Jonahan You seem to under the illusion that all previous governments,apart from the last one, were Labout. Maggie Thatcher gave the WWC the biggest boost by allowing them to purchase their council homes..many families across the country have benefitted enormously from just that one act..
I am not sure council houses was the "biggest boost" for the WC, but IMO it was a good policy and one that my family also benefited from. Labour were wrong to oppose it. Ironically it was a Labour idea in the first place, but they bottled it. I particularly appreciate the way that it led naturally to mixed communities.
FWIW my only real criticisms of council house sales was that they didn't build replacements for those who could not afford to buy, so the ladder was effectively pulled up and we end up in the mess we're in today.
Even more LOL , Alan Rodent a rabid delusional SNP hater.
Why do you care, you don't support the SNP.
Do you just visit from another planet every now and again. I may not be a member of the SNP for sure , for the rest barking and deluded as ever. Even if I did not I am not fond of lying toerags in rightwing London papers peddling manure.
Dull, dull, little man. Do you ever come back to a thread after a few days and read what you said? If so it must be pretty humiliating.
I do t think many would argue, by the by, with the point that there are definitely people on the right who think only right wingers are good people, and that blinds them to awful things their side might do. That will certainly be proven once again at some point. But it is also undoubtedly the case with portions of the left in particular regarding identity politics, and which is in focus right now.
In all my years following politics - I've always had the impression that Righties mostly think Lefties are naive, hand-wringers who love to tell everyone how much they care, by spending other people's money as evidence. And Lefties think Righties are malign, evil and selfish - "Tory Scum".
The 'opponent are scum' approach does seem more common from the left. The 'opponents are idiots' seems the more common approach from the right, though of course there will be crossover at times,
Having been told on here countless times that I hate my country and its history, that I don't care about the WWC, that Labour supporters are self-interested, feckless members of a client state, and so on, I take with a pinch of salt the notion that the right tends to see the left as merely misguided.
I was thinking more the wider political scene. You don't see as many 'labour scum' marches even when labour are in power. On here I agree the proportion of each method is different, but I think as a general rule it holds up. There is hate on both sides, and it does manifest in the same way, but the dominant fkavour differs, depending on the place. Much more likely to see 'opponents are evil' online in any case.
It seems there are around 250,000 Jews in the UK, I'd say the vast majority will live in London. The point being hardly anybody outside London will even know a Jew. The Labour Party seems to think that North London is the universe, it ain't.
Rubbish - there are many towns with significant Jewish communities all over the UK.
OK so you say "rubbish", which part of what I wrote is "rubbish"?
PS try not to get as cross and abusive as usual.
Not cross at all - your post was totally wrong to suggest 'hardly anyone outside London would even know a Jew' - there are communities in most towns across the UK - I grew up in Sunderland as an example and most of the rest of the towns in the NE have Jewish communities.
You see now you are talking rubbish
there are communities in most towns across the UK
That is simply untrue, there are 32 synagogues outside London.
I really don't know what your point is here beyond once again pathetically attempting to troll me.
The Jewish population across the whole global diaspora has been suffering - apart from in a few areas - from a pincer problem. On the one hand, secular Jews are intermarrying and entirely losing their Jewish identity over the course of two generations; on the other, emigration to Israel has destroyed the enclaves in various regions where they've been established minorities for centuries.
Two examples, both close to me.
Shipley used to have a thriving synagogue. I went there on a school visit as a child. It has closed due to its congregation having declined below a sustainable level:
Bradford and district used to have a thriving Jewish population, linked closely with the wool trade. Many members were also active in local politics and I met the Waxmans mentioned in the article that way but now there are fewer than 300 Jews across the city. Give it fifty years and there'll probably be hardly any.
And the other example comes from India. When we were on holiday there, we visited Kochi synagogue, which is the oldest continually-operating synagogue in the entire Commonwealth, having been in use since 1567. It too is now functional only when Jews from outside the city come in for services. The younger population has simply moved to Israel and those that remain number in single figures (one of whom, who we met, still running her shop, is in her nineties).
I admit to being in that category. About six years ago, flying back from the US, I sat next to a man in a strange outfit who was reading, from right to left, a book with squiggles. As we neared Manchester, he asked in poor English if I would help him fill in his landing card. He'd managed the name, so we went through the other questions one at a time.
He was staying with relatives in Salford ... no problem. When I asked his occupation, he looked confused. "Occupation?" I asked slowly. "What you do for a living?"
"Rabbi, of course." he replied.
First time I'd ever seen one in the flesh.
Rabbis are as rare as camels on Oxford St. I'm sure you'll know lots of Jews though without the costume how would you know?
I was in an election station a few years ago and an orthodox Rabbi in a voting booth asked me if I could help him because he'd left his glasses. I said sure and asked him who he wanted me to put his cross next to? "Conservative of course".
If he'd been anyone other than a Rabbi I might have been tempted to sin
Jonathan The reason there were no replacement houses built was a deliberate policy from the Councils..and any fool could see that it would lead us to where we are now..
It seems there are around 250,000 Jews in the UK, I'd say the vast majority will live in London. The point being hardly anybody outside London will even know a Jew. The Labour Party seems to think that North London is the universe, it ain't.
Rubbish - there are many towns with significant Jewish communities all over the UK.
I do t think many would argue, by the by, with the point that there are definitely people on the right who think only right wingers are good people, and that blinds them to awful things their side might do. That will certainly be proven once again at some point. But it is also undoubtedly the case with portions of the left in particular regarding identity politics, and which is in focus right now.
In all my years following politics - I've always had the impression that Righties mostly think Lefties are naive, hand-wringers who love to tell everyone how much they care, by spending other people's money as evidence. And Lefties think Righties are malign, evil and selfish - "Tory Scum".
The 'opponent are scum' approach does seem more common from the left. The 'opponents are idiots' seems the more common approach from the right, though of course there will be crossover at times,
Having been told on here countless times that I hate my country and its history, that I don't care about the WWC, that Labour supporters are self-interested, feckless members of a client state, and so on, I take with a pinch of salt the notion that the right tends to see the left as merely misguided.
The worst feature of the internet is that it promotes a world outlook that political opponents aren't just mistaken, but actually deeply malevolent.
I do t think many would argue, by the by, with the point that there are definitely people on the right who think only right wingers are good people, and that blinds them to awful things their side might do. That will certainly be proven once again at some point. But it is also undoubtedly the case with portions of the left in particular regarding identity politics, and which is in focus right now.
In all my years following politics - I've always had the impression that Righties mostly think Lefties are naive, hand-wringers who love to tell everyone how much they care, by spending other people's money as evidence. And Lefties think Righties are malign, evil and selfish - "Tory Scum".
The 'opponent are scum' approach does seem more common from the left. The 'opponents are idiots' seems the more common approach from the right, though of course there will be crossover at times,
Having been told on here countless times that I hate my country and its history, that I don't care about the WWC, that Labour supporters are self-interested, feckless members of a client state, and so on, I take with a pinch of salt the notion that the right tends to see the left as merely misguided.
I was thinking more the wider political scene. You don't see as many 'labour scum' marches even when labour are in power. On here I agree the proportion of each method is different, but I think as a general rule it holds up. There is hate on both sides, and it does manifest in the same way, but the dominant fkavour differs, depending on the place. Much more likely to see 'opponents are evil' online in any case.
The right tends not to march or demonstrate full stop. I think that is the major difference.
I do t think many would argue, by the by, with the point that there are definitely people on the right who think only right wingers are good people, and that blinds them to awful things their side might do. That will certainly be proven once again at some point. But it is also undoubtedly the case with portions of the left in particular regarding identity politics, and which is in focus right now.
In all my years following politics - I've always had the impression that Righties mostly think Lefties are naive, hand-wringers who love to tell everyone how much they care, by spending other people's money as evidence. And Lefties think Righties are malign, evil and selfish - "Tory Scum".
The 'opponent are scum' approach does seem more common from the left. The 'opponents are idiots' seems the more common approach from the right, though of course there will be crossover at times,
Having been told on here countless times that I hate my country and its history, that I don't care about the WWC, that Labour supporters are self-interested, feckless members of a client state, and so on, I take with a pinch of salt the notion that the right tends to see the left as merely misguided.
I was thinking more the wider political scene. You don't see as many 'labour scum' marches even when labour are in power. On here I agree the proportion of each method is different, but I think as a general rule it holds up. There is hate on both sides, and it does manifest in the same way, but the dominant fkavour differs, depending on the place. Much more likely to see 'opponents are evil' online in any case.
The right tends not to march or demonstrate full stop. I think that is the major difference.
Blair was attacked from the right and the left. I well remember the Countryside alliance dumping carcasses around Brighton during the Labour party conference. Nasty business.
But you're right, the net is the natural home of right-wing bile today.
Jonathan The reason there were no replacement houses built was a deliberate policy from the Councils..and any fool could see that it would lead us to where we are now..
Not true. Initially housing was built to replace what was sold off. But the share councils got from sales was reduced over time, so reducing the ability to fund further construction.
I do t think many would argue, by the by, with the point that there are definitely people on the right who think only right wingers are good people, and that blinds them to awful things their side might do. That will certainly be proven once again at some point. But it is also undoubtedly the case with portions of the left in particular regarding identity politics, and which is in focus right now.
In all my years following politics - I've always had the impression that Righties mostly think Lefties are naive, hand-wringers who love to tell everyone how much they care, by spending other people's money as evidence. And Lefties think Righties are malign, evil and selfish - "Tory Scum".
The 'opponent are scum' approach does seem more common from the left. The 'opponents are idiots' seems the more common approach from the right, though of course there will be crossover at times,
Having been told on here countless times that I hate my country and its history, that I don't care about the WWC, that Labour supporters are self-interested, feckless members of a client state, and so on, I take with a pinch of salt the notion that the right tends to see the left as merely misguided.
I was thinking more the wider political scene. You don't see as many 'labour scum' marches even when labour are in power. On here I agree the proportion of each method is different, but I think as a general rule it holds up. There is hate on both sides, and it does manifest in the same way, but the dominant fkavour differs, depending on the place. Much more likely to see 'opponents are evil' online in any case.
The right tends not to march or demonstrate full stop. I think that is the major difference.
I am so glad everyone on PB now supports Harriet Harmans Equality Act 2010.
Anybody with a brain could see this coming & will rise it's head again. You can't bang on about being for equity & anti Racism etc & continually turn a blind eye to things like segregated events.
It took the Tories a long time to detoxify themselves as being anti-gay. Corbyns response so far,has been very much no crisis as I am anti-racist...
I do t think many would argue, by the by, with the point that there are definitely people on the right who think only right wingers are good people, and that blinds them to awful things their side might do. That will certainly be proven once again at some point. But it is also undoubtedly the case with portions of the left in particular regarding identity politics, and which is in focus right now.
In all my years following politics - I've always had the impression that Righties mostly think Lefties are naive, hand-wringers who love to tell everyone how much they care, by spending other people's money as evidence. And Lefties think Righties are malign, evil and selfish - "Tory Scum".
The 'opponent are scum' approach does seem more common from the left. The 'opponents are idiots' seems the more common approach from the right, though of course there will be crossover at times,
Having been told on here countless times that I hate my country and its history, that I don't care about the WWC, that Labour supporters are self-interested, feckless members of a client state, and so on, I take with a pinch of salt the notion that the right tends to see the left as merely misguided.
I was thinking more the wider political scene. You don't see as many 'labour scum' marches even when labour are in power. On here I agree the proportion of each method is different, but I think as a general rule it holds up. There is hate on both sides, and it does manifest in the same way, but the dominant fkavour differs, depending on the place. Much more likely to see 'opponents are evil' online in any case.
The right tends not to march or demonstrate full stop. I think that is the major difference.
But you're right, the net is the natural home of right-wing bile today.
I do t think many would argue, by the by, with the point that there are definitely people on the right who think only right wingers are good people, and that blinds them to awful things their side might do. That will certainly be proven once again at some point. But it is also undoubtedly the case with portions of the left in particular regarding identity politics, and which is in focus right now.
In all my years following politics - I've always had the impression that Righties mostly think Lefties are naive, hand-wringers who love to tell everyone how much they care, by spending other people's money as evidence. And Lefties think Righties are malign, evil and selfish - "Tory Scum".
The 'opponent are scum' approach does seem more common from the left. The 'opponents are idiots' seems the more common approach from the right, though of course there will be crossover at times,
Having been told on here countless times that I hate my country and its history, that I don't care about the WWC, that Labour supporters are self-interested, feckless members of a client state, and so on, I take with a pinch of salt the notion that the right tends to see the left as merely misguided.
I was thinking more the wider political scene. You don't see as many 'labour scum' marches even when labour are in power. On here I agree the proportion of each method is different, but I think as a general rule it holds up. There is hate on both sides, and it does manifest in the same way, but the dominant fkavour differs, depending on the place. Much more likely to see 'opponents are evil' online in any case.
The right tends not to march or demonstrate full stop. I think that is the major difference.
Blair was attacked from the right and the left. I well remember the Countryside alliance dumping carcasses around Brighton during the Labour party conference. Nasty business.
But you're right, the net is the natural home of right-wing bile today.
And the farmers Hauliers and other intrested parties who held the country to ransom for a few days in 2000 about tax on petrol , they were supported by many on here, who are against lawful balloted disputes normally. But for partisan reasons agreed with their actions of blocking refineries.
I do t think many would argue, by the by, with the point that there are definitely people on the right who think only right wingers are good people, and that blinds them to awful things their side might do. That will certainly be proven once again at some point. But it is also undoubtedly the case with portions of the left in particular regarding identity politics, and which is in focus right now.
In all my years following politics - I've always had the impression that Righties mostly think Lefties are naive, hand-wringers who love to tell everyone how much they care, by spending other people's money as evidence. And Lefties think Righties are malign, evil and selfish - "Tory Scum".
The 'opponent are scum' approach does seem more common from the left. The 'opponents are idiots' seems the more common approach from the right, though of course there will be crossover at times,
Having been told on here countless times that I hate my country and its history, that I don't care about the WWC, that Labour supporters are self-interested, feckless members of a client state, and so on, I take with a pinch of salt the notion that the right tends to see the left as merely misguided.
I was thinking more the wider political scene. You don't see as many 'labour scum' marches even when labour are in power. On here I agree the proportion of each method is different, but I think as a general rule it holds up. There is hate on both sides, and it does manifest in the same way, but the dominant fkavour differs, depending on the place. Much more likely to see 'opponents are evil' online in any case.
The right tends not to march or demonstrate full stop. I think that is the major difference.
Blair was attacked from the right and the left. I well remember the Countryside alliance dumping carcasses around Brighton during the Labour party conference. Nasty business.
But you're right, the net is the natural home of right-wing bile today.
The great thing is its the home of every wing of bile.
I do t think many would argue, by the by, with the point that there are definitely people on the right who think only right wingers are good people, and that blinds them to awful things their side might do. That will certainly be proven once again at some point. But it is also undoubtedly the case with portions of the left in particular regarding identity politics, and which is in focus right now.
In all my years following politics - I've always had the impression that Righties mostly think Lefties are naive, hand-wringers who love to tell everyone how much they care, by spending other people's money as evidence. And Lefties think Righties are malign, evil and selfish - "Tory Scum".
The 'opponent are scum' approach does seem more common from the left. The 'opponents are idiots' seems the more common approach from the right, though of course there will be crossover at times,
Having been told on here countless times that I hate my country and its history, that I don't care about the WWC, that Labour supporters are self-interested, feckless members of a client state, and so on, I take with a pinch of salt the notion that the right tends to see the left as merely misguided.
I was thinking more the wider political scene. You don't see as many 'labour scum' marches even when labour are in power. On here I agree the proportion of each method is different, but I think as a general rule it holds up. There is hate on both sides, and it does manifest in the same way, but the dominant fkavour differs, depending on the place. Much more likely to see 'opponents are evil' online in any case.
The right tends not to march or demonstrate full stop. I think that is the major difference.
Blair was attacked from the right and the left. I well remember the Countryside alliance dumping carcasses around Brighton during the Labour party conference. Nasty business.
But you're right, the net is the natural home of right-wing bile today. to do so with 1
The right will march demonstrate, as foxhunting, countryside alliance , famers , hauliers showed in the Blair years. But normally they are always in power , in some shape or form, so there is no requirement as they control all the levers of power. Some would argue they were still in power 97 to 2010, as Blair extended the third way big tent, to include many conservatives , even when there was no requirment to do so with a 179 majority.
Andrew Neil @afneil 3m3 minutes ago Andrew Neil Retweeted troy smith There was no set up, you conspiracy nutter. We didn't even have a camera there when it happened. Blocked.
SO That vwas a failure of the Councils..They should have set the price correctly..and made the case for doing so...or fail to carry out their mandate.
The Councils were instructed to sell the housing at discounted rates and were then not given all the money the sales generated. The government chose how the process would work. The government could have ensured the housing was fully replaced. It decided against doing so.
Andrew Neil @afneil 3m3 minutes ago Andrew Neil Retweeted troy smith There was no set up, you conspiracy nutter. We didn't even have a camera there when it happened. Blocked.
ChrisITV confirmed to another conspiracy idiot that it was his camera team!
Just watching Ken on LBC Radio - David Mellor is making himself look a bigger fool than normal by demanding that Ken say sorry for mentioning Hitler. It really is like the stoning scene in The Life of Brian!
Jonathan The reason there were no replacement houses built was a deliberate policy from the Councils..and any fool could see that it would lead us to where we are now..
Not true. Initially housing was built to replace what was sold off. But the share councils got from sales was reduced over time, so reducing the ability to fund further construction.
As I recall, councils were not allowed to spend council house sale reciepts on building more council houses, as the spending would count as government spending. Monetarism under Mrs Thatcher was very narrowly viewed as a mechanism to squeeze inflation out of the British economy.
The economic policy of the time was explicitly to restrict all government capital spending with inflation seen as the main enemy. It may well have worked in the sense that significant inflation is almost unknown to a new generation, but it did lead to a major infrastructure gap in the UK. This was not just in terms of public sector housing, but also in terms of schools and hospitals. There was very little major investment in these until the early nineties. When it did start again it was the off balance sheet PFI and PPP investment whose chickens are now coming home to roost.
I still haven't got my thoughts together about all this in an orderly manner. So a few jumbled points:
1) I agree with @SouthamObserver that Labour fell into this problem through "my enemy's enemy is my friend". Horrified at the excesses of the Israeli government, they have made common cause with those in the Middle East who are opposed to Israel, not noticing that their motives can be pretty foul. This in turn has attracted some of those in the Muslim community with the same foul views, forming a small feedback loop.
2) All political parties fall prey to the idea that to the pure all things are pure. That's barely acceptable among the rank and file but leaders need to lead firmly and to get a grip. Jeremy Corbyn has never shown his unfitness for office so clearly as when he uttered his "crisis, what crisis?" musings to the BBC this week.
3) I find it hard to disentangle my views on appropriate punishments from my views of the individuals. I warm hugely to Naz Shah so I want to forgive her. I loathe Ken Livingstone so I want him to be crushed. I think John Mann is a prize ass so I would like to see him get cuffed.
But I and others need to put those feelings to one side. What Naz Shah had said was awful, really awful. Should she be forgiven for true contrition? I want to say yes but I don't know. John Mann, while going berserk, for once had some grounds for going berserk. Should he be admonished for acting in an unseemly manner in the face of such provocation? I really am unsure.
Only in Ken Livingstone's case am I sure of my ground.
4) The Ken Livingstone fiasco occurred because the hard left have a fundamentally different view of Hitler and Nazi Germany from the bulk of the population. The man in the street sees Nazi Germany and Hitler as uniquely and appallingly wicked. The hard left see it as an inevitable outcrop of capitalism. When they scream "Nazi" and "fascist", they are attacking capitalism, not racism. Ken Livingstone spouted what he considered self-evident truths and didn't notice that he was jumping onto the third rail. It isn't the racism that bothers him, it's the capitalism.
I do t think many would argue, by the by, with the point that there are definitely people on the right who think only right wingers are good people, and that blinds them to awful things their side might do. That will certainly be proven once again at some point. But it is also undoubtedly the case with portions of the left in particular regarding identity politics, and which is in focus right now.
In all my years following politics - I've always had the impression that Righties mostly think Lefties are naive, hand-wringers who love to tell everyone how much they care, by spending other people's money as evidence. And Lefties think Righties are malign, evil and selfish - "Tory Scum".
The 'opponent are scum' approach does seem more common from the left. The 'opponents are idiots' seems the more common approach from the right, though of course there will be crossover at times,
Having been told on here countless times that I hate my country and its history, that I don't care about the WWC, that Labour supporters are self-interested, feckless members of a client state, and so on, I take with a pinch of salt the notion that the right tends to see the left as merely misguided.
The worst feature of the internet is that it promotes a world outlook that political opponents aren't just mistaken, but actually deeply malevolent.
Just watching Ken on LBC Radio - David Mellor is making himself look a bigger fool than normal by demanding that Ken say sorry for mentioning Hitler. It really is like the stoning scene in The Life of Brian!
Can we mention the English Historian A.J.P Taylor book The Origins of the Second World War published in 1961.
Notably, Taylor portrayed Hitler as a grasping opportunist with no beliefs other than the pursuit of power and anti-Semitism. He argued that Hitler did not possess any sort of programme and his foreign policy was one of drift and seizing chances as they offered themselves. He did not even consider Hitler's anti-Semitism unique: he argued that millions of Germans were just as ferociously anti-Semitic as Hitler and there was no reason to single out Hitler for sharing the beliefs of millions of others
he argued that Hitler was not just a normal German leader but also a normal Western leader. As a normal Western leader, Hitler was no better or worse than Stresemann, Chamberlain or Daladier. His argument was that Hitler wished to make Germany the strongest power in Europe but he did not want or plan war. The outbreak of war in 1939 was an unfortunate accident caused by mistakes on everyone's part.
Jonathan The reason there were no replacement houses built was a deliberate policy from the Councils..and any fool could see that it would lead us to where we are now..
Not true. Initially housing was built to replace what was sold off. But the share councils got from sales was reduced over time, so reducing the ability to fund further construction.
As I recall, councils were not allowed to spend council house sale reciepts on building more council houses, as the spending would count as government spending. Monetarism under Mrs Thatcher was very narrowly viewed as a mechanism to squeeze inflation out of the British economy.
The economic policy of the time was explicitly to restrict all government capital spending with inflation seen as the main enemy. It may well have worked in the sense that significant inflation is almost unknown to a new generation, but it did lead to a major infrastructure gap in the UK. This was not just in terms of public sector housing, but also in terms of schools and hospitals. There was very little major investment in these until the early nineties. When it did start again it was the off balance sheet PFI and PPP investment whose chickens are now coming home to roost.
There was also the argument that by 1980 new council estates had become discredited as either 'slums in the sky' or edge of conurbation sink estates.
I don't think it's very smart of Zak to try to implicate Khan into this. If he's going to lose he would surely be better to try to preserve his integrity. John Humphrys is accusing him of "nod nod wink wink politics"............
"Boris Johnson said 'Piccanninis with water melon smiles.' Should you therefore dissociate yourself from Johnson?." Asked Humphrys.
That's the probem with this sort of thing. It's a game for any number of players
TBoris actually commented on people's smiles. How is that racist? Labour on the other hand, want Jews transported and think Hitler good. What a weird world the Left live in.
You think the word picaninny is acceptable?
It does make you wonder where the people shouting 'anti semite' are coming from.
F1: Seb Vettel will receive a 5 place grid penalty after a gearbox change - damaged when the two red cars ran into each other at the first corner in China. Should lead to some competition for the bottom step of the podium, but the two Mercs look unbeatable.
Also, it appears that there is finally something agreed for what next seasons cars will look like. Longer, wider and with fatter tyres. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/36172295
I do t think many would argue, by the by, with the point that there are definitely people on the right who think only right wingers are good people, and that blinds them to awful things their side might do. That will certainly be proven once again at some point. But it is also undoubtedly the case with portions of the left in particular regarding identity politics, and which is in focus right now.
In all my years following politics - I've always had the impression that Righties mostly think Lefties are naive, hand-wringers who love to tell everyone how much they care, by spending other people's money as evidence. And Lefties think Righties are malign, evil and selfish - "Tory Scum".
The 'opponent are scum' approach does seem more common from the left. The 'opponents are idiots' seems the more common approach from the right, though of course there will be crossover at times,
Having been told on here countless times that I hate my country and its history, that I don't care about the WWC, that Labour supporters are self-interested, feckless members of a client state, and so on, I take with a pinch of salt the notion that the right tends to see the left as merely misguided.
I was thinking more the wider political scene. You don't see as many 'labour scum' marches even when labour are in power. On here I agree the proportion of each method is different, but I think as a general rule it holds up. There is hate on both sides, and it does manifest in the same way, but the dominant fkavour differs, depending on the place. Much more likely to see 'opponents are evil' online in any case.
The right tends not to march or demonstrate full stop. I think that is the major difference.
Because they're working to pay the benefits that give the leftists the free time to march, demonstrate and vandalize. It was always thus.
Foxinsox..Labour could have changed all of that They basically hated the working classes escaping from the council house ghettos and moving out of their power and control structure..They simply hated Maggie unlocking the financial door for what they saw as their clientele.The working classes could kiss the Party,s collective arses..
I'm not a fan of Ken but the hounding of a confused old man does seem to be going over the top.
My sympathy is tempered only because of Ken's glee at shouting -ist or -phobe at everyone who disagrees with him. You play with fire ...
The hounding is also only happening because of things he has said and done and has no contrition over. The 'confused old man' thing seems to come out of nowhere - he seems pretty on the ball and clear as far as can see, not confused at all, so I don't see he need sympathy on that score.
I still haven't got my thoughts together about all this in an orderly manner. So a few jumbled points:
1) I agree with @SouthamObserver that Labour fell into this problem through "my enemy's enemy is my friend". Horrified at the excesses of the Israeli government, they have made common cause with those in the Middle East who are opposed to Israel, not noticing that their motives can be pretty foul. This in turn has attracted some of those in the Muslim community with the same foul views, forming a small feedback loop.
2) All political parties fall prey to the idea that to the pure all things are pure. That's barely acceptable among the rank and file but leaders need to lead firmly and to get a grip. Jeremy Corbyn has never shown his unfitness for office so clearly as when he uttered his "crisis, what crisis?" musings to the BBC this week.
3) I find it hard to disentangle my views on appropriate punishments from my views of the individuals. I warm hugely to Naz Shah so I want to forgive her. I loathe Ken Livingstone so I want him to be crushed. I think John Mann is a prize ass so I would like to see him get cuffed.
But I and others need to put those feelings to one side. What Naz Shah had said was awful, really awful. Should she be forgiven for true contrition? I want to say yes but I don't know. John Mann, while going berserk, for once had some grounds for going berserk. Should he be admonished for acting in an unseemly manner in the face of such provocation? I really am unsure.
Only in Ken Livingstone's case am I sure of my ground.
4) The Ken Livingstone fiasco occurred because the hard left have a fundamentally different view of Hitler and Nazi Germany from the bulk of the population. The man in the street sees Nazi Germany and Hitler as uniquely and appallingly wicked. The hard left see it as an inevitable outcrop of capitalism. When they scream "Nazi" and "fascist", they are attacking capitalism, not racism. Ken Livingstone spouted what he considered self-evident truths and didn't notice that he was jumping onto the third rail. It isn't the racism that bothers him, it's the capitalism.
A pretty good summary.
I see that Ken has today (Guardian) changed his dates. He is now talking about 1935, which fits with academic book I quoted from yesterday. The SS did issue a policy/announcement about Zionism. It was to be encouraged (in opposition to those who wanted to be assimilated), in order to facilitate emigration. Encouraged is not the same as 'support' in my opinion.
Jonathan The reason there were no replacement houses built was a deliberate policy from the Councils..and any fool could see that it would lead us to where we are now..
Not true. Initially housing was built to replace what was sold off. But the share councils got from sales was reduced over time, so reducing the ability to fund further construction.
As I recall, councils were not allowed to spend council house sale reciepts on building more council houses, as the spending would count as government spending. Monetarism under Mrs Thatcher was very narrowly viewed as a mechanism to squeeze inflation out of the British economy.
The economic policy of the time was explicitly to restrict all government capital spending with inflation seen as the main enemy. It may well have worked in the sense that significant inflation is almost unknown to a new generation, but it did lead to a major infrastructure gap in the UK. This was not just in terms of public sector housing, but also in terms of schools and hospitals. There was very little major investment in these until the early nineties. When it did start again it was the off balance sheet PFI and PPP investment whose chickens are now coming home to roost.
There was also the argument that by 1980 new council estates had become discredited as either 'slums in the sky' or edge of conurbation sink estates.
Yes, I think that by the 1980's council housing had a pretty bad reputation in terms of desiriability. The move to social rather than council housing provision via housing associations is largely a positive one.
The issue is really of affordability rather than who is the provider. If there was an ample supply of good quality private rented property or purchasable properties for low income families then the calls on socially provided housing would be much less.
It is not just about numbers of properties, but also of lifestyles. In 1930s London the population was much as it is now, but people lived much more in multiple occupancy and overcrowding.
Just watching Ken on LBC Radio - David Mellor is making himself look a bigger fool than normal by demanding that Ken say sorry for mentioning Hitler. It really is like the stoning scene in The Life of Brian!
Can we mention the English Historian A.J.P Taylor book The Origins of the Second World War published in 1961. [snip] His argument was that Hitler wished to make Germany the strongest power in Europe but he did not want or plan war. The outbreak of war in 1939 was an unfortunate accident caused by mistakes on everyone's part.
Rubbish - no one "forced" Hitler to march into non-Sudeten Czech lands in March 1939. And Hitler knew Poland had a defensive pact with France and Blighty in September 1939.
Just watching Ken on LBC Radio - David Mellor is making himself look a bigger fool than normal by demanding that Ken say sorry for mentioning Hitler. It really is like the stoning scene in The Life of Brian!
Can we mention the English Historian A.J.P Taylor book The Origins of the Second World War published in 1961.
Notably, Taylor portrayed Hitler as a grasping opportunist with no beliefs other than the pursuit of power and anti-Semitism. He argued that Hitler did not possess any sort of programme and his foreign policy was one of drift and seizing chances as they offered themselves. He did not even consider Hitler's anti-Semitism unique: he argued that millions of Germans were just as ferociously anti-Semitic as Hitler and there was no reason to single out Hitler for sharing the beliefs of millions of others
he argued that Hitler was not just a normal German leader but also a normal Western leader. As a normal Western leader, Hitler was no better or worse than Stresemann, Chamberlain or Daladier. His argument was that Hitler wished to make Germany the strongest power in Europe but he did not want or plan war. The outbreak of war in 1939 was an unfortunate accident caused by mistakes on everyone's part.
Very dated I'd say. For those interested, there is brand new, well received, major biography on Hitler out in the last month by Volker Ullrich.
Just watching Ken on LBC Radio - David Mellor is making himself look a bigger fool than normal by demanding that Ken say sorry for mentioning Hitler. It really is like the stoning scene in The Life of Brian!
Can we mention the English Historian A.J.P Taylor book The Origins of the Second World War published in 1961.
Notably, Taylor portrayed Hitler as a grasping opportunist with no beliefs other than the pursuit of power and anti-Semitism. He argued that Hitler did not possess any sort of programme and his foreign policy was one of drift and seizing chances as they offered themselves. He did not even consider Hitler's anti-Semitism unique: he argued that millions of Germans were just as ferociously anti-Semitic as Hitler and there was no reason to single out Hitler for sharing the beliefs of millions of others
he argued that Hitler was not just a normal German leader but also a normal Western leader. As a normal Western leader, Hitler was no better or worse than Stresemann, Chamberlain or Daladier. His argument was that Hitler wished to make Germany the strongest power in Europe but he did not want or plan war. The outbreak of war in 1939 was an unfortunate accident caused by mistakes on everyone's part.
Very dated I'd say. For those interested, there is brand new, well received, major biography on Hitler out in the last month by Volker Ullrich.
Surely, the maxim of 'when you're explaining, you're losing' is exponentially so when it involves Hitler.
Just watching Ken on LBC Radio - David Mellor is making himself look a bigger fool than normal by demanding that Ken say sorry for mentioning Hitler. It really is like the stoning scene in The Life of Brian!
Can we mention the English Historian A.J.P Taylor book The Origins of the Second World War published in 1961.
Notably, Taylor portrayed Hitler as a grasping opportunist with no beliefs other than the pursuit of power and anti-Semitism. He argued that Hitler did not possess any sort of programme and his foreign policy was one of drift and seizing chances as they offered themselves. He did not even consider Hitler's anti-Semitism unique: he argued that millions of Germans were just as ferociously anti-Semitic as Hitler and there was no reason to single out Hitler for sharing the beliefs of millions of others
he argued that Hitler was not just a normal German leader but also a normal Western leader. As a normal Western leader, Hitler was no better or worse than Stresemann, Chamberlain or Daladier. His argument was that Hitler wished to make Germany the strongest power in Europe but he did not want or plan war. The outbreak of war in 1939 was an unfortunate accident caused by mistakes on everyone's part.
Germany pre-1914 was not especially anti-Semitic. Antisemitism was endemic in Austria-Hungary, France, and Russia, but in Germany, it was considered something of a primitive throwback. Defeat in WWI, plus the Bolshevik revolution radicalised some Germans, but Hitler's brand of anti-semitism only had minority appeal in the Twenties. Indeed, as the Nazis became more popular, they tended to play down anti-semitism in favour of anti-Marxism and attacks on the Weimar establishment.
While I agree that Hitler in power was an opportunist, I'd also argue that he planned on a final reckoning with the Jews, who he saw as absolutely demonic. How and when, and even whether, that final reckoning would take place would depend on circumstances.
Just watching Ken on LBC Radio - David Mellor is making himself look a bigger fool than normal by demanding that Ken say sorry for mentioning Hitler. It really is like the stoning scene in The Life of Brian!
Can we mention the English Historian A.J.P Taylor book The Origins of the Second World War published in 1961.
Notably, Taylor portrayed Hitler as a grasping opportunist with no beliefs other than the pursuit of power and anti-Semitism. He argued that Hitler did not possess any sort of programme and his foreign policy was one of drift and seizing chances as they offered themselves. He did not even consider Hitler's anti-Semitism unique: he argued that millions of Germans were just as ferociously anti-Semitic as Hitler and there was no reason to single out Hitler for sharing the beliefs of millions of others
he argued that Hitler was not just a normal German leader but also a normal Western leader. As a normal Western leader, Hitler was no better or worse than Stresemann, Chamberlain or Daladier. His argument was that Hitler wished to make Germany the strongest power in Europe but he did not want or plan war. The outbreak of war in 1939 was an unfortunate accident caused by mistakes on everyone's part.
That is a bollocks theory. The outbreak of WW2 was not an accident, it was a deliberately planned act by Germany.
The idea that he was a typical European leader is also garbage, unless Chamberlin engage in a concerted series of domestic political assassinations to assert his power.
I have to admit I was enjoying watching Labour tear themselves apart until quite recently.
The extent to which these views are now being expressed and defended is utterly depressing.
I asked a rhetorical question yesterday, why are these people coming out of the woodwork now.
Sad answer is its the culture and leadership.
As I say utterly depressing.
I think there's also the factor that it's never really been dug into either. These creatures have been saying such stuff for years - and now it's catching up with them. Before Jezzbollah, no one bothered to look.
Foxinsox..Labour could have changed all of that They basically hated the working classes escaping from the council house ghettos and moving out of their power and control structure..They simply hated Maggie unlocking the financial door for what they saw as their clientele.The working classes could kiss the Party,s collective arses..
Perhaps true in some councils, but New Labour explicitly did move to a more aspirational model of British society. In particular it favoured home ownership, and broadened access to higher education, amongst other things like expanding child support so that more mothers could earn outside the home.
It all went horribly wrong in other ways of course (which is why I left the Party a decade ago) but the rise of Corbynism and also to a degree kipperdom is because the Labour party was seen as becoming too middle class and no longer interested in the working class. Not that I completely agree with the class war model of politics, as it smacks too much of a different form of identity politics that is equally restricting.
Just watching Ken on LBC Radio - David Mellor is making himself look a bigger fool than normal by demanding that Ken say sorry for mentioning Hitler. It really is like the stoning scene in The Life of Brian!
Can we mention the English Historian A.J.P Taylor book The Origins of the Second World War published in 1961.
Notably, Taylor portrayed Hitler as a grasping opportunist with no beliefs other than the pursuit of power and anti-Semitism. He argued that Hitler did not possess any sort of programme and his foreign policy was one of drift and seizing chances as they offered themselves. He did not even consider Hitler's anti-Semitism unique: he argued that millions of Germans were just as ferociously anti-Semitic as Hitler and there was no reason to single out Hitler for sharing the beliefs of millions of others
he argued that Hitler was not just a normal German leader but also a normal Western leader. As a normal Western leader, Hitler was no better or worse than Stresemann, Chamberlain or Daladier. His argument was that Hitler wished to make Germany the strongest power in Europe but he did not want or plan war. The outbreak of war in 1939 was an unfortunate accident caused by mistakes on everyone's part.
That is a bollocks theory. The outbreak of WW2 was not an accident, it was a deliberately planned act by Germany.
Taylor's thesis was that Hitler was not the demoniacal figure of popular imagination but in foreign affairs a normal German leader. Citing Fritz Fischer, he argued that the foreign policy of the Third Reich was the same as those of the Weimar Republic and the Second Reich.
One could argue Britain declared war on Germany , and that was not in his planning.
I agree with you but A.J.P Taylor is a famous historian. In 1961, he published his most controversial book, The Origins of the Second World War, which earned him a reputation as a revisionist.
Just watching Ken on LBC Radio - David Mellor is making himself look a bigger fool than normal by demanding that Ken say sorry for mentioning Hitler. It really is like the stoning scene in The Life of Brian!
Can we mention the English Historian A.J.P Taylor book The Origins of the Second World War published in 1961.
Notably, Taylor portrayed Hitler as a grasping opportunist with no beliefs other than the pursuit of power and anti-Semitism. He argued that Hitler did not possess any sort of programme and his foreign policy was one of drift and seizing chances as they offered themselves. He did not even consider Hitler's anti-Semitism unique: he argued that millions of Germans were just as ferociously anti-Semitic as Hitler and there was no reason to single out Hitler for sharing the beliefs of millions of others
he argued that Hitler was not just a normal German leader but also a normal Western leader. As a normal Western leader, Hitler was no better or worse than Stresemann, Chamberlain or Daladier. His argument was that Hitler wished to make Germany the strongest power in Europe but he did not want or plan war. The outbreak of war in 1939 was an unfortunate accident caused by mistakes on everyone's part.
That is a bollocks theory. The outbreak of WW2 was not an accident, it was a deliberately planned act by Germany.
Taylor's thesis was that Hitler was not the demoniacal figure of popular imagination but in foreign affairs a normal German leader. Citing Fritz Fischer, he argued that the foreign policy of the Third Reich was the same as those of the Weimar Republic and the Second Reich.
One could argue Britain declared war on Germany , and that was not in his planning.
I agree with you but A.J.P Taylor is a famous historian. In 1961, he published his most controversial book, The Origins of the Second World War, which earned him a reputation as a revisionist.
Rubbish - no one "forced" Hitler to march into non-Sudeten Czech lands in March 1939. And Hitler knew Poland had a defensive pact with France and Blighty in September 1939.
Just watching Ken on LBC Radio - David Mellor is making himself look a bigger fool than normal by demanding that Ken say sorry for mentioning Hitler. It really is like the stoning scene in The Life of Brian!
Can we mention the English Historian A.J.P Taylor book The Origins of the Second World War published in 1961.
Notably, Taylor portrayed Hitler as a grasping opportunist with no beliefs other than the pursuit of power and anti-Semitism. He argued that Hitler did not possess any sort of programme and his foreign policy was one of drift and seizing chances as they offered themselves. He did not even consider Hitler's anti-Semitism unique: he argued that millions of Germans were just as ferociously anti-Semitic as Hitler and there was no reason to single out Hitler for sharing the beliefs of millions of others
he argued that Hitler was not just a normal German leader but also a normal Western leader. As a normal Western leader, Hitler was no better or worse than Stresemann, Chamberlain or Daladier. His argument was that Hitler wished to make Germany the strongest power in Europe but he did not want or plan war. The outbreak of war in 1939 was an unfortunate accident caused by mistakes on everyone's part.
That is a bollocks theory. The outbreak of WW2 was not an accident, it was a deliberately planned act by Germany.
Taylor's thesis was that Hitler was not the demoniacal figure of popular imagination but in foreign affairs a normal German leader. Citing Fritz Fischer, he argued that the foreign policy of the Third Reich was the same as those of the Weimar Republic and the Second Reich.
One could argue Britain declared war on Germany , and that was not in his planning.
I agree with you but A.J.P Taylor is a famous historian. In 1961, he published his most controversial book, The Origins of the Second World War, which earned him a reputation as a revisionist.
"It's not caused by me saying the truth", he said, saying the storm had been caused by MPs trying to undermine Jeremy Corbyn's leadership.
He has suggested it is all a conspiracy, with some members of the Labour party preferring to see "the Tories elected" than Mr Corbyn.
Despite continuing to talk on air about the row, Mr Livingstone insisted he doesn't enjoy the media circus. Asked why he keeps talking about it, he told reporters: "In that case go away and don't ask me questions".
The more I think about the prospects for the Tory leadership, I can't see anyone but T. May as PM if Cameron goes quickly.
I'm not displeased - she'd probably be better at party management (and certainly better than Osbo or Bojo), and would destroy Corbyn and any of his likely replacements inside and outside of the HoC.
Just watching Ken on LBC Radio - David Mellor is making himself look a bigger fool than normal by demanding that Ken say sorry for mentioning Hitler. It really is like the stoning scene in The Life of Brian!
Can we mention the English Historian A.J.P Taylor book The Origins of the Second World War published in 1961.
Notably, Taylor portrayed Hitler as a grasping opportunist with no beliefs other than the pursuit of power and anti-Semitism. He argued that Hitler did not possess any sort of programme and his foreign policy was one of drift and seizing chances as they offered themselves. He did not even consider Hitler's anti-Semitism unique: he argued that millions of Germans were just as ferociously anti-Semitic as Hitler and there was no reason to single out Hitler for sharing the beliefs of millions of others
he argued that Hitler was not just a normal German leader but also a normal Western leader. As a normal Western leader, Hitler was no better or worse than Stresemann, Chamberlain or Daladier. His argument was that Hitler wished to make Germany the strongest power in Europe but he did not want or plan war. The outbreak of war in 1939 was an unfortunate accident caused by mistakes on everyone's part.
That is a bollocks theory. The outbreak of WW2 was not an accident, it was a deliberately planned act by Germany.
Taylor's thesis was that Hitler was not the demoniacal figure of popular imagination but in foreign affairs a normal German leader. Citing Fritz Fischer, he argued that the foreign policy of the Third Reich was the same as those of the Weimar Republic and the Second Reich.
One could argue Britain declared war on Germany , and that was not in his planning.
Hitler made a pact with Stalin and then sneek attacked the Soviet Union. There was no point in negotiating with the Nazi monster, he simply had to be destroyed.
Just watching Ken on LBC Radio - David Mellor is making himself look a bigger fool than normal by demanding that Ken say sorry for mentioning Hitler. It really is like the stoning scene in The Life of Brian!
Can we mention the English Historian A.J.P Taylor book The Origins of the Second World War published in 1961.
Notably, Taylor portrayed Hitler as a grasping opportunist with no beliefs other than the pursuit of power and anti-Semitism. He argued that Hitler did not possess any sort of programme and his foreign policy was one of drift and seizing chances as they offered themselves. He did not even consider Hitler's anti-Semitism unique: he argued that millions of Germans were just as ferociously anti-Semitic as Hitler and there was no reason to single out Hitler for sharing the beliefs of millions of others
he argued that Hitler was not just a normal German leader but also a normal Western leader. As a normal Western leader, Hitler was no better or worse than Stresemann, Chamberlain or Daladier. His argument was that Hitler wished to make Germany the strongest power in Europe but he did not want or plan war. The outbreak of war in 1939 was an unfortunate accident caused by mistakes on everyone's part.
That is a bollocks theory. The outbreak of WW2 was not an accident, it was a deliberately planned act by Germany.
The idea that he was a typical European leader is also garbage, unless Chamberlin engage in a concerted series of domestic political assassinations to assert his power.
As I say v. dated. It is clear that Hitler planned war. He didn't want the UK to be involved but that's a side point. Apart from anything else there have been enormous archives opened up in former Soviet Union since Taylor was writing in 1960s.
The more I think about the prospects for the Tory leadership, I can't see anyone but T. May as PM if Cameron goes quickly.
I'm not displeased - she'd probably be better at party management (and certainly better than Osbo or Bojo), and would destroy Corbyn and any of his likely replacements inside and outside of the HoC.
Just watching Ken on LBC Radio - David Mellor is making himself look a bigger fool than normal by demanding that Ken say sorry for mentioning Hitler. It really is like the stoning scene in The Life of Brian!
Can we mention the English Historian A.J.P Taylor book The Origins of the Second World War published in 1961.
Notably, Taylor portrayed Hitler as a grasping opportunist with no beliefs other than the pursuit of power and anti-Semitism. He argued that Hitler did not possess any sort of programme and his foreign policy was one of drift and seizing chances as they offered themselves. He did not even consider Hitler's anti-Semitism unique: he argued that millions of Germans were just as ferociously anti-Semitic as Hitler and there was no reason to single out Hitler for sharing the beliefs of millions of others
he argued that Hitler was not just a normal German leader but also a normal Western leader. As a normal Western leader, Hitler was no better or worse than Stresemann, Chamberlain or Daladier. His argument was that Hitler wished to make Germany the strongest power in Europe but he did not want or plan war. The outbreak of war in 1939 was an unfortunate accident caused by mistakes on everyone's part.
That is a bollocks theory. The outbreak of WW2 was not an accident, it was a deliberately planned act by Germany.
Taylor's thesis was that Hitler was not the demoniacal figure of popular imagination but in foreign affairs a normal German leader. Citing Fritz Fischer, he argued that the foreign policy of the Third Reich was the same as those of the Weimar Republic and the Second Reich.
One could argue Britain declared war on Germany , and that was not in his planning.
I agree with you but A.J.P Taylor is a famous historian. In 1961, he published his most controversial book, The Origins of the Second World War, which earned him a reputation as a revisionist.
Hitler himself said it would be "criminal" simply to seek the restoration of the frontiers of the Second Reich. No other German leader would have set out to conquer Russia (the German army and foreign office traditionally wanted good relations with Russia).
Just watching Ken on LBC Radio - David Mellor is making himself look a bigger fool than normal by demanding that Ken say sorry for mentioning Hitler. It really is like the stoning scene in The Life of Brian!
Can we mention the English Historian A.J.P Taylor book The Origins of the Second World War published in 1961.
Notably, Taylor portrayed Hitler as a grasping opportunist with no beliefs other than the pursuit of power and anti-Semitism. He argued that Hitler did not possess any sort of programme and his foreign policy was one of drift and seizing chances as they offered themselves. He did not even consider Hitler's anti-Semitism unique: he argued that millions of Germans were just as ferociously anti-Semitic as Hitler and there was no reason to single out Hitler for sharing the beliefs of millions of others
he argued that Hitler was not just a normal German leader but also a normal Western leader. As a normal Western leader, Hitler was no better or worse than Stresemann, Chamberlain or Daladier. His argument was that Hitler wished to make Germany the strongest power in Europe but he did not want or plan war. The outbreak of war in 1939 was an unfortunate accident caused by mistakes on everyone's part.
That is a bollocks theory. The outbreak of WW2 was not an accident, it was a deliberately planned act by Germany.
Taylor's thesis was that Hitler was not the demoniacal figure of popular imagination but in foreign affairs a normal German leader. Citing Fritz Fischer, he argued that the foreign policy of the Third Reich was the same as those of the Weimar Republic and the Second Reich.
One could argue Britain declared war on Germany , and that was not in his planning.
I agree with you but A.J.P Taylor is a famous historian. In 1961, he published his most controversial book, The Origins of the Second World War, which earned him a reputation as a revisionist.
Hitler himself said it would be "criminal" simply to seek the restoration of the frontiers of the Second Reich. No other German leader would have set out to conquer Russia (the German army and foreign office traditionally wanted good relations with Russia).
Although having said that, Brest-Litovsk in 1918 was kind of a precursor to a Germanic eastern empire, including the Baltics, Belarus and Ukraine.
Just watching Ken on LBC Radio - David Mellor is making himself look a bigger fool than normal by demanding that Ken say sorry for mentioning Hitler. It really is like the stoning scene in The Life of Brian!
Can we mention the English Historian A.J.P Taylor book The Origins of the Second World War published in 1961.
Notably, Taylor portrayed Hitler as a grasping opportunist with no beliefs other than the pursuit of power and anti-Semitism. He argued that Hitler did not possess any sort of programme and his foreign policy was one of drift and seizing chances as they offered themselves. He did not even consider Hitler's anti-Semitism unique: he argued that millions of Germans were just as ferociously anti-Semitic as Hitler and there was no reason to single out Hitler for sharing the beliefs of millions of others
he argued that Hitler was not just a normal German leader but also a normal Western leader. As a normal Western leader, Hitler was no better or worse than Stresemann, Chamberlain or Daladier. His argument was that Hitler wished to make Germany the strongest power in Europe but he did not want or plan war. The outbreak of war in 1939 was an unfortunate accident caused by mistakes on everyone's part.
Germany pre-1914 was not especially anti-Semitic. Antisemitism was endemic in Austria-Hungary, France, and Russia, but in Germany, it was considered something of a primitive throwback. Defeat in WWI, plus the Bolshevik revolution radicalised some Germans, but Hitler's brand of anti-semitism only had minority appeal in the Twenties. Indeed, as the Nazis became more popular, they tended to play down anti-semitism in favour of anti-Marxism and attacks on the Weimar establishment.
While I agree that Hitler in power was an opportunist, I'd also argue that he planned on a final reckoning with the Jews, who he saw as absolutely demonic. How and when, and even whether, that final reckoning would take place would depend on circumstances.
As Billy Wilder famously observed
"The Austrians are brilliant people. They made the world believe that Hitler was a German and Beethoven an Austrian".
For me anti-Semitism is only one aspect of another problem which is the increasing influence of a radical left wing element of Islam within the Labour party. This group are simply not integrated into our society and do not share our values. So they have very different views of women, gays, other minorities and in particular other strands of Islam itself.
It is not Labour's fault these people are not integrated, at least not directly. Indirectly it is an inevitable consequence of a perverse kind of multiculturalism which allows the suspension of our values on cultural grounds and which Labour promoted. It is also frankly difficult not to suspect that politicians, being human, quite appreciated groups that would vote predictably and in a group in their favour.
Labour needs to come to terms with these issues but so, of course, does our society as a whole. Despite inevitably associating with some people in the past I think Sadiq Khan shows a part of the way forward and that he may well do useful work in this direction once mayor of London.
We need to assert our values and be just a bit more intolerant of the intolerant. Anyone who think this is just a problem for the Labour party is deluding themselves.
I do t think many would argue, by the by, with the point that there are definitely people on the right who think only right wingers are good people, and that blinds them to awful things their side might do. That will certainly be proven once again at some point. But it is also undoubtedly the case with portions of the left in particular regarding identity politics, and which is in focus right now.
In all my years following politics - I've always had the impression that Righties mostly think Lefties are naive, hand-wringers who love to tell everyone how much they care, by spending other people's money as evidence. And Lefties think Righties are malign, evil and selfish - "Tory Scum".
The 'opponent are scum' approach does seem more common from the left. The 'opponents are idiots' seems the more common approach from the right, though of course there will be crossover at times,
Having been told on here countless times that I hate my country and its history, that I don't care about the WWC, that Labour supporters are self-interested, feckless members of a client state, and so on, I take with a pinch of salt the notion that the right tends to see the left as merely misguided.
I was thinking more the wider political scene. You don't see as many 'labour scum' marches even when labour are in power. On here I agree the proportion of each method is different, but I think as a general rule it holds up. There is hate on both sides, and it does manifest in the same way, but the dominant fkavour differs, depending on the place. Much more likely to see 'opponents are evil' online in any case.
The right tends not to march or demonstrate full stop. I think that is the major difference.
Because they're working to pay the benefits that give the leftists the free time to march, demonstrate and vandalize. It was always thus.
Majority of benefit claimants are retired and Tory rather than Labour
Rubbish - no one "forced" Hitler to march into non-Sudeten Czech lands in March 1939. And Hitler knew Poland had a defensive pact with France and Blighty in September 1939.
Yes that is true , but how could we defend Poland from Germany or Russia ?
Taylor argued that the basic problem with an interwar Europe was a flawed Treaty of Versailles that was sufficiently onerous to ensure that the overwhelming majority of Germans would always hate it, but insufficiently onerous in that it failed to destroy Germany's potential to be a Great Power once more. In this way, Taylor argued that the Versailles Treaty was destabilising, for sooner or later the innate power of Germany that the Allies had declined to destroy in 1918–1919 would inevitably reassert itself against the Versailles Treaty and the international system established by Versailles that the Germans regarded as unjust and thus had no interest in preserving. Though Taylor argued that the Second World War was not inevitable and that the Versailles Treaty was nowhere near as harsh as contemporaries like John Maynard Keynes believed, what he regarded as a flawed peace settlement made the war more likely than not.
Just watching Ken on LBC Radio - David Mellor is making himself look a bigger fool than normal by demanding that Ken say sorry for mentioning Hitler. It really is like the stoning scene in The Life of Brian!
Can we mention the English Historian A.J.P Taylor book The Origins of the Second World War published in 1961.
Notably, Taylor portrayed Hitler as a grasping opportunist with no beliefs other than the pursuit of power and anti-Semitism. He argued that Hitler did not possess any sort of programme and his foreign policy was one of drift and seizing chances as they offered themselves. He did not even consider Hitler's anti-Semitism unique: he argued that millions of Germans were just as ferociously anti-Semitic as Hitler and there was no reason to single out Hitler for sharing the beliefs of millions of others
he argued that Hitler was not just a normal German leader but also a normal Western leader. As a normal Western leader, Hitler was no better or worse than Stresemann, Chamberlain or Daladier. His argument was that Hitler wished to make Germany the strongest power in Europe but he did not want or plan war. The outbreak of war in 1939 was an unfortunate accident caused by mistakes on everyone's part.
Germany pre-1914 was not especially anti-Semitic. Antisemitism was endemic in Austria-Hungary, France, and Russia, but in Germany, it was considered something of a primitive throwback. Defeat in WWI, plus the Bolshevik revolution radicalised some Germans, but Hitler's brand of anti-semitism only had minority appeal in the Twenties. Indeed, as the Nazis became more popular, they tended to play down anti-semitism in favour of anti-Marxism and attacks on the Weimar establishment.
While I agree that Hitler in power was an opportunist, I'd also argue that he planned on a final reckoning with the Jews, who he saw as absolutely demonic. How and when, and even whether, that final reckoning would take place would depend on circumstances.
Hitler though saw the bolshevik revolution as a jewish plot and believed in a judeobolshevik myth.
Just watching Ken on LBC Radio - David Mellor is making himself look a bigger fool than normal by demanding that Ken say sorry for mentioning Hitler. It really is like the stoning scene in The Life of Brian!
Can we mention the English Historian A.J.P Taylor book The Origins of the Second World War published in 1961.
That is a bollocks theory. The outbreak of WW2 was not an accident, it was a deliberately planned act by Germany.
Taylor's thesis was that Hitler was not the demoniacal figure of popular imagination but in foreign affairs a normal German leader. Citing Fritz Fischer, he argued that the foreign policy of the Third Reich was the same as those of the Weimar Republic and the Second Reich.
One could argue Britain declared war on Germany , and that was not in his planning.
I agree with you but A.J.P Taylor is a famous historian. In 1961, he published his most controversial book, The Origins of the Second World War, which earned him a reputation as a revisionist.
Certainly in 1939 Hitler did not intend a long war. The German economy only really went onto a war footing when Albert Speer took over in 1942. We had pretty much started the war with a much more radical mobilisation of the economy behind the war effort. This won us the Battle of Britain as much as the pilots themselves. We finished the summer of 1940 with more airplanes and fighters in particular than when it started, while the Germans had significantly fewer. We won partly by production and partly by better strategy.
Hitlers foreign policy certainly changed from the Weimar republic, and focussed on reunifying lost german territories, from the Rhineland to Austria to the Sudetenland, to Polish lands that were historically Prussian. The invasion of Moravia was in some ways a reversal of the breakup of Austria-Hungary.
Fascist and Authoritarian leaders were pretty much the norm across most of 1920's and 30's Europe, and democracies fairly recent and fragile, and also with a fairly restrictive male middle class electorate including the UK. In that sense Hitler was not way out of line with other European leaders.
A good article David. I think the reason Mann attracted all those signitures was because it was a bare faced virtue signalling publicity stunt. One of the most grotesque I've seen from a politician.
The damage to the party in my opinion is not that it's believed to be racist because no one other than natural enemies could believe that but because it looks a mess. A shipwreck out of control and for that we have pathetic leadership and self serving publicity seekers like Mann and Livingstone to thank.
Bovine manure.
If a Tory had said what Livingstone said about Hitler and Jews and another Tory had reacted confronting him there's no way you'd be saying the one confronting him was a self serving bare faced virtue signaller.
What Livingstone said was unacceptable so stop being so mealy mouthed trying to claim Manning has done anything wrong. Mann is only in the wrong if Livingstone was acceptable.
Rubbish Mann is a useless plonker , his only actions are shouting his big mouth off to try and appear as if he is virtuous and relevant. A worse than usual Labour donkey who should be on minimum wage for his contribution at best.
Lol - he must be a relative of yours!
I cannot think of a worse insult as being compared to an odious donkey of a Labour politician , perhaps only if you had said Cameron or Osborne could it be worse. I am gutted.
are you really 'gutted' - we'd all love to see the photos - a 'gutted turnip' lo says it all
If you believed that , ie teh "gutted" bit, you must be aspiring to be a turnip
I do t think many would argue, by the by, with the point that there are definitely people on the right who think only right wingers are good people, and that blinds them to awful things their side might do. That will certainly be proven once again at some point. But it is also undoubtedly the case with portions of the left in particular regarding identity politics, and which is in focus right now.
In all my years following politics - I've always had the impression that Righties mostly think Lefties are naive, hand-wringers who love to tell everyone how much they care, by spending other people's money as evidence. And Lefties think Righties are malign, evil and selfish - "Tory Scum".
The 'opponent are scum' approach does seem more common from the left. The 'opponents are idiots' seems the more common approach from the right, though of course there will be crossover at times,
Having been told on here countless times that I hate my country and its history, that I don't care about the WWC, that Labour supporters are self-interested, feckless members of a client state, and so on, I take with a pinch of salt the notion that the right tends to see the left as merely misguided.
I was thinking more the wider political scene. You don't see as many 'labour scum' marches even when labour are in power. On here I agree the proportion of each method is different, but I think as a general rule it holds up. There is hate on both sides, and it does manifest in the same way, but the dominant fkavour differs, depending on the place. Much more likely to see 'opponents are evil' online in any case.
The right tends not to march or demonstrate full stop. I think that is the major difference.
Because they're working to pay the benefits that give the leftists the free time to march, demonstrate and vandalize. It was always thus.
Rubbish - no one "forced" Hitler to march into non-Sudeten Czech lands in March 1939. And Hitler knew Poland had a defensive pact with France and Blighty in September 1939.
Yes that is true , but how could we defend Poland from Germany or Russia ?
Taylor argued that the basic problem with an interwar Europe was a flawed Treaty of Versailles that was sufficiently onerous to ensure that the overwhelming majority of Germans would always hate it, but insufficiently onerous in that it failed to destroy Germany's potential to be a Great Power once more. In this way, Taylor argued that the Versailles Treaty was destabilising, for sooner or later the innate power of Germany that the Allies had declined to destroy in 1918–1919 would inevitably reassert itself against the Versailles Treaty and the international system established by Versailles that the Germans regarded as unjust and thus had no interest in preserving. Though Taylor argued that the Second World War was not inevitable and that the Versailles Treaty was nowhere near as harsh as contemporaries like John Maynard Keynes believed, what he regarded as a flawed peace settlement made the war more likely than not.
There's no doubt that Versailles contributed to the rise of Hitler, but the Great Depression was also a major factor.
"Rubbish - no one "forced" Hitler to march into non-Sudeten Czech lands in March 1939. And Hitler knew Poland had a defensive pact with France and Blighty in September 1939."
Yes that is true , but how could we defend Poland from Germany or Russia ?
Taylor argued that the basic problem with an interwar Europe was a flawed Treaty of Versailles that was sufficiently onerous to ensure that the overwhelming majority of Germans would always hate it, but insufficiently onerous in that it failed to destroy Germany's potential to be a Great Power once more. In this way, Taylor argued that the Versailles Treaty was destabilising, for sooner or later the innate power of Germany that the Allies had declined to destroy in 1918–1919 would inevitably reassert itself against the Versailles Treaty and the international system established by Versailles that the Germans regarded as unjust and thus had no interest in preserving. Though Taylor argued that the Second World War was not inevitable and that the Versailles Treaty was nowhere near as harsh as contemporaries like John Maynard Keynes believed, what he regarded as a flawed peace settlement made the war more likely than not.
Although it was swiftly overturned by events, the Brest-Litovsk treaty was far more onerous than Versailles:
A good article David. I think the reason Mann attracted all those signitures was because it was a bare faced virtue signalling publicity stunt. One of the most grotesque I've seen from a politician.
The damage to the party in my opinion is not that it's believed to be racist because no one other than natural enemies could believe that but because it looks a mess. A shipwreck out of control and for that we have pathetic leadership and self serving publicity seekers like Mann and Livingstone to thank.
Labour has tolerated widespread, overt anti-Semitism among its membership for far too long. The hard left within Labour has embraced it. Labour members and officials have no-one to blame for this but themselves. Mann looked genuinely furious to me, as anyone with his long track record of fighting anti-Semitism and calling it out would have been.
Agreed Southam.
People like Roger are in fact part of the problem Labour face.
Just watching Ken on LBC Radio - David Mellor is making himself look a bigger fool than normal by demanding that Ken say sorry for mentioning Hitler. It really is like the stoning scene in The Life of Brian!
Can we mention the English Historian A.J.P Taylor book The Origins of the Second World War published in 1961.
Notably, Taylor portrayed Hitler as a grasping opportunist with no beliefs other than the pursuit of power and anti-Semitism. He argued that Hitler did not possess any sort of programme and his foreign policy was one of drift and seizing chances as they offered themselves. He did not even consider Hitler's anti-Semitism unique: he argued that millions of Germans were just as ferociously anti-Semitic as Hitler and there was no reason to single out Hitler for sharing the beliefs of millions of others
he argued that Hitler was not just a normal German leader but also a normal Western leader. As a normal Western leader, Hitler was no better or worse than Stresemann, Chamberlain or Daladier. His argument was that Hitler wished to make Germany the strongest power in Europe but he did not want or plan war. The outbreak of war in 1939 was an unfortunate accident caused by mistakes on everyone's part.
That is a bollocks theory. The outbreak of WW2 was not an accident, it was a deliberately planned act by Germany.
Taylor's thesis was that Hitler was not the demoniacal figure of popular imagination but in foreign affairs a normal German leader. Citing Fritz Fischer, he argued that the foreign policy of the Third Reich was the same as those of the Weimar Republic and the Second Reich.
One could argue Britain declared war on Germany , and that was not in his planning.
Hitler made a pact with Stalin and then sneek attacked the Soviet Union. There was no point in negotiating with the Nazi monster, he simply had to be destroyed.
Yes agreed But Taylor was making his case of the origins of the second war
This is a very good piece, but I think David misses the main reason for the hard left's blindness to/tolerance of anti-Semitism and various other deeply unpleasant beliefs: they will stand shoulder to shoulder with anyone who opposes what they regard as "western imperialism". The hard left does not hate Israel because it is populated by Jews, but because it enjoys the full protection and support of the US. And the hard left will stand shoulder to shoulder with anyone who opposes Israel as a result. This is what Labour members voted to bring in from the fringe when they voted for Corbyn. And this is why many who are naturally on the centre left will never vote Labour while Corbyn and his crew are in charge.
The left stands shoulder to shoulder with the underdog and it's very difficult to see Israel with it's oppression of the Palestinians as an underdog. That is the story in its entirity.
America is only relevant in that it adds to the sense of Israel's overwhelming power. This only morphed into 'anti semitism' because it's being peddled by some rather unpleasant right wing haters like Littlejohn and Guido who realized they could signal their own virtue by appearing to support suport a minority. It only aquired legs by some clumsy comments and a pathetic labour leadership
So a Labour councillor saying Hitler is the "greatest man in history" and so on is only an issue due to right wing virtue signalling?
Got you. You're a troll who can't see racism when it's written in black and white because the left doesn't do racism. I thought you were better than that.
Did someone say that "Hitler is the greatest man in history" or have you just made it up? As for the 'Left ' doing racism if you think Livingstone is more of a racist then Littlejohn or Guido then you need to go on the wagon.
Roger showing clearly the mind set of the left here - and why the review is doomed.
I hope most people are less blinkered than Roger.
But yes, people like Roger are clearly part of the problem.
"Rubbish - no one "forced" Hitler to march into non-Sudeten Czech lands in March 1939. And Hitler knew Poland had a defensive pact with France and Blighty in September 1939."
Yes that is true , but how could we defend Poland from Germany or Russia ?
Taylor argued that the basic problem with an interwar Europe was a flawed Treaty of Versailles that was sufficiently onerous to ensure that the overwhelming majority of Germans would always hate it, but insufficiently onerous in that it failed to destroy Germany's potential to be a Great Power once more. In this way, Taylor argued that the Versailles Treaty was destabilising, for sooner or later the innate power of Germany that the Allies had declined to destroy in 1918–1919 would inevitably reassert itself against the Versailles Treaty and the international system established by Versailles that the Germans regarded as unjust and thus had no interest in preserving. Though Taylor argued that the Second World War was not inevitable and that the Versailles Treaty was nowhere near as harsh as contemporaries like John Maynard Keynes believed, what he regarded as a flawed peace settlement made the war more likely than not.
Although it was swiftly overturned by events, the Brest-Litovsk treaty was far more onerous than Versailles:
The Treaty of Trianon was also far more onerous and has proved far more enduring, It is most unlikely to be rewritten now. That perhaps gives some weight to AJP Taylor's view of the Versailles Treaty.
Comments
FWIW my only real criticisms of council house sales was that they didn't build replacements for those who could not afford to buy, so the ladder was effectively pulled up and we end up in the mess we're in today.
Two examples, both close to me.
Shipley used to have a thriving synagogue. I went there on a school visit as a child. It has closed due to its congregation having declined below a sustainable level:
http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/10367980.Shipley_synagogue_is_forced_to_close_as_congregation_dwindles/
Bradford and district used to have a thriving Jewish population, linked closely with the wool trade. Many members were also active in local politics and I met the Waxmans mentioned in the article that way but now there are fewer than 300 Jews across the city. Give it fifty years and there'll probably be hardly any.
And the other example comes from India. When we were on holiday there, we visited Kochi synagogue, which is the oldest continually-operating synagogue in the entire Commonwealth, having been in use since 1567. It too is now functional only when Jews from outside the city come in for services. The younger population has simply moved to Israel and those that remain number in single figures (one of whom, who we met, still running her shop, is in her nineties).
I was in an election station a few years ago and an orthodox Rabbi in a voting booth asked me if I could help him because he'd left his glasses. I said sure and asked him who he wanted me to put his cross next to? "Conservative of course".
If he'd been anyone other than a Rabbi I might have been tempted to sin
http://www.historyofyork.org.uk/themes/norman/the-1190-massacre
mistaken, but actually deeply malevolent.
But you're right, the net is the natural home of right-wing bile today.
It took the Tories a long time to detoxify themselves as being anti-gay. Corbyns response so far,has been very much no crisis as I am anti-racist...
But for partisan reasons agreed with their actions of blocking refineries.
But normally they are always in power , in some shape or form, so there is no requirement as they control all the levers of power.
Some would argue they were still in power 97 to 2010, as Blair extended the third way big tent, to include many conservatives , even when there was no requirment to do so with a 179 majority.
Only overnight polling ORB online has OUT 51 IN 49
Self certifying turnout adjustment
@clarky2006
@jpfallon27 @afneil so why did his crew set Ken up to be harrased by near deranged John Mann
Andrew Neil @afneil 3m3 minutes ago
Andrew Neil Retweeted troy smith
There was no set up, you conspiracy nutter. We didn't even have a camera there when it happened. Blocked.
Great interview with Roger Stone, well worth listening to.
https://soundcloud.com/off-message/roger-stone-on-trump-campaign-you-dont-manage-donald
Another good article by Doug Wead on why Bernie is going to Cali.
https://dougwead.wordpress.com/2016/04/28/why-bernie-wont-quit/
Nate Silver actually has a worthwhile article. Trump is double digits ahead because Indiana is more Kentucky than the rest of the old North West.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/indiana-is-weird/?ex_cid=story-twitter
The economic policy of the time was explicitly to restrict all government capital spending with inflation seen as the main enemy. It may well have worked in the sense that significant inflation is almost unknown to a new generation, but it did lead to a major infrastructure gap in the UK. This was not just in terms of public sector housing, but also in terms of schools and hospitals. There was very little major investment in these until the early nineties. When it did start again it was the off balance sheet PFI and PPP investment whose chickens are now coming home to roost.
Notably, Taylor portrayed Hitler as a grasping opportunist with no beliefs other than the pursuit of power and anti-Semitism. He argued that Hitler did not possess any sort of programme and his foreign policy was one of drift and seizing chances as they offered themselves. He did not even consider Hitler's anti-Semitism unique: he argued that millions of Germans were just as ferociously anti-Semitic as Hitler and there was no reason to single out Hitler for sharing the beliefs of millions of others
he argued that Hitler was not just a normal German leader but also a normal Western leader. As a normal Western leader, Hitler was no better or worse than Stresemann, Chamberlain or Daladier. His argument was that Hitler wished to make Germany the strongest power in Europe but he did not want or plan war. The outbreak of war in 1939 was an unfortunate accident caused by mistakes on everyone's part.
He that walketh with wise men shall be wise: but a companion of fools shall be destroyed.
Also, it appears that there is finally something agreed for what next seasons cars will look like. Longer, wider and with fatter tyres.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/36172295
It was always thus.
I'm not a fan of Ken but the hounding of a confused old man does seem to be going over the top.
My sympathy is tempered only because of Ken's glee at shouting -ist or -phobe at everyone who disagrees with him. You play with fire ...
The issue is really of affordability rather than who is the provider. If there was an ample supply of good quality private rented property or purchasable properties for low income families then the calls on socially provided housing would be much less.
It is not just about numbers of properties, but also of lifestyles. In 1930s London the population was much as it is now, but people lived much more in multiple occupancy and overcrowding.
I have to admit I was enjoying watching Labour tear themselves apart until quite recently.
The extent to which these views are now being expressed and defended is utterly depressing.
I asked a rhetorical question yesterday, why are these people coming out of the woodwork now.
Sad answer is its the culture and leadership.
As I say utterly depressing.
While I agree that Hitler in power was an opportunist, I'd also argue that he planned on a final reckoning with the Jews, who he saw as absolutely demonic. How and when, and even whether, that final reckoning would take place would depend on circumstances.
The idea that he was a typical European leader is also garbage, unless Chamberlin engage in a concerted series of domestic political assassinations to assert his power.
Ken was a confused old man when he was in his thirties.
It all went horribly wrong in other ways of course (which is why I left the Party a decade ago) but the rise of Corbynism and also to a degree kipperdom is because the Labour party was seen as becoming too middle class and no longer interested in the working class. Not that I completely agree with the class war model of politics, as it smacks too much of a different form of identity politics that is equally restricting.
One could argue Britain declared war on Germany , and that was not in his planning.
I agree with you but A.J.P Taylor is a famous historian.
In 1961, he published his most controversial book, The Origins of the Second World War, which earned him a reputation as a revisionist.
Ken intv starts at 4 mins in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzJweiq9hrU
"We did not start it!"
"Yes, you did. You invaded Poland."
I'm not displeased - she'd probably be better at party management (and certainly better than Osbo or Bojo), and would destroy Corbyn and any of his likely replacements inside and outside of the HoC.
"The Austrians are brilliant people. They made the world believe that Hitler was a German and Beethoven an Austrian".
It is not Labour's fault these people are not integrated, at least not directly. Indirectly it is an inevitable consequence of a perverse kind of multiculturalism which allows the suspension of our values on cultural grounds and which Labour promoted. It is also frankly difficult not to suspect that politicians, being human, quite appreciated groups that would vote predictably and in a group in their favour.
Labour needs to come to terms with these issues but so, of course, does our society as a whole. Despite inevitably associating with some people in the past I think Sadiq Khan shows a part of the way forward and that he may well do useful work in this direction once mayor of London.
We need to assert our values and be just a bit more intolerant of the intolerant. Anyone who think this is just a problem for the Labour party is deluding themselves.
Majority of workers are Labour rather than Tory.
If only people of working age voted EICIPM
Inconvenient truth
Rubbish - no one "forced" Hitler to march into non-Sudeten Czech lands in March 1939. And Hitler knew Poland had a defensive pact with France and Blighty in September 1939.
Yes that is true , but how could we defend Poland from Germany or Russia ?
Taylor argued that the basic problem with an interwar Europe was a flawed Treaty of Versailles that was sufficiently onerous to ensure that the overwhelming majority of Germans would always hate it, but insufficiently onerous in that it failed to destroy Germany's potential to be a Great Power once more. In this way, Taylor argued that the Versailles Treaty was destabilising, for sooner or later the innate power of Germany that the Allies had declined to destroy in 1918–1919 would inevitably reassert itself against the Versailles Treaty and the international system established by Versailles that the Germans regarded as unjust and thus had no interest in preserving. Though Taylor argued that the Second World War was not inevitable and that the Versailles Treaty was nowhere near as harsh as contemporaries like John Maynard Keynes believed, what he regarded as a flawed peace settlement made the war more likely than not.
Hitlers foreign policy certainly changed from the Weimar republic, and focussed on reunifying lost german territories, from the Rhineland to Austria to the Sudetenland, to Polish lands that were historically Prussian. The invasion of Moravia was in some ways a reversal of the breakup of Austria-Hungary.
Fascist and Authoritarian leaders were pretty much the norm across most of 1920's and 30's Europe, and democracies fairly recent and fragile, and also with a fairly restrictive male middle class electorate including the UK. In that sense Hitler was not way out of line with other European leaders.
Surely he should have done the walk.
Apparently he has very long legs
Taylor argued that the basic problem with an interwar Europe was a flawed Treaty of Versailles that was sufficiently onerous to ensure that the overwhelming majority of Germans would always hate it, but insufficiently onerous in that it failed to destroy Germany's potential to be a Great Power once more. In this way, Taylor argued that the Versailles Treaty was destabilising, for sooner or later the innate power of Germany that the Allies had declined to destroy in 1918–1919 would inevitably reassert itself against the Versailles Treaty and the international system established by Versailles that the Germans regarded as unjust and thus had no interest in preserving. Though Taylor argued that the Second World War was not inevitable and that the Versailles Treaty was nowhere near as harsh as contemporaries like John Maynard Keynes believed, what he regarded as a flawed peace settlement made the war more likely than not.
There's no doubt that Versailles contributed to the rise of Hitler, but the Great Depression was also a major factor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Brest-Litovsk
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boring-election-its-a-quiet-revolution-on-road-to-independence-2f8rjtblf?shareToken=b5bcf8b275358c321d0a1b24c5eba2fc
"If people have been offended, I am really sorry about that"- Ken
People like Roger are in fact part of the problem Labour face.
But Taylor was making his case of the origins of the second war
But yes, people like Roger are clearly part of the problem.
The whole point of an apology is to admit that you have done something wrong, and to acknowledge it.
Ken's "apology" does not achieve that.
Apparently other things were more important than protecting children.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labour-strategy-chief-called-foundation-of-israel-a-crime-9pt0wssbb
This Labour review is going to be interesting...