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.
Indeed not. Cameron had charm and the chumocracy.
More than that as well. The 2010-2015 coalition worked quite well. There was 0% chance of Brown having worked as well in a coalition. Being able to work with people with different views is vital in governing politics in a democracy.
Another plus for Cameron was the way he tried (partly from necessity) to keep ministers in place - unlike the revolving doors approach of most governments.
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.
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.
Will we be seeing 'Phillipson Direct' sessions all round the country?
I wouldn't mind a session with Brigitte Phillipson
EDIT: Um, she looks OK
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?
Both candidates have broadly similar hair. It looks professional and won't get too blown about in outdoor meetings. Angela Rayner and ex-NZ PM Jacinda Arden are unusual in politics for having long hair.
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.
Is it ?
That might have been the case a few decades back, but it's been for some time (and rightly so) a staple of popular history that both Stalin and Mao orchestrated horrors. The opening of archives after the fall of the Soviet Union exploded most of the western apologists for the Soviet regime, and it's only eccentrics like Dura, or utter idiots, who now profess allegiance, ironically or otherwise, to 'Father Lenin'.
Today's complicating factor isn't Putin's attempt to warm over the embers of the old empire, but rather the economic success of a Chinese autocracy which embraced the market (or a version of it).
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
Yes, there have been some terribly brutal communist dictatorships.
The question is -though- whether it is the doctrine of communism that is the issue, or that they were brutal dictatorships. Because there's no shortage of capitalist brutal dictatorships too.
There aren't many communist regimes that didn't descent into 'bad shit'*, although I suspect that's because most of the time the inevitable economic failings meant that the only way the rulers could preserve their positions (and their lives) was by becoming ever more repressive.
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.
So the DOJ are going to ignore the 76% who vote for Trump and go after the 4% who are the real problem. How much more explicit could the "weaponising of justice" be?
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
Yes, there have been some terribly brutal communist dictatorships.
The question is -though- whether it is the doctrine of communism that is the issue, or that they were brutal dictatorships. Because there's no shortage of capitalist brutal dictatorships too.
There aren't many communist regimes that didn't descent into 'bad shit'*, although I suspect that's because most of the time the inevitable economic failings meant that the only way the rulers could preserve their positions (and their lives) was by becoming ever more repressive.
* Yugoslavia?
You know some that didn't start with bad shit? Or continue with bad shit?
Labour's ‘one in, one out’ migrant deal is tonight being challenged in the courts by a migrant who claims he will be ‘destitute’ if the Home Office sends him back to France.
The human rights claim – the first challenge to reach court over the UK-France deal - will place the Government under renewed pressure after two removals flights failed to go ahead.
The 25-year-old Eritrean man, who was granted anonymity by the court, is due to be aboard the Home Office’s next flight to France at 9am tomorrow.
He has told the Home Office he and his mother travelled to Ethiopia when he was a young child, and that he was trafficked from there to Libya in 2023. He then made his way via Italy to France, and arrived in Britain by small boat across the Channel on August 12 after his mother paid £1,000 to smugglers, court papers said.
Lawyers for the Eritrean migrant claim there is a ‘real risk of destitution’ if he is deported to France under the deal agreed in July by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer with president Emmanuel Macron.
A fascinating short video, reflecting on an Eve Arnold picture of 2 white Nazis in uniform, at a Nation of Islam rally, sitting at the front of an audience crowd of black people.
(To be clear - I do not see close parallels with anything to do with Charlie Kirk; the algorithm just threw it at me and it's historically interesting around Islam / Politcial Extremism and how people can sometimes think.)
And I think the 'issue' is that Communism is seen mostly as a set of economic beliefs...
Well, yes. But those economic beliefs govern what you can own, how you are medicated, surgeried, fed, watered, housed and employed, how your children are schooled, and specifically prevents you from trying something better on your own initiative. It sounds good but it's stupid at best and murderous at worst.
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
Yes, there have been some terribly brutal communist dictatorships.
The question is -though- whether it is the doctrine of communism that is the issue, or that they were brutal dictatorships. Because there's no shortage of capitalist brutal dictatorships too.
There aren't many communist regimes that didn't descent into 'bad shit'*, although I suspect that's because most of the time the inevitable economic failings meant that the only way the rulers could preserve their positions (and their lives) was by becoming ever more repressive.
* Yugoslavia?
You know some that didn't start with bad shit? Or continue with bad shit?
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.
Is it ?
That might have been the case a few decades back, but it's been for some time (and rightly so) a staple of popular history that both Stalin and Mao orchestrated horrors. The opening of archives after the fall of the Soviet Union exploded most of the western apologists for the Soviet regime, and it's only eccentrics like Dura, or utter idiots, who now profess allegiance, ironically or otherwise, to 'Father Lenin'.
Today's complicating factor isn't Putin's attempt to warm over the embers of the old empire, but rather the economic success of a Chinese autocracy which embraced the market (or a version of it).
Modern Western communists will generally say that Stalin or Mao weren't proper communists and made mistakes. Modern fascists generally say Hitler got it right.... or they get as close to saying that as they can without being arrested/cancelled. There is a belief in some sort of ideal communism that isn't what actually happened. That's arguably a fallacious belief, but it does differentiate modern communists from modern fascists.
And I think the 'issue' is that Communism is seen mostly as a set of economic beliefs...
Well, yes. But those economic beliefs govern what you can own, how you are medicated, surgeried, fed, watered, housed and employed, how your children are schooled, and specifically prevents you from trying something better on your own initiative. It sounds good but it's stupid at best and murderous at worst.
Indeed: it's why communism is doomed to fail.
And also - of course - why little experiments at communism are perfectly allowable within capitalist systems. If you want to join a communist kibbutz, you could.
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
Yes, there have been some terribly brutal communist dictatorships.
The question is -though- whether it is the doctrine of communism that is the issue, or that they were brutal dictatorships. Because there's no shortage of capitalist brutal dictatorships too.
There aren't many communist regimes that didn't descent into 'bad shit'*, although I suspect that's because most of the time the inevitable economic failings meant that the only way the rulers could preserve their positions (and their lives) was by becoming ever more repressive.
* Yugoslavia?
"Because there's no shortage of capitalist brutal dictatorships too."
I don't think any country has ever tried 'pure' capitalism.
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
Yes, there have been some terribly brutal communist dictatorships.
The question is -though- whether it is the doctrine of communism that is the issue, or that they were brutal dictatorships. Because there's no shortage of capitalist brutal dictatorships too.
There aren't many communist regimes that didn't descent into 'bad shit'*, although I suspect that's because most of the time the inevitable economic failings meant that the only way the rulers could preserve their positions (and their lives) was by becoming ever more repressive.
* Yugoslavia?
You know some that didn't start with bad shit? Or continue with bad shit?
As I said: "Yugoslavia?"
It ended rather badly though. Perhaps because only internal repression kept it together.
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
Yes, there have been some terribly brutal communist dictatorships.
The question is -though- whether it is the doctrine of communism that is the issue, or that they were brutal dictatorships. Because there's no shortage of capitalist brutal dictatorships too.
There aren't many communist regimes that didn't descent into 'bad shit'*, although I suspect that's because most of the time the inevitable economic failings meant that the only way the rulers could preserve their positions (and their lives) was by becoming ever more repressive.
* Yugoslavia?
You know some that didn't start with bad shit? Or continue with bad shit?
As I said: "Yugoslavia?"
It ended rather badly though. Perhaps because only internal repression kept it together.
Also because Tito died.
And you might well argue that it started with some pretty brutal atrocities towards the Utashe. But then again, there was a hell of a lot of that kind of thing going on in the post WW2 Europe.
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
Yes, there have been some terribly brutal communist dictatorships.
The question is -though- whether it is the doctrine of communism that is the issue, or that they were brutal dictatorships. Because there's no shortage of capitalist brutal dictatorships too.
There aren't many communist regimes that didn't descent into 'bad shit'*, although I suspect that's because most of the time the inevitable economic failings meant that the only way the rulers could preserve their positions (and their lives) was by becoming ever more repressive.
* Yugoslavia?
It’s also inherent to communist ideology that the revolutionary ‘vanguard’ are the enlightened ones, and that status obliges them to ‘defend the revoltution’ against any of the populace who show any signs of counter-revolution, the latter term usually expanding to encompass doing anything that those with power do not like. With a theoretical basis like that, the torture and starvation and labour camps and show trials are just a hop and skip away.
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.
One under recognised point of school is to allow people to thrive on boredom. A lot of work is boring grind, and building ability to cope with that is a key life skill. If students are required to be constantly stimulated by noise, sound and movement, then it's no wonder that they struggle to knuckle down at work. We have trained them into ADHD, even before we gave them smartphones and Social Media.
Pretty much everything with doing requires effort, concentration and persistence. Students should be taught this, by means of dull teaching.
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.
One under recognised point of school is to allow people to thrive on boredom. A lot of work is boring grind, and building ability to cope with that is a key life skill. If students are required to be constantly stimulated by noise, sound and movement, then it's no wonder that they struggle to knuckle down at work. We have trained them into ADHD, even before we gave them smartphones and Social Media.
Pretty much everything with doing requires effort, concentration and persistence. Students should be taught this, by means of dull teaching.
This is one of the keys to modern gaming. People want games that are like real life, but don't want the grind. Yet real life is grind. To get the best rewards, you need to do hard work. Often boring, hard work.
Labour's ‘one in, one out’ migrant deal is tonight being challenged in the courts by a migrant who claims he will be ‘destitute’ if the Home Office sends him back to France.
The human rights claim – the first challenge to reach court over the UK-France deal - will place the Government under renewed pressure after two removals flights failed to go ahead.
The 25-year-old Eritrean man, who was granted anonymity by the court, is due to be aboard the Home Office’s next flight to France at 9am tomorrow.
He has told the Home Office he and his mother travelled to Ethiopia when he was a young child, and that he was trafficked from there to Libya in 2023. He then made his way via Italy to France, and arrived in Britain by small boat across the Channel on August 12 after his mother paid £1,000 to smugglers, court papers said.
Lawyers for the Eritrean migrant claim there is a ‘real risk of destitution’ if he is deported to France under the deal agreed in July by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer with president Emmanuel Macron.
Give him £1,000 and put him on a flight back to home with his mum and ban him from claiming asylum in the UK. He won’t be destitute and it will be cheaper than putting him in a hotel here. Give him £5,000 if necessary.
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
Yes, there have been some terribly brutal communist dictatorships.
The question is -though- whether it is the doctrine of communism that is the issue, or that they were brutal dictatorships. Because there's no shortage of capitalist brutal dictatorships too.
There aren't many communist regimes that didn't descent into 'bad shit'*, although I suspect that's because most of the time the inevitable economic failings meant that the only way the rulers could preserve their positions (and their lives) was by becoming ever more repressive.
* Yugoslavia?
It’s also inherent to communist ideology that the revolutionary ‘vanguard’ are the enlightened ones, and that status obliges them to ‘defend the revoltution’ against any of the populace who show any signs of counter-revolution, the latter term usually expanding to encompass doing anything that those with power do not like. With a theoretical basis like that, the torture and starvation and labour camps and show trials are just a hop and skip away.
I don't think that is all varieties of communism eg Christian communism modelled on Acts of the Apostles. Contemporary examples exist in various communities, of which the Bruderhof is one example, such as at Beech Grove in Kent:
The Bruderhof (German for “place of brothers”) is a Christian intentional community of families and singles who share their possessions and live together seeking to fully live out Jesus’ teachings in the Sermon on the Mount.
Beech Grove, located less than thirty minutes from Canterbury, was founded in 1997 and is home to around 230 people. Similar to other large Bruderhof communities, it is made up of a mix of families and singles, young and old, who live, work, and worship together.
I've studied the so-called "Christian community movement" for a long time, but in politics it's not really my area of theory.
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
Yes, there have been some terribly brutal communist dictatorships.
The question is -though- whether it is the doctrine of communism that is the issue, or that they were brutal dictatorships. Because there's no shortage of capitalist brutal dictatorships too.
There aren't many communist regimes that didn't descent into 'bad shit'*, although I suspect that's because most of the time the inevitable economic failings meant that the only way the rulers could preserve their positions (and their lives) was by becoming ever more repressive.
* Yugoslavia?
It’s also inherent to communist ideology that the revolutionary ‘vanguard’ are the enlightened ones, and that status obliges them to ‘defend the revoltution’ against any of the populace who show any signs of counter-revolution, the latter term usually expanding to encompass doing anything that those with power do not like. With a theoretical basis like that, the torture and starvation and labour camps and show trials are just a hop and skip away.
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.
Is it ?
That might have been the case a few decades back, but it's been for some time (and rightly so) a staple of popular history that both Stalin and Mao orchestrated horrors. The opening of archives after the fall of the Soviet Union exploded most of the western apologists for the Soviet regime, and it's only eccentrics like Dura, or utter idiots, who now profess allegiance, ironically or otherwise, to 'Father Lenin'.
Today's complicating factor isn't Putin's attempt to warm over the embers of the old empire, but rather the economic success of a Chinese autocracy which embraced the market (or a version of it).
One thing people forget is for a long time it looked as if the Soviets were winning the Cold War. Moscow and Leningrad (St Petersburg) were as prosperous as any Western city (and everywhere else was off limits so grinding poverty remained hidden). The Soviets had launched the first satellite and the first astronaut, while America assassinated its president, senators and was bogged down in riots for racial equality, civil rights and against Vietnam.
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
Yes, there have been some terribly brutal communist dictatorships.
The question is -though- whether it is the doctrine of communism that is the issue, or that they were brutal dictatorships. Because there's no shortage of capitalist brutal dictatorships too.
There aren't many communist regimes that didn't descent into 'bad shit'*, although I suspect that's because most of the time the inevitable economic failings meant that the only way the rulers could preserve their positions (and their lives) was by becoming ever more repressive.
* Yugoslavia?
You know some that didn't start with bad shit? Or continue with bad shit?
As I said: "Yugoslavia?"
It ended rather badly though. Perhaps because only internal repression kept it together.
Also because Tito died.
And you might well argue that it started with some pretty brutal atrocities towards the Utashe. But then again, there was a hell of a lot of that kind of thing going on in the post WW2 Europe.
Tito was responsible for the internal repression, e.g. the Informbiro.
As an aside, I quite like the idea that Tito killed Stalin. As Tito allegedly wrote: "Stop sending people to kill me. We’ve already captured five of them. If you don’t stop sending killers, I’ll send one to Moscow, and I won’t have to send a second”
And I think the 'issue' is that Communism is seen mostly as a set of economic beliefs...
Well, yes. But those economic beliefs govern what you can own, how you are medicated, surgeried, fed, watered, housed and employed, how your children are schooled, and specifically prevents you from trying something better on your own initiative. It sounds good but it's stupid at best and murderous at worst.
Indeed: it's why communism is doomed to fail.
And also - of course - why little experiments at communism are perfectly allowable within capitalist systems. If you want to join a communist kibbutz, you could.
Communism in its original form is the ideal economic system for the context in which humans evolved: small kinship groups of hunter gatherers. Any other system in that situation tends to lead to conflict and social breakdown. Communism doesn’t however work in any other economic setting, not even subsistence cultivation or livestock grazing.
Perhaps this is why many are instinctively drawn to the ideal of communism. It represents some deep evolutionary vestige in the human brain.
Comparing Communism to Fascism as ideologies is not quite the same as whether somebody identifying as a Communist is likely to be as unsavoury and dangerous a person as somebody identifying as a Fascist. You can make a strong case for the ideologies being equally antithetical to human freedom and happiness but faced with two lifts, one occupied by a bloke wearing a swastika and the other by one sporting a hammer and sickle, ok you'd take the stairs, but if you couldn't, if you had to get in one of these lifts, you'd surely join the commie. Anybody says otherwise I'm not believing them.
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.
Of course Trotskyites are not responsible for the atrocities of Soviet Stalinism. Trotsky was expelled, his followers purged and Trotsky himself murdered.
Of course if things had developed differently Trotsky might well have been as bad or worse, but he isn't responsible for the crimes of Stalin.
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
Communism, like fascism, tends to attract psychopaths. Stalin, prior to the Revolution, was like one of those funky bandits from a Spaghetti Western.
People join because they love killing, rape, robbing banks, etc.
Men like Julius Streicher, Ernst Rohm, Lavrentiy Beria, Bogdan Kobulov were not outliers.
Labour's ‘one in, one out’ migrant deal is tonight being challenged in the courts by a migrant who claims he will be ‘destitute’ if the Home Office sends him back to France.
The human rights claim – the first challenge to reach court over the UK-France deal - will place the Government under renewed pressure after two removals flights failed to go ahead.
The 25-year-old Eritrean man, who was granted anonymity by the court, is due to be aboard the Home Office’s next flight to France at 9am tomorrow.
He has told the Home Office he and his mother travelled to Ethiopia when he was a young child, and that he was trafficked from there to Libya in 2023. He then made his way via Italy to France, and arrived in Britain by small boat across the Channel on August 12 after his mother paid £1,000 to smugglers, court papers said.
Lawyers for the Eritrean migrant claim there is a ‘real risk of destitution’ if he is deported to France under the deal agreed in July by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer with president Emmanuel Macron.
Give him £1,000 and put him on a flight back to home with his mum and ban him from claiming asylum in the UK. He won’t be destitute and it will be cheaper than putting him in a hotel here. Give him £5,000 if necessary.
Makes a lot of sense and would be humane too, because there probably is an actual risk of destitution.
A grand per return and you could return 50,000 migrants per year and pay only 50 million, a drop in the ocean in fiscal terms.
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.
OT Michael Portillo has not one but two programmes about trains on BBC2 tonight. A repeat at 6.30 and a new series at 8pm.
Railway enthusiast Michael Portillo follows the route of the pioneering Stockton and Darlington Railway in north east England - the world’s first public railway to carry fee-paying passengers using steam locomotives. He learns how the Stockton and Darlington proved that railways could work - sparking a transport revolution across Britain and beyond.
He visits key locations in the story of this pioneering railway, including the town of Shildon, from where the train hauled by Locomotion No.1 set off in 1825; Bishop Auckland, where he joins thousands at a spectacular outdoor show to launch the 200th anniversary and drives a replica of the original train; and the Tyne and Wear Metro, where he discovers a new fleet transforming travel in north east England. https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m002jmrc/michael-portillos-200-years-of-the-railways-series-1-1-the-day-that-changed-the-world
Labour's ‘one in, one out’ migrant deal is tonight being challenged in the courts by a migrant who claims he will be ‘destitute’ if the Home Office sends him back to France.
The human rights claim – the first challenge to reach court over the UK-France deal - will place the Government under renewed pressure after two removals flights failed to go ahead.
The 25-year-old Eritrean man, who was granted anonymity by the court, is due to be aboard the Home Office’s next flight to France at 9am tomorrow.
He has told the Home Office he and his mother travelled to Ethiopia when he was a young child, and that he was trafficked from there to Libya in 2023. He then made his way via Italy to France, and arrived in Britain by small boat across the Channel on August 12 after his mother paid £1,000 to smugglers, court papers said.
Lawyers for the Eritrean migrant claim there is a ‘real risk of destitution’ if he is deported to France under the deal agreed in July by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer with president Emmanuel Macron.
Give him £1,000 and put him on a flight back to home with his mum and ban him from claiming asylum in the UK. He won’t be destitute and it will be cheaper than putting him in a hotel here. Give him £5,000 if necessary.
Makes a lot of sense and would be humane too, because there probably is an actual risk of destitution.
A grand per return and you could return 50,000 migrants per year and pay only 50 million, a drop in the ocean in fiscal terms.
Why is there no risk of destitution if he stays in the UK?
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
Yes, there have been some terribly brutal communist dictatorships.
The question is -though- whether it is the doctrine of communism that is the issue, or that they were brutal dictatorships. Because there's no shortage of capitalist brutal dictatorships too.
There aren't many communist regimes that didn't descent into 'bad shit'*, although I suspect that's because most of the time the inevitable economic failings meant that the only way the rulers could preserve their positions (and their lives) was by becoming ever more repressive.
* Yugoslavia?
You know some that didn't start with bad shit? Or continue with bad shit?
As I said: "Yugoslavia?"
“how we survived communism and even laughed” is a great read, if it’s still available.
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.
Of course Trotskyites are not responsible for the atrocities of Soviet Stalinism. Trotsky was expelled, his followers purged and Trotsky himself murdered.
Of course if things had developed differently Trotsky might well have been as bad or worse, but he isn't responsible for the crimes of Stalin.
Tell that to the priests of the Russian Orthodox Church. Or victims of the Red Terror.
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.
One under recognised point of school is to allow people to thrive on boredom. A lot of work is boring grind, and building ability to cope with that is a key life skill. If students are required to be constantly stimulated by noise, sound and movement, then it's no wonder that they struggle to knuckle down at work. We have trained them into ADHD, even before we gave them smartphones and Social Media.
Pretty much everything with doing requires effort, concentration and persistence. Students should be taught this, by means of dull teaching.
I almost flagged this. I mean, it's probably true but my whole heart wants it not to be.
Broken, sleazy Labour, Tories AND LibDems on the slide!
Labour at 14% in Wales is extraordinary but I am not the least bit surprised
As I have said previously, Starmer's red flag will be May 26 if this continues
Plaid is a free hit. Why wouldn’t a left of centre voter plump for them? They’re not threatening an Indy ref so there’s no real unionist case against. The role of the Welsh government is to spend money given to it by Whitehall, so why not vote for a party that has no divided loyalties on Wales vs RUK? And it’s not a general election so there’s no risk of “letting Reform in”.
PLLG is 56% vs RefCon 40%, so RefCon is 2% up from last time. Not sure where the other 4% goes.
OT Michael Portillo has not one but two programmes about trains on BBC2 tonight. A repeat at 6.30 and a new series at 8pm.
Railway enthusiast Michael Portillo follows the route of the pioneering Stockton and Darlington Railway in north east England - the world’s first public railway to carry fee-paying passengers using steam locomotives. He learns how the Stockton and Darlington proved that railways could work - sparking a transport revolution across Britain and beyond.
He visits key locations in the story of this pioneering railway, including the town of Shildon, from where the train hauled by Locomotion No.1 set off in 1825; Bishop Auckland, where he joins thousands at a spectacular outdoor show to launch the 200th anniversary and drives a replica of the original train; and the Tyne and Wear Metro, where he discovers a new fleet transforming travel in north east England. https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m002jmrc/michael-portillos-200-years-of-the-railways-series-1-1-the-day-that-changed-the-world
The phrasing " the world’s first public railway to carry fee-paying passengers using steam locomotives." gets around many of the arguments about "what was the first railway?"
Newly single Holly Valance is gonna get a seat in Parliament after the election isn’t she. How extraordinary would a 16-year old me have found that idea way back when.
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.
Of course Trotskyites are not responsible for the atrocities of Soviet Stalinism. Trotsky was expelled, his followers purged and Trotsky himself murdered.
Of course if things had developed differently Trotsky might well have been as bad or worse, but he isn't responsible for the crimes of Stalin.
Tell that to the priests of the Russian Orthodox Church. Or victims of the Red Terror.
I am not claiming Trotsky was an angel. He committed atrocities when he could, as indeed did pretty much every side of the Russian Civil War.
Just that to blame Trotsky for the failings of Stalinism shows a lack of understanding.
I see that the government's Minister for Courts has today argued in the Commons that we must allow Sharia courts in the UK, in order to prove our religious tolerance
Can anyone explain to me how this could be a good idea?
Good news for Starmer, the American press are now likely to be pretty much unbothered by Mandelson and Epstein, instead hoping for the scalp of their own Attorney General Pam Bondi, not for her links to the Epstein files but for some outrageous comments she’s made in the last 24 hours on freedom of speech.
Comparing Communism to Fascism as ideologies is not quite the same as whether somebody identifying as a Communist is likely to be as unsavoury and dangerous a person as somebody identifying as a Fascist. You can make a strong case for the ideologies being equally antithetical to human freedom and happiness but faced with two lifts, one occupied by a bloke wearing a swastika and the other by one sporting a hammer and sickle, ok you'd take the stairs, but if you couldn't, if you had to get in one of these lifts, you'd surely join the commie. Anybody says otherwise I'm not believing them.
That’s cultural conditioning, though. Most of us of a certain age grew up on films depicting the evil Germans at war and with the holocaust front and centre as exhibit A of their evil. The gulag archipelago wasn’t even widely known in the west until our adulthood, and how many top billing films are there about it?
I see that the government's Minister for Courts has today argued in the Commons that we must allow Sharia courts in the UK, in order to prove our religious tolerance
Can anyone explain to me how this could be a good idea?
I’ve watched the video and that isn’t what she says at all
Labour's ‘one in, one out’ migrant deal is tonight being challenged in the courts by a migrant who claims he will be ‘destitute’ if the Home Office sends him back to France.
The human rights claim – the first challenge to reach court over the UK-France deal - will place the Government under renewed pressure after two removals flights failed to go ahead.
The 25-year-old Eritrean man, who was granted anonymity by the court, is due to be aboard the Home Office’s next flight to France at 9am tomorrow.
He has told the Home Office he and his mother travelled to Ethiopia when he was a young child, and that he was trafficked from there to Libya in 2023. He then made his way via Italy to France, and arrived in Britain by small boat across the Channel on August 12 after his mother paid £1,000 to smugglers, court papers said.
Lawyers for the Eritrean migrant claim there is a ‘real risk of destitution’ if he is deported to France under the deal agreed in July by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer with president Emmanuel Macron.
Is "destitution" a legal reason deportation can not be carried out ?
If so primary legislation needs amending so it is not considered as a reason to not deport someone. Our legislation is preposterous if it can be used to prevent deportation to France. Primary legislation needs to make it very clear that we can return people to France and anywhere else the gov't chooses for any reason whatsoever, it is the only way we are going to get round this.
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.
One under recognised point of school is to allow people to thrive on boredom. A lot of work is boring grind, and building ability to cope with that is a key life skill. If students are required to be constantly stimulated by noise, sound and movement, then it's no wonder that they struggle to knuckle down at work. We have trained them into ADHD, even before we gave them smartphones and Social Media.
Pretty much everything with doing requires effort, concentration and persistence. Students should be taught this, by means of dull teaching.
My (non expert) feeling is trad teaching is the lower risk option. The ceiling is higher for more modern, highly engaged, empathetic, understanding-based techniques, but this requires an awful lot of the teacher and if they don't have it the results will be worse than if they played it safe.
Broken, sleazy Labour, Tories AND LibDems on the slide!
Labour at 14% in Wales is extraordinary but I am not the least bit surprised
As I have said previously, Starmer's red flag will be May 26 if this continues
Westminster Welsh VI Ref 29 (21 seats) Plaid 23 (6 seats) Lab 18 (3 seats) Con 11 (1 seat) LD 9 (1 seat ) Green 7 (zero seats)
Labour winning 14% in Wales would be staggering.
LabCon 25% combined is pretty wow
On the Westminster figs
LD hold Brecon PC hold their four plus Cardiff West and Bangor Aberconwy Lab hold Cardiff North, Cardiff South/Penarth and Blaenau Con Gain Monmouthshire Reform take the rest
Labour's ‘one in, one out’ migrant deal is tonight being challenged in the courts by a migrant who claims he will be ‘destitute’ if the Home Office sends him back to France.
The human rights claim – the first challenge to reach court over the UK-France deal - will place the Government under renewed pressure after two removals flights failed to go ahead.
The 25-year-old Eritrean man, who was granted anonymity by the court, is due to be aboard the Home Office’s next flight to France at 9am tomorrow.
He has told the Home Office he and his mother travelled to Ethiopia when he was a young child, and that he was trafficked from there to Libya in 2023. He then made his way via Italy to France, and arrived in Britain by small boat across the Channel on August 12 after his mother paid £1,000 to smugglers, court papers said.
Lawyers for the Eritrean migrant claim there is a ‘real risk of destitution’ if he is deported to France under the deal agreed in July by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer with president Emmanuel Macron.
Is "destitution" a legal reason deportation can not be carried out ?
If so primary legislation needs amending so it is not considered as a reason to not deport someone. Our legislation is preposterous if it can be used to prevent deportation to France. Primary legislation needs to make it very clear that we can return people to France and anywhere else the gov't chooses for any reason whatsoever, it is the only way we are going to get round this.
Even if it means passing a law saying France is a safe country. A legal fiction, I know, but necessary.
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.
Of course Trotskyites are not responsible for the atrocities of Soviet Stalinism. Trotsky was expelled, his followers purged and Trotsky himself murdered.
Of course if things had developed differently Trotsky might well have been as bad or worse, but he isn't responsible for the crimes of Stalin.
Tell that to the priests of the Russian Orthodox Church. Or victims of the Red Terror.
I am not claiming Trotsky was an angel. He committed atrocities when he could, as indeed did pretty much every side of the Russian Civil War.
Just that to blame Trotsky for the failings of Stalinism shows a lack of understanding.
So... you're claiming that if Trotsky had wielded the ice pick against Stalin rather than vice versa, Soviet Russia would have been a better place?
It's like claiming that Himmler had no role in the failings of Nazi Germany.
Labour's ‘one in, one out’ migrant deal is tonight being challenged in the courts by a migrant who claims he will be ‘destitute’ if the Home Office sends him back to France.
The human rights claim – the first challenge to reach court over the UK-France deal - will place the Government under renewed pressure after two removals flights failed to go ahead.
The 25-year-old Eritrean man, who was granted anonymity by the court, is due to be aboard the Home Office’s next flight to France at 9am tomorrow.
He has told the Home Office he and his mother travelled to Ethiopia when he was a young child, and that he was trafficked from there to Libya in 2023. He then made his way via Italy to France, and arrived in Britain by small boat across the Channel on August 12 after his mother paid £1,000 to smugglers, court papers said.
Lawyers for the Eritrean migrant claim there is a ‘real risk of destitution’ if he is deported to France under the deal agreed in July by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer with president Emmanuel Macron.
Is "destitution" a legal reason deportation can not be carried out ?
If so primary legislation needs amending so it is not considered as a reason to not deport someone. Our legislation is preposterous if it can be used to prevent deportation to France. Primary legislation needs to make it very clear that we can return people to France and anywhere else the gov't chooses for any reason whatsoever, it is the only way we are going to get round this.
Even if it means passing a law saying France is a safe country. A legal fiction, I know, but necessary.
That’s just messy drafting. Like filling contracts with “for the avoidance of doubt” nonsense. We need to properly overhaul our entire immigration/asylum framework with a clear and unambiguous process, including disapplying parts of the Human Rights Act if necessary. The more complex you make it the more loopholes and avenues for legal challenges you create.
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.
One under recognised point of school is to allow people to thrive on boredom. A lot of work is boring grind, and building ability to cope with that is a key life skill. If students are required to be constantly stimulated by noise, sound and movement, then it's no wonder that they struggle to knuckle down at work. We have trained them into ADHD, even before we gave them smartphones and Social Media.
Pretty much everything with doing requires effort, concentration and persistence. Students should be taught this, by means of dull teaching.
I almost flagged this. I mean, it's probably true but my whole heart wants it not to be.
I wrote quite a long essay on "the hidden curriculum" as part of my Masters of Medical Education. Generally Educationalists are disparaging of the "hidden curriculum" seeing it as dangerous and opposed to the formal curriculum. I think it is fascinating and incorporates both good and bad aspects. Indeed there is a pleasingly subversive side of the hidden curriculum in teaching how students can resist and undermine authority while maintaining outward conformity.
I see that the government's Minister for Courts has today argued in the Commons that we must allow Sharia courts in the UK, in order to prove our religious tolerance
Can anyone explain to me how this could be a good idea?
One point would be that it could create a limited version of Sharia Courts operating within the arbitration framework, fitting into a recognised niche in our society, which would be voluntary, and be subject to Judicial oversight, not in competition with our justice system.
That would sit in the same niche as the Beth Din Jewish Courts, which have existed since Victorian times in the UK, and now operate under the Arbitration Act 1996.
They do things like religions weddings, oversee conversions to Judaism, and so on.
Comparing Communism to Fascism as ideologies is not quite the same as whether somebody identifying as a Communist is likely to be as unsavoury and dangerous a person as somebody identifying as a Fascist. You can make a strong case for the ideologies being equally antithetical to human freedom and happiness but faced with two lifts, one occupied by a bloke wearing a swastika and the other by one sporting a hammer and sickle, ok you'd take the stairs, but if you couldn't, if you had to get in one of these lifts, you'd surely join the commie. Anybody says otherwise I'm not believing them.
That says nothing about the ideologies though, it's just a circular argument based on their relative social acceptability. Nazism is unconscionable, therefore someone in today's society covered in swastika tattoos is repudiating accepted social norms publicly in a way that someone who is covered in communist tattoos is not. Of course you would take your chances with the latter.
If we lived in a society (say the early 30s), where communism was a threat to all we hold dear, and Nazis were good chaps really, just don't start them on the Sudetenland, the lift situation would be reversed (and was).
Labour's ‘one in, one out’ migrant deal is tonight being challenged in the courts by a migrant who claims he will be ‘destitute’ if the Home Office sends him back to France.
The human rights claim – the first challenge to reach court over the UK-France deal - will place the Government under renewed pressure after two removals flights failed to go ahead.
The 25-year-old Eritrean man, who was granted anonymity by the court, is due to be aboard the Home Office’s next flight to France at 9am tomorrow.
He has told the Home Office he and his mother travelled to Ethiopia when he was a young child, and that he was trafficked from there to Libya in 2023. He then made his way via Italy to France, and arrived in Britain by small boat across the Channel on August 12 after his mother paid £1,000 to smugglers, court papers said.
Lawyers for the Eritrean migrant claim there is a ‘real risk of destitution’ if he is deported to France under the deal agreed in July by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer with president Emmanuel Macron.
Is "destitution" a legal reason deportation can not be carried out ?
If so primary legislation needs amending so it is not considered as a reason to not deport someone. Our legislation is preposterous if it can be used to prevent deportation to France. Primary legislation needs to make it very clear that we can return people to France and anywhere else the gov't chooses for any reason whatsoever, it is the only way we are going to get round this.
Even if it means passing a law saying France is a safe country. A legal fiction, I know, but necessary.
That’s just messy drafting. Like filling contracts with “for the avoidance of doubt” nonsense. We need to properly overhaul our entire immigration/asylum framework with a clear and unambiguous process, including disapplying parts of the Human Rights Act if necessary. The more complex you make it the more loopholes and avenues for legal challenges you create.
Yep, ripping it all out and starting again might be the way to go.
I see that the government's Minister for Courts has today argued in the Commons that we must allow Sharia courts in the UK, in order to prove our religious tolerance
Can anyone explain to me how this could be a good idea?
One point would be that it could create a limited version of Sharia Courts operating within the arbitration framework, fitting into a recognised niche in our society, which would be voluntary, and be subject to Judicial oversight, not in competition with our justice system.
That would sit in the same niche as the Beth Din Jewish Courts, which have existed since Victorian times in the UK, and now operate under the Arbitration Act 1996.
They do things like religions weddings, oversee conversions to Judaism, and so on.
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.
One under recognised point of school is to allow people to thrive on boredom. A lot of work is boring grind, and building ability to cope with that is a key life skill. If students are required to be constantly stimulated by noise, sound and movement, then it's no wonder that they struggle to knuckle down at work. We have trained them into ADHD, even before we gave them smartphones and Social Media.
Pretty much everything with doing requires effort, concentration and persistence. Students should be taught this, by means of dull teaching.
My (non expert) feeling is trad teaching is the lower risk option. The ceiling is higher for more modern, highly engaged, empathetic, understanding-based techniques, but this requires an awful lot of the teacher and if they don't have it the results will be worse than if they played it safe.
I don't think you want to mess around with schoolboys.
I don't think I ever learned anything much from a weak teacher. And I do rather think of weak as being empathetic and understanding etc. Ghastly when you're a schoolboy, and not really to be praised otherwise. The good teachers were the inspiring ones - warts and all.
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.
Well, I'd vote for him. Interestingly, his campaign vid doesn't mention which party he's standing for, or even if he is a party member.
Voting for background is always a bad idea
1) the fat, old, drunk, rich aristo guy whose political career is a series of failures? 2) of the vegan, teetotaller, immigrant war hero who was a ranker and was homeless?
Comparing Communism to Fascism as ideologies is not quite the same as whether somebody identifying as a Communist is likely to be as unsavoury and dangerous a person as somebody identifying as a Fascist. You can make a strong case for the ideologies being equally antithetical to human freedom and happiness but faced with two lifts, one occupied by a bloke wearing a swastika and the other by one sporting a hammer and sickle, ok you'd take the stairs, but if you couldn't, if you had to get in one of these lifts, you'd surely join the commie. Anybody says otherwise I'm not believing them.
That’s cultural conditioning, though. Most of us of a certain age grew up on films depicting the evil Germans at war and with the holocaust front and centre as exhibit A of their evil. The gulag archipelago wasn’t even widely known in the west until our adulthood, and how many top billing films are there about it?
There certainly is some of that. But it's also the point about fascism having violence and hatred in its dna whereas communism to the naive or unwary can be an idealistic set of ideas centred on equality and the emancipation of the poor. The only ideal in fascism is the supremacy of a race or people or nation. And 'strongman' is a feature not a bug, ie it celebrates in concept authoritarian rule. So I'm going to cut less slack to somebody signing up for that compared to somebody saying they believe in communism. Not much, don't get me wrong, but to my mind there is a clear difference when boiled down to the individual believer in this way.
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.
Well, I'd vote for him. Interestingly, his campaign vid doesn't mention which party he's standing for, or even if he is a party member.
Voting for background is always a bad idea
1) the fat, old, drunk, rich aristo guy whose political career is a series of failures? 2) of the vegan, teetotaller, immigrant war hero who was a ranker and was homeless?
More and better background experience is precisely what the Tory party needs. Noisy Librarian/Golf club manager types aren't working out so well.
Good news for Starmer, the American press are now likely to be pretty much unbothered by Mandelson and Epstein, instead hoping for the scalp of their own Attorney General Pam Bondi, not for her links to the Epstein files but for some outrageous comments she’s made in the last 24 hours on freedom of speech.
Worse than JD Vance saying anybody celebrating Charlie Kirk's death should be fired from their job?
Newly single Holly Valance is gonna get a seat in Parliament after the election isn’t she. How extraordinary would a 16-year old me have found that idea way back when.
Bet she has the answers to our sluggish economy and stressed public finances.
Good news for Starmer, the American press are now likely to be pretty much unbothered by Mandelson and Epstein, instead hoping for the scalp of their own Attorney General Pam Bondi, not for her links to the Epstein files but for some outrageous comments she’s made in the last 24 hours on freedom of speech.
Worse than JD Vance saying anybody celebrating Charlie Kirk's death should be fired from their job?
Anyone celebrating his death on social media is clearly stupid and shouldn’t be working on anything important
Comparing Nazism and Communism as ideologies is perhaps a category error, because they are not strictly comparable.
Communism is a universalist, evangelical religion like Christianity or Islam. The upside of that is inclusivity: anyone can belong if they convert to the faith. The downside is violence: if you don’t convert, you are fair game for destruction.
Ethno-fascism is an identity based religion like Hinduism or some of the Middle Eastern sects like the Druze. There is an in group and an out group. The upside could be that they leave you alone if you leave them alone (though the Nazis clearly didn’t do that). The downside is that if you’re not in the in group you’re sub-human and therefore fair game for destruction.
Newly single Holly Valance is gonna get a seat in Parliament after the election isn’t she. How extraordinary would a 16-year old me have found that idea way back when.
Bet she has the answers to our sluggish economy and stressed public finances.
£1 in the HMRC punishment pot for every impure thought when she’s speaking in parliament?
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.
One under recognised point of school is to allow people to thrive on boredom. A lot of work is boring grind, and building ability to cope with that is a key life skill. If students are required to be constantly stimulated by noise, sound and movement, then it's no wonder that they struggle to knuckle down at work. We have trained them into ADHD, even before we gave them smartphones and Social Media.
Pretty much everything with doing requires effort, concentration and persistence. Students should be taught this, by means of dull teaching.
My (non expert) feeling is trad teaching is the lower risk option. The ceiling is higher for more modern, highly engaged, empathetic, understanding-based techniques, but this requires an awful lot of the teacher and if they don't have it the results will be worse than if they played it safe.
I don't think you want to mess around with schoolboys.
I don't think I ever learned anything much from a weak teacher. And I do rather think of weak as being empathetic and understanding etc. Ghastly when you're a schoolboy, and not really to be praised otherwise. The good teachers were the inspiring ones - warts and all.
That’s a false dichotomy. My mother (yes, I know) was a very popular geography teacher. Nobody messed with her - she seemed to have effortless discipline. But she was also empathetic and understanding, and a real agony aunt for many of her pupils.
Like many other walks of life: charisma carries you a long way.
And I think the 'issue' is that Communism is seen mostly as a set of economic beliefs...
Well, yes. But those economic beliefs govern what you can own, how you are medicated, surgeried, fed, watered, housed and employed, how your children are schooled, and specifically prevents you from trying something better on your own initiative. It sounds good but it's stupid at best and murderous at worst.
Indeed: it's why communism is doomed to fail.
And also - of course - why little experiments at communism are perfectly allowable within capitalist systems. If you want to join a communist kibbutz, you could.
Communism in its original form is the ideal economic system for the context in which humans evolved: small kinship groups of hunter gatherers. Any other system in that situation tends to lead to conflict and social breakdown. Communism doesn’t however work in any other economic setting, not even subsistence cultivation or livestock grazing.
Perhaps this is why many are instinctively drawn to the ideal of communism. It represents some deep evolutionary vestige in the human brain.
But Marxist theory is predicated on an, and requires an industrial society. Lenin and Stalin* starved millions of agricultural peasants to develop one (built by Americans) so that they could have communism.
IOW, it was bollocks from the very start.
(And what China has now isn't communism in any sense, apart from the label they still insist upon.)
*Trotsky was more of your straightforward mass murderer.
"The 71-year-old audience member who was arrested at Charlie Kirk’s UVU event says he told cops he shot Kirk to distract police so the real shooter could escape.
“I shot him, now shoot me,” George Zinn allegedly said immediately after Kirk was shot.
While speaking to investigators, Zinn said he was trying to “draw attention from the real shooter.”
Zinn was charged with obstruction of justice, a second-degree felony."
Good news for Starmer, the American press are now likely to be pretty much unbothered by Mandelson and Epstein, instead hoping for the scalp of their own Attorney General Pam Bondi, not for her links to the Epstein files but for some outrageous comments she’s made in the last 24 hours on freedom of speech.
Worse than JD Vance saying anybody celebrating Charlie Kirk's death should be fired from their job?
Anyone celebrating his death on social media is clearly stupid and shouldn’t be working on anything important
Indeed. But these free speech warriors, faced with any pushback, are so often revealed to be just ultra right-wing partisans with not the remotest interest in protecting the expression of views that upset or offend them.
I see that the government's Minister for Courts has today argued in the Commons that we must allow Sharia courts in the UK, in order to prove our religious tolerance
Can anyone explain to me how this could be a good idea?
One point would be that it could create a limited version of Sharia Courts operating within the arbitration framework, fitting into a recognised niche in our society, which would be voluntary, and be subject to Judicial oversight, not in competition with our justice system.
That would sit in the same niche as the Beth Din Jewish Courts, which have existed since Victorian times in the UK, and now operate under the Arbitration Act 1996.
They do things like religions weddings, oversee conversions to Judaism, and so on.
Which is one reason why Sharia should not be allowed.
Is that because it is inherently bad, or because it needs reforming?
We have innocent people trapped in prison because our justice system gets it wrong sometimes. In that case we treat it as a reason for reform, not for abolition of Crown Courts and Prisons.
Comparing Nazism and Communism as ideologies is perhaps a category error, because they are not strictly comparable.
Communism is a universalist, evangelical religion like Christianity or Islam. The upside of that is inclusivity: anyone can belong if they convert to the faith. The downside is violence: if you don’t convert, you are fair game for destruction.
Ethno-fascism is an identity based religion like Hinduism or some of the Middle Eastern sects like the Druze. There is an in group and an out group. The upside could be that they leave you alone if you leave them alone (though the Nazis clearly didn’t do that). The downside is that if you’re not in the in group you’re sub-human and therefore fair game for destruction.
I prefer centrist dada-ism myself.
And one is a perversion of political economy, whereas one is a perversion of science.
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.
One under recognised point of school is to allow people to thrive on boredom. A lot of work is boring grind, and building ability to cope with that is a key life skill. If students are required to be constantly stimulated by noise, sound and movement, then it's no wonder that they struggle to knuckle down at work. We have trained them into ADHD, even before we gave them smartphones and Social Media.
Pretty much everything with doing requires effort, concentration and persistence. Students should be taught this, by means of dull teaching.
My (non expert) feeling is trad teaching is the lower risk option. The ceiling is higher for more modern, highly engaged, empathetic, understanding-based techniques, but this requires an awful lot of the teacher and if they don't have it the results will be worse than if they played it safe.
I don't think you want to mess around with schoolboys.
I don't think I ever learned anything much from a weak teacher. And I do rather think of weak as being empathetic and understanding etc. Ghastly when you're a schoolboy, and not really to be praised otherwise. The good teachers were the inspiring ones - warts and all.
Ah hang on - by 'understanding based' I meant trying to have pupils really 'get' the subject rather than just amass the knowledge and techniques to ace the exam.
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.
I think this is interesting. Current ‘best’ practice for us involves using PowerPoint so the darlings don’t need to write anything down. And in advance too, please. And lectures being recorded.
And I still think having to listen and make notes as you go was best.
Cheap(ish), and designed for mass-manufacture. A big question is when it will be ready, and how much 'testing' will occur within (say) a certain country bordering Russia...
Comparing Nazism and Communism as ideologies is perhaps a category error, because they are not strictly comparable.
Communism is a universalist, evangelical religion like Christianity or Islam. The upside of that is inclusivity: anyone can belong if they convert to the faith. The downside is violence: if you don’t convert, you are fair game for destruction.
Ethno-fascism is an identity based religion like Hinduism or some of the Middle Eastern sects like the Druze. There is an in group and an out group. The upside could be that they leave you alone if you leave them alone (though the Nazis clearly didn’t do that). The downside is that if you’re not in the in group you’re sub-human and therefore fair game for destruction.
I prefer centrist dada-ism myself.
And one is a perversion of political economy, whereas one is a perversion of science.
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.
Of course Trotskyites are not responsible for the atrocities of Soviet Stalinism. Trotsky was expelled, his followers purged and Trotsky himself murdered.
Of course if things had developed differently Trotsky might well have been as bad or worse, but he isn't responsible for the crimes of Stalin.
Tell that to the priests of the Russian Orthodox Church. Or victims of the Red Terror.
I am not claiming Trotsky was an angel. He committed atrocities when he could, as indeed did pretty much every side of the Russian Civil War.
Just that to blame Trotsky for the failings of Stalinism shows a lack of understanding.
Comparing Nazism and Communism as ideologies is perhaps a category error, because they are not strictly comparable.
Communism is a universalist, evangelical religion like Christianity or Islam. The upside of that is inclusivity: anyone can belong if they convert to the faith. The downside is violence: if you don’t convert, you are fair game for destruction.
Ethno-fascism is an identity based religion like Hinduism or some of the Middle Eastern sects like the Druze. There is an in group and an out group. The upside could be that they leave you alone if you leave them alone (though the Nazis clearly didn’t do that). The downside is that if you’re not in the in group you’re sub-human and therefore fair game for destruction.
I prefer centrist dada-ism myself.
Good luck to the former middle classes - or even the peasants with a bit of land of their own - trying to “belong”.
And I think the 'issue' is that Communism is seen mostly as a set of economic beliefs...
Well, yes. But those economic beliefs govern what you can own, how you are medicated, surgeried, fed, watered, housed and employed, how your children are schooled, and specifically prevents you from trying something better on your own initiative. It sounds good but it's stupid at best and murderous at worst.
Indeed: it's why communism is doomed to fail.
And also - of course - why little experiments at communism are perfectly allowable within capitalist systems. If you want to join a communist kibbutz, you could.
Communism in its original form is the ideal economic system for the context in which humans evolved: small kinship groups of hunter gatherers. Any other system in that situation tends to lead to conflict and social breakdown. Communism doesn’t however work in any other economic setting, not even subsistence cultivation or livestock grazing.
Perhaps this is why many are instinctively drawn to the ideal of communism. It represents some deep evolutionary vestige in the human brain.
But Marxist theory is predicated on an, and requires an industrial society. Lenin and Stalin* starved millions of agricultural peasants to develop one (built by Americans) so that they could have communism.
IOW, it was bollocks from the very start.
(And what China has now isn't communism in any sense, apart from the label they still insist upon.)
*Trotsky was more of your straightforward mass murderer.
I see that the government's Minister for Courts has today argued in the Commons that we must allow Sharia courts in the UK, in order to prove our religious tolerance
Can anyone explain to me how this could be a good idea?
One point would be that it could create a limited version of Sharia Courts operating within the arbitration framework, fitting into a recognised niche in our society, which would be voluntary, and be subject to Judicial oversight, not in competition with our justice system.
That would sit in the same niche as the Beth Din Jewish Courts, which have existed since Victorian times in the UK, and now operate under the Arbitration Act 1996.
They do things like religions weddings, oversee conversions to Judaism, and so on.
Which is one reason why Sharia should not be allowed.
Is that because it is inherently bad, or because it needs reforming?
We have innocent people trapped in prison because our justice system gets it wrong sometimes. In that case we treat it as a reason for reform, not for abolition of Crown Courts and Prisons.
Why should Beth Din be different?
Because there are two laws. To be a society, we need to be ruled by one law, not multiple. That alone makes fixing problems with one law easier.
And I think the 'issue' is that Communism is seen mostly as a set of economic beliefs...
Well, yes. But those economic beliefs govern what you can own, how you are medicated, surgeried, fed, watered, housed and employed, how your children are schooled, and specifically prevents you from trying something better on your own initiative. It sounds good but it's stupid at best and murderous at worst.
Indeed: it's why communism is doomed to fail.
And also - of course - why little experiments at communism are perfectly allowable within capitalist systems. If you want to join a communist kibbutz, you could.
Communism in its original form is the ideal economic system for the context in which humans evolved: small kinship groups of hunter gatherers. Any other system in that situation tends to lead to conflict and social breakdown. Communism doesn’t however work in any other economic setting, not even subsistence cultivation or livestock grazing.
Perhaps this is why many are instinctively drawn to the ideal of communism. It represents some deep evolutionary vestige in the human brain.
But Marxist theory is predicated on an, and requires an industrial society. Lenin and Stalin* starved millions of agricultural peasants to develop one (built by Americans) so that they could have communism.
IOW, it was bollocks from the very start.
(And what China has now isn't communism in any sense, apart from the label they still insist upon.)
*Trotsky was more of your straightforward mass murderer.
Exactly. The brutality and suppression of dissent was hard-wired from the beginning, when Lenin was in charge and the others formed the top team. The suppression of the Tambov I mentioned above is just one example.
Comments
Another plus for Cameron was the way he tried (partly from necessity) to keep ministers in place - unlike the revolving doors approach of most governments.
It's too late in the day for brain teasers.
That might have been the case a few decades back, but it's been for some time (and rightly so) a staple of popular history that both Stalin and Mao orchestrated horrors. The opening of archives after the fall of the Soviet Union exploded most of the western apologists for the Soviet regime, and it's only eccentrics like Dura, or utter idiots, who now profess allegiance, ironically or otherwise, to 'Father Lenin'.
Today's complicating factor isn't Putin's attempt to warm over the embers of the old empire, but rather the economic success of a Chinese autocracy which embraced the market (or a version of it).
The question is -though- whether it is the doctrine of communism that is the issue, or that they were brutal dictatorships. Because there's no shortage of capitalist brutal dictatorships too.
There aren't many communist regimes that didn't descent into 'bad shit'*, although I suspect that's because most of the time the inevitable economic failings meant that the only way the rulers could preserve their positions (and their lives) was by becoming ever more repressive.
* Yugoslavia?
A little narrative spotted elsewhere.
The human rights claim – the first challenge to reach court over the UK-France deal - will place the Government under renewed pressure after two removals flights failed to go ahead.
The 25-year-old Eritrean man, who was granted anonymity by the court, is due to be aboard the Home Office’s next flight to France at 9am tomorrow.
He has told the Home Office he and his mother travelled to Ethiopia when he was a young child, and that he was trafficked from there to Libya in 2023. He then made his way via Italy to France, and arrived in Britain by small boat across the Channel on August 12 after his mother paid £1,000 to smugglers, court papers said.
Lawyers for the Eritrean migrant claim there is a ‘real risk of destitution’ if he is deported to France under the deal agreed in July by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer with president Emmanuel Macron.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15104337/Labours-flailing-one-one-migrant-deal-challenged-High-Court-Eritrean-man-25-claims-destitute-sent-France.html
(To be clear - I do not see close parallels with anything to do with Charlie Kirk; the algorithm just threw it at me and it's historically interesting around Islam / Politcial Extremism and how people can sometimes think.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bddwiUoNncg
And also - of course - why little experiments at communism are perfectly allowable within capitalist systems. If you want to join a communist kibbutz, you could.
I don't think any country has ever tried 'pure' capitalism.
A good job too, as it would be a disaster IMO.
And you might well argue that it started with some pretty brutal atrocities towards the Utashe. But then again, there was a hell of a lot of that kind of thing going on in the post WW2 Europe.
Pretty much everything with doing requires effort, concentration and persistence. Students should be taught this, by means of dull teaching.
The Bruderhof (German for “place of brothers”) is a Christian intentional community of families and singles who share their possessions and live together seeking to fully live out Jesus’ teachings in the Sermon on the Mount.
Beech Grove, located less than thirty minutes from Canterbury, was founded in 1997 and is home to around 230 people. Similar to other large Bruderhof communities, it is made up of a mix of families and singles, young and old, who live, work, and worship together.
I've studied the so-called "Christian community movement" for a long time, but in politics it's not really my area of theory.
As an aside, I quite like the idea that Tito killed Stalin. As Tito allegedly wrote: "Stop sending people to kill me. We’ve already captured five of them. If you don’t stop sending killers, I’ll send one to Moscow, and I won’t have to send a second”
Perhaps this is why many are instinctively drawn to the ideal of communism. It represents some deep evolutionary vestige in the human brain.
As I have said previously, Starmer's red flag will be May 26 if this continues
And he was happy enough, in Jeremy Corbyn's shadow cabinet, to promote toxic division.
Of course if things had developed differently Trotsky might well have been as bad or worse, but he isn't responsible for the crimes of Stalin.
People join because they love killing, rape, robbing banks, etc.
Men like Julius Streicher, Ernst Rohm, Lavrentiy Beria, Bogdan Kobulov were not outliers.
A grand per return and you could return 50,000 migrants per year and pay only 50 million, a drop in the ocean in fiscal terms.
Railway enthusiast Michael Portillo follows the route of the pioneering Stockton and Darlington Railway in north east England - the world’s first public railway to carry fee-paying passengers using steam locomotives. He learns how the Stockton and Darlington proved that railways could work - sparking a transport revolution across Britain and beyond.
He visits key locations in the story of this pioneering railway, including the town of Shildon, from where the train hauled by Locomotion No.1 set off in 1825; Bishop Auckland, where he joins thousands at a spectacular outdoor show to launch the 200th anniversary and drives a replica of the original train; and the Tyne and Wear Metro, where he discovers a new fleet transforming travel in north east England.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m002jmrc/michael-portillos-200-years-of-the-railways-series-1-1-the-day-that-changed-the-world
Ref 29 (21 seats)
Plaid 23 (6 seats)
Lab 18 (3 seats)
Con 11 (1 seat)
LD 9 (1 seat )
Green 7 (zero seats)
PLLG is 56% vs RefCon 40%, so RefCon is 2% up from last time. Not sure where the other 4% goes.
Just that to blame Trotsky for the failings of Stalinism shows a lack of understanding.
Can anyone explain to me how this could be a good idea?
If so primary legislation needs amending so it is not considered as a reason to not deport someone. Our legislation is preposterous if it can be used to prevent deportation to France. Primary legislation needs to make it very clear that we can return people to France and anywhere else the gov't chooses for any reason whatsoever, it is the only way we are going to get round this.
On the Westminster figs
LD hold Brecon
PC hold their four plus Cardiff West and Bangor Aberconwy
Lab hold Cardiff North, Cardiff South/Penarth and Blaenau
Con Gain Monmouthshire
Reform take the rest
It's like claiming that Himmler had no role in the failings of Nazi Germany.
That would sit in the same niche as the Beth Din Jewish Courts, which have existed since Victorian times in the UK, and now operate under the Arbitration Act 1996.
They do things like religions weddings, oversee conversions to Judaism, and so on.
https://www.bethdin.org.uk/
If we lived in a society (say the early 30s), where communism was a threat to all we hold dear, and Nazis were good chaps really, just don't start them on the Sudetenland, the lift situation would be reversed (and was).
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/scandal-of-women-trapped-in-marriages-by-jewish-courts-1765888.html
Which is one reason why Sharia should not be allowed.
I don't think I ever learned anything much from a weak teacher. And I do rather think of weak as being empathetic and understanding etc. Ghastly when you're a schoolboy, and not really to be praised otherwise. The good teachers were the inspiring ones - warts and all.
1) the fat, old, drunk, rich aristo guy whose political career is a series of failures?
2) of the vegan, teetotaller, immigrant war hero who was a ranker and was homeless?
Communism is a universalist, evangelical religion like Christianity or Islam. The upside of that is inclusivity: anyone can belong if they convert to the faith. The downside is violence: if you don’t convert, you are fair game for destruction.
Ethno-fascism is an identity based religion like Hinduism or some of the Middle Eastern sects like the Druze. There is an in group and an out group. The upside could be that they leave you alone if you leave them alone (though the Nazis clearly didn’t do that). The downside is that if you’re not in the in group you’re sub-human and therefore fair game for destruction.
I prefer centrist dada-ism myself.
Like many other walks of life: charisma carries you a long way.
IOW, it was bollocks from the very start.
(And what China has now isn't communism in any sense, apart from the label they still insist upon.)
*Trotsky was more of your straightforward mass murderer.
“I shot him, now shoot me,” George Zinn allegedly said immediately after Kirk was shot.
While speaking to investigators, Zinn said he was trying to “draw attention from the real shooter.”
Zinn was charged with obstruction of justice, a second-degree felony."
We have innocent people trapped in prison because our justice system gets it wrong sometimes. In that case we treat it as a reason for reform, not for abolition of Crown Courts and Prisons.
Why should Beth Din be different?
And I still think having to listen and make notes as you go was best.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3tKhCQ1lOo
https://www.army-technology.com/features/project-nightfall-the-uks-request-for-a-tactical-ballistic-missile/?cf-view
Cheap(ish), and designed for mass-manufacture. A big question is when it will be ready, and how much 'testing' will occur within (say) a certain country bordering Russia...