The Labour Government

[threespires]

I would take no comfort from this data.
Militant Islam does not need broad consent or a majority to impose its will as we have seen in Afghanistan twice, the rise of the Islamic state group etc .
A well connected Bangladeshi friend tells me there are real concerns that Bangladesh may fall to Islamists , the way he seemed to tell it was that the Islamist groups already had their hands on the levers of state and I looked it up and that didn't seem the case so I challenged him on it. He basically said that you wouldn't see it in the numbers, but under the surface in the mosques, madrassas, universities, police etc they were taking hold and that a fanatical , well organised minority could easily bring about change as the majority will remain passive and defer to their religious fervour.
It appears to me from conversations with my muslim friends that even for the more secular among them that Islam is a religion that is difficult for them to walk away from and for sure for the majority of them their first allegiance is to their religion, and the less pious are quick to concede their principles to those closer to pure Islam.
As a country we have demonstrated repeatedly that we able to integrate different cultures without major difficulty but Islam is a problem.

History tells us that a relatively small minority of zealots can indeed sieze power but I think the number in this case is much too small even before you take into account that the examples you cite are not equivalent. But here's my bigger issue...

Let's hypothetically say the entire Muslim population of the UK wants to undermine our values. This is obviously not the case but let's just imagine it. That would be about 6% of the population. Now compare that to the number of people who currently when asked, say they would be happy with an authoritarian leader who could bypass parliament and the rule of law to 'get things done'. Depending on the survey and questions asked, that percentage is between 15 and 20%. In other words 3 times the total of the entire Muslim population of the UK.

We are a liberal democracy, we started moving towards this in the 1200s and achieved it in 1928. In our schools we explicitly teach British Values and there are 5 things that we define as fundamental to Britishness.

1. Democracy
2. The Rule of Law
3. Individual Liberty
4. Mutual Respect
5. Tolerance of different faiths and beliefs

This is literally what we teach our children Britishness means, what we mean when we talk about our 'way of life'.

Yet the data suggests that currently 15-20% of our population reject or do not value the first two of those fundamental aspects of our way of life and would be comfortable with an authoritarian strong man taking control instead. The proportion of the Muslim population who'd be up for creating a theocracy is tiny but this group of people are not. So I don't give a toss about the odd Islamist head banger because they're not a credible threat to our way of life, whereas this group of people possibly are. They are a minority but a big enough one to potentially cause significant damage and take over in the way you describe. So I want to understand them more. Who are they, why do they feel like this, how far would they be prepared to go to undermine our way of life, who do they gravitate towards politically? How cohesive is this group of people? How well organised/funded? To your point, do some of these people already have access to the levers of power in this country?

This should be our national conversation, we're beginning to see what happens in the US when you elect and tolerate someone who's not interested in democracy or the rule of law. Yet we have maybe up to a fifth of our population who seem ok with the idea. Imo that's what we should be talking about.

 

[Rascal]

I would take no comfort from this data.

of course

Militant Islam does not need broad consent or a majority to impose its will as we have seen in Afghanistan twice, the rise of the Islamic state group etc .

Can you explain that further?

A well connected Bangladeshi friend tells me there are real concerns that Bangladesh may fall to Islamists ,

Bangladesh is a country where Islam is the dominant religion. Who are these Islamists?

the way he seemed to tell it was that the Islamist groups already had their hands on the levers of state and I looked it up and that didn't seem the case so I challenged him on it. He basically said that you wouldn't see it in the numbers, but under the surface in the mosques, madrassas, universities, police etc they were taking hold and that a fanatical , well organised minority could easily bring about change as the majority will remain passive and defer to their religious fervour.

He "seemed to tell you this" or you inferred

It appears to me from conversations with my muslim friends that even for the more secular among them that Islam is a religion that is difficult for them to walk away from and for sure for the majority of them their first allegiance is to their religion, and the less pious are quick to concede their principles to those closer to pure Islam.

It appears?

I take it you also have issues with Jehovahs witness and other jesuit organisations that are equally pious?

Or is it being pious you have an issue with?

As a country we have demonstrated repeatedly that we able to integrate different cultures without major difficulty but Islam is a problem.

The Mayor of London, a muslim, has won how many elections? How much more can you integrate than that?

 

[Hertzblue]

History tells us that a relatively small minority of zealots can indeed sieze power but I think the number in this case is much too small even before you take into account that the examples you cite are not equivalent. But here's my bigger issue...

Let's hypothetically say the entire Muslim population of the UK wants to undermine our values. This is obviously not the case but let's just imagine it. That would be about 6% of the population. Now compare that to the number of people who currently when asked, say they would be happy with an authoritarian leader who could bypass parliament and the rule of law to 'get things done'. Depending on the survey and questions asked, that percentage is between 15 and 20%. In other words 3 times the total of the entire Muslim population of the UK.

We are a liberal democracy, we started moving towards this in the 1200s and achieved it in 1928. In our schools we explicitly teach British Values and there are 5 things that we define as fundamental to Britishness.

1. Democracy
2. The Rule of Law
3. Individual Liberty
4. Mutual Respect
5. Tolerance of different faiths and beliefs

This is literally what we teach our children Britishness means, what we mean when we talk about our 'way of life'.

Yet the data suggests that currently 15-20% of our population reject or do not value the first two of those fundamental aspects of our way of life and would be comfortable with an authoritarian strong man taking control instead. The proportion of the Muslim population who'd be up for creating a theocracy is tiny but this group of people are not. So I don't give a toss about the odd Islamist head banger because they're not a credible threat to our way of life, whereas this group of people possibly are. They are a minority but a big enough one to potentially cause significant damage and take over in the way you describe. So I want to understand them more. Who are they, why do they feel like this, how far would they be prepared to go to undermine our way of life, who do they gravitate towards politically? How cohesive is this group of people? How well organised/funded? To your point, do some of these people already have access to the levers of power in this country?

This should be our national conversation, we're beginning to see what happens in the US when you elect and tolerate someone who's not interested in democracy or the rule of law. Yet we have maybe up to a fifth of our population who seem ok with the idea. Imo that's what we should be talking about.

I am not suggesting for a moment we are in imminent danger of a muslim theocracy, as you say the numbers are of course too small. The point I was making and I think you accept is that a small highly motivated minority can take control of a passive majority and exercise power. Therefore there is no comfort in the numbers that suggest only a minority of UK muslims prefer Sharia law. We saw at the last election in that the muslim vote was being re-organised along more sectarian lines , this will be an opportunity for militant Islam and they will have scant respect for the British liberal values you mention. This will pose a threat to our way of life in regard to tolerance, free speech etc.

As to your second point, I do wonder sometimes if our version of democracy will survive but usually convince myself it will. I am not surprised therefore that some may not reach the same conclusion.
Democracy surely has to be seen to work , the will of the majority should prevail and be seen to prevail. Unfortunately in recent times we have seen the opposite. Whatever your opinion of Brexit, the country voted to leave the EU, yet this democratic vote was undermined at every turn in our own Parliament with the complicity of the Speaker of the House. The establishment conspired to thwart the democratic will of the people.
The majority of the electorate want to see considerably lower immigration, both major political parties know this, they both promise to deliver this yet in government they do the opposite.
At the last election, the Labour Party won 63% of the seats in Parliament with barely 33% of the vote, is their agenda the will of the people? The system does not work.

That said I would suggest that the biggest driver of the anti - democracy sentiment you mention is that the problems of the Country seem intractable. None of the major parties or politicians inspire confidence or have any sense of consensus between them on how to move forward. The country is divided by identity politics, culture wars, generational wealth disparity etc, you could easily be forgiven for feeling it is ungovernable.
In such circumstances, is surprising that some might yearn for an strong authoritarian leader to cut through all the different interest groups and do, on balance what is right for the majority and the country , I don't think so and history tells us we shouldn't be surprised either.

Who are these people ? Nothing sinister ,just ordinary, hard working tax payers, fucked off with paying for everything, not being listened to and being taken for granted. Are they organised and funded - no , they are just taken for granted.

No wonder the CCP are as dismissive of our version of democracy as we are of theirs.

 

[Don Karleone]

She really is a star

 

[TinFoilHat]

She really is a star

Brains and beauty that girl.

 

[Postman Pep]

Under fire from who exactly? Also "she went on to speak up for key demands like ..... asking for more funding for the fire services".

Meanwhile

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Under fire from who exactly? Also "she went on to speak up for key demands like ..... asking for more funding for the fire services".

Meanwhile

Where does this money go exactly?

 

[hilts]

Where does this money go exactly?

I think they are just nice people who have a bit of cash on them, they only give it to Wes coz they bump into him while dropping off fruit baskets at the local hospital.

 

[blueinsa]

I think they are just nice people who have a bit of cash on them, they only give it to Wes coz they bump into him while dropping off fruit baskets at the local hospital.

It’s only ever a story(scandal)if its a Tory on the receiving end…

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Where does this money go exactly?

Looks like he can use it for whatever he wants as long as he declares it. The question that the Good Law Society is rightly asking is what are these healthcare companies expecting from the Health Secretary in exchange for the tens of thousands of pounds they are giving him? He is after all only a tenporary guardian of OUR NHS, we should have a right to know what has been asked by these companies.

I kind of hoped, rather naively, that this sort of thing would stop when Labour came to power. Ho hum.

 

[BobKowalski]

Where does this money go exactly?

The Labour party. Funding through donations which above a certain figure have to be registered and declared.

 

[hilts]

It’s only ever a story(scandal)if its a Tory on the receiving end…

I just think new new Labour are just nicer people fella, that's why they are true caring socialists to the bone. About time good honest working class folk took control.

 

[hilts]

The Labour party. Funding through donations which above a certain figure have to be registered and declared.

I think he probably knows that, the post showing a Labour politician the companies and the figures were a bit of a giveaway:-)

 

[BobKowalski]

Looks like he can use it for whatever he wants as long as he declares it. The question that the Good Law Society is rightly asking is what are these healthcare companies expecting from the Health Secretary in exchange for the tens of thousands of pounds they are giving him? He is after all only a tenporary guardian of OUR NHS, we should have a right to know what has been asked by these companies.

I kind of hoped, rather naively, that this sort of thing would stop when Labour came to power. Ho hum.

All Political Parties are partly funded by donations from companies/wealthy individuals etc. The legal requirement is that they are registered and declared so that questions can be raised and scrutiny applied if necessary

These donations via the Health Sec are for access to and a ‘sympathetic’ hearing from the Health Sec. This is how the system works. I personally favour a cap on political party spending and all parties to receive State funding and ban private donations above a certain figure thus still allowing small donations from the general public.

The argument against is that large donor fundings will still happen but under the table and discourage scrutiny and encourage corruption.

The Labour Party, Tory Party, Lib Dem’s etc all operate under this system and the chances of Labour refusing to accept legal donations to run and fund campaigns, pay staff and everything else are less than zero.

 

[BobKowalski]

I think he probably knows that, the post showing a Labour politician the companies and the figures were a bit of a giveaway:-)

Probably, but that begs the question as to why we are having a redundant conversation over legal donations which are used to buy access and influence.

The conversation should be why is this legal and should we allow it? Is State funding the answer with perhaps a positive weighting for less mainstream political parties that score above a minimum percentage in a GE - Greens, Reform, Count Buckethead.

 

[Brewster's millions]

Looks like he can use it for whatever he wants as long as he declares it. The question that the Good Law Society is rightly asking is what are these healthcare companies expecting from the Health Secretary in exchange for the tens of thousands of pounds they are giving him? He is after all only a tenporary guardian of OUR NHS, we should have a right to know what has been asked by these companies.

I kind of hoped, rather naively, that this sort of thing would stop when Labour came to power. Ho hum.

Labour were organising a business conference, five grand a head, offering access to Reeves and Reynolds.

I say were as they’ve had to pull it due to low demand, but it’s a familiar theme.

 

[west didsblue]

Not sure if people realise that every MP receives donations. There’s a 1007 page online document that anyone can check to see what each MP receives. Streeting’s looks fairly unremarkable compared to the rest.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Not sure if people realise that every MP receives donations. There’s a 1007 page online document that anyone can check to see what each MP receives. Streeting’s looks fairly unremarkable compared to the rest.

It’s all part of the “just the same” rhetoric.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Not sure if people realise that every MP receives donations. There’s a 1007 page online document that anyone can check to see what each MP receives. Streeting’s looks fairly unremarkable compared to the rest.

I realise that, I just would like the Health Secretary to reveal what has been asked of him in return for those donations, I'm sure you would like to know also would you not?

 

[TinFoilHat]

"wes streeting always was a right wing, lickspittle ****"