It might not be popular, but conservative economics has done more to combat world poverty than socialism ever will. It is not out of community interest that the baker rises at 5am each morning....
The Labour right isn't socialist. Actually, neither is a lot of the Labour soft left.
Well, if we agree that the Labour right was in charge from 1997 until 2010, it was every bit as effective at steering the British Economy onto the rocks as were the Attlee and Wilson Labour governments.
Levels of delusion appear to be growing then? Even if policy platform is right, how can people seriously believe he is a credible candidate for PM?
They are not interested in power. They are perfectly content for the Tories to govern; however disastrously they do it.
I voted for Corbyn because I didn't want 5 years of vanilla social democratic policies being regurgitated followed by another defeat in 2020. Try something radical and see if it works.
How about the Labour right put forward their arguments to the rest of us. If they are compelling then the mood in the party will change.
No - they tried that last year and received 4.5% support.
The problem was less that their arguments were not compelling but that the Labour left didn't want to listen. Liz Kendall's pitch appeared pretty accurate to me - Labour did mess up, were badly hated and were seen as unpleasant and untrustworthy. They still are. But nobody likes hearing home truths when a siren is softly calling that they are the good guys and it will all be alright if you do nothing.
The labour right should unite with the conservative left and form one homogenous, London centric, public sector orientated Quango led by Nick Clegg. They can agree with everybody, achieve nothing, and sneer and pontificate in nice restaurants with senior BBC staff on taxpayer's expenses. Mandelson will be their spiritual leader, both Cameron and Blair can pop in to "the big tent" periodically, they will be inclusive.
Rather alarmingly for me, as it is an unexpected conclusion that is at odds with my disdain for deals in smokey rooms, I have to point out that the best period of government in the last twenty years or so was the coalition. Far better than Blair, brown or Cameron administrating unfettered.
Yeah I've heard others say that. To me its a bit like being asked how you'd like to die, its awful but you choose the least painful option.
It might not be popular, but conservative economics has done more to combat world poverty than socialism ever will. It is not out of community interest that the baker rises at 5am each morning....
The Labour right isn't socialist. Actually, neither is a lot of the Labour soft left.
Well, if we agree that the Labour right was in charge from 1997 until 2010, it was every bit as effective at steering the British Economy onto the rocks as were the Attlee and Wilson Labour governments.
This is the point - we are we so desperate to see the 'Labour right' return? They're every bit as profligate and disastrous as their worse dressed more principled rivals.
The labour right should unite with the conservative left and form one homogenous, London centric, public sector orientated Quango led by Nick Clegg. They can agree with everybody, achieve nothing, and sneer and pontificate in nice restaurants with senior BBC staff on taxpayer's expenses. Mandelson will be their spiritual leader, both Cameron and Blair can pop in to "the big tent" periodically, they will be inclusive.
Rather alarmingly for me, as it is an unexpected conclusion that is at odds with my disdain for deals in smokey rooms, I have to point out that the best period of government in the last twenty years or so was the coalition. Far better than Blair, brown or Cameron administrating unfettered.
I did point out a year ago that people would look back on the Coalition as a golden period of good government. It is one reason that the LDs will revive, opinions on that period will mellow with time.
A second reason for an LD revival being that the extremists in both Labour and Tory will drive centrist voters elsewhere. Even if politicians remain in their current parties, the voters will not.
I think that the differences between the Corbynistas and the Labour right are actually not that major or fatal. The principle dislike of the left is its perceived unelectability rather than its policies. Both wings oppose austerity, support the NHS and want it revived, are pro-Remain and want redistribution of wealth. Trident renewal and Mid-East wars are the major differences of substance, but neither are very popular with the public. They are not issues worth splitting over, but ones on which to agree to differ.
If the Corbynistas were to become a little more professional at winning elections rather than internal contests then the Labour right would support them with gusto. Nothing appeals more to them than the prospect of forming a government. I see some signs of this happening already. If you can't beat them - join them. In practice the alternative in the short term is a Labour led coalition, so not the full juice of the grape.
We hear a lot of guff about anti-establishment parties on the rise, but the real anti-establishment party is the Labour Left, and that may well yet come to power. Ironically that could be brought about by an early election following a Leave vote.
Just a query, do you support the NHS or health care that is free at the point of delivery?
There will be a point at which the NHS is not the vehicle to achieve the second of those, in my opinion.
The labour right should unite with the conservative left and form one homogenous, London centric, public sector orientated Quango led by Nick Clegg. They can agree with everybody, achieve nothing, and sneer and pontificate in nice restaurants with senior BBC staff on taxpayer's expenses. Mandelson will be their spiritual leader, both Cameron and Blair can pop in to "the big tent" periodically, they will be inclusive.
Rather alarmingly for me, as it is an unexpected conclusion that is at odds with my disdain administrating unfettered.
I did point out a year ago that people would look back on the Coalition as a golden period of good government. It is one reason that the LDs will revive, opinions on that period will mellow with time.
A second reason for an LD revival being that the extremists in both Labour and Tory will drive centrist voters elsewhere. Even if politicians remain in their current parties, the voters will not.
I think that the differences between the Corbynistas and the Labour right are actually not that major or fatal. The principle dislike of the left is its perceived unelectability rather than its policies. Both wings oppose austerity, support the NHS and want it revived, are pro-Remain and want redistribution of wealth. Trident renewal and Mid-East wars are the major differences of substance, but neither are very popular with the public. They are not issues worth splitting over, but ones on which to agree to differ.
If the Corbynistas were to become a little more professional at winning elections rather than internal contests then the Labour right would support them with gusto. Nothing appeals more to them than the prospect of forming a government. I see some signs of this happening already. If you can't beat them - join them. In practice the alternative in the short term is a Labour led coalition, so not the full juice of the grape.
We hear a lot of guff about anti-establishment parties on the rise, but the real anti-establishment party is the Labour Left, and that may well yet come to power. Ironically that could be brought about by an early election following a Leave vote.
The problem with the current leadership is that you just cannot get past the fact that for 30 years or more it has stood shoulder to shoulder with anyone who wishes the UK harm. That is what makes Labour unelectable. I could vote for a party whose economic policy was further to the left of my own views. What I can't do is vote for a parry led by people who spent years hanging out with anti-Semites, homophobes, misogynists and murderers without challenging them or their beliefs. I suspect that this also applies to most voters in the UK.
Levels of delusion appear to be growing then? Even if policy platform is right, how can people seriously believe he is a credible candidate for PM?
They are not interested in power. They are perfectly content for the Tories to govern; however disastrously they do it.
I voted for Corbyn because I didn't want 5 years of vanilla social democratic policies being regurgitated followed by another defeat in 2020. Try something radical and see if it works.
A prescription that appears similar to somebody with a benign brain tumour rejecting surgery in favour of shooting themselves in the head to see if that worked more quickly. What you have now are five years of fiery socialism followed by a much worse defeat in 2020. Was that really what you wanted?
The problem with the current leadership is that you just cannot get past the fact that for 30 years or more it has stood shoulder to shoulder with anyone who wishes the UK harm. That is what makes Labour unelectable. I could vote for a party whose economic policy was further to the left of my own views. What I can't do is vote for a parry led by people who spent years hanging out with anti-Semites, homophobes, misogynists and murderers without challenging them or their beliefs. I suspect that this also applies to most voters in the UK.
It applies to me, certainly, and it cost my local Labour councillor my vote last week.
Interesting analysis Mr Meeks - and while I agree that it would be foolish to rely on the Mr Micawber option:
Labour rightwingers can also present this to themselves as the Mr Micawber option. In practice, however, there is no particular reason why anything should turn up.
I suspect quite a few things will turn up.
None of us know the state of the Conservative Party, or the government not much over a month from now. 'Weakened' and 'Divided' are both dead certs, but 'badly' or 'disastrously'?
Who will be the PM three months from now?
What will be the state of the economy six months from now?
So, lots of 'events, dear boy, events'.......
PS - it's faintly amusing that Corbyn, who has sucked up to numerous fascist (Galtieri, Saddam, Gaddafi, Eisen) and paramilitary (IRA) organisations, is described as being on the left. Self awareness isn't his long suit, is it? But then Chavez had the same problem.
It's rather GCSE history, but Fascism is not an ideology of the right...
Levels of delusion appear to be growing then? Even if policy platform is right, how can people seriously believe he is a credible candidate for PM?
They are not interested in power. They are perfectly content for the Tories to govern; however disastrously they do it.
I voted for Corbyn because I didn't want 5 years of vanilla social democratic policies being regurgitated followed by another defeat in 2020. Try something radical and see if it works.
Yep, you are not interested in winning. With a half decent leadership team Labour would be on course for victory in 2020 and this desperately poor government would be consigned to history.
The labour right should unite with the conservative left and form one homogenous, London centric, public sector orientated Quango led by Nick Clegg. They can agree with everybody, achieve nothing, and sneer and pontificate in nice restaurants with senior BBC staff on taxpayer's expenses. Mandelson will be their spiritual leader, both Cameron and Blair can pop in to "the big tent" periodically, they will be inclusive.
Rather alarmingly for me, as it is an unexpected conclusion that is at odds with my disdain for deals in smokey rooms, I have to point out that the best period of government in the last twenty years or so was the coalition. Far better than Blair, brown or Cameron administrating unfettered.
snip
I think that the differences between the Corbynistas and the Labour right are actually not that major or fatal. The principle dislike of the left is its perceived unelectability rather than its policies. Both wings oppose austerity, support the NHS and want it revived, are pro-Remain and want redistribution of wealth. Trident renewal and Mid-East wars are the major differences of substance, but neither are very popular with the public. They are not issues worth splitting over, but ones on which to agree to differ.
If the Corbynistas were to become a little more professional at winning elections rather than internal contests then the Labour right would support them with gusto. Nothing appeals more to them than the prospect of forming a government. I see some signs of this happening already. If you can't beat them - join them. In practice the alternative in the short term is a Labour led coalition, so not the full juice of the grape.
We hear a lot of guff about anti-establishment parties on the rise, but the real anti-establishment party is the Labour Left, and that may well yet come to power. Ironically that could be brought about by an early election following a Leave vote.
All good points. But I would add a further issue. There is a split not just between left and right wings in Labour but between those who are only interested in the old scriptures and those who are thinking about mid-2020s UK.
Take, for example, what to do about English nationalism. At least someone like Tristam Hunt (yes, I know, start booing now) is prepared to sit down and think what might be decent way forward on this. The hard-left and soft-left just tut, send tweet photos of england flags on ex-council housing to each other, and then head home to good North London supper.
It might not be popular, but conservative economics has done more to combat world poverty than socialism ever will. It is not out of community interest that the baker rises at 5am each morning....
I read 'Baker' as 'Banker' and was about to agree with you
(Near) Quotes from Adam Smith seem to go over people's heads nowadays.
Pretty much the only socialist I have time for is a small businessman. He honestly states that he would be happy to pay more tax because of his tribal loyalty to the party he grew up supporting. But fully accepts that Labour are a) currently unelectable b) a dwindling force in UK politcs c) disappointing their Northern heartlands and d) stupid to think that everyone would think like him.
Interesting analysis Mr Meeks - and while I agree that it would be foolish to rely on the Mr Micawber option:
Labour rightwingers can also present this to themselves as the Mr Micawber option. In practice, however, there is no particular reason why anything should turn up.
I suspect quite a few things will turn up.
None of us know the state of the Conservative Party, or the government not much over a month from now. 'Weakened' and 'Divided' are both dead certs, but 'badly' or 'disastrously'?
Who will be the PM three months from now?
What will be the state of the economy six months from now?
So, lots of 'events, dear boy, events'.......
PS - it's faintly amusing that Corbyn, who has sucked up to numerous fascist (Galtieri, Saddam, Gaddafi, Eisen) and paramilitary (IRA) organisations, is described as being on the left. Self awareness isn't his long suit, is it? But then Chavez had the same problem.
It's rather GCSE history, but Fascism is not an ideology of the right...
Well - yes and no. It usually starts on the left (Mussolini, Mosley, Drexler, arguably Chavez) but usually by the time it gets into power it is avowedly right-wing and anti-Communist, or has acquired militaristic overtones through army involvement. Hitler and Mussolini, for example, both emphatically identified as right wing on gaining power and among their first acts were to have Communist/Socialist rivals killed.
To argue otherwise is degree level philosophy rather than GCSE history.
Interesting analysis Mr Meeks - and while I agree that it would be foolish to rely on the Mr Micawber option:
Labour rightwingers can also present this to themselves as the Mr Micawber option. In practice, however, there is no particular reason why anything should turn up.
I suspect quite a few things will turn up.
None of us know the state of the Conservative Party, or the government not much over a month from now. 'Weakened' and 'Divided' are both dead certs, but 'badly' or 'disastrously'?
Who will be the PM three months from now?
What will be the state of the economy six months from now?
So, lots of 'events, dear boy, events'.......
PS - it's faintly amusing that Corbyn, who has sucked up to numerous fascist (Galtieri, Saddam, Gaddafi, Eisen) and paramilitary (IRA) organisations, is described as being on the left. Self awareness isn't his long suit, is it? But then Chavez had the same problem.
It's rather GCSE history, but Fascism is not an ideology of the right...
Levels of delusion appear to be growing then? Even if policy platform is right, how can people seriously believe he is a credible candidate for PM?
They are not interested in power. They are perfectly content for the Tories to govern; however disastrously they do it.
I voted for Corbyn because I didn't want 5 years of vanilla social democratic policies being regurgitated followed by another defeat in 2020. Try something radical and see if it works.
Yep, you are not interested in winning. With a half decent leadership team Labour would be on course for victory in 2020 and this desperately poor government would be consigned to history.
SO I agree with you on many points but you're sounding like the ghastly Cameron sycophants who want power for power's sake. Regardless of my view the Labour membership spoke, they wanted Corbyn, warts and all.
The labour right should unite with the conservative left and form one homogenous, London centric, public sector orientated Quango led by Nick Clegg. They can agree with everybody, achieve nothing, and sneer and pontificate in nice restaurants with senior BBC staff on taxpayer's expenses. Mandelson will be their spiritual leader, both Cameron and Blair can pop in to "the big tent" periodically, they will be inclusive.
Rather alarmingly for me, as it is an unexpected conclusion that is at odds with my disdain for deals in smokey rooms, I have to point out that the best period of government in the last twenty years or so was the coalition. Far better than Blair, brown or Cameron administrating unfettered.
snip
I think that the differences between the Corbynistas and the Labour right are actually not that major or fatal. The principle dislike of the left is its perceived unelectability rather than its policies. Both wings oppose austerity, support the NHS and want it revived, are pro-Remain and want redistribution of wealth. Trident renewal and Mid-East wars are the major differences of substance, but neither are very popular with the public. They are not issues worth splitting over, but ones on which to agree to differ.
If the Corbynistas were to become a little more professional at winning elections rather than internal contests then the Labour right would support them with gusto. Nothing appeals more to them than the prospect of forming a government. I see some signs of this happening already. If you can't beat them - join them. In practice the alternative in the short term is a Labour led coalition, so not the full juice of the grape.
We hear a lot of guff about anti-establishment parties on the rise, but the real anti-establishment party is the Labour Left, and that may well yet come to power. Ironically that could be brought about by an early election following a Leave vote.
All good points. But I would add a further issue. There is a split not just between left and right wings in Labour but between those who are only interested in the old scriptures and those who are thinking about mid-2020s UK.
Take, for example, what to do about English nationalism. At least someone like Tristam Hunt (yes, I know, start booing now) is prepared to sit down and think what might be decent way forward on this. The hard-left and soft-left just tut, send tweet photos of england flags on ex-council housing to each other, and then head home to good North London supper.
The answer is none of the above. The Labour 'right' need to start doing the basics right. Rather than fighting or running away they need to organise, start winning elections and above all come up with some interesting ideas that they can advocate.
Levels of delusion appear to be growing then? Even if policy platform is right, how can people seriously believe he is a credible candidate for PM?
They are not interested in power. They are perfectly content for the Tories to govern; however disastrously they do it.
I voted for Corbyn because I didn't want 5 years of vanilla social democratic policies being regurgitated followed by another defeat in 2020. Try something radical and see if it works.
Yep, you are not interested in winning. With a half decent leadership team Labour would be on course for victory in 2020 and this desperately poor government would be consigned to history.
SO I agree with you on many points but you're sounding like the ghastly Cameron sycophants who want power for power's sake. Regardless of my view the Labour membership spoke, they wanted Corbyn, warts and all.
I know. They have made their choice. It's not one I agree with, so I am no longer a Labour supporter. All I am saying is that in making the choice they have - and, more importantly, in sticking with it despite the overwhelming evidence that it means guaranteed electoral defeat - Labour members have decided that they are not interested in power or in helping those Labour is supposed to be interested in helping.
"if [Corbyn] falls under a political battle bus he will be replaced by someone more or less as hardline."
Don't follow that logic. There is no reason that Labour MPs have to nominate someone like Corbyn next time.
Indeed, getting the requisite number of signatures to appear on the ballot might stuff the Left. There' going to be no soft-hearted "aw bless" sentimentality about getting their views aired next time. It's a death match.
Yippee, its a new day! Hello Britain.. www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0pwXLtvt2w&feature=youtu.be
Its PIFFLE! again!
PIFFLE pifflePIFFLE piffle PIFFLEPIFFLE
Seriously, you want yesterday's embarrassment repeated today?
You were so sure your little quote proved what you thought. It seemed a shame to disturb your entire day..
Joking apart - posting videos costs OGH money - so I would submit, out of politeness, once is enough (and this one you posted more than once yesterday, let alone in previous days.)
Oh, and piffle
I haven't seen it before. It's spoilt by being so childish. The graphics are OK but the dialogue sounds like it was written for twelve year olds
You're not really the target market, though. Many (probably most) voters are less sophisticated than you
The answer is none of the above. The Labour 'right' need to start doing the basics right. Rather than fighting or running away they need to organise, start winning elections and above all come up with some interesting ideas that they can advocate.
Have you seen the Corbynista reaction to the not unsurprising news that Sadiq Khan is not a card carrying member of the Jezza fan club? He won an election on a platform that Labour would do very well to emulate and he is now being berated for it. And he is not even on the right of the party.
Interesting analysis Mr Meeks - and while I agree that it would be foolish to rely on the Mr Micawber option:
Labour rightwingers can also present this to themselves as the Mr Micawber option. In practice, however, there is no particular reason why anything should turn up.
I suspect quite a few things will turn up.
None of us know the state of the Conservative Party, or the government not much over a month from now. 'Weakened' and 'Divided' are both dead certs, but 'badly' or 'disastrously'?
Who will be the PM three months from now?
What will be the state of the economy six months from now?
So, lots of 'events, dear boy, events'.......
PS - it's faintly amusing that Corbyn, who has sucked up to numerous fascist (Galtieri, Saddam, Gaddafi, Eisen) and paramilitary (IRA) organisations, is described as being on the left. Self awareness isn't his long suit, is it? But then Chavez had the same problem.
It's rather GCSE history, but Fascism is not an ideology of the right...
Well - yes and no. It usually starts on the left (Mussolini, Mosley, Drexler, arguably Chavez) but usually by the time it gets into power it is avowedly right-wing and anti-Communist, or has acquired militaristic overtones through army involvement. Hitler and Mussolini, for example, both emphatically identified as right wing on gaining power and among their first acts were to have Communist/Socialist rivals killed.
To argue otherwise is degree level philosophy rather than GCSE history.
SDPv2 might work after the referendum. The key would be that the Tories have to split too, with the right taking control and purging the moderates. This might not be an impossible dream, for the reasons SeanT has given previously.
"A second reason for an LD revival being that the extremists in both Labour and Tory will drive centrist voters elsewhere."
A definite possibility. At the moment, there's very little point in voting for a party that's so firmly wrapped around the nether regions of the European project. But when real politics is re-engaged, they may gain.
Old-fashioned Labour has disappeared. It is now predominantly a middle class, urban enclave and gaining from the increase in this demographic. But Jezza is still a step too far for many.
The labour right should unite with the conservative left and form one homogenous, London centric, public sector orientated Quango led by Nick Clegg. They can agree with everybody, achieve nothing, and sneer and pontificate in nice restaurants with senior BBC staff on taxpayer's expenses. Mandelson will be their spiritual leader, both Cameron and Blair can pop in to "the big tent" periodically, they will be inclusive.
Rather alarmingly for me, as it is an unexpected conclusion that is at odds with my disdain for deals in smokey rooms, I have to point out that the best period of government in the last twenty years or so was the coalition. Far better than Blair, brown or Cameron administrating unfettered.
That's interesting.
I struggle to think of anything of significance this purely Conservative Government has achieved over the last year.
George Osborne almost managed to get 'Strip the Willow' right last night?
Levels of delusion appear to be growing then? Even if policy platform is right, how can people seriously believe he is a credible candidate for PM?
They are not interested in power. They are perfectly content for the Tories to govern; however disastrously they do it.
I voted for Corbyn because I didn't want 5 years of vanilla social democratic policies being regurgitated followed by another defeat in 2020. Try something radical and see if it works.
Yep, you are not interested in winning. With a half decent leadership team Labour would be on course for victory in 2020 and this desperately poor government would be consigned to history.
SO I agree with you on many points but you're sounding like the ghastly Cameron sycophants who want power for power's sake. Regardless of my view the Labour membership spoke, they wanted Corbyn, warts and all.
I know. They have made their choice. It's not one I agree with, so I am no longer a Labour supporter. All I am saying is that in making the choice they have - and, more importantly, in sticking with it despite the overwhelming evidence that it means guaranteed electoral defeat - Labour members have decided that they are not interested in power or in helping those Labour is supposed to be interested in helping.
Yes I get that and sympathise, I'll be blunt, instead of being the party of the WWC its become the party of the effete middle class and muslims. I appreciate that opens me up to ridiculous claims of racism but have a look at Tower Hamlets. The labour party there bears no resemblence to the one I knew in mining communities.
The answer is none of the above. The Labour 'right' need to start doing the basics right. Rather than fighting or running away they need to organise, start winning elections and above all come up with some interesting ideas that they can advocate.
Have you seen the Corbynista reaction to the not unsurprising news that Sadiq Khan is not a card carrying member of the Jezza fan club? He won an election on a platform that Labour would do very well to emulate and he is now being berated for it. And he is not even on the right of the party.
You state that as if it's new, interesting or a bad thing. There are those on the left that always complain, especially about elected Labour officials. Will always be the case. Khan simply has to get on with it. Let them whinge.
The answer is none of the above. The Labour 'right' need to start doing the basics right. Rather than fighting or running away they need to organise, start winning elections and above all come up with some interesting ideas that they can advocate.
Absolutely, they're moaning - yet aren't offering an alternative prescription. The leadership election exposed that in spades. It still remains very tricky though, given how much centre ground Cameron is occupying.
Interesting analysis Mr Meeks - and while I agree that it would be foolish to rely on the Mr Micawber option:
Labour rightwingers can also present this to themselves as the Mr Micawber option. In practice, however, there is no particular reason why anything should turn up.
I suspect quite a few things will turn up.
None of us know the state of the Conservative Party, or the government not much over a month from now. 'Weakened' and 'Divided' are both dead certs, but 'badly' or 'disastrously'?
Who will be the PM three months from now?
What will be the state of the economy six months from now?
So, lots of 'events, dear boy, events'.......
PS - it's faintly amusing that Corbyn, who has sucked up to numerous fascist (Galtieri, Saddam, Gaddafi, Eisen) and paramilitary (IRA) organisations, is described as being on the left. Self awareness isn't his long suit, is it? But then Chavez had the same problem.
It's rather GCSE history, but Fascism is not an ideology of the right...
Well - yes and no. It usually starts on the left (Mussolini, Mosley, Drexler, arguably Chavez) but usually by the time it gets into power it is avowedly right-wing and anti-Communist, or has acquired militaristic overtones through army involvement. Hitler and Mussolini, for example, both emphatically identified as right wing on gaining power and among their first acts were to have Communist/Socialist rivals killed.
To argue otherwise is degree level philosophy rather than GCSE history.
Don't forget though that they were also big on some forms of state ownership. Something like 40% of the German economy was directly or indirectly owned by the SS.
However, the profits went to Nazi bosses, not the government itself or ordinary people- this was particularly true of scams like the VW Beetle via Kraft Dutch Freude.
With all his many faults, Stalin did not amass great personal wealth from his power (Brezhnev was a different story)!
Interesting analysis Mr Meeks - and while I agree that it would be foolish to rely on the Mr Micawber option:
Labour rightwingers can also present this to themselves as the Mr Micawber option. In practice, however, there is no particular reason why anything should turn up.
I suspect quite a few things will turn up.
None of us know the state of the Conservative Party, or the government not much over a month from now. 'Weakened' and 'Divided' are both dead certs, but 'badly' or 'disastrously'?
Who will be the PM three months from now?
What will be the state of the economy six months from now?
So, lots of 'events, dear boy, events'.......
PS - it's faintly amusing that Corbyn, who has sucked up to numerous fascist (Galtieri, Saddam, Gaddafi, Eisen) and paramilitary (IRA) organisations, is described as being on the left. Self awareness isn't his long suit, is it? But then Chavez had the same problem.
It's rather GCSE history, but Fascism is not an ideology of the right...
Well - yes and no. It usually starts on the left (Mussolini, Mosley, Drexler, arguably Chavez) but usually by the time it gets into power it is avowedly right-wing and anti-Communist, or has acquired militaristic overtones through army involvement. Hitler and Mussolini, for example, both emphatically identified as right wing on gaining power and among their first acts were to have Communist/Socialist rivals killed.
To argue otherwise is degree level philosophy rather than GCSE history.
Don't forget though that they were also big on some forms of state ownership. Something like 40% of the German economy was directly or indirectly owned by the SS.
However, the profits went to Nazi bosses, not the government itself or ordinary people- this was particularly true of scams like the VW Beetle via Kraft Dutch Freude.
With all his many faults, Stalin did not amass great personal wealth from his power (Brezhnev was a different story)!
In fairness to Stalin he was too busy killing his own people to make any money
The Labour membership has made clear it is happy to leave the Tories - hopelessly split, increasingly inept and highly likely to veer even further right - to govern the country. Mounting a challenge to Corbyn in such circumstances is entirely pointless. He'll win again and that will be that.
The essential problem is that under FPTP we get broad coalitions. The Labour right is stuck in what they thought was the centre left one. There's no-one to defect to: whatever Corbynistas say, the Tories are anathema and, what's more, are at war with each other, the LDs are even less relevant than Labour. A new party would take years to build and would struggle to move beyond the seats held by a handful of well known MPs with large personal votes.
Being Labour matters a lot to Labour people. It's a very hard party to walk away from. I hate the fact I have been forced into doing it and it has been far less a part of my life than it has been for long-time members and serving MPs. They feel it is part of what they are. For better or worse, they are going to stick with it because that's what Labour people do. I'd call it an exercise in futility rather than cowardice. And, pragmatically, there is always the chance something will turn up.
For the country, all this is sub-optimal: the Tories are rudderless and at each others' throats, with a wafer thin majority given to them by 37% of the electorate; the Labour party is rudderless and at each others' throats with the support of around 30% of the electorate. Whichever way you look at it and whatever happens on 23rd June, it's no way to run a country.
Interesting analysis Mr Meeks - and while I agree that it would be foolish to rely on the Mr Micawber option:
Labour rightwingers can also present this to themselves as the Mr Micawber option. In practice, however, there is no particular reason why anything should turn up.
I suspect quite a few things will turn up.
None of us know the state of the Conservative Party, or the government not much over a month from now. 'Weakened' and 'Divided' are both dead certs, but 'badly' or 'disastrously'?
Who will be the PM three months from now?
What will be the state of the economy six months from now?
So, lots of 'events, dear boy, events'.......
PS - it's faintly amusing that Corbyn, who has sucked up to numerous fascist (Galtieri, Saddam, Gaddafi, Eisen) and paramilitary (IRA) organisations, is described as being on the left. Self awareness isn't his long suit, is it? But then Chavez had the same problem.
It's rather GCSE history, but Fascism is not an ideology of the right...
Well - yes and no. It usually starts on the left (Mussolini, Mosley, Drexler, arguably Chavez) but usually by the time it gets into power it is avowedly right-wing and anti-Communist, or has acquired militaristic overtones through army involvement. Hitler and Mussolini, for example, both emphatically identified as right wing on gaining power and among their first acts were to have Communist/Socialist rivals killed.
To argue otherwise is degree level philosophy rather than GCSE history.
Don't forget though that they were also big on some forms of state ownership. Something like 40% of the German economy was directly or indirectly owned by the SS.
However, the profits went to Nazi bosses, not the government itself or ordinary people- this was particularly true of scams like the VW Beetle via Kraft Dutch Freude.
With all his many faults, Stalin did not amass great personal wealth from his power (Brezhnev was a different story)!
In fairness to Stalin he was too busy killing his own people to make any money
The answer is none of the above. The Labour 'right' need to start doing the basics right. Rather than fighting or running away they need to organise, start winning elections and above all come up with some interesting ideas that they can advocate.
Have you seen the Corbynista reaction to the not unsurprising news that Sadiq Khan is not a card carrying member of the Jezza fan club? He won an election on a platform that Labour would do very well to emulate and he is now being berated for it. And he is not even on the right of the party.
You state that as if it's new, interesting or a bad thing. There are those on the left that always complain, especially about elected Labour officials. Will always be the case. Khan simply has to get on with it. Let them whinge.
The answer is none of the above. The Labour 'right' need to start doing the basics right. Rather than fighting or running away they need to organise, start winning elections and above all come up with some interesting ideas that they can advocate.
Absolutely, they're moaning - yet aren't offering an alternative prescription. The leadership election exposed that in spades. It still remains very tricky though, given how much centre ground Cameron is occupying.
Interesting analysis Mr Meeks - and while I agree that it would be foolish to rely on the Mr Micawber option:
Labour rightwingers can also present this to themselves as the Mr Micawber option. In practice, however, there is no particular reason why anything should turn up.
I suspect quite a few things will turn up.
None of us know the state of the Conservative Party, or the government not much over a month from now. 'Weakened' and 'Divided' are both dead certs, but 'badly' or 'disastrously'?
Who will be the PM three months from now?
What will be the state of the economy six months from now?
So, lots of 'events, dear boy, events'.......
PS - it's faintly amusing that Corbyn, who has sucked up to numerous fascist (Galtieri, Saddam, Gaddafi, Eisen) and paramilitary (IRA) organisations, is described as being on the left. Self awareness isn't his long suit, is it? But then Chavez had the same problem.
It's rather GCSE history, but Fascism is not an ideology of the right...
Well - yes and no. It usually starts on the left (Mussolini, Mosley, Drexler, arguably Chavez) but usually by the time it gets into power it is avowedly right-wing and anti-Communist, or has acquired militaristic overtones through army involvement. Hitler and Mussolini, for example, both emphatically identified as right wing on gaining power and among their first acts were to have Communist/Socialist rivals killed.
To argue otherwise is degree level philosophy rather than GCSE history.
Well the Nazis (and I assume Mussolini but don't know) were certainly very keen to eliminate their Communist/Socialist rivals. But surely that was simple power politics - getting rid of rivals with a power base (the unions) and following that could threaten their position.
Did both Hitler and Mussolini "emphatically identify as right wing"? - perhaps a link?
My general contention is that they are a part of the left economically that dresses up in the symbols of nationalism (which are not necessarily right wing - no one has a monopoly on patriotism). The whole Nazis = Right wing claim for Nazism is just clever market positioning by politicians on the left.
Interesting analysis Mr Meeks - and while I agree that it would be foolish to rely on the Mr Micawber option:
Labour rightwingers can also present this to themselves as the Mr Micawber option. In practice, however, there is no particular reason why anything should turn up.
I suspect quite a few things will turn up.
None of us know the state of the Conservative Party, or the government not much over a month from now. 'Weakened' and 'Divided' are both dead certs, but 'badly' or 'disastrously'?
Who will be the PM three months from now?
What will be the state of the economy six months from now?
So, lots of 'events, dear boy, events'.......
PS - it's faintly amusing that Corbyn, who has sucked up to numerous fascist (Galtieri, Saddam, Gaddafi, Eisen) and paramilitary (IRA) organisations, is described as being on the left. Self awareness isn't his long suit, is it? But then Chavez had the same problem.
It's rather GCSE history, but Fascism is not an ideology of the right...
Well - yes and no. It usually starts on the left (Mussolini, Mosley, Drexler, arguably Chavez) but usually by the time it gets into power it is avowedly right-wing and anti-Communist, or has acquired militaristic overtones through army involvement. Hitler and Mussolini, for example, both emphatically identified as right wing on gaining power and among their first acts were to have Communist/Socialist rivals killed.
To argue otherwise is degree level philosophy rather than GCSE history.
Well the Nazis (and I assume Mussolini but don't know) were certainly very keen to eliminate their Communist/Socialist rivals. But surely that was simple power politics - getting rid of rivals with a power base (the unions) and following that could threaten their position.
Did both Hitler and Mussolini "emphatically identify as right wing"? - perhaps a link?
My general contention is that they are a part of the left economically that dresses up in the symbols of nationalism (which are not necessarily right wing - no one has a monopoly on patriotism). The whole Nazis = Right wing claim for Nazism is just clever market positioning by politicians on the left.
So when did mass privatisation become a left wing policy, Charles?
The labour right should unite with the conservative left and form one homogenous, London centric, public sector orientated Quango led by Nick Clegg. They can agree with everybody, achieve nothing, and sneer and pontificate in nice restaurants with senior BBC staff on taxpayer's expenses. Mandelson will be their spiritual leader, both Cameron and Blair can pop in to "the big tent" periodically, they will be inclusive.
Rather alarmingly for me, as it is an unexpected conclusion that is at odds with my disdain for deals in smokey rooms, I have to point out that the best period of government in the last twenty years or so was the coalition. Far better than Blair, brown or Cameron administrating unfettered.
That's interesting.
I struggle to think of anything of significance this purely Conservative Government has achieved over the last year.
Do you think it would have been any better had the Lib Dems held on to 25 seats and the coalition had continued, albeit in a different form? One thing that I didn't like about the coalition was that it was expensive. Both sides needed to win and that costs money. We still have a deficit of £75bn and there appears to be no appetite for tackling it, and I think that would have been as true with the Coalition.
Of course, we probably wouldn't be having an In-Out referendum right now.
I think we would have had a referendum but with 16 years olds and possible EU citizens having the vote too.
I was expecting this Government to do solidly Tory things. Instead, Osborne decided to use the election of Corbyn as an excuse to have a crack at New Labour Mark II.
The labour right should unite with the conservative left and form one homogenous, London centric, public sector orientated Quango led by Nick Clegg. They can agree with everybody, achieve nothing, and sneer and pontificate in nice restaurants with senior BBC staff on taxpayer's expenses. Mandelson will be their spiritual leader, both Cameron and Blair can pop in to "the big tent" periodically, they will be inclusive.
Rather alarmingly for me, as it is an unexpected conclusion that is at odds with my disdain for deals in smokey rooms, I have to point out that the best period of government in the last twenty years or so was the coalition. Far better than Blair, brown or Cameron administrating unfettered.
I did point out a year ago that people would look back on the Coalition as a golden period of good government. It is one reason that the LDs will revive, opinions on that period will mellow with time.
A second reason for an LD revival being that the extremists in both Labour and Tory will drive centrist voters elsewhere. Even if politicians remain in their current parties, the voters will not.
I think that the differences between the Corbynistas and the Labour right are actually not that major or fatal. The principle dislike of the left is its perceived unelectability rather than its policies. Both wings oppose austerity, support the NHS and want it revived, are pro-Remain and want redistribution of wealth. Trident renewal and Mid-East wars are the major differences of substance, but neither are very popular with the public. They are not issues worth splitting over, but ones on which to agree to differ.
If the Corbynistas were to become a little more professional at winning elections rather than internal contests then the Labour right would support them with gusto. Nothing appeals more to them than the prospect of forming a government. I see some signs of this happening already. If you can't beat them - join them. In practice the alternative in the short term is a Labour led coalition, so not the full juice of the grape.
We hear a lot of guff about anti-establishment parties on the rise, but the real anti-establishment party is the Labour Left, and that may well yet come to power. Ironically that could be brought about by an early election following a Leave vote.
Just a query, do you support the NHS or health care that is free at the point of delivery?
There will be a point at which the NHS is not the vehicle to achieve the second of those, in my opinion.
"Free at the point of delivery"?
Two points:
1. After how much queuing, waiting?
2. It's not free - a lotta people in the NHS make a lotta money and have great pensions
Although it may become untenable not to be a member, especially when the eurozone becomes more integrated and starts to vote as a bloc.
Possibly. In which case we may choose to leave. Unless of course the EU has somehow acquired the right and wherewithal to stop us, as was being claimed yesterday.
Interesting analysis Mr Meeks - and while I agree that it would be foolish to rely on the Mr Micawber option:
Labour rightwingers can also present this to themselves as the Mr Micawber option. In practice, however, there is no particular reason why anything should turn up.
I suspect quite a few things will turn up.
None of us know the state of the Conservative Party, or the government not much over a month from now. 'Weakened' and 'Divided' are both dead certs, but 'badly' or 'disastrously'?
Who will be the PM three months from now?
What will be the state of the economy six months from now?
So, lots of 'events, dear boy, events'.......
PS - it's faintly amusing that Corbyn, who has sucked up to numerous fascist (Galtieri, Saddam, Gaddafi, Eisen) and paramilitary (IRA) organisations, is described as being on the left. Self awareness isn't his long suit, is it? But then Chavez had the same problem.
It's rather GCSE history, but Fascism is not an ideology of the right...
Well - yes and no. It usually starts on the left (Mussolini, Mosley, Drexler, arguably Chavez) but usually by the time it gets into power it is avowedly right-wing and anti-Communist, or has acquired militaristic overtones through army involvement. Hitler and Mussolini, for example, both emphatically identified as right wing on gaining power and among their first acts were to have Communist/Socialist rivals killed.
To argue otherwise is degree level philosophy rather than GCSE history.
Don't forget though that they were also big on some forms of state ownership. Something like 40% of the German economy was directly or indirectly owned by the SS.
However, the profits went to Nazi bosses, not the government itself or ordinary people- this was particularly true of scams like the VW Beetle via Kraft Dutch Freude.
With all his many faults, Stalin did not amass great personal wealth from his power (Brezhnev was a different story)!
State ownership was a big thing across the political divide for much of the late 20s through to the 80s. The Nazis were enthusiastic privatisers.
The reality, of course, is that fascism and national socialism don't really have a place on the traditional political spectrum. They are neither left nor right; they are a complicated mix of both, with blood and iron nationalism over-riding all.
Well - yes and no. It usually starts on the left (Mussolini, Mosley, Drexler, arguably Chavez) but usually by the time it gets into power it is avowedly right-wing and anti-Communist, or has acquired militaristic overtones through army involvement. Hitler and Mussolini, for example, both emphatically identified as right wing on gaining power and among their first acts were to have Communist/Socialist rivals killed.
To argue otherwise is degree level philosophy rather than GCSE history.
Well the Nazis (and I assume Mussolini but don't know) were certainly very keen to eliminate their Communist/Socialist rivals. But surely that was simple power politics - getting rid of rivals with a power base (the unions) and following that could threaten their position.
Did both Hitler and Mussolini "emphatically identify as right wing"? - perhaps a link?
My general contention is that they are a part of the left economically that dresses up in the symbols of nationalism (which are not necessarily right wing - no one has a monopoly on patriotism). The whole Nazis = Right wing claim for Nazism is just clever market positioning by politicians on the left.
So when did mass privatisation become a left wing policy, Charles?
From your link (even in the abstract to make it simple):
Privatization was part of an intentional policy with multiple objectives and was not ideologically driven. As in many recent privatizations, particularly within the European Union, strong financial restrictions were a central motivation. In addition, privatization was used as a political tool to enhance support for the government and for the Nazi Party.
They were basically looting the state to bribe their supporters. That's not a priori either right or left wing
The only logical alternative to Corbyn before the election is John McDonnell, Labour members made clear they wanted a leftwinger and that is what they got. In the same way when IDS won Tory members the only logical alternative to him was a fellow rightwinger like Michael Howard and Tory modern users had to wait until after defeat at the 2005 election to challenge for the leadership again
The labour right should unite with the conservative left and form one homogenous, London centric, public sector orientated Quango led by Nick Clegg. They can agree with everybody, achieve nothing, and sneer and pontificate in nice restaurants with senior BBC staff on taxpayer's expenses. Mandelson will be their spiritual leader, both Cameron and Blair can pop in to "the big tent" periodically, they will be inclusive.
Rather alarmingly for me, as it is an unexpected conclusion that is at odds with my disdain for deals in smokey rooms, I have to point out that the best period of government in the last twenty years or so was the coalition. Far better than Blair, brown or Cameron administrating unfettered.
I did point out a year ago that people would look back on the Coalition as a golden period of good government. It is one reason that the LDs will revive, opinions on that period will mellow with time.
A second reason for an LD revival being that the extremists in both Labour and Tory will drive centrist voters elsewhere. Even if politicians remain in their current parties, the voters will not.
We hear a lot of guff about anti-establishment parties on the rise, but the real anti-establishment party is the Labour Left, and that may well yet come to power. Ironically that could be brought about by an early election following a Leave vote.
Just a query, do you support the NHS or health care that is free at the point of delivery?
There will be a point at which the NHS is not the vehicle to achieve the second of those, in my opinion.
I don't support either, though that would be quite a long essay.
There are a lot of aspects of the health economy that are not well provided by private companies (integrated health care for diabetics, care of the frail elderly, screening programmes, maternity services, training of junior doctors etc). Elective care for isolated episodes of acute care can be privatised (hernia repairs, dermatology, hearing aids etc) however cherry picking these makes the others less financially viable under current tarrifs. It is like forcing a shop to scease all of its best selling lines.
I also see co-payment as the only viable way to reduce excessive demand and increase funding. Several Australian states do this, though it is a while since I worked there.
The woman appointed to lead an independent inquiry into Labour antisemitism joined the party hours before it began, raising questions over the impartiality of the review.
Shami Chakrabarti, the human rights campaigner, defended her decision and insisted that she would conduct the investigation “without fear or favour”.
Ms Chakrabarti was also forced to defend a decision to include allegations of Islamophobia in the remit after claims that it risked diluting the inquiry.
So really, Labour have ducked the issue on an Independent inquiry and also softened it's approach to anti-semitism with the addition of linking it to Islamophobia.
The answer is none of the above. The Labour 'right' need to start doing the basics right. Rather than fighting or running away they need to organise, start winning elections and above all come up with some interesting ideas that they can advocate.
Have you seen the Corbynista reaction to the not unsurprising news that Sadiq Khan is not a card carrying member of the Jezza fan club? He won an election on a platform that Labour would do very well to emulate and he is now being berated for it. And he is not even on the right of the party.
You state that as if it's new, interesting or a bad thing. There are those on the left that always complain, especially about elected Labour officials. Will always be the case. Khan simply has to get on with it. Let them whinge.
Although it may become untenable not to be a member, especially when the eurozone becomes more integrated and starts to vote as a bloc.
Possibly. In which case we may choose to leave. Unless of course the EU has somehow acquired the right and wherewithal to stop us, as was being claimed yesterday.
The trick, in life, is to try and anticipate likely future outcomes and position yourself in advance.
In my view the status quo would be an okay, if not great, deal for the UK (despite the disappointing renegotiation).
But it's clear that the EU (especially the Eurozone, but the EU as a whole follows from this) needs to reform and integrate in order to become viable. I don't want to be part of that, but nor do I want to stand in their way.
And I no longer trust the countries of Europe to stick to their agreements - e.g. the eurozone members voting to use a fund to which the UK had contributed as part of the Greek bailout despite a solemn promise not to dip their fingers in that particular cookie jat
The labour right should unite with the conservative left and form one homogenous, London centric, public sector orientated Quango led by Nick Clegg. They can agree with everybody, achieve nothing, and sneer and pontificate in nice restaurants with senior BBC staff on taxpayer's expenses. Mandelson will be their spiritual leader, both Cameron and Blair can pop in to "the big tent" periodically, they will be inclusive.
Rather alarmingly for me, as it is an unexpected conclusion that is at odds with my disdain for deals in smokey rooms, I have to point out that the best period of government in the last twenty years or so was the coalition. Far better than Blair, brown or Cameron administrating unfettered.
That's interesting.
I struggle to think of anything of significance this purely Conservative Government has achieved over the last year.
Do you think it would have been any better had the Lib Dems held on to 25 seats and the coalition had continued, albeit in a different form? One thing that I didn't like about the coalition was that it was expensive. Both sides needed to win and that costs money. We still have a deficit of £75bn and there appears to be no appetite for tackling it, and I think that would have been as true with the Coalition.
Of course, we probably wouldn't be having an In-Out referendum right now.
I think we would have had a referendum but with 16 years olds and possible EU citizens having the vote too.
I was expecting this Government to do solidly Tory things. Instead, Osborne decided to use the election of Corbyn as an excuse to have a crack at New Labour Mark II.
What sort of things were you thinking? Some would say cutting capital gains tax and raising the 40p threshold are solidly Tory. The problem, however, is the state of the public finances. I expected quite tough action to finish the job, but in the end winning the referendum and the Tory leadership contest (or so he thought) came first. The only good thing he's done is to start closing down buy to let, but not until after his mates have had their fill.
Well, quite. Labour either lose the next election or the country has a dangerous idiot as Prime Minister. Neither is appalling to someone who is both a Labour supporter and sane.
Well - yes and no. It usually starts on the left (Mussolini, Mosley, Drexler, arguably Chavez) but usually by the time it gets into power it is avowedly right-wing and anti-Communist, or has acquired militaristic overtones through army involvement. Hitler and Mussolini, for example, both emphatically identified as right wing on gaining power and among their first acts were to have Communist/Socialist rivals killed.
To argue otherwise is degree level philosophy rather than GCSE history.
Well the Nazis (and I assume Mussolini but don't know) were certainly very keen to eliminate their Communist/Socialist rivals. But surely that was simple power politics - getting rid of rivals with a power base (the unions) and following that could threaten their position.
Did both Hitler and Mussolini "emphatically identify as right wing"? - perhaps a link?
My general contention is that they are a part of the left economically that dresses up in the symbols of nationalism (which are not necessarily right wing - no one has a monopoly on patriotism). The whole Nazis = Right wing claim for Nazism is just clever market positioning by politicians on the left.
So when did mass privatisation become a left wing policy, Charles?
From your link (even in the abstract to make it simple):
Privatization was part of an intentional policy with multiple objectives and was not ideologically driven. As in many recent privatizations, particularly within the European Union, strong financial restrictions were a central motivation. In addition, privatization was used as a political tool to enhance support for the government and for the Nazi Party.
They were basically looting the state to bribe their supporters. That's not a priori either right or left wing
I am afraid that privatisation is not a left wing policy. It is a right wing one.
Frankly, though, I think it is rather silly to try to place the Nazis and Mussolini on the traditional right/left spectrum.
The left, however, has to take Stalin. On a smaller, less brutal - but still profoundly unpleasant and murderous - scale, Franco and the other southern European dictators of the mid-twentieth century were clearly on the right, as was the Apartheid regime in South Africa.
The labour right should unite with the conservative left and form one homogenous, London centric, public sector orientated Quango led by Nick Clegg. They can agree with everybody, achieve nothing, and sneer and pontificate in nice restaurants with senior BBC staff on taxpayer's expenses. Mandelson will be their spiritual leader, both Cameron and Blair can pop in to "the big tent" periodically, they will be inclusive.
Rather alarmingly for me, as it is an unexpected conclusion that is at odds with my disdain for deals in smokey rooms, I have to point out that the best period of government in the last twenty years or so was the coalition. Far better than Blair, brown or Cameron administrating unfettered.
I did point out a year ago that people would look back on the Coalition as a golden period of good government. It is one reason that the LDs will revive, opinions on that period will mellow with time.
A second reason for an LD revival being that the extremists in both Labour and Tory will drive centrist voters elsewhere. Even if politicians remain in their current parties, the voters will not.
I think that the differences between the Corbynistas and the Labour right are actually not that major or fatal. The principle dislike of the left is its perceived unelectability rather than its policies. Both wings oppose austerity, support the NHS and want it revived, are pro-Remain and want redistribution of wealth. Trident renewal and Mid-East wars are the major differences of substance, but neither are very popular with the public. They are not issues worth splitting over, but ones on which to agree to differ.
If the Corbynistas were to become a little more professional at winning elections rather than internal contests then the Labour right would support them with gusto. Nothing appeals more to them than the prospect of forming a government. I see some signs of this happening already. If you can't beat them - join them. In practice the alternative in the short term is a Labour led coalition, so not the full juice of the grape.
We hear a lot of guff about anti-establishment parties on the rise, but the real anti-establishment party is the Labour Left, and that may well yet come to power. Ironically that could be brought about by an early election following a Leave vote.
Not Blairites though, they back at least some austerity, oppose higher taxes and want more choice in health
The woman appointed to lead an independent inquiry into Labour antisemitism joined the party hours before it began, raising questions over the impartiality of the review.
Shami Chakrabarti, the human rights campaigner, defended her decision and insisted that she would conduct the investigation “without fear or favour”.
Ms Chakrabarti was also forced to defend a decision to include allegations of Islamophobia in the remit after claims that it risked diluting the inquiry.
So really, Labour have ducked the issue on an Independent inquiry and also softened it's approach to anti-semitism with the addition of linking it to Islamophobia.
Like that BBC poll of greatest British icons which foxhunting won but to which the BBC felt it necessary to add "and anti-hunting".
"Possibly. In which case we may choose to leave. Unless of course the EU has somehow acquired the right and wherewithal to stop us, as was being claimed yesterday."
"We" won't choose. It will be up to the Establishment (the Governing party) to make that decision and they never will. Once we vote Remain, that will be our destiny. We voted for Union and we'll be getting it.
Interesting analysis Mr Meeks - and while I agree that it would be foolish to rely on the Mr Micawber option:
Labour rightwingers can also present this to themselves as the Mr Micawber option. In practice, however, there is no particular reason why anything should turn up.
I suspect quite a few things will turn up.
None of us know the state of the Conservative Party, or the government not much over a month from now. 'Weakened' and 'Divided' are both dead certs, but 'badly' or 'disastrously'?
Who will be the PM three months from now?
What will be the state of the economy six months from now?
So, lots of 'events, dear boy, events'.......
PS - it's faintly amusing that Corbyn, who has sucked up to numerous fascist (Galtieri, Saddam, Gaddafi, Eisen) and paramilitary (IRA) organisations, is described as being on the left. Self awareness isn't his long suit, is it? But then Chavez had the same problem.
It's rather GCSE history, but Fascism is not an ideology of the right...
Well - yes and no. It usually starts on the left (Mussolini, Mosley, Drexler, arguably Chavez) but usually by the time it gets into power it is avowedly right-wing and anti-Communist, or has acquired militaristic overtones through army involvement. Hitler and Mussolini, for example, both emphatically identified as right wing on gaining power and among their first acts were to have Communist/Socialist rivals killed.
To argue otherwise is degree level philosophy rather than GCSE history.
Well the Nazis (and I assume Mussolini but don't know) were certainly very keen to eliminate their Communist/Socialist rivals. But surely that was simple power politics - getting rid of rivals with a power base (the unions) and following that could threaten their position.
Did both Hitler and Mussolini "emphatically identify as right wing"? - perhaps a link?
My general contention is that they are a part of the left economically that dresses up in the symbols of nationalism (which are not necessarily right wing - no one has a monopoly on patriotism). The whole Nazis = Right wing claim for Nazism is just clever market positioning by politicians on the left.
They were authoritarians, liberals would be their opposite just as socialists are the opposite of libertarians
Although it may become untenable not to be a member, especially when the eurozone becomes more integrated and starts to vote as a bloc.
Possibly. In which case we may choose to leave. Unless of course the EU has somehow acquired the right and wherewithal to stop us, as was being claimed yesterday.
Then non eurozone Denmark, Sweden, Poland, Hungary and the Czechs will be leaving too
The labour right should unite with the conservative left and form one homogenous, London centric, public sector orientated Quango led by Nick Clegg. They can agree with everybody, achieve nothing, and sneer and pontificate in nice restaurants with senior BBC staff on taxpayer's expenses. Mandelson will be their spiritual leader, both Cameron and Blair can pop in to "the big tent" periodically, they will be inclusive.
Rather alarmingly for me, as it is an unexpected conclusion that is at odds with my disdain for deals in smokey rooms, I have to point out that the best period of government in the last twenty years or so was the coalition. Far better than Blair, brown or Cameron administrating unfettered.
Agree completely - much better to have Cameron held to account by LibDem Orange bookers than his right wing nutters
One of the advantages of the Coalition was that most of the nuttier ideas of both parties were blocked by the sensible tendency of either, most usually this was thrashed out in the Quad and that meant for better government.
To some degree a small majority also has the same effect but the restraining factor has tended to kick in after rather than before it leaves government departments.
I agree with that Jack and it is a pity that Cameron and Osborne did not learn from the positive experience of the quad. An Inner Cabinet where ideas are thoroughly critiqued and the issue of what could go wrong is properly considered before publication would have saved the government a serious amount of heartache.
The problem is that the worst ideas are coming from the 'inner cabinet' ie Osborne.
The woman appointed to lead an independent inquiry into Labour antisemitism joined the party hours before it began, raising questions over the impartiality of the review.
Shami Chakrabarti, the human rights campaigner, defended her decision and insisted that she would conduct the investigation “without fear or favour”.
Ms Chakrabarti was also forced to defend a decision to include allegations of Islamophobia in the remit after claims that it risked diluting the inquiry.
So really, Labour have ducked the issue on an Independent inquiry and also softened it's approach to anti-semitism with the addition of linking it to Islamophobia.
It's got BBC complaint response written all over it "We listened to your concerns, and decided on balance we were right"
Although it may become untenable not to be a member, especially when the eurozone becomes more integrated and starts to vote as a bloc.
Possibly. In which case we may choose to leave. Unless of course the EU has somehow acquired the right and wherewithal to stop us, as was being claimed yesterday.
The trick, in life, is to try and anticipate likely future outcomes and position yourself in advance.
In my view the status quo would be an okay, if not great, deal for the UK (despite the disappointing renegotiation).
But it's clear that the EU (especially the Eurozone, but the EU as a whole follows from this) needs to reform and integrate in order to become viable. I don't want to be part of that, but nor do I want to stand in their way.
And I no longer trust the countries of Europe to stick to their agreements - e.g. the eurozone members voting to use a fund to which the UK had contributed as part of the Greek bailout despite a solemn promise not to dip their fingers in that particular cookie jat
Agreed.
And in addition, this referendum process has revealed the extent to which we cannot trust our own politicians as well - even to express their real opinions openly so that the public may choose.
We have had a thoroughly dishonest performance by both the PM and Chancellor, engaging in a sham renegotiation and then trying to scare the public into voting REMAIN using wildly exaggerated or blatantly false claims about the costs of LEAVE.
Meanwhile, the leader of the opposition is campaigning for REMAIN even though he is in fact entirely against the EU.
Anything that gives more power to our political elite and their hangers-on needs to be resisted, anything that reduces their power supported. Opposing the EU is as much about curtailing the power of our rulers as anything else - there's more than a whiff of 1642 or 1688 about what needs to be done.
Although it may become untenable not to be a member, especially when the eurozone becomes more integrated and starts to vote as a bloc.
Possibly. In which case we may choose to leave. Unless of course the EU has somehow acquired the right and wherewithal to stop us, as was being claimed yesterday.
The trick, in life, is to try and anticipate likely future outcomes and position yourself in advance.
In my view the status quo would be an okay, if not great, deal for the UK (despite the disappointing renegotiation).
But it's clear that the EU (especially the Eurozone, but the EU as a whole follows from this) needs to reform and integrate in order to become viable. I don't want to be part of that, but nor do I want to stand in their way.
And I no longer trust the countries of Europe to stick to their agreements - e.g. the eurozone members voting to use a fund to which the UK had contributed as part of the Greek bailout despite a solemn promise not to dip their fingers in that particular cookie jat
Quite - and the threat of surcharging countries who refuse to take Merkel's hordes. They didn't agree to this.
Although it may become untenable not to be a member, especially when the eurozone becomes more integrated and starts to vote as a bloc.
Possibly. In which case we may choose to leave. Unless of course the EU has somehow acquired the right and wherewithal to stop us, as was being claimed yesterday.
The trick, in life, is to try and anticipate likely future outcomes and position yourself in advance.
In my view the status quo would be an okay, if not great, deal for the UK (despite the disappointing renegotiation).
But it's clear that the EU (especially the Eurozone, but the EU as a whole follows from this) needs to reform and integrate in order to become viable. I don't want to be part of that, but nor do I want to stand in their way.
And I no longer trust the countries of Europe to stick to their agreements - e.g. the eurozone members voting to use a fund to which the UK had contributed as part of the Greek bailout despite a solemn promise not to dip their fingers in that particular cookie jat
Agreed.
And in addition, this referendum process has revealed the extent to which we cannot trust our own politicians as well - even to express their real opinions openly so that the public may choose.
We have had a thoroughly dishonest performance by both the PM and Chancellor, engaging in a sham renegotiation and then trying to scare the public into voting REMAIN using wildly exaggerated or blatantly false claims about the costs of LEAVE.
Meanwhile, the leader of the opposition is campaigning for REMAIN even though he is in fact entirely against the EU.
Anything that gives more power to our political elite and their hangers-on needs to be resisted, anything that reduces their power supported. Opposing the EU is as much about curtailing the power of our rulers as anything else - there's more than a whiff of 1642 or 1688 about what needs to be done.
Although it may become untenable not to be a member, especially when the eurozone becomes more integrated and starts to vote as a bloc.
Possibly. In which case we may choose to leave. Unless of course the EU has somehow acquired the right and wherewithal to stop us, as was being claimed yesterday.
The trick, in life, is to try and anticipate likely future outcomes and position yourself in advance.
In my view the status quo would be an okay, if not great, deal for the UK (despite the disappointing renegotiation).
But it's clear that the EU (especially the Eurozone, but the EU as a whole follows from this) needs to reform and integrate in order to become viable. I don't want to be part of that, but nor do I want to stand in their way.
And I no longer trust the countries of Europe to stick to their agreements - e.g. the eurozone members voting to use a fund to which the UK had contributed as part of the Greek bailout despite a solemn promise not to dip their fingers in that particular cookie jat
Agreed.
And in addition, this referendum process has revealed the extent to which we cannot trust our own politicians as well - even to express their real opinions openly so that the public may choose.
We have had a thoroughly dishonest performance by both the PM and Chancellor, engaging in a sham renegotiation and then trying to scare the public into voting REMAIN using wildly exaggerated or blatantly false claims about the costs of LEAVE.
Meanwhile, the leader of the opposition is campaigning for REMAIN even though he is in fact entirely against the EU.
Anything that gives more power to our political elite and their hangers-on needs to be resisted, anything that reduces their power supported. Opposing the EU is as much about curtailing the power of our rulers as anything else - there's more than a whiff of 1642 or 1688 about what needs to be done.
While the fundamental argument of Remain is "These are important people, you must think as they tell you to think and do as they tell you to do".
Although it may become untenable not to be a member, especially when the eurozone becomes more integrated and starts to vote as a bloc.
Possibly. In which case we may choose to leave. Unless of course the EU has somehow acquired the right and wherewithal to stop us, as was being claimed yesterday.
The trick, in life, is to try and anticipate likely future outcomes and position yourself in advance.
In my view the status quo would be an okay, if not great, deal for the UK (despite the disappointing renegotiation).
But it's clear that the EU (especially the Eurozone, but the EU as a whole follows from this) needs to reform and integrate in order to become viable. I don't want to be part of that, but nor do I want to stand in their way.
And I no longer trust the countries of Europe to stick to their agreements - e.g. the eurozone members voting to use a fund to which the UK had contributed as part of the Greek bailout despite a solemn promise not to dip their fingers in that particular cookie jat
Quite - and the threat of surcharging countries who refuse to take Merkel's hordes. They didn't agree to this.
My old acquaintance at the FCO always smiles thinly when this subject comes up.
Mass immigration is now the unstated position of all the larger EU economies, he tells me.
For the UK, it's about getting a bigger population, bigger economy, and 'more clout' in the world. He gets quite animated about the possibility that the UK population might exceed that of Germany in 20 years or so. The old FCO dream of Britain 'leading' Europe...
For Germany and others its about trying to arrest, or at least delay the impact of, deeply negative demographic trends.
What of our PM's promise to cut immigration to 'tens of thousands'? Another thin smile.
Although it may become untenable not to be a member, especially when the eurozone becomes more integrated and starts to vote as a bloc.
Possibly. In which case we may choose to leave. Unless of course the EU has somehow acquired the right and wherewithal to stop us, as was being claimed yesterday.
The trick, in life, is to try and anticipate likely future outcomes and position yourself in advance.
In my view the status quo would be an okay, if not great, deal for the UK (despite the disappointing renegotiation).
But it's clear that the EU (especially the Eurozone, but the EU as a whole follows from this) needs to reform and integrate in order to become viable. I don't want to be part of that, but nor do I want to stand in their way.
And I no longer trust the countries of Europe to stick to their agreements - e.g. the eurozone members voting to use a fund to which the UK had contributed as part of the Greek bailout despite a solemn promise not to dip their fingers in that particular cookie jat
Quite - and the threat of surcharging countries who refuse to take Merkel's hordes. They didn't agree to this.
My old acquaintance at the FCO always smiles thinly when this subject comes up.
Mass immigration is now the unstated position of all the larger EU economies, he tells me.
For the UK, it's about getting a bigger population, bigger economy, and 'more clout' in the world. He gets quite animated about the possibility that the UK population might exceed that of Germany in 20 years or so. The old FCO dream of Britain 'leading' Europe...
For Germany and others its about trying to arrest, or at least delay the impact of, deeply negative demographic trends.
What of our PM's promise to cut immigration to 'tens of thousands'? Another thin smile.
If they really want a bigger population they should just ban contraception
Although it may become untenable not to be a member, especially when the eurozone becomes more integrated and starts to vote as a bloc.
Possibly. In which case we may choose to leave. Unless of course the EU has somehow acquired the right and wherewithal to stop us, as was being claimed yesterday.
The trick, in life, is to try and anticipate likely future outcomes and position yourself in advance.
In my view the status quo would be an okay, if not great, deal for the UK (despite the disappointing renegotiation).
But it's clear that the EU (especially the Eurozone, but the EU as a whole follows from this) needs to reform and integrate in order to become viable. I don't want to be part of that, but nor do I want to stand in their way.
And I no longer trust the countries of Europe to stick to their agreements - e.g. the eurozone members voting to use a fund to which the UK had contributed as part of the Greek bailout despite a solemn promise not to dip their fingers in that particular cookie jat
Quite - and the threat of surcharging countries who refuse to take Merkel's hordes. They didn't agree to this.
My old acquaintance at the FCO always smiles thinly when this subject comes up.
Mass immigration is now the unstated position of all the larger EU economies, he tells me.
For the UK, it's about getting a bigger population, bigger economy, and 'more clout' in the world. He gets quite animated about the possibility that the UK population might exceed that of Germany in 20 years or so. The old FCO dream of Britain 'leading' Europe...
For Germany and others its about trying to arrest, or at least delay the impact of, deeply negative demographic trends.
What of our PM's promise to cut immigration to 'tens of thousands'? Another thin smile.
This doesn't surprise me at all.
For all the guff, the FO have always been really dreadful at anticipating the impact of real world events on their lovely dreamy models and fluffy notions of British establishment grandeur.
Look at WW2. Look at Suez. Look at the Falklands. Look at Maastricht. Look at Lisbon
Wasn't the Tory case that buses were national expenditure but the grey area was accommodation costs?
Not sure how transporting activists can be viewed as a national expense when accommodating them is supposedly a local one. It's either one or the other, the Tories are arguing it's a national expense.
A leaked letter suggests the Prime Minister was plotting with a multinational firm on how to hammer home the Remain case while still claiming he was prepared to campaign to leave.
The interesting point about this story is that Brexiteers are prepared to leak this
Bringing down Cameron is much more important to them than whether we are in the EU or not.
The lying toad deserves to be exposed for the low life he is.
'2) Challenge the leadership head on This would be a re-enactment of the Charge of the Light Brigade. It would be magnificent, but it wouldn’t be politics.'
I doubt very much that it would be magnificent given that three Labour centrist/centre right leadership candidates with the majority support of the PLP and a more-or-less receptive media were unable to conjure up an iota of magnificence between them. It's an archaic idea, but perhaps instead of whinging from the sidelines the Labour right could spend a couple of years putting together a convincing & thought through manifesto and find a candidate who can convey it convincingly to the party & the country (though I'm not sure if the not-as-crap-as-Goldsmith candidate is the man for the job).
Interesting to see Charles express emerging right wing political correctness and revisionist history.
Whist his desire to repaint the right as motherhood and apple pie is understandable, I fear that his argument that the far right aren't right wing is a bridge too far.
'2) Challenge the leadership head on This would be a re-enactment of the Charge of the Light Brigade. It would be magnificent, but it wouldn’t be politics.'
I doubt very much that it would be magnificent given that three Labour centrist/centre right leadership candidates with the majority support of the PLP and a more-or-less receptive media were unable to conjure up an iota of magnificence between them. It's an archaic idea, but perhaps instead of whinging from the sidelines the Labour right could spend a couple of years putting together a convincing manifesto and find a candidate who can convey it convincingly to the party and the country (though I'm not sure if the not-as-crap-as-Goldsmith candidate is the man for the job).
"And we will not assume a monopoly of wisdom. Good ideas exist across the parliamentary chamber and I promise that we will always seek to judge them on merit, rather than on their party of origin.
Ha Ha Ha , she is having a real dig at the donkeys there, they could not produce an idea between them.
Although it may become untenable not to be a member, especially when the eurozone becomes more integrated and starts to vote as a bloc.
Possibly. In which case we may choose to leave. Unless of course the EU has somehow acquired the right and wherewithal to stop us, as was being claimed yesterday.
The trick, in life, is to try and anticipate likely future outcomes and position yourself in advance.
In my view the status quo would be an okay, if not great, deal for the UK (despite the disappointing renegotiation).
But it's clear that the EU (especially the Eurozone, but the EU as a whole follows from this) needs to reform and integrate in order to become viable. I don't want to be part of that, but nor do I want to stand in their way.
And I no longer trust the countries of Europe to stick to their agreements - e.g. the eurozone members voting to use a fund to which the UK had contributed as part of the Greek bailout despite a solemn promise not to dip their fingers in that particular cookie jat
Quite - and the threat of surcharging countries who refuse to take Merkel's hordes. They didn't agree to this.
My old acquaintance at the FCO always smiles thinly when this subject comes up.
Mass immigration is now the unstated position of all the larger EU economies, he tells me.
For the UK, it's about getting a bigger population, bigger economy, and 'more clout' in the world. He gets quite animated about the possibility that the UK population might exceed that of Germany in 20 years or so. The old FCO dream of Britain 'leading' Europe...
For Germany and others its about trying to arrest, or at least delay the impact of, deeply negative demographic trends.
What of our PM's promise to cut immigration to 'tens of thousands'? Another thin smile.
Although it may become untenable not to be a member, especially when the eurozone becomes more integrated and starts to vote as a bloc.
Possibly. In which case we may choose to leave. Unless of course the EU has somehow acquired the right and wherewithal to stop us, as was being claimed yesterday.
The trick, in life, is to try and anticipate likely future outcomes and position yourself in advance.
In my view the status quo would be an okay, if not great, deal for the UK (despite the disappointing renegotiation).
But it's clear that the EU (especially the Eurozone, but the EU as a whole follows from this) needs to reform and integrate in order to become viable. I don't want to be part of that, but nor do I want to stand in their way.
And I no longer trust the countries of Europe to stick to their agreements - e.g. the eurozone members voting to use a fund to which the UK had contributed as part of the Greek bailout despite a solemn promise not to dip their fingers in that particular cookie jat
Quite - and the threat of surcharging countries who refuse to take Merkel's hordes. They didn't agree to this.
My old acquaintance at the FCO always smiles thinly when this subject comes up.
Mass immigration is now the unstated position of all the larger EU economies, he tells me.
For the UK, it's about getting a bigger population, bigger economy, and 'more clout' in the world. He gets quite animated about the possibility that the UK population might exceed that of Germany in 20 years or so. The old FCO dream of Britain 'leading' Europe...
For Germany and others its about trying to arrest, or at least delay the impact of, deeply negative demographic trends.
What of our PM's promise to cut immigration to 'tens of thousands'? Another thin smile.
If they really want a bigger population they should just ban contraception
A now long dead priest I knew prophesised to me about thirty years ago that cultures that practice contraception and abortion will inevitably be overrun by cultures that do not.
What do the 'Labour right' want? What do they stand for? What is their thing? Whose interests do they represent? I have no idea. Nor do they themselves. We had Burnham, Mrs Balls and the other one contesting Corbyn for the leadership and they managed in the course of several weeks' campaigning to say precisely nothing about anything. Chuka maybe? An empty suit. Jarvis? A handsome haircut. The postman? In fact who gives a shit about the 'Labour right'?
Although it may become untenable not to be a member, especially when the eurozone becomes more integrated and starts to vote as a bloc.
Possibly. In which case we may choose to leave. Unless of course the EU has somehow acquired the right and wherewithal to stop us, as was being claimed yesterday.
The trick, in life, is to try and anticipate likely future outcomes and position yourself in advance.
In my view the status quo would be an okay, if not great, deal for the UK (despite the disappointing renegotiation).
But it's clear that the EU (especially the Eurozone, but the EU as a whole follows from this) needs to reform and integrate in order to become viable. I don't want to be part of that, but nor do I want to stand in their way.
And I no longer trust the countries of Europe to stick to their agreements - e.g. the eurozone members voting to use a fund to which the UK had contributed as part of the Greek bailout despite a solemn promise not to dip their fingers in that particular cookie jat
Quite - and the threat of surcharging countries who refuse to take Merkel's hordes. They didn't agree to this.
My old acquaintance at the FCO always smiles thinly when this subject comes up.
Mass immigration is now the unstated position of all the larger EU economies, he tells me.
For the UK, it's about getting a bigger population, bigger economy, and 'more clout' in the world. He gets quite animated about the possibility that the UK population might exceed that of Germany in 20 years or so. The old FCO dream of Britain 'leading' Europe...
For Germany and others its about trying to arrest, or at least delay the impact of, deeply negative demographic trends.
What of our PM's promise to cut immigration to 'tens of thousands'? Another thin smile.
This doesn't surprise me at all.
For all the guff, the FO have always been really dreadful at anticipating the impact of real world events on their lovely dreamy models and fluffy notions of British establishment grandeur.
Look at WW2. Look at Suez. Look at the Falklands. Look at Maastricht. Look at Lisbon
Singapore was a shock, but Suez was the clincher.
The establishment view fundamentally changed after that.
A leaked letter suggests the Prime Minister was plotting with a multinational firm on how to hammer home the Remain case while still claiming he was prepared to campaign to leave.
The interesting point about this story is that Brexiteers are prepared to leak this
Bringing down Cameron is much more important to them than whether we are in the EU or not.
The lying toad deserves to be exposed for the low life he is.
Quite right Malcolm.
If only we could get some of the memos that must have passed between Treasury officials and Osborne in the run-up to the publication of the Treasury's 'Brexit' study.
Some juicy stuff there I'm sure -
Osborne 'Why can't we make the numbers bigger?'
Official 'Well, we could tweak some of the assumptions...'
Osborne 'Whatever numbers you have now, double them, or treble them...'
A npw long dead priest I knew prophesised to me that cultures that practice contraception and abortion will inevitably be overrun by cultures that do not.
A npw long dead priest I knew prophesised to me that cultures that practice contraception and abortion will inevitably be overrun by cultures that do not.
A now long dead priest I knew prophesised to me about thirty years ago that cultures that practice contraception and abortion will inevitably be overrun by cultures that do not.
Which isn't true IMO since population rates are declining globally not just in those cultures that practice those.
Though as was demonstrated in Freakonomics, abortion for instance has played a role in cutting crime rates where it is allowed.
Comments
There will be a point at which the NHS is not the vehicle to achieve the second of those, in my opinion.
Don't follow that logic. There is no reason that Labour MPs have to nominate someone like Corbyn next time.
Take, for example, what to do about English nationalism. At least someone like Tristam Hunt (yes, I know, start booing now) is prepared to sit down and think what might be decent way forward on this. The hard-left and soft-left just tut, send tweet photos of england flags on ex-council housing to each other, and then head home to good North London supper.
anti-Semites, homophobes, misogynists and murderers
Mmmmmh I wonder who you mean
Pretty much the only socialist I have time for is a small businessman. He honestly states that he would be happy to pay more tax because of his tribal loyalty to the party he grew up supporting. But fully accepts that Labour are a) currently unelectable b) a dwindling force in UK politcs c) disappointing their Northern heartlands and d) stupid to think that everyone would think like him.
He is more of a Smithite than I am!
To argue otherwise is degree level philosophy rather than GCSE history.
The answer is none of the above. The Labour 'right' need to start doing the basics right. Rather than fighting or running away they need to organise, start winning elections and above all come up with some interesting ideas that they can advocate.
That would be a rather radical change - is that seriously being suggested?
It would also likely have unintended consequences.
http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf
"A second reason for an LD revival being that the extremists in both Labour and Tory will drive centrist voters elsewhere."
A definite possibility. At the moment, there's very little point in voting for a party that's so firmly wrapped around the nether regions of the European project. But when real politics is re-engaged, they may gain.
Old-fashioned Labour has disappeared. It is now predominantly a middle class, urban enclave and gaining from the increase in this demographic. But Jezza is still a step too far for many.
But where to go?
However, the profits went to Nazi bosses, not the government itself or ordinary people- this was particularly true of scams like the VW Beetle via Kraft Dutch Freude.
With all his many faults, Stalin did not amass great personal wealth from his power (Brezhnev was a different story)!
Did both Hitler and Mussolini "emphatically identify as right wing"? - perhaps a link?
My general contention is that they are a part of the left economically that dresses up in the symbols of nationalism (which are not necessarily right wing - no one has a monopoly on patriotism). The whole Nazis = Right wing claim for Nazism is just clever market positioning by politicians on the left.
I was expecting this Government to do solidly Tory things. Instead, Osborne decided to use the election of Corbyn as an excuse to have a crack at New Labour Mark II.
Two points:
1. After how much queuing, waiting?
2. It's not free - a lotta people in the NHS make a lotta money and have great pensions
The reality, of course, is that fascism and national socialism don't really have a place on the traditional political spectrum. They are neither left nor right; they are a complicated mix of both, with blood and iron nationalism over-riding all.
Privatization was part of an intentional policy with multiple objectives and was not
ideologically driven. As in many recent privatizations, particularly within the European Union,
strong financial restrictions were a central motivation. In addition, privatization was used as a
political tool to enhance support for the government and for the Nazi Party.
They were basically looting the state to bribe their supporters. That's not a priori either right or left wing
There are a lot of aspects of the health economy that are not well provided by private companies (integrated health care for diabetics, care of the frail elderly, screening programmes, maternity services, training of junior doctors etc). Elective care for isolated episodes of acute care can be privatised (hernia repairs, dermatology, hearing aids etc) however cherry picking these makes the others less financially viable under current tarrifs. It is like forcing a shop to scease all of its best selling lines.
I also see co-payment as the only viable way to reduce excessive demand and increase funding. Several Australian states do this, though it is a while since I worked there.
The woman appointed to lead an independent inquiry into Labour antisemitism joined the party hours before it began, raising questions over the impartiality of the review.
Shami Chakrabarti, the human rights campaigner, defended her decision and insisted that she would conduct the investigation “without fear or favour”.
Ms Chakrabarti was also forced to defend a decision to include allegations of Islamophobia in the remit after claims that it risked diluting the inquiry.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/independent-head-of-antisemitism-review-joins-the-labour-party-t3wpr72t7
So really, Labour have ducked the issue on an Independent inquiry and also softened it's approach to anti-semitism with the addition of linking it to Islamophobia.
In my view the status quo would be an okay, if not great, deal for the UK (despite the disappointing renegotiation).
But it's clear that the EU (especially the Eurozone, but the EU as a whole follows from this) needs to reform and integrate in order to become viable. I don't want to be part of that, but nor do I want to stand in their way.
And I no longer trust the countries of Europe to stick to their agreements - e.g. the eurozone members voting to use a fund to which the UK had contributed as part of the Greek bailout despite a solemn promise not to dip their fingers in that particular cookie jat
Well, quite. Labour either lose the next election or the country has a dangerous idiot as Prime Minister. Neither is appalling to someone who is both a Labour supporter and sane.
Frankly, though, I think it is rather silly to try to place the Nazis and Mussolini on the traditional right/left spectrum.
The left, however, has to take Stalin. On a smaller, less brutal - but still profoundly unpleasant and murderous - scale, Franco and the other southern European dictators of the mid-twentieth century were clearly on the right, as was the Apartheid regime in South Africa.
Juncker&co really don't let trivia (like public opinion) deflect them
"Turkey’s 75 million citizens will have the right to enter.. by the end of June if Ankara passes key anti-corruption and terrorism reforms."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/16/turkey-visa-deal-will-increase-risk-of-terrorist-attacks-eu-repo/
"Possibly. In which case we may choose to leave. Unless of course the EU has somehow acquired the right and wherewithal to stop us, as was being claimed yesterday."
"We" won't choose. It will be up to the Establishment (the Governing party) to make that decision and they never will. Once we vote Remain, that will be our destiny. We voted for Union and we'll be getting it.
And in addition, this referendum process has revealed the extent to which we cannot trust our own politicians as well - even to express their real opinions openly so that the public may choose.
We have had a thoroughly dishonest performance by both the PM and Chancellor, engaging in a sham renegotiation and then trying to scare the public into voting REMAIN using wildly exaggerated or blatantly false claims about the costs of LEAVE.
Meanwhile, the leader of the opposition is campaigning for REMAIN even though he is in fact entirely against the EU.
Anything that gives more power to our political elite and their hangers-on needs to be resisted, anything that reduces their power supported. Opposing the EU is as much about curtailing the power of our rulers as anything else - there's more than a whiff of 1642 or 1688 about what needs to be done.
Someone did care enough to look
@GuidoFawkes: The Tories were at it, so were Labour, and so were the LibDems… https://t.co/hsXk4MExZb https://t.co/q5UfbCNcR1
Mass immigration is now the unstated position of all the larger EU economies, he tells me.
For the UK, it's about getting a bigger population, bigger economy, and 'more clout' in the world. He gets quite animated about the possibility that the UK population might exceed that of Germany in 20 years or so. The old FCO dream of Britain 'leading' Europe...
For Germany and others its about trying to arrest, or at least delay the impact of, deeply negative demographic trends.
What of our PM's promise to cut immigration to 'tens of thousands'? Another thin smile.
666 seconds
For all the guff, the FO have always been really dreadful at anticipating the impact of real world events on their lovely dreamy models and fluffy notions of British establishment grandeur.
Look at WW2. Look at Suez. Look at the Falklands. Look at Maastricht. Look at Lisbon
This would be a re-enactment of the Charge of the Light Brigade. It would be magnificent, but it wouldn’t be politics.'
I doubt very much that it would be magnificent given that three Labour centrist/centre right leadership candidates with the majority support of the PLP and a more-or-less receptive media were unable to conjure up an iota of magnificence between them.
It's an archaic idea, but perhaps instead of whinging from the sidelines the Labour right could spend a couple of years putting together a convincing & thought through manifesto and find a candidate who can convey it convincingly to the party & the country (though I'm not sure if the not-as-crap-as-Goldsmith candidate is the man for the job).
Whist his desire to repaint the right as motherhood and apple pie is understandable, I fear that his argument that the far right aren't right wing is a bridge too far.
Sat here in Fort Augustus enjoying Scottish traditions
When did macaroni cheese and chips become the national dish ? :-)
The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to JNN the contents of the latest ARSE4EU Referendum Projection :
Should The United Kingdom Remain A Member Of The European Union Or Leave The European Union?
Remain 54% (-1) .. Leave 46% (+1)
Turnout Projection 64% (NC)
Changes from 13th May.
......................................................................
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division
JNN - Jacobite News Network
ARSE4EU - Anonymous Random Selection of Electors For European Union
The establishment view fundamentally changed after that.
If only we could get some of the memos that must have passed between Treasury officials and Osborne in the run-up to the publication of the Treasury's 'Brexit' study.
Some juicy stuff there I'm sure -
Osborne 'Why can't we make the numbers bigger?'
Official 'Well, we could tweak some of the assumptions...'
Osborne 'Whatever numbers you have now, double them, or treble them...'
etc.
And where are they now...
Though as was demonstrated in Freakonomics, abortion for instance has played a role in cutting crime rates where it is allowed.
Interesting that you have a nudge towards Leave at the same time as Betfair has marched towards Remain. I suspect you are right.