'Britons fear race violence': draw your own conclusions - 7 comments

It's hard to know quite what to draw from this BBC/Mori poll. For one thing, I can't find any detailed breakdown of the statistics. Perhaps they aren't broken down at all, which would be a tremendous weakness.

The most obvious flaw is the conflation of race, nationality, and immigration. A backlash against immigrants presumably involves opposing nationalities, though it need not - generational and cultural factors also play a part, not to mention economic differentials. Racial differences might play a part too, but a lot of water has flown under the bridge since the assumption held that racist violence was the preserve of predominantly white working-class communities against immigrants from the Caribbean or Indian subcontinent. Such racism still exists, but hardly has anything to do with current patterns of immigration.

Another problem is the assumption, presumably stemming from an odd faith in Enoch Powell's ability to foretell the future, of a contrast between the 'shaky peace' of today, and some kind of future bloodbath. Yet violence between gangs that define themselves on racial, ethnic, or nationalist grounds is hardly unknown, even if it's usually restricted to already violent areas. The absence of the large-scale riots of years past is hardly proof that tension and hostility has been reduced, just perhaps of social atomisation - the groups themselves are smaller.

Racism, nationalism, and hostility to outsiders, are common to all human societies, and the greatest limitation on the development and progress of humanity, but I doubt there's been any serious diminution of these impulses in centuries, with the exception of some large cosmopolitan cities (researchers in this field who are professional enough not to write pieces off the tops of their heads are welcome to comment on this point). Disappointingly, internationalism is a truly tiny movement in the world, and I suspect that socialism in practice has had a thoroughly negative effect, certainly when compared with free markets.

It's nearly two years since I posted this, but the section I quoted from bowblog still sounds to me like the best strategy for maintaining social harmony without surrendering to bigots (my emphasis):

Our effort, in the wealthy world, (where, let's face it, immigrants are going to continue to arrive in large numbers if we're to remain wealthy) must go into improving the capacity of our reception communities [...], boosting the resilience of the bottom social tier, taking working class grievances seriously and easing the pressures produced by ineluctable change. The goal must be to build social solidarity, to neutralise the embitterment and disconnection that feeds the fascists.

House price reports - 3 comments

According to the BBC:

The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors' (Rics) said that 78.5% more surveyors reported a fall than a rise in house prices in March.

Sounds dramatic: I wonder if anyone thought that meant that 89.25% reported a fall, and 10.75% a rise (89.25 - 10.75 = 78.5)? Or else that 78.5% reported a fall?

In fact, if we take the article at its word, and assume that no surveyors reported no change, it turns out only 64.1% saw a fall, 35.9% a rise (64.1 / 35.9 = 1.785). Let's assume that 20% actually saw no change at all, which doesn't seem too unreasonable: that would take the fallers down to 51.3%, and the risers to 28.7%. That wouldn't be dramatic, unless there really was a sound reason for an inexorable rise in the asset in question, and it says nothing about the size of any increase or decrease.

I'll assume that the BBC doesn't have an agenda to shock, and didn't spin the figures for maximum effect, but whoever pitched the story did. The question is, as Chris Dillow and others have asked, Why Worry? I'd like to see the focus of economic policy shift away from the preservation of the domestic housing market back to things that matter to the entire population, not just those lucky enough to have acquired a phoney wealth by buying or selling their house at the right time: investment in businesses; education, training, working practices, employment, and productivity; the free movement of capital and labour; and international trade.

The Euston Manifesto is 2 - no comments

As I mentioned before, it's seven months or so since I had much contact with the blogging world. As a result I can't remember whether I have always thought Daniel Davies, posting at Comment Is Free about the Euston Manifesto's 2nd anniversary (covered here back in 2006), was a muck-stirring pedant, demonstrating a wannabe journalist's contempt for the earnestness of people who happen to think international democracy and human rights are pretty important, or whether that feeling has struck me more recently.

It's been a while since I've had much contact with the Manifesto team, but I believe that the document is as good a statement of aims as any you'll find - and statements of aims are important things. What's more, it defines my political values more closely than - I have to say - any political party.

Read more here.

A correspondent writes... - 4 comments

A correspondent writes:

Dear labour party
I am disgusted at the abolishing of the 10p tax rate . This has a considerable impact on my situaion. It works out as a 20% decrease in my pension even after the so calledd cost of living rises being factored in.
I have always voted Labour but will not from now on and this is because you are too "dear" to support.
Incidentally how could such a measure be put through without our guardian politicians bringing it to the publics n otice. I think the accusation of taxation by stealth levelled at the labour party is sadly TRUE.
I and my wife will not vote for you until this injustice is put right.
I also want you to note that I know many poor who are tragically affected by this unjust labour party do you think you will get away with this nasty policy especially with elections coming up. Our forefathers must be turning in their graves.
My MP is Mr Byers Wallsend please pass onto him.
yours sadly.
Mr P Dxxxx

What would your response be?

Incidentally, I get a lot of this sort of message. This is by no means the first about the 10p starting rate, but I thought I'd post it as an example. How the 10p rate could be restored without revisiting the entire Budget, I don't know. Who knows what newspaper Mr. Dxxxx reads, or what he can remember of last year's Budget; one thing's for sure, those headlines sure do stick in people's minds.

'Armed Forces Day' - 2 comments

Gordon Brown supports 'an Armed Forces Day to allow the public to show their support and respect for the military'. Support has apparently been growing for a month, if you can believe that.

Just as I think it's wrong to try to diminish the legitimate role of the military for ideological reasons, as certain NUT delegates have tried to do recently, it's also inappropriate to try to campaign for the military for ideological reasons, at least to the extent that appears to have been planned.

As it happens, I do feel there's a greater role for the military at home. Imagine three situations: an ideal world; where we are now; and where it's feasible for us to be. In an ideal world, organised religion ought (I believe) to play no role, but the decline in adherence to our State religion isn't explained by an increase in the 'rational' secularism that some of us presume intelligent people to aspire to. No, what we see is a rise in nihilism and apathy - the worst of all worlds. Religion can appeal to the ignorant, brutish, and nihilistic, in a way that secularism cannot, so more power to any and all peaceful religious groups who proselytise in the inner cities and try to rescue people from a life of crime. My feeling is the same for the military. However much we believe that military action will play no part in a future society (or rather, Future Society), and resent its hierarchies, male brutality and aggression is a fact of life, and I can't believe that the 'discipline' so often talked about would fail to help those with no ambition or structure to their life, and little possibility of a legitimate career.

So I'd support an extension of cadet forces for the young, even if the main sponsor seems to be our own Quentin Davies MP. However, the 'Armed Forces Day' scheme sounds like a grotesque spectacle. Though all members of the military who work in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, to protect civilians from terrorists and fanatics, truly deserve the gratitude of all, I think it's sufficient for us to acknowledge that in our own way, and to be serious about the international issues involved. In the same way that a public servant - or a Government - is rewarded by seeing that a problem they have been tasked with has been solved, and doesn't expect thanks, it's inappropriate for the military - or rather, politicians who speak for it - to expect the public to wave flags, or to 'get behind anybody' on request.

If the liberal and humanitarian case for military intervention overseas hasn't been made - and these Labour governments have been far too timid to make that case - that's a shame. But a State-sponsored military jamboree is a throwback to a time when British imperialism was a fact, not just a dirty word, and it's a sad reflection of the extent to which some Ministers have become detached from reality that such headline-chasing trivia should occupy their capacious brains. So there.

Labels (because Blogger won't let me publish with them): Internationalism, liberal interventionism, military, religion

Welcome back! - 12 comments

Well, it's about seven months since the last post, long beyond the point at which blogs are normally judged to be dead, but I'm minded to get Bloggers4Labour - the service, the 'focal point', plus my own posting - going again. I think that can work, if only posting duties and general activity is spread more widely than before.

So here's my idea: I'd like some amongst the community of generally Labour-supporting bloggers to volunteer to post here, with each blogger doing so on a particular day of the week. So, essentially, I'm looking for six bloggers to come forth and select their day, or say 'any' and let me choose for them. If I can get six I'm sure I'll be sufficiently enthused to take the remaining day myself.

Posts can be weekly round-ups on particular topics, daily 'Best of the Blogs', or, if you prefer, one-off posts. You'll keep the right to cross-post to your own blog, if you have one, and will be able to add a little plug to that blog, here. There must be some degree of 'quality-control'. I won't go into detail here, suffice to say that puff pieces and overly partisan hatchet-jobs are unlikely to be of interest. Still, the vast majority of Labour-sympathetic bloggers shouldn't be put off by this at all.

I do think volunteers ought to 'sign up' for a minimum period - at least six weeks or so. It wouldn't be the end of the world if they were unable to produce a piece precisely on time, or even at all for a particular week, but there has to be some commitment - there could be others keen to take over that slot. Furthermore, a regular flow of thoughtful pieces is a big part of what Bloggers4Labour needs.

So, please get in touch.

P.S. Yes, I did allow a large backlog of unapproved blogs to build up. Many apologies, too, if you failed to get a timely response to a contact mail. I hope to clear that backlog, and to be able to respond to future emails, though I'm afraid I can't commit to responding to all of the multitude that arrived during B4L's hiatus.

P.P.S. Blogger still appears to suck - are there any developments I've missed?