Diary
The policy exchange report on British Islam
31 October, 2007
Yesterday the Policy Exchange published a report (available to download from their website) called ‘The Hijacking of British Islam’. The report was based on a year long investigation into the Islamic literature available at ‘mainstream sites of religious instruction’ in the UK.
4 Muslim research teams visited approximately 100 sites in the UK, including ‘leading mosques’, in order to investigate how ‘Muslim separatism and hatred of nonbelievers was accessible in those institutions’ via the literature they were providing. This literature was collected and passed to experts who analysed and translated it.
The report’s conclusions are fairly shocking, though for seasoned observers of extremism, not surprising. Radical material was found in a quarter of the mosques observed, a minority it is true, though the authors say that these were ‘among the best-funded and most dynamic institutions in Muslim Britain’. Many of these institutions have been ‘endowed with official recognition.’ Their main conclusions are as follows:
‘Within the literature identified here, a number of key themes emerge… The individual Muslim must also feel an abhorrence for non-believers, hypocrites, heretics, and all that is deemed 'un-Islamic'. The latter category encompasses those Muslims who are judged to practise an insufficiently rigorous form of Islam. Much of the material is thus infused with a strident sectarianism, in which many Muslims – particularly the very large number of Sufis in this country and around the world - are placed beyond the pale. More widely, Muslims are urged to separate themselves from people and things that are not considered Islamic…Western society, in particular, is held to be sinful, corrosive and corrupting for Muslims. Western values - particularly concerning the position and rights of women and in the realm of sexuality generally - are rejected as inimical to Islam.’
There are many who say that these attitudes, while grossly distasteful and extreme, do not amount to an explicit justification for terrorism. Indeed a rejection of Western values, including demands for separatism and a rejection of democracy, are not identical with supporting terrorism. But it would be naïve to dissociate them. As I have tried to point out in previous posts, radicalised attitudes provide powerful ammunition for those seeking to perpetrate terrorist acts. As the report says:
‘Without condoning or inciting terrorism, portions of it can sometimes provide a cultural hinterland - couched in religious terms - into which those who do encourage and conduct violence can move. They inculcate disgust for, and separation from, the unbelievers or 'kuffar', creating an ideological space which can be exploited by those who are prepared to justify and engage in terrorism against the West.’
Naturally the PC response to such alarming evidence is to deny its Islamic provenance. All the great faiths rail against the perceived injustices of Western life, including sexual liberalism, abortion, pre marital sex, atheism and so on. But it is how they deal with this irreligious behaviour that ultimately counts. As the authors state:
‘But mainstream Christianity and Judaism, at least as practised in western Europe today, do not respond to these spiritual challenges with either an implied or an explicit threat of violence…’
The report goes on: ‘Islamic organisations to which the 'offending' institutions are currently linked - notably groups such as the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) - must categorically repudiate the extremist, separatist and often sectarian material uncovered in this report and exert pressure for change.’
They might as well not have bothered with that one. Not when the MCB parade their victim mentality at every turn, explaining every act of violence as an ‘understandable’ response to the follies of Blair and Bush. Not when the MCB happily indulge in their own brand of extremism, such as the disgraceful boycott of Holocaust Memorial Day.
It is reassuring that a majority of mosques (in the sample analysed) are not peddling this dangerous and subversive literature. Britain’s decent minded Muslims will no doubt be horrified by this report and join the civilised majority in condemning it. It would be reassuring if the representative Muslim groups feted by the government shared this attitude.
But if some left-liberal types can no longer ignore Islamism’s ubiquitous influence, they might argue that it should be countered in the marketplace of ideas rather than through censorship. On the Guardian website today, Brian Whitaker offered a comment on the Policy exchange report, titled ‘Rubbish from Riyadh’:
Aware that the works in question ‘certainly promote religious intolerance’ he goes on to say:
‘Wahhabis are entitled to express their views, just like anyone else, though it is unfortunate that the financial resources behind Wahhabism have given it undue influence…But it is not very clear from the report how many of the mosques that distribute them - and those that do so are a clear minority - also provide a religious health warning or remind worshippers that they represent nothing more than one highly eccentric and unsavoury strand of Islamic teaching.’
Only eccentric and unsavoury eh? Try telling that to the mangled corpses that pile up after a terrorist atrocity, one that happens because a religious fanatic has been brainwashed by an ‘eccentric’ cleric. How typical of these liberals to dismiss the threat of radical Islam in such a cavalier fashion. Critics who oppose ‘Islamophobia’ often condemn the measures necessary to counter extremism, thus ensuring the very conditions in which resentment against Muslims will grow.
Meanwhile it is left to a group of Muslim moderates, fearful for the sanity of their co-religionists, to propose a more obvious solution, namely that mosques should get rid of this material once and for all. Welcome to PC Britain.
topIran and sanctions: Have we reached a turning point?
30 October, 2007
The Americans say that the door to a diplomatic solution over Iran remains wide open. The prospects look decidedly bleak, however. The latest sanctions targeted at the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, while certainly welcome, clearly do not go far enough. This is largely because of Chinese and Russian intransigence, with both countries possessing powerful economic interests in Iran, as they did in pre Saddam Iraq.
Thus the US leads the fight against Ahmadinejad with a highly ineffective sanctions weapon that is only likely to embolden Tehran’s hardline regime. The signs from Iran point to precisely this outcome. Within the last few days, Ali Larijani, Iran’s former nuclear negotiator, has been replaced by Saeed Jalili, a deputy foreign minister and close ally of the President. Whereas Mr. Larijani was reportedly flexible in negotiation, Mr. Jalili will no doubt share his boss’ view that Iranian plans for nuclear power ought to go unopposed by the international community. Iran’s hardliners are clearly in the ascendant. The signs point to a US strike against Iranian targets at some point in the foreseeable future.
No one should be complacent about what this will involve – not the strikes themselves, which are feasible enough, but their likely consequences. Iran has terrorist proxies in Lebanon and Gaza in the form of Hezbollah and Hamas. Any attack on Iran would lead to these proxies unleashing havoc in the region, as was the case in Lebanon during the 2006 summer war. This is certainly alarming for the region and for Israel in particular. But how much greater would the damage be if these rogue groups possessed the ultimate weapon? American officials have also warned about the threat of Iranian attacks on US targets, both in the Middle East and beyond.
There is considerable evidence that Iran arms insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq. A strike against Iran could lead to deeper instability in both countries and only prolong the Allied fight there. But one has to ask how much harder it would be to confront Ahmadinejad, the source of much instability, if he possessed the ultimate deterrent weapon.
If America dithers and fails to stop the Iranian bomb, Israel’s government has indicated that it would take pre emptive action to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities. The precedent was its destruction of Iraq’s Osiraq reactor in 1981, an action widely condemned at the time but one which prevented Saddam Hussein from using atomic weaponry against the Allies in 1990.
Any Israeli pre emptive strike would be universally condemned as illegal and immoral. The UN would be in emergency session within minutes, maintaining the bilious anti Zionist bias that has characterised it for decades. (The leaders of some Arab nations would breath a private sigh of relief, despite their public criticisms.) But Israel would argue that inaction was worse. Israelis could scarcely live securely under the shadow of an Iranian bomb, not knowing from day to day whether Ahmadinejad could be deterred from war by the threat of a retaliatory strike.
The truth is that any public debate on Iran is likely to be skewed badly by Britain's prevailing mood of anti Americanism. The Iraq war has created such scepticism about President Bush and the special relationship that it seems scarcely possible that any US led operation, or one carried out by its allies, could ever be justified. This is a tragic lapse in thinking. For all the mistakes made in Iraq, including the original decision to invade, and for all the imperfections of the Republican Administration, the US and its allies are locked in a lethal battle with their Islamist foes. Iran is the most dangerous of those foes.
Those who advocate force against Iran are unlikely to be complacent about the consequences. But just as we need to understand the dangers of military action, so too must we confront the greater threat of inaction.
topNote to King Abdullah: 9/11 was a mainly Saudi affair
30 October, 2007
Someone tell me I misheard yesterday. If I am not mistaken, Saudi King Abdullah had the temerity to lecture the West on not doing enough to stop terrorism. In political terms this is grand farce. It is thanks to the Saudi regime that Islamist terror has become a global force threatening nearly every continent on earth. 15 of the 19 9/11 bombers were Saudi and for every one of those attackers, there were many more who could have taken their places. So what next? Will Robert Mugabe lecture Gordon Brown on human rights, or Ahmadinejad on gay rights? Perhaps we can expect a lesson on press freedom from Vladimir Putin./p>
For many decades the House of Saud has had an unholy pact with its religious establishment. Provided that the royals didn’t interfere with religious ideology, the clerics would support the pro Western, oil rich plutocrats. This allowed clerics and educationalists to make Wahhabism (or Salafism) the official state religion. The Wahhabis have adopted the most austere, puritanical and narrow minded version of Islam, according to which non Muslims are infidels and women are treated as second class citizens. The notion of militant jihad has been given a particular emphasis in this brand of Islam.
In the 1960s billons of petrodollars were used to export this lethal brand of intolerance around the world, thanks to groups like the World Association of Muslim Youth. Influential Saudi clerics used their autonomy to brainwash generations of Saudi men, so much so that recent opinion polls show a vast majority of Saudis support Osama Bin Laden.
After 9/11 the House of Saud realised that the monster it had nurtured might soon turn on its protector. Suicide bombings in Riyadh and Dhahran some years back were a wake up call and the regime started to rein in some of the more militant groups. But the Saudi legacy is very much with us. Saudi financed schools around the world preach Wahhabi doctrines while Saudi financed preachers stir sedition in British mosques. The King’s comments have a malodorous whiff of hypocrisy about them.
Of course the counter terrorist strategies of Western governments are not infallible. In the last 20 years British governments and officials have insufficiently understood the threat from militant Islam. Terrorist ideologues, like Abu Hamza and Omar Bakri Mohammed have been given free rein to spread their poisonous hatred with little interference from the authorities. Even after the ‘wake up call’ of 7th July, Hizb ut Tahrir, a virulently anti semitic group campaigning for an Islamic Caliphate, has not been proscribed. There is much to learn.
Nor is this an argument for isolationism. The Saudis are alert to the Iranian threat and are in a position to supply intelligence in the war on terror. However, the recent blackmail over the Al Yamamah case demonstrates that if they are an ally, they are a dubious one at best. Nonetheless, if we accept a strong working relationship with the regime on pragmatic grounds, is there any need to see British politicians, and the Royal Family, fawning so obsequiously at the feet of these corrupt autocrats? As Vince Cable has pointed out, a state visit is the highest diplomatic accolade a head of state can receive.
For some, this may be the price we pay realpolitik. I prefer to see it as final proof of the farce that is Labour’s ‘ethical foreign policy.’
topThe Middle East ‘peace process’: or why the road to hell is still paved with good intentions
28 October, 2007
The latest round in the interminable saga known as ‘the peace process’ is about to descend upon us. In a desperate attempt to secure a legacy for her boss, Condoleezza Rice has jetted around the Middle East in a last push for an enduring peace settlement. To that end she has arranged an Israeli-Palestinian conference to be held in Annapolis, Maryland to ‘advance the cause of the establishment of a Palestinian state.’
These talks have a superficial attractiveness. No one can reasonably doubt the deprivation and squalor of Palestinian life and that the status quo cannot long continue. Moreover, the Hamas takeover of Gaza, which has only fuelled the misery in that part of ‘Palestine’, has arguably enhanced Abu Mazen’s position as a man the West can do business with.
Ehud Olmert has lauded Mazen and the Palestinian prime minister as partners for peace, men not compromised by terror. Ehud Olmert is less hardline than his predecessor while George Bush is desperate to gain credibility as a peacemaker after his ill fated intervention in Iraq.
But this is diplomacy built on quicksand. Abu Mazen may not be ‘compromised by terror’ in the way that Yasser Arafat was. But he seems just as intransigent as Arafat on the one issue that will scupper any talks: a right of return for Palestinian refugees. Mazen has called for Palestinians to be allowed to return to Israel which, he claims, is their ancestral home. He has therefore followed the line adopted in the Saudi peace plan which included this demand in return for normalizing relations with Israel.
But the right of return is bogus for many reasons. Firstly, even though the total number of Palestinian exiles from 1947-9 was at most 700,000, the current total of refugees on UNWRA rolls exceeds 4 million. This refugee figure is absurd because it assumes that all the descendants of the original refugees are themselves refugees deserving of the same compensation and ‘right to return’.
Secondly, any attempt to exercise this right of return would so alter Israel’s demography that it would cease to be a Jewish state. Thirdly, the demand for a right of return completely negates the concept of Palestinian nationhood: Palestinians should have a right of return to Palestine, not to Israel.
Perhaps Mazen’s insistence on the right of return is no more than a clever bargaining position. But if it is, he may find it hard to climb down later and retain his credibility. But if he believes in this demand sincerely and sticks to it doggedly, then he will prove to be no partner for peace.
The (justified) exclusion of Hamas from these talks poses its own problems. They will see the offer of a two state ‘settlement’, in the long term, as a sell out to the West and as an act of unprecedented apostasy. This might not matter so much if Abu Mazen enjoyed overwhelming public support and could face down his enemies – but the odds are hardly stacked in his favour.
Earlier this year, his Fatah forces in Gaza were decisively routed by Hamas in an embarrassing defeat. If a Hamas style coup were to remove Mazen from power, converting Ramallah and Jericho into Westbankstan, Israel would face Islamists on its Eastern, Western and Northern borders. Under such circumstances, Abu Mazen’s peace pledges would carry as much weight as Hitler’s signature on the Munich agreement. This would be the Middle Eastern ‘peace in our time.’
If Abu Mazen is a man we can trust, why has he failed to stop the ferocious campaign of incitement against Jews in the West Bank? As a result of this failure, Palestinian schools and summer camps remain centres of racist indoctrination and breeding centres for terror. Israel ought to insist on the ending of all incitement as a precondition for peace talks.
But the problems do not end there. Iran currently poses a grave and growing threat to the stability of the Middle East. Its fanatical president has threatened genocide against Israel while his terrorist proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas, are both capable of sustained campaigns of violence, as last year’s Lebanon war clearly showed. The latest round of US sanctions is likely to be highly ineffective, given that China and Russia remain resolutely opposed to more stringent measures. With this volatile situation to deal with, there is scant chance of stability on the Israel-Palestine front.
It may be tempting to welcome initiatives that give hope to all sides in this conflict. But unless the parties address the root cause of this conflict, the Arab/Muslim rejection of Jewish sovereignty in any form, the peace process will once again come to a juddering halt.
topIt is time to hold MPs to account
25 October, 2007
Last week in Lisbon 27 of Europe’s leaders signed up to a new Amending treaty. It was widely predicted that few countries would offer their electorates a referendum and that now seems to be the case. A referendum will be held in the Republic of Ireland while a small number of other countries are nervously considering this option. The majority of governments will follow the EU’s lead and steamroller the new treaty through their respective legislatures. To his eternal discredit, Gordon Brown is part of that majority.
It is now up to MPs to halt this rampant EU juggernaught. MPs will soon have the opportunity to vote down this treaty but the signs are not good. Not only have the people been denied their say but now Parliament has been muzzled. The Parliamentary vote will be a whipped one instead of a free vote, effectively turning a ‘no’ vote into a form of rebellious dissent. In a free vote, there are enough Labour rebels to impose a damaging defeat on the government. With a whipped one, this is unlikely to happen.
The Conservatives have opposed this treaty from the outset. But even they now seem to be reneging on holding a referendum if the bill is eventually passed. No Parliament can bind its successor, so the Tories must outlaw any suggestion of accepting the status quo if they were to come to power.
It will not do to have leaders of all three parties spouting the same undemocratic line, leaving the sole voice of dissent to come from the minority UK Independence Party. This is a matter of grave Constitutional significance with immense repercussions in the coming years.
In the spirit of supporting democracy and holding those in power to account, I have written the letter below to my own local MP. It can be used as a template for anyone else wishing to do the same - and modified as necessary.
…………………………….Dear Sir/Madam
In 2005 you were elected on a manifesto pledge to support a referendum on an EU Constitutional Treaty. Despite the ‘no’ votes from France and Holland in 2005, 27 European leaders have signed up to an Amending Treaty in Lisbon. According to most European leaders, the amending treaty is virtually identical to the original Constitution.
The government has announced that no such referendum will be held on the grounds that the amending treaty differs from the original Constitution. This is a spurious reason for such an undemocratic decision.
I assume that you intend to abide by the manifesto commitment you made in 2005. Accordingly, I am asking whether you intend to vote against the bill when it is presented to Parliament in the coming weeks.
topAn unquiet world
22 October, 2007
'Terrorism is an Islamic issue because some Muslims have been brainwashed to think that their faith demands a violent and sustained jihad against the ‘infidel’.
In July 2007 the National and International Security Policy Group, chaired by former MI6 chief, Pauline Neville Jones, produced the report ‘An Unquiet World’. This report dealt with a range of issues connected to national security, including terrorism, immigration and asylum policy, the police and Britain’s foreign policy.
The Conservative Muslim Forum has just offered its response (available to download at conservativemuslimforum.com) and it offers a starkly worrying picture of Muslim attitudes in Britain. In previous posts I have tried to highlight how the problem of Muslim extremism in Britain (as elsewhere) is not confined to the heinous plots of fringe terrorists. Instead it lurks in the attitudes of wider sections of the community; attitudes which, if left unchallenged, provide powerful ammunition for terrorist cells. Extremism is being encouraged because mainstream Muslim groups remain in denial about the terrorist threat, here and abroad, that confronts us all.
The document starts with an encouraging tone. ‘The Conservative Party's values and policies reflect the values and beliefs of the Muslim community in the United Kingdom,’ it says. These values include ‘Belief in enterprise, in the sense of community, in the family and in the value of hard work…’ The authors go on to say that Muslims, like all citizens of this country, ‘share the same interest in British national security,’ thought their background gives them ‘a different perspective.’
One of these perspectives concerns Israel and Zionism:
'Regardless of whether one finds Israel a congenial country or not, on any objective assessment the type of unqualified support given to Israel by the current Government is not conducive to British national interests as this could damage Britain’s relationships with 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide, including those in Britain. Britain's interests would be better served by forceful diplomatic pressure on Israel in order to press her to withdraw from the occupied territories and negotiate seriously for a two state solution.'
Firstly, this ignores Israel’s previous efforts to negotiate for precisely this outcome. All parties (minus the Palestinian) to the 2000-1 peace talks agree that Yasser Arafat’s intransigence led to him rejecting Ehud Barak’s proposals which would have created a Palestinian state. Secondly, the wording here presupposes that the attitude among Muslims to Israel is fairly benign. In other words, that all Britain needs to do is put diplomatic pressure on Israel to withdraw from the West Bank in order to curry favour with global Muslim opinion.
If only things were that simple. A two state solution brokered by Britain would do little to reduce the animosity of Muslims who support suicide bombings against Israel. It would be seen as treachery by supporters of President Ahmadinejad, the religious fanatic whose stated desire is to wipe Israel off the map. Surveys of Muslim attitudes in Pakistan, Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Indonesia and elsewhere reveal a vast amount of mindless anti semitic prejudice which only fans the flames of hatred against the Jewish state. Granted, there are many Muslims around the world who do favour a two state solution in principle. But their voices are drowned out by the bigotry of their co-religionists. Indeed the cat is let out the bag later on in the survey:
'Pro-Zionist statements only damage relationships with Muslims nationally and internationally.'
So it is Zionism, the belief in Jewish self determination, that apparently troubles Muslims, not the lack of a two state solution. How then can one hope to win them over by creating a two state solution when one of the states would be a Zionist one? Bit worrying don’t you think? But it gets worse:
'Irrespective of one's views of theocracy, the current Iranian regime was established by a popular revolution, sustained itself despite the attack by Iraq during the 1980s and has a significant measure of domestic support. Regardless of the foreign policies of the United States, hostility to Iran is not in Britain's national interest. A constructive engagement with Iran offers many possibilities for progress. As Winston Churchill once said, “to jaw jaw is always better than to war war”. Furthermore, Iran has many legitimate security concerns, being surrounded by, what are to them, potentially hostile powers. Instead of joining the United States in demonising Iran, Britain should assist Iran in addressing these legitimate security concerns in a manner that improves our security rather than weakening it.'
Leaving aside that it was Harold Macmillan, not Churchill, who coined the war war phrase, it is the emphasis on our ‘hostility to Iran’ that grates here. Elements of the Iranian regime have brutally assisted insurgents in Iraq and the Taleban in Afghanistan. Iranian supplied weapons have killed British soldiers while the regime openly supports the destabilizing influence that is Hezbollah.
Now the regime seeks weapons of mass destruction that would allow it to dominate the Persian Gulf and claim hegemony in the Middle East. For this reason, the region’s Sunni powers (Egypt and Saudi Arabia in particular) have expressed the greatest alarm at Tehran’s provocative behaviour. Yet Britain is accused of ‘demonising Iran.’ Funny really.
Even though the report concludes that Britain should oppose Iran’s nuclear ambitions, it offers mixed messages. Apparently Iran ‘appears to have legitimate reasons for seeking nuclear weapons for defensive purposes’ because she faces ‘a nuclear armed Israel.’ Except that Israel has never threatened to wipe Iran off the map or relocate Iranians to the North Pole or Europe. In today’s confusing age of moral relativism, this may seem irrelevant but it is a difference of profound importance.
But the most revealing evidence of a community in denial comes in sections 15 and 16 of the report.
'Terrorists are criminals, and linking them with any religion is simply playing to their terms. We accept that some terrorists do abuse Islam for their purposes. However, an incoming Conservative administration must deny their attempt to link criminal acts to any religion. The term “terrorism” must be separated from any religious references.'
Indeed this appears to follow the government’s strategy over the last 2 years. Deny that the terrorists (sorry criminals) are Islamic or that we face a religious holy war and hopefully we will win over Britain’s Muslim community. But if we are dealing with non religious criminals, why bother the Muslim community in the first place? They are not Muslims right? Wrong. Terrorism is an Islamic issue precisely because some Muslims have been brainwashed to think that their faith demands a violent and sustained jihad against the ‘infidel’. They believe that the West is engaged in a conspiracy to destroy Islam and that only their violent death cult can spare their faith from inexorable ruin.
The authors of this report say they welcome the distinction between Islam and Islamism. Yet they show no willingness to tackle Islamism’s worst manifestations. As recent undercover documentaries have revealed, foreign preachers (many Saudi) have been invited to the UK to spread their hateful, seditious, homophobic and racist ideology in ‘mainstream’ mosques. Yet the authors say that they ‘disagree with the suggestion that “foreign preachers and scholars advocating the rejection of the institutions and values of democracy” should be denied entry into Britain.’
However their position is rather different when it comes to groups preaching hatred against Muslims. The authors say there is a need ‘to combat extremist voices from different parts of the political spectrum, including the white far right.’ The smell of double standards is overwhelming.
The authors of this report claim that they want to tackle extremism and the terror threat. But their report indicates that among moderate Muslims, many of the wrong attitudes still persist.
topWatson should not have been hounded from Britain
19 October, 2007
'A society that values free speech must be strong enough to deal with an irresponsible fool, if that is what Watson is.'
The Science Museum’s decision to cancel James Watson’s talk has now had the desired result. Now other academic institutions that were due to host the scientist, including my former alma mater, Bristol University, have followed suit and cancelled Watson’s planned speaking tour. Watson has been effectively driven out of the country.
There are many who will feel this is a justifiable decision. In his Sunday Times interview last week, the eminent geneticist offered an incredibly contentious scientific view about the intelligence of Africans. He described himself as ‘gloomy about the prospect of Africa’ because while ‘all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours…all the testing says not really.’
He added that though the prevailing view was that everyone was equal, ‘people who have to deal with black employees find this not true.’ Naturally this latter crass statement was deeply offensive and it would be idle to pretend otherwise. There are many people who argue that such generalizations are both derogatory and have no rational foundation.
Indeed, if one considers the question of intelligence, there are grounds for doubting Watson’s view. To discount the role of environmental influences, including cultural background, in assessing intelligence is an elementary error. This is one reason why IQ tests have been labelled ‘Eurocentric’; hence an invalid means of testing peoples from non Western backgrounds.
Many will certainly recoil from the notion that there is an inherent link between skin colour and intelligence. Indeed this is not the first time that Watson has courted controversy. Back in 2000 he offended many people by saying that dark skinned people had stronger libidos than others, positing a link between skin colour and sex drive.
Nonetheless Watson should have been allowed to continue his speaking tour in the UK. He was, after all, advancing a ‘scientific’ thesis about intelligence, rather than suggesting that black people were inherently ‘inferior’, which is a moral and political one. If one reads the interview carefully, one finds Watson agreeing. ‘He (Watson) says that you should not discriminate on the basis of colour, because ‘there are many people of colour who are very talented, but don’t promote them when they haven’t succeeded at the lower level.’
Watson was not calling for discrimination against blacks and if he had, his thesis would no longer have been scientific. To treat him as a pariah bigot was to assume he was abusing the scientific methods in order to promote a racist agenda, a kind of David Irving of the science world. Those who know him best denied these were his real motives. At worst, his view was misguided and unfounded.
But what better way to prove this point than to give Watson the freedom to explain his views, provided that those views were then subject to robust challenge and debate. There are plenty of scientists willing to show why Watson's views are incorrect. Instead of having a public debate, their views are now confined to the letters pages of the broadsheets. A society that values free speech must be strong enough to deal with an irresponsible fool, if that is what Watson is.
Of course intellectuals must tread carefully with issues of race. But if we shut off debate whenever these issues are raised, we risk losing much that is precious about our way of life. As James Watson has just discovered.
topLisbon 2007: Another day of treachery approaches
18 October, 2007
In Lisbon today, Gordon Brown will put his signature to the new European treaty, determined as ever to deny a referendum to the British people. He will be buoyed by an article in today’s Independent which sets out to expose what it sees as 10 fundamental ‘Eurosceptic myths’ regarding the new treaty.
According to this article, it is wrong to assume that Britain is surrendering ‘vital powers over fundamental issues of sovereignty’ to Brussels. There will be no ‘EU Foreign Minister’ controlling Britain’s foreign policy and no new President of Europe while Britain will not lose control of its borders by signing up. Neither will we be forced to free prisoners or replace our embassies with an EU diplomatic service. The most important myth of all, according to this Euro friendly piece, is that the EU treaty is the same as the Constitutional Treaty of 2005.
No doubt there is much truth here. But myths persist on both sides and ‘inconvenient truths’ have a nasty habit of being brushed under the carpet. Britain is certainly surrendering dozens of vetoes in policy areas, such as transport, energy and space policy. QMV (Qualified Majority Voting) will also be extended in numerous policy areas as a result of this treaty and if this does not constitute a loss of sovereignty, I don’t know what else does.
The government claims it is safeguarding the rights of British workers, including the right to overtime beyond 48 hours, with its red lines on justice and home affairs. But according to the cross party foreign affairs committee, those red lines could be as watertight as a sponge. Not exactly reassuring is it. As for our borders, it certainly is true that we will not lose control of them purely because of this treaty. For we lost control of our borders years ago, in part thanks to the Convention on Human Rights which prevents us deporting dangerous foreigners to less sunny climbs where they might face torture.
The most risible of the alleged ‘myths’ is that there is no major difference between the treaty and the former Constitution. No one, not even the most die hard Euro fanatics, can believe that the original Constitutional Treaty and the new Treaty are fundamentally different without needing their heads examined. Just listen to the views of those who framed and scrutinized the Constitutional Treaty.
Bertie Ahern commented that the treaty preserved "90% of the original constitution" while German Chancellor Angela Merkel admitted that the new treaty used "different terminology" without "changing the legal substance" of the Constitution. José Luis Zapatero triumphantly claimed that “the great part of the European Constitution (was) in the new treaty.”
The most revealing comment came from Valéry Giscard d'Estaing who admitted that although the British, Dutch and French wanted no mention of the word constitution the new treaty contained "all the key elements of the constitution." At least this ageing Frenchman was honest enough to reveal the chicanery involved.
If papers like the Independent are right, we ought to believe that these European leaders are irresponsibly peddling myths in an effort to undermine the EU. Naturally this view is risible but it is the logical consequence of their argument.
The Europhiles remind us that previous far reaching treaties, such as Maastricht, required no national mandate. While true this argument misses a crucial point. John Major’s government never promised to hold a referendum on Maastricht; so signing this treaty, damaging as it was, represented no violation of political promises.
Those people immune to the Euro spin know perfectly well why Gordon Brown will never offer a referendum on the treaty. He knows he will lose it.
topA change of leader won’t solve Lib Dem woes
16 October, 2007
Menzies Campbell’s resignation comes as little surprise. The opinion polls have shown an alarmingly low level of support for the party and after weeks of rumour and speculation about his position, the momentum for change has caught up with him. His departure will bring no more than the most insincere of regrets from his colleagues.
Given the modern obsession with image and celebrity, it would be tempting to view his demise through the prism of personality. Here we have an elderly but well meaning gentleman who has been hopelessly outclassed by more energetic rivals. But this would be a dangerously simplistic explanation. A change of leader will not solve the basic Lib Dem problem: that in the last 2 years, the party has lost its sense of purpose and ideological compass.
Certainly Menzies Campbell was the wrong choice for the leadership. He lacked forcefulness, energy, and sparkle; indeed he had lethargy written all over him. In his party conference he traded on his sagacity in foreign affairs. Being a wise old man in the neo Gladstonian mould had its advantages, he declared, for he would not take Britain into a series of unnecessary wars.
Perhaps so, but this only highlighted his basic problem as leader. As foreign affairs spokesman he exuded gravitas and credibility over his opposition to the Iraq war. But after becoming leader, Iraq slowly lost its salience as a political issue. In part this reflected Tony Blair’s departure from NO. 10 while the announcements of British withdrawals from Basra helped to heal old wounds.
Today Labour is no longer infected with the curse of this unpopular war. If they were to lose their majority in a 2009 election, it would have little to do with Iraq.
But the Lib Dem problems go further than this. In the last 2 years there has been a profound extension of the game of Westminster cross dressing. Cameron’s uber modernizers have repackaged themselves as the ‘new greens’ and as the only party committed to tacking climate change. Their caring agenda and environmental credentials mean that another piece of the Liberal Democrat pie has been ruthlessly stolen from them. Without Iraq and climate change, it has not been easy to identify what the Liberal Democrats are actually ‘for.’
It is likely that the more youthful and telegenetic Nick Clegg will now take over as party leader. The Liberal Democrats will probably reckon on the Cameron factor in their selection, noting that the Conservative leader has exuded a youthful dynamism in contrast to their former leader’s more staid approach. Perhaps a Clegg led Liberal Democrats will receive the boost of a quick third party bounce. But this will not solve their long term problem.
What matters in elections are domestic issues: education, crime, the economy and immigration. While the Liberal Democrats have proposed some eye catching domestic initiatives over the years, such as cuts to income tax, they have been drowned out by the noise from the 2 main parties. This is the reality of the so called 3rd party squeeze. Perhaps another misguided foreign adventure will see the Lib Dems resurgent at the polls – but this is unlikely. It’s domestic politics, stupid.
topThe Tories must be bolder to destroy this shameful Prime Minister
14 October, 2007
This week Gordon Brown proved that imitation was the sincerest form of electioneering by appearing to endorse Tory tax proposals. The most successful ideas from the Tory conference week suddenly found their way into the pre budget statement, much to the Prime Minister’s impish delight. As if that was not enough, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury revealed that marriage should be recognised in the tax system as it was a positive force for children.
Of course the idea that Brown is about to copy Tory ideas is another form of cynical spin. Gordon Brown is not about to break the habit of a lifetime by reversing the penal effects of high taxation. The pre budget report appeared to offer tax cuts but the small print showed government plans to increase taxation by £1.4 billion a year until 2010.
Still at last we have final confirmation that Gordon Brown, the man with the alleged moral compass, is as shifty, cynical and opportunistic as they come. As William Hague deliciously put it, the man has convictions and, if you don’t like them, he has others you might prefer. At his conference a fortnight ago, there was no mention of special privileges for married couples and their offspring. It was ‘all the children’ that deserved his attention, not just those that lived with Mum and Dad. For that matter, there was little suggestion of an imminent change to inheritance tax. Yet anything goes when the Brown spin machine is in operation.
So what are the lessons to be learnt here for the Tories? If one thing is clear it is that the critics of modernization, those who believed that Cameron and co were disastrously betraying Tory values, have been vindicated. The surge in Tory support has come about because they proposed tax cutting policies, such as the changes to inheritance tax. When they were calling for ‘economic stability’ (the Gordon Brown catchphrase) or ‘sharing the proceeds of growth’ they were languishing in the polls. You could say the same about ‘hugging a hoodie.’ People don’t want to hear the tough Tories turning into the cuddly Tories.
The party, however, still seems too frightened to learn the real lessons on tax and economic policy. Yes, increasing the threshold on inheritance tax makes sense and is blatantly fair but still represents a commitment to redistributive taxation. For every pound returned, another has to be taken from elsewhere. There is still no commitment to an overall reduction in taxation while there is an alternative pledge to match government spending for the first 3 years of a Conservative government. Why is this?
For years, the Tories have been trapped by the government spin that higher taxes (or ‘investment’) has been essential to improve public services like health and education. The higher the tax, the better the public services. The most familiar Labour accusation is that under the tax cutting Tories, hospitals and schools will get worse because of a lack of money. But this is to make several false assumptions. Firstly, that the vast sums of cash poured into the NHS and schools have brought corresponding dividends in productivity and efficiency. Second, that the burgeoning social security budget is incapable of being slashed through radical welfare reform. Third, that the size of the public sector under Gordon Brown provides true value for money.
All three assumptions are demonstrably false. Much of the money earmarked for improving NHS efficiency has been spent on managers and consultants as well as huge pay rises for GPs. Hundreds of thousands receive disability allowances when they could work, creating an unnecessary burden on taxpayers.
Most importantly there are 700,000 more public servants than a decade ago, many working for quangos whose existence is dubious to say the least. Among these public servants are vast numbers of diversity and equality officers who do little to enrich our national life, while burdening taxpayers with additional pension liabilities. The Tories are wrong to match the government’s spending forecasts when they are based on a decade of mismanagement and inefficiency.
The Tories have learnt a simple message. Idly repeating the mantras of Blairism is a recipe for failure. But setting out a bold vision for Britain based on their core traditional values can be a recipe for success. The choice is theirs.
topSelf indulgent liberalism
12 October, 2007
(I have reproduced a letter which appears in today's Jewish News - it follows on from a diary entry that dealt with Ahmadinejad's visit to Columbia University.)
There are times when one can only weep at America’s self-inflicted wounds. The invitation extended by Columbia University to President Ahmadinejad last week is a case in point (Jewish News, 2 October).
In a statement issued before Ahmadinejad’s appearance, University President Bollinger defended the controversial invitation by saying it was necessary to confront beliefs, ‘many, most or even all of us will find offensive and even odious’. But this only works when someone plays by the rules, and Ahmadinejad does not. His answers to questions on the Holocaust, Israel, homosexuality and nuclear weapons were characterised by euphemism and evasion.
Instead of repeating his view of the Holocaust as a myth, he merely said there was a need for ‘research’ and asked why the Palestinian people were ‘paying the price for an event they had nothing to do with.’
He did not repeat his desire to see Israel ‘wiped off the map’ but had the gall to describe his ‘solution’ to the ‘Palestinian plight’ as a ‘humanitarian and a democratic proposal.’ He condemned the refusal to grant Iran nuclear status so long as the US and other powers had nuclear weapons.
Far from being held to account, Ahmadinejad merely played on people’s hatred of the Bush regime and its support for Israel. Furthermore President Bollinger hardly considered how his ferocious (but justified) introductory remarks would play out in the Islamic world.
According to the Islamic Republic News Agency on 1 October, the ‘behaviour of chancellor of Columbia University showed who advocates peace and who is looking for hostility and sedition.’
No doubt this speech will add to the regime’s ammunition of propaganda against the West. President Bollinger can cite the First Amendment all he likes. But to give a soapbox to a ranting demagogue and religious fanatic, at a time of heightened tension between the USA and Iran, was self indulgent liberalism of the most harmful kind.
topJonathan
London
13/10/2007
I agree - great letter
A law against hatred – or another crackdown on free speech?
10 October, 2007
The new Justice Secretary, Jack Straw, recently announced that it would be a crime to incite hatred because of a person’s sexual orientation and lifestyle choice. The maximum sentence would be 7 years imprisonment. This new measure has been proclaimed as the voice of Britain’s new liberal conscience. As Straw put it: “It is a measure of how far we have come as a society in the past ten years that we are now appalled by hatred and invective directed at people on the basis of their sexuality. It is time for the law to recognize this.”
Apparently, if you express temperate or mocking comments about gays, you will not fall fowl of the law though the decision would ultimately rest with the police. What Mr. Straw fails to see is that this is a wholly unnecessary and divisive piece of legislation that could lead to increased censorship in this country.
The criminal law already outlaws those who incite violence and hatred against homosexuals. Indeed the 1986 Public Order Act, which prohibits ‘threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby’ has been used to target and arrest people who use “homophobic” comments. It was on the basis of this law that police investigated comments made by Sir Iqbal Sacranie, former Secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain, in 2006. The Public Order Act of 2003 has also been used for the very same purpose, and rightly so. In a liberal society, people of any sexual persuasion should be protected by law from perverse discrimination, harassment and incitement. There is little need for further legislation.
The suspicion arises then that this new law is designed to outlaw any form of ‘homophobia’ including what are perceived to be merely offensive remarks. Jack Straw has assured us that making only ‘temperate’ remarks would be acceptable, requiring no follow up police action. However, in recent years the police have become a willing arm of the censorious new liberal movement which seeks to eradicate intolerance in the name of social engineering.
In 2003 Dr. Peter Foster, the Bishop of Chester, sparked outrage among homosexuals when he suggested that they seek medical help to ‘reorient themselves.’ His remarks were deemed (understandably) offensive but the ‘cure’ for his exercise in free speech was a rebuke from the Chief Constable of Cheshire. The Chief Constable informed him that he had failed to ‘give clear leadership on the issue of diversity.’ Quite what job it is of a policeman to offer such remarks is beyond me.
Then take the example of author Lynette Burrows in 2005. Her sin, worthy of another police investigation, was to suggest on the radio that homosexual couples should not be adopting children. Sir Iqbal Sacranie had argued that homosexuality was immoral and spread disease but he remained unrepentant after a visit from the police. Incidentally the police soon dropped this particular investigation, no doubt aware that it would cause severe offence to Britain’s Muslim community.
These cases show that when eminent figures use their freedom of speech to outrage minority groups, the police take it on themselves to enforce a politically correct code of behaviour. Thus the police slammed Dr. Foster because he failed to uphold the value of diversity, so ardently championed by the smug liberal intelligentsia. To argue that freedom of speech would be protected under this new law is to miss the point. Who in their right mind would publicly criticise gay adoption, or question civil partnerships, with the certain knowledge that the ‘thought police’ would come knocking at the door?
Faced with the dread of a police interview, many people will choose to keep their opinions to themselves. But this form of uneasy self censorship, in which people are frightened to express their views on sensitive subjects, can have no place in a free society.
Rejecting this unnecessary law does not mean that one should be complacent about homophobia. Homosexuals deserve the same protection from harassment and incitement as anyone else. But to confer a special right of avoiding offensive or derogatory comment, which this new legislation would effectively provide, is wholly unjustifiable. Christian groups, who believe they should be allowed to express their opinions on these matters in a free society, are rightly outraged.
This new legislation reflects the worst kind of New Labour social engineering. And the mantra of these new liberals seems to be: ‘Be tolerant, and if you refuse, we will make you tolerant.’ Beware what you say.
topBrown and out
9 October, 2007
It was truly embarrassing listening to a mumbling, stumbling Gordon Brown as he desperately sought to extricate himself from a mess of his own making. At his monthly press conference yesterday, the Prime Minister tried to sound a note of contrition for his abject indecisiveness in the previous fortnight. But he continued to insist that he only cancelled the election because he wanted to present his ‘vision for Britain’.
Apparently it had nothing to do with shifting opinion polls and an unexpected swing to the Tories in the key marginals. Mr. Brown, the father of the nation, is too much above all that Machiavellian party politics, remember. Nobody with an ounce of common sense and half a brain cell was going to fall for that nonsense.
Just to prove my point yesterday about Brown being addicted to spin, the Sky News cameras cunningly revealed the script that the PM was using to weave his ridiculous line. Included among his jottings were the fascinating revelations that he ‘saw’ the polls and that he ‘considered election’ which naturally he ‘could have won.’ But he decided against an election because his ‘first instinct’ was that he ‘wanted time.’
Perhaps in a fit of truth telling on the next page he had added these little jottings: ‘Saw polls, bricked it, sensed hung parliament, phone call to Marr.’ Oh and not forgetting these little gems from the previous week: ‘flew to Basra, smiled at troops, spinned withdrawal, stuffed the Tories.’ Well, it's a thought.
How comforting to see this surly, sanctimonious Scot finally hoist on his own petard.
topCynicism, spin and populism: Welcome to the world of Gordon Brown
8 October, 2007
So Gordon Brown has come crashing down to Planet Earth. He is no Churchill, no peerless father of the nation seeking desperately to heal the wounds of party bickering. Now he we can see him as a Machiavellian, cynical opportunist, a down to earth canny politician seeking to court popularity in the most devious fashion. Yes, I am referring to the unmitigated PR disaster of the snap election that never was. Gordon Brown’s procrastination has made him look hesitant and shifty, a discreditable figure of ridicule in the Westminster village. Yesterday’s solid, principled politician is today’s indecisive, sham populist.
When Gordon Brown was interviewed by Andrew Marr, he tried to put the best gloss on a bad weekend for his government. He was waiting to present his vision for Britain before going to the polls, you see. The fact that polling in the marginal constituencies suggested a Labour defeat apparently had little to do with it. If this is the best spin one can expect from the Prime Minister, he had better take lessons from Alastair Campbell.
Brown’s strategy, it seems, was to allow speculation about an early poll to reach a fever pitch, all the while reducing the Tories to a quivering wreck as they rushed through a series of incoherent policy pronouncements. But the threat (yes, threat) of a snap poll had the opposite effect – it galvanized the Tories, forcing them to put aside their party bickering and concentrating their ire on the lamentable failings of the last decade. Brown also did not reckon on the Tories’ masterstoke of a tax cut. It is what traditionally minded Tories, such as myself, have been looking forward to for months – and it paid off handsomely.
Some might argue it is harsh to judge Gordon Brown in this way. After all, is it not the automatic prerogative of a serving Prime Minister to decide the date of an election based on poll data? Is it not canny to trip up the opposition by encouraging just this kind of election fever? Maybe so. But the mark of a true statesman is to rise beyond the fickle and froth of public opinion and take principled decisions in the national interest. That was the elaborately constructed Brown image which has now been rudely shattered.
Indeed this has been a rude awakening in more ways than one. Last week the PM flew into Iraq to make an announcement about imminent troop withdrawals from Iraq. The visit was timed to coincide with the start of the Tory conference while his announcement violated a pledge to make such statements to Parliament before the media. British soldiers, busy spilling their guts on the battlefield, were used as political footballs in the most crude and unforgivable manner imaginable. Fortunately, Gordon Brown's insulting gesture was seen as the cheap electioneering stunt it was.
But none of this should come as a surprise for Brown has never been above spin and cynical politics. What else are we to make of Baroness Thatcher’s visit to no. 10 on the very day that the Tories’ unveiled their Quality of Life report? How else can we interpret ‘consensual politics’ other than as a potent weapon to destabilize the opposition? For this ruthlessly divisive politician, consensus means the obliteration of the other parties and a Brown dominated state. His great idea for accountability is not a vote on the EU Constitution but citizens juries, which would be used to rubberstamp the Prime Minister’s own views. As Chancellor, Brown misled the public about the CBI’s advice prior to the tax raid on pensions in 1997.
The worst thing about Brown is not that he is addicted to spin but that he is so bad at it. A whole section of voters have seen through the PM’s cynical manoeuvring and feel as if they have been taken for fools. In short, this issue is about trust and Brown's antics hurt because they show him to be untrustworthy, more than just indecisive. Whether the revitalised Tories can capitalise on Brown’s Achilles heel remains to be seen.
topThe Tory week that was
5 October, 2007
This has been quite a week for the Tories and for leader David Cameron. With promises of tax cuts and immigration controls, a shake up of welfare and a commitment to an EU referendum, the Tories appear to be moving back to ‘terra familia’ and speaking with a passion that has been missing in recent months. Cameron’s speech sans autocue seems to have gone down well with the party faithful and staved off calls for his replacement. His one hour oration, though hardly delivered with the greatest rhetorical flourish, may have also persuaded Gordon Brown to avoid a snap election and go to the polls next Spring instead.
But before we get too carried away, some caution is required. Cameron talked about freeing up schools and hospitals while criticising Brown’s ‘top down’ approach. Schools, he said, should be free to scrap appeals panels that were allowing unruly pupils to avoid exclusions. The NHS had to be answerable to patients, not politicians. There were too many jobs being created in the public sector at the expense of the more efficient private sector.
And how about this: ‘We will say to people that if you are offered a job and it’s a fair job and one that you can do and you refuse it you shouldn’t get any welfare’. There was a commitment to shoring up the family, especially through the tax system so that it no longer paid for two parents to live apart as opposed to living together. In principle, these arguments form the basis of a viable philosophical alternative to New Labour and a critique of big government.
The test of an opposition though is producing more than rhetorical hot air. It is one thing to describe what needs changing and entirely another to explain the mechanisms of that change. The devil, if you like, is in the detail of delivery, not the detail of aspiration. It is not enough for Cameron to offer his familiar vocabulary of ‘choice, responsibility and aspiration’ when this is also classic Blairite spin.
In his speech, Mr. Cameron needed to spell out how he would empower doctors and headteachers, not just that he would free them from the burden of state control. Yet there was nothing in this speech about introducing passports for pupils, parents, and patients. A passport scheme would genuinely empower all individuals, presumably because their choice of schools and hospitals would drive up quality through choice.
On immigration, Cameron sounded a balanced note. He welcomed the benefits that immigration had brought but recognised the pressures on public services brought by mass immigration. But he did not say how the Tories would enforce limits on non European countries. His most consistent pledge was to recognise marriage through the tax system and ensure that there could be no financial advantage for two parents to remain apart, rather than together.
Tax is the most confusing issue of all. Rightly the Tories complain of Brown’s stealth taxes as Chancellor; rightly they deplore the massive waste of taxpayers’ money on funding inefficient public services. And the commitments to reduce inheritance tax for the majority and eliminate stamp duty for the few are certainly welcome. But the Tories are still too obsessed with ‘economic stability’ to offer a coherent and consistent vision of a lower taxed society. Their proposals are based on tax redistribution, not tax reduction.
Nonetheless, Mr. Cameron has shown he has much of the passion requiring for confronting Gordon Brown at the polls. He has learnt that mimicking the worst aspects of New Labour will only undermine his credibility with the public and make him appear ideologically vacuous. There is promise and possibility but much more needs to be done if he is to convince people he can offer a serious alternative to the current government. Cameron must build on this performance and show that he has the judgment and killer instinct to reach no. 10.
topAnother shameful race row
4 October, 2007
It is a sure bet that the moment a politician questions Britain’s immigration shambles the words ‘racist’ and ‘xenophobe’ will be thrown at them. Only 4 months ago large sections of Labour’s politically correct police claimed Margaret Hodge was speaking ‘BNP language’ when she questioned the allocation of council housing to immigrants. Red Ken, the iron Chancellor of rainbow politics, said her words were catastrophic for community relations,’ while Diane Abbott directly accused her of being a ‘mouthpiece of the BNP’.
Now it has happened again. In an interview with the Independent on Sunday, the Tory spokesman on community cohesion, Sayeeda Warsi, spoke about ‘out of control’ immigration in Britain and described how people felt uneasy at the rapid pace of demographic change resulting from it. She denounced the lack of a border police force and the lack of checks in the immigration system that had left many people ‘uneasy.’
Not surprisingly in areas such as Barking and Dagenham, this has fuelled tensions within the community and led to a rise in support for the far right. ‘The BNP will look at what issue it is locally that they can exploit,’ she said, ‘and the other political parties are not seen to be dealing with and they will play to that.’ What was crucial for Baroness Warsi was not writing off all those who voted BNP. Many, she claimed, had ‘legitimate views’ and concerns which were being exploited by the far right party. It was time for an ‘an honest debate.’
Then came the avalanche. Operation Black Vote, the group for which Lady Warsi used to work, accused her of pandering to racist views peddled by the BNP, adding for good measure that this was ‘grotesque.’ The language she was using was apparently that of the ‘BNP’. We just need to consider her record to see how irresponsible these comments are. The daughter of immigrants, Warsi spent some of her early career helping to improve race relations through launching Operation Black Vote. She has also sat on various racial justice committees and in her interview was careful to point to the BNP’s ‘hate agenda.’
In any case is it so wrong for the Tories to consider engaging with supporters of the BNP? Note the word supporters here, not activists. Of course, many voters are attracted to extreme, fringe parties only because they are inward looking, chauvinistic xenophobes. In their bitter world view, foreigners take centre stage as the source of their woes and the reason for our perceived national decline. It is hard to imagine that any set of rational arguments would sway this hard core of British bigots. To neglect the poisonous racism of the BNP and their core activists would therefore be naïve in the extreme.
But would it not be equally naïve to write off all their voters as unreconstructed racists? Can we not assume that there are some ordinary folk who, in their turmoil over violent crime, immigration and extremism, become seduced by the clever tactics of extreme parties? In a fit of misguided judgment, they see the BNP as being the political knight in shining armour, a party who are brazen enough to say the things on which the mainstream parties are silent. While the Tories and Labour peddle softly on Islamic extremism and violent crime, the BNP dare to offer more radical solutions. While no party calls for EU withdrawal, this remains one of Nick Griffin’s key policy pledges. It is not hard to see why these issues might attract a bunch of highly disillusioned voters. Warsi is right - to write off these angry, but misguided, voters as racist would be far too simplistic.
People may nonetheless be puzzled. With the party desperate to shrug off its perceived nastiness, why is a leading member straying into such controversial territory? The answer has much to do with the canny skills of one Gordon Brown. While the Tories have shifted from their traditional (and popular) positions on crime, immigration and taxation, New Labour has been busy stealing Tory clothes. Last week the canny Gordon Brown issued alarming rhetoric about safeguarding ‘British jobs for British workers’. This statement, risible in itself given current EU laws, would have been unthinkable in 2005. But as the Tories have abandoned their right of centre policy position, Brown has seized his chance to appeal to the ‘nation’ on an issue that clearly resonates with the public. People are largely fed up with the unsustainable levels of mass immigration introduced in 1997.
The Tories now seem to have woken up to the Brown strategy. They want their political clothes back, even if it means ditching some of the modernizing strategy lauded by Cameron and Willetts. But the Tories can only sound convincing if they offer a robust alternative to the government’s moribund policies. If they don’t, Warsi and her followers will be arguing for nothing.
top