conservativehome--2020-01-30--Interview: Lamont describes how the belief that Britain should leave the EU entered the Tory mainstr

Interview: Lamont describes how the belief that Britain should leave the EU entered the Tory mainstream

A quarter of a century ago Norman Lamont became the first senior Conservative to warn that Britain might one day be obliged to choose , quite reasonably , to leave the European Union .
In this interview , conducted on Monday , Lord Lamont recalls how until then , the idea of withdrawing from the EU “ had been akin to believing that the Earth was flat ” .
And he describes how , while serving as Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1990-93 , he came to realise , from talks with his opposite numbers in other European capitals , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political and not just an economic union : “ I realised I had been deceiving myself.
” Lamont therefore went on to warn , in a speech delivered on 11th October 1994 to a fringe meeting organised by the Selsdon Group at the Conservative Party Conference in Bournemouth : The Times reported that the former Chancellor had “ shattered ” the Tory truce on Europe , and had taken aim at the Prime Minister , John Major , who earlier that year had described the idea of leaving the EU as “ unthinkable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meeting , Lamont here relates that in 1994 , he was acting on his own : “ I was very much on my own after Black Wednesday , ” 16th September 1992 , when the pound was forced out of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism and the economic credibility of the Major government was destroyed .
Indeed , after Lamont spoke , “ one of the people who attacked me was Bill Cash ” , for Tory Eurosceptics were at this point careful not to call for British withdrawal .
Lamont defends David @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I think he gets a very unfair press ” – and attributes the vote for Leave to the realisation of older voters “ that basically the country had been lied to ” when it was assured that the EU was a purely economic venture .
The former Chancellor is delighted that Britain is out of European political union , is content to leave Boris Johnson to negotiate the details of Britain ’ s future trading arrangements , but calls on the Prime Minister to remain wedded to free-market economics : “ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hand that was extended to Flybe…I don ’ t want Boris the big spender to undo the good that George Osborne did.
” ConHome : “ What happened in 1994 ?
You ’ d first raised the idea of leaving the EU at a meeting earlier that year of the Conservative Philosophy Group , at Jonathan Aitken ’ s house in Lord North Street.
” Lamont : “ Yes , I do remember Jimmy Goldsmith was there , and Zac was there .
I know Rodney Leach was there , together with Jessica @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impelled you to take that line ?
” Lamont : “ Well I began to think about Europe when I was Chancellor .
I mean I did think about it obviously before , but my doubts really grew – I often recount my very first meeting with one of my opposite numbers in Europe in New York in 1990 , with a man called Pierre Bérégovoy who subsequently became Prime Minister of France .
“ He was a Frenchman , but here he was in New York , telling me that we were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Europe .
“ Now I of course spent a lot of my time as Chancellor negotiating our opt-out on the Maastricht Treaty from the single currency .
But it was that experience that put me over the line , because I ’ d always worried whether Europe was political rather than just economic , but good friends of mine like Kenneth Clarke would say , ‘ It ’ s all rhetoric – they don ’ t mean it.
’ “ And when I came face to face with this , I was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deceiving myself .
“ And OK , we had I think a perfectly sensible and rational policy of having a series of opt-outs , opt-out from the single currency , opt-out from the Social Chapter , opt-out from Schengen .
“ But the question was , can you really just go on and can you guarantee that these opt-outs won ’ t be eroded , will Labour reverse them , could we be driven further down the road towards – I mean I try to avoid using the phrase ‘ federal Europe ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And what I said in my speech at the party conference was that we had a choice .
We could have opt-outs , or we could withdraw .
“ But I also said , which I had come to believe , that I felt the economic advantages of the so-called Single Market were vastly overstated .
To this day , I am still influenced by the fact that Switzerland , not a member of the European Union , is more integrated with the European economy than we are .
“ And I note @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Single Market and increases its share of the Single Market faster than we have , despite not being a member .
“ And I can ’ t see , and couldn ’ t see then increasingly , why we had to be members in order to benefit .
One can say that a single regulatory area is a public good , and take advantage of it , while being an outsider.
” ConHome : “ Who did you discuss this with at the time ?
And in particular , which Conservatives , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your thinking ?
Or were you really working it out for yourself ?
You must have tried to talk it through with various people.
” Lamont : “ At that stage I was very much on my own [ laughter ] .
I was very much on my own after Black Wednesday.
” ConHome : “ Yes , you weren ’ t at the centre of a great band.
” Lamont : “ Well there was all the speculation about the leadership .
No , I was working on my own .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Darwall , Rupert and I worked closely .
“ But other than that , it was quite interesting , when I made that speech at the party conference , one of the people who attacked me was Bill Cash.
” Lamont : “ Because I ’ d advocated leaving , and they were very careful not to advocate leaving .
They were in favour of renegotiation .
Well , you know , renegotiation was an option which I myself acknowledged .
“ I didn ’ t say we should leave .
What I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ future to choose .
“ And I was also saying it was not impossible to thrive economically outside the European Union , which I did believe and I profoundly believe now.
” ConHome : “ So Eurosceptics of an earlier generation like Derek Walker-Smith or Enoch Powell were not a particular influence on you ?
” Lamont : “ Enoch was , definitely .
How could he not be ?
I knew him .
Funnily enough , I made my maiden speech in the House of Commons in favour of joining the EEC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in in a by-election , and I had an Anti-Common Market candidate I had to defeat in the by-election , and in my maiden speech I actually rather playfully quoted Enoch .
“ Enoch once made a speech , which I heard , in favour of EEC membership , at Cambridge when I was an undergraduate .
I referred to this , just as a joke really , and Enoch was very nice about it .
Afterwards he congratulated me on the speech and so on , blah , blah , blah .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ but I did have doubts on the political side which came from two sources .
One , I followed what Enoch said , and he saw very clearly that Europe was going in a political direction , political union .
And yet the evidence wasn ’ t all that clear .
“ But I began to have doubts about it for two reasons .
I remember shortly after I had become a member of the House of Commons , Ted Heath came back from a summit and announced that we were signing up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ I was absolutely shocked by this , but I think the Werner Plan envisaged it happening over 20 years or something , and although I was shocked , again , people said ‘ well , nothing will happen , blah blah blah ’ .
“ And then the second thing was , I had a constituent called Mrs Horsfield , who used to write to me all the time about this , and she cottoned on the Werner Plan , and then she cottoned on to majority voting with the Single @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s really encouraging , that a persistent constituent could have that effect.
” Lamont : “ She lived at Liverpool Road , Kingston-upon-Thames , but I don ’ t know if she ’ s still alive .
Charlotte Horsfield I remember was her name .
“ But the catalyst was just the experience of being Chancellor , and the way they refused to believe me when I said , ‘ We won ’ t join the single currency.
’ “ I just could not understand that.
” ConHome : “ You mean all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ Yes , they were all , ‘ Norman you say this , but… ’ .
I remember in particular there was a Greek finance minister , the head of the Greek central bank , he just could not believe , he said , ‘ You ’ ll show solidarity with Greece when the moment comes . '
” ConHome : “ So what happened after you ’ d said at the party conference in 1994 that leaving the EU was an option ?
” Lamont : “ Well nothing happened .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ in his account in The Guardian of ‘ how a fringe idea took hold of the Tory party ’ ] is that it made the issue of leaving intellectually respectable , simply because I ’ d been Chancellor .
“ Whereas it had been akin to believing that the Earth was flat .
“ I remember I chose my words very carefully .
I remember I said I can see no unambiguous advantage in our membership .
I was saying well , you know , there may be a bit of argument @ @ @ @ @ @ @ personally don ’ t believe this.
” ConHome : “ What are your relations now with David Cameron ?
” ConHome : “ And how do you think as party leader he handled the whole European issue ?
” Lamont : “ Well I think he gets a very unfair press .
I don ’ t think he had any alternative but to call the referendum .
“ And when people say it was the internal politics , the party management of the Conservative Party , you know , I think Balfour once @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Minister is to remain in office .
“ The object of a party leader must be to retain power and get power , and there is no way he would have won the election with an out and out majority if he hadn ’ t gone for the referendum .
“ And worse than that , I think the Conservative Party was haemorrhaging support , people tend to diminish it , but the European elections spoke for themselves , the two MPs who defected , there would have been others , I don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ position .
“ So I think people who criticise Cameron for that are quite wrong .
Where possibly they could have a point is that I think he could have been tougher with Mrs Merkel in the actual negotiation on freedom of movement of labour.
” ConHome : “ What do you make of the period after the referendum , when Parliament tried not to do what it had said it would do ?
” Lamont : “ It ’ s something I ’ d rather forget .
It was terrible , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as well .
But fortunately , because of the spectacular election result , that ’ s all been dramatically stood on its head , and the dysfunctional Britain is now an island of stability .
“ The referendum really went the way it did , unexpectedly to most commentators , because older people , by which I mean people of my age and more [ Lamont is 77 ] , voted very strongly for Leave .
“ Why did they do that ?
I think it was above all about independence and sovereignty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they were not very political , how Europe was sold to the British people as an economic venture , which would not lead to political union .
“ As everybody knows , the 1975 White Paper said there ’ d be no question of monetary union .
And they could see that basically the country had been lied to .
“ When people talk about the lying on the referendum campaign and the lying allegedly about the amount of money we paid , it was nothing like the lie of not addressing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ And I think the mistake that the Remain side made was thinking that people were going to be moved by silly claims that after 15 years we were going to be five per cent worse off than otherwise we would have been .
I mean who the hell knows over 15 years ?
“ I think you had a combination of older voters and Labour , if I can use the phrase , working-class voters who had old-fashioned values about identity and sovereignty , and thank God for them , salt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On Europe , I ’ m happy to leave it to him .
As far as I ’ m concerned , we ’ re out of political union and I ’ ll leave it to him to make the judgements on the precise type of trade agreement that we have .
“ More generally , I read all this stuff that he ’ s more Reagan than Thatcher , more Heseltine than Thatcher .
“ All I would say is that in this new world in which we ’ re going to live @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a liberal Conservative , but I hope he will also see that in a world where we are on our own , I think it ’ s very important that we remain very anchored in a free-market philosophy .
“ I didn ’ t much like the helping hand that was extended to Flybe .
“ Of course low interest rates mean you can have more infrastructure , although nobody can guarantee that interest rates will be low forever , and I would say just don ’ t go wild .
“ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spender to undo the good that George Osborne did , and I think George Osborne does deserve credit for the very , very difficult situation to get the deficit down in the way that he did .
“ What worried me about Flybe is how you are perceived matters enormously in fostering confidence .
If Britain ’ s going to attract inward investment , it must show it ’ s going to be hard-headed about the type of economic policy it follows .
I think it ’ s very important .
”

A quarter of a century ago Norman Lamont became the first senior Conservative to warn that Britain might one day be obliged to choose, quite reasonably, to leave the European Union.
In this interview, conducted on Monday, Lord Lamont recalls how until then, the idea of withdrawing from the EU “had been akin to believing that the Earth was flat”.
And he describes how, while serving as Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1990-93, he came to realise, from talks with his opposite numbers in other European capitals, that they were determined to create a political and not just an economic union: “I realised I had been deceiving myself.”
Lamont therefore went on to warn, in a speech delivered on 11th October 1994 to a fringe meeting organised by the Selsdon Group at the Conservative Party Conference in Bournemouth:
“We deceive the British people . . . if we claim that we are winning the argument . . . the 11 other members want a European Union that is a European state.”
The Times reported that the former Chancellor had “shattered” the Tory truce on Europe, and had taken aim at the Prime Minister, John Major, who earlier that year had described the idea of leaving the EU as “unthinkable”. As Lamont told the fringe meeting,
“It has recently been said that the option of leaving the Community was ‘unthinkable’. I believe this attitude is rather simplistic.”
Lamont here relates that in 1994, he was acting on his own: “I was very much on my own after Black Wednesday,” 16th September 1992, when the pound was forced out of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism and the economic credibility of the Major government was destroyed.
Indeed, after Lamont spoke, “one of the people who attacked me was Bill Cash”, for Tory Eurosceptics were at this point careful not to call for British withdrawal.
Lamont defends David Cameron for calling the EU referendum – “I think he gets a very unfair press” – and attributes the vote for Leave to the realisation of older voters “that basically the country had been lied to” when it was assured that the EU was a purely economic venture.
The former Chancellor is delighted that Britain is out of European political union, is content to leave Boris Johnson to negotiate the details of Britain’s future trading arrangements, but calls on the Prime Minister to remain wedded to free-market economics: “I didn’t much like the helping hand that was extended to Flybe…I don’t want Boris the big spender to undo the good that George Osborne did.”
ConHome: “What happened in 1994? You’d first raised the idea of leaving the EU at a meeting earlier that year of the Conservative Philosophy Group, at Jonathan Aitken’s house in Lord North Street.”
Lamont: “Yes, I do remember Jimmy Goldsmith was there, and Zac was there. I know Rodney Leach was there, together with Jessica Douglas-Home.”
ConHome: “And what impelled you to take that line?”
Lamont: “Well I began to think about Europe when I was Chancellor. I mean I did think about it obviously before, but my doubts really grew – I often recount my very first meeting with one of my opposite numbers in Europe in New York in 1990, with a man called Pierre Bérégovoy who subsequently became Prime Minister of France.
“He was a Frenchman, but here he was in New York, telling me that we were inevitably going to have a United States of Europe.
“Now I of course spent a lot of my time as Chancellor negotiating our opt-out on the Maastricht Treaty from the single currency. But it was that experience that put me over the line, because I’d always worried whether Europe was political rather than just economic, but good friends of mine like Kenneth Clarke would say, ‘It’s all rhetoric – they don’t mean it.’
“And when I came face to face with this, I was shocked. I realised I had been deceiving myself.
“And OK, we had I think a perfectly sensible and rational policy of having a series of opt-outs, opt-out from the single currency, opt-out from the Social Chapter, opt-out from Schengen.
“But the question was, can you really just go on and can you guarantee that these opt-outs won’t be eroded, will Labour reverse them, could we be driven further down the road towards – I mean I try to avoid using the phrase ‘federal Europe’ – but a political Europe.
“And what I said in my speech at the party conference was that we had a choice. We could have opt-outs, or we could withdraw.
“But I also said, which I had come to believe, that I felt the economic advantages of the so-called Single Market were vastly overstated. To this day, I am still influenced by the fact that Switzerland, not a member of the European Union, is more integrated with the European economy than we are.
“And I note how the United States sells more to the Single Market and increases its share of the Single Market faster than we have, despite not being a member.
“And I can’t see, and couldn’t see then increasingly, why we had to be members in order to benefit. One can say that a single regulatory area is a public good, and take advantage of it, while being an outsider.”
ConHome: “Who did you discuss this with at the time? And in particular, which Conservatives, possibly of an older generation, influenced your thinking? Or were you really working it out for yourself? You must have tried to talk it through with various people.”
Lamont: “At that stage I was very much on my own [laughter]. I was very much on my own after Black Wednesday.”
ConHome: “Yes, you weren’t at the centre of a great band.”
Lamont: “Well there was all the speculation about the leadership. No, I was working on my own. I had a very good PA called Rupert Darwall, Rupert and I worked closely.
“But other than that, it was quite interesting, when I made that speech at the party conference, one of the people who attacked me was Bill Cash.”
ConHome: “Why?”
Lamont: “Because I’d advocated leaving, and they were very careful not to advocate leaving. They were in favour of renegotiation. Well, you know, renegotiation was an option which I myself acknowledged.
“I didn’t say we should leave. What I said was we may have in the future to choose.
“And I was also saying it was not impossible to thrive economically outside the European Union, which I did believe and I profoundly believe now.”
ConHome: “So Eurosceptics of an earlier generation like Derek Walker-Smith or Enoch Powell were not a particular influence on you?”
Lamont: “Enoch was, definitely. How could he not be? I knew him. Funnily enough, I made my maiden speech in the House of Commons in favour of joining the EEC.
“In 1972, I got in in a by-election, and I had an Anti-Common Market candidate I had to defeat in the by-election, and in my maiden speech I actually rather playfully quoted Enoch.
“Enoch once made a speech, which I heard, in favour of EEC membership, at Cambridge when I was an undergraduate. I referred to this, just as a joke really, and Enoch was very nice about it. Afterwards he congratulated me on the speech and so on, blah, blah, blah.
“So I voted that way, but I did have doubts on the political side which came from two sources. One, I followed what Enoch said, and he saw very clearly that Europe was going in a political direction, political union. And yet the evidence wasn’t all that clear.
“But I began to have doubts about it for two reasons. I remember shortly after I had become a member of the House of Commons, Ted Heath came back from a summit and announced that we were signing up to the Werner Plan for monetary union.
“I was absolutely shocked by this, but I think the Werner Plan envisaged it happening over 20 years or something, and although I was shocked, again, people said ‘well, nothing will happen, blah blah blah’.
“And then the second thing was, I had a constituent called Mrs Horsfield, who used to write to me all the time about this, and she cottoned on the Werner Plan, and then she cottoned on to majority voting with the Single Market.”
ConHome: “That’s really encouraging, that a persistent constituent could have that effect.”
Lamont: “She lived at Liverpool Road, Kingston-upon-Thames, but I don’t know if she’s still alive. Charlotte Horsfield I remember was her name.
“But the catalyst was just the experience of being Chancellor, and the way they refused to believe me when I said, ‘We won’t join the single currency.’
“I just could not understand that.”
ConHome: “You mean all your European opposite numbers?”
Lamont: “Yes, they were all, ‘Norman you say this, but…’. I remember in particular there was a Greek finance minister, the head of the Greek central bank, he just could not believe, he said, ‘You’ll show solidarity with Greece when the moment comes.'”
ConHome: “So what happened after you’d said at the party conference in 1994 that leaving the EU was an option?”
Lamont: “Well nothing happened. But what Matthew d’Ancona says [in his account in The Guardian of ‘how a fringe idea took hold of the Tory party’] is that it made the issue of leaving intellectually respectable, simply because I’d been Chancellor.
“Whereas it had been akin to believing that the Earth was flat.
“I remember I chose my words very carefully. I remember I said I can see no unambiguous advantage in our membership. I was saying well, you know, there may be a bit of argument that it mildly increased exports, I personally don’t believe this.”
ConHome: “What are your relations now with David Cameron?”
Lamont: “Oh, very good.”
ConHome: “And how do you think as party leader he handled the whole European issue?”
Lamont: “Well I think he gets a very unfair press. I don’t think he had any alternative but to call the referendum.
“And when people say it was the internal politics, the party management of the Conservative Party, you know, I think Balfour once said the first duty of a Prime Minister is to remain in office.
“The object of a party leader must be to retain power and get power, and there is no way he would have won the election with an out and out majority if he hadn’t gone for the referendum.
“And worse than that, I think the Conservative Party was haemorrhaging support, people tend to diminish it, but the European elections spoke for themselves, the two MPs who defected, there would have been others, I don’t think it was a tenable position.
“So I think people who criticise Cameron for that are quite wrong. Where possibly they could have a point is that I think he could have been tougher with Mrs Merkel in the actual negotiation on freedom of movement of labour.”
ConHome: “What do you make of the period after the referendum, when Parliament tried not to do what it had said it would do?”
Lamont: “It’s something I’d rather forget. It was terrible, and it was a terrible advertisement for Britain as well. But fortunately, because of the spectacular election result, that’s all been dramatically stood on its head, and the dysfunctional Britain is now an island of stability.
“The referendum really went the way it did, unexpectedly to most commentators, because older people, by which I mean people of my age and more [Lamont is 77], voted very strongly for Leave.
“Why did they do that? I think it was above all about independence and sovereignty. My generation remembered, even if they were not very political, how Europe was sold to the British people as an economic venture, which would not lead to political union.
“As everybody knows, the 1975 White Paper said there’d be no question of monetary union. And they could see that basically the country had been lied to.
“When people talk about the lying on the referendum campaign and the lying allegedly about the amount of money we paid, it was nothing like the lie of not addressing the question of Europe being a political union.
“And I think the mistake that the Remain side made was thinking that people were going to be moved by silly claims that after 15 years we were going to be five per cent worse off than otherwise we would have been. I mean who the hell knows over 15 years?
“I think you had a combination of older voters and Labour, if I can use the phrase, working-class voters who had old-fashioned values about identity and sovereignty, and thank God for them, salt of the earth.”
ConHome: “What should Boris Johnson do now?”
Lamont: “On Europe, I’m happy to leave it to him. As far as I’m concerned, we’re out of political union and I’ll leave it to him to make the judgements on the precise type of trade agreement that we have.
“More generally, I read all this stuff that he’s more Reagan than Thatcher, more Heseltine than Thatcher.
“All I would say is that in this new world in which we’re going to live, Boris I’m sure is a liberal Conservative, but I hope he will also see that in a world where we are on our own, I think it’s very important that we remain very anchored in a free-market philosophy.
“I didn’t much like the helping hand that was extended to Flybe.
“Of course low interest rates mean you can have more infrastructure, although nobody can guarantee that interest rates will be low forever, and I would say just don’t go wild.
“I don’t want Boris the big spender to undo the good that George Osborne did, and I think George Osborne does deserve credit for the very, very difficult situation to get the deficit down in the way that he did.
“What worried me about Flybe is how you are perceived matters enormously in fostering confidence. If Britain’s going to attract inward investment, it must show it’s going to be hard-headed about the type of economic policy it follows. I think it’s very important.”


conservativehome--2020-01-30--Garvan Walshe: Kushner’s Middle East peace deal won’t work for Israelis, Palestinians – or anyone el

Garvan Walshe: Kushner’s Middle East peace deal won’t work for Israelis, Palestinians – or anyone else

Garvan Walshe is a former National and International Security Policy Adviser to the Conservative Party .
Benjamin Netanyahu , indicted by the attorney general he had appointed .
Donald Trump , braced for his former National Security Adviser to spill the beans before his Senate trial .
The two , however , have cause to celebrate , for Jared Kushner , Trump ’ s son in law , Middle East envoy , has just launched his new Middle East peace plan .
It ’ s less a fresh plan then a resurrection .
Just after the 1967 war , Yigal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ valley , while areas of high Palestinian population would be transferred to Jordan , which had controlled the territory before the war .
The new plan revives the essence of its terms , drafted in the idiom of a real estate contract : …dictated by the Israeli ministry of housing .
In the West Bank , the main part of the Jordan Valley , designated as ‘ Area C ’ under the Oslo Accords , would be annexed by Israel .
The entire old city of Jerusalem would be under permanent Israeli control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the document would limit a Palestinian state to the cities and towns of Areas A and B .
The resulting chart resembles nothing so much as a propaganda document the Palestinians used to use to argue the Israelis were trying to deny them a contiguous state .
What is curious is the reaction of the Arab States , who would , in previous years , have loudly condemned such a flagrantly one-sided proposal .
Their silence is a response to Arab fatigue at the Palestinian issue , which has slipped down their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the chaos in Syria , the threat posed by Iran , the need to crush any further attempts at democratic revolution , and Islamist terrorism .
The content is a consequence of the severity of the Palestinians ’ defeat in the second intifada .
Unable to threaten Israel militarily , but unable to convince Israelis that , like a domestic cat , they wouldn ’ t kill them if they were bigger , the Palestinians find themselves at the mercy of the two accused who prefer headlines that please their base to practical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Palestinians have rejected the deal .
It is as unreasonable to them as the report of the Peel Commission Partition Plan of 1937 was to the Zionist movement of the time .
The resemblance is in fact uncanny : that proposal confined the Jewish state to areas of high population , assigning most of the land to a future Arab Palestinian state .
Leave aside the realism , or not , of the Palestinian position , which is really a bet on the forthcoming US Presidential election .
They might have been wiser @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accept ” the unacceptable in order to fight it when the balance of power improved .
But since even accepting acceptable peace deals has never been their style , it is surely too much for them to accept a deal that is , in fact , unacceptable .
Now turn for a moment to Israeli politics .
Formal annexation of Area C ( an idea floated in recent weeks to distract people from the criminal proceedings against Netanyahu ) would be unwise foreign policy .
It could even risk EU sanctions .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Germany to shift from its resolute support of Israel , it is the unilateral revision of international frontiers .
Nor does it make sense locally .
It would make co-operation with Palestinian security forces , on which the Israeli forces rely to disrupt Palestinian terrorism , all but impossible .
As befits a real estate brochure , most of the plan , which is subtitled ‘ Peace to Prosperity ’ imagines economic progress alleviating the Palestinians ’ political predicament .
In this it resembles the decidedly unsuccessful ‘ Killing Home Rule with Kindness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Arthur Balfour .
Though Netanyahu may not be familiar with Balfour ’ s early work , he is certainly familiar with that of Ze ’ ev Zhabotinsky , who founded the Likud Party which Netanyahu leads .
In his essay The Iron Wall he warned against plans like Kushner ’ s : ‘ Our peace-mongers are trying to persuade us that the Arabs are either fools , whom we can deceive by masking our real aims , or that they are corrupt and can be bribed to abandon their claim to priority in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic privileges…they regard [ them ] as a corrupt mob which can be bought and sold , and are willing to give up their fatherland for a good railway system .
’

Garvan Walshe is a former National and International Security Policy Adviser to the Conservative Party.
Benjamin Netanyahu, indicted by the attorney general he had appointed. Donald Trump, braced for his former National Security Adviser to spill the beans before his Senate trial. The two, however, have cause to celebrate, for Jared Kushner, Trump’s son in law, Middle East envoy, has just launched his new Middle East peace plan.
It’s less a fresh plan then a resurrection. Just after the 1967 war, Yigal Allon proposed that Israel annex the Jordan valley, while areas of high Palestinian population would be transferred to Jordan, which had controlled the territory before the war. The new plan revives the essence of its terms, drafted in the idiom of a real estate contract:
‘…the peace agreement that will hopefully be negotiated on the basis of this Vision should be implemented through legally binding contracts and agreements (the “ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN PEACE AGREEMENT”)…
…dictated by the Israeli ministry of housing. In the West Bank, the main part of the Jordan Valley, designated as ‘Area C’ under the Oslo Accords, would be annexed by Israel. The entire old city of Jerusalem would be under permanent Israeli control. A ‘conceptual map’ appended to the document would limit a Palestinian state to the cities and towns of Areas A and B. The resulting chart resembles nothing so much as a propaganda document the Palestinians used to use to argue the Israelis were trying to deny them a contiguous state.
What is curious is the reaction of the Arab States, who would, in previous years, have loudly condemned such a flagrantly one-sided proposal. Their silence is a response to Arab fatigue at the Palestinian issue, which has slipped down their radar, coming at best fifth after the chaos in Syria, the threat posed by Iran, the need to crush any further attempts at democratic revolution, and Islamist terrorism.
The content is a consequence of the severity of the Palestinians’ defeat in the second intifada. Unable to threaten Israel militarily, but unable to convince Israelis that, like a domestic cat, they wouldn’t kill them if they were bigger, the Palestinians find themselves at the mercy of the two accused who prefer headlines that please their base to practical policy.
Needless to say, the Palestinians have rejected the deal. It is as unreasonable to them as the report of the Peel Commission Partition Plan of 1937 was to the Zionist movement of the time. The resemblance is in fact uncanny: that proposal confined the Jewish state to areas of high population, assigning most of the land to a future Arab Palestinian state.
Leave aside the realism, or not, of the Palestinian position, which is really a bet on the forthcoming US Presidential election. They might have been wiser to emulate the Zionist leadership and “accept” the unacceptable in order to fight it when the balance of power improved. But since even accepting acceptable peace deals has never been their style, it is surely too much for them to accept a deal that is, in fact, unacceptable.
Now turn for a moment to Israeli politics. Formal annexation of Area C (an idea floated in recent weeks to distract people from the criminal proceedings against Netanyahu) would be unwise foreign policy. It could even risk EU sanctions. If there is one thing that could cause Germany to shift from its resolute support of Israel, it is the unilateral revision of international frontiers.
Nor does it make sense locally. It would make co-operation with Palestinian security forces, on which the Israeli forces rely to disrupt Palestinian terrorism, all but impossible. As befits a real estate brochure, most of the plan, which is subtitled ‘Peace to Prosperity’ imagines economic progress alleviating the Palestinians’ political predicament. In this it resembles the decidedly unsuccessful ‘Killing Home Rule with Kindness’ policy introduced by none other than Arthur Balfour.
Though Netanyahu may not be familiar with Balfour’s early work, he is certainly familiar with that of Ze’ev Zhabotinsky, who founded the Likud Party which Netanyahu leads. In his essay The Iron Wall he warned against plans like Kushner’s:


conservativehome--2020-01-30--John Fareham: Conservatives in Hull can build on our general election progress

Cllr John Fareham is the Leader of the Conservative Group on Hull City Council .
He was first elected in 1983 .
Conservatism in Hull has been a training ground for MPs of late .
Andrew Percy was a councillor here .
Lia Nicci-Townend and Dehenna Davison Fareham each contested Hull North constituency before succeeding elsewhere .
This year Hull almost became blue , with even the East Hull seat reduced to a marginal of 1,239 ( compared with 18,723 when I stood in 1992 ) and the Brexit Party trailing us in all three seats .
Whichever way the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who were running the Council as recently as 2011 , collapsed and barely held their deposit .
Yet they remain , on the Council , the majority Opposition Group having improved their vote at the most recent council elections .
We legally remain a Group at two members but one seat falls vacant this year and municipal politics lacks a binary dividing issue such as Brexit .
Unity is generally a good thing , if you are a one nation Conservative .
But it can lead to stagnation and paralysis .
Hull @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rather well from Conservative central governments .
An endless procession of Ministers ( all too busy to see the local Party or even the Group ) sweep into the City waving cheques for improving roads to the docks , Green energy initiatives , City Centre remodelling , housing initiatives , and assisting investment in once-local company Reckitts .
All this under the umbrella of the City of Culture , itself rejected when there was a Labour Government – just as little happened under them apart from the PFI fuelled frenzy of poor financing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two Hull MPs being Ministers .
Even the Council blazons a banner , somewhat ironically on an empty shop , proclaiming “ Over £3 billion Public and Private Sector Investment in Hull since 2013 ” .
With Boris Johnson talking about remodelling expenditure assessments to remove or reduce the economic benefit weighting to reward the newly blue wall seats in the north ( no doubt further displeasing the Conservative South-East as net taxation contributors ) Hull can no doubt expect to see yet more public funding .
Though Cllr Hale ( in some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a combative left-wing Deputy Leader behind a conciliatory moderate leader ) repeatedly talks about huge cuts to Hull City Council , he makes the machine politician ’ s standard conflation of the City and the Council .
The Labour leadership is however pragmatic , increasingly more so , and will embrace funding opportunities ; but they suffer from a form of political priapism around big projects and the City Centre .
Labour in Hull still lean to spending money on “ their ” estates ( in my 33 years of public service some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a third time – and still remain a dubious asset as even some Labour members will agree privately ) and do like a “ Major Project ” .
The City centre is improving .
But Labour seem incapable of spotting the irony that they proclaim times are hard and then spend millions buying buildings .
Away from the City Centre , and the sprawling outer council estates , Labour seem to lack a clear vision for the rest of the City .
Those who do not go into the City centre daily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ booming , the arts rolling out as part of a regeneration strategy harnessed to cultural revitalisation .
Inadequate roads from the 1930s still form part of an inner ring road – in a city of barely 27 square miles who even thinks an inner-ring road on parked-up 1930s streets makes any form of sense ?
There is no over-arching transport vision , apart from the obligatory nod to not-driving by councillors and officers who largely drive , and there is no sub-regional strategy for urban and suburban transport such as trams to connect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( East Riding of Yorkshire ) who surround us on all land borders .
ERYC , at the southern end particularly , draw their cultural , economic , and ( increasingly less so ) retail identity from Hull , both councils tenuously connected by two train lines and a few arterial roads , all lacking cohesion and strategic thought , let alone surplus capacity .
The Cassandras of woe in the local media breathlessly report almost daily the latest accident blocking the A63 ( is it just me or do the Police take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) But still , we do little to lighten the loading – a major project overlooked .
This is the classic dilemma – in public service we should do the right thing , which often means rewarding Labour for years of failure and , in the process , often underwriting their continued control of a council – especially when Ministers are all too often too lazy to take a briefing on the reality behind the warm smiles and the outstretched hand .
We will fight on a positive city-wide agenda : respecting and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , investing evenly across the City .
The Liberal Democrats will trot out the same tired clichés about “ Labour ’ s Guildhall bosses ” and money spent on a cabinet somewhere in a Grade 2* Guildhall , but may yet increase their vote further .
We will hope to expand on the street stalls , ad vans , and pub meet ‘ n ’ greets , as well as campaign on the streets .
In the General Election , box counts suggested we won seven local government wards – six more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of the habit of voting Labour , the Lib-Dems are increasingly stale .
We may lack a clear binary policy as emotive as “ Brexit ” but we will work to present a clear alternative to the two stale old Guildhall parties .

Cllr John Fareham is the Leader of the Conservative Group on Hull City Council. He was first elected in 1983.
Conservatism in Hull has been a training ground for MPs of late. Andrew Percy was a councillor here. Lia Nicci-Townend and Dehenna Davison Fareham each contested Hull North constituency before succeeding elsewhere.
This year Hull almost became blue, with even the East Hull seat reduced to a marginal of 1,239 (compared with 18,723 when I stood in 1992) and the Brexit Party trailing us in all three seats.
Whichever way the result is analysed, the Liberal Democrats, who were running the Council as recently as 2011, collapsed and barely held their deposit. Yet they remain, on the Council, the majority Opposition Group having improved their vote at the most recent council elections. We legally remain a Group at two members but one seat falls vacant this year and municipal politics lacks a binary dividing issue such as Brexit. Unity is generally a good thing, if you are a one nation Conservative. But it can lead to stagnation and paralysis.
Hull is a post-industrial City which has done rather well from Conservative central governments. An endless procession of Ministers (all too busy to see the local Party or even the Group) sweep into the City waving cheques for improving roads to the docks, Green energy initiatives, City Centre remodelling, housing initiatives, and assisting investment in once-local company Reckitts. All this under the umbrella of the City of Culture, itself rejected when there was a Labour Government – just as little happened under them apart from the PFI fuelled frenzy of poor financing – despite at any one time, two Hull MPs being Ministers. Even the Council blazons a banner, somewhat ironically on an empty shop, proclaiming “Over £3 billion Public and Private Sector Investment in Hull since 2013”.
With Boris Johnson talking about remodelling expenditure assessments to remove or reduce the economic benefit weighting to reward the newly blue wall seats in the north (no doubt further displeasing the Conservative South-East as net taxation contributors) Hull can no doubt expect to see yet more public funding. Though Cllr Hale ( in some ways the Derek Hatton of Hull as a combative left-wing Deputy Leader behind a conciliatory moderate leader) repeatedly talks about huge cuts to Hull City Council, he makes the machine politician’s standard conflation of the City and the Council. The Labour leadership is however pragmatic, increasingly more so, and will embrace funding opportunities; but they suffer from a form of political priapism around big projects and the City Centre.
Labour in Hull still lean to spending money on “their” estates (in my 33 years of public service some areas are now ‘on investment’ for a third time – and still remain a dubious asset as even some Labour members will agree privately) and do like a “Major Project”. The City centre is improving. But Labour seem incapable of spotting the irony that they proclaim times are hard and then spend millions buying buildings. Away from the City Centre, and the sprawling outer council estates, Labour seem to lack a clear vision for the rest of the City. Those who do not go into the City centre daily, do not see local neighbourhood facilities booming, the arts rolling out as part of a regeneration strategy harnessed to cultural revitalisation. Inadequate roads from the 1930s still form part of an inner ring road – in a city of barely 27 square miles who even thinks an inner-ring road on parked-up 1930s streets makes any form of sense?
There is no over-arching transport vision, apart from the obligatory nod to not-driving by councillors and officers who largely drive, and there is no sub-regional strategy for urban and suburban transport such as trams to connect Labour Hull with the Conservative-controlled local Council (East Riding of Yorkshire) who surround us on all land borders. ERYC, at the southern end particularly, draw their cultural, economic, and (increasingly less so) retail identity from Hull, both councils tenuously connected by two train lines and a few arterial roads, all lacking cohesion and strategic thought, let alone surplus capacity. The Cassandras of woe in the local media breathlessly report almost daily the latest accident blocking the A63 (is it just me or do the Police take ever longer to free up roads?) But still, we do little to lighten the loading – a major project overlooked.
This is the classic dilemma – in public service we should do the right thing, which often means rewarding Labour for years of failure and, in the process, often underwriting their continued control of a council – especially when Ministers are all too often too lazy to take a briefing on the reality behind the warm smiles and the outstretched hand. We will fight on a positive city-wide agenda: respecting and empowering the individual, strengthening all communities, investing evenly across the City. The Liberal Democrats will trot out the same tired clichés about “Labour’s Guildhall bosses” and money spent on a cabinet somewhere in a Grade 2* Guildhall, but may yet increase their vote further.
We will hope to expand on the street stalls, ad vans, and pub meet ‘n’ greets, as well as campaign on the streets. In the General Election, box counts suggested we won seven local government wards – six more than we usually do. People are getting out of the habit of voting Labour, the Lib-Dems are increasingly stale. We may lack a clear binary policy as emotive as “Brexit” but we will work to present a clear alternative to the two stale old Guildhall parties.


conservativehome--2020-02-04--Irish complacency is Sinn Fein’s opportunity

Last May saw an electoral drubbing for Sinn Fein in the Irish Republic .
In the Euro Elections , just one Sinn Fein MEP was returned , compared to three last time .
In the local elections the same day , Sinn Fein lost nearly half its councillors – it made net losses of 78 , ending up holding just 81 .
Yet recent opinion polls point to a dramatic change in fortune , as the Irish prepare for a General Election on Saturday .
There was a survey published by the Irish Times this morning which put Sinn Fein @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has surged into first place in the general election race , with a quarter of all likely voters now saying they intend to vote for the party , according to the final Irish Times/Ipsos MRBI opinion poll of the campaign .
“ The poll puts Fine Gael back in third place at 20 per cent , behind Fianna Fáil on 23 per cent and Sinn Féin on 25 per cent .
“ The findings of the poll , which was taken on Thursday , Friday and Saturday of last week , will shock @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is on the brink of an historic general election result on Saturday .
This does not mean that Sinn Fein will be running the country .
Ireland uses the Single Transferable Vote electoral system , not first past the post .
It is not even likely that Sinn Fein will end up in coalition .
The Irish Times report adds : “ However , Fianna Fáil remains the most popular choice for government , with more voters expressing a preference for a coalition government involving that party than any other , while Sinn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number of voters do not want to see in government .
“ In addition , Sinn Féin is limited by running by running just 42 candidates in 38 constituencies and is unlikely – even on these figures – to be the largest party in the next Dáil.
” That still leaves the puzzle of why Sinn Fein has advanced so far .
It is an extremist outfit , tarnished by its support for terrorism for decades – a stance it has still not repented .
A clue to its wider allegiance is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Left – Nordic Green Left , which means it sits alongside assorted Portugese , Czech , and German Communists in the European Parliament .
It is likely that Sinn Fein ’ s funding has indirectly come from an IRA bank raid in 2004 .
On the other hand , should we be shocked ?
Over ten million British people voted for Labour in December .
I know they lost but that is still a lot of votes .
That was despite the Party being led by Jeremy Corbyn whose long-standing support for Sinn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Last month we saw the restoration of power-sharing arrangements in the Northern Ireland Executive .
It was generally regarded as good news .
As a result , Michelle O ’ Neill of Sinn Fein is the Deputy First Minister .
Her Party colleague , Conor Murphy , has the finance portfolio .
He served five years in prison for possession of weapons and membership of the Provisional IRA .
Yet the Democratic Unionists work alongside them .
But when we look further at the latest polling , we see another mystery .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Its leader is Leo Varadkar , the Irish prime minister .
( The British media usually refer to him as the “ taoiseach ” .
Why do they not call Angela Merkel the “ Kanzler ” ? )
Those of us attempting to make sense of the Brexit machinations felt that Varadkar played a blinder .
He played up his populist anti-British rhetoric .
He also managed to get a lot of EU focus on Irish grievances ( whether real or imagined ) about border arrangements .
Then there is the economy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” is absolutely world class .
In 2018 it grew by 8.2 per cent .
A low rate of Corporation Tax has attracted investment .
There is a budget surplus .
Perhaps there is some complacency , that it can be taken for granted .
Yet Ireland was badly hit by the international financial crash of 2008 .
Varadkar says : “ One of the earliest recorded examples of economic strategising appears in the very first book of the Bible .
Joseph , son of Jacob and Rachel , was able to predict @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – a period of boom , followed by a period of bust .
Forewarned , he was forearmed , and he was able to guide the country through the worst of the crisis , saving his own people as a result.
” Sinn Fein ’ s increased support is considered to partly derive from Irish discontent over housing .
Incomes have risen , but house prices have risen faster – leaving young people “ locked out ” of homeownership and angered at rent increases .
Inward migration has increased the pressure .
Sinn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reduce rents by up to €1,500 a year , via a refundable tax credit , and freeze them for three years ” and to “ build 100,000 homes over 5 years .
This will include council housing and affordable homes for renters and first time buyers.
” Rent controls have proved harmful where-ever they have been tried .
Yet the idea has a natural attraction to those annoyed by how high rent is .
The real answer , of course , is to increase supply by easing planning restrictions .
But some are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be ugly .
These issues are familiar to those of us on the other side of the Irish Sea .
Another grievance concerns health care , due to overcrowding .
Capacity has not kept up with the increased population .
Ireland has a mixed public sector/private sector system .
Some are entitled to free treatment , others have to pay .
Sinn Fein proposes free GP care and 1,500 more beds .
Nearly half of Irish people have private health insurance .
Sinn Fein wants to put a stop to it – which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that is already struggling .
What about Fianna Fáil ?
They have also made spending pledges and challenged Fine Gael ’ s record .
But Sinn Fein can argue that Fianna Fáil isn ’ t a real opposition – as they have sustained the Fine Gael with a “ confidence and supply ” arrangement .
Fine Gael is even more on the defensive .
They can point out that health spending has already increased , but as the resulting improvements in output have been marginal this is not much of a boast .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ backed Nazi Germany .
This was on the maxim : “ England ’ s difficulty is Ireland ’ s opportunity.
” It now seems that Irish complacency is Sinn Fein ’ s opportunity The Irish should be proud of their achievements .
Economic progress has been dramatic .
That broadens out into wider achievements .
Life expectancy has increased faster there than anywhere else in Europe – which put complaints about health care into some perspective .
Yet it is difficult to find any of the political parties very inspiring .
There is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of the democratic parties to secure the defeat of Sinn Fein .
There have been some powerful pleas to voters by the relatives of victims of the IRA .
Let us hope they are listened to .

Last May saw an electoral drubbing for Sinn Fein in the Irish Republic. In the Euro Elections, just one Sinn Fein MEP was returned, compared to three last time. In the local elections the same day, Sinn Fein lost nearly half its councillors – it made net losses of 78, ending up holding just 81. Yet recent opinion polls point to a dramatic change in fortune, as the Irish prepare for a General Election on Saturday. There was a survey published by the Irish Times this morning which put Sinn Fein in the lead:
“Sinn Féin has surged into first place in the general election race, with a quarter of all likely voters now saying they intend to vote for the party, according to the final Irish Times/Ipsos MRBI opinion poll of the campaign.
“The poll puts Fine Gael back in third place at 20 per cent, behind Fianna Fáil on 23 per cent and Sinn Féin on 25 per cent.
“The findings of the poll, which was taken on Thursday, Friday and Saturday of last week, will shock the Government party and suggest that Ireland is on the brink of an historic general election result on Saturday.
This does not mean that Sinn Fein will be running the country. Ireland uses the Single Transferable Vote electoral system, not first past the post. It is not even likely that Sinn Fein will end up in coalition. The Irish Times report adds:
“However, Fianna Fáil remains the most popular choice for government, with more voters expressing a preference for a coalition government involving that party than any other, while Sinn Féin is the party that the highest number of voters do not want to see in government.
“In addition, Sinn Féin is limited by running by running just 42 candidates in 38 constituencies and is unlikely – even on these figures – to be the largest party in the next Dáil.”
That still leaves the puzzle of why Sinn Fein has advanced so far. It is an extremist outfit, tarnished by its support for terrorism for decades – a stance it has still not repented. A clue to its wider allegiance is that it is part of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left, which means it sits alongside assorted Portugese, Czech, and German Communists in the European Parliament. It is likely that Sinn Fein’s funding has indirectly come from an IRA bank raid in 2004.
On the other hand, should we be shocked? Over ten million British people voted for Labour in December. I know they lost but that is still a lot of votes. That was despite the Party being led by Jeremy Corbyn whose long-standing support for Sinn Fein / the IRA was well established. Last month we saw the restoration of power-sharing arrangements in the Northern Ireland Executive. It was generally regarded as good news. As a result, Michelle O’Neill of Sinn Fein is the Deputy First Minister. Her Party colleague, Conor Murphy, has the finance portfolio. He served five years in prison for possession of weapons and membership of the Provisional IRA. Yet the Democratic Unionists work alongside them.
But when we look further at the latest polling, we see another mystery. Fine Gael is in third place. Its leader is Leo Varadkar, the Irish prime minister. (The British media usually refer to him as the “taoiseach”. Why do they not call Angela Merkel the “Kanzler”?) Those of us attempting to make sense of the Brexit machinations felt that Varadkar played a blinder. He played up his populist anti-British rhetoric. He also managed to get a lot of EU focus on Irish grievances (whether real or imagined) about border arrangements.
Then there is the economy. The success of the “Celtic Tiger” is absolutely world class. In 2018 it grew by 8.2 per cent. A low rate of Corporation Tax has attracted investment. There is a budget surplus. Perhaps there is some complacency, that it can be taken for granted. Yet Ireland was badly hit by the international financial crash of 2008. Varadkar says:
“One of the earliest recorded examples of economic strategising appears in the very first book of the Bible. Joseph, son of Jacob and Rachel, was able to predict the trajectory of Egypt’s economy – a period of boom, followed by a period of bust. Forewarned, he was forearmed, and he was able to guide the country through the worst of the crisis, saving his own people as a result.”
Sinn Fein’s increased support is considered to partly derive from Irish discontent over housing. Incomes have risen, but house prices have risen faster – leaving young people “locked out” of homeownership and angered at rent increases. Inward migration has increased the pressure. Sinn Fein promises to “introduce legislation to reduce rents by up to €1,500 a year, via a refundable tax credit, and freeze them for three years” and to “build 100,000 homes over 5 years. This will include council housing and affordable homes for renters and first time buyers.” Rent controls have proved harmful where-ever they have been tried. Yet the idea has a natural attraction to those annoyed by how high rent is. The real answer, of course, is to increase supply by easing planning restrictions. But some are resistant to development, fearing it will be ugly. These issues are familiar to those of us on the other side of the Irish Sea.
Another grievance concerns health care, due to overcrowding. Capacity has not kept up with the increased population. Ireland has a mixed public sector/private sector system. Some are entitled to free treatment, others have to pay. Sinn Fein proposes free GP care and 1,500 more beds. Nearly half of Irish people have private health insurance. Sinn Fein wants to put a stop to it – which would greatly increase pressure on the system that is already struggling.
What about Fianna Fáil? They have also made spending pledges and challenged Fine Gael’s record. But Sinn Fein can argue that Fianna Fáil isn’t a real opposition – as they have sustained the Fine Gael with a “confidence and supply” arrangement.
Fine Gael is even more on the defensive. They can point out that health spending has already increased, but as the resulting improvements in output have been marginal this is not much of a boast.
Durng the Second World War the IRA backed Nazi Germany. This was on the maxim: “England’s difficulty is Ireland’s opportunity.” It now seems that Irish complacency is Sinn Fein’s opportunity
The Irish should be proud of their achievements. Economic progress has been dramatic. That broadens out into wider achievements. Life expectancy has increased faster there than anywhere else in Europe – which put complaints about health care into some perspective. Yet it is difficult to find any of the political parties very inspiring. There is a duty though, to vote for one of the democratic parties to secure the defeat of Sinn Fein. There have been some powerful pleas to voters by the relatives of victims of the IRA. Let us hope they are listened to.


conservativehome--2020-02-05--Climate change.  Ministers must explain how they will meet May’s 2050 net zero carbon emissions targ

Climate change.  Ministers must explain how they will meet May’s 2050 net zero carbon emissions target.

ConservativeHome apologies if it has misread Donald Trump ’ s State of the Union address , but it can find no reference in its text to a plan for reducing America ’ s carbon emissions .
Instead , the President says that “ the United States has become the number one producer of oil and natural gas in the world , by far ” , adds that the country is now energy independent , and claims that “ energy jobs are at a record high ” .
Much in America depends on the actions of the individual states , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a trillion trees .
But his views on climate change are ambiguous , and he is no respecter of international orthodoxies on the subject – having pulled the United States out of the Paris climate agreement .
So much for one of the world ’ s two biggest powers .
What of the other one ?
As Ted Christie-Miller of Onward pointed out on this site yesterday , China “ has overseen a 321 per cent increase in emissions .
Xi Xinping ’ s country is currently responsible for 26 per cent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Some claim that China will forsake coal for renewables , but the proof of the pudding will be in the eating .
In short , neither it nor America is currently doing anything that is likely to cheer Greta Thunberg .
Or meet the more modest achievement of getting tangible gain from the coming Climate Change Summit in Edinburgh .
This is the background against which to view claims that Boris Johnson and his government are in a position to provide international leadership on climate change .
In some policy areas , such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about possible to believe that the Prime Minister can act as a bridge between the United States and Europe .
In this one , it ’ s very difficult indeed to see how he can wring any meaningful gain from the coming summit .
This puts the row over Claire Perry O ’ Neill ’ s firing by Johnson as head of the summit into perspective .
Frankly , it will matter little who gets the gig .
Perhaps this explains why both David Cameron and William Hague have turned it down .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ provide a coherent account how the Government ’ s will achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050 .
This is a legacy pledge of Theresa May ’ s , tossed out during her last days in office , and it isn ’ t at all clear how it will be met .
It will be said that Britain has succeeded in both reducing its emissions and growing the economy since 1990 , but much depends on how one slices and dices the figures .
And environmental campaigners point out that we have effectively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ credits .
The Government is committed to lowering energy bills , opposing fracking – and going ahead with a mass of road schemes championed by the “ Brexity Hezza ” himself .
Ministers couldn ’ t explain yesterday how much the earlier ban on hybrid vehicles will cost or what will replace the vanishing fuel duty .
There is a sunnier side of the street .
Ministers will support floating wind farms , gas from hydrogen production and nuclear energy , including fusion .
The Conservative Manifesto promises to invest £500 million to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carbon techniques .
The summit will provide pictures , declarations and speeches – including an engaging one , we expect , from the Prime Minister as usual .
The event will look and sound impressive .
But it will be an emperor with no clothes .

ConservativeHome apologies if it has misread Donald Trump’s State of the Union address, but it can find no reference in its text to a plan for reducing America’s carbon emissions.
Instead, the President says that “the United States has become the number one producer of oil and natural gas in the world, by far”, adds that the country is now energy independent, and claims that “energy jobs are at a record high”.
Much in America depends on the actions of the individual states, and Trump did produce a proposal to plant a trillion trees. But his views on climate change are ambiguous, and he is no respecter of international orthodoxies on the subject – having pulled the United States out of the Paris climate agreement.
So much for one of the world’s two biggest powers. What of the other one? As Ted Christie-Miller of Onward pointed out on this site yesterday, China “has overseen a 321 per cent increase in emissions. Xi Xinping’s country is currently responsible for 26 per cent of global emissions, and rising”.
Some claim that China will forsake coal for renewables, but the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. In short, neither it nor America is currently doing anything that is likely to cheer Greta Thunberg. Or meet the more modest achievement of getting tangible gain from the coming Climate Change Summit in Edinburgh.
This is the background against which to view claims that Boris Johnson and his government are in a position to provide international leadership on climate change. In some policy areas, such as Iran, it’s just about possible to believe that the Prime Minister can act as a bridge between the United States and Europe.
In this one, it’s very difficult indeed to see how he can wring any meaningful gain from the coming summit. This puts the row over Claire Perry O’Neill’s firing by Johnson as head of the summit into perspective. Frankly, it will matter little who gets the gig. Perhaps this explains why both David Cameron and William Hague have turned it down.
The Prime Minister would do better to provide a coherent account how the Government’s will achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050. This is a legacy pledge of Theresa May’s, tossed out during her last days in office, and it isn’t at all clear how it will be met.
It will be said that Britain has succeeded in both reducing its emissions and growing the economy since 1990, but much depends on how one slices and dices the figures. And environmental campaigners point out that we have effectively exported slice of our emissions through carbon credits.
The Government is committed to lowering energy bills, opposing fracking – and going ahead with a mass of road schemes championed by the “Brexity Hezza” himself. Ministers couldn’t explain yesterday how much the earlier ban on hybrid vehicles will cost or what will replace the vanishing fuel duty.
There is a sunnier side of the street. Ministers will support floating wind farms, gas from hydrogen production and nuclear energy, including fusion. The Conservative Manifesto promises to invest £500 million to help energy intensive industries move to low carbon techniques.
The summit will provide pictures, declarations and speeches – including an engaging one, we expect, from the Prime Minister as usual. The event will look and sound impressive. But it will be an emperor with no clothes.


conservativehome--2020-02-05--Ryan Bourne: The core challenge that Johnson’s Government won’t face up to. Boosting growth.

Ryan Bourne holds the R Evan Scharf Chair in Public Understanding of Economics at the Cato Institute .
Boris Johnson famously wants to “ unleash Britain ’ s potential.
” But where economic growth is concerned , the Bank of England thinks the problem is too little potential in the first place .
Last week , it revised down “ potential output growth ” for the next three years , from 1.4 per cent to 1.1 per cent per year , implying less capacity for growth without overheating .
That ’ s a stark contrast with the historic 2.8 per @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a return to .
Potential growth is calculated by making judgments on potential additional hours worked economy-wide and on potential labour productivity growth ( i.e .
improvements in output per hour worked ) .
On both , the Bank ’ s judgment is grisly .
With unemployment low , employment high , and EU immigration slower , the Bank revised down growth attainable by simply adding people or hours .
More worryingly , it has given up expecting a productivity growth rebound , instead judging our post-crash performance a kind of “ new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ productivity growth of 0.5 percent per year ; far below the 2.2 per cent per year seen pre-crash or even the above one per cent forecast last year .
If this seems dry and arcane , the implications are not .
If accurate , worse potential growth driven by weak productivity means less robust improvements in living standards , a worse “ structural ” budget deficit , and macroeconomic “ stimulus ” becoming more impotent .
Indeed , trying to “ boost the economy ” through Government spending or monetary stimulus would more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prepares for his March Budget then , the Bank ’ s verdict should trouble him .
Last March , the Office for Budget Responsibility itself forecast potential growth at 1.5 per cent for 2020 , rising to 1.6 per cent through 2023 .
But that assumed productivity growth jumping to 1.3 per cent per year .
If the OBR now agrees that 0.5 per cent is likelier , Budget day will bring terrible economic headlines .
Now we should not take the Bank ’ s judgment as gospel , of course .
Economists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reporting suggests .
Defining “ capacity ” for companies , let alone large economies , is hard .
As Chris Dillow has written , in a world of intangible assets and digital technologies it ’ s not even clear what capacity means .
What is Google ’ s “ capacity ” ?
The Bank may prove as unduly pessimistic as it recently was overoptimistic .
But that doesn ’ t make its intervention unimportant .
Olivier Blanchard , Guido Lorenzoni and Jean Paul L ’ Huillier ’ s work suggests negative judgments from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If consumers and investors expect to be poorer , they might cut their cloth now .
They find , internationally , that a 0.1 per cent downward revision to potential growth leads to a fall in consumption growth that year of anywhere between 0.4 and 0.7 per cent .
Just what the Chancellor needs .
Few can deny too the problem that the Bank ’ s revised judgment reflects .
As years since the financial crisis roll by , it becomes ever easier to conclude that Britain is in a productivity growth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pre-crash trends .
The question really is : does the government intend to do anything meaningful about it ?
It feels tired to posit this question .
Commentators like me having been making the case for trying to raise the potential growth rate since 2010 , to little avail .
Partly this reflects a helplessness from policymakers in the face of trends beyond their control ; partly it ’ s disagreements about what pro-growth policy is .
So let ’ s recognise uncomfortable truths upfront .
Yes , slower growth across countries since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crisis or the unsustainability of what went before has impaired growth .
Yes , an ageing population is another headwind .
And , yes , Brexit has slowed growth to date , though how much due to pure “ uncertainty ” chilling investment , as opposed to negative expectations about future trade policy , is unclear .
But acknowledging all this shouldn ’ t induce fatalism .
In fact , it strengthens the imperative for other pro-growth policies in recompense .
We shouldn ’ t just treat the economy ’ s weak potential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ external force that affects budgets .
No , given its importance , we should see weak growth as a failure of collective current policy .
At the very least , sustained poor growth gives reason to review programmes tolerable in “ good times ” that we suspect come with a growth trade-off .
Is the government really prioritising growth today ?
Javid ’ s ambition is commendable , but actions must follow words .
Prioritising something means willingness to accept trade-offs in its pursuit .
Yet last week , ministers were asked to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fulfil the Government ’ s stated priorities – tackling crime , funding the NHS , or “ levelling up ” regions .
Growth got no mention .
Indeed , if growth is a priority , why not ask “ does this programme improve the economy ’ s potential ?
” Often , it seems that the Government thinks talking about any economic policy is synonymous with being pro-growth .
But , listening to recent announcements , it ’ s difficult to conclude that rapid growth is a guiding star .
True , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with them on what might boost growth – little surprise given how contentious the literature is .
Dominic Cummings thinks a British ARPA will generate loads of spillovers from public science and R & D spending .
Javid thinks a further education skills push will raise human capital in the long-term .
The whole government seems sold on regional infrastructure being transformative ( Japan through the 1990s colours me sceptical ) .
We can debate this , while recognising that government noises on planning have been well-evidenced and unambiguously pro-growth .
In other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ secondary concern , at best .
No coherent tax reform agenda appears likely , and Ministers are prioritising a broad-based National Insurance cut that will do little for potential growth .
Boris Johnson talks up the benefits of using regulation to strengthen environmental outcomes and worker protection ; there ’ s little mention of growth trade-offs here , or a pro-growth review of repatriated EU laws .
Though Johnson laments mercantilists and tariffs , last week his government briefed on using them to encourage countries to make trade deals with it – an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. manufacturing productivity by raising its input prices .
Public service reform ideas seem non-existent .
The minimum wage keeps being raised .
On infrastructure , HS2 is being prioritised over schemes with bigger estimated economic bang for the pound .
And whatever your view of climate change , it ’ s undeniable that rapid decarbonisation impairs an economy ’ s growth potential , despite fairytales of win-win “ green growth.
” Now , setting all dials to maximise growth is neither easy nor politically viable .
Governments , understandably , have other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its central importance – not least how it can make all other challenges easier – it still gets insufficient attention .
With the government ’ s healthy majority , anti-growth headwinds , and leaving the EU , there ’ s surely never been a more necessary or better time to act on the Bank ’ s warning and try to see what sticks .

Ryan Bourne holds the R Evan Scharf Chair in Public Understanding of Economics at the Cato Institute.
Boris Johnson famously wants to “unleash Britain’s potential.” But where economic growth is concerned, the Bank of England thinks the problem is too little potential in the first place.
Last week, it revised down “potential output growth” for the next three years, from 1.4 per cent to 1.1 per cent per year, implying less capacity for growth without overheating. That’s a stark contrast with the historic 2.8 per cent growth rate that Sajid Javid aspires a return to.
Potential growth is calculated by making judgments on potential additional hours worked economy-wide and on potential labour productivity growth (i.e. improvements in output per hour worked). On both, the Bank’s judgment is grisly.
With unemployment low, employment high, and EU immigration slower, the Bank revised down growth attainable by simply adding people or hours. More worryingly, it has given up expecting a productivity growth rebound, instead judging our post-crash performance a kind of “new normal.” For 2020-23, it expects productivity growth of 0.5 percent per year; far below the 2.2 per cent per year seen pre-crash or even the above one per cent forecast last year.
If this seems dry and arcane, the implications are not. If accurate, worse potential growth driven by weak productivity means less robust improvements in living standards, a worse “structural” budget deficit, and macroeconomic “stimulus” becoming more impotent. Indeed, trying to “boost the economy” through Government spending or monetary stimulus would more likely just generate inflation.
As Javid prepares for his March Budget then, the Bank’s verdict should trouble him. Last March, the Office for Budget Responsibility itself forecast potential growth at 1.5 per cent for 2020, rising to 1.6 per cent through 2023. But that assumed productivity growth jumping to 1.3 per cent per year. If the OBR now agrees that 0.5 per cent is likelier, Budget day will bring terrible economic headlines.
Now we should not take the Bank’s judgment as gospel, of course. Economists understand less about “potential” than reporting suggests. Defining “capacity” for companies, let alone large economies, is hard. As Chris Dillow has written, in a world of intangible assets and digital technologies it’s not even clear what capacity means. What is Google’s “capacity”? The Bank may prove as unduly pessimistic as it recently was overoptimistic.
But that doesn’t make its intervention unimportant. Olivier Blanchard, Guido Lorenzoni and Jean Paul L’Huillier’s work suggests negative judgments from forecasters about potential growth can become self-fulling. If consumers and investors expect to be poorer, they might cut their cloth now. They find, internationally, that a 0.1 per cent downward revision to potential growth leads to a fall in consumption growth that year of anywhere between 0.4 and 0.7 per cent. Just what the Chancellor needs.
Few can deny too the problem that the Bank’s revised judgment reflects. As years since the financial crisis roll by, it becomes ever easier to conclude that Britain is in a productivity growth slump with no sign of returning to pre-crash trends. The question really is: does the government intend to do anything meaningful about it?
It feels tired to posit this question. Commentators like me having been making the case for trying to raise the potential growth rate since 2010, to little avail. Partly this reflects a helplessness from policymakers in the face of trends beyond their control; partly it’s disagreements about what pro-growth policy is.
So let’s recognise uncomfortable truths upfront. Yes, slower growth across countries since the crash suggests something about the bank crisis or the unsustainability of what went before has impaired growth. Yes, an ageing population is another headwind. And, yes, Brexit has slowed growth to date, though how much due to pure “uncertainty” chilling investment, as opposed to negative expectations about future trade policy, is unclear.
But acknowledging all this shouldn’t induce fatalism. In fact, it strengthens the imperative for other pro-growth policies in recompense. We shouldn’t just treat the economy’s weak potential as a fait accompli – an unwelcome external force that affects budgets. No, given its importance, we should see weak growth as a failure of collective current policy. At the very least, sustained poor growth gives reason to review programmes tolerable in “good times” that we suspect come with a growth trade-off.
Is the government really prioritising growth today? Javid’s ambition is commendable, but actions must follow words. Prioritising something means willingness to accept trade-offs in its pursuit. Yet last week, ministers were asked to consider cutting programmes that didn’t fulfil the Government’s stated priorities – tackling crime, funding the NHS, or “levelling up” regions. Growth got no mention. Indeed, if growth is a priority, why not ask “does this programme improve the economy’s potential?”
Often, it seems that the Government thinks talking about any economic policy is synonymous with being pro-growth. But, listening to recent announcements, it’s difficult to conclude that rapid growth is a guiding star.
True, in some areas people like me just disagree with them on what might boost growth – little surprise given how contentious the literature is. Dominic Cummings thinks a British ARPA will generate loads of spillovers from public science and R&D spending. Javid thinks a further education skills push will raise human capital in the long-term. The whole government seems sold on regional infrastructure being transformative (Japan through the 1990s colours me sceptical). We can debate this, while recognising that government noises on planning have been well-evidenced and unambiguously pro-growth.
In other areas though, growth is clearly a secondary concern, at best. No coherent tax reform agenda appears likely, and Ministers are prioritising a broad-based National Insurance cut that will do little for potential growth. Boris Johnson talks up the benefits of using regulation to strengthen environmental outcomes and worker protection; there’s little mention of growth trade-offs here, or a pro-growth review of repatriated EU laws.
Though Johnson laments mercantilists and tariffs, last week his government briefed on using them to encourage countries to make trade deals with it – an approach that has seen Donald Trump cripple U.S. manufacturing productivity by raising its input prices. Public service reform ideas seem non-existent. The minimum wage keeps being raised. On infrastructure, HS2 is being prioritised over schemes with bigger estimated economic bang for the pound. And whatever your view of climate change, it’s undeniable that rapid decarbonisation impairs an economy’s growth potential, despite fairytales of win-win “green growth.”
Now, setting all dials to maximise growth is neither easy nor politically viable. Governments, understandably, have other aims and electoral mandates. But given its central importance – not least how it can make all other challenges easier – it still gets insufficient attention. With the government’s healthy majority, anti-growth headwinds, and leaving the EU, there’s surely never been a more necessary or better time to act on the Bank’s warning and try to see what sticks.


conservativehome--2020-02-05--Daniel Hannan: Identity politics threatens modern civilisation

Daniel Hannan is a writer and columnist .
He was a Conservative MEP from 1999 to 2020 , and is now President of the Initiative for Free Trade .
Our first “ Brexit ” was an altogether nastier affair .
In 1570 , the Pope proclaimed “ Elizabeth , the pretended Queen of England and the servant of crime ” to be a heretic , and released her subjects from their loyalty to her .
England was on its own , facing a hostile Europe .
Europe had more immediate problems , though .
In 1571 , threatened by Ottoman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ formed the Holy League .
England , of course , did not join them .
Indeed , to unfeigned horror across Continental Europe , Elizabeth opened negotiations with the various Muslim rulers who , as she saw it , were enemies of her enemies .
The Turkish Sultan responded enthusiastically to her overtures , sending back “ sincere greetings and abundant salutations , rose-tinted ” , and offering England trading concessions ( “ capitluations ” as they were known ) that lasted until 1923 .
The Moroccans entered into a lively alliance with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shipping .
Even the Shah of Persia wrote fondly to the Queen stressing , in particular , the dislike of religious iconography that Protestants of that era shared with Muslims .
Contemporary English literature portrayed Islam with a warmth unthinkable in the rest of Europe .
The King of Morocco in “ The Merchant of Venice ” and , even more , Othello , were essentially sympathetic characters .
On the continent , by contrast , Moors were played as cartoon baddies .
I mentioned some of these things at a meeting yesterday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Muslims for Britain .
We go back a long way together , I argued .
Disraeli liked to say that Britain was as much an Asian as a European country .
The British Army of 1918 looked much more like the Britain of 2018 than like the population of these islands at that time .
Muslims for Britain came into existence during the 2016 referendum to turn out the Leave vote among Brits from Islamic backgrounds .
Unlike most of the referendum campaign groups , it has stayed in business , aiming to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dislike Labour ’ s patronising tone , and who are interested in the free-market tradition within Islam .
( I wrote about that tradition , the tradition of Ibn Khaldun , on ConHome a couple of years ago . )
It is run by three outstanding Brits of Pakistani heritage , Iftikhar Awan , Aftab Chughtai and Atifa Shah .
Its fourth founder , Saqib Bhatti , is now the Conservative MP for Meriden .
There are two groups of people for whom the very existence of Muslims for Britain is an affront @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as bitter rivals but which , in reality , share the same outlook .
One is made up of blood-and-soil nationalists who can not accept that there is such a thing as a British Muslim .
This group is tiny : a handful of angry young men trolling the internet from their bedrooms .
The second group is much larger and louder , and is made up of people who think of themselves as progressives .
For them , the important thing about British Muslims is not that they are Muslims but that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brown-skinned .
They are therefore in an approved victim group and have no business loving their country .
Their patriotism is presumed to be a form of false consciousness , a delusion bred by white patriarchal power structures .
As I say , the two groups regard themselves as enemies .
But their essential world-view is the same .
Both believe that we are defined by birth , caste , race and physiognomy .
The identitarian Right and the woke Left are not opponents at all .
The true opponents of both are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the collective and insist that we are defined , not by how we look , but by what we do .
Nor for a hard thing that needs saying .
Liberalism , which has been the dominant ideology in the Anglosphere for some three centuries , does not come naturally .
Human beings are tribal creatures , evolved in kin-groups .
The idea of collective merit and collective punishment lies deep in our genes .
The morality of the Old Testament , in which whole peoples are raised or razed , comes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ individualist ethics .
In its contemporary form , tribal thinking is manifested in the notion of shared retributive justice .
Person A did something bad to Person B , possibly before any of us was born .
So now Person C , who happens to look a bit like Person A , owes something to Person D , who looks a little like Person B .
When you say it like that , of course , it sounds downright superstitious .
But , when you strip away all the mumbo-jumbo about intersectionalism and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what you ’ re saying .
If the doctrine doesn ’ t bear too much analysis , it is precisely because it appeals more to our tribal DNA than to our rational minds .
Hence the tendency to shout down critics : “ You don ’ t get to express an opinion on this , white man !
” Again , to see how absurd that defence mechanism is , ask yourself whether there are topics on which black people should be barred from expressing an opinion .
The woke Left has inverted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ideal .
It has gone from arguing that we should be treated the same to arguinhg that we should be treated differently .
That rarely ends well .
A common response to identity politics is to harrumph about “ political correctness gone mad ” .
But that response is inadequate .
We are facing a determined challenge to the Enlightenment , based as it is on the primacy of reason and the defence of personal autonomy .
The academics and theorists behind identity politics often call themselves post-modernists – meaning that they believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on some intrinsic standard – yet their creed would be more aptly described as pre-modernism .
It is a reversion to the old tribal idea : this people good , that people bad .
It fundamentally challenges the notion that we are all individuals , responsible for our own behaviour .
As the Quran puts it : “ No bearer of burdens shall bear the burden of another ” ( 53:38 ) .
Defending that ideal , and the open society that it sustains , is the common task of all of us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lose it and we lose the essence of modern civilization .

Daniel Hannan is a writer and columnist. He was a Conservative MEP from 1999 to 2020, and is now President of the Initiative for Free Trade.
Our first “Brexit” was an altogether nastier affair. In 1570, the Pope proclaimed “Elizabeth, the pretended Queen of England and the servant of crime” to be a heretic, and released her subjects from their loyalty to her. England was on its own, facing a hostile Europe.
Europe had more immediate problems, though. In 1571, threatened by Ottoman expansion in the Mediterranean, Catholic states formed the Holy League. England, of course, did not join them. Indeed, to unfeigned horror across Continental Europe, Elizabeth opened negotiations with the various Muslim rulers who, as she saw it, were enemies of her enemies. The Turkish Sultan responded enthusiastically to her overtures, sending back “sincere greetings and abundant salutations, rose-tinted”, and offering England trading concessions (“capitluations” as they were known) that lasted until 1923.
The Moroccans entered into a lively alliance with the English, joining to attack Spanish shipping. Even the Shah of Persia wrote fondly to the Queen stressing, in particular, the dislike of religious iconography that Protestants of that era shared with Muslims.
Contemporary English literature portrayed Islam with a warmth unthinkable in the rest of Europe. The King of Morocco in “The Merchant of Venice” and, even more, Othello, were essentially sympathetic characters. On the continent, by contrast, Moors were played as cartoon baddies.
I mentioned some of these things at a meeting yesterday of a wonderful and under-reported organisation called Muslims for Britain. We go back a long way together, I argued. Disraeli liked to say that Britain was as much an Asian as a European country. The British Army of 1918 looked much more like the Britain of 2018 than like the population of these islands at that time.
Muslims for Britain came into existence during the 2016 referendum to turn out the Leave vote among Brits from Islamic backgrounds. Unlike most of the referendum campaign groups, it has stayed in business, aiming to provide a voice for patriotic Muslims who dislike Labour’s patronising tone, and who are interested in the free-market tradition within Islam. (I wrote about that tradition, the tradition of Ibn Khaldun, on ConHome a couple of years ago.) It is run by three outstanding Brits of Pakistani heritage, Iftikhar Awan, Aftab Chughtai and Atifa Shah. Its fourth founder, Saqib Bhatti, is now the Conservative MP for Meriden.
There are two groups of people for whom the very existence of Muslims for Britain is an affront – two groups which think of themselves as bitter rivals but which, in reality, share the same outlook.
One is made up of blood-and-soil nationalists who cannot accept that there is such a thing as a British Muslim. This group is tiny: a handful of angry young men trolling the internet from their bedrooms. The second group is much larger and louder, and is made up of people who think of themselves as progressives. For them, the important thing about British Muslims is not that they are Muslims but that, in most cases, they are brown-skinned. They are therefore in an approved victim group and have no business loving their country. Their patriotism is presumed to be a form of false consciousness, a delusion bred by white patriarchal power structures.
As I say, the two groups regard themselves as enemies. But their essential world-view is the same. Both believe that we are defined by birth, caste, race and physiognomy. The identitarian Right and the woke Left are not opponents at all. The true opponents of both are classical liberals, who elevate the individual over the collective and insist that we are defined, not by how we look, but by what we do.
Nor for a hard thing that needs saying. Liberalism, which has been the dominant ideology in the Anglosphere for some three centuries, does not come naturally. Human beings are tribal creatures, evolved in kin-groups. The idea of collective merit and collective punishment lies deep in our genes. The morality of the Old Testament, in which whole peoples are raised or razed, comes much more naturally to us than modern individualist ethics.
In its contemporary form, tribal thinking is manifested in the notion of shared retributive justice. Person A did something bad to Person B, possibly before any of us was born. So now Person C, who happens to look a bit like Person A, owes something to Person D, who looks a little like Person B.
When you say it like that, of course, it sounds downright superstitious. But, when you strip away all the mumbo-jumbo about intersectionalism and privilege and critical theory, that is what you’re saying. If the doctrine doesn’t bear too much analysis, it is precisely because it appeals more to our tribal DNA than to our rational minds. Hence the tendency to shout down critics: “You don’t get to express an opinion on this, white man!” Again, to see how absurd that defence mechanism is, ask yourself whether there are topics on which black people should be barred from expressing an opinion.
The woke Left has inverted what used to be a liberal anti-racist ideal. It has gone from arguing that we should be treated the same to arguinhg that we should be treated differently. That rarely ends well.
A common response to identity politics is to harrumph about “political correctness gone mad”. But that response is inadequate. We are facing a determined challenge to the Enlightenment, based as it is on the primacy of reason and the defence of personal autonomy. The academics and theorists behind identity politics often call themselves post-modernists – meaning that they believe truth is dependent on power-structures rather than on some intrinsic standard – yet their creed would be more aptly described as pre-modernism. It is a reversion to the old tribal idea: this people good, that people bad. It fundamentally challenges the notion that we are all individuals, responsible for our own behaviour. As the Quran puts it: “No bearer of burdens shall bear the burden of another” (53:38).
Defending that ideal, and the open society that it sustains, is the common task of all of us, wherever our grandparents were born. Lose it and we lose the essence of modern civilization.