Great article in the Telegraph on the migrant crisis. The attitudes towards the migrants that I have read here by most of the pbCOM fraternity is utterly appalling.
There is not a single person in the Calais camp who has not chosen to be there because they are not content with the plenty of safe nations they have passed through already. Why should we see these people as victims of anything but their own choices?
I feel most sympathy for the lorry drivers who are having their livelihoods ruined. Many of them are threatened on a regular basis as they pass through Calais, often with weaponry by some of these thugs.
Calling the migrants thugs and criminals. Demonising them with the stories of threatening lorry drivers with clubs- how much of that is true?
You know what the Nazis demonised the Jews as criminals and look where that got us.
We are spending millions building fences in Calais, militarising it etc... Does any of this sound familiar?
Ludicrous Godwinism there from Tyson. You are as bad as the idiot woman on The World Tonight last night who was accusing Eurotunnel of making up the numbers of people attacking the terminal even though every single one is documented.
Almost as ludicrous as the prominent PB Tory who on here compared the excoriation of bankers to the persecution of the Jews in the 1930s. That was hilarous.
The migrants come to get our welfare state - which doesn't require proper checks and balances.
No they don't, they come to work and make a better life for themselves and their family.
You could abolish our welfare state tomorrow but it won't make much if any difference to migrant numbers. We are a wealthy developed nation and even a minimum wage job (even a cash in hand below minimum wage job) in the UK can provide a far better lifestyle than is possible in Eritrea, Senegal or Libya.
That's a good thing, we wouldn't want not to have a better lifestyle than them, but it means what we take for granted is a magnet for those that don't have it.
France offers all that except the benefits... and yet they are trying to leave France.
Socialist France lacks an economy as attractive as ours. While we're approaching full employment, their unemployment rate is over 10% while Italy has an unemployment rate over 12%. Jobs are easier to find in the UK.
France also lacks the English language which many migrants can grasp better than French.
You are not sounding very convincing. Remind me of how immigration looked during the Brown years, the economy was in the toilet, unemployment was very high by British standards, and yet immigration was at record levels.
Quite a lot of African speak French, most of North West Africa has French as a first or second language, and English in Somalia (for example) is hardly spoken since independence, and only now used by older people.
By all means, let Labour play its games. But whilst it is, it really shouldn’t ask the rest of us to take it seriously as a party of opposition, or a potential party of government, or anything else, frankly. Labour is preparing to elect Jeremy Corbyn as its leader. And in the entire history of the Labour party, no one has ever played a bigger, or more stupid, or more self-destructive game than that.
Mr. Charles, some of us don't have even a single thread here to our name.
For some reason a piece detailing the difference between thermal degradation and abrasive rubber wear on the performance on a tyre compound is not deemed sufficiently 'political' enough.
Well, you just have to preface it with an analogy about how Labour are like one compound, the Tories another, and the LDs are the tarmac, and people will be halfway in to the piece before they realise they have been tricked.
Given that Corbyn seems so far to be benefiting from exposure, whereas Hilary Benn clearly did not, the premise of this thread isn't that convincing in terms of the trend in the polls.
That said, the difference between the final YouGov poll and the actual result for Benn is significant, but YouGov were a lot closer in the last leadership election (even though they overstated Ed). I would generally expect polls to be a lot more accurate in leadership than deputy leadership elections per se.
Allowing for all that, it's clear enough that Corbyn is going to top the ballot for first preferences, even though the overall outcome can't be called.
The migrants come to get our welfare state - which doesn't require proper checks and balances.
No they don't, they come to work and make a better life for themselves and their family.
You could abolish our welfare state tomorrow but it won't make much if any difference to migrant numbers. We are a wealthy developed nation and even a minimum wage job (even a cash in hand below minimum wage job) in the UK can provide a far better lifestyle than is possible in Eritrea, Senegal or Libya.
So why don't they stop Switzerland - far closer to the med ?
If people desire to immigrte between countries then there are processes and rules to be followed, I've known quite a few immigrants and would-be who have followed these rules or found they were not eligible and so either have or have not moved here.
None of them however are trying to break into the country on a back of a lorry from Calais. We should be fair and just to those who are trying to follow legal rules, and absolubtely not allow people to stay who have made no attempt to follow legal process.
One reason for the distaste for the actions of the lorry jumpers in Calais is this contempt for the rules, and of the rule of law. These are fairly consistently cited as core British values.
These are people whose experience of government and authority is at best one of incompetence and corruption and at worse one of tyranny and despotism. Starting with this, the road to Calais then involves bribery, smuggling, evasion of border controls then very often destruction of documents to make deportation impossible. It is hard to find a further point from the rule of law, which is why of all the potential migrants on the planet the ones at Calais should be bottom of the list. There needs to be an Australian type solution.
Steep Holm or a remote and uninhabited Scottish island?
I have never had any other illusion that the migrants are here primarily for economic purposes. It is Turkey, Iran and the neighbouring states that are doing the heavily lifting for those poor souls fleeing for their own safety.
History is comprised of people changing their lives to improve themselves and their families. Good thing.
It is also comprised of periods where people have provoked fear, scaremongered, use lowest common denominator reactionary politics which results in persecution, hatred, racism and so forth. Bad thing.
I often read on this site the attacks on the left for their supposed moral superiority. And usually I try to convince myself that right wing people are moral- they just have a different view on how things should be.
But I'm beginning to think differently. The right wing views on the migrant folk are just unsavoury.
If people desire to immigrte between countries then there are processes and rules to be followed, I've known quite a few immigrants and would-be who have followed these rules or found they were not eligible and so either have or have not moved here.
None of them however are trying to break into the country on a back of a lorry from Calais. We should be fair and just to those who are trying to follow legal rules, and absolubtely not allow people to stay who have made no attempt to follow legal process.
One reason for the distaste for the actions of the lorry jumpers in Calais is this contempt for the rules, and of the rule of law. These are fairly consistently cited as core British values.
These are people whose experience of government and authority is at best one of incompetence and corruption and at worse one of tyranny and despotism. Starting with this, the road to Calais then involves bribery, smuggling, evasion of border controls then very often destruction of documents to make deportation impossible. It is hard to find a further point from the rule of law, which is why of all the potential migrants on the planet the ones at Calais should be bottom of the list. There needs to be an Australian type solution.
That hits the nail on the head. There was one interviewed on Radio 4 last night who compared the British government to Assad, because he wasn't being let through. He said the British government was "killing" the people who were falling under trains etc. This sense of absolute entitlement to come here is what infuriates people.
The migrants come to get our welfare state - which doesn't require proper checks and balances.
No they don't, they come to work and make a better life for themselves and their family.
You could abolish our welfare state tomorrow but it won't make much if any difference to migrant numbers. We are a wealthy developed nation and even a minimum wage job (even a cash in hand below minimum wage job) in the UK can provide a far better lifestyle than is possible in Eritrea, Senegal or Libya.
That's a good thing, we wouldn't want not to have a better lifestyle than them, but it means what we take for granted is a magnet for those that don't have it.
France offers all that except the benefits... and yet they are trying to leave France.
Socialist France lacks an economy as attractive as ours. While we're approaching full employment, their unemployment rate is over 10% while Italy has an unemployment rate over 12%. Jobs are easier to find in the UK.
France also lacks the English language which many migrants can grasp better than French.
You are not sounding very convincing. Remind me of how immigration looked during the Brown years, the economy was in the toilet, unemployment was very high by British standards, and yet immigration was at record levels.
Quite a lot of African speak French, and English in Somalia (for example) is hardly spoken since independence, and only now used by older people.
Thankfully as dreadful as Brown was, unemployment was high by British standards but not international standards. Our economy was never anything other than a magnet even if Brown caused tremendous damage as far as we're concerned.
You sometimes don't see the forest for the trees, it doesn't matter how poor by our own standards the economy gets - until we become worse than international comparisons we will be a very attractive destination for migrants. Plus we legalised uncapped migration from Eastern Europe so of course migration numbers shot up, only a complete fool would think they wouldn't.
Incidentally I'm not saying whether this is right or wrong. There is a difference between an excuse and an explanation. As long as Britain is the kind of country we want it to be, it will be the kind of country other people will want to be in too.
There is no law of politics decreeing that parties endure for ever. Britain’s main opposition party is now perilously close to securing its own extinction. If Jeremy Corbyn becomes Labour leader through the party’s absurd and chaotic procedures, electoral catastrophe is inevitable. Labour has been there before but this time defeat may foreclose any possibility of eventual recovery.
The migrants come to get our welfare state - which doesn't require proper checks and balances.
No they don't, they come to work and make a better life for themselves and their family.
You could abolish our welfare state tomorrow but it won't make much if any difference to migrant numbers. We are a wealthy developed nation and even a minimum wage job (even a cash in hand below minimum wage job) in the UK can provide a far better lifestyle than is possible in Eritrea, Senegal or Libya.
So why don't they stop Switzerland - far closer to the med ?
If people desire to immigrte between countries then there are processes and rules to be followed, I've known quite a few immigrants and would-be who have followed these rules or found they were not eligible and so either have or have not moved here.
None of them however are trying to break into the country on a back of a lorry from Calais. We should be fair and just to those who are trying to follow legal rules, and absolubtely not allow people to stay who have made no attempt to follow legal process.
One reason for the distaste for the actions of the lorry jumpers in Calais is this contempt for the rules, and of the rule of law. These are fairly consistently cited as core British values.
These are people whose experience of government and authority is at best one of incompetence and corruption and at worse one of tyranny and despotism. Starting with this, the road to Calais then involves bribery, smuggling, evasion of border controls then very often destruction of documents to make deportation impossible. It is hard to find a further point from the rule of law, which is why of all the potential migrants on the planet the ones at Calais should be bottom of the list. There needs to be an Australian type solution.
Steep Holm or a remote and uninhabited Scottish island?
St. Kilda.
Castellina in Chianti.
And wait for the shrieking from various Lefties as the value of their exquisitely restored farmhouses plummet.
Mr. Eagles, true. It's unfortunate, because Basil II is definitely not the sort of chap anybody laughed at.
Damned shame his brother was so bloody awful. And his nieces.
Mind you, there's a vast yawning chasm of public awareness where the Eastern Roman Empire is concerned. After I'd finished John Julius Norwich's excellent three part history (which I heartily recommend to anyone who has yet to read it) it felt bizarre that I'd previously known nothing of such a long-lasting and important part of European history.
Mr. P, whilst I agree with the sentiment, I'm not sure I can see who could replace Labour. SNP stops at the border, Greens have limited appeal, UKIP could get some social conservatives perhaps but not the metropolitan left. I think only a purple and yellow tsunami could do it, but I can't see either happening. Labour will muddle on even if Corbyn wins and even if he's deeply unpopular.
Guru Dan who called the election is back from his holidays
"A party which elects Jeremy Corbyn to win back an electorate which voted Tory is not worth anyone's time or attention
"By all means, let Labour play its games. But whilst it is, it really shouldn’t ask the rest of us to take it seriously as a party of opposition, or a potential party of government, or anything else, frankly. Labour is preparing to elect Jeremy Corbyn as its leader. And in the entire history of the Labour party, no one has ever played a bigger, or more stupid, or more self-destructive game than that. "
It's a good point; I'm only betting tiny sums on this contest.
I simply don't understand the Labour electorate and can't read it. At current odds, I'm probably most tempted by Yvette.
That sounds right , Kendall has no chance and Burnham seems more limp and pathetic every time he appears on TV; i.m not even remotely impressed with this Corbyn-mania and I suspect that it will dissipate for cooler heads to prevail ; what it has done is to wake up the voters and concentrate their minds wonderfully to the dangers they face And let's face it , Cooper is no Thatcher but she has an impressive resume of 18yrs , is slick and polished and handles the Press with ease , compare that with Andy U -Turnham ;furthermore she has a decisive advantage insomuch that the LP are an idealistic party that promotes women's rights and feminism ; they are not going to miss an opportunity to elect their history making first female leader by electing a retread from the failed 1970s
Not sure whether you are talking about Tommy Cooper there, must be some set of rosy specs you have to see her as good in any department.
If people desire to immigrte between countries then there are processes and rules to be followed, I've known quite a few immigrants and would-be who have followed these rules or found they were not eligible and so either have or have not moved here.
None of them however are trying to break into the country on a back of a lorry from Calais. We should be fair and just to those who are trying to follow legal rules, and absolubtely not allow people to stay who have made no attempt to follow legal process.
One reason for the distaste for the actions of the lorry jumpers in Calais is this contempt for the rules, and of the rule of law. These are fairly consistently cited as core British values.
These are people whose experience of government and authority is at best one of incompetence and corruption and at worse one of tyranny and despotism. Starting with this, the road to Calais then involves bribery, smuggling, evasion of border controls then very often destruction of documents to make deportation impossible. It is hard to find a further point from the rule of law, which is why of all the potential migrants on the planet the ones at Calais should be bottom of the list. There needs to be an Australian type solution.
He's right on the money - for once I disagreed with Danny Fink when he got all it's-not-cricket about Tories4 Corbyn.
If Labour are stupid enough to encourage entryism - well it'll come from all sorts, Greenies/CNDers/SWPers/Commies/LDs and yes Tories.
Every group is seeking to shift the argument onto ground that suits their own agenda. I don't see anything more virtuous in the entryism of Greenies or SWPers than Tories myself. We all want Corbyn to win - just for differing reasons.
Though not everyone was as excited as me. My announcement that I had rejoined Labour enraged some of my new comrades on the Left. Apparently, you can only join up and vote for Jeremy Corbyn if your really, really are Left wing. You have to be pure of mind and spirit to vote for their man. Sorry, our man. Which to me seems a touch factional. But then factionalism is what the Left does. So I forgive you, brothers and sisters.
Some people on the Right were a bit enraged as well. “This isn’t a game," I was informed haughtily.
By all means, let Labour play its games. But whilst it is, it really shouldn’t ask the rest of us to take it seriously as a party of opposition, or a potential party of government, or anything else, frankly. Labour is preparing to elect Jeremy Corbyn as its leader. And in the entire history of the Labour party, no one has ever played a bigger, or more stupid, or more self-destructive game than that.
I don't know where the sudden craze for Emojis has come from
I see now this is meant to be a 'thumbs up', but from a distance, on a low resolution monitor, with poor eyesite, it looks like a hand with an extended middle finger...
There is no law of politics decreeing that parties endure for ever. Britain’s main opposition party is now perilously close to securing its own extinction. If Jeremy Corbyn becomes Labour leader through the party’s absurd and chaotic procedures, electoral catastrophe is inevitable. Labour has been there before but this time defeat may foreclose any possibility of eventual recovery.
The bleating from Labour notables of impending doom should Corbyn win are becoming increasingly more hyperbolic. - Really don’t know what they hope to achieve by doing so as it just makes them look panicked and ridiculous and will be ignored as Corbyn supporters aren’t listening.
Comment on a Corbyn article on the Speccie has the ring of truth about it.
9th May 2020
Corbyn wasnt a proper socialist what we need is a real socialist, come on comrades just one more push and we will be there.
It is interesting to reflect that only four avowedly Socialist parties have ever won free and fair national elections. (OK, so a couple of 'milk and water socialists' - Attlee, Hollande, Prodi etc - have won them too, but not real, firebrand, shoot all the bosses socialists.) The first were the Socialist Revolutionaries in Russia in 1917. They were kicked out by the Bolsheviks three days later. The second were the Spanish Republicans in 1931. They lasted a whole five years before the Spanish Civil War began, and ultimately swept them away. Marshall Tito was next in 1945. Finally, there was Allende in Chile in 1970, who was overthrown and killed by Pinochet in 1973. Tito's the odd one out - having got power, he kept it (admittedly by rigging all subsequent elections).
And yet the socialist 'comrades' seem to have difficulty understanding that socialism is simply not what people want. Hence the famous remark 'dissolve the people and elect another'.
One reason for the distaste for the actions of the lorry jumpers in Calais is this contempt for the rules, and of the rule of law. These are fairly consistently cited as core British values.
These are people whose experience of government and authority is at best one of incompetence and corruption and at worse one of tyranny and despotism. Starting with this, the road to Calais then involves bribery, smuggling, evasion of border controls then very often destruction of documents to make deportation impossible. It is hard to find a further point from the rule of law, which is why of all the potential migrants on the planet the ones at Calais should be bottom of the list. There needs to be an Australian type solution.
@Fox the migrants are looking to improve their lives. They have to use these means otherwise they couldn't move. Many hundreds of thousands were marooned in Libya following our contribution in dismantling a functioning state, left with no means of supporting their families, forced to move on to get work.
Getting around laws does not automatically make you a criminal. How would you describe people who sheltered Jews during the war?
The conditions in Calais are appalling. It is desperation that forces them to risk their lives to jump lorries. I'm incredulous that their actions should provoke hostility and hatred- in people like you Dr Fox. It makes me feel sad.
@Charles "The time for a convention was before the referendum. (As I suggested in my first - and only thread - on here some years ago). Now the opportunity has passed."
So let's not try to fix the dogs dinner of a constitutional settlement we have, because the SNP would advocate a rejection of it in Scotland? Hmm, I am not sure that is the most compelling of arguments. But it is one that accepts the UK will disappear shortly. Under a Tory government.
Comment on a Corbyn article on the Speccie has the ring of truth about it.
9th May 2020
Corbyn wasnt a proper socialist what we need is a real socialist, come on comrades just one more push and we will be there.
It is interesting to reflect that only four avowedly Socialist parties have ever won free and fair national elections. (OK, so a couple of 'milk and water socialists' - Attlee, Hollande, Prodi etc - have won them too, but not real, firebrand, shoot all the bosses socialists.) The first were the Socialist Revolutionaries in Russia in 1917. They were kicked out by the Bolsheviks three days later. The second were the Spanish Republicans in 1931. They lasted a whole five years before the Spanish Civil War began, and ultimately swept them away. Marshall Tito was next in 1945. Finally, there was Allende in Chile in 1970, who was overthrown and killed by Pinochet in 1973. Tito's the odd one out - having got power, he kept it (admittedly by rigging all subsequent elections).
And yet the socialist 'comrades' seem to have difficulty understanding that socialism is simply not what people want. Hence the famous remark 'dissolve the people and elect another'.
Your knowledge of global history is clearly as sparing as your knowledge of Russian history. And do you not think the fact that most of the examples you quoted were overthrown by coups has nothing to do with their popularity - quite the opposite. As an aside, both the Allende and Republican governments were no more radical than most western social democratic governments.
There is no law of politics decreeing that parties endure for ever. Britain’s main opposition party is now perilously close to securing its own extinction. If Jeremy Corbyn becomes Labour leader through the party’s absurd and chaotic procedures, electoral catastrophe is inevitable. Labour has been there before but this time defeat may foreclose any possibility of eventual recovery.
The bleating from Labour notables of impending doom should Corbyn win are becoming increasingly more hyperbolic. - Really don’t know what they hope to achieve by doing so as it just makes them look panicked and ridiculous and will be ignored as Corbyn supporters aren’t listening.
Getting around laws does not automatically make you a criminal. How would you describe people who sheltered Jews during the war?
The conditions in Calais are appalling. It is desperation that forces them to risk their lives to jump lorries. I'm incredulous that their actions should provoke hostility and hatred- in people like you Dr Fox. It makes me feel sad.
Absolute nonsense. Breaking laws does automatically make you a criminal. That's a tautology as it is what the word means.
Sometimes in extreme circumstances breaking laws may be justified. But a criminal who breaks an unjust law is still a criminal, just with moral right on their side rather than the law's side.
Getting around laws does not automatically make you a criminal. How would you describe people who sheltered Jews during the war?
Stop waving that Tachrichim around.
Your continued use of Jews, most of whom settled here legally and peacefully, as an example to justify the entry into this country of those who wish to break the law, is to put it politely, extremely distasteful.
So let's not try to fix the dogs dinner of a constitutional settlement we have, because the SNP would advocate a rejection of it in Scotland? Hmm, I am not sure that is the most compelling of arguments. But it is one that accepts the UK will disappear shortly. Under a Tory government.
Shame Labour created the dogs dinner we have and have objected to every attempted solution we've come up with like EVEL.
Christ on a bike, is our resident ex-pat BTL landlord still flaunting his capacious and completely unrealistic social conscience and bleeding all over the forum ? In typical Labour fashion there isn't a word about who is going to pay for all these immigrants, where we will house them, there we will educate their children and where we will look after their health, not a word. There also isn't a word about the working class workers that will have their jobs devalued and their wages cut as a result of desperate immigrants prepared to work for peanuts. There isn't a word about how tens of thousands will follow when the first few thousand lead the way. There also isn't a world about why these people should be allowed into the country fast and on preferential terms to people that follow the lawful process and apply for a visa in their country of origin. This sort of attitude explains the UKIP surge in a nutshell.
If you want to include Allende and the Spanish Republicans you can probably add about forty other similarly social democratic governments, many of which were indeed overthrown by right wing coups (every time supported wholeheartedly by right-wingers, who only seem to support democracy if the people vote the right way historically) also.
Comment on a Corbyn article on the Speccie has the ring of truth about it.
9th May 2020
Corbyn wasnt a proper socialist what we need is a real socialist, come on comrades just one more push and we will be there.
It is interesting to reflect that only four avowedly Socialist parties have ever won free and fair national elections. (OK, so a couple of 'milk and water socialists' - Attlee, Hollande, Prodi etc - have won them too, but not real, firebrand, shoot all the bosses socialists.) The first were the Socialist Revolutionaries in Russia in 1917. They were kicked out by the Bolsheviks three days later. The second were the Spanish Republicans in 1931. They lasted a whole five years before the Spanish Civil War began, and ultimately swept them away. Marshall Tito was next in 1945. Finally, there was Allende in Chile in 1970, who was overthrown and killed by Pinochet in 1973. Tito's the odd one out - having got power, he kept it (admittedly by rigging all subsequent elections).
And yet the socialist 'comrades' seem to have difficulty understanding that socialism is simply not what people want. Hence the famous remark 'dissolve the people and elect another'.
Your knowledge of global history is clearly as sparing as your knowledge of Russian history.
You once again accuse me of being wrong without providing anything to back up your assertions. This is of course because we both know that I am right and you are wrong. I am a professional historian with a string of publications and a number of teaching appointments behind me. You on the other hand are, to misquote my John Buchan, a monotonous controversialist with a blog and apparently an inbuilt ability to see anything that does not fit your worldview.
At least Tyson tries to explain his points, even though some of them are rather surreal (Libya was a 'functioning state' under Gaddafi?)! Your answers to me would not even pass a GCSE exam. Simply saying that somebody is wrong when they provide inconvenient data proving you are wrong is not an argument. Having worked in the field of conspiracy theories (Christ Myth Theory, Princes in the Tower, Holocaust Denial) it is a common tactic among dogmatists but not particularly edifying.
Can anyone remember a bigger cut from a political bet? I'm sure there'll be some out there.
Intriguingly:
Established Washington press figures such as Walter Lippman and Jack Germond did not think McGovern had a chance of winning, proclaiming him "too decent" a man, not strong enough for a combative campaign, and too reflexively liberal. Jimmy "The Greek" Snyder gave 200–1 odds against McGovern winning.
If you want to include Allende and the Spanish Republicans you can probably add about forty other similarly social democratic governments, many of which were indeed overthrown by right wing coups (every time supported wholeheartedly by right-wingers, who only seem to support democracy if the people vote the right way historically) also.
Allende and the SR were not social democrats. They were Socialists, which in the context of the times means essentially Stalinists.
So let's not try to fix the dogs dinner of a constitutional settlement we have, because the SNP would advocate a rejection of it in Scotland? Hmm, I am not sure that is the most compelling of arguments. But it is one that accepts the UK will disappear shortly. Under a Tory government.
Shame Labour created the dogs dinner we have and have objected to every attempted solution we've come up with like EVEL.
EV4EL is not a solution. It is a short-term fix. And the government could not even get that right. A solution would be one that is agreed between all parties after detailed discussion at a constitutional convention and then endorsed by the electorate. But parties (and many of their supporters) will not see beyond short-term advantage and the next electoral cycle. Thus, some time within the next ten years the UK will disappear - on the watch of a Tory government.
Comment on a Corbyn article on the Speccie has the ring of truth about it.
9th May 2020
Corbyn wasnt a proper socialist what we need is a real socialist, come on comrades just one more push and we will be there.
It is interesting to reflect that only four avowedly Socialist parties have ever won free and fair national elections. (OK, so a couple of 'milk and water socialists' - Attlee, Hollande, Prodi etc - have won them too, but not real, firebrand, shoot all the bosses socialists.) The first were the Socialist Revolutionaries in Russia in 1917. They were kicked out by the Bolsheviks three days later. The second were the Spanish Republicans in 1931. They lasted a whole five years before the Spanish Civil War began, and ultimately swept them away. Marshall Tito was next in 1945. Finally, there was Allende in Chile in 1970, who was overthrown and killed by Pinochet in 1973. Tito's the odd one out - having got power, he kept it (admittedly by rigging all subsequent elections).
And yet the socialist 'comrades' seem to have difficulty understanding that socialism is simply not what people want. Hence the famous remark 'dissolve the people and elect another'.
Your knowledge of global history is clearly as sparing as your knowledge of Russian history. And do you not think the fact that most of the examples you quoted were overthrown by coups has nothing to do with their popularity - quite the opposite. As an aside, both the Allende and Republican governments were no more radical than most western social democratic governments.
The Spanish republicans lost the 1933 election, two years after taking office.
The period 1936-9 was marked by a radicalisation of the Spanish left, indeed their defeat in 1933 was preceded by disagreements between centrists and the far left.
Comment on a Corbyn article on the Speccie has the ring of truth about it.
9th May 2020
Corbyn wasnt a proper socialist what we need is a real socialist, come on comrades just one more push and we will be there.
It is interesting to reflect that only four avowedly Socialist parties have ever won free and fair national elections. (OK, so a couple of 'milk and water socialists' - Attlee, Hollande, Prodi etc - have won them too, but not real, firebrand, shoot all the bosses socialists.) The first were the Socialist Revolutionaries in Russia in 1917. They were kicked out by the Bolsheviks three days later. The second were the Spanish Republicans in 1931. They lasted a whole five years before the Spanish Civil War began, and ultimately swept them away. Marshall Tito was next in 1945. Finally, there was Allende in Chile in 1970, who was overthrown and killed by Pinochet in 1973. Tito's the odd one out - having got power, he kept it (admittedly by rigging all subsequent elections).
And yet the socialist 'comrades' seem to have difficulty understanding that socialism is simply not what people want. Hence the famous remark 'dissolve the people and elect another'.
Your knowledge of global history is clearly as sparing as your knowledge of Russian history.
You once again accuse me of being wrong without providing anything to back up your assertions. This is of course because we both know that I am right and you are wrong. I am a professional historian with a string of publications and a number of teaching appointments behind me. You on the other hand are, to misquote my John Buchan, a monotonous controversialist with a blog and apparently an inbuilt ability to see anything that does not fit your worldview.
At least Tyson tries to explain his points, even though some of them are rather surreal (Libya was a 'functioning state' under Gaddafi?)! Your answers to me would not even pass a GCSE exam. Simply saying that somebody is wrong when they provide inconvenient data proving you are wrong is not an argument. Having worked in the field of conspiracy theories (Christ Myth Theory, Princes in the Tower, Holocaust Denial) it is a common tactic among dogmatists but not particularly edifying.
If you genuinely are a professional historian then God help that profession. Please give examples of Spanish Republican and Allende policies that would be out of place in the manifestos of the Labour Party at that time.
Doubtless many Africans would be better off in London. But isn't that the point of migration- where the fittest, the most able, the best migrate to improve their lives and in doing so raise the bar all round. Called genetics, Darwinism, evolution.
That's not really Darwinism or evolution (and 'genetics' is the study of the chemical makeup of biological structures, so not really relevant here). Darwinism, which is not actually linked to Darwin's research, is the idea that stronger life forms kill weaker life forms and take their place and resources. Fortunately, nobody is suggesting that with regard to migration (although ironically, to link to your earlier point, it did have a very significant bearing on Nazi thought and may well have been a contributory factor in the Holocaust).
Evolution is the slightly different idea that due to gradual changes life forms better suited to their surroundings (e.g. long necks on giraffes to reach leaves on taller trees) will emerge over time. This is based on Darwin's ideas and is also now thought to be less than perfectly accurate as a description of the development of species (genetic mutation is now the more fashionable theory). Again, nobody is suggesting that this is a factor in the migrant crisis.
So I'm not at all clear what you are suggesting. Economic migration is not in any way part of an evolutionary or biological process. True, it will allow the fittest, most energetic members of a given group (in this case, homo sapiens) the theoretical chance of a better life and ostensibly the chance to widen the gene pool of their host nation. But that seems to me to be very much a secondary problem to the more immediate one of what the hell do we do to stop (1) people killing themselves jumping on/off trucks and trains (2) causing travel chaos and bringing a large chunk of the north-western European economy to a halt and (3) trying to keep discourse reasonably civilised when we discuss it rather than feeling the need to invoke Godwin's Law.
Sorry ydoethur but whilst I agree with the thrust and intent of your comments, your view of Darwinism and evolutionary theory in general is severely lacking.
That is a MASSIVE coup for Amazon if it goes ahead. I have both it and Netflix - and watch more Netflix by habit.
Top Gear will encourage me to use Amazon more often. I've just renewed my subs with them - about £6 a month and since I order almost everything online, oodles of free fast deliveries.
I'm not sure it'll go on for too long. I do wonder if it'll move to other channels but (from my very limited understanding of the matter) I don't think that's how these subscription channels work.
Bah. Not a fan of subscriptions at all.
Mr. Observer, agree that English votes for English laws is a stepping stone only, but no convention is needed, just an English Parliament. Conservative reticence and leftwing gerrymandering desires for carving up England into rubbish little assemblies are the obstacles to a sensible Parliament for England (which most people want but which the BBC and political class will barely even mention).
The migrants come to get our welfare state - which doesn't require proper checks and balances.
No they don't, they come to work and make a better life for themselves and their family.
You could abolish our welfare state tomorrow but it won't make much if any difference to migrant numbers. We are a wealthy developed nation and even a minimum wage job (even a cash in hand below minimum wage job) in the UK can provide a far better lifestyle than is possible in Eritrea, Senegal or Libya.
So why don't they stop Switzerland - far closer to the med ?
A lot of them do go to Switzerland (it's part of Schengen, so easy to get across the border).
But: in Switzerland, you won't be able to work without an ID card. (Which you can get as a Brit or a citizen of another EU country. But which you cannot as an illegal immigrant.) And the Swiss come down very hard on businesses that hire people without the proper documentation.
And: even assuming that you were able to get around this issue, you are unlikely to be bilingual in French and German, which is quite necessary if you want to work in a low-end job in Switzerland.
Seems Top Gear [well, Clarkson, Hammond and May] have signed with... Amazon Prime.
Bah. Was hoping ITV would get it.
Interesting. New networks such as Amazon are really snapping at the heels of the BBC. The latter meanwhile stands immobile, like a stunned rabbit facing the blinding headlights of a 38 tonne artic hurtling towards it on the M40.
The migrants come to get our welfare state - which doesn't require proper checks and balances.
No they don't, they come to work and make a better life for themselves and their family.
You could abolish our welfare state tomorrow but it won't make much if any difference to migrant numbers. We are a wealthy developed nation and even a minimum wage job (even a cash in hand below minimum wage job) in the UK can provide a far better lifestyle than is possible in Eritrea, Senegal or Libya.
So why don't they stop Switzerland - far closer to the med ?
A lot of them do go to Switzerland (it's part of Schengen, so easy to get across the border).
But: in Switzerland, you won't be able to work without an ID card. (Which you can get as a Brit or a citizen of another EU country. But which you cannot as an illegal immigrant.) And the Swiss come down very hard on businesses that hire people without the proper documentation.
And: even assuming that you were able to get around this issue, you are unlikely to be bilingual in French and German, which is quite necessary if you want to work in a low-end job in Switzerland.
(As an aside, the Swiss barely bother to deport. They don't allow people to sleep rough. And they don't give money. So, migrants effectively deport themselves to somewhere where they can work or where they get accommodation and benefits.)
"The right wing views on the migrant folk are just unsavoury."
Can you please explain why socialist governments in France and Italy are so awful that the migrants have to risk death in order to reach Tory-run Britain?
Getting around laws does not automatically make you a criminal. How would you describe people who sheltered Jews during the war?
Stop waving that Tachrichim around.
Your continued use of Jews, most of whom settled here legally and peacefully, as an example to justify the entry into this country of those who wish to break the law, is to put it politely, extremely distasteful.
Please desist from doing so.
But he is right to state that Jews were routinely cast as criminals and as illegal entryists. There's no getting round that. Large parts of the UK establishment and the general population were profoundly anti-Semitic up to and even during WW2.
Whilst it’s frustrating to see the Stop the War Campaign or other single issue groups promote signing up to vote Corbyn, it’s not improper. The system agreed by the Collins Review was deliberately set up to allow this kind of mass recruitment of registered supporters. Ironically, it was a sop to the Blairite right, who wanted primaries. I think that is called being hoist by your own petard. If Labour moderates haven’t recruited as many people as Corbyn we only have ourselves to blame...
and
A large slice of it has always been there – the infrastructure of the Labour left is well-developed and has proved surprisingly resilient and capable of winning internal party elections during the Blair and Brown years. Some of it such as the misnamed Campaign for Labour Party Democracy dates back to the 1970s and the growth of Bennism, other allied but also rival groups such as the Labour Representation Committee are more recent constructions. They have mailing lists, conferences, key contacts in almost every CLP used to proposing candidates in nomination meetings. Most of this ageing but experienced and highly motivated machine has swung into place behind the Corbyn machine. Not all though – a small number of key people who would usually be involved seem to have their qualms about whether Corbyn is actually a potential PM and have quietly stayed away. The Labour left has its own internal rivalries and hatreds but is good at keeping them behind closed doors.
Seems Top Gear [well, Clarkson, Hammond and May] have signed with... Amazon Prime.
Bah. Was hoping ITV would get it.
I wonder if Amazon Prime will keep it exclusive to them or will distribute after an initial period i.e. to Dave in the UK, History Channel in US?
I see Amazon are also moving into streaming music market as well.
This is a big moment for Amazon Prime. So far their original programming as been at best meh, in comparison to Netflix who have had some really big hits e.g. Amazon made Betas which was the right kind of show for current moment in time, but not funny. HBO then made Silicon Valley which is exactly the same premise and a massive massive hit.
"The right wing views on the migrant folk are just unsavoury."
Can you please explain why socialist governments in France and Italy are so awful that the migrants have to risk death in order to reach Tory-run Britain?
Getting around laws does not automatically make you a criminal. How would you describe people who sheltered Jews during the war?
The conditions in Calais are appalling. It is desperation that forces them to risk their lives to jump lorries. I'm incredulous that their actions should provoke hostility and hatred- in people like you Dr Fox. It makes me feel sad.
Absolute nonsense. Breaking laws does automatically make you a criminal. That's a tautology as it is what the word means.
Sometimes in extreme circumstances breaking laws may be justified. But a criminal who breaks an unjust law is still a criminal, just with moral right on their side rather than the law's side.
Philip- you are right. I meant to say breaking the law doesn't automatically make you a thug- breaking the law is sometimes justified, and sometimes necessary.
@Wiseman- Libya was a functioning state under Gadaffi. It might have been bonkers, but there was some semblance of order that enabled economic activities to prosper that attracted (and encouraged) many economic migrants primarily from Eritrea.
"The right wing views on the migrant folk are just unsavoury."
Can you please explain why socialist governments in France and Italy are so awful that the migrants have to risk death in order to reach Tory-run Britain?
To watch Top Gear.
Amazon Prime is available worldwide - they don't even have to leave Somalia.
Getting around laws does not automatically make you a criminal. How would you describe people who sheltered Jews during the war?
Stop waving that Tachrichim around.
Your continued use of Jews, most of whom settled here legally and peacefully, as an example to justify the entry into this country of those who wish to break the law, is to put it politely, extremely distasteful.
Please desist from doing so.
But he is right to state that Jews were routinely cast as criminals and as illegal entryists. There's no getting round that. Large parts of the UK establishment and the general population were profoundly anti-Semitic up to and even during WW2.
Sure they are. But that's got nothing to do with the Calais situation. No-one is attacking people on the basis of race or ethnicity. Criticism of their illegal activity is based on clear video footage of illegal activity.
Seems Top Gear [well, Clarkson, Hammond and May] have signed with... Amazon Prime.
Bah. Was hoping ITV would get it.
Interesting. New networks such as Amazon are really snapping at the heels of the BBC. The latter meanwhile stands immobile, like a stunned rabbit facing the blinding headlights of a 38 tonne artic hurtling towards it on the M40.
They should move to the M2, no fast moving dangerous traffic there!
The conditions in Calais are appalling. It is desperation that forces them to risk their lives to jump lorries. I'm incredulous that their actions should provoke hostility and hatred- in people like you Dr Fox. It makes me feel sad.
FFS, France isn't that much of a shithole. As it happens, we're meant to be going there on holiday in a couple of weeks.
One reason for the distaste for the actions of the lorry jumpers in Calais is this contempt for the rules, and of the rule of law. These are fairly consistently cited as core British values.
These are people whose experience of government and authority is at best one of incompetence and corruption and at worse one of tyranny and despotism. Starting with this, the road to Calais then involves bribery, smuggling, evasion of border controls then very often destruction of documents to make deportation impossible. It is hard to find a further point from the rule of law, which is why of all the potential migrants on the planet the ones at Calais should be bottom of the list. There needs to be an Australian type solution.
@Fox the migrants are looking to improve their lives. They have to use these means otherwise they couldn't move. Many hundreds of thousands were marooned in Libya following our contribution in dismantling a functioning state, left with no means of supporting their families, forced to move on to get work.
Getting around laws does not automatically make you a criminal. How would you describe people who sheltered Jews during the war?
The conditions in Calais are appalling. It is desperation that forces them to risk their lives to jump lorries. I'm incredulous that their actions should provoke hostility and hatred- in people like you Dr Fox. It makes me feel sad.
Looking to improve your life does not give you justification for breaking the law of liberal democratic states. These people would have a perfectly adequate standard of living in the first safe country they reached. There is thus no good reason to break into another safe country through vandalism and intimidation.
Getting around laws does not automatically make you a criminal. How would you describe people who sheltered Jews during the war?
Stop waving that Tachrichim around.
Your continued use of Jews, most of whom settled here legally and peacefully, as an example to justify the entry into this country of those who wish to break the law, is to put it politely, extremely distasteful.
Please desist from doing so.
But he is right to state that Jews were routinely cast as criminals and as illegal entryists. There's no getting round that. Large parts of the UK establishment and the general population were profoundly anti-Semitic up to and even during WW2.
Large parts of the British general population were anti-semitic up to and including WW2? That is a very bold claim, Mr. Observer, and not one that should go without challenge. Would you care to produce some evidence to back it up?
The conditions in Calais are appalling. It is desperation that forces them to risk their lives to jump lorries. I'm incredulous that their actions should provoke hostility and hatred- in people like you Dr Fox. It makes me feel sad.
FFS, France isn't that much of a shithole. As it happens, we're meant to be going there on holiday in a couple of weeks.
I've heard the M20 is lovely at this time of year.
"The conditions in Calais are appalling. It is desperation that forces them to risk their lives to jump lorries. I'm incredulous that their actions should provoke hostility and hatred- in people like you Dr Fox. It makes me feel sad."
You simply won't answer the question of why they can't claim stay in France or Italy and claim asylum there.
"The conditions in Calais are appalling. It is desperation that forces them to risk their lives to jump lorries. I'm incredulous that their actions should provoke hostility and hatred- in people like you Dr Fox. It makes me feel sad."
You simply won't answer the question of why they can't claim stay in France or Italy and claim asylum there.
It's almost as if he is relishing the scenes as they paint the Con govt in a bad light.
"The conditions in Calais are appalling. It is desperation that forces them to risk their lives to jump lorries. I'm incredulous that their actions should provoke hostility and hatred- in people like you Dr Fox. It makes me feel sad."
You simply won't answer the question of why they can't claim stay in France or Italy and claim asylum there.
According to the BBC, their rights, the benefits etc are extremely comparable if they are genuine asylum seekers and claimed asylum in France.
"The conditions in Calais are appalling. It is desperation that forces them to risk their lives to jump lorries. I'm incredulous that their actions should provoke hostility and hatred- in people like you Dr Fox. It makes me feel sad."
You simply won't answer the question of why they can't claim stay in France or Italy and claim asylum there.
Many of them would not qualify for asylum. But, they do know that if they get to the UK, the chance of their being deported is very slim.
Mr. Observer, would Top Gear not have generated revenues?
Agree on the general point that TV is undergoing a similar turbulence as the book market [which is still ongoing]. Amazon and others are trying to get subscription models going [e-books only, of course].
Getting around laws does not automatically make you a criminal. How would you describe people who sheltered Jews during the war?
Stop waving that Tachrichim around.
Your continued use of Jews, most of whom settled here legally and peacefully, as an example to justify the entry into this country of those who wish to break the law, is to put it politely, extremely distasteful.
Please desist from doing so.
But he is right to state that Jews were routinely cast as criminals and as illegal entryists. There's no getting round that. Large parts of the UK establishment and the general population were profoundly anti-Semitic up to and even during WW2.
Large parts of the British general population were anti-semitic up to and including WW2? That is a very bold claim, Mr. Observer, and not one that should go without challenge. Would you care to produce some evidence to back it up?
I don't think that's such an outrageous claim. I think anti-semitism, particularly among the upper classes, was pretty common in the run up to WW2.
I see Middle England's favourite paper, The Mail, is gunning for some sign of action from Cameron this morning. Messy.
So he should - this has been building up for weeks if not months - the govt should have been far far more robust - the quiet approach with the French has utterly failed.
I see Middle England's favourite paper, The Mail, is gunning for some sign of action from Cameron this morning. Messy.
So he should - this has been building up for weeks if not months - the govt should have been far far more robust - the quiet approach with the French has utterly failed.
It does rather look as if Ponceyboots has been sitting on his hands, and hoping the problem goes away.
"The conditions in Calais are appalling. It is desperation that forces them to risk their lives to jump lorries. I'm incredulous that their actions should provoke hostility and hatred- in people like you Dr Fox. It makes me feel sad."
You simply won't answer the question of why they can't claim stay in France or Italy and claim asylum there.
According to the BBC, their rights, the benefits etc are extremely comparable if they are genuine asylum seekers and claimed asylum in France.
Look, I don't think it's any secret why they would rather be in the UK than in France or Italy. If I were your average African economic migrant, I'd want to be in the UK.
Obviously, though, we need to uphold the rule of law. And it's grossly unfair of us to discriminate against people who follow the proper procedures.
Can I suggest the Swiss solution: make it impossible to work on the black market, remove all benefits for failed asylum seekers, and join Schengen so the asylum seekers self deport.
Getting around laws does not automatically make you a criminal. How would you describe people who sheltered Jews during the war?
Stop waving that Tachrichim around.
Your continued use of Jews, most of whom settled here legally and peacefully, as an example to justify the entry into this country of those who wish to break the law, is to put it politely, extremely distasteful.
Please desist from doing so.
But he is right to state that Jews were routinely cast as criminals and as illegal entryists. There's no getting round that. Large parts of the UK establishment and the general population were profoundly anti-Semitic up to and even during WW2.
Large parts of the British general population were anti-semitic up to and including WW2? That is a very bold claim, Mr. Observer, and not one that should go without challenge. Would you care to produce some evidence to back it up?
I don't think that's such an outrageous claim. I think anti-semitism, particularly among the upper classes, was pretty common in the run up to WW2.
Anti-Semitism of the snobbish variety, rather than the blood and soil variety.
I see Middle England's favourite paper, The Mail, is gunning for some sign of action from Cameron this morning. Messy.
For one thing, it probably ensures that UKIP aren't just going to disappear after the election.
I noted Iain Dale was laying into Cameron last night for allowing army numbers to drop beyond even their drastic planned reductions, and for volunteer numbers to fail to meet their targets to make up the shortfall. The changing of definitions to meet the 2% defence target was also an issue.
According to most sources France is actually wealthier than the UK with per capita GDP. So how the migrants can be regarded as being "desperate" to get from France to the UK is a mystery IMO.
I see Middle England's favourite paper, The Mail, is gunning for some sign of action from Cameron this morning. Messy.
For one thing, it probably ensures that UKIP aren't just going to disappear after the election.
I noted Iain Dale was laying into Cameron last night for allowing army numbers to drop beyond even their drastic planned reductions, and for volunteer numbers to fail to meet their targets to make up the shortfall. The changing of definitions to meet the 2% defence target was also an issue.
It's always going to be difficult to get people to join armed forces that are viewed poorly by the government, and whose numbers are being perpetually cut.
Getting around laws does not automatically make you a criminal. How would you describe people who sheltered Jews during the war?
Stop waving that Tachrichim around.
Your continued use of Jews, most of whom settled here legally and peacefully, as an example to justify the entry into this country of those who wish to break the law, is to put it politely, extremely distasteful.
Please desist from doing so.
But he is right to state that Jews were routinely cast as criminals and as illegal entryists. There's no getting round that. Large parts of the UK establishment and the general population were profoundly anti-Semitic up to and even during WW2.
Large parts of the British general population were anti-semitic up to and including WW2? That is a very bold claim, Mr. Observer, and not one that should go without challenge. Would you care to produce some evidence to back it up?
I don't think that's such an outrageous claim. I think anti-semitism, particularly among the upper classes, was pretty common in the run up to WW2.
We may all think what we like but Mr.Observer said that large parts of the general population were anti-semitic in thirties and forties. I am just asking for some evidence to back up that claim. I am sure he has some or can at least point to some else he would not have made the claim (which I said was bold not outrageous).
Comments
You are not sounding very convincing. Remind me of how immigration looked during the Brown years, the economy was in the toilet, unemployment was very high by British standards, and yet immigration was at record levels.
Quite a lot of African speak French, most of North West Africa has French as a first or second language, and English in Somalia (for example) is hardly spoken since independence, and only now used by older people.
That said, the difference between the final YouGov poll and the actual result for Benn is significant, but YouGov were a lot closer in the last leadership election (even though they overstated Ed). I would generally expect polls to be a lot more accurate in leadership than deputy leadership elections per se.
Allowing for all that, it's clear enough that Corbyn is going to top the ballot for first preferences, even though the overall outcome can't be called.
I have never had any other illusion that the migrants are here primarily for economic purposes. It is Turkey, Iran and the neighbouring states that are doing the heavily lifting for those poor souls fleeing for their own safety.
History is comprised of people changing their lives to improve themselves and their families. Good thing.
It is also comprised of periods where people have provoked fear, scaremongered, use lowest common denominator reactionary politics which results in persecution, hatred, racism and so forth. Bad thing.
I often read on this site the attacks on the left for their supposed moral superiority. And usually I try to convince myself that right wing people are moral- they just have a different view on how things should be.
But I'm beginning to think differently. The right wing views on the migrant folk are just unsavoury.
You sometimes don't see the forest for the trees, it doesn't matter how poor by our own standards the economy gets - until we become worse than international comparisons we will be a very attractive destination for migrants. Plus we legalised uncapped migration from Eastern Europe so of course migration numbers shot up, only a complete fool would think they wouldn't.
Incidentally I'm not saying whether this is right or wrong. There is a difference between an excuse and an explanation. As long as Britain is the kind of country we want it to be, it will be the kind of country other people will want to be in too.
Let's be honest, the most famous Basils are Brush and Fawlty.
They don't conjure up fear.
Edit: to be fair you could say a Basil helped end apartheid
And wait for the shrieking from various Lefties as the value of their exquisitely restored farmhouses plummet.
Damned shame his brother was so bloody awful. And his nieces.
Mind you, there's a vast yawning chasm of public awareness where the Eastern Roman Empire is concerned. After I'd finished John Julius Norwich's excellent three part history (which I heartily recommend to anyone who has yet to read it) it felt bizarre that I'd previously known nothing of such a long-lasting and important part of European history.
Mr. P, whilst I agree with the sentiment, I'm not sure I can see who could replace Labour. SNP stops at the border, Greens have limited appeal, UKIP could get some social conservatives perhaps but not the metropolitan left. I think only a purple and yellow tsunami could do it, but I can't see either happening. Labour will muddle on even if Corbyn wins and even if he's deeply unpopular.
Guru Dan who called the election is back from his holidays
"A party which elects Jeremy Corbyn to win back an electorate which voted Tory is not worth anyone's time or attention
"By all means, let Labour play its games. But whilst it is, it really shouldn’t ask the rest of us to take it seriously as a party of opposition, or a potential party of government, or anything else, frankly. Labour is preparing to elect Jeremy Corbyn as its leader. And in the entire history of the Labour party, no one has ever played a bigger, or more stupid, or more self-destructive game than that. "
If Labour are stupid enough to encourage entryism - well it'll come from all sorts, Greenies/CNDers/SWPers/Commies/LDs and yes Tories.
Every group is seeking to shift the argument onto ground that suits their own agenda. I don't see anything more virtuous in the entryism of Greenies or SWPers than Tories myself. We all want Corbyn to win - just for differing reasons. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11772481/The-Labour-party-is-a-joke.-We-should-stop-taking-it-seriously.html
I see now this is meant to be a 'thumbs up', but from a distance, on a low resolution monitor, with poor eyesite, it looks like a hand with an extended middle finger...
And yet the socialist 'comrades' seem to have difficulty understanding that socialism is simply not what people want. Hence the famous remark 'dissolve the people and elect another'.
These are people whose experience of government and authority is at best one of incompetence and corruption and at worse one of tyranny and despotism. Starting with this, the road to Calais then involves bribery, smuggling, evasion of border controls then very often destruction of documents to make deportation impossible. It is hard to find a further point from the rule of law, which is why of all the potential migrants on the planet the ones at Calais should be bottom of the list. There needs to be an Australian type solution.
@Fox
the migrants are looking to improve their lives. They have to use these means otherwise they couldn't move. Many hundreds of thousands were marooned in Libya following our contribution in dismantling a functioning state, left with no means of supporting their families, forced to move on to get work.
Getting around laws does not automatically make you a criminal. How would you describe people who sheltered Jews during the war?
The conditions in Calais are appalling. It is desperation that forces them to risk their lives to jump lorries. I'm incredulous that their actions should provoke hostility and hatred- in people like you Dr Fox. It makes me feel sad.
So let's not try to fix the dogs dinner of a constitutional settlement we have, because the SNP would advocate a rejection of it in Scotland? Hmm, I am not sure that is the most compelling of arguments. But it is one that accepts the UK will disappear shortly. Under a Tory government.
And yet the socialist 'comrades' seem to have difficulty understanding that socialism is simply not what people want. Hence the famous remark 'dissolve the people and elect another'.
Your knowledge of global history is clearly as sparing as your knowledge of Russian history. And do you not think the fact that most of the examples you quoted were overthrown by coups has nothing to do with their popularity - quite the opposite. As an aside, both the Allende and Republican governments were no more radical than most western social democratic governments.
That he also writes for the Jewish Chronicle may be something to do with this. The bleating from Labour notables of impending doom should Corbyn win are becoming increasingly more hyperbolic. - Really don’t know what they hope to achieve by doing so as it just makes them look panicked and ridiculous and will be ignored as Corbyn supporters aren’t listening.
Sometimes in extreme circumstances breaking laws may be justified. But a criminal who breaks an unjust law is still a criminal, just with moral right on their side rather than the law's side.
Your continued use of Jews, most of whom settled here legally and peacefully, as an example to justify the entry into this country of those who wish to break the law, is to put it politely, extremely distasteful.
Please desist from doing so.
Can anyone remember a bigger cut from a political bet? I'm sure there'll be some out there.
You once again accuse me of being wrong without providing anything to back up your assertions. This is of course because we both know that I am right and you are wrong. I am a professional historian with a string of publications and a number of teaching appointments behind me. You on the other hand are, to misquote my John Buchan, a monotonous controversialist with a blog and apparently an inbuilt ability to see anything that does not fit your worldview.
At least Tyson tries to explain his points, even though some of them are rather surreal (Libya was a 'functioning state' under Gaddafi?)! Your answers to me would not even pass a GCSE exam. Simply saying that somebody is wrong when they provide inconvenient data proving you are wrong is not an argument. Having worked in the field of conspiracy theories (Christ Myth Theory, Princes in the Tower, Holocaust Denial) it is a common tactic among dogmatists but not particularly edifying.
Established Washington press figures such as Walter Lippman and Jack Germond did not think McGovern had a chance of winning, proclaiming him "too decent" a man, not strong enough for a combative campaign, and too reflexively liberal. Jimmy "The Greek" Snyder gave 200–1 odds against McGovern winning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_McGovern_presidential_campaign,_1972
A Corbyn/Eagles team? Stop it, my sides are aching already. Even Labour isn't that daft.
My Tyson,
There are 80 million Nigerians with more right to settle here than many currently hijacking lorries. Islington might get a little crowded, though.
At the moment, it's a game of self-selection. Only the young, fit, predominantly male and rich by their standards make it as far as Calais.
Does Jezza agree with you?
Bah. Was hoping ITV would get it.
The Spanish republicans lost the 1933 election, two years after taking office.
The period 1936-9 was marked by a radicalisation of the Spanish left, indeed their defeat in 1933 was preceded by disagreements between centrists and the far left.
At least Tyson tries to explain his points, even though some of them are rather surreal (Libya was a 'functioning state' under Gaddafi?)! Your answers to me would not even pass a GCSE exam. Simply saying that somebody is wrong when they provide inconvenient data proving you are wrong is not an argument. Having worked in the field of conspiracy theories (Christ Myth Theory, Princes in the Tower, Holocaust Denial) it is a common tactic among dogmatists but not particularly edifying.
If you genuinely are a professional historian then God help that profession. Please give examples of Spanish Republican and Allende policies that would be out of place in the manifestos of the Labour Party at that time.
Top Gear will encourage me to use Amazon more often. I've just renewed my subs with them - about £6 a month and since I order almost everything online, oodles of free fast deliveries.
I'm not sure it'll go on for too long. I do wonder if it'll move to other channels but (from my very limited understanding of the matter) I don't think that's how these subscription channels work.
Bah. Not a fan of subscriptions at all.
Mr. Observer, agree that English votes for English laws is a stepping stone only, but no convention is needed, just an English Parliament. Conservative reticence and leftwing gerrymandering desires for carving up England into rubbish little assemblies are the obstacles to a sensible Parliament for England (which most people want but which the BBC and political class will barely even mention).
But: in Switzerland, you won't be able to work without an ID card. (Which you can get as a Brit or a citizen of another EU country. But which you cannot as an illegal immigrant.) And the Swiss come down very hard on businesses that hire people without the proper documentation.
And: even assuming that you were able to get around this issue, you are unlikely to be bilingual in French and German, which is quite necessary if you want to work in a low-end job in Switzerland.
Can you please explain why socialist governments in France and Italy are so awful that the migrants have to risk death in order to reach Tory-run Britain?
I see Amazon are also moving into streaming music market as well.
This is a big moment for Amazon Prime. So far their original programming as been at best meh, in comparison to Netflix who have had some really big hits e.g. Amazon made Betas which was the right kind of show for current moment in time, but not funny. HBO then made Silicon Valley which is exactly the same premise and a massive massive hit.
Philip- you are right. I meant to say breaking the law doesn't automatically make you a thug- breaking the law is sometimes justified, and sometimes necessary.
@Wiseman- Libya was a functioning state under Gadaffi. It might have been bonkers, but there was some semblance of order that enabled economic activities to prosper that attracted (and encouraged) many economic migrants primarily from Eritrea.
You simply won't answer the question of why they can't claim stay in France or Italy and claim asylum there.
Agree on the general point that TV is undergoing a similar turbulence as the book market [which is still ongoing]. Amazon and others are trying to get subscription models going [e-books only, of course].
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/594503/britain-EU-european-union-politics-david-cameron-nigel-farage
1. End free movement of labour
2. Restore sovereignty of parliament
3. Reduce cost the UK pays to the EU
Johnson has his shreddies it seems.
Standby for some tough talk, but inaction.
Obviously, though, we need to uphold the rule of law. And it's grossly unfair of us to discriminate against people who follow the proper procedures.
Can I suggest the Swiss solution: make it impossible to work on the black market, remove all benefits for failed asylum seekers, and join Schengen so the asylum seekers self deport.
That's madder than a car full of Jeremies.