Diary

America's self inflicted wound

30 September, 2007

There are times when America’s self inflicted wounds can appear truly bizarre. The invitation extended to President Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia University last week is a case in point. No matter how the University authorities try to construe it, this has to be seen as a PR disaster of the highest magnitude.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.’ He went on: ‘We trust our community, including our students, to be fully capable of dealing with these occasions, through the powers of dialogue and reason…It should never be thought that merely to listen to ideas we deplore in any way implies our endorsement of those ideas, or the weakness of our resolve to resist those ideas or our naiveté about the very real dangers inherent in such ideas. It is a critical premise of freedom of speech that we do not honour the dishonorable when we open the public forum to their voices.’

Well quite. From the US point of view, this is all about the absolute sanctity of freedom of speech as guaranteed under the First Amendment to the Constitution. Perhaps that was why President Bush said that the invitation spoke volumes about the greatness of America. ‘We're confident enough to let a person express his views,’ he said, adding ‘I just really hope he tells everybody the truth.’

Well that is the problem. Ahmadinejad was not about to incriminate himself by exposing his odious beliefs, and miss a great PR opportunity. His answers to questions on the Holocaust, Israel, homosexuality and nuclear weapons were couched in euphemisms and half answers. Thus instead of repeating his assertion that the Holocaust was 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 was equally evasive on the issue of Iran’s nuclear weapons programme, though he asked why Iran could not have weapons when the US had them. He then denied that Iranian homosexuals had been persecuted or executed, claming that homosexuals did not exist in his country. Iranian women were apparently among the freest in the world while his press, state run and tightly censored, was a thing to be extolled.

This was not an opportunity to confront odious beliefs but a classic exercise in denial and misinformation. This was Ahmadinejad’s chance to exploit the weaknesses at the heart of Liberal America and earnestly proclaim Iran’s good intentions before a listening public.

But then this is something dictators always like to do. They dangle before our eyes the prospect of their future reasonableness provided that we make some concession of their choice. After his conquest of the Rhineland in 1936, Hitler promised his enemies a long term peace treaty during which there would be no further conquests. Bin Laden promised to end his war with the US on condition that America embraced Islam. Ahmadinejad is no stranger to this manipulative tactic. In his speech he declared: "If the U.S. government recognizes the rights of the Iranian people, respects all nations and extends a hand of friendship with all Iranians, they, too, will see that Iranians will be one of its best friends.” Do you suspect that among these rights are joining the nuclear club and dominating southern Iraq?

In short nothing was gained for the US or for Columbia University in giving this crazed fanatic airtime for his views. Americans learnt nothing from this self indulgent exercise except how they can be played for suckers by despotic regimes. But then it takes a special type of liberal to see that.

top

Don’t buy the Brown spin

27 September, 2007

Abraham Lincoln was often fond of saying that he destroyed his enemies by making them his friends. That sentiment sprang to mind when I heard Gordon Brown’s election pitch on Tuesday afternoon at the Labour Party Conference. The Prime Minister’s speech seemed to be pitched at the Tory heartland, and certainly those parts that were disillusioned with David Cameron. Britishness and British ‘values’ were mentioned over 70 times in order to reinforce Brown’s national and patriotic credentials. David Cameron and the opposition did not merit a single mention. Then there was the conspicuous blue backdrop and the prominence given to the star Tory defector, Quentin Davies. He was wheeled out to remind people that you can’t purchase political conviction and that Gordon, unlike Dave, has it in bundles. Brown was teasing with conservative voters, offering them his new found ‘politics of consensus’. But there was no magnanimity here.

For the new Prime Minister is as divisive a politician as they come. A decade of civil war at the heart of New Labour is one of his worst legacies as Chancellor, consensus merely a stunt to neutralise a divided opposition. It is merely the polite man’s method for ‘grinding the bastards into the dust’. And for those who remain unconvinced, think back to the cynical decision to invite Baroness Thatcher to Downing Street, ostensibly to remind people of Brown’s conviction politics but, in reality, to steal headlines away from the Conservatives when they unveiled their Quality of Life Report. The truth about Gordon’s democracy is that it is one where the very notion of an opposition party disappears from the map. And if you think the age of spin is over, you were just plain naïve.

It should be obvious by now that this consensual politics is as disastrous for democracy as the refusal to offer a referendum on the Constitution. But to blame Brown alone would miss the point for this is a game played by members of both main parties. Cameron has contributed to the current malaise by narrowing the content of political debate so as to avoid the tag of being ‘right wing.’ One of Cameron’s biggest mistakes has been to focus on image and personality, rather than steadiness of conviction. He is, after all, the self appointed heir to Blair and the inheritor of the ‘centre ground.’ But by adopting the meaningless mantras of Blairism (economic stability, aspiration for all, and personal choice) without saying how they would be put into reality, Cameron has failed to provide an alternative manifesto. He just sounds like another Blairite dressed up as a toff.

With such a sterile political battleground, the choice centres on personalities. Here the Tories have underestimated the ‘son of the manse’. While Brown lacks his predecessor’s effusive charm and showmanship, he has a sense of serious political intent that is hard to beat. One could almost say that his dour image is an asset after a decade of Blairism. Cameron cannot beat Brown on personality or slogans. Only a concrete alternative manifesto for Britain, delivered passionately, consistently and with genuine conviction, can hope to save the Tories from another election rout.

top

Opposing Mugabe

25 September, 2007

Gordon Brown’s threat to pull out of the EU-Africa summit in Portugal if Mugabe turns up doesn’t sound entirely convincing. Of course we are all familiar by now with how Mugabe’s tyrannical rule has created widespread misery and despair in Zimbabwe. Starvation is on the increase, water is running out in the poorest districts, unemployment is running at 80% and hyper inflation has ruined the economy. His is one of the most appalling regimes anywhere on earth.

But if Brown cares so much about this issue, why didn’t he follow John Howard’s lead and prevent our cricketers from playing in Zimbabwe? Why has he not ruled out going to the summit if Zimbabwe sends, not Mugabe, but a more junior official who supports the regime? Perhaps it is because of the lingering (but false) guilt over our colonial legacy that infects every section of our political class. If we criticise another African regime too strongly, it will resurrect memories of imperial rule, something anathema to the trendy lefties who run New Labour. It is far better, so the argument goes, for Africans to suffer at the hands of their own despotic rulers that risk being accused of colonial intervention.

Yet under Britain’s ‘despotic’ minority rule, Zimbabwe had a flourishing economy and was sending food to its neighbours. Under its current rule, the country is on the verge of collapse and starvation. Simon Heffer powerfully argued the case for military intervention in Saturday’s Telegraph. It is doubtful, however, that Britain’s forces, dangerously overstretched as they are, would be able to make a meaningful contribution.

The onus is on Zimbabwe’s neighbours, most notably South Africa, to liberate the oppressed. But expecting Mbeki to even criticise Mugabe is about as naïve as hoping for a recovery at Northern Rock. As long as Mugabe postures against the evils of his former ‘oppressors’ he will gain enormous sympathy from his fellow leaders. But the belief that it is less unacceptable for blacks to oppress blacks is nothing but a form of inverse racism.

top

Islamic Extremism in the UK is alive and well (Pt. II)

21 September, 2007

According to a recent report (7th September) in the Sunday Times, ‘almost half of Britain’s mosques are under the control of a hardline Islamic sect whose leading preacher loathes Western values and has called on Muslims to “shed blood” for Allah…’ The preacher in question is Riyadh ul Haq, who ‘supports armed jihad and preaches contempt for Jews, Christians and Hindus…’ The sect in question is the Deobandi, an ultra conservative group that has been blamed for spreading radical Islam in Britain and sponsoring the Taleban.

This report is deeply alarming because of the figures involved. The Deobandis now run ‘more than 600 of Britain’s 1,350 mosques’ and nearly two thirds of Britain’s 26 Islamic seminaries, which produce four fifths of home trained Muslim clerics. The report continues: ‘Figures supplied to The Times by the Lancashire Council of Mosques reveal that 59 of the 75 mosques in five towns – Blackburn, Bolton, Preston, Oldham and Burnley – are Deobandi-run.’ Many Deobandis are associated with the Muslim Council of Britain which has been much feted by the government over recent years.

Analyses of seminars delivered by Mr ul Huq and fellow Deobandis reveal a hatred of activities such as art, television and music and contempt for non Muslims or ‘kuffars’. According to the military intelligence site, globalsecurity.org: ‘The Indian Deobandi school argues that the reason Islamic societies have fallen behind the West in all spheres of endeavour is because they have been seduced by the amoral and material accoutrements of Westernization, and have deviated from the original pristine teachings of the Prophet.’ It follows that the Deobandis reject any notion of inter faith dialogue. In one of his sermons on ‘Jewish Fundamentalism and the Muslims’ Mr ul Huq has the following to say:

‘Can these people (Jews) be trusted with Masjid al-Aqsa, can these people be trusted to honour any agreement that they may sign? Allah knows best. May Allah expose the Yahoud (the Jews) for what they truly are. May Allah give all Muslims, individuals and leaders, especially, and our governments, the understanding and the sense to see through their propaganda, their lies and deceit and to view them as they really are and thus treat them accordingly.’ (For the full lecture see http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2402173.ece?token=null&offset=48)

He has similar derogatory comments to make about the other unbelievers he dislikes, such as Hindus.

Government apparatchiks claim they are being tough on terror and the causes of terror, even if the word ‘terror’ is now banned from New Labour discourse. But their apparently robust approach is qualified by saying that terrorists (who are never ‘Muslims’) form a tiny, fringe brigade whose ideology is unIslamic. Ministers are failing to clarify the crucial link between ‘religious’ extremism and terrorist ideology, between the attitudes fostered in Britain’s mainstream mosques and the subsequent terrorist outrages. This is because the government refuses to discern an ideological problem in the first place. Political correctness forces them to view every religion as equal, to view Islam as a religion of peace whose teachings have been highjacked by ‘criminals.’

But every religion’s texts offer ground for intellectual dispute and diverse interpretations. Religious verses are often so vague that they become open to multiple analyses. The Reformation tamed the Judaeo-Christian tradition so that the more violent elements of Leviticus were not seen as having a literal application. In Islam, where there is no central religious authority, there is a contest of wills between Islamists, who interpret the most violent verses of the Koran in a literal fashion, and more moderate ideologues. Radical Islamists are gaining the ascendancy in many countries with their viewpoints becoming more mainstream, even if their adherents form an overall minority worldwide.

In Britain we now have abundant evidence of how Islamic radicalism has spread beyond the fringe to infect large parts of the mainstream community. Excellent under cover documentaries such as the revealing Channel 4 investigation into radicalism in Britain’s mosques, show how foreign (mainly Saudi) preachers sow hatred and bigotry among their congregations and provide textual justification for jihadist violence. Libraries in parts of London appear to be stocking up on Islamist literature at the expense of more peaceful authors.

Opinion polls since 9/11 suggest that a sizeable Muslim minority in Britain either supports terror attacks or makes excuses for them. Certainly, the vast majority do not support the global terror campaign of Al Qaeda and no one should suggest otherwise in the absence of supportive evidence. But Islamic groups urgently need to uproot those who preach sedition and hostility to the West. However, if the Times report is true, there are sections of the Muslim 'establishment' in Britain that are themselves suspect.

Gordon Brown insists that mosques employ home grown imams who speak English. This is an ineffectual and lily livered response. Mr ul Huq speaks English while his puritanical ideology is a ‘home grown’ adaptation of foreign jihadism.

In the Daily Telegraph yesterday, Winston Churchill Jr., grandson of the famous war time leader, asked: ‘When will the Government wake up to this mortal threat which – if not swiftly dealt with – threatens to bring strife and bloodshed to the streets of Britain on a scale far exceeding anything seen in the bombings of recent years?’ It is surely a pertinent question.

To read previous entries, click on 'diary' and select a month. A list of that month's entries will appear on the right hand side of the page. Alternatively you can type in a key word in the search box. The date for this current entry is shown as 21st September as there is no option to show 20th September.top

Taxing people out of the skies is not a vote winner

17 September, 2007

The debate on tackling climate change reminds me of the debate over disarmament in the 1930s. Throughout that decade, public opinion appeared to support 2 contradictory policy positions – Britain’s membership of the League of Nations and a commitment to military disarmament. But in order for the British government to contribute to the peace of the world through the League, some military force (or the threat of military force) was required which would be negated by severe and crippling disarmament. A bigger army meant higher defence expenditure which inevitably meant higher taxes. As long as people were in denial about the economic consequence, there was no problem in aspiring to the lofty ideals of the League of Nations. The same kind of cognitive dissonance is at work today. The same people who champion the ‘saving the planet’ agenda drive their gas guzzling cars and enjoy the cheap holidays available on the internet. The inconsistency and hypocrisy is glaring.

All of which is bad news for the Tories after their ‘Quality of Life’ report called for higher taxes on high polluting cars and flights. Among their proposals were a hike in taxes on the purchase of new cars, up to 10% for gas guzzling 4x4s; a road tax for the most polluting cars; VAT on domestic flights and no new runways at Gatwick or Stansted. There was even a jaw dropping proposal to implement compulsory car park charges on out of town supermarkets which, thankfully, the Conservatives appear likely to ditch.

But judging by the tone of ‘Osbornomics’, it is likely they will consider many of the other tax proposals in a final effort to capture the hearts and minds of the Liberal Democrats. There are several giant sized problems with all this. Firstly, it is another example of the democratic deficit. Political debate has now converged on a statist, centralized solution to tackling climate change with little to choose between the parties. The fact that a high tax, high regulatory approach sits uneasily with Cameron’s demand for ‘less government’, as well as the other proposals on economic competitiveness, has been curiously overlooked.

Secondly, any climate taxes are very likely to be non progressive, affecting those who can least afford them while failing to curb the activities of the well off. I need hardly add that the authors of this report fall into that latter category, fuelling the suspicions that they are a group of aloof plutocrats. Thirdly, the miniscule gains in CO2 reduction (if such are achieved) will be rather rapidly offset by higher carbon emissions in developing regions, such as in China and India. In the absence of a binding global agreement, this is surely inevitable. (See the blog entry for 14th March ‘An Inconvenient Truth’)

But the second argument is the crucial one. Cameron has assumed that as long as he converts Liberal voters (for whom green issues are fairly important) to his cause, then he could carry with him the bulk of his own supporters. Perhaps he is right and people are generally more willing to become principled consumers who sacrifice daily pleasures to save the planet. But if instead a mass of hard working people are completely disillusioned with big government’s rapacious appetite for tax and spend, the proposals will fall on deaf ears. With mortgage rates on the rise and with soaring household bills to contend with, the average floating voter might be tempted to avoid a party promising to tax them out of the skies and off the roads.

But there is an opportunity here for an opposition party. Climate change, if caused by man (which is yet to be established with 'complete' certainty), can surely be tackled more effectively by market driven solutions, technological development and scientific innovation. Innovation is the daughter of emergency and catastrophe and there is no reason to think that climate change will be different. Taxation is just not an attractive alternative.

Bigotry in ‘The New Statesman' (again)

13 September, 2007

In January 2002 the New Statesman published a leading article investigating the activities of Britain’s ‘Zionist lobby.’ Its now infamous front page showed a gold Star of David apparently piercing a Union Jack, raising the spectre of Jewish conspiratorial control of the British media. A month later the magazine’s editor apologized for the cover, admitting: ‘…it used images and words in such a way as to create unwittingly the impression that the New Statesman was following an anti-Semitic tradition that sees Jews as a conspiracy piercing the heart of the nation.’ It seems those in charge of the New Statesman have learnt nothing since 2002.

Yesterday, my attention was recently drawn to an online article in ‘The New Statesman’ titled ‘How each year scores of British teenagers go to the Middle East to learn about soldiering and defending Israel.’ (http://www.newstatesman.com/200709030003) In the article, author Matthew Holehouse draws an entirely odious comparison between British Jews travelling to Israel on gap year programmes and Palestinian adolescents training to be suicide bombers. The British Jews he is referring to take part in the ‘Gadna and Marva programmes’ run by the Israeli army which allow participants to experience life in the military. While participants are not trained to become soldiers, they learn a great deal about the country’s history and the army’s code of conduct, valuable tools for those wishing to defend Israel from overseas.

But this is not how Holehouse sees things. After surveying a variety of views from participants, he reaches this astonishing conclusion: ‘If these were British Muslim 19 year-olds firing machine guns and running assault courses in Pakistan or Yemen, would we not have them all arrested at the airport?’ Well unless British Jews were part of a global movement to bring down the West and forcibly implement a discriminatory form of Biblical law, then I would guess not. Let's look at the basic facts for a minute.

First of all, the youth are not being trained to become killers, nor do they join in the military campaigns of the army. Their Palestinian counterparts, by contrast, are deliberately educated in the art of mass murder by their Hamas sponsors. In any case, the IDF is a perfectly legal organization within a UN member state whereas Islamist groups (such as Hamas) are internationally proscribed. An obvious but important difference.

Secondly, even if British Jews were learning to fight in the IDF (with a view to future citizenship) they would hardly be a threat to ‘British interests.’ This can hardly be said for those British Muslims who have become willing recruits for the Taleban and their allies. The stated aim of those groups, after all, is to attack British soldiers who are viewed as heretics and infidels in Muslim lands. That is why radicalised Muslims who go abroad to fire machine guns get arrested (sometimes) whereas British Jews visiting Israel do not. There is also nothing to stop a British Muslim visiting an overseas country and becoming familiarised with its history and military ethos.

Thirdly, it is absurd to draw comparisons between Palestinian ‘summer schools’ and these Israeli programmes. Palestinian children as young as 4 are indoctrinated to loathe Jews (not Israelis) and are taught the supreme value of suicide as part of a glorified death cult. They are trained to deny the value of human life itself, including their own lives. Summer school ‘Hamas style’ is nothing but an organised hate fest built around racial hatred and a depraved form of religious extremism. It represents the most depraved form of child abuse imaginable.

The participants taking part in the Gadna and Marva programmes, by their own admission, have not been brainwashed in such an insidious fashion. Indeed Holehouse quotes from 2 participants who reveal this very fact. One participant said: ‘There was a lot of debate about the IDF, and whilst obviously by going on Marva they implicitly endorsed the army, a lot of people said that they were torn about using guns and running about.’ Another said: ‘When discussing the Middle East they really do try to present both sides of the story and the overriding message is of striving for peace.’

But these sentiments have been curiously ignored by the author. Both sides, he declares, practise ‘indiscriminate attacks on civilians’ and it is not easy to decide which attacks are the more reprehensible. No, what is truly reprehensible is the warped moral thinking here. The IDF, like all civilised armies, has no interest in indiscriminate attacks which merely fuel anti Israeli headlines and heap opprobrium on the country. Its attacks are usually highly discriminate and targeted on enemy combatants, unlike suicide bombers who are genuinely indiscriminate in their choice of victims.

Holehouse stated in his article that sessions on ‘house to house searches’ and a recreation of a famous battle from the 6 Day War had been dropped by the IDF after the Second intifada. One participant put this down to ‘political correctness’ but if only Hamas and Islamic Jihad could show such restraint. Instead they revel in the death count from suicide attacks, as well as the money that pours in to bereaved families from Arab sympathisers. To compare the training programmes of the IDF and Hamas is breathtakingly ignorant and naïve. But to suggest there is any moral equivalence between British Jews going to Israel and British Muslims volunteering for the global jihad is the wrong side of perverse. It risks inflaming the very kind of community tensions and racial feuds that progressives ought to deprecate. But that is the big problem here. When it comes to discussions of Israel and the Middle East, progressives are rarely progressive.

top

Islamic extremism in the UK is alive and well

12 September, 2007

Three recent reports have highlighted the continuing threat from radical Islam in the UK. They appear to show that among large swathes of Britain’s mainstream Islamic community, extremist attitudes remain deep seated despite the government’s best efforts at engagement and appeasement.

First the Centre for Social Cohesion, led by the formidable Douglas Murray, has produced a report (available at www.socialcohesion.co.uk/pdf/HateOnTheState.pdf) which highlights how some British libraries are helping to encourage Islamic extremism and foment social division. The report, which focuses on the 8 libraries in Tower Hamlets, the London borough with the largest Muslim population, has found in those libraries ‘several hundred books by radical Islamists’ including supporters of groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood and Jamaat-e-Islami. There are also books by preachers, such as Abu Hamza, who have been convicted of incitement to murder. Numerous volumes by Islamist and Salafist philosophers, including works by Qutb, Wahhab and Mawdudi (the godfathers of radical Islamic extremism), are easily accessible on library shelves. The authorities in Tower Hamlets have denied none of this.

For those who are not conversant with this literature, the books are suffused with a glorification of violent jihad and a hatred of unbelievers, including non Islamist Muslims. They also endorse ‘violence and discrimination against women’ (p. 3) and a loathing of Jews. Among the works on ‘prominent display’ are those by Hizb-ut-Tahrir, the extremist organization that advocates the replacement of Western societies with a global Islamic caliphate. The report’s authors stress that many of these books are ‘given special prominence in displays’ (p. 3) and that many collections are skewed in favour of extremists and at the expense of more moderate authors.

Thus while ‘…Tower Hamlets libraries stock around 80 copies of books and audiotapes by Bilal Philips, a Salafi preacher popular with UK extremists, they stock only two different books by Dr Jamal Badawi, a Canadian author well known for preaching against violence, intolerance and Islamic separatism…’ (p. 4) There are 11 copies of Qutb’s Milestones (the Bible for the jihadist movement) while a critical edition of this book is curiously absent. However, in some other libraries round the country, ‘searches of library catalogues reveal only scattered collections of fundamentalist texts.’ (p. 31)

To their credit, the authors do not demand censorship of these texts. In general, this is a correct decision for outright censorship would strike at the heart of a free and tolerant society. The point is that these libraries are clearly stocking a disproportionate volume of extremist material which does not reflect the differing traditions within Islam. The neutral reader, or potential convert to Islam, will therefore have a skewed understanding of Islam’s religious traditions and may conclude that violent jihad is his or her religious duty.

Yet the reactions from some of the ‘moderate’ Muslim camp have been rather revealing. Inayat Bunglawala of the Muslim Council of Britain defended the libraries by claiming that the authors were ‘widely read in the Muslim world’ and it was therefore unsurprising that these books were ‘stocked in areas with the highest concentration of Muslims.’ Really? Has he just admitted that extremist Islam, which promotes violence and terrorism, racism, sexism and homophobia, is widespread among Muslims rather than being found among only a ‘small minority’? He seems to have let a rather large cat out of the bag.

Then take the comments of Metropolitan Police Authority Member and Tower Hamlets Councillor Abdal Ullah. ‘We must be very wary of the agendas of people like Murray,’ he said, ‘who are determined to drive a wedge between communities.’ Mr. Ullah believes that those who advocate a hatred of unbelievers and the violent overthrow of Christian societies are not divisive; it is merely their detractors we should worry about. This is a classic example of victim mentality in which any attempt to reveal an extremist agenda is automatically seen as racist, divisive or Islamophobic. This man was part of the government taskforce for tackling extremism after 7th July.

Libraries are central to any civilised and literate community. If they are abused to fit in with extreme agendas, they will rapidly lose the public’s trust.

PT 2 to followtop

Where have the Tories gone wrong?

10 September, 2007

How often are we told that the Tories can never hope to regain power except through their ‘modernizing strategy?’ It is a familiar mantra that the party has to position itself in the ‘centre ground’ of British politics in order to decontaminate the Tory brand and render it vaguely human again. Thus to win back ‘the hearts and minds’ of British voters the Tory leader has his own form of political ‘detox’. He has softened the party image with carefully orchestrated stunts (the Arctic exploration), a green agenda and a radical de-emphasis on prisons, immigration and Europe. If Blair’s priorities were ‘education, education, education’ Cameron’s would have to be ‘change, change, change.’

The modernizers’, however, have made at least three mistaken assumptions. The first is that the Tories have become unelectable because of their previous policy positions. In other words, their views on crime, asylum, Europe and tax have been unpalatable (except to their own hard core supporters) which is why they have lost 3 successive elections. Ipso facto, if they stop talking about these issues now, there won’t be a 4th defeat.

But this is the mother of all non sequiturs. Opinion polls from 2004 and 2005 consistently showed that the Tory policy positions on crime and immigration were more popular than those of the government. What turned them off was the knowledge that these were ‘Tory’ positions. In other words, there was something wrong with the personalities presenting the ideas, not the ideas themselves.

The problem with the Tory ‘personalities’ of the last decade is that they are still associated with the Major years. Back in the 1990s John Major became famous for his ‘back to basics’ campaign. We were exhorted to become moral just as government ministers paraded their sexual indiscretions. Sleaze became the watchword of Major’s government just as Black Wednesday shattered its reputation for economic competence. Trust in the Tory brand was in sharp decline even before the meltdown election of 1997.

New Labour emerged in the midst of this political shambles. Galvanized by successive defeats, the party embarked on a successful modernization strategy, ditching clause 4 and ending a commitment to economic socialism. But this was necessary because the old dogmas of nationalization and penal taxation were archaic in view of Thatcher’s economic reforms. It was Labour’s policy, as much as its personalities, that held the party back. The Tories have copied the modernization strategy but drawn some of the wrong lessons. The public have lost their trust in the party but have not lost trust in ‘conservatism.’

It helps that Cameron is not associated with the debacle of the 1990s, unlike Iain Duncan-Smith and Michael Howard. But his confusing signals to the public and his mixed messages on crime, education and the public sector have left many wondering where he stands on the core issues of the day. His strategy smacks of opportunism and insincerity; a politician willing to say anything to win power, rather than someone taking a principled and courageous stance on political issues. It is no way to regain trust.

When the Tories talk about capturing the hallowed ‘centre ground’ they make their second mistake. For the centre ground of politics is never static but shifts from one moment to the next. Thus while it may have been unfashionably right wing to call for an end to multiculturalism in the 80s, it seems more like common sense today. While it was acceptable (and presumably centrist) to complain of an immigrant ‘colour problem’ in the 1950s, this is rightly deemed unacceptable in the 21st century. But there is a mainstream fear of mass immigration that was less prevalent a decade ago. It is hardly right wing to call for tax cuts for hardworking families or more police to protect vulnerable communities. Presented humanely, consistently and sincerely, these core ideas would resonate with millions of floating voters.

Their third mistake is the assumption that in our age of spin, image triumphs over everything else. A great deal has been made of Cameron’s youth and vitality in contrast with Gordon Brown’s more boring ‘image’. Tory strategists must have hoped that once the dour Mr. Brown had replaced the charismatic Blair, Cameron’s lead in the polls would surge. In fact, the opposite has happened as Gordon Brown has enjoyed a longer than expected ‘bounce’ in the polls. Regardless of his politics, more people think he has solidity and strength of purpose than his opposite number. When he has talked about family and (recently) immigration, there were signs of a more robust course. But this must be backed up by a consistent strategy or collapse under the weight of contradiction.

The Tories were unelectable in 1997, 2001 and 2005. But by failing to learn the lessons of the past, they may soon have to add 2008 to that list.

top

This ‘politics of consensus’ is a horrible joke

4 September, 2007

Whenever politicians offer platitudes about ‘reconnecting to the people’ you should reach for the sick bag. It all sounds too hollow, vacuous and utterly insincere. Now Gordon Brown has promised a consensual style of politics which ‘embraces everyone in this nation, not just a select few.’ He wants a ‘politics of consensus, not division, a politics built on engaging with people, not excluding them…’ To this end he has brought in Tory backbenchers like Patrick Mercer and John Bercow to act as ‘advisors’ on national security and children’s issues. But far from being the promised new world of British politics, it is a cynical attempt to crush debate, silence the opposition and devalue the very notion of democracy.

Gordon Brown is not stupid. He knows his majority is small and could dwindle dangerously after another general election. The Conservatives are anxious to capture the hallowed centre ground and present themselves as the real centrist force in British politics. Brown wants cross party consensus because it is the best way to deflate Tory ambitions and neuter their threat to his own party. Cross party consensus is shorthand for stifling debate and bolstering the New Labour project while further undermining a faltering opposition. In short Brown’s cynical tactics will entrench the New Labour project for years to come.

We are often told that consensus is the way forward as political choices are no longer necessary. But on the great questions of domestic politics, such as taxation, the management of public services and the welfare state, a vigorous and sustained debate is urgently needed. While Labour is committed to crippling taxation, an ever expanding public sector and welfare dependency, the opposition could be arguing for a smaller state, lower taxes and radical welfare reform. While Labour is committed to the comprehensive system and the micromanagement of health, the Tories could be offering school and hospital vouchers and a massive decentralization of public services. The ‘equality, cultural diversity and inclusion managers,’ championed by Labourmeisters could be consigned to the dustbin under a Tory administration. And so on.

The Tories then should be slamming this new ‘consensual fist’ into oblivion. Certainly on crime, immigration and Europe, there exists a natural chasm between the parties. But on the vital question of finances and the economy, a chasm has been replaced by an unhealthy obsession with maintaining the status quo. Yesterday, George Osborne announced that for the first 3 years of a Tory administration, his party would match the government’s spending predictions. There would be no real tax reduction or scaling down of the burgeoining public sector. Instead the familiar mantras of Osborne-ism were repeated - the need to ‘share the proceeds of growth and safeguard ‘stability’. This is Brownite territory and Brownite language – and the sad fact is that the Labour leader does it better (spins it better?) than the Tories.

The evidence suggests that when political choices are minimized and distinctions between parties blurred, voter apathy increases. If floating voters think the opposition will be little different from the governing party, why should they bother to go out and vote? When Sarcozy and Royal went head to head in France, they offered widely differing visions of the relationship between the citizen and the state. The result was a massive voter turnout. In the 1980s the battle of ideas between a renascent Thatcherite capitalism and old style Labour socialism created a fierce ideological battleground that animated the voting public. The lack of an ideological battleground from the 1990s onwards has seen a fall in voter turnout.

Now there is certainly room for a cross partisan approach to political debate. On issues of great national concern, whether they be international terrorism, national security and the Constitution, there is a case for bringing in a wide range of views from across the political spectrum. Two world wars, after all, saw two successful coalition governments in Britain. But to respond to most of today’s complex challenges, there is a vital need for fresh thinking and real choices. This is no time for an outbreak of consensus politics.

top

This ‘consensual politics’ is a horrible joke

04 September, 2007

The Tories then should be slamming this new ‘consensual fist’ into oblivion. Certainly on crime, immigration and Europe, there exists a natural chasm between the parties. But on the vital question of finances and the economy, a chasm has been swallowed up by an unhealthy obsession with the status quo. Sadly, at least on the economic issues, the status quo reigns supreme. Yesterday, George Osborne announced that for the first 3 years of a Tory administration, his party would match the government’s spending predictions. There would be no real tax reduction or massive reduction in the size of the public sector. Instead the familiar mantras of Osborne-ism were repeated - the need to ‘share the proceeds of growth and safeguard ‘stability’. This is Brownite territory and Brownite language – and the sad fact is that the Labour leader does it better (spins it better?) than the Tories.

The evidence suggests that when political choices are minimized and distinctions between parties blurred, voter apathy increases. If floating voters think the opposition will be little different from the governing party, why should they other to go out and vote? When Sarcozy and Royal went head to head in France, they offered widely differing visions of the relationship between the citizen and the state. The result was a massive voter turnout. In the 1980s the battle of ideas between a renascent Thatcherite capitalism and old style Labour socialism created a fierce ideological battleground that animated the voting public. The lack of an ideological battleground from the 1990s onwards has seen a fall in voter turnout.

Now there is certainly room for a cross partisan approach to political debate. On issues of great national concern, whether they are international terrorism, national security and the Constitution, there is a case for bringing in a wide range of views from across the political spectrum. Two world wars, after all, saw two successful coalition governments in Britain. But to meet most of today’s complex challenges, there is a vital need for fresh thinking and real choices. This is no time for an outbreak of consensus politics.

top

The Tories must make immigration a major issue

2 September, 2007

In his interview on Panorama last Wednesday, David Cameron proposed a tough Tory approach to immigration. While welcoming the principle of immigration and extolling some of its social benefits, he slammed the policy of mass immigration and promised that a future Tory government would impose controls on future arrivals. The numbers of those here were ‘too high.’ He was right to make immigration a major concern. For over the last decade the government has lost control of our borders and allowed an unprecedented expansion of population with little thought for the consequences.

The figures on immigration since the mid 1990s tell their own story. Since 1997 the UK has witnessed a ‘net’ increase in population of nearly 2 million, almost entirely due to immigration. This figure does not include illegal immigrants, who are thought to number at least half a million, and that figure may be much higher. According to one estimate, if numbers increase at the same rate, the UK population will have expanded by 6 million within 25 years, requiring (on the government’s own calculations) 200 homes to be built every day for 20 years. This is an unsustainable rate of demographic growth for a small and densely populated island. Any massive increase in population places huge pressure on public services, such as education, the NHS and transport, and intolerable strain on the housing market.

To cover over their political failure, the government has resorted to spin. For over a decade government ministers have been banging on about the economic benefits of mass immigration. This is doubtful terrain but let us assume the best case scenario, that immigration as a whole has boosted the UK’s GDP per capita (rather than just GDP). What the figures do not show is that only certain classes of immigrants boost economic growth - largely those from Western Europe, the USA and Japan while those from lower income regions (mainly in the Third World) typically do not. Immigrants in the first category are generally well educated and skilled and therefore choose higher skilled, better paid and more specialized professions. Many in the second group are less educated and lower skilled, and therefore suffer higher rates of unemployment. This is particularly true of the Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities.

Too often the arguments for immigration assume that we are in a win win situation. But again this is a fallacy. While the economy has benefited from the entrepreneurial and intellectual talents of many immigrants, those who are lower skilled only reduce the wages and job opportunities of low skilled workers from the indigenous community. Lower skilled Britons are therefore losers in every sense from this form of immigration. For them, it is not a free lunch.

None of this would matter so much if it were not for the mass army of unemployed in Britain. One recent figure put the number of ‘economically inactive’ British citizens at one in four of the population. If a fraction of this number were properly trained to do lower skilled jobs, they would help reduce the current dependence on foreign workers. By relying instead on immigration to fill these vacancies, the government has failed to alleviate the burden of unemployment, with consequent demands on the welfare state, or address the question of lower wages.

Then there is the question of social cohesion and integration. This was scarcely a problem for first generation immigrants who readily embraced British culture and adopted the legal and ethical norms of British society. But among their progeny, particularly in the Muslim community, there has been a refusal among ‘some’ to integrate in the same way. Spurred on by the prevailing doctrine of multiculturalism, which denies that a core national identity can ever be valid, these disaffected individuals have embraced some form of ethnic and religious fundamentalism with harmful consequences for the rest of us.

Of course we should not automatically extol a completely homogenous society. Our society has been enriched by the cultural diversity brought by immigrants over many centuries, and the spirit of tolerance with which they have been accepted. But social resentment will inevitably be fostered by the creation of ethnic ghettos in our towns and cities. Cultural diversity is acceptable within limits.

Immigration is still the issue that dare not speak its name. Between them, the politically correct intelligentsia and the race relations industry have tried to silence critics of immigration by labeling them as xenophobes and racists. Of course there are xenophobes and racists who exploit tensions over immigration to stir the most odious forms of hatred. But by silencing genuine concerns over immigration, these modern day 'liberal' MacCarthyites play into the hands of extremists who present themselves as martyrs for free speech. The McCarthyites must not be allowed to win, nor should Cameron’s Tories be steered off the more robust course they are apparently charting. Without free speech and informed discussion, our society will die.

top