about 90% of GDP, and fast approaching the point from which some economists think the state cannot recover (because it ends up paying more in interest than it can afford).
Astonishingly, in view of this, Labour says it wants to reduce the deficit to zero. I doubt this in the same way I doubt the existence of unicorns, but let's say they really do. Unlike the Tories however, Labour wants to reduce the deficit in a rolling five-year window. That's to say, at any point in the future Labour will be able to say, "Our aim is to reduce the deficit to zero within five years from now".
Eh? This is no pledge at all. It is a convenient way of never reducing the deficit to zero, on a par with St Augustine's "Please make me chaste, Lord. But not yet".
If this is the high point of Labour's financial stupidity, it is surpassed for naivety by the promise that in Brexit negotations (and Labour still doesn't seem to have fully committed to respecting the referendum result) it will under no circumstances walk away from talks without a deal. So picture the scene. Mr Corbyn is offered terms by M Barnier. Corbyn doesn't like them. He offers other terms. "Non", says Barnier. What does Corbyn do then? He has already told the EU a bad deal is better than no deal. What is his response? He has none.
I put this to my wife, who, I'm afraid, said, "Well perhaps that'll send out a signal to the EU that we'll negotiate in good faith and we can reach a deal which suits both sides". For me this is equivalent to the rabbit promising under no circumstances to kick the stoat.
I have long resisted the notion that the Labour party is finished as an electoral force. I remember people said the Tories were finished after 1997. A big difference between the two however is that the Tories, like them or loathe them, are dominated by quite clever and pragmatic people with experience in business or law. Labour on the other hand is full of people who passionately want to make the world a better place and would rather not sully their hands with the tedious details of whether and how that could be accomplished.
I seriously wonder whether, if the Tories are the Nasty Party, Labour is now the Stupid Party. I look at the nomination and election of Corbyn, the elevation of John McDonnell and (the innumerate and under-prepared) Diane Abbott, the see-sawing over Brexit, the anti-semitism row which ended with the ennoblement of Shami Chakrabarti, now the leaked manifesto, and I think to myself, "Perhaps these people are just a bit thick."
Take another manifesto promise - to ban unpaid internships. A good idea in theory, but in practice? Its only effect would be to drive internships underground. You may not be able to advertise any more, but what's to stop you ringing your friend in law, accountancy, advertising, architecture and so on? "Tamsin is seriously considering the profession and would really like to come in and shadow you for a few days. No need to pay her. I'll sub her a few quid for lunch and travel". The only impact of a Corbyn ban would be to confine internships to the well-connected and affluent. At least now everyone gets to work for nothing.
It's tempting to say that all this stupidity is all the fault of a few hard-Left activists; but, sadly, Corbyn, McDonnell et al are the people who were elected by the generality of Labour supporters. These are the pudding-headed individuals that those most keen on the Labour party elevated to its very highest reaches. They are the Labour party in excelsis. They are the fullest and best-realised expression of what Labour is like.
This isn't to say that the party doesn't have any clever people. There are always outliers. But if Labour loses, and if a new party is formed, it will be the clever people who do the breaking away. Labour will become the political wing of Momentum. Then it really will be finished.
The Tories have bored us rigid with their "strong and stable" mantra. The press hate it, for it gives them nothing to write about. The Lib Dems are still trying to reverse Brexit. The SNP is struggling with a resurgent Tory party which threatens some of its leading lights in Westminster (has peak SNP already passed? Let's hope so).
And Labour. Oh Labour. Yesterday a draft copy of its manifesto was leaked. Amidst the predictable repeats of socialism's greatest hits, the obvious stand-out fact was that Labour wants a much bigger and more lavishly funded state. It thinks this can be paid for by increased taxation and borrowing. As I've long argued on here, I think they're wrong.
For example, an increase in Corporation Tax, previously prayed in aid by Labour to fund a number of wish-list pledges, is said to bring in £19 billion p.a. So it might, at first. But companies which like the idea of the UK because its Corporation Tax rates are low will be tempted to relocate elsewhere. How much money will be raised after two or three years? Not £19bn. You can raise taxes, yes, but there aren't enough rich people to make a massive difference, and the more you tax wealth creators the fewer incentives there are to do any creating.
Then there's the deficit. Labour is going to borrow a lot more money, it says, but only to invest. But that's what Gordon Brown said too, and he bent the rules to blur the distinction between current and capital spending. Debt is already at about 90% of GDP, and fast approaching the point from which some economists think the state cannot recover (because it ends up paying more in interest than it can afford).
Astonishingly, in view of this, Labour says it wants to reduce the deficit to zero. I doubt this in the same way I doubt the existence of unicorns, but let's say they really do. Unlike the Tories however, Labour wants to reduce the deficit in a rolling five-year window. That's to say, at any point in the future Labour will be able to say, "Our aim is to reduce the deficit to zero within five years from now".
Eh? This is no pledge at all. It is a convenient way of never reducing the deficit to zero, on a par with St Augustine's "Please make me chaste, Lord. But not yet".
If this is the high point of Labour's financial stupidity, it is surpassed for naivety by the promise that in Brexit negotations (and Labour still doesn't seem to have fully committed to respecting the referendum result) it will under no circumstances walk away from talks without a deal. So picture the scene. Mr Corbyn is offered terms by M Barnier. Corbyn doesn't like them. He offers other terms. "Non", says Barnier. What does Corbyn do then? He has already told the EU a bad deal is better than no deal. What is his response? He has none.
I put this to my wife, who, I'm afraid, said, "Well perhaps that'll send out a signal to the EU that we'll negotiate in good faith and we can reach a deal which suits both sides". For me this is equivalent to the rabbit promising under no circumstances to kick the stoat.
I have long resisted the notion that the Labour party is finished as an electoral force. I remember people said the Tories were finished after 1997. A big difference between the two however is that the Tories, like them or loathe them, are dominated by quite clever and pragmatic people with experience in business or law. Labour on the other hand is full of people who passionately want to make the world a better place and would rather not sully their hands with the tedious details of whether and how that could be accomplished.
I seriously wonder whether, if the Tories are the Nasty Party, Labour is now the Stupid Party. I look at the nomination and election of Corbyn, the elevation of John McDonnell and (the innumerate and under-prepared) Diane Abbott, the see-sawing over Brexit, the anti-semitism row which ended with the ennoblement of Shami Chakrabarti, now the leaked manifesto, and I think to myself, "Perhaps these people are just a bit thick."
Take another manifesto promise - to ban unpaid internships. A good idea in theory, but in practice? Its only effect would be to drive internships underground. You may not be able to advertise any more, but what's to stop you ringing your friend in law, accountancy, advertising, architecture and so on? "Tamsin is seriously considering the profession and would really like to come in and shadow you for a few days. No need to pay her. I'll sub her a few quid for lunch and travel". The only impact of a Corbyn ban would be to confine internships to the well-connected and affluent. At least now everyone gets to work for nothing.
It's tempting to say that all this stupidity is all the fault of a few hard-Left activists; but, sadly, Corbyn, McDonnell et al are the people who were elected by the generality of Labour supporters. These are the pudding-headed individuals that those most keen on the Labour party elevated to its very highest reaches. They are the Labour party in excelsis. They are the fullest and best-realised expression of what Labour is like.
This isn't to say that the party doesn't have any clever people. There are always outliers. But if Labour loses, and if a new party is formed, it will be the clever people who do the breaking away. Labour will become the political wing of Momentum. Then it really will be finished.
Tuesday 18 April 2017
Jonathan Portes and the strange world of the migration lobby.
I only read stories in the papers which are actually surprising. Most of them aren't. North Korea on brink of nuclear meltdown? Really? Donald Trump does something daft? No!
But a couple of things in the Times this morning caught my eye. This first was that in a story entitled "Plea for barista visas to keep coffee shops running", the Migration Watch head Lord Green is reported as arguing for two year visas for young people to help the hospitality industry. I'm slightly suspicious of Migration Watch, and it was strange to find Lord Green saying something so liberal, and, it must be said, so daft.
The paper's Leader, probably written by Oliver Kamm, also had things to say about migration, and came close to acknowledging the flaw at the heart of the pro-migration case.
Those of us sceptical about the merits of unrestricted migration have argued for years that it has a distorting effect on the labour market. If you increase the supply of something the price of it tends to do down. Fine for the affluent like me who get cheap access to the service industries. A disaster for the low-paid however (and that's to say nothing about the impact on the NHS, school places or the availablity of housing).
Ah, say the pro-immigration types like the egregious Jonathan Portes, but this is to fall victim to the lump of labour fallacy, the idea that there is one fixed body of work to be done which does not grow according to the number of people available to do it. Migrants, argues Portes, create jobs by just being here. Every 100 migrants who come to the UK create more than 100 additional jobs.
I once tried to get Portes to say how many jobs each 100 migrants create. This was on Twitter, so it was not a particularly sophisticated exchange. Portes would not (could not?) give a figure. He blocked me. Our exchange must have left an impression on him however because - I still follow him - he referred to me only the other day in an exchange with someone else, well over a year later.
Still, you get the picture. Migration is a great creator of employment.
That being the case, what would happen if you cut migration? It's obvious. The number of available jobs would start to decrease. If fewer migrants come to the UK, fewer jobs will be created and unemployment would go up.
This would, you might imagine, be the cry of those arguing for more migration. But curiously it is not. From all corners of academia and business the fear is not of higher unemployment. It is of a labour shortage.
What happens if there's a labour shortage? The price of labour goes up. The Times leader could not bring itself to acknowledge this. It warned of higher prices, but it could not bring itself to accept that this would be because people would be paid more.
The pro-migration lobby wants it both ways. More migration equals more available jobs. But less migration equals more available jobs too as there will be fewer foreign workers to fill them. It's an argument that the Mad Hatter would have been proud to own.
In the meantime the UK has nearly one million unemployed people under the age of 24.
If only we could be sure of more foreign workers to help them into the world of work!
PS Jonathan Portes has now started urging journalists to question Tory politicians about the "cost" of reducing migration to tens of thousands per annum. This has been predicted by the OBR to be in the region of £6bn p.a. Portes' enthusiasm for this idea has reached the BBC's Reality Check department, set up by the corporation to challenge "fake news". But hold on. The OBR's is a prediction. It is an economic forecast. Its value is pretty close to zero. Economic forecasts are there to be revised upwards. Or downwards. One can understand a lobbyist like Portes jumping on the OBR forecast like a ram on a sheep at tupping time; but the BBC? Don't they know what a forecast is? Apparently not. Not much of a Reality Check, but a pretty handy stick with which to beat the Government.
Ah, say the pro-immigration types like the egregious Jonathan Portes, but this is to fall victim to the lump of labour fallacy, the idea that there is one fixed body of work to be done which does not grow according to the number of people available to do it. Migrants, argues Portes, create jobs by just being here. Every 100 migrants who come to the UK create more than 100 additional jobs.
I once tried to get Portes to say how many jobs each 100 migrants create. This was on Twitter, so it was not a particularly sophisticated exchange. Portes would not (could not?) give a figure. He blocked me. Our exchange must have left an impression on him however because - I still follow him - he referred to me only the other day in an exchange with someone else, well over a year later.
Still, you get the picture. Migration is a great creator of employment.
That being the case, what would happen if you cut migration? It's obvious. The number of available jobs would start to decrease. If fewer migrants come to the UK, fewer jobs will be created and unemployment would go up.
This would, you might imagine, be the cry of those arguing for more migration. But curiously it is not. From all corners of academia and business the fear is not of higher unemployment. It is of a labour shortage.
What happens if there's a labour shortage? The price of labour goes up. The Times leader could not bring itself to acknowledge this. It warned of higher prices, but it could not bring itself to accept that this would be because people would be paid more.
The pro-migration lobby wants it both ways. More migration equals more available jobs. But less migration equals more available jobs too as there will be fewer foreign workers to fill them. It's an argument that the Mad Hatter would have been proud to own.
In the meantime the UK has nearly one million unemployed people under the age of 24.
If only we could be sure of more foreign workers to help them into the world of work!
PS Jonathan Portes has now started urging journalists to question Tory politicians about the "cost" of reducing migration to tens of thousands per annum. This has been predicted by the OBR to be in the region of £6bn p.a. Portes' enthusiasm for this idea has reached the BBC's Reality Check department, set up by the corporation to challenge "fake news". But hold on. The OBR's is a prediction. It is an economic forecast. Its value is pretty close to zero. Economic forecasts are there to be revised upwards. Or downwards. One can understand a lobbyist like Portes jumping on the OBR forecast like a ram on a sheep at tupping time; but the BBC? Don't they know what a forecast is? Apparently not. Not much of a Reality Check, but a pretty handy stick with which to beat the Government.
Friday 31 March 2017
The Great Repeal Bill, Gina Miller and the SNP
So Article 50 has been triggered at last, as the British ambassador yesterday delivered Theresa May's six-page letter to Donald Tusk, the EU president. It was hard not to feel sorry for Mr Tusk, one of the EU's better individuals. He did not deserve to be singled out for the UK's Dear John letter ("It's not me, it's you"). Despite the many months of warning he looked shocked and close to tears as he uttered a few words of response ("We miss you already").
I'm not so sombre; but neither am I exultant. The referendum was always a choice between two things which were very nearly equally unsatisfactory. I'm not going to crow about the achievement of something I felt would be marginally less bad than the status quo.
(Incidentally, I wonder how Gina Miller felt yesterday when she saw the news. I suppose it would depend on how much of her money she got back following her Judicial Review. Not all of it, I hope.)
In so far as there will be any benefits from Brexit, one of the more obvious ones is the return to Parliament of powers under the so-called Great Repeal Bill, which will put reams of EU legislation directly into UK law. Sadly, this has not been obvious enough for Sir Keir Starmer. The Labour Shadow Secretary for Brexit has been urging the Government to undertake that workers' rights in EU legislation will not be watered down once the legislation has been transferred.
Sir Keir doesn't seem to have noticed that part of the point of Brexit is that Westminster can make its own laws, and that workers rights is only one amongst many fields in which the government could now act. If the government wants to restrict workers' rights it can do so (although you may think it has bigger fish to fry just at the moment). It could also extend workers' rights if it wanted to. You might think Starmer would welcome this power, as perhaps he might if he thought there was any prospect of Labour winning an election.
Instead he seems to think that we should keep forever laws agreed by previous governments along with 27 other EU states, rather than amending them from time to time at the wishes of our own government.
It's a curious kind of political cringe. If a law was passed by the EU it must be good, and we must keep it. Why? It is precisely because acting within EU tied the hands of our own parliament (in so many fields, not just workers' rights) that so many in the UK felt we had to leave.
Of course for sheer stupidity the SNP can outdo Labour any day. Its Westminster MPs are calling on the government to hand control over farming and fisheries to Holyrood. Anything else would be a "Westminster power grab".
To appreciate how ridiculous this is you have to understand that the SNP would prefer that control of farming and fisheries would remain with Brussels.
To appreciate how ridiculous this is you have to understand that the SNP would prefer that control of farming and fisheries would remain with Brussels.
Yes, that's right. The SNP would prefer to have those policy areas dealt with in a forum where Scotland is represented as a tiny minority of the UK's 1-in-28 voices, instead of a Westminster parliament where Scottish MPs votes count as about 1 in 10 (and are in fact over-represented, according to the Boundary Commission). Moreover inside the UK there is every chance that in future farming and fisheries could be devolved to the regions.
Has anyone heard the SNP complaining of a Brussels power grab recently? Has anyone heard them demanding the return of powers over fisheries and agriculture from Brussels? No. On the contrary, the SNP is determined, upon Independence, to return to the EU's embrace as quickly as it can.
Truly these people are stupid.
Thursday 23 March 2017
Katie Hopkins, Mishal Husain and Khalid Masood - blind deaf and dumb
The first casualty of any terrorist atrocity is common sense. Here, following the murder of PC Keith Palmer and other innocent people outside Parliament yesterday, is a selection of utterances.
"Islam is no more responsible for this attack than Yorkshire is for Jo Cox MP's murder".
This one came from Mishal Husain, the BBC presenter. It does make you wonder what degree of intellectual calibre she brings to the job. What Ms Husain does not appear to have noticed is that Yorkshire, unlike Islam, does not have an ideology. It is the combination of that ideology with, no doubt, other influences (which might include mental health problems, drugs and general criminality) that makes an Islamic terrorist. After all, there are not many Yorkshire terrorists (and the one who killed Jo Cox was not a terrorist because he was a Yorkshireman). There are not many terrorists without an ideology. There are no golfing terrorists, for example. Or stamp collecting or estate agent terrorists. As someone put it today, British Islam has 5% of the population, 95% of the terrorists. The idea that Islam has nothing to do with the preponderance of UK terrorist attacks is frankly stupid.
"This has got nothing to do with immigration because the guy was born here".
A general trope on social media, this one. I've yet to discover how many generations back the murderer's ancestors came to Britain, but it makes not a jot of difference. The UK has admitted a lot of people who adhere to a religion which often holds British values in contempt. For the majority of Muslims, immigrants or otherwise, that just means living peaceful but somewhat separate lives. For a small but significant minority it means treasonable violence. Their place of birth is irrelevant. It is the ideology which has been imported.
"The response of the medics who tried to save the murderer's life is a magnificent tribute to British values".
Unfortunately this is only partially true. If there is any inference to be drawn from the murderer's birthplace it is that some Britons now hold a different set of values altogether. Whereas the laudable desire of bystanders to save the murderer was Britain at its best, the murderer was a Briton too. His set of values encompassed driving his car as fast as possible into people he had never met and who could not conceivably have done him harm, before taking a knife to the person of a policeman whose job it was to protect our democratically elected representatives as they went about the business of governance. We have to accept that these are the values of a small minority of people whose ideology has been allowed into Britain. If we don't do that we are just deluding ourselves.
"Violence will not work".
On the day of Martin McGuinness's funeral (some wag asked, "Will we ever find out where the body is buried?") a moment's reflection should remind us how wrong this is. Does anyone really imagine that the Good Friday agreement would ever have been signed had it not been for the violence? Violence does work. It may not have worked for Islamic extremists yet, but that's only because there hasn't been enough of it.
"Everyone gets on fine in London".
To the extent that this is true it is only because communities tend to live parallel lives (and see below). Besides, does anyone remember Muslim Patrol, the fundamentalist vigilantes of the East End?
"The cancer of radical Islam in our society . . . . needs to be cut out".
Little though I like him, I don't think Paul Nuttall is exaggerating in describing radical Islam as a cancer. But how can it be "cut out"? Had the murderer survived the Westminster incident he could not have been deported. He was born in Kent. He could have been sent to prison of course, where he would have been free to radicalise impressionable young men, just as he was radicalised himself by other Muslims not currently in jail. But you cannot "cut out" British people. You can only try and persuade them that they are wrong. You could start by ceasing to treat Muslims as if they were something separate and un-British. You could start to turn back the tide of multiculturalism and identity-politics. But it would only be a start. There would still be a long way to go towards a goal that was always receding.
"Liberals convince themselves multiculturalism works because we all die together too".
And lastly Katie Hopkins, writing in the Daily Mail. Ms Hopkins characterises the conflict as, "The patriots of the rest of England versus the liberals in this . . . city of lead, so desperately wedded to the multicultural illusion that it can only fight those who love the country the most".
Perhaps it's a mistake to take Ms Hopkins too seriously. She over-emphasises for shock value. But regarding London she has a point. London is a unique place, emphatically not like the other cities only bigger. It is an international city, which has lost much of its "London-ness". Manchester is still defiantly Mancunian, Glasgow is still Glaswegian, and so on. Not London. Partly that's because London attracts people from all over the world, who go there believing they can make it big and have a good time. By definition they are the last people to mind others being different from them. It's one reason why they go there.
But London is not a community or series of communities. It is a hive of individuals. On the flip side its tolerance shades into indifference. People live alongside others utterly different from them by not interacting with them. It can be a lonely city. People famously do not talk to each other. David Goodhart's new book The Road to Somewhere characterises these people as "Anywheres", which is to say they are often well-educated, affluent and unrooted types (of which I guess I should be one) with everything to gain from maintaining the status quo. Their liberalism is theoretical and involves little personal sacrifice.
This phenomenon is of course a subject for another day, but Hopkins may not be wrong when she writes that London is an "entire city of monkeys: see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. Blind. Deaf. And dumb".
"Islam is no more responsible for this attack than Yorkshire is for Jo Cox MP's murder".
This one came from Mishal Husain, the BBC presenter. It does make you wonder what degree of intellectual calibre she brings to the job. What Ms Husain does not appear to have noticed is that Yorkshire, unlike Islam, does not have an ideology. It is the combination of that ideology with, no doubt, other influences (which might include mental health problems, drugs and general criminality) that makes an Islamic terrorist. After all, there are not many Yorkshire terrorists (and the one who killed Jo Cox was not a terrorist because he was a Yorkshireman). There are not many terrorists without an ideology. There are no golfing terrorists, for example. Or stamp collecting or estate agent terrorists. As someone put it today, British Islam has 5% of the population, 95% of the terrorists. The idea that Islam has nothing to do with the preponderance of UK terrorist attacks is frankly stupid.
"This has got nothing to do with immigration because the guy was born here".
A general trope on social media, this one. I've yet to discover how many generations back the murderer's ancestors came to Britain, but it makes not a jot of difference. The UK has admitted a lot of people who adhere to a religion which often holds British values in contempt. For the majority of Muslims, immigrants or otherwise, that just means living peaceful but somewhat separate lives. For a small but significant minority it means treasonable violence. Their place of birth is irrelevant. It is the ideology which has been imported.
"The response of the medics who tried to save the murderer's life is a magnificent tribute to British values".
Unfortunately this is only partially true. If there is any inference to be drawn from the murderer's birthplace it is that some Britons now hold a different set of values altogether. Whereas the laudable desire of bystanders to save the murderer was Britain at its best, the murderer was a Briton too. His set of values encompassed driving his car as fast as possible into people he had never met and who could not conceivably have done him harm, before taking a knife to the person of a policeman whose job it was to protect our democratically elected representatives as they went about the business of governance. We have to accept that these are the values of a small minority of people whose ideology has been allowed into Britain. If we don't do that we are just deluding ourselves.
"Violence will not work".
On the day of Martin McGuinness's funeral (some wag asked, "Will we ever find out where the body is buried?") a moment's reflection should remind us how wrong this is. Does anyone really imagine that the Good Friday agreement would ever have been signed had it not been for the violence? Violence does work. It may not have worked for Islamic extremists yet, but that's only because there hasn't been enough of it.
"Everyone gets on fine in London".
To the extent that this is true it is only because communities tend to live parallel lives (and see below). Besides, does anyone remember Muslim Patrol, the fundamentalist vigilantes of the East End?
"The cancer of radical Islam in our society . . . . needs to be cut out".
Little though I like him, I don't think Paul Nuttall is exaggerating in describing radical Islam as a cancer. But how can it be "cut out"? Had the murderer survived the Westminster incident he could not have been deported. He was born in Kent. He could have been sent to prison of course, where he would have been free to radicalise impressionable young men, just as he was radicalised himself by other Muslims not currently in jail. But you cannot "cut out" British people. You can only try and persuade them that they are wrong. You could start by ceasing to treat Muslims as if they were something separate and un-British. You could start to turn back the tide of multiculturalism and identity-politics. But it would only be a start. There would still be a long way to go towards a goal that was always receding.
"Liberals convince themselves multiculturalism works because we all die together too".
And lastly Katie Hopkins, writing in the Daily Mail. Ms Hopkins characterises the conflict as, "The patriots of the rest of England versus the liberals in this . . . city of lead, so desperately wedded to the multicultural illusion that it can only fight those who love the country the most".
Perhaps it's a mistake to take Ms Hopkins too seriously. She over-emphasises for shock value. But regarding London she has a point. London is a unique place, emphatically not like the other cities only bigger. It is an international city, which has lost much of its "London-ness". Manchester is still defiantly Mancunian, Glasgow is still Glaswegian, and so on. Not London. Partly that's because London attracts people from all over the world, who go there believing they can make it big and have a good time. By definition they are the last people to mind others being different from them. It's one reason why they go there.
But London is not a community or series of communities. It is a hive of individuals. On the flip side its tolerance shades into indifference. People live alongside others utterly different from them by not interacting with them. It can be a lonely city. People famously do not talk to each other. David Goodhart's new book The Road to Somewhere characterises these people as "Anywheres", which is to say they are often well-educated, affluent and unrooted types (of which I guess I should be one) with everything to gain from maintaining the status quo. Their liberalism is theoretical and involves little personal sacrifice.
This phenomenon is of course a subject for another day, but Hopkins may not be wrong when she writes that London is an "entire city of monkeys: see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. Blind. Deaf. And dumb".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)