The Politics Thread

[thebish]

How about..

Thatcher - first Prime Minister in the UK to have a full set of lady-bits?

Apart from the physog surely? her face was full of manly bits, and I don't mean Dennis's neither.

eughh!

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Was India a major economy in the sixties?

to be fair - you did say "major country" two or three posts up in your new proposal - and now you are saying major economy. India WAS a major country in the 1960s - surely - unless you have a very weird definition of "major" when it applies to countries!

Yes, perhaps "major" is the wrong word, though I would be interested to know where India ranked in the global GDP table in 1966.

Maybe what I am grasping for is 'developed' or 'advanced'.

I mean, India only became independent in 1947 and has always been a 'developing' economy in my lifetime - we're only just stopping giving them aid payments.

Perhaps there is no particular significance in 'first', especially if it looks like the group has been designed to make it so. I'm just saying that the UK was, in my mind, interesting in electing a female leader first among the rich, developed, traditional global powers.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Was India a major economy in the sixties?

to be fair - you did say "major country" two or three posts up in your new proposal - and now you are saying major economy. India WAS a major country in the 1960s - surely - unless you have a very weird definition of "major" when it applies to countries!

Yes, perhaps "major" is the wrong word, though I would be interested to know where India ranked in the global GDP table in 1966.

Maybe what I am grasping for is 'developed' or 'advanced'.

I mean, India only became independent in 1947 and has always been a 'developing' economy in my lifetime - we're only just stopping giving them aid payments.

Perhaps there is no particular significance in 'first', especially if it looks like the group has been designed to make it so. I'm just saying that the UK was, in my mind, interesting in electing a female leader first among the rich, developed, traditional global powers.

I think that I am on safe ground if we restrict this down to say UK, US, France, Russia and Germany. In which case I trump you with a certain Nellie Tayloe Ross.
The first elected female governor was Nellie Tayloe Ross of Wyoming, who was elected on November 4, 1924, and sworn in on January 5, 1925. Wyoming was the first state to provide women's suffrage.

[Montreal Wanderer]

This will be the same Conservative Party, of course, who had a Jewish leader and Prime Minister in an age of virulent anti-semitism, and the first elected female head of government in the Western world.

I've said nothing that necessitates a lesson either in history or consistency, thanks.

I know you need no history lesson but surely Disraeli's Jewish heritage was hidden since he was a devout Anglican, having been confirmed at the age of about 12. Nor could he have got into parliament if he was Jewish at that time. So it is wrong to suggest the Conservative Party had, day I say, liberal views about race and sex. I would also dispute that the second half of the C19th was virulently anti-Semitic. Certainly there was anti-Semitism but it was far more virulent in the first half of the 20th century or, for example, in the late middle ages.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Was India a major economy in the sixties?

to be fair - you did say "major country" two or three posts up in your new proposal - and now you are saying major economy. India WAS a major country in the 1960s - surely - unless you have a very weird definition of "major" when it applies to countries!

Yes, perhaps "major" is the wrong word, though I would be interested to know where India ranked in the global GDP table in 1966.

Maybe what I am grasping for is 'developed' or 'advanced'.

I mean, India only became independent in 1947 and has always been a 'developing' economy in my lifetime - we're only just stopping giving them aid payments.

Perhaps there is no particular significance in 'first', especially if it looks like the group has been designed to make it so. I'm just saying that the UK was, in my mind, interesting in electing a female leader first among the rich, developed, traditional global powers.

I think that I am on safe ground if we restrict this down to say UK, US, France, Russia and Germany. In which case I trump you with a certain Nellie Tayloe Ross.
The first elected female governor was Nellie Tayloe Ross of Wyoming, who was elected on November 4, 1924, and sworn in on January 5, 1925. Wyoming was the first state to provide women's suffrage.

But Wyoming is still fairly third world...

[Lost Leopard Spot]

But Wyoming is still fairly third world...

(you'll've also noticed I left Canada out of the list of advanced civilised countries. For good reason )

[thebish]

But Wyoming is still fairly third world...

(you'll've also noticed I left Canada out of the list of advanced civilised countries. For good reason )

[Montreal Wanderer]

But Wyoming is still fairly third world...

(you'll've also noticed I left Canada out of the list of advanced civilised countries. For good reason )

That's okay - we didn't have a woman PM until the 1990s and she wasn't elected as such. She only reigned for a few weeks. Probably why we emerged from the recent financial crisis so well compared to you lot.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

This will be the same Conservative Party, of course, who had a Jewish leader and Prime Minister in an age of virulent anti-semitism, and the first elected female head of government in the Western world.

I've said nothing that necessitates a lesson either in history or consistency, thanks.

I know you need no history lesson but surely Disraeli's Jewish heritage was hidden since he was a devout Anglican, having been confirmed at the age of about 12. Nor could he have got into parliament if he was Jewish at that time. So it is wrong to suggest the Conservative Party had, day I say, liberal views about race and sex. I would also dispute that the second half of the C19th was virulently anti-Semitic. Certainly there was anti-Semitism but it was far more virulent in the first half of the 20th century or, for example, in the late middle ages.

Have a quick scan of this (admittedly non-neutral source!) and have a look at the sort of thing that was going on in Germany at the time Disraeli was PM. http://libcudl.colorado.edu/wwi/pdf/i73659708.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't think his Jewish heritage was hidden, was it? Indeed, my impression was that he was criticised and caricatured by contemporary opponents in anti-semitic terms?

And yes, I should have thought it was pretty obvious that things got 'more virulent' in the first half of the 20th century!

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/books ... TKhoAzWslA" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[mrkint]

As an aside, I'm greatly enjoying looking through this list of PM nicknames

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pr ... y_nickname" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How the hell do you get called 'The Turf Macaroni'?!

[Montreal Wanderer]

This will be the same Conservative Party, of course, who had a Jewish leader and Prime Minister in an age of virulent anti-semitism, and the first elected female head of government in the Western world.

I've said nothing that necessitates a lesson either in history or consistency, thanks.

I know you need no history lesson but surely Disraeli's Jewish heritage was hidden since he was a devout Anglican, having been confirmed at the age of about 12. Nor could he have got into parliament if he was Jewish at that time. So it is wrong to suggest the Conservative Party had, day I say, liberal views about race and sex. I would also dispute that the second half of the C19th was virulently anti-Semitic. Certainly there was anti-Semitism but it was far more virulent in the first half of the 20th century or, for example, in the late middle ages.

Have a quick scan of this (admittedly non-neutral source!) and have a look at the sort of thing that was going on in Germany at the time Disraeli was PM. http://libcudl.colorado.edu/wwi/pdf/i73659708.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't think his Jewish heritage was hidden, was it? Indeed, my impression was that he was criticised and caricatured by contemporary opponents in anti-semitic terms?

And yes, I should have thought it was pretty obvious that things got 'more virulent' in the first half of the 20th century!

Thanks for the NYT review which I think proves my point about virulence. Anti-Semtism before and after Disraeli's death is described as:

Disraeli was born in 1804, more than half a century before Jews were permitted to sit in the British Parliament. He died in 1881, just months before the first pogroms in Russia. That is to say, his life spanned the final years of one kind of anti-Semitism and the first years of a much more dangerous kind. The first kind sought to preserve the Jews in their pre-­emancipation condition, as far as was possible. It resisted liberal efforts to bring Jews into civil society on equal terms; in politics it maintained Christian suspicions of Judaism. It was not violent so much as exclusionary. When it failed at the legal level, it persisted at the social level — keeping Jews out of clubs, societies, universities and so on. It expressed itself in snobbery and ill-tempered condescension.

The second kind of anti-Semitism was quite different. It was predicated on beliefs in the immense power of the Jews, their malignity, their responsibility for everything that was wrong about the modern world. It was based, as Kirsch writes, “no longer on contempt but on fear and hatred.” It was lethal in its ultimate object. Jews here constituted not a vexation, but a menace.

Disraeli was long dead when the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was published (1903) and anti-Semitism became virulent. It began to cause genuine physical suffering (including Dreyfus) and reached its height under Hitler. I don't think late C19th exclusionism (I may have made that word up) can be accorded the term virulent when compared to true virulence.

While I'm sure Disraeli's opponents made a great deal of his Jewish heritage late in his life (with his name it was hard to deny though he did remove the apostrophe), he was considered a devout Anglican. Indeed he was accorded immense popularity that could hardly have gone to a Jew (especially if the age was virulent!). To the mob, whatever his ethnic background, he was a Christian.

[Montreal Wanderer]

As an aside, I'm greatly enjoying looking through this list of PM nicknames

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pr ... y_nickname" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How the hell do you get called 'The Turf Macaroni'?!

I'm not really sure but Grafton lived in the late C18th during the American Revolution. You will recall the British satirical song about Yankee Doodle who called the feather in his cap macaroni. Macaroni then meant a dandy or a fop. Yankee Doodle was a country boy who though a feather in his cap was stylish. I am guessing Grafton also bet the horses a bit as well being a snappy dresser. Hence Turf Macaroni.

Of course this could all be completely wrong.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

This will be the same Conservative Party, of course, who had a Jewish leader and Prime Minister in an age of virulent anti-semitism, and the first elected female head of government in the Western world.

I've said nothing that necessitates a lesson either in history or consistency, thanks.

I know you need no history lesson but surely Disraeli's Jewish heritage was hidden since he was a devout Anglican, having been confirmed at the age of about 12. Nor could he have got into parliament if he was Jewish at that time. So it is wrong to suggest the Conservative Party had, day I say, liberal views about race and sex. I would also dispute that the second half of the C19th was virulently anti-Semitic. Certainly there was anti-Semitism but it was far more virulent in the first half of the 20th century or, for example, in the late middle ages.

Have a quick scan of this (admittedly non-neutral source!) and have a look at the sort of thing that was going on in Germany at the time Disraeli was PM. http://libcudl.colorado.edu/wwi/pdf/i73659708.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't think his Jewish heritage was hidden, was it? Indeed, my impression was that he was criticised and caricatured by contemporary opponents in anti-semitic terms?

And yes, I should have thought it was pretty obvious that things got 'more virulent' in the first half of the 20th century!

Thanks for the NYT review which I think proves my point about virulence. Anti-Semtism before and after Disraeli's death is described as:

Disraeli was born in 1804, more than half a century before Jews were permitted to sit in the British Parliament. He died in 1881, just months before the first pogroms in Russia. That is to say, his life spanned the final years of one kind of anti-Semitism and the first years of a much more dangerous kind. The first kind sought to preserve the Jews in their pre-­emancipation condition, as far as was possible. It resisted liberal efforts to bring Jews into civil society on equal terms; in politics it maintained Christian suspicions of Judaism. It was not violent so much as exclusionary. When it failed at the legal level, it persisted at the social level — keeping Jews out of clubs, societies, universities and so on. It expressed itself in snobbery and ill-tempered condescension.

The second kind of anti-Semitism was quite different. It was predicated on beliefs in the immense power of the Jews, their malignity, their responsibility for everything that was wrong about the modern world. It was based, as Kirsch writes, “no longer on contempt but on fear and hatred.” It was lethal in its ultimate object. Jews here constituted not a vexation, but a menace.

Disraeli was long dead when the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was published (1903) and anti-Semitism became virulent. It began to cause genuine physical suffering (including Dreyfus) and reached its height under Hitler. I don't think late C19th exclusionism (I may have made that word up) can be accorded the term virulent when compared to true virulence.

While I'm sure Disraeli's opponents made a great deal of his Jewish heritage late in his life (with his name it was hard to deny though he did remove the apostrophe), he was considered a devout Anglican. Indeed he was accorded immense popularity that could hardly have gone to a Jew (especially if the age was virulent!). To the mob, whatever his ethnic background, he was a Christian.

Fair enough, Monty - arguing over 'degrees of virulence' could get sterile quite quickly.

Again, I just think it is interesting that we had a Jewish PM at a time this could be written of Germany: "From 1878 Anti-Semitism became a distinct political programme. It was the first time in the history of a modern State that candidates sought election to Parliament on the ground of their enmity towards the Jews."

[Montreal Wanderer]

This will be the same Conservative Party, of course, who had a Jewish leader and Prime Minister in an age of virulent anti-semitism, and the first elected female head of government in the Western world.

I've said nothing that necessitates a lesson either in history or consistency, thanks.

I know you need no history lesson but surely Disraeli's Jewish heritage was hidden since he was a devout Anglican, having been confirmed at the age of about 12. Nor could he have got into parliament if he was Jewish at that time. So it is wrong to suggest the Conservative Party had, day I say, liberal views about race and sex. I would also dispute that the second half of the C19th was virulently anti-Semitic. Certainly there was anti-Semitism but it was far more virulent in the first half of the 20th century or, for example, in the late middle ages.

Have a quick scan of this (admittedly non-neutral source!) and have a look at the sort of thing that was going on in Germany at the time Disraeli was PM. http://libcudl.colorado.edu/wwi/pdf/i73659708.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't think his Jewish heritage was hidden, was it? Indeed, my impression was that he was criticised and caricatured by contemporary opponents in anti-semitic terms?

And yes, I should have thought it was pretty obvious that things got 'more virulent' in the first half of the 20th century!

Thanks for the NYT review which I think proves my point about virulence. Anti-Semtism before and after Disraeli's death is described as:

Disraeli was born in 1804, more than half a century before Jews were permitted to sit in the British Parliament. He died in 1881, just months before the first pogroms in Russia. That is to say, his life spanned the final years of one kind of anti-Semitism and the first years of a much more dangerous kind. The first kind sought to preserve the Jews in their pre-­emancipation condition, as far as was possible. It resisted liberal efforts to bring Jews into civil society on equal terms; in politics it maintained Christian suspicions of Judaism. It was not violent so much as exclusionary. When it failed at the legal level, it persisted at the social level — keeping Jews out of clubs, societies, universities and so on. It expressed itself in snobbery and ill-tempered condescension.

The second kind of anti-Semitism was quite different. It was predicated on beliefs in the immense power of the Jews, their malignity, their responsibility for everything that was wrong about the modern world. It was based, as Kirsch writes, “no longer on contempt but on fear and hatred.” It was lethal in its ultimate object. Jews here constituted not a vexation, but a menace.

Disraeli was long dead when the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was published (1903) and anti-Semitism became virulent. It began to cause genuine physical suffering (including Dreyfus) and reached its height under Hitler. I don't think late C19th exclusionism (I may have made that word up) can be accorded the term virulent when compared to true virulence.

While I'm sure Disraeli's opponents made a great deal of his Jewish heritage late in his life (with his name it was hard to deny though he did remove the apostrophe), he was considered a devout Anglican. Indeed he was accorded immense popularity that could hardly have gone to a Jew (especially if the age was virulent!). To the mob, whatever his ethnic background, he was a Christian.

Fair enough, Monty - arguing over 'degrees of virulence' could get sterile quite quickly.

Again, I just think it is interesting that we had a Jewish PM at a time this could be written of Germany: "From 1878 Anti-Semitism became a distinct political programme. It was the first time in the history of a modern State that candidates sought election to Parliament on the ground of their enmity towards the Jews."

1878 was the tail end of his long career. I still believe he was thought of as Christian by all including Queen Victoria. His acceptance claims a liberalism I'm not sure existed. How many Jewish PMs have we had since if we are that tolerant? No doubt anti-Semitism was growing more widespread by 1880, but it did not really blossom until fin de siecle. I'm not sure what the German political party was or how well it did in any elections. I recently re-read The Thirty-Nine Steps. I do not think Buchan would have been considered anti-Semitic by his contemporaries but the book is revealing about general attitudes towards Jews.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

1878 was the tail end of his long career. I still believe he was thought of as Christian by all including Queen Victoria. His acceptance claims a liberalism I'm not sure existed. How many Jewish PMs have we had since if we are that tolerant? No doubt anti-Semitism was growing more widespread by 1880, but it did not really blossom until fin de siecle. I'm not sure what the German political party was or how well it did in any elections. I recently re-read The Thirty-Nine Steps. I do not think Buchan would have been considered anti-Semitic by his contemporaries but the book is revealing about general attitudes towards Jews.

My point is not that 'we' are tolerant. We're not.

The point I'm clumsily trying to make is that the Conservative Party does not seem to me to have been conspicuously less tolerant than 'the majority' at many times during its history.

It seems you are not attracted to the idea that the example of Disraeli's career supports this assertion. I'm ok with that.

[Montreal Wanderer]

1878 was the tail end of his long career. I still believe he was thought of as Christian by all including Queen Victoria. His acceptance claims a liberalism I'm not sure existed. How many Jewish PMs have we had since if we are that tolerant? No doubt anti-Semitism was growing more widespread by 1880, but it did not really blossom until fin de siecle. I'm not sure what the German political party was or how well it did in any elections. I recently re-read The Thirty-Nine Steps. I do not think Buchan would have been considered anti-Semitic by his contemporaries but the book is revealing about general attitudes towards Jews.

My point is not that 'we' are tolerant. We're not.

The point I'm clumsily trying to make is that the Conservative Party does not seem to me to have been conspicuously less tolerant than 'the majority' at many times during its history.

It seems you are not attracted to the idea that the example of Disraeli's career supports this assertion. I'm ok with that.

Ah, then I would agree with you if not with your example. I don't think where one is on the political spectrum, left, middle or right, has much to do with tolerance per se. Socialists can be as anti-Semitic as conservatives. Sir Robert Peel did the right thing regarding the Corn Laws and broke his party (which included Disraeli and Gladstone in the ranks), which was protectionist. Lord John Russell was offered the opportunity to repeal the laws, which was part of his platform, but refused. He cared more for politics than starving Irish.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Three little words.
Tories, Westland, Corruption.
They're at it again, will they never learn. It must be around thirty years ago since that bouffant-haired tosspot Heseltine was last at it.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Three little words.
Tories, Westland, Corruption.
They're at it again, will they never learn. It must be around thirty years ago since that bouffant-haired tosspot Heseltine was last at it.

Were there allegations of corruption in the Heseltine Westland scandal? (I don't remember reading this in my admittedly slightly biased sources like Alan Clark's diaries..)

And, this time, might it not having something to do with the Italians who have already been shown to be up to their neck in t elsewhere?!

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Three little words.
Tories, Westland, Corruption.
They're at it again, will they never learn. It must be around thirty years ago since that bouffant-haired tosspot Heseltine was last at it.

Were there allegations of corruption in the Heseltine Westland scandal? (I don't remember reading this in my admittedly slightly biased sources like Alan Clark's diaries..)

And, this time, might it not having something to do with the Italians who have already been shown to be up to their neck in t elsewhere?!

If bribery is corruption then yes there were elements of that with Heseltine's cock up as I recall.
This time around the Italian connection is the only saving grace. I know Cameron is hinting heavily that it's all the fault of the lucre stained Italians. But there'll be big trouble if bribes are shown to come from Westland rather than Finmeccanica - and that, despite Dave's bluster, is exactly what the Indians are saying.