In a post-election interview Jeremy Corbyn claimed that the Tories had "lost" the election and that Labour had "won". These strange interpretations of the words suggest that "post-truth" phenomena are not limited to the loonier reaches of the Republican party in the United States.
The Tories won most seats, and the biggest percentage of the popular vote. They won the election.
Just not as well as they expected.
I saw an analysis of constituencies into which the Tories had poured resources. It turned out that they had tried hard in areas which turned out to be unwinnable, neglecting more realistic constituencies which, had they won, would have given them an increased majority. Hubris, you might say. You might also ask why the Tories did not implement the Boundary Commission report while they had the opportunity. Doing so would have given them dozens more seats.
A good deal of blame has been attached to Mrs May for calling an "unnecessary" election. I think it's misplaced. Some people have reacted with horror to the notion that a politician might try and outmanouevre their opponents by exploiting a time of weakness. That's fake outrage. Labour would have done the same; and keeping a foot on your enemy's throat is a legitimate and necessary posture in any oppositional endeavour. Besides, Mrs May can argue that even as things stand she has bought for HMG a further two years in which to get Brexit done and implemented, instead of the electoral cycle coinciding awkwardly with the end of the negotiations. She can even argue that the country has benefited from that extra period of grace. She has also shot the SNP fox.
It's surely OK for Tories to criticise May for running an ineffective campaign, but for her opponents to lambast her for not winning by a big enough margin is an approach which scarcely qualifies as a thought, let alone one which has been pursued to its end.
All depends on May being able to stay in office long enough. At this stage a confidence and supply agreement has been reached with the DUP in principle. May's critics are outraged by the party's more fundamentalist aspects, but unpalatable as the DUP may be, these are the same people who excused Tim Farron's attitude to gay sex just a few short weeks ago.
You see, it's different when liberals are homophobic.
No, we must blame the result on the electorate. They - we - voted like this. Now they - we - must live with it.
The most depressing aspect of the result is not the what but the why. Corbyn's Labour Party showed that if you promise people the thing they most want and tell them that someone else will pay for it, they will vote for you en masse. Large numbers of young people have no experience of Labour's propensity for wrecking the economy. They don't know that every Labour administration has ended with unemployment higher than when it began. They see Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness as benign paternal figures rather than the cold-eyed murderers they were when Corbyn was cuddling up to them. They shrug when you point out that an MP (Naz Shah) who had to apologise for anti-Semitism only last year is still in the Labour Party and was re-elected last week with a massively increased majority.
The young shriek that they are hard done by, and yet they have enjoyed staggeringly higher standards of living than the baby boomers they despise, and emerge from the - far more extensive - higher education opportunities available to them to find massive numbers of jobs available. I contrast this with my own experience as a school-leaver in 1977 and despair at the impossibility of getting even my own children to accept they are better off.
The young seem to have one legitimate grievance, which is the shortage and expense of housing. And yet this too is a chimera. In the first place housing is expensive because of the excess of demand over supply. Which demographic is most likely to approve of the migration which has substantially caused it? Why, it's the young. Moreover, once you can get on the housing ladder, interest rates are the lowest they have been in my lifetime, making mortgage repayments reasonably consistent with historical standards.
The problem is the deposit required to buy your first house. Deposits are high because house prices are high. It requires saving. And yet when I go about of an evening, I don't see empty pubs, restaurants, theatres and cinemas. I see young people out spending and enjoying themselves. Perhaps my generation has taught them to live for today. But that is I think the only responsibility we should bear.
Some claim it is legitimate for Labour to appeal to pensioners because the Tories appeal to the old. But there is a difference. The Tories are insisting on protecting the interests of vulnerable people on less than £10,000 a year. Labour is trying to protect people in their first flush, with their peak earning years ahead of them.
Those of us on the centre and right of British politics thought that the lessons of socialism had been learned. We were wrong. Unless the Tories are very very careful in the next five years they are going to have to be learned all over again.
Monday 12 June 2017
Friday 9 June 2017
General Election 2017 - God protect them from ignorance and inexperience
Early reflections on the election.
1. It's been a really crap night for Lynton Crosby.
2. Theresa May now lacks authority. At the time of writing the word is that May will stay on (an announcement is due in an hour's time, at 10 a.m.). On the face of it this looks absurd. She increased her party's vote share, but she called an election thinking it would increase her majority. It didn't.
1. It's been a really crap night for Lynton Crosby.
2. Theresa May now lacks authority. At the time of writing the word is that May will stay on (an announcement is due in an hour's time, at 10 a.m.). On the face of it this looks absurd. She increased her party's vote share, but she called an election thinking it would increase her majority. It didn't.
I would prefer her to go. For one thing, she would be widely hated otherwise, and have to run again in a few years in a general election when the public would no doubt relish booting her out. In the intervening period she would be unlikely to have become any more persuasive a campaigner. A successor would come to the job with a clean pair of hands.
My preferred choice, having thought about it for 30 seconds, would be David Davis. But whoever (please not Andrea Leadsom), he would struggle for a working parliamentary majority, and would have no electoral mandate. He might have even less authority than May. Neither option looks great.
2. Pro-Remain Twitter is agog this morning with the thought that this might be the end of Brexit. I would invite them to look at the results. Parties running on a pro-Brexit manifesto will take up the overwhelming majority of seats in Westminster.
3. It's been a bad night for the SNP, but quite a good one for Nicola Sturgeon. The SNP has seen its seat count almost halved, but they're still the largest party in Scotland. That's good for Ms Sturgeon because it makes no practical difference to her at Holyrood but she will now be able to resist pressure from her supporters for a 2nd Independence referendum which she knows she cannot presently win. Those of us hoping peak-SNP has passed will be cheered by the ousting of Wee Eck himself, Alex Salmond. So will La Sturgeon. Her back-seat driver has just been booted onto the verge.
4. The Labour leader's acceptance speech was revealing. He said, "[P]eople have said they have had quite enough of austerity politics, they have had quite enough of cuts in public expenditure, underfunding our health service, underfunding our schools and our education service and not giving our young people the chance they deserve in our society. People are voting for hope in the future and turning their backs on austerity".
He's right in his analysis, but the Labour voters he is referring are not. Labour supporters are wishing for something without first making sure it is practicable. The intractable economic reality is that even current spending is not affordable at current rates of tax, let alone the vast sums that Corbyn wants to splash out. Corbyn thinks all this can be fixed by borrowing and taxing the rich more. It can't. His supporters are voting for pie in the sky. They're voting for jam today. For La La Land. Indications are that the surge in Labour support could be accounted for by a surge in turnout by the young. God protect them from their own ignorance and inexperience.
5. I enjoy politics far too much to have been depressed by the result. Besides, Labour's better than expected showing has cheered my wife up no end. She woke up at 6 a.m. and shagged me before breakfast.
He's right in his analysis, but the Labour voters he is referring are not. Labour supporters are wishing for something without first making sure it is practicable. The intractable economic reality is that even current spending is not affordable at current rates of tax, let alone the vast sums that Corbyn wants to splash out. Corbyn thinks all this can be fixed by borrowing and taxing the rich more. It can't. His supporters are voting for pie in the sky. They're voting for jam today. For La La Land. Indications are that the surge in Labour support could be accounted for by a surge in turnout by the young. God protect them from their own ignorance and inexperience.
5. I enjoy politics far too much to have been depressed by the result. Besides, Labour's better than expected showing has cheered my wife up no end. She woke up at 6 a.m. and shagged me before breakfast.
Wednesday 7 June 2017
General Election 2017 - campaign vs. manifesto
The 2017 General Election is tomorrow. Some thoughts.
This is very much squeaky bum time, as all polls show a narrowing of Mrs May's previously unassailable lead, and some of them show the race to be very close. How have the Tories come within an ace of throwing it away?
Firstly, the press has hated the Tories' boring election campaign. It may have protected Mrs May from exposure as a charisma-free zone, but it gave journalists nothing to write about. So they wrote that May was wooden and reclusive instead. When the Tory manifesto turned out to have plans for dementia care which were unfair and attacked the middle-classes, they leapt on the discovery. When May did a U-turn they leapt on that too.
The fact that the social care plan represented a genuine and courageous (if misguided) attempt squarely to face an intractable problem got lost in the media glee.
That's pretty much all the stick the press has had with which to beat the Tories, but boy have they wielded it hard and frequently.
Now contrast Labour. The deficiencies of the Party's manifesto and leadership are so vast that as a journalist you wouldn't quite know where to begin. Taxes? The party is putting them up, despite evidence that doing so tends to bring in less, rather than more, revenue. The nation's finances? Labour is going to borrow and borrow in a fiscal situation that is already parlous; breaking even is always a "rolling" five years away. Tuition fees? Labour is going to abolish them, largely for the benefit of middle-class kids, at a cost of £10 billion. Terrorism? Labour encouraged multiculturalism, is too terrified of racism accusations to make hard decisions, is in hock to the Islamic vote, and is led by people who can't quite seem to decide (vide the IRA and Hamas) which terrorists are OK and which aren't. National security? Mr Corbyn won't press the nuclear button. Brexit? The party is utterly divided on the issue, and the manifesto says that even a bad deal for Britain is better than no deal (I bet M. Barnier was rubbing his hands when he heard that one).
For journalists there is so much material to go on that the mind reels at Labour's inadequacies. To be clear, I'm not saying the press as a whole is pro-Labour (only some of it is); merely that the deficiencies of the Tory campaign (dullness, social care) pale into insignificance compared to those of the Labour manifesto. But both deficiencies have been given equal emphasis.
And this is a crucial difference. Mr Corbyn has proved a capable stump campaigner. After all, he's spent his political lifetime campaigning rather than governing. Labour's campaign has been quite good, although its manifesto is a monstrous, gleaming pile of unaffordable crap. The Tory campaign on the other hand has been ill-judged; but their manifesto is on the whole sensible and realistic. If I had to point to a failure of reportage it would be that the press hasn't distinguished the two things (manifesto vs. campaign) well or at all.
But if Labour wins, or, God forbid, there is a hung parliament, it won't be because of the press. It will be because enough people took Labour's promises seriously, in particular perhaps its tuition-fee bribe of the young, who don't just have short memories but no memories of pre-Thatcherite Britain. For those of us who consider even a lacklustre May infinitely more persuasive than Corbyn, our hope must be that the young won't turn out to vote and that the reports from party foot-soldiers - who say that Labour is doing really well in the big cities but terribly everywhere else - turn out to be true. Otherwise we are all fucked.
Voting is about the choice between two evils. Let's hope the lesser of the two wins then implements the Boundary Commission report a.s.a.p.
This is very much squeaky bum time, as all polls show a narrowing of Mrs May's previously unassailable lead, and some of them show the race to be very close. How have the Tories come within an ace of throwing it away?
Firstly, the press has hated the Tories' boring election campaign. It may have protected Mrs May from exposure as a charisma-free zone, but it gave journalists nothing to write about. So they wrote that May was wooden and reclusive instead. When the Tory manifesto turned out to have plans for dementia care which were unfair and attacked the middle-classes, they leapt on the discovery. When May did a U-turn they leapt on that too.
The fact that the social care plan represented a genuine and courageous (if misguided) attempt squarely to face an intractable problem got lost in the media glee.
That's pretty much all the stick the press has had with which to beat the Tories, but boy have they wielded it hard and frequently.
Now contrast Labour. The deficiencies of the Party's manifesto and leadership are so vast that as a journalist you wouldn't quite know where to begin. Taxes? The party is putting them up, despite evidence that doing so tends to bring in less, rather than more, revenue. The nation's finances? Labour is going to borrow and borrow in a fiscal situation that is already parlous; breaking even is always a "rolling" five years away. Tuition fees? Labour is going to abolish them, largely for the benefit of middle-class kids, at a cost of £10 billion. Terrorism? Labour encouraged multiculturalism, is too terrified of racism accusations to make hard decisions, is in hock to the Islamic vote, and is led by people who can't quite seem to decide (vide the IRA and Hamas) which terrorists are OK and which aren't. National security? Mr Corbyn won't press the nuclear button. Brexit? The party is utterly divided on the issue, and the manifesto says that even a bad deal for Britain is better than no deal (I bet M. Barnier was rubbing his hands when he heard that one).
For journalists there is so much material to go on that the mind reels at Labour's inadequacies. To be clear, I'm not saying the press as a whole is pro-Labour (only some of it is); merely that the deficiencies of the Tory campaign (dullness, social care) pale into insignificance compared to those of the Labour manifesto. But both deficiencies have been given equal emphasis.
And this is a crucial difference. Mr Corbyn has proved a capable stump campaigner. After all, he's spent his political lifetime campaigning rather than governing. Labour's campaign has been quite good, although its manifesto is a monstrous, gleaming pile of unaffordable crap. The Tory campaign on the other hand has been ill-judged; but their manifesto is on the whole sensible and realistic. If I had to point to a failure of reportage it would be that the press hasn't distinguished the two things (manifesto vs. campaign) well or at all.
But if Labour wins, or, God forbid, there is a hung parliament, it won't be because of the press. It will be because enough people took Labour's promises seriously, in particular perhaps its tuition-fee bribe of the young, who don't just have short memories but no memories of pre-Thatcherite Britain. For those of us who consider even a lacklustre May infinitely more persuasive than Corbyn, our hope must be that the young won't turn out to vote and that the reports from party foot-soldiers - who say that Labour is doing really well in the big cities but terribly everywhere else - turn out to be true. Otherwise we are all fucked.
Voting is about the choice between two evils. Let's hope the lesser of the two wins then implements the Boundary Commission report a.s.a.p.
Monday 5 June 2017
After Manchester, now London Bridge #2
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)