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.
"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:
I think Taylor had a point. If you wanted a punitive treaty then you had to be prepared to enforce it. So Germany should have been fully occupied after WWI for say ten-fifteen years to enforce reparation payments. The country should probably have been split up again as well, if you wanted to go down that route.
What the Left needs to examine is that at their core, they are very happy to hate. And sneer. And snarl.
To hate the US. To hate "zios". To hate "Tory scum". To sneer at White Van Man and his England flags.
The Left would tell you they would die in a ditch for gender equality. Really? So how come those Neanderthal "Tory scum" have a forty year (and still growing) head start on appointing a woman at the top of their party?
The Left would tell you they would die in a ditch for sexual equality. Really? So how come it was the "Tory scum" who were prepared to risk antagonising their own natural supporters by passing legislation that allowed gay marriage? Something Labour wimped out of during the previous 13 years. Who were he scared offending?
The Left would tell you they would die in a ditch for the rights of the workers. Really? So how come that every time Labour gets power, it leaves office with unemployment higher than it inherited? Because it continually implements the same broken economic model. And the people who suffer as a result? It's always the poorest in society.
The only thing the Left do well? Really well, world-beating well?
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".
They also tried to push the line that they were the first victims of Nazi aggression, though perhaps not quite so successful in getting the world to believe that.
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.
Excellent precis. It's rare that I agree with every point in such a long post. Point three is on the button
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.
The thing that is getting missed in Ken continuing banging on about Hitler stuff, is that isn't what started this. He claimed the stuff that Naz Shah posted "was a bit rude" and a list of other stuff.
It is now getting conflated with some historical argument about Hitler and the Jews. What he initially said was offensive about Jews today.
There's some clever people on here, I'd like some help.
At school in the 70s I'm sure I was told 6m died in the camps, mainly jews but also, gypsies, political prisoners, POWs etc. This has now changed to 6m Jews.
In terms of horror the numbers are fairly irrelevant but I wonder if I'm mistaken or if history has been rewritten, was anybody else taught similar?
Grammar school in the 70's - taught about 6 million jews and many millions of others.
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.
What the Left needs to examine is that at their core, they are very happy to hate. And sneer. And snarl.
To hate the US. To hate "zios". To hate "Tory scum". To sneer at White Van Man and his England flags.
The Left would tell you they would die in a ditch for gender equality. Really? So how come those Neanderthal "Tory scum" have a forty year (and still growing) head start on appointing a woman at the top of their party?
The Left would tell you they would die in a ditch for sexual equality. Really? So how come it was the "Tory scum" who were prepared to risk antagonising their own natural supporters by passing legislation that allowed gay marriage? Something Labour wimped out of during the previous 13 years. Who were he scared offending?
The Left would tell you they would die in a ditch for the rights of the workers. Really? So how come that every time Labour gets power, it leaves office with unemployment higher than it inherited? Because it continually implements the same broken economic model. And the people who suffer as a result? It's always the poorest in society.
The only thing the Left do well? Really well, world-beating well?
Hypocrisy.
Bravo sir, bravo.
So why aren't you campaigning for us all to be banned, boiled alive or whatever?
The thing that is getting missed in Ken continuing banging on about Hitler stuff, is that isn't what started this. He claimed the stuff that Naz Shah posted "was a bit rude" and a list of other stuff.
It is now getting conflated with some historical argument about Hitler and the Jews. What he initially said was offensive about Jews today.
I endured the whole LBC intv, and Ken is off with the faeries. He's in full possession of his marbles - they're just WTF marbles. Attempts at sympathy-for-Ken-he's-a-bit-dotty reminds me of sympathy with the Devil being thrown out of Heaven for loving God too much.
Did you see the Sky coverage of Trump being blockaded by Lefties? He got out of his motorcade on the freeway, walked down the carriage with about 20 secret service agents and climbed over a chain link fence to get to the venue. It's just beyond wrong. Democracy is damaged by these morons.
Labour have had a uniquely horrible week, have questions to answer and are further from power than ever.
But if you're not rich, not well connected or simply give a shit about others, Labour is still your best bet.
The problem at the moment is that Labour with Jez, McMao, etc, are not credible on the economy. I am not rich, nor well connected and give a shit about others, but with those two in charge with their mad 70's failed ideas they pose a serious risk to tank the economy, to entrepreneurship etc etc etc.
Labour need to ditch these dinoasaurs and get some sensible people of the Darling ilk back in positions of responsibility.
Did you see the Sky coverage of Trump being blockaded by Lefties? He got out of his motorcade on the freeway, walked down the carriage with about 20 secret service agents and climbed over a chain link fence to get to the venue. It's just beyond wrong. Democracy is damaged by these morons.
The regressives at it again....It is telling that the smarter Liberal Lefties in the US are also up in arms at these idiots and their safe space no platforming bollocks.
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.
Not that different from Churchill then.
The Arthur Donaldson faction lives.
You not getting mixed up with the BUF and English aristocracy
Labour have had a uniquely horrible week, have questions to answer and are further from power than ever.
But if you're not rich, not well connected or simply give a shit about others, Labour is still your best bet.
The problem at the moment is that Labour with Jez, McMao, etc, are not credible on the economy. I am not rich, nor well connected and give a shit about others, but with those two in charge with their mad 70's failed ideas they pose a serious risk to tank the economy, to entrepreneurship etc etc etc.
Labour need to ditch these dinoasaurs and get some sensible people of the Darling ilk back in positions of responsibility.
What the Left needs to examine is that at their core, they are very happy to hate. And sneer. And snarl.
To hate the US. To hate "zios". To hate "Tory scum". To sneer at White Van Man and his England flags.
The Left would tell you they would die in a ditch for gender equality. Really? So how come those Neanderthal "Tory scum" have a forty year (and still growing) head start on appointing a woman at the top of their party?
The Left would tell you they would die in a ditch for sexual equality. Really? So how come it was the "Tory scum" who were prepared to risk antagonising their own natural supporters by passing legislation that allowed gay marriage? Something Labour wimped out of during the previous 13 years. Who were he scared offending?
The Left would tell you they would die in a ditch for the rights of the workers. Really? So how come that every time Labour gets power, it leaves office with unemployment higher than it inherited? Because it continually implements the same broken economic model. And the people who suffer as a result? It's always the poorest in society.
The only thing the Left do well? Really well, world-beating well?
Hypocrisy.
Bravo sir, bravo.
So why aren't you campaigning for us all to be banned, boiled alive or whatever?
...they think beating the left in elections is a better solution?
What the Left needs to examine is that at their core, they are very happy to hate. And sneer. And snarl.
To hate the US. To hate "zios". To hate "Tory scum". To sneer at White Van Man and his England flags.
The Left would tell you they would die in a ditch for gender equality. Really? So how come those Neanderthal "Tory scum" have a forty year (and still growing) head start on appointing a woman at the top of their party?
The Left would tell you they would die in a ditch for sexual equality. Really? So how come it was the "Tory scum" who were prepared to risk antagonising their own natural supporters by passing legislation that allowed gay marriage? Something Labour wimped out of during the previous 13 years. Who were he scared offending?
The Left would tell you they would die in a ditch for the rights of the workers. Really? So how come that every time Labour gets power, it leaves office with unemployment higher than it inherited? Because it continually implements the same broken economic model. And the people who suffer as a result? It's always the poorest in society.
The only thing the Left do well? Really well, world-beating well?
Hypocrisy.
Bravo sir, bravo.
So why aren't you campaigning for us all to be banned, boiled alive or whatever?
Why do you persevere with this balls?
Is it difficult for you to understand that we can disagree with the left, think it absent good sense and/or intellectual heft and oppose it vigorously, but also understand that banning things is fundamentally anti-democratic?
Do you want to ban everything you disagree with? That is the implicit corollary of your incessant remarks goading people to suggest banning the Labour party.
What the Left needs to examine is that at their core, they are very happy to hate. And sneer. And snarl.
To hate the US. To hate "zios". To hate "Tory scum". To sneer at White Van Man and his England flags.
The Left would tell you they would die in a ditch for gender equality. Really? So how come those Neanderthal "Tory scum" have a forty year (and still growing) head start on appointing a woman at the top of their party?
The Left would tell you they would die in a ditch for sexual equality. Really? So how come it was the "Tory scum" who were prepared to risk antagonising their own natural supporters by passing legislation that allowed gay marriage? Something Labour wimped out of during the previous 13 years. Who were he scared offending?
The Left would tell you they would die in a ditch for the rights of the workers. Really? So how come that every time Labour gets power, it leaves office with unemployment higher than it inherited? Because it continually implements the same broken economic model. And the people who suffer as a result? It's always the poorest in society.
The only thing the Left do well? Really well, world-beating well?
Hypocrisy.
Bravo sir, bravo.
So why aren't you campaigning for us all to be banned, boiled alive or whatever?
...they think beating the left in elections is a better solution?
I really don't understand this non sequitur.
You mean you don't know which you think is the better solution? That I can well believe.
The thing that is getting missed in Ken continuing banging on about Hitler stuff, is that isn't what started this. He claimed the stuff that Naz Shah posted "was a bit rude" and a list of other stuff.
It is now getting conflated with some historical argument about Hitler and the Jews. What he initially said was offensive about Jews today.
I endured the whole LBC intv, and Ken is off with the faeries. He's in full possession of his marbles - they're just WTF marbles. Attempts at sympathy-for-Ken-he's-a-bit-dotty reminds me of sympathy with the Devil being thrown out of Heaven for loving God too much.
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
Hitler though saw the bolshevik revolution as a jewish plot and believed in a judeobolshevik myth.
Not that different from Churchill then.
Indeed. Anti-semitism was pretty rife pre-war.
On my recent train safari across Eastern Europe (taking in Auschwitz amonst other points of interest it was hard not to be aware of the ghosts of the old Jewish culture of Europe.
Particularly interesting was a conversation that I had with a guide at the Doheny st synagogue in Budapest. It was really quite a remarkeable structure and he had grown tired of showing people around whose interest was in the holocaust. We had quite a long discussion on how assimillated yet distinct the Jews of Budapest had been in respect of Hungarian life and culture. It sparked me to read this sad yet engaging recent book on European Jewry:
I quite recommend it. As well as its interest historically, it has many themes which carry over to modern Europe, and to multiculturalism in particular.
Foxinsox..I made a documentary on the Jewish Ghetto in Budapest..very moving to be there and to imagine what it must have been like. and Sachsenhausen was a very sobering experience. That is why there is such a reaction to the Idiot Kens remarks..he has not got a clue what Hitler was like..He should read "Hitlers Willing Executioners"..by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen
Probably because the evidence not looking like it will stand up as a story....from the same website that brought the original story.
Evidence shows the mysterious woman who lodged allegations of sexual assault against Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein may not have ever known either of the men
On my recent train safari across Eastern Europe (taking in Auschwitz amonst other points of interest it was hard not to be aware of the ghosts of the old Jewish culture of Europe.
Particularly interesting was a conversation that I had with a guide at the Doheny st synagogue in Budapest. It was really quite a remarkeable structure and he had grown tired of showing people around whose interest was in the holocaust. We had quite a long discussion on how assimillated yet distinct the Jews of Budapest had been in respect of Hungarian life and culture. It sparked me to read this sad yet engaging recent book on European Jewry:
I quite recommend it. As well as its interest historically, it has many themes which carry over to modern Europe, and to multiculturalism in particular.
There was an excellent Storyville on BBC4 a few weeks ago featuring Phillipe Sands interviewing the 2 sons of high ranking Nazis, and accompanying them of a tour of their fathers, er, achievements. The differing attitudes of the sons towards their fathers was fascinating.
The visit to Lviv in the Ukraine (where numerous members of Sands' family were exterminated, and the extermination overseen by the father of one of the accompanying sons) was very powerful. Another visit to a commemoration of Ukranian 'patriots' with attendees prancing about in SS uniforms was also a bit of an eye opener; it suggests that it's not only the ghosts of an exterminated Jewish culture that haunt Eastern Europe, but also that of their exterminators.
Probably because the evidence not looking like it will stand up as a story....from the same website that brought the original story.
Evidence shows the mysterious woman who lodged allegations of sexual assault against Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein may not have ever known either of the men
There's a long piece on Vice about Trump and Clinton's connections with Epstein. That allegation doesn't seem to have any substance and Epstein was eventually banned from Trump's Mar-A-Lago club.
A 2003 story in New York reported that Trump had dined at Epstein's Upper East Side home, a nine-story building that is reportedly the largest private residence in Manhattan.
That dinner, for 30 people, was also attended by Google co-founder Sergey Brin, businessman and philanthropist Les Wexner, former British Cabinet minister Peter Mandelson, and Bill Clinton aide Doug Band.
Q1: A fortnight back, if someone, say on Facebook, had asked Naz Shah for a retraction of her views and an apology, what answer would they have got?
A1: Either F-off and/or What's Your Address?
Q2: Is Naz Shah sincere in pursuing interfaith understanding?
A2: Well, Don Brind seems to think so.
I don't believe her - yet. She's 38, not 18. Let's see if after an extended period in the wilderness, whether she's tried to persuade other Muslim bigots of the error of their ways. I hope she redeems herself.
The thing that is getting missed in Ken continuing banging on about Hitler stuff, is that isn't what started this. He claimed the stuff that Naz Shah posted "was a bit rude" and a list of other stuff.
It is now getting conflated with some historical argument about Hitler and the Jews. What he initially said was offensive about Jews today.
I endured the whole LBC intv, and Ken is off with the faeries. He's in full possession of his marbles - they're just WTF marbles. Attempts at sympathy-for-Ken-he's-a-bit-dotty reminds me of sympathy with the Devil being thrown out of Heaven for loving God too much.
However, the problem originated with Naz Shah, and it is clear that what she originally wrote was appalling, far worse than anything Ken has said.
Naz comes across (given what she posted) as an ill-educated, ill-informed bigot.
And so the pertinent question is how did she end up as a Labour MP?
It is hard to escape the conclusion that she was chosen because of her history and back-story, because she represented redemption and transformation, because she showed that terrible things in life can be overcome.
Perhaps she can still represent those things, but she now has a lot of work to do.
The thing that is getting missed in Ken continuing banging on about Hitler stuff, is that isn't what started this. He claimed the stuff that Naz Shah posted "was a bit rude" and a list of other stuff.
It is now getting conflated with some historical argument about Hitler and the Jews. What he initially said was offensive about Jews today.
I endured the whole LBC intv, and Ken is off with the faeries. He's in full possession of his marbles - they're just WTF marbles. Attempts at sympathy-for-Ken-he's-a-bit-dotty reminds me of sympathy with the Devil being thrown out of Heaven for loving God too much.
However, the problem originated with Naz Shah, and it is clear that what she originally wrote was appalling, far worse than anything Ken has said.
Naz comes across (given what she posted) as an ill-educated, ill-informed bigot.
And so the pertinent question is how did she end up as a Labour MP?
It is hard to escape the conclusion that she was chosen because of her history and back-story, because she represented redemption and transformation, because she showed that terrible things in life can be overcome.
Perhaps she can still represent those things, but she now has a lot of work to do.
"......the pertinent question is how did she end up as a Labour MP?"
Is it any wonder that kids at school are unruly and rude..Just seen the TV coverage of the Headmasters Conference and the way they treated the Education Secretary..How can they discipline the children if they act like buffoons..
Q1: A fortnight back, if someone, say on Facebook, had asked Naz Shah for a retraction of her views and an apology, what answer would they have got?
A1: Either F-off and/or What's Your Address?
Q2: Is Naz Shah sincere in pursuing interfaith understanding?
A2: Well, Don Brind seems to think so.
I don't believe her - yet. She's 38, not 18. Let's see if after an extended period in the wilderness, whether she's tried to persuade other Muslim bigots of the error of their ways. I hope she redeems herself.
I'd love to agree. It's a great opportunity, but the chances of shifting attitudes within the UK's muslim institutions and families is in betting terms are long-odds against ... Corbyn is particularly ill-equipped to inspire change ...
What the Left needs to examine is that at their core, they are very happy to hate. And sneer. And snarl.
To hate the US. To hate "zios". To hate "Tory scum". To sneer at White Van Man and his England flags.
The Left would tell you they would die in a ditch for gender equality. Really? So how come those Neanderthal "Tory scum" have a forty year (and still growing) head start on appointing a woman at the top of their party?
The Left would tell you they would die in a ditch for sexual equality. Really? So how come it was the "Tory scum" who were prepared to risk antagonising their own natural supporters by passing legislation that allowed gay marriage? Something Labour wimped out of during the previous 13 years. Who were he scared offending?
The Left would tell you they would die in a ditch for the rights of the workers. Really? So how come that every time Labour gets power, it leaves office with unemployment higher than it inherited? Because it continually implements the same broken economic model. And the people who suffer as a result? It's always the poorest in society.
The only thing the Left do well? Really well, world-beating well?
Hypocrisy.
Bravo sir, bravo.
So why aren't you campaigning for us all to be banned, boiled alive or whatever?
...they think beating the left in elections is a better solution?
I really don't understand this non sequitur.
You mean you don't know which you think is the better solution? That I can well believe.
Idiotic - Im someone who said ed m would be PM and that he would be ok, even if I didn't want him to win, so can hardly be said to be an extreme right winger of the type you are talking about.
You are continually insinuating people want to ban or kill the left, and when challenged as you show here you assume that person is an extreme right winger. Simple bloody idiocy.
The thing that is getting missed in Ken continuing banging on about Hitler stuff, is that isn't what started this. He claimed the stuff that Naz Shah posted "was a bit rude" and a list of other stuff.
It is now getting conflated with some historical argument about Hitler and the Jews. What he initially said was offensive about Jews today.
I endured the whole LBC intv, and Ken is off with the faeries. He's in full possession of his marbles - they're just WTF marbles. Attempts at sympathy-for-Ken-he's-a-bit-dotty reminds me of sympathy with the Devil being thrown out of Heaven for loving God too much.
Is it any wonder that kids at school are unruly and rude..Just seen the TV coverage of the Headmasters Conference and the way they treated the Education Secretary..How can they discipline the children if they act like buffoons..
I saw Nicky Morgan doing a very dignified response to one sexist comment from the floor. I switched over, it's not what I expect from any head teacher.
What's the impact of this on the locals, if any outside London? I've no feel for this post Oldham by-election.
Put it this way - if you work in the steel industry or for a high street retailer that might collapse, and you are expecting Labour to fight for your job, you'll be delighted to see the party focused on Hitler for the week.
Q1: A fortnight back, if someone, say on Facebook, had asked Naz Shah for a retraction of her views and an apology, what answer would they have got?
A1: Either F-off and/or What's Your Address?
Q2: Is Naz Shah sincere in pursuing interfaith understanding?
A2: Well, Don Brind seems to think so.
I don't believe her - yet. She's 38, not 18. Let's see if after an extended period in the wilderness, whether she's tried to persuade other Muslim bigots of the error of their ways. I hope she redeems herself.
I'd love to agree. It's a great opportunity, but the chances of shifting attitudes within the UK's muslim institutions and families is in betting terms are long-odds against ... Corbyn is particularly ill-equipped to inspire change ...
For that to happen, Labour and the wider Left would have to first acknowledge that there was a problem in the first place - and they won't. They're not going to risk alienating their last block of core voters. The events in Rotherham proved this beyond any doubt.
The thing that is getting missed in Ken continuing banging on about Hitler stuff, is that isn't what started this. He claimed the stuff that Naz Shah posted "was a bit rude" and a list of other stuff.
It is now getting conflated with some historical argument about Hitler and the Jews. What he initially said was offensive about Jews today.
I endured the whole LBC intv, and Ken is off with the faeries. He's in full possession of his marbles - they're just WTF marbles. Attempts at sympathy-for-Ken-he's-a-bit-dotty reminds me of sympathy with the Devil being thrown out of Heaven for loving God too much.
Quite right. As discussed on good old PB yesterday. Tim Snyder's book is the best I've read all year, if deeply harrowing.
Ken is also contradicted by the Marxist historian he says supports his case. If that's his defense he's finished.
Yep, he's completely wrong on the history, as he well knows, so how's he going to justify all this?
Particularly as its not something he claims to have just thought and can now say oops I was wrong - he says he's thought this for decades, so plenty if time to have learned the truth.
Back in after a nice 9 mile walk delivering leaflets. Had a listen to LBC, have never heard someone dig their own grave so expertly. He is of course right that the right wing are using this as a way of attacking Corbyn - a point made repeatedly by Michael Crick - but seems happy to help them do so by not backing down.
Is it any wonder that kids at school are unruly and rude..Just seen the TV coverage of the Headmasters Conference and the way they treated the Education Secretary..How can they discipline the children if they act like buffoons..
I saw Nicky Morgan doing a very dignified response to one sexist comment from the floor. I switched over, it's not what I expect from any head teacher.
Q1: A fortnight back, if someone, say on Facebook, had asked Naz Shah for a retraction of her views and an apology, what answer would they have got?
A1: Either F-off and/or What's Your Address?
Q2: Is Naz Shah sincere in pursuing interfaith understanding?
A2: Well, Don Brind seems to think so.
I don't believe her - yet. She's 38, not 18. Let's see if after an extended period in the wilderness, whether she's tried to persuade other Muslim bigots of the error of their ways. I hope she redeems herself.
I'd love to agree. It's a great opportunity, but the chances of shifting attitudes within the UK's muslim institutions and families is in betting terms are long-odds against ... Corbyn is particularly ill-equipped to inspire change ...
For that to happen, Labour and the wider Left would have to first acknowledge that there was a problem in the first place - and they won't. They're not going to risk alienating their last block of core voters. The events in Rotherham proved this beyond any doubt.
As I've stated at least three times on PB, I think Labour needs to split
Is it any wonder that kids at school are unruly and rude..Just seen the TV coverage of the Headmasters Conference and the way they treated the Education Secretary..How can they discipline the children if they act like buffoons..
I saw Nicky Morgan doing a very dignified response to one sexist comment from the floor. I switched over, it's not what I expect from any head teacher.
What was the sexist comment?
'When she said she was not minded to make the changes, Mr Sidwell called out: "Are you in charge of the department or is Nick Gibb?" Mrs Morgan replied angrily: "I am not going to dignify that sexist question with a response." '
So there was no sexist comment, but Morgan claimed it was sexist to deflect from answering it.
Is it any wonder that kids at school are unruly and rude..Just seen the TV coverage of the Headmasters Conference and the way they treated the Education Secretary..How can they discipline the children if they act like buffoons..
I saw Nicky Morgan doing a very dignified response to one sexist comment from the floor. I switched over, it's not what I expect from any head teacher.
What was the sexist comment?
'When she said she was not minded to make the changes, Mr Sidwell called out: "Are you in charge of the department or is Nick Gibb?" Mrs Morgan replied angrily: "I am not going to dignify that sexist question with a response." '
So there was no sexist comment, but Morgan claimed it was sexist to deflect from answering it.
I'm confused. Isn't that exactly like those folk so oft mentioned on here who cry 'racist' to deflect legitimate criticism?
If the polls are right Labour will perform badly in Scotland, averagely in Wales and the locals and Khan will win in London. Surely that is ideal for Conservatives. London should be enough to entrench Corbyn further. Our slogan should be DUCE. Don't Unseat Corbyn Early. The material available to the Conservatives already should be enough to sink him without trace at a later national election. For years he has been attending rallies with Hamas representatives (just read their Charter!) and has appeared on Press TV of Iran. Goodness knows what he has said about this country and the interests of his friends. So he is a massive asset. He needs time and space to carry on leading Labour in his way. Carry on Corbyn.
As I've stated at least three times on PB, I think Labour needs to split
What odds can you get for the 2020 election leading to a grand coalition between the rump Cameroon and Blairite parties?
Not impossible, with UKIP and the Tory right joining up to their right and Corbynite Labour and the Greens and SNP to their left. The LDs would also likely split with Orange Bookers joining the Cameroon/Blairites. Under FPTP though it remains unlikely, it would take PR to really be a possibility
If the polls are right Labour will perform badly in Scotland, averagely in Wales and the locals and Khan will win in London. Surely that is ideal for Conservatives. London should be enough to entrench Corbyn further. Our slogan should be DUCE. Don't Unseat Corbyn Early. The material available to the Conservatives already should be enough to sink him without trace at a later national election. For years he has been attending rallies with Hamas representatives (just read their Charter!) and has appeared on Press TV of Iran. Goodness knows what he has said about this country and the interests of his friends. So he is a massive asset. He needs time and space to carry on leading Labour in his way. Carry on Corbyn.
Is it any wonder that kids at school are unruly and rude..Just seen the TV coverage of the Headmasters Conference and the way they treated the Education Secretary..How can they discipline the children if they act like buffoons..
I saw Nicky Morgan doing a very dignified response to one sexist comment from the floor. I switched over, it's not what I expect from any head teacher.
What was the sexist comment?
'When she said she was not minded to make the changes, Mr Sidwell called out: "Are you in charge of the department or is Nick Gibb?" Mrs Morgan replied angrily: "I am not going to dignify that sexist question with a response." '
So there was no sexist comment, but Morgan claimed it was sexist to deflect from answering it.
Seems quite clear that Osborne decides things, but no excuse for the Head Teachers to behave like unruly kids.
If the polls are right Labour will perform badly in Scotland, averagely in Wales and the locals and Khan will win in London. Surely that is ideal for Conservatives. London should be enough to entrench Corbyn further. Our slogan should be DUCE. Don't Unseat Corbyn Early. The material available to the Conservatives already should be enough to sink him without trace at a later national election. For years he has been attending rallies with Hamas representatives (just read their Charter!) and has appeared on Press TV of Iran. Goodness knows what he has said about this country and the interests of his friends. So he is a massive asset. He needs time and space to carry on leading Labour in his way. Carry on Corbyn.
I agree. The last thing the Tories want is for Labour to come to their senses and get rid of Corbyn. They might just stumble across someone who is remotely electable, though when you peruse the Labour benches, that is also looking increasingly unlikely.
The only mercy I can offer Labour at the moment is that this car crash isn't being played out the week before a general election.
Comments
It is now getting conflated with some historical argument about Hitler and the Jews. What he initially said was offensive about Jews today.
The Alternative fur Deutschland (AfD) party is expected to re-brand itself as openly anti-Islamic during the meeting.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36176901
Ken Livingstone stands by Hitler comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36177333
Merkel's demented migration siren call working bloody wonders.
On an unrelated note, the F1 market I want isn't up yet. If it's not up soon I'll just post the pre-qualifying piece without a [potential] tip.
Take a long look at the Labour party.
Labour need to ditch these dinoasaurs and get some sensible people of the Darling ilk back in positions of responsibility.
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/russia-pre-qualifying-2016.html
There was a bet I had in mind, but the market didn't go up in time. Bah.
I really don't understand this non sequitur.
Is it difficult for you to understand that we can disagree with the left, think it absent good sense and/or intellectual heft and oppose it vigorously, but also understand that banning things is fundamentally anti-democratic?
Do you want to ban everything you disagree with? That is the implicit corollary of your incessant remarks goading people to suggest banning the Labour party.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-36165298
On my recent train safari across Eastern Europe (taking in Auschwitz amonst other points of interest it was hard not to be aware of the ghosts of the old Jewish culture of Europe.
Particularly interesting was a conversation that I had with a guide at the Doheny st synagogue in Budapest. It was really quite a remarkeable structure and he had grown tired of showing people around whose interest was in the holocaust. We had quite a long discussion on how assimillated yet distinct the Jews of Budapest had been in respect of Hungarian life and culture. It sparked me to read this sad yet engaging recent book on European Jewry:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/B007ZQ37M0?vs=1
I quite recommend it. As well as its interest historically, it has many themes which carry over to modern Europe, and to multiculturalism in particular.
Never seen it mentioned anywhere apart from the Mirror and Mail.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/donald-trump-denies-rape-teenage-7857357
The visit to Lviv in the Ukraine (where numerous members of Sands' family were exterminated, and the extermination overseen by the father of one of the accompanying sons) was very powerful. Another visit to a commemoration of Ukranian 'patriots' with attendees prancing about in SS uniforms was also a bit of an eye opener; it suggests that it's not only the ghosts of an exterminated Jewish culture that haunt Eastern Europe, but also that of their exterminators.
Thanks Francis.
Thought it would be massive if any truth in it.
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/01/08/scarborough-bill-clintons-association-with-sex-offender-jeffrey-epstein-big-problem-for-hillary-donald-trump-will-use/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/headlines/36177183
He still wont shut up....apparently it is everybody elses fault...
https://news.vice.com/article/the-salacious-ammo-even-donald-trump-wont-use-in-a-fight-against-hillary-clinton-bill-clinton
A1: Either F-off and/or What's Your Address?
Q2: Is Naz Shah sincere in pursuing interfaith understanding?
A2: Well, Don Brind seems to think so.
BBC news : "Livingstone stands by Hitler Comment"
WTF
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/4567073/Shadow-chancellor-Ed-Balls-No-shame-over-my-Nazi-uniform.html
However, the problem originated with Naz Shah, and it is clear that what she originally wrote was appalling, far worse than anything Ken has said.
Naz comes across (given what she posted) as an ill-educated, ill-informed bigot.
And so the pertinent question is how did she end up as a Labour MP?
It is hard to escape the conclusion that she was chosen because of her history and back-story, because she represented redemption and transformation, because she showed that terrible things in life can be overcome.
Perhaps she can still represent those things, but she now has a lot of work to do.
Because she was standing in Islamic Bradford.
You are continually insinuating people want to ban or kill the left, and when challenged as you show here you assume that person is an extreme right winger. Simple bloody idiocy.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-31749227
Has he reached Australia yet?
Mrs Morgan replied angrily: "I am not going to dignify that sexist question with a response." '
So there was no sexist comment, but Morgan claimed it was sexist to deflect from answering it.
Crick rips him a new one about his long history with associating with dodgy individuals who are Anti-Semitic.
https://twitter.com/JamesMelville/status/726151883363127296
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/behind-closed-doors/2016/04/28/donald-trump-mike-tyson-bob-knight-indianapolis/83644568/
The only mercy I can offer Labour at the moment is that this car crash isn't being played out the week before a general election.