The London Olympics are already achieving the number one aim of the politicians who brought them here, which is making our politicians feel very important indeed.
The media is quite frenetic in its efforts to make us all believe we should be terrifically proud of the fact we are hosting the Olympics, as though there were something unique in this achievement. If we can’t competently do something that Greece, Spain and China have done in recent years, that would be remarkable. Of course the Games will be on the whole well delivered, sufficient for the media and politicians to declare it an ecstatic success. Some of the sporting moments will be sublime, as ever.
But did it have to be in London? We won’t know the total cost of the Games for months, but it will cost the taxpayer at least £9 billion and I suspect a lot more. I also suspect the GDP figures will, in the event, show that the massive net fall in visitor numbers has hurt the already shrinking economy further.
But to take the most optimistic figure, holding the Olympics in London has cost every person in the country an average of £150 per head in extra taxes. That is £600 for a family of four. Actually it is in the end going to be well over £2,000, as of course the money has been borrowed on the never never, and taxpayers are going to be paying it off their whole lives, along with the sum ten times higher they are already paying direct into the pockets of the bankers through their taxes.
The very rich, of course, don’t pay much tax, so they are not worried.
But to take just the figure of £600 extra taxes for a family of four, the lowest possible amount, and not including the interest. Is having the Olympics here really worth paying out £600 for? If Tony Blair had approached the head of the family and said “We are going to have the Olympics in London, but it’s going to cost you £600, would the answer have been from most ordinary people: “Yes, great idea, this is that important to us”?
People are not disconcerted because they don’t see that they have to pay. There is no special Olympics tax, and they pay their taxes in a variety of ways, and individuals are not the sole source of taxation. But this is nonetheless real money taken from the people in pursuit of the hubris of politicians.
I love sport. I hate the corruption of the International Olympic Committee, Fifa and the rest; I hate the vicious corporatism and militarisation of our capital and absurd elitism of the transport lanes; the sport itself I love. But with the economy contracting, and the NHS being farmed out for profit, is it really worth £600 for a family – and many families are really struggling in a heartbreaking way – is it worth the money to have the Olympics here rather than in Paris?
Of course it isn’t. I think many of us will feel an extra pleasure watching the Opening ceremony because it is British. Patriotic pride will surge. It is not wrong to enjoy the spectacle tonight on TV. The corporate well connected and ruling classes will enjoy it in the stadium.
But after you have watched it on TV, ask yourself this question. How much more did you enjoy it than enjoy watching the Beijing ceremony, and was that margin of extra enjoyment something that everybody in the room would have paid out £150 for?
Because they just did.
Nevermind: right. No, I was referring particularly to the atrocities committed on Jewish people. But I agree that the feelings which promote racial attacks often extend to similar feelings about homosexuality and so on. It’s just trying to find someone else to take out those feelings of bitterness and hate and powerlessness on.
“Come home to a real fire – buy a cottage in Wales”? I imagine that a very few Welsh people burnt down a few British second houses because a) they were pissed off by the British attacking them centuries before b) they resented houses standing empty c) they were nationalist separatists d) they were violently sad and bored – or a combination of all of them. Not sure what the relevance is. Are you happy about the news from Hackney?
Chris Jones, if you can point out some of these ‘childish labels’?
Komodo: no need to go for Nuid, you big bully (oops, childish label).
Powell, even if he thought he wasn’t, was playing classic divide and rule by appearing to speak up for one section of the poor and disadvantaged while trying to blame another. Biased, inflammatory, and again, blind to the inequalities built into society by the structure and by its exploiters, not by the people suffering in it. It wasn’t a view endorsed by the owner of this blog in Blackburn, by the way; on the contrary.
Uh!
.
No sarcasm or innuendo!!
.
Craig won’t be allowed to post on his own blog now.
.
First we’re not allowed to be what you call “personal”. Now we’re not allowed to use traditional figures of the language.
.
Clark. I do hope this is your idea of a pisstake on some of the more amusing features of PC.
Technicolour, there should be a debate about immigration rate and/or eligibility, because it is a matter of democracy. I asked you before, do you advocate unlimited immigration? If you don’t, and you also oppose debate on the subject, what is left?
Herbie, not no sarcasm and innuendo, just a bit less, for my sake, is all I’m asking. When sarcasm is a reply to sarcasm is a reply to sarcasm, I start getting lost. I’ve never had trouble understanding Craig’s posts.
Clark: “Nextus, it probably isn’t Suhayl’s fault. I have specifically requested that people ask straight questions rather than employing sarcasm and innuendo.”
– Accepted. That could probably explain the disconcerting switch in tone. It’s pretty sound advice, as long as the rules are mutually understood and the queries are genuine (i.e. not leading to a rhetorical trap, as in the “Surely you’re not saying …” prompts). It’s probably unrealistic to expect the answer to be structured and itemised in the same way as the question, unless the person has already agreed to an interrogation. Thanks for that clarification.
I had a conversation with a Welsh person in Wales. Some background: I was visiting an English person in Wales. I met quite a few people through the person I was visiting, and the majority were English.
.
This Welsh person had grown up in a house on the same hillside as an English resident that I was visiting. S/he told me that as a child, s/he would visit all sorts of Welsh people in the cottages and farms on the hillside, but that now, it was over five miles to next nearest Welsh inhabitant. About half of the residences were occupied by English people, and half owned by English people but left to stand empty as holiday homes.
Nextus: Komodo has responded, as far as I remember, to various questions by ignoring them, as Nuid has also pointed out, though it has not stopped him from more posts which also beg questions. To suggest that Suhayl’s careful, thought-through patience is just him ‘following some kind of manual’ is, frankly, trivialising his questions, and rude. But I guess, since you’re throwing around insults like “passive-aggressive faux innocence” you know that. Btw, in case they didn’t include it in your manual, the use of the term ‘simply’ is generally understood to mean that the issue is a straightforward one. It is; Suhayl is trying to get some answers.
Clark, about Labour or their multi-cultural project. I am as I said, aware that we are talking about real people in a real situation who no-one has managed to show are actually harming this country in any way other than an imaginary and therefore hysterical one. I think it is striking that some of the contributors are saying ‘oh, the ones who came here recently; they’re alright’ (Herbie) and some of them are saying ‘oh the old ones were alright; they integrated’ (whatever that means. Komodo).Still ‘us’ and ‘them’; still divide and rule. And on that note, I’m going for a walk.
The Welsh person’s primary language was Welsh. Since growing up, s/he has far fewer people with whom to share his/her primary language.
.
Anyone know if Welsh has a way to specify a person without specifying their sex? Maybe I should find a new language. This one has big failings.
Technicolour, when you get back from your walk, I will again mention that you haven’t answered any of my concerns over the course of days.
“Can you tell me why people in Wales burned second homes owned by English people?”
.
I know your question wasn’t for me, Nevermind, but I was in Wales a lot during those years. I had (formal) connections with the language movement in Ireland (the hoped-for restoration of the Irish langauge) and through that, with Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg, and Dafydd Iwan and Co. I frequently attended the Eisteddfod in Wales and the Mod in Scotland. The burning down of English second-homes (although I don’t defend it) was done as a protection of the Welsh language, which was already under threat.
.
When a dominant language like English is introduced into an area where the native langauge is dying, the local people, who already speak English, tend to defer to the incoming English-speakers, rather than refusing to speak English thereby forcing the newcomers to learn the local language. And if enough of this goes on, the native langauge dies, eventually.
.
I was in Wales this past July, and as ever, it was fascinating to me to hear groups of young teenagers in the streets in Caernarfon, all chatting away in Welsh, completely unselfconsciously. The Welsh langauge is much healthier (in terms of numbers who speak it daily) than Irish or Scots Gaidhlig – although I’m not suggesting that this is because English-owned homes were burned down. As Technicolour said, the handful of people involved were nationalist separatists anyway. I can’t remember if Cymdeithas denounced them or not.
.
Crab,
I’m grateful for your concern. I’m not upset, or at least, if I am upset it’s on behalf of others, and not for myself.
.
Clark,
You needn’t worry about further sarcasm from me. I’ve finished with Komodo and I rarely use sarcasm other than with people whom I perceive to be too smug for their own good.
Nextus, regarding Technicoulour’s complaint: ‘But I guess, since you’re throwing around insults like “passive-aggressive faux innocence”’ – I second that. I think that there is insufficient information in text communication for you to start making any psychological diagnosis. You did that to me before; you were well off course, and you really pissed me off.
Looks like typing at speed produces a new word: langauge. I have no idea what it means. 🙂
Technicolour: “To suggest that Suhayl’s careful, thought-through patience is just him ‘following some kind of manual’ is, frankly, trivialising his questions, and rude.”
– It was a genuine query, not a suggestion – a ‘simple question’ one could say, if that’s not being too ironic. He was obviously using a tactic, and Clark explained a reason for it, which cleared the matter up. All’s fine. I would caution, however, that if the questions are repeated every time Komodo tries to post something (as has happened to others in the past), I think it will stifle the free exchange of ideas and make for a very monotonous blog thread.
.
FYI, the meaning of “simply” is not that simple at all. In addition to its literal meaning, it has a rhetorical sense which depends on context. In debates it’s very often used as a way to patronise the opposition, and people are taught to be very wary of it in conflict resolution. It’s not banned by any means; it just has to be used and evaluated wisely.
.
I agree with your other comments on ‘them’ and ‘us’ thinking. I hope you enjoy (enjoyed?) your walk. (Let me stress that’s not meant with any hint of sarcasm.)
.
@ Cryptonym & Thatcrab: you’re both articulating the tensions between deterministic embodiment and existentialism very well. I hope you keep it going.
Nuid, thanks. I’d just like you to consider Komodo’s other input on this site, our dragon’s heart seems to be in the right place on many issues, and it can get really difficult at times, if it feels like you’re opposing a lot of other contributors. When comments arrive quickly, some comments are written hastily. I’ve been having that problem myself.
@Clark: noted, and thanks for drawing my attention to it. I reiterate there are no overtones of psychopathology – I’m talking about a philosophical debating tactic, not a cognitive disorder. But I’ll be more careful in future. Cheers.
Chris Jones: please don’t label anyone childish, even if that’s what you think. It’ll just entrench views on both sides, and doesn’t help the free and civil exchange of ideas. Diplomacy is the way forward, imo!
.
I second Clark’s request to keep things civil, and to reduce sarcasm where possible. This isn’t political correctness – it’s an attempt to keep the discussion productive.
.
On a general note, there seems now to be a “you can’t ask that” going both ways in this debate. In some ways this is a good thing; if at least one proponent from each side has suggested that certain questions cannot be asked, then it is evened out. My view is that everyone should be open to answering questions directly – Clark for one side, and Suhayl for the other, both have asked unanswered questions that were asked in a civil manner.
.
Nextus: re “trick” questions, I think it is fine for someone to say “I won’t answer X”, so long as that can be justified. But I think the default position should be that we should answer, even if it reveals weak points in our position, or makes us uncomfortable at reasonable subsequent logical inferences. The alternative is that we’re all cagey about we personally believe, so we don’t share that information, and thus we suffer a reduction in what we can learn here (even from people with whom we disagree).
Ok, Clark. I’ll be good.
Clark. It was a short walk. I am going to ignore my ‘reasons to be furious with you’; just so you know. I don’t tend to be able to be even cross for long.
OK so.
“there should be a debate about immigration rate and/or eligibility, because it is a matter of democracy.”
Well, that’s your point of view. And I’m all for free speech. I think Suhayl has given several reasons why what is framed as a ‘debate’ in fact is often an excuse to recycle the same old animadversions and derogatory, if not downright inflammatory statements which lead at best to vulnerable people being victimised and/or attacked by a minority group and at worst to the kind of large scale situation we now see in Greece. But I think the UK is too chilled for that, on the whole.
Otherwise, I was not being flippant when, way back, I said there are already rules about eligibility. There are. So how do we frame this debate? In terms of how I would formulating my ideal society? Or in terms of the restrictions we currently have?
“I asked you before, do you advocate unlimited immigration?”
For whom, and to where? Do you mean worldwide? Or do you mean that just one country eg the UK) should have open borders while everywhere else tells everyone else to fuck off?
It would be an interesting experiment, for sure. I wonder if people would come? Of course we would have to stop attacking other countries and creating desperate people first.
Everyone seems to forget that immigration also benefits *British* people. Hundreds and hundreds of thousands of us – millions – have settled happily abroad. Would I, personally, like to return to the Gerald Durrell days, where one could just leap on a boat from here and go and live in Greece? Of course. It’s nice. It’s human.
Otherwise, I gave my criteria (for what they’re worth) in a quite early post above. I can try and find them again for you, if you like?
“If you don’t, and you also oppose debate on the subject, what is left?”
I think, as extensive posts which have left my hands dropping and my work undone attest, I do not oppose debate on the subject.
Techicolour wrote “I imagine that a very few Welsh people burnt down a few British second houses because a) they were pissed off by the British attacking them centuries before b) they resented houses standing empty c) they were nationalist separatists d) they were violently sad and bored – or a combination of all of them”
.
If this is the level of enlightment you have about culture and politics in Britain, you must be living in a cupboard. For a person who has being spouting off about being enriched by different cultures and cultural comprehension, you demonstrate considerable levels of bigotry and ignorance about the island you are presumably living on, and the three nations within it.Handy subjects of study for you to start with could be Celtic Britain,Wales,England,Scotland,Britain.
.
[Jon/mod – partially redacted, abusive]
and Clark, I’m aware that that was a lengthy answer to a short question. I think that’s what makes a real debate – it’s not just a simple question of ‘yes’ or ‘no’, because one is thinking, as well as responding. I guess if you put me up against a wall and threatened to shoot me if I said ‘depends’, the answer would be yes, for everyone.
Nextus, thanks – walk was too short, but rather beautiful. Purple/pink/orange sky at night: what are those shepherds up to? Otherwise, can one use a tactic without realising it? I think this is the problem with training/NLP etc – it tries to categorise normal interactions and make them seem cynically aware. You might consider that Suhayl was just being himself.
Technicolour, something I find very hypocritical from those media outlets that make a big fuss about the immigration rate is that usually they also advocate keeping the UK currency strong, and they never mention that a strong currency attracts immigration.
.
“I wonder if people would come?”
.
I’m sorry, I am not familiar with the immigration data. I’ve no idea how many people applied, and how many were turned away. What I know I’ve learned on this thread; that the UK population was increased by migration by about a quarter of a million people per year under the Labour policy, and that the ConDems slashed the number being granted residence so that there is now an overall outflow, ignoring illegals.
.
However, you ought to know, because you have strong opinions on this matter. That is why I was annoyed with you earlier, when someone quoted the overall inflow, and you asked how many had to be subtracted from that.
Chris Jones; actually I am partly Welsh and have spent half of my childhood and around a quarter of my adult life living very happily in Wales, despite having an English accent (from being brought up there). Apologies if I have offended some sensibilities but why don’t you just explain where you think I have got it wrong?
Clark, the question was, irrespective of the jockeying about numbers, what *harm* has it done? What is ‘horrendous’ about the figures? Apart from the scaremongering?
Numbers represent real people. You have a right to be cross with me for pointing that out? I beg your pardon?
Technicolour, you have strong opinions on this, so you should understand the policy that you are supporting. When you see the overall inflow figure, you shouldn’t be asking how many need to be subtracted, because you should know that the subtraction has already been done. Asking that question implies either ignorance or dishonesty. You shouldn’t be asking me if people will come, you should already know how many people are being turned away by the policy that you support.
Technicolour – Thats strange, i don’t recall seeing you around
Sorry, Clark, I don’t understand. What ‘policy do I support’? Whose? The Conservatives? Once again, you are giving me the choice between accusing me of dishonesty, and I have had enough of that, or ‘ignorance’ where I think you’ll find that I said that my hands were hurting too much to look up the exact figure yet again (I get RSI though I am pissed off to have to admit it).
I am not ‘asking you how many people will come’ based on the current lamentable status quo. I was questioning whether, if the UK stopped attacking and meddling in other countries, and if there was an open border, how many people would still want to come here. Apologies if I did not make this clear. Your point about a ‘strong currency’ is interesting, and I refer you to Keynes’ original formulation for the bancor which would obviate all that.
But this is in the realms of open debate about a positive future, not a reaction to far right propaganda about the present, which seems to be an overriding meme; not just here but around Europe. You are somehow missing the chance to acknowledge that this debate is being framed as ‘us’ versus ‘them’, and the consequences which can result from dehumanising real people as ‘figures’. I don’t understand why. I do understand that you like Komodo and find his links and postings on other subjects valuable. I think that you might, however, consider that one is able to disagree with a person’s stance on an issue without taking down their contributions as a whole, and this is where I will leave you. Goodnight.
Technicolour, you ask what harm the high overall inflow has done. The answer is different from different people’s perspectives. That harm can be done has been demonstrated by the case of English immigration into Wales, where a language was nearly eradicated before legal protections were introduced. Remember that the Asian populations are much greater than that of the UK, just as England’s population is much greater than that of Wales. Being overwhelmed is not impossible.
.
I can understand that people who have lived a long time in a given place, the character of which has been completely changed by immigration, may feel that something has been lost. I commented days ago about a pub landlord I spoke to in Chelmsford who felt that way, due to migration of young, predominantly white English Londoners out of London, greatly changing the character of Chelmsford. International migration can have similar effects.
.
I think it is wrong of you to dismiss so many people’s feelings as “scaremongering”, or the result thereof. Yes, there is lots of scaremongering, and when it is done to sell newspapers, that is wrong. But it sells papers because it speaks to something people feel; it’s not a one-way process.
7 August 2012
Alcohol and eggs thrown at Islamic centre in Horley
An Islamic centre in Surrey has been vandalised with alcohol and eggs thrown at the building.
.
The centre, which is on the corner of High Street and Yattendon Road, in Horley, also had graffiti sprayed on the main door.
.
Surrey Police have appealed for any witnesses to the vandalism, which took place between 00:00 and 01:30 BST on Sunday, to come forward.
.
Sgt Simon Ward said it had “deeply upset” the Islamic community in Horley. (BBC)
~~~~
Racism is alive and well in deepest Surrey. Note the police and the BBC call it vandalism.
Jon – You ask so nicely, but yes i get your point and agree with your edit, even though i would say ‘nincampoop’ is fairly innocuous!
Technicolour, oh, you’d gone; hopefully you’ll see this tomorrow. I’m sorry about your RSI, but if you engaged in a straightforward manner rather than evading so much we could all do less typing for more progress. If you’re using a laptop, try an external keyboard; laptops give me cramps and make me squint.
.
I don’t think it’s a fair argument to say that all those other policies should be changed, including the introduction of an international currency (!), before we can even discuss immigration figures without being labelled as scaremongers whose questions about policy necessarily incite racist attacks. In fact, I think such a position is ridiculous and extreme.