The U.K.

[Heracleum Persicum]

.


” I hate Indians.
They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.
The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits.”
-Winston Churchill


..

This for those sayin Churchill was not worst than Adolf Hitler .. he much worst .. a whole lot worst.

The British had a ruthless economic agenda when it came to operating in India and that did not include empathy for native citizens. Under the British Raj, India suffered countless famines. But the worst hit was Bengal. The first of these was in 1770, followed by severe ones in 1783, 1866, 1873, 1892, 1897 and lastly 1943-44. Previously, when famines had hit the country, indigenous rulers were quick with useful responses to avert major disasters. After the advent of the British, most of the famines were a consequence of monsoonal delays along with the exploitation of the country’s natural resources by the British for their own financial gain. Yet they did little to acknowledge the havoc these actions wrought. If anything, they were irritated at the inconveniences in taxing the famines brought about.

Now you understand the mad mullahs


.

[Endovelico]

Jeremy Corbyn: as Labour leader, how I will unify MPs, rebuild the party and win in 2020
by Jeremy Corbyn - Published 19 August, 2015 - 14:56

We’ve heard lots of references to 1983 in this leadership election. Like Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, I first entered parliament that year. We lost that election for several reasons but ultimately because we were divided. The SDP split from Labour guaranteed Margaret Thatcher’s Conservatives a second term, in which they consolidated their attack on the unions, industry and public services. The Labour left was fighting a passionate but often inward-looking campaign for party democracy and several figures on the right of the party spent much of that election denouncing the manifesto. It’s no surprise we lost.

All wings of the party need to reflect on the lessons for us in 2015. We can win back support from Conservative commuters in the south who are fed up with rip-off railways and win back support from those who voted for parties that portrayed themselves as anti-establishment – the SNP, Ukip, the Greens, and so on – by showing that we are not afraid to debate difficult issues such as welfare and the economy and take on Tory myths. We will do so with humanity and honesty and by offering practical policies that resolve problems, not demonising individuals. Recent polls suggest that this approach can work, with both YouGov in London and Survation’s UK-wide polls showing that I am the candidate who can reach out to all voters and former non-voters.

In this process, we have attracted 400,000 more people to our party. We need to continue this spirit of engagement and discussion for the next five years and encourage our supporters to become full members. We must once again become a mass-membership party.

I know from travelling the country that we can win back lost voters across England – and in Wales and Scotland, too. People want to discuss real issues. They don’t want an opposition party trapped in the Westminster bubble of yah-boo politics and personal rivalries. They want us to be a party of principle that stands with them in their communities, so that they have the faith to restore us to power.

The scurrilous nature of some of the tabloid-style attacks on me and other candidates, as well as on our families, has been painful. It is easy to sympathise with Chuka Umunna’s reconsideration of whether to stand when he faced this onslaught in the days after announcing his leadership bid. I believe in a different kind of politics, more open and inclusive, raising the debate beyond the intrigue of rival personalities. Much of the momentum my campaign has generated has been thanks to the organising power and reach of social media. We should use the opportunities offered there to inspire people and bring them together.

For my own part, I have not engaged in any personal attacks or abuse. We should debate policies, not personalities. I have ensured that this message has repeatedly been issued through social media by my campaign. We are Labour: we resolve our differences by debating and voting on them.

Personalised politics is partly a symptom of the more presidential style of governance that has become dominant. Party leaders are not presidents. They are primus inter pares – first among equals. They are elected as MPs just like everyone else in the House of Commons. Previous Labour leaders recognised this and appointed mixed cabinets to encourage debate and discussion. Harold Wilson’s cabinets reflected the diversity of politics on the Labour benches, with Tony Benn, Barbara Castle, Anthony Crosland and Roy Jenkins all serving together. The debate and exchange of views in cabinet were strengths, not weaknesses.

We need to draw on all the talents and ideas, no matter which wing of the party they come from. The way we settle disagreements must be through democracy, not back-room deals or leadership diktat.

So I will welcome a plurality of views, with strong shadow ministerial teams in each department to hold this government to account and to lead public campaigns against the damage of cuts and privatisation. We need people dedicated to their brief who are able to work co-operatively with the party to set out a shared vision for their area consistent with a more equal, democratic and inclusive society.

Whoever emerges as leader on 12 September needs a shadow cabinet in place as soon as possible. I will appoint a strong, diverse shadow cabinet to hold this government to account from day one. A more participatory Parliamentary Labour Party is vital to our unity and strength, so I believe there should be backbench committees of Labour MPs for each department to ensure a dialogue between all Labour MPs and the shadow cabinet, and to drive policy development.

Ours is a democratic socialist party. Nearly 300,000 people now have that on the back of their Labour Party membership card. Our members and supporters have ideas, experience and knowledge that are a valuable resource – and none more so than our local councillors; often, the most innovative ideas are delivered in local government. Shadow ministers and policy advisers do not have a monopoly on wisdom, so they must interact with party members and supporters. By making policy together, we make better policy.

During this leadership election campaign, we consulted our supporters in the north on what policy changes their region needed. We received over 1,200 considered responses and we put those responses into a clear policy proposal: Northern Future.

I stood in this campaign to open up a debate, to engage new people and to rebuild our party as the movement it needs to be. That is not just an approach for the leadership election but one to win in 2020.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... d-win-2020

The man I hope will become the next Labour Party leader.

[Alexis]

The British had a ruthless economic agenda when it came to operating in India and that did not include empathy for native citizens. Under the British Raj, India suffered countless famines. But the worst hit was Bengal. The first of these was in 1770, followed by severe ones in 1783, 1866, 1873, 1892, 1897 and lastly 1943-44. Previously, when famines had hit the country, indigenous rulers were quick with useful responses to avert major disasters. After the advent of the British, most of the famines were a consequence of monsoonal delays along with the exploitation of the country’s natural resources by the British for their own financial gain. Yet they did little to acknowledge the havoc these actions wrought. If anything, they were irritated at the inconveniences in taxing the famines brought about.

Reality check: here is the evolution of India's population between the end 18th and independence in 1947.







Whatever the harshness of British rule of India, and I find it fair to imagine it was harsh, its net effect was to enable increase of India's (then including Pakistan and Bengladesh) population from the vicinity of 200 millions to almost 400 millions before the 15 million death toll of the civil war that followed Britain's departure. That is: doubling the population in the course of about 150 years. For comparison, India's population had barely doubled in the 3 centuries before the inception of British Raj.

While post-1947 independence was obviously preferable to British domination, that domination in turn was preferable to what was before.

[Endovelico]

What the Corbyn moment means for the left
At long last, the left is asking itself whether power without principle is worth having.

by Laurie Penny Published 23 August, 2015 - 10:50

The ultimate triumph of the political right in the 1980s was that its actions eventually forced the left to sell its soul for power – but many of today’s young voters neither remember nor care quite why it did so. All we have known are progressive parties that were callous in office and gutless in opposition. That’s why we almost suspect that it has all been a con. We almost suspect that when Jeremy Corbyn, a sexagenarian socialist with a 32-year parliamentary record of actually having principles and sticking to them, is elected leader of the Labour Party, the jig will be up. Corbyn will pull off his suspicious, bearded mask and underneath will be some baby-faced student organiser, or the unquiet shade of Michael Foot, or Russell Brand declaring that it was just a scam to see what Labour would do with a real left-wing candidate.

What the party has done so far is panic in a manner so incoherent and undignified that the Tories have marvelled, finishing the popcorn and starting on the dodgy dips as they watch the chaos unfold. We are told that a “Free French” resistance is being plotted within the Labour Party. The image of Blairites and vacillating former Miliblands as a “resistance movement” is worth savouring. What on earth would their slogans be? “What do we want? Strategic capitulation to the centre right with a view to contesting an election in five years!” “When do we want it? Subject to legal review!”

The big problem with Corbyn is that he throws the collapsed vacuum of mainstream Labour rhetoric into sharp relief. None of the other three leadership candidates has a single memorable political idea beyond the idea of themselves as leader. The anointed heirs of New Labour appear to believe in nothing apart from their right to rule – and they seem agnostic about even that, given the invertebrates they have put up against the Corbyn threat.

The “electability” conversation is where it all becomes clear. The argument that Jeremy Corbyn is unelectable is being made by three candidates who can’t even win an election against Jeremy Corbyn. Their arguments are backed by two former prime ministers: Gordon Brown, whose main claim to fame is losing an election to the Tories in 2010, and Tony Blair, the Ghost of Bad Decisions Past. Both of them are making the case that the ability to win a general election is the first and only important quality in a leader after years of muttering and shuffling behind Ed Miliband, a very nice man whose middle name could have been “Constitutionally Unable to Win a General Election”.

Corbyn, however, has been re-elected by the people of Islington North consistently since 1983 and, like Bernie Sanders in the US, seems as surprised as anyone suddenly to be reaping the rewards of a lifetime of sticking to his principles – principles that once put Corbyn on the moderate left of Labour and now make him look, at least in the estimation of much of the press, like the nightmare offspring of Che Guevara and Emma Goldman dressed up in a Stalin costume. And all for proposing a modest increase in the top rate of income tax.

Rumours of the death of the political left have been exaggerated. Corbyn, like Syriza in Greece, Podemos in Spain and the Scottish National Party, is an immune response from a sick and suffering body politic trying to fight off a chronic infection that threatens to swallow hope for ever. There is a crisis in representative democracy in the west and it was established well before the stock-market collapse of 2008. The old centre left is at odds with its electorate because it decided for itself the limits of what was politically possible a decade ago.

The logic is this: it’s all very well to talk about fairer taxes, rent controls, sustainable wages and an end to the scapegoating of migrants and minorities – of course, we would all get behind those ideas if we could – but, in the end, all of the things for which the public has been crying out for decades just won’t make us “electable” and it is better to have power than it is to have principles. So, much as it pains us, we will continue to capitulate to the austerity consensus and wait around for another five years for our next polystyrene leader to fail to inspire a nation.

Corbyn bucks that trend, terrifying a political class that chose power over principles long ago without once asking itself whether power without principles is worth having. The paradox is delicious. For the first time in years, Labour is popular and interesting, but apparently it would rather not be. In some people’s estimation, a surge in party membership of almost a third, from organised labour, the working poor and disenfranchised young people, would be considered a good thing for a party that claims to represent the interests of all three.

Across Europe and the United States, however, professional politicians of the centre left have one idea about what politics should look like and the people they claim to represent increasingly have another. Certain politicians have not properly understood the definition of “representative” democracy.

Today’s voters are not the voters of 1997 or 2005. We are digital and post-geographic; we mobilise fast and we want more. We are not wedded to the electoral machine. Our disenfranchisement has been mistaken for apathy for too long by a political class that claims to want young people to vote but turns out to want young people to do as they’re told and vote for it or not at all.

We want someone to remember that democracy does not begin and end at the ballot box. We want someone to represent the interests of the young, the poor and the marginalised in parliament. These are simple, modest demands. And the most damning indictment on the British political machine is the way in which these simple, modest demands look like a revolution.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... means-left

[Endovelico]

How the British "free press" deals with Jeremy Corbyn



http://sputniknews.com/europe/20150902/ ... abour.html

[YMix]

[Parodite]

pZvAvNJL-gE

He has some good ideas.. but by framing everything as bad-free-market <versus> good-socialism he remains an old school idi*t, just like his old school opponents who think in de same outdated framework of good-free-market <versus> bad-socialism in the room there.

Is this the return of the old school idi*ts or just a UK tradition?

[noddy]

he is by all reports an old school marxist.

it must be that generational lesson thing, the new earnest final solution kiddies require a refresher course.

[Simple Minded]

pZvAvNJL-gE

He has some good ideas.. but by framing everything as bad-free-market <versus> good-socialism he remains an old school idi*t, just like his old school opponents who think in de same outdated framework of good-free-market <versus> bad-socialism in the room there.

Is this the return of the old school idi*ts or just a UK tradition?

He sounds a lot like the binoid politicians we have over here. It is understandable, that when the choice is vote for me or not, that the tactic of "We seek power cause we care and want to liberate you, they seek power cause they hate you and want to oppress you" seems to be the only ploy they have.

Crusader: "Here is how I plan to make the world wonderful! all I need is your unquestioning compliance."
Joe: "You told me about the benefits, now tell me about the costs and negative consequences."
Crusader: "You really do hate people don't you!"

Not surprisingly, given a choice between ours and theirs, 50% of the Brits I know think the US healthcare system is better.

My buddy from England who has been lecturing me for 15 years on how England is better than the US, but who stopped lecturing me when I asked him to inculcate "from her according to her abilities, to me according to my needs" in his infant daughter, still lives in the US.

better seems subjective.

[Simple Minded]

he is by all reports an old school marxist.

it must be that generational lesson thing, the new earnest final solution kiddies require a refresher course.

Daddy, there's this great new musician out. You gotta hear him. His name is Paul McCartney!

[Heracleum Persicum]

IMJsydR7VdI

[manolo]

Folks,

The Scottish government have enacted a new gun law that I think is frankly ridiculous.

http://basc.org.uk/basc-scotland/airgun ... questions/

From next year, low power airguns in Scotland will require a licence similar to a firearms certificate. The police will be involved, medical records can be checked and the licence will cost £90 covering 5 years ownership.

This has happened because 10 years ago a child was killed by a drug addicted parent using an air rifle. Since then, a gun control lobby has been working in politics to get rid of air guns in Scotland. Air gun crime has been falling in Scotland for years and is now at an all time low, but this has no effect on the politicians, who have been deaf to voices from the public, the police and sporting groups.

The outcome? Well, there are 500,000 airguns in Scotland and these will have to be licensed or handed in to the police (with no compensation for the owners). Otherwise a person having an airgun in their home will be subject to criminal proceedings with up to 2 years imprisonment as punishment.

It is obvious that these politicians have little knowledge of airguns. They have consistently called them 'firearms', and pay no heed to the difference between a firearm and a sub 12ft lb air rifle. The politicians have no concern about a flourishing commerce in airguns and how this will be killed stone dead by the legislation. What parent will buy an airgun for their kid's Christmas now, when it cannot even be used in their own back garden? Maybe the most disingenuous part of the legislation is relating to collectors. Collectors may keep their vintage air guns provided they are made unusable. What collector would buy or sell an unusable airgun? It is the workings of these guns that is the interest to the collector.

This is mad legislation, of the worst 'nanny state' kind, taking freedoms from responsible people over a non issue. Its nonsense, enacted by fools.

Alex.

[Simple Minded]

Alex,

Welcome to America. It gets a little more difficult each day to find the difference between you and a "conservative American."

Not really. Most people don't like it when you try to diminish their freedom when they have done nothing wrong. As Nonc said, gun control laws target the innocent in the name of prevention. But, hey, "If it's for the common good....."

I recall a conversation with several Brit co-workers about your motorcycle accident and the NHS picking up the tab to put Humpty Dumpty back together. One young Brit said "Motorcycles should be banned for the common good." Another young Brit said "No, motorcycles are not the problem. Old people should not be allow to buy anything but beginner bikes for the common good."

Me and an older Brit just listened and smiled. After a while the older Brit chastised the younguns and said "Hey, leave Alex alone. He overpaid for decades for all sorts of goods and services to pay for the free health care of others, now he is just getting some of his money back at the expense of others. It's how the system is supposed to work."

[noddy]

what sort of person needs to use dangerous weapons for entertainment, its a clear sign of some dangerous internal daemons looking to express themselves.

no legitimate reason for it in the modern world, its good to see scotland say no to meaningless tools of violence.

[Simple Minded]

what sort of person needs to use dangerous weapons for entertainment, its a clear sign of some dangerous internal daemons looking to express themselves.

no legitimate reason for it in the modern world, its good to see scotland say no to meaningless tools of violence.

Dude,

they're on an island.... they ain't got no lebensraum.... kinda like an inverse cabin fever..... imagine a garbage can full of rats.......and even worse, they're oppressed by some lady wearing a crown

When men get oppressed by women, they buy guns. Duh!

watch guns sales skyrocket if Hilary is nominated.

[noddy]

what sort of person needs to use dangerous weapons for entertainment, its a clear sign of some dangerous internal daemons looking to express themselves.

no legitimate reason for it in the modern world, its good to see scotland say no to meaningless tools of violence.

Dude,

they're on an island.... they ain't got no lebensraum.... kinda like an inverse cabin fever..... and they're oppressed by some lady wearing a crown

When men get oppressed by women, they buy guns. Duh!

watch guns sales skyrocket if Hilary is nominated.

nar, thems scots, they dont follow the crown chick much.

its too much mel gibson thats got to em, painting emselves blue and playing with weapons, gone all hollywood merkin they have

[Simple Minded]

its too much mel gibson thats got to em, painting emselves blue and playing with weapons, gone all hollywood merkin they have

everybody wants to be Stralian..... it's kinda like the new gay....

wots better than sensitive and perennially pissed? insensitive and apathetic

[noddy]

wots better than sensitive and perennially pissed? insensitive and apathetic

insensitive, apathetic and completely pissed ?

[Simple Minded]

wots better than sensitive and perennially pissed? insensitive and apathetic

insensitive, apathetic and completely pissed ?

insensitive, apathetic and completely pissed, and impotent?

where's me airgun? aye'll shoot them buggers rite in dere littl wankers!

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

wots better than sensitive and perennially pissed? insensitive and apathetic

insensitive, apathetic and completely pissed ?

insensitive, apathetic and completely pissed, and impotent?

where's me airgun? aye'll shoot them buggers rite in dere littl wankers!

Havers!

Gie it laldy but canny whit ye blether if ye jist wannae crack richt.

Brought to you by John Joy Bell in his Scots novel, Wee MacGreegor

I wonder if Alex was brought up on that.

[manolo]

Alex,

Welcome to America. It gets a little more difficult each day to find the difference between you and a "conservative American."

Not really. Most people don't like it when you try to diminish their freedom when they have done nothing wrong. As Nonc said, gun control laws target the innocent in the name of prevention. But, hey, "If it's for the common good....."

I recall a conversation with several Brit co-workers about your motorcycle accident and the NHS picking up the tab to put Humpty Dumpty back together. One young Brit said "Motorcycles should be banned for the common good." Another young Brit said "No, motorcycles are not the problem. Old people should not be allow to buy anything but beginner bikes for the common good."

Me and an older Brit just listened and smiled. After a while the older Brit chastised the younguns and said "Hey, leave Alex alone. He overpaid for decades for all sorts of goods and services to pay for the free health care of others, now he is just getting some of his money back at the expense of others. It's how the system is supposed to work."

SM,

Good points.

I'm sure you agree that we are not obliged to buy the whole playbook of any politics, although I'm sure that some do. Liberals can like guns too.

Re the second point. People seem to forget that the NHS is an insurance scheme. The premiums are actually called 'national insurance'. So the issue is risk.
From that point of view, I'm now at the age of bad risk, even without the bikes. Indeed the bikes could save the NHS a fortune if I get splatted and am not around to claim all those geriatric treatments. I used to visit the doctor on rare occasions, now she calls me up on a regular basis to check on my meds and to warn me about all kinds of s***. The latest thing is that I have a 1 in 4 chance of a heart attack or stroke in the next 10 yrs. Even more reason to ride !

Alex.

[manolo]

what sort of person needs to use dangerous weapons for entertainment, its a clear sign of some dangerous internal daemons looking to express themselves.

no legitimate reason for it in the modern world, its good to see scotland say no to meaningless tools of violence.

noddy,

Hitting a 2cm target ring consistently at 60yds with a BSA R10 is not a violent action, and for me there is some zen - like meaning in the sport. I don't know what it is but I can feel it.

Alex.

[Simple Minded]

Alex,

Welcome to America. It gets a little more difficult each day to find the difference between you and a "conservative American."

Not really. Most people don't like it when you try to diminish their freedom when they have done nothing wrong. As Nonc said, gun control laws target the innocent in the name of prevention. But, hey, "If it's for the common good....."

I recall a conversation with several Brit co-workers about your motorcycle accident and the NHS picking up the tab to put Humpty Dumpty back together. One young Brit said "Motorcycles should be banned for the common good." Another young Brit said "No, motorcycles are not the problem. Old people should not be allow to buy anything but beginner bikes for the common good."

Me and an older Brit just listened and smiled. After a while the older Brit chastised the younguns and said "Hey, leave Alex alone. He overpaid for decades for all sorts of goods and services to pay for the free health care of others, now he is just getting some of his money back at the expense of others. It's how the system is supposed to work."

SM,

Good points.

I'm sure you agree that we are not obliged to buy the whole playbook of any politics, although I'm sure that some do. Liberals can like guns too.

Re the second point. People seem to forget that the NHS is an insurance scheme. The premiums are actually called 'national insurance'. So the issue is risk.
From that point of view, I'm now at the age of bad risk, even without the bikes. Indeed the bikes could save the NHS a fortune if I get splatted and am not around to claim all those geriatric treatments. I used to visit the doctor on rare occasions, now she calls me up on a regular basis to check on my meds and to warn me about all kinds of s***. The latest thing is that I have a 1 in 4 chance of a heart attack or stroke in the next 10 yrs. Even more reason to ride !

Alex.

True enough. I am pro-choice regarding both guns and abortions, and if parents had the right to abort say up to age 16, the cost savings to society would be tremendous. If the people who raised you, determine at age 14, that you are a chunk of human debris, and will never be a benefit to society, who would know better. They brought the child into the world, should they not have the right to take the child out? cue up Imagine by John Lennon......

I think the number is close to 60 million, that have been aborted in the US. Most no doubt by people who would have been horrible parents. How much worse would the nation or world be if they were here? AGW would be worse.

I recall the stat that by dying young (not collecting as many SS payments), smokers actually had much lower total costs to society than the healthy, despite their higher health care costs. Tobacco is a huge financial boon for society.

Same for the obese. Quite a conundrum. In order to be responsible stewards of society's financial assets, the state should promote many risky vices......smoking, ice cream, handguns, motorcycles, horseback riding, etc. for the common good.

The evolutionary aspect of humanity improving would be icing on the cake.

My primary trials riding buddy is 83, and rides better than I.

[manolo]

SM,

I see that you enjoy and employ 'reductio ad absurdum' arguments, as I do.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/inde ... d-absurdum

Alex.

[Simple Minded]

SM,

I see that you enjoy and employ 'reductio ad absurdum' arguments, as I do.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/inde ... d-absurdum

Alex.

alex,

you probably do it consciously.... for me it is the only mode of thinking I got....

That is why the binary labels are so humorous. Everyone abides by their self-interests, what they profess, is another matter, often only to appease peers.