Unsurprising being told what to do by superannuated US defence bods is going down like more cold sick.
After the debacle over Obama's intervention, the electorate has become a lot savvier in spotting who's trying to play them like a fiddle for their own ends. And they're not playing.
The US wants us to stay in the EU because our voice pulls the whole EU closer to them, and their interests. They fear that without us in it the EU will become more protectionist and/or have a foreign policy less sympathetic to transatlantic perspectives.
Interests. Always interests.
That's the common perception here, probably because it's flattering to us. The truth is simpler: the US has an interest in peace, stability and democracy in Europe. The EU secures that so anything which weakens the EU is against US interests.
If this is a terrorist attack in Munich then it continues to vindicate the PM's stand on the UK's refugee policy.
The suspect is a German national, not a refugee. Sorry.
Doesn't matter. Increasing the number of unintegrated Muslims in a country is a bad policy. Cameron is vindicated in his hard line stance.
Goalposts moved without a moment's hesitation. I applaud you, sir.
Not at all, this attack has been carried out by a German citizen who shouted "allahu akhbar" before stabbing innocent people and killing one. In what world is it a sane policy to invite more people from the same background as this man without having any kind of checks or filtering system for extremists or those linked to radical Islam like this person. We already have plenty of examples of how badly existing Muslim immigrants have been integrated into European countries, importing over 1m more en mass without any kind of integration plan is just going to make it worse.
Unsurprising being told what to do by superannuated US defence bods is going down like more cold sick.
After the debacle over Obama's intervention, the electorate has become a lot savvier in spotting who's trying to play them like a fiddle for their own ends. And they're not playing.
The US wants us to stay in the EU because our voice pulls the whole EU closer to them, and their interests. They fear that without us in it the EU will become more protectionist and/or have a foreign policy less sympathetic to transatlantic perspectives.
Interests. Always interests.
That's the common perception here, probably because it's flattering to us. The truth is simpler: the US has an interest in peace, stability and democracy in Europe. The EU secures that so anything which weakens the EU is against US interests.
But the assumption you are making is that UK Brexit will have some big effect on 'peace, stability and democracy' in Europe which suggests it is in fact 'all about us'.
And if that isn't the assumption then presumably the US President and others wouldn't be bothering to get involved.
I think Sanders could just pip her in California. It is a big one for her, to show she has united the party - Indiana really couldn't have gone any better for Trump with Bernie being given enough of a boost by it to stay in the race
Unsurprising being told what to do by superannuated US defence bods is going down like more cold sick.
After the debacle over Obama's intervention, the electorate has become a lot savvier in spotting who's trying to play them like a fiddle for their own ends. And they're not playing.
The US wants us to stay in the EU because our voice pulls the whole EU closer to them, and their interests. They fear that without us in it the EU will become more protectionist and/or have a foreign policy less sympathetic to transatlantic perspectives.
Interests. Always interests.
That's the common perception here, probably because it's flattering to us. The truth is simpler: the US has an interest in peace, stability and democracy in Europe. The EU secures that so anything which weakens the EU is against US interests.
Just like the EU secured peace and democracy in Ukraine, Georgia and Serbia. Oh wait, they didn't.
Unsurprising being told what to do by superannuated US defence bods is going down like more cold sick.
After the debacle over Obama's intervention, the electorate has become a lot savvier in spotting who's trying to play them like a fiddle for their own ends. And they're not playing.
The US wants us to stay in the EU because our voice pulls the whole EU closer to them, and their interests. They fear that without us in it the EU will become more protectionist and/or have a foreign policy less sympathetic to transatlantic perspectives.
Interests. Always interests.
That's the common perception here, probably because it's flattering to us. The truth is simpler: the US has an interest in peace, stability and democracy in Europe. The EU secures that so anything which weakens the EU is against US interests.
I agree the US has little interest in seeing any change to the international status quo. The current set up suits them well.
I don't agree that the EU secures peace, stability or democracy in Europe - and the last of those in particular is laughable - the US interest is that the block collaborates with them, and doesn't compete with them.
As a Remainer, I wish Cameron would shut up and lead a trade delegation to Antarctica or somewhere else far away.
But, but but... he's such an asset...
All mickey-taking aside, he's certainly not turned out to be the Big Gun many expected him to be.
To be fair, I think he is a Big Gun.
It's just that he has now misfired a couple of times, and the gunners don't know why so they keep sticking more and more powder down the barrel. At some point that's going to be awkward
That's an interesting point - when and how do you tell your own PM/frontman that he's really not helping?
Hillary's immediate problem is that she is going to slump over the line losing a majority of the remaining states I think.
West Virginia - Sanders Kentucky - Clinton Oregon - Sanders Virgin Islands - ?? Puerto Rico - ?? North Dakota - Sanders California - ?? Montana - Sanders New Jersey - Clinton New Mexico - ?? South Dakota - Sanders DC - Clinton
Who'd have ever thought Hillary's coronation would be so painful - and at the hands of an unreformed 1960s socialist?
Unsurprising being told what to do by superannuated US defence bods is going down like more cold sick.
After the debacle over Obama's intervention, the electorate has become a lot savvier in spotting who's trying to play them like a fiddle for their own ends. And they're not playing.
The US wants us to stay in the EU because our voice pulls the whole EU closer to them, and their interests. They fear that without us in it the EU will become more protectionist and/or have a foreign policy less sympathetic to transatlantic perspectives.
Interests. Always interests.
That's the common perception here, probably because it's flattering to us. The truth is simpler: the US has an interest in peace, stability and democracy in Europe. The EU secures that so anything which weakens the EU is against US interests.
Just like the EU secured peace and democracy in Ukraine, Georgia and Serbia. Oh wait, they didn't.
Imagine a Europe where the EU didn't expand eastwards. Your examples of Ukraine, Georgia and Serbia could have been Lithuania, Poland and Hungary.
The EU is seen by the US as an indispensable factor in preventing a repeat of the conditions which dragged them into two world wars.
You make the very relevant point that Labour have always been the 'anti-fascist party'. I watched a documentary on Himmler yesterday and it was notable that as the Nazis began their racist tyranny picking out the Jews the homosexuals and the the infirm the only people standing up to them were the Communists who were also the first residents of the Belsen concentration camp.
For the leader of the country's premier left wing party to allow that USP to be lost is a tragedy. it puts him into the Gerald Ratner category of incompetents but with far more serious consequences. The 'right' are on the march with no one standing in their way.
To believe Chakrabarti can repair the reputational damage with an inquiry is naively optimistic. I'm doubtful turfing out the leadership will be enough but it has to be the starting point.
Would that be those same Communists who were allies to the Nazis and providing war material to them at a time when people like my father were fighting the Nazis? Those Communists?
In Germany, one of the reasons the post-WW1 attempt at Parliamentary democracy failed was because the Communists were too busy fighting other democratic parties and doing what their masters in Russia ordered and not fighting for Parliamentary liberal democracy, which they didn't believe in anyway. And the Communists were not - and never have been - innocents when it comes to oppression of Jews and gays and other unpopular minorities.
No these were German communists. They were the only serious opposition to the Nazis and they paid heavily for their opposition. It's one of the main reasons so many civiiized people among the allied nations like Dennis Healey in the UK and Arthur Miller in the US who with many others (the majority Jewish) were prepared to suffer the witch hunts of McCarthyism for their ideology.
Elizabeth Warren would have been Trump's trickiest opponent I think.
Yes, electorally she has the spectrum from Bernie to Hillary covered and is a much more interesting figure intellectually. Her academic work on the 'two income trap' shows that she is not bound by dogma and understands the factors that influence the well-being of ordinary people.
Ironically, the assertion that there are national values, as in "British values", as opposed to universal values is a feature of some fascist movements...
Hillary's immediate problem is that she is going to slump over the line losing a majority of the remaining states I think.
West Virginia - Sanders Kentucky - Clinton Oregon - Sanders Virgin Islands - ?? Puerto Rico - ?? North Dakota - Sanders California - ?? Montana - Sanders New Jersey - Clinton New Mexico - ?? South Dakota - Sanders DC - Clinton
Who'd have ever thought Hillary's coronation would be so painful - and at the hands of an unreformed 1960s socialist?
Elizabeth Warren would have been Trump's trickiest opponent I think.
Her Fauxcahontus stuff would have been seized on by Trump, it would have made her into a laughing stock. I think that's why she didn't run in the first place.
The Times: "Britain must not bank on its “special relationship” with the United States to compensate for losing global influence by leaving the EU, foreign and defence chiefs from every White House administration over the past 40 years have warned. In a letter to The Times, 13 former US secretaries of state and defence and national security advisers say that the country’s “place and influence in the world would be diminished and Europe would be dangerously weakened” after a vote to leave in next month’s referendum."
Yet more interference from our American friends, tinged with just a hint of blackmail.
Until their next war of course where we will be expected to "snap into line"
You're quite right, Leave are pushing us in the direction of the worst of both worlds, where the USA would pay less interest in us because we featured so much less in their calculations by being more disengaged and on those rare (usually military) occasions where we did become of more interest to the USA we would feel compelled to throw ourselves wholeheartedly in the endeavour in order to try to attract more of their attention.
It is a definite downside of voting Leave.
What? Where do you find this stuff? Why on earth would anyone sane decide to go to war to attract US attention? I think most would be glad with a lot less of their attention. Do you have any views at all that aren't based on a pathological need to curry favour with some sort of senior authority figure?
More messengers being lined up for the firing squad this morning, I see.
It's also amusing to see that IDS has discovered, rather belatedly, that in a negotiation the views of the other side matter. Admittedly he hasn't yet made the leap to understanding that this will remain the case if we vote Leave.
But if we vote leave then the negotiation positions are different - and the UK could act unilaterally if necessary, without being in breach of European Directive 314/159/265 sub 359
If this is a terrorist attack in Munich then it continues to vindicate the PM's stand on the UK's refugee policy.
The suspect is a German national, not a refugee. Sorry.
Doesn't matter. Increasing the number of unintegrated Muslims in a country is a bad policy. Cameron is vindicated in his hard line stance.
Goalposts moved without a moment's hesitation. I applaud you, sir.
Not at all, this attack has been carried out by a German citizen who shouted "allahu akhbar" before stabbing innocent people and killing one. In what world is it a sane policy to invite more people from the same background as this man without having any kind of checks or filtering system for extremists or those linked to radical Islam like this person. We already have plenty of examples of how badly existing Muslim immigrants have been integrated into European countries, importing over 1m more en mass without any kind of integration plan is just going to make it worse.
So back to the original goalpost position, this 'terrorist attack' is sfa to do with Merkel's refugee policy? Speaking as someone who has just had one of my fellow citizens murdered by an extremist nutcase who travelled from a neighbouring country to commit said murder, I refuse to blame that on the policies of Cameron, Merkel or Uncle Tom Cobley.
As a Remainer, I wish Cameron would shut up and lead a trade delegation to Antarctica or somewhere else far away.
But, but but... he's such an asset...
All mickey-taking aside, he's certainly not turned out to be the Big Gun many expected him to be.
To be fair, I think he is a Big Gun.
It's just that he has now misfired a couple of times, and the gunners don't know why so they keep sticking more and more powder down the barrel. At some point that's going to be awkward
For Leave to win, two things are needed: one, Cameron's appeal to floating voters to be neutered (I'd say a good indication would be if and when his trust ratings are no better than those for Boris) and, two, for Leave to draw level with Remain on the economy.
As far as I can tell, things are moving in the right direction for Leave on the first point, but not on the second.
So if I were Vote Leave I'd be launching some very big positive stories on the economy pronto.
Unsurprising being told what to do by superannuated US defence bods is going down like more cold sick.
After the debacle over Obama's intervention, the electorate has become a lot savvier in spotting who's trying to play them like a fiddle for their own ends. And they're not playing.
The US wants us to stay in the EU because our voice pulls the whole EU closer to them, and their interests. They fear that without us in it the EU will become more protectionist and/or have a foreign policy less sympathetic to transatlantic perspectives.
Interests. Always interests.
That's the common perception here, probably because it's flattering to us. The truth is simpler: the US has an interest in peace, stability and democracy in Europe. The EU secures that so anything which weakens the EU is against US interests.
Just like the EU secured peace and democracy in Ukraine, Georgia and Serbia. Oh wait, they didn't.
Imagine a Europe where the EU didn't expand eastwards. Your examples of Ukraine, Georgia and Serbia could have been Lithuania, Poland and Hungary.
The EU is seen by the US as an indispensable factor in preventing a repeat of the conditions which dragged them into two world wars.
NATO:
"On 8 July 1997, three former communist countries, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Poland, were invited to join NATO, which each did in 1999. Membership went on expanding with the accession of seven more Central and Eastern European countries to NATO: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania."
These countries entered the EU from 2004 onwards, they were all already NATO members at the time of accession. Tell me again who was the arbiter of peace in Europe?
If this is a terrorist attack in Munich then it continues to vindicate the PM's stand on the UK's refugee policy.
The suspect is a German national, not a refugee. Sorry.
Doesn't matter. Increasing the number of unintegrated Muslims in a country is a bad policy. Cameron is vindicated in his hard line stance.
Goalposts moved without a moment's hesitation. I applaud you, sir.
Not at all, this attack has been carried out by a German citizen who shouted "allahu akhbar" before stabbing innocent people and killing one. In what world is it a sane policy to invite more people from the same background as this man without having any kind of checks or filtering system for extremists or those linked to radical Islam like this person. We already have plenty of examples of how badly existing Muslim immigrants have been integrated into European countries, importing over 1m more en mass without any kind of integration plan is just going to make it worse.
So back to the original goalpost position, this 'terrorist attack' is sfa to do with Merkel's refugee policy? Speaking as someone who has just had one of my fellow citizens murdered by an extremist nutcase who travelled from a neighbouring country to commit said murder, I refuse to blame that on the policies of Cameron, Merkel or Uncle Tom Cobley.
As I said, it vindicate's Dave's hard line position on refugees, nothing more.
A news blackout has been imposed on the stabbing in Germany. Best not tell people things they don't need to know, eh.
It's such a news blackout it's all over Sky News and dare I say here too .... reported by your good self and others ....
I read it on the BBC website
Bavarian public radio reports that the Munich prosecutor has imposed a news blackout and that contradictory statements have emerged from the scene.
It must be reaally annoying when eye-witnesses upload photos and live-blog about an event that is "contradictory" to the line the Estblishment wants to spin...
@Luckyguy1983 I have plenty of views, all my own, none of them directed or paid for by foreign governments. Would that all posters on pb could say the same.
Roger..As always..wrong...I do have values.. which are easily definable.. whereas you appear to have none whatsoever..you seem to wait until you see which way the wind blows...then follow it.
You do have values. And if you have a postage stamp available you could write it on.
More messengers being lined up for the firing squad this morning, I see.
It's also amusing to see that IDS has discovered, rather belatedly, that in a negotiation the views of the other side matter. Admittedly he hasn't yet made the leap to understanding that this will remain the case if we vote Leave.
But if we vote leave then the negotiation positions are different - and the UK could act unilaterally if necessary, without being in breach of European Directive 314/159/265 sub 359
What's wrong with having a minimum hundreds-and-thousands threshold for fruit fancies?
Unsurprising being told what to do by superannuated US defence bods is going down like more cold sick.
After the debacle over Obama's intervention, the electorate has become a lot savvier in spotting who's trying to play them like a fiddle for their own ends. And they're not playing.
The US wants us to stay in the EU because our voice pulls the whole EU closer to them, and their interests. They fear that without us in it the EU will become more protectionist and/or have a foreign policy less sympathetic to transatlantic perspectives.
Interests. Always interests.
That's the common perception here, probably because it's flattering to us. The truth is simpler: the US has an interest in peace, stability and democracy in Europe. The EU secures that so anything which weakens the EU is against US interests.
Just like the EU secured peace and democracy in Ukraine, Georgia and Serbia. Oh wait, they didn't.
Imagine a Europe where the EU didn't expand eastwards. Your examples of Ukraine, Georgia and Serbia could have been Lithuania, Poland and Hungary.
The EU is seen by the US as an indispensable factor in preventing a repeat of the conditions which dragged them into two world wars.
NATO:
"On 8 July 1997, three former communist countries, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Poland, were invited to join NATO, which each did in 1999. Membership went on expanding with the accession of seven more Central and Eastern European countries to NATO: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania."
These countries entered the EU from 2004 onwards, they were all already NATO members at the time of accession. Tell me again who was the arbiter of peace in Europe?
NATO protects against external threats. The EU protects against internal conflicts.
War between France and Germany is unthinkable now. As another hypothetical, imagine there is no EU and France is under attack from Islamist terrorist attacks being planned in Belgium or Germany who are either not dealing with the problem, or perceived to be making the problem worse (e.g. Merkel's madness). Do you really think things couldn't escalate?
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division JNN - Jacobite News Network ARSE4EU - Anonymous Random Selection of Electors For European Union
Thanks. So, a nudge towards Remain from you.
I think Remain has been in the 53-58 range in every Arse to date?
ARSE REMAIN projections have ranged 53-57.5 with a rounded average of the 12 projections from 29th March of 55.17% and accordingly the LEAVE range has been 42.5-47 with an average of 44.83.
JackW, what are the major factors that are influencing these forecasts of yours?
Must be from the experience of JackW living to the great age of 114.
You make the very relevant point that Labour have always been the 'anti-fascist party'. I watched a documentary on Himmler yesterday and it was notable that as the Nazis began their racist tyranny picking out the Jews the homosexuals and the the infirm the only people standing up to them were the Communists who were also the first residents of the Belsen concentration camp.
For the leader of the country's premier left wing party to allow that USP to be lost is a tragedy. it puts him into the Gerald Ratner category of incompetents but with far more serious consequences. The 'right' are on the march with no one standing in their way.
To believe Chakrabarti can repair the reputational damage with an inquiry is naively optimistic. I'm doubtful turfing out the leadership will be enough but it has to be the starting point.
Would that be those same Communists who were allies to the Nazis and providing war material to them at a time when people like my father were fighting the Nazis? Those Communists?
In Germany, one of the reasons the post-WW1 attempt at Parliamentary democracy failed was because the Communists were too busy fighting other democratic parties and doing what their masters in Russia ordered and not fighting for Parliamentary liberal democracy, which they didn't believe in anyway. And the Communists were not - and never have been - innocents when it comes to oppression of Jews and gays and other unpopular minorities.
No these were German communists. They were the only serious opposition to the Nazis and they paid heavily for their opposition. It's one of the main reasons so many civiiized people among the allied nations like Dennis Healey in the UK and Arthur Miller in the US who with many others (the majority Jewish) were prepared to suffer the witch hunts of McCarthyism for their ideology.
They weren't the only opposition to the Nazis. The Social Democrats opposed them as well and suffered just as badly. And the German Communists spent far too much time fighting - rather than allying with - the Social Democrats thus fracturing the opposition to the Nazis.
And there were plenty of civilized people who opposed fascism and Nazism without allying themselves or joining an equally revolting and totalitarian movement, which is what Communism was: Arthur Koestler and George Orwell, for instance.
They did not suffer from the liberal self-delusion that you needed to be Communist to oppose Nazism or Fascism. Nor were they deluded as to what Communism meant for the people under its control or for liberal democracy.
Unsurprising being told what to do by superannuated US defence bods is going down like more cold sick.
After the debacle over Obama's intervention, the electorate has become a lot savvier in spotting who's trying to play them like a fiddle for their own ends. And they're not playing.
The US wants us to stay in the EU because our voice pulls the whole EU closer to them, and their interests. They fear that without us in it the EU will become more protectionist and/or have a foreign policy less sympathetic to transatlantic perspectives.
Interests. Always interests.
That's the common perception here, probably because it's flattering to us. The truth is simpler: the US has an interest in peace, stability and democracy in Europe. The EU secures that so anything which weakens the EU is against US interests.
Just like the EU secured peace and democracy in Ukraine, Georgia and Serbia. Oh wait, they didn't.
Imagine a Europe where the EU didn't expand eastwards. Your examples of Ukraine, Georgia and Serbia could have been Lithuania, Poland and Hungary.
The EU is seen by the US as an indispensable factor in preventing a repeat of the conditions which dragged them into two world wars.
NATO:
"On 8 July 1997, three former communist countries, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Poland, were invited to join NATO, which each did in 1999. Membership went on expanding with the accession of seven more Central and Eastern European countries to NATO: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania."
These countries entered the EU from 2004 onwards, they were all already NATO members at the time of accession. Tell me again who was the arbiter of peace in Europe?
NATO protects against external threats. The EU protects against internal conflicts.
War between France and Germany is unthinkable now. As another hypothetical, imagine there is no EU and France is under attack from Islamist terrorist attacks being planned in Belgium or Germany who are either not dealing with the problem, or perceived to be making the problem worse (e.g. Merkel's madness). Do you really think things couldn't escalate?
Are you really suggesting that two NATO members would go to war with each other? Sometimes it's hard to tell when the Remain side are making a serious argument or just being facetious.
@Luckyguy1983 I have plenty of views, all my own, none of them directed or paid for by foreign governments. Would that all posters on pb could say the same.
I'd really appreciate it if you'd clarify what appears to be an extraordinary accusation. Then we can get an 'honest broker' here to establish my identity and you can make a full retraction and apology.
A leaked cache of Labour Compliance Unit data obtained by Guido sheds some light on how the party became susceptible to its recent anti-Semitism crisis. During last year’s leadership election Labour membership more or less doubled. Following reports of mass infiltration, Labour HQ set about rooting out entryists. Yet people were joining faster than they could be checked, meaning only a tiny sample – a few thousand – were looked at. The spreadsheet below shows some of the entryists who were caught and kicked out by HQ:..
This helps to explain Labour’s recent anti-Semitism crisis – an untold number of members with extreme views have not been looked at by the Compliance Unit. It also calls into question Jeremy Corbyn’s much-cited “mandate“. This is the new Labour Party, overrun with extremists on an unprecedented scale…
If this is a terrorist attack in Munich then it continues to vindicate the PM's stand on the UK's refugee policy.
The suspect is a German national, not a refugee. Sorry.
Doesn't matter. Increasing the number of unintegrated Muslims in a country is a bad policy. Cameron is vindicated in his hard line stance.
Goalposts moved without a moment's hesitation. I applaud you, sir.
Not at all, this attack has been carried out by a German citizen who shouted "allahu akhbar" before stabbing innocent people and killing one. In what world is it a sane policy to invite more people from the same background as this man without having any kind of checks or filtering system for extremists or those linked to radical Islam like this person. We already have plenty of examples of how badly existing Muslim immigrants have been integrated into European countries, importing over 1m more en mass without any kind of integration plan is just going to make it worse.
That's some seriously twisted logic. You're suggesting that additional suspicion should be placed on refugees because of what some other, non-refugee, religious nutcase did, merely on the grounds that most of them happen to be followers of the same religion. Since when was this the democratic way of doing things? We should judge people as individuals.
@Luckyguy1983 I have plenty of views, all my own, none of them directed or paid for by foreign governments. Would that all posters on pb could say the same.
You think that there are posters on here that are directed or paid for by foreign governments? Wow! Who knew that PoliticalBetting.com was so influential that foreign governments would fork out to have their desired message put before a small bunch of, lets face it, sad obsessives?
Just out of interest, Mr. Meeks, who are the posters on here that you think are directed or paid for?
You make the very relevant point that Labour have always been the 'anti-fascist party'. I watched a documentary on Himmler yesterday and it was notable that as the Nazis began their racist tyranny picking out the Jews the homosexuals and the the infirm the only people standing up to them were the Communists who were also the first residents of the Belsen concentration camp.
For the leader of the country's premier left wing party to allow that USP to be lost is a tragedy. it puts him into the Gerald Ratner category of incompetents but with far more serious consequences. The 'right' are on the march with no one standing in their way.
To believe Chakrabarti can repair the reputational damage with an inquiry is naively optimistic. I'm doubtful turfing out the leadership will be enough but it has to be the starting point.
Would that be those same Communists who were allies to the Nazis and providing war material to them at a time when people like my father were fighting the Nazis? Those Communists?
In Germany, one of the reasons the post-WW1 attempt at Parliamentary democracy failed was because the Communists were too busy fighting other democratic parties and doing what their masters in Russia ordered and not fighting for Parliamentary liberal democracy, which they didn't believe in anyway. And the Communists were not - and never have been - innocents when it comes to oppression of Jews and gays and other unpopular minorities.
No these were German communists. They were the only serious opposition to the Nazis and they paid heavily for their opposition. It's one of the main reasons so many civiiized people among the allied nations like Dennis Healey in the UK and Arthur Miller in the US who with many others (the majority Jewish) were prepared to suffer the witch hunts of McCarthyism for their ideology.
They weren't the only opposition to the Nazis. The Social Democrats opposed them as well and suffered just as badly. And the German Communists spent far too much time fighting - rather than allying with - the Social Democrats thus fracturing the opposition to the Nazis.
And there were plenty of civilized people who opposed fascism and Nazism without allying themselves or joining an equally revolting and totalitarian movement, which is what Communism was: Arthur Koestler and George Orwell, for instance.
They did not suffer from the liberal self-delusion that you needed to be Communist to oppose Nazism or Fascism. Nor were they deluded as to what Communism meant for the people under its control or for liberal democracy.
Koestler was a member of the German Communist party.
It's also worth noting he only disapproves of those he imagines to be in the pay of foreign governments. Presumably being in the pay of ours is fine and dandy.
Hillary's immediate problem is that she is going to slump over the line losing a majority of the remaining states I think.
West Virginia - Sanders Kentucky - Clinton Oregon - Sanders Virgin Islands - ?? Puerto Rico - ?? North Dakota - Sanders California - ?? Montana - Sanders New Jersey - Clinton New Mexico - ?? South Dakota - Sanders DC - Clinton
Who'd have ever thought Hillary's coronation would be so painful - and at the hands of an unreformed 1960s socialist?
Elizabeth Warren would have been Trump's trickiest opponent I think.
Her Fauxcahontus stuff would have been seized on by Trump, it would have made her into a laughing stock. I think that's why she didn't run in the first place.
He's already zapped her on that - a series of highly mocking tweets a few days ago.
Speaking of Bernie, he is extraordinarily short for the presidency @ 32, he needs 65.76% of remaining delegates - even if he wins every state from here (He won't) he is unlikely to make it !
I am not convinced that there has been much change in the likelihood of a vote to leave but this forum does seem to be leavers talking to each other in every increasing excitement. The trashing of our partners, Nato, the US, and everyone who dares to say a word against leaving is becoming hysterical. Leave need to name one Country or internationally recognised organisation that agrees with them to prove that the UK is not going to be plunged into splendid isolation. I believe the IMF are due to release their Brexit report specifically on the subject and it looks as if it will be highly critical but no doubt leave will try to submerge it in a tsunami of abuse. In the end the voters will decide and if leave wins the argument we accept it and move on, if remain wins the same will happen. Only days after the result Chilcot will plunge Labour into crisis and the narrative will have moved on
If this is a terrorist attack in Munich then it continues to vindicate the PM's stand on the UK's refugee policy.
The suspect is a German national, not a refugee. Sorry.
Doesn't matter. Increasing the number of unintegrated Muslims in a country is a bad policy. Cameron is vindicated in his hard line stance.
Goalposts moved without a moment's hesitation. I applaud you, sir.
Not at all, this attack has been carried out by a German citizen who shouted "allahu akhbar" before stabbing innocent people and killing one. In what world is it a sane policy to invite more people from the same background as this man without having any kind of checks or filtering system for extremists or those linked to radical Islam like this person. We already have plenty of examples of how badly existing Muslim immigrants have been integrated into European countries, importing over 1m more en mass without any kind of integration plan is just going to make it worse.
That's some seriously twisted logic. You're suggesting that additional suspicion should be placed on refugees because of what some other, non-refugee, religious nutcase did, merely on the grounds that most of them happen to be followers of the same religion. Since when was this the democratic way of doing things? We should judge people as individuals.
Yes, and our solution is the make the judgement before they enter the country to ensure they aren't extremists or radicals. As I said, Dave's hard line stance has been vindicated.
Speaking of Bernie, he is extraordinarily short for the presidency @ 32, he needs 65.76% of remaining delegates - even if he wins every state from here (He won't) he is unlikely to make it !
I suppose there's the 'Hillary gets knocked over by a toppling email server' factor to consider, however.
I learned today from Alan Johnson that, despite paying large amounts of tax over 30-odd years and not getting so much as a parking ticket I am, in fact, an extremist.
You make the very relevant point that Labour have always been the 'anti-fascist party'. I watched a documentary on Himmler yesterday and it was notable that as the Nazis began their racist tyranny picking out the Jews the homosexuals and the the infirm the only people standing up to them were the Communists who were also the first residents of the Belsen concentration camp.
For the leader of the country's premier left wing party to allow that USP to be lost is a tragedy. it puts him into the Gerald Ratner category of incompetents but with far more serious consequences. The 'right' are on the march with no one standing in their way.
To believe Chakrabarti can repair the reputational damage with an inquiry is naively optimistic. I'm doubtful turfing out the leadership will be enough but it has to be the starting point.
Would that be those same Communists who were allies to the Nazis and providing war material to them at a time when people like my father were fighting the Nazis? Those Communists?
In Germany, one of the reasons the post-WW1 attempt at Parliamentary democracy failed was because the Communists were too busy fighting other democratic parties and doing what their masters in Russia ordered and not fighting for Parliamentary liberal democracy, which they didn't believe in anyway. And the Communists were not - and never have been - innocents when it comes to oppression of Jews and gays and other unpopular minorities.
No these were German communists. They were the only serious opposition to the Nazis and they paid heavily for their opposition. It's one of the main reasons so many civiiized people among the allied nations like Dennis Healey in the UK and Arthur Miller in the US who with many others (the majority Jewish) were prepared to suffer the witch hunts of McCarthyism for their ideology.
Denis Healey?? He was on Labour's right wing by the early 1950s and a pronounced anti-commie.
Would that be those same Communists who were allies to the Nazis and providing war material to them at a time when people like my father were fighting the Nazis? Those Communists?
In Germany, one of the reasons the post-WW1 attempt at Parliamentary democracy failed was because the Communists were too busy fighting other democratic parties and doing what their masters in Russia ordered and not fighting for Parliamentary liberal democracy, which they didn't believe in anyway. And the Communists were not - and never have been - innocents when it comes to oppression of Jews and gays and other unpopular minorities.
No these were German communists. They were the only serious opposition to the Nazis and they paid heavily for their opposition. It's one of the main reasons so many civiiized people among the allied nations like Dennis Healey in the UK and Arthur Miller in the US who with many others (the majority Jewish) were prepared to suffer the witch hunts of McCarthyism for their ideology.
They weren't the only opposition to the Nazis. The Social Democrats opposed them as well and suffered just as badly. And the German Communists spent far too much time fighting - rather than allying with - the Social Democrats thus fracturing the opposition to the Nazis.
And there were plenty of civilized people who opposed fascism and Nazism without allying themselves or joining an equally revolting and totalitarian movement, which is what Communism was: Arthur Koestler and George Orwell, for instance.
They did not suffer from the liberal self-delusion that you needed to be Communist to oppose Nazism or Fascism. Nor were they deluded as to what Communism meant for the people under its control or for liberal democracy.
Koestler was a member of the German Communist party.
And his experiences with it led him to reject it. Something which it took a lot of other very clever people a lot longer to do, despite the evidence being there. It was not necessary to be a Communist to stand up for liberal democracy against fascism and Nazism. Indeed, if you really were in favour of Parliamentary liberal democracy, the last thing you would have supported was Communism. The tragedy of the 30's was that liberal democracy did not have strong supporters. That is a lesson for us now, too.
A news blackout has been imposed on the stabbing in Germany. Best not tell people things they don't need to know, eh.
It's such a news blackout it's all over Sky News and dare I say here too .... reported by your good self and others ....
I read it on the BBC website
Bavarian public radio reports that the Munich prosecutor has imposed a news blackout and that contradictory statements have emerged from the scene.
It must be reaally annoying when eye-witnesses upload photos and live-blog about an event that is "contradictory" to the line the Estblishment wants to spin...
It's beyond bizarre/scary that we're now relying on Twitter for our own uncensored news reports.
I vividly recall Twitter sharing pix of various Middle East uprisings, and thousands global of Twitter users changed their *location* to throw off state authorities. I'd forgotten this until a few months ago when I noticed my Location was still set to Tehran.
As a Remainer, I wish Cameron would shut up and lead a trade delegation to Antarctica or somewhere else far away.
But, but but... he's such an asset...
All mickey-taking aside, he's certainly not turned out to be the Big Gun many expected him to be.
To be fair, I think he is a Big Gun.
It's just that he has now misfired a couple of times, and the gunners don't know why so they keep sticking more and more powder down the barrel. At some point that's going to be awkward
For Leave to win, two things are needed: one, Cameron's appeal to floating voters to be neutered (I'd say a good indication would be if and when his trust ratings are no better than those for Boris) and, two, for Leave to draw level with Remain on the economy. As far as I can tell, things are moving in the right direction for Leave on the first point, ....
Already there? Labour 2015 voters GMB/Yougov Cameron = 11% trust on europe and Boris =12% trust. Undecided EU voters Cameron = 24% trust and Boris = 26% trust.
CALLING ALL WIDGET MAKERS: if anyone is paying for posts here can I please put myself front and centre as being a willing candidate. My per diem charges are super-reasonable and I can craft an elegant, compelling argument about most things. Am very good at the widget regulatory environment.
I am not convinced that there has been much change in the likelihood of a vote to leave but this forum does seem to be leavers talking to each other in every increasing excitement. The trashing of our partners, Nato, the US, and everyone who dares to say a word against leaving is becoming hysterical. Leave need to name one Country or internationally recognised organisation that agrees with them to prove that the UK is not going to be plunged into splendid isolation. I believe the IMF are due to release their Brexit report specifically on the subject and it looks as if it will be highly critical but no doubt leave will try to submerge it in a tsunami of abuse. In the end the voters will decide and if leave wins the argument we accept it and move on, if remain wins the same will happen. Only days after the result Chilcot will plunge Labour into crisis and the narrative will have moved on
I don't think Leave need to name one, and nor will they - but that doesn't mean splendid isolation. As soon as a vote to Leave occurs the international real-politik instantly changes and we and our allies will work together to find a solution that works.
Remain is the established policy of HMG and no friendly or allied government is going to go publicly against that position, particularly when they have no personal or national interest in changing the status quo.
Those who have left office, or are seeking it, are different and several have said as such.
As a Remainer, I wish Cameron would shut up and lead a trade delegation to Antarctica or somewhere else far away.
But, but but... he's such an asset... All mickey-taking aside, he's certainly not turned out to be the Big Gun many expected him to be.
REMAIN get half their support in polls from Labour voters. Cameron is only trusted by 11% of them. (Yougov). Smart strategy?
I do wonder if Jezza's Invisibility Strategy with added Take-A-Holiday are his way of securing a Leave win by omission. Who's talking up Remain for Labour? I honestly couldn't say. I see the odd Colonel Bucket or Chuka appearance - but nothing that's caught my attention.
What am I missing? Are Labour hoping their voters will vote Remain regardless?
May I say that I like the REMAIN strategy for getting Labour voters on their side?
There's a big Labour push today with Corbyn, Khan and others - remains to be seen how much coverage it gets.
Would that be those same Communists who were allies to the Nazis and providing war material to them at a time when people like my father were fighting the Nazis? Those Communists?
In Germany, one of the reasons the post-WW1 attempt at Parliamentary democracy failed was because the Communists were too busy fighting other democratic parties and doing what their masters in Russia ordered and not fighting for Parliamentary liberal democracy, which they didn't believe in anyway. And the Communists were not - and never have been - innocents when it comes to oppression of Jews and gays and other unpopular minorities.
No these were German communists. They were the only serious opposition to the Nazis and they paid heavily for their opposition. It's one of the main reasons so many civiiized people among the allied nations like Dennis Healey in the UK and Arthur Miller in the US who with many others (the majority Jewish) were prepared to suffer the witch hunts of McCarthyism for their ideology.
They weren't the only opposition to the Nazis. The Social Democrats opposed them as well and suffered just as badly. And the German Communists spent far too much time fighting - rather than allying with - the Social Democrats thus fracturing the opposition to the Nazis.
And there were plenty of civilized people who opposed fascism and Nazism without allying themselves or joining an equally revolting and totalitarian movement, which is what Communism was: Arthur Koestler and George Orwell, for instance.
They did not suffer from the liberal self-delusion that you needed to be Communist to oppose Nazism or Fascism. Nor were they deluded as to what Communism meant for the people under its control or for liberal democracy.
Koestler was a member of the German Communist party.
And his experiences with it led him to reject it. Something which it took a lot of other very clever people a lot longer to do, despite the evidence being there. It was not necessary to be a Communist to stand up for liberal democracy against fascism and Nazism. Indeed, if you really were in favour of Parliamentary liberal democracy, the last thing you would have supported was Communism. The tragedy of the 30's was that liberal democracy did not have strong supporters. That is a lesson for us now, too.
I suppose moving from 'civilized people who opposed fascism and Nazism without allying themselves or joining an equally revolting and totalitarian movement, which is what Communism was: Arthur Koestler and George Orwell, for instance' to 'his experiences with it led him to reject it' is progress of a sort.
@Luckyguy1983 I have plenty of views, all my own, none of them directed or paid for by foreign governments. Would that all posters on pb could say the same.
Bwahaha
And I thought only Mark Senior was advocating this sort of crackpottery.
As a Remainer, I wish Cameron would shut up and lead a trade delegation to Antarctica or somewhere else far away.
But, but but... he's such an asset...
All mickey-taking aside, he's certainly not turned out to be the Big Gun many expected him to be.
To be fair, I think he is a Big Gun.
It's just that he has now misfired a couple of times, and the gunners don't know why so they keep sticking more and more powder down the barrel. At some point that's going to be awkward
For Leave to win, two things are needed: one, Cameron's appeal to floating voters to be neutered (I'd say a good indication would be if and when his trust ratings are no better than those for Boris) and, two, for Leave to draw level with Remain on the economy. As far as I can tell, things are moving in the right direction for Leave on the first point, ....
Already there? Labour 2015 voters GMB/Yougov Cameron = 11% trust on europe and Boris =12% trust. Undecided EU voters Cameron = 24% trust and Boris = 26% trust.
Quite. Which is why I don't understand Cameron spunking his political capital on BREXIT MEANS WAR and allied idiocies - unless he really fears he is losing.
Cameron doesn't like to just win, he likes to win big so that his opponents are annihilated. He knows the size of the victory matters - just look at Scotland where the vote didn't really settle anything. Cameron wanted to have Salmond 'bagged stuffed and on his wall' and no doubt is dreaming of the same with Boris.
CALLING ALL WIDGET MAKERS: if anyone is paying for posts here can I please put myself front and centre as being a willing candidate. My per diem charges are super-reasonable and I can craft an elegant, compelling argument about most things. Am very good at the widget regulatory environment.
With thanks in anticipation.
Could you do a series on why SLab are poised for a dramatic comeback?
Unsurprising being told what to do by superannuated US defence bods is going down like more cold sick.
After the debacle over Obama's intervention, the electorate has become a lot savvier in spotting who's trying to play them like a fiddle for their own ends. And they're not playing.
The US wants us to stay in the EU because our voice pulls the whole EU closer to them, and their interests. They fear that without us in it the EU will become more protectionist and/or have a foreign policy less sympathetic to transatlantic perspectives.
Interests. Always interests.
That's the common perception here, probably because it's flattering to us. The truth is simpler: the US has an interest in peace, stability and democracy in Europe. The EU secures that so anything which weakens the EU is against US interests.
Just like the EU secured peace and democracy in Ukraine, Georgia and Serbia. Oh wait, they didn't.
Imagine a Europe where the EU didn't expand eastwards. Your examples of Ukraine, Georgia and Serbia could have been Lithuania, Poland and Hungary.
The EU is seen by the US as an indispensable factor in preventing a repeat of the conditions which dragged them into two world wars.
NATO:
"On 8 July 1997, three former communist countries, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Poland, were invited to join NATO, which each did in 1999. Membership went on expanding with the accession of seven more Central and Eastern European countries to NATO: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania."
These countries entered the EU from 2004 onwards, they were all already NATO members at the time of accession. Tell me again who was the arbiter of peace in Europe?
NATO protects against external threats. The EU protects against internal conflicts.
War between France and Germany is unthinkable now. As another hypothetical, imagine there is no EU and France is under attack from Islamist terrorist attacks being planned in Belgium or Germany who are either not dealing with the problem, or perceived to be making the problem worse (e.g. Merkel's madness). Do you really think things couldn't escalate?
Are you really suggesting that two NATO members would go to war with each other? Sometimes it's hard to tell when the Remain side are making a serious argument or just being facetious.
Before it got to that point NATO would have broken up as well. A strong EU helps keep NATO strong. Military alliances without an underlying political coherency don't last.
A news blackout has been imposed on the stabbing in Germany. Best not tell people things they don't need to know, eh.
It's such a news blackout it's all over Sky News and dare I say here too .... reported by your good self and others ....
I read it on the BBC website
Bavarian public radio reports that the Munich prosecutor has imposed a news blackout and that contradictory statements have emerged from the scene.
It must be reaally annoying when eye-witnesses upload photos and live-blog about an event that is "contradictory" to the line the Estblishment wants to spin...
It's beyond bizarre/scary that we're now relying on Twitter for our own uncensored news reports.
I vividly recall Twitter sharing pix of various Middle East uprisings, and thousands global of Twitter users changed their *location* to throw off state authorities. I'd forgotten this until a few months ago when I noticed my Location was still set to Tehran.
So what is twitter saying about the incident in Munich this morning that is not being reported by the news agencies?
I learned today from Alan Johnson that, despite paying large amounts of tax over 30-odd years and not getting so much as a parking ticket I am, in fact, an extremist.
Cheers Al.
I still recall my fit of pique when Gordon and EdM called me *anti-science and a Flat Earther* for disagreeing with AGW. There's nothing like a stupid insult that sticks.
You make the very relevant point that Labour have always been the 'anti-fascist party'. I watched a documentary on Himmler yesterday and it was notable that as the Nazis began their racist tyranny picking out the Jews the homosexuals and the the infirm the only people standing up to them were the Communists who were also the first residents of the Belsen concentration camp.
For the leader of the country's premier left wing party to allow that USP to be lost is a tragedy. it puts him into the Gerald Ratner category of incompetents but with far more serious consequences. The 'right' are on the march with no one standing in their way.
To believe Chakrabarti can repair the reputational damage with an inquiry is naively optimistic. I'm doubtful turfing out the leadership will be enough but it has to be the starting point.
Would that be those same Communists who were allies to the Nazis and providing war material to them at a time when people like my father were fighting the Nazis? Those Communists?
In Germany, one of the reasons the post-WW1 attempt at Parliamentary democracy failed was because the Communists were too busy fighting other democratic parties and doing what their masters in Russia ordered and not fighting for Parliamentary liberal democracy, which they didn't believe in anyway. And the Communists were not - and never have been - innocents when it comes to oppression of Jews and gays and other unpopular minorities.
No these were German communists. They were the only serious opposition to the Nazis and they paid heavily for their opposition. It's one of the main reasons so many civiiized people among the allied nations like Dennis Healey in the UK and Arthur Miller in the US who with many others (the majority Jewish) were prepared to suffer the witch hunts of McCarthyism for their ideology.
Denis Healey?? He was on Labour's right wing by the early 1950s and a pronounced anti-commie.
After university he started out as a communist and then went the way of many well known socialists. Did you ever hear about Tony Blair's political journey......
(PS If losing your council seat means you'll be posting more Hersham's loss is going to be PB's gain)
As a Remainer, I wish Cameron would shut up and lead a trade delegation to Antarctica or somewhere else far away.
But, but but... he's such an asset...
All mickey-taking aside, he's certainly not turned out to be the Big Gun many expected him to be.
To be fair, I think he is a Big Gun.
It's just that he has now misfired a couple of times, and the gunners don't know why so they keep sticking more and more powder down the barrel. At some point that's going to be awkward
For Leave to win, two things are needed: one, Cameron's appeal to floating voters to be neutered (I'd say a good indication would be if and when his trust ratings are no better than those for Boris) and, two, for Leave to draw level with Remain on the economy. As far as I can tell, things are moving in the right direction for Leave on the first point, ....
Already there? Labour 2015 voters GMB/Yougov Cameron = 11% trust on europe and Boris =12% trust. Undecided EU voters Cameron = 24% trust and Boris = 26% trust.
Quite. Which is why I don't understand Cameron spunking his political capital on BREXIT MEANS WAR and allied idiocies - unless he really fears he is losing.
When you're reduced to using war graves as props - it says it all. I'd never touch anything so emotive unless I was REALLY desperate. It just invites insulting an awful lot of people.
As a Remainer, I wish Cameron would shut up and lead a trade delegation to Antarctica or somewhere else far away.
But, but but... he's such an asset... All mickey-taking aside, he's certainly not turned out to be the Big Gun many expected him to be.
REMAIN get half their support in polls from Labour voters. Cameron is only trusted by 11% of them. (Yougov). Smart strategy?
I do wonder if Jezza's Invisibility Strategy with added Take-A-Holiday are his way of securing a Leave win by omission. Who's talking up Remain for Labour? I honestly couldn't say. I see the odd Colonel Bucket or Chuka appearance - but nothing that's caught my attention.
What am I missing? Are Labour hoping their voters will vote Remain regardless?
May I say that I like the REMAIN strategy for getting Labour voters on their side?
There's a big Labour push today with Corbyn, Khan and others - remains to be seen how much coverage it gets.
Telegraph has a report that Cameron is refusing to to do a "blue on blue" debate with Boris and Gove despite pleas from the BBC and ITV.
in the absence of Cameron, the TV stations are said to be lining up Corbyn to face Boris in the big TV debate. Yes. Corbyn.
This has also annoyed Number 10 and caused consternation amongst REMAINIANS. Can't think why.
I'm delighted to see Corbyn finding a way to indulge his desire to support Leave.
Koestler was a member of the German Communist party.
And his experiences with it led him to reject it. Something which it took a lot of other very clever people a lot longer to do, despite the evidence being there. It was not necessary to be a Communist to stand up for liberal democracy against fascism and Nazism. Indeed, if you really were in favour of Parliamentary liberal democracy, the last thing you would have supported was Communism. The tragedy of the 30's was that liberal democracy did not have strong supporters. That is a lesson for us now, too.
I suppose moving from 'civilized people who opposed fascism and Nazism without allying themselves or joining an equally revolting and totalitarian movement, which is what Communism was: Arthur Koestler and George Orwell, for instance' to 'his experiences with it led him to reject it' is progress of a sort.
They are examples and yes I had forgotten that Koestler had been a Communist so thank you for reminding me.
But it remains the case that Communism was a revolting ideology and that there were plenty of people who opposed Nazism without needing to join its left-wing equivalent. Communism has no claim to the moral high ground: it killed and oppressed millions of people and for far longer than Nazism and Fascism. What is puzzling is how there are still people - some of them apparently clever - who are still prepared to indulge and excuse it. It was not something good which went a bit bad. It was fundamentally bad - ab initio, as we lawyers like to say.
Incidentally, as a lawyer I expect to be paid to make whatever arguments will help my clients. I'm quite willing to do so for any on here. I could - for an enormous fee - pretty much argue anything from any point of view. Just saying..... A girl has gotta live.
The question you are all asking is how does the EURef polling look when ALEURP'd?
As you all know the ALEURP (Alistair's Law of EU Referendum Polling) technique is a scientifically accurate and provable correct method for resolving the difference between the Online and Phone polls. Add DKs to Remain for online polls and to Leave for Phone polls.
Hers' how the poll look from the start for the year on a 10 poll moving average once ALEURP'd
Mr. Eagles, if Boris believes the Antonine (or Golden Age of Imperial Rome) period is behind us, then we're into the realm of Commodus, Caracalla and Maximinus Thrax.
'Loving IDS's claim that Cameron is no more than Merkel's b8tch.
He can play nasty when he wants to...'
Very good speech pitched at Labour voters.EU is great for the middle class providing them with cheap nannies & plumbers, not great when you are continually having your wages driven down,or trying to access the housing market or public services.
Before it got to that point NATO would have broken up as well. A strong EU helps keep NATO strong. Military alliances without an underlying political coherency don't last.
Well given that it was NATO that intervened in Serbia and had nothing to do with the EU, this idea that the EU is the main force for peace is still rubbish. I don't deny that it has helped keep the peace between the nations of Europe, and in the aftermath of WW2 and the rise of communism across Eastern Europe and Russia, the EU was a decent tool for making nations interconnected enough that the cost of breaking the peace was too high. Today, the cost of breaking the peace is too high with or without the EU, the work is already done, we import and export too much to each other to even consider the idea of war with each other. For external threats, NATO is more important than the EU, unless you are subscribing to the idea of an EU Army run from Brussels, which I'm certain you aren't.
CALLING ALL WIDGET MAKERS: if anyone is paying for posts here can I please put myself front and centre as being a willing candidate. My per diem charges are super-reasonable and I can craft an elegant, compelling argument about most things. Am very good at the widget regulatory environment.
With thanks in anticipation.
Could you do a series on why SLab are poised for a dramatic comeback?
Pledge to create a free trade area in Widgets north of Berwick?
Koestler was a member of the German Communist party.
And his experiences with it led him to reject it. Something which it took a lot of other very clever people a lot longer to do, despite the evidence being there. It was not necessary to be a Communist to stand up for liberal democracy against fascism and Nazism. Indeed, if you really were in favour of Parliamentary liberal democracy, the last thing you would have supported was Communism. The tragedy of the 30's was that liberal democracy did not have strong supporters. That is a lesson for us now, too.
I suppose moving from 'civilized people who opposed fascism and Nazism without allying themselves or joining an equally revolting and totalitarian movement, which is what Communism was: Arthur Koestler and George Orwell, for instance' to 'his experiences with it led him to reject it' is progress of a sort.
They are examples and yes I had forgotten that Koestler had been a Communist so thank you for reminding me.
But it remains the case that Communism was a revolting ideology and that there were plenty of people who opposed Nazism without needing to join its left-wing equivalent. Communism has no claim to the moral high ground: it killed and oppressed millions of people and for far longer than Nazism and Fascism. What is puzzling is how there are still people - some of them apparently clever - who are still prepared to indulge and excuse it. It was not something good which went a bit bad. It was fundamentally bad - ab initio, as we lawyers like to say.
Incidentally, as a lawyer I expect to be paid to make whatever arguments will help my clients. I'm quite willing to do so for any on here. I could - for an enormous fee - pretty much argue anything from any point of view. Just saying..... A girl has gotta live.
Remember the charming Eric Hobsbawm replying in the affirmative when asked whether it was worth killing millions of people to achieve Communism? You may also remember the BBC's near-hagiography of the man when he finally passed away.
I was listening to him yesterday and it was like a breath of fresh air. Out with the tiresome pleadings of a hard-left Labour leadership with whom I could never side, to the usual mixture of platitudes and policy positions it is perfectly possible to disagree with without your blood boiling.
Koestler was a member of the German Communist party.
And his experiences with it led him to reject it. Something which it took a lot of other very clever people a lot longer to do, despite the evidence being there. It was not necessary to be a Communist to stand up for liberal democracy against fascism and Nazism. Indeed, if you really were in favour of Parliamentary liberal democracy, the last thing you would have supported was Communism. The tragedy of the 30's was that liberal democracy did not have strong supporters. That is a lesson for us now, too.
I suppose moving from 'civilized people who opposed fascism and Nazism without allying themselves or joining an equally revolting and totalitarian movement, which is what Communism was: Arthur Koestler and George Orwell, for instance' to 'his experiences with it led him to reject it' is progress of a sort.
They are examples and yes I had forgotten that Koestler had been a Communist so thank you for reminding me.
But it remains the case that Communism was a revolting ideology and that there were plenty of people who opposed Nazism without needing to join its left-wing equivalent. Communism has no claim to the moral high ground: it killed and oppressed millions of people and for far longer than Nazism and Fascism. What is puzzling is how there are still people - some of them apparently clever - who are still prepared to indulge and excuse it. It was not something good which went a bit bad. It was fundamentally bad - ab initio, as we lawyers like to say.
Incidentally, as a lawyer I expect to be paid to make whatever arguments will help my clients. I'm quite willing to do so for any on here. I could - for an enormous fee - pretty much argue anything from any point of view. Just saying..... A girl has gotta live.
Remember the charming Eric Hobsbawm replying in the affirmative when asked whether it was worth killing millions of people to achieve Communism? You may also remember the BBC's near-hagiography of the man when he finally passed away.
The grotesque facts never got in the way of Eric Hobsbawm’s devotion to communism.
I suppose moving from 'civilized people who opposed fascism and Nazism without allying themselves or joining an equally revolting and totalitarian movement, which is what Communism was: Arthur Koestler and George Orwell, for instance' to 'his experiences with it led him to reject it' is progress of a sort.
They are examples and yes I had forgotten that Koestler had been a Communist so thank you for reminding me.
But it remains the case that Communism was a revolting ideology and that there were plenty of people who opposed Nazism without needing to join its left-wing equivalent. Communism has no claim to the moral high ground: it killed and oppressed millions of people and for far longer than Nazism and Fascism. What is puzzling is how there are still people - some of them apparently clever - who are still prepared to indulge and excuse it. It was not something good which went a bit bad. It was fundamentally bad - ab initio, as we lawyers like to say.
Incidentally, as a lawyer I expect to be paid to make whatever arguments will help my clients. I'm quite willing to do so for any on here. I could - for an enormous fee - pretty much argue anything from any point of view. Just saying..... A girl has gotta live.
Remember the charming Eric Hobsbawm replying in the affirmative when asked whether it was worth killing millions of people to achieve Communism? You may also remember the BBC's near-hagiography of the man when he finally passed away.
Yes. Or the fact that the leader of one of the two main parties can make speeches in front of Communist symbols with barely a word of protest whereas if a political leader were to do so in front of swastikas we'd - rightly - be appalled.
As someone once said when told (re Communism) that to create an omelette you need to break eggs: "Well, I see a lot of broken eggs around here. Where's the omelette?"
@Luckyguy1983 I have plenty of views, all my own, none of them directed or paid for by foreign governments. Would that all posters on pb could say the same.
Just listened to Corbyn launching his battle bus for IN and while he is a poor speaker he came over as very committed to staying in. Also in Scotland all the leaders have now joined the IN campaign with apparently a 78% IN majority. Leanne Woods and Labour in Wales are launching their IN campaign and for the first time this debate is going to widen much further than just blue on blue and it will be interesting to see many others in the argument over the next six weeks, though it is only about 3 weeks to postal votes going out. All to play for
Mr. Eagles, if Boris believes the Antonine (or Golden Age of Imperial Rome) period is behind us, then we're into the realm of Commodus, Caracalla and Maximinus Thrax.
I need to finish off the thread where I compare Cameron to Augustus.
'People feel that the EU is heading in a direction that they never signed up to. They resent the interference in our national life by what they see as unnecessary rules and regulation. And they wonder what the point of it all is. Put simply, many ask 'why can't we just have what we voted to join - a common market?'
David Cameron
And the result of his negotiations................no change carry on as before.
And in his own words 'people still wonder what was the point of it all'.
Comments
And if that isn't the assumption then presumably the US President and others wouldn't be bothering to get involved.
I don't agree that the EU secures peace, stability or democracy in Europe - and the last of those in particular is laughable - the US interest is that the block collaborates with them, and doesn't compete with them.
The EU is seen by the US as an indispensable factor in preventing a repeat of the conditions which dragged them into two world wars.
No these were German communists. They were the only serious opposition to the Nazis and they paid heavily for their opposition. It's one of the main reasons so many civiiized people among the allied nations like Dennis Healey in the UK and Arthur Miller in the US who with many others (the majority Jewish) were prepared to suffer the witch hunts of McCarthyism for their ideology.
Speaking as someone who has just had one of my fellow citizens murdered by an extremist nutcase who travelled from a neighbouring country to commit said murder, I refuse to blame that on the policies of Cameron, Merkel or Uncle Tom Cobley.
As far as I can tell, things are moving in the right direction for Leave on the first point, but not on the second.
So if I were Vote Leave I'd be launching some very big positive stories on the economy pronto.
"On 8 July 1997, three former communist countries, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Poland, were invited to join NATO, which each did in 1999. Membership went on expanding with the accession of seven more Central and Eastern European countries to NATO: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania."
These countries entered the EU from 2004 onwards, they were all already NATO members at the time of accession. Tell me again who was the arbiter of peace in Europe?
"No 1"
War between France and Germany is unthinkable now. As another hypothetical, imagine there is no EU and France is under attack from Islamist terrorist attacks being planned in Belgium or Germany who are either not dealing with the problem, or perceived to be making the problem worse (e.g. Merkel's madness). Do you really think things couldn't escalate?
Did the UK go to war with Ireland when the Troubles were at their height?
And there were plenty of civilized people who opposed fascism and Nazism without allying themselves or joining an equally revolting and totalitarian movement, which is what Communism was: Arthur Koestler and George Orwell, for instance.
They did not suffer from the liberal self-delusion that you needed to be Communist to oppose Nazism or Fascism. Nor were they deluded as to what Communism meant for the people under its control or for liberal democracy.
Just out of interest, Mr. Meeks, who are the posters on here that you think are directed or paid for?
We should be getting Ipsos Mori, ComRes, and ICM phone polls next week.
Is a curio of the polling calendar that all the phone polls come out so close to each other.
WARNING - this video contains Gordon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5hmqDuuCRk
He can play nasty when he wants to...
Cheers Al.
Nice....
I vividly recall Twitter sharing pix of various Middle East uprisings, and thousands global of Twitter users changed their *location* to throw off state authorities. I'd forgotten this until a few months ago when I noticed my Location was still set to Tehran.
Labour 2015 voters GMB/Yougov Cameron = 11% trust on europe and Boris =12% trust.
Undecided EU voters Cameron = 24% trust and Boris = 26% trust.
With thanks in anticipation.
Remain is the established policy of HMG and no friendly or allied government is going to go publicly against that position, particularly when they have no personal or national interest in changing the status quo.
Those who have left office, or are seeking it, are different and several have said as such.
The faith that the Remain campaign have in the supposed EU 'demos' to guarantee freedom of speech is touching....
Bless.
And I thought only Mark Senior was advocating this sort of crackpottery.
https://twitter.com/StrongerIn/status/729765648545525760
Should we start quoting Cameron's past comments on how fine he was with Brexit?
(PS If losing your council seat means you'll be posting more Hersham's loss is going to be PB's gain)
But it remains the case that Communism was a revolting ideology and that there were plenty of people who opposed Nazism without needing to join its left-wing equivalent. Communism has no claim to the moral high ground: it killed and oppressed millions of people and for far longer than Nazism and Fascism. What is puzzling is how there are still people - some of them apparently clever - who are still prepared to indulge and excuse it. It was not something good which went a bit bad. It was fundamentally bad - ab initio, as we lawyers like to say.
Incidentally, as a lawyer I expect to be paid to make whatever arguments will help my clients. I'm quite willing to do so for any on here. I could - for an enormous fee - pretty much argue anything from any point of view. Just saying..... A girl has gotta live.
Oh my.
As you all know the ALEURP (Alistair's Law of EU Referendum Polling) technique is a scientifically accurate and provable correct method for resolving the difference between the Online and Phone polls. Add DKs to Remain for online polls and to Leave for Phone polls.
Hers' how the poll look from the start for the year on a 10 poll moving average once ALEURP'd
'Loving IDS's claim that Cameron is no more than Merkel's b8tch.
He can play nasty when he wants to...'
Very good speech pitched at Labour voters.EU is great for the middle class providing them with cheap nannies & plumbers, not great when you are continually having your wages driven down,or trying to access the housing market or public services.
Wonder if they'll need "Frankenstein" McTernan to do the reanimations...
I was listening to him yesterday and it was like a breath of fresh air. Out with the tiresome pleadings of a hard-left Labour leadership with whom I could never side, to the usual mixture of platitudes and policy positions it is perfectly possible to disagree with without your blood boiling.
As someone once said when told (re Communism) that to create an omelette you need to break eggs: "Well, I see a lot of broken eggs around here. Where's the omelette?"
Crackpottery is in the eye of the beholder. Here's a selection from some pretty well-respected news sources.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/03/news/russia-troll-factory-putin/
http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/sep/08/russia-troll-army-red-web-any-questions
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/the-agency.html
http://www.theweek.co.uk/64829/russias-troll-army-how-the-propaganda-factory-operates
I accept that none of them are Russia Today or Press TV, so apologies for that.
Jeremy 500/1
Boris 250/1
Dave 1/100
David Cameron
And the result of his negotiations................no change carry on as before.
And in his own words 'people still wonder what was the point of it all'.
Eurotrash is back for one night only on the eve of the EU referendum
The cult current affairs show is returning to remind Brits of the ‘alarming cultural delights enjoyed by our European cousins’
http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2016/may/09/eurotrash-is-back-for-one-night-only-on-the-eve-of-the-eu-referendum
That said, Boris has been poor at debates in the past, and none of Corbyn's during the Labour leadership election harmed his prospects.
Mr. Eagles, Augustus ended civil wars. Cameron's restarting them.