Other than in Hungary in 1944, where the Germans spent a vast effort in deporting Jews following the overthrow of the Horthy regime in April, instead of focussing on defending Hungary against the Red Army, ethnic cleansing had little impact on the actual fighting in WW2. I am not minimising the Holocaust, but it was almost a parallel event to WW2, and was only 1 of many mass atrocities in history.
It's interesting to know that all those soldiers and millions of bullets wasted in Operation Barbarossa shooting a load of helpless Jews rather than armed Red Army soldiers had no impact on the fighting. Just imagine how quickly the Soviets might have won the war if it had.
For one atrocity among many - I'm struggling to think of another occasion when people were systematically gassed, their hair cut off to make blankets, their gold teeth pulled out for ingots and the fat from their bodies used to make soap. Can you help me here? It seems a little unusual, to say the least.
Well there was the Mongol destruction of the ancient irrigation system of the Middle East. And they never carried it out, but they did talk about turning China into a horse friendly environment by removing the agricultural inhabitants and destroying the farms.
For me, the thing that makes the Holocaust such a mind blowingly evil act was that it was carried out on such an industrial scale and that it was happening less than 30 years before I was born. The Mongols and other ancient historical wrong 'uns were obviously just as bad, but the fact that it was happening in supposedly modern, civilised Europe and with such a dedicated infrastructure make it almost unfathomable. The 90s Balkans conflict was also too close for comfort.
As was the Khmer Rouge. We were watching Grease, while they were commiting genocide.
Not everyone was an idle spectator. Thatcher sent British military to train the Khmer Rouge. Probably 2 PARA judging by the results.
Several Cambodians held that against us when we visited. That was several years ago though.
Worth noting the world doesn't move in one direction. Barbarity and torture rose from the Middle Ages to the 'enlightened' Renaissance.
We had liberal democracy, and then some people chose to leave that to join death cults that would've been considered vicious and deranged even a thousand years ago.
And even the most seemingly civilised can come to accept and utilise utter brutality surprisingly quickly during terrible times. The adaptability of humanity to horror is a blessing in how some can overcome it, but a curse in how many come to mirror it.
Other than in Hungary in 1944, where the Germans spent a vast effort in deporting Jews following the overthrow of the Horthy regime in April, instead of focussing on defending Hungary against the Red Army, ethnic cleansing had little impact on the actual fighting in WW2. I am not minimising the Holocaust, but it was almost a parallel event to WW2, and was only 1 of many mass atrocities in history.
It's interesting to know that all those soldiers and millions of bullets wasted in Operation Barbarossa shooting a load of helpless Jews rather than armed Red Army soldiers had no impact on the fighting. Just imagine how quickly the Soviets might have won the war if it had.
For one atrocity among many - I'm struggling to think of another occasion when people were systematically gassed, their hair cut off to make blankets, their gold teeth pulled out for ingots and the fat from their bodies used to make soap. Can you help me here? It seems a little unusual, to say the least.
Well there was the Mongol destruction of the ancient irrigation system of the Middle East. And they never carried it out, but they did talk about turning China into a horse friendly environment by removing the agricultural inhabitants and destroying the farms.
For me, the thing that makes the Holocaust such a mind blowingly evil act was that it was carried out on such an industrial scale and that it was happening less than 30 years before I was born. The Mongols and other ancient historical wrong 'uns were obviously just as bad, but the fact that it was happening in supposedly modern, civilised Europe and with such a dedicated infrastructure make it almost unfathomable. The 90s Balkans conflict was also too close for comfort.
As was the Khmer Rouge. We were watching Grease, while they were commiting genocide.
Not everyone was an idle spectator. Thatcher sent British military to train the Khmer Rouge. Probably 2 PARA judging by the results.
Are you really sure that British soldiers were training the Khmer Rouge in 1976-79?
Caroline Flint saying on Sophy on Sunday there are 60 to 70 labour mps against a referendum and would support an improved deal, (workers rights and environment) rather than no deal
She is seeking a free vote
Those Mps can’t vote for nothing though. Surely it’s better to have a referendum or Mays deal than something impossible. Granted they can vote for No Brexit but that’s no different from voting for the tide not to come in (they can hope but the moon will still move the tides)
Caroline Flint saying on Sophy on Sunday there are 60 to 70 labour mps against a referendum and would support an improved deal, (workers rights and environment) rather than no deal
She is seeking a free vote
Those Mps can’t vote for nothing though. Surely it’s better to have a referendum or Mays deal than something impossible. Granted they can vote for No Brexit but that’s no different from voting for the tide not to come in (they can hope but the moon will still move the tides)
Other than in Hungary in 1944, where the Germans spent a vast effort in deporting Jews following the overthrow of the Horthy regime in April, instead of focussing on defending Hungary against the Red Army, ethnic cleansing had little impact on the actual fighting in WW2. I am not minimising the Holocaust, but it was almost a parallel event to WW2, and was only 1 of many mass atrocities in history.
It's interesting to know that all those soldiers and millions of bullets wasted in Operation Barbarossa shooting a load of helpless Jews rather than armed Red Army soldiers had no impact on the fighting. Just imagine how quickly the Soviets might have won the war if it had.
For one atrocity among many - I'm struggling to think of another occasion when people were systematically gassed, their hair cut off to make blankets, their gold teeth pulled out for ingots and the fat from their bodies used to make soap. Can you help me here? It seems a little unusual, to say the least.
Well there was the Mongol destruction of the ancient irrigation system of the Middle East. And they never carried it out, but they did talk about turning China into a horse friendly environment by removing the agricultural inhabitants and destroying the farms.
For me, the thing that makes the Holocaust such a mind blowingly evil act was that it was carried out on such an industrial scale and that it was happening less than 30 years before I was born. The Mongols and other ancient historical wrong 'uns were obviously just as bad, but the fact that it was happening in supposedly modern, civilised Europe and with such a dedicated infrastructure make it almost unfathomable. The 90s Balkans conflict was also too close for comfort.
As was the Khmer Rouge. We were watching Grease, while they were commiting genocide.
Not everyone was an idle spectator. Thatcher sent British military to train the Khmer Rouge. Probably 2 PARA judging by the results.
Are you really sure that British soldiers were training the Khmer Rouge in 1976-79?
Do you think facts will get in the way of ideology? They used time machines
The High Court found right to rent discriminatory and blocked its further roll-out to the rest of the country.
As with most of Theresa May's works, the policy failed. Mr Justice Spencer said the scheme had "little or no effect" on its main aim of controlling immigration and even if it had, this was "significantly outweighed by the discriminatory effect". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47415383
Pretty damning verdict. Not even achieving its aim as well as being discriminatory renders even a defence on competence grounds moot.
"...the Holocaust was a minor detail in the history of WW2, particularly from an Allied perspective. It had nothing to do with the reason why the UK declared war..."
Might that be because the war started before the full horrors of the Holocaust were unleashed, and certainly before they were known to the Allies?
The Nazi government did not in fact start moving towards systematic mass extermination until Barbarossa in 1941. As late as the 1st January 1942 80% of the eventual victims were still alive. Up until that point, while there was periodic violence, looting, discrimination and so on, the gas chambers were not built. The Nazis, let it not be forgotten, found the Jews very useful as cheap slave labour and the likes of Himmler built huge fortunes from exploiting them.
But by 1942 there was a fairly strict limit to what could actually be done by the allies to stop the Holocaust. Neutral powers, Sweden, Switzerland and the Vatican, were better placed to help but had fewer resources to do so.
The Allies were passive bystanders - they didn't care, and some in today's Labour Party found it convenient that others were doing the dirty work for them.
Fixed.
That is pretty offensive.
No. One of the two major democratic parties of Goverment allowing anti-semites a free rein - that is pretty offensive.
And doing nothing meaningful to prevent it is not pretty at all.
But the Labour Party are not allowing anti-semites free rein. That bears no relationship to what is happening. We are talking about weak internal systems at worst. I remain open minded, but it all looks like something blown out of all proportion for cynical reasons by Labour's political opponents and some internal critics of the leadership to me.
Caroline Flint saying on Sophy on Sunday there are 60 to 70 labour mps against a referendum and would support an improved deal, (workers rights and environment) rather than no deal
She is seeking a free vote
Those Mps can’t vote for nothing though. Surely it’s better to have a referendum or Mays deal than something impossible. Granted they can vote for No Brexit but that’s no different from voting for the tide not to come in (they can hope but the moon will still move the tides)
The indication was they will vote for the deal
My MP when chatting last week was still being pressurised by constituents not to vote for May’s deal. Having voted against last time based on constituents wishes she can hardly do anything different this time around.
I see the ERG have listed their ransom demands . How many times do they need to be told. A backstop with a time limit or a unilateral exit mechanism isn’t a backstop .
The resurgence of Tom Watson shows that the balance of terror within the Labour party has shifted. In the 21 months since the last general election, most of Labour’s moderates have been sounding cowed and running scared. Now it is the Corbynites who have reasons to fear what the moderates might do next.
Other than in Hungary in 1944, where the Germans spent a vast effort in deporting Jews following the overthrow of the Horthy regime in April, instead of focussing on defending Hungary against the Red Army, ethnic cleansing had little impact on the actual fighting in WW2. I am not minimising the Holocaust, but it was almost a parallel event to WW2, and was only 1 of many mass atrocities in history.
It's interesting to know that all those soldiers and millions of bullets wasted in Operation Barbarossa shooting a load of helpless Jews rather than armed Red Army soldiers had no impact on the fighting. Just imagine how quickly the Soviets might have won the war if it had.
For one atrocity among many - I'm struggling to think of another occasion when people were systematically gassed, their hair cut off to make blankets, their gold teeth pulled out for ingots and the fat from their bodies used to make soap. Can you help me here? It seems a little unusual, to say the least.
Well there was the Mongol destruction of the ancient irrigation system of the Middle East. And they never carried it out, but they did talk about turning China into a horse friendly environment by removing the agricultural inhabitants and destroying the farms.
For me, the thing that makes the Holocaust such a mind blowingly evil act was that it was carried out on such an industrial scale and that it was happening less than 30 years before I was born. The Mongols and other ancient historical wrong 'uns were obviously just as bad, but the fact that it was happening in supposedly modern, civilised Europe and with such a dedicated infrastructure make it almost unfathomable. The 90s Balkans conflict was also too close for comfort.
As was the Khmer Rouge. We were watching Grease, while they were commiting genocide.
Not everyone was an idle spectator. Thatcher sent British military to train the Khmer Rouge. Probably 2 PARA judging by the results.
Are you really sure that British soldiers were training the Khmer Rouge in 1976-79?
Well, I was told that in Cambodia by informed Cambodians in 2006.
"...the Holocaust was a minor detail in the history of WW2, particularly from an Allied perspective. It had nothing to do with the reason why the UK declared war..."
Might that be because the war started before the full horrors of the Holocaust were unleashed, and certainly before they were known to the Allies?
The Nazi government did not in fact start moving towards systematic mass extermination until Barbarossa in 1941. As late as the 1st January 1942 80% of the eventual victims were still alive. Up until that point, while there was periodic violence, looting, discrimination and so on, the gas chambers were not built. The Nazis, let it not be forgotten, found the Jews very useful as cheap slave labour and the likes of Himmler built huge fortunes from exploiting them.
But by 1942 there was a fairly strict limit to what could actually be done by the allies to stop the Holocaust. Neutral powers, Sweden, Switzerland and the Vatican, were better placed to help but had fewer resources to do so.
The Allies were passive bystanders - they didn't care, and some in today's Labour Party found it convenient that others were doing the dirty work for them.
Fixed.
That is pretty offensive.
No. One of the two major democratic parties of Goverment allowing anti-semites a free rein - that is pretty offensive.
And doing nothing meaningful to prevent it is not pretty at all.
But the Labour Party are not allowing anti-semites free rein. That bears no relationship to what is happening. We are talking about weak internal systems at worst. I remain open minded, but it all looks like something blown out of all proportion for cynical reasons by Labour's political opponents and some internal critics of the leadership to me.
How can trust start to be rebuilt by someone who is completely unsuitable to start the re-building process? Watson has other questions and apologies to individuals/ widows that have not been forthcoming apart from a general apology that was worth zippo.
If the disciplinary process was fit for purpose then Watson wouldn't need to collect evidence of all the cases that the GC/LOTO are covering up.
The truth is simple. Project Corbyn allowed back in all the screaming anti-semitic nutters. They advocate the right of return of "refugees" - in reality the second and third generation descendents of refugees whose return would sweep the extant Jewish population into the sea. They scream on about how Israel is using financiers to directly corrupt the media to tell lies about the JC. It's blatant open anti-semitism and yet anyone pointing it out is denounced as a Blairite.
Which is the ultimate charge because association with a trice elected Prime Minister who materially transformed the lives of people like Angela Rayner is truly a crime. These hard left agitators are experts at manipulation. Which is how I now read on Facebook from younger "if it's on Facebook it's true" members that the evil Watson is a Blairite. Yes. He personally organised against Blair and was I strumental in Blair going. He's a Blairite apparently. Says someone who doesn't undertake d what a Blairite is, what it means, or who the key players were and what they did.
It truly is 1984 levels of bullshit. Which is why Watson has to keep track. Because when LOTO is actively squashing moves against headbangers because they are allies, when Formby is doing literally nothing, then what else is he to do?
The Blairite as insult thing I find bizarre. I know, Iraq, and times have moved on and all that, but Cirbyn received the backing of the existing members not just the new mass influx, thers must be loads of members who are still very proud of Blair.
Corbyn for one - sure he rebelled many many times but he was still happy to serve as part of the Blair project all those years.
Caroline Flint saying on Sophy on Sunday there are 60 to 70 labour mps against a referendum and would support an improved deal, (workers rights and environment) rather than no deal
She is seeking a free vote
Those Mps can’t vote for nothing though. Surely it’s better to have a referendum or Mays deal than something impossible. Granted they can vote for No Brexit but that’s no different from voting for the tide not to come in (they can hope but the moon will still move the tides)
The indication was they will vote for the deal
My MP when chatting last week was still being pressurised by constituents not to vote for May’s deal. Having voted against last time based on constituents wishes she can hardly do anything different this time around.
If your mp is in the 60 or 70 Caroline Flint referred to they may well vote for the deal
I see the ERG have listed their ransom demands . How many times do they need to be told. A backstop with a time limit or a unilateral exit mechanism isn’t a backstop .
Have they. I haven't heard them. Do you have a link please
The resurgence of Tom Watson shows that the balance of terror within the Labour party has shifted. In the 21 months since the last general election, most of Labour’s moderates have been sounding cowed and running scared. Now it is the Corbynites who have reasons to fear what the moderates might do next.
The resurgence of Tom Watson shows that the balance of terror within the Labour party has shifted. In the 21 months since the last general election, most of Labour’s moderates have been sounding cowed and running scared. Now it is the Corbynites who have reasons to fear what the moderates might do next.
I think that article is wishful thinking by Rawnsley as much as anything else. But, hey, he has better information and contacts amongst Socialists than I do...
The resurgence of Tom Watson shows that the balance of terror within the Labour party has shifted. In the 21 months since the last general election, most of Labour’s moderates have been sounding cowed and running scared. Now it is the Corbynites who have reasons to fear what the moderates might do next.
I think that article is wishful thinking by Rawnsley as much as anything else. But, hey, he has better information and contacts amongst Socialists than I do...
More importantly if the moderates think they are fighting back and being effective not a one of them will defect on the short term. If they are wrong, though, the medium term risk of more quitting has gone up.
I see the ERG have listed their ransom demands . How many times do they need to be told. A backstop with a time limit or a unilateral exit mechanism isn’t a backstop .
Their tests for acceptability are not tests. They're to provide cover to reject anything, if they feel like it.
O/T Are we likely to see MV2 this coming week, rather than left until the 12th?
Could there even be a narrowly lost MV2 this week followed by a weekend of urgent arm-twisting and MV3 on the 12th?
Surely, nothing can happen until the unveiling of Cox's Codpiece?
Which is dependent on...? The EU giving ground - not going to happen. Cox just modifying his previous interpretation - could happen right away.
He has to have a reason to change his interpretation or it really is pointless.
And Barnier keeps saying he will aid the narrative on the political declaration so something will be given. We will soon be aware of the detail and then it is mps decision time
Other than in Hungary in 1944, where the Germans spent a vast effort in deporting Jews following the overthrow of the Horthy regime in April, instead of focussing on defending Hungary against the Red Army, ethnic cleansing had little impact on the actual fighting in WW2. I am not minimising the Holocaust, but it was almost a parallel event to WW2, and was only 1 of many mass atrocities in history.
It's interesting to know that all those soldiers and millions of bullets wasted in Operation Barbarossa shooting a load of helpless Jews rather than armed Red Army soldiers had no impact on the fighting. Just imagine how quickly the Soviets might have won the war if it had.
For one atrocity among many - I'm struggling to think of another occasion when people were systematically gassed, their hair cut off to make blankets, their gold teeth pulled out for ingots and the fat from their bodies used to make soap. Can you help me here? It seems a little unusual, to say the least.
Well there was the Mongol destruction of the ancient irrigation system of the Middle East. And they never carried it out, but they did talk about turning China into a horse friendly environment by removing the agricultural inhabitants and destroying the farms.
For me, the thing that makes the Holocaust such a mind blowingly evil act was that it was carried out on such an industrial scale and that it was happening less than 30 years before I was born. The Mongols and other ancient historical wrong 'uns were obviously just as bad, but the fact that it was happening in supposedly modern, civilised Europe and with such a dedicated infrastructure make it almost unfathomable. The 90s Balkans conflict was also too close for comfort.
As was the Khmer Rouge. We were watching Grease, while they were commiting genocide.
Not everyone was an idle spectator. Thatcher sent British military to train the Khmer Rouge. Probably 2 PARA judging by the results.
How? Phnom Penh fell to the invading Vietnamese army in January 1979, removing the Khmer Rouge from power, who then fled to Thailand. Thatcher became prime minister in May that year. Admittedly, the Khmer Rouge did then become one of three parts of the opposition to the Vietnamese/Soviet backed government, and as such the opposition coalition received aid from China, Britain and the US, but the timeline doesn’t allow for Thatcher to have been complicit in the Killing Fields as you suggest. Would have had to have been Wilson and Callaghan - if there was anything at all.
Caroline Flint saying on Sophy on Sunday there are 60 to 70 labour mps against a referendum and would support an improved deal, (workers rights and environment) rather than no deal
She is seeking a free vote
Why is a free vote needed? Brexit has shown people quite willing to vote their conscience and the whip be damned, and that is quite right.
If they would vote differently if there is a whip imposed then they don't care that much.
Well, I was told that in Cambodia by informed Cambodians in 2006.
Reading around it this morning for interest as I had never heard of this before I would suggest that either you or they have confused things.
The claim as far as I can see has never been that the UK was training the KR in the 70s when they were in power. It is that they were training the anti-Vietnam coalition which was led by the KR in the mid to late 80s when they were attempting to get rid of the Vietnamese force from Cambodia. The smoke screen as explained by the Guardian was they were only supposed to train the Royalist forces but everyone knew the leaders of the coalition were the KR.
I am not sure if that isn't actually worse since by then everyone knew what the KR had been up to. It sounds to me like it would be on a par with training the SS to retake East Germany in the 1950s.
Other than in Hungary in 1944, where the Germans spent a vast effort in deporting Jews following the overthrow of the Horthy regime in April, instead of focussing on defending Hungary against the Red Army, ethnic cleansing had little impact on the actual fighting in WW2. I am not minimising the Holocaust, but it was almost a parallel event to WW2, and was only 1 of many mass atrocities in history.
It's interesting to know that all those soldiers and millions of bullets wasted in Operation Barbarossa shooting a load of helpless Jews rather than armed Red Army soldiers had no impact on the fighting. Just imagine how quickly the Soviets might have won the war if it had.
For one atrocity among many - I'm struggling to think of another occasion when people were systematically gassed, their hair cut off to make blankets, their gold teeth pulled out for ingots and the fat from their bodies used to make soap. Can you help me here? It seems a little unusual, to say the least.
Well there was the Mongol destruction of the ancient irrigation system of the Middle East. And they never carried it out, but they did talk about turning China into a horse friendly environment by removing the agricultural inhabitants and destroying the farms.
For me, the thing that makes the Holocaust such a mind blowingly evil act was that it was carried out on such an industrial scale and that it was happening less than 30 years before I was born. The Mongols and other ancient historical wrong 'uns were obviously just mfort.
As was the Khmer Rouge. We were watching Grease, while they were commiting genocide.
Not everyone was an idle spectator. Thatcher sent British military to train the Khmer Rouge. Probably 2 PARA judging by the results.
How? Phnom Penh fell to the invading Vietnamese army in January 1979, removing the Khmer Rouge from power, who then fled to Thailand. Thatcher became prime minister in May that year. Admittedly, the Khmer Rouge did then become one of three parts of the opposition to the Vietnamese/Soviet backed government, and as such the opposition coalition received aid from China, Britain and the US, but the timeline doesn’t allow for Thatcher to have been complicit in the Killing Fields as you suggest. Would have had to have been Wilson and Callaghan - if there was anything at all.
Boy, Thatcher must truly have been more powerful than I thought if you have your dates right! Though I see from others there are questions about involvement post regime.
Caroline Flint saying on Sophy on Sunday there are 60 to 70 labour mps against a referendum and would support an improved deal, (workers rights and environment) rather than no deal
She is seeking a free vote
Why is a free vote needed? Brexit has shown people quite willing to vote their conscience and the whip be damned, and that is quite right.
If they would vote differently if there is a whip imposed then they don't care that much.
I can only repeat her comment - I do agree with you though
And now I have Blair on Marr - boy does he switch you off
Caroline Flint saying on Sophy on Sunday there are 60 to 70 labour mps against a referendum and would support an improved deal, (workers rights and environment) rather than no deal
She is seeking a free vote
Those Mps can’t vote for nothing though. Surely it’s better to have a referendum or Mays deal than something impossible. Granted they can vote for No Brexit but that’s no different from voting for the tide not to come in (they can hope but the moon will still move the tides)
The indication was they will vote for the deal
My MP when chatting last week was still being pressurised by constituents not to vote for May’s deal. Having voted against last time based on constituents wishes she can hardly do anything different this time around.
I very much doubt that she did a comprehensive survey of all constituents - so she is claiming to be doing something by having listened to the loudest voices - or the voices she chooses to hear/acknowledge.
Other than in Hungary in 1944, where the Germans spent a vast effort in deporting Jews following the overthrow of the Horthy regime in April, instead of focussing on defending Hungary against the Red Army, ethnic cleansing had little impact on the actual fighting in WW2. I am not minimising the Holocaust, but it was almost a parallel event to WW2, and was only 1 of many mass atrocities in history.
It's interesting to know that all those soldiers and millions of bullets wasted in Operation Barbarossa shooting a load of helpless Jews rather than armed Red Army soldiers had no impact on the fighting. Just imagine how quickly the Soviets might have won the war if it had.
For one atrocity among many - I'm struggling to think of another occasion when people were systematically gassed, their hair cut off to make blankets, their gold teeth pulled out for ingots and the fat from their bodies used to make soap. Can you help me here? It seems a little unusual, to say the least.
Well there was the Mongol destruction of the ancient irrigation system of the Middle East. And they never carried it out, but they did talk about turning China into a horse friendly environment by removing the agricultural inhabitants and destroying the farms.
.
As was the Khmer Rouge. We were watching Grease, while they were commiting genocide.
Not everyone was an idle spectator. Thatcher sent British military to train the Khmer Rouge. Probably 2 PARA judging by the results.
How? Phnom Penh fell to the invading Vietnamese army in January 1979, removing the Khmer Rouge from power, who then fled to Thailand. Thatcher became prime minister in May that year. Admittedly, the Khmer Rouge did then become one of three parts of the opposition to the Vietnamese/Soviet backed government, and as such the opposition coalition received aid from China, Britain and the US, but the timeline doesn’t allow for Thatcher to have been complicit in the Killing Fields as you suggest. Would have had to have been Wilson and Callaghan - if there was anything at all.
Boy, Thatcher must truly have been more powerful than I thought if you have your dates right! Though I see from others there are questions about involvement post regime.
It’s well astablished that the UK gave aid to the the anti-government coalition, which included the Khmer Rouge, throughout the eighties. As did the US and China. The opposition were ultimately propped up by the Soviets. Bad, but not, as I say, being complicit in the 1976-79 genocide.
The resurgence of Tom Watson shows that the balance of terror within the Labour party has shifted. In the 21 months since the last general election, most of Labour’s moderates have been sounding cowed and running scared. Now it is the Corbynites who have reasons to fear what the moderates might do next.
I think that article is wishful thinking by Rawnsley as much as anything else. But, hey, he has better information and contacts amongst Socialists than I do...
Well, I was told that in Cambodia by informed Cambodians in 2006.
Reading around it this morning for interest as I had never heard of this before I would suggest that either you or they have confused things.
The claim as far as I can see has never been that the UK was training the KR in the 70s when they were in power. It is that they were training the anti-Vietnam coalition which was led by the KR in the mid to late 80s when they were attempting to get rid of the Vietnamese force from Cambodia. The smoke screen as explained by the Guardian was they were only supposed to train the Royalist forces but everyone knew the leaders of the coalition were the KR.
I am not sure if that isn't actually worse since by then everyone knew what the KR had been up to. It sounds to me like it would be on a par with training the SS to retake East Germany in the 1950s.
I've looked up my diary and apparently I found a book at Siem Rep airport which discussed British support for the Khmer Rouge.
The resurgence of Tom Watson shows that the balance of terror within the Labour party has shifted. In the 21 months since the last general election, most of Labour’s moderates have been sounding cowed and running scared. Now it is the Corbynites who have reasons to fear what the moderates might do next.
I think that article is wishful thinking by Rawnsley as much as anything else. But, hey, he has better information and contacts amongst Socialists than I do...
I think Soubry is going to seriously regret joining TIG this time next month. If the deal+extension passes, where does it leave them? Especially Soubry who is a proper Tory on non-Brexit related matters.
I think Soubry is going to seriously regret joining TIG this time next month. If the deal+extension passes, where does it leave them? Especially Soubry who is a proper Tory on non-Brexit related matters.
Other than in Hungary in 1944, where the Germans spent a vast effort in deporting Jews following the overthrow of the Horthy regime in April, instead of focussing on defending Hungary against the Red Army, ethnic cleansing had little impact on the actual fighting in WW2. I am not minimising the Holocaust, but it was almost a parallel event to WW2, and was only 1 of many mass atrocities in history.
It's interesting to know that all those soldiers and millions of bullets wasted in Operation Barbarossa shooting a load of helpless Jews rather than armed Red Army soldiers had no impact on the fighting. Just imagine how quickly the Soviets might have won the war if it had.
For one atrocity among many - I'm struggling to think of another occasion when people were systematically gassed, their hair cut off to make blankets, their gold teeth pulled out for ingots and the fat from their bodies used to make soap. Can you help me here? It seems a little unusual, to say the least.
Well there was the Mongol destruction of the ancient irrigation system of the Middle East. And they never carried it out, but they did talk about turning China into a horse friendly environment by removing the agricultural inhabitants and destroying the farms.
For me, the thing that makes the Holocaust such a mind blowingly evil act was that it was carried out on such an industrial scale and that it was happening less than 30 years before I was born. The Mongols and other ancient historical wrong 'uns were obviously just as bad, but the fact that it was happening in supposedly modern, civilised Europe and with such a dedicated infrastructure make it almost unfathomable. The 90s Balkans conflict was also too close for comfort.
As was the Khmer Rouge. We were watching Grease, while they were commiting genocide.
Not everyone was an idle spectator. Thatcher sent British military to train the Khmer Rouge. Probably 2 PARA judging by the results.
Are you really sure that British soldiers were training the Khmer Rouge in 1976-79?
How can trust start to be rebuilt by someone who is completely unsuitable to start the re-building process? Watson has other questions and apologies to individuals/ widows that have not been forthcoming apart from a general apology that was worth zippo.
If the disciplinary process was fit for purpose then Watson wouldn't need to collect evidence of all the cases that the GC/LOTO are covering up.
The truth is simple. Project Corbyn allowed back in all the screaming anti-semitic nutters. They advocate the right of return of "refugees" - in reality the second and third generation descendents of refugees whose return would sweep the extant Jewish population into the sea. They scream on about how Israel is using financiers to directly corrupt the media to tell lies about the JC. It's blatant open anti-semitism and yet anyone pointing it out is denounced as a Blairite.
Which is the ultimate charge because association with a trice elected Prime Minister who materially transformed the lives of people like Angela Rayner is truly a crime. These hard left agitators are experts at manipulation. Which is how I now read on Facebook from younger "if it's on Facebook it's true" members that the evil Watson is a Blairite. Yes. He personally organised against Blair and was I strumental in Blair going. He's a Blairite apparently. Says someone who doesn't undertake d what a Blairite is, what it means, or who the key players were and what they did.
It truly is 1984 levels of bullshit. Which is why Watson has to keep track. Because when LOTO is actively squashing moves against headbangers because they are allies, when Formby is doing literally nothing, then what else is he to do?
I cannot see any alternative now but for Watson to lead a much larger number of MPs out of the party in the next few months, cheered on by the likes of Williamson and much wider body of party members who will shout good riddance as they go. I think he is not yet committed to this course but is preparing the ground. Watson has become a hate figure in the eyes of the far left, which nowadays means the mainstream of the party from the leader's office down to the active membership, and the idea that Labour in the hands of these people can still accommodate a plurality of views is laughable.
I think Soubry is going to seriously regret joining TIG this time next month. If the deal+extension passes, where does it leave them? Especially Soubry who is a proper Tory on non-Brexit related matters.
She can always re-join
I'd rather we ran a candidate against her, turncoats needs to be taught a lesson.
In short, The Formby-Watson spat is a proxy battle.
Though I do like the point about how many of the most intensely loyal Corbyn supporters in effect call Corbyn a liar by adopting positions denying a problem or seeing it all as a weapon against him, even where he has said that is not the case.
I've been calling them out on this for ages. Corbyn "suporters" show their fanatical support for The JC (peace be upon Him) by directly contradicting his statements, by openly doing the opposite if his requests, by saying all the things He asks them not to say.
They work themselves into such a frenzy over how it's all a massive conspiracy that whenever anyone points to their absurdity it's just further proof of the conspiracy in action. It's precisely the same counter-factual guff that has Brexiteers insistent that a deal to leave the EU has to be rejected because by leaving the EU we aren't leaving the EU.
The confirmatory referendum which surely now will be the swerve away from no deal will have on it do you want to accept the deal to leave the EU or not? If not then the status quo continues, that's always what happens on this kind of referendum. And the "I'd rather eat grass" bridge will be outraged because there isn't an option on there to leave the EU.
The resurgence of Tom Watson shows that the balance of terror within the Labour party has shifted. In the 21 months since the last general election, most of Labour’s moderates have been sounding cowed and running scared. Now it is the Corbynites who have reasons to fear what the moderates might do next.
I think that article is wishful thinking by Rawnsley as much as anything else. But, hey, he has better information and contacts amongst Socialists than I do...
Not really. TIG has been a game changer.
For Labour. Not yet for the Tories or for Brexit.
Agreed. The article is about the Corbynistas being on the run. And you're also right to add the qualifying 'not yet' in relation to the Tories.
Caroline Flint saying on Sophy on Sunday there are 60 to 70 labour mps against a referendum and would support an improved deal, (workers rights and environment) rather than no deal
She is seeking a free vote
Why is a free vote needed? Brexit has shown people quite willing to vote their conscience and the whip be damned, and that is quite right.
If they would vote differently if there is a whip imposed then they don't care that much.
I can only repeat her comment - I do agree with you though
And now I have Blair on Marr - boy does he switch you off
Blair’s the best spokesman the Leave campaign has.
Well, I was told that in Cambodia by informed Cambodians in 2006.
Reading around it this morning for interest as I had never heard of this before I would suggest that either you or they have confused things.
The claim as far as I can see has never been that the UK was training the KR in the 70s when they were in power. It is that they were training the anti-Vietnam coalition which was led by the KR in the mid to late 80s when they were attempting to get rid of the Vietnamese force from Cambodia. The smoke screen as explained by the Guardian was they were only supposed to train the Royalist forces but everyone knew the leaders of the coalition were the KR.
I am not sure if that isn't actually worse since by then everyone knew what the KR had been up to. It sounds to me like it would be on a par with training the SS to retake East Germany in the 1950s.
I've looked up my diary and apparently I found a book at Siem Rep airport which discussed British support for the Khmer Rouge.
Yep as I say it is clear the support happened. Just a question of when. And I do think the real timeline as opposed to the claimed one might even paint the British in a worse light.
Other than in Hungary in 1944, where the Germans spent a vast effort in deporting Jews following the overthrow of the Horthy regime in April, instead of focussing on defending Hungary against the Red Army, ethnic cleansing had little impact on the actual fighting in WW2. I am not minimising the Holocaust, but it was almost a parallel event to WW2, and was only 1 of many mass atrocities in history.
It's interesting to know that all those soldiers and
For one atrocity among many - I'm struggling to think of another occasion when people were systematically gassed, their hair cut off to make blankets, their gold teeth pulled out for ingots and the fat from their bodies used to make soap. Can you help me here? It seems a little unusual, to say the least.
Well there was the Mongol destruction of the ancient irrigation system of the Middle East. And they never carried it out, but they did talk about turning China into a horse friendly environment by removing the agricultural inhabitants and destroying the farms.
For me, the thing that makes the Holocaust such a mind blowingly evil act was that it was carried out on such an industrial scale and that it was happening less than 30 years before I was born. The Mongols and other ancient historical wrong 'uns were obviously just as bad, but the fact that it was happening in supposedly modern, civilised Europe and with such a dedicated infrastructure make it almost unfathomable. The 90s Balkans conflict was also too close for comfort.
As was the Khmer Rouge. We were watching Grease, while they were commiting genocide.
Not everyone was an idle spectator. Thatcher sent British military to train the Khmer Rouge. Probably 2 PARA judging by the results.
Are you really sure that British soldiers were training the Khmer Rouge in 1976-79?
Callaghan was PM then
I found a reference in the American edition of the New Statesman to an article by John Pilger, on 17 April 2000. "After two and a half years in power, the Khmer Rouge was overthrown by the Vietnamese on Christmas Day, 1978. In the months and years that followed, the US and China and their allies, notably the Thatcher government, backed Pol Pot in exile in Thailand." The article goes on with further detail.
There are stones in British foreign policy which are embarrassing to turn over.
I think Soubry is going to seriously regret joining TIG this time next month. If the deal+extension passes, where does it leave them? Especially Soubry who is a proper Tory on non-Brexit related matters.
Brexit is symptom, not cause. TIG is about the manifest unfitness of both major parties to govern. Soubry made this clear in yesterday's interview on R4 Today on the subject of Grayling.
I think Soubry is going to seriously regret joining TIG this time next month. If the deal+extension passes, where does it leave them? Especially Soubry who is a proper Tory on non-Brexit related matters.
She can always re-join
I'd rather we ran a candidate against her, turncoats needs to be taught a lesson.
The point here is that Soubry, plus most of the other TIGgers, were probably going to be de-selected anyway. This, as much as Brexit, is why we are where we are.
Caroline Flint saying on Sophy on Sunday there are 60 to 70 labour mps against a referendum and would support an improved deal, (workers rights and environment) rather than no deal
She is seeking a free vote
Why is a free vote needed? Brexit has shown people quite willing to vote their conscience and the whip be damned, and that is quite right.
If they would vote differently if there is a whip imposed then they don't care that much.
I can only repeat her comment - I do agree with you though
And now I have Blair on Marr - boy does he switch you off
I cannot see any alternative now but for Watson to lead a much larger number of MPs out of the party in the next few months, cheered on by the likes of Williamson and much wider body of party members who will shout good riddance as they go. I think he is not yet committed to this course but is preparing the ground. Watson has become a hate figure in the eyes of the far left, which nowadays means the mainstream of the party from the leader's office down to the active membership, and the idea that Labour in the hands of these people can still accommodate a plurality of views is laughable.
I can see that happen. TIG isn't the game changer in isolation, it is that plus Watson deciding enough is enough and launching his bid to save the party. Now that we clearly have The JC and Watson in opposing camps with each other as the chief enemy, it's a civil war and only one of them will survive.
Brexit - not AS - is the fulcrum. The party is very clear that it wants Labour pushing for a confirmatory referendum, with remain not only on the paper but our advocated position. This was argued out at conference and since then LOTO has spent an absurd amount of effort not only ignoring policy but claiming to be following it. A lot of soft Corbyn supporters are massively unimpressed by this, LOTO and the screaming Arabs know this, which is why we have seen the clear hysterical panic from them since TIG broke away.
Jeremy Corbyn will never be Prime Minister, and the realisation of this has sent the cult leaders insane. It's a fight to the death. Corbyn or Watson. And when Watson wins (whether inside the party or out, we will win), the cult will tear itself apart in recriminations and excommunication (as has already happened to Lansman)
How can trust start to be rebuilt by someone who is completely unsuitable to start the re-building process? Watson has other questions and apologies to individuals/ widows that have not been forthcoming apart from a general apology that was worth zippo.
If the disciplinary process was fit for purpose then Watson wouldn't need to collect evidence of all the cases that the GC/LOTO are covering up.
The truth is simple. Project Corbyn allowed back in all the screaming anti-semitic nutters. They advocate the right of return of "refugees" - in reality the second and third generation descendents of refugees whose return would sweep the extant Jewish population into the sea. They scream on about how Israel is using financiers to directly corrupt the media to tell lies about the JC. It's blatant open anti-semitism and yet anyone pointing it out is denounced as a Blairite.
Which is the ultimate charge because association with a trice elected Prime Minister who materially transformed the lives of people like Angela Rayner is truly a crime. These hard left agitators are experts at manipulation. Which is how I now read on Facebook from younger "if it's on Facebook it's true" members that the evil Watson is a Blairite. Yes. He personally organised against Blair and was I strumental in Blair going. He's a Blairite apparently. Says someone who doesn't undertake d what a Blairite is, what it means, or who the key players were and what they did.
It truly is 1984 levels of bullshit. Which is why Watson has to keep track. Because when LOTO is actively squashing moves against headbangers because they are allies, when Formby is doing literally nothing, then what else is he to do?
I cannot see any alternative now but for Watson to lead a much larger number of MPs out of the party in the next few months, cheered on by the likes of Williamson and much wider body of party members who will shout good riddance as they go. I think he is not yet committed to this course but is preparing the ground. Watson has become a hate figure in the eyes of the far left, which nowadays means the mainstream of the party from the leader's office down to the active membership, and the idea that Labour in the hands of these people can still accommodate a plurality of views is laughable.
I think there is a pretty clear alternative, which is that they stick around on the basis of tribal loyalty and in the hope of 'reclaiming' the party, until they ultimately get manouevred, expelled, or voted out of their positions. This is they course they have been on since 2015. It is too early to tell whether TIG have changed anything, but the number of defections is small and nothing more has happened over the last couple of weeks.
Well, I was told that in Cambodia by informed Cambodians in 2006.
Reading around it this morning for interest as I had never heard of this before I would suggest that either you or they have confused things.
The claim as far as I can see has never been that the UK was training the KR in the 70s when they were in power. It is that they were training the anti-Vietnam coalition which was led by the KR in the mid to late 80s when they were attempting to get rid of the Vietnamese force from Cambodia. The smoke screen as explained by the Guardian was they were only supposed to train the Royalist forces but everyone knew the leaders of the coalition were the KR.
I am not sure if that isn't actually worse since by then everyone knew what the KR had been up to. It sounds to me like it would be on a par with training the SS to retake East Germany in the 1950s.
I've looked up my diary and apparently I found a book at Siem Rep airport which discussed British support for the Khmer Rouge.
Yep as I say it is clear the support happened. Just a question of when. And I do think the real timeline as opposed to the claimed one might even paint the British in a worse light.
The when is crucial. There could be nothing worse than assisting people who were carrying out genocide.
I dont expect a majority government again by either Labour or Tory parties. Brexit has broken both of them beyond repair (defections to TIG haven't got going yet), and the millions of dispossessed angry morons out there demanding that we all eat Grass aren't going to vote for either again.
A general election as soon as possible is in the urgent interests of both parties. Kill TIG before it has chance to organise. Kill the Brexit party the same way. Because if they don't they will lose a chink of voters to TIG and a chunk of voters to Farage and thats them done. The Brexit party will operate like NSDAP in the 1920s, holding political activism meetings to make angry people really angry. These meetings will be held in every Wethersponns pub in the country, and those of us not suffering from foaming dog fever are going to have a bad time.
Other than in Hungary in 1944, where the Germans spent a vast effort in deporting Jews following the overthrow of the Horthy regime in April, instead of focussing on defending Hungary against the Red Army, ethnic cleansing had little impact on the actual fighting in WW2. I am not minimising the Holocaust, but it was almost a parallel event to WW2, and was only 1 of many mass atrocities in history.
It's interesting to know that all those soldiers and millions of bullets wasted in Operation Barbarossa shooting a load of helpless Jews rather than armed Red Army soldiers had no impact on the fighting. Just imagine how quickly the Soviets might have won the war if it had.
For one atrocity among many - I'm struggling to think of another occasion when people were systematically gassed, their hair cut off to make blankets, their gold teeth pulled out for ingots and the fat from their bodies used to make soap. Can you help me here? It seems a little unusual, to say the least.
Well there was the Mongol destruction of the ancient irrigation system of the Middle East. And they never carried it out, but they did talk about turning China into a horse friendly environment by removing the agricultural inhabitants and destroying the farms.
For me, the thing that makes the Holocaust such a mind blowingly evil act was that it was carried out on such an industrial scale and that it was happening less than 30 years before I was born. The Mongols and other ancient historical wrong 'uns were obviously just as bad, but the fact that it was happening in supposedly modern, civilised Europe and with such a dedicated infrastructure make it almost unfathomable. The 90s Balkans conflict was also too close for comfort.
As was the Khmer Rouge. We were watching Grease, while they were commiting genocide.
Yeah, and Rwanda too. And ISIS. There will be another bunch of horrible bastards along in a minute as well. It's just that the factory farming methods of the Holocaust just seem like something out of a SciFi movie.
Have you watched Son of Saul? It's very good (if that's the word) on the clamorous, factory-ish aspect of the whole thing, though I did feel quite disturbed after watching it (maybe that's a good thing also).
The problem is that very few people know what anti semitism looks like. The only people who could identify it are Jews and their opinions would vary widely. It would depend amongst other things on how Jewish they are and how Jewish they feel and how honest they're being
Before the 2015 election Quentin Letts wrote a column where he referred to Ed Milliband's 'giant conk'. I got emails from friends directing me to the article. You'll find very few Jewish people who wouldn't find this offensive.
By contrast when Naz Shah suggested it would be better if Israel could be moved to the United States -originally a line from an American Jewish comedian-I would be surprised if most Jews would think it offensive
For my Grandmother's generation the biggest crime any Jew could commit was to 'marry out' . To prevent this it was necessary to create an undesirable 'other'. Blacks were Sch.... Non Jews were G... low class ones Bat....*. That was prejudice which was easily understood. Integration was very limied. Michael Howard was always prefixed 'The pretend Jew'.....
.....But now it's more complicated. It's hard enough identifying who or what is a Jew let alone examining the psyche of someone to establish whether they're prejudiced against them
Even if this Labour panel was made up of Jewish psychiatrists you'd have as many opinions as you have members. But you wont even have that. You'll have a committee of Labour union leaders and officials who won't have any understanding of anti semitism and worse still they'll be playing to the gallery. For those facing examination It'll be Kafka's worse nightmare.
After your last post on this subject, I was left feeling that you had too much faith in systems and procedures. This one leaves me feeling the other way, that all complaints systems depend on the people who are respnsible for them .. and they will never be perfect, either.
So it is back to a hunt for an analogue of democracy - the least worst system.
On the specifics - progress on Parliamentary bullying will not happen until Bercow is defenestrated, and it is a material issue in the following Speaker's election. I don't think they will accept a "suspend while investigating' paradigm for bullying *or* sexual abuse complaints, given the recent string of failed / false sexual abuse complaints against Parliamentary figures - it is too open to abuse for political purposes as a system.
On antisemitism, consider Paul Flynn. Whilst being an Expenses Saint, Paul Flynn's 'dual loyalties' was imo also an example of casual antisemitism. Like many of the current incidents, after his 'dual loyalties' comment he just could not see what was wrong, so any apology is for 'choice of words', which is a mere triangulation.
I think there is a Corbyn-Bercow parallel. Bercow cannot deal with bullying because he is implicated; Corbyn cannot deal with AS because doing so resolutely that would involve washing away a chunk of his own powerbase.
I am not sure on Watson. I know him as a Brownite machine-politician with some big pluses (eg his Open Rights work), and some big minuses.
I do not place a great deal of faith in policies and procedures. Quite the opposite. They are often a substitute for people using their judgment. You need both procedures and good people. Bad things happen because people do the wrong thing and do not do the right thing.
Watson has a very flawed history and is not some whiter than white hero. But he, at least, seems to understand that there is a serious problem with anti-semitism within Labour, that the leadership has not dealt with it well and is trying to do something about this. For this he deserves some credit.
I think Soubry is going to seriously regret joining TIG this time next month. If the deal+extension passes, where does it leave them? Especially Soubry who is a proper Tory on non-Brexit related matters.
She can always re-join
I'd rather we ran a candidate against her, turncoats needs to be taught a lesson.
Other than in Hungary in 1944, where the Germans spent a vast effort in deporting Jews following the overthrow of the Horthy regime in April, instead of focussing on defending Hungary against the Red Army, ethnic cleansing had little impact on the actual fighting in WW2. I am not minimising the Holocaust, but it was almost a parallel event to WW2, and was only 1 of many mass atrocities in history.
It's interesting to know that all those soldiers and millions of bullets wasted in Operation Barbarossa shooting a load of helpless Jews rather than armed Red Army soldiers had no impact on the fighting. Just imagine how quickly the Soviets might have won the war if it had.
For one atrocity among many - I'm struggling to think of another occasion when people were systematically gassed, their hair cut off to make blankets, their gold teeth pulled out for ingots and the fat from their bodies used to make soap. Can you help me here? It seems a little unusual, to say the least.
Well there was the Mongol destruction of the ancient irrigation system of the Middle East. And they never carried it out, but they did talk about turning China into a horse friendly environment by removing the agricultural inhabitants and destroying the farms.
For me, the thing that makes the Holocaust such a mind blowingly evil act was that it was carried out on such an industrial scale and that it was happening less than 30 years before I was born. The Mongols and other ancient historical wrong 'uns were obviously just as bad, but the fact that it was happening in supposedly modern, civilised Europe and with such a dedicated infrastructure make it almost unfathomable. The 90s Balkans conflict was also too close for comfort.
As was the Khmer Rouge. We were watching Grease, while they were commiting genocide.
Yeah, and Rwanda too. And ISIS. There will be another bunch of horrible bastards along in a minute as well. It's just that the factory farming methods of the Holocaust just seem like something out of a SciFi movie.
Have you watched Son of Saul? It's very good (if that's the word) on the clamorous, factory-ish aspect of the whole thing, though I did feel quite disturbed after watching it (maybe that's a good thing also).
Like your new avatar. It looks as though Winnie is admiring his new iPhonexs.
I think Soubry is going to seriously regret joining TIG this time next month. If the deal+extension passes, where does it leave them? Especially Soubry who is a proper Tory on non-Brexit related matters.
She can always re-join
She has the argument that TIG started the ERG on the long trek toward sanity (or at least the suburbs of sanity).
Well, I was told that in Cambodia by informed Cambodians in 2006.
Reading around it this morning for interest as I had never heard of this before I would suggest that either you or they have confused things.
The claim as far as I can see has never been that the UK was training the KR in the 70s when they were in power. It is that they were training the anti-Vietnam coalition which was led by the KR in the mid to late 80s when they were attempting to get rid of the Vietnamese force from Cambodia. The smoke screen as explained by the Guardian was they were only supposed to train the Royalist forces but everyone knew the leaders of the coalition were the KR.
I am not sure if that isn't actually worse since by then everyone knew what the KR had been up to. It sounds to me like it would be on a par with training the SS to retake East Germany in the 1950s.
Yes, that's a good parallel. Essentially both sides in the Cold War were willing to support any old monsters if it was inconvenient for the other side. The way that the Mujaheddin in Aghanistan were supported and bombed at different times is another example, as indeed is the recent history of both Iraq and Syria.
It's all past history now, but perhaps a cautionary note when any of us are tempted to denounce anyone (or any country) for what they said 40 years ago.
It's an interesting self-reflection to consider where one draws a line if someone one supports goes off the rails. I originally thought the Taliban sounded quite refreshing - not so corrupt, etc. - until I read more about what they were doing. And to some extent I think that even Ministers don't always realise (or want to realise) just what sort of people they are supporting.
I dont expect a majority government again by either Labour or Tory parties. Brexit has broken both of them beyond repair (defections to TIG haven't got going yet), and the millions of dispossessed angry morons out there demanding that we all eat Grass aren't going to vote for either again.
A general election as soon as possible is in the urgent interests of both parties. Kill TIG before it has chance to organise. Kill the Brexit party the same way. Because if they don't they will lose a chink of voters to TIG and a chunk of voters to Farage and thats them done. The Brexit party will operate like NSDAP in the 1920s, holding political activism meetings to make angry people really angry. These meetings will be held in every Wethersponns pub in the country, and those of us not suffering from foaming dog fever are going to have a bad time.
People said the same thing about the Tories being destroyed after Maastricht and there would never be a Tory majority again. Yet here we are following a Tory majority last Parliament.
Same with Labour it got over the split with the SDP and the humiliation of the Winter of Discontent etc.
Other than in Hungary in 1944, where the Germans spent a vast effort in deporting Jews following the overthrow of the Horthy regime in April, instead of focussing on defending Hungary against the Red Army, ethnic cleansing had little impact on the actual fighting in WW2. I am not minimising the Holocaust, but it was almost a parallel event to WW2, and was only 1 of many mass atrocities in history.
It's interesting to know that all those soldiers and millions of bullets wasted in Operation Barbarossa shooting a load of helpless Jews rather than armed Red Army soldiers had no impact on the fighting. Just imagine how quickly the Soviets might have won the war if it had.
For one atrocity among many - I'm struggling to think of another occasion when people were systematically gassed, their hair cut off to make blankets, their gold teeth pulled out for ingots and the fat from their bodies used to make soap. Can you help me here? It seems a little unusual, to say the least.
Well there was the Mongol destruction of the ancient irrigation system of the Middle East. And they never carried it out, but they did talk about turning China into a horse friendly environment by removing the agricultural inhabitants and destroying the farms.
For me, the thing that makes the Holocaust such a mind blowingly evil act was that it was carried out on such an industrial scale and that it was happening less than 30 years before I was born. The Mongols and other ancient historical wrong 'uns were obviously just as bad, but the fact that it was happening in supposedly modern, civilised Europe and with such a dedicated infrastructure make it almost unfathomable. The 90s Balkans conflict was also too close for comfort.
As was the Khmer Rouge. We were watching Grease, while they were commiting genocide.
Yeah, and Rwanda too. And ISIS. There will be another bunch of horrible bastards along in a minute as well. It's just that the factory farming methods of the Holocaust just seem like something out of a SciFi movie.
Have you watched Son of Saul? It's very good (if that's the word) on the clamorous, factory-ish aspect of the whole thing, though I did feel quite disturbed after watching it (maybe that's a good thing also).
Like your new avatar. It looks as though Winnie is admiring his new iPhonexs.
Lol.
'Wait a mo' Josef, I just need to tell this fecker on Twitter that he's speaking complete bollocks.'
The problem is that very few people know what anti semitism looks like. The only people who could identify it are Jews and their opinions would vary widely. It would depend amongst other things on how Jewish they are and how Jewish they feel and how honest they're being
Before the 2015 election Quentin Letts wrote a column where he referred to Ed Milliband's 'giant conk'. I got emails from friends directing me to the article. You'll find very few Jewish people who wouldn't find this offensive.
By contrast when Naz Shah suggested it would be better if Israel could be moved to the United States -originally a line from an American Jewish comedian-I would be surprised if most Jews would think it offensive
For my Grandmother's generation the biggest crime any Jew could commit was to 'marry out' . To prevent this it was necessary to create an undesirable 'other'. Blacks were Sch.... Non Jews were G... low class ones Bat....*. That was prejudice which was easily understood. Integration was very limied. Michael Howard was always prefixed 'The pretend Jew'.....
.....But now it's more complicated. It's hard enough identifying who or what is a Jew let alone examining the psyche of someone to establish whether they're prejudiced against them
Even if this Labour panel was made up of Jewish psychiatrists you'd have as many opinions as you have members. But you wont even have that. You'll have a committee of Labour union leaders and officials who won't have any understanding of anti semitism and worse still they'll be playing to the gallery. For those facing examination It'll be Kafka's worse nightmare.
You are, I think, deliberately overstating the difficulties. It is not necessary to look into someone’s heart. But one can judge someone’s actions and what they say and determine whether it meets the standards expected of a Labour Party member. So calling someone repeatedly a “Zio bitch” is out, shouting that Jew or a Jew lover should “burn in the ovens” is out, being a Holocaust denier is out, etc. This is not hard. It is only thought of as hard by those who want to make it so because they don’t really want to deal with the problem.
I dont expect a majority government again by either Labour or Tory parties. Brexit has broken both of them beyond repair (defections to TIG haven't got going yet), and the millions of dispossessed angry morons out there demanding that we all eat Grass aren't going to vote for either again.
A general election as soon as possible is in the urgent interests of both parties. Kill TIG before it has chance to organise. Kill the Brexit party the same way. Because if they don't they will lose a chink of voters to TIG and a chunk of voters to Farage and thats them done. The Brexit party will operate like NSDAP in the 1920s, holding political activism meetings to make angry people really angry. These meetings will be held in every Wethersponns pub in the country, and those of us not suffering from foaming dog fever are going to have a bad time.
A general election cannot now be held before the due date of Brexit at the end of March and as Brexit will determine the fortunes of either party no general election can be called to kill them. If Art 50 is extended and EUref2 looks likely then clearly the Brexit Party will likely surge, if we go to No Deal then TIG will likely surge. The best way to reduce the chances of both is to get a Deal passed, with or without a general election after, a general election by itself will not do so
I dont expect a majority government again by either Labour or Tory parties. Brexit has broken both of them beyond repair (defections to TIG haven't got going yet), and the millions of dispossessed angry morons out there demanding that we all eat Grass aren't going to vote for either again.
A general election as soon as possible is in the urgent interests of both parties. Kill TIG before it has chance to organise. Kill the Brexit party the same way. Because if they don't they will lose a chink of voters to TIG and a chunk of voters to Farage and thats them done. The Brexit party will operate like NSDAP in the 1920s, holding political activism meetings to make angry people really angry. These meetings will be held in every Wethersponns pub in the country, and those of us not suffering from foaming dog fever are going to have a bad time.
Based on the story I saw on Twitter earlier today (not posted here for obvious reasons) Nigel Farage is about to be subject to the law courts...
I dont expect a majority government again by either Labour or Tory parties. Brexit has broken both of them beyond repair (defections to TIG haven't got going yet), and the millions of dispossessed angry morons out there demanding that we all eat Grass aren't going to vote for either again.
A general election as soon as possible is in the urgent interests of both parties. Kill TIG before it has chance to organise. Kill the Brexit party the same way. Because if they don't they will lose a chink of voters to TIG and a chunk of voters to Farage and thats them done. The Brexit party will operate like NSDAP in the 1920s, holding political activism meetings to make angry people really angry. These meetings will be held in every Wethersponns pub in the country, and those of us not suffering from foaming dog fever are going to have a bad time.
People said the same thing about the Tories being destroyed after Maastricht and there would never be a Tory majority again. Yet here we are following a Tory majority last Parliament.
Same with Labour it got over the split with the SDP and the humiliation of the Winter of Discontent etc.
The pendulum will swing eventually.
That's right. Love them or hate them, both Labour and Conservative parties over time are good at what they do and it is a sight easier to fix one of them up than to start from scratch.
Caroline Flint saying on Sophy on Sunday there are 60 to 70 labour mps against a referendum and would support an improved deal, (workers rights and environment) rather than no deal
She is seeking a free vote
Those Mps can’t vote for nothing though. Surely it’s better to have a referendum or Mays deal than something impossible. Granted they can vote for No Brexit but that’s no different from voting for the tide not to come in (they can hope but the moon will still move the tides)
The indication was they will vote for the deal
My MP when chatting last week was still being pressurised by constituents not to vote for May’s deal. Having voted against last time based on constituents wishes she can hardly do anything different this time around.
Was that MPs seat in a Remain seat or a Leave seat? If a Remain seat fair enough, if a Leave seat those constituents may find if she does not vote for the Deal they will end up with a lengthy Art 50 extension and EUref2 and no Brexit at all
I think Soubry is going to seriously regret joining TIG this time next month. If the deal+extension passes, where does it leave them? Especially Soubry who is a proper Tory on non-Brexit related matters.
She can always re-join
She has the argument that TIG started the ERG on the long trek toward sanity (or at least the suburbs of sanity).
Watson has a very flawed history and is not some whiter than white hero. But he, at least, seems to understand that there is a serious problem with anti-semitism within Labour, that the leadership has not dealt with it well and is trying to do something about this. For this he deserves some credit.
In 2015 I though the last thing we needed was Watson as deputy leader. He was what could best be described as an interesting character whose level of zealotry for a cause (get Blair out, then Murdoch) could turn from being an asset into a liability.
But rigjt now, he is the last line of defence. Forget about Blair, Mandleson st al - they are long departed and utterly discredited. Watson on the other hand is still at His right hand and enough of a sharp operator to be able to redeploy his zealotry as a weapon. Tough on Corbyn, tough on the causes of Corbyn.
He will win the fight. It's possible he does so by leading a mass exodus into TIG once it becomes clear that it's a death cult who will slaughter literally anyone who opposes them no matter how futile it has become. But I still believe Corbyn can be defeated - it's emperor's new clothes time and unfortunately on Brexit all the mass membership who had enthusiastically supported him can see his cock and they're repulsed by what they see.
Well, I was told that in Cambodia by informed Cambodians in 2006.
Reading around it this morning for interest as I had never heard of this before I would suggest that either you or they have confused things.
The claim as far as I can see has never been that the UK was training the KR in the 70s when they were in power. It is that they were training the anti-Vietnam coalition which was led by the KR in the mid to late 80s when they were attempting to get rid of the Vietnamese force from Cambodia. The smoke screen as explained by the Guardian was they were only supposed to train the Royalist forces but everyone knew the leaders of the coalition were the KR.
I am not sure if that isn't actually worse since by then everyone knew what the KR had been up to. It sounds to me like it would be on a par with training the SS to retake East Germany in the 1950s.
Yes, that's a good parallel. Essentially both sides in the Cold War were willing to support any old monsters if it was inconvenient for the other side. The way that the Mujaheddin in Aghanistan were supported and bombed at different times is another example, as indeed is the recent history of both Iraq and Syria.
It's all past history now, but perhaps a cautionary note when any of us are tempted to denounce anyone (or any country) for what they said 40 years ago.
It's an interesting self-reflection to consider where one draws a line if someone one supports goes off the rails. I originally thought the Taliban sounded quite refreshing - not so corrupt, etc. - until I read more about what they were doing. And to some extent I think that even Ministers don't always realise (or want to realise) just what sort of people they are supporting.
That is a fair point: the “my enemy’s enemy is my friend” complex was a feature of the Cold War. But the same criticism is made of Corbyn: that in his desire to befriend anyone who is against the US, the West, he supports any old group of monsters without inquiring too deeply into what they are about, what they do and whether they are in line with his loudly proclaimed principles. And he doesn’t even have the excuse of a Cold War.
Based on the story I saw on Twitter earlier today (not posted here for obvious reasons) Nigel Farage is about to be subject to the law courts...
If that happens, the cultists will accept it as "proof" the "elite" are trying to "betray Brexit"
c.f. Trump and everybody around him who has been indicted...
You only have to look at Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon to see how well it will play out - so it's not a great idea but if the facts are there you can hardly ignore it.
I dont expect a majority government again by either Labour or Tory parties. Brexit has broken both of them beyond repair (defections to TIG haven't got going yet), and the millions of dispossessed angry morons out there demanding that we all eat Grass aren't going to vote for either again.
A general election as soon as possible is in the urgent interests of both parties. Kill TIG before it has chance to organise. Kill the Brexit party the same way. Because if they don't they will lose a chink of voters to TIG and a chunk of voters to Farage and thats them done. The Brexit party will operate like NSDAP in the 1920s, holding political activism meetings to make angry people really angry. These meetings will be held in every Wethersponns pub in the country, and those of us not suffering from foaming dog fever are going to have a bad time.
People said the same thing about the Tories being destroyed after Maastricht and there would never be a Tory majority again. Yet here we are following a Tory majority last Parliament.
Same with Labour it got over the split with the SDP and the humiliation of the Winter of Discontent etc.
The pendulum will swing eventually.
In many ways though Labour only came back to power by becoming the SDP in the form of New Labour and the Tories only got back into power after the 1997 rout by becoming New Labour under Cameron and through the Coalition.
Well, I was told that in Cambodia by informed Cambodians in 2006.
Reading around it this morning for interest as I had never heard of this before I would suggest that either you or they have confused things.
The claim as far as I can see has never been that the UK was training the KR in the 70s when they were in power. It is that they were training the anti-Vietnam coalition which was led by the KR in the mid to late 80s when they were attempting to get rid of the Vietnamese force from Cambodia. The smoke screen as explained by the Guardian was they were only supposed to train the Royalist forces but everyone knew the leaders of the coalition were the KR.
I am not sure if that isn't actually worse since by then everyone knew what the KR had been up to. It sounds to me like it would be on a par with training the SS to retake East Germany in the 1950s.
Yes, that's a good parallel. Essentially both sides in the Cold War were willing to support any old monsters if it was inconvenient for the other side. The way that the Mujaheddin in Aghanistan were supported and bombed at different times is another example, as indeed is the recent history of both Iraq and Syria.
It's all past history now, but perhaps a cautionary note when any of us are tempted to denounce anyone (or any country) for what they said 40 years ago.
It's an interesting self-reflection to consider where one draws a line if someone one supports goes off the rails. I originally thought the Taliban sounded quite refreshing - not so corrupt, etc. - until I read more about what they were doing. And to some extent I think that even Ministers don't always realise (or want to realise) just what sort of people they are supporting.
That is a fair point: the “my enemy’s enemy is my friend” complex was a feature of the Cold War. But the same criticism is made of Corbyn: that in his desire to befriend anyone who is against the US, the West, he supports any old group of monsters without inquiring too deeply into what they are about, what they do and whether they are in line with his loudly proclaimed principles. And he doesn’t even have the excuse of a Cold War.
It's not often realised that originally the Taliban (or at least their first incarnation) were funded by either the CIA our a fanatical Christian millionaire (or possibly both).
Caroline Flint saying on Sophy on Sunday there are 60 to 70 labour mps against a referendum and would support an improved deal, (workers rights and environment) rather than no deal
She is seeking a free vote
Those Mps can’t vote for nothing though. Surely it’s better to have a referendum or Mays deal than something impossible. Granted they can vote for No Brexit but that’s no different from voting for the tide not to come in (they can hope but the moon will still move the tides)
The indication was they will vote for the deal
My MP when chatting last week was still being pressurised by constituents not to vote for May’s deal. Having voted against last time based on constituents wishes she can hardly do anything different this time around.
Was that MPs seat in a Remain seat or a Leave seat? If a Remain seat fair enough, if a Leave seat those constituents may find if she does not vote for the Deal they will end up with a lengthy Art 50 extension and EUref2 and no Brexit at all
It's a leave seat. I was surprised by the argument as it was instantly after a statement that No Deal was unacceptable but vocal constituents didn't want May's Deal so she was voting against it.
I've long given up expecting logical arguments that aren't contradicted before the conclusion is reached.
By contrast when Naz Shah suggested it would be better if Israel could be moved to the United States -originally a line from an American Jewish comedian-I would be surprised if most Jews would think it offensive
Except that isn't the only thing Naz Shah said / did / tweeted / liked etc.
Anyone thinking the current UK Labour party is at the lowest possible ebb should check out SLab leader Richard Leonard on Sunday Politics Scotland. Even I'm embarrassed.
I think Soubry is going to seriously regret joining TIG this time next month. If the deal+extension passes, where does it leave them? Especially Soubry who is a proper Tory on non-Brexit related matters.
Brexit is symptom, not cause. TIG is about the manifest unfitness of both major parties to govern. Soubry made this clear in yesterday's interview on R4 Today on the subject of Grayling.
Maybe, but Soubry is a proper Tory, the crossover between her positions and the rest of them in TIG is very low other than Brexit.
I also think if the deal+extension passes (and I'm increasingly confident it will) May standing down will be part of that deal. Once May goes a lot of the governance issues go with her (Grayling especially).
The problem is that very few people know what anti semitism looks like. The only people who could identify it are Jews and their opinions would vary widely. It would depend amongst other things on how Jewish they are and how Jewish they feel and how honest they're being
Before the 2015 election Quentin Letts wrote a column where he referred to Ed Milliband's 'giant conk'. I got emails from friends directing me to the article. You'll find very few Jewish people who wouldn't find this offensive.
By contrast when Naz Shah suggested it would be better if Israel could be moved to the United States -originally a line from an American Jewish comedian-I would be surprised if most Jews would think it offensive
For my Grandmother's generation the biggest crime any Jew could commit was to 'marry out' . To prevent this it was necessary to create an undesirable 'other'. Blacks were Sch.... Non Jews were G... low class ones Bat....*. That was prejudice which was easily understood. Integration was very limied. Michael Howard was always prefixed 'The pretend Jew'.....
.....But now it's more complicated. It's hard enough identifying who or what is a Jew let alone examining the psyche of someone to establish whether they're prejudiced against them
Even if this Labour panel was made up of Jewish psychiatrists you'd have as many opinions as you have members. But you wont even have that. You'll have a committee of Labour union leaders and officials who won't have any understanding of anti semitism and worse still they'll be playing to the gallery. For those facing examination It'll be Kafka's worse nightmare.
You are, I think, deliberately overstating the difficulties. It is not necessary to look into someone’s heart. But one can judge someone’s actions and what they say and determine whether it meets the standards expected of a Labour Party member. So calling someone repeatedly a “Zio bitch” is out, shouting that Jew or a Jew lover should “burn in the ovens” is out, being a Holocaust denier is out, etc. This is not hard. It is only thought of as hard by those who want to make it so because they don’t really want to deal with the problem.
There is normally a pattern of behaviour e.g. Jared O'Mara didn't just send one dodgy tweet years ago, where one thought hmmm that's not good. There was a long pattern of stuff, including in person abuse which occurred not long before his election.
More often than not these people being exposed as antisemites haven't just posted or liked one dodgy tweet, there is a history of it and / or attending events of some really dodgy groups.
Yes, an interesting tale. The Czechs originally fought in the Austrian Army on the Eastern Front, were captured by the Imperial Russian Army, and then were supposed to have been given safe passage by the Bolsheviks after the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. They ended up being one of the chief anti-Communist forces during the Russian Civil War.
O/T Are we likely to see MV2 this coming week, rather than left until the 12th?
Could there even be a narrowly lost MV2 this week followed by a weekend of urgent arm-twisting and MV3 on the 12th?
Surely, nothing can happen until the unveiling of Cox's Codpiece?
Which is dependent on...? The EU giving ground - not going to happen. Cox just modifying his previous interpretation - could happen right away.
He has to have a reason to change his interpretation or it really is pointless.
And Barnier keeps saying he will aid the narrative on the political declaration so something will be given. We will soon be aware of the detail and then it is mps decision time
G, all they will get is some waffle. Nothing is going to change in the WA.
Anyone thinking the current UK Labour party is at the lowest possible ebb should check out SLab leader Richard Leonard on Sunday Politics Scotland. Even I'm embarrassed.
Caroline Flint saying on Sophy on Sunday there are 60 to 70 labour mps against a referendum and would support an improved deal, (workers rights and environment) rather than no deal
She is seeking a free vote
Those Mps can’t vote for nothing though. Surely it’s better to have a referendum or Mays deal than something impossible. Granted they can vote for No Brexit but that’s no different from voting for the tide not to come in (they can hope but the moon will still move the tides)
The indication was they will vote for the deal
My MP when chatting last week was still being pressurised by constituents not to vote for May’s deal. Having voted against last time based on constituents wishes she can hardly do anything different this time around.
Was that MPs seat in a Remain seat or a Leave seat? If a Remain seat fair enough, if a Leave seat those constituents may find if she does not vote for the Deal they will end up with a lengthy Art 50 extension and EUref2 and no Brexit at all
It's a leave seat. I was surprised by the argument as it was instantly after a statement that No Deal was unacceptable but vocal constituents didn't want May's Deal so she was voting against it.
I've long given up expecting logical arguments that aren't contradicted before the conclusion is reached.
At the moment too many Leavers think they can get No Deal if the Deal is rejected, as it becomes increasingly clear the alternative to the Deal in the Commons will be extension of Art 50, EUref2 and quite possibly No Brexit at all many of those same Leavers will be forced to come behind the Deal
Yes, an interesting tale. The Czechs originally fought in the Austrian Army on the Eastern Front, were captured by the Imperial Russian Army, and then were supposed to have been given safe passage by the Bolsheviks after the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. They ended up being one of the chief anti-Communist forces during the Russian Civil War.
The Czechs (and Slovaks) had a tough time in the 20th C and seem to have provided some really good fighting units on 'our' side. When I was young I knew a Czech doctor who practised in UK (he was anti-communist) who had escaped as a young man from his own country half-way through his medical studies, made his way to the Middle East, fought at Tobruk, then got to Beirut University and qualified as a doctor. then rejoined the Czech forces. he was quite a guy, and a good doctor.
He will win the fight. It's possible he does so by leading a mass exodus into TIG once it becomes clear that it's a death cult who will slaughter literally anyone who opposes them no matter how futile it has become. But I still believe Corbyn can be defeated - it's emperor's new clothes time and unfortunately on Brexit all the mass membership who had enthusiastically supported him can see his cock and they're repulsed by what they see.
No, I don't think that the cultists have the power of sight. Be careful about making this all about Brexit, where things may in any case move on. It is far more about the narrow and vile intolerance of non-believers generally. Any mass defection needs to have sufficient scope for differences of view that the new vehicle(s?) can accommodate the likes of Frank Field, Ian Austin and John Mann.
He will win the fight. It's possible he does so by leading a mass exodus into TIG once it becomes clear that it's a death cult who will slaughter literally anyone who opposes them no matter how futile it has become. But I still believe Corbyn can be defeated - it's emperor's new clothes time and unfortunately on Brexit all the mass membership who had enthusiastically supported him can see his cock and they're repulsed by what they see.
No, I don't think that the cultists have the power of sight. Be careful about making this all about Brexit, where things may in any case move on. It is far more about the narrow and vile intolerance of non-believers generally. Any mass defection needs to have sufficient scope for differences of view that the new vehicle(s?) can accommodate the likes of Frank Field, Ian Austin and John Mann.
But that's the problem with this new party. For years Labour and Tory have existed as very broad churches. I'm in the same political party as TSE. Early we disagree on quite a lot, but when it comes down to it if he ran to be an MP I'd be out there knocking on doors to help him become one. The new party seems to represent an anti-Brexit cult and stands for little else.
These stories usually unravel. But this isn't really something I know much about - is it true? If it is it will be damage that will last long after we've rejoined.
It's selective wording. All the deals will be ready doesn't outline which deals he is talking about. An uninitiated viewer might think he's talking about all 40 non-EU deals, when he is in fact talking about the paltry 7 deals he has managed to roll over.
I dont expect a majority government again by either Labour or Tory parties. Brexit has broken both of them beyond repair (defections to TIG haven't got going yet), and the millions of dispossessed angry morons out there demanding that we all eat Grass aren't going to vote for either again.
A general election as soon as possible is in the urgent interests of both parties. Kill TIG before it has chance to organise. Kill the Brexit party the same way. Because if they don't they will lose a chink of voters to TIG and a chunk of voters to Farage and thats them done. The Brexit party will operate like NSDAP in the 1920s, holding political activism meetings to make angry people really angry. These meetings will be held in every Wethersponns pub in the country, and those of us not suffering from foaming dog fever are going to have a bad time.
People said the same thing about the Tories being destroyed after Maastricht and there would never be a Tory majority again. Yet here we are following a Tory majority last Parliament.
Same with Labour it got over the split with the SDP and the humiliation of the Winter of Discontent etc.
The pendulum will swing eventually.
In many ways though Labour only came back to power by becoming the SDP in the form of New Labour and the Tories only got back into power after the 1997 rout by becoming New Labour under Cameron and through the Coalition.
That might explain the scale of the Labour victory in 1997 but not the fact of it. Labour would have won that election had it simply repeated the 1992 manifesto - albeit much more narrowly. In the intervening years the public mood had shifted against the Tories - and was probably ready for and expecting a much clearer reversal of the Thatcher/Major years than Blair was inclined to offer.
That is a fair point: the “my enemy’s enemy is my friend” complex was a feature of the Cold War. But the same criticism is made of Corbyn: that in his desire to befriend anyone who is against the US, the West, he supports any old group of monsters without inquiring too deeply into what they are about, what they do and whether they are in line with his loudly proclaimed principles. And he doesn’t even have the excuse of a Cold War.
I think that's fair too and I'd apply it to myself as well (I'm embarrassed to think of some people that I once quite liked, like Arthur Scargill), except that I don't think people on the left (including me) feel that the aspects of the Cold War which involved the developed world vs the Third World have been resolved at all. For example, unlike some I'm not against Israel continuing as a distinct Jewish state, but it's undeniably true that if you are looking for suffering and unfairness in the area, the situation in Gaza is horrible, and in the West we're all tolerating it because Israel's an ally and Hamas are nasty. The reaction that therefore Hamas must be OK is of course wrong, but wrong in *exactly* the same way that most people on all sides practice in international attitudes.
What Iraq really taught me is that it's a mistake to believe that one fully understands an area one's not really familiar with, and intervention and killing people on one side or the other is rarely justified. I used to be quite a keen interventionist for perceived good causes. Now I'm really not, and one reason I like Corbyn apart from his personal merits is that he spotted the flaw before I did.
O/T Are we likely to see MV2 this coming week, rather than left until the 12th?
Could there even be a narrowly lost MV2 this week followed by a weekend of urgent arm-twisting and MV3 on the 12th?
Surely, nothing can happen until the unveiling of Cox's Codpiece?
Which is dependent on...? The EU giving ground - not going to happen. Cox just modifying his previous interpretation - could happen right away.
He has to have a reason to change his interpretation or it really is pointless.
And Barnier keeps saying he will aid the narrative on the political declaration so something will be given. We will soon be aware of the detail and then it is mps decision time
G, all they will get is some waffle. Nothing is going to change in the WA.
Morning Malc - it will be lots of fudge/tablet and many people like fudge/tablet
Anyone thinking the current UK Labour party is at the lowest possible ebb should check out SLab leader Richard Leonard on Sunday Politics Scotland. Even I'm embarrassed.
I dont expect a majority government again by either Labour or Tory parties. Brexit has broken both of them beyond repair (defections to TIG haven't got going yet), and the millions of dispossessed angry morons out there demanding that we all eat Grass aren't going to vote for either again.
A general election as soon as possible is in the urgent interests of both parties. Kill TIG before it has chance to organise. Kill the Brexit party the same way. Because if they don't they will lose a chink of voters to TIG and a chunk of voters to Farage and thats them done. The Brexit party will operate like NSDAP in the 1920s, holding political activism meetings to make angry people really angry. These meetings will be held in every Wethersponns pub in the country, and those of us not suffering from foaming dog fever are going to have a bad time.
People said the same thing about the Tories being destroyed after Maastricht and there would never be a Tory majority again. Yet here we are following a Tory majority last Parliament.
Same with Labour it got over the split with the SDP and the humiliation of the Winter of Discontent etc.
The pendulum will swing eventually.
In many ways though Labour only came back to power by becoming the SDP in the form of New Labour and the Tories only got back into power after the 1997 rout by becoming New Labour under Cameron and through the Coalition.
That might explain the scale of the Labour victory in 1997 but not the fact of it. Labour would have won that election had it simply repeated the 1992 manifesto - albeit much more narrowly. In the intervening years the public mood had shifted against the Tories - and was probably ready for and expecting a much clearer reversal of the Thatcher/Major years than Blair was inclined to offer.
Possibly, possibly not but the 1997 election would have been much closer if Kinnock had stayed Labour leader and the Tories would have had a much better chance in 2001 too.
The fact is no old Left Labour leader and no Thatcherite Tory leader has won a majority at a general election for 32 years. Major, Blair, Cameron, indeed to some extent May are all closer ideologically to each other than they are to say Corbyn and Ed Miliband or IDS and Michael Howard
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/03/labour-balance-of-terror-has-shifted-now-corbynites-have-cause-to-be-fearful
Corbyn for one - sure he rebelled many many times but he was still happy to serve as part of the Blair project all those years.
If they would vote differently if there is a whip imposed then they don't care that much.
The claim as far as I can see has never been that the UK was training the KR in the 70s when they were in power. It is that they were training the anti-Vietnam coalition which was led by the KR in the mid to late 80s when they were attempting to get rid of the Vietnamese force from Cambodia. The smoke screen as explained by the Guardian was they were only supposed to train the Royalist forces but everyone knew the leaders of the coalition were the KR.
I am not sure if that isn't actually worse since by then everyone knew what the KR had been up to. It sounds to me like it would be on a par with training the SS to retake East Germany in the 1950s.
And now I have Blair on Marr - boy does he switch you off
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47431249
They work themselves into such a frenzy over how it's all a massive conspiracy that whenever anyone points to their absurdity it's just further proof of the conspiracy in action. It's precisely the same counter-factual guff that has Brexiteers insistent that a deal to leave the EU has to be rejected because by leaving the EU we aren't leaving the EU.
The confirmatory referendum which surely now will be the swerve away from no deal will have on it do you want to accept the deal to leave the EU or not? If not then the status quo continues, that's always what happens on this kind of referendum. And the "I'd rather eat grass" bridge will be outraged because there isn't an option on there to leave the EU.
The article goes on with further detail.
There are stones in British foreign policy which are embarrassing to turn over.
Brexit - not AS - is the fulcrum. The party is very clear that it wants Labour pushing for a confirmatory referendum, with remain not only on the paper but our advocated position. This was argued out at conference and since then LOTO has spent an absurd amount of effort not only ignoring policy but claiming to be following it. A lot of soft Corbyn supporters are massively unimpressed by this, LOTO and the screaming Arabs know this, which is why we have seen the clear hysterical panic from them since TIG broke away.
Jeremy Corbyn will never be Prime Minister, and the realisation of this has sent the cult leaders insane. It's a fight to the death. Corbyn or Watson. And when Watson wins (whether inside the party or out, we will win), the cult will tear itself apart in recriminations and excommunication (as has already happened to Lansman)
A general election as soon as possible is in the urgent interests of both parties. Kill TIG before it has chance to organise. Kill the Brexit party the same way. Because if they don't they will lose a chink of voters to TIG and a chunk of voters to Farage and thats them done. The Brexit party will operate like NSDAP in the 1920s, holding political activism meetings to make angry people really angry. These meetings will be held in every Wethersponns pub in the country, and those of us not suffering from foaming dog fever are going to have a bad time.
Before the 2015 election Quentin Letts wrote a column where he referred to Ed Milliband's 'giant conk'. I got emails from friends directing me to the article. You'll find very few Jewish people who wouldn't find this offensive.
By contrast when Naz Shah suggested it would be better if Israel could be moved to the United States -originally a line from an American Jewish comedian-I would be surprised if most Jews would think it offensive
For my Grandmother's generation the biggest crime any Jew could commit was to 'marry out' . To prevent this it was necessary to create an undesirable 'other'. Blacks were Sch.... Non Jews were G... low class ones Bat....*. That was prejudice which was easily understood. Integration was very limied. Michael Howard was always prefixed 'The pretend Jew'.....
.....But now it's more complicated. It's hard enough identifying who or what is a Jew let alone examining the psyche of someone to establish whether they're prejudiced against them
Even if this Labour panel was made up of Jewish psychiatrists you'd have as many opinions as you have members. But you wont even have that. You'll have a committee of Labour union leaders and officials who won't have any understanding of anti semitism and worse still they'll be playing to the gallery. For those facing examination It'll be Kafka's worse nightmare.
Watson has a very flawed history and is not some whiter than white hero. But he, at least, seems to understand that there is a serious problem with anti-semitism within Labour, that the leadership has not dealt with it well and is trying to do something about this. For this he deserves some credit.
It's all past history now, but perhaps a cautionary note when any of us are tempted to denounce anyone (or any country) for what they said 40 years ago.
It's an interesting self-reflection to consider where one draws a line if someone one supports goes off the rails. I originally thought the Taliban sounded quite refreshing - not so corrupt, etc. - until I read more about what they were doing. And to some extent I think that even Ministers don't always realise (or want to realise) just what sort of people they are supporting.
Same with Labour it got over the split with the SDP and the humiliation of the Winter of Discontent etc.
The pendulum will swing eventually.
'Wait a mo' Josef, I just need to tell this fecker on Twitter that he's speaking complete bollocks.'
c.f. Trump and everybody around him who has been indicted...
But rigjt now, he is the last line of defence. Forget about Blair, Mandleson st al - they are long departed and utterly discredited. Watson on the other hand is still at His right hand and enough of a sharp operator to be able to redeploy his zealotry as a weapon. Tough on Corbyn, tough on the causes of Corbyn.
He will win the fight. It's possible he does so by leading a mass exodus into TIG once it becomes clear that it's a death cult who will slaughter literally anyone who opposes them no matter how futile it has become. But I still believe Corbyn can be defeated - it's emperor's new clothes time and unfortunately on Brexit all the mass membership who had enthusiastically supported him can see his cock and they're repulsed by what they see.
How long does it take to track where the money came from . It seems to me that political pressure might want this delayed till after Brexit.
If a decision comes out before that shows Russian money was involved and he’s charged this would add more drama into an already febrile atmosphere .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nASMUMDaWyg
Be careful what you wish for!
I've long given up expecting logical arguments that aren't contradicted before the conclusion is reached.
https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1102165930887598086
https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1102166184642965504
I also think if the deal+extension passes (and I'm increasingly confident it will) May standing down will be part of that deal. Once May goes a lot of the governance issues go with her (Grayling especially).
More often than not these people being exposed as antisemites haven't just posted or liked one dodgy tweet, there is a history of it and / or attending events of some really dodgy groups.
When I was young I knew a Czech doctor who practised in UK (he was anti-communist) who had escaped as a young man from his own country half-way through his medical studies, made his way to the Middle East, fought at Tobruk, then got to Beirut University and qualified as a doctor. then rejoined the Czech forces. he was quite a guy, and a good doctor.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/no-deal-brexit-threatens-cull-of-10m-lambs-jp7c87qtm
https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1102168826018521089
What Iraq really taught me is that it's a mistake to believe that one fully understands an area one's not really familiar with, and intervention and killing people on one side or the other is rarely justified. I used to be quite a keen interventionist for perceived good causes. Now I'm really not, and one reason I like Corbyn apart from his personal merits is that he spotted the flaw before I did.
The fact is no old Left Labour leader and no Thatcherite Tory leader has won a majority at a general election for 32 years. Major, Blair, Cameron, indeed to some extent May are all closer ideologically to each other than they are to say Corbyn and Ed Miliband or IDS and Michael Howard
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/03/brexit-labour-will-whip-mps-to-back-second-referendum-says-mcdonnell
https://twitter.com/mattwardman/status/1102179557426323456
The article is linked below, and includes nothing about the UK and the Khmer Rouge before 1983 - when it was training after they had been expelled. Dodgy - probably. Complicity in genocide - no.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/politics/2014/04/how-thatcher-gave-pol-pot-hand