Many sensible people would vote for the Tory party if it stopped Paki-bashing, toned down its Europhobia, and instead focused on cutting taxes and regulation. With someone broadly sane like Oliver Letwin in charge, it would then be in a position to win back Liberal and Blairite voters in posh bits of the country.
Unfortunately, Tory members believe the party should step up the Paki-bashing and the silly ‘yob culture’ rhetoric; not cut taxes; and take a strongly Europhobic foreign policy line. They want David Davis or David Cameron, and they hate Oliver Letwin and Ken Clarke.
Oh well. Maybe one day we’ll have an effective opposition.
There is one small bit of good news in there though: the least popular potential candidate is John Redwood. 55% of tory party members hate his guts, along with 100% of everyone else in the country.
Sorry, Larry, that’s 99% because I think Redwood is terrific, unelectable, but terrific.
As for our host’s fine piece of hyperbole, I would be grateful if he could produce one statement from the Tory party leadership, or anyone remotely close to it, who has gone in for "Paki-bashing".
Our host’s advice is a curate’s egg. He suggests that the Tory party should concentrate on cutting taxes, but fails to recognise that the Great British Public is now so hooked on Brown’s state welfare-ism that they would slaughter any party that dared to suggest that the comfort blanket should be trimmed. Letwin ran for cover in the election before last when he let slip that the Tories might cut tax by £20bn. This time he attempted, unsuccessfully, to convince anyone who would listen that £4bn could be "saved" by "government waste", to which the only proper response would be to shout "Heard it, heard it!" Letwin had his chance and muffed it. As for "Europhobia", I hardly think that *now* is good time to go pro-European. Even the French don’t fancy it anymore!
I should add that ‘I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of the Tory party’, and nor do I always vote for them.
But Letwin tortures puppies (or so it’s been said).
On a more serious note (as though animal welfare weren’t serious enough!) however, I don’t want "an effective opposition" to the right of the current administration. Which is why I’m hoping they elect another loon like Howard.
I was very encouraged to read Bruce Anderson’s demolition job on David Davis in Monday’s Independent – sadly, it’s subscription-only, but you can read the headline and first paragraph here. And since Davis is currently the front-runner, it looks as though Jim’s prayers might be answered.
David: we must both realise by now that many of your opinions are going to seem pretty bizarre from where I sit, and vice versa. But now you claim that you alone constitute 1% of the population of the country. What next?
Try John Townsend for paki-bashing. This complete arse was a tory MP who believed that immigration was a problem simply because it was undermining the UK’s "homogenous Anglo-saxon society", in other words: too many Pakis.
OK, Larry, so I didn’t get an ‘A’ level in sums! I thought you Lefties were supposed to be kind and caring for the disabled, and when it comes to maths, I’m a cripple.
If you can’t support our host’s accusation with some-one higher up the leadership of the Tory party than John Townsend, then I’m afraid his claim fails, and, as an honourable man, he should withdraw it. (I don’t know why I’m banging on about this, I’m not even a Tory, for God’s sake!)
What is there for you to like about Oliver Letwin, John B? I’m a big fan, and not all that keen on the idea of sharing that fandom with someone so unambiguously ‘on the other side’ politically.
He isn’t stupid, understands economics, appears to believe in civil liberties, and appears not to be a colossal bigot.
While that’s not exactly high praise, and while I disagree with his stance on certain things (in particular, his votes on gay matters) it does elevate him over most of the other serious candidates. And indeed, most politicians of most hues.
Yeah, I like Letwin. Highly intelligent but not condescending.
> This complete arse was a tory MP who believed that immigration was a problem simply because it was undermining the UK’s "homogenous Anglo-saxon society", in other words: too many Pakis.
In other words: in your words, not his. Society isn’t race. Maybe the guy is a racist; I don’t know; but, if that’s the best evidence you can come up with, I doubt it.
Larry, knowing your recent love for internet fact checking, I must point out that the article you link to is from 2001, and appears to be talking about the *last* election. Much as I hate the Tories, I’m not sure they have been saying anything much worse than Labour on immigration/asylum issues, and rather little at all on race (apart from William Hague on HIGNFY, of course). Personally I still disagree on their views, but I’m not sure the average man-in-the-street does…
Society isn’t race.
Squander Two, I know that and you know that, but a guy who talks about a "homogenous Anglo-Saxon society" does not appear to know that. It’s the Tory MP who equated the ethnic group with the society, not Larry. Sounds like a pretty race- or at least nation-of-origin-based approach to me. (It also makes him an idiot – I can’t stand military history, but even I remember about 1066 – but never mind.)
It’s probably a mean nasty prejudiced view on my part, but I generally find that people who think Britain has any kind of ‘pure’ racial heritage going on are more likely to be racists than people who don’t. (I just found out that a chunk of my family came over from what’s-now-Italy in the twelfth century. Weird random things you learn when one of your distant relatives tries to make a definitive family tree.) People who think that said mythical ‘pure’ racial heritage is worth preserving, even more so.
Yeah, I’m with Lorna here (I should add that this Tory quoted is indeed a dick, but is also no longer a Tory…) He says specifically "Anglo-saxon", which is a race, Squander2! The debate has moved on these days to people talking about unlimited immigration upsetting society (mainly, it seems, to fears about vast numbers of newcomers etc. not just filthy darky incomers). Again, I disagree (I’m with JohnB on having unlimited immigration) but when 2nd/3rd generation immigrants start voicing such fears, I don’t think it’s right to say that for a political party to be electable, it must completely ditch such views (the converse would even seem to be true).
I suppose what I did dislike about Howard’s campaign was that he never talked about Italians or Ozzies etc. coming and working in coffee shops (and so on) but about Polish people coming over to be plummers, or whatever. That did strike me as having the wiff of racism about it…
Matt, I realise that Townsend’s comments were in 2001 and that he hasn’t been a serving MP since the 2001 election. I knew that when I posted! I realise that as evidence for the assertion "tories are all racist", it’s pretty weak. But then I don’t believe that tories are all racist.
Having said which, as evidence that the right-wing of the tory party did recently (and does still?) contain a few racist loons, I don’t think it’s too bad. Squander 2 seems to think bemoaning that the UK is no longer a "homogenous Anglo-saxon society" is not racist, I strongly disagree. I entirely agree with what Lorna and you have already said.
David, I admit that I’m not going to be able to provide you with a photograph of Michael Howard physically bashing a Paki. This is a matter of deep regret to me. I cited the example John Townsend because his comments made quite an impression on me when I first heard them reported. The tory party nose-dived in my estimation, and has never really recovered. He may not have been high up the tory chain of command when he said them, but he was nevertheless an active tory MP, and (significantly) he wasn’t expelled for the party.
But for a more senior and slightly more recent example, try Ann Winterton’s hilarious joke about how Pakis are 10 a penny in this country. She was on the tory front-bench when she said that (she didn’t last long though).
As an attempt to demonstrate the Tory Party in full ‘Paki-bashing mode’, citing a long forgotten MP’s obviously non racist statement about protecting his country’s culture is a bit weak.
On this basis most of the French establishment, indeed the nation as a whole, can be hoist by the same petard.
Must try harder. Now imagine, Labour has a Jewish leader and during an election campaign the Tories make his Jewishness a major point. They tell Muslims that ‘you can’t trust’ the Jewish Labour leader and commission posters depicting him as shylock and Fagin. THAT would be persuasive evidence of Tory bigotry.
Yes that’s a good point Pete. The desparate whinging of the Tory party during the last campaign ("Look we can’t possibly be racists – we’ve got a JEW as our leader! And his ather was an IMMIGRANT you know! You did know that his father was a JEWISH IMMIGRANT didn’t you?") followed by pathetic Melanie-Philips-style complaints about entirely imaginary anti-semitism, that all is indeed far better evidence that the tories have got something to hide (namely that there’s still a fair amount of latent racism in their ranks) than the odd blatent bigot who they’ve elected over the last few years. After all attack is the best form of defence.
Thanks also for pointing out that the statement "Pakis are 10 a penny" is obviously non racist, and is just about protecting this country’s culture. My mistake.
Ho ho, Larry, not even a reasonable stab at wriggling off the hook. ’10 a penny’? Wrong. I was referring to John Wotsisname. For decades you and your kind have stamped your feet and screached Racist! Sexist! Fascist! to anyone who disagreed with you. Well boo hoo. You’ve been found out, so suck it up. Jew hatred is central to your religion and you’re not getting away with it any more. You can screach all you like but you’ll have the fingers jabbed in your direction now. Get used to it.
Pete – let me know if that last comment was someone else spoofing you; if so I’ll delete it. If not, then I think you might be the most paranoid, insane moonbat I’ve ever encountered (and I’ve been to Indymedia, albeit not for long because it was too full of paranoid insane moonbats).
Pete: that’s mad. John Wotsisname said "homogenous Anglo-saxon society". That’s a race, isn’t it, Saxon? What about people of Celtic descent? Or do Wales, Scotland, NI not count here. I’m probably of viking descent, so can I bugger off as well? His statement was clearly racist.
Michael Howard’s point about himself being an immigrant was also rather hard for me to understand: would he have been happy is his ancestors came along after the "quota" had been filled? I think not…
Stamp your feet in denial all you like, the left has been exposed as the anti-semitic rump it is. Do have the grace to accept that.
For decades you and your kind have stamped your feet and screached Racist! Sexist! Fascist! to anyone who disagreed with you.
Which is why I think it’s so sad that both sides are doing it nowdays. Just hearing it from the left was bad enough, but at least you could imagine it as an act of desperation.
Surely the Conservatives aren’t in such straits now?
John, what prize do I win for provoking that response?
I’ve just been told that: Jew hatred is central to my religion, and that I should get used to being told so regularly. Funnily enough I’m reluctant to do so…
Apparently I’ve been getting away with hating Jews for some time – and I never even knew it!
Pete you do realise that the first person to totally lose his grip on reality loses the argument don’t you?
Also you might want to reflect on the fact that the most sensible way to respond to a charge of inventing anti-semitism, may not be to scream "Jew-hater" with no evidence whatsoever to back up your charge.
I don’t hate Jews, so why the fuck should I have the grace to accept that I do? Why don’t you have the grace to accept that you like to masturbate while watching dogs lick out your mother? You mad, mad bastard.
Stamp your feet in denial all you like, the left has been exposed as the anti-semitic rump it is.
"Rump" is clearly a reference to pork, which is as blatant a piece of Jew-baiting as I’ve ever seen. As is the earlier reference to "your kind", a term frequently encountered in anti-Semitic diatribes. And God alone knows what kind of image "wriggling off the hook" was supposed to evoke – probably some kind of Nazi experiment.
So I look forward to Pete_London’s graceful acceptance that he’s been rumbled for what he so clearly is. Granted, there’s no actual evidence to back it up, but that doesn’t seem to matter round these parts.
John B: Didn’t you once separate blogs into unreadable, dangerous, right-wing extremists or otherwise on the basis of whether or not they used the word moonbat? Or am I thinking of someone else?
Speaking as an unreadable, dangerous, hypocritical right-wing extremist, err, yes I did.
The term "Anglo-Saxon" is often used to refer to a particular culture, and rarely used to refer to the Anglo-Saxon race except when discussing the Middle Ages. The latter use is arguably more correct, but, hey, I don’t make the rules. When someone refers to "Anglo-Saxon society" or "Anglo-Saxon culture" and they’re talking about modern times, they’re very very rarely talking about race.
Matt,
> John Wotsisname said "homogenous Anglo-saxon society". That’s a race, isn’t it, Saxon? What about people of Celtic descent? Or do Wales, Scotland, NI not count here.
Scotland, Northern Ireland, and England have distinct and separate cultures. Wales probably does as well, but, never having lived there, I couldn’t say for sure.
Speaking as a Jew, I’ve certainly noticed the rapid increase in Jew-hatred from the Left Wing. I wouldn’t go as far as Pete and say that it’s central to left-wing ideology, but I would say that left-wing thought does seem to nudge people in that direction. There are plenty of principled Leftists who resist the nudging, of course, and there are plenty who gleefully leap into the swamp.
I know you think Mark Steyn’s an arsehole, John, but at least that’s because you object to his ideas. Surely you’ve noticed the hordes of left-wingers who object to his surname.
S2 – to be honest, I’d never even thought of Mark Steyn as being Jewish. Doh, arguably. I’ve not spotted anyone on the left attacking him for his Jewishness (generally ditto Mel P, although perhaps she ‘benefits’ in the context from having a not-very-Jewish name).
South Wales, London, Southern England, the West Country, Northwest England, Northeast England, Scotland and Liverpool/North Wales all have very different cultures that are originally based on ethnicity but now (generally, with exceptions in the remotest bits; also, I know far too little about either of the two Irelands to generalise about them) aren’t. Normally, though, if some fucker uses ‘Anglo-Saxon’ as an epiphet he means ‘white, whether their great-grandparents are Froggish, Krautish or whatever. But not the Jews, despite their being-white-ness’. And this is why John Whateverhisnameis is a twat.
BTW, are you a native Ulsterman? Only reason I ask is that encountering an Ulster Jew reminds me of a very bad joke.
The term "Anglo-Saxon" is often used to refer to a particular culture
One that had more damage to it done by the Norman conquest (oh, wait – as John B. says, they were white) than by modern immigration, I’d imagine, though I hate the Middle Ages and have avoided studying them whenever possible. What could ‘Anglo-Saxon culture’ mean today? I know nothing about pre-1066 village life, but I doubt we’ve still got it. (Weren’t the Saxons originally from Germany or wherever, anyway?) And if it’s to do with a particular way of life rather than a race, isn’t it kind of suspect to be defining that particular way of life in terms of ethnicity?
I’m gonna be uncharacteristically generous for a moment and suppose I am just ignorant about an extremely common colloquialism. But even if I assume that, I think it’s one that’s bloody stupid and with more than a bit of implicit racism. I know, I know, cue screams of "political correctness gone mad", but is it too much to ask that people might think about the underlying assumptions in what they’re saying?
S2 – to be honest, I’d never even thought of Mark Steyn as being Jewish. Doh, arguably. I’ve not spotted anyone on the left attacking him for his Jewishness (generally ditto Mel P, although perhaps she ‘benefits’ in the context from having a not-very-Jewish name).
Same here – hand on heart, Squander Two’s post is the first I’ve ever read that draws attention to Steyn’s Jewish surname (as with John, my reaction was "doh", but the fact that I’d never even thought about it before is revealing enough in itself). So who are these "hordes of left-wingers" who have been banging on about Steyn’s Jewishness?
(Melanie Phillips is a slightly different case, since she herself raises her ethnic origin pretty much every other column, so you’d have to be remarkably obtuse not to pick up on it.)
I thought it was a German name, possibly meaning ‘Stone’.
Shows what I know!
Just to clarify: Steyn isn’t Jewish, but he does have some Jewish ancestry, whence the surname came. His refusal to "admit" that he’s Jewish is, apparently, some sort of sinister cover-up that disqualifies him from writing about the Middle East. Every time he mentions Israel in an article, he gets a stream of mail from left-wingers complaining about his Jewishness, accusing him of spreading propaganda on behalf of his race, just as Jonah Goldberg (who writes repeatedly about how much he loves bacon) and David Aaronovitch do. Have you seen what happens if Aaranovitch does an online chat? It’s disgusting. I blogged about the phenomenon here in response to the obnoxious comments here, and one of my commenters then linked to this example, which is far from atypical. The check-the-journalist’s-surname response has become sadly common, in my extensive experience of arguing with lefties.
Lorna,
> What could ‘Anglo-Saxon culture’ mean today? I know nothing about pre-1066 village life, but I doubt we’ve still got it.
I thought of making that point myself, actually. I kind of agree with you. For some bizarre reason, the culture referred to by the term "Anglo-Saxon" in its modern usage isn’t the tenth-century culture. It tends to just mean "English". The terminology may be flawed, but then, as a mathematician, I get pissed off with people misusing "exponential" all the time. Such is language.
John,
> South Wales, London, Southern England, the West Country, Northwest England, Northeast England, Scotland and Liverpool/North Wales all have very different cultures
Yup, especially London, which probably has more in common with Glasgow than with Hertforshire. However, the difference between Scottish and English culture is of a different order than those other differences. There is a certain shared Englishness between Devonians and Yorkshiremen and East Anglians and Cumbrians, and it doesn’t extend into Scotland, just as Scottishness hasn’t spread to the English. Difficult to exactly ut your finger on the differences, but you notice them when you live in each country for years.
Sorry, I’m not a native; I’m a Londoner.
Glad to see none of you are putting an apostophe in "doh", by the way. That really pisses me off.
I wouldn’t for one second deny that the Richard Ingrams quote is disgusting (I highlighted it myself a few months ago), but he’s not exactly my idea of a "lefty" – or, I suspect, anyone else’s. Do you have an example of a respected columnist who genuinely does fit that category adopting a similar position?
Er, why would I care whether someone’s a respected columnist? I’m talking about attitudes prevalent on the modern Left. Attitudes prevalent among "respected" journalists is a whole other discussion.
I would have thought that, round here, my claim to have had lots of arguments with left-wingers would be accepted.
Aaronovitch seems to be quite a helpful chap. Why not send him an email and ask him about how much abuse he gets regarding his surname? He might well reply.
S2: if I read someone accusing you personally of being an Arab-hater, I would not chip in with "I’ve certainly noticed the rapid increase in Arab-hatred from the Right Wing" (although I have). Yes, there’s no shortage of racist bigoted loons on all sides, but go about tarring everyone with the same brush is insulting idiocy. It makes intelligent dialogue impossible, and is hugely counterproductive: if everyone on all sides is screaming "racist", it makes it far harder to differentiate between genuine bigotry and willful misunderstanding, and thereby provides excellent cover for genuine racists on all sides.
Larry,
Compare and contrast:
> I wouldn’t … say that it’s central to left-wing ideology, but I would say that left-wing thought does seem to nudge people in that direction. There are plenty of principled Leftists who resist the nudging, of course, and there are plenty who gleefully leap into the swamp.
> … go about tarring everyone with the same brush is insulting idiocy. … if everyone on all sides is screaming "racist" …
Do you really think that’s an accurate characterisation of what I wrote? Really?
Do you really think that’s an accurate characterisation of what I wrote?
No, not remotely – and that wasn’t what I meant to suggest.
But it’s certainly an accurate characterisation of what Pete wrote, and when someone like him starts throwing serious accusations around left, right, and centre (well actually just "left" in this instance), I think that the only sensible reaction from anyone sane (no matter where they sit on the political spectrum) is to tell them to fuck off. (Or for the more polite, at least to point out that going about tarring everyone with the same racist brush is insulting counterproductive idiocy.)
But you didn’t. You suggested that if he toned down the language a bit and broadened his range, he might sort of have a point.
Sorry if I’m being a humourles bastard at the moment, I’m in the middle of writing up my thesis and the strain is beginning to tell!
Er, why would I care whether someone’s a respected columnist? I’m talking about attitudes prevalent on the modern Left.
But since Richard Ingrams is in no way a specimen of the Left, modern or otherwise (I suspect he’d find the idea hilarious on both counts), why single him out?
Granted, it’s a genuine example of blatant anti-Semitism in a national newspaper, and an easy one to find and link to, but a quote from a long-term professional maverick who has spent nearly five decades winding people up by deliberately posting provocative and offensive opinions for effect (he’s arguably second only to Richard Littlejohn in the homophobia stakes) doesn’t really prove that much in the wider scheme of things.
Which is why I asked if you had a similar example of someone who, unlike Richard Ingrams, is (a) clearly a representative of "the modern Left" and (b) influential enough to be taken seriously by people who should know better.
Firstly, regardless of his opinions on other matters, Ingrams’s attitude towards Israel is your standard left-wing anti-Israel stance.
Secondly, I also posted a link to a comments thread on one of the more popular Socialist websites, in which the Jew-hatred was coming not from the histrionic trolls who often post there, but from fairly normal lefties. Here you can see the views of some Guardian-readers. I’ll throw the names Tam Dalyell and Michael Meacher into the pot, too. I grew up in the midst of the Labour Party, so feel I have a pretty good picture of left-wing opinion, having had it thrust down my throat since I was old enough to speak. Oddly enough, I don’t have URLs to cite for that. But, frankly, I couldn’t care less whether the Jew-hatred I see is coming out of the mind of an "influential" "representative" figure. That’s not the point I made, so I see no need to defend it.
Larry,
Sorry; I see your point. I wasn’t really responding to Pete — I saw no need to slag him off when John had already done such a brilliant job — I was responding to your use of the phrase "entirely imaginary anti-semitism". It’s not imaginary, was my point.
> You suggested that if he toned down the language a bit and broadened his range, he might sort of have a point.
Yes, that’s right.
Incidentally, for a great example of someone throwing accusations of racism around and tarring everyone with the same brush, I recommend your fourth comment in this thread.
Oh, I’m bored, so here we go… I have been browsing the Guardian link you sent, S2, and I haven’t yet found anything I would call anti-semitic: though there is plenty of deleted stuff (and I’m only a 3rd of the way through). However, near the start, someone politely asks if David being a Jew has anything to do with his support for Israel. Comments:
i) It was a polite exchange. David says he’s not actually Jewish, his dad was, but he was bought up as an atheist.
ii) I’m not sure I believe this is anti-semitic at all: maybe it’s just ill-informed. Surely it *is* reasonable to question if people have hidden motivations in an argument. No doubt I am often pro-UK, because I’m from the UK and I rather like the place, all things considered. One shouldn’t dismiss someones argument just because of who they are, but I don’t see the question as being, as such, unreasonable.
Okay, Jonny71 comes across as a massive twat. And jabell. It’s hardly one long anti-semitic rant though, is it?
My use of the phrase "entirely imaginary anti-semitism" was specifically about the supposedly anti-semitic "Fagin" posters of Michael Howard which Labour during the election campaign. You haven’t addressed that point, so I don’t understand why you say that you have. What anti-semitism did you think I was saying was "entirely imaginary"? All? All coming from the left? You must be joking. In the case of any misunderstanding, I’m well aware that antisemitism is a real and thoroughly unpleasant phenomenon, and that there is plenty of it which comes from the left of the political spectrum (as well as from other directions).
Having said this, I also believe that there are various right-leaning Daily Mail-reading figures who are only too happy to use the term "anti-semite" about anyone who criticises anything Israel ever does.
for a great example of someone throwing accusations of racism around and tarring everyone with the same brush, I recommend your fourth comment in this thread.
I guess this means this:
there’s still a fair amount of latent racism in [the tory] ranks
Well I stand by that. You might also notice (rather than deliberately overlook) the fact that I also explicitly said
I don’t believe that tories are all racist
precisely to avoid tarring everyone with the same brush.
The reason that I stand by the accusation of latentracism in the tory ranks, is that I spent many of my formative years in the shires hanging out with hunting, shooting, fishing folk. In particular I’ve got to know a surprising number of old tory women (the so called "blue rinse brigade") rather well. Many of them are not yet dead, but live on on the tory/UKIP border. Let me assure you that in a significant number of cases (though by no means all) the accusation of "racism" sticks.
To be fair to Squander Two, I found myself in a similar quandary when arguing about the Guardian’s coverage of the Jenin "massacre" (i.e. massive coverage when they believed it was an Israel-sponsored massacre; minimal coverage when they realised it wasn’t). I am absolutely convinced that my capsule account is broadly correct, but it was virtually impossible to prove with online references, because the online edition of the paper doesn’t reveal such crucial factors as headline size and positioning, which can make a big difference.
I don’t doubt that there’s a certain part of the Left whose antipathy to Israel is based on motives so close to genuine anti-Semitism that there might as well not be a distinction at all – but I don’t think it’s anything like as widespread as is being implied. The mere fact that the examples cited are a columnist who would blanch at the thought of being called Left-wing, a comments box notorious for attracting loons of a great many political stripes and an online chat which, as Matt Daws points out, actually only contains maybe two or three examples backing up the allegation, suggests to me that it’s not an especially endemic problem.
(By "it", I mean outright Jew-hatred, not merely antipathy towards the Sharon administration – it’s important to make the distinction because phrases like "your standard left-wing anti-Israel stance" run the risk of implying that the two are largely indivisible.)
The reason that I stand by the accusation of latentracism in the tory ranks, is that I spent many of my formative years in the shires hanging out with hunting, shooting, fishing folk. In particular I’ve got to know a surprising number of old tory women (the so called "blue rinse brigade") rather well. Many of them are not yet dead, but live on on the tory/UKIP border. Let me assure you that in a significant number of cases (though by no means all) the accusation of "racism" sticks.
You could make precisely the same comments about retired old trade unionists from Labour heartlands in the north. It’s an age-related phenomenon. It has nothing to do with background or political orientation. It is just that over the lifetimes of these people, Britain has gone through a massive cultural change. That has to be scary for them. But at least this type of lazy racism is slowly dying out.
To get back on topic, I was just reading the New Statesman over tea. There is an opinion peice written by a gay Tory MP who last his seat at the election to a Lib Dem. He makes the point that actually the Conservatives had the greatest number of black and gay candidates at the last election! He also said he thought he lost because of a complex issues, but certainly not because he was homosexual.
Larry,
> My use of the phrase "entirely imaginary anti-semitism" was specifically about the supposedly anti-semitic "Fagin" posters of Michael Howard which Labour during the election campaign.
Not so specifically that you specified it. Still, fair enough. Though I think the Tories had maybe a quarter of a point over those posters. For a supposedly antiracist party, Labour made a lot out of Howard’s appearance — whether that be his Jewish or his Transylvanian appearance, I couldn’t rightly say.
Michael,
I agree with you, apart from this bit:
> I don’t doubt that there’s a certain part of the Left whose antipathy to Israel is based on motives so close to genuine anti-Semitism that there might as well not be a distinction at all – but I don’t think it’s anything like as widespread as is being implied.
Usually, when it comes to racism and politics, the former drives the latter: people’s existing racism shapes their political beliefs. In the case of Israel, I think the opposite is happening: people’s anti-Israel stance is gradually pushing them towards Jew-hatred. And that is a huge problem, because, while most racists, as Andrew points out, are an old and dying breed, Jew-haters are increasingly young and on the increase.
> I mean outright Jew-hatred, not merely antipathy towards the Sharon administration – it’s important to make the distinction because phrases like "your standard left-wing anti-Israel stance" run the risk of implying that the two are largely indivisible.
Oh, no, the two are perfectly divisible. It’s just that so many people don’t divide them any more.
Andrew, I accept that point to some extent: age alone is a major factor. I do think however that the tory party is more prone to "mad old woman syndrome" than the other main parties. It seems to be an accepted fact that the average age of the tory membership is higher than for labour or lib dems (I’m looking for solid evidence of this but am drawing blanks at the moment).
Also I don’t think I agree that "it has nothing to do with background or political orientation". I’m not saying that every tory, or everyone in the countryside, or every tory in the countryside is a racist, or anything like that (I know from experience that that is far from true). But I do think that the right wing of the tory party, as represented by John Townend (not "Townsend" as I wrote incorrectly a hundred posts above), is home to more latent racism than you’d find in the membership of either of the other two main parties (although as you say you’ll find some in them too). It tends to be concentrated in bits of countryside where there’s a low ethnic-minority poulation (but not exclusively). Attitudes seem to change far more slowly in the countryside than they do in cities, and old-fashioned views there are championed by more than just the old.
Larry: I don’t have any stats to refute that, aside from saying that the average age of the various parties has been done to death on various forums, to little conclusion except that the research on the Tory party is over a decade old and the methodology questioned. Their youth and students wing is larger than the Labour and Lib Dem youth wings combined. However, it struck me halfway through reading your comment that it is the sort of half thought out lazy prejudice that racists tend to use to justify themselves.
No, you can’t prove that the right wing of the Tory party has a higher tendency to racism than other groupings of people. And you can’t prove that all those rural folk are twitching the net curtains in terror whenever a black man pops into the local post office. But you have a feeling, don’t you?
Just like all those people who start sentences with ‘Now don’t get me wrong, I’ve got nothing against wogs, but…’, you’re just saying ‘Now don’t get me wrong, I’ve got nothing against Tories, but…’
Can’t you do better than a largely irrational prejudice? I have very little respect for the political views of those on the other side of the fence to me, but I listen to what they say, question my own views, and come away from a discussion either convinced of myself, or still questioning. I don’t feel the need to dismiss them as irrelevant because they are guilty of some phantom thought-crime. Otherwise, how would I ever learn anything?
As for parts of the countryside with a low ethnic minority population, that’s just rubbish. I’ve heard some of the most vile racist comments in my home town in the North, which is still basically all-white, and extremely urban.
Ok let me rephrase: "Now don’t get me wrong, I’ve got nothing much against Tories (other than strongly held but mostly respectful disagreement), but I have got something against very right-wing people in general. Not all of them are racists, but all of them are wrong, and many of them are bigots of one sort or another, including more than a few racists."
it is the sort of half thought out lazy prejudice that racists tend to use to justify themselves
I think the difference between making a generalisation on the basis of race, and making a generalisation on the basis of political opinion is a rather important one, don’t you? Particularly when what I’m generalising about is a political opinion. I’m just correlating it with other political opinions, as Squander Two did from a rather different angle. I notice that you didn’t harangue him for his irrational prejudice in failing to prove with scientific rigour that a few lefties are anti-semitic.
you can’t prove that the right wing of the Tory party has a higher tendency to racism than other groupings of people
No I can’t prove it. Statements like that are unprovable. (Anyway it’s untrue due to your phrase "than other groupings of people": a hand-picked group of neonazis would be more racist than right-wing tories.) But it’s not just a matter of having a feeling either.
As evidence that the correlation between racism and right-wingery may have some foundation consider this: whilst it’s not necessarily racist to (eg) be very tough on immigration, it stands to reason that racists will vote for parties that take such tough lines. Right-wing parties are generally tougher on immigration than others. At least in this country, now, the toughest of the major parties on immigration is the tory party. So more racists are likely to vote tory than labour or lib-dem. Or is that total irrationality?
I can’t believe it’s really that controversial to suggest that the right-wing of he tory party contains a few racist loons. Do you really doubt that the BNP steals more votes from the tories than it does from labour or the lib-dems?
Do you really doubt that the BNP steals more votes from the tories than it does from labour or the lib-dems?
Yes, of course. The BNP are strong in traditionally working class areas. These are Labour strongholds.
You have no evidence, just irrational prejudice.
I think the difference between making a generalisation on the basis of race, and making a generalisation on the basis of political opinion is a rather important one, don’t you?
Yes, of course, but you also made a generalisation based on where people come from or live. That’s pretty close to the kind of irrationality that drives racism, in my opinion. And this:
Now don’t get me wrong, I’ve got nothing much against Tories (other than strongly held but mostly respectful disagreement), but I have got something against very right-wing people in general. Not all of them are racists, but all of them are wrong, and many of them are bigots of one sort or another, including more than a few racists.
is very similar in nature to religious fundamentalism. You’re not much better than the people you dislike.
Part of your problem is that you believe that racists are all right wingers (not that all right wingers are racists, I stress). This is simply not true. Take a look at the BNP’s economic policies (don’t laugh). It’s far closer to the far left than the right.
I think we might agree that the tags of "left" and "right" wing are not exactly useful. Larry clearly means "right-wing" in the sense of hang-them-and-flog-them style (one might say, socially right-wing). When Andrew correctly says that the BNP’s economic policies are social-democratic, he means economically left-wing. I think Larry is broadly correct: there is a correlation between racists and people who are in favour of draconian law and order policies, say. It’s not surprising that racists don’t agree as much on whether, say, the NHS should be privatised.
Similarly, our host is, I think, socially left-wing and pretty right-wing economically. I also don’t think that what I’m saying is very controversial or original…
Broadly I agree – for example, I’d say I was politically closer to Andrew than I am to many of the lefties that I get on with, and he to me than many of the right-wingers that he gets on with.
This raises the second-order question of how you prioritise things: I can deal with/vote for people who believe in raising taxes but not birching weed smokers, whereas I get the impression he’d go the other way…
> there is a correlation between racists and people who are in favour of draconian law and order policies, say.
Probably, yes. Trouble is, there seems to be virtually none of the electorate who don’t believe in draconian law and order policies. The disagreement is over which crimes should be punished the most draconianly.
If anyone says anything to me and I don’t answer, it’s because I’m off to a wedding. Play nice.
Did anything happen while I was away?
Thank’s Matt. Yes for "right-wing" read "socially right-wing" throughout. Perhaps this will dissolve any confusion. But just in case it doesn’t…
Take a look at the BNP’s economic policies (don’t laugh).
Sorry I just can’t help myself. Who gives a fuck about their economic policies? Certainly not anyone who votes for them, and not me either. In my book the BNP is a (socially) "far-right" party, and this seems to be widely used terminology. I’m sorry if you don’t like that.
Having said this, it is not true that I believe that all racists are (socially) right-wing. S2 points out that some vaguely mainstream lefties are anti-semitic, and I agree (although I do think he exaggerates the extent). Beyond that, I’m sure that there are loonies who call themselves "communists", "anti-globalisationsts", or whatever who’ll combine extreme left-wing views with racist ones. I tend not to hang about with such people so I can’t really say.
You have no evidence, just irrational prejudice.
Repeating it will make it become true. Repeating it will make it become true. Repeating it will make it become true.
I’ve offered an argument (I think a plausible one) that more racists will go for parties who are tough on immigration (eg the tories) than others. I agree with Matt and S2 that there is a correlation between racists and people who are in favour of draconian law and order policies. I pointed out a thousand posts above that a few right-wing there’ve been one or two tory MPs in recent years who were out and out racists.
I’m amazed that you find most of this even mildly controversial.
As for "I have got something against very right-wing people…many of them are bigots of one sort or another, including more than a few racists" being very similar in nature to religious fundamentalism. Again I should clarify: for "right-wing" read "socially right-wing", apologies for any confusion. But still.
I’ve been to a lot of dinner-parties with (socially) right-wing people in my life. I’ve read the Daily Mail more often than I’d like, and I know that the views expressed in it pale in comparison to those of a proportion of its readers. Ditto for Richard Littlejohn’s column in The Sun, and Jeremy Clarkson’s, and Gary Bushell’s. I’ve heard right-wing MPs stick their foot in their mouths. I’ve heard right-wing tories/UKIP passing off xenophobic bile as anti-EU argument. I’ve had pretty good exposure to the "string ’em up" brigade, and I think I’ve got a fair picture of them. If you include "homophobia" as "bigotry" (and I do), then my accusation couldn’t be further away from a "faith-based" argument. It’s just non-negotiable, obvious fact. And yes there are fair few racists too: the "send ’em back" brigade, for whom immigration is a problem for no other reason than the colour of the skin of the immigrants.
John: Yes, I agree – I think economic policy is far more important than social policy. A rich society can buy an awful lot of social leeway. You’d go the other way, as you say. But I’m always struck by how close my politics are to those on the sensible left. My guess is that (e.g.) me and Blimpish could be on opposite sides of the political divide in 20 years time, assuming that there is a liberal vs. authoritarian splintering of the main parties by then.
Larry: I guess it’s a matter of terminology. The ‘right’ is a broad church. Most of the people I know on the right are young and very socially liberal. Racism just doesn’t appear in our world. But if you include everyone on the right, I guess it happens. My problem is with you saying it’s more of a problem on the ‘right’. I think it’s equally a problem on the left. Would you call those retired trade-unionists in the working men’s clubs up north right-wing? Socially, they are in some sense. Economically, certainly not. I think language is important, and my experience of the right is, as I say, not that it is a hotbed of racism. This is why I dislike the synonymous use of ‘right’ with ‘racist’. It’s irritating for those of us on the right with sensible views.
more racists will go for parties who are tough on immigration
Let’s be realistic here. All three main parties are tough on immigration. Their policies at the election were extremely similar. None of them could be said to be liberal on the issue. Overt racists voted BNP, anyway.
Andrew, I totally understand that you, being a socially liberal chap, would get pissed off with being lumped together with the BNP and God knows what other bigoted nutcases under the banner of "The Right". The "left"/"right" divide is really too crude to be useful, at the very least without the addition of the prefixes "economically" or "socially". I should have been clear from the start about what I meant, rather than adding for "right-wing" read "socially right-wing" throughout later on. My apologies.
In my defence however, I didn’t invent the terminology: describing eg the BNP as "far right" is absolutely standard. However much you might object to it, you should at least be used to it by now. Also I did repeatedly say things like I don’t believe that tories are all racist: seriouly meant disclaimers which you chose not to take seriously. At no stage did I use "right" synonymously with "racist". The closest I came was when I said that I have got something against very right-wing people…many of them are bigots of one sort or another, including more than a few racists. Replacing "right-wing" with "socially illiberal" (which is what I meant, honestly!) I completely stand by that, and I was pretty astounded by your reaction.
I’ll strike a deal with you: in future I’ll take care to say "socially illiberal" rather than "right-wing" when that’s what I mean.
In return, next time you hear a lefty using the terms "right-wing" and "racist" in closer proximity than you’re comfortable with, instead of haranguing them about "irrational prejudice" and "phantom thought-crimes", just explain why such sloppy language is "irritating for those of us on the right with sensible views". They’ll probably sympathise – after all there are plenty of people who enjoy describing eg The Guardian as "communist" just to annoy. But if not, then feel free to throw the kitchen sink at them.
Larry,
> I agree with Matt and S2 that there is a correlation between racists and people who are in favour of draconian law and order policies.
I think maybe you missed the point of what I actually wrote. There is a correlation between everyone and people who are in favour of draconian law and order policies, because everyone is in favour of draconian law and order policies. Therefore, any attempt to infer meaning from the correlation with any one particular point of view, whether it be racism or anything else, is meaningless.
So, for "agree with" read "take the opposite view to".
S2, my apologies. Let me rephrase:
I agree with Matt that there is a correlation between racists and people who are in favour of hang-them-and-flog-them law and order policies.
Larry: Fair enough, you phantom thought crime accusing communist. ;)
Larry,
You forgot to add "… and I am wrong."
Oh bugger. Sorry. Let’s try again:
I agree with S2 that there is a correlation between me and people who are wrong. And furthermore I’m a twat. And a communist.
Anything else?
Of course there’s something else! How could I forget? Ok, one last go:
I agree with S2 that there is a correlation between me and people who are wrong. And furthermore I’m a twat. And a communist. And a Jew-hater.
Surely that’s nailed it now!