Article

2005-03-25 Britain

Chancellor Brown shamelessly shills for Labour's traditional Muslim vote

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Bulldog 2005-03-25 4:23:09 AM|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Politics is demographics as Maggie well understood.

Posted by phil_b 2005-03-25 4:30:05 AM|| 2005-03-25 4:30:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Nice bit of moral equivalence there, phil_b. Just like Brown's 'definition of heroes', in fact.

Posted by Bulldog 2005-03-25 4:39:12 AM|| 2005-03-25 4:39:12 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Mr Brown, whose father was a Church of Scotland minister, praised the teachings of Islam and defined a hero as "someone who has given their life to something bigger than themselves".

Would he like to be a hero himself?

Posted by gromgoru 2005-03-25 9:32:15 AM|| 2005-03-25 9:32:15 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 I wonder which of the things Gordon Brown said that Michael Howard would care to disagree with. Think Mr. Howard will equate being a muslim with belonging to the SS? Dont think so. Esp if, after winning, Mr. Howard expects to keep working with friendly muslims toward the democratization of the Mid east. Is he going to continue that policy? Or is he intending to break with Dubya?

Posted by Uleque Clavish6227 2005-03-25 11:45:49 AM|| 2005-03-25 11:45:49 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 oops that was me

Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-03-25 11:46:15 AM|| 2005-03-25 11:46:15 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Bulldog, I have no idea what your point was. I was merely saying that in a democracy once any group reaches significant numbers politicians will pander to their beliefs and predujices in order to get their vote. Its inherent in the system (democracy). Doesn't mean I like it. In fact I think it sucks. But as someone said 'Democracy is the worst possible form of government, until you consider the alternatives.'

Posted by phil_b 2005-03-25 1:54:15 PM|| 2005-03-25 1:54:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 I wonder which of the things Gordon Brown said that Michael Howard would care to disagree with.

How about the claim that Muslims are heroes because they have a religion they're nuts about. Isn't that a little insulting to the rest of us - those of other faiths, atheists and agnostics? Are people who believe in the Loch Ness Monster also heroes. Or people who campaign for the BNP - because they've given their life to something bigger than themselves? Brown's choice of phrase merely indicates how utterly desperate Labour are to re-establish and reclaim the Muslim block vote that they lost over Iraq. Typical of left-wing parties, Labour usually relies on support from minorities which it vociferously claims to hold in the greatest admiration, and promises to promote the interests of at the expense of the less visible majority. Heroes? Give me a break. This is pursuit of the multiculturalist agenda at its most cynical and brazen; purely for partisan advantage, spurred by desperation.

Not all religious minorities seem worthy of hero status to Brown, though. I've yet to hear him feting any other minority anywhere near so ridiculously. Tell me the last time you heard any politician, let alone Brown, describing Jews as our modern heroes: standing for the highest ideals, bearing burdens, and bringing hope to Britain, for instance? In contrast to their apparent hero-worship of Muslims, Labour prefer to stereotype the less numerous Jews as Fagan figues - they made such associations wrt the Tory leadership early in the election campaign, and rightly got their fingers burnt (though no doubt whoever was responsible congratulated themselves on having successfully got their odious message across).

Why do you think Brown saying that Muslims are "heroes" has anything whatsoever to do with Howard and Dubya, btw? What's with the straw man? You don't have to prostrate yourself in front of people in order to not alienate them. Perhaps you think British Muslims would reject Howard simply because he's Jewish? Does being Jewish make him less able to pursue the WoT than Blair?

Posted by Bulldog 2005-03-25 2:42:43 PM|| 2005-03-25 2:42:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 phil_b why did you drag Maggie into the debate if not to impart some equivalency between her and Brown? I assume that was your intention, or you wouldn't have mentioned her at all.

Don't you recognise the difference between a politician who wins elections because they offer positive change for the whole population through radical, and sometimes painful, economic reform, and a politician who absurdly genuflects to a religious minority constituency, pleading for their votes with mere patronising flattery? Do you really think that both are simply pander[ing] to [...] beliefs and predujices?

That's not drawing moral equivalence? Bullshit.

Posted by Bulldog 2005-03-25 2:53:02 PM|| 2005-03-25 2:53:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 I mentioned Maggie becuase she understood that you can change the demographics that underly politics. In her case by decreasing the numbers working for the government and increasing the number of property owners and shareholders.

Posted by phil_b 2005-03-25 3:46:23 PM|| 2005-03-25 3:46:23 PM|| Front Page Top

04:14 GIOTTO
04:07 GIOTTO
04:00 GIOTTO
03:55 GIOTTO
03:48 GIOTTO
03:38 GIOTTO
03:34 GIOTTO
03:14 GIOTTO
03:08 GIOTTO
03:05 GIOTTO
03:00 GIOTTO
02:50 GIOTTO
02:19 GIOTTO
00:01 Zhang Fei
23:55 DMFD
23:49 Alaska Paul
23:43 Robert Crawford
23:39 Alaska Paul
23:25 Old Patriot
23:24 .com
23:19 .com
23:11 VRWconspiracy
22:56 Sobiesky
22:55 Old Patriot