A flattering portrayal of Nick Lowles, the chief dude at Hope Not Hate, focused on the risk of political violence from the extreme right
It casually mentions half way through that he was a student Trotskyist, like it’s no problem, because of course political violence of the extreme LEFT is just fine
The double standards are so howlingly blatant I can only presume the Guardian doesn’t even see them
Is that so ? It acknowledges it, but does it condone ? .. “When I first got involved in anti-fascism – this was late 80s – it was all about the street. I’m not saying it was right, but that’s how it was. You didn’t have cameras.” So, wait, he doesn’t mean handing out leaflets in the street? “No, you would have groups of Nazis and groups of anti-fascists, and they would battle it out, down sidestreets, and sometimes it got quite violent. I mean, look at me, I’m not built for that. I never got involved in that. But that was the world it was.”..
Oh give over. What if someone said “yes I was in the national front as a teenager” - would she simply have passed by that without mention and interrogation? Of course not. And the NF didn’t want to overthrow liberal capitalism - unlike the Trots
It’s fuxking ludicrous. This guy is held up an an exemplary opponent of right wing political violence yet it turns out he was a revolutionary activist in his youth, desiring to end parliamentary democracy, and she doesn’t even note that this is somewhat jarring
I don't get why we give communism such a free pass. Most of the most horrible regimes of modern history have been communist. Saying "I'm a communist" is tantamount to saying "I favour overthrowing liberal democracy and replacing it with a totalitarian system (which whenever it has been tried has led to tyranny)". Yet apparently we are unconcerned about having people who are members of the communist party as advisors to government (I'm thinking in particular of Susan Michie, during Covid). I'm content to allow people to take their own view on what society should be, but surely being a member of the communist party should ring some alarm bells? I'm pretty sure being a member of the National Front or whatever its equivalent is this year would raise the odd eyebrow.
The right-wing press and right-wong commentators are always going on about people with connections to the Communist party (or -ies). Where does this "apparently we are unconcerned" come from?
Easy. If you went to most parties and said: "I am a Nazi" or "I am a fascist", you will get thrown out, or worse. If you say "I am a Communist", you might get a roll of the eyes, but little else.
Communism is *much* more acceptable, despite its blood-drenched history.
They were both terrible ideologies.
And because - to take the advantage of Susan Michie - members of the communist party are able to work for and advise government.
Lots of people advise government. The government doesn't vet most of them for whether they are a member of a political party. Unless someone is a member of a proscribed group, they are able to work for and advise government.
Can I just clarify what your point is here? Do you think the government should vet everyone who advises them for undesirable political beliefs? What happened to free speech?
‘Are you now wearing or have you ever worn a t shirt with the words Palestine and Action on it?’
I rocked up to the last seat selection hustings I went to completely without notes. Knew my opening and closing comments verbatim and my key points. Completely flummoxed one of the other candidates who had reams of notes and even then kept forgetting her point.
It's much better if you can. I gave my maiden speech in Parliament entirely from notes, as I was nervous. It was a bit rubbish, whereas later speeches without notes were better (though I'll never sway the millions).
I’ve taught myself to play an extrovert and to be able to speak in public over the years, with bullet points and cue cards for a familiar subject - but a maiden speech in Parliament is one of those you’re going to want in front of you written out in full!
As somebody who regularly gives speeches to large meetings I've learned it is best to write bullet points down (and key gags) down rather than the whole speech.
I once used a teleprompter and it was a bigger disaster than the Liz Truss premiership, I kept on looking at that and completely losing my focus.
Had I become an MP my first speech to Parliament would have begun like this
'Hello, my name is Mr Eagles, and I'm an alcoholic, oh wait, wrong speech.'
Yes, with a couple of key points which act as waypoints within the speech.
Same when I am presenting sales stuff to clients. Slides are few in number and literally there as visual aides. And often not used at all much to the annoyance of colleagues who think 704 slides are best.
A flattering portrayal of Nick Lowles, the chief dude at Hope Not Hate, focused on the risk of political violence from the extreme right
It casually mentions half way through that he was a student Trotskyist, like it’s no problem, because of course political violence of the extreme LEFT is just fine
The double standards are so howlingly blatant I can only presume the Guardian doesn’t even see them
Is that so ? It acknowledges it, but does it condone ? .. “When I first got involved in anti-fascism – this was late 80s – it was all about the street. I’m not saying it was right, but that’s how it was. You didn’t have cameras.” So, wait, he doesn’t mean handing out leaflets in the street? “No, you would have groups of Nazis and groups of anti-fascists, and they would battle it out, down sidestreets, and sometimes it got quite violent. I mean, look at me, I’m not built for that. I never got involved in that. But that was the world it was.”..
Oh give over. What if someone said “yes I was in the national front as a teenager” - would she simply have passed by that without mention and interrogation? Of course not. And the NF didn’t want to overthrow liberal capitalism - unlike the Trots
It’s fuxking ludicrous. This guy is held up an an exemplary opponent of right wing political violence yet it turns out he was a revolutionary activist in his youth, desiring to end parliamentary democracy, and she doesn’t even note that this is somewhat jarring
It would depend. If the NF don't break any laws then there is nothing on them beyond exposing their views, and argument, and campaigning. Exactly the same goes for the trots. And most people grow up - there were a fair few ex-radicals in the Blair government iirc.
It would perhaps be somewhat sympathetic - it's by Zoe Williams in the Guardian, and on the occasion of publication of a book. But equally, there was a rather desperate hatchet job in the Spectator 2-3 weeks ago by John Power which missed out some important facts about at least one race science organisation he mentioned; the representative said "no it isn't" and he did not bother to check. But then the Speccie has in recent decades been comfortable with giving house room to the extreme right.
The thing that continues to impress me about Hope not Hate is that they are notably effective, and they make very few mistakes. It's all published with names and photographs, yet for some reason none of the people they expose ever sue for defamation - I presume because the material is accurate. There are plenty of people who could fund their fees - starting with Elon Musk - and one serious lost defamation action would take down HNH and finish them.
The opponents either whine on twitter, or plot violence, or publish smears.
Tommy Robinson and Co seem to think he's an exemplary opponent of extremist violence, but then HNH are the ones who keep supplying the evidence exposing him for the criminal he is. And they provided the evidence that last spring that resulted in one organiser of last year's Extreme Right Riots (my choice of words) - Andrew McIntyre - getting 7+ years in prison. I wish the police were as proactive.
It's a fascinating investigation, involving tracking 160 social media accounts:
A flattering portrayal of Nick Lowles, the chief dude at Hope Not Hate, focused on the risk of political violence from the extreme right
It casually mentions half way through that he was a student Trotskyist, like it’s no problem, because of course political violence of the extreme LEFT is just fine
The double standards are so howlingly blatant I can only presume the Guardian doesn’t even see them
Peter Hitchens was a student Trotskyist, too. And many other 1980's conservatives.
Of course the millions who died under Stalin used their last breath to mutter "At least I'm dying for a noble cause - how bad would it be to be killed by a Nazi?"
Stalin was definitely not a Trotskyist.
He was a communist though.
So why did Stalin have him murdered?
Paranoia? Why did Stalin have millions murdered?
Do you think Churchill was wrong to team up with him during ze War?
I think, perhaps, that's why, historically, Commies got a "free pass" as @Cookie mentions.
Sir David Davis is uniting the Commons against Mandelson
I wonder what further measures they can take against Mandelson. Expulsion from the Lords, a prison sentence, execution even?
Silly comment
He should be removed from Labour and the Lords
For what? Writing yum yum in a birthday card?
This is hysteria.
Maybe if you listen to the house debate you would see mps anger and more importantly the Epstein victims family tearful interviews about Mandelson
By the sounds of it, the “debate” is less of a debate than a tawdry display of schmaltz-stirring.
What is tawdy is Mandelson representing our country
An appointment widely considered very savvy politics, and which seems to have actually paid off for the UK, at least until last week.
I dislike Mandelson as much as the next man, but his excessive loyalty to Epstein is the least of his offences, and Britain is in a geopolitical crisis.
Tell that to the Epstein's family victims who condemned him in tears this weekend
In your excitability, your posts give the impression that Mandelson should be held responsible for the abuse that Epstein's victims suffered. I don't think anybody is accusing Mandelson of that. If Mandelson had never existed, I don't imagine it would have made any difference to Epstein's victims.
Mandelson was a poor appointment by Starmer, especially with the benefit of hindsight. But that's about all there is to it.
There is nothing excitable about the victims families tears even if you find this difficult
Indeed Ed Davey is speaking on this now
Unfortunately discussing the victims’ families tears does not serve to improve the country - the Mandelson appointment was an error, the PM probably knows and accepts this and is running out of rope, everyone has had their pound of flesh (however much it is fun to jab at Starmer on here for it).
This debate however shows, in my mind, how unserious our political class has got. There will inevitably be shroud waving and MPs lining up to emote, do doubt we will have tearful personal stories from MPs as has become a habit and it won’t change a damn thing in the country or the world but will make MPs feel worthy.
As TSE pointed out earlier, this time would be better used on matters such as drone incursions into Poland, sending RAF planes and other kit to aid our ally. Or debating the new google data centre’s future energy needs in relation to closing off North Sea drilling, frankly anything that MPs can achieve to make the country run better and grow.
This however is easy vanity, Mandelson has paid the price, Starmer is paying a price, others in his team will pay a price and yet nothing said today will ensure that the majority of those responsible with Epstein, namely a lot of high profile Americans, will pay a price as it’s not in the remit of Parliament.
Yes. My point, eloquently expanded.
I agree, but everyone seemed happy to pile in on partygate, which was equally trivial.
Partygate seems neither comparable or trivial. We've recently had more revelations about Johnson holding gatherings in breach of the rules as well.
Partygate was certainly not trivial on the doorstep. When I was canvassing in the West Country one old boy burst into tears when the topic came up.
And I am sure that you can find many similarly aghast at Mandelson - victims of childhood sexual abuse for instance. The point upthread is that there are serious issues affecting the country yet parliament is wasting three hours on this. I felt the same about partygate.
Partygate was critically important because if we have another national emergency we need people to trust the establishment when asked to make significant personal sacrifices - from going to war or abandoning homes ahead of a flood, or rationing food.
The COVID rules may have been silly*, but that was in the main an honest misjudgment. That will happen again if the big flood doesn't actually materialise, or a harvest does eventually come in. But we expect our leaders to make those decisions to the best of their ability and to abide by they own instructions.
*no indoor mixing was one of the more sensible ones IMO, particularly at the time the parties
Of course one of the silliest things was that you could work in the office all day but as soon as work stopped you could no longer mix. Which was mad. If you weren't infected between 9 and 5, 5-6 probably wasn't going to do it.
I know I am probably in a minority of one, but I genuinely think Johnson tried his best. He was not at the hedonistic parties that have come to represent partygate to the public, but I suspect a lot of people think he was.
He wasn't, but we've recently discovered that there were a bunch of additional social engagements Johnson held in breach of the rules.
Thin gruel - the baby shower in particular. And doesn't really change what anyone thinks of Johnson.
You don't think Johnson repeatedly breaking his own govt's rules matters, so of course you think it's thin gruel! It certainly doesn't seem like "Johnson tried his best" (your earlier claim) to me.
No, it doesn't change what anyone thinks of Johnson now. Imagine if all this had come out at the time, however! People thought the Sue Gray report was it, but there was all this other stuff going on.
I know one pollster and this has been backed up by others buy when you listen to the focus groups about why the don’t trust politicians there’s two events most of them cite, one is Tony Blair lying about the Iraq war and the second is Boris Johnson breaking his own lockdown rules whilst keeping most of the country under lockdown.
So many people missed the death of loved ones/the funerals of them due to those lockdown regulations, my father’s ex colleagues weren’t even allowed to have Christmas lunch together at the hospital for those reasons.
People don’t forget that.
Didn't Johnson assert that people like nurses and doctors had had leaving parties during lockdown? Something like that, anyway.
I rocked up to the last seat selection hustings I went to completely without notes. Knew my opening and closing comments verbatim and my key points. Completely flummoxed one of the other candidates who had reams of notes and even then kept forgetting her point.
It's much better if you can. I gave my maiden speech in Parliament entirely from notes, as I was nervous. It was a bit rubbish, whereas later speeches without notes were better (though I'll never sway the millions).
I’ve taught myself to play an extrovert and to be able to speak in public over the years, with bullet points and cue cards for a familiar subject - but a maiden speech in Parliament is one of those you’re going to want in front of you written out in full!
As somebody who regularly gives speeches to large meetings I've learned it is best to write bullet points down (and key gags) down rather than the whole speech.
I once used a teleprompter and it was a bigger disaster than the Liz Truss premiership, I kept on looking at that and completely losing my focus.
Had I become an MP my first speech to Parliament would have begun like this
'Hello, my name is Mr Eagles, and I'm an alcoholic, oh wait, wrong speech.'
Sir David Davis is uniting the Commons against Mandelson
I wonder what further measures they can take against Mandelson. Expulsion from the Lords, a prison sentence, execution even?
Silly comment
He should be removed from Labour and the Lords
For what? Writing yum yum in a birthday card?
This is hysteria.
Maybe if you listen to the house debate you would see mps anger and more importantly the Epstein victims family tearful interviews about Mandelson
By the sounds of it, the “debate” is less of a debate than a tawdry display of schmaltz-stirring.
What is tawdy is Mandelson representing our country
An appointment widely considered very savvy politics, and which seems to have actually paid off for the UK, at least until last week.
I dislike Mandelson as much as the next man, but his excessive loyalty to Epstein is the least of his offences, and Britain is in a geopolitical crisis.
Tell that to the Epstein's family victims who condemned him in tears this weekend
In your excitability, your posts give the impression that Mandelson should be held responsible for the abuse that Epstein's victims suffered. I don't think anybody is accusing Mandelson of that. If Mandelson had never existed, I don't imagine it would have made any difference to Epstein's victims.
Mandelson was a poor appointment by Starmer, especially with the benefit of hindsight. But that's about all there is to it.
There is nothing excitable about the victims families tears even if you find this difficult
Indeed Ed Davey is speaking on this now
Unfortunately discussing the victims’ families tears does not serve to improve the country - the Mandelson appointment was an error, the PM probably knows and accepts this and is running out of rope, everyone has had their pound of flesh (however much it is fun to jab at Starmer on here for it).
This debate however shows, in my mind, how unserious our political class has got. There will inevitably be shroud waving and MPs lining up to emote, do doubt we will have tearful personal stories from MPs as has become a habit and it won’t change a damn thing in the country or the world but will make MPs feel worthy.
As TSE pointed out earlier, this time would be better used on matters such as drone incursions into Poland, sending RAF planes and other kit to aid our ally. Or debating the new google data centre’s future energy needs in relation to closing off North Sea drilling, frankly anything that MPs can achieve to make the country run better and grow.
This however is easy vanity, Mandelson has paid the price, Starmer is paying a price, others in his team will pay a price and yet nothing said today will ensure that the majority of those responsible with Epstein, namely a lot of high profile Americans, will pay a price as it’s not in the remit of Parliament.
Yes. My point, eloquently expanded.
I agree, but everyone seemed happy to pile in on partygate, which was equally trivial.
Partygate seems neither comparable or trivial. We've recently had more revelations about Johnson holding gatherings in breach of the rules as well.
Partygate was certainly not trivial on the doorstep. When I was canvassing in the West Country one old boy burst into tears when the topic came up.
And I am sure that you can find many similarly aghast at Mandelson - victims of childhood sexual abuse for instance. The point upthread is that there are serious issues affecting the country yet parliament is wasting three hours on this. I felt the same about partygate.
Partygate was critically important because if we have another national emergency we need people to trust the establishment when asked to make significant personal sacrifices - from going to war or abandoning homes ahead of a flood, or rationing food.
The COVID rules may have been silly*, but that was in the main an honest misjudgment. That will happen again if the big flood doesn't actually materialise, or a harvest does eventually come in. But we expect our leaders to make those decisions to the best of their ability and to abide by they own instructions.
*no indoor mixing was one of the more sensible ones IMO, particularly at the time the parties
Of course one of the silliest things was that you could work in the office all day but as soon as work stopped you could no longer mix. Which was mad. If you weren't infected between 9 and 5, 5-6 probably wasn't going to do it.
I know I am probably in a minority of one, but I genuinely think Johnson tried his best. He was not at the hedonistic parties that have come to represent partygate to the public, but I suspect a lot of people think he was.
He wasn't, but we've recently discovered that there were a bunch of additional social engagements Johnson held in breach of the rules.
Thin gruel - the baby shower in particular. And doesn't really change what anyone thinks of Johnson.
You don't think Johnson repeatedly breaking his own govt's rules matters, so of course you think it's thin gruel! It certainly doesn't seem like "Johnson tried his best" (your earlier claim) to me.
No, it doesn't change what anyone thinks of Johnson now. Imagine if all this had come out at the time, however! People thought the Sue Gray report was it, but there was all this other stuff going on.
I know one pollster and this has been backed up by others buy when you listen to the focus groups about why the don’t trust politicians there’s two events most of them cite, one is Tony Blair lying about the Iraq war and the second is Boris Johnson breaking his own lockdown rules whilst keeping most of the country under lockdown.
So many people missed the death of loved ones/the funerals of them due to those lockdown regulations, my father’s ex colleagues weren’t even allowed to have Christmas lunch together at the hospital for those reasons.
People don’t forget that.
Pa Woolie detests Johnson for it. When Mum died we were allowed 30 at the funeral but the rule of six was in place socially so Mums farewell wake was 6 of us having fish and chips at my family home. He has not and will never forgive Johnson for the parties
A flattering portrayal of Nick Lowles, the chief dude at Hope Not Hate, focused on the risk of political violence from the extreme right
It casually mentions half way through that he was a student Trotskyist, like it’s no problem, because of course political violence of the extreme LEFT is just fine
The double standards are so howlingly blatant I can only presume the Guardian doesn’t even see them
Is that so ? It acknowledges it, but does it condone ? .. “When I first got involved in anti-fascism – this was late 80s – it was all about the street. I’m not saying it was right, but that’s how it was. You didn’t have cameras.” So, wait, he doesn’t mean handing out leaflets in the street? “No, you would have groups of Nazis and groups of anti-fascists, and they would battle it out, down sidestreets, and sometimes it got quite violent. I mean, look at me, I’m not built for that. I never got involved in that. But that was the world it was.”..
Oh give over. What if someone said “yes I was in the national front as a teenager” - would she simply have passed by that without mention and interrogation? Of course not. And the NF didn’t want to overthrow liberal capitalism - unlike the Trots
It’s fuxking ludicrous. This guy is held up an an exemplary opponent of right wing political violence yet it turns out he was a revolutionary activist in his youth, desiring to end parliamentary democracy, and she doesn’t even note that this is somewhat jarring
I don't get why we give communism such a free pass. Most of the most horrible regimes of modern history have been communist. Saying "I'm a communist" is tantamount to saying "I favour overthrowing liberal democracy and replacing it with a totalitarian system (which whenever it has been tried has led to tyranny)". Yet apparently we are unconcerned about having people who are members of the communist party as advisors to government (I'm thinking in particular of Susan Michie, during Covid). I'm content to allow people to take their own view on what society should be, but surely being a member of the communist party should ring some alarm bells? I'm pretty sure being a member of the National Front or whatever its equivalent is this year would raise the odd eyebrow.
The right-wing press and right-wong commentators are always going on about people with connections to the Communist party (or -ies). Where does this "apparently we are unconcerned" come from?
Easy. If you went to most parties and said: "I am a Nazi" or "I am a fascist", you will get thrown out, or worse. If you say "I am a Communist", you might get a roll of the eyes, but little else.
Communism is *much* more acceptable, despite its blood-drenched history.
They were both terrible ideologies.
They were, and indeed still are, both terrible ideologies.
Fascism says it wants to spill blood. Communism says it doesn't want to spill blood... but has often ended up there. That's the difference. I share your criticisms of communism and I think those who support communism should be strongly pressed on what they think was happening in the Soviet Union, Cambodia, Albania etc., but they're not actively calling for violence in quite the same way as fascists.
Fascism wants control. It will spill blood to get that control. Often, the control it wants is outside its borders.
Communism wants control. It will spill blood to get that control. Often, the control it wants is outside its borders.
You articulate the difference between them perfectly.
A flattering portrayal of Nick Lowles, the chief dude at Hope Not Hate, focused on the risk of political violence from the extreme right
It casually mentions half way through that he was a student Trotskyist, like it’s no problem, because of course political violence of the extreme LEFT is just fine
The double standards are so howlingly blatant I can only presume the Guardian doesn’t even see them
Is that so ? It acknowledges it, but does it condone ? .. “When I first got involved in anti-fascism – this was late 80s – it was all about the street. I’m not saying it was right, but that’s how it was. You didn’t have cameras.” So, wait, he doesn’t mean handing out leaflets in the street? “No, you would have groups of Nazis and groups of anti-fascists, and they would battle it out, down sidestreets, and sometimes it got quite violent. I mean, look at me, I’m not built for that. I never got involved in that. But that was the world it was.”..
Oh give over. What if someone said “yes I was in the national front as a teenager” - would she simply have passed by that without mention and interrogation? Of course not. And the NF didn’t want to overthrow liberal capitalism - unlike the Trots
It’s fuxking ludicrous. This guy is held up an an exemplary opponent of right wing political violence yet it turns out he was a revolutionary activist in his youth, desiring to end parliamentary democracy, and she doesn’t even note that this is somewhat jarring
I don't get why we give communism such a free pass. Most of the most horrible regimes of modern history have been communist. Saying "I'm a communist" is tantamount to saying "I favour overthrowing liberal democracy and replacing it with a totalitarian system (which whenever it has been tried has led to tyranny)". Yet apparently we are unconcerned about having people who are members of the communist party as advisors to government (I'm thinking in particular of Susan Michie, during Covid). I'm content to allow people to take their own view on what society should be, but surely being a member of the communist party should ring some alarm bells? I'm pretty sure being a member of the National Front or whatever its equivalent is this year would raise the odd eyebrow.
Boris Johnson elevated Claire Fox, a former member of the Revolutionary Communist Party, to the House of Lords. Did any of the PB Rightists complain about that?
I did.
Fucking disgrace that Boris Johnson put that IRA apologist in the Lords.
I thought the IRA favoured Hitler?
It's complicated. The IRA turned quite fascist in the 1930s. By the 1950s, they supported a model similar to the autocratic Salazar in Portugal (fascist-lite?). But they moved left in the 1960s, which takes us to the 1969 split and the Official IRA went avowedly Marxist. The Provisional IRA, while not as clearly communist, still claimed to be socialist and themselves moved towards Marxism in the 1980s.
I rocked up to the last seat selection hustings I went to completely without notes. Knew my opening and closing comments verbatim and my key points. Completely flummoxed one of the other candidates who had reams of notes and even then kept forgetting her point.
It's much better if you can. I gave my maiden speech in Parliament entirely from notes, as I was nervous. It was a bit rubbish, whereas later speeches without notes were better (though I'll never sway the millions).
I’ve taught myself to play an extrovert and to be able to speak in public over the years, with bullet points and cue cards for a familiar subject - but a maiden speech in Parliament is one of those you’re going to want in front of you written out in full!
As somebody who regularly gives speeches to large meetings I've learned it is best to write bullet points down (and key gags) down rather than the whole speech.
I once used a teleprompter and it was a bigger disaster than the Liz Truss premiership, I kept on looking at that and completely losing my focus.
Had I become an MP my first speech to Parliament would have begun like this
'Hello, my name is Mr Eagles, and I'm an alcoholic, oh wait, wrong speech.'
"Fornication, we can all enjoy... sorry, I'll read that again... for an occasion we can all enjoy..."
A flattering portrayal of Nick Lowles, the chief dude at Hope Not Hate, focused on the risk of political violence from the extreme right
It casually mentions half way through that he was a student Trotskyist, like it’s no problem, because of course political violence of the extreme LEFT is just fine
The double standards are so howlingly blatant I can only presume the Guardian doesn’t even see them
Is that so ? It acknowledges it, but does it condone ? .. “When I first got involved in anti-fascism – this was late 80s – it was all about the street. I’m not saying it was right, but that’s how it was. You didn’t have cameras.” So, wait, he doesn’t mean handing out leaflets in the street? “No, you would have groups of Nazis and groups of anti-fascists, and they would battle it out, down sidestreets, and sometimes it got quite violent. I mean, look at me, I’m not built for that. I never got involved in that. But that was the world it was.”..
Oh give over. What if someone said “yes I was in the national front as a teenager” - would she simply have passed by that without mention and interrogation? Of course not. And the NF didn’t want to overthrow liberal capitalism - unlike the Trots
It’s fuxking ludicrous. This guy is held up an an exemplary opponent of right wing political violence yet it turns out he was a revolutionary activist in his youth, desiring to end parliamentary democracy, and she doesn’t even note that this is somewhat jarring
I don't get why we give communism such a free pass. Most of the most horrible regimes of modern history have been communist. Saying "I'm a communist" is tantamount to saying "I favour overthrowing liberal democracy and replacing it with a totalitarian system (which whenever it has been tried has led to tyranny)". Yet apparently we are unconcerned about having people who are members of the communist party as advisors to government (I'm thinking in particular of Susan Michie, during Covid). I'm content to allow people to take their own view on what society should be, but surely being a member of the communist party should ring some alarm bells? I'm pretty sure being a member of the National Front or whatever its equivalent is this year would raise the odd eyebrow.
The right-wing press and right-wong commentators are always going on about people with connections to the Communist party (or -ies). Where does this "apparently we are unconcerned" come from?
Easy. If you went to most parties and said: "I am a Nazi" or "I am a fascist", you will get thrown out, or worse. If you say "I am a Communist", you might get a roll of the eyes, but little else.
Communism is *much* more acceptable, despite its blood-drenched history.
They were both terrible ideologies.
And because - to take the advantage of Susan Michie - members of the communist party are able to work for and advise government.
Lots of people advise government. The government doesn't vet most of them for whether they are a member of a political party. Unless someone is a member of a proscribed group, they are able to work for and advise government.
Can I just clarify what your point is here? Do you think the government should vet everyone who advises them for undesirable political beliefs? What happened to free speech?
My point is that, rightly, government would be wary of inviting in or taking advice from anyone who was a member of the National Front, or modern equivalent, but seems unconcerned about doing so with communists, which seems equivalent. I gave the example of Susan Michie - I was very wary of a member of the communist party being allowed to guide policy with major societal implications - but OLB quite rightly also gave the example of Claire Fox, which I think is also valid. I'm not against these people's views being expressed - it seems right to me that they should be - but it seems daft that you solicit the views of these people. If you're trying to build a better society, you probably don't want to take advice from those who want to smash it apart.
I rocked up to the last seat selection hustings I went to completely without notes. Knew my opening and closing comments verbatim and my key points. Completely flummoxed one of the other candidates who had reams of notes and even then kept forgetting her point.
It's much better if you can. I gave my maiden speech in Parliament entirely from notes, as I was nervous. It was a bit rubbish, whereas later speeches without notes were better (though I'll never sway the millions).
I’ve taught myself to play an extrovert and to be able to speak in public over the years, with bullet points and cue cards for a familiar subject - but a maiden speech in Parliament is one of those you’re going to want in front of you written out in full!
As somebody who regularly gives speeches to large meetings I've learned it is best to write bullet points down (and key gags) down rather than the whole speech.
I once used a teleprompter and it was a bigger disaster than the Liz Truss premiership, I kept on looking at that and completely losing my focus.
Had I become an MP my first speech to Parliament would have begun like this
'Hello, my name is Mr Eagles, and I'm an alcoholic, oh wait, wrong speech.'
Correct venue, though.
Has anyone here done Toast Masters?
I've never got around to it, but I've had a fair amount of presentation / speaking training, start with a comms module at University. And I've usually enjoyed doing the speaking.
A flattering portrayal of Nick Lowles, the chief dude at Hope Not Hate, focused on the risk of political violence from the extreme right
It casually mentions half way through that he was a student Trotskyist, like it’s no problem, because of course political violence of the extreme LEFT is just fine
The double standards are so howlingly blatant I can only presume the Guardian doesn’t even see them
Is that so ? It acknowledges it, but does it condone ? .. “When I first got involved in anti-fascism – this was late 80s – it was all about the street. I’m not saying it was right, but that’s how it was. You didn’t have cameras.” So, wait, he doesn’t mean handing out leaflets in the street? “No, you would have groups of Nazis and groups of anti-fascists, and they would battle it out, down sidestreets, and sometimes it got quite violent. I mean, look at me, I’m not built for that. I never got involved in that. But that was the world it was.”..
Oh give over. What if someone said “yes I was in the national front as a teenager” - would she simply have passed by that without mention and interrogation? Of course not. And the NF didn’t want to overthrow liberal capitalism - unlike the Trots
It’s fuxking ludicrous. This guy is held up an an exemplary opponent of right wing political violence yet it turns out he was a revolutionary activist in his youth, desiring to end parliamentary democracy, and she doesn’t even note that this is somewhat jarring
Yeah the NF just wanted to round up my wife's family and millions like them and throw them out of the country. Harmless stuff.
Whereas communists are all sweetness and light and hardly ever engage in mass murder?
In the postwar UK the comparison is ludicrous and could only be made by a heterosexual white person. Anyone who is a member of a minority group knows that the far right pose a physical threat to their safety. I know people who had to literally fight the far right in order to remain in their homes in the 1970s/80s. Anyone who experienced the same kind of physical threat from the socialist workers party please feel free to share your experiences.
When Derek Beackon won a council seat in the early 1990s, I regularly saw signs saying "Kill the Nazi scum" from some organisation. I think it was the ANL or somesuch. Which amused me, as I was unconvinced that 'kill them' made the much different from the Nazis...
The 'ANL' in the early 1990s were a bunch of violent thugs looking for a fight that often never materialised.
They'd arrange 'counter attacks' to events that weren't even taking place as an excuse to get together and 'take to the streets'. Sometimes they'd do battle with football hooligans, for whom politics was unimportant at best. As long as the ANL side had the opposition outnumbered, obviously...
All this rubbish about 'fighting the Neo-Nazis' stuck to every lamppost in South London - only the actual Nazis barely existed. Who were they picking a fight with? Derek Beackon and his minder? A couple of old boys who'd been at NF rallies 20 years earlier?
The 'far right' a) aren't actually right wing, and b) barely exist. The actual far left are a far bigger threat/issue - and continue to justify their own hatred by manufacturing opponents out of thin air.
As a society/media/narrative we've got it badly arse-over-tit as usual.
I rocked up to the last seat selection hustings I went to completely without notes. Knew my opening and closing comments verbatim and my key points. Completely flummoxed one of the other candidates who had reams of notes and even then kept forgetting her point.
It's much better if you can. I gave my maiden speech in Parliament entirely from notes, as I was nervous. It was a bit rubbish, whereas later speeches without notes were better (though I'll never sway the millions).
I’ve taught myself to play an extrovert and to be able to speak in public over the years, with bullet points and cue cards for a familiar subject - but a maiden speech in Parliament is one of those you’re going to want in front of you written out in full!
As somebody who regularly gives speeches to large meetings I've learned it is best to write bullet points down (and key gags) down rather than the whole speech.
I once used a teleprompter and it was a bigger disaster than the Liz Truss premiership, I kept on looking at that and completely losing my focus.
Had I become an MP my first speech to Parliament would have begun like this
'Hello, my name is Mr Eagles, and I'm an alcoholic, oh wait, wrong speech.'
Yes, with a couple of key points which act as waypoints within the speech.
Same when I am presenting sales stuff to clients. Slides are few in number and literally there as visual aides. And often not used at all much to the annoyance of colleagues who think 704 slides are best.
The most tedious presentations are those where the presenter reads the slides verbatim.
A flattering portrayal of Nick Lowles, the chief dude at Hope Not Hate, focused on the risk of political violence from the extreme right
It casually mentions half way through that he was a student Trotskyist, like it’s no problem, because of course political violence of the extreme LEFT is just fine
The double standards are so howlingly blatant I can only presume the Guardian doesn’t even see them
Peter Hitchens was a student Trotskyist, too. And many other 1980's conservatives.
Of course the millions who died under Stalin used their last breath to mutter "At least I'm dying for a noble cause - how bad would it be to be killed by a Nazi?"
Stalin was definitely not a Trotskyist.
He was a communist though.
So why did Stalin have him murdered?
Paranoia? Why did Stalin have millions murdered?
Do you think Churchill was wrong to team up with him during ze War?
I think, perhaps, that's why, historically, Commies got a "free pass" as @Cookie mentions.
Many people were deceived or allowed themselves to be deceived by the USSR in the 1930's. And yes being our Allies, and all the Uncle Joe stuff had an effect. But the willful blindspot so many have about the evils of communism is unconscionable to me.
A flattering portrayal of Nick Lowles, the chief dude at Hope Not Hate, focused on the risk of political violence from the extreme right
It casually mentions half way through that he was a student Trotskyist, like it’s no problem, because of course political violence of the extreme LEFT is just fine
The double standards are so howlingly blatant I can only presume the Guardian doesn’t even see them
Is that so ? It acknowledges it, but does it condone ? .. “When I first got involved in anti-fascism – this was late 80s – it was all about the street. I’m not saying it was right, but that’s how it was. You didn’t have cameras.” So, wait, he doesn’t mean handing out leaflets in the street? “No, you would have groups of Nazis and groups of anti-fascists, and they would battle it out, down sidestreets, and sometimes it got quite violent. I mean, look at me, I’m not built for that. I never got involved in that. But that was the world it was.”..
Oh give over. What if someone said “yes I was in the national front as a teenager” - would she simply have passed by that without mention and interrogation? Of course not. And the NF didn’t want to overthrow liberal capitalism - unlike the Trots
It’s fuxking ludicrous. This guy is held up an an exemplary opponent of right wing political violence yet it turns out he was a revolutionary activist in his youth, desiring to end parliamentary democracy, and she doesn’t even note that this is somewhat jarring
I don't get why we give communism such a free pass. Most of the most horrible regimes of modern history have been communist. Saying "I'm a communist" is tantamount to saying "I favour overthrowing liberal democracy and replacing it with a totalitarian system (which whenever it has been tried has led to tyranny)". Yet apparently we are unconcerned about having people who are members of the communist party as advisors to government (I'm thinking in particular of Susan Michie, during Covid). I'm content to allow people to take their own view on what society should be, but surely being a member of the communist party should ring some alarm bells? I'm pretty sure being a member of the National Front or whatever its equivalent is this year would raise the odd eyebrow.
The right-wing press and right-wong commentators are always going on about people with connections to the Communist party (or -ies). Where does this "apparently we are unconcerned" come from?
Easy. If you went to most parties and said: "I am a Nazi" or "I am a fascist", you will get thrown out, or worse. If you say "I am a Communist", you might get a roll of the eyes, but little else.
Communism is *much* more acceptable, despite its blood-drenched history.
They were both terrible ideologies.
And because - to take the advantage of Susan Michie - members of the communist party are able to work for and advise government.
Lots of people advise government. The government doesn't vet most of them for whether they are a member of a political party. Unless someone is a member of a proscribed group, they are able to work for and advise government.
Can I just clarify what your point is here? Do you think the government should vet everyone who advises them for undesirable political beliefs? What happened to free speech?
My point is that, rightly, government would be wary of inviting in or taking advice from anyone who was a member of the National Front, or modern equivalent, but seems unconcerned about doing so with communists, which seems equivalent. I gave the example of Susan Michie - I was very wary of a member of the communist party being allowed to guide policy with major societal implications - but OLB quite rightly also gave the example of Claire Fox, which I think is also valid. I'm not against these people's views being expressed - it seems right to me that they should be - but it seems daft that you solicit the views of these people. If you're trying to build a better society, you probably don't want to take advice from those who want to smash it apart.
Having disagreed with Leon on HNH, I would have some agreement with current extremists from either left or right, especially if their political views related to the question at hand. But I would expect relevant checks to highlight any potential problems.
I rocked up to the last seat selection hustings I went to completely without notes. Knew my opening and closing comments verbatim and my key points. Completely flummoxed one of the other candidates who had reams of notes and even then kept forgetting her point.
It's much better if you can. I gave my maiden speech in Parliament entirely from notes, as I was nervous. It was a bit rubbish, whereas later speeches without notes were better (though I'll never sway the millions).
I’ve taught myself to play an extrovert and to be able to speak in public over the years, with bullet points and cue cards for a familiar subject - but a maiden speech in Parliament is one of those you’re going to want in front of you written out in full!
As somebody who regularly gives speeches to large meetings I've learned it is best to write bullet points down (and key gags) down rather than the whole speech.
I once used a teleprompter and it was a bigger disaster than the Liz Truss premiership, I kept on looking at that and completely losing my focus.
Had I become an MP my first speech to Parliament would have begun like this
'Hello, my name is Mr Eagles, and I'm an alcoholic, oh wait, wrong speech.'
Yes, with a couple of key points which act as waypoints within the speech.
Same when I am presenting sales stuff to clients. Slides are few in number and literally there as visual aides. And often not used at all much to the annoyance of colleagues who think 704 slides are best.
The most tedious presentations are those where the presenter reads the slides verbatim.
When the presenter is an academic, and each slide either contains a page of 6-point text or 50 equations.
Sir David Davis is uniting the Commons against Mandelson
I wonder what further measures they can take against Mandelson. Expulsion from the Lords, a prison sentence, execution even?
Silly comment
He should be removed from Labour and the Lords
For what? Writing yum yum in a birthday card?
This is hysteria.
Maybe if you listen to the house debate you would see mps anger and more importantly the Epstein victims family tearful interviews about Mandelson
By the sounds of it, the “debate” is less of a debate than a tawdry display of schmaltz-stirring.
What is tawdy is Mandelson representing our country
An appointment widely considered very savvy politics, and which seems to have actually paid off for the UK, at least until last week.
I dislike Mandelson as much as the next man, but his excessive loyalty to Epstein is the least of his offences, and Britain is in a geopolitical crisis.
Tell that to the Epstein's family victims who condemned him in tears this weekend
In your excitability, your posts give the impression that Mandelson should be held responsible for the abuse that Epstein's victims suffered. I don't think anybody is accusing Mandelson of that. If Mandelson had never existed, I don't imagine it would have made any difference to Epstein's victims.
Mandelson was a poor appointment by Starmer, especially with the benefit of hindsight. But that's about all there is to it.
There is nothing excitable about the victims families tears even if you find this difficult
Indeed Ed Davey is speaking on this now
Unfortunately discussing the victims’ families tears does not serve to improve the country - the Mandelson appointment was an error, the PM probably knows and accepts this and is running out of rope, everyone has had their pound of flesh (however much it is fun to jab at Starmer on here for it).
This debate however shows, in my mind, how unserious our political class has got. There will inevitably be shroud waving and MPs lining up to emote, do doubt we will have tearful personal stories from MPs as has become a habit and it won’t change a damn thing in the country or the world but will make MPs feel worthy.
As TSE pointed out earlier, this time would be better used on matters such as drone incursions into Poland, sending RAF planes and other kit to aid our ally. Or debating the new google data centre’s future energy needs in relation to closing off North Sea drilling, frankly anything that MPs can achieve to make the country run better and grow.
This however is easy vanity, Mandelson has paid the price, Starmer is paying a price, others in his team will pay a price and yet nothing said today will ensure that the majority of those responsible with Epstein, namely a lot of high profile Americans, will pay a price as it’s not in the remit of Parliament.
Yes. My point, eloquently expanded.
I agree, but everyone seemed happy to pile in on partygate, which was equally trivial.
Partygate seems neither comparable or trivial. We've recently had more revelations about Johnson holding gatherings in breach of the rules as well.
Partygate was certainly not trivial on the doorstep. When I was canvassing in the West Country one old boy burst into tears when the topic came up.
And I am sure that you can find many similarly aghast at Mandelson - victims of childhood sexual abuse for instance. The point upthread is that there are serious issues affecting the country yet parliament is wasting three hours on this. I felt the same about partygate.
Partygate was critically important because if we have another national emergency we need people to trust the establishment when asked to make significant personal sacrifices - from going to war or abandoning homes ahead of a flood, or rationing food.
The COVID rules may have been silly*, but that was in the main an honest misjudgment. That will happen again if the big flood doesn't actually materialise, or a harvest does eventually come in. But we expect our leaders to make those decisions to the best of their ability and to abide by they own instructions.
*no indoor mixing was one of the more sensible ones IMO, particularly at the time the parties
Of course one of the silliest things was that you could work in the office all day but as soon as work stopped you could no longer mix. Which was mad. If you weren't infected between 9 and 5, 5-6 probably wasn't going to do it.
I know I am probably in a minority of one, but I genuinely think Johnson tried his best. He was not at the hedonistic parties that have come to represent partygate to the public, but I suspect a lot of people think he was.
He wasn't, but we've recently discovered that there were a bunch of additional social engagements Johnson held in breach of the rules.
Thin gruel - the baby shower in particular. And doesn't really change what anyone thinks of Johnson.
You don't think Johnson repeatedly breaking his own govt's rules matters, so of course you think it's thin gruel! It certainly doesn't seem like "Johnson tried his best" (your earlier claim) to me.
No, it doesn't change what anyone thinks of Johnson now. Imagine if all this had come out at the time, however! People thought the Sue Gray report was it, but there was all this other stuff going on.
I know one pollster and this has been backed up by others buy when you listen to the focus groups about why the don’t trust politicians there’s two events most of them cite, one is Tony Blair lying about the Iraq war and the second is Boris Johnson breaking his own lockdown rules whilst keeping most of the country under lockdown.
So many people missed the death of loved ones/the funerals of them due to those lockdown regulations, my father’s ex colleagues weren’t even allowed to have Christmas lunch together at the hospital for those reasons.
People don’t forget that.
Didn't Johnson assert that people like nurses and doctors had had leaving parties during lockdown? Something like that, anyway.
There are some people who believe everyone behaves as they do. There used to be a technical manager here who would never agree to flexible working for the technical team. He would let them varying start and end times, but it must be the same every day. No long day one day and then a shorter one the next. Yet he was always to be seem leaving early etc. Now he may have been going home to work, but subsequent information emerged that suggested he wasn't. So I am of the opinion that he wouldn't allow others flexibility because he himself would abuse the system and assumed everyone else would too.
I suspect Johnson thought that most people would do a bit of blurring the lines, as he did, and would be shocked that most people took it so seriously.
I rocked up to the last seat selection hustings I went to completely without notes. Knew my opening and closing comments verbatim and my key points. Completely flummoxed one of the other candidates who had reams of notes and even then kept forgetting her point.
It's much better if you can. I gave my maiden speech in Parliament entirely from notes, as I was nervous. It was a bit rubbish, whereas later speeches without notes were better (though I'll never sway the millions).
I’ve taught myself to play an extrovert and to be able to speak in public over the years, with bullet points and cue cards for a familiar subject - but a maiden speech in Parliament is one of those you’re going to want in front of you written out in full!
As somebody who regularly gives speeches to large meetings I've learned it is best to write bullet points down (and key gags) down rather than the whole speech.
I once used a teleprompter and it was a bigger disaster than the Liz Truss premiership, I kept on looking at that and completely losing my focus.
Had I become an MP my first speech to Parliament would have begun like this
'Hello, my name is Mr Eagles, and I'm an alcoholic, oh wait, wrong speech.'
Started my father's speech at my daughter's wedding, "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, in this matter...oh, sorry, wrong speech."
I rocked up to the last seat selection hustings I went to completely without notes. Knew my opening and closing comments verbatim and my key points. Completely flummoxed one of the other candidates who had reams of notes and even then kept forgetting her point.
It's much better if you can. I gave my maiden speech in Parliament entirely from notes, as I was nervous. It was a bit rubbish, whereas later speeches without notes were better (though I'll never sway the millions).
I’ve taught myself to play an extrovert and to be able to speak in public over the years, with bullet points and cue cards for a familiar subject - but a maiden speech in Parliament is one of those you’re going to want in front of you written out in full!
As somebody who regularly gives speeches to large meetings I've learned it is best to write bullet points down (and key gags) down rather than the whole speech.
I once used a teleprompter and it was a bigger disaster than the Liz Truss premiership, I kept on looking at that and completely losing my focus.
Had I become an MP my first speech to Parliament would have begun like this
'Hello, my name is Mr Eagles, and I'm an alcoholic, oh wait, wrong speech.'
Yes, with a couple of key points which act as waypoints within the speech.
Same when I am presenting sales stuff to clients. Slides are few in number and literally there as visual aides. And often not used at all much to the annoyance of colleagues who think 704 slides are best.
The most tedious presentations are those where the presenter reads the slides verbatim.
Generally the fewer the words on the slide the better. I had a lecturer in my UG days who had a roll of handwritten OHP acetate which he read off word for word and scrolled ever upwards. (Pre powerpoint, obs). It was terrible.
I rocked up to the last seat selection hustings I went to completely without notes. Knew my opening and closing comments verbatim and my key points. Completely flummoxed one of the other candidates who had reams of notes and even then kept forgetting her point.
It's much better if you can. I gave my maiden speech in Parliament entirely from notes, as I was nervous. It was a bit rubbish, whereas later speeches without notes were better (though I'll never sway the millions).
I’ve taught myself to play an extrovert and to be able to speak in public over the years, with bullet points and cue cards for a familiar subject - but a maiden speech in Parliament is one of those you’re going to want in front of you written out in full!
As somebody who regularly gives speeches to large meetings I've learned it is best to write bullet points down (and key gags) down rather than the whole speech.
I once used a teleprompter and it was a bigger disaster than the Liz Truss premiership, I kept on looking at that and completely losing my focus.
Had I become an MP my first speech to Parliament would have begun like this
'Hello, my name is Mr Eagles, and I'm an alcoholic, oh wait, wrong speech.'
"Fornication, we can all enjoy... sorry, I'll read that again... for an occasion we can all enjoy..."
“In compliance our chief weapon is fear and sunrise. No, in compliance our two chief weapons are fear, surprise and a ruthless efficiency…”
I rocked up to the last seat selection hustings I went to completely without notes. Knew my opening and closing comments verbatim and my key points. Completely flummoxed one of the other candidates who had reams of notes and even then kept forgetting her point.
It's much better if you can. I gave my maiden speech in Parliament entirely from notes, as I was nervous. It was a bit rubbish, whereas later speeches without notes were better (though I'll never sway the millions).
I’ve taught myself to play an extrovert and to be able to speak in public over the years, with bullet points and cue cards for a familiar subject - but a maiden speech in Parliament is one of those you’re going to want in front of you written out in full!
As somebody who regularly gives speeches to large meetings I've learned it is best to write bullet points down (and key gags) down rather than the whole speech.
I once used a teleprompter and it was a bigger disaster than the Liz Truss premiership, I kept on looking at that and completely losing my focus.
Had I become an MP my first speech to Parliament would have begun like this
'Hello, my name is Mr Eagles, and I'm an alcoholic, oh wait, wrong speech.'
Yes, with a couple of key points which act as waypoints within the speech.
Same when I am presenting sales stuff to clients. Slides are few in number and literally there as visual aides. And often not used at all much to the annoyance of colleagues who think 704 slides are best.
The most tedious presentations are those where the presenter reads the slides verbatim.
So instead they have to say lots of other things that aren't on the slides.
A flattering portrayal of Nick Lowles, the chief dude at Hope Not Hate, focused on the risk of political violence from the extreme right
It casually mentions half way through that he was a student Trotskyist, like it’s no problem, because of course political violence of the extreme LEFT is just fine
The double standards are so howlingly blatant I can only presume the Guardian doesn’t even see them
Is that so ? It acknowledges it, but does it condone ? .. “When I first got involved in anti-fascism – this was late 80s – it was all about the street. I’m not saying it was right, but that’s how it was. You didn’t have cameras.” So, wait, he doesn’t mean handing out leaflets in the street? “No, you would have groups of Nazis and groups of anti-fascists, and they would battle it out, down sidestreets, and sometimes it got quite violent. I mean, look at me, I’m not built for that. I never got involved in that. But that was the world it was.”..
Oh give over. What if someone said “yes I was in the national front as a teenager” - would she simply have passed by that without mention and interrogation? Of course not. And the NF didn’t want to overthrow liberal capitalism - unlike the Trots
It’s fuxking ludicrous. This guy is held up an an exemplary opponent of right wing political violence yet it turns out he was a revolutionary activist in his youth, desiring to end parliamentary democracy, and she doesn’t even note that this is somewhat jarring
Yeah the NF just wanted to round up my wife's family and millions like them and throw them out of the country. Harmless stuff.
Whereas communists are all sweetness and light and hardly ever engage in mass murder?
In the postwar UK the comparison is ludicrous and could only be made by a heterosexual white person. Anyone who is a member of a minority group knows that the far right pose a physical threat to their safety. I know people who had to literally fight the far right in order to remain in their homes in the 1970s/80s. Anyone who experienced the same kind of physical threat from the socialist workers party please feel free to share your experiences.
When Derek Beackon won a council seat in the early 1990s, I regularly saw signs saying "Kill the Nazi scum" from some organisation. I think it was the ANL or somesuch. Which amused me, as I was unconvinced that 'kill them' made the much different from the Nazis...
The 'ANL' in the early 1990s were a bunch of violent thugs looking for a fight that often never materialised.
They'd arrange 'counter attacks' to events that weren't even taking place as an excuse to get together and 'take to the streets'. Sometimes they'd do battle with football hooligans, for whom politics was unimportant at best. As long as the ANL side had the opposition outnumbered, obviously...
All this rubbish about 'fighting the Neo-Nazis' stuck to every lamppost in South London - only the actual Nazis barely existed. Who were they picking a fight with? Derek Beackon and his minder? A couple of old boys who'd been at NF rallies 20 years earlier?
The 'far right' a) aren't actually right wing, and b) barely exist. The actual far left are a far bigger threat/issue - and continue to justify their own hatred by manufacturing opponents out of thin air.
As a society/media/narrative we've got it badly arse-over-tit as usual.
I think you are historically some way off there. The 80s - early 90s were the BNP in their "street" phase, and Combat 18, amongst others. Both left and right political violence died down in the 2000s. And I think football hooligan "firms" had an involvement, but that is a personal view.
One of the interesting things about the current crop of extreme right groups, in addition to how fissiparous they are, is how much if the organisational scaffolding is provided by BNP retreads.
I think that eventually this is one of the things that will seriously damage Reform UK.
Prevent Programme numbers suggest that Far RIght is a much greater risk of violence than Far Left over recent years.
I rocked up to the last seat selection hustings I went to completely without notes. Knew my opening and closing comments verbatim and my key points. Completely flummoxed one of the other candidates who had reams of notes and even then kept forgetting her point.
It's much better if you can. I gave my maiden speech in Parliament entirely from notes, as I was nervous. It was a bit rubbish, whereas later speeches without notes were better (though I'll never sway the millions).
I’ve taught myself to play an extrovert and to be able to speak in public over the years, with bullet points and cue cards for a familiar subject - but a maiden speech in Parliament is one of those you’re going to want in front of you written out in full!
As somebody who regularly gives speeches to large meetings I've learned it is best to write bullet points down (and key gags) down rather than the whole speech.
I once used a teleprompter and it was a bigger disaster than the Liz Truss premiership, I kept on looking at that and completely losing my focus.
Had I become an MP my first speech to Parliament would have begun like this
'Hello, my name is Mr Eagles, and I'm an alcoholic, oh wait, wrong speech.'
Yes, with a couple of key points which act as waypoints within the speech.
Same when I am presenting sales stuff to clients. Slides are few in number and literally there as visual aides. And often not used at all much to the annoyance of colleagues who think 704 slides are best.
The most tedious presentations are those where the presenter reads the slides verbatim.
Generally the fewer the words on the slide the better. I had a lecturer in my UG days who had a roll of handwritten OHP acetate which he read off word for word and scrolled ever upwards. (Pre powerpoint, obs). It was terrible.
We had a biology teacher who was even worse. He read word for word and had us write it all down verbatim. Only O Level I failed.
I rocked up to the last seat selection hustings I went to completely without notes. Knew my opening and closing comments verbatim and my key points. Completely flummoxed one of the other candidates who had reams of notes and even then kept forgetting her point.
It's much better if you can. I gave my maiden speech in Parliament entirely from notes, as I was nervous. It was a bit rubbish, whereas later speeches without notes were better (though I'll never sway the millions).
I’ve taught myself to play an extrovert and to be able to speak in public over the years, with bullet points and cue cards for a familiar subject - but a maiden speech in Parliament is one of those you’re going to want in front of you written out in full!
As somebody who regularly gives speeches to large meetings I've learned it is best to write bullet points down (and key gags) down rather than the whole speech.
I once used a teleprompter and it was a bigger disaster than the Liz Truss premiership, I kept on looking at that and completely losing my focus.
Had I become an MP my first speech to Parliament would have begun like this
'Hello, my name is Mr Eagles, and I'm an alcoholic, oh wait, wrong speech.'
Correct venue, though.
Has anyone here done Toast Masters?
I've never got around to it, but I've had a fair amount of presentation / speaking training, start with a comms module at University. And I've usually enjoyed doing the speaking.
That's one of the improvements to unis since my time (at least in the science courses) - the greater emphasis on teaching at least some experience of communication skills, which can include such things as popular accounts on blogs, or open day/field trips for the general public, as well as mini-lectures within the class. I really could have done with something more focussed in the way of feedback than the usual monkey see monkey do stuff.
A flattering portrayal of Nick Lowles, the chief dude at Hope Not Hate, focused on the risk of political violence from the extreme right
It casually mentions half way through that he was a student Trotskyist, like it’s no problem, because of course political violence of the extreme LEFT is just fine
The double standards are so howlingly blatant I can only presume the Guardian doesn’t even see them
Peter Hitchens was a student Trotskyist, too. And many other 1980's conservatives.
Of course the millions who died under Stalin used their last breath to mutter "At least I'm dying for a noble cause - how bad would it be to be killed by a Nazi?"
Stalin was definitely not a Trotskyist.
He was a communist though.
So why did Stalin have him murdered?
Paranoia? Why did Stalin have millions murdered?
Do you think Churchill was wrong to team up with him during ze War?
I think, perhaps, that's why, historically, Commies got a "free pass" as @Cookie mentions.
Many people were deceived or allowed themselves to be deceived by the USSR in the 1930's. And yes being our Allies, and all the Uncle Joe stuff had an effect. But the willful blindspot so many have about the evils of communism is unconscionable to me.
"I've been such a fool, Vassili. Man will always be a man. There is no New Man. We tried so hard to create a society that was equal, where there'd be nothing to envy your neighbour. But there's always something to envy. A smile, a friendship, something you don't have and want to appropriate. In this world, even a Soviet one, there will always be rich and poor. Rich in gifts, poor in gifts. Rich in love, poor in love."
A flattering portrayal of Nick Lowles, the chief dude at Hope Not Hate, focused on the risk of political violence from the extreme right
It casually mentions half way through that he was a student Trotskyist, like it’s no problem, because of course political violence of the extreme LEFT is just fine
The double standards are so howlingly blatant I can only presume the Guardian doesn’t even see them
Is that so ? It acknowledges it, but does it condone ? .. “When I first got involved in anti-fascism – this was late 80s – it was all about the street. I’m not saying it was right, but that’s how it was. You didn’t have cameras.” So, wait, he doesn’t mean handing out leaflets in the street? “No, you would have groups of Nazis and groups of anti-fascists, and they would battle it out, down sidestreets, and sometimes it got quite violent. I mean, look at me, I’m not built for that. I never got involved in that. But that was the world it was.”..
Oh give over. What if someone said “yes I was in the national front as a teenager” - would she simply have passed by that without mention and interrogation? Of course not. And the NF didn’t want to overthrow liberal capitalism - unlike the Trots
It’s fuxking ludicrous. This guy is held up an an exemplary opponent of right wing political violence yet it turns out he was a revolutionary activist in his youth, desiring to end parliamentary democracy, and she doesn’t even note that this is somewhat jarring
I don't get why we give communism such a free pass. Most of the most horrible regimes of modern history have been communist. Saying "I'm a communist" is tantamount to saying "I favour overthrowing liberal democracy and replacing it with a totalitarian system (which whenever it has been tried has led to tyranny)". Yet apparently we are unconcerned about having people who are members of the communist party as advisors to government (I'm thinking in particular of Susan Michie, during Covid). I'm content to allow people to take their own view on what society should be, but surely being a member of the communist party should ring some alarm bells? I'm pretty sure being a member of the National Front or whatever its equivalent is this year would raise the odd eyebrow.
The right-wing press and right-wong commentators are always going on about people with connections to the Communist party (or -ies). Where does this "apparently we are unconcerned" come from?
Easy. If you went to most parties and said: "I am a Nazi" or "I am a fascist", you will get thrown out, or worse. If you say "I am a Communist", you might get a roll of the eyes, but little else.
Communism is *much* more acceptable, despite its blood-drenched history.
They were both terrible ideologies.
And because - to take the advantage of Susan Michie - members of the communist party are able to work for and advise government.
Lots of people advise government. The government doesn't vet most of them for whether they are a member of a political party. Unless someone is a member of a proscribed group, they are able to work for and advise government.
Can I just clarify what your point is here? Do you think the government should vet everyone who advises them for undesirable political beliefs? What happened to free speech?
My point is that, rightly, government would be wary of inviting in or taking advice from anyone who was a member of the National Front, or modern equivalent, but seems unconcerned about doing so with communists, which seems equivalent. I gave the example of Susan Michie - I was very wary of a member of the communist party being allowed to guide policy with major societal implications - but OLB quite rightly also gave the example of Claire Fox, which I think is also valid. I'm not against these people's views being expressed - it seems right to me that they should be - but it seems daft that you solicit the views of these people. If you're trying to build a better society, you probably don't want to take advice from those who want to smash it apart.
There's a difference between a legislator (someone in the Lords, makes laws) and someone on a scientific advisory group (advising on specific points of science, not making policy). If you want to know about behavioural science, you ask the world-renowned behavioural scientist.
I was on SAGE subcommittees. No-one ever asked if I was or had ever been a member of the National Front (which I haven't been), the Communist Party (ditto) or any other political affiliation (I am a member of the Liberal Democrats). Membership was based on people's scientific credentials. I am not aware of the government being "wary of inviting in or taking advice from anyone who was a member of the National Front, or modern equivalent". That is, they didn't check if we were members of the NF, as far as I know. Maybe if someone had been that would have triggered some action; I don't know, that's hypothetical.
That seems right to me. You want someone to do a certain job. You get the person who is good at that job. You don't discriminate based on (most) political views. (If someone has views so extreme that they support a proscribed group, then they can be arrested for that.)
I rocked up to the last seat selection hustings I went to completely without notes. Knew my opening and closing comments verbatim and my key points. Completely flummoxed one of the other candidates who had reams of notes and even then kept forgetting her point.
It's much better if you can. I gave my maiden speech in Parliament entirely from notes, as I was nervous. It was a bit rubbish, whereas later speeches without notes were better (though I'll never sway the millions).
I’ve taught myself to play an extrovert and to be able to speak in public over the years, with bullet points and cue cards for a familiar subject - but a maiden speech in Parliament is one of those you’re going to want in front of you written out in full!
As somebody who regularly gives speeches to large meetings I've learned it is best to write bullet points down (and key gags) down rather than the whole speech.
I once used a teleprompter and it was a bigger disaster than the Liz Truss premiership, I kept on looking at that and completely losing my focus.
Had I become an MP my first speech to Parliament would have begun like this
'Hello, my name is Mr Eagles, and I'm an alcoholic, oh wait, wrong speech.'
"Fornication, we can all enjoy... sorry, I'll read that again... for an occasion we can all enjoy..."
“In compliance our chief weapon is fear and sunrise. No, in compliance our two chief weapons are fear, surprise and a ruthless efficiency…”
Always amazes me the abject terror the "pitch" episode of the Apprentice instils in "Britain's most brilliant entrepreneurs". It's basically speaking. Now try the same 25 times a week to openly hostile 14 year olds who don't want to be there.
A flattering portrayal of Nick Lowles, the chief dude at Hope Not Hate, focused on the risk of political violence from the extreme right
It casually mentions half way through that he was a student Trotskyist, like it’s no problem, because of course political violence of the extreme LEFT is just fine
The double standards are so howlingly blatant I can only presume the Guardian doesn’t even see them
Is that so ? It acknowledges it, but does it condone ? .. “When I first got involved in anti-fascism – this was late 80s – it was all about the street. I’m not saying it was right, but that’s how it was. You didn’t have cameras.” So, wait, he doesn’t mean handing out leaflets in the street? “No, you would have groups of Nazis and groups of anti-fascists, and they would battle it out, down sidestreets, and sometimes it got quite violent. I mean, look at me, I’m not built for that. I never got involved in that. But that was the world it was.”..
Oh give over. What if someone said “yes I was in the national front as a teenager” - would she simply have passed by that without mention and interrogation? Of course not. And the NF didn’t want to overthrow liberal capitalism - unlike the Trots
It’s fuxking ludicrous. This guy is held up an an exemplary opponent of right wing political violence yet it turns out he was a revolutionary activist in his youth, desiring to end parliamentary democracy, and she doesn’t even note that this is somewhat jarring
Yeah the NF just wanted to round up my wife's family and millions like them and throw them out of the country. Harmless stuff.
Whereas communists are all sweetness and light and hardly ever engage in mass murder?
In the postwar UK the comparison is ludicrous and could only be made by a heterosexual white person. Anyone who is a member of a minority group knows that the far right pose a physical threat to their safety. I know people who had to literally fight the far right in order to remain in their homes in the 1970s/80s. Anyone who experienced the same kind of physical threat from the socialist workers party please feel free to share your experiences.
When Derek Beackon won a council seat in the early 1990s, I regularly saw signs saying "Kill the Nazi scum" from some organisation. I think it was the ANL or somesuch. Which amused me, as I was unconvinced that 'kill them' made the much different from the Nazis...
The 'ANL' in the early 1990s were a bunch of violent thugs looking for a fight that often never materialised.
They'd arrange 'counter attacks' to events that weren't even taking place as an excuse to get together and 'take to the streets'. Sometimes they'd do battle with football hooligans, for whom politics was unimportant at best. As long as the ANL side had the opposition outnumbered, obviously...
All this rubbish about 'fighting the Neo-Nazis' stuck to every lamppost in South London - only the actual Nazis barely existed. Who were they picking a fight with? Derek Beackon and his minder? A couple of old boys who'd been at NF rallies 20 years earlier?
The 'far right' a) aren't actually right wing, and b) barely exist. The actual far left are a far bigger threat/issue - and continue to justify their own hatred by manufacturing opponents out of thin air.
As a society/media/narrative we've got it badly arse-over-tit as usual.
The far right "barely exist"? Who are the people supporting Tommy Robinson?
I rocked up to the last seat selection hustings I went to completely without notes. Knew my opening and closing comments verbatim and my key points. Completely flummoxed one of the other candidates who had reams of notes and even then kept forgetting her point.
It's much better if you can. I gave my maiden speech in Parliament entirely from notes, as I was nervous. It was a bit rubbish, whereas later speeches without notes were better (though I'll never sway the millions).
I’ve taught myself to play an extrovert and to be able to speak in public over the years, with bullet points and cue cards for a familiar subject - but a maiden speech in Parliament is one of those you’re going to want in front of you written out in full!
As somebody who regularly gives speeches to large meetings I've learned it is best to write bullet points down (and key gags) down rather than the whole speech.
I once used a teleprompter and it was a bigger disaster than the Liz Truss premiership, I kept on looking at that and completely losing my focus.
Had I become an MP my first speech to Parliament would have begun like this
'Hello, my name is Mr Eagles, and I'm an alcoholic, oh wait, wrong speech.'
Yes, with a couple of key points which act as waypoints within the speech.
Same when I am presenting sales stuff to clients. Slides are few in number and literally there as visual aides. And often not used at all much to the annoyance of colleagues who think 704 slides are best.
The most tedious presentations are those where the presenter reads the slides verbatim.
So instead they have to say lots of other things that aren't on the slides.
Rather: one complements and develops what is on the 'slides' - but I'm lucky to be in a field where plenty of interesting pictures is not merely ornamental but essential.
I rocked up to the last seat selection hustings I went to completely without notes. Knew my opening and closing comments verbatim and my key points. Completely flummoxed one of the other candidates who had reams of notes and even then kept forgetting her point.
It's much better if you can. I gave my maiden speech in Parliament entirely from notes, as I was nervous. It was a bit rubbish, whereas later speeches without notes were better (though I'll never sway the millions).
I’ve taught myself to play an extrovert and to be able to speak in public over the years, with bullet points and cue cards for a familiar subject - but a maiden speech in Parliament is one of those you’re going to want in front of you written out in full!
As somebody who regularly gives speeches to large meetings I've learned it is best to write bullet points down (and key gags) down rather than the whole speech.
I once used a teleprompter and it was a bigger disaster than the Liz Truss premiership, I kept on looking at that and completely losing my focus.
Had I become an MP my first speech to Parliament would have begun like this
'Hello, my name is Mr Eagles, and I'm an alcoholic, oh wait, wrong speech.'
Yes, with a couple of key points which act as waypoints within the speech.
Same when I am presenting sales stuff to clients. Slides are few in number and literally there as visual aides. And often not used at all much to the annoyance of colleagues who think 704 slides are best.
The most tedious presentations are those where the presenter reads the slides verbatim.
Generally the fewer the words on the slide the better. I had a lecturer in my UG days who had a roll of handwritten OHP acetate which he read off word for word and scrolled ever upwards. (Pre powerpoint, obs). It was terrible.
We had a biology teacher who was even worse. He read word for word and had us write it all down verbatim. Only O Level I failed.
One of my lecturers at Imperial used to read EVERYTHING out verbatim:
A flattering portrayal of Nick Lowles, the chief dude at Hope Not Hate, focused on the risk of political violence from the extreme right
It casually mentions half way through that he was a student Trotskyist, like it’s no problem, because of course political violence of the extreme LEFT is just fine
The double standards are so howlingly blatant I can only presume the Guardian doesn’t even see them
Is that so ? It acknowledges it, but does it condone ? .. “When I first got involved in anti-fascism – this was late 80s – it was all about the street. I’m not saying it was right, but that’s how it was. You didn’t have cameras.” So, wait, he doesn’t mean handing out leaflets in the street? “No, you would have groups of Nazis and groups of anti-fascists, and they would battle it out, down sidestreets, and sometimes it got quite violent. I mean, look at me, I’m not built for that. I never got involved in that. But that was the world it was.”..
Oh give over. What if someone said “yes I was in the national front as a teenager” - would she simply have passed by that without mention and interrogation? Of course not. And the NF didn’t want to overthrow liberal capitalism - unlike the Trots
It’s fuxking ludicrous. This guy is held up an an exemplary opponent of right wing political violence yet it turns out he was a revolutionary activist in his youth, desiring to end parliamentary democracy, and she doesn’t even note that this is somewhat jarring
I don't get why we give communism such a free pass. Most of the most horrible regimes of modern history have been communist. Saying "I'm a communist" is tantamount to saying "I favour overthrowing liberal democracy and replacing it with a totalitarian system (which whenever it has been tried has led to tyranny)". Yet apparently we are unconcerned about having people who are members of the communist party as advisors to government (I'm thinking in particular of Susan Michie, during Covid). I'm content to allow people to take their own view on what society should be, but surely being a member of the communist party should ring some alarm bells? I'm pretty sure being a member of the National Front or whatever its equivalent is this year would raise the odd eyebrow.
The right-wing press and right-wong commentators are always going on about people with connections to the Communist party (or -ies). Where does this "apparently we are unconcerned" come from?
Easy. If you went to most parties and said: "I am a Nazi" or "I am a fascist", you will get thrown out, or worse. If you say "I am a Communist", you might get a roll of the eyes, but little else.
Communism is *much* more acceptable, despite its blood-drenched history.
They were both terrible ideologies.
And because - to take the advantage of Susan Michie - members of the communist party are able to work for and advise government.
Lots of people advise government. The government doesn't vet most of them for whether they are a member of a political party. Unless someone is a member of a proscribed group, they are able to work for and advise government.
Can I just clarify what your point is here? Do you think the government should vet everyone who advises them for undesirable political beliefs? What happened to free speech?
My point is that, rightly, government would be wary of inviting in or taking advice from anyone who was a member of the National Front, or modern equivalent, but seems unconcerned about doing so with communists, which seems equivalent. I gave the example of Susan Michie - I was very wary of a member of the communist party being allowed to guide policy with major societal implications - but OLB quite rightly also gave the example of Claire Fox, which I think is also valid. I'm not against these people's views being expressed - it seems right to me that they should be - but it seems daft that you solicit the views of these people. If you're trying to build a better society, you probably don't want to take advice from those who want to smash it apart.
There's a difference between a legislator (someone in the Lords, makes laws) and someone on a scientific advisory group (advising on specific points of science, not making policy). If you want to know about behavioural science, you ask the world-renowned behavioural scientist.
I was on SAGE subcommittees. No-one ever asked if I was or had ever been a member of the National Front (which I haven't been), the Communist Party (ditto) or any other political affiliation (I am a member of the Liberal Democrats). Membership was based on people's scientific credentials. I am not aware of the government being "wary of inviting in or taking advice from anyone who was a member of the National Front, or modern equivalent". That is, they didn't check if we were members of the NF, as far as I know. Maybe if someone had been that would have triggered some action; I don't know, that's hypothetical.
That seems right to me. You want someone to do a certain job. You get the person who is good at that job. You don't discriminate based on (most) political views. (If someone has views so extreme that they support a proscribed group, then they can be arrested for that.)
"You don't discriminate on (most) political views" - which political view would you discriminate on?
A flattering portrayal of Nick Lowles, the chief dude at Hope Not Hate, focused on the risk of political violence from the extreme right
It casually mentions half way through that he was a student Trotskyist, like it’s no problem, because of course political violence of the extreme LEFT is just fine
The double standards are so howlingly blatant I can only presume the Guardian doesn’t even see them
Is that so ? It acknowledges it, but does it condone ? .. “When I first got involved in anti-fascism – this was late 80s – it was all about the street. I’m not saying it was right, but that’s how it was. You didn’t have cameras.” So, wait, he doesn’t mean handing out leaflets in the street? “No, you would have groups of Nazis and groups of anti-fascists, and they would battle it out, down sidestreets, and sometimes it got quite violent. I mean, look at me, I’m not built for that. I never got involved in that. But that was the world it was.”..
Oh give over. What if someone said “yes I was in the national front as a teenager” - would she simply have passed by that without mention and interrogation? Of course not. And the NF didn’t want to overthrow liberal capitalism - unlike the Trots
It’s fuxking ludicrous. This guy is held up an an exemplary opponent of right wing political violence yet it turns out he was a revolutionary activist in his youth, desiring to end parliamentary democracy, and she doesn’t even note that this is somewhat jarring
Yeah the NF just wanted to round up my wife's family and millions like them and throw them out of the country. Harmless stuff.
Whereas communists are all sweetness and light and hardly ever engage in mass murder?
In the postwar UK the comparison is ludicrous and could only be made by a heterosexual white person. Anyone who is a member of a minority group knows that the far right pose a physical threat to their safety. I know people who had to literally fight the far right in order to remain in their homes in the 1970s/80s. Anyone who experienced the same kind of physical threat from the socialist workers party please feel free to share your experiences.
When Derek Beackon won a council seat in the early 1990s, I regularly saw signs saying "Kill the Nazi scum" from some organisation. I think it was the ANL or somesuch. Which amused me, as I was unconvinced that 'kill them' made the much different from the Nazis...
The 'ANL' in the early 1990s were a bunch of violent thugs looking for a fight that often never materialised.
They'd arrange 'counter attacks' to events that weren't even taking place as an excuse to get together and 'take to the streets'. Sometimes they'd do battle with football hooligans, for whom politics was unimportant at best. As long as the ANL side had the opposition outnumbered, obviously...
All this rubbish about 'fighting the Neo-Nazis' stuck to every lamppost in South London - only the actual Nazis barely existed. Who were they picking a fight with? Derek Beackon and his minder? A couple of old boys who'd been at NF rallies 20 years earlier?
The 'far right' a) aren't actually right wing, and b) barely exist. The actual far left are a far bigger threat/issue - and continue to justify their own hatred by manufacturing opponents out of thin air.
As a society/media/narrative we've got it badly arse-over-tit as usual.
It's quite the opposite. The ideas and values of the Far Right, boosted by the Trump election victory and by the world's richest man who bought Twitter for this express purpose, are penetrating the mainstream in a way that would be unthinkable just a few years ago. They are a far bigger threat to our liberal democracy than the fringe actors of the Far Left, unpalatable and dangerous as those can often be. It hasn't always been the case, and could change in the future, but right now the Far Right has the mo' and as such merits particular attention.
For some time I have been using these two rough comparisons: Stalin was responsible for about as many deaths as World War I, Mao about as many as World War II.
They aren't perfect, but I don't know of any ahort ones that are better.
I rocked up to the last seat selection hustings I went to completely without notes. Knew my opening and closing comments verbatim and my key points. Completely flummoxed one of the other candidates who had reams of notes and even then kept forgetting her point.
It's much better if you can. I gave my maiden speech in Parliament entirely from notes, as I was nervous. It was a bit rubbish, whereas later speeches without notes were better (though I'll never sway the millions).
I’ve taught myself to play an extrovert and to be able to speak in public over the years, with bullet points and cue cards for a familiar subject - but a maiden speech in Parliament is one of those you’re going to want in front of you written out in full!
As somebody who regularly gives speeches to large meetings I've learned it is best to write bullet points down (and key gags) down rather than the whole speech.
I once used a teleprompter and it was a bigger disaster than the Liz Truss premiership, I kept on looking at that and completely losing my focus.
Had I become an MP my first speech to Parliament would have begun like this
'Hello, my name is Mr Eagles, and I'm an alcoholic, oh wait, wrong speech.'
Yes, with a couple of key points which act as waypoints within the speech.
Same when I am presenting sales stuff to clients. Slides are few in number and literally there as visual aides. And often not used at all much to the annoyance of colleagues who think 704 slides are best.
The most tedious presentations are those where the presenter reads the slides verbatim.
Generally the fewer the words on the slide the better. I had a lecturer in my UG days who had a roll of handwritten OHP acetate which he read off word for word and scrolled ever upwards. (Pre powerpoint, obs). It was terrible.
We had a biology teacher who was even worse. He read word for word and had us write it all down verbatim. Only O Level I failed.
We had a physics teacher like that. It was extremely boring but weirdly, it worked for me - through writing it down, the words passed from his mouth to my memory without at any point lodging in my conscious brain.
I did mention it yesterday briefly. Given the strong green runner up in the recent by election there it will be interesting to see if they can break the monopoly in May
Not surprised. Why dioes Starmer find it difficult to find the moral high ground. It there for everyone to see yet he ignores it. The really crazy thing is that it's free
A flattering portrayal of Nick Lowles, the chief dude at Hope Not Hate, focused on the risk of political violence from the extreme right
It casually mentions half way through that he was a student Trotskyist, like it’s no problem, because of course political violence of the extreme LEFT is just fine
The double standards are so howlingly blatant I can only presume the Guardian doesn’t even see them
Is that so ? It acknowledges it, but does it condone ? .. “When I first got involved in anti-fascism – this was late 80s – it was all about the street. I’m not saying it was right, but that’s how it was. You didn’t have cameras.” So, wait, he doesn’t mean handing out leaflets in the street? “No, you would have groups of Nazis and groups of anti-fascists, and they would battle it out, down sidestreets, and sometimes it got quite violent. I mean, look at me, I’m not built for that. I never got involved in that. But that was the world it was.”..
Oh give over. What if someone said “yes I was in the national front as a teenager” - would she simply have passed by that without mention and interrogation? Of course not. And the NF didn’t want to overthrow liberal capitalism - unlike the Trots
It’s fuxking ludicrous. This guy is held up an an exemplary opponent of right wing political violence yet it turns out he was a revolutionary activist in his youth, desiring to end parliamentary democracy, and she doesn’t even note that this is somewhat jarring
Yeah the NF just wanted to round up my wife's family and millions like them and throw them out of the country. Harmless stuff.
Whereas communists are all sweetness and light and hardly ever engage in mass murder?
In the postwar UK the comparison is ludicrous and could only be made by a heterosexual white person. Anyone who is a member of a minority group knows that the far right pose a physical threat to their safety. I know people who had to literally fight the far right in order to remain in their homes in the 1970s/80s. Anyone who experienced the same kind of physical threat from the socialist workers party please feel free to share your experiences.
When Derek Beackon won a council seat in the early 1990s, I regularly saw signs saying "Kill the Nazi scum" from some organisation. I think it was the ANL or somesuch. Which amused me, as I was unconvinced that 'kill them' made the much different from the Nazis...
The 'ANL' in the early 1990s were a bunch of violent thugs looking for a fight that often never materialised.
They'd arrange 'counter attacks' to events that weren't even taking place as an excuse to get together and 'take to the streets'. Sometimes they'd do battle with football hooligans, for whom politics was unimportant at best. As long as the ANL side had the opposition outnumbered, obviously...
All this rubbish about 'fighting the Neo-Nazis' stuck to every lamppost in South London - only the actual Nazis barely existed. Who were they picking a fight with? Derek Beackon and his minder? A couple of old boys who'd been at NF rallies 20 years earlier?
The 'far right' a) aren't actually right wing, and b) barely exist. The actual far left are a far bigger threat/issue - and continue to justify their own hatred by manufacturing opponents out of thin air.
As a society/media/narrative we've got it badly arse-over-tit as usual.
The far right "barely exist"? Who are the people supporting Tommy Robinson?
The far right existed when I was at Uni. Despite their professed love of violence, they never seemed to intersect with the SWP types (who also claimed to love hitting people)
The common characteristic of both was a distinct aversion to washing. Which they shared with the religious extremists.
In fact, with all of them, you could tell when one of their members had “gone sane” - soap came back into fashion…
I rocked up to the last seat selection hustings I went to completely without notes. Knew my opening and closing comments verbatim and my key points. Completely flummoxed one of the other candidates who had reams of notes and even then kept forgetting her point.
It's much better if you can. I gave my maiden speech in Parliament entirely from notes, as I was nervous. It was a bit rubbish, whereas later speeches without notes were better (though I'll never sway the millions).
I’ve taught myself to play an extrovert and to be able to speak in public over the years, with bullet points and cue cards for a familiar subject - but a maiden speech in Parliament is one of those you’re going to want in front of you written out in full!
As somebody who regularly gives speeches to large meetings I've learned it is best to write bullet points down (and key gags) down rather than the whole speech.
I once used a teleprompter and it was a bigger disaster than the Liz Truss premiership, I kept on looking at that and completely losing my focus.
Had I become an MP my first speech to Parliament would have begun like this
'Hello, my name is Mr Eagles, and I'm an alcoholic, oh wait, wrong speech.'
Yes, with a couple of key points which act as waypoints within the speech.
Same when I am presenting sales stuff to clients. Slides are few in number and literally there as visual aides. And often not used at all much to the annoyance of colleagues who think 704 slides are best.
The most tedious presentations are those where the presenter reads the slides verbatim.
When the presenter is an academic, and each slide either contains a page of 6-point text or 50 equations.
One classic mistake I remember was a Royal Society Christmas Lecturer writing on the glass of his OHP many years ago, and having to clean it with a duster on National TV.
I have just bought a resòlza pattadese - the archetypal Sardinian folding knife - handmade in the Supramonte mountains
It’s nearly identical to the knife my good friend the murderer-turner-shepherd Jonata XXXXX used to cut me a tranche of kidgoat-stomach-sac-cheese yesterday, after using it to slice me a piece of maggot cheese the day before
Reform voters for gross cheese is an underrepresented demographic
Well, they did applaud Andrea Jenkyn's song.
*I say that with affection for Andrea Jenkyns, who I like as a politician.
I have just bought a resòlza pattadese - the archetypal Sardinian folding knife - handmade in the Supramonte mountains
It’s nearly identical to the knife my good friend the murderer-turner-shepherd Jonata XXXXX used to cut me a tranche of kidgoat-stomach-sac-cheese yesterday, after using it to slice me a piece of maggot cheese the day before
Reform voters for gross cheese is an underrepresented demographic
Well, they did applaud Andrea Jenkyn's song.
*I say that with affection for Andrea Jenkyns, who I like as a politician.
A flattering portrayal of Nick Lowles, the chief dude at Hope Not Hate, focused on the risk of political violence from the extreme right
It casually mentions half way through that he was a student Trotskyist, like it’s no problem, because of course political violence of the extreme LEFT is just fine
The double standards are so howlingly blatant I can only presume the Guardian doesn’t even see them
Is that so ? It acknowledges it, but does it condone ? .. “When I first got involved in anti-fascism – this was late 80s – it was all about the street. I’m not saying it was right, but that’s how it was. You didn’t have cameras.” So, wait, he doesn’t mean handing out leaflets in the street? “No, you would have groups of Nazis and groups of anti-fascists, and they would battle it out, down sidestreets, and sometimes it got quite violent. I mean, look at me, I’m not built for that. I never got involved in that. But that was the world it was.”..
Oh give over. What if someone said “yes I was in the national front as a teenager” - would she simply have passed by that without mention and interrogation? Of course not. And the NF didn’t want to overthrow liberal capitalism - unlike the Trots
It’s fuxking ludicrous. This guy is held up an an exemplary opponent of right wing political violence yet it turns out he was a revolutionary activist in his youth, desiring to end parliamentary democracy, and she doesn’t even note that this is somewhat jarring
Yeah the NF just wanted to round up my wife's family and millions like them and throw them out of the country. Harmless stuff.
Whereas communists are all sweetness and light and hardly ever engage in mass murder?
In the postwar UK the comparison is ludicrous and could only be made by a heterosexual white person. Anyone who is a member of a minority group knows that the far right pose a physical threat to their safety. I know people who had to literally fight the far right in order to remain in their homes in the 1970s/80s. Anyone who experienced the same kind of physical threat from the socialist workers party please feel free to share your experiences.
When Derek Beackon won a council seat in the early 1990s, I regularly saw signs saying "Kill the Nazi scum" from some organisation. I think it was the ANL or somesuch. Which amused me, as I was unconvinced that 'kill them' made the much different from the Nazis...
The 'ANL' in the early 1990s were a bunch of violent thugs looking for a fight that often never materialised.
They'd arrange 'counter attacks' to events that weren't even taking place as an excuse to get together and 'take to the streets'. Sometimes they'd do battle with football hooligans, for whom politics was unimportant at best. As long as the ANL side had the opposition outnumbered, obviously...
All this rubbish about 'fighting the Neo-Nazis' stuck to every lamppost in South London - only the actual Nazis barely existed. Who were they picking a fight with? Derek Beackon and his minder? A couple of old boys who'd been at NF rallies 20 years earlier?
The 'far right' a) aren't actually right wing, and b) barely exist. The actual far left are a far bigger threat/issue - and continue to justify their own hatred by manufacturing opponents out of thin air.
As a society/media/narrative we've got it badly arse-over-tit as usual.
It's quite the opposite. The ideas and values of the Far Right, boosted by the Trump election victory and by the world's richest man who bought Twitter for this express purpose, are penetrating the mainstream in a way that would be unthinkable just a few years ago. They are a far bigger threat to our liberal democracy than the fringe actors of the Far Left, unpalatable and dangerous as those can often be. It hasn't always been the case, and could change in the future, but right now the Far Right has the mo' and as such merits particular attention.
This might be true - might - if the far left existed in isolation. But they don’t. They have made an unholy alliance with islamism - eg Jezbollah - so they are a much greater threat than anything on the right. They literally want to destroy our infidel societies. The far right wants zero migration
A flattering portrayal of Nick Lowles, the chief dude at Hope Not Hate, focused on the risk of political violence from the extreme right
It casually mentions half way through that he was a student Trotskyist, like it’s no problem, because of course political violence of the extreme LEFT is just fine
The double standards are so howlingly blatant I can only presume the Guardian doesn’t even see them
Is that so ? It acknowledges it, but does it condone ? .. “When I first got involved in anti-fascism – this was late 80s – it was all about the street. I’m not saying it was right, but that’s how it was. You didn’t have cameras.” So, wait, he doesn’t mean handing out leaflets in the street? “No, you would have groups of Nazis and groups of anti-fascists, and they would battle it out, down sidestreets, and sometimes it got quite violent. I mean, look at me, I’m not built for that. I never got involved in that. But that was the world it was.”..
Oh give over. What if someone said “yes I was in the national front as a teenager” - would she simply have passed by that without mention and interrogation? Of course not. And the NF didn’t want to overthrow liberal capitalism - unlike the Trots
It’s fuxking ludicrous. This guy is held up an an exemplary opponent of right wing political violence yet it turns out he was a revolutionary activist in his youth, desiring to end parliamentary democracy, and she doesn’t even note that this is somewhat jarring
I don't get why we give communism such a free pass. Most of the most horrible regimes of modern history have been communist. Saying "I'm a communist" is tantamount to saying "I favour overthrowing liberal democracy and replacing it with a totalitarian system (which whenever it has been tried has led to tyranny)". Yet apparently we are unconcerned about having people who are members of the communist party as advisors to government (I'm thinking in particular of Susan Michie, during Covid). I'm content to allow people to take their own view on what society should be, but surely being a member of the communist party should ring some alarm bells? I'm pretty sure being a member of the National Front or whatever its equivalent is this year would raise the odd eyebrow.
The right-wing press and right-wong commentators are always going on about people with connections to the Communist party (or -ies). Where does this "apparently we are unconcerned" come from?
Easy. If you went to most parties and said: "I am a Nazi" or "I am a fascist", you will get thrown out, or worse. If you say "I am a Communist", you might get a roll of the eyes, but little else.
Communism is *much* more acceptable, despite its blood-drenched history.
They were both terrible ideologies.
And because - to take the advantage of Susan Michie - members of the communist party are able to work for and advise government.
Lots of people advise government. The government doesn't vet most of them for whether they are a member of a political party. Unless someone is a member of a proscribed group, they are able to work for and advise government.
Can I just clarify what your point is here? Do you think the government should vet everyone who advises them for undesirable political beliefs? What happened to free speech?
My point is that, rightly, government would be wary of inviting in or taking advice from anyone who was a member of the National Front, or modern equivalent, but seems unconcerned about doing so with communists, which seems equivalent. I gave the example of Susan Michie - I was very wary of a member of the communist party being allowed to guide policy with major societal implications - but OLB quite rightly also gave the example of Claire Fox, which I think is also valid. I'm not against these people's views being expressed - it seems right to me that they should be - but it seems daft that you solicit the views of these people. If you're trying to build a better society, you probably don't want to take advice from those who want to smash it apart.
There's a difference between a legislator (someone in the Lords, makes laws) and someone on a scientific advisory group (advising on specific points of science, not making policy). If you want to know about behavioural science, you ask the world-renowned behavioural scientist.
I was on SAGE subcommittees. No-one ever asked if I was or had ever been a member of the National Front (which I haven't been), the Communist Party (ditto) or any other political affiliation (I am a member of the Liberal Democrats). Membership was based on people's scientific credentials. I am not aware of the government being "wary of inviting in or taking advice from anyone who was a member of the National Front, or modern equivalent". That is, they didn't check if we were members of the NF, as far as I know. Maybe if someone had been that would have triggered some action; I don't know, that's hypothetical.
That seems right to me. You want someone to do a certain job. You get the person who is good at that job. You don't discriminate based on (most) political views. (If someone has views so extreme that they support a proscribed group, then they can be arrested for that.)
"You don't discriminate on (most) political views" - which political view would you discriminate on?
There are quite a number of examples amongst Trump's Cabinet who need it, and did not get it due to Congressional Republicans being .. er .. suppressed.
We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender......
we are in the fight of our times. We must choose patriotic national renewal over decline and toxic division every time.
A flattering portrayal of Nick Lowles, the chief dude at Hope Not Hate, focused on the risk of political violence from the extreme right
It casually mentions half way through that he was a student Trotskyist, like it’s no problem, because of course political violence of the extreme LEFT is just fine
The double standards are so howlingly blatant I can only presume the Guardian doesn’t even see them
Is that so ? It acknowledges it, but does it condone ? .. “When I first got involved in anti-fascism – this was late 80s – it was all about the street. I’m not saying it was right, but that’s how it was. You didn’t have cameras.” So, wait, he doesn’t mean handing out leaflets in the street? “No, you would have groups of Nazis and groups of anti-fascists, and they would battle it out, down sidestreets, and sometimes it got quite violent. I mean, look at me, I’m not built for that. I never got involved in that. But that was the world it was.”..
Oh give over. What if someone said “yes I was in the national front as a teenager” - would she simply have passed by that without mention and interrogation? Of course not. And the NF didn’t want to overthrow liberal capitalism - unlike the Trots
It’s fuxking ludicrous. This guy is held up an an exemplary opponent of right wing political violence yet it turns out he was a revolutionary activist in his youth, desiring to end parliamentary democracy, and she doesn’t even note that this is somewhat jarring
Yeah the NF just wanted to round up my wife's family and millions like them and throw them out of the country. Harmless stuff.
Whereas communists are all sweetness and light and hardly ever engage in mass murder?
In the postwar UK the comparison is ludicrous and could only be made by a heterosexual white person. Anyone who is a member of a minority group knows that the far right pose a physical threat to their safety. I know people who had to literally fight the far right in order to remain in their homes in the 1970s/80s. Anyone who experienced the same kind of physical threat from the socialist workers party please feel free to share your experiences.
When Derek Beackon won a council seat in the early 1990s, I regularly saw signs saying "Kill the Nazi scum" from some organisation. I think it was the ANL or somesuch. Which amused me, as I was unconvinced that 'kill them' made the much different from the Nazis...
The 'ANL' in the early 1990s were a bunch of violent thugs looking for a fight that often never materialised.
They'd arrange 'counter attacks' to events that weren't even taking place as an excuse to get together and 'take to the streets'. Sometimes they'd do battle with football hooligans, for whom politics was unimportant at best. As long as the ANL side had the opposition outnumbered, obviously...
All this rubbish about 'fighting the Neo-Nazis' stuck to every lamppost in South London - only the actual Nazis barely existed. Who were they picking a fight with? Derek Beackon and his minder? A couple of old boys who'd been at NF rallies 20 years earlier?
The 'far right' a) aren't actually right wing, and b) barely exist. The actual far left are a far bigger threat/issue - and continue to justify their own hatred by manufacturing opponents out of thin air.
As a society/media/narrative we've got it badly arse-over-tit as usual.
It's quite the opposite. The ideas and values of the Far Right, boosted by the Trump election victory and by the world's richest man who bought Twitter for this express purpose, are penetrating the mainstream in a way that would be unthinkable just a few years ago. They are a far bigger threat to our liberal democracy than the fringe actors of the Far Left, unpalatable and dangerous as those can often be. It hasn't always been the case, and could change in the future, but right now the Far Right has the mo' and as such merits particular attention.
This might be true - might - if the far left existed in isolation. But they don’t. They have made an unholy alliance with islamism - eg Jezbollah - so they are a much greater threat than anything on the right. They literally want to destroy our infidel societies. The far right wants zero migration
You'll still be muttering that to yourself even as Camden is set alight.
A flattering portrayal of Nick Lowles, the chief dude at Hope Not Hate, focused on the risk of political violence from the extreme right
It casually mentions half way through that he was a student Trotskyist, like it’s no problem, because of course political violence of the extreme LEFT is just fine
The double standards are so howlingly blatant I can only presume the Guardian doesn’t even see them
Is that so ? It acknowledges it, but does it condone ? .. “When I first got involved in anti-fascism – this was late 80s – it was all about the street. I’m not saying it was right, but that’s how it was. You didn’t have cameras.” So, wait, he doesn’t mean handing out leaflets in the street? “No, you would have groups of Nazis and groups of anti-fascists, and they would battle it out, down sidestreets, and sometimes it got quite violent. I mean, look at me, I’m not built for that. I never got involved in that. But that was the world it was.”..
Oh give over. What if someone said “yes I was in the national front as a teenager” - would she simply have passed by that without mention and interrogation? Of course not. And the NF didn’t want to overthrow liberal capitalism - unlike the Trots
It’s fuxking ludicrous. This guy is held up an an exemplary opponent of right wing political violence yet it turns out he was a revolutionary activist in his youth, desiring to end parliamentary democracy, and she doesn’t even note that this is somewhat jarring
I don't get why we give communism such a free pass. Most of the most horrible regimes of modern history have been communist. Saying "I'm a communist" is tantamount to saying "I favour overthrowing liberal democracy and replacing it with a totalitarian system (which whenever it has been tried has led to tyranny)". Yet apparently we are unconcerned about having people who are members of the communist party as advisors to government (I'm thinking in particular of Susan Michie, during Covid). I'm content to allow people to take their own view on what society should be, but surely being a member of the communist party should ring some alarm bells? I'm pretty sure being a member of the National Front or whatever its equivalent is this year would raise the odd eyebrow.
The right-wing press and right-wong commentators are always going on about people with connections to the Communist party (or -ies). Where does this "apparently we are unconcerned" come from?
Easy. If you went to most parties and said: "I am a Nazi" or "I am a fascist", you will get thrown out, or worse. If you say "I am a Communist", you might get a roll of the eyes, but little else.
Communism is *much* more acceptable, despite its blood-drenched history.
They were both terrible ideologies.
And because - to take the advantage of Susan Michie - members of the communist party are able to work for and advise government.
Lots of people advise government. The government doesn't vet most of them for whether they are a member of a political party. Unless someone is a member of a proscribed group, they are able to work for and advise government.
Can I just clarify what your point is here? Do you think the government should vet everyone who advises them for undesirable political beliefs? What happened to free speech?
My point is that, rightly, government would be wary of inviting in or taking advice from anyone who was a member of the National Front, or modern equivalent, but seems unconcerned about doing so with communists, which seems equivalent. I gave the example of Susan Michie - I was very wary of a member of the communist party being allowed to guide policy with major societal implications - but OLB quite rightly also gave the example of Claire Fox, which I think is also valid. I'm not against these people's views being expressed - it seems right to me that they should be - but it seems daft that you solicit the views of these people. If you're trying to build a better society, you probably don't want to take advice from those who want to smash it apart.
There's a difference between a legislator (someone in the Lords, makes laws) and someone on a scientific advisory group (advising on specific points of science, not making policy). If you want to know about behavioural science, you ask the world-renowned behavioural scientist.
I was on SAGE subcommittees. No-one ever asked if I was or had ever been a member of the National Front (which I haven't been), the Communist Party (ditto) or any other political affiliation (I am a member of the Liberal Democrats). Membership was based on people's scientific credentials. I am not aware of the government being "wary of inviting in or taking advice from anyone who was a member of the National Front, or modern equivalent". That is, they didn't check if we were members of the NF, as far as I know. Maybe if someone had been that would have triggered some action; I don't know, that's hypothetical.
That seems right to me. You want someone to do a certain job. You get the person who is good at that job. You don't discriminate based on (most) political views. (If someone has views so extreme that they support a proscribed group, then they can be arrested for that.)
"You don't discriminate on (most) political views" - which political view would you discriminate on?
DId you not read my next sentence? As I said, support for proscribed groups.
I could generalise further: you can discriminate on whether someone is acting in an illegal manner. The expression of certain political views is illegal (e.g., membership of a proscribed group, calling for violence towards a particular group).
I don't consider those opposed to the democratic process to be "left" or "right" - they are simply authoritarian. Whether you agree with Churchill's view on democracy or not is irrelevant, the truth is anyone seeking to overthrow our democracy whether using violence or not is to be unequivocally opposed and condemned.
As long as you are committed to the pursuit of power via lawful means and via the ballot box you have a right to express your view in political discourse (I have the right to disagree with it of course) and to stand for election and put your viewpoint to the electorate and if you are successful and win a majority in the Commons, you can run the country.
I've hardly ever known a Government I felt I could support (perhaps the Coalition for a few weeks in 2010) but I respect the fact all have obtained their legitimacy through the electoral process (flawed as it may or may not be).
Likewise, I don't care if someone in a former political life advocated an anti-democratic viewpoint - if they are committed to democracy and the political process now, that works for me. Far more insidious are the democrats who drift toward authoritarianism.
I have just bought a resòlza pattadese - the archetypal Sardinian folding knife - handmade in the Supramonte mountains
It’s nearly identical to the knife my good friend the murderer-turner-shepherd Jonata XXXXX used to cut me a tranche of kidgoat-stomach-sac-cheese yesterday, after using it to slice me a piece of maggot cheese the day before
Reform voters for gross cheese is an underrepresented demographic
Well, they did applaud Andrea Jenkyn's song.
*I say that with affection for Andrea Jenkyns, who I like as a politician.
We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender......
we are in the fight of our times. We must choose patriotic national renewal over decline and toxic division every time.
A flattering portrayal of Nick Lowles, the chief dude at Hope Not Hate, focused on the risk of political violence from the extreme right
It casually mentions half way through that he was a student Trotskyist, like it’s no problem, because of course political violence of the extreme LEFT is just fine
The double standards are so howlingly blatant I can only presume the Guardian doesn’t even see them
Is that so ? It acknowledges it, but does it condone ? .. “When I first got involved in anti-fascism – this was late 80s – it was all about the street. I’m not saying it was right, but that’s how it was. You didn’t have cameras.” So, wait, he doesn’t mean handing out leaflets in the street? “No, you would have groups of Nazis and groups of anti-fascists, and they would battle it out, down sidestreets, and sometimes it got quite violent. I mean, look at me, I’m not built for that. I never got involved in that. But that was the world it was.”..
Oh give over. What if someone said “yes I was in the national front as a teenager” - would she simply have passed by that without mention and interrogation? Of course not. And the NF didn’t want to overthrow liberal capitalism - unlike the Trots
It’s fuxking ludicrous. This guy is held up an an exemplary opponent of right wing political violence yet it turns out he was a revolutionary activist in his youth, desiring to end parliamentary democracy, and she doesn’t even note that this is somewhat jarring
I don't get why we give communism such a free pass. Most of the most horrible regimes of modern history have been communist. Saying "I'm a communist" is tantamount to saying "I favour overthrowing liberal democracy and replacing it with a totalitarian system (which whenever it has been tried has led to tyranny)". Yet apparently we are unconcerned about having people who are members of the communist party as advisors to government (I'm thinking in particular of Susan Michie, during Covid). I'm content to allow people to take their own view on what society should be, but surely being a member of the communist party should ring some alarm bells? I'm pretty sure being a member of the National Front or whatever its equivalent is this year would raise the odd eyebrow.
The right-wing press and right-wong commentators are always going on about people with connections to the Communist party (or -ies). Where does this "apparently we are unconcerned" come from?
Easy. If you went to most parties and said: "I am a Nazi" or "I am a fascist", you will get thrown out, or worse. If you say "I am a Communist", you might get a roll of the eyes, but little else.
Communism is *much* more acceptable, despite its blood-drenched history.
They were both terrible ideologies.
And because - to take the advantage of Susan Michie - members of the communist party are able to work for and advise government.
Lots of people advise government. The government doesn't vet most of them for whether they are a member of a political party. Unless someone is a member of a proscribed group, they are able to work for and advise government.
Can I just clarify what your point is here? Do you think the government should vet everyone who advises them for undesirable political beliefs? What happened to free speech?
My point is that, rightly, government would be wary of inviting in or taking advice from anyone who was a member of the National Front, or modern equivalent, but seems unconcerned about doing so with communists, which seems equivalent. I gave the example of Susan Michie - I was very wary of a member of the communist party being allowed to guide policy with major societal implications - but OLB quite rightly also gave the example of Claire Fox, which I think is also valid. I'm not against these people's views being expressed - it seems right to me that they should be - but it seems daft that you solicit the views of these people. If you're trying to build a better society, you probably don't want to take advice from those who want to smash it apart.
There's a difference between a legislator (someone in the Lords, makes laws) and someone on a scientific advisory group (advising on specific points of science, not making policy). If you want to know about behavioural science, you ask the world-renowned behavioural scientist.
I was on SAGE subcommittees. No-one ever asked if I was or had ever been a member of the National Front (which I haven't been), the Communist Party (ditto) or any other political affiliation (I am a member of the Liberal Democrats). Membership was based on people's scientific credentials. I am not aware of the government being "wary of inviting in or taking advice from anyone who was a member of the National Front, or modern equivalent". That is, they didn't check if we were members of the NF, as far as I know. Maybe if someone had been that would have triggered some action; I don't know, that's hypothetical.
That seems right to me. You want someone to do a certain job. You get the person who is good at that job. You don't discriminate based on (most) political views. (If someone has views so extreme that they support a proscribed group, then they can be arrested for that.)
It's unlikely in practice that an NF or EDL member would be eminent in any field except racist sloganeering. There isn't much call for that in government. Although that could change if Reform get in, of course.
We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender......
we are in the fight of our times. We must choose patriotic national renewal over decline and toxic division every time.
As sure as night follows days we'll soon be seeing a similar phenomenon here.
Reverse evolution, we don't want immigrants doing the low-paid jobs and we don't want highly educated immigrants to out compete us for professional jobs. No one harvesting food and no one creating high tech industry. "Houston we've got a problem" literally
A flattering portrayal of Nick Lowles, the chief dude at Hope Not Hate, focused on the risk of political violence from the extreme right
It casually mentions half way through that he was a student Trotskyist, like it’s no problem, because of course political violence of the extreme LEFT is just fine
The double standards are so howlingly blatant I can only presume the Guardian doesn’t even see them
Is that so ? It acknowledges it, but does it condone ? .. “When I first got involved in anti-fascism – this was late 80s – it was all about the street. I’m not saying it was right, but that’s how it was. You didn’t have cameras.” So, wait, he doesn’t mean handing out leaflets in the street? “No, you would have groups of Nazis and groups of anti-fascists, and they would battle it out, down sidestreets, and sometimes it got quite violent. I mean, look at me, I’m not built for that. I never got involved in that. But that was the world it was.”..
Oh give over. What if someone said “yes I was in the national front as a teenager” - would she simply have passed by that without mention and interrogation? Of course not. And the NF didn’t want to overthrow liberal capitalism - unlike the Trots
It’s fuxking ludicrous. This guy is held up an an exemplary opponent of right wing political violence yet it turns out he was a revolutionary activist in his youth, desiring to end parliamentary democracy, and she doesn’t even note that this is somewhat jarring
Yeah the NF just wanted to round up my wife's family and millions like them and throw them out of the country. Harmless stuff.
Whereas communists are all sweetness and light and hardly ever engage in mass murder?
In the postwar UK the comparison is ludicrous and could only be made by a heterosexual white person. Anyone who is a member of a minority group knows that the far right pose a physical threat to their safety. I know people who had to literally fight the far right in order to remain in their homes in the 1970s/80s. Anyone who experienced the same kind of physical threat from the socialist workers party please feel free to share your experiences.
When Derek Beackon won a council seat in the early 1990s, I regularly saw signs saying "Kill the Nazi scum" from some organisation. I think it was the ANL or somesuch. Which amused me, as I was unconvinced that 'kill them' made the much different from the Nazis...
The 'ANL' in the early 1990s were a bunch of violent thugs looking for a fight that often never materialised.
They'd arrange 'counter attacks' to events that weren't even taking place as an excuse to get together and 'take to the streets'. Sometimes they'd do battle with football hooligans, for whom politics was unimportant at best. As long as the ANL side had the opposition outnumbered, obviously...
All this rubbish about 'fighting the Neo-Nazis' stuck to every lamppost in South London - only the actual Nazis barely existed. Who were they picking a fight with? Derek Beackon and his minder? A couple of old boys who'd been at NF rallies 20 years earlier?
The 'far right' a) aren't actually right wing, and b) barely exist. The actual far left are a far bigger threat/issue - and continue to justify their own hatred by manufacturing opponents out of thin air.
As a society/media/narrative we've got it badly arse-over-tit as usual.
It's quite the opposite. The ideas and values of the Far Right, boosted by the Trump election victory and by the world's richest man who bought Twitter for this express purpose, are penetrating the mainstream in a way that would be unthinkable just a few years ago. They are a far bigger threat to our liberal democracy than the fringe actors of the Far Left, unpalatable and dangerous as those can often be. It hasn't always been the case, and could change in the future, but right now the Far Right has the mo' and as such merits particular attention.
This might be true - might - if the far left existed in isolation. But they don’t. They have made an unholy alliance with islamism - eg Jezbollah - so they are a much greater threat than anything on the right. They literally want to destroy our infidel societies. The far right wants zero migration
I would describe Islamism as being of the Right. Remember, Tommeh himself said "Islam is peaceful."
A flattering portrayal of Nick Lowles, the chief dude at Hope Not Hate, focused on the risk of political violence from the extreme right
It casually mentions half way through that he was a student Trotskyist, like it’s no problem, because of course political violence of the extreme LEFT is just fine
The double standards are so howlingly blatant I can only presume the Guardian doesn’t even see them
Is that so ? It acknowledges it, but does it condone ? .. “When I first got involved in anti-fascism – this was late 80s – it was all about the street. I’m not saying it was right, but that’s how it was. You didn’t have cameras.” So, wait, he doesn’t mean handing out leaflets in the street? “No, you would have groups of Nazis and groups of anti-fascists, and they would battle it out, down sidestreets, and sometimes it got quite violent. I mean, look at me, I’m not built for that. I never got involved in that. But that was the world it was.”..
Oh give over. What if someone said “yes I was in the national front as a teenager” - would she simply have passed by that without mention and interrogation? Of course not. And the NF didn’t want to overthrow liberal capitalism - unlike the Trots
It’s fuxking ludicrous. This guy is held up an an exemplary opponent of right wing political violence yet it turns out he was a revolutionary activist in his youth, desiring to end parliamentary democracy, and she doesn’t even note that this is somewhat jarring
I don't get why we give communism such a free pass. Most of the most horrible regimes of modern history have been communist. Saying "I'm a communist" is tantamount to saying "I favour overthrowing liberal democracy and replacing it with a totalitarian system (which whenever it has been tried has led to tyranny)". Yet apparently we are unconcerned about having people who are members of the communist party as advisors to government (I'm thinking in particular of Susan Michie, during Covid). I'm content to allow people to take their own view on what society should be, but surely being a member of the communist party should ring some alarm bells? I'm pretty sure being a member of the National Front or whatever its equivalent is this year would raise the odd eyebrow.
The right-wing press and right-wong commentators are always going on about people with connections to the Communist party (or -ies). Where does this "apparently we are unconcerned" come from?
Easy. If you went to most parties and said: "I am a Nazi" or "I am a fascist", you will get thrown out, or worse. If you say "I am a Communist", you might get a roll of the eyes, but little else.
Communism is *much* more acceptable, despite its blood-drenched history.
They were both terrible ideologies.
And because - to take the advantage of Susan Michie - members of the communist party are able to work for and advise government.
Lots of people advise government. The government doesn't vet most of them for whether they are a member of a political party. Unless someone is a member of a proscribed group, they are able to work for and advise government.
Can I just clarify what your point is here? Do you think the government should vet everyone who advises them for undesirable political beliefs? What happened to free speech?
My point is that, rightly, government would be wary of inviting in or taking advice from anyone who was a member of the National Front, or modern equivalent, but seems unconcerned about doing so with communists, which seems equivalent. I gave the example of Susan Michie - I was very wary of a member of the communist party being allowed to guide policy with major societal implications - but OLB quite rightly also gave the example of Claire Fox, which I think is also valid. I'm not against these people's views being expressed - it seems right to me that they should be - but it seems daft that you solicit the views of these people. If you're trying to build a better society, you probably don't want to take advice from those who want to smash it apart.
There's a difference between a legislator (someone in the Lords, makes laws) and someone on a scientific advisory group (advising on specific points of science, not making policy). If you want to know about behavioural science, you ask the world-renowned behavioural scientist.
I was on SAGE subcommittees. No-one ever asked if I was or had ever been a member of the National Front (which I haven't been), the Communist Party (ditto) or any other political affiliation (I am a member of the Liberal Democrats). Membership was based on people's scientific credentials. I am not aware of the government being "wary of inviting in or taking advice from anyone who was a member of the National Front, or modern equivalent". That is, they didn't check if we were members of the NF, as far as I know. Maybe if someone had been that would have triggered some action; I don't know, that's hypothetical.
That seems right to me. You want someone to do a certain job. You get the person who is good at that job. You don't discriminate based on (most) political views. (If someone has views so extreme that they support a proscribed group, then they can be arrested for that.)
"You don't discriminate on (most) political views" - which political view would you discriminate on?
DId you not read my next sentence? As I said, support for proscribed groups.
I could generalise further: you can discriminate on whether someone is acting in an illegal manner. The expression of certain political views is illegal (e.g., membership of a proscribed group, calling for violence towards a particular group).
To be fair - sorry, somehow I missed that sentence completely. How odd. Maybe my brain mentally edited out the bracketed bit. Please accept this 'like' by way of apology.
A flattering portrayal of Nick Lowles, the chief dude at Hope Not Hate, focused on the risk of political violence from the extreme right
It casually mentions half way through that he was a student Trotskyist, like it’s no problem, because of course political violence of the extreme LEFT is just fine
The double standards are so howlingly blatant I can only presume the Guardian doesn’t even see them
Is that so ? It acknowledges it, but does it condone ? .. “When I first got involved in anti-fascism – this was late 80s – it was all about the street. I’m not saying it was right, but that’s how it was. You didn’t have cameras.” So, wait, he doesn’t mean handing out leaflets in the street? “No, you would have groups of Nazis and groups of anti-fascists, and they would battle it out, down sidestreets, and sometimes it got quite violent. I mean, look at me, I’m not built for that. I never got involved in that. But that was the world it was.”..
Oh give over. What if someone said “yes I was in the national front as a teenager” - would she simply have passed by that without mention and interrogation? Of course not. And the NF didn’t want to overthrow liberal capitalism - unlike the Trots
It’s fuxking ludicrous. This guy is held up an an exemplary opponent of right wing political violence yet it turns out he was a revolutionary activist in his youth, desiring to end parliamentary democracy, and she doesn’t even note that this is somewhat jarring
Yeah the NF just wanted to round up my wife's family and millions like them and throw them out of the country. Harmless stuff.
Whereas communists are all sweetness and light and hardly ever engage in mass murder?
In the postwar UK the comparison is ludicrous and could only be made by a heterosexual white person. Anyone who is a member of a minority group knows that the far right pose a physical threat to their safety. I know people who had to literally fight the far right in order to remain in their homes in the 1970s/80s. Anyone who experienced the same kind of physical threat from the socialist workers party please feel free to share your experiences.
When Derek Beackon won a council seat in the early 1990s, I regularly saw signs saying "Kill the Nazi scum" from some organisation. I think it was the ANL or somesuch. Which amused me, as I was unconvinced that 'kill them' made the much different from the Nazis...
The 'ANL' in the early 1990s were a bunch of violent thugs looking for a fight that often never materialised.
They'd arrange 'counter attacks' to events that weren't even taking place as an excuse to get together and 'take to the streets'. Sometimes they'd do battle with football hooligans, for whom politics was unimportant at best. As long as the ANL side had the opposition outnumbered, obviously...
All this rubbish about 'fighting the Neo-Nazis' stuck to every lamppost in South London - only the actual Nazis barely existed. Who were they picking a fight with? Derek Beackon and his minder? A couple of old boys who'd been at NF rallies 20 years earlier?
The 'far right' a) aren't actually right wing, and b) barely exist. The actual far left are a far bigger threat/issue - and continue to justify their own hatred by manufacturing opponents out of thin air.
As a society/media/narrative we've got it badly arse-over-tit as usual.
It's quite the opposite. The ideas and values of the Far Right, boosted by the Trump election victory and by the world's richest man who bought Twitter for this express purpose, are penetrating the mainstream in a way that would be unthinkable just a few years ago. They are a far bigger threat to our liberal democracy than the fringe actors of the Far Left, unpalatable and dangerous as those can often be. It hasn't always been the case, and could change in the future, but right now the Far Right has the mo' and as such merits particular attention.
This might be true - might - if the far left existed in isolation. But they don’t. They have made an unholy alliance with islamism - eg Jezbollah - so they are a much greater threat than anything on the right. They literally want to destroy our infidel societies. The far right wants zero migration
I would describe Islamism as being of the Right. Remember, Tommeh himself said "Islam is peaceful."
Hmmm. Interesting one - I'm not sure it fits on that spectrum.
I would, however, call it totalitarian rather than authoritarian - that is, having more of a complete societal system incorporated.
Two of the I think more successful attempts to tame it have been in Ataturk's Turkey, and the USA. IMO countries in SE Asia, the Ismailis, and some North African countries are interesting.
I rocked up to the last seat selection hustings I went to completely without notes. Knew my opening and closing comments verbatim and my key points. Completely flummoxed one of the other candidates who had reams of notes and even then kept forgetting her point.
It's much better if you can. I gave my maiden speech in Parliament entirely from notes, as I was nervous. It was a bit rubbish, whereas later speeches without notes were better (though I'll never sway the millions).
I’ve taught myself to play an extrovert and to be able to speak in public over the years, with bullet points and cue cards for a familiar subject - but a maiden speech in Parliament is one of those you’re going to want in front of you written out in full!
As somebody who regularly gives speeches to large meetings I've learned it is best to write bullet points down (and key gags) down rather than the whole speech.
I once used a teleprompter and it was a bigger disaster than the Liz Truss premiership, I kept on looking at that and completely losing my focus.
Had I become an MP my first speech to Parliament would have begun like this
'Hello, my name is Mr Eagles, and I'm an alcoholic, oh wait, wrong speech.'
Yes, with a couple of key points which act as waypoints within the speech.
Same when I am presenting sales stuff to clients. Slides are few in number and literally there as visual aides. And often not used at all much to the annoyance of colleagues who think 704 slides are best.
The most tedious presentations are those where the presenter reads the slides verbatim.
Generally the fewer the words on the slide the better. I had a lecturer in my UG days who had a roll of handwritten OHP acetate which he read off word for word and scrolled ever upwards. (Pre powerpoint, obs). It was terrible.
We had a biology teacher who was even worse. He read word for word and had us write it all down verbatim. Only O Level I failed.
We had a physics teacher like that. It was extremely boring but weirdly, it worked for me - through writing it down, the words passed from his mouth to my memory without at any point lodging in my conscious brain.
Yes, same. Chemistry in my case. An ultra trad teacher who dictated copious notes and told us to learn them. I did, and cruised to a top grade. We didn't get percentages, just the letter, but it would have been my highest, I think.
A flattering portrayal of Nick Lowles, the chief dude at Hope Not Hate, focused on the risk of political violence from the extreme right
It casually mentions half way through that he was a student Trotskyist, like it’s no problem, because of course political violence of the extreme LEFT is just fine
The double standards are so howlingly blatant I can only presume the Guardian doesn’t even see them
Is that so ? It acknowledges it, but does it condone ? .. “When I first got involved in anti-fascism – this was late 80s – it was all about the street. I’m not saying it was right, but that’s how it was. You didn’t have cameras.” So, wait, he doesn’t mean handing out leaflets in the street? “No, you would have groups of Nazis and groups of anti-fascists, and they would battle it out, down sidestreets, and sometimes it got quite violent. I mean, look at me, I’m not built for that. I never got involved in that. But that was the world it was.”..
Oh give over. What if someone said “yes I was in the national front as a teenager” - would she simply have passed by that without mention and interrogation? Of course not. And the NF didn’t want to overthrow liberal capitalism - unlike the Trots
It’s fuxking ludicrous. This guy is held up an an exemplary opponent of right wing political violence yet it turns out he was a revolutionary activist in his youth, desiring to end parliamentary democracy, and she doesn’t even note that this is somewhat jarring
I don't get why we give communism such a free pass. Most of the most horrible regimes of modern history have been communist. Saying "I'm a communist" is tantamount to saying "I favour overthrowing liberal democracy and replacing it with a totalitarian system (which whenever it has been tried has led to tyranny)". Yet apparently we are unconcerned about having people who are members of the communist party as advisors to government (I'm thinking in particular of Susan Michie, during Covid). I'm content to allow people to take their own view on what society should be, but surely being a member of the communist party should ring some alarm bells? I'm pretty sure being a member of the National Front or whatever its equivalent is this year would raise the odd eyebrow.
The right-wing press and right-wong commentators are always going on about people with connections to the Communist party (or -ies). Where does this "apparently we are unconcerned" come from?
Easy. If you went to most parties and said: "I am a Nazi" or "I am a fascist", you will get thrown out, or worse. If you say "I am a Communist", you might get a roll of the eyes, but little else.
Communism is *much* more acceptable, despite its blood-drenched history.
They were both terrible ideologies.
And because - to take the advantage of Susan Michie - members of the communist party are able to work for and advise government.
Lots of people advise government. The government doesn't vet most of them for whether they are a member of a political party. Unless someone is a member of a proscribed group, they are able to work for and advise government.
Can I just clarify what your point is here? Do you think the government should vet everyone who advises them for undesirable political beliefs? What happened to free speech?
My point is that, rightly, government would be wary of inviting in or taking advice from anyone who was a member of the National Front, or modern equivalent, but seems unconcerned about doing so with communists, which seems equivalent. I gave the example of Susan Michie - I was very wary of a member of the communist party being allowed to guide policy with major societal implications - but OLB quite rightly also gave the example of Claire Fox, which I think is also valid. I'm not against these people's views being expressed - it seems right to me that they should be - but it seems daft that you solicit the views of these people. If you're trying to build a better society, you probably don't want to take advice from those who want to smash it apart.
And I think the 'issue' is that Communism is seen mostly as a set of economic beliefs. Fascism, by contrast, usually involves belief in racial superiority.
Personally, I think when one defends and glorifies terrorism, as Claire Fox did, then that should be a disqualifying factor.
I did mention it yesterday briefly. Given the strong green runner up in the recent by election there it will be interesting to see if they can break the monopoly in May
Labour polled nearly 80% across B&D in 2022 and won all 51 seats comfortably. The Conservatives got 17% and the Greens 1.3% compared to Newham where Labour got 61% and the Greens 17% last time.
The scale of swings needed is daunting in extremis - the Greens didn't even contest Barking Riverside last time where Labour scraped home with 70% of the vote. It was 78% Labour in Goresbrook and 80% in Longbridge.
Of course, the coming of Your Party might complicate matters for labour but if they put up a slate as well as the Greens that might help Labour get home.
A flattering portrayal of Nick Lowles, the chief dude at Hope Not Hate, focused on the risk of political violence from the extreme right
It casually mentions half way through that he was a student Trotskyist, like it’s no problem, because of course political violence of the extreme LEFT is just fine
The double standards are so howlingly blatant I can only presume the Guardian doesn’t even see them
Is that so ? It acknowledges it, but does it condone ? .. “When I first got involved in anti-fascism – this was late 80s – it was all about the street. I’m not saying it was right, but that’s how it was. You didn’t have cameras.” So, wait, he doesn’t mean handing out leaflets in the street? “No, you would have groups of Nazis and groups of anti-fascists, and they would battle it out, down sidestreets, and sometimes it got quite violent. I mean, look at me, I’m not built for that. I never got involved in that. But that was the world it was.”..
Oh give over. What if someone said “yes I was in the national front as a teenager” - would she simply have passed by that without mention and interrogation? Of course not. And the NF didn’t want to overthrow liberal capitalism - unlike the Trots
It’s fuxking ludicrous. This guy is held up an an exemplary opponent of right wing political violence yet it turns out he was a revolutionary activist in his youth, desiring to end parliamentary democracy, and she doesn’t even note that this is somewhat jarring
I don't get why we give communism such a free pass. Most of the most horrible regimes of modern history have been communist. Saying "I'm a communist" is tantamount to saying "I favour overthrowing liberal democracy and replacing it with a totalitarian system (which whenever it has been tried has led to tyranny)". Yet apparently we are unconcerned about having people who are members of the communist party as advisors to government (I'm thinking in particular of Susan Michie, during Covid). I'm content to allow people to take their own view on what society should be, but surely being a member of the communist party should ring some alarm bells? I'm pretty sure being a member of the National Front or whatever its equivalent is this year would raise the odd eyebrow.
The right-wing press and right-wong commentators are always going on about people with connections to the Communist party (or -ies). Where does this "apparently we are unconcerned" come from?
Easy. If you went to most parties and said: "I am a Nazi" or "I am a fascist", you will get thrown out, or worse. If you say "I am a Communist", you might get a roll of the eyes, but little else.
Communism is *much* more acceptable, despite its blood-drenched history.
They were both terrible ideologies.
And because - to take the advantage of Susan Michie - members of the communist party are able to work for and advise government.
Lots of people advise government. The government doesn't vet most of them for whether they are a member of a political party. Unless someone is a member of a proscribed group, they are able to work for and advise government.
Can I just clarify what your point is here? Do you think the government should vet everyone who advises them for undesirable political beliefs? What happened to free speech?
My point is that, rightly, government would be wary of inviting in or taking advice from anyone who was a member of the National Front, or modern equivalent, but seems unconcerned about doing so with communists, which seems equivalent. I gave the example of Susan Michie - I was very wary of a member of the communist party being allowed to guide policy with major societal implications - but OLB quite rightly also gave the example of Claire Fox, which I think is also valid. I'm not against these people's views being expressed - it seems right to me that they should be - but it seems daft that you solicit the views of these people. If you're trying to build a better society, you probably don't want to take advice from those who want to smash it apart.
And I think the 'issue' is that Communism is seen mostly as a set of economic beliefs. Fascism, by contrast, usually involves belief in racial superiority.
Personally, I think when one defends and glorifies terrorism, as Claire Fox did, then that should be a disqualifying factor.
Communism believes in superiority by class, and therefore - very often - literal extermination of the middle and upper classes. As happened in Russia, China, Cambodia….
They are both extreme violent ideologies. Indeed it is arguable that communism is the more extreme as it is defined by revolution in a way fascism is not
I grew up on Medicaid and food stamps. Stripped tobacco at the age of 7. Lived in the back of a Dodge Caravan in HS. Married a teacher. Served my country.
Now, I’m running for Senate because KY families deserve better than cuts to Medicaid, SNAP & vets’ services.
If you're pissed off like me, join our campaign today.
I did mention it yesterday briefly. Given the strong green runner up in the recent by election there it will be interesting to see if they can break the monopoly in May
Labour polled nearly 80% across B&D in 2022 and won all 51 seats comfortably. The Conservatives got 17% and the Greens 1.3% compared to Newham where Labour got 61% and the Greens 17% last time.
The scale of swings needed is daunting in extremis - the Greens didn't even contest Barking Riverside last time where Labour scraped home with 70% of the vote. It was 78% Labour in Goresbrook and 80% in Longbridge.
Of course, the coming of Your Party might complicate matters for labour but if they put up a slate as well as the Greens that might help Labour get home.
Oh its a tough old ask but I guess what Im thinking is if the dam cracks and leaks here it might be very grim elsewhere indeed.
A flattering portrayal of Nick Lowles, the chief dude at Hope Not Hate, focused on the risk of political violence from the extreme right
It casually mentions half way through that he was a student Trotskyist, like it’s no problem, because of course political violence of the extreme LEFT is just fine
The double standards are so howlingly blatant I can only presume the Guardian doesn’t even see them
Is that so ? It acknowledges it, but does it condone ? .. “When I first got involved in anti-fascism – this was late 80s – it was all about the street. I’m not saying it was right, but that’s how it was. You didn’t have cameras.” So, wait, he doesn’t mean handing out leaflets in the street? “No, you would have groups of Nazis and groups of anti-fascists, and they would battle it out, down sidestreets, and sometimes it got quite violent. I mean, look at me, I’m not built for that. I never got involved in that. But that was the world it was.”..
Oh give over. What if someone said “yes I was in the national front as a teenager” - would she simply have passed by that without mention and interrogation? Of course not. And the NF didn’t want to overthrow liberal capitalism - unlike the Trots
It’s fuxking ludicrous. This guy is held up an an exemplary opponent of right wing political violence yet it turns out he was a revolutionary activist in his youth, desiring to end parliamentary democracy, and she doesn’t even note that this is somewhat jarring
Yeah the NF just wanted to round up my wife's family and millions like them and throw them out of the country. Harmless stuff.
Whereas communists are all sweetness and light and hardly ever engage in mass murder?
In the postwar UK the comparison is ludicrous and could only be made by a heterosexual white person. Anyone who is a member of a minority group knows that the far right pose a physical threat to their safety. I know people who had to literally fight the far right in order to remain in their homes in the 1970s/80s. Anyone who experienced the same kind of physical threat from the socialist workers party please feel free to share your experiences.
When Derek Beackon won a council seat in the early 1990s, I regularly saw signs saying "Kill the Nazi scum" from some organisation. I think it was the ANL or somesuch. Which amused me, as I was unconvinced that 'kill them' made the much different from the Nazis...
The 'ANL' in the early 1990s were a bunch of violent thugs looking for a fight that often never materialised.
They'd arrange 'counter attacks' to events that weren't even taking place as an excuse to get together and 'take to the streets'. Sometimes they'd do battle with football hooligans, for whom politics was unimportant at best. As long as the ANL side had the opposition outnumbered, obviously...
All this rubbish about 'fighting the Neo-Nazis' stuck to every lamppost in South London - only the actual Nazis barely existed. Who were they picking a fight with? Derek Beackon and his minder? A couple of old boys who'd been at NF rallies 20 years earlier?
The 'far right' a) aren't actually right wing, and b) barely exist. The actual far left are a far bigger threat/issue - and continue to justify their own hatred by manufacturing opponents out of thin air.
As a society/media/narrative we've got it badly arse-over-tit as usual.
It's quite the opposite. The ideas and values of the Far Right, boosted by the Trump election victory and by the world's richest man who bought Twitter for this express purpose, are penetrating the mainstream in a way that would be unthinkable just a few years ago. They are a far bigger threat to our liberal democracy than the fringe actors of the Far Left, unpalatable and dangerous as those can often be. It hasn't always been the case, and could change in the future, but right now the Far Right has the mo' and as such merits particular attention.
This might be true - might - if the far left existed in isolation. But they don’t. They have made an unholy alliance with islamism - eg Jezbollah - so they are a much greater threat than anything on the right. They literally want to destroy our infidel societies. The far right wants zero migration
When Jez and his Islington Islamic Front are polling 30% on a platform to dismantle the borders and substitute English law with Sharia, and an Islamist is occupying the WH, and social media is largely owned by the Supreme Leader of Iran, we can talk about equivalence.
As sure as night follows days we'll soon be seeing a similar phenomenon here.
H1-B abuse involving Indian body shops is a longstanding mainstream complaint. It's long been the acceptable face of anti-immigrant sentiment in college-educated America.
The other complaint is that Indians only hire or promote other Indians, so you end up with Indian-only teams in some firms.
Allison Pearson @AllisonPearson · 20h It’s vital that Reform doesn’t become a chicken run for Tory MPs who colluded in the Boriswave and net zero nonsense.
That's facts. Facts don't matter any more. What matters is the loudness of your voice, and how well you can restrict the voices of your opponents by screeching "FREE SPEECH!!!!!!"
Allison Pearson @AllisonPearson · 20h It’s vital that Reform doesn’t become a chicken run for Tory MPs who colluded in the Boriswave and net zero nonsense.
A flattering portrayal of Nick Lowles, the chief dude at Hope Not Hate, focused on the risk of political violence from the extreme right
It casually mentions half way through that he was a student Trotskyist, like it’s no problem, because of course political violence of the extreme LEFT is just fine
The double standards are so howlingly blatant I can only presume the Guardian doesn’t even see them
Is that so ? It acknowledges it, but does it condone ? .. “When I first got involved in anti-fascism – this was late 80s – it was all about the street. I’m not saying it was right, but that’s how it was. You didn’t have cameras.” So, wait, he doesn’t mean handing out leaflets in the street? “No, you would have groups of Nazis and groups of anti-fascists, and they would battle it out, down sidestreets, and sometimes it got quite violent. I mean, look at me, I’m not built for that. I never got involved in that. But that was the world it was.”..
Oh give over. What if someone said “yes I was in the national front as a teenager” - would she simply have passed by that without mention and interrogation? Of course not. And the NF didn’t want to overthrow liberal capitalism - unlike the Trots
It’s fuxking ludicrous. This guy is held up an an exemplary opponent of right wing political violence yet it turns out he was a revolutionary activist in his youth, desiring to end parliamentary democracy, and she doesn’t even note that this is somewhat jarring
I don't get why we give communism such a free pass. Most of the most horrible regimes of modern history have been communist. Saying "I'm a communist" is tantamount to saying "I favour overthrowing liberal democracy and replacing it with a totalitarian system (which whenever it has been tried has led to tyranny)". Yet apparently we are unconcerned about having people who are members of the communist party as advisors to government (I'm thinking in particular of Susan Michie, during Covid). I'm content to allow people to take their own view on what society should be, but surely being a member of the communist party should ring some alarm bells? I'm pretty sure being a member of the National Front or whatever its equivalent is this year would raise the odd eyebrow.
The right-wing press and right-wong commentators are always going on about people with connections to the Communist party (or -ies). Where does this "apparently we are unconcerned" come from?
Easy. If you went to most parties and said: "I am a Nazi" or "I am a fascist", you will get thrown out, or worse. If you say "I am a Communist", you might get a roll of the eyes, but little else.
Communism is *much* more acceptable, despite its blood-drenched history.
They were both terrible ideologies.
And because - to take the advantage of Susan Michie - members of the communist party are able to work for and advise government.
Lots of people advise government. The government doesn't vet most of them for whether they are a member of a political party. Unless someone is a member of a proscribed group, they are able to work for and advise government.
Can I just clarify what your point is here? Do you think the government should vet everyone who advises them for undesirable political beliefs? What happened to free speech?
My point is that, rightly, government would be wary of inviting in or taking advice from anyone who was a member of the National Front, or modern equivalent, but seems unconcerned about doing so with communists, which seems equivalent. I gave the example of Susan Michie - I was very wary of a member of the communist party being allowed to guide policy with major societal implications - but OLB quite rightly also gave the example of Claire Fox, which I think is also valid. I'm not against these people's views being expressed - it seems right to me that they should be - but it seems daft that you solicit the views of these people. If you're trying to build a better society, you probably don't want to take advice from those who want to smash it apart.
And I think the 'issue' is that Communism is seen mostly as a set of economic beliefs. Fascism, by contrast, usually involves belief in racial superiority.
Personally, I think when one defends and glorifies terrorism, as Claire Fox did, then that should be a disqualifying factor.
"Communism is seen mostly as a set of economic beliefs."
Well... that's the way they sell it. When it comes to the reality - as we saw with Russia - there are the important people (Moscow and St Petersburg) and everyone else. Both inside Russia and outside. Lenin and Stalin really wanted to 'sell' communism outside Russia, which is why they and their successors tried to inveigle themselves into foreign countries. But it was clear that they saw themselves as superior, a trait that was one factor in the Sino-Soviet split.
"Personally, I think when one defends and glorifies terrorism, as Claire Fox did, then that should be a disqualifying factor"
Agreed. If said as an adult. And is said as a child, thoroughly apologised for.
A flattering portrayal of Nick Lowles, the chief dude at Hope Not Hate, focused on the risk of political violence from the extreme right
It casually mentions half way through that he was a student Trotskyist, like it’s no problem, because of course political violence of the extreme LEFT is just fine
The double standards are so howlingly blatant I can only presume the Guardian doesn’t even see them
Is that so ? It acknowledges it, but does it condone ? .. “When I first got involved in anti-fascism – this was late 80s – it was all about the street. I’m not saying it was right, but that’s how it was. You didn’t have cameras.” So, wait, he doesn’t mean handing out leaflets in the street? “No, you would have groups of Nazis and groups of anti-fascists, and they would battle it out, down sidestreets, and sometimes it got quite violent. I mean, look at me, I’m not built for that. I never got involved in that. But that was the world it was.”..
Oh give over. What if someone said “yes I was in the national front as a teenager” - would she simply have passed by that without mention and interrogation? Of course not. And the NF didn’t want to overthrow liberal capitalism - unlike the Trots
It’s fuxking ludicrous. This guy is held up an an exemplary opponent of right wing political violence yet it turns out he was a revolutionary activist in his youth, desiring to end parliamentary democracy, and she doesn’t even note that this is somewhat jarring
I don't get why we give communism such a free pass. Most of the most horrible regimes of modern history have been communist. Saying "I'm a communist" is tantamount to saying "I favour overthrowing liberal democracy and replacing it with a totalitarian system (which whenever it has been tried has led to tyranny)". Yet apparently we are unconcerned about having people who are members of the communist party as advisors to government (I'm thinking in particular of Susan Michie, during Covid). I'm content to allow people to take their own view on what society should be, but surely being a member of the communist party should ring some alarm bells? I'm pretty sure being a member of the National Front or whatever its equivalent is this year would raise the odd eyebrow.
The right-wing press and right-wong commentators are always going on about people with connections to the Communist party (or -ies). Where does this "apparently we are unconcerned" come from?
Easy. If you went to most parties and said: "I am a Nazi" or "I am a fascist", you will get thrown out, or worse. If you say "I am a Communist", you might get a roll of the eyes, but little else.
Communism is *much* more acceptable, despite its blood-drenched history.
They were both terrible ideologies.
And because - to take the advantage of Susan Michie - members of the communist party are able to work for and advise government.
Lots of people advise government. The government doesn't vet most of them for whether they are a member of a political party. Unless someone is a member of a proscribed group, they are able to work for and advise government.
Can I just clarify what your point is here? Do you think the government should vet everyone who advises them for undesirable political beliefs? What happened to free speech?
My point is that, rightly, government would be wary of inviting in or taking advice from anyone who was a member of the National Front, or modern equivalent, but seems unconcerned about doing so with communists, which seems equivalent. I gave the example of Susan Michie - I was very wary of a member of the communist party being allowed to guide policy with major societal implications - but OLB quite rightly also gave the example of Claire Fox, which I think is also valid. I'm not against these people's views being expressed - it seems right to me that they should be - but it seems daft that you solicit the views of these people. If you're trying to build a better society, you probably don't want to take advice from those who want to smash it apart.
And I think the 'issue' is that Communism is seen mostly as a set of economic beliefs. Fascism, by contrast, usually involves belief in racial superiority.
Economic beliefs that run so counter to human nature that they inevitably require the most extreme coercion, with those growing the food having it stolen from them and everyone else queuing for hours for a crust of stale bread.
A flattering portrayal of Nick Lowles, the chief dude at Hope Not Hate, focused on the risk of political violence from the extreme right
It casually mentions half way through that he was a student Trotskyist, like it’s no problem, because of course political violence of the extreme LEFT is just fine
The double standards are so howlingly blatant I can only presume the Guardian doesn’t even see them
Is that so ? It acknowledges it, but does it condone ? .. “When I first got involved in anti-fascism – this was late 80s – it was all about the street. I’m not saying it was right, but that’s how it was. You didn’t have cameras.” So, wait, he doesn’t mean handing out leaflets in the street? “No, you would have groups of Nazis and groups of anti-fascists, and they would battle it out, down sidestreets, and sometimes it got quite violent. I mean, look at me, I’m not built for that. I never got involved in that. But that was the world it was.”..
Oh give over. What if someone said “yes I was in the national front as a teenager” - would she simply have passed by that without mention and interrogation? Of course not. And the NF didn’t want to overthrow liberal capitalism - unlike the Trots
It’s fuxking ludicrous. This guy is held up an an exemplary opponent of right wing political violence yet it turns out he was a revolutionary activist in his youth, desiring to end parliamentary democracy, and she doesn’t even note that this is somewhat jarring
Yeah the NF just wanted to round up my wife's family and millions like them and throw them out of the country. Harmless stuff.
Whereas communists are all sweetness and light and hardly ever engage in mass murder?
In the postwar UK the comparison is ludicrous and could only be made by a heterosexual white person. Anyone who is a member of a minority group knows that the far right pose a physical threat to their safety. I know people who had to literally fight the far right in order to remain in their homes in the 1970s/80s. Anyone who experienced the same kind of physical threat from the socialist workers party please feel free to share your experiences.
When Derek Beackon won a council seat in the early 1990s, I regularly saw signs saying "Kill the Nazi scum" from some organisation. I think it was the ANL or somesuch. Which amused me, as I was unconvinced that 'kill them' made the much different from the Nazis...
The 'ANL' in the early 1990s were a bunch of violent thugs looking for a fight that often never materialised.
They'd arrange 'counter attacks' to events that weren't even taking place as an excuse to get together and 'take to the streets'. Sometimes they'd do battle with football hooligans, for whom politics was unimportant at best. As long as the ANL side had the opposition outnumbered, obviously...
All this rubbish about 'fighting the Neo-Nazis' stuck to every lamppost in South London - only the actual Nazis barely existed. Who were they picking a fight with? Derek Beackon and his minder? A couple of old boys who'd been at NF rallies 20 years earlier?
The 'far right' a) aren't actually right wing, and b) barely exist. The actual far left are a far bigger threat/issue - and continue to justify their own hatred by manufacturing opponents out of thin air.
As a society/media/narrative we've got it badly arse-over-tit as usual.
I've said this story before, but at that time I was once stuck on a D6 bus around the Isle of Dogs one Saturday afternoon. We made very slow progress, as we were stuck behind a BNP rally that consisted of about a tenth of all the police who were securing the rally...
We got a very good view of the 'rally' from the top deck of the bus.
Incidentally, I knew a chip-shop worker of asian extraction who voted BNP as she was pi**ed off with TH's housing policy at the time - which was allegedly that family size mattered more than time on the waiting list.
We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender......
we are in the fight of our times. We must choose patriotic national renewal over decline and toxic division every time.
A flattering portrayal of Nick Lowles, the chief dude at Hope Not Hate, focused on the risk of political violence from the extreme right
It casually mentions half way through that he was a student Trotskyist, like it’s no problem, because of course political violence of the extreme LEFT is just fine
The double standards are so howlingly blatant I can only presume the Guardian doesn’t even see them
Is that so ? It acknowledges it, but does it condone ? .. “When I first got involved in anti-fascism – this was late 80s – it was all about the street. I’m not saying it was right, but that’s how it was. You didn’t have cameras.” So, wait, he doesn’t mean handing out leaflets in the street? “No, you would have groups of Nazis and groups of anti-fascists, and they would battle it out, down sidestreets, and sometimes it got quite violent. I mean, look at me, I’m not built for that. I never got involved in that. But that was the world it was.”..
Oh give over. What if someone said “yes I was in the national front as a teenager” - would she simply have passed by that without mention and interrogation? Of course not. And the NF didn’t want to overthrow liberal capitalism - unlike the Trots
It’s fuxking ludicrous. This guy is held up an an exemplary opponent of right wing political violence yet it turns out he was a revolutionary activist in his youth, desiring to end parliamentary democracy, and she doesn’t even note that this is somewhat jarring
No, I won't, you preening popinjay. You're talking about someone who was a student Trotskyist, four decades ago, and didn't engage in violence.
What evidence do you have that he was a "revolutionary activist" ?
I used to argue with similar Trotskyists back in the 80s. They were largely a bunch of prats, who did little but argue with each other (there being at least a dozen different flavours), and most of them had little or no clue about the actual history of Soviet Communism.
He, it seems moderately clear, grew up, You should consider doing the same.
I rocked up to the last seat selection hustings I went to completely without notes. Knew my opening and closing comments verbatim and my key points. Completely flummoxed one of the other candidates who had reams of notes and even then kept forgetting her point.
I think its about knowing your brief. I speak about my research and the science of chillies at festivals and I don't need notes to speak for 30-45 minutes. I can see that if you are giving a keynote speech at conference it is probably going to be carefully scripted but a great communicator ought to be able to do it from memory, finding the words as they go.
Does it matter? Who knows. I don't think it was the only thing Cameron had going for him.
“…This failure to respond clearly to a binary question — do you have confidence in the chancellor or not? — was interpreted by the markets as equivocation. They did not take it well.
Determined not to make that mistake again, Starmer’s PMQs team concluded, some reluctantly, that there was only one possible answer. The prime minister, still awaiting Mandelson’s replies to the Foreign Office, was yet to make a decision on his future. To offer anything but a yes would only oxygenate the speculation and derail yet another day.”
Comments
EDIT: Um, she looks OK
Cameron won the group by miles.
Why do so many women choose to sport a hairstyle that looks like a giant glans?
Is it some subconscious attempt to 'convert' gay men? Am I the only person that thinks it looks ridiculous?
Same when I am presenting sales stuff to clients. Slides are few in number and literally there as visual aides. And often not used at all much to the annoyance of colleagues who think 704 slides are best.
And vote for Powell
It would perhaps be somewhat sympathetic - it's by Zoe Williams in the Guardian, and on the occasion of publication of a book. But equally, there was a rather desperate hatchet job in the Spectator 2-3 weeks ago by John Power which missed out some important facts about at least one race science organisation he mentioned; the representative said "no it isn't" and he did not bother to check. But then the Speccie has in recent decades been comfortable with giving house room to the extreme right.
The thing that continues to impress me about Hope not Hate is that they are notably effective, and they make very few mistakes. It's all published with names and photographs, yet for some reason none of the people they expose ever sue for defamation - I presume because the material is accurate. There are plenty of people who could fund their fees - starting with Elon Musk - and one serious lost defamation action would take down HNH and finish them.
The opponents either whine on twitter, or plot violence, or publish smears.
Tommy Robinson and Co seem to think he's an exemplary opponent of extremist violence, but then HNH are the ones who keep supplying the evidence exposing him for the criminal he is. And they provided the evidence that last spring that resulted in one organiser of last year's Extreme Right Riots (my choice of words) - Andrew McIntyre - getting 7+ years in prison. I wish the police were as proactive.
It's a fascinating investigation, involving tracking 160 social media accounts:
https://hopenothate.org.uk/2025/01/06/twisted-firestarter-southport-wake-up-founder-jailed-thanks-to-hope-not-hate-investigation/
I think, perhaps, that's why, historically, Commies got a "free pass" as @Cookie mentions.
The Duchess turned up, and she's in even worse shape.
I'm not against these people's views being expressed - it seems right to me that they should be - but it seems daft that you solicit the views of these people. If you're trying to build a better society, you probably don't want to take advice from those who want to smash it apart.
I've never got around to it, but I've had a fair amount of presentation / speaking training, start with a comms module at University. And I've usually enjoyed doing the speaking.
The 'ANL' in the early 1990s were a bunch of violent thugs looking for a fight that often never materialised.
They'd arrange 'counter attacks' to events that weren't even taking place as an excuse to get together and 'take to the streets'. Sometimes they'd do battle with football hooligans, for whom politics was unimportant at best. As long as the ANL side had the opposition outnumbered, obviously...
All this rubbish about 'fighting the Neo-Nazis' stuck to every lamppost in South London - only the actual Nazis barely existed. Who were they picking a fight with? Derek Beackon and his minder? A couple of old boys who'd been at NF rallies 20 years earlier?
The 'far right' a) aren't actually right wing, and b) barely exist. The actual far left are a far bigger threat/issue - and continue to justify their own hatred by manufacturing opponents out of thin air.
As a society/media/narrative we've got it badly arse-over-tit as usual.
I suspect Johnson thought that most people would do a bit of blurring the lines, as he did, and would be shocked that most people took it so seriously.
We all live in our bubbles.
One of the interesting things about the current crop of extreme right groups, in addition to how fissiparous they are, is how much if the organisational scaffolding is provided by BNP retreads.
I think that eventually this is one of the things that will seriously damage Reform UK.
Prevent Programme numbers suggest that Far RIght is a much greater risk of violence than Far Left over recent years.
He read word for word and had us write it all down verbatim.
Only O Level I failed.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/london-barking-dagenham-labour-councillors-gaza-immigration-defect-greens-b1247944.html
I was on SAGE subcommittees. No-one ever asked if I was or had ever been a member of the National Front (which I haven't been), the Communist Party (ditto) or any other political affiliation (I am a member of the Liberal Democrats). Membership was based on people's scientific credentials. I am not aware of the government being "wary of inviting in or taking advice from anyone who was a member of the National Front, or modern equivalent". That is, they didn't check if we were members of the NF, as far as I know. Maybe if someone had been that would have triggered some action; I don't know, that's hypothetical.
That seems right to me. You want someone to do a certain job. You get the person who is good at that job. You don't discriminate based on (most) political views. (If someone has views so extreme that they support a proscribed group, then they can be arrested for that.)
It's basically speaking.
Now try the same 25 times a week to openly hostile 14 year olds who don't want to be there.
"NMR Spectroscopy underlined new paragraph"
They aren't perfect, but I don't know of any ahort ones that are better.
The common characteristic of both was a distinct aversion to washing. Which they shared with the religious extremists.
In fact, with all of them, you could tell when one of their members had “gone sane” - soap came back into fashion…
*I say that with affection for Andrea Jenkyns, who I like as a politician.
https://unherd.com/2025/09/why-the-right-turned-on-indians/
As sure as night follows days we'll soon be seeing a similar phenomenon here.
we are in the fight of our times. We must choose patriotic national renewal over decline and toxic division every time.
https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1967971005600854204
I could generalise further: you can discriminate on whether someone is acting in an illegal manner. The expression of certain political views is illegal (e.g., membership of a proscribed group, calling for violence towards a particular group).
I don't consider those opposed to the democratic process to be "left" or "right" - they are simply authoritarian. Whether you agree with Churchill's view on democracy or not is irrelevant, the truth is anyone seeking to overthrow our democracy whether using violence or not is to be unequivocally opposed and condemned.
As long as you are committed to the pursuit of power via lawful means and via the ballot box you have a right to express your view in political discourse (I have the right to disagree with it of course) and to stand for election and put your viewpoint to the electorate and if you are successful and win a majority in the Commons, you can run the country.
I've hardly ever known a Government I felt I could support (perhaps the Coalition for a few weeks in 2010) but I respect the fact all have obtained their legitimacy through the electoral process (flawed as it may or may not be).
Likewise, I don't care if someone in a former political life advocated an anti-democratic viewpoint - if they are committed to democracy and the political process now, that works for me. Far more insidious are the democrats who drift toward authoritarianism.
No one harvesting food and no one creating high tech industry. "Houston we've got a problem" literally
Please accept this 'like' by way of apology.
Such a shame such a charming nation is dying out
The world needs more Italian babies!
(Am I allowed to say that?)
I would, however, call it totalitarian rather than authoritarian - that is, having more of a complete societal system incorporated.
Two of the I think more successful attempts to tame it have been in Ataturk's Turkey, and the USA. IMO countries in SE Asia, the Ismailis, and some North African countries are interesting.
And I think the 'issue' is that Communism is seen mostly as a set of economic beliefs. Fascism, by contrast, usually involves belief in racial superiority.
Personally, I think when one defends and glorifies terrorism, as Claire Fox did, then that should be a disqualifying factor.
The scale of swings needed is daunting in extremis - the Greens didn't even contest Barking Riverside last time where Labour scraped home with 70% of the vote. It was 78% Labour in Goresbrook and 80% in Longbridge.
Of course, the coming of Your Party might complicate matters for labour but if they put up a slate as well as the Greens that might help Labour get home.
They are both extreme violent ideologies. Indeed it is arguable that communism is the more extreme as it is defined by revolution in a way fascism is not
Logan Forsythe
@loganforky
I'm Logan Forsythe.
I grew up on Medicaid and food stamps. Stripped tobacco at the age of 7. Lived in the back of a Dodge Caravan in HS. Married a teacher. Served my country.
Now, I’m running for Senate because KY families deserve better than cuts to Medicaid, SNAP & vets’ services.
If you're pissed off like me, join our campaign today.
https://x.com/loganforky/status/1967876123682898243
The other complaint is that Indians only hire or promote other Indians, so you end up with Indian-only teams in some firms.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MhJ4LNP8BE
Allison Pearson
@AllisonPearson
·
20h
It’s vital that Reform doesn’t become a chicken run for Tory MPs who colluded in the Boriswave and net zero nonsense.
https://x.com/AllisonPearson/status/1967686315564208216
Well... that's the way they sell it. When it comes to the reality - as we saw with Russia - there are the important people (Moscow and St Petersburg) and everyone else. Both inside Russia and outside. Lenin and Stalin really wanted to 'sell' communism outside Russia, which is why they and their successors tried to inveigle themselves into foreign countries. But it was clear that they saw themselves as superior, a trait that was one factor in the Sino-Soviet split.
"Personally, I think when one defends and glorifies terrorism, as Claire Fox did, then that should be a disqualifying factor"
Agreed. If said as an adult. And is said as a child, thoroughly apologised for.
Economic beliefs that run so counter to human nature that they inevitably require the most extreme coercion, with those growing the food having it stolen from them and everyone else queuing for hours for a crust of stale bread.
https://x.com/mercedesamgf1/status/1967984900570788027
Mercedes F1 team offering industrial placement roles for 2026. Applications open for only two weeks.
We got a very good view of the 'rally' from the top deck of the bus.
Incidentally, I knew a chip-shop worker of asian extraction who voted BNP as she was pi**ed off with TH's housing policy at the time - which was allegedly that family size mattered more than time on the waiting list.
You're talking about someone who was a student Trotskyist, four decades ago, and didn't engage in violence.
What evidence do you have that he was a "revolutionary activist" ?
I used to argue with similar Trotskyists back in the 80s. They were largely a bunch of prats, who did little but argue with each other (there being at least a dozen different flavours), and most of them had little or no clue about the actual history of Soviet Communism.
He, it seems moderately clear, grew up,
You should consider doing the same.
🏴 SENEDD POLL | Labour plunge to just 14%
🟩 PLAID – 30% (-)
➡️ REF – 29% (+4)
🔴 LAB – 14% (-4)
🔵 CON – 11% (-2)
🟠 LD – 6% (-1)
🟢 GRN – 6% (+1)
Via @YouGov, 4-10 Sep (+/- vs 23-30 Apr)
“…This failure to respond clearly to a binary question — do you have confidence in the chancellor or not? — was interpreted by the markets as equivocation. They did not take it well.
Determined not to make that mistake again, Starmer’s PMQs team concluded, some reluctantly, that there was only one possible answer. The prime minister, still awaiting Mandelson’s replies to the Foreign Office, was yet to make a decision on his future. To offer anything but a yes would only oxygenate the speculation and derail yet another day.”
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/keir-starmer-peter-mandelson-pmqs-xcfx76khz