I fear - no pun intended - that you will have to wait until 2015 and after thr GE to see the back of Cammo. Meanwhile in that 20 odd months remaining you could join us in UKIP and do good work.
Sorry - with the amateurs your party has in my neck of the woods and a Conservative council pursuing Conservative policies - no thanks.
Hmm! look what your professional tory party has done to this country and weep. There is something to be said about a good old sweeping out of the stables by us 'amateurs'.
Mr. Divvie, pish. The patricians were patricians and plebeians were plebeians. If a party calls itself the Lefty Workers Socialist Unions Party that's a pretty indicator it's lefty.
Yeah, I can see why someone who clings to the fig leaf of being a 'non Tory' would hold to that literal view. I'm sure you can provide lots of links to Hitler describing himself and the Nazi party as of the Left or left wing?
It's not Hitler, but since I happen to have Mussolini's Fascist Manifesto to hand, here are some extracts:
- Lowering the minimum voting age to 18 and universal suffrage including for women (not left or right in modern terms, but quite radical in 1919) - Repeal of title of nobility - A foreign policy aimed at expanding Italy's will and power - A legal workday of 8 hours of work for all workers - A minimum wage - The creation of various government bodies run by worker's representatives - Forcing landowners to cultivate their land or have them expropriated and given to veterens and farmers cooperatives - The obligation of the state to build "rigidly secular" schools - a large progressive tax on capital that would amount to a one-time partial exproportion of all riches - The seizure of all goods belonging to religious congregations - The nationalisation of all arms and explosives industries
The difference between Nazism and Fascism, of course, is that Nazism included a strain of racialism that fascism didn't.
In my view, though, that's a pretty left-wing/progressive agenda: secular, equality, workers rights, forcing people to use their assets or have them confiscated for the national good etc.
Yes, what made the Nazis unusual was their drive to reorganise society according to racialist principles. That puts them at odds not just with modern political parties, but with other political parties at the time.
So, you had policies that appear (on the face of it) fairly left wing, such as minimum wages, a generous welfare state, maternity leave for working women, child benefit etc., but only for Aryans, and excluding the disabled and "asocial."
- Lowering the minimum voting age to 18 and universal suffrage including for women (not left or right in modern terms, but quite radical in 1919) - Repeal of title of nobility - A foreign policy aimed at expanding Italy's will and power - A legal workday of 8 hours of work for all workers - A minimum wage - The creation of various government bodies run by worker's representatives - Forcing landowners to cultivate their land or have them expropriated and given to veterens and farmers cooperatives - The obligation of the state to build "rigidly secular" schools - a large progressive tax on capital that would amount to a one-time partial exproportion of all riches - The seizure of all goods belonging to religious congregations - The nationalisation of all arms and explosives industries
The difference between Nazism and Fascism, of course, is that Nazism included a strain of racialism that fascism didn't.
In my view, though, that's a pretty left-wing/progressive agenda: secular, equality, workers rights, forcing people to use their assets or have them confiscated for the national good etc.
Yes it sounds like it, but a) it's not a Nazi manifesto, and b) how much of it did Mussolini enact, or later revoke?
Can some one explain why is it that when the tories on here are angry with the leadership,they really let they feelings/view known in no uncertain terms but pb labour posters say nothing on they leadership,they seem to be more loyal even if the labour leader is crap or got policy wrong ?
Can some one explain why is it that when the tories on here are angry with the leadership,they really let they feelings/view known in no uncertain terms but pb labour posters say nothing on they leadership,they seem to be more loyal even if the labour leader is crap or got policy wrong ?
Can some one explain why is it that when the tories on here are angry with the leadership,they really let they feelings/view known in no uncertain terms but pb labour posters say nothing on they leadership,they seem to be more loyal even if the labour leader is crap or got policy wrong ?
This is a right-of-centre comfort zone. Labourites, Nats, LDs, Trots et al have places where they bicker, whine and moan, this just fulfills the same function for you lot.
the uniiondvvie - If you mean the right (as in say tories or UKIP) should take any responsibility for Nazism then I disagree. I would say Hitler wasn't right wing like tories or UKIP are at all. They have nothing in common. Its fair to say Hitler wasn't left wing (as his aims were not compatable with left wing ideology) but he dis believe in state power if only for the sake of state power. A (true) communist would not believe this however as he would use state power to then further a obviously noble(if impractical) cause
I mean the Right in about as precise a way as those who talk about 'lefties' or equate Ed Miliband with Stalinist mass murderers.
Um, Ed Miliband's DAD was a proper Marxist. And his grandfather fought in the Red Army under Trotsky.
You don't have to stretch history to spot a significant connection between lots of people on the British left (like the Milibands) and serious, full-fat, kill-the-kulaks communism.
Much as despise the whole Milliband 'hamoula' - I won't call them a family - in this case you are stretching things to absurdity.
My grand uncle, that is my grandfathers brother, fought in the Red Army against Kolchak in the civil war following the revolution. That did not make my grandfather a communist, nor my father and nor me.
Can some one explain why is it that when the tories on here are angry with the leadership,they really let they feelings/view known in no uncertain terms but pb labour posters say nothing on they leadership,they seem to be more loyal even if the labour leader is crap or got policy wrong ?
This is a right-of-centre comfort zone. Labourites, Nats, LDs, Trots et al have places where they bicker, whine and moan, this just fulfills the same function for you lot.
Really ? Righties have the DT or Conhome to have a moan, it's more the left won't wash dirty laundry in public or in some instances are just plain short of ideas.
Can some one explain why is it that when the tories on here are angry with the leadership,they really let they feelings/view known in no uncertain terms but pb labour posters say nothing on they leadership,they seem to be more loyal even if the labour leader is crap or got policy wrong ?
Miliband did what most of them wanted so it doesn't matter so much if it was by accident.
I wasn't holding up Cordesman's proposals as a definitive strategy, but as an example of how the caesura created by Obama will cause US strategists to rework military intervention so that it fulfills wider and deeper strategic goals.
I find persuasive the Russian argument that a negotiated settlement must be based on Assad's regime remaining in power at least until a satisfactory alternative is agreed. But for that to happen would require the western powers to trust both the Putin and Assad. At the moment that doesn't apply and the mistrust between the two sides is growing rather than abating.
A power vacuum always sucks in the unsavoury and evil but it doesn't necessarily follow that all or even a majority of opposition to Assad can be characterised as such. Arguing that the west shouldn't intervene because some rebel groups chop off the heads of Christian bishops is illogical. If anything such incidents make intervention more urgent and necessary. No one is suggesting that such groups will be given power as result of intervention.
I am a big supporter of a negotiated political solution but believe that the threat, and possibly reality, of military intervention is needed to make a negotiated solution feasible. While Putin and Assad believe that the civil war is being won there is little hope of any real negotiations starting.
So it is important for the US strategists to think hard about how a military intervention might alter the balance in the civil war and degrade Assad regime's military capabilities. It is this threat, or reality, which will bring forward negotiations not isolationist abstention by the western powers.
Can some one explain why is it that when the tories on here are angry with the leadership,they really let they feelings/view known in no uncertain terms but pb labour posters say nothing on they leadership,they seem to be more loyal even if the labour leader is crap or got policy wrong ?
Lefties are more tribal. The Tories have lost the tribal instinct; their working, lower middle class base is disconnected from the largely posh leadership - and Cameron's extreme, metrosexual, Etonian poshness has made this worse.
I imagine this is one reason Sean F is joining UKIP. Where I wish him well (though personally I don't think I would never join a political party, ever, unless it was to become caudillo during a war)
Only you SeanT could ever describe your ideal position as a 'caudillo'.
the uniiondvvie - If you mean the right (as in say tories or UKIP) should take any responsibility for Nazism then I disagree. I would say Hitler wasn't right wing like tories or UKIP are at all. They have nothing in common. Its fair to say Hitler wasn't left wing (as his aims were not compatable with left wing ideology) but he dis believe in state power if only for the sake of state power. A (true) communist would not believe this however as he would use state power to then further a obviously noble(if impractical) cause
I mean the Right in about as precise a way as those who talk about 'lefties' or equate Ed Miliband with Stalinist mass murderers.
Um, Ed Miliband's DAD was a proper Marxist. And his grandfather fought in the Red Army under Trotsky.
You don't have to stretch history to spot a significant connection between lots of people on the British left (like the Milibands) and serious, full-fat, kill-the-kulaks communism.
Much as despise the whole Milliband 'hamoula' - I won't call them a family - in this case you are stretching things to absurdity.
My grand uncle, that is my grandfathers brother, fought in the Red Army against Kolchak in the civil war following the revolution. That did not make my grandfather a communist, nor my father and nor me.
Don't be a twat. Miliband's DAD was a famous political thinker and MARXIST. Ed has often talked of his father's salience in his life: the passionate Marxist debates they would have in Primrose Hill when he and David were growing up.
That's a bit different from having some great uncle who sported a Staliny moustache circa 1949.
Old Adolph Miliband didn't really take to his adopted country
" "The Englishman is a rabid nationalist. They are perhaps the most nationalist people in the world...When you hear the English talk of this war you sometimes almost want them to lose it to show them how things are. They have the greatest contempt for the continent in general and for the French in particular...England first. This slogan is taken for granted by the English people as a whole. To lose their empire would be the worst possible humiliation".[3]
So hence the Marxism, or maybe he was just a Scotnat.
the uniiondvvie - If you mean the right (as in say tories or UKIP) should take any responsibility for Nazism then I disagree. I would say Hitler wasn't right wing like tories or UKIP are at all. They have nothing in common. Its fair to say Hitler wasn't left wing (as his aims were not compatable with left wing ideology) but he dis believe in state power if only for the sake of state power. A (true) communist would not believe this however as he would use state power to then further a obviously noble(if impractical) cause
I mean the Right in about as precise a way as those who talk about 'lefties' or equate Ed Miliband with Stalinist mass murderers.
Um, Ed Miliband's DAD was a proper Marxist. And his grandfather fought in the Red Army under Trotsky.
You don't have to stretch history to spot a significant connection between lots of people on the British left (like the Milibands) and serious, full-fat, kill-the-kulaks communism.
Much as despise the whole Milliband 'hamoula' - I won't call them a family - in this case you are stretching things to absurdity.
My grand uncle, that is my grandfathers brother, fought in the Red Army against Kolchak in the civil war following the revolution. That did not make my grandfather a communist, nor my father and nor me.
Don't be a twat. Miliband's DAD was a famous political thinker and MARXIST. Ed has often talked of his father's salience in his life: the passionate Marxist debates they would have in Primrose Hill when he and David were growing up.
That's a bit different from having some great uncle who sported a Staliny moustache circa 1949.
Brush your history my boy: The Russian civil war was from 1919-1921. Where you get 1949 from?
the uniiondvvie - If you mean the right (as in say tories or UKIP) should take any responsibility for Nazism then I disagree. I would say Hitler wasn't right wing like tories or UKIP are at all. They have nothing in common. Its fair to say Hitler wasn't left wing (as his aims were not compatable with left wing ideology) but he dis believe in state power if only for the sake of state power. A (true) communist would not believe this however as he would use state power to then further a obviously noble(if impractical) cause
I mean the Right in about as precise a way as those who talk about 'lefties' or equate Ed Miliband with Stalinist mass murderers.
Um, Ed Miliband's DAD was a proper Marxist. And his grandfather fought in the Red Army under Trotsky.
You don't have to stretch history to spot a significant connection between lots of people on the British left (like the Milibands) and serious, full-fat, kill-the-kulaks communism.
Much as despise the whole Milliband 'hamoula' - I won't call them a family - in this case you are stretching things to absurdity.
My grand uncle, that is my grandfathers brother, fought in the Red Army against Kolchak in the civil war following the revolution. That did not make my grandfather a communist, nor my father and nor me.
Don't be a twat. Miliband's DAD was a famous political thinker and MARXIST. Ed has often talked of his father's salience in his life: the passionate Marxist debates they would have in Primrose Hill when he and David were growing up.
That's a bit different from having some great uncle who sported a Staliny moustache circa 1949.
Don't YOU live in Primrose Hill, Sean? Doesn't that make you a Metropolitan Marxist Posho?
Hitler ran a pretty left wing campaign as we'd understand the term today.
One that featured many of Germany's poor, working families and promised them work and bread. The manifesto is more mixed, with a considerable focus on lowering immigration and if necessary expelling foreigners, and a commitment to a middle class, but also the "abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.", the " the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries", a "a division of profits of all heavy industries", and a " an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare".
Grandiose
So Mussolini's Manifesto is more like that of the Lib Dems and Hitler's more like UKIP's?
Yes, what made the Nazis unusual was their drive to reorganise society according to racialist principles. That puts them at odds not just with modern political parties, but with other political parties at the time.
So, you had policies that appear (on the face of it) fairly left wing, such as minimum wages, a generous welfare state, maternity leave for working women, child benefit etc., but only for Aryans, and excluding the disabled and "asocial."
Sure - but the key theme underlying racialism is the desire to classify society into groups "BME", "gays", etc) rather than just looking at people as individuals. Surely that's a determining difference between left and right?
As Tim says this is opposition so you want to be united, and they can't actually enact any policies you don't like.but if you want lefties savaging ed, CiF is the place to go.
Can some one explain why is it that when the tories on here are angry with the leadership,they really let they feelings/view known in no uncertain terms but pb labour posters say nothing on they leadership,they seem to be more loyal even if the labour leader is crap or got policy wrong ?
Lefties are more tribal. The Tories have lost the tribal instinct; their working, lower middle class base is disconnected from the largely posh leadership - and Cameron's extreme, metrosexual, Etonian poshness has made this worse.
If you look at- the admittedly imaginary- PB archive from the 1980s. You will see Tories talking about people being "one of us" and left wingers knocking seven shades of shit out each other.
Lol, as one does. [have the Fascist Manifesto to hand]
Indeed - but I am reading a book about "Liberal Fascism" at the moment. It helpfully included chunks of Musolini's manifesto, but sadly the chapter on Hitler was all block text so not so easy to copy
Yes it sounds like it, but a) it's not a Nazi manifesto, and b) how much of it did Mussolini enact, or later revoke?
Hitler acknowledged his intellectual debt to Mussolini (although they didn't like each other).
How much did he revoke - most of it was kept in place until the war. Not sure how much he revoked at that point, but I guess there were overriding circumstances!
Just to be clear, I quoting the 1920 Nazi manifesto, which is the best known. However I will try and dig out the 1933 one (the posters are however from either 1931 or 1933).
Can some one explain why is it that when the tories on here are angry with the leadership,they really let they feelings/view known in no uncertain terms but pb labour posters say nothing on they leadership,they seem to be more loyal even if the labour leader is crap or got policy wrong ?
Lefties are more tribal. The Tories have lost the tribal instinct; their working, lower middle class base is disconnected from the largely posh leadership - and Cameron's extreme, metrosexual, Etonian poshness has made this worse.
If you look at- the admittedly imaginary- PB archive from the 1980s. You will see Tories talking about people being "one of us" and left wingers knocking seven shade of shit out each other.
lefties sort of had the shit knocked out of them in 1989 when the role model went bust. The left hasn't really had much to fight about since then, it accepts the capitalist settlement it only quibbles about how to spend the rewards.
Like it or not, Hitler was a political genius. An evil genius, but a genius nonetheless.
e.g. He personally designed/perfected the Nazi flag, swastika and all, recognising the sublime contrast of red, black and white (as did Jacqueline Kennedy, btw, who insisted the presidential quarters of the White House be redecorated with this scheme)
I would argue that the Nazi flag is the greatest example of graphic design put to political use, in history.
And then there's the speeches... As Susan Sontag said: Hitler made the German people orgasm.
As Hitler put it in Mein Kampf "In red we see the social idea of the movement, in white the nationalistic idea, in the swastika the mission of the struggle for the victory of the Aryan man"
He was absolutely appealing to the same group of people as the Bolsheviks - those who felt cut out of mainstream society.
Hitler ran a pretty left wing campaign as we'd understand the term today.
One that featured many of Germany's poor, working families and promised them work and bread. The manifesto is more mixed, with a considerable focus on lowering immigration and if necessary expelling foreigners, and a commitment to a middle class, but also the "abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.", the " the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries", a "a division of profits of all heavy industries", and a " an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare".
Grandiose
So Mussolini's Manifesto is more like that of the Lib Dems and Hitler's more like UKIP's?
You could definitely argue that UKIP's insistence that too much power is held by people outside the public's control was similar to Hitler's belief in corruption and Jewish control. UKIP's policies also go closest to a big change in education as a driver of future success.
The most obvious point to note is that even the Nazi manifesto didn't go nearly as far as the final solution.
Hitler ran a pretty left wing campaign as we'd understand the term today.
One that featured many of Germany's poor, working families and promised them work and bread. The manifesto is more mixed, with a considerable focus on lowering immigration and if necessary expelling foreigners, and a commitment to a middle class, but also the "abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.", the " the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries", a "a division of profits of all heavy industries", and a " an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare".
Grandiose
So Mussolini's Manifesto is more like that of the Lib Dems and Hitler's more like UKIP's?
Radek (a Communist ideologue) described Fascism as "middle-class Socialism"
Can some one explain why is it that when the tories on here are angry with the leadership,they really let they feelings/view known in no uncertain terms but pb labour posters say nothing on they leadership,they seem to be more loyal even if the labour leader is crap or got policy wrong ?
Where I wish him well (though personally I don't think I would never join a political party, ever, unless it was to become caudillo during a war)
I can definitely see you bringing Reichstag deputies to their feet in rapture trumphantly declaring the annexation of France, Belgium, Netherlands into the Reich only six months later to denounce the entire venture as a hideous war crime and proclaiming yourself as Fuehrer for peace, justice, feline photography and cardigan knitting.
Another Richard.. and you could sit in your nice middle England home with its chintzy curtains and watch X factor or Corrie, while the nutter kills even more people courtesy of the small minded leftie bleating of you and your weak kneed ilk. You and your party did vote for that so why not man up and admit it. You voted to allow the nutter to go on killing.. to your shame.
Mr. Divvie, that rather feeble line (I'm not a Conservative) would have more weight in a left/right matter if it weren't far the fact that I am on the right, and have no qualms about acknowledging it. I want lower spending, less taxation and a better equipped military. I've argued that Health should've been cut and Defence ring-fenced, or, preferably, increased since the 2010 election.
o/t rather disappointed that no one has noticed the rather cute cherub that I changed my avatar to - it's doing a rather better job of listening than one David Cameron is right now
Suny to oppose the nutter Assad is not to support his enemies..are you a little overtired, been a long day.. off to bed for you..dont forget your teddy.
Like it or not, Hitler was a political genius. An evil genius, but a genius nonetheless.
e.g. He personally designed/perfected the Nazi flag, swastika and all, recognising the sublime contrast of red, black and white (as did Jacqueline Kennedy, btw, who insisted the presidential quarters of the White House be redecorated with this scheme)
I would argue that the Nazi flag is the greatest example of graphic design put to political use, in history.
And then there's the speeches... As Susan Sontag said: Hitler made the German people orgasm.
As Hitler put it in Mein Kampf "In red we see the social idea of the movement, in white the nationalistic idea, in the swastika the mission of the struggle for the victory of the Aryan man"
He was absolutely appealing to the same group of people as the Bolsheviks - those who felt cut out of mainstream society.
But he never got them. The support for both Communists and Social Democrats remained hardly unchanged from 1930 to March 1933. As did that for the Catholic Zentrum (centre) party. The Nazis gained the bulk of their voters from the Protestant lower middle class...and later from the massive shift from the other nationalist parties.
Really ? Righties have the DT or Conhome to have a moan, it's more the left won't wash dirty laundry in public or in some instances are just plain short of ideas.
DT & Conhome represent a very specific strain of 'rightness', and they give the slightly more house trained lot on here something to feel superior to. I'd estimate at least 2/3 of regular PB posters are right-of-centre which tells its own story. Whatever your differences, a couple of choruses of 'Gordon sold the gold and Stalin was a right evil f***er', and peace lies upon the land.
Like it or not, Hitler was a political genius. An evil genius, but a genius nonetheless.
e.g. He personally designed/perfected the Nazi flag, swastika and all, recognising the sublime contrast of red, black and white (as did Jacqueline Kennedy, btw, who insisted the presidential quarters of the White House be redecorated with this scheme)
I would argue that the Nazi flag is the greatest example of graphic design put to political use, in history.
And then there's the speeches... As Susan Sontag said: Hitler made the German people orgasm.
As Hitler put it in Mein Kampf "In red we see the social idea of the movement, in white the nationalistic idea, in the swastika the mission of the struggle for the victory of the Aryan man"
He was absolutely appealing to the same group of people as the Bolsheviks - those who felt cut out of mainstream society.
But he never got them. The support for both Communists and Social Democrats remained hardly unchanged from 1930 to March 1933. As did that for the Catholic Zentrum (centre) party. The Nazis gained the bulk of their voters from the Protestant lower middle class...and later from the massive shift from the other nationalist parties.
Another Richard.. and you could sit in your nice middle England home with its chintzy curtains and watch X factor or Corrie, while the nutter kills even more people courtesy of the small minded leftie bleating of you and your weak kneed ilk. You and your party did vote for that so why not man up and admit it. You voted to allow the nutter to go on killing.. to your shame.
One of the signs of political fanaticism is the belief that everyone who doesn't have the correct views must be a fanatical supporter of the main rival party - if you're not with us, you're against us, as Mr V.I. Lenin used to say. Your implied belief that "another richard" is a zealous leftist (and a chintzy Middle England one at that!) is telling. He doesn't fit neatly into any of our camps, which makes him an interesting read.
Another Richard.. and you could sit in your nice middle England home with its chintzy curtains and watch X factor or Corrie, while the nutter kills even more people courtesy of the small minded leftie bleating of you and your weak kneed ilk. You and your party did vote for that so why not man up and admit it. You voted to allow the nutter to go on killing.. to your shame.
You've lost the plot totally, go and lie down
Whereas (Plastic) Field Marshall tim instead wants us to invade the bloody country.
tim, you never ever got the plot to lose..you are still a joke. Time to lock up the offie and get over to that milking parlour, or a tasting of your fine wines in the west wing of the mansion house. Whichever of your fantasies takes you first. The left are still totally ashamed of the vote on Thursday and want the discussion to be killed..sorry lads, it will be around for a while yet.
Just to be clear, I quoting the 1920 Nazi manifesto, which is the best known. However I will try and dig out the 1933 one (the posters are however from either 1931 or 1933).
The 1920 Nazi party could probably be described at least partly as a socialist party. By 1933 nearly all the 'socialists' had been purged (and completely by 1934).
Wenger has achieved 16 consecutive Champions League years while overseeing the move to the Emirates and balanced the books. The antis remind me of the most stupid thing I've ever heard In football Charlton fan - "We've gone as far as we can under Alan Curbishley"
Yes haven't Charlton done well since Curbs left?!
Wenger knockers amaze me, they obviously didn't support Arsenal before 1997
Hitler's politics and why they were so appealing are actually quite difficult to pin down.
Even Ian Kershaw fails to achieve this in his titanic biography.
Kershaw's a bit like Milton trying to portray the devil in Paradise Lost.
How could such a nasty little c8nt have inspired so many and created such a stir?
Newtonian - every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
Hitler was a reaction to the Bolsheviks.
Like it or not, Hitler was a political genius. An evil genius, but a genius nonetheless.
e.g. He personally designed/perfected the Nazi flag, swastika and all, recognising the sublime contrast of red, black and white (as did Jacqueline Kennedy, btw, who insisted the presidential quarters of the White House be redecorated with this scheme)
I would argue that the Nazi flag is the greatest example of graphic design put to political use, in history.
And then there's the speeches... As Susan Sontag said: Hitler made the German people orgasm.
Yes, a more accurate version of what i meant would probably be that the *conditions* that led to him gaining power were a reaction to the Bolsheviks. He himself was a separate thing.
Really ? Righties have the DT or Conhome to have a moan, it's more the left won't wash dirty laundry in public or in some instances are just plain short of ideas.
DT & Conhome represent a very specific strain of 'rightness', and they give the slightly more house trained lot on here something to feel superior to. I'd estimate at least 2/3 of regular PB posters are right-of-centre which tells its own story. Whatever your differences, a couple of choruses of 'Gordon sold the gold and Stalin was a right evil f***er', and peace lies upon the land.
well the statements on Brown and Stalin are basically fact so let's not argue over them. However I look to the header and note that 9 years ago PB was basically a hotbed of leftie chat today as you note it's more Right of Centre. What has changed ? personally I think it's that atm the left has run out of ideas, there's nothing left to say except carp at the other lot and dream of the good old days. The left is stagnant and its current leadership shows no sign of breathing new life or ideas in to a rigid corpse.
Like it or not, Hitler was a political genius. An evil genius, but a genius nonetheless.
e.g. He personally designed/perfected the Nazi flag, swastika and all, recognising the sublime contrast of red, black and white (as did Jacqueline Kennedy, btw, who insisted the presidential quarters of the White House be redecorated with this scheme)
I would argue that the Nazi flag is the greatest example of graphic design put to political use, in history.
And then there's the speeches... As Susan Sontag said: Hitler made the German people orgasm.
As Hitler put it in Mein Kampf "In red we see the social idea of the movement, in white the nationalistic idea, in the swastika the mission of the struggle for the victory of the Aryan man"
He was absolutely appealing to the same group of people as the Bolsheviks - those who felt cut out of mainstream society.
But he never got them. The support for both Communists and Social Democrats remained hardly unchanged from 1930 to March 1933. As did that for the Catholic Zentrum (centre) party. The Nazis gained the bulk of their voters from the Protestant lower middle class...and later from the massive shift from the other nationalist parties.
He got a lot of them in the 1920s.
Hate to say this, but tim is correct. The Nazis were an infinitesemal force until the 1930 elections (when the effects of the Great Depression were beginning to be felt) when they were catapulted to the second largest party with 107 Deputies. The Communist vote also rose.
Wenger has achieved 16 consecutive Champions League years while overseeing the move to the Emirates and balanced the books. The antis remind me of the most stupid thing I've ever heard In football Charlton fan - "We've gone as far as we can under Alan Curbishley"
Yes haven't Charlton done well since Curbs left?!
Wenger knockers amaze me, they obviously didn't support Arsenal before 1997
Just to be clear, I quoting the 1920 Nazi manifesto, which is the best known. However I will try and dig out the 1933 one (the posters are however from either 1931 or 1933).
The 1920 Nazi party could probably be described at least partly as a socialist party. By 1933 nearly all the 'socialists' had been purged (and completely by 1934).
The same could be said of the Soviet Communist party. By 1937 all the Socialists had been bumped off and only the psychopaths were left.
Suny to oppose the nutter Assad is not to support his enemies..are you a little overtired, been a long day.. off to bed for you..dont forget your teddy.
richardDodd your support for the Al Qaeda elements in Syria is still noted.
well the statements on Brown and Stalin are basically fact so let's not argue over them. However I look to the header and note that 9 years ago PB was basically a hotbed of leftie chat today as you note it's more Right of Centre. What has changed ? personally I think it's that atm the left has run out of ideas, there's nothing left to say except carp at the other lot and dream of the good old days. The left is stagnant and its current leadership shows no sign of breathing new life or ideas in to a rigid corpse.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing, though we would probably disagree on what the left actually is. To me the ConLabDems seem increasingly indistinguishable, and its only about which zombie smells the worst and has the most bits falling off.
The 1933 Nazi Party was still committed to the nationalisation of core industry and a program of full employment. If you look at the posters here, they all have a left-wing feel by modern standards.
Between 1928 and November 1932, the DNVP (Conservative right) went from 14 to 6%, the SPD (Socialist left) from 29% to 20% and the DVP (Liberal right) from 9 to 2%, whilst the Communists did relatively well. Considering the Nazis achieved 37% of the vote in that election, all the movements are substantial (they were at 3% in 1928, although this did get the deputies under PR).
Whilst we're in Nazi mode the late Dowager Lady W used to wax lyrical about Joachim Von Ribbentrop the pre-war German ambassador to the UK. She met him a number to times on the London scene and in 1937 at an embassy bash declared in his hearing that he was a "vulgar and cheap charlatan".
Von Ribbentrop was hanged in 1946 for war crimes and on the day the execution was reported in "The Times" Lady W thumped the dining table several times and had poured a large glass of malt whisky to accompany her breakfast !!
Like it or not, Hitler was a political genius. An evil genius, but a genius nonetheless.
e.g. He personally designed/perfected the Nazi flag, swastika and all, recognising the sublime contrast of red, black and white (as did Jacqueline Kennedy, btw, who insisted the presidential quarters of the White House be redecorated with this scheme)
I would argue that the Nazi flag is the greatest example of graphic design put to political use, in history.
And then there's the speeches... As Susan Sontag said: Hitler made the German people orgasm.
As Hitler put it in Mein Kampf "In red we see the social idea of the movement, in white the nationalistic idea, in the swastika the mission of the struggle for the victory of the Aryan man"
He was absolutely appealing to the same group of people as the Bolsheviks - those who felt cut out of mainstream society.
But he never got them. The support for both Communists and Social Democrats remained hardly unchanged from 1930 to March 1933. As did that for the Catholic Zentrum (centre) party. The Nazis gained the bulk of their voters from the Protestant lower middle class...and later from the massive shift from the other nationalist parties.
He got a lot of them in the 1920s.
Hate to say this, but tim is correct. The Nazis were an infinitesemal force until the 1930 elections (when the effects of the Great Depression were beginning to be felt) when they were catapulted to the second largest party with 107 Deputies. The Communist vote also rose.
That's bollocks. Hitler was a national figure following the Failed Putsch of 1923. In the 20s the Nazis were peripheral, but certainly not "infinitesimal".
in·fin·i·tes·i·mal (nfn--ts-ml) adj. 1. Immeasurably or incalculably minute.
3% in 1928...rather closer to infinitesemal than peripheral.
well the statements on Brown and Stalin are basically fact so let's not argue over them. However I look to the header and note that 9 years ago PB was basically a hotbed of leftie chat today as you note it's more Right of Centre. What has changed ? personally I think it's that atm the left has run out of ideas, there's nothing left to say except carp at the other lot and dream of the good old days. The left is stagnant and its current leadership shows no sign of breathing new life or ideas in to a rigid corpse.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing, though we would probably disagree on what the left actually is. To me the ConLabDems seem increasingly indistinguishable, and its only about which zombie smells the worst and has the most bits falling off.
In some ways divvie I find it odd. I'd argue that if the left is to have relevance it's about pushing for the ordinary man against big corporations, an indifferent bureaucracy and providing the tools to let people pull themselves up by their bootstraps. none of this is on the left's agenda it's more likely to be pushed by the right atm. I sort of have to question what purpose the left currently serves and where if anywhere can it find leaders who can make it relevant to ordinary life . The right by no means has the problem cracked, but at least you'll see a bit of passion and debate, the left has gone in to a coma.
'Paradoxically, Miliband finds himself in the even more awkward position of being aligned with public opinion. Most voters probably share his deep emotional aversion to Britain's being seen as an "aircraft carrier for the US". But that leaves him with the feeble argument in public that perhaps if we speak nicely to Vladimir Putin he'll have a quiet word with his client Assad. And in private, further damage has been done to his standing in his own Shadow Cabinet.
They saw at close quarters how he vacillated last week, first appearing to support air strikes and then inventing spurious grounds for delay. They saw how he played politics with a question of national security, refusing to support the Government when it conceded all his points, proving himself, as Sir Malcolm Rifkind said, "incapable of taking yes for an answer".
Another Richard.. and you could sit in your nice middle England home with its chintzy curtains and watch X factor or Corrie, while the nutter kills even more people courtesy of the small minded leftie bleating of you and your weak kneed ilk. You and your party did vote for that so why not man up and admit it. You voted to allow the nutter to go on killing.. to your shame.
He doesn't fit neatly into any of our camps, which makes him an interesting read.
Why thank you Nick.
One of the pleasures that PB provides is the ability to read about the experiences and ideas of people from a wide variety of backgrounds,
Its certainly allowed me to learn more about the world and made me more openminded.
Joy. At last after almost 9 years, an insult, a PROPER insult, from our resident bi-polar buffoon (albeit now a rather wealthy one).
Oh no JohnO that really was a second tier insult. I fear we're unlikely to hear the SeanT of old ever again.
Sadly he's become a little too wealthy, a little too flabby, a little too establishment, a little too full of fine wines, a little too much of the bon appetite and little too much of a doting father.
A little of what he likes has dulled the withering attacks of yesteryear.
In the UK political parties have historically been a wide church, and when in power typically need to reflect all attributes.
The British people understand and respect this.
Thatcher was an example of a leader who did not reflect that wide church. This is one reason why she was loved and hated more strongly, as she was able to give her supporters more bones, whilst ignoring a wing of her own party.
The current coalition government has similar problems, as the weighted mean of the political distribution spectrum is neither at the normal Conservative centre nor the Lib Dem centre. This has caused similar problems to both wings (UKIP and Labour gaining support as a consequence).
Unfortunately there appears to be no corresponding enlived supporters cf Thatcher.
The same could be said of the Soviet Communist party. By 1937 all the Socialists had been bumped off and only the psychopaths were left.
So the Nazis did it in half the time, the efficient little tinkers.
German organisation - Vorprung durch Vernichtung
Didn't save them at Stalingrad. Or Berlin.
because they're doing so much worse now than russia and the UK, how they must envy us .
You forgot the US! Well they needed UK/US "guidance" post-war
That's just a timing issue ;-)
Obama has been wondering whether to intervene in the UK debate on Syria but has been warned off by Kerry.
Kerry said the US had intelligence gleaned from high ranking opposition defectors given asylum in New York that UK rebel leaders are dangerous fanatics who are prepared to tear their mother's heart out and eat their siblings alive.
[Edit: should be a reply to John Zims post! Sorry, Mr. Brooke!]
Joy. At last after almost 9 years, an insult, a PROPER insult, from our resident bi-polar buffoon (albeit now a rather wealthy one).
Oh no JohnO that really was a second tier insult. I fear we're unlikely to hear the SeanT of old ever again.
Sadly he's become a little too wealthy, a little too flabby, a little too establishment, a little too full of fine wines, a little too much of the bon appetite and little too much of a doting father.
A little of what he likes has dulled the withering attacks of yesteryear.
You forgot one: also I'm now getting PAID to be insulting and polemical, by the Telegraph, which rations my creative interest in doing it for free on pb.
I suspect, given my undoubted avarice, this final factor is the most crucial?
How is that telegraph gig going?
Do you get many reactions/replies/shares to your telegraph pieces ?
::innocent face::
PS - I do miss the SeanT who few years ago called me all sorts of names and said a speculum used upon Gordon Brown had more intelligence than me
Like it or not, Hitler was a political genius. An evil genius, but a genius nonetheless.
e.g. He personally designed/perfected the Nazi flag, swastika and all, recognising the sublime contrast of red, black and white (as did Jacqueline Kennedy, btw, who insisted the presidential quarters of the White House be redecorated with this scheme)
I would argue that the Nazi flag is the greatest example of graphic design put to political use, in history.
And then there's the speeches... As Susan Sontag said: Hitler made the German people orgasm.
As Hitler put it in Mein Kampf "In red we see the social idea of the movement, in white the nationalistic idea, in the swastika the mission of the struggle for the victory of the Aryan man"
He was absolutely appealing to the same group of people as the Bolsheviks - those who felt cut out of mainstream society.
But he never got them. The support for both Communists and Social Democrats remained hardly unchanged from 1930 to March 1933. As did that for the Catholic Zentrum (centre) party. The Nazis gained the bulk of their voters from the Protestant lower middle class...and later from the massive shift from the other nationalist parties.
He got a lot of them in the 1920s.
No he didn't, the Nazi vote fell in elections when the Communist vote fell in the 20's
That was an overall shrinking of the pool of people voting for radical / anti-establishment leftist-economic parties.
Like it or not, Hitler was a political genius. An evil genius, but a genius nonetheless.
e.g. He personally designed/perfected the Nazi flag, swastika and all, recognising the sublime contrast of red, black and white (as did Jacqueline Kennedy, btw, who insisted the presidential quarters of the White House be redecorated with this scheme)
I would argue that the Nazi flag is the greatest example of graphic design put to political use, in history.
And then there's the speeches... As Susan Sontag said: Hitler made the German people orgasm.
As Hitler put it in Mein Kampf "In red we see the social idea of the movement, in white the nationalistic idea, in the swastika the mission of the struggle for the victory of the Aryan man"
He was absolutely appealing to the same group of people as the Bolsheviks - those who felt cut out of mainstream society.
But he never got them. The support for both Communists and Social Democrats remained hardly unchanged from 1930 to March 1933. As did that for the Catholic Zentrum (centre) party. The Nazis gained the bulk of their voters from the Protestant lower middle class...and later from the massive shift from the other nationalist parties.
He got a lot of them in the 1920s.
Hate to say this, but tim is correct. The Nazis were an infinitesemal force until the 1930 elections (when the effects of the Great Depression were beginning to be felt) when they were catapulted to the second largest party with 107 Deputies. The Communist vote also rose.
Sure. There's an amusing story about my Mum and Hitler, but that's for another night...
But the fact that their vote is corelated with the Communists suggests that they are both appealing to similar voters. Which was my contention.
Max, I definitely think you have more chance of changing UKIP from within and helping to create the sort of party you are looking for than you do with the Tories. There is truth in the claim that UKIP is currently the party of protest but it also has the potential to be much more than that if the right people with the right anti-statist, pro-individual ideas make their voices heard.
Oh absolutely, given the size of UKIP and the size of the Conservatives there is definitely a better chance of changing UKIP from within. Like I said, my issue isn't with UKIP's direction so much as it is with the rank and file membership. Especially some of those who come from the left who see UKIP is the solution to the immigration issues faced by the country. Many of these members wouldn't be out of place at an EDL or BNP meeting. Don't get me wrong I don't think the whole party is like that, not in the slightest, but I don't think I would feel very welcome at UKIP, not unless the leadership makes a gamble and tries to attract second generation immigrant voters and those nastier elements who have joined more recently decide UKIP isn't for them.
If that does happen (and I think it has started with Farrage opposing the spot checks) then I would have no reservations in joining UKIP.
Like it or not, Hitler was a political genius. An evil genius, but a genius nonetheless.
e.g. He personally designed/perfected the Nazi flag, swastika and all, recognising the sublime contrast of red, black and white (as did Jacqueline Kennedy, btw, who insisted the presidential quarters of the White House be redecorated with this scheme)
I would argue that the Nazi flag is the greatest example of graphic design put to political use, in history.
And then there's the speeches... As Susan Sontag said: Hitler made the German people orgasm.
As Hitler put it in Mein Kampf "In red we see the social idea of the movement, in white the nationalistic idea, in the swastika the mission of the struggle for the victory of the Aryan man"
He was absolutely appealing to the same group of people as the Bolsheviks - those who felt cut out of mainstream society.
But he never got them. The support for both Communists and Social Democrats remained hardly unchanged from 1930 to March 1933. As did that for the Catholic Zentrum (centre) party. The Nazis gained the bulk of their voters from the Protestant lower middle class...and later from the massive shift from the other nationalist parties.
He got a lot of them in the 1920s.
No he didn't, the Nazi vote fell in elections when the Communist vote fell in the 20's
That was an overall shrinking of the pool of people voting for radical / anti-establishment leftist-economic parties.
"The 1920s" is a strange reference point, really - the Nazis only contested the two elections in 1924 and the one in 1928. 1924 had been the year Hitler was in prison and he missed the first election, so any comparison is rather strained.
I see Ben Bradshaw is leading the demands from Labour that Cameron reruns the vote.
But Miliband seems as unable to take no for an answer as he was to take yes before the debate.
As Hague puts it:
Switching the focus to his political opponents, Hague said: "The Labour leadership would have to play a less partisan and less opportunistic role and be prepared to take yes for an answer in terms of the motions that we present to the House of Commons. We had taken on board all the points that they had made before the debate on Thursday. All those things would have to happen to get a different result in the House of Commons and I can't see any immediate possibility of that."
Joy. At last after almost 9 years, an insult, a PROPER insult, from our resident bi-polar buffoon (albeit now a rather wealthy one).
Oh no JohnO that really was a second tier insult. I fear we're unlikely to hear the SeanT of old ever again.
Sadly he's become a little too wealthy, a little too flabby, a little too establishment, a little too full of fine wines, a little too much of the bon appetite and little too much of a doting father.
A little of what he likes has dulled the withering attacks of yesteryear.
You forgot one: also I'm now getting PAID to be insulting and polemical, by the Telegraph, which rations my creative interest in doing it for free on pb.
I suspect, given my undoubted avarice, this final factor is the most crucial?
How is that telegraph gig going?
Do you get many reactions/replies/shares to your telegraph pieces ?
::innocent face::
PS - I do miss the SeanT who few years ago called me all sorts of names and said a speculum used upon Gordon Brown had more intelligence than me
I note the innocent face! The Telegraph gig is going OK. I am still waiting for the Mail to poach me and offer me a six figure salary just to sound off.... Hmp. OTOH I was worried I might run out of opinions and it turns out I have an almost infinite number thereof.
Did I really compare you unfavourably to a speculum used on Gordon Brown?! ooh, that's not bad. I'd like to plagiarise myself and use it but it's probably too rich for the Telegraph. They have already knocked back a few of my blogs for being totally over-the-top.
Being paid for mere opinions is fun tho.
You did.
We were having a discussion about you wanting to see Europhiles and in particular those who wanted to take us into the Euro, spend eternity in hell whilst being repeatedly sodomised by fantastically well endowed demons wearing John Redwood face masks.
I then pointed out you had said in the past that you were a reluctant Europhile (to combat the rise of China) and you went off on one.
Honestly, I only remember this conversation, because I couldn't get the image of John Redwood having sex out of my head that evening.
I see Ben Bradshaw is leading the demands from Labour that Cameron reruns the vote.
But Miliband seems as unable to take no for an answer as he was to take yes before the debate.
As Hague puts it:
Switching the focus to his political opponents, Hague said: "The Labour leadership would have to play a less partisan and less opportunistic role and be prepared to take yes for an answer in terms of the motions that we present to the House of Commons. We had taken on board all the points that they had made before the debate on Thursday. All those things would have to happen to get a different result in the House of Commons and I can't see any immediate possibility of that."
Sounds like an acknowledgement that they will lose it again without the support of the opposition.But both parties right to be wary as if Cameron loses again he will have to go.And Miliband`s party don`t want to go to war and he will have a few rebels voting against the whip.
I see Ben Bradshaw is leading the demands from Labour that Cameron reruns the vote.
But Miliband seems as unable to take no for an answer as he was to take yes before the debate.
As Hague puts it:
Switching the focus to his political opponents, Hague said: "The Labour leadership would have to play a less partisan and less opportunistic role and be prepared to take yes for an answer in terms of the motions that we present to the House of Commons. We had taken on board all the points that they had made before the debate on Thursday. All those things would have to happen to get a different result in the House of Commons and I can't see any immediate possibility of that."
If I might say Avery for me the standout point has been the Labour position on this over the last couple of days. (Cameron can always say he's looking across the house for support given all the circumstances.) Labour going into Thursday's vote wanted conditions on military action but should those conditions be met was happy to intervene. However following the vote Miliband seemed to lurch towards embodying non-interventionism as the correct course (just as Cameron was exaggerating when he said the house had voted against action; but Cameron if Labour support has secured will have a strong case for saying that things had changed). Ed's probably going to keep stumm, I imagine, and Cameron's probably going to say he's "in discussions" or "examining the evidence" or something like that.
@Charles - No. Surely a shift to the polar extremes under the weight of economic desperation ie some disillusioned former SPD voters moved the KPD, and those already on the right shifted further to the Nazis.
Anyway, if your family is the one I think it is, you might be interested that I'm currently ploughing through Sir Ian Kershaw's 'Making Friends with Hitler' that focuses on the Marquess of Londonderry, first as Air Minister from 1931-35 and his subsequent attempts to promote rapprochment with Germany. I've just reached the point where Londonderry is humiliatingly sacked in November 1935. Thus far Kershaw is meticulous in his argumentation but rarely seems to give his subject much benefit of the doubt. It's a good read though.
If I might say Avery for me the standout point has been the Labour position on this over the last couple of days. (Cameron can always say he's looking across the house for support given all the circumstances.) Labour going into Thursday's vote wanted conditions on military action but should those conditions be met was happy to intervene. However following the vote Miliband seemed to lurch towards embodying non-interventionism as the correct course (just as Cameron was exaggerating when he said the house had voted against action; but Cameron if Labour support has secured will have a strong case for saying that things had changed). Ed's probably going to keep stumm, I imagine, and Cameron's probably going to say he's "in discussions" or "examining the evidence" or something like that.
Ed will have to eat a very large piece of humble pie in public for Cameron to rerun the vote before he leaves for the G20 summit.
I think Cameron will let the G20 run, with all the attendant press focus on Russia and Syria, and hope for diplomatic progress to be made in St Petersburg, After all, this is what Obama is doing.
If no progress is made at the G20, then that fact alone together with a possible confirmation of CW usage by the UN inspectors may allow a 'new situation' to justify a second vote. By this time Congress deliberations may also be clearer.
A week of Milband trying to work out where he stands under pressure from both the hawks and doves should in the meantime give all of us much needed comic relief.
Comments
So, you had policies that appear (on the face of it) fairly left wing, such as minimum wages, a generous welfare state, maternity leave for working women, child benefit etc., but only for Aryans, and excluding the disabled and "asocial."
My grand uncle, that is my grandfathers brother, fought in the Red Army against Kolchak in the civil war following the revolution. That did not make my grandfather a communist, nor my father and nor me.
‘Parliament has spoken’: Chancellor says Cameron will not make renewed attempt to persuade MPs into supporting Syria action
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2408358/Parliament-spoken-Chancellor-says-Cameron-make-renewed-attempt-persuade-MPs-supporting-Syria-action.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490
I wasn't holding up Cordesman's proposals as a definitive strategy, but as an example of how the caesura created by Obama will cause US strategists to rework military intervention so that it fulfills wider and deeper strategic goals.
I find persuasive the Russian argument that a negotiated settlement must be based on Assad's regime remaining in power at least until a satisfactory alternative is agreed. But for that to happen would require the western powers to trust both the Putin and Assad. At the moment that doesn't apply and the mistrust between the two sides is growing rather than abating.
A power vacuum always sucks in the unsavoury and evil but it doesn't necessarily follow that all or even a majority of opposition to Assad can be characterised as such. Arguing that the west shouldn't intervene because some rebel groups chop off the heads of Christian bishops is illogical. If anything such incidents make intervention more urgent and necessary. No one is suggesting that such groups will be given power as result of intervention.
I am a big supporter of a negotiated political solution but believe that the threat, and possibly reality, of military intervention is needed to make a negotiated solution feasible. While Putin and Assad believe that the civil war is being won there is little hope of any real negotiations starting.
So it is important for the US strategists to think hard about how a military intervention might alter the balance in the civil war and degrade Assad regime's military capabilities. It is this threat, or reality, which will bring forward negotiations not isolationist abstention by the western powers.
" "The Englishman is a rabid nationalist. They are perhaps the most nationalist people in the world...When you hear the English talk of this war you sometimes almost want them to lose it to show them how things are. They have the greatest contempt for the continent in general and for the French in particular...England first. This slogan is taken for granted by the English people as a whole. To lose their empire would be the worst possible humiliation".[3]
So hence the Marxism, or maybe he was just a Scotnat.
(only kidding!)
So Mussolini's Manifesto is more like that of the Lib Dems and Hitler's more like UKIP's?
How much did he revoke - most of it was kept in place until the war. Not sure how much he revoked at that point, but I guess there were overriding circumstances!
Not by you it bloody didn't,you went missing in action on the day that labour brought it out.
Look at max and the spot checking,he really let is feelings to be known,where was your anger on labour and mr Bryant ?
He was absolutely appealing to the same group of people as the Bolsheviks - those who felt cut out of mainstream society.
The most obvious point to note is that even the Nazi manifesto didn't go nearly as far as the final solution.
You and your party did vote for that so why not man up and admit it.
You voted to allow the nutter to go on killing.. to your shame.
Mr. Divvie, that rather feeble line (I'm not a Conservative) would have more weight in a left/right matter if it weren't far the fact that I am on the right, and have no qualms about acknowledging it. I want lower spending, less taxation and a better equipped military. I've argued that Health should've been cut and Defence ring-fenced, or, preferably, increased since the 2010 election.
Time to lock up the offie and get over to that milking parlour, or a tasting of your fine wines in the west wing of the mansion house. Whichever of your fantasies takes you first.
The left are still totally ashamed of the vote on Thursday and want the discussion to be killed..sorry lads, it will be around for a while yet.
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn
"Once Captain Calamity gets the wind in his sails, nothing can stop him." @trevor_kavanagh is withering on PM tmrw. Don't miss it. #SunPlus
Yes haven't Charlton done well since Curbs left?!
Wenger knockers amaze me, they obviously didn't support Arsenal before 1997
"Once Captain Calamity gets the wind in his sails, nothing can stop him." @trevor_kavanagh is withering on PM tmrw. Don't miss it. #SunPlus
I hope the captain calamity doesn't catch on or Cameron will be fcuked.
Ed Miliband has tried to atone for Iraq, but his party’s open-door policy is impossible to excuse
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10279556/Now-for-Labours-lies-about-immigration.html
Odd how the same few memes get recycled.
Between 1928 and November 1932, the DNVP (Conservative right) went from 14 to 6%, the SPD (Socialist left) from 29% to 20% and the DVP (Liberal right) from 9 to 2%, whilst the Communists did relatively well. Considering the Nazis achieved 37% of the vote in that election, all the movements are substantial (they were at 3% in 1928, although this did get the deputies under PR).
Von Ribbentrop was hanged in 1946 for war crimes and on the day the execution was reported in "The Times" Lady W thumped the dining table several times and had poured a large glass of malt whisky to accompany her breakfast !!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/23924145
David Cameron's unlikely victory from defeat
The Prime Minister may have lost the argument in Parliament for armed intervention in Syria, but he has gained public respect
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/david-camerons-unlikely-victory-from-defeat-8792877.html
Says it all.
'Paradoxically, Miliband finds himself in the even more awkward position of being aligned with public opinion. Most voters probably share his deep emotional aversion to Britain's being seen as an "aircraft carrier for the US". But that leaves him with the feeble argument in public that perhaps if we speak nicely to Vladimir Putin he'll have a quiet word with his client Assad. And in private, further damage has been done to his standing in his own Shadow Cabinet.
They saw at close quarters how he vacillated last week, first appearing to support air strikes and then inventing spurious grounds for delay. They saw how he played politics with a question of national security, refusing to support the Government when it conceded all his points, proving himself, as Sir Malcolm Rifkind said, "incapable of taking yes for an answer".
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/09/29/article-0-0B2BEC30000005DC-808_634x447.jpg
Hague rules out new vote in Parliament on military strike on #Syria. Good. http://bbc.in/1cvL2ak
If this had happened to blair,he would be trying for a second vote,no doubts,good for Cameron.
'Prime Minister, I give you my unquestioned support.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/09/29/article-0-0B2BEC30000005DC-808_634x447.jpg
Surely a freak show.
One of the pleasures that PB provides is the ability to read about the experiences and ideas of people from a wide variety of backgrounds,
Its certainly allowed me to learn more about the world and made me more openminded.
Sadly he's become a little too wealthy, a little too flabby, a little too establishment, a little too full of fine wines, a little too much of the bon appetite and little too much of a doting father.
A little of what he likes has dulled the withering attacks of yesteryear.
The British people understand and respect this.
Thatcher was an example of a leader who did not reflect that wide church. This is one reason why she was loved and hated more strongly, as she was able to give her supporters more bones, whilst ignoring a wing of her own party.
The current coalition government has similar problems, as the weighted mean of the political distribution spectrum is neither at the normal Conservative centre nor the Lib Dem centre. This has caused similar problems to both wings (UKIP and Labour gaining support as a consequence).
Unfortunately there appears to be no corresponding enlived supporters cf Thatcher.
Kerry said the US had intelligence gleaned from high ranking opposition defectors given asylum in New York that UK rebel leaders are dangerous fanatics who are prepared to tear their mother's heart out and eat their siblings alive.
[Edit: should be a reply to John Zims post! Sorry, Mr. Brooke!]
Do you get many reactions/replies/shares to your telegraph pieces ?
::innocent face::
PS - I do miss the SeanT who few years ago called me all sorts of names and said a speculum used upon Gordon Brown had more intelligence than me
But the fact that their vote is corelated with the Communists suggests that they are both appealing to similar voters. Which was my contention.
If that does happen (and I think it has started with Farrage opposing the spot checks) then I would have no reservations in joining UKIP.
* Cameron pushes for action on Syria - bad war-monger.
* Cameron loses vote - bad for his authority.
* Cameron accepts will of parliament - bad as he should be pushing for action on Syria.
?
No, actually I don't understand.
But Miliband seems as unable to take no for an answer as he was to take yes before the debate.
As Hague puts it:
Switching the focus to his political opponents, Hague said: "The Labour leadership would have to play a less partisan and less opportunistic role and be prepared to take yes for an answer in terms of the motions that we present to the House of Commons. We had taken on board all the points that they had made before the debate on Thursday. All those things would have to happen to get a different result in the House of Commons and I can't see any immediate possibility of that."
Over to you Ed.
Link: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/sep/01/ministers-reject-calls-syrian-air-strikes
Need a striker to keep Giroud on his toes... If he got injured who would play up front?
maybe one of Chelsea's four strikers?
Mario Gomez left Bayern for £20m, he would have been perfect
Possibly a right back or Centre Half too... No strength in depth
But Ozil would be welcome!
We were having a discussion about you wanting to see Europhiles and in particular those who wanted to take us into the Euro, spend eternity in hell whilst being repeatedly sodomised by fantastically well endowed demons wearing John Redwood face masks.
I then pointed out you had said in the past that you were a reluctant Europhile (to combat the rise of China) and you went off on one.
Honestly, I only remember this conversation, because I couldn't get the image of John Redwood having sex out of my head that evening.
Anyway, if your family is the one I think it is, you might be interested that I'm currently ploughing through Sir Ian Kershaw's 'Making Friends with Hitler' that focuses on the Marquess of Londonderry, first as Air Minister from 1931-35 and his subsequent attempts to promote rapprochment with Germany. I've just reached the point where Londonderry is humiliatingly sacked in November 1935. Thus far Kershaw is meticulous in his argumentation but rarely seems to give his subject much benefit of the doubt. It's a good read though.
I think Cameron will let the G20 run, with all the attendant press focus on Russia and Syria, and hope for diplomatic progress to be made in St Petersburg, After all, this is what Obama is doing.
If no progress is made at the G20, then that fact alone together with a possible confirmation of CW usage by the UN inspectors may allow a 'new situation' to justify a second vote. By this time Congress deliberations may also be clearer.
A week of Milband trying to work out where he stands under pressure from both the hawks and doves should in the meantime give all of us much needed comic relief.