Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » After a Year of Revolt, what’s in store for 2017?

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited December 2016 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » After a Year of Revolt, what’s in store for 2017?

Few would have predicted twelve months ago that Donald Trump would be about to be inaugurated, that Theresa May would be prime minister and that Paul Nuttall would be leader of UKIP. Those who did should have cashed in nicely. There were straws in the wind for all of these (though most would have anticipated a change of UKIP leader after a Remain win, not a Leave), but the odds were still strongly against.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • First.
  • CopperSulphateCopperSulphate Posts: 1,119
    edited December 2016
    FPT

    In answer to SeanT's question, the obvious choice would be to go for the fascists.

    Fascist states recover quickly and can be perfectly good places to live, see Germany, Italy, Spain etc.

    Islamic states however never recover from Islam. You're looking at a miserable future not just for yourselves, but for your children and grandchildren as well.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786
    Completely nuts. I almost thought he was serious until I got to the bit about Iain Duncan Smith's brainchild.
  • With the exception of Putin's influence in the Middle East, Oborne could well be wrong on all points. I expect him to be wrong on most of them.

    One commenter said it read like his (the commenter's) wish list. Yes - that's probably precisely why it was written: Daily Mail clickbait.
  • Just saw a huge shooting star flying across northern Japan towards the Pacific, there may still be hope for Giant Meteor 2016.
  • Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019
    David I really hope you're right. I think the world needs a period of quiet consolidation. I just hope that military actions between the three superpowers isn't one of the Black Swan events
  • Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019
    Oh yes, David you're cheating surely you can't claim a first on your own article :grin:
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Completely nuts. I almost thought he was serious until I got to the bit about Iain Duncan Smith's brainchild.
    I think he has a few right (though most are kipper wet dreams). The Saudi royal family may well fall, due to its failing Yemen war, corruption, but mostly due to running out of money. It will be more likely to be replaced by an IS type regime than a pro-American one.

    Trumps trade war with China looks the major risk to the global economy, pretty nailed on in my book. China looks vulnerable to a major debt bubble bursting.
  • AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852
    edited December 2016

    In answer to SeanT's question, the obvious choice would be to go for the fascists.

    Fascist states recover quickly and can be perfectly good places to live, see Germany, Italy, Spain etc.

    Islamic states however never recover from Islam. You're looking at a miserable future not just for yourselves, but for your children and grandchildren as well.

    I would go with the Meeks approach and leave (ok to be fair I already have, but that was meant to be temporary). The Fascist state would be too blunt an instrument to solve the problem. My wife is brown skinned, so are my children, and most of the people I love. A fascist government would not stop at Islamic nutters. Would I give up my family to save the UK, no, sorry, you're on your own ;)
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited December 2016
    Establishment fightback? So in the legacy of the late Carrie Fisher next year will be The Empire Strikes Back.

    I suppose to many this year did represent A New Hope.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,715

    With the exception of Putin's influence in the Middle East, Oborne could well be wrong on all points. I expect him to be wrong on most of them.

    One commenter said it read like his (the commenter's) wish list. Yes - that's probably precisely why it was written: Daily Mail clickbait.

    He could be right about Mugabe, of course; surely his death or incapacity can’t be far away.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    edited December 2016
    FPT great long form intv with Deirdre - both classical liberals

    https://youtu.be/8UpGbvOTlBE
  • Blue_rog said:

    Oh yes, David you're cheating surely you can't claim a first on your own article :grin:

    I did that because it'd been up for five minutes and no-one had commented - I wanted to check that the settings weren't wrong and that commenting hadn't accidentally been disabled. So you all missed your chance. Ha.
  • The big question.

    Will we get the quote facility back on the main PB website at some point in 2017?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    edited December 2016
    YS

    "On Topic this is Peter Oborne's startling piece in today's Mail. "

    Pretty standard right-wing wish list. Apart from May's 400 seat victory the rest is a dream
  • "I would go with the Meeks approach and leave"

    Fair enough, but I don't see that any anti-Islamic government would necessarily target all minorities.

    It does seem to be that the people who supported the politics that cause the problem will be the first to flee when the problems emerge.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    FPT

    In answer to SeanT's question, the obvious choice would be to go for the fascists.

    Fascist states recover quickly and can be perfectly good places to live, see Germany, Italy, Spain etc.

    Islamic states however never recover from Islam. You're looking at a miserable future not just for yourselves, but for your children and grandchildren as well.

    I would go with the Meeks approach and leave (ok to be fair I already have, but that was meant to be temporary). The Fascist state would be too blunt an instrument to solve the problem. My wife is brown skinned, so are my children, and most of the people I love. A fascist government would not stop at Islamic nutters. Would I give up my family to save the UK, no, sorry, you're on your own ;)
    SeanT's scenarioo is nonsense, both on the Islamist threat (not supported by most British Muslims, let alone the rest of us) and of Fasicim. Britons do not like extemism.

    If however it happened, then I too would be on my way. My Britain would have ceased to exist.
  • With the exception of Putin's influence in the Middle East, Oborne could well be wrong on all points. I expect him to be wrong on most of them.

    One commenter said it read like his (the commenter's) wish list. Yes - that's probably precisely why it was written: Daily Mail clickbait.

    He could be right about Mugabe, of course; surely his death or incapacity can’t be far away.
    I was discounting death as a reason for Mugabe standing down, unless self-inflicted.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,715
    edited December 2016
    Roger said:

    YS

    "On Topic this is Peter Oborne's startling piece in today's Mail. "

    Pretty standard right-wing wish list. Apart from May's 400 seat victory the rest is a dream

    She wouldn’t get 400 seats without Scotland anyway.

    Edit. Silly misstype!
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited December 2016
    Roger said:

    YS

    "On Topic this is Peter Oborne's startling piece in today's Mail. "

    Pretty standard right-wing wish list. Apart from May's 400 seat victory the rest is a dream

    I am not so sure, a hung parliament is as likely as a 400 seat victory. Indeed NOC is the value bet for the next election. I think Labour is looking only to exceed expectations, and Mays government to fail to meet them.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    In answer to SeanT's question, the obvious choice would be to go for the fascists.

    Fascist states recover quickly and can be perfectly good places to live, see Germany, Italy, Spain etc.

    Islamic states however never recover from Islam. You're looking at a miserable future not just for yourselves, but for your children and grandchildren as well.

    I would go with the Meeks approach and leave (ok to be fair I already have, but that was meant to be temporary). The Fascist state would be too blunt an instrument to solve the problem. My wife is brown skinned, so are my children, and most of the people I love. A fascist government would not stop at Islamic nutters. Would I give up my family to save the UK, no, sorry, you're on your own ;)
    The question is rather ridiculous, but if forced to answer I'd agree with Mr Meeks and yourself. Fortunately 'we' (I think yourself and Mr Meeks, and myself) might have income and skills that would aid us leaving. Many people do not.

    But to go a little further: either situation would be an absolute failure of British society and the 'values' (*) we all seem to hold dear. Neither is a good situation, nor one any reasonable person would want.

    We would have utterly failed.

    Therefore if forced to stay, I'd like to think I'd choose a third route: to stand up and fight (in whatever way) for those values that we currently hold dear. I fear the reason some people are choosing the fascist alternative is that they secretly feel quite comfortable with the idea.

    (*) However that might be defined.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    FPT

    In answer to SeanT's question, the obvious choice would be to go for the fascists.

    Fascist states recover quickly and can be perfectly good places to live, see Germany, Italy, Spain etc.

    Islamic states however never recover from Islam. You're looking at a miserable future not just for yourselves, but for your children and grandchildren as well.

    I would go with the Meeks approach and leave (ok to be fair I already have, but that was meant to be temporary). The Fascist state would be too blunt an instrument to solve the problem. My wife is brown skinned, so are my children, and most of the people I love. A fascist government would not stop at Islamic nutters. Would I give up my family to save the UK, no, sorry, you're on your own ;)
    SeanT's scenarioo is nonsense, both on the Islamist threat (not supported by most British Muslims, let alone the rest of us) and of Fasicim. Britons do not like extemism.

    If however it happened, then I too would be on my way. My Britain would have ceased to exist.
    30% of British Muslims support or have sympathy for ISIS or other terrorists. The support levels approach 50% among younger Muslims. This has been shown by PEW and ICM among others. British Muslims are the most likely to sympathise or support radical Islam in all of Europe.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    "I would go with the Meeks approach and leave"

    Fair enough, but I don't see that any anti-Islamic government would necessarily target all minorities.

    It does seem to be that the people who supported the politics that cause the problem will be the first to flee when the problems emerge.

    "I don't see that any anti-Islamic government would necessarily target all minorities."

    Any government that descended to that level would do whatever it could to maintain its power. As we've seen so many times in the past throughout the world, many politicians see politics not as a means to help people, but as a means to grab power for themselves. Any group who disagrees with them is at risk.
  • First.

    Congratulations David, sort of, on coming first on your own thread header!
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383

    First.

    Congratulations David, sort of, on coming first on your own thread header!
    Ooh err missus
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    MaxPB said:

    FPT

    In answer to SeanT's question, the obvious choice would be to go for the fascists.

    Fascist states recover quickly and can be perfectly good places to live, see Germany, Italy, Spain etc.

    Islamic states however never recover from Islam. You're looking at a miserable future not just for yourselves, but for your children and grandchildren as well.

    I would go with the Meeks approach and leave (ok to be fair I already have, but that was meant to be temporary). The Fascist state would be too blunt an instrument to solve the problem. My wife is brown skinned, so are my children, and most of the people I love. A fascist government would not stop at Islamic nutters. Would I give up my family to save the UK, no, sorry, you're on your own ;)
    SeanT's scenarioo is nonsense, both on the Islamist threat (not supported by most British Muslims, let alone the rest of us) and of Fasicim. Britons do not like extemism.

    If however it happened, then I too would be on my way. My Britain would have ceased to exist.
    30% of British Muslims support or have sympathy for ISIS or other terrorists. The support levels approach 50% among younger Muslims. This has been shown by PEW and ICM among others. British Muslims are the most likely to sympathise or support radical Islam in all of Europe.
    As I pointed out - a minority. There is also a wealth of difference between a degree of sympathy with the grievances, and active participation in atrocities. There is a similar wealth of difference between dislike of Niquab and a pogrom against Muslims.

  • FPT

    In answer to SeanT's question, the obvious choice would be to go for the fascists.

    Fascist states recover quickly and can be perfectly good places to live, see Germany, Italy, Spain etc.

    Islamic states however never recover from Islam. You're looking at a miserable future not just for yourselves, but for your children and grandchildren as well.

    I would go with the Meeks approach and leave (ok to be fair I already have, but that was meant to be temporary). The Fascist state would be too blunt an instrument to solve the problem. My wife is brown skinned, so are my children, and most of the people I love. A fascist government would not stop at Islamic nutters. Would I give up my family to save the UK, no, sorry, you're on your own ;)
    SeanT's scenarioo is nonsense, both on the Islamist threat (not supported by most British Muslims, let alone the rest of us) and of Fasicim. Britons do not like extemism.

    If however it happened, then I too would be on my way. My Britain would have ceased to exist.
    It could, however, be rebuilt - but not if all those capable of doing so have left.
  • "Any government that descended to that level would do whatever it could to maintain its power."

    Well I'm wondering what exactly can be done to combat rising Islamic extremism exactly. It seems we're too weak to actually do anything at all.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    edited December 2016
    What a difference a year makes

    SkyData
    Public's 2016 predictions as of Dec 2015:
    Brexit
    Likely 23%
    Unlikely 57%
    Cameron resigns
    Likely 8%
    Unlikely 82%
    Trump
    Likely 7%
    Unlikely 84%

    Leicester win title
    Likely 12%
    Unlikely 56%
    More GB medals than London
    Likely 29%
    Unlikely 51%
    We find life on Mars
    Likely 17%
    Unlikely 64%

  • In answer to SeanT's question, the obvious choice would be to go for the fascists.

    Fascist states recover quickly and can be perfectly good places to live, see Germany, Italy, Spain etc.

    Islamic states however never recover from Islam. You're looking at a miserable future not just for yourselves, but for your children and grandchildren as well.

    I would go with the Meeks approach and leave (ok to be fair I already have, but that was meant to be temporary). The Fascist state would be too blunt an instrument to solve the problem. My wife is brown skinned, so are my children, and most of the people I love. A fascist government would not stop at Islamic nutters. Would I give up my family to save the UK, no, sorry, you're on your own ;)
    The question is rather ridiculous, but if forced to answer I'd agree with Mr Meeks and yourself. Fortunately 'we' (I think yourself and Mr Meeks, and myself) might have income and skills that would aid us leaving. Many people do not.

    But to go a little further: either situation would be an absolute failure of British society and the 'values' (*) we all seem to hold dear. Neither is a good situation, nor one any reasonable person would want.

    [snip].
    It'd be nothing new. There is a statue of Cromwell outside parliament.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,764
    I don't think the Conservatives would reach 400 seats, more like 350-370. Labour have gone backwards in secondary elections this year, suggesting a bad general election outcome.
  • "As I pointed out - a minority. There is also a wealth of difference between a degree of sympathy with the grievances, and active participation in atrocities. There is a similar wealth of difference between dislike of Niquab and a pogrom against Muslims. "

    Jeez I can hear the hands being wrung from here. When presented with the fact that 50% of young British Muslims have sympathy with ISIS the first reaction is to play it down and make excuses as to why it's not a big issue.

    I seriously doubt there's much more support for ISIS in places like Saudi Arabia that are complete hell holes. But hey it's just a minority and only sympathy so no need to worry about it.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,042

    With the exception of Putin's influence in the Middle East, Oborne could well be wrong on all points. I expect him to be wrong on most of them.

    One commenter said it read like his (the commenter's) wish list. Yes - that's probably precisely why it was written: Daily Mail clickbait.

    He could be right about Mugabe, of course; surely his death or incapacity can’t be far away.
    I was discounting death as a reason for Mugabe standing down, unless self-inflicted.
    Eh? You think he'd carry on even from beyond the grave?
  • Something to watch out for in Spain - the Catalan government has vowed to declare independence in 2017. It could be a damp squib, but it could also get a bit tasty.

    The latest poll in Catalonia showed a small majority opposed to independence.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    OT 'Govey' on Dead Ringers is good.
  • With the exception of Putin's influence in the Middle East, Oborne could well be wrong on all points. I expect him to be wrong on most of them.

    One commenter said it read like his (the commenter's) wish list. Yes - that's probably precisely why it was written: Daily Mail clickbait.

    He could be right about Mugabe, of course; surely his death or incapacity can’t be far away.
    I was discounting death as a reason for Mugabe standing down, unless self-inflicted.
    Eh? You think he'd carry on even from beyond the grave?
    Kim Il-Sung tried to.

    But what I was meaning was that Oborne's prediction is that Mugabe will be 'forced out'. I don't count dying as being forced out.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,080
    FPT.

    Only catching up, but the stats on the previous post look peculiar.

    Survey of 124k patients says that 20% wait >5 days ie the mean or median is likely to be 2 to 4 days.
    Meanwhile a survey of 800 Doctors tells us that the "average" wait for a routine appointment is 13 days.

    That cannot be reconciled.

    More and more detailed data is required. It is not clear, for example, whether routine appointments booked in advance are included or not. The PULSE article is not clear:
    http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/your-practice/access/average-waiting-time-for-gp-appointment-increases-30-in-a-year/20032025.article

    As a diabetic I have a number of "routine" appointments every year for feet check, diabetes checks, flu jab, and so on. These are routinely booked several weeks in advance and it is not a problem. Some routine appointments eg for next year's check, may be booked 6 months in advance.

    Is this in the Dr data?

    I am inclined to listen to Mori.
  • weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820

    MaxPB said:

    FPT

    In answer to SeanT's question, the obvious choice would be to go for the fascists.

    Fascist states recover quickly and can be perfectly good places to live, see Germany, Italy, Spain etc.

    Islamic states however never recover from Islam. You're looking at a miserable future not just for yourselves, but for your children and grandchildren as well.

    I would go with the Meeks approach and leave (ok to be fair I already have, but that was meant to be temporary). The Fascist state would be too blunt an instrument to solve the problem. My wife is brown skinned, so are my children, and most of the people I love. A fascist government would not stop at Islamic nutters. Would I give up my family to save the UK, no, sorry, you're on your own ;)
    SeanT's scenarioo is nonsense, both on the Islamist threat (not supported by most British Muslims, let alone the rest of us) and of Fasicim. Britons do not like extemism.

    If however it happened, then I too would be on my way. My Britain would have ceased to exist.
    30% of British Muslims support or have sympathy for ISIS or other terrorists. The support levels approach 50% among younger Muslims. This has been shown by PEW and ICM among others. British Muslims are the most likely to sympathise or support radical Islam in all of Europe.
    As I pointed out - a minority. There is also a wealth of difference between a degree of sympathy with the grievances, and active participation in atrocities. There is a similar wealth of difference between dislike of Niquab and a pogrom against Muslims.

    A motivated minority can easily impose their will on an unmotivated majority. All the evidence shows that if you put radical Islamic supporters amongst unradicalised muslims then the tendency is for increased radicalisation rather than moderation.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    "As I pointed out - a minority. There is also a wealth of difference between a degree of sympathy with the grievances, and active participation in atrocities. There is a similar wealth of difference between dislike of Niquab and a pogrom against Muslims. "

    Jeez I can hear the hands being wrung from here. When presented with the fact that 50% of young British Muslims have sympathy with ISIS the first reaction is to play it down and make excuses as to why it's not a big issue.

    I seriously doubt there's much more support for ISIS in places like Saudi Arabia that are complete hell holes. But hey it's just a minority and only sympathy so no need to worry about it.

    No hands wrung here, just pointing out that the threat of takeover is close to zero.

    What you fail to address is the reasons that young Muslims become attracted to radical change and nihilism. It is in practice little different to alt.right populism. The combination of economic failure, lack of interest in education, exagerrated perceptions of insult combined with a thin skin lends itself to blame of "the other" and simplistic solutions.

    Radical Islam will be defeated by the values of liberal democratic capitalism, not by emulating their xenophobic fascism.
  • weejonnie said:

    MaxPB said:

    FPT

    In answer to SeanT's question, the obvious choice would be to go for the fascists.

    Fascist states recover quickly and can be perfectly good places to live, see Germany, Italy, Spain etc.

    Islamic states however never recover from Islam. You're looking at a miserable future not just for yourselves, but for your children and grandchildren as well.

    I would go with the Meeks approach and leave (ok to be fair I already have, but that was meant to be temporary). The Fascist state would be too blunt an instrument to solve the problem. My wife is brown skinned, so are my children, and most of the people I love. A fascist government would not stop at Islamic nutters. Would I give up my family to save the UK, no, sorry, you're on your own ;)
    SeanT's scenarioo is nonsense, both on the Islamist threat (not supported by most British Muslims, let alone the rest of us) and of Fasicim. Britons do not like extemism.

    If however it happened, then I too would be on my way. My Britain would have ceased to exist.
    30% of British Muslims support or have sympathy for ISIS or other terrorists. The support levels approach 50% among younger Muslims. This has been shown by PEW and ICM among others. British Muslims are the most likely to sympathise or support radical Islam in all of Europe.
    As I pointed out - a minority. There is also a wealth of difference between a degree of sympathy with the grievances, and active participation in atrocities. There is a similar wealth of difference between dislike of Niquab and a pogrom against Muslims.

    A motivated minority can easily impose their will on an unmotivated majority. All the evidence shows that if you put radical Islamic supporters amongst unradicalised muslims then the tendency is for increased radicalisation rather than moderation.
    You only have to look at the way in which we got to a point where anybody questioning high level of immigration was shut down with calls of being a racist by a small vocal minority.
  • CopperSulphateCopperSulphate Posts: 1,119
    edited December 2016
    "What you fail to address is the reasons that young Muslims become attracted to radical change and nihilism."

    It is a natural consequence of the aggressive values of Islam. It happens wherever Islam meets non-Islam anywhere in the world. You're not trying to suggest that it occurs purely because we've not been nice enough to them are you?

    "Radical Islam will be defeated by the values of liberal democratic capitalism, not by emulating their xenophobic fascism."

    Radical Islam is flourishing in countries that practice liberal democratic capitalism. Like er...the UK with 50% of young Muslims having sympathy with ISIS.
  • AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852

    As I pointed out - a minority. There is also a wealth of difference between a degree of sympathy with the grievances, and active participation in atrocities. There is a similar wealth of difference between dislike of Niquab and a pogrom against Muslims.

    Now you are starting to get a bit handwringy. How big does a minority have to get before its a problem. What if say 10% of that 30% came to believe that direct action was the only answer ? Would you describe 90,000 people that were prepared to commit direct terrorist action in pursuit of their cause a problem ?

    I have long wondered on here, and like SeanT's question, people have shuffled away and not answered. It is said the difference between a dog and a wolf is three meals. How many horrific incidents would need to happen in the UK in say a year before the public take the decision out of the hands of reasonable people.

  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,042

    With the exception of Putin's influence in the Middle East, Oborne could well be wrong on all points. I expect him to be wrong on most of them.

    One commenter said it read like his (the commenter's) wish list. Yes - that's probably precisely why it was written: Daily Mail clickbait.

    He could be right about Mugabe, of course; surely his death or incapacity can’t be far away.
    I was discounting death as a reason for Mugabe standing down, unless self-inflicted.
    Eh? You think he'd carry on even from beyond the grave?
    Kim Il-Sung tried to.

    But what I was meaning was that Oborne's prediction is that Mugabe will be 'forced out'. I don't count dying as being forced out.
    I do!

    (But I do see you mean by political means ;) )
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786

    weejonnie said:

    MaxPB said:

    FPT

    In answer to SeanT's question, the obvious choice would be to go for the fascists.

    Fascist states recover quickly and can be perfectly good places to live, see Germany, Italy, Spain etc.

    Islamic states however never recover from Islam. You're looking at a miserable future not just for yourselves, but for your children and grandchildren as well.

    I would go with the Meeks approach and leave (ok to be fair I already have, but that was meant to be temporary). The Fascist state would be too blunt an instrument to solve the problem. My wife is brown skinned, so are my children, and most of the people I love. A fascist government would not stop at Islamic nutters. Would I give up my family to save the UK, no, sorry, you're on your own ;)
    SeanT's scenarioo is nonsense, both on the Islamist threat (not supported by most British Muslims, let alone the rest of us) and of Fasicim. Britons do not like extemism.

    If however it happened, then I too would be on my way. My Britain would have ceased to exist.
    30% of British Muslims support or have sympathy for ISIS or other terrorists. The support levels approach 50% among younger Muslims. This has been shown by PEW and ICM among others. British Muslims are the most likely to sympathise or support radical Islam in all of Europe.
    As I pointed out - a minority. There is also a wealth of difference between a degree of sympathy with the grievances, and active participation in atrocities. There is a similar wealth of difference between dislike of Niquab and a pogrom against Muslims.

    A motivated minority can easily impose their will on an unmotivated majority. All the evidence shows that if you put radical Islamic supporters amongst unradicalised muslims then the tendency is for increased radicalisation rather than moderation.
    You only have to look at the way in which we got to a point where anybody questioning high level of immigration was shut down with calls of being a racist by a small vocal minority.
    It was so successful that we've just voted to reduce white immigration to show how non-racist we are.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited December 2016
    Maajid Nawaz certainly doesn't agree with Dr Fox....he certainly doesn't believe that it will just all be ok without addressing that Islam itself has to be challenged and liberalized for the modern world rather than just depending on the liberalized countries themselves.

    And for holding that view, he now needs around the clock security from people wanting to kill him...in this country.
  • With the exception of Putin's influence in the Middle East, Oborne could well be wrong on all points. I expect him to be wrong on most of them.

    One commenter said it read like his (the commenter's) wish list. Yes - that's probably precisely why it was written: Daily Mail clickbait.

    He could be right about Mugabe, of course; surely his death or incapacity can’t be far away.
    I was discounting death as a reason for Mugabe standing down, unless self-inflicted.
    Eh? You think he'd carry on even from beyond the grave?
    Kim Il-Sung tried to.

    But what I was meaning was that Oborne's prediction is that Mugabe will be 'forced out'. I don't count dying as being forced out.
    I do!

    (But I do see you mean by political means ;) )
    Doesn't that rather depend on exactly how he dies?
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    As I pointed out - a minority. There is also a wealth of difference between a degree of sympathy with the grievances, and active participation in atrocities. There is a similar wealth of difference between dislike of Niquab and a pogrom against Muslims.

    Now you are starting to get a bit handwringy. How big does a minority have to get before its a problem. What if say 10% of that 30% came to believe that direct action was the only answer ? Would you describe 90,000 people that were prepared to commit direct terrorist action in pursuit of their cause a problem ?

    I have long wondered on here, and like SeanT's question, people have shuffled away and not answered. It is said the difference between a dog and a wolf is three meals. How many horrific incidents would need to happen in the UK in say a year before the public take the decision out of the hands of reasonable people.

    That is the approach of a Paratrooper in Derry 72, which stoked up violence. What actually defeated the IRA was containment, counter intelligence, addressing social grievances and opening routes to democratic participation.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,841
    PlatoSaid said:

    What a difference a year makes

    SkyData
    Public's 2016 predictions as of Dec 2015:
    Brexit
    Likely 23%
    Unlikely 57%
    Cameron resigns
    Likely 8%
    Unlikely 82%
    Trump
    Likely 7%
    Unlikely 84%

    Leicester win title
    Likely 12%
    Unlikely 56%
    More GB medals than London
    Likely 29%
    Unlikely 51%
    We find life on Mars
    Likely 17%
    Unlikely 64%

    All six were correct to be answered "unlikely" at the start of 2016.
  • AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852

    It was so successful that we've just voted to reduce white immigration to show how non-racist we are.

    I think you slightly miss the point. The reason the BrExit vote happened, in the teeth of all the polling was because people were shut down from talking about immigration, and the people doing the shutting down thought, wrongly, that just because people stopped talking about something, they stopped believing it, so in the one place where no one comments on their views, the ballot box, people said what they really thought! The liberal chattering classes were shocked and surprised to find out that attempts to suppress people saying what they thought resulted in people saying one thing and doing another.
  • weejonnie said:

    MaxPB said:

    FPT

    In answer to SeanT's question, the obvious choice would be to go for the fascists.

    Fascist states recover quickly and can be perfectly good places to live, see Germany, Italy, Spain etc.

    Islamic states however never recover from Islam. You're looking at a miserable future not just for yourselves, but for your children and grandchildren as well.

    I would go with the Meeks approach and leave (ok to be fair I already have, but that was meant to be temporary). The Fascist state would be too blunt an instrument to solve the problem. My wife is brown skinned, so are my children, and most of the people I love. A fascist government would not stop at Islamic nutters. Would I give up my family to save the UK, no, sorry, you're on your own ;)
    SeanT's scenarioo is nonsense, both on the Islamist threat (not supported by most British Muslims, let alone the rest of us) and of Fasicim. Britons do not like extemism.

    If however it happened, then I too would be on my way. My Britain would have ceased to exist.
    30% of British Muslims support or have sympathy for ISIS or other terrorists. The support levels approach 50% among younger Muslims. This has been shown by PEW and ICM among others. British Muslims are the most likely to sympathise or support radical Islam in all of Europe.
    As I pointed out - a minority. There is also a wealth of difference between a degree of sympathy with the grievances, and active participation in atrocities. There is a similar wealth of difference between dislike of Niquab and a pogrom against Muslims.

    A motivated minority can easily impose their will on an unmotivated majority. All the evidence shows that if you put radical Islamic supporters amongst unradicalised muslims then the tendency is for increased radicalisation rather than moderation.
    You only have to look at the way in which we got to a point where anybody questioning high level of immigration was shut down with calls of being a racist by a small vocal minority.
    It was so successful that we've just voted to reduce white immigration to show how non-racist we are.
    Well if politicians had listened to concerns before this we would never have got to his more extreme result. But they didn't and instead again decide to call all those who thought the EU wasn't functioning very well racist. I firmly believe that the "Little Englander" call was what lost Cameron the referendum.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,841

    In answer to SeanT's question, the obvious choice would be to go for the fascists.

    Fascist states recover quickly and can be perfectly good places to live, see Germany, Italy, Spain etc.

    Islamic states however never recover from Islam. You're looking at a miserable future not just for yourselves, but for your children and grandchildren as well.

    I would go with the Meeks approach and leave (ok to be fair I already have, but that was meant to be temporary). The Fascist state would be too blunt an instrument to solve the problem. My wife is brown skinned, so are my children, and most of the people I love. A fascist government would not stop at Islamic nutters. Would I give up my family to save the UK, no, sorry, you're on your own ;)
    The question is rather ridiculous, but if forced to answer I'd agree with Mr Meeks and yourself. Fortunately 'we' (I think yourself and Mr Meeks, and myself) might have income and skills that would aid us leaving. Many people do not.

    But to go a little further: either situation would be an absolute failure of British society and the 'values' (*) we all seem to hold dear. Neither is a good situation, nor one any reasonable person would want.

    We would have utterly failed.

    Therefore if forced to stay, I'd like to think I'd choose a third route: to stand up and fight (in whatever way) for those values that we currently hold dear. I fear the reason some people are choosing the fascist alternative is that they secretly feel quite comfortable with the idea.

    (*) However that might be defined.
    I'm always happy to answer a theoretical hypothetical. Dodging those is for the politicians.
  • AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852
    edited December 2016

    As I pointed out - a minority. There is also a wealth of difference between a degree of sympathy with the grievances, and active participation in atrocities. There is a similar wealth of difference between dislike of Niquab and a pogrom against Muslims.

    Now you are starting to get a bit handwringy. How big does a minority have to get before its a problem. What if say 10% of that 30% came to believe that direct action was the only answer ? Would you describe 90,000 people that were prepared to commit direct terrorist action in pursuit of their cause a problem ?

    I have long wondered on here, and like SeanT's question, people have shuffled away and not answered. It is said the difference between a dog and a wolf is three meals. How many horrific incidents would need to happen in the UK in say a year before the public take the decision out of the hands of reasonable people.

    That is the approach of a Paratrooper in Derry 72, which stoked up violence. What actually defeated the IRA was containment, counter intelligence, addressing social grievances and opening routes to democratic participation.
    Do you see the slightest inclination in the population or the body politic to make that happen ? No, neither do I, next...

    Occurrences like Rotherham already seem to much of the population like pandering, there is a definite risk that further moves so be "understanding" are going to be votes for the kippers.
  • PlatoSaid said:

    What a difference a year makes

    SkyData
    Public's 2016 predictions as of Dec 2015:
    Brexit
    Likely 23%
    Unlikely 57%
    Cameron resigns
    Likely 8%
    Unlikely 82%
    Trump
    Likely 7%
    Unlikely 84%

    Leicester win title
    Likely 12%
    Unlikely 56%
    More GB medals than London
    Likely 29%
    Unlikely 51%
    We find life on Mars
    Likely 17%
    Unlikely 64%

    Well unless someone's found a mouldy old Mars bar, I'd call that a full house ..... NOT!
  • "What actually defeated the IRA was containment, counter intelligence, addressing social grievances and opening routes to democratic participation."

    Maybe the aims of the IRA weren't to kill or subjugate anyone that isn't in the IRA.
  • First.


    David Herdson is clearly reminding us at New Year that life is not fair. We are not all equal. Very philosophical of him.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    "What actually defeated the IRA was containment, counter intelligence, addressing social grievances and opening routes to democratic participation."

    Maybe the aims of the IRA weren't to kill or subjugate anyone that isn't in the IRA.

    That is the model that works for terrorist movements, whether Irish or Basque, but it also works for political insurgencies too.
  • MattW said:

    FPT.

    Only catching up, but the stats on the previous post look peculiar.

    Survey of 124k patients says that 20% wait >5 days ie the mean or median is likely to be 2 to 4 days.
    Meanwhile a survey of 800 Doctors tells us that the "average" wait for a routine appointment is 13 days.

    That cannot be reconciled.

    More and more detailed data is required. It is not clear, for example, whether routine appointments booked in advance are included or not. The PULSE article is not clear:
    http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/your-practice/access/average-waiting-time-for-gp-appointment-increases-30-in-a-year/20032025.article

    As a diabetic I have a number of "routine" appointments every year for feet check, diabetes checks, flu jab, and so on. These are routinely booked several weeks in advance and it is not a problem. Some routine appointments eg for next year's check, may be booked 6 months in advance.

    Is this in the Dr data?

    I am inclined to listen to Mori.

    For the past 4 years I've chosen to have my annual 'flu jab at my local pharmacy, which is always available on request whenever I pop in for my prescriptions. No prior appointment necessary and no question of having to queue ..... in and out in five minutes.
  • I have been posting on PB since 2008. And immigration has been a major subject of debate on here in all the intervening years - just as it has been across the media.

    Articles all about immigration saying that no-one is allowed to talk about immigration have been a newspaper mainstay for at least 15 years.
  • Dr Fox arguing because something worked in the past, it will work now....that is the same mistake the allied forces made going into Iraq and Afghanistan...

    The terrorism of the IRA and ETA are completely different to worldwide thread of Islamism.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    As I pointed out - a minority. There is also a wealth of difference between a degree of sympathy with the grievances, and active participation in atrocities. There is a similar wealth of difference between dislike of Niquab and a pogrom against Muslims.

    Now you are starting to get a bit handwringy. How big does a minority have to get before its a problem. What if say 10% of that 30% came to believe that direct action was the only answer ? Would you describe 90,000 people that were prepared to commit direct terrorist action in pursuit of their cause a problem ?

    I have long wondered on here, and like SeanT's question, people have shuffled away and not answered. It is said the difference between a dog and a wolf is three meals. How many horrific incidents would need to happen in the UK in say a year before the public take the decision out of the hands of reasonable people.

    That is the approach of a Paratrooper in Derry 72, which stoked up violence. What actually defeated the IRA was containment, counter intelligence, addressing social grievances and opening routes to democratic participation.
    Do you see the slightest inclination in the population or the body politic to make that happen ? No, neither do I, next...

    Occurrences like Rotherham already seem to much of the population like pandering, there is a definite risk that further moves so be "understanding" are going to be votes for the kippers.
    I agree that the populist hotheads hold the initiative on both sides, all the more reason for liberals to speak out against both sides, but not to demonise either.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited December 2016

    I have been posting on PB since 2008. And immigration has been a major subject of debate on here in all the intervening years - just as it has been across the media.

    Articles all about immigration saying that no-one is allowed to talk about immigration have been a newspaper mainstay for at least 15 years.

    Talk to Trevor Philips and see what he thinks.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    edited December 2016
    Let's get into the spirit

    Arthur S
    31 December 1966: The Monkees achieve their 2nd US #1 and the last US Billboard #1 of 1966: https://t.co/Qdw3ArBmMp

    https://youtu.be/wB9YIsKIEbA
  • AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852

    "What actually defeated the IRA was containment, counter intelligence, addressing social grievances and opening routes to democratic participation."

    Maybe the aims of the IRA weren't to kill or subjugate anyone that isn't in the IRA.

    That is the model that works for terrorist movements, whether Irish or Basque, but it also works for political insurgencies too.
    Were you a civil servant in a former life ?

    1. Nothing is going to happen.
    2. Something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it.
    3. Maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we *can* do.
    4. We could have done something, but it's too late now.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    Pulpstar said:

    In answer to SeanT's question, the obvious choice would be to go for the fascists.

    Fascist states recover quickly and can be perfectly good places to live, see Germany, Italy, Spain etc.

    Islamic states however never recover from Islam. You're looking at a miserable future not just for yourselves, but for your children and grandchildren as well.

    I would go with the Meeks approach and leave (ok to be fair I already have, but that was meant to be temporary). The Fascist state would be too blunt an instrument to solve the problem. My wife is brown skinned, so are my children, and most of the people I love. A fascist government would not stop at Islamic nutters. Would I give up my family to save the UK, no, sorry, you're on your own ;)
    The question is rather ridiculous, but if forced to answer I'd agree with Mr Meeks and yourself. Fortunately 'we' (I think yourself and Mr Meeks, and myself) might have income and skills that would aid us leaving. Many people do not.

    But to go a little further: either situation would be an absolute failure of British society and the 'values' (*) we all seem to hold dear. Neither is a good situation, nor one any reasonable person would want.

    We would have utterly failed.

    Therefore if forced to stay, I'd like to think I'd choose a third route: to stand up and fight (in whatever way) for those values that we currently hold dear. I fear the reason some people are choosing the fascist alternative is that they secretly feel quite comfortable with the idea.

    (*) However that might be defined.
    I'm always happy to answer a theoretical hypothetical. Dodging those is for the politicians.
    One of the reasons that politicians dodge questions is that some questions are just traps, designed to get them to say something they won't normally say.

    SeanT's question is just such an example: it's a stupid question that he freely admits was posed to get a certain response. There are more than the two possible answers he gave.

    "Would you rather be kicked in the face or the groin?"
  • If you put "2017 collapse" into google you get:
    Euro, stock market, global financial system, dollar, Russian economy, European Union, Housing, FTSE 250, Australian housing market, Obama care, Saudi Arabia and finally the biosphere and Kerry in Emmerdale.
  • AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852

    As I pointed out - a minority. There is also a wealth of difference between a degree of sympathy with the grievances, and active participation in atrocities. There is a similar wealth of difference between dislike of Niquab and a pogrom against Muslims.

    Now you are starting to get a bit handwringy. How big does a minority have to get before its a problem. What if say 10% of that 30% came to believe that direct action was the only answer ? Would you describe 90,000 people that were prepared to commit direct terrorist action in pursuit of their cause a problem ?

    I have long wondered on here, and like SeanT's question, people have shuffled away and not answered. It is said the difference between a dog and a wolf is three meals. How many horrific incidents would need to happen in the UK in say a year before the public take the decision out of the hands of reasonable people.

    That is the approach of a Paratrooper in Derry 72, which stoked up violence. What actually defeated the IRA was containment, counter intelligence, addressing social grievances and opening routes to democratic participation.
    Do you see the slightest inclination in the population or the body politic to make that happen ? No, neither do I, next...

    Occurrences like Rotherham already seem to much of the population like pandering, there is a definite risk that further moves so be "understanding" are going to be votes for the kippers.
    I agree that the populist hotheads hold the initiative on both sides, all the more reason for liberals to speak out against both sides, but not to demonise either.
    But what you are giving us there is wishful thinking, what is the actual solution since no one is listening to the liberal at the moment, and quite possibly for a long time.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Dr Fox arguing because something worked in the past, it will work now....that is the same mistake the allied forces made going into Iraq and Afghanistan...

    The terrorism of the IRA and ETA are completely different to worldwide thread of Islamism.

    On the contrary the evidence of the past was that invading Iraq and Afghanistan didn't work!

    Nationalist insurgencies are different to political ones, but the route to defeating them is via the methods we used (after trying most others) in NI.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,880
    MaxPB said:

    FPT

    In answer to SeanT's question, the obvious choice would be to go for the fascists.

    Fascist states recover quickly and can be perfectly good places to live, see Germany, Italy, Spain etc.

    Islamic states however never recover from Islam. You're looking at a miserable future not just for yourselves, but for your children and grandchildren as well.

    I would go with the Meeks approach and leave (ok to be fair I already have, but that was meant to be temporary). The Fascist state would be too blunt an instrument to solve the problem. My wife is brown skinned, so are my children, and most of the people I love. A fascist government would not stop at Islamic nutters. Would I give up my family to save the UK, no, sorry, you're on your own ;)
    SeanT's scenarioo is nonsense, both on the Islamist threat (not supported by most British Muslims, let alone the rest of us) and of Fasicim. Britons do not like extemism.

    If however it happened, then I too would be on my way. My Britain would have ceased to exist.
    30% of British Muslims support or have sympathy for ISIS or other terrorists. The support levels approach 50% among younger Muslims. This has been shown by PEW and ICM among others. British Muslims are the most likely to sympathise or support radical Islam in all of Europe.
    I really don't think those figures are accurate.
    Do you have a link?

    According to this ICM poll:

    3% of Muslims in Britain "support the way in which Islamic State/ISIL/ISIS is trying to establish a Caliphate. 73% oppose. 1% and 89% in control group.

    6% sympathise with people who organize radical groups but do not take part in terrorist actions. That was actually 11% in the control group survey.

    9% sympathise with those use violence in political protest. 3% in control group.

    4% sympathise with those who commit terrorist actions as a form of political protest. 1% in control group. 83% Muslims condemn vs. 95% in control group.

    https://www.icmunlimited.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Mulims-full-suite-data-plus-topline.pdf
  • "Nothing is going to happen.
    2. Something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it.
    3. Maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we *can* do.
    4. We could have done something, but it's too late now."
    Just like complacent remainers' attitude to complaints about EU before and after the referendum.
  • AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852

    "Would you rather be kicked in the face or the groin?"

    The groin.

    See, its possible to give an answer. Some times there are no good alternatives, sometimes all alternatives are fatal. Some times you just get to choose what you stand for and how you die. Strangely lots of people dont want others to know what they stand for in extremis.

  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    edited December 2016

    Pulpstar said:

    In answer to SeanT's question, the obvious choice would be to go for the fascists.

    Fascist states recover quickly and can be perfectly good places to live, see Germany, Italy, Spain etc.

    Islamic states however never recover from Islam. You're looking at a miserable future not just for yourselves, but for your children and grandchildren as well.

    I would go with the Meeks approach and leave (ok to be fair I already have, but that was meant to be temporary). The Fascist state would be too blunt an instrument to solve the problem. My wife is brown skinned, so are my children, and most of the people I love. A fascist government would not stop at Islamic nutters. Would I give up my family to save the UK, no, sorry, you're on your own ;)
    The question is rather ridiculous, but if forced to answer I'd agree with Mr Meeks and yourself. Fortunately 'we' (I think yourself and Mr Meeks, and myself) might have income and skills that would aid us leaving. Many people do not.

    But to go a little further: either situation would be an absolute failure of British society and the 'values' (*) we all seem to hold dear. Neither is a good situation, nor one any reasonable person would want.

    We would have utterly failed.

    Therefore if forced to stay, I'd like to think I'd choose a third route: to stand up and fight (in whatever way) for those values that we currently hold dear. I fear the reason some people are choosing the fascist alternative is that they secretly feel quite comfortable with the idea.

    (*) However that might be defined.
    I'm always happy to answer a theoretical hypothetical. Dodging those is for the politicians.
    One of the reasons that politicians dodge questions is that some questions are just traps, designed to get them to say something they won't normally say.

    SeanT's question is just such an example: it's a stupid question that he freely admits was posed to get a certain response. There are more than the two possible answers he gave.

    "Would you rather be kicked in the face or the groin?"

    SeanT's point (presumably) was that sometimes you have to make the hard choices.

    Sometimes it really is a binary choice between two bad outcomes.

    Like choosing between Clinton and Trump.

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    As I pointed out - a minority. There is also a wealth of difference between a degree of sympathy with the grievances, and active participation in atrocities. There is a similar wealth of difference between dislike of Niquab and a pogrom against Muslims.

    Now you are starting to get a bit handwringy. How big does a minority have to get before its a problem. What if say 10% of that 30% came to believe that direct action was the only answer ? Would you describe 90,000 people that were prepared to commit direct terrorist action in pursuit of their cause a problem ?

    I have long wondered on here, and like SeanT's question, people have shuffled away and not answered. It is said the difference between a dog and a wolf is three meals. How many horrific incidents would need to happen in the UK in say a year before the public take the decision out of the hands of reasonable people.

    That is the approach of a Paratrooper in Derry 72, which stoked up violence. What actually defeated the IRA was containment, counter intelligence, addressing social grievances and opening routes to democratic participation.
    Do you see the slightest inclination in the population or the body politic to make that happen ? No, neither do I, next...

    Occurrences like Rotherham already seem to much of the population like pandering, there is a definite risk that further moves so be "understanding" are going to be votes for the kippers.
    I agree that the populist hotheads hold the initiative on both sides, all the more reason for liberals to speak out against both sides, but not to demonise either.
    But what you are giving us there is wishful thinking, what is the actual solution since no one is listening to the liberal at the moment, and quite possibly for a long time.
    Rather like Brexit, the failure has to be seen before the folly is seen. It is why populist movements like Islamism and the alt.right are powerful but shortlived.
  • "As I pointed out - a minority. There is also a wealth of difference between a degree of sympathy with the grievances, and active participation in atrocities. There is a similar wealth of difference between dislike of Niquab and a pogrom against Muslims. "

    Jeez I can hear the hands being wrung from here. When presented with the fact that 50% of young British Muslims have sympathy with ISIS the first reaction is to play it down and make excuses as to why it's not a big issue.

    I seriously doubt there's much more support for ISIS in places like Saudi Arabia that are complete hell holes. But hey it's just a minority and only sympathy so no need to worry about it.

    No hands wrung here, just pointing out that the threat of takeover is close to zero.

    What you fail to address is the reasons that young Muslims become attracted to radical change and nihilism. It is in practice little different to alt.right populism. The combination of economic failure, lack of interest in education, exagerrated perceptions of insult combined with a thin skin lends itself to blame of "the other" and simplistic solutions.

    Radical Islam will be defeated by the values of liberal democratic capitalism, not by emulating their xenophobic fascism.
    Immigrant muslim communities have lived here in sizable numbers since the 1960s - among the liberal democratic capitalism of which you speak - yet division, intolerance and extremism is on the increase, most of all among those who were born here. How come?
  • AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852
    edited December 2016

    Dr Fox arguing because something worked in the past, it will work now....that is the same mistake the allied forces made going into Iraq and Afghanistan...

    The terrorism of the IRA and ETA are completely different to worldwide thread of Islamism.

    On the contrary the evidence of the past was that invading Iraq and Afghanistan didn't work!

    Nationalist insurgencies are different to political ones, but the route to defeating them is via the methods we used (after trying most others) in NI.
    No, that's delusional.

    The IRA and ETA wanted something that could be given, political power, and self determination. I am interested to see what you think we could offer an organisation that is committed to seeing us wiped from the earth, and has no interest in accommodating us.
  • With the exception of Putin's influence in the Middle East, Oborne could well be wrong on all points. I expect him to be wrong on most of them.

    One commenter said it read like his (the commenter's) wish list. Yes - that's probably precisely why it was written: Daily Mail clickbait.

    He could be right about Mugabe, of course; surely his death or incapacity can’t be far away.
    I was discounting death as a reason for Mugabe standing down, unless self-inflicted.
    Eh? You think he'd carry on even from beyond the grave?
    Kim Il-Sung tried to.

    But what I was meaning was that Oborne's prediction is that Mugabe will be 'forced out'. I don't count dying as being forced out.
    I do!

    (But I do see you mean by political means ;) )
    Doesn't that rather depend on exactly how he dies?
    Fair point. Oborne's prediction is of an army coup. Were one to take place in which Mugabe was killed, then I'd still consider his death to be a detail of the coup rather than the cause of his political demise.
  • AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852

    As I pointed out - a minority. There is also a wealth of difference between a degree of sympathy with the grievances, and active participation in atrocities. There is a similar wealth of difference between dislike of Niquab and a pogrom against Muslims.

    Now you are starting to get a bit handwringy. How big does a minority have to get before its a problem. What if say 10% of that 30% came to believe that direct action was the only answer ? Would you describe 90,000 people that were prepared to commit direct terrorist action in pursuit of their cause a problem ?

    I have long wondered on here, and like SeanT's question, people have shuffled away and not answered. It is said the difference between a dog and a wolf is three meals. How many horrific incidents would need to happen in the UK in say a year before the public take the decision out of the hands of reasonable people.

    That is the approach of a Paratrooper in Derry 72, which stoked up violence. What actually defeated the IRA was containment, counter intelligence, addressing social grievances and opening routes to democratic participation.
    Do you see the slightest inclination in the population or the body politic to make that happen ? No, neither do I, next...

    Occurrences like Rotherham already seem to much of the population like pandering, there is a definite risk that further moves so be "understanding" are going to be votes for the kippers.
    I agree that the populist hotheads hold the initiative on both sides, all the more reason for liberals to speak out against both sides, but not to demonise either.
    But what you are giving us there is wishful thinking, what is the actual solution since no one is listening to the liberal at the moment, and quite possibly for a long time.
    Rather like Brexit, the failure has to be seen before the folly is seen. It is why populist movements like Islamism and the alt.right are powerful but shortlived.
    Islamism has been around since the 7th Century, must be getting on for being called long lived by now ?
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    edited December 2016

    As I pointed out - a minority. There is also a wealth of difference between a degree of sympathy with the grievances, and active participation in atrocities. There is a similar wealth of difference between dislike of Niquab and a pogrom against Muslims.

    Now you are starting to get a bit handwringy. How big does a minority have to get before its a problem. What if say 10% of that 30% came to believe that direct action was the only answer ? Would you describe 90,000 people that were prepared to commit direct terrorist action in pursuit of their cause a problem ?

    I have long wondered on here, and like SeanT's question, people have shuffled away and not answered. It is said the difference between a dog and a wolf is three meals. How many horrific incidents would need to happen in the UK in say a year before the public take the decision out of the hands of reasonable people.

    That is the approach of a Paratrooper in Derry 72, which stoked up violence. What actually defeated the IRA was containment, counter intelligence, addressing social grievances and opening routes to democratic participation.
    Do you see the slightest inclination in the population or the body politic to make that happen ? No, neither do I, next...

    Occurrences like Rotherham already seem to much of the population like pandering, there is a definite risk that further moves so be "understanding" are going to be votes for the kippers.
    I agree that the populist hotheads hold the initiative on both sides, all the more reason for liberals to speak out against both sides, but not to demonise either.
    But what you are giving us there is wishful thinking, what is the actual solution since no one is listening to the liberal at the moment, and quite possibly for a long time.
    Rather like Brexit, the failure has to be seen before the folly is seen. It is why populist movements like Islamism and the alt.right are powerful but shortlived.

    Trying to equate Islamism with "alt.right" (whatever that?) isn't really helping your argument be credible.

    And Islamism has been around over a thousand years so far. So not really "shortlived".

  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,392
    Twisting Ms Tremayne's question slightly, I might have preferred 10 years of quasi-Socialist fascism to 10 years of Thatcherism.

    Sorry I can't hang around to debate the point - chores to do.

    All the best for 2017 everyone.
  • Dr Fox arguing because something worked in the past, it will work now....that is the same mistake the allied forces made going into Iraq and Afghanistan...

    The terrorism of the IRA and ETA are completely different to worldwide thread of Islamism.

    On the contrary the evidence of the past was that invading Iraq and Afghanistan didn't work!

    Nationalist insurgencies are different to political ones, but the route to defeating them is via the methods we used (after trying most others) in NI.
    No, that's delusional.

    The IRA and ETA wanted something that could be given, political power, and self determination. I am interested to see what you think we could offer an organisation that is committed to seeing us wiped from the earth, and has no interest in accommodating us.
    Not only that but the IRA was only accommodated once they were willing to lay down their bullets and bombs in large part due to knowing that they couldn't win that way. Talk alone did not succeed in Northern Ireland the military played a major role in helping us reach a point where all sides were ready to talk.
  • Who to listen to on the threat of Islamism...Dr Fox or Maajid Nawaz...hmmmm...
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    He's always great box office

    Donald J Trump
    Happy New Year to all, including to my many enemies and those who have fought me and lost so badly they just don't know what to do. Love!
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Who to listen to on the threat of Islamism...Dr Fox or Maajid Nawaz...hmmmm...

    Both of us are LDs, and actually saying much the same thing.
  • Pulpstar said:

    In answer to SeanT's question, the obvious choice would be to go for the fascists.

    Fascist states recover quickly and can be perfectly good places to live, see Germany, Italy, Spain etc.

    Islamic states however never recover from Islam. You're looking at a miserable future not just for yourselves, but for your children and grandchildren as well.

    I would go with the Meeks approach and leave (ok to be fair I already have, but that was meant to be temporary). The Fascist state would be too blunt an instrument to solve the problem. My wife is brown skinned, so are my children, and most of the people I love. A fascist government would not stop at Islamic nutters. Would I give up my family to save the UK, no, sorry, you're on your own ;)
    The question is rather ridiculous, but if forced to answer I'd agree with Mr Meeks and yourself. Fortunately 'we' (I think yourself and Mr Meeks, and myself) might have income and skills that would aid us leaving. Many people do not.

    But to go a little further: either situation would be an absolute failure of British society and the 'values' (*) we all seem to hold dear. Neither is a good situation, nor one any reasonable person would want.

    We would have utterly failed.

    Therefore if forced to stay, I'd like to think I'd choose a third route: to stand up and fight (in whatever way) for those values that we currently hold dear. I fear the reason some people are choosing the fascist alternative is that they secretly feel quite comfortable with the idea.

    (*) However that might be defined.
    I'm always happy to answer a theoretical hypothetical. Dodging those is for the politicians.
    One of the reasons that politicians dodge questions is that some questions are just traps, designed to get them to say something they won't normally say.

    SeanT's question is just such an example: it's a stupid question that he freely admits was posed to get a certain response. There are more than the two possible answers he gave.

    "Would you rather be kicked in the face or the groin?"
    Not necessarily. There were other options open to Russians in 1917 beyond monarchy, communism or dictatorship. By 1919, the only viable ones were communism or dictatorship. Sure, you could argue for a democracy but it'd make no difference with the Bolsheviks or Whites: both would see you as subversive and they had the guns.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,722

    Maajid Nawaz certainly doesn't agree with Dr Fox....he certainly doesn't believe that it will just all be ok without addressing that Islam itself has to be challenged and liberalized for the modern world rather than just depending on the liberalized countries themselves.

    And for holding that view, he now needs around the clock security from people wanting to kill him...in this country.

    "Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: "If only," they love to think, "if only people wouldn't talk about it, it probably wouldn't happen." "
  • AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852

    Who to listen to on the threat of Islamism...Dr Fox or Maajid Nawaz...hmmmm...

    Unfortunately Dr Fox hold views very similar to many of our elected leaders, the hope that doing nothing much except wringing our hands and believing people will come to their senses because we are nice to them, and believing the in good faith of people that are sworn to destroy us. It might work I suppose...
  • On Topic.
    Herdsons analysis is as thin & superficial as usual. He still doesnt get Corbyn.
    The chances of an Election are slim _ why would Labour backbenchers vote for Redundancy in 2017 rather than 2020 ?
    May will see Local Elections where The Libdems make substantial gains while UKIP make very heavy losses - even The BBC will find it hard to ignore that.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    @SeanT - have a looksee at the Deirdre intv I posted earlier on this thread - wind in to 1hr. Discussion moves to China - thought you may find it interesting
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited December 2016

    Who to listen to on the threat of Islamism...Dr Fox or Maajid Nawaz...hmmmm...

    Both of us are LDs, and actually saying much the same thing.
    Except he doesn't say the same as you...and other LDs tried to quite disgracefully get him ejected from your party for holding liberal views. And the LD establishment simply turned a blind eye to the abuse he got.

    He believes strongly Islam has to be challenged and changed, liberalized and modernized, otherwise the spread of Islamism across the Western world will continue at an increasing rate.

    A do nothing / everything will be ok attitude, most often taken by our elected representatives, is not one he advocates.
  • AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852

    On Topic.
    Herdsons analysis is as thin & superficial as usual. He still doesnt get Corbyn.
    The chances of an Election are slim _ why would Labour backbenchers vote for Redundancy in 2017 rather than 2020 ?
    May will see Local Elections where The Libdems make substantial gains while UKIP make very heavy losses - even The BBC will find it hard to ignore that.

    And your evidence for this is... ?
  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,956
    foxinsoxuk said:
    That is the approach of a Paratrooper in Derry 72, which stoked up violence. What actually defeated the IRA was containment, counter intelligence, addressing social grievances and opening routes to democratic participation.

    Those seeking a united Ireland always had a route to democratic participation, the SDLP.

    People joined and join the IRA and its successors because they were and are evil, violent people.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,722
    edited December 2016

    "As I pointed out - a minority. There is also a wealth of difference between a degree of sympathy with the grievances, and active participation in atrocities. There is a similar wealth of difference between dislike of Niquab and a pogrom against Muslims. "

    Jeez I can hear the hands being wrung from here. When presented with the fact that 50% of young British Muslims have sympathy with ISIS the first reaction is to play it down and make excuses as to why it's not a big issue.

    I seriously doubt there's much more support for ISIS in places like Saudi Arabia that are complete hell holes. But hey it's just a minority and only sympathy so no need to worry about it.

    No hands wrung here, just pointing out that the threat of takeover is close to zero.

    What you fail to address is the reasons that young Muslims become attracted to radical change and nihilism. It is in practice little different to alt.right populism. The combination of economic failure, lack of interest in education, exagerrated perceptions of insult combined with a thin skin lends itself to blame of "the other" and simplistic solutions.

    Radical Islam will be defeated by the values of liberal democratic capitalism, not by emulating their xenophobic fascism.
    Immigrant muslim communities have lived here in sizable numbers since the 1960s - among the liberal democratic capitalism of which you speak - yet division, intolerance and extremism is on the increase, most of all among those who were born here. How come?
    Answered by Enoch here at 15:30. 40 years later, Christopher Caldwell came to the same conclusion in "Reflections on the Revolution in Europe", his book about the impact of Islamic immigration en masse. Have you read it? It's plain for all to see, it is happening before our eyes, yet people still think "oh it will all turn out alright"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sfovPxT3Fg
  • I have been posting on PB since 2008. And immigration has been a major subject of debate on here in all the intervening years - just as it has been across the media.

    Articles all about immigration saying that no-one is allowed to talk about immigration have been a newspaper mainstay for at least 15 years.

    Actually I think it's normally complaints that you can't talk about immigration (without being accused of being racist or stoking racism) that has been the mainstay.

    Simultaneously calls to boycott said newspapers for being racist or stoking racism have also been a mainstay.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,880

    Who to listen to on the threat of Islamism...Dr Fox or Maajid Nawaz...hmmmm...

    Both of us are LDs, and actually saying much the same thing.
    Except he doesn't say the same as you...and other LDs tried to quite disgracefully get him ejected from your party for holding liberal views. And the LD establishment simply turned a blind eye to the abuse he got.

    .
    Is that accurate? I thought Clegg defended his right to free speech and condemned the death threats he got.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited December 2016
    rkrkrk said:

    Who to listen to on the threat of Islamism...Dr Fox or Maajid Nawaz...hmmmm...

    Both of us are LDs, and actually saying much the same thing.
    Except he doesn't say the same as you...and other LDs tried to quite disgracefully get him ejected from your party for holding liberal views. And the LD establishment simply turned a blind eye to the abuse he got.

    .
    Is that accurate? I thought Clegg defended his right to free speech and condemned the death threats he got.
    Eventually he did, but at first nothing as he got all sorts of abuse and a petition to get him ejected got 25k signatures...only then did Cleggy utter a feeble defence. And the lynch mob who whipped up the hate against Nawaz still play an active part in the Lib Dems.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,766

    On Topic.
    Herdsons analysis is as thin & superficial as usual. He still doesnt get Corbyn.
    The chances of an Election are slim _ why would Labour backbenchers vote for Redundancy in 2017 rather than 2020 ?
    May will see Local Elections where The Libdems make substantial gains while UKIP make very heavy losses - even The BBC will find it hard to ignore that.

    And your evidence for this is... ?
    I suspect Paul is right that the LDs will make gains. If you look at the 2016 local election results, they were against the 2012 locals (which was the high point of the LDs last parliament). If they made gains in 2016, then I would be very surprised if they didn't make some gains in 2017, simply because they are against easier comparisons. That being said, I doubt they'll make big gains. In the 2013 locals, the LDs - despite a plummeting vote share - held three quarters of the seats they were defending. I'd reckon 25-50 gains for them would be par.

    UKIP is a harder call. I think they struggle organisationally, and they lack a coherent message about what you are voting for in a local election. In 2013, when these councils were last elected, UKIP got 22% of the vote. (Which is mid to high teens, NEV.) I think they'll struggle to get that again. UKIP got 147 seats last time around. I suspect they'll be sub 100 in 2017.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383

    I have been posting on PB since 2008. And immigration has been a major subject of debate on here in all the intervening years - just as it has been across the media.

    Articles all about immigration saying that no-one is allowed to talk about immigration have been a newspaper mainstay for at least 15 years.

    And I've been repeatedly accused of being a Nazi, xenophobe, racist, BNP voter et al unless I was following the LD/Acceptable PB Opinion line. A few of us have stuck to our guns and managed to avoid the perma ban hammer - which is another form of discussion suppression. I left PB for about 6 months a couple of years back because I became sick of it.

    This year, I was relentlessly pilloried for talking about a Trump win for going against the grain. Insults aren't a substitute for argument - and neither are sophistry.

    Angel-pin-head dancing may suit your patent law occupation, it doesn't work in normal society or even PB pedant land. You personally insulted me over the death of my mother and my decision to go back to work the next day because I thought that's the sort of attitude she'd expect from me. You accused me *virtue signalling*.

    Urgh.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    rcs1000 said:

    On Topic.
    Herdsons analysis is as thin & superficial as usual. He still doesnt get Corbyn.
    The chances of an Election are slim _ why would Labour backbenchers vote for Redundancy in 2017 rather than 2020 ?
    May will see Local Elections where The Libdems make substantial gains while UKIP make very heavy losses - even The BBC will find it hard to ignore that.

    And your evidence for this is... ?
    In the 2013 locals, the LDs - despite a plummeting vote share - held three quarters of the seats they were defending.
    It was quite impressive really. They even gained seats in my unitary.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,766
    PlatoSaid said:

    I have been posting on PB since 2008. And immigration has been a major subject of debate on here in all the intervening years - just as it has been across the media.

    Articles all about immigration saying that no-one is allowed to talk about immigration have been a newspaper mainstay for at least 15 years.

    And I've been repeatedly accused of being a Nazi, xenophobe, racist, BNP voter et al unless I was following the LD/Acceptable PB Opinion line. A few of us have stuck to our guns and managed to avoid the perma ban hammer - which is another form of discussion suppression. I left PB for about 6 months a couple of years back because I became sick of it.

    This year, I was relentlessly pilloried for talking about a Trump win for going against the grain. Insults aren't a substitute for argument - and neither are sophistry.

    Angel-pin-head dancing may suit your patent law occupation, it doesn't work in normal society or even PB pedant land. You personally insulted me over the death of my mother and my decision to go back to work the next day because I thought that's the sort of attitude she'd expect from me. You accused me *virtue signalling*.

    Urgh.
    Would you like a safe space?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,605
    Essexit said:

    foxinsoxuk said:
    That is the approach of a Paratrooper in Derry 72, which stoked up violence. What actually defeated the IRA was containment, counter intelligence, addressing social grievances and opening routes to democratic participation.

    Those seeking a united Ireland always had a route to democratic participation, the SDLP.

    People joined and join the IRA and its successors because they were and are evil, violent people.

    A major aspect in the defeat of the IRA and the Loyalists was the infiltration of their "internal security" groups. Which then started torturing and murdering those against the idea of a peace process - on the grounds they were traitors, who were betraying all the operations that were getting compromised.

    Guess who used to be in charge of the IRA "nutting squad"?
This discussion has been closed.