The Politics Thread

[Lord Kangana]

But sadly we have rectified nor improved anything. And as I say, he was our puppet, we encouraged and funded him. So "taking him out" was in every sense a political action, not a moral one. And it hasn't stopped the frightening death toll, only exacerbated it.

[Worthy4England]

Stalin's crimes were vile but not in the same category as Hitler's.

Genocide - the destruction of a race of people by virtue of their race, the 'final solution of the Jewish Problem' is a different kind of crime than the barbarism of Stalin which seems to me to have many antecedents in tyrannies throughout the ages.

I don't think Stalin came close to genocide at any stage of his bloodstained tyranny. This is NOT to minimise the sufferings of the millions who died because of his orders.

They were both unspeakable bastards. Hell roast them. Slowly and eternally.

I thought we didn't have one of them?

[William the White]

I believe the treatment of the Tatars in the Crimea is considered an act of genocide.

I know that claim and I think it's dubious. But I'm not prepared to argue the case very strongly, it somehow feels distasteful, worse than that, when you are dealing with the deaths of huge numbers of real people. I think there is an argument for that definition and I wouldn't criticise anyone for holding that position.

But I think Stalin's crimes, even this one, were a million miles away from Auschwitz and the attempted industrial murder of an entire race by Hitler.

Katyn Wood, and similar activity to wipe out the Polish imtelligentsia and officer class, is way up there with Adolf. Both as bad as one another in my view.

A war crime, certainly, and appalling, but not an act of genocide.

[William the White]

Stalin's crimes were vile but not in the same category as Hitler's.

Genocide - the destruction of a race of people by virtue of their race, the 'final solution of the Jewish Problem' is a different kind of crime than the barbarism of Stalin which seems to me to have many antecedents in tyrannies throughout the ages.

I don't think Stalin came close to genocide at any stage of his bloodstained tyranny. This is NOT to minimise the sufferings of the millions who died because of his orders.

They were both unspeakable bastards. Hell roast them. Slowly and eternally.

I thought we didn't have one of them?

In my dreams we have one for those very special people who deserve it.

[thebish]

Yay!! go Ken!

can we have a mayor of London who actually knows what he is doing again?

[TANGODANCER]

Yay!! go Ken!

can we have a mayor of London who actually knows what he is doing again?

The last one was Dick Whittington, I believe.

[thebish]

Yay!! go Ken!

can we have a mayor of London who actually knows what he is doing again?

The last one was Dick Whittington, I believe.

no - the last one was Ken Livingstone.

[Bruce Rioja]

Yay!! go Ken!

can we have a mayor of London who actually knows what he is doing again?

The last one was Dick Whittington, I believe.

no - the last one was Ken Livingstone.

Yep, just move all the traffic into even larger tailbacks around the ringroad in the name of saving the planet, not at all attempting to raise revenue. Go Ken.

[H. Pedersen]

the problem with all these political philosophies is all the wars and conflicts they create and the countless millions they kill...

hang on... isn't that religious faiths???

oh... maybe it's just humans....

Stalin and Hitler were, in essence, replacing God with themselves. They believed that Hitler was God and Mein Kampf was the Bible. They didn't believe in questioning doctrine and leadership. That's why the Pope's suggestion that atheism caused Nazism and WWII was so odious. The problem is not lack of faith, but lack of skepticism. Whenever someone - be it Hitler, Stalin, David Cameron, Ron Popeil, Barrack Obama, or Benedict XVI - tells you that he's got the answers to all of your problems if you just give him your money and devotion, you should immediately distrust him.

[H. Pedersen]

Wasn't sure where to put this, here seemed the best place.

Read two articles by Daniel Hannan, hereand here.

Am I allowed to agree with them, yet still think him an arrogant, odious, see you next tuesday?

The Che article is nonsense. Even if Communists killed 100 million people, Che didn't. Che was fighting to overthrow a man John F. Kennedy described in this way:

Fulgencio Batista murdered 20,000 Cubans in seven years ... and he turned Democratic Cuba into a complete police state - destroying every individual liberty. Yet our aid to his regime, and the ineptness of our policies, enabled Batista to invoke the name of the United States in support of his reign of terror. Administration spokesmen publicly praised Batista - hailed him as a staunch ally and a good friend - at a time when Batista was murdering thousands, destroying the last vestiges of freedom, and stealing hundreds of millions of dollars from the Cuban people, and we failed to press for free elections.

That t-shirt is about as valid as this one.

[Montreal Wanderer]

I believe the treatment of the Tatars in the Crimea is considered an act of genocide.

I know that claim and I think it's dubious. But I'm not prepared to argue the case very strongly, it somehow feels distasteful, worse than that, when you are dealing with the deaths of huge numbers of real people. I think there is an argument for that definition and I wouldn't criticise anyone for holding that position.

But I think Stalin's crimes, even this one, were a million miles away from Auschwitz and the attempted industrial murder of an entire race by Hitler.

Certainly the policy induced famine of 1932 has been considered genocide by the Kazakhs and Ukrainians, as well as the later Crimean Tartar deportations. These were policies as surely as the final solution. Some sources like the Black Book of Communism lay more deaths at Stalin's door than Hitler's, though I think there may be some right wing propaganda there. They both belong in the same pit of hell as you say, William.

Edit: The Black Book lays the following at Stalin's door"
# the murder of tens of thousands in concentration camps in the period between 1918 and 1930
# the Great Purge which killed almost 690,000 people
# the deportation of 2 million so-called "kulaks" from 1930 to 1932
# the deaths of 4 million Ukrainians (Holodomor) and 2 million others during the famine of 1932 and 1933
# the deportations of Poles, Ukrainians, Moldavians and people from the Baltic Republics from 1939 to 1941 and from 1944 to 1945
# the deportation of the Volga Germans in 1941
# the deportation of the Crimean Tatars in 1943
# the deportation of the Chechens in 1944
# the deportation of the Ingush in 1944.(p. 9-10)

[seanworth]

the problem with all these political philosophies is all the wars and conflicts they create and the countless millions they kill...

hang on... isn't that religious faiths???

oh... maybe it's just humans....

Stalin and Hitler were, in essence, replacing God with themselves. They believed that Hitler was God and Mein Kampf was the Bible. They didn't believe in questioning doctrine and leadership. That's why the Pope's suggestion that atheism caused Nazism and WWII was so odious. The problem is not lack of faith, but lack of skepticism. Whenever someone - be it Hitler, Stalin, David Cameron, Ron Popeil, Barrack Obama, or Benedict XVI - tells you that he's got the answers to all of your problems if you just give him your money and devotion, you should immediately distrust him.

How could you omit Megson from the list?

[thebish]

A friend of mine has just been "unfriended" on fb by Lib Dem education minister Sarah Teather MP.

he describes the incident thusly...

A status update from Sarah Teather came up in my newsfeed.

She wrote: "Sarah Teather has spent a fortune on i-tunes downloading schumann lieder instead of doing her red box. Oh dear."

I commented: "I'd have been tempted to buy that too if my ...partner wasn't now facing redundancy as a result of cuts in the NHS made by the Coalition."

I was instantly unfriended. Good old Lib Dem free speech.

[a1]

A friend of mine has just been "unfriended" on fb by Lib Dem education minister Sarah Teather MP.

he describes the incident thusly...

A status update from Sarah Teather came up in my newsfeed.

She wrote: "Sarah Teather has spent a fortune on i-tunes downloading schumann lieder instead of doing her red box. Oh dear."

I commented: "I'd have been tempted to buy that too if my ...partner wasn't now facing redundancy as a result of cuts in the NHS made by the Coalition."

I was instantly unfriended. Good old Lib Dem free speech.

he could borrow the money to buy it and not give a shite what happens.

the last government were good at that.

[CAPSLOCK]

A good point, very well made a1

Anyway...the withdrawal of child benefit to those paying the higeher arte of tax

Fair enough, I guess so long as its part ofa bigger review which outs the scrotes abusing the system

BUT

Why the fcuk is it not based per household

ie if I earn 41 k, no child benefit

If we both earn 39, total 78, its carry on as we were


This aint the first time this method has been used, because the couple earning 78 (39+39) also avoid higher rate tax

Can somebody try to explain how this is fair?


Similarly, I was recently unemployed, but couldn't claim anything cos my wife works over 20 hours a week...the amount she earned being irrelevant, so in theory, if she was a barrister (for example) working a day a week for a thousand or 2 a day, we wouldn't be ruled out of benefits, yet a 21 hour a week cleaner would be ruled out

How very odd

[Worthy4England]

A good point, very well made a1

Anyway...the withdrawal of child benefit to those paying the higeher arte of tax

Fair enough, I guess so long as its part ofa bigger review which outs the scrotes abusing the system

BUT

Why the fcuk is it not based per household

ie if I earn 41 k, no child benefit

If we both earn 39, total 78, its carry on as we were


This aint the first time this method has been used, because the couple earning 78 (39+39) also avoid higher rate tax

Can somebody try to explain how this is fair?


Similarly, I was recently unemployed, but couldn't claim anything cos my wife works over 20 hours a week...the amount she earned being irrelevant, so in theory, if she was a barrister (for example) working a day a week for a thousand or 2 a day, we wouldn't be ruled out of benefits, yet a 21 hour a week cleaner would be ruled out

How very odd

This, in spades.

Fcuking clueless.

[Bruce Rioja]

Similarly, I was recently unemployed, but couldn't claim anything cos my wife works over 20 hours a week...the amount she earned being irrelevant, so in theory, if she was a barrister (for example) working a day a week for a thousand or 2 a day, we wouldn't be ruled out of benefits, yet a 21 hour a week cleaner would be ruled out

How very odd

Similarly, a former contributor to this site (that you and I met in Marseille) found himself presenting himself at a Labour Exchange after an unfortunate run of events, only to be told to get fecked.

Despite him having paid tax (some at the higher rate) since leaving uni he was told that because he'd been prudent and had put some aside for a rainy day, it was now raining.

So, had he blown the lot - no problem, here's some cash.

Had he never worked a day in his life - no problem, here's some cash.

[Lord Kangana]

We're being screwed. From every direction.

Revolution anyone?

[Prufrock]

A good point, very well made a1

Anyway...the withdrawal of child benefit to those paying the higeher arte of tax

Fair enough, I guess so long as its part ofa bigger review which outs the scrotes abusing the system

BUT

Why the fcuk is it not based per household

ie if I earn 41 k, no child benefit

If we both earn 39, total 78, its carry on as we were


This aint the first time this method has been used, because the couple earning 78 (39+39) also avoid higher rate tax

Can somebody try to explain how this is fair?


Similarly, I was recently unemployed, but couldn't claim anything cos my wife works over 20 hours a week...the amount she earned being irrelevant, so in theory, if she was a barrister (for example) working a day a week for a thousand or 2 a day, we wouldn't be ruled out of benefits, yet a 21 hour a week cleaner would be ruled out

How very odd

This, in spades.

Fcuking clueless.

For possibly the first time ever on this thread I agree with both Worthy and CAPS

[Prufrock]

We're being screwed. From every direction.

Revolution anyone?

Yay! But shhh....don't let on to Hoboh!