Printable View
Looks like it is going to go down again. Theresa May is throwing down the gauntlet, and if it passes parliament, we are onboard for a general election. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-39628713
Let's start debating who has the best policies, the best outcome for the country and the political gains and losses foreseen.
Labour is dead, SNP corraled, UKIP irrelevant, Lib dem shackled to a lost cause.
Without a split the Conservative victory is guaranteed. With the opposition as they are; it's hard to say they shouldnt win.
I think the snap election is due to current investigation where Election Expenses Fraud is looking to result in the need of 23 narrow-margin Conservative seats to be re-elected.
A new general election with the government on the offensive would give a far better result than being on the defensive in by-elections as a result of election fraud and losing their majority.
ABSOLUTE MADMAN
Voted for Corbyn, in the sense that he's slightly, slightly closer to my beliefs than the rest of the circus.
Like in the rest of W. Europe, there is no equivalent to CPG, the party I vote in Greece.
At least, Corbyn seems to like Hezbollah and Syria.
EDIT: What's up with that Paul Nuttall guy? Is he more or less charismatic than his populist predecessor?
Less charismatic and known for his Paul Nuttall facts, such as being present at the Moon Landings. He invents things about his background to try to influence the electorate and got caught up big time with Hillsborough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crandar
UKIP as a party is pretty dead. The voters will probably move Conservative if Brexit is still their key issue.
Going to be interesting. Off course UKIP is dead they were a single issue party and they succeeded gloriously at what they wanted, Theresa May might, she is a very sensible person I think, she never wanted a Brexit but listens.
There are three predicted outcomes.
De facto one-party state by the Conservative party. (Overwhelming Victory)
Conservative Majority (Victory)
Conservative Minority (Pyrrhic Victory)
Significantly less likely:
Coalition Government (/w Conservatives)
Coalition Goverment (/wo Conservatives)
Labour Minority.
Labour & SNP Majority.
Personally I want a split, none of the other parties represent my interests and with the conservative whole I have to take thier good with thier bad.
I'm guessing their is no chance of a Sinn Fein majority?
I find this to be a handy guide when it comes to deciding if you should be voting Conservative or not.
https://i.imgur.com/dfjn8oN.jpg
Clearly it's Erdoğan's victory in the rigged election to become Führer that's inspired this unabashed power grab.
I am willing to bet against Erdogan winning a seat in England's parliament.
Oh that's not in-appropriate at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
I'm torn.
Tim Farron is a Div, if Clegg was still in charge I'd go Lib Dem but he's not.
I pine for the Liberal Party.
How much has Scotland to do with it? Not much. It will certainly be handy if it ends up SNP 48 (<11), Labour 8 (>7), Lib-Dems 3 (>2), Tory 1 (NC), when brexit finalises and talk of indyref 2.0 comes aroun.
Mainly it is about securing May a mandate to negotiate brexit, not subject to the tory nutters and the remain nutters.
The biggest threat a decent brexit (soft), is the chaos in the british political system as it pulls the gov't one way or another. The eu will prefer it too, having a stable negotiating party on the other side of the table. It also gives May the political capital she'll need to spend in order to make compromises.
Does "soft" mean EEA/Efta? No, that is the Remain mistake in seeking easy answers, just as the tory nutters want a 'clean break', because it's simple. It isn't a simple problem, and it will require clear heads and good will to get it right. Soft brexit means strong an enduring links to the EU post brexit, not EEA/Efta per-se. But that doesn't mean being a rule taker (in the vernancular of the debate), under the judicial activism of the ECJ. It means sectoral jurisdiction and equivalence in regulatory regimes.
The final point is that it will persuade the numerous EU parties (commision/council/parliament/national-gov't) that brexit is happening, and so persuade them them to look for the best deal. As long as half the stakeholders think britain can be brought round with some tough talk, they have little incentive to bargain honestly. Not just chaos on the british side, but the EU side too. A 100 seat majority won on the letter she sent to tusk last month will quieten the lunatics on both sides.
The quiet threat that doing us over will lead to singapore-on-steroids, is useful. Not to be made again publicly, but clearly understood. We saw exactly how fruitful cameron's renegotiation was when he started it with a promise to campaign for in:
C - So, we'd like a new deal, what can we do?
E - Well.... you can have this.
C - That's not very good, we can do better than that, surely!
E - Why do we care? You're campaigning to stay in, why would we make it more attractive for you to stay out?
C - Oh. :(
Pretty sure that's not in trump's book: The Art of the Deal! :D
So, hardball this time. With a smile.
And the result will almost certainly be a softer brexit than might otherwise be the case.
Sadly, remainers don't really get this point; still lost in a deeply personal grief.
Looks like I am not the only one who thought this...Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
https://politicalscrapbook.net/2017/...al/#more-63131
and Independent did an article on it too
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7689801.html
Me too, seeing as England doesn't have a parliament.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Odd comparison, Maymight doesn't need to rig anything, most Brits voted against somethingshe doesn't even supports herself but does anyway. I higly respect her for doing that. Erdogan is a rabid madman and a spitefull bully, Theresa May someone you can talk with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elmetiacos
...although you won't come away any better informed than when you started.
You won't be in jail either because you are thought to be a Corbyn supporter, it's all fair game (or as good as it gets of course). Agreing to disagree is a very good thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elmetiacos
No Gah option.
If Corbyn was in power, he'd have the country insolvent in under 5 years.
If a country runs a budget surplus and therefore doesn't need to go cap in hand to the markets for money then they can do what they like.
Corbyn would be requiring vast amounts of money for the number of projects he would want to kick off and unless he decides to print money he'll have to borrow money from the very system he's so against. And before long we'd be following Venezuela with a collapsing currency, industry and brain drain.
Lib Dems haven't got enough experienced candidates in-house to even fill the front bench.
SNP don't care about anything bar Scotland.
The line up is so dreadful that the only candidate who has an outside chance of managing the country is the Conservatives Oh yes they are so nasty. It reminds me of an analagy where a household of two parents and two young children where each parent runs the household on alternate 6 months. The first one goes crazy with the plastic, buys loads of toys, gets a car on credit and takes a loan for downpayment on an extension. The other parent then comes in and sees that all the money has gone and there's no way to even cover the current liabilities. So things are taken away.
The children of course love the first kind parent and hate the second mean, nasty one. Because they are unable to understand how the former has caused most of the issues.
Which is not to say the Conservatives might be "nasty" anyway, but as things stand we have the earlier spending binge to "thank"
~:smoking:
But you forget an important part in your analogy.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Parent one - over invests in the household. Put the patio on credit card, and so on. Making improvements to the house. Invests in the children with hiring tutors to help with their education and giving multi-vitamins and sports clubs so they will grow up healthy.
Unfortunately, there is a disaster in the street. All the households are affected greatly by this. Parent two said they have the solution to the problems, by cutting down on household spending to get through the hard times. Even though Parent one recognised this themselves, Parent two is far more brutal. During the first months, the family friend helped keep Parent two in check, but after accusations of an affair, family friend is no longer around and Parent two is in full control.
Parent two decides to stop everything. Pocket money is not increasing for the kids, in fact, it is cut. The tutors are stopped, the sports clubs are stopped, the multivitamins are stopped. We are all in this together, hard times. The months turn into years, the household is not recovering, in fact it is in even more debt! The car is being sold off to the local taxi service, who charges per use, instead of a cheap flat-rate. Parent two is often spending money income the pub, and giving gifts to their friends at the expense of the others in the househouse. During a local housing community meeting, Parent Two sticks their fingers up at the other households, going, "better without you lot!". Grandparents are now homeless, and 'bed-blocking' hospitals as Parent Two decided to sell their house and not replace it. Parent Two makes promises which cannot keep, constantly lying and making u-turns on policy. Parent Two is also rather abusive to the children too.
So yes, 'Parent Two' is the nasty one for taking the toys away indeed. Nothing about being selfish-toff who took away the toys for beer money to go out drinking with the 'lads' instead. I guess getting those round of pints at the pub as one of the 'lads' looks sweeter when you are not one of the 'children'.
I know PFH once disliked my negative view of those choosing not to participate in voting then complain about the government we get, but this picture explains in a nice visual way:
https://i.imgur.com/aLJw3BE.jpg
So... Tomy and his mates didn't give his rich mates a load of money from PFI deals that have in some cases bankrupted hospitals.
Unforseen? Hilarious! Perhaps only to Brown who after a few years on the job declares boom and bust over - so yes he didn't forsee the problem because he willfully refused to look for it.
Tutors? Os that an analogy for trying to get everyone in to Uni (which between scrapping grants and introducing fees costs a fortune)? Companies not thrilled about the extra skills, mainly howling about how the "skills" they have at the end of the degrees are almost useless.
You don't need vitamin tablets to grow up healthy. They do cost a lot though.
Bed blocking was around for some time - you remember? Back when hospitals were lumbered with loads of debt from the PFI schemes they were forced to have? Present then as well. And before.
Tony didn't sort out the lack of Council houses either. There should have been loads given he had over a decade. I guess wars abroad were more important.
Selfish toff? Oh - Blair, Milliband and most of the others were oh so poor. Are we forgetting Miliband's video where he was portrayed in the au pair's kitchen? Very much one of the people - who have million pound houses.
Whilst we're on it... Where did they all go University and school? What's that again? Oxford? PPE? Oh yes! Just like the Conservatives! And the current leader of Labour and the Conservative both went to Grammar schools.
Amazing how much of what Labour has done has been magically airbrushed out. All that seems to remain is the debt and blaming others.
~:smoking:
So you're attacking Labour for being too left wing and when counter points are raised you attack Labour for being too right wing?
Apparently this is being shared around. A spreadsheet of "Progressive Alliance" (Labour, Lib Dem, SNP, Greens, etc) recommending who to vote for if you want the Tories out. So it highlights who is in 2nd place to the Conservatives, recommending to vote in that direction in their held seats, and what seats are currently held by what party.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...aI1bU8/pubhtml
5-6 more elections under those conditions and you lot can generate your own Donald Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elmetiacos
It might startle you to learn that the terms "left wing" and "right wing" are rather broad brush strokes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elmetiacos
Merely that the leaders are equally wealthy elitists from the same place means it is hard to blame the Conservatives alone for this.
I don't think anyone would deny when last in power Labour spent vast sums of money during the boom years and saved little / none for the bad years since they had "cured" it.
Perhaps it is better to say that one side is full of elitist cronies from a wealthy background who further the business interests of their friends, as are the other lot but also like to create a much larger national debt since there is the belief they will somehow get a return on the spending.
~:smoking:
I am struck by how "Yuppie" Beskar's analogy is, a new patio, multi-vitamins, tutors, sports clubs.
All things most people either can't afford or wouldn't waste money on.
Have you heard of the central limit theory of statistics?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
It was a bad analogy example, I had to work within my limits. Clearly Tutor is "Education", "Pills" being NHS, Patio being Infrastructure. etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
As for something punny.
https://i.imgur.com/fBDlU1X.jpg
Tories plan VAT tax bombshell after election - hitting struggling families with financial blow
Chancellor Philip Hammond signalled he would drop the party’s 2015 manifesto pledge not to raise VAT, income tax or national insurance contributions.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politic...hell-10272034#
Looks like it isn't just the 'evil Lefties' planning on raising taxes. Though at least they said about raising it on the rich, and not the poor.
Keynesian economics are back in favour, even with the right :
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...s-is-hot-again
Some form of Keynesian economics were part of all centralized states since time immeroial. In the mid 70s some crazy New York bankers came up with deregulation and eventually got a hold of Reagan and now we have Sam Brownback
this is Americas fault.
I'm not fully knowlegdeable on the cause, so someone please do a quick info note for me - why is Labour not doing ideal in polls right now?
The Tories are running away with it at this moment.
Take yer pick. Think of all the possible reasons why a mainstream left wing party may do badly, and every one of those reasons is applicable. The Tory press haven't even begun work on the Labour leader's past yet, as the Tories want to play up the threat of a Labour win in order to get their vote out.Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
john curtice is saying 12 tory seats in scotland. scotland!
this is gonna be an epic smack down.
Excuse me, it is generally an error of the Left to assign moral bankruptcy to their political opponents, not the Right. That is why Communists operate Gulags.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Barely anyone every says "evil Lefties".
Anyway, could you have found a less impartial article?
Refusing to raise taxes at all is a foolish commitment, one that bit Hammond on the arse earlier this year when he tried to institute a very modest increase the NI Contributions for the self-employed (who would still have paid less than other workers) to help fund the NHS.
In other news - Jeremy Corbyn shows how out of touch he is with having a normal job:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39682388
General election 2017: Labour plans four new bank holidays
"These holidays will be a chance for workers to spend time with their families, in their communities and with their friends"
Jezza - nobody gets bank holidays off any more, unless they work in the public sector.
Yes, starting with his three wives - each younger than the last, all very pretty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Here's something from 1999 about that second divorce and sending Corbyn's son to a Grammar: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/...bserver.uknews
Ironically, it notes he's unlikely tyo ever have any government post. More to the point, it illustrates that he's rather send his son to a failing school than a Grammar school. To my mind this is an example of principle over a clear practically choice for your nearest kin. In the end he absented himself from responsibility by separating from his wife and leaving her to make the decision alone - which smacks a little of moral cowardice.
A popular, if not overwhelming, sentiment among the American right. I suspect you downplay its currency in the UK.Quote:
Barely anyone every says "evil Lefties".
Jezza? He's not Australian.Quote:
Jezza - nobody gets bank holidays off any more, unless they work in the public sector.
In fact, have a representative right-wing comment:
There is no limit to variations of this sentiment.Quote:
What trends led to Democrats defeat? Well let's see, they hate God, babies, the constitution, law and order, all of our traditions, the traditional family, our flag, which they frequently burn and defecate on while flying the flags of foreign nations, freedom of speech, unless they approve of it, our founding father's, our history, which they frequently rewrite to exclude all the good that led to what we are today in favor of painting everyone and everything as a long list of ism's and phobias. They hate personal responsibility, hard work, integrity, honor and would rather encourage people to call themselves a victim of one thing or another in order to take no responsibility for their own actions and live entirely off the backs of producers, who they also hate. They hate republicans, conservatives, anyone who does not grovel to their horrifying ideology. In short the party that prtends to be tolerant and compassionate has absolutely no tolerance or compassion for the millions and millions and millions they hate.
Looking through that list, I can find examples of nearly all the non-American epithets in Corbyn's history.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
they hate God
Few people in the UK care about religion
babies
See what PFH said about Corbyn's son.
the constitution
NA.
law and order
Corbyn has celebrated terrorist attacks in mainland Britain, and associated with terrorist groups.
all of our traditions
?
the traditional family
See PFH's comments about Corbyn's son.
our flag, which they frequently burn and defecate on while flying the flags of foreign nations
Few people in the UK care about the flag except during football tournaments.
freedom of speech, unless they approve of it
No hypocrisy here, although he gets antsy at any remotely difficult questions.
our founding father's
NA.
our history, which they frequently rewrite to exclude all the good that led to what we are today in favor of painting everyone and everything as a long list of ism's and phobias
See Corbyn's version of the Labour party's history, which denies that the last Labour government did any good at all (something not even the Tory party goes as far to disclaim).
They hate personal responsibility, hard work
Corbyn has next to zero experience of real life work, with his last such job being part time journalism when he was still a teenager. He's been in politics since his early 20s.
integrity, honor
Corbyn is notoriously one of the most disloyal MPs in Parliament, having voted against his party over 500 times in his career, including 250+ times during a 2 year stretch at the end of the last Labour government. His supporters have excoriated the non-Corbyn loyalist MPs as disloyal.
and would rather encourage people to call themselves a victim of one thing or another in order to take no responsibility for their own actions
AFAIK Corbyn hasn't said anything on this subject. However, his shadow Home Secretary is notorious for supporting every such cause out there.
and live entirely off the backs of producers, who they also hate
His shadow Chancellor is on record as welcoming economic recession as an opportunity for revolution, and suggesting an increased rate of tax for a top bracket that's half the level paid to Corbyn, who himself says he doesn't think he is rich.
They hate republicans, conservatives, anyone who does not grovel to their horrifying ideology. In short the party that prtends to be tolerant and compassionate has absolutely no tolerance or compassion for the millions and millions and millions they hate.
Probably a bit too US-specific to be applicable.
NB. The list doesn't include trust on defence or economic competence. two key issues in UK politics (especially the latter, which is normally decisive), where he rates far, far lower than his Tory counterparts. Also, the list doesn't accuse the Democrats of supporting Communism. While the stigma in the UK is less than in the US, Corbyn's friends and staff have actually supported Communism, with his chief of staff deemed an extremist by the former leader of the British Communist Party.
It's funny how so many Republicans seem to love hard work and not having healthcare once your body is ruined because your hard work didn't pay well enough to afford private insurance. And it doesn't pay well because all those other Republicans offer to do it for less. :clown:
But yeah, I get it, just send more people to the coal mines and everything will be fine. :rolleyes:
Don't forget all the people who lost their jobs in the credit crunch and struggled to get meaningful paid work. They were just lazy. They should take personal responsibility and be glad to work for half-below minimum wage delivering Pizza and should appreciate not getting a tip which they need to actually afford the petrol to run the cars since the workplace doesn't cover that. How dare they demand they get a proper wage! That will mean the price of Pizza will go up, to cover the costs of the employees and we cannot be having that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Corbyn is nothing like as wealthy as the Blairs, that's ridiculous - they are filthy rich with a property portfoilo estimated at between 20 and 30 million pounds. The idea that Labour's overspending caused the international banking crisis was Cameron's party line, but it's crap: the problem was that Labour ran up a debt trying to prevent the recession which Tory cuts produced anyway so we got the worst of both worlds: had the Tories been in power in 2007 to do nothing, or had Labour stayed after 2010 and avoided the recession, things wouldn't have gone down the tubes so quickly.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
The article actually says that he didn't send his son to a grammar school, but don't let the truth get in the way of a good story, eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
I get to point out that this is indeed what his post is talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elmetiacos
Tony Blair is telling people to vote Lib Dem, or to vote Tory where the candidate is open-minded about Brexit (ie: not hard-liner).
The author of Corbyn's manifesto urged people to vote Class War in the last general election. Nope, I hadn't heard of them either. But this is where the Labour party currently is, with its leaders and directors from what used to be known as the far left. Oh, and don't forget that the former leader of the British Communist Party called Corbyn's current chief of staff an extremist. It's quite something when the leader of the Communist party thinks you're too left wing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
I'm gonna have to research Corbyn a bit more. It's fascinating (from afar) how polarizing he appears to be.
This began as a different thought, but hey, if the UK embarks on and is encouraged in a policy of deepening the Commonwealth over relations with the rest of the world, can Anglo-Americans ever get a Law of Return?
Maybe it will be introduced when the minorities take over America and enforce white genocide, hence peak decolonization.
(I really got carried away from my original thought)
No, HE didn't, his wife did>Quote:
Originally Posted by Elmetiacos
So he got around it by absenting responsibility.Quote:
By now, they had agreed to separate and that Claudia would have ultimate responsibility for the children. She sent their son to Queen Elizabeth's grammar school, nine miles away in Barnet.
He's a typical bourgeois leftist whom garnered popular support because Britain is only left of the USA in the west.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
ho-hum.
Oh, he's a useless wanker, I freely admit, even though I'll be tactically voting Labour in the election to prevent Theresa Erdoğan's power grab.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
What happened in Turkey cannot happen in the UK until we become a Republic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elmetiacos
Another reason I refuse to continence Corbyn.
You don't think a head of state can grab power unless the position isn't hereditary?
The Prime Minister is not Head of State.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
The closest we have had is Tony Blair, and his "Sofa Government" was one of the things that made him increasingly unpopular.
No British politician can compete with the Royal Family.
God save the Queen.
The polarisation of Brexit, and especially the identification of the government with national interests, has elevated May higher than Blair ever got. Opposition to Blair has never been accused of being unpatriotic. Opposition to May has been accused of undermining Britain's position against the EU (see her stated rationale for calling the election). I don't remember what it was like during Falklands, but Major's government was certainly not identified with the country during GWI, and Blair was never in a war where the country was united behind the cause. May is unique in her position AFAICR.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
He worded it in a difficult way, but that's what he said, that you believe a non-elected head of state limits the possibility of autocracy in the UK.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
It is odd to think of the house of Windsor as a bulwark of British Democracy, yet I think I must agree. Just by existing, given the weight of tradition etc., they serve as an impediment to dictatorship.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
But the Queen has all the power. Theresa May is just a transient minister, albeit the one who (mostly) exercises the Queen's power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
This is not only true in the UK, even the more recent and more autocratic monarchs in Europe made it harder for dictatorship to "bed in" over the long-term.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
In the case of both Italy and Romania the nations switched sides during WWI after the monarch/monarchist forces ousted the Fascist government.
The British Royal Family are the best at the "monarchy as democracy" thing though, partly because of long tradition but also partly because they have - since Queen Victoria - cultivated an image as "basically decent people."
The Queen is very popular, and whilst Prince Charles is often made fun of rarely is his character attacked. When it comes his time to be King you will find that the Commonwealth Realms will all accept him, I believe, because any alternative is more uncertain.
There are calls for William to be next in-line instead, Charles has a number of opponents who would prefer to skip him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
I saw pictures of a pre-war royal child giving a nazi salute. So she kinda switched sides too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
The alternative to Charles III might be William V.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
You're attacking someone for a photo taken when they were a kid?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Doubly wrong as the gesture at the time had different connotations to what it has now. As far as many were concerned it was still the roman salute.
Am I attacking anyone? I referred to a universally known fact that at that time it was kinda fashion, infatuation with (at least) outward appanages of German nazism. Many people were "guilty"of this passion and the royal family was not an exception. It proves the fact that no one can deem himself superior to others and taunt their switching sides.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Expound, please.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
The British royal family, Edward VIII apart, were clearly enough opposed to Nazi Germany after 1939. Of course, not everyone in Europe were as opposed to the Nazis. Ukraine, for example, were pretty pro-Nazi after 1939.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Conservatives are so desperate, they are resorting to fake news about Corbyn again. If he is so unelectable, they wouldn't need to invent things, would they?
https://i.imgur.com/dtbQXDG.png
What's that from? Ie. what's the source?
The only scandals associated with them in the USA are a tendency toward marital infidelity by Charles, Diana, the erstwhile Yorks. Nothing regarding policy misrepresentation or failing in ambassadorial duties is bruited about over here. The Younger set are very well thought of.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Only Left-wing media publish fake news. Good conservative outlets are simply using alternative facts and reporting those.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
If you want to flaunt the UK opposing nazis I showed why you can't do this without reservations. As for Ukraine being pro-Nazi, it is not true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
First of all there was no Ukraine as a separate state in 1939, not until 1991. It is true, though, that the USSR was allied with Germany in 1939, but can Ukraine be considered more pro-Nazi than other 15 (at that time) Soviet republics? I don't think so. The responsibility for entering into alliance with Germany lies on the authorities of the USSR, not on non-existent independent Ukraine. Moreover, shall I remind you of Chamberlain's treachery to Czechoslovakia after hobnobbing with Hitler in Munich in 1938? Can we conclude that Britan was pro-nazi?
It is also true that there were some Ukrainians who welcomed German invasion. Does it make them pro-Nazi? I think this weclome is the reaction to the Soviet regime's policies to the people of Ukraine (and other USSR nations, btw). Were Ukrainians unique in their stance? No. The British can't be said to have suffered from a similar treatment by their own governmnet, but I can remember a picture of some British grocer sporting a sign "business as usual, Mr. Hitler". Can we conclude that Britan was pro-nazi?
So: I understand that you are hurt by any innuendoes that Britain wasn't (always) a lily-white everlasting opponent of Nazis. But the facts show that your stereotype isn't totally correct. As well as another stereotype of Ukraine "being pro-Nazi" after 1939 or in any other time.
Ukraine were more pro-Nazi than the royals as a set generally were (eg. Ukrainian concentration camp guards were noted by inmates as particularly brutal). If anything, from George V onwards, the British royals revised their image to more more British than the British, and defined their Britishness as Germanophobia. Which reflected anti-German sentiments in common British society. Pro-Nazi sentiments weren't likely to be popular in Britain, if only because Brits in general hated Germans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Was that news, or tabloid/Internet mockery?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Twitter by Suzan Walsh, Conservative Party Information Officer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
http://evolvepolitics.com/conservati...images-online/
http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2017/0...he-opposition/
https://skwawkbox.org/2017/04/22/if-...bout-him-ge17/
http://www.thedrum.com/news/2017/04/...-snap-facebook
Can you link to the twitter post so we can check it out ourselves? I got hell for citing an Orwell essay without specifically naming it (which I eventually did).Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Well, the first Reich was the Holy Roman Empire, therefore, same difference. :clown:Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
In the period you are referring to, 1933, Hitler was essentially seen as German'y Donald Trump and the video was shot by the Duke of Windsor (boo, hiss!) and he was a bit of a Nazi appeaser because he didn't want another war, and a bit of an idiot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
HM Queen was 7.
7 year olds are well known for their sound decision making skills.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus