The words of Douglas Carswell and political correctness

 

Let me take as my text today some words of Douglas Carswell. I know how much some of my readers admire him. I will take words he has written since deciding to join UKIP, as some of you seem to object to quoting anything he said before this week.

“I am not against immigration”. ” The one thing more ugly than nativism, is angry nativism”. “We should welcome those who want to come here to contribute……There’s  hardly a hospital, GP surgery or supermarket in the country that could run without that skill and drive.” That so far is what we know of his current position on the hottest topic of the day. It is a generous sentiment, but  not a crowd pleaser with his UKIP audience. His only concession is he does think the UK authorities rather than the EU  should determine policy in this area, as I do.

I have been thinking a lot recently about political correctness. The reflex reaction of many Conservatives and UKIP ers is to condemn it, claiming it is one of the reasons so many mistakes have been made in public policy. The most recent mass tragedies of childcare in Rotherham are seen as an example, as it was not politically correct to draw attention to the origins of many of the perpetrators of the crimes. Political correctness seemed to get in the way of reporting crime and pursuing criminals.

Mr Carswell sees political correctness as politeness, and welcomes it. I can see both his view and the conservative reaction to it. The  truth is as a society we are struggling to find a language which does not offend a wide range of different religious and ethnic groups in our society, which at the same time helps bind us to a common outlook and also allows us to condemn and prosecute those who violate our common law and values.

I have spent all too much time on this site protecting some contributors from themselves when they seek to generalise wildly and unfavourably about individual religions, countries and ethnic groups. In this I am with Mr Carswell. It is not helpful or polite to accuse a whole religion or a whole race of general misconduct, bad attitudes or anti social approaches. It is wounding to many members of that group who may themselves be decent and law abiding, and who not share the bad characteristic ascribed to the group. I do not extend the same degree of protection to my own groups – white, male, Conservative! I understand people’s wishes to let off steam and air their frustrations, and my groups have usually learned to wear thicker skins.

Affording protection to differing religions, social values and attitudes is a crucial characteristic of an advanced mature democracy. Upholding a common law is another. We are tolerant of people practicing their own religion, but we do not intend  to base our civil and criminal law codes on a particular religious view. We are happy for people to live as they wish, subject to a common law on matters of wider importance like property rights, marriage, and the upbringing of children. It is always a difficult balance to strike.  Parliament is constantly adjusting it. However, today to be British means agreeing that girls and boys should have equal opportunities, that all should have a full time  education to 16 with other options to 18, that you only are  married to  one person at a time, that violence – or physical punishment –  is not allowed within the family any more than outside it. Those who disagree with this and related matters have to campaign for change by peaceful means.

Other matters cause tensions. We do not set out as legislators to tell people generally what they should wear,  and what they should eat. In extreme cases we do. It is not permissible in the UK to walk about in public revealing intimate body parts. There are also strong taboos, as with our social dislike of   eating  horse and dog meat. Those who are unhappy about the otherness of some people’s dress and lifestyle have to accept that there are limits to how far legislators should go in banning items. Similarly those who wish to live their lives differently need to consider the impact it has on the wider community, their chosen country. Even with good law codes to encourage and enforce toleration in most things, there will be prejudices against people who differentiate themselves too much by dress, attitude and demeanour.

In a country of volunteers who wish  to be here, we want more common feeling and shared values.  Divisive language achieves the opposite. Divisive conduct is either against the law, or damaging to the very society people have joined.

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

172 Comments

  1. Lifelogic
    Posted August 31, 2014 at 5:56 am | Permalink

    As you say Girl and Boys should of course have “equality of opportunity” wherever possible, but this will clearly not produce equality of outcome. Only a scientifically illiterate person could think it would. This as they have on average hugely different interests and motivations.

    Boys are twice as likely to study maths, three times as likely to study further maths and more than four times as likely to take A-levels in physics. On the other hand twice as many girls chose to studied English as boys. Girls also seem to do rather better with modular courses rather than a final exam approach. The idea that they are discriminated against, and that is the main reason they still have lower pay on average is clearly BBC think nonsense. The groups make different choices in subject and work life family balance and the importance of money, and very sensible they are in doing so.

    The whole idea that religions should be protected from criticism by law is also hugely damaging and counter productive. Without the right to offend there is no right to free speech at all. Why should unproven and irrational belief systems be protected by law from people pointing out they are irrational. Anyway the main criticism of other religions usually comes from other religions.

    Political correctness is often just a euphemism for lying and proving your “right on” BBC think credentials or part of a system of political indoctrination.

    To be told and forced to use terms such as:

    “Persons with a disability” or “individuals with disabilities” instead of “disabled person.”
    “Persons who are deaf” or “young people with hearing impairments” instead of “deaf people.” “People who are blind” or “persons with a visual impairment” instead of “blind people.” “A student with dyslexia” instead of “a dyslexic student.”, “People of Colour” rather than perhaps “People”.

    Instructions such as:- “avoid using phrases such as “the deaf,” “the mentally retarded,” or “the blind.” The only exception to this policy involves instances where the outdated phraseology is contained in a quote or a title, or in legislation or regulations; it is then necessary to use the citation verbatim.” are clearly an offensive demand.

    All these are absurd and counter productive anyway. The underlying conditions are just the same regardless of the words used or the sounds made to refer to it. The new sound or phrase takes on the same meaning as they old and thus has to be constantly changed for ever more.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted August 31, 2014 at 6:34 am | Permalink

      I see they have indeed found “a woman” to head the BBC trustees. I assume therefore that she has the usual “BBC think” views, but I cannot find out much about her. She seems to have jumped about with several careers with many different and large multinational companies & banks. These including the FT, which hardly inspires confidence for balance on the EU issue.

      We shall see, I wish her luck, her first action should be to halve pay and pensions as there are countless good people who would work for virtually nothing at the BBC. Then she can ask them to address the BBC’s absurd stance & bias on the EU, “renewables”, the global warming scaremongering, lefty high tax and big government, the enforced equality agenda, over regulation, over political correctness and the likes.

      Then she should reverse the dumbing down of the BBC particularly radios four & three – which seems to be turning slowly into something more like Classic FM with additional broadway musicals and the likes.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted August 31, 2014 at 8:59 am | Permalink

        I would however ask her to keep woman’s hour (and thought for the day) on radio 4, as they provides so much amusement, often truly hilarious in their self contradictions.

        Doubtless she will be on woman’s hour very shortly, talking about the glass ceilings and the wonders of multitasking and far better communicating women or similar topics?

      • Posted August 31, 2014 at 11:04 am | Permalink

        Two good comments there, LL, if slightly oblique. My oblique rejoinder is that this young lady is apparently Dave’s choice which should be the kiss of death but… Dave’s word is the kiss of death to truth. Who believes he would honour an EU-Out referendum vote? He told El Pais he wouldn’t, anyway. He told the 1922 the same last July though not directly. That probably explains Carswell’s timing as much as tactics.

      • JoeSoap
        Posted August 31, 2014 at 1:14 pm | Permalink

        Sadly we are in an age where words speak louder than actions.

        A more mature approach would see that the way a person actually behaved towards a disabled person would be far more important than the nuances of the language used.

        I remember well as an infant in the sixties helping a blind man cross the road on the way to school. No big deal, of course, but I am sure he was happier to be led safely across than to be hailed as a person of limited sight or whatever and asked to wait for social services because I was too young to have any contact with him.

        • Lifelogic
          Posted August 31, 2014 at 8:31 pm | Permalink

          Indeed so often it is not the affected individuals themselves that demand this new artificial & convoluted language, it is the pressure groups, charities, much of the state sector and the self appointed “representatives” and “experts” who push for it.

    • Mark B
      Posted August 31, 2014 at 7:43 am | Permalink

      Great post LL. And not a mention of the usual. ;)

    • Bill
      Posted August 31, 2014 at 7:50 am | Permalink

      I disagree with part of this. Of course, you should not be allowed to incite racial hatred with demagoguery. Of course, you should not be allowed to disseminate untruths in what amounts to slander. So, although I agree there should be robust public debate, there are matters which are off limits.

      As far as religion is concerned, I am not a Roman Catholic but I do not go around insulting Catholics over their beliefs about Mary. That just seems to me to be gratuitously offensive and to ignore many of the good things about Catholicism. Similarly, I don’t insult Jewish people because of their deeply held ancestral beliefs on circumcision. Call it good manners if you like or it maybe we should simply see this as civilised behaviour.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted August 31, 2014 at 8:41 pm | Permalink

        It is not a case of insulting them, but people should be quite free to say that they think someone’s belief are nonsense or that they are indoctrinating their children. Just as I might say their political beliefs are nonsense. Do they fear their religions so flimsy they cannot take this?

        They can say the same about my views on anything should they wish too. I shall not be offended.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted August 31, 2014 at 12:42 pm | Permalink

      The next thing you know they will be protecting the quack science, global warming, coming catastrophe religion from criticism with some new daft law. If they haven’t already? Or perhaps making it illegal to fire staff when they won’t do their jobs for such green religious faiths. Mind you they do that quite effectively already through control of research grants, university funding and the likes.

      Will is soon perhaps be illegal to say men and woman are (on average) somewhat different? Or even to say women tend to live rather longer than men and have fewer car crashes, but men tend to be taller?

      • Bazman
        Posted August 31, 2014 at 9:33 pm | Permalink

        Quack science being your forte’ one presumes given you past record on this site. What do you have to say about the rise in ‘green energy investment by private companies looking for cheaper more sustainable energy for their businesses such as the communications company Verizon who having already invested in significant on-site renewable capacity, the company has just announced a further $40 million investment to create to over 10 megawatts of new solar capacity in 2014. we’ve seen in increasingly huge clean energy purchases among computing/internet giants, the real power of any individual company’s clean energy purchases is in instigating competition among their peers. Should this be stopped in some way as lefty green nonsense and any evidence from such organisations as NASA be seen as scaremongering?
        I put it to you again that woman do not face social pressures that unduly influance their standing in society. etc ed

        • APL
          Posted September 1, 2014 at 9:49 am | Permalink

          Bazman: “Verizon who having already invested in significant on-site renewable capacity, the company has just announced a further $40 million investment to create to over 10 megawatts of new solar capacity in 2014.”

          What incentives, Tax breaks, or government or state or both subsidies were given to Verizon to become a power supply utility, instead of what is is supposedly good at, telecoms?

          Bazman: “Should this be stopped in some way as lefty green nonsense ”

          If there is an economic case to be made and the investment will procuce a roe without government tax breaks or subsidy then no, otherwise yes.

          • Bazman
            Posted September 1, 2014 at 2:55 pm | Permalink

            Much of this is due to technical advances and the right weather conditions making it viable without subsidy causing the traditional energy companies to want additional taxes to be imposed on these energy sources in the USA and Australia. I presume you are against subsidies to fossil fuel and in particular nuclear by this post then, but that is not what it is about is it?

          • Lifelogic
            Posted September 1, 2014 at 5:12 pm | Permalink

            I have no problem with renewable energy research and rolling it out when it works and is economical & effective. I do have a problem with government taking taxes off companies & people (who would use it far better) just to roll out duff technology all over the country well before it is economical & effective.

        • Mark B
          Posted September 1, 2014 at 12:02 pm | Permalink

          Yes, but would they do it if they did not have large government (taxpayer) subsidies.

          **

          I see Mr. Redwood MP sir, you did not publish my post. Fair enough. But I standby every word.

          • Lifelogic
            Posted September 1, 2014 at 5:13 pm | Permalink

            Indeed it is all driven by absurd subsidies.

          • Bazman
            Posted September 2, 2014 at 5:57 am | Permalink

            Does this include nuclear a energy technology that cannot exist without state subsidy in particular insurance costs?

          • APL
            Posted September 2, 2014 at 7:02 am | Permalink

            Lifelogic: “Indeed it is all driven by absurd subsidies.”

            The beneficiaries of which are frequently well connected members of the political class.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted August 31, 2014 at 1:03 pm | Permalink

      Coldest August for 100 years I see predicted. Is no one worried about a new ice age yet? This (more worrying) alternative climate scare will doubtless become fashionable again at some point.

      Christopher Booker is spot on today (as usual) on the Foreign Office, Lord North and Rotherham.

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/

      • Bazman
        Posted August 31, 2014 at 9:37 pm | Permalink

        Booker has also argued in support of intelligent design, claiming that supporters of the theory of evolution “rest their case on nothing more than blind faith and unexamined a priori assumptions” You presumably agree with this too?
        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/4550448/Charles-Darwin-zealots-have-made-science-a-substitute-religion.html
        We will leave it at that. Another quack ‘scientist’ wheeled out by you. Idiot.

        • Lifelogic
          Posted September 1, 2014 at 6:42 am | Permalink

          Booker is not a scientist but I think he made good points this Sunday. I studied Maths, Physics and later Engineering and I am on the side of the real science as usual. The evidence for evolution is totally overwhelming. The evidence that we can sensibly predict the weather for 100 years and control it by reducing just CO2 emissions is virtually non existent.

          • Bazman
            Posted September 1, 2014 at 9:22 am | Permalink

            Only in your world. Climate change scientist are broadly in agreement and as you have said before you cannot believe any climate science as you say it is all impossible to predict. A failure to understand any science.

          • Mark B
            Posted September 1, 2014 at 12:05 pm | Permalink

            @Bazman

            And the NAZI’s were universal in their condemnation of the Jews. Your point proves nothing.

          • matthu
            Posted September 1, 2014 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

            Bazman

            Climate scientists are in agreement that CO2 is a greenhouse gas – they are most certainly NOT in agreement how much CO2 can be expected to warm the planet.

            In fact Richard Betts who leads the climate impacts area at the Met Office is quoted as saying

            Everyone* agrees that the greenhouse effect is real, and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
            Everyone* agrees that CO2 rise is anthropogenic
            Everyone** agrees that we can’t predict the long-term response of the climate to ongoing CO2 rise with great accuracy. It could be large, it could be small. We don’t know. The old-style energy balance models got us this far. We can’t be certain of large changes in future, but can’t rule them out either.

            So climate mitigation policy is a political judgement based on what policymakers think carries the greater risk in the future – decarbonising or not decarbonising.

            *OK so not quite everyone, but everyone who has thought about it to any reasonable extent
            **Apart from a few who think that observations of a decade or three of small forcing can be extrapolated to indicate the response to long-term larger forcing with confidence.

            So there is no broad agreement as to the likely impact of an increase in CO2.

          • Lifelogic
            Posted September 1, 2014 at 5:14 pm | Permalink

            The were broadly in agreement about increases in temperature over the last 15 years and were wrong.

          • Bazman
            Posted September 1, 2014 at 5:57 pm | Permalink

            No matter how much proof is provided the deniers want more without providing any themselves. Like lifelogic and his assertion that cycles cause more pollution than engines. No matter how many times this has been proved to be not true he still asserts it is. No evidence is enough or him. It’s a religious belief no less. Look back on previous posts for this.
            Would a 1kw/hr kettle use more or less electrical energy to boil a litre of water than a 3kw/hr one all other variables being equal lifelogic?

          • Lifelogic
            Posted September 2, 2014 at 7:02 am | Permalink

            You ask.

            “Would a 1kw/hr kettle use more or less electrical energy to boil a litre of water than a 3kw/hr one all other variables being equal lifelogic?”

            They would be about the same. The 1KW one would however take three times longer to heat losses would thus be slightly higher (due to the increase time for these heat losses to occur) during the boil. So it would be slightly less efficient.

        • APL
          Posted September 1, 2014 at 7:20 am | Permalink

          Bazman: “Booker has also argued in support of intelligent design, ”

          Presumably the principles of ‘intelligent design’ were put to one side when the specification of our governing class were drawn up.

          • Bazman
            Posted September 1, 2014 at 9:20 am | Permalink

            They in Darwinism, but not financial Darwinism.

          • APL
            Posted September 1, 2014 at 10:41 am | Permalink

            Bazman: “They in Darwinism, but not financial Darwinism.”

            Evolution doesn’t care.

          • Bazman
            Posted September 2, 2014 at 6:04 am | Permalink

            Neither does finance, but the rich elite never seem to loose.

        • libertarian
          Posted September 1, 2014 at 7:32 pm | Permalink

          Bazman

          There you go again making grotesque assumptions that because of 1 thing then all things. Booker may be right about climate and wrong about intelligent design. Oh and Al Gore the guru of AGW ALSO believes in intelligent design, Gore is also a member of the Southern Baptist Church which is renowned for being right wing….go figure

    • lifelogic
      Posted August 31, 2014 at 1:35 pm | Permalink

      By-election pole:

      Ukip on 64% of the vote, with the Tories on 20%, Labour on 13% and the Liberal Democrats 2%.

      Cameron is a very good presenter and the only hope, but he needs to move hugely from his current position to the UKIP position and some deal. Will he wake up in time only 8 months.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted August 31, 2014 at 8:34 pm | Permalink

        poll!

    • Bazman
      Posted August 31, 2014 at 4:30 pm | Permalink

      Why do girls then tend to do better at maths at A level than boys , but do not go on to study physics?
      You assertion that woman do not face discriminatory social pressures is as deluded as you bikes produce more CO2 and are more harmful to the environment. As usual you take a bigoted and unscientific point of view and then try to build a case around this. Any valid points against this are just silly and politically correct all covering magical thinking as you lack of and weakness of argument prove. Religious nonsense in fact.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted August 31, 2014 at 8:47 pm | Permalink

        I merely state the facts about A level choices and the gender breakdown. Which rather suggest they have different interests.

        Of course there are social pressures on both men and woman their always will be. But these clearly do not explain the A level selections they choose to make.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted August 31, 2014 at 9:32 pm | Permalink

        Cyclists do produce far more CO2 than full efficient cars per passenger mile (when the riders eat an average diet).

        It is just true Bazman get over it.

        Sun to grass, to cows, to slaughter house, to steaks, to freezers, to planes and trucks, to packagers, to shops, to cars home, to fridges, to pans, to mouths, to guts, to sugars, to muscles, to bike pedals is just not very efficient.

        • Bazman
          Posted September 1, 2014 at 9:41 am | Permalink

          Again you perpetuate quack science and refuse to accept previous points which you could not answer.
          Bikes are powered by cheap sugars and fats not expensive foods such as fine wines and salmon. You assume that the cyclist must eat more food to power the bike clearly nonsense given the amount of over weight people that can be seen. They need to eat less and take more exercise cycling being a good way to exercise and get around cheaply cut food miles could be cut by eating locally grown food.
          Secondly a cyclist is much more efficient than an engine even with seven to a car. This is an indisputable fact. A cyclist if he or she where to eat vegetable oil or lard would by able to travel up to 1300 miles per gallon or 2.8 kWh/100-mi compared to a Toyota Prius loaded with four people effectively gets 200 MPG per passenger (18 kWh/100-mi per passenger.
          Source. http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/11/mpg-of-a-human/
          Now you need to come with some credible arguments to what I have wrote or stop writing nonsense and then repeating it in further posts as if you own the facts. As you say you have studied science and maths.

          • Lifelogic
            Posted September 3, 2014 at 7:57 pm | Permalink

            From you own link above it confirms my position thanks. Do you ever read your links? So a full car is indeed far more efficient than bikes and even more so than walking:-

            Fly in the Ointment
            Our walking or biking economies look pretty decent stacked up against cars—especially if we considered consuming foodstuff as potent as gasoline. This is all well and good until one appreciates that because of the way Americans grow, harvest, distribute, and prepare their food, every one kilocalorie of food eaten has consumed about 10 kcal of fossil fuel energy (dominated by oil). Our 7000 kcal gallon of food therefore took 70,000 kcal of fossil-fuel energy to produce, or a little over two gallons of gasoline. So you would divide the “food economy” values we calculated by 2.2 to get the fuel economy that supported your bike trip or hike. Now walking consumes 18–34 MPG of oil equivalent, and biking comes in at 70–130 MPG.

            – See more at: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/11/mpg-of-a-human/#sthash.rTrkeZBO.dpuf

          • Bazman
            Posted September 5, 2014 at 10:48 am | Permalink

            Read the last two chapters starting:
            This should in no way be taken to suggest setting aside the bike or boots for a car that gets better performance. Rather, we should consider ways to make our agriculture or eating habits less energy-intense
            The food is going to be eaten anyway and you do not have to eat more food to power a bike and to argue you do is deluded quack science. The population need to eat less food and take more exercise such as riding a bike, the over weight over eating car drivers are self evident.
            Lets cut to the chase though this black propaganda you paint is not about energy conservation, but a dislike of cycling, cyclist and general exercise. You use quack and distorted views of science to justify this and other bigoted right wing ideas.
            Lets say this again as you ignore many points. You do not need to eat more food to ride a bike for pleasure or work, so the energy savings are true. My father rides hundreds of miles a week and has not wasted away and eats less food than the average person. It is idiotic to argue different. You are seriously going to tell us you eat only enough calories to sustain yourself like a Olympic athlete? Absolute rubbish and pseudo science with no basis.
            The exercise is good for the person and good for the environment by not using fuel not to mention transport cost savings.

      • APL
        Posted September 1, 2014 at 7:30 am | Permalink

        Bazman: “You assertion that woman do not face discriminatory social pressures is as deluded .. ”

        The do, but mostly from other women. Since women are more heard creatures. The much vaunted superior ‘ability to communicate’ which is all about establishing and maintaining a woman’s position in the female pecking order.

        In the tribe*, the success or otherwise of her offspring would greatly depend on her position in the female hierarchy.

        Men by and large, communicate in a ‘task orientated’ manner. How to bring down the mammoth, or the best way to get across the river without getting swept away by the current.

        That is not to say that either cannot make an effort to think in its non evolutionary optimal manner. It just doesn’t come naturally, most of the time.

        *A circumstance human kind has spend 99.98% of its evolutionary history.

    • Bazman
      Posted August 31, 2014 at 5:07 pm | Permalink

      The problem is that you see any progress of any sort whether it be technological or political as ‘political correctness’. Regressive nonsense is politicly incorrect, but the only time you see this is when it effects you. Johns post on vacuum cleaners was insightfully as to how thick many on the right are and how they attached quite simple mechanical realities turning them into political ideals when there is no such connection and having tantrum when this is pointed out to them, like they alone own the facts. In many cases not taking anything on board and ranting the same whilst telling us about reason and science. Typical right wing religious bigotry. UKIP will be found out in the same way when they have to come up with some real policies and will be seen as the party of the privileged which they are.

      • Edward2
        Posted August 31, 2014 at 8:20 pm | Permalink

        Like those privileged souls in Clacton with their right wing vacuum cleaners supporting UKIP eh Baz?
        Made wealthy by all those facts they own.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted September 1, 2014 at 5:21 pm | Permalink

        What technological progress do I see as ‘political correctness’ Bazman? I am all in favour of technological progress. Particularly in fracking, gas & oil wells, coal, gas turbine generation, fusion, bioengineering, medicine, electronics, communication systems and nano technology.

        • Bazman
          Posted September 2, 2014 at 9:59 am | Permalink

          You are in favour of technical progrees as long as it happens by market forces even if there is smoe detriment to the enviroment and the consumer. Political progress such as womans rights you are against as it is not ‘natural’. Market forces will sove this.
          Where is you reply to bikes using more energy than cars? See above.
          Have you decided which kettle would use more or less electrical energy to boil a litre of water than a 3kw/hr or a 1kw/hr one all other variables being equal?

    • Bazman
      Posted August 31, 2014 at 5:09 pm | Permalink

      Thus, even talking about “the wealthy” brings angry denunciations; we’re supposed to call them “job creators”. Even talking about inequality is “class warfare”. Political correctness gone mad!

      • Edward2
        Posted August 31, 2014 at 8:56 pm | Permalink

        Going well in France with those tax the rich even more policies you Milliband and Hollande favour Baz.

        • Bazman
          Posted September 1, 2014 at 9:44 am | Permalink

          I see pitchforks.

          • Edward2
            Posted September 1, 2014 at 12:45 pm | Permalink

            Presumably in the hands of impoverished Fench citizens looking for the useless elite in charge.
            They are beginning to see that there are not enough rich French residents left who are willing and able to pay even higher taxes to fund the deluded promises of their socialist leaders.

          • Bazman
            Posted September 2, 2014 at 4:12 pm | Permalink

            Demand economic are not sustained by rich people and us their surf benefactors. This massive inequality is in turn responsible for the stagnating economy by putting large amount of wealth in the hands of a few.

          • Edward2
            Posted September 2, 2014 at 9:28 pm | Permalink

            Sadly your solution of even more socialism appears not to be working.
            Which was my original point.

          • Bazman
            Posted September 5, 2014 at 10:52 am | Permalink

            Your answer is more socialism for the rich which has got us in this position in the first place. The rich cannot spend enough money to sustain a demand eco9nomy which is what we have here.

    • M Davis
      Posted August 31, 2014 at 6:39 pm | Permalink

      Lifelogic, I so agree with you (as I ususally do!).

      …“Persons who are deaf” or “young people with hearing impairments” instead of “deaf people.”…

      My Mother would tell people that she was deaf, not that she had a ‘hearing impairment’.

      It is Socialist academics that insist on everyone having to use this or that euphemism. It is nothing at all to do with people with disabilities or anything else. It is pure Socialism and they make me sick to the back teeth!

      • Lifelogic
        Posted August 31, 2014 at 8:50 pm | Permalink

        Indeed.

  2. Mike Stallard
    Posted August 31, 2014 at 6:33 am | Permalink

    Mr Redwood, we are living in a very rapidly changing country.
    The immigrants are all different and they all come from all over the world.
    Immigrants are different to each other.
    There is all the difference in the world between a (brown) Indian Hindu and a (brown) Pakistani Muslim. Russians are white, so are you.
    Some are very much the same as us: the Lithuanians .
    Some are totally different and would not agree with any of the things you say because they KNOW THE TRUTH.

    Down here, we have to live with them. And it is a challenge.

  3. Narrow Shoulders
    Posted August 31, 2014 at 6:39 am | Permalink

    Regularly it is not the party referred to but others who get offended on their behalf setting off a landslide of recrimiantions. Those to whom the statement does not refer should butt out wih their delicate sensibilities.

    Offence can be constructive, but it should refer to those involved and not be a generalisation about the demographic. So the observation that the perpetrators the the heinous deeds in Rotherham were of Pakistani origin could have been useful in the investigation ( better yet the protection on minors) but the statement the Pakistani men are perpetrators of child abuse is too general and therefore unhelpful.(and in most cases untrue ed)

  4. Ex-expat Colin
    Posted August 31, 2014 at 7:27 am | Permalink

    Paterson is reported as saying a referendum occurs only with Conservative. Maybe, and provided we are not reduced to dust by a foolish military game with Russia. On the brink again after all the years of modern thinking and to me indicates long loss of control. Europe was not under threat from Russia, but it looks as though it is now.

    I watched the Governor of Texas the other night (parliament channel) talk about the threat of immigration repeatedly occurring in the USA and the worry about jihadi inclusions of one type or another. Control weak and amnesty again, and again

    My friends in the USA complain about the poor education of their children amongst other things. A familiar set of moans. Obama is not in their book of favourites either.

    Climate change…ok, so it does, how much and which way and when. This time academics/scientists out of control.

    Islam is benign…it might be until you observe that a group within in it wants to influence the weak in our society…. and do it. Any control of those individuals here…not much. It is rather insulting actually!

    And on and on and on…..poor management, poor control. The ideologies of the irresponsible are causing great difficulties and is divisive. Many of us here I suspect are over 60 and know exactly what control means….if not just management.

    An open society, but extraordinarily weak. Many seem to think that’s good?

  5. matthu
    Posted August 31, 2014 at 7:30 am | Permalink

    Political correctness leads to an extreme form of politeness, such as the hotel chain that removed Gideon bibles for fear of offending anybody even though nobody had ever complained.

    In this way it is exactly the same as Health & Safety which leads to the banning of all sorts of healthy activities just in case.

    Both lead to an over-cautious society, one less inclined to take risks, less inclined to innovate and go where nobody has gone before.

    And how much money does it waste as we all fill out endless forms and get things checked by lawyers and so on and so forth!

    The clue is probably in the word “political”.

  6. Mondeo Man
    Posted August 31, 2014 at 7:31 am | Permalink

    Professor Redwood,

    You have outlined most eloquently why there is no place for a Conservative party in modern Britain. Please disband or – at the very least – change your party’s name.

    You are not a Conservative.

    ——–

    Political Correctness is dangerous and dishonest. It prevents us from dealing with serious problems in our midst (witholding details of various groups as is your want)

  7. Mark B
    Posted August 31, 2014 at 7:34 am | Permalink

    I am not a UKIPer. Right, that’s that out of the way.

    Immigration
    As to immigration, my view is the same as Dr. Martin Luther King. Judge people by the contents of their character,not their skin. To me, and I am sure many others, it is about numbers. I support controlled immigration, whether it be from Australia all the too Zimbabwe.

    Political Correctness
    This a Marxist trap. When you can control the language, you can also control the debate.

    One of the privileges of the HoC, is the freedom to speak your mind. You cannot be sued when speaking in the chamber, and you cannot be arrested or cautioned by the police for comments others, whether they be inside and outside the HoC.

    That is all for a reason. It allows MP’s to voice the concerns of their constituents, without fear. And by silencing you, our MP’s, those most vulnerable to the wickedness of the state, have become victims of not only it, but of those that seek to take advantage of the vulnerable and weak.

    In my view, you are as culpable as the Council, Social Workers and Police. You and your fellows have the means and the power to act. You can go to war with nations states yet, you go all coy over the vile deeds practiced by a section of society, and not only in Rotherham where this has been going on for 13 years, but nationwide. There is no way you can explain this away Mr. Redwood. Your hand are as dirty as the next, and there is no getting away from it.

    It is not about offending people or religions. What we as a society and as a nation must do, is be very clear about who we are, and what we stand for. Those that wish to come here and share in those values, will add to society and be a real benefit. Those that do not, need not apply. You are not welcome !

    Groups
    A very polite way of saying that you discriminate. You make some assumptions that, because of the colour of my skin and background, my‘Group’, as you so politely labeled me, I am somehow game for special treatment. I am not ! I took offence when you once derided Englishness as all about cricket and cream teas etc. I found that very condescending and insulting. I am the same as everybody else under the skin, and wish to be afforded the same courtesies. It is this same sort of rational thinking that those in Public Office us to wriggle around the difficult hole that have dug themselves in.

    I am one of those people you do censor on this issue. I accept that you either moderate my answers or do not post them. It is your site and I respect that. I am, upon further reflection, really rather grateful that you do. I am not always proud of what I have written on these pages and tend to change my mind when reading both comments here and elsewhere.

    Matters of Law
    I agree with what you say. One people, one law, and ALL equally subject to it. So will we now see the abolition of Sharia Courts and, will we tell the EU that we will no longer recognize the Napoleonic Code ?

    If all those in Public Office spoke as they find on issues that were supported by the law, eg Polygamy, then what would be the problem ? But it does not work like that, does it ? Those in Public Office, as we can see from what has gone on, do not speak of these matters, because it ‘will’ damage their careers.

    People are indeed restricted by what they can and cannot do. But who decides what can and cannot be done, and why ? It is people like you and your colleagues in the HoC. And you can be unduly influenced by pressure groups, charities, business, EU, UN and others. The people really do not get a say. We get a Government and, for 4-5 years we are forced to watch you make speeches and laws, many of which we do not like. And so, we vote another lot in hoping that things this time will change, but they never do.

    To summarise on what has been a far longer post than I originally intended. The SYSTEM has failed and is completely broken. It is no longer worth a cup of pottage and needs radical reform from top to bottom.

    Those that have over time been kind enough to read what I write, will know that I have said this many times before. The question is, do you in part or in full agree with what I am saying and, are YOU going to do something about it ?

  8. Javelin
    Posted August 31, 2014 at 7:49 am | Permalink

    The papers today point out that Mr Carswell will win 64% of the vote. You could blame it on personality but he would win 60% against the popular Boris Johnson. Which shows that it is down to policy and not personality.

    As I pointed out yesterday (in one if my infrequent posts) that 90% of the internet posters favour UKIP and with the right people in place they would crush the other parties.

    This indeed seems to be true. Unless immigration is reversed (not stopped) by several million (by leaving the EU and revoking work visas) the main three main parties will be strategically annihilated.

    The Tory, Labour and Liberal must are in strategic melt down. There is no other way to describe it. They they have been running on thin air for a couple if years now and gravity has finally caught up with them.

  9. acorn
    Posted August 31, 2014 at 7:56 am | Permalink

    Talking of political correctness gone mad, could you ask the Attorney General (AG) what the hell Hampshire Police are doing, chasing a family with a sick little boy; that has committed no crime; across the EU, with a European Arrest Warrant.

    Having had my late father-in-law and my late mother, both wrongly diagnosed in the same hospital, I for one, am not surprised the family did a runner. Hampshire P & C Commissioner should be issuing some P45s and the AG likewise at the CPS.

    Christ almighty, is there any element of liberty that hasn’t yet been suppressed by this government? And, there are people on this site who want to get rid of the ECHR; our last line of protection for we, the 99%!

    • Cliff. Wokingham.
      Posted September 1, 2014 at 8:30 am | Permalink

      We are the state, do as you’re told or we’ll ‘av yer; can’t you see my hi-viz jacket, do as you’re told!

      Now, to deprive their sick child of being able to see his mother and father, who are clearly caring parents, fills me with great sadness……What has our country turned into?

      • Lifelogic
        Posted September 2, 2014 at 7:25 am | Permalink

        Indeed. What ever the merits or otherwise, surely they are better priorities perhaps preventing the thousands or deaths due to incompetence in the NHS or the incompetence of the services in dealing with child abuse, in Rotherham and many other places.

    • David Price
      Posted September 1, 2014 at 11:27 am | Permalink

      This incident made me angry as well.

      I did wonder if the parents had actually broken any law, if not and it was some officious types giving themselves ficticious authority then someone’s head needs to roll very, very quickly. I heard on the news that there would be an enquiry (of sorts) but having emphasised the seniority of the consultant (20+ years) and the use of an EAW in reports I doubt the establishment types will risk their pride and reputation.

      If the father had not posted up on Youtube I doubt we would have ever heard the parents side of it.

  10. Bill
    Posted August 31, 2014 at 8:01 am | Permalink

    I am with George Orewell on this. There is a sense in which language shapes thought almost as much as thought is expressed through language. We know that the Ministry of Truth in 1984 is actually the Ministry of Propaganda. The degrading of language is one means by which the population is controlled: certain ideas are unthinkable because the necessary words have been culled.

    Surely what happens is that language goes through periods of degradation and decline and then is renewed by the literati? We may say that that the task of the poets and writers and one reason why the great authors of the past ought to be studied.

  11. The Prangwizard
    Posted August 31, 2014 at 8:04 am | Permalink

    Life without passion would be dull, life without spirit and the ability to identify the ‘wanted’ can be dangerous. That is where we are have been taken. People who want justice are frustrated. Tolerating the Rotherham problem by refusing to mention where the danger was coming from was and is unacceptable and without doubt led to many more and worse abuse. Most people knew but the ‘authorities’ turned away and attacked the messenger instead. How can that be considered reasonable? These guilty people in authority must be punished.

    Political correctness is a perverse creed, it is not about good manners, it is more to do with mind control. A few people would benefit from being ‘offended’, maybe it would get them to modify their behaviour.

    Take another topical example; I cannot, it seems, call someone fat, or grossly fat; that for some reason is regarded as offensive today, even though they probably know perfectly well that they are. They know perfectly well too that it is not good for them to eat as much as they do, that is too much and too often and that is why they are fat, but they are being treated as victims of the fast food industry instead. More of my money apparently must be spent on ‘awareness’, more taxes levied. If doctors and so-called ‘health professionals’ simply told people they are fat, too fat, and should eat less and not be greedy, that they should be ashamed of themselves, clearly and unambiguously, we might end up with a thinner population, but the soft option is taken; go for the sugar makers, the food industry instead. Make them pay. Instead we see have people who are frankly offensive to the eye.

    Mr Redwood may be pleased to know I am going ‘off-air’ for a while.

    • Narrow Shoulders
      Posted September 1, 2014 at 7:05 am | Permalink

      A very fine post.

      I have just lost three stone and remain overweight. Still I am told I did not look fat at my heaviest. I still look fat now but I am the only person who will address it. Constantly being told that one is not fat provides no motivation to act. If those around me had sucked in their breath and shaken their heads when looking at me my complacency may not have lasted so long.

      The above does not absolve me of responsibility for myself, but when in denial one needs to be shocked.

  12. Brian Tomkinson
    Posted August 31, 2014 at 8:05 am | Permalink

    Let me quote some more words of Douglas Carswell since he joined UKIP:
    “People have a right to expect the government to control who crosses our borders. Tens of thousands of Londoners log in and log out of the London underground each day. Yet the government just wasted another £224 million on a system that failed to log people in and out as they cross our borders.”

    “like Australia, we ought to have the right to decide who comes.”

    “They promised to cut the public debt. In just five years of this government, public debt will increase by more than it did during thirteen years of Gordon Brown.
    Clever word play about debt and the deficit doesn’t conceal that fact that we’re still having to borrow over £100 billion a year – and even then government is not getting the basics right.”

    “People have a right to expect a government that answers to Parliament, and a Parliament that’s accountable to the people.”

    “Ministers have specifically ruled out a trade-only arrangement with the EU. The Prime Minister said so specifically at a meeting of the 1922. It won’t even be on the table.”

    “His advisers have made it clear that they seek a new deal that gives them just enough to persuade enough voters to vote to stay in. It’s not about change in our national interest. It’s all about not changing things.”

    “Once I realised that, my position in the Conservative party became untenable.”

    Compare and contrast that with your views and position!

  13. Posted August 31, 2014 at 8:07 am | Permalink

    John. The position we are in is one where we are scared about being factual regards ethnicity for fear it is misinterpreted. If I talk about English people visiting this country who have resided in another country yet occasionally make trips to the UK yet have not paid NI it will be published , yet if I talk about those from eastern countries , visiting and using the NHS and including a mention of their country of origin it will not be published. Why is there one rule for some countries and another rule for another?
    Factual analysis is neither derogatory or otherwise . So why do perceptions of some put a slant of an offensive nature on facts ? Is it a weapon used against us knowing that we try to be correct and simultaneously making a fool of us as those who are quick to call an event of a negative bias, get away with their own discrimination?

    For years in the 1980’s and 1990.s I was publically slain along with a group and had much nastiness projected towards me for being a single parent. I had hundreds of thousands of pounds stolen from me, paid money back for others( for what I now need to put a tracer term in) problems, worked all the hours god sent, paid taxes , bought a home through illness with 2 young children to bring up alone, paid for degrees to enable me to exist as a single parent , worked for those on benefits and on salaries , and then sneered at as being a single parent who was a drudge on society!
    Dare I even call facts now ?

  14. Antisthenes
    Posted August 31, 2014 at 8:20 am | Permalink

    The perception is that not all are treated equally under British law and honest and constructive debate and scrutiny is not tolerated into the beliefs and practices of immigrant groups. If this perception is not true then it should be demonstrably proven to be so and until it is then the indigenous population are going to feel aggrieved and will give vent to their frustration in ways that politicians will not like.

    • sjb
      Posted August 31, 2014 at 10:14 pm | Permalink

      Perceptions are not always true. Please consider some examples:

      1. “26% of people think foreign aid is one of the top 2-3 items government spends most money on, when it actually made up 1.1% of expenditure”
      2. “the public think that 31% of the population are immigrants, when the official figures are 13%”
      3. “the public think that £24 out of every £100 spent on benefits is claimed fraudulently, compared with official estimates of £0.70 per £100″
      4. “58% do not believe that crime is falling”

      http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3188/Perceptions-are-not-reality-the-top-10-we-get-wrong.aspx

      • Narrow Shoulders
        Posted September 1, 2014 at 7:10 am | Permalink

        Depends upon your view of fraudulently really.

        I would stand by the £24 figure as fraudulent by my definition.

  15. alan jutson,
    Posted August 31, 2014 at 8:25 am | Permalink

    A shame your views and those of Douglas Carswells do not seem to be the view of any of the main stream Party leaders, otherwise we perhaps would not be, where we are now.

    May I suggest because we now find ourselves where were are, a huge section/number of the population feel totally disenfranchised and turned off by politics and politicians.

    To a degree politicians reap what they sow, It may take many years or even decades, but the public seem to be aware of these things rather quicker than politicians.

  16. Old Albion
    Posted August 31, 2014 at 8:46 am | Permalink

    JR. I realise you are unhappy that Douglas Carswell has defected from your party. But the thinly veiled smears on him, do you no favours.

  17. Posted August 31, 2014 at 8:54 am | Permalink

    Wow. Your post really got up my nose, JR. I hope you will publish my comment.

    “It is not helpful or polite to accuse a whole religion or a whole race of general misconduct, bad attitudes or anti social approaches. It is wounding to many members of that group who may themselves be decent and law abiding, and who not share the bad characteristic ascribed to the group. I do not extend the same degree of protection to my own groups – white, male, Conservative!”

    If it is wounding to many members of a group who may be decent an law-abiding to generalise negatively, then it surely follows that this can apply to white, male Conservatives. There are many white males who have been unfairly discriminated against, through no fault of their own, resulting in their not being considered for jobs for which they are eminently suitable or for which they have worked very hard. White male men have been egregiously discriminated against by family courts – for no valid reason. The list is endless.

    There is no validity in political correctness. It is social engineering, whichever way you look at it, and it is NOT conservative.

    If you want to change the culture of a society, then it is far preferable that those in power set an example. For example:

    * You want people to take more responsibility for their lives and the actions they take? Well then, ensure that QUANGO bosses, civil servants, politicos and all manner of people (who like to tell us what to do) resign when found wanting. E.g., various NHS chiefs, social services and police bods, of Rotherham fame.

    * You want to stop benefits cheats? Well then, ensure that the Dennis McShanes of this world can’t get away with claiming what they will.

    * You want people to stop smoking and drinking so much? Well how about stopping the public subsidy of Westminster alcohol and cigarettes.

    I could go on, and on, and on …

    The trouble is, once you people in Westminster get a taste of power, you want to modify OUR behaviour and you want us to subsidise your behaviour where, most often, your lot’s behaviour is far, far, worse than ours.

    Cut the hypocrisy, clean up your own doorsteps and leave us the hell alone. I, for one, am heartily sick of the whole damned bunch in Westminster – politicos, civil servants, QUANGOcrats et al.

    • APL
      Posted August 31, 2014 at 9:37 pm | Permalink

      Jen(Fausty): “I, for one, am heartily sick of the whole damned bunch in Westminster – politicos, civil servants, QUANGOcrats et al.”

      Seconded!!!

    • Ken Adams
      Posted September 1, 2014 at 1:21 pm | Permalink

      Wow thank you Jen

  18. agricola
    Posted August 31, 2014 at 8:55 am | Permalink

    Selective immigration, welcoming those whose skills we need would seem to make common sense from wherever they come, and is UKIP policy as espoused by Nigel Farage.

    Political Correctness has two sides to it. There is the Douglas Carswell interpretation as politeness. After thirty years of international business I heartily agree. The other side is a breeding ground for the problems we see in Rotherham and possibly many more towns in the UK. This second version, and the civic inertia that goes with it, is totally one sided. Imagine the furore had it been 1000 muslim girls as the victims of white male perversion and criminality. The police failed because their upper echelons are totally infected with Bramshill PC think. Those in child care and local government failed because of fear of accusations of racism had they done anything. That is a measure of the PC indoctrination within the UK when they all act contrary the moral teaching of the past few hundred years.

    Douglas Carswell’s version of PC was around when I was a child and the term was unheard of. I would term it normal civilised behaviour. PC is an abominable invention of modern socialism that has gone horribly wrong. It is the Japanese Knotweed of all political and social intercourse and in desperate need of elimination.

    John, you say you advocate a dual reaction to offensive racial behaviour in that you are not as tolerant of it when the origin is white and male. Big mistake, this is what PC thrives on and causes all the resentment. Abominable behaviour is what it is and should be dealt with without reference to skin colour. The sight of placard waving Jihadists in Luton welcoming back our troops from overseas with messages of racial hate is unacceptable. Making allowances for their racism is only likely to create more of the same in return. When I see our PC police force marching them off to court I will know that balance is returning.

    The whole point is that all at present in the UK are not subject to the same common law, however much you theorise that we are. We even have the Law Society advocating aspects of Sharia Law be incorporated into English Common Law. Your sentiments in Para 6 are fine, but it should be obvious to the most myopic that this is not as the UK is or has been for a very long time. Your sentiments are what PC socialism has been destroying at every level in the fabric of our society. I would rather go back to having Englishmen, Irishmen, and Pakistani jokes on air than the cesspit of Rochdale.

    What people wear in the privacy of their homes is their business, but allowing (covering the whole face ed)in the streets is unacceptable. It is a security risk just as is a balaclava in a bank. It is also demeaning to women. People emigrate to the UK because they generally find our society more attractive than that of their origins. They should be actively discouraged from bringing with them the baggage of their origins because it is not an aid to their integration into British society.

  19. David Price
    Posted August 31, 2014 at 8:59 am | Permalink

    “The truth is as a society we are struggling to find a language which does not offend a wide range of different religious and ethnic groups in our society”

    I disagree, I believe it is those who would control our society that are struggling to find ways to enfore their overly liberal values on us. Instead of protecting our interests they give more priority and effort to appeasing wrongdoers and go out of their way to appear “civilised”.

    How can it possibly be more important not to offend racial, policitical or religious groups when individuals of a group sexually molest and abuse children. What of the crime against the child? What is disgusting, if the reports are true, is that those trying to protect the children where themselves arrested for making the complaint. If true the police had become complicit in the crimes. What value policitical correctness then if it allows the police to take the side of a law breaking minority against a law abiding majority. You can only push people so far, that path will surely lead to vigilantes and a complete breakdown in law and order.

    “Political correctness” is a mindset imposed by cowards to avoid confronting nasty people doing nasty things.

  20. Mike Stallard
    Posted August 31, 2014 at 9:07 am | Permalink

    Well now – moderated out. Is that not policical correctness gone mad (it is always gone mad isn’t it!)
    I have been moderated out of Conservative Home for questioning Gay marriage and moderated out of Labour List for writing comments on right wing blogs!
    Freedom of speech – natch – we all believe in it do we not.
    PS why is Indian, or even West Indian OK when Pakistani is not?
    Only asking.

  21. Leslie Singleton
    Posted August 31, 2014 at 9:11 am | Permalink

    There are a lot of things Carswell says that I have no time for but while he is focused on Brexit and now helping UKIP break through he’s my man

    • Richard1
      Posted August 31, 2014 at 9:13 pm | Permalink

      Anyone who wants Brexit needs a referendum. A referendum needs a majority Conservative govt. Mr Carswell has made that slightly less likely.

  22. zorro
    Posted August 31, 2014 at 9:36 am | Permalink

    Some comments of interest that you missed in your Carswell quote…. ‘Just like Australia or Switzerland, we should welcome those that want to come here to contribute. We need those with skills and drive.’….

    I don’t think that is particularly against what I have seen of UKIP policy but is probably common sense…. Is it right to allow unlimited low skill/no skill from the EU like the Tories think? What does Cameron propose to do about that? … diddly squat

    Another one you missed…..

    ‘But on each occasion they only did the right thing because they had been forced to by their own side. On each occasion, they had instructed their own MPs on a three line whip to support the wrong thing.’….. Although you might think that you persuaded Cameron of the wisdom of this stance. Some might think he did it to kick the ball in the long grass and keep you off his back.

    I hope that Douglas Carswell doesn’t become your Emmaneul Goldstein or suitable for a two minute hate. It’s not very becoming.

    You are correct in that you should be reasonable when making comments. One can certainly raise questions about Pakistani born males and their involvement in Rotherham but there is no need to tar everyone with that brush. However, it is a perfectly legitimate question to raise and people should not be pilloried or belittled for their gaucheness of expression as is often the case by the ruling elite who forever seek to divide and rule.

    I think that Carswell seems to believe in a modern form of democratic engagement. It loosens the powers of the elite and that is good…..

    Anway John, this is all a moot point as your dear leader appears to be banging the war drums for WW3. You see how far he will go to avoid that referendum….

    zorro

  23. zorro
    Posted August 31, 2014 at 9:43 am | Permalink

    ‘Affording protection to differing religions, social values and attitudes is a crucial characteristic of an advanced mature democracy.’….. By the way, that doesn’t mean protection from criticism, or special treatment. It is the individual who should be protected, not a religion. It also shouldn’t mean protection of investigation from child abuse or covering up paedophilia….. unless of course you are at an academic conference in Cambridge…. (unchecked references given ed)
    Nothing surprise me anymore….

    zorro

  24. zorro
    Posted August 31, 2014 at 9:50 am | Permalink

    Some more words from Mr Carswell on immigration….. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/douglascarswellmp/100247981/what-would-a-rational-immigration-system-look-like/

    ‘While Bulgarian students are willing to travel across a continent to work on that farm, just a few miles away are some folk living at public expense, who could do the work, but won’t. This also needs pointing out.’…..

    ‘In order to change things for the better, Britain needs to take back control of its immigration system.’

    ‘Surely we need to discuss not only the needs to the economy, but what helps make successful first and second generation Britons, too?’

    Your summary on Mr Carswell’s comments were skewed and do not represent what he purports to believe….. At least he wants to be able to control immigration, something which the current government seems unable to do as promised. Net migration is up again and now at 240,000+ per year…

    zorro

    • JoeSoap
      Posted August 31, 2014 at 9:01 pm | Permalink

      Yes, finally somebody with history and influence in the political world speaking out, unconstrained by Liblabcon party political correctness.
      Oh that the owner of this site could add to that…

      What a breath of fresh air!

  25. Bryan
    Posted August 31, 2014 at 10:04 am | Permalink

    It is time we got back to – sticks and stones may break my bones but calling will not hurt me.

    People are way too sensitive nowadays.

    Off topic – why does the EU seem hell bent on picking a fight with Russia? Surely Ukraine is none of our business?

  26. Bob
    Posted August 31, 2014 at 10:11 am | Permalink

    I am heartened to see that you’re now quoting Mr Carswell on your blog. I’m glad there’s no sour grapes.

    As we all know, ukip do not oppose managed immigration, but they are against open borders. Are you against open borders Mr Redwood?

    As far as the political correctness is concerned I not that you “have spent all too much time on this site protecting some contributors from themselves when they seek to generalise wildly and unfavourably about individual religions, countries and ethnic groups.”

    What are you protecting them from?
    Surely if someone makes wild generalisations, then others are free to contradict and correct them? Isn’t that what freedom of speech is all about? Or do you think it’s okay that people should be cowed into silence for fear of retribution?
    Wouldn’t it be more appropriate if the authorities protected freedom of speech rather than opress it?

    It the case of Rotherham it appears that the police were happier to arrest and censure the victims and their parents while allowing free reign to the abusers. Would you care to proffer an opinion on why that happened Mr Redwood?

    • JoeSoap
      Posted August 31, 2014 at 9:04 pm | Permalink

      Or if he is worried about contempt of court, arguing in the hypothetical situation of such a thing happening.

  27. agricola
    Posted August 31, 2014 at 10:27 am | Permalink

    Off Piste I am afraid, but news in the MOS suggests that Britain is to spearhead a 10,000 strong NATO rapid reaction force to counter Russian aggression in Eastern Ukraine. I would ask the following questions,
    1.
    Who in NATO is in favour of this to the point of being involved.
    2.
    Who in the UK wishes to get involved in an EU inspired conflict at Russia’s back door.
    3.
    Does CMD intend to put any proposal of our involvement to a debate and vote in the HOC

    Perhaps this could become a subject for diary discussion next week.

  28. Timaction
    Posted August 31, 2014 at 10:28 am | Permalink

    No one objects to fairness or understanding and valuing people whoever or wherever they may come from.
    However, political correctness has been used predominantly by the left but latterly by the Tory led Coalition as a tool to stifle debate and comment over behaviours and cultural practices that are alien and objectionable to the indigenous populations, particularly the English.
    We have been forced by the political class to change our value and beliefs or be unable to comment, to accommodate foreign cultures. Whilst newcomers have been encouraged to be separate, dress and practice their own cultures and belief systems by the political class.
    We have been treated as second class citizens by all the legacy parties. Integration should have been the priority but we have many towns and Cities where different peoples live in total isolation. Particularly the children.
    The British people did not and do not want mass migration that has been forced on us by the political class. Their motives can only be to destroy our culture, history and heritage to an extent that we don’t any longer identify with a nation state. If that ever succeeds there would be no point in Westminster, particularly as 70% of our laws are made in Brussels. Only one party has any intention of doing anything about it.

  29. ian wragg
    Posted August 31, 2014 at 10:38 am | Permalink

    I listened on TV to comments about Rotherham and was appalled that the man were continually referred to as Asian. Only on woman said it how it was, Pakistani Muslim men.
    Asians in general are not a problem but skirting over the fact that this and other instances (Derby) was perpetrated by Pakistani Muslim men tries to hide the fact that there is a significant problem with Islamic teaching.
    We have been cowed by the P.C. brigade to prevent us commenting on this vile crime because of the left wing dogma of this and other governments who refuse to acknowledge the problem’
    How many of this years 520,000 foreigners that you have let in are Pakistani Muslim men with the same attitudes and customs.
    How many of them are actively seeking to undermine the liberal western society.
    You have no idea and what’s more you don’t care.
    Political correctness will destroy this green and pleasant land if we are not careful, all in the name of bogus multiculturalism foisted on us by stupid politicians.

  30. Anonymous
    Posted August 31, 2014 at 10:49 am | Permalink

    “If I were a hang-’em-all, flog-’em-all, sexist and religious bigot I should be looking forward to it. But I’m not.”

    Please add to that list homophobe too.

  31. William Long
    Posted August 31, 2014 at 10:53 am | Permalink

    Most of what you say would at one time have been regarded as generally accepted common sense. The thing I find of great concern in the world we live in, is what I think lies behind your final italicised paragraph: the reluctance of many recent immigrants to embrace the culture of the country they have chosen to join. We are asked to be polite to them, and are happy to be so, but there is no reciprocation by the great majority. Enoch Powell clearly foresaw this and it is a lasting tragedy that the strength of his imagery enabled political correctness to discount what he said and do nothing about it, just like the authorities in Rotherham.

  32. Alan Wheatley
    Posted August 31, 2014 at 11:01 am | Permalink

    “The truth is as a society we are struggling to find a language which does not offend a wide range of different religious and ethnic groups in our society, which at the same time helps bind us to a common outlook and also allows us to condemn and prosecute those who violate our common law and values.”

    This raised very many issues. Here are some.

    Lets start with “language”. We used to have a common understanding of “marriage” until the PM decided to redefine the lexicon without so much as a by your leave, let alone any sympathy to those who thought marriage was just fine as it was; and not just religious groups either who thought the redefinition inherently wrong.

    Then there is the so-called “multi-cultural society” introduced by Labour and enthusiastically promoted by Blair et al. Suddenly we had this new phrase, but I do not remember anyone ever explaining what it actually meant. On the face of it this could be taken to be no different to what had been going on in Britain for centuries, where by immigrants had brought with them some of their culture and thus tweaked British culture: but the key point is that British culture remained homogeneous.

    But in fact what the promoters of THIS “multi-cultural society” were after were lots of different societies such that the immigrants, rather than being absorbed into the British nation, actively remained as distinct and different groups within British borders. It is particularly problematic for any nation state when immigrants consider their primary allegiance to be to their country of origin rather than their country of nationality. John Major highlighted “the cricket test” (which could be observed this Summer); we may not get overly concerned about a failure to support your national team, but we are getting very concerned about who is being supported when bearing arms.

    Then there is the “joker” word, OFFENCE. We have arrived at a position where, at least in the minds of some, it is unacceptable to be be offensive. Why can’t we be offensive, as long as within the law? Who is to decide when language is unacceptable or fair comment?

    People can simply claim they have been offended and there by seek to invalidate and close down anything said contrary to their views and beliefs. It seems to me this is accompanied by an inability or unwillingness to argue their case, so rather than be found out as lacking credibility they play the joker. What is particularly appalling is that so often the media allow them to get away with it.

    And finally, when considering immigration I bear in mind two things. (1) every time it is argued how much we depend on immigrants it is an insult to those of us already here – if you can’t run an island nation with a population of 60million then you can’t run anything. (2) The land mass is not growing, and the more space taken up by people and all their attendant infrastructure the less there is for everything else we need for a healthy society.

  33. Tom William
    Posted August 31, 2014 at 11:04 am | Permalink

    Discussing political correctness can be like crossing a minefield. The risk of offending someone or a group – or being prosecuted for so doing – must be weighed against the right to have an opinion. There is a real danger (to freedom and society) in trying to prevent people having opinions by edict, rather than by rational and factual argument.

    Balance, so often missing in the BBC, needs restoring.

  34. cliff. Wokingham.
    Posted August 31, 2014 at 11:06 am | Permalink

    John,

    I fear you’ve had a rough time on your blog this week. Most people, most of the time on here agree with your sensible, traditional Conservative views however, this week I have seen more views expressed by more people which are critical of your position, especially in relation to your blind loyalty to Mr Cameron and the party. I really feel that the Conservative Party and Mr Cameron could be prosecuted under the trade’s description act claiming they’re Conservative.

    A few general points:-

    1) “Equality” and “Being the same” are two different concepts; we do have equality of opportunity in this country however, Cultural Marxism is starting to skew this by giving extra opportunities to those they perceive to be victims, whilst at the same time, taking away opportunities to those they deem to be bad, such as the richer members of our society.

    2) Political Correctness is just one of the prefered coveralls to basically shut people up and to stifel debate. Other coveralls include Health and Safety to stop people enjoying themselves or to justify for the lazy why they should not do something. We have the child protection coverall which stifels debat and we have national security coverall to justify more and more draconian policies. All of these coveralls are used to control people and to frighten the population into being a passive, obedient nation. The “hi-viz jacket” has become the new “peaked cap” symbol of authority for the public sector. People need to laugh at the hi-viz jacket in much the same way we did at the “jobsworth peaked cap” which used to be so loved by local councils.
    Please note, although I am critical of the coveralls, I do not wish to harm children, I do not want to see workers hurt at work nor do I want to see the terrorists get the upperhand; I say this because usually, when you say to a user of the coverall that you feel their actions are over the top, they often respond with such phrases.

    3) Regarding Rotheram and other similar recent incidents; political correctness did indeed undermine our ability to bring the wrongdoers to justice. People are too frightened to voice opinions in this country at the moment and, in my opinion, you too John are far too happy to “protect people from themselves.” We are all adults and are able to take responsibility for our own actions and opinions; I have been doing so since I was Twenty-One!
    The real irony for me is that the State’s Broadcaster, the BBC, is making a big thing about lack of action at the time and yet, they are one of the biggest cheerleaders for political correctness and even today, are still trying to play down the ethnic origin angle of the guilty.

    Here is a little game I have recently played with some of my grandchildren and I feel it would benefit many politicians and public sector people to try it:

    We all sat down and I invited my grandchildren to call me the nastiest names they could think of. Once they had done so, I said let’s sit here for a few seconds and see if anything happens. I then asked can anyone see me bleeding? Can anyone see bruises on me? Can anyone see any boken bones? etc. I then went on to explain to them that words are only words and won’t actually harm them. Yes I know, a rather long winded version of sticks and stones etc.

    Reply
    I find it surprising that I should be accused of blind loyalty to Mr Cameron when I have been unable to vote with him on various EU related matters, and have been one of those instrumental in moving the Conservative party from being anti referendum on the EU to being an advocate of one.
    I agree that harsh words in themselves do not lead to bruises or physical wounds. However, harsh words can lead to damaged minds, and are designed to change behaviour of the person in receipt of them. The problem is they may change behaviour in ways not to the liking of those who speak them, and may of themselves prompt violence. Brawls and fights usually start with bad language. Wars start when negotiations and politics breaks down.
    My piece on Mr Carswell said I saw his point of view about political correctness, but I also saw the problems with too much of it, as in Rotherham. Mine is a plea for balance and judgement. This is never an easy case to make when faced with the certainties of others who do not take responsibility for feelings and lives of the rest who do share their opinion.

  35. libertarian
    Posted August 31, 2014 at 11:08 am | Permalink

    You see this kind of thinking all the time. Its tribal. Its what wrecks our politics and it also prevents us from reaching solutions. Bazman is a typical example of this kind of tribal think. One bad employer offering a zero hour contract means that all 4.9 million employers are bad. One slum landlord means that all private landlords are evil. The Daily Mail thinks that 1 benefit scrounger means all 1.7 million on benefits are scroungers. Its why Douglas Carswell is right to break the mould of our 2 and half party politics. The old style left/right paradigm of the 19th/20th century is no longer viable. There are no right/wrong panacea answers to anything which is why top down socialism and top down corporatism both consistently fail to work. In fact top down anything no longer works in a peer to peer world. Carswell ( and Hannan ) have written good works on iDemocracy and localism. Bottom up, people to people is the way forward. Its what will bind a community, locally.

    • Bazman
      Posted August 31, 2014 at 9:08 pm | Permalink

      It’s not just one bad employer is it? For sure, some decent jobs have been created, but far too few. Insecurity and low pay are the new normal. A job that was once doen by one person with 40 hours is now done by four on ten hour zero hour contracts in particular in the service sector where the out sourcing of jobs to foreign countries is not possible and large profits are made from the backs of these contracts and the state. A severe shortge of housing makes it a landlords market often creating their own markets to boot. With a government looking to lower the benifits bill by labeling all claiments scroungers even when most of them work. Tax rises and benifit cuts for the for the poor and the middle with tax rises for the rich is tribalism and UKIP is all for this type of division so its interesting as to how Carswell squares of the athoritarion view withh his own previous more liberal ones.

      • libertarian
        Posted September 1, 2014 at 11:09 am | Permalink

        Bazman

        Thanks for reinforcing my post. Tribalism. Over 750,000 of the 1.5 million new jobs created are in the HIGH PAYING field of digital, creative and IT technology fields .

        ANY employer employing 4 part time zero hour employees to do the job of one full time employee would be totally and utterly stupid. The outsourcing of service support jobs is a declining trend as the rise of social media marketing and in particular customer relationship marketing has taken hold more big corporates are bringing their support functions back to the UK. However as I’ve told you quite a few times now the vast majority of new jobs being created are with SME’s and they do not tend to outsource overseas. The do however outsource within the UK.

        The housing shortage only applies to London and the South East plenty of lower cost homes for sale and rent in the rest of the UK. You see Bazman your post was a classic example of tribal point proving. Rather than learning and growing from the major part of the new work world you focus on the small bit that “proves” your political point of view. You’re the life logic of the left

        • Bazman
          Posted September 2, 2014 at 9:52 am | Permalink

          There is only one place in the UK where a mortgage costs less than three times the average salary. Copeland in Cumbria, so much for that the theory of affordable homes across the UK.
          Many jobs are in the service sector such as the caring of old people and in catering which in many cases are low paid and zero hours jobs. Social media marketing and other commission based jobs are crock. You are supposed to get a mortgage, pay rent and build a family life on this? Tell it the millions of unemployed and under employed ‘tribes’ especially in the north.

      • Edward2
        Posted September 1, 2014 at 12:55 pm | Permalink

        Baz,
        Have any of the problems you mention been at least partly created by the several million new arrivals coming here over the last few years?
        Housing shortages, rising rents, lower wages especially for less skilled, tough competition for available vacancies, rising benefit bills etc.

  36. A different Simon
    Posted August 31, 2014 at 11:16 am | Permalink

    21st Century Britain is a result of the progressive consensus .

    The three parties believe that when there is a consensus (as there almost always is between them) , not only is there nothing left to be debated – but that it is their duty to silence any dissent .

    This typically takes the form of an official or implicit “No Platform” policy .

    The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee recently decided that the BBC had to obtain “special clearance” from the committee before giving climate change sceptics air time .

    Ed Milliband has stated that he won’t give UKIP a platform and won’t attend a televised party leaders debate if UKIP are invited along .

    If Mr Milliband wants to stay at home then that is up to him but he should not be able to prevent Mr Farage having his views aired .

    Who gave these people the right to appoint themselves arbiters of right or wrong ?

    Once you start banning opinions where do you stop ? Indeed can you even stop once you get a taste for it ?

    What is truly worrying is not only that people recognise the disappearance of freedom and accept it but that they actually desire it !

    For an example look at the campaign for state regulation of the press post Leveson .

    One needs not only democracy but also the “rule of law” to stop it degenerating into mob-rule .

    Only two politicians have been honest about the disappearance of freedom and the enslaving of the plebs . They are :-

    – Peter Mandelson in his infamous “post democratic era” speech .

    – Christine Lagarde when she was with the EU when she admitted that the ECB’s actions were contrary to the EU rules …. this was an admission that the “rule of law” does not apply to the executive .

  37. Gary
    Posted August 31, 2014 at 11:34 am | Permalink

    Douglas Carswell professes to be a libertarian, he must therefore stand for open markets, including open labour markets. Well, with those principles he could not fit into Conservative or Labour, and now he is even worse off in Ukip. Ukip would shut the border door and throw away the key.

    Ukip have never heard of division of labour, specialization, or job competition. Decades of growth by competing on price using cheap money, rather than competing on product by innovation and productivity has killed off the taste for job competition.

    But there is a subtext to all this. The populace, who spent decades cheering on Empire and our colonization of the world ,whether wanted or unwanted, are now reaping the blowback and now the complaining starts in ernest. When this is pointed out they usually say, in a let them eat cake moment, ” tough, that was then this is now !”. The immigrants retort with the exact same line.

    When commodities , and labour is a commodity no matter how sentimental to the contrary, stop at the border then armies cross the border.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted September 1, 2014 at 5:06 pm | Permalink

      Thanks for explaining your view that people are just commodities.

  38. APL
    Posted August 31, 2014 at 11:38 am | Permalink

    JR: “I have been thinking a lot recently about political correctness.”

    I should hope so, since it appears to have been Political Correctness that made it possible for one thousand four hundred under-age females to be raped, exploited, and otherwise abused while under the care of the local authority social services in Rotherham.

    The police did nothing, having had rape of children reported to them first hand.

    Would you also comment on the progress of the investigation into the sex abuse scandal that broke in the press a while ago at the Palace of Westminster? It seems that line of enquiry has dropped into a black hole, perhaps it was politically incorrect?

  39. agricola
    Posted August 31, 2014 at 11:38 am | Permalink

    I have just checked up on Bramshill the college for senior policemen. It has been taken over by an organisation called CEPOL which is an EU organisation. The director and senior staff are all from Europe. Not a thief taking copper in sight. If this is not indicative of the way things are going under CMD then what is.

  40. A different Simon
    Posted August 31, 2014 at 11:57 am | Permalink

    Here are some examples of the cost of going against the “Progressive Consensus” :-

    – David Bellamy ; career destroyed by BBC and non-profits after questioned climate change

    – Johnny Ball ; career destroyed after questioned climate change . Abused by audience of supposed scientists

    – Jerry Saddowitz ; career destroyed by BBC 20 years ago when he questioned the orthodox view held by the elite that they are above the law so it is OK for them to abuse vulnerable children .

    I don’t share the BNP’s Tommy Robinson’s views but he has been proved right about Moslem rape gangs . How many children could have been spared if the autorities had acted on the information he provided ?

    We are truly witnessing not just the end of the British Empire but civilisation in Britain and possibly the western world .

  41. Denis Cooper
    Posted August 31, 2014 at 12:41 pm | Permalink

    JR, if I said:

    “I am not against immigration”

    would you think it reasonable to gloss that as an opinion in favour of unlimited and uncontrolled immigration?

    Some would, which is why it is so important to not only choose one’s words with care but also try as far as possible to make sure that whatever one says on that subject cannot be selectively quoted or misquoted.

    As for my own view, it is the same now as it has been for many years – that in a sovereign democracy the existing body of citizens alone should have the right to decide who shall be allowed to join them as new citizens, each taking a full share in their country with the same rights and duties as themselves; and to avoid politicians quietly ignoring public opinion, or making their own warped interpretations of public opinion, that decision should be made directly and transparently through an official national referendum in which each citizen could choose one of a range of numerical options for the maximum annual rate of immigration; and immigration policy should then be set on the basis of the median response, that is to say the rate of immigration which half of the citizens would think too low while the other half would think it too high.

    Personally I would put my cross against the “Zero” option in any such referendum, not because I think that all immigration is bad but because I think that over the past couple of decades we have had far too much immigration and it will take maybe a century to absorb the newcomers and their descendants into something like a united people which could be called a “nation”.

    Of course others would be free to put their crosses where they each thought best, and according to one opinion poll structured in that way the median response would be about 70,000 a year.

  42. Freeborn John
    Posted August 31, 2014 at 12:52 pm | Permalink

    Mr. Redwood, you must surely see the direction here. Your party once thought itself as the natural party of government but has not won a majority since Maastrict. Cameron threw away a majority at the last election by reneging on his cast-iron guarantee of a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. And it has been obvious since 2010 that Cameron has a choice between winning the next election or campaigning to keep us in the EU and all signs point to his preference for the latter. If your party were any other business in the world you would be the first to spot the signs of an entity no longer providing what it’s former customers want to buy. But when it comes to your own employer you instead switch to defending the producer interests of the LibLabCon cartel advocating protectionist devices like FPTP in the recent referendum for example rather than the change we need which carswell personifies. You must know that keeping on the current track will eventually result in the extinction of the Tory party. Pleas explain to us why so many of your fellow Tories consider their demise of their party to be a price worth paying to keep us in the EU.

    • libertarian
      Posted September 1, 2014 at 11:18 am | Permalink

      Freeborn John

      Good post, nail firmly hit on head.

      John Redwood, a knowledgable and highly talented man with a profound wish to better our country has sadly wasted that talent for 30 years on a Conservative Party that has overlooked, ignored and in some cases ridiculed him. He has remained loyal to a party that is no longer fit for purpose. If the Tory party where a business it would be on the way to oblivion. As a political party it will exist for a bit longer but will never obtain power again in the UK.

  43. JoeSoap
    Posted August 31, 2014 at 1:00 pm | Permalink

    “we want more common feeling and shared values. Divisive language achieves the opposite. ”

    Does it always?

    This is the nub of the argument. In order to achieve common feeling and shared values we have to distinguish from and discriminate against those values which we fell shouldn’t be in the “pool”. That itself is divisive.

    If we start from the premise that people are entitled to let’s say, receive a secondary education alongside those of similar talents, and compete for places therein, we would be accused of using divisive language because those who believe in Comprehensive education would say that Grammar Schools are divisive. Yet in the end that would be of maximum benefit to society as a whole- it just doesn’t look that way in terms of a simplistic argument reached without looking hard at the evidence.

    There 1001 other things where individual freedom butts up against apparent or alleged divisiveness, whence the argument becomes is the freedom of the individual to do x or y constricting another person’s freedom?

    In the end, it can take the wisdom of age and experience to weigh up these issues and reach a judgement rather than come to immature conclusions based on scant evidence and few years’ experience. Hence we find many UKIP supporters here, perhaps many past their youth, but with the balanced judgement that comes with more age and experience.

  44. Tad Davison
    Posted August 31, 2014 at 1:14 pm | Permalink

    The trouble with political correctness as I see it, is if we continually try to accommodate people who have a fragile disposition and take the hump at any little comment, we’ll eventually end up not being able to say anything at all. I am reminded of Lord Christopher Monckton’s excellent description of a spade on one of his equally excellent anti-global warming YouTube videos, and I recommend people should watch it. He said,

    ‘The people at the inter-governmental panel on climate change don’t do ‘simple’. They don’t call a spade, a spade. They would call it A one-person-operated, manually-controlled, foot-powered implement of simple and robust yet adequately efficacious ligno-metallic composition designated primarily though by no means exclusively for utilization on the part of hourly-paid operatives deployed in the agricultural, horticultural, or constructional trades or industries, as the case may be, for purposes of carrying out such excavational tasks or duties as may from time to time be designated by supervisory grades as being necessary, desirable, expedient, apposite, or germane with regard to the on-going furtherance of the task or objective in hand or, on the other hand, underfoot, Secretary-General.’

    We’ve all see examples of this. One of my favourite films, ‘The Dam Busters’ is often latterly derided because of the name of Guy Gibson’s dog, despite it being historically accurate. I love to tell jokes, but these days I have to be very guarded and only say certain things in certain company. God only knows how some of the PC brigade would have coped in some of the places I’ve worked. Perhaps people need to lighten up and appreciate that humour is part of the British persona.

    Tad Davison

    Cambridge

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted September 1, 2014 at 4:56 pm | Permalink

      We used to contrast our country with those in the Warsaw Pact which were filled with sneaks, and that has changed. To me it is shocking that somebody will accept an invitation into somebody’s private home for dinner, and then afterwards go off to the media to spread a story about some remark made by his host.

  45. DaveM
    Posted August 31, 2014 at 1:51 pm | Permalink

    I concur with NS’s first paragraph.

    I’m sure most will agree that all we really want as a British public is common sense which fits in to our human values. Every single thing which is written or said will offend some over-sensitive soul in one way or another. I personally am continually offended by the fact that my country (ie. England) is referred to by politicians and the BBC as ‘the southern part of the UK’, and yet Scotland is never called ‘the northern third’!!!

    And I am also offended by the fact that the EHCR tells me that things cannot be said because it may offend a minority!

  46. Denis Cooper
    Posted August 31, 2014 at 2:38 pm | Permalink

    “In a country of volunteers who wish to be here, we want more common feeling and shared values. Divisive language achieves the opposite. Divisive conduct is either against the law, or damaging to the very society people have joined.”

    I didn’t volunteer to be English and British; I was born of English parents in England, and my eldest sister has investigated our family tree in England back to the eighteenth century; so I can say that I am of predominantly old English stock, without precluding the possibility of as yet unidentified ancestors who were from other countries, possibly even a slave from Africa, a possibility which does not disturb me in the slightest; I am a natural-born British citizen, therefore, not a naturalised British citizen, and so were my forebears over many generations as far as we know.

    So insofar as my presence here is voluntary that is only because I haven’t chosen to leave my ancestral homeland and become a naturalised citizen of another country. On the other hand, I am now forced to share my country with literally millions of naturalised British citizens and their immediate descendants, without any government ever thinking that perhaps the democratic thing might be to seek the approval of the existing citizens before handing out citizenship to foreigners left right and centre and for free. As far as most of our politicians are concerned this is not our country but theirs, to do with just as they please as if they owned it as their private estates.

    Is it any wonder that there is a certain resentment among not just many of the members of the old-established population, the generations of natural-born citizens whose views have been consistently dismissed by politicians, but also among some of the more recent immigrants who became naturalised citizens, and their natural-born descendants?

    (criticism of Welsh national anthem removed ed)

    It’s all about “nation”, but I’m left wondering how many generations it would take before the male descendants of a man of another nation who had settled in Wales could pass as being Welsh, given that it seems from the words that Welshness is passed down the male line only (“fathers”) and must have origins which are lost in the mists of time.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted September 1, 2014 at 4:48 pm | Permalink

      If I may say so, I think you’re being over-sensitive about what I thought was a moderate and balanced criticism of the words of “Land of my Fathers”. If it was the English rather than the Welsh national anthem then it would certainly be subjected to much harsher criticism from those who think that nationalists elsewhere in the UK are fine and commendable but English nationalists are very dangerous people not far removed from the Nazi party.

  47. lojolondon
    Posted August 31, 2014 at 2:47 pm | Permalink

    John, one correction about UKIP – the Biased BBC and other leftwing MSM like to pretend that UKIP is mainly focussed on immigration. That suits them because they can pretend that UKIP supporters are small-minded / Little Englanders / bigots and they feel they can build a case for immigration.

    Where most UKIP supporters are focussed, and where the MSM does not like to look is the case for a democracy. We in Britain but especially in England, have had our democracy stolen from us by the EU over the last years. There is now a power greater than Westminster, we can vote for our representatives, they can put our case, and a law can be passed in Parliament, and yet it can be overturned in Brussels by people who have no accountability to anyone, but especially not to us, the voters.
    So we do not have a democracy, it has been stealthily removed from us one edict at a time. This is the fight we fight, it is more important than all the other details, the uncontrolled immigration, the incompetence, corruption, anti-Britishness and all the other failings of the EU are more ammunition to our argument, but the key for UKIP is wanting to live in a democracy. No more and no less.
    That is what Nigel Farage wants, it is what Douglas Carswell wants, it is what I want and I hope it is what you want.

    • JoeSoap
      Posted August 31, 2014 at 9:10 pm | Permalink

      Perhaps, but it isn’t what Mr Cameron wants, or Mr Miliband, or Mr Clegg.
      Without UKIP as the largest alternative, fastest growing (and in Clacton THE largest) party, it won’t happen.

  48. Elliot Kane
    Posted August 31, 2014 at 2:53 pm | Permalink

    I do not think there are very many people who oppose all immigration, John, only unlimited immigration.

    As I understand it, UKIP’s position is to allow in people with the skills and abilities we need, but to not allow in people who have no skills we need. I find this the most sensible approach, and it is that followed by most nations outside of the EU.

    Whether this is Douglas’ position too, I do not claim to know.

    As for Political Correctness, I think it very much depends on your definition as to whether it is a good thing or a bad thing.

    I do not think anyone could argue against being polite to other people. That has always been a basic British trait, after all. Accepting that other people hold beliefs and follow lifestyles that we do not is also very British.

    The problem comes when the basic idea of consideration for others (A good thing!) is taken beyond the point of madness, where it is considered that no member of a minority can do any wrong. This was the problem in Rotherham, apparently, where so many people were so terrified of being thought to be intolerant that they turned a blind eye to the systematic abuse of far too many vulnerable youngsters.

    None of the guilty officials in Rotherham should be spared jail, IMO, nor should they ever be allowed to serve the public again in any capacity. But the real problem was the culture of Political Correctness that had taken root.

    Taken to such absolute extremes as it was in Rotherham, Political Correctness is a vile evil that must be stamped out.

    As for the rest, I tend to agree with you.

  49. Sebastian Weetabix
    Posted August 31, 2014 at 2:57 pm | Permalink

    You seem uncharacteristically elliptical in this piece, Mr. Redwood. If you mean we should treat everyone equally before the law and accord them proper dignity, then that is of course right and proper, yet I venture to suggest that those of us who think fundamentalist Islam is an existential threat to our culture should – if we value our freedoms – be able to criticise it without fear of denunciation for being “racist”.

    I do not perceive there is a problem with assimilating Sikhs, Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons or whatever in our society. But we do have a problem with extreme (sect name removed ed) Islam. I do appreciate this does not include all muslims, not even a majority of them, but these (extremists ed) are here in significant numbers and they are trouble. Since they, as a simple matter of fact, hold non-muslims to be inferior to muslims, and desire our submission to their version of Islam with sharia, jizya, dhimmitude and all the rest of it, I do not see how we can share a common culture. Our use of particular phrases or language is frankly neither here nor there in this matter; their no-doubt sincerely held views are not compatible with a secular liberal democracy which values freedom, so our choice is either to succumb or to resist.

    I look forward to the day when the government starts to do something other than utter pious platitudes about it, along the lines of “nothing to do with Islam”. They very much think it is, even if that great Muslim theologian Mr. Cameron insists otherwise.

    Reply. I am elliptical or nuanced in this piece for good reason. The whole point of this blog is to say that life is very complex when trying to reconcile people’s very different religious and political views with the basis of o0ur democracy. As a democratic politician I both want to persuade more people to my view where I have a strong view on what is right for my country, and wish to help harmonious living in my constituency and country for peoples of all faiths, backgrounds and views. That requires finding or supporting a basis of consent, agreement between all or practically all of us about the rules of conduct of our lawmaking, public debate, and our individual lifestyles insofar as they impact on others.

    • Sebastian Weetabix
      Posted September 1, 2014 at 11:05 am | Permalink

      Hmm. I thought we stood for the following in this country, in no particular order:
      Freedom of conscience
      Equality before the law, without fear or favour
      Property rights
      Freedom of expression
      Freedom of assembly
      Democratic government

      We should make clear to all new arrivals that if they don’t subscribe to the above, they can leave. J.S. Mill has it about right, I think. Your right to swing your arm ends at the point my nose begins.

      I am amused (and surprised) at your removal of the name of the specific sect which encourages ISIS/Jihad. If we cannot name the people who threaten us then PC truly has gone mad. I am fully in support of your desire for all your constituents to live in harmony; I do not see why this obviates identifying our enemies. If we can’t even mention them by name, how do we defeat them?

      Reply The sect you name does not uniquely support ISIL, and other supporters of it deny their support for ISIL.

    • Gerald Guersten
      Posted September 2, 2014 at 6:12 pm | Permalink

      Fairness, justice, meritocracy, charity and tolerance are all values that are part of a historical legacy. A multi-cultural society will by definition hold many cultures within it that do not share that same legacy and therefore the same values. The answer to that in certain circumstances may be toleration and acceptance – the religious observer going to the Temple has every right to do so. But if you are looking for a set of shared values, it is more than a set of individual cultures co-existing separately. Political correctness is not a glue that ties them together, it is a language that is used to avoid causing offence – which is effectively what politeness is. The deeper values that help a successful society cohere are the ones that are a part of our historical legacy. It needs to be protected. Those not buying into it, are not buying into the society that enables peaceful and successful coexistence in the first place and that does not matter what particular religious/ ethnic group you come from. Tolerance is important. But there are other values just as/ more important to create a successful society.

  50. Kenneth R Moore
    Posted August 31, 2014 at 3:12 pm | Permalink

    Poor form Dr Redwood trying to portray Carswell as a staunch follower of the religion of PC.
    I politely suggest he fully reads Mr Carswell’s book and other writings.
    Mr Carswell has said many times he wants us to take control of our own borders.
    I do welcome Dr Redwood’s mentioning PC in his diary as discussion of this topic is of huge importance in my view.

    By ‘Contribute ‘ Mr Carswell means bring skills or experience we are lacking that brings net benefits. Most people are fine with that. ‘Contribute in the Carswell sense also does not mean being a burden on taxpayers.

    Mr Redwood’s party is so PC it wishes to duplicate those with or without the needed skills many, many times over by allowing uncontrolled immigration. . The leadership of the Conservative party has no interest in taking back control of our borders as it wishes for a stay in the Eu referendum vote – if such a referendum ever happens.

    PC is more than about being politeness – most would agree it is right to be polite and kind. What all do not agree is that all lifestyle choices and cultures are equal.
    The state should have a view on marriage and how girls are educated etc. The Pc would say this is ‘judgemental’ or ‘discriminatory.

    From John Redwood’s piece I’m not sure where JR sits on this matter. I’m not even sure JR has a view prefering to be silent to avoid committing the PC cardinal sin of ‘offending’.

    (not a man afraid of taking a non PC position)

    Reply Other supporters of Mr Carswell criticised me for quoting things he said before he joined UKIP, as you are now doing. I therefore thought it timely to examine what he has said since joining UKIP. I have explained my views on many of the topics governed by pc here in the past if you are interested.

    • Kenneth R Moore
      Posted September 1, 2014 at 9:27 am | Permalink

      Thanks for your reply. I’m criticising you for deliberately selectively using Mr Carswell’s words and then presenting them in a way that shows Mr Carswell in bad light. I think it’s obvious to most people here what is going on.

      Reply I did not seek to present Mr Carswell’s remarks in a bad light. I thought they needed discussing. Is that now against UKIP rules as well!

  51. Posted August 31, 2014 at 3:31 pm | Permalink

    Dr. Redwood, your statement ” It is a generous sentiment, but not a crowd pleaser with his UKIP audience.” referring to Mr. Carswell’s words ““I am not against immigration”. ” The one thing more ugly than nativism, is angry nativism”. “We should welcome those who want to come here to contribute……There’s hardly a hospital, GP surgery or supermarket in the country that could run without that skill and drive.” suggests that you are reluctant to forego the use of the word “racist” as a description of UKIP members general attitude.

    On what do you base your statement that not being against immigration will not please the UKIP membership? Do you take it from UKIP policy? Do you take it from personal knowledge of large numbers of UKIP members? Or are you basing your statement on the suggestion of racism used merely as a term of abuse by those who are incapable of logical thought or reasoned argument? However you arrived at it, it is unworthy of an intelligent man.

    You attribute to Mr. Carswell an approval of political correctness as politeness – a view which you share. Would that politeness was all that political correctness aimed to achieve, but it is not.

    Perhaps you are not aware of the technique of neuro-linguistic programming, designed to change the individual’s mind and understanding by changing the language, so that “nice” can replace “honesty”.

    You say that accusing a whole religion of general misconduct is not helpful or polite. I do not know what experience or knowledge you have of the Muslim faith and its tenets, but your words suggest that it is very little. The same goes for Satanism, now as I understand, free of expression within the prison system.

    Our current crop of politicians seem to look on religious differences as rather less important than the equality legislation beloved by those with no faith in anything but their own prejudices and the opportunity that appeal to minorities gives to garner more votes.

    The Arabs have a saying about the folly of letting your camel get its nose into your tent, since the result is always your own eventual ejection.

    Dealing with aggression requires more than being nice, as history should have taught us.

    John Wrake.

    Reply The UKIP supporters on this site are constantly telling us they have problems with immigration.I have not accused UKIP of racism so I do not understand your drift.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted August 31, 2014 at 9:12 pm | Permalink

      Only problems with totally unselective immigration from within the EU.

    • JoeSoap
      Posted August 31, 2014 at 9:14 pm | Permalink

      Reply to reply
      Mr Cameron tells us he has problems with immigration but refuses to take effective measures i.e. removing us from EU obligations to ameliorate the problem! Instead he makes promises he cannot keep!

    • matthu
      Posted September 1, 2014 at 5:53 am | Permalink

      I am not against immigration.
      I do have a problem with immigration as it is ‘controlled’ at present.

      These are not contradictory viewpoints. What is difficult to understand about that, John?

  52. Kenneth R Moore
    Posted August 31, 2014 at 3:48 pm | Permalink

    Douglas Carswell on Twitter :-

    ‘Makes me sad to read one or two unkind comments by one or two former colleagues’

    Come on Dr Redwood, Mr Carswell made a brave decision only time will tell if he was right. Give him a break please. It makes me despair to see natural allies at battle – we need your energy to fight the enemy’s of Conservatism.

    Me might or might not get back control of our affairs following Conservative HQ strategy which seems to put alot of faith in Mr Cameron delivering a free and fair referendum. It was too large a leap of faith for Mr Carswell and few are willing to blame him.

    It’s better to remain a bit more neutral now than have your distinguished political legacy tarnished by being on the wrong side of this argument. That’s my 1/2p worth.

    • JoeSoap
      Posted August 31, 2014 at 9:15 pm | Permalink

      re: your last para, I think that particular horse has long since bolted!

      • Kenneth R Moore
        Posted September 1, 2014 at 11:58 am | Permalink

        Maybe! – it would seem to be a win win situation for the J Redwood / newly anointed Sir William Cash school of thought. He has been uncharacteristically loyal to the PM lately.
        If the referendum doesn’t happen then they can blame Mr Carswell and Ukip for splitting the sceptic vote. If we get a No to Eu vote they will be happy to share the glory.
        I’m worried by any politician who give the impression they must cling onto office at all costs and with that set their principles to one side – It’s a vocation not a job.

  53. Kenneth R Moore
    Posted August 31, 2014 at 4:31 pm | Permalink

    I will try to make this my last piece on this subject – thanks to Dr Redwood for his forebearance.
    I do believe that the Conservative party’s hostility to Mr Carswell is a foolish line to take. His main criticism of the party was that there was too cosy a consensus about staying in Europe is given all the more credibility by their eagerness to attack him now he is an outsider.

    I’m not saying Dr Redwood is part of the cosy consensus, far from it, but there is a perception that established Mp’s like the status quo how it is and would like to see Carswell marginalised for ‘rocking the boat’.

    Mr Carswell’s resignation is both a headache and a shot in the arm for the Conservative Euro sceptics. They should dwell on the positives in my view.
    Lets see the strength of popular opinion for Mr Carswell and use that as leverage to defeat the Federalists – that seems like a far more sensible and level headed strategy than slinging mud at what is a decent and principled man by all accounts.

  54. Bazman
    Posted August 31, 2014 at 4:35 pm | Permalink

    It’s laughable that many on this site believe that political correctness is exclusive to left wing politics and anyone who questions such things as massive wealth inequality is some how politically incorrect. This is politically incorrect and just plain economically wrong in an illiterate sense.

    • Edward2
      Posted August 31, 2014 at 8:26 pm | Permalink

      Oh come off it Baz.
      Political correctness is a stick invented, controlled and held completely in the hands of the self righteous left wing of politics and is used to silence any alternative views, except their own.

      • Bazman
        Posted August 31, 2014 at 9:11 pm | Permalink

        You fail to see what political correctness is. Chips turned into Freedom fries is prime example of right wing political correctness and in reality it is the right with the power to do this.

        • David Price
          Posted September 1, 2014 at 10:46 am | Permalink

          Changing the goal posts again Baz?

          I fail to see the connection between the cancer of political correctness in this country and the understandable reaction of people in the US to France’s refusal to support the US after the September 11 terrorist attacks.

          BTW Freedom Fries where created in a restaurant not by a right wing politician or media.

        • Edward2
          Posted September 1, 2014 at 1:01 pm | Permalink

          If an ancient example like “freedom fries” is the most potent example of right wing political correctness you can come up with compared to the huge and current horrors of Rotherham then there is no doubt that PC is an almost totally left wing construct.

    • JoeSoap
      Posted August 31, 2014 at 9:19 pm | Permalink

      I’ve never seen criticism of massive wealth inequality described as politically incorrect. Cite sources please.

  55. Alexis
    Posted August 31, 2014 at 5:05 pm | Permalink

    Political correctness is not really the problem – at least with regard to pursuing crime in Rotherham, or other serious challenges we face today.

    The problem is unequal and unfair treatment. It is privileging one group over another. This is the exact opposite of what anti discrimination laws and perspectives were aiming for.

    It becomes malignant, and dangerous, when self selecting groups of people consider themselves above the law, and the authorities aid and abet this attitude.

    The message quickly becomes clear. Aggressive and dangerous people from a particular group can please themselves, because of who they are. Their victims, however, learn that the law does not protect them – also because of who they are.

    There are other cases in the news to which this would apply.

    These situations aren’t due to political correctness on the part of authorities, or people with power. It’s not just ‘fear of rocking the boat’ either, as one high profile person said this week. I think it’s a conscious decision to sacrifice the legal rights and safety of a vulnerable group of people, in order to appease other groups from whom they fear repercussions.
    This is cowardice; perhaps complicity, and certainly discrimination, at its very worst.

    • JoeSoap
      Posted August 31, 2014 at 9:29 pm | Permalink

      It is turning over-compensation into a religion. It is following a dogmatic left-wing fervour to do down the indigenous population because rather dim people perceive that this is the option “nice” people should take. It is following former symbols of our society such as the BBC, Labour Party, local government, and police leaders who have been incentivised by job prospects to carry the mantra of over-compensation for any past deficiencies in our outlook.

  56. jackhammer
    Posted August 31, 2014 at 5:06 pm | Permalink

    “It is not helpful or polite to accuse a whole religion or a whole race of general misconduct, bad attitudes or anti social approaches”. I’m sure you would not dream of suggesting that any “ideology” e.g. Nazism or Fascism or some forms of vulgar Marxism -in fact any form of ideological totalitarianism as having any responsibility for the sort of society they produce. It would be impolite to those who subscribed to these closed political ideologies/ religions. We must, in defence of liberalism and toleration, refrain from criticising these ideas. They are after all, only ideas!

    Reply On the contrary. I offered no protection to Marxism or Nazism in what I said and regard them as evil doctrines in whose name many have been massacred.

    • jackhammer
      Posted September 1, 2014 at 9:14 pm | Permalink

      John. I was being a bit tongue in cheek. If a certain idea whether secular or religious is a bad one – then we should say so even if this is to accuse a whole religion of bad attitudes. Apply the same standards to both secular and religious ideas. Regards

  57. Kenneth R Moore
    Posted August 31, 2014 at 5:20 pm | Permalink

    I’m actually quite shocked by many senior Conservatives, and particularly
    Dr. Redwood’s soft acceptance of cultural Marxism (Political Correctness).
    Anyone who has read his book ‘The Death of Britain’ will be left in no doubt as to the damage that a (New Labour) government driven by PC thinking alone can do.

    Nobody wants to see the unkindness of signs in guesthouse windows saying ‘no immigrants’ . Any benefits of PC have now been banked and now it is doing terrible,terrible damage after having infiiltrated every British institution:Army, Judiciary, Education, NHS, Political Party’s…

    Recently JR gave a lecture entitled ‘New Labour ruined Britain’, available to view on this site so his mind has not been recently changed.

    We do indeed want ‘more common feeling’ and ‘shared values’.
    Unfortunately this is incompatible with ‘ Affording protection to differing religions, social values and attitudes is a crucial characteristic of an advanced mature democracy’.
    I disagree with this leftist view that we are somehow more ‘mature’ than we were decades ago. Our society is far more brutal and thuggish than it was once was. We are far less free as a society – standards of education have been driven down. So lets stop deluding ourselves and pretending that we are more ‘civilised’.

    We have the ludicrous situation where certain groups, depending on whether they have ‘victim’ status, or not, are given special treatment. Look at the dreadful damage this simplistic mindset has done in lost blood overseas.Assad bad, rebels good blah blah blah.

    If you belong to Mr Redwood’s social group you are afforded little protection as you are classed as an ‘oppressor’ in our topsy turvey world.
    Mr Redwood’s piece doesn’t acknowledge the resentment this causes. People in this group are voting with they’re feet and leaving the country or losing faith in the old Party’s – the silent majority have had enough.

  58. stred
    Posted August 31, 2014 at 6:06 pm | Permalink

    Talking to a a hotel owner in France this morning we were made aware of some of the similarities of our countries in the economy and legislation. The continual drive to offend no class, race, sex, religion or peculiarity is all over the West.If ‘peculiarity’ is wrong, please edit in another word.

    It can be very expensive. For example, in the UK, the requirement for translation and disability provision. In France our hotel owner has been required to spend 2kE on a hoist to lower disabled people into the swimming pool. In 2 years he has never been asked to use it and disabled guests prefer to be helped by other guests in and out. It has been stored in the garage. He, as in the UK, has complied with disabled access without complaint, but next year all public services have to provide for all disabilities such as having braille notices and hearing aid plugs in the restaurant. I suggested he could provide waters with a megaphone.Where will it end? I am quite deaf and could only understand half of what he was saying in French, but I always thought it was my problem and up to me to do something about it.

    I told him that disabled standard WCs and corridors in ordinary housing result in smaller other rooms or more expensive new houses. Perhaps every service will have to be reduced in order to become more equal.

    Any politician who argues otherwise will have the equalisers down on him. Or her- sorry.

    • stred
      Posted August 31, 2014 at 6:09 pm | Permalink

      Pardon- waiters or waitresses., garcons or garconettes?

  59. John
    Posted August 31, 2014 at 6:28 pm | Permalink

    Hi John.

    I have to take issue with many of your observations above but I will list two in particular.
    1) You say you believe in property rights but the government is about to allow HMRC to raid people’s bank accounts without their permission or judicial review. They obviously have no right to their own property in that case.
    2) You say that we cannot legislate for the way that people dress in a free society, but you know as well as I, if I were to wear a Nazi uniform (only one example), even for a costume party, I would be hounded out of my job and probably home.
    I come from the generation immediately following WW11 and there was never a problem with this PC rubbish then, it was a much more tolerant world, one where everyone was not a victim and the English were know for a stiff upper lip.

    Reply As legislators we do not ban the wearing of Nazi uniforms but as you say there are strong taboos against them for obvious reasons. I do not support the raiding of bank accounts.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted August 31, 2014 at 9:18 pm | Permalink

      JR I am glad you do not support HMRC raiding banks but what about the dreadful GAAR and the gender neutral insurance & annuities nonsense.

      • Bob
        Posted September 1, 2014 at 10:53 am | Permalink

        You do not support the raiding of bank accounts yet you support the party that does.

        Mr Carswell had the courage of his convictions and joined the party that agrees with his views, rather than supporting one that doesn’t.

    • APL
      Posted August 31, 2014 at 10:00 pm | Permalink

      John: “if I were to wear a Nazi uniform (only one example), even for a costume party), even for a costume party, I would be hounded out of my job…”

      That can’t possibly be true, Ed Balls is doing very well despite being photographed wearing an SS uniform.

      Reply Yes, some senior politicians are judged by different standards from other politicians it seems. Mr Balls would use the student days defence.
      I have never had any wish to wear a uniform of organisations I dislike.

  60. John G-D
    Posted August 31, 2014 at 8:26 pm | Permalink

    Re – the words of Mr Carswell and Political Correctness
    I disagree with Mr Carswell’s assertion, an echo of the words used by Mr Hague some years ago, that political correctness equates to “good manners.” They are intrinsically different: the latter is an individual’s voluntary expression of the civilities and norms of his society, the oil, as it were, that keeps the machinery of life moving more pleasantly; the former is dogma, imposed on the majority of individuals for the benefit of minorities.
    “Good manners” are not imposed by law, they are part and parcel of the concept of duty towards others shared by individuals who have common ties of obligation, individuals who share a common – not a multi – culture.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted August 31, 2014 at 9:19 pm | Permalink

      “Good manners” are not imposed by law – exactly.

  61. Alan Wheatley
    Posted September 1, 2014 at 8:07 am | Permalink

    My comments of yesterday morning appear to have been lost, so let me repeat them.

     “The truth is as a society we are struggling to find a language which does not offend a wide range of different religious and ethnic groups in our society, which at the same time helps bind us to a common outlook and also allows us to condemn and prosecute those who violate our common law and values.”

    This raised very many issues. Here are some.

    Lets start with “language”. We used to have a common understanding of “marriage” until the PM decided to redefine the lexicon without so much as a by your leave, let alone any sympathy to those who thought marriage was just fine as it was; and not just religious groups either who thought the redefinition inherently wrong.

    Then there is the so-called “multi-cultural society” introduced by Labour and enthusiastically promoted by Blair et al. Suddenly we had this new phrase, but I do not remember anyone ever explaining what it actually meant. On the face of it this could be taken to be no different to what had been going on in Britain for centuries, where by immigrants had brought with them some of their culture and thus tweaked British culture: but the key point is that British culture remained homogeneous.

    But in fact what the promoters of THIS “multi-cultural society” were after were lots of different societies such that the immigrants, rather than being absorbed into the British nation, actively remained as distinct and different groups within British borders. It is particularly problematic for any nation state when immigrants consider their primary allegiance to be to their country of origin rather than their country of nationality. John Major highlighted “the cricket test” (which could be observed this Summer); we may not get overly concerned about a failure to support your national team, but we are getting very concerned about who is being supported when bearing arms.

    Then there is the “joker” word, OFFENCE. We have arrived at a position where, at least in the minds of some, it is unacceptable to be be offensive. Why can’t we be offensive, as long as within the law? Who is to decide when language is unacceptable or fair comment?

    People can simply claim they have been offended and there by seek to invalidate and close down anything said contrary to their views and beliefs. It seems to me this is accompanied by an inability or unwillingness to argue their case, so rather than be found out as lacking credibility they play the joker. What is particularly appalling is that so often the media allow them to get away with it.

    And finally, when considering immigration I bear in mind two things. (1) every time it is argued how much we depend on immigrants it is an insult to those of us already here – if you can’t run an island nation with a population of 60million then you can’t run anything. (2) The land mass is not growing, and the more space taken up by people and all their attendant infrastructure the less there is for everything else we need for a healthy society.

    • Terry
      Posted September 1, 2014 at 1:23 pm | Permalink

      Extremely well stated. But which party will listen?

  62. Richard
    Posted September 1, 2014 at 9:34 am | Permalink

    I do not know if the leaders of our 3 main political parties are just blind to see what is happening to our country through political correctness or just do not care or simply believe they will electorally or financially benefit even if only temporarily.

    A multicultural country cannot survive. Multiracial, yes, multicultural no.

    Many politicians simply see a multicultural society as one where everyone eats chicken tikka masala and are oblivious to the fact that some cultures want to live quite differently under very different laws.

    Massive immigration is already leading to areas of the country where different laws effectively exist and where our current leaders either through political correctness or through political cowardice are unable or unwilling to search out and apprehend the wrongdoers.

    In these areas :

    A large proportion of the population are illegally disenfranchised through postal voting.

    There exists FGM, “shaperoning”, grooming and forced marriages often to close relatives.

    And slavery.

    Political correctness is leading us to become a tribal nation.

  63. Barbara1
    Posted September 1, 2014 at 9:37 am | Permalink

    Political correctness is all about shutting down debate. Nothing good-mannered about gagging people.

    • Mark B
      Posted September 1, 2014 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

      Beautiful and succinct.

    • Chris
      Posted September 1, 2014 at 7:46 pm | Permalink

      Absolutely right, Barbara.

  64. Stephen O
    Posted September 1, 2014 at 12:03 pm | Permalink

    The benefits of Political Correctness – avoiding unnecessary offence to people undeserving of it – need to be balanced against the costs.

    The costs of Political Correctness are very high. It has lead to a partial suppression of freedom of speech. Justified unfair discrimination which may be described as ‘positive’ but is still unfair on those who lose out. Promotes unfairness. And now in the case of Rotherham can be seen to prevent impartial application of the rule of law, blighting thousands of lives.

    Political Correctness may have started out as a response to racism and unfairness, but has now become too extreme and is now a highly damaging social trend.

    I also feel Political Correctness distorts politics, by suppressing debate and causes poor management of the nations affairs.

    The costs seem to far outweigh the benefits. What level of offense has political correctness prevented that can outweigh even the crimes it allowed in Rotherham alone?

  65. Terry
    Posted September 1, 2014 at 12:23 pm | Permalink

    ‘Mr Carswell sees political correctness as politeness, and welcomes it’.

    Well I did not read that from his statements.
    PC stems from a Marxist ideology to divide and control the masses.
    It is designed to undermine the national spirit and weaken the patriotic nationalists. Providing special privileges for the minorities but denying them to the majority, elevates their morale but at the same time demoralises the majority. This works especially well when the majorities are complacent and/or apathetic, as is the case with the United Kingdom, right now.
    Special note must be taken that it is only the minorities that hold mass street protests, while the majority remain silent but when a small band of patriots do stand up and march in protest, they are immediately put down by the authorities as ‘racists’ (the ubiquitous ace held so dear by the left) and apprehended for actually trying to defend the future of their own country. No such action is taken over the minority groups protests, however. They are permitted to carry on, publically running our country down and in some cases burning our National flag without fear of any redress.
    This is an ominous sign that real democracy in this country is dying but nothing is being done to address that problem.
    Therefore, is it any wonder that the true Brits are shunning the main parties who have repeatedly failed the patriots of this country?

    • zorro
      Posted September 2, 2014 at 8:09 am | Permalink

      It is all classical Frankfurt School/Gramscian ideology set out in our modern day.

      zorro

  66. Kenneth R Moore
    Posted September 1, 2014 at 4:22 pm | Permalink

    It is rather like stabbing fish in a barrel commenting on this piece – there are so many uncharacteristic unfair remarks, weasel words, side stepping of difficult issues by Mr Redwood.

    What if Mr Carswell is right, and Mr Osborne has got it completely wrong on the economy – I do hope Mr Redwood likes humble pie because I fear he may have a sizeable amount to consume once the next bubble bursts.

    http://www.douglascarswell.com/downloads/after-osbrown.pdf

    I find it objectionable Mr Redwoods assumption that Ukip supporters all want a complete halt to immigration – maybe he believes they can be dismissed as ‘closet racists’ like Mr Cameron does?.

  67. Freeborn john
    Posted September 1, 2014 at 5:59 pm | Permalink

    I was wondering if you might consider as a future blog topic, the various likely ‘runners and riders’ who might replace David Cameron as Tory leader next May, and the probability of them being ready to take the UK out of the EU should they win the 2020 election. It seems to me that neither Boris Johnston, Theresa May nor George Osbourne could be counted on and that therefore the Conservative party seems likely to lose again in 2020 unless another more promising leader (but who) emerges.

  68. Kenneth R Moore
    Posted September 1, 2014 at 8:43 pm | Permalink

    Professor Redwood,

    In the light of the Carswell resignation I’d be interested to know your view on whether an Mp should have’ red lines’ – principles or policies they hold that if broken make a position untenable. I gather that you disagree with Mr Carswell’s decision to leave your party. Should party loyalty always hold sway over personal considerations particularly months before an election.
    From what I have read Mr Carswell seems to have objected to the dropping of the bill to recall Mp’s and the failure of Mr Cameron to consider a trade only type arrangement with the Eu. It is these matters that seem to have made his position untenable.

    Reply Yes an MP should be prepared to resign if he or she can no longer accept what is being done. I felt I had to resign to help save the pound from John Major’s cabinet, as I could not accept the collective view. What I find odd about Mr Carswell is he praised both Mr Cameron and his EU policy so strongly in the months before he decided he did not like them.

    • Kenneth R Moore
      Posted September 2, 2014 at 11:47 am | Permalink

      Thank you Dr Redwood,

      Reading your resignation letter (in 1995) what is striking is the accuracy of your prediction :-

      JR “I believe it is vital that the Conservatives win the next election. We must defend our Parliamentary democracy and our nation from damaging constitutional change.

      It was a noble act and the right thing to do. We are still living with the consequences of the prophet Redwood’s warning being ignored by Major.

      I believe Mr Carswell has been clumsy in his use and timing of his words but he does have some justification. There is little to disagree with, in my view in Mr Cameron’s Bloomberg speech. However it would appear that the broadly Euro sceptic position set out has since shifted.

      http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100284627/new-jobs-for-the-boys-but-the-same-old-eu/

      DH ‘Two years ago, Mr Cameron was proposing the recovery of social and employment policy. Even last year, in his Bloomberg speech, he held out the prospect of significant unilateral repatriations of power. But, in March, he redefined his goals, setting out a modified list of seven objectives, all of which were promptly endorsed by Nick Clegg and Ken Clarke. And you can see why: when the objectives have been declared fulfilled, Britain will still be a full EU member, subject to the Common Agricultural and Fisheries Policies, the Common Foreign and Security Policy, the Common External Tariff, EU citizenship and all the rest. Incredibly, we are even opting back into the European Arrest Warrant’.

      I can appreciate Mr Carswell’s discomfort being in a position of having to back a policy backed by Nick Clegg and Kenneth Clarke.

  69. Eddie Hill
    Posted September 2, 2014 at 6:06 am | Permalink

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11069178/Researcher-sent-on-diversity-course-after-raising-alarm-over-Rotherham-sex-abuse.html

    “A researcher who raised the alarm over the sexual abuse of teenage girls in Rotherham more than a decade ago was sent on a ‘ethnicity and diversity course’ by child protection bosses who refused to act on her evidence.

    The researcher, who was seconded to Rotherham council by the Home Office, was told she must “never, ever” again refer to the fact that the abusers were predominantly Asian men.”

    I rest my case!

  70. Kenneth R Moore
    Posted September 2, 2014 at 5:18 pm | Permalink

    The Euro Sceptics arguing amongst themselves is self defeating. Is it too much to hope for a brotherhood of Euro sceptics cooperating to achieve a common goal.

    Brother Redwood could continue his work within the Conservative Party applying pressure on the leadership to take a tougher line on Europe.
    Brother Carswell could widen the debate and reach out beyond Conservative territory to disaffected voters of all colours. He has already done valuable service to the cause by showing the depth of anti Eu feeling. The Conservative leadership can be in no doubt that the sceptics are serious and are prepared to abandon the party if pushed too far along the Federal road.
    Brother Hannan could continue to fight the Eu monster from within the European parliament as a Conservative Mep if he wishes. I guess he might want to re-evaluate his position should the Conservatives be defeated at the next general election.

    Other Eu sceptics could also join. Maybe there is no clear path to take – an attack on Fereralism is needed on all fronts in my view. We are in the mess we are in because too much power has rested in too few hands – opposing forces to the cosy consensus around Europe need to unite.

  71. Gerald Guersten
    Posted September 2, 2014 at 5:52 pm | Permalink

    Re: The words of Douglas Carswell and political correctness

    I do not think that this argument holds sway ultimately. Political correctness comes in many shapes and sizes, but ultimately it rests in the assumption that causing offence is the ultimate thing to be avoided in society. It has a positive aspect to it – politeness as mentioned. But politeness does not lead very far. If all bosses primary concern in life was to be polite frankly very little would get done. And if all employees had recourse to say I am offended, then again very little would be done.

    The issue arises where Political correctness leads, for in its murkier elements it leads to positive discrimination for example. Positive discrimination is not robust since it subsumes meritocracy to a supposedly higher value – namely causing offence to a particular minority that has no valid reason to take offence. We end up looking for a reason to take offence and the majority does not merely have to avoid social gaffes – it has to be on its guard against any possible transgression of this. It is not robust because a society where the best are stopped from getting to the top by social quotas, cannot do so.

    Finally political correctness is not a value it is a strategy. It is a skill to be learned, not a value. And here what you say is important in the final paragraph. It is through genuinely shared values that people can come together and work successfully. These should be robust values including meritocracy, charity, care for others and looking to make a contribution somehow to society. That responsibility adheres to minorities as well as majorities and if it genuinely works then the need for political correctness disappears. Without those shared values, using political correctness as the tool, we are just using an avoidance tactic to deal with the real issues at hand. And that is the tragedy of Rotherham.

  72. Kenneth R Moore
    Posted September 3, 2014 at 9:47 pm | Permalink

    I don’t like Mr Carswell’s sneering at those that are concerned about newcomers having the same rights to benefits, NHS services and housing as those that have paid into the system for years. His use of the term ‘Nativism’ , a silly Political correct word coined to close down debate is regrettable in my view.

    Maintaining a nation state is impossible without putting the interests of those already here first and promoting a set of prefered national values. Those that have shown they have contributed and played by the rules get rewarded. That is not Mr Carswell’s ‘Nativism’ but common sense.

    Without this we have a world Education, NHS and welfare service….. This appears to be what Mr Carswell is in favour of.

  73. Kenneth R Moore
    Posted September 5, 2014 at 11:48 am | Permalink

    We seem to have allowed a situation where a blind eye has been turned to the abuse of children and certain election practices imported from foreign countries.

    I’d appreciate more clear leadership and condemnation of ‘multi-culturalism’ from Dr Redwood. No society can survive different cultures operating in parallel – sharia law must not be allowed to gain a foothold but the Conservatives have been blindsided yet again by their knee-jerk political correctness.

    Is your view Dr Redwood, that there can only be one culture concerning matters that affect individuals relationships with society.
    It does seem that senior politicians bear some responsibility in failing to speak out

  74. evad666
    Posted September 6, 2014 at 9:00 am | Permalink

    Political Correctness has effectively sanctioned the mass abuse of young white girls across the North of England in areas where families have had opportunity destroyed and with it self respect.
    Political Correctness obstructed proper and timely legal investigation.
    Political Correctness turned a blind eye to the problem to avoid rocking the multicultural boat to protect the preferred voter base.
    Political Correctness permits power without responsibility.
    In the light of the abuse of white children by Pakistani men this piece is disingenuous in the extreme.

  • About John Redwood

    John Redwood has been the Member of Parliament for Wokingham since 1987. First attending Kent College, Canterbury, he graduated from Magdalen College, and has a DPhil from All Souls, Oxford. A businessman by background, he has been a director of NM Rothschild merchant bank and chairman of a quoted industrial PLC.
    Published and promoted by Thomas Puddy for John Redwood, both of 30 Rose Street Wokingham RG40 1XU
  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page