Diary
As America recovers, Brown's reputation slides
30 October, 2009
Yesterday came the news that the United States was officially out of recession. After an unprecedented fiscal package, including the underwriting of the ‘cars for clunkers’ scheme, and significant dollar devaluation, the world’s leading economy appears to have finally turned the corner. This will naturally come as a huge relief to the Obama administration which has staked its reputation on engineering an economic recovery. It is also great news for the rest of the world as the USA remains the motor of economic growth and its fortunes are inextricably linked to those of the wider world. As they say, when America sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold. If recovery is sustained, it is surely good news for us all.
But it also makes an utter nonsense of Gordon Brown’s claims to economic credibility. Last year he claimed repeatedly that Britain was best placed to weather the storm of recession; that it would help to lead other nations out of their financial travails. Brown strutted the world stage like an imperial messiah, promising that his economic ‘good news’ could save mankind. Now what do we see? As we near the end of 2009, Britain, almost alone among the world’s leading economies, remains mired in recession, despite the government’s vast package of taxpayer funded measures. So much for Britain ‘leading the world’ into recovery! So much for ‘no return to boom and bust’! So much for the poetic phrases from the Brown lexicon which now come back to haunt him with a vengeance.
topMass immigration and the plot to change Britain
29 October, 2009
Perhaps the most execrable sight on last week’s Question Time was the ghastly sight of the BNP leader grinning while being confronted about his racist past. The political class were united in their hatred of the man and all he stood for, a view shared by the metropolitan audience assembled for the day.
But awful though he was, it was obvious how much the BNP had been boosted by the lamentable failures of government policy. For a decade or more, unlimited immigration, multiculturalism and overall nation trashing has been a godsend to the far right, creating a sense of grievance that extremists have exploited to maximum effect. Now they have another grievance which is sure to send far right pulses racing.
Last weekend, Andrew Neather, a former speechwriter for some New Labour ministers, revealed the real reasons behind the policy of mass immigration this decade. Taken at face value, they prove that this government carried out the most far reaching and destructive act of social engineering in our modern history.
Back in 2000, Neather wrote a landmark speech given by immigration minister, Barbara Roche, in which the shift towards mass immigration was publicly announced. But an underlying motivation of this policy, according to Neather, was ‘to make the UK truly multicultural’ and to ‘rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.’ He was in a position to know, having seen earlier drafts of a report into mass immigration that preceded Roche’s speech.
What Neather is saying is that ministers wanted to transform the social map of Britain, entrenching a doctrine of multiculturalism and humiliating Britain’s right-wing in the process. It is hard to imagine a more spiteful way to do politics even by the low standards set by New Labour.
He adds that there was a ‘reluctance elsewhere in government to discuss what increased immigration would mean, above all for Labour's core white working-class vote.’ It is hardly surprising to hear this. Ministers know now, as they knew then, that wages and job opportunities are always depressed with every new influx of low skilled workers.
But instead of deriding this cynical abuse of power, Neather is gleeful. In a variant of the ‘they take the jobs we won’t do’ he argues that we have all benefited from the legions of au pairs, cleaners and nannies that have flocked from across the world. And he calls for politicians like Frank Field, who call for limits on immigration, to stop whingeing.
He says this despite knowing that the House of Lords economic committee showed that there were few, if any, economic benefits from mass migration. This despite the fact that Britain has become the second most overcrowded country in Europe, that its hospitals and schools in the South East are often at breaking point and that support for further immigration is at an all time low. And yes, despite the fact that the odious BNP has made an electoral breakthrough in European elections.
Yet as Melanie Phillips points out on her own blog, the most disturbing feature of this episode is how little the opposition has been making of all this. David Cameron failed to mention this report at Prime Minister’s Questions and no opposition attack worthy of the name has been mounted on government ministers.
The Tories are still petrified of being tagged ‘the nasty party’ and thus prefer the very conspiracy of silence that has dogged this debate from the outset. The only winners here are the BNP who will naturally exploit this issue for all it is worth. They will point to an official policy of encouraging diversity and multiculturalism while attacking the deafening silence from the opposition. The next time you see Mr. Griffin grinning on Question Time, you’ll know why.
topA state beyond the pale
23 October, 2009
As I am on holiday, there will be no posts until Wednesday of this week.
On Wednesday evening, I attended a talk given by Robin Shepherd, one of the directors of the US based Henry Jackson Society. He was speaking about his new book 'A State beyond the pale: Europe's problem with Israel.' Shepherd was brilliantly analytical and incisive in argument, showing how hostility to Israel, while largely driven by the hard left, was now seeping into the organs of mainstream opinion like a virus. He argued that Europe's opinion forming classes and intelligentsia had adopted a visceral anti Israeli attitude which made rational debate in this area all but impossible.
What Shepherd dissected with almost forensic skill were the reasons for this intolerable hostility. Without discounting the role of anti semitism, Shepherd believed that Europe had been gripped by a civilizational discontent in which its opinion forming classes were reluctant to defend core values of Western democracy and nationalism. They were gripped by a series of pathologies and historical traumas: a dislike of traditional capitalism, an antipathy to the assertion of national power, an opposition to colonialism and a belief in Third Worldism whereby struggling 'rebels' were held to a different standard when compared to powerful 'White' nations. Old style anti semitism was not the sole or even main reason for today's pathological opposition to Israel. His book is a compelling read - I recommend to all.
topExposing BNP bigotry
19 October, 2009
Last night I attended an event at SOAS which dealt with the rise of the BNP and the reasons for its recent political breakthrough. One of the speakers was Ed Hussain, a former Islamist and current director of the Quilliam Foundation. The broad thrust of his argument was persuasive, namely that we could not afford to close down debate with the BNP, silence them or pretend that their supporters were unreconstructed racists. Instead we had to explain why disaffected sections of the white working class in Northern areas of England were being enticed by this openly fascist organisation.
He pointed to the existence of 'no go areas' in certain Northern cities, areas where Muslims were failing to integrate and where non Muslims were treated with hostility. In these hotspots, extremism and radical ideas were flourishing with vigour, driving white youth into the hands of canny politicians with the ability to exploit grievances. In other words, the failures of multiculturalism (though he didn't identify the word) were in part to blame for the BNP's recent electoral triumph. Hussein's argument, coming from a non Muslim, would be dismissed as racist scaremongering. But his argument resonates with people across the country.
It is within this context that we must think about the forthcoming appearance on Question Time of BNP leader, Nick Griffin. Griffin’s appearance seems justified, given that his party made a breakthrough in the European elections. But is also a priceless opportunity for him to gain publicity and show himself as the ‘martyr’ of British politics.
Sadly the political class are likely to facilitate this as the party candidates facing up to Griffin are Sayeeda Warsi, Jack Straw and Chris Huhne. In other words, a group of politicians who broadly share the consensus in favour of mass immigration, multiculturalism and European integration, with all the baleful consequences that have flowed from these policies. But these are precisely the issues which the BNP has exploited so successfully in recent years. Griffin can therefore position himself as the arch critic of policies which have alienated a broad mass of British voters.
Of course, the BNP reeks of bigotry and racism. It is a White supremacist organisation, led by a Holocaust denier, while its positions on immigration and race are well known. But if Griffin is merely accused of being a racial bigot on Thursday night, he will gain a priceless victory. What his critics must do is sympathise with the underlying grievances that ignite support for the BNP while exposing the additional bigotry at its core. If critics of the far right do this convincingly, they will expose the BNP agenda clearly and the party will start to wither and die.
Update: For the most part, Nick Griffin was exposed as a ranting and deluded bigot, a slippery and evasive politician prepared to say almost anything to avoid bad publicity. To this extent, his co-panelists made mincemeat of the BNP leader. But the best question of the night came from a man who asked whether the BNP's electoral breakthrough came about as a result of the government's disastrous policy on immigration. This was so obviously true that it was painful to watch Jack Straw offering his own slippery defence of New Labour's record since 1997. For as I argued above, it is the sham policies on immigration, asylum and multiculturalism that have attracted people to the BNP and without a substantial change in policy, little will change.
top2 cheers for free speech
17 October, 2009
When you experience the harsh climate of censorship and intimidation on issues of race and religious extremism, it is easy to overlook freedom’s occasional triumphs. This week two episodes have shown that, despite their best efforts, the left lobby have failed to stifle debate on contentious matters.
First was the decision by the Asylum and Immigration tribunal to overturn the ban on Geert Wilders visiting the UK. As I argued in an earlier post, Wilders’ views are hardly balanced or nuanced when it comes to Islam. His short film Fitna is a graphic portrayal of the evils of radical Islam, suffused with quotes from the Koran that talk of killing the unbelievers, Jews and other ‘apostates.’ Yet Wilders gives the impression that he is attacking Islam, rather than a militant interpretation of the faith, which somewhat undermines his argument.
Yet while he may not be a model of community cohesion, it was patently absurd to exclude him from the UK on the grounds that his presence was not conducive to the public good. Showing his film to the honourable members of the Lords was hardly a form of incitement. Yet Ms. Smith kowtowed to the demands of Muslim peers like Lord Ahmed and saw Wilders barred for no good reason. As the maverick Dutchman touches down in London today, he will be the first to acknowledge that the reversal of this ban is long overdue.
Equally welcome is Channel 4’s announcement of a new series which aims to break the taboo linking race with intelligence. The series, Race and Intelligence: Science’s last taboo, to be aired in a fortnight, will examine claims by some reputable scientists that brain power is linked to one’s race. These scientists will argue that among the most intelligent people in the world are Asians from parts of Japan and Korea while Australian Aborigines have the lowest average IQ. Channel 4 bosses have indicated that these issues will be challenged.
Now of course these claims may all be misguided tosh. There are question marks over the whole concept of race and whether different groups of humans, merely in virtue of their different physical characteristics, can be thought of as distinct races. But if it is unscientific nonsense, let it be exposed as such. When the esteemed James Watson planned to address this very question at the Imperial Science Museum, he was banned from speaking and sent packing to the USA.
It is good that both Channel 4 and the Asylum and Immigration tribunal have stood up for freedom and opposed censorship.
topExpenses: MPs still don't get it
14 October, 2009
Have our MPs learnt nothing from the expenses scandal? Judging by the intemperate comments being made from all sides of the House of Commons, it would appear not.
Members by the dozen appear incensed by the findings of Sir Thomas Legg, the man who carried out a painstaking investigation into their abuse of parliamentary expenses. Many are now threatening to defy their party leaders by refusing to make the payments Legg has demanded.
All this demonstrates is the same outrageous arrogance that characterised the scandal in the first place. MPs were using the expenses system, not to gain recompense for genuine political costs, but as a means to augment their salaries. They made claims for the most dubious items that had merely spurious links (or no link at all) to their actual jobs. Hence the claims for expensive bookcases, duck ponds, camellia and moat houses which will live long in the memory.
Some, like the esteemed Jacqui Smith, were abusing the second home allowance, designating their main property as a second home in order to claim thousands in mortgage relief. Smith herself pocketed over £100,000 of taxpayers’ money this way yet the Commons standards and privileges Committee has not asked her to cough up one penny. Some would call this chutzpah. I call it legalised theft.
The claim that it is unfair to set retrospective limits on expenses rather misses the point. The system as it was compromised, and as it was agreed by MPs, was wrong in the first place. The MPs version of the Nuremburg defence (I was only following the rules) was thus irrelevant.
They should have seen that they were exploiting the taxpayer to feather their own nests and behaving in a manner that was both dishonourable and potential criminal. It was the morality, stupid. Those members who have attacked the soundness of Legg’s reasoning are conveniently overlooking their own wrongdoing. They need an irony transplant.
Perhaps our politicians assume that the electorate have short memories. Given the depth of this scandal and the contemptuous response of many at Westminster, they may be in for a shock next summer.
topThe not very ‘noble’ prize for peace
09 October, 2009
Given the absurd euphoria that accompanied President Obama’s inauguration, it is hardly surprising that he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. But by conferring this prize on him, the soft headed Noble committee have reduced themselves to players in a farce. They have turned the peace prize into a comedy prize.
Of course, even Obama’s most ardent fans can see this. The deadline for submissions this year was February 2009, barely a fortnight after Obama was sworn in as President. In other words, he was awarded the most prestigious prize in international statesmanship for doing, er, precisely nothing. That’s right. He had then, as he has now, no specific foreign policy success to talk of. No wonder one of the President’s aides is reputed to have asked whether it was April 1st!
But Obama did achieve something in his first two weeks – he offered the right kind of rhetoric. He promised a world free of nuclear weapons. He committed his administration to unconditional talks with America’s enemies, including those who would naturally demand American self flagellation prior to making concessions. He also subscribed to the left wing idiocy which views the United Nations as a positive force in the world.
In other words, he offered a humbling apology for the Bush era and the idea that America could exert its military power without the stultifying encumbrance of international law. Obama is not Bush – and that matters to the appeasement hungry peacenik brigade in Scandavania.
But don’t be surprised by any of this risible nonsense. In 1993 that arch terrorist godfather (sorry, far-seeing prophet of peace) Yasser Arafat was another recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize after his efforts to dupe the West (sorry, advance the peace process). And that award worked out well, didn’t it?
topSome doubts remain – but finally Cameron offers a coherent message for transforming Britain
9 October, 2009
Since 2005, David Cameron’s leadership style has raised doubts among Tory supporters. His belief in ‘compassionate Consevatism’ alarmed traditionalists (like myself) who feared that he was just another slick politician seeking to be all things to all people; a true blue Blair in other words.
Hugging hoodies was at odds with the reality of violent crime. The mantra of ‘sharing the proceeds of growth’ was economic nonsense from a party that was associated with a low tax philosophy. Some of Cameron’s language on education and the NHS could have come straight from the gurus running New Labour. Even their logo, a silly piece of childish scrawl, reflected the obsessive dumbing down of the Blair years.
So obsessed were the Tories with ditching the image of the nasty party that they drew the wrong message about why the electorate had deserted them. It was not because the public disliked tough messages on crime, immigration and health; the evidence suggests they had public support for their positions. They were deserted, in part for their narrow focus on a right wing agenda, but also because of their toxic association with the Major years. That association has now been shut down. They have earned the right to be heard.
Yesterday, Cameron did much to allay any lingering doubts about the party’s overall direction. In a nutshell, he put his finger on the basic problem of British politics; that government was too big, that there had to be less political interference with public services, that individuals had to take more responsibility for themselves and that for every political difficulty, the state was not the panacea.
This is a philosophically crucial point, and one which is fundamentally Conservative. It is about allowing power to return to the grass roots where possible, about empowering and trusting citizens rather than Whitehall bureaucrats. It is also the polar opposite of Brownian economics (and politics) where there is an overriding belief that the state must always be relied on to solve every problem. Brown is a micromanager who cannot rest content until he can announce some new initiative to ‘help’ the British people. (This is a basic problem of any government that wants to be seen as active, as doing something.)
The new Conservative message looks something like this. Schools need to be made as independent as possible from LEAs, using a voucher system where possible. Police targets and paperwork need to be reduced (i.e. less central interference) so that they can be more responsive to the people they serve.
The culture of welfare dependency which traps people in poverty and worklessness cannot continue. Poverty needs to be tackled by voluntary agencies and private business rather than the state. The obsessive interference with ordinary lives, encapsulated by the refusal to allow two police officers to look after their own children, needs to be ended.
Big questions remain about whether Cameron is as radical as people think. Will a Conservative government have the courage to cut the public sector rather than just freeze pay? Will David Cameron have the guts to take on the unions over the much needed public sector reforms he knows are needed? Indeed, will he ever reduce the tax burden that has stealthily increased over the last decade to the detriment of families up and down the land? On this last question, the failure to reverse the 50p tax rate counts as a disappointment.
Only time will tell us how radical Cameron really is. But at least we now have a coherent and credible Tory message about how Britain might be transformed after the era of New Labour. If he can deliver, he will have justified our support.
topThis is not a subject for comedy
7 October, 2009
The following is a guest blog from Richard Millett. Richard has written a review of a play by Ivor Dembina, 'This is not a subject for comedy.' (Phoenix Artist Club, 1 Phoenix Street WC2H. Tottenham Court Road Tube.
Ivor Dembina implores you to pay at the end what you think his show is worth. It is free to get in, gentiles half price, but you have to pay to get out. Dembina is funny and comes out with Jewish jokes that his audience laps up. The centre of his Jewish world is Hendon having explained that his parents were refugees…from south London. His mother used to own a bakery. When a Sunday morning customer squeezes a loaf worrying out loud that it was baked yesterday she replied that being Jewish they don’t bake on Saturday. The customer paid for the bread, which had been baked instead on Friday.
Dembina describes the family experiences growing up in Hendon that infuse his political evolution from ardent Socialist Zionist to Socialist defender of Palestinian rights. His Zionism unravels as he notices growing racism within his family. This really hits home to him when Yasser Arafat appears on television and his family shout “Nazi” while one relative states all Arabs are Nazis. However, he did nothing about it for twenty years when finally he sees a documentary about the Sabra and Shatila massacres. The documentary is the real turning point in Dembina’s life. He explains that his original Zionist ardour was based on the belief that the world stood by as Jews were massacred and so the Jews must look out for only themselves. But with the knowledge now that two thousand Palestinian refugees were murdered while the Israeli army stood by he goes to Jenin and ends up defending a Palestinian house from demolition by the Israeli Army in retribution for a massive suicide bombing in Tel Aviv.
For Dembina the creation of Israel was brought about purely as a result of the Holocaust. Although his proudest Zionist moment was the 1967 War his main realisation at the time was that the people Israel defeated were not those who pushed the Jews into the gas chambers. But, he explains, “a win is a win”. He argues with a relative living on the West Bank that the Bible meant for the Jews to settle in Hendon, not Hebron and that the West Bank is stolen land.
The sketch is interspersed with the hate mail received from someone calling himself Sword of Zion and who addresses each message “Dear Jewish Traitor”. The hate mail is more extreme after Dembina visits Auschwitz. Dembina tells of the sign there explaining what happened to the Jews but you have to read right to the bottom to realise that homosexuals, Communists and the disabled also perished at Auschwitz. Jews, apparently, aren’t comfortable with that fact as “this is Ourschwitz, not Yourschwitz”.
Dembina wants the Jews to give back the occupied territories but hold onto New York and harks back to the good old days of 1948 wishing he had a magic history wand. There would just one state called Israelstine and it would be the only country in the world named after his accountant. The audience packed into the small room liked Dembina and his comedy but no doubt went away as unenlightened as ever about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Israelis and Palestinians are both fantastic people, he says, and their similarities are greater than their differences…neither group wanted to pay on the way out when he put this show on for them.
topIf Irish hearts were smiling...
2 October, 2009
…they would reject the Lisbon treaty for a second time. Sadly it appears that the gods are looking kindly on the yes campaigners this time round. With typical breathtaking arrogance, the yes team are disseminating the usual set of misleading statements, varnished truths and blatant falsehoods in an attempt to curry favour with the electorate.
You can find a typical example on the website www.irelandforeurope.ie where the yes team state that under the treaty ‘Ireland will remain in control of its own tax rates.’ What they fail to point out is the treaty allows the EU to harmonise indirect taxes such as VAT. At the same time the EU can impose swinging fines on Ireland for mismanaging its budget deficit, currently 4 times the EU target of 3%. Tax changes can also be made under the treaty without further consulting the Irish – so much for democracy!
As Declan Ganley of Libertas repeatedly points out, the text has changed very little since it was decisively rejected last time round. And it still contains plans to transfer competencies from individual governments to the EU, remove vetoes in dozens of policy areas and create the all powerful Presidency and foreign minister. All round, this is another draconian step on the path to an all powerful supranational EU which will siphon away vital powers from member states with total disregard for the European electorate. But then hasn’t this always been the plan from the founding of the European Community?
If the Irish do vote yes, many are hoping that David Cameron will vigorously oppose Lisbon and offer his long promised referendum. They are going to be sorely disappointed. Once the Lisbon treaty is ratified, and the Irish yes vote is an important step along the way, a referendum will be redundant. A done deal is a done deal, as they say. As ardent Europhiles point out, a no vote in any such referendum would be tantamount to demanding EU withdrawal and Cameron clearly countenances no such prospect. Eurosceptics must wait for another day.
topBrown's speech inspires little confidence
01 October, 2009
So what did Gordon Brown actually offer in Tuesday’s speech to the faithful? In truth very little, beyond a stream of ill thought out and half baked initiatives, uncosted promises of more control over our lives and reversals of previous New Labour policies. In fact the only thing that really stood out in his speech, beyond his faux indifference to the Sun, was an announcement that constituents would be able to recall their MPs under certain circumstances.
Perhaps the most glaring admission of failure was his attempt to deal with rising public anger over anti social behaviour. He admitted that a certain number of problem families were blighting the lives of their neighbours and that their criminality had to be curbed. ‘We will never allow teenage tearaways, or anybody else, to turn our town centres into no-go areas at night times.” But wasn’t this exactly what we were promised in 1997, 2001 and 2005? What exactly has the government been doing for the last 12 years?
The answer is introducing endless new laws, initiatives, ASBOs and social intervention programmes while all the time making it harder for the police to maintain public order. And his new proposals for curbing anti social behaviour are just more of the same. He promised that residents would be guaranteed a 48 hour response by police to inquiries. But this says little about what the police would actually do in the circumstances, nor is the time frame likely to inspire much confidence in any local community that is regularly blighted by crime. He promised to double spending on ‘intervention programmes’ without specifying what the intervention would be or how it would curb feral miscreants who showed little willingness to accept ‘intervention.’ He said little about empowering the police and ensuring that they were freed from paperwork so they could police those streets where crime was most prevalent.
All this matters for one very good reason - law and order will be a huge political issue at the next election. It is also the starkest illustration of how the government, for all its imperious rhetoric about re-building our communities and demanding ‘respect,’ has failed the public it serves. Brown’s last ditch attempt to woo disillusioned, wavering middle class voters will prove to be yet another abject failure in the shameful history of New Labour.
top