Tory cuts could be mighty unpleasant

Sir_Humphrey

carolt wrote: »

I'd like to hear anyone's definition of socialism wide enough to incorporate Hitler. If it stretches that far, it's clearly utterly meaningless as a definition.

Agreed. A few selective quotes from Mein Kampf do not make Hitler a socialist. Anyone who knows anything about Hitler knows that he hated Commies as much as he hated Jews.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Germany#The_Nazi_era

The Nazi era

Soon after the appointment of Hitler as Chancellor, the Reichstag was set on fire and Dutch council communist Marinus van der Lubbe was found near the building. The Nazis publicly blamed the fire on communist agitators in general, although in a German court in 1933, it was decided that van der Lubbe had acted alone, as he claimed to have done. After the fire, habeas corpus was suspended. The Enabling Act, which legally gave Hitler dictatorial control of Germany, was passed by a Reichstag session held after all communist deputies had been arrested and jailed.
The KPD [Communist Party] was efficiently suppressed by the Nazis. Thousands of Communists were imprisoned in concentration camps, including Thälmann. The most senior KPD leaders to escape were Wilhelm Pieck and Walter Ulbricht, who went into exile in the Soviet Union. The KPD maintained an underground organisation in Germany throughout the Nazi period, but the loss of many core members severely weakened the Party's infrastructure.

As if Hitler did not nationalise industry in case he seemed extremist. This would involve him sitting in his bunker in 1945 saying "I wish I had nationalised Krupps as well as killing the Jews, but I not want people to think I was a nutter."

What a load of balls these internet right-wingers post.

kabayiri

StevieJ wrote: »

Substitute Stalin for Lenin and I may agree with you.

Agreed.
Even Lenin knew the danger of Stalin.

moggylover

Generali wrote: »

Not really.

There is a whole slew of statistics from Government debt to output to Sterling values which can show that Labour Governments are appalling and
Tory ones are less so.

Anyone who is over the age of 30 and still voting Labour is at best a misguided fool and at worst supporting despotism.

But you see, for anyone who actually remembers the last tory c0ck-up period clearly then they would probably suggest that anyone contemplating voting for the barstewards again needed shooting!:D

We had hospital wards closed for lack of staff, and schools that could not even afford paper for the kids to write on! We had council housing that was falling into complete disrepair and schools that were unfit for kids to spend their days in or overcrowded in the extreme! Then there was the state of our roads! But, you see, most of the Tory clingons here were either far too young to actually see the reality of the total disintegration of the fabric of our country at that time, or far too cushioned by their "superior" income (or income area) to have been affected by it;)

A very large proportion of the debt incurred by Labour has been incurred to repair the neglect from the previous Tory government! Every house-holder knows that one does not neglect ones property in the short term as the long term cost will be greater when all the repairs fall due! Basic home economics are all one needs for that sort of common sense, but it was beyond the vision and common decency of the Tories then, and I believe it always will be.

Personally, I abhor ANY suggestion that the poorest (and yeah, even the real middle earners) should be the ones to suffer when those that REALLY do cause the problems in this Country are those that never suffer in any situation.

A friend and I were discussing only the other day whether him having to pay tax at a higher rate would put him off investing in this Country, or make him leave. He is SERIOUSLY wealthy from having several companies of his own and not some jumped up little back-room boy in financial services or someone who can get bonuses on short term "apparent" performance - so was worth asking.

He tells me that it is not the money that is the driving force: it is the gamble! He also tells me that if he actually used every tax loophole available to him he would probably pay less tax per year than the average middle incomer on around £40K/annum (something which he feels is unacceptable and disgusting: as do I) despite the fact that he gains something more like £40K per week.

All we REALLY need to do to pay off the debts (IF we are determined that they are our most important focus at the present time - which I am not) is close down all the loopholes and make those that actually avoid putting pretty much anything back compared to what they take out pay at similar rates, and with as little room for manoeuvre, as the rest of us.

Instead, the monetarist policies that have been followed for so long are actually only aimed at keeping the small pot of money circulating between the middle incomers and those less well off - whilst the vast majority of the cash pot remains firmly in the grasp of the super rich: indeed they have actually managed to suck even more out of the lower pot over the last 25 years!

BTW, my friend considers it a joke based on a total lack of understanding of human psychology, and the biggest insult EVER to his ingenuity and that of other entrepreneurs to suggest that it is only the thought of vast wealth that makes them take on the challenges they do.

As he says, after the first few million roll in, all the rest is rather pointless as you couldn't possibly spend it all:eek::eek: Personally, I doubt if I could spend the first few million, or at least not on just myself or my family:o.

i8change

Originally Posted by Mr Mumble
Hayek wrote to Beveridge back in 1933 about Nazi-socialism. Since Hayek is the under-pinning of post-WWII conservatism, from Churchill to Thatcher, you're implying that anyone to the right of Blair is a loon. Revealing.

Not forgetting "The Socialist Roots of Naziism" chapter 12 of "The Road to Serfdom."

Generali

moggylover wrote: »

But you see, for anyone who actually remembers the last tory c0ck-up period clearly then they would probably suggest that anyone contemplating voting for the barstewards again needed shooting!:D

We had hospital wards closed for lack of staff, and schools that could not even afford paper for the kids to write on! We had council housing that was falling into complete disrepair and schools that were unfit for kids to spend their days in or overcrowded in the extreme! Then there was the state of our roads! But, you see, most of the Tory clingons here were either far too young to actually see the reality of the total disintegration of the fabric of our country at that time, or far too cushioned by their "superior" income (or income area) to have been affected by it;)

A very large proportion of the debt incurred by Labour has been incurred to repair the neglect from the previous Tory government! Every house-holder knows that one does not neglect ones property in the short term as the long term cost will be greater when all the repairs fall due! Basic home economics are all one needs for that sort of common sense, but it was beyond the vision and common decency of the Tories then, and I believe it always will be.

Personally, I abhor ANY suggestion that the poorest (and yeah, even the real middle earners) should be the ones to suffer when those that REALLY do cause the problems in this Country are those that never suffer in any situation.

A friend and I were discussing only the other day whether him having to pay tax at a higher rate would put him off investing in this Country, or make him leave. He is SERIOUSLY wealthy from having several companies of his own and not some jumped up little back-room boy in financial services or someone who can get bonuses on short term "apparent" performance - so was worth asking.

He tells me that it is not the money that is the driving force: it is the gamble! He also tells me that if he actually used every tax loophole available to him he would probably pay less tax per year than the average middle incomer on around £40K/annum (something which he feels is unacceptable and disgusting: as do I) despite the fact that he gains something more like £40K per week.

All we REALLY need to do to pay off the debts (IF we are determined that they are our most important focus at the present time - which I am not) is close down all the loopholes and make those that actually avoid putting pretty much anything back compared to what they take out pay at similar rates, and with as little room for manoeuvre, as the rest of us.

Instead, the monetarist policies that have been followed for so long are actually only aimed at keeping the small pot of money circulating between the middle incomers and those less well off - whilst the vast majority of the cash pot remains firmly in the grasp of the super rich: indeed they have actually managed to suck even more out of the lower pot over the last 25 years!

BTW, my friend considers it a joke based on a total lack of understanding of human psychology, and the biggest insult EVER to his ingenuity and that of other entrepreneurs to suggest that it is only the thought of vast wealth that makes them take on the challenges they do.

As he says, after the first few million roll in, all the rest is rather pointless as you couldn't possibly spend it all:eek::eek: Personally, I doubt if I could spend the first few million, or at least not on just myself or my family:o.

I was going to give a detailed response but I really can't be bothered.

If you honestly believe that the Labour party are capable of running the UK in a responsible and beneficial manner then feel free to vote for them. The fact that every single Labour administration has ended in chaos is clearly neither here nor there.

mbga9pgf

Thrugelmir wrote: »

So was Lenin a socialist in your view ?

Better ask the Labour party. They were one of the parties that supported his tenature, despite killing twice as many people than hitler ever did.

Socialism is evil.

vivatifosi

mbga9pgf wrote: »

Socialism is evil.

I'm not convinced as a concept it is evil per se, though it may be the thin end of the wedge. Whether called Communism, Socialism, Fascism or even Democracy, it isn't right to live in a one party state, or one where the vote is fixed in favour of a ruling elite. It isn't right that dissenters disappear, whether to gulags or their death. It isn't right that minorities of the population fail to get full rights because their faces don't fit.

Communism, Socialism and Democracy are relatively benign concepts as theories. Its when in practice evil dictators get their hands on them that they become dangerous.

StevieJ

Generali wrote: »

I was going to give a detailed response but I really can't be bothered.

If you honestly believe that the Labour party are capable of running the UK in a responsible and beneficial manner then feel free to vote for them. The fact that every single Labour administration has ended in chaos is clearly neither here nor there.

Just reflecting on the current situation it seems that the Tory administration (Bush) in the
US ended in chaos as well, due to the prevailing world circumstances.

robin_banks

Generali wrote: »

I was going to give a detailed response but I really can't be bothered.

If you honestly believe that the Labour party are capable of running the UK in a responsible and beneficial manner then feel free to vote for them. The fact that every single Labour administration has ended in chaos is clearly neither here nor there.

Whilst I agree broadly with the above I would extend that to say all government administrations end in chaos, and unlike many parts of the world every 5 years we have an absolute right to remove said government from office. Every few years we need a change of government, not that it really changes anything.

Major's tory government tore itself apart in 1997, Mrs T was finished ever beofre she could acknowledge she was finished, Ted Heath torn apart by amongst other things poor industrial relations.

Whilst Enoch Powell in terms of his views sure ain't one of my 'favourite' politicians, his quote that 'all political careers end in failure, for that is the nature of politics' seems apt.

Generali

StevieJ wrote: »

Just reflecting on the current situation it seems that the Tory administration (Bush) in the
US ended in chaos as well, due to the prevailing world circumstances.

I agree the Bush administration ended in something close to chaos. He has left the country in a mess, a mess that I don't think that Obama's leftist policies will be able to fix as they need to reduce their debt not increase it, IMO.

I don't agree that there's a parallel between the Tory and Labour parties in the US. For example a Republican from New York is likely to be somewhat to the left of a Democrat from Texas, a similar geographical difference doesn't exist in the UK.

Also, Obama excepted, it is very unusual for the left of the Democratic party to gain any power nationally. There are some states where leftists have done well (eg California) normally as a result of Primary systems which encourage the fringes of both parties to do well.

Bill Clinton for example was a pretty successful and very popular Democratic President from the Centre of the party. He was a fiscal conservative (he balanced the budget), extended the range of the death penalty to include crimes that did not directly result in the death of another (eg running a drug gang) and was a firm believer in free trade (eg NAFTA). None of those are policies that would normally be ascribed to the Labour Party in the UK.