h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"Despite various high-profile events in recent years, I still don't get any real sense that the BNP are seen as a viable alternative in real terms, so it appears likely that what we are left with is two fairly centrist parties."

The BNP aren't a serious viable alternative any more than, for example, Respect are. The BNP have gained votes and council seats through exploiting both Labour and Conservatives refusal to play the race card outright. There is a minority (albeit a sizeable one) who feel strongly enough about this to vote solely on it and the BNP have campaigned on that issue and got the votes. The fact remains that the BNP are not merely an anti-immigration party but a classic old-fashioned fascist party. They haven't even gone the way of the European far-right and abandoned the 1930s corporatist economonics of the old-fashioned fascists for more free-market economics. Once they were forced to drop the single-issue and campaign on all their politics then their popularity would plummet. They need to be a small, minor party. It's the only way they can operate.

Is that a just a fairly lengthy way of saying that just for once I was right?

"The age of the 'left-right' debate is almost dead in western politics. In terms of socio-economic policy, their isn't a fish-slice between Labour/Conservative or Democrat/Republican and I get the feeling that a similar suituation is emerging throughout the western world."

I don't think that's true. Certainly, in the UK the socialist-left and Thatcherite-right are both dead as viable mainstream political ideologies (although, of course, adherents to both would strongly deny this). Blair moved Labour to the right to make them electable and after arrogantly presuming that Labour were some sort of illegitimate government waiting for the natural return of Conservatism the Torys have been dragged to the left because Thatcherism doesn't win votes any more (indeed, it almost certainly only did because Labour was an absolute mess in the 1980s).

Having said that, there are still differences. Labour still wants to invest in public services and empower the less well off (although by getting them into work rather than handing out more welfare). The conservatives still, fundamentally, think everyone in the UK is capable of being a small businessperson and being economically self-suficient if only they'd *try* and that welfare, the NHS et al are necessary "evils". What they both agree now is that 1) the market economy works best and 2) social liberalism is essentially a positive thing. Twenty years ago Labour would be somwhat hostile to 1) and the Conservatives hostile to 2).

Terrorism matters because terrorism is targetted.

With road deaths, I can drive more carefully, buy a safer car, wear a seatbelt. With street violence, I can choose not to walk down a dark alley filled with shifty-looking characters. I can practise DIY with safety in mind. For most conceivable ways of suffering a premature death, there are steps I can take to lessen the risks.

But the terrorist wants to kill *me*, or someone like me, he doesn't care. There is nothing I can do to lessen the risk.

Aerial bombing in WWII killed far less people than you would expect given the hundreds of thousands of tons of high explosives dropped, but that didn't stop the real terror experienced by people.

"Is that a just a fairly lengthy way of saying that just for once I was right"

Pretty much. I'm just dropping-in my analysis of why I think it's bunk when extremists partys win a few seats and people talk about a "rise". Extremist partys only do well in times of economic and political chaos and we don't have that right now at all.

>Labour still wants to invest in public services<


Really? You'd not be able to tell that from inside them - and I speak as a two public-servant household, one a civil servant and one in the NHS.

I've worked in the NHS too. It's underinvested, overly-bureaucratic and still suffering from the Conservative neglect of the 1980s and early 1990s but things did appear to be improving albeit slowly.

I never said Labour were investing massively, incidentally, I said they still want to invest in public services. The problem is that the Blairites keep trying to secure money from outside of the treasury which has lead to the private-public partnership idea which I think is a mistake given most private enterprise isn't interested in philanthropy and can only be persuaded with the promise of profit.

Why on earth are people talking about traffic deaths?!

I said there were greater threats to my life and my lifestyle than al Qaeda. I'm not talking about being hit by a bus. I'm talking about political, economic and military issues other than al Qaeda. And, if one wants to worry only about terrorism, there is a greater threat to citizens of my country from non-muslim terrorists than there is from al Qaeda.

Zagreb,

"social liberalism is essentially a positive thing"

You think that New Labour believes this? What evidence is there for it? They have banned fox hunting, smoking in many places, have secret trials, got rid of the presumption of innocence, the right to a trial by jury, habeas corpus, etc. etc. etc. This is quite possibly the most socially illiberal government we have had since the end of WW2 say.

And, the more people killed by cars than terrorism argument is not fatuous. It highlights the point that the actual danger (rather than the perceived danger) is minute. The effects you are talking about relate to the perceived danger.

SWL,

"With road deaths, I can drive more carefully, buy a safer car, wear a seatbelt."

I haven't got any statistics to hand about the number of road deaths where the person killed was not at fault and had no way of preventing it from happening (e.g. someone drives out at a junction without looking and crashes into you), but I would guess that it would still be substantially more than have been killed by terrorists (by a very large margin). You can buy a safer car (not an option for people who don't have enough money for that incidentally), but I doubt you can reduce the risks to the level of risk posed by terrorism.

You could avoid these risks by living in the middle of nowhere, not using a car, roads or pavements, and perhaps living off land you farm yourself. But then, if you did that you'd also completely avoid the threat of terrorism too. Number of Welsh farmers killed by terrorists = ? I'm guessing 0.

"You think that New Labour believes this? What evidence is there for it? They have banned fox hunting, smoking in many places, have secret trials, got rid of the presumption of innocence, the right to a trial by jury, habeas corpus, etc. etc. etc. This is quite possibly the most socially illiberal government we have had since the end of WW2 say."

Garbage of the highest order. In 1946, homosexuality was still illegal. Under Thatcher teaching it in school as "acceptable" was illegal. Under dreaded NuLabr gay couples finally have the rights that straight couples have. This is one of the largest, and most important, steps forward for human rights and social liberalism in this country for decades.

Social liberalism is the right to do what you want with your life as long as you do not impinge on the rights of others. There are arguments why this does not mean that banning smoking in (indoor) public places is an infringement in this regard. The right to trial by jury is nothing to do with social liberalism but how the law is implemented: There are arguments for and against (against being that jurys can be easily intimidated so using them to try powerful crime figures is questionable).

Of course, Labour's reaction to terrorism is questionable. I remain unconvinced on the subject of "emergency powers" and whether they are necessary and I believe strongly that anyone who can use such powers should be subjected to checks and balances and punished if they misuse them. However, again, this has little to do with social liberalism and is more to do with how the law is implemented.

I, personally, believe we have more rights and freedoms than we have at any time in our history. My rights are protected by the Data Protection Act and the European Human Rights act. The government can no longer punish or imprison me for belonging to a trade union and can no longer persecute me or anyone else for being the wrong religion, sexuality or race (the claim that muslims are being targetted for being muslim is simply nonsense, it's like arguing that people involved with or suspected of being involved with bombing abortion clinics in the USA is prejudice against Christians). If, one day, the dreaded NuLabr State takes me away and tortures me or anyone I care about or know on a whim then I'll believe stories about how we are living in the most illiberal period since 1946. Until then, I'll take any such claims for what I think they are: fatuous, paranoid, politically-motivated hyperbole.

Level of risk? Getting killed by a religious mental nut-job leaves you 100% dead.

Interesting to hear Anhaga's view that there are more important things to worry about that affect her. I agree.

I don't think terrorism is the biggest threat to my way of life in Britain. I think Islam has the potential to be far, far worse.

"I don't think terrorism is the biggest threat to my way of life in Britain. I think Islam has the potential to be far, far worse."

Yes, because we're at a real risk of becoming an Islamic state like Iran aren't we? I'm sure the 97% of people who don't follow the Islamic religion and the sizable number of British muslims who don't want to live in an Islamist state (indeed, a good few are here fleeing from them) won't have anything to say about that.

Have you been reading Melanie Philips or something?

Believe it or not, I've never actually read a Melanie Philips piece in years. I remember her writing some absolute barking stuff about Malaysia in the 90's. BTW, I believe the correct name is "Mentally" Phillips

No, I make up my own mind based on personal experience, talking to people and browsing the web. The scary stuff comes not from the extremists, but the moderates. Talking to one recently, it was her unshakeable belief that Islam was the only way and that Islam would one day rule Britain. She didn't shout or scream about it, she just said it in the same matter of fact way most people would say "the sun will come up tomorrow".

At the last census, there were 1.6 million muslims. Ten years prior to that, 900,000. In ten years they have almost doubled their numbers. Best estimates put the number at nearer 2 million now. Do the maths.

"At the last census, there were 1.6 million muslims. Ten years prior to that, 900,000. In ten years they have almost doubled their numbers. Best estimates put the number at nearer 2 million now. Do the maths."

And how has the non-muslim population increased in the same time? Pull the other one.

As for the "moderate" muslim you quote, her views are pretty close to those of the extremists even if she wasn't willing to use violence. Come to that, most Christians I've met talk a similar line. I'm not afraid of a Christian Republic just yet, either.

Actually, I retract those figures Zagreb. I took them on faith (if I told you who told me, you'd accuse me of lying ). Census results don't indicate such a rise at all. The difficulty comes from the fact that giving your religion in the 1991 Census was entirely voluntary and a high percentage of forms were returned blank.

Mea Culpa

Zagreb,

"about how we are living in the most illiberal period since 1946"

I did say that it was possibly the most illiberal government, not that we live in the most illiberal times (see the distinction?). It's my impression that much of the good stuff that this government has done has been sort of half forced on them by the fact that we're in the European Union and therefore have to abide by the European HRA as you mentioned. My impression may be mistaken of course.

"However, again, this has little to do with social liberalism and is more to do with how the law is implemented."

The distinction isn't sharp. But you're right I was interpreting your phrase social liberalism more widely than you seem to be doing (to include political freedoms for example).

"If, one day, the dreaded NuLabr State takes me away and tortures me or anyone I care about or know on a whim then I'll believe stories about how we are living in the most illiberal period since 1946."

So it would have to be you or someone you knew then? That's an interesting attitude. I believe there's a certain poem attributed to Martin Niemoeller that you might read, particularly the last few lines.

"fatuous, paranoid, politically-motivated hyperbole"

I think I like you better when you're being rude.

'Terrorism matters because terrorism is targetted.'


well, only in a very general sense.

Saddam's sons were specifically targetted by the U.S.

NATO soldiers in Afghanistan are targetted by bombers in Afghanistan, but no individual soldier is specifically targeted -- any one will do.

The victims of the World Trade Centre attacks were targetted in only a very general way, only slightly more so than those who get run over by a bus. Every single victim might have survived (and been substituted by another) if the attack had happened on a different day.

If al Qaeda (or a bus) were specifically seeking me out then I'd feel pretty concerned. But as long as it really is as random a threat as any other surprise ending, I'm not going to worry too much about it.

"The probable Muslim population in Britain in 1951 was about 23 000. By 1961, there were about 82 000 Muslims in Britain, by 1971 about 369 000, by 1981 about 553 000 , by 1991 about 1 million, and by 2000 about 2 million. These numbers are based on the ethnic origin of the minority population of Britain and about 75 per cent is made up of groups originating in the South Asian sub-continent."

http://www.salaam.co.uk/themeofthemonth/april02_index.php?l=3

somebody check my math:

so, muslims make up a little less than 3% of the population of Britain? And, the number of muslims has doubled in ten years, right?


pretty nearly the same percentage and growth rate as Canada.

My maths isn't always hot, but rising from 23,000 to 2,000,000 in fifty years is nearly 8700% is it not?

High birth rates, (particularly among Pakistanis) leads to 8% compound growth per year. Where does that put us in 20 years?