In every Tory leadership election since Thatcher, the bookies’ favourite has lost. And while you cannot easily discern where the winner would come from on the economic left/right scale, the authoritarian/libertarian scale is absolutely significant. In every single case the winner has been the Tory of the most authoritarian views, and the losers – think Ted Heath, David Davies, Ken Clarke, Michael Portillo – have been on the socially liberal side of conservatism.
Our political “journalists” only think left/right. So Cameron’s victory was a Tory move to the “left”. In fact it was not about that at all. David Davies, the favourite defeated by Cameron, has described the new Tory anti-trade union bill as “Francoist”. He opposed control orders, stop and search, detention without trial and the banning of protest from around Westminster. That is why he lost – the Tories have a dog whistle reaction to follow authoritarian figures. Cameron’s Old Etonian patrician authoritarianism is what they wanted.
That is why Theresa May is going today to give a bloodcurdling speech attempting to stir up racism against immigrants by saying they are making us poor and making our society less cohesive. She will even pander to the ludicrous notion that an economy is of a fixed size no matter how many people are in it, with a fixed number of jobs, so “they” are taking “our” jobs. Doubtless she will also outline yet more definitions of thought crime and new reasons to lock up young Muslims.
She may be vicious and dangerous to our society, but she is not stupid. It is the way to become Tory leader.
Nobody ever lost money overestimating the viciousness of the Tories. In fact the arms and security industries and the bankers, the private health companies, the hedge funds and the private agencies enforcing government policy make fortunes out of it every day.
Torygraph, stirring the pot, found out.
‘The Daily Telegraph has been reprimanded by the new press regulator for a “significantly misleading” front-page story that claimed that a group of prominent Labour MPs had rounded on Jeremy Corbyn for being an antisemite.
The Independent Press Standards Organisation has upheld a complaint from Ivan Lewis, the shadow Northern Ireland secretary, about a 15 August story headlined “Labour grandees round on ‘antisemite’ Corbyn’”.
The story claimed Lewis had attacked Corbyn’s “antisemitic rhetoric”, saying the party must have “zero tolerance” for such views.
[Daily Telegraph censured by Ipso over false Nicola Sturgeon story]
It later cited an article the MP had written for Labour List stating “Some of his stated political views are a cause for serious concern. At the very least he has shown very poor judgment in expressing support for and failing to speak out against people who have engaged not in legitimate criticism of Israeli governments but in antisemitic rhetoric.
“It saddens me to have to say to some on the left of British politics that anti-racism means zero tolerance of antisemitism, no ifs, and no buts. I have said the same about Islamophobia and other forms of racism to a minority of my constituents who make unacceptable statements.”
Lewis lodged a complaint that the Daily Telegraph had misrepresented those comments, and he had not accused Corbyn of antisemitism.’
/..
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/oct/06/daily-telegraph-jeremy-corbyn-antisemite-ipso
Jake…….. Try this for a gravatar.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d2/UKIP_logo.png/200px-UKIP_logo.png
Jake – The blog host is not a corporate shill. He’s got very definite views on human rights, and appears to believe that free movement for all is unquestionably a good thing. You might have some issues with that (and so might I, for that matter), but please don’t mistake this (arguably, rose-tinted) view as promoting the far-right, state-capitalism agenda.
Just more of the same, Fedup.
Like some source from Shawcross on the David Rockefeller role in the 1980 ‘ October surprise’ as he has nothing about it in The Shah’s Last Ride: The fate of An Ally,
Only after the Shah has left Iran does Rockefeller get involved as he looks for a new home.
Think up some more lies while you are at it.
‘A political editor at the traditionally Tory-supporting Daily Telegraph newspaper said the speech was “awful, ugly, misleading, cynical and irresponsible”.’
http://news.sky.com/story/1564746/astonished-bosses-slam-mays-migrants-speech
The Telegraph article –
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11913927/Theresa-Mays-immigration-speech-is-dangerous-and-factually-wrong.html
James Kirkup
6 October 2015
What is your major malfunction Trowbridge?
You aggressive asocial tosser, what are the lies you have gone on record? Why should thre be any lies? You are unhinged!
You have already said that Rockefeller was involved, yet earlier on you disputed that!
Rockefeller made the hostage crisis, ie he caused it in the first place!!! You are harping on about he had nothing to with their release!!!!
I put this to you again, are you in counterintelligence Trowbridge? If not, then what is your major malfunction?
“We got bases from Franco’s Spain. I have been stationed at the naval base in Rota”
__________________
Sounds rather interesting Lysais, I see the base is also known as the “Gateway to the Mediterranean.”
NAVSTA Rosta, according to some articles is the only European base that is capable of supporting (ARG’s).
Regarding the “October Surprise” discussion.
Was it just coincidence that the 52 American hostages were released on the same day Ronald Reagan became president of the USA?
Could Reagan have had inside knowledge through the CIA, and ergo manage to postpone the release of the hostages?
Well Reagan certainly had the right people by his side to take on such an endeavour, in George H W Bush, an ex-director of the CIA, and Vice Presidential candidate.
Reagan also had William Casey, on board, a seasoned spook with numerous contacts,who spied for the Office of Strategic services during WWII.
We know Iran was at war with Iraq, in one of decades bloodiest conflicts, and that Iran was desperate to purchase weapons to defend itself from the West’s puppet dictator Saddam Hussein, who had been supplied and backed with modern weapons from his Western contacts.
In my opinion it is entirely plausible, but notoriously difficult to prove.
Breaking the Silence
https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLZjJ47ARM6bdqKvDjG-wexDzhM183WAkP&v=pX-vSbnGReo
Shawcross’s first mention of David Rockefeller is a month after the fall of the Embassy, and the taking of its hostages.
And the only discussion of any plot involving David was America’s alleged willingness to take in the Shah, not the Reagan postponement of the hostages release until after his election.
And where did I write that David Rockefeller was involved?
Just more lies.
@glenn, good points. I am wary about giving space to the theme that “we’re just discussing immigration”, since it opens up the space for genuine racists. It is hard to strike the right balance.
I thought the anti-cuts left had it right when they said that the Labour/mainstream left should not be discussing about which cuts should be lobbied against, since any cuts concede unnecessary ground to the radical Tory agenda. I think this is a good parallel for the immigration debate.
I do take the point though: if a non-assimilation immigrant bloc settle here, how does it change the prevailing culture (not, of course, “our culture”, since that is the melting pot of everyone who has gone before). I used to be really opposed to the citizenship test, partly because the mainstream view of what views “a Briton should hold” was quite Orwellian, and partly because I saw it as Blair’s handiwork, and thus it must be a trick. But perhaps these days I am less worried about it, and thankfully it does not seem to have become a far-right stick to beat people with.
Should the Left perhaps focus on assimilation? The great conundrum for me is that people from the Middle East and people from the Far East, in my experience, do not (or choose not) to assimilate, but it is only one group who are targetted for criticism. Is it that people from the Far East are generally wealthier, or whiter? Is there a problem with people from the Far East who do not assimilate? If so, why do we not hear about this?
—
DtP, I think you could express your views in a more thoughtful way. You cannot mock someone for crying “wacism” and simultaneously call their behavior “petulant” without looking a bit silly yourself. If you have something to say on this complex topic (see above) then let’s have your civil contribution – isn’t that what the comments section is for?
Republicofscotland you bet it is darn near impossible to find court admissible evidence to prove the case. The train of events and the odd bits of data here and there all point to a meticulous orchestration of the events to result in ouster of Carter and presidency of Regan.
You have made pertinent points;
that resulted in the likes of Michael Ledeen et al to engage with the likes of Ghorbanifar, these notorious con men were busy plotting in multi dimensional space.
However fact is; the orchestration of the events included creating the precursor for the hostage taking and the subsequent failed military attempt to bust out the hostages, which was a pipe dream, nonetheless it went ahead in Carter’s watch!
Jake, we had a very interesting – and spirited – discussion on immigration on this blog a couple of years ago. There was a view from an anti-immigration grouping that the Left was acting as “capitalism’s handmaidens” in welcoming an unlimited amount of immigration. I think maintaining the Left’s traditions of staunch anti-racism is very important, but I thought that this was an interesting point – does an inflow of excess labour put a downward pressure on wages?
That’s probably a hard question to answer – as Craig says above, if new people join an economy then the economy is of a different size and has the potential for more business generation. Thus, jobs might be created as well as “taken”. I’d wager that the variables in this model are so numerous it would be nigh-on impossible to model theoretically.
There is a view these days that “you can’t say anything without being accused of being a racist”, though paradoxically I think the anti-immigration side of the argument is represented extremely well in the media, and pro-immigration views hardly at all (even from a pro-capitalist perspective). Corbyn has the challenge in the next four years of attracting votes partly on a pro-immigration agenda, to stay true to his roots. I wonder whether he might be wise to duck the issue by crowd-sourcing a policy from the membership.
(I would add that you’ll have a much better quality of discourse here if you comport yourself with civility. There are many counter-examples above, which I advise you not to emulate).
Trowbridge you have serious issues!
You keep on pushing this line, why?
Projection by an chance?
Pre-mod again? What is the “reason” this time?
“@glenn, good points. I am wary about giving space to the theme that “we’re just discussing immigration”, since it opens up the space for genuine racists. It is hard to strike the right balance.”
Yes, you don’t want to allow the participation of the worst of your ideological enemies in an open discussion (italicized to to arouse suspicions) do you, Jon?
@Jake2394872349
Some good comments.
Off topic but YCNMIU. He should not go out unaccompanied.
Jeremy Hunt in toilet blunder as he pulls emergency cord on train on the way to Tory conference
6 Oct 2015
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-hunt-toilet-blunder-pulls-6582267
Jon – “The great conundrum for me is that people from the Middle East and people from the Far East, in my experience, do not (or choose not) to assimilate, but it is only one group who are targetted for criticism.”
Why should immigrants assimilate? Isn’t the point of “multiculturalism” to introduce the opposite, ie diversity which, by definition, is a difference that resists assimilation? To presume that your host culture is so superior that your much admir’d immigrant should eschew his own culture, reeks of old style British imperialist arrogance.
Jon, again – “I would add that you’ll have a much better quality of discourse here if you comport yourself with civility.”
And I would add that pre-emptively condescending “advice” is a provocation to a breakdown in civility. Good manners import the virtue of not lecturing others. But I would not offer that as advice, just an observation having little chance of adoption.
Non-advice advice.
Interesting that the CBI are pushing back on the Tories anti-immigration policies. A
stoogespokesman for the CBI waxed on about how the Polish engineer (white), Aussie professor (presumably white), and American finance wizzard (almost certainly white) would all benefit us.Doubt if anyone – even UKIP supporters – would argue about that.
What he didn’t say is that the poorly educated immigrant, with dubious residential rights, are also welcomed by the CBI. They hardly know about (less still insist on) workers’ rights, will accept very poor conditions at below minimum wage, suppress the bargaining power of the local workforce by providing an almost limitless pool of cheap labour. They’ll also clean the houses and tend the gardens of those who can afford to employ them at rock-bottom rates.
An additional benefit is that the working classes will blame them, the immigrants, instead of the banksters, tax-dodgers, crony-capitalist profiteers, and the undeserved rich generally for their woes. Immigrants can be blamed for depleting social services and necessitating cuts to the welfare budget. A lack of housing and capacity problems in the NHS can also be put down to too many immigrants.
Little wonder the CBI likes immigration, even as the Tories appeal to the baser motivations of voters, that they themselves encouraged.
Republicofscotland
“Craig you also mention Francoism, Britain recognised Franco’s right wing brutal government, in 1939, as the legitimate government of Spain, ironically, the recognition came under a Tory Prime Minister, a one Neville (Peace in our time) Chamberlin(sic).
________________
And ?
The UK and French govts recognised the Caudillo’s govt on 27 February 1939 when the Republican govt was very obviously on its last legs: the Caudillo’s govt controlled most of Spain by then, Barcelona had fallen a few days previously and the last of the Republican forces surrendered on 31 March.
It’s called facing up to the facts, RoS.
“I think maintaining the Left’s traditions of staunch anti-racism is very important, but I thought that this was an interesting point – does an inflow of excess labour put a downward pressure on wages?
That’s probably a hard question to answer – as Craig says above, if new people join an economy then the economy is of a different size and has the potential for more business generation. Thus, jobs might be created as well as “taken”. I’d wager that the variables in this model are so numerous it would be nigh-on impossible to model theoretically.”
– – – –
Shockingly ill-informed/naive/ignorant. Did anyone here study economics 101 – Supply and Demand and its effects on prices?
Jakexxxxxxxx, correctly raises the embarrassingly obvious problem that infinite growth demands infinite resources on a planet of limited and rapidly diminishing resources. There are no “buts” except those from the Left who believe in a magic money tree and the Right who believe in doubling the number of working poor to exploit as workers and consumers.
What no one else here has canvassed yet is the marginalisation of a class of people who were born stupid, ugly and having no skills. The prospects these people have of integrating with a highly competitive and often irrationally discriminatory economy is extremely low. They are the welfare class who are denied a means of producing their own economy (finding land, farming it and building a shack to live in) and are dependent on a hostile state for their subsistence. Never to be employed in the respectable economy – drug dealing and prostitution notwithstanding, they are precondemned to living out their lives as welfare recipients with all the stigma and misery that comes with it.
The ruling and working classes despise them because they are a drain on “their” economy. If only they could be euthenased as a humanitarian means of solving the conjoined burdens of being poor and wasting money on feeding them.
“Saying that immigrants damage social cohesion is very plainly racism”
____________________________
No it’s not – not if you accept that racism is the belief in the inherent superiority of one race over another (or, if you prefer, the belief that one race is inherently inferior to another).
I wonder if I’m the only one on here who finds it strange that a certain “commenter” is happy to tell us the various places where he served in the military but is unwilling to reveal at which Oxford college he allegedly studied.
Jemand, I am in favour of an open debate, but yes, I think some views are beyond the pale, and should not be given the oxygen of publicity or attention. My opinion here though is not a binary one – it is a sliding scale where the “red line” varies a lot for different people.
I think the red line for most people would include far-right groups with paramilitary and/or racial supremacy overtones, such as Golden Dawn, and that perspective is hardly contentious. A more debatable red line would be the old “no platform” policy of the SWP in relation to what was the BNP – I remember going to a public talk in which a central committee member angrily kaiboshed some discussion on that matter, and a number of people on the radical Left were uncomfortable with it.
(I personally think the BNP had fascist leanings, and that the policy was understandable, but that it could undermine the Left, which should have the confidence to patiently argue against far-right racism. There was a view at that time that public debates involving the BNP would sometimes be accompanied by some far-right action in the local area, such as skinhead attacks, and I still worry that giving the far right publicity can lead to increases in racist incidents).
We have an occasional contributor here who occasionally refers to a “genocide” in Leicester, which serves two purposes: it cheapens the real and horrific meaning of that word, and it likens the actions of an immigrant bloc to mass murderers. I’d add that no person migrating to another country has the intention of diluting or modifying the host culture, and thus I think it is right to call out this sort of commentary quite plainly as racism.
In summary I am not entirely sure where my own red line is, though I am pretty sure I have one. I don’t think this issue is all that important, since people who transgress someone else’s red line still have the freedom to promote their opinions elsewhere. And, frankly, if someone gets called a racist in debate, does it matter? I’ve been called that plenty of times in relation for my support for a unified Palestine/Israel, and it doesn’t really bother me – it bounces off.
Incidentally, my advice for contributors to be civil is not meant to be condescending – that interpretation occurs only in the eye of the beholder. If anyone wishes to advise me not to offer advice, I am quite happy to consider it!
Craig:
“Firstly, I made no such accusation. I said the divine origin of the Koran is a matter of belief, and as far as I could see not affected one way or the other by the fact that the Koran has antecedents.”
What you actually said was:
“The Koran is very obviously derivative”
In future I shall insert a ‘ not ‘ into your sentences. As in:
“I honestly (not not) see how you can accuse me of supporting western policy in the Middle East. You didn’t baffle me there.”
Supply and demand was exactly what I was referring to – and I expect that was Craig’s motivation too, for his similar comments. As new people enter an economy, it creates new economic activity, which creates new jobs. Of course, we are in thorny territory here, since I think capitalism itself is a problem, and in these situations I find myself under pressure to defend it, despite not being persuaded that capitalism is a fair system.