Douglas Murray on intolerant politics

[BovaryX]

There is an interesting article by Douglas Murray in the DM about the authoritarian, identity politics which have alienated Labour voters and triggered a paradigm shift in the political landscape. It covers some of the themes which Lang GC Pencils and others have been discussing in light of election result.

It is a divide between people who have real-world concerns and those focused on niche and barely significant ones...How, you might ask, have we reached such a state? There is a clue in the Labour Party’s dysfunctional reaction to its catastrophic defeat on Thursday

the 700 page document which was freely available for all to consider
Highlights included:
Tch! Of course we can keep the pound. Tch! Of course we don't need a border. Tch! Of course we can get into the EU as a separate member state.

I'll lay off now, but I don't think that referendum was any better then Brexit in terms of untruths. It certainly was massively divisive, I know families that are still suffering because of it. To think of even suggesting another one is madness.

This is the model that Ireland followed upon independence, and no, the Scottish government couldn't 'force' it on Westminster but there is no reason beyond spite for the Westminster government to have done otherwise.

On short, any stripping of citizenship would have been entirely on Westminster, it was not the SNP's vision at all.

I really don't see how it would have been fair to hold a referendum on any basis other than who lives here. To do otherwise would have opened up a can of worms.

My recollection of the last Indyref (as a member of the diaspora) is that I would have had the choice of dual nationality had the vote gone for independence.

In my own family opinions split along age lines - younger niece was pro independence, older one anti (but both perfectly capable of sitting in the same room and discussing it in a civilised way).

Ex-Muslim campaign groups have always highlighted how they have been consistently betrayed by the so-called progressive left, who end up supporting extreme Islamist ideology such as the niqab like it's a good thing while refusing to care about the issues faced by more secular Muslims or those who abandon Islam.
Yes. When I was a kid growing up in South London in the 80's, there was a large muslim community. No one ever wore the Burqua or Niqab outside the Saudi community in Kensington. They wore brightly coloured Salwar Kameez and scarves, as well as western dress. The infiltration of the hardline Saudi Wahabi Islam into mosques imposed on British Muslims has caused this and has been embraced by the left as a 'freedom' when it only applies to women. I suspect the burqua wearing has also led to the 'non burqua wearing women are not pious so are therefore sluts attitude amongst some Muslim men and their families that led to the issues in Rochdale etc. An attitude that the white middle class faraway left also embraced to the detriment of the communities they purported to want to protect.

Quite a lot of teens wore the full niqab where I was, apparently at least partly because they liked how much shock and consternation it causes. So I think the reasons are varied and complex.

Also as far as I can tell the NHS is faring better in Scotland than it is elsewhere in the UK.

They wore brightly coloured Salwar Kameez and scarves, as well as western dress

This. The muslim women and girls I grew up around (also 80s) wore loose, bright scarves. It was notable that they always wore trousers but that was something we non-muslim girls were jealous of at the time as we were not permitted to wear trousers at school. It didn't occur to me growing up that the muslim girls were being restricted in their trouser wearing, it felt quite the opposite, that their religion allowed them a freedom the rest of us were denied.

Obviously adult perspectives are different but in my memory the muslim girls in my school were happy, flamboyant, carefree.

Quite a lot of teens wore the full niqab where I was, apparently at least partly because they liked how much shock and consternation it causes. So I think the reasons are varied and complex

I've actually confronted and spoken to women wearing the niqab. Many of them seem to be middle class and educated, and see it as them making some sort of gesture of cultural and/or religious pride.

Still does not make it acceptable in my eyes. I do think it is often an aggressive act of cultural expression, knowing full well it offends many.

I have no real problem with the hijab. Head coverings are normal practice in many religions. For many young women the hijab is a fashion accessory.

I do think it is often an aggressive act of cultural expression, knowing full well it offends many.

I don't wish to comment on the motivations of muslim women themselves, but I do think the failure on the part of western 'progressives' to even acknowledge that in our culture face covering is seen as nefarious and understand that it makes many people uncomfortable is supremely unhelpful.

I think the niqab will begin to disappear, if it isn't already.

The niqab was always driven by the Gulf. And Saudi Arabia is now undergoing a period of social and cultural reform, which will, no doubt, affect the kinds of messages about Islam that its religious outreach programmes (for want of a better description) will convey to Western Muslim communities.

And Daesh/Isis dealt the image of the niqabi a really devasting blow. It is no longer associated with modern religious conservatism, but a bunch of psychopaths and their wives that everyone across the Middle East, no matter their creed, absolutely loathes.

It has had its day, I reckon.

I agree, Packing. And the idiotic choosey choicey empowerment fools will pretend they never said a word.

I'd quite like to go back to what we were discussing about "somewhere vs. anywhere", if that's okay.

I think we have to remember something about "somewhere". It means a sense of community. But community takes a lot of work. And someone has to do that work.

I live in a "somewhere" place with a strong community of mixed working, middle and some upper middle-class people. My home is in the middle of the working/lower-middle part with mixed private and social housing. By virtue of the fact that me and DH are involved in local community work and local politics, we provide, as a couple, access to local government and problem-solving for our ward.

So everything turns up at our door from rubbish removal to Xmas lights to dealing with the local social housing landlord to events at the local church to local annual galas to broken play equipment and benches to bus shelters ... even to letting people know about the sudden death of a neighbour when the family cannot. If someone in our ward has a problem, it will be "go and see Packing or her DH".

But fuck is it a lot of work and time.

And it's not just us. Our community is fundamentally supported by a backbone of about 50 people in a population of around 4000 electors. These are the people who do the local plantings, organise the children's day and the local gala, run the football and bowling club, run the local pubs and shops, sit on the town council, are the local borough councillors, run the scouts and brownies, run the local playgroups, organise the annual historical event and the Remembrance Sunday parade ... and only the local borough councillors get expenses.

And every term, we try to get more people involved. We've even begged people to stand for positions and run orientation meetings for people interested in local government. Sometimes, it has been a great success; other times, an abject failure.

When it has been a success, it is because someone has "skin in the game", for want of better phrase. They've been a local family for years, they are passionate about conservation, they want to make new friends, their kids are at the local schools, they run a business in the area, they want their children to experience scouts, they had a family member in the forces and so on. In short, they care about where they live.

But the thing about high transition areas is that you don't get any of this. If you have large numbers of people moving in and out, they have no "skin in the game." So these places become "anywhere" places because there is nothing to root them down, and you don't get those connections or events that create a sense of place. Again, in areas where there is a significant diasporic presence, the disapora itself often creates a secondary community that operates solely within the disapora itself and excludes non-diasporic members in the area (although a good bakery can often ease this situation ).

I think this is why areas of high migration, substantial migrant communities, extraordinary wealth, or student accomodation start feeling a lot like airports because that is kinda what they are, to some extent. Most of the residents aren't actually living their lives there; they are stop-overs on the way to something else. But for those trying to live their lives there, the experience can be extremely distressing.

Back to the original subject of the thread, I came across this gem in Edmund Taylor's Richer by Asia today:

Myth or reality, our belief in progress, in evolution towards a better world, is an essential ingredient of our psychological as well as of our social well-being. It is more than a personal and collective hope: It is an incentive to co-operative effort, for the belief in a bettering world lays upon the individual the duty to contribute to it, to want the best thing for oneself, perhaps, but better things for all.

The above is a really basic principle, which should underpin progressive politics. It also seems to run counter to the campaigning instincts of the modern Labour party, which doesn't offer a cohesive vision as to how they are going to make the country better, and don't really offer anything much to most voters, except the threat that the other party is worse.

Packing, your posts are so excellent. Thanks for putting this into words for us. Your area sounds like mine!

We've even begged people to stand for positions and run orientation meetings for people interested in local government.

I often think party politics gets in the way of this.

There are a handful of people who are politically ambitious in the party political sense, and then there are people who are interested in local governance in the sense of seeing ways to improve their community but who aren't interested in party politics and put off by it.

In the highlands and islands there is a long tradition of independent councillors. I often think they might be on to something.

And just to add: by virtue of what those 50 people do in our ward, including me and DH, it is extremely difficult to assign yourself to any political party if you want to support everybody.

In one sense, it is enlightening because we get a very unusual insight into how people in our area feel about national politics but, on the other, it means very few of us can ever go any higher on the political ladder.

I know people who have worked for the community on the ground for decades, and would make fantastic MPs, but they will never get there because they would have to join a political party to stand.

And they can't because, for example, they are in a Labour area and they know that the policies their constituents need are anathema to the left. Or visa versa for a Tory area.

x-post there, Arnold!

Thank you for posting that, Packing – that's a much more articulate and detailed version of what I've been wanting to say about a PP's comment that "lack of community" is caused by immigration, when I feel it's caused by transience of any kind, particularly in-country migration.

The flipside of which is that some of my friends who arrived as refugees have slotted in very well indeed in the working class street where they were settled, because the idea of community they brought with them matched what they found.

They were out there almost immediately mowing lawns and getting in shopping for their elderly neighbours, whose adult children have fecked off somewhere more exciting for the job opportunities.

Also agree about the value of a good bakery. Or any significant cross-over venue.

Of I'm honest packing I quite fancy being in local government myself but have no wish to involve myself in aprty politics again. My stint in the Labour Party back in the 90s put me off for life.

The problem is getting elected as an independent is incredibly hard, even when everyone knows you, your dog and your granny. And if you do get there it is very lonely as my local independent has found out. Everyone around you is too busy towing the party line to support you even when they are privately saying they agree.

He's very frustrated.

I’ve often though about standing as an independent. We have had a few local councillors of that sort. I’m completely out off by party politics. Not sure it is right for local council level. (Actually, I’m not sure it’s right for national level, either, any more... but that’s unlikely to change...)

Nowadays I am also put off by the flak you’d get on social media, too. Especially as a female. But that is a different point.

Yes — it’s transience, rather than immigration as such, that is the issue. If someone wants to put down roots, and gets stuck in, their background matters less. In fact, I find that class is also not a major issue either, from what I observe. As long as no one throws their weight around.

And those adult children who moved away for the job opportunities may well be writing romantic paeons to the sense of community in their working class parents' area (provided by my friends' labour), while bewailing the "lack of community" provided by "society" in the area they have migrated to – which is stuffed with in-country migrants who have moved there exactly as the wailers did.

Definitely resonates with me Packing in terms of community being dependent on having people willing to pitch in and actually make that community function on multiple levels. The idea that community just happens by magic is compltetely wrong - it takes time and effort.

Its one of the reasons the idea that the Social Care crisis can be solved by having stronger community really worries me. In reality people are more likely to need social care if they are poor and in ill health; in the village where I live which has a strong community there are lots of people to help the people who need it. In poorer areas with transient populations, that community cohesion isnt there and perversely those are places where people are more likely to have chronic health problems, struggle financially and live in poor housing which exacerbates health problems.

Ive been asked several times to get involved as a local councillor and I wont do it precisely because I do not want to be involved with a party machine. Saying that, my village now has an Independent councillor and that is working very well.

Kit19 I am living your second paragraph right now (I'm the person who needs social care; I'm also a new arrival in my current area, as my home area became too expensive for me to live in).

ah @PerkingFaintly I am so sorry to hear that. I get very frustrated with the idea that 'community' will magic away the fact that social care in the UK is on its knees and that's before the next round of cuts kick in. I remember the early 90s and days of Care in the Community when lots of people who had been in instututions for years were suddenly sent out into the community with no real understanding of how it would work on a practical level and actually not asking the 'community' in the broadest sense if they were willing to help in the first place.

I worked with people with mental health problems who had been discharged from long stay hsopitals, some of whom had been there for 20 or 30 years. Im not saying living in an institution was right or that they shouldnt have been given the opportunity to move into their own house but a transition of that magnitude takes time. Instead I had people who'd never lived alone out in bedsits with one overworked mental health social worker to support them and if they were lucky a community psychiatric nurse. Everyime people in Government and in the third sector wimble on about community being the answer, i think 'yeah cos that worked so well last time!'

there is no getting around the fact that some people need properly resourced social care to help with personal things like bathing, getting dressed, going to the loo. Sure its nice to have people pop round for a chat or give you a lift to the doctors which a strng community would do but social care is so much more than that.