By Rachel Reeves / @_RachelReeves_
Two weeks ago I visited the Holocaust Memorial Museum, Yad Vashem in Jerusalem. Despite having visited Auschwitz a few years ago, nothing could prepare me for the harrowing stories of people and families who became the victims of hatred, ignorance and contempt during the Second World War. While Hitler and the Nazi Party are responsible for the massacre of six million Jews and around eleven million Holocaust deaths overall, we must also be honest that the Holocaust would not have had the results it did without collaboration in other countries, both those allied to Germany and those under German occupation.
Last week at Labour Party conference David Miliband used his speech to condemn the British Conservative Party for allying themselves with the Latvian ‘For Fatherland and Freedom’ Party, which each year commemorates Latvian-SS Legion veterans in a march through Riga. Miliband particularly condemned the fact that "no one in the Tory party batted an eyelid".
Without the actions of volunteers and conscripts in Latvia, and elsewhere, the Holocaust would not have had so many victims. We must be careful about what we commemorate, celebrate and who we align ourselves with.
Conservative Party Chairman, Eric Pickles, in an interview with Radio Four’s Today Programme on 22nd September, claimed that the soldiers were conscripts, just following orders, and that the volunteers were nationalists, not Nazis – fighting to end the Soviet occupation of their country. But, if this is the version of history that the Tories finds fits their need to find allies to form their new European Conservatives and Reformists group, it misses out some important facts. As the Simon Wiesenthal Center, which tracks down Nazi war criminals, points out, one third of Latvian-SS soldiers were volunteers, not conscripts, and “many of its men were active participants in the mass murder of Jews before the Legion was established in early 1943”.
Using a different line of argument, William Hague claims that the commemoration is an official event. In a letter to the Foreign Secretary on 2nd October Hague wrote:
“You must know that the majority of Latvia’s political parties, the majority of parties forming Latvia’s current Government including the Prime Minister’s party, have attended the commemoration of Latvians who fought in the Second World War”.
But that is not the whole truth. This is not a state recognised celebration in Latvia and is in fact such a source of controversy that the Head of the Latvian armed forces was forced, by Parliament, to resign when he took part.
The people the Tories have partnered up with, and that’s before considering the homophobic, racist, sexist and nationalist views of Michal Kaminski and his Polish ‘Law and Justice’ Party, are not the types a centrist, modernising, caring Conservative Party should be associating with.
While neither David Miliband, nor any other right-thinking person, would claim that David Cameron, Eric Pickles or their party support the actions of the Latvian-SS, let’s be clear – as Miliband put it:
“All you need for evil to triumph is for good men to remain silent”.
If we tolerate these excuses for evil deeds we do a huge injustice to the memories of those who died at the hands of the Nazis and their collaborators, and we lower the bar on the sort of behaviour is morally acceptable.
That Cameron is willing to associate himself with 'For Fatherland and Freedom' tells us something loud and clear: The Tories are anti-European more than they are anti anything else. They pulled out of the right-of-centre EPP because of their differences over the Lisbon Treaty and European integration. But do Cameron’s Conservatives really have less in common with the parties of Merkel and Sarkozy than they do with Latvia’s For Fatherland and Freedom and Poland’s Law and Justice? I think the answer is no.
But, Cameron has, under pressure from the right in his party been forced into these alliances. So while Cameron may be the leader of the Tory Party, others are pulling the strings. If Cameron has had to compromise his moral integrity so much to appease the right-wing Europhobes in his party, what other sacrifices will be needed to secure their continued backing?
I will repeat – I don't for a moment believe Cameron or Pickles share the ideology of the SS. But after being reminded of the horrors of the Holocaust at Yad Vashem, I cannot accept the callous crassness of the Tory positioning which forces a decent man like Eric Pickles to imply that it’s ok to commit acts of evil if you obey orders.
By joining an alliance with “For Fatherland and Freedom” the Conservative Party demonstrate that being anti-Europe is a stronger bond for them than the conservatism they share with Sarkozy and Merkel.
How can Cameron be fit to be Prime Minister of Great Britain – the country that defeated the Nazis and helped save Europe from fanatics, hatred and monsters – when he has such dubious allies?
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
The point is that Stalinist Communism and Hitler's Fascism are they are competing ideologies of the left.
Look up Strasserism and his influence on the 1920 National Socialist Program; Strasser proposed an alliance with the Soviet. Strasser was the influential policy man that promoted anti-capitalist and anti-finance capital policy measures.
Then I suggest you look up the German-Soviet bilateral agreements such as the 1920 Treaty of Rapallo, the 1926 Treaty of Berlin, the 1939 German-Soviet Commercial Agreement and the most infamous of all the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
What on earth was the Ribbentrop Pact about if these two countries were so ideologically opposed as far-left and far-right?
I take it you missed the history lesson where Hitler publicly spoke of an alliance with the Soviets to make Germany the dominant force in Western Europe using allegories as 'brothers' and 'partners'.
Anyway, what if persuading rich people to part with time and money is difficult? Does the difficulty of persuading others to support causes dear to our hearts really justify coercion?
I find it hard to persuade someone like you that socialism is a subtle and yet evil life-impoverishing disease of the mind. But just because changing your mind on this matter is difficult doesn't mean I won't keep trying. Socialists' attachment to coercion is far more harmful than the alleged absence of philanthropy of billionaires.
Again, your world weariness bleeds through. The reality is far more encouraging. When you have lots of individuals freely creating and participating in their own environments you end up with an explosion of ideas and culture. The more sophisticated individual cultures become the richer, more diverse and varied they become.
Monotony and uniformity are offences to the human spirit evident in direct proportion to socialism. The more socialism you have, the more impoverished society becomes both in terms of the goods and services available, and in terms of its artistic, cultural and scientific output.
Oh - my - God. I see what you did there Mr Mc Laughy. You took my LL pen-name and changed it to some words that sound similar. That is so BRILLIANT. And funny (did you see what I did there?)
I liked - "we are all related to our past". So true. Are you by any chance related to Mr Hardwidge? He has a neat line in Zen philosophy as well.
Evidence: "Anyone who says different doesn't know what they're talking about or lying"
The Nazi party was fundamentally a party of order which places it on the right. The term socialist in its name is like "compassionate" in compassionate conservatism. It's just playing with words. Anyone who says different doesn't know what they're talking about or lying.
However your ridiculous attempt to use your new-found knowledge to link Cameron with Nazi sympathisers fails at the most basic level. Cameron has Jewish ancestry. His paternal great-great-grandfather was Emile Levita, a German-Jewish banker.
Truly pathetic stuff.
I do think that they left the United Kingdom a better place to live in, in 1951, than it was in 1945 and, just as importantly, than it was in 1939.
If you honestly think that people with zillions can easily be persuaded to give their time and money to 'socialist causes', then you must also believe in the tooth fairy.
You don't half write some rubbish at times, Mr Mill, masquerading as political thought.
That's right. This hollocaust was brought to you by IBM.
I just need people to say what they mean so us ordinary voters can understand. What does "kick ass and chew bubblegum" actually mean - would it persuade me that GB and his motley crew are a force for good and not just totally inept. I really would like to know.
No he isn't.
Utopians come in many shapes and sizes. We can waste a lot of time arguing about what labels we give to them, but it's more important to recognise what they are in practice. All Utopians have at least some laudable aims but share the mistaken belief that the end justifies the means e.g. socialists advocate taxation in order to promote fairness and equality. There's nothing wrong with the ends. The problem is that a) someone then must define his or her notion of fairness & equality and b) this notion is then imposed using coercion.
Let's throw away the labels. If you believe in discourse and persuasion and reasonableness then you are an enemy of Nazis, socialists, communists and all the other dogmas that form the "left", the enemies of the open society, or whatever other names we may like to call them.
The alternative to taxing people in the pursuit of fairness is to persuade them to give their time and money to the causes socialists currently advocate for government. If you think that the means (coercion), is justified by the end (fairness and equality), then you can console yourself that your intentions are better (in your view) than those you revile. But remember the words of Mary Wollstonecraft:
"No man chooses evil because it is evil; he only mistakes it for happiness, the good he seeks."
History is littered with well-meaning ideologies and people who became monsters because they thought their solutions were worth more than the basic rights of those who refused to agree.
If I wanted to go to a site where I could argue with right wingers, there are plenty to choose from. But I thought this was about something different. There are plenty of places where I could listen to the rantings of right wing fringe libertarians, and they would still be views which I disagree with - I worked that out some time ago, so see little point in arguing with them as we have an entirely different view of what sort of society we value.
The problem with libertarians is that they think 'free speech' is the only thing which matters, and so justify anything on those grounds. If all blogs or discussion sites are free for alls, they could easily end up looking very similar. That's why it makes sense to have some sites which are entirely unregulated for those who want a bunfight, but the moderated sites like ConservativeHome exists primarily for those of that viewpoint, and is moderated accordingly - quite right too. Its editor is certainly not a libertarian!
He was referring to Jews. in Nazi terminology 'finance' is a codeword for 'international Jewry'. It is racism, not socialism.
"If, however, Germany is to experience this political and economic revival and conscientiously fulfill her duties toward the other nations, one decisive step is absolutely necessary first: the overcoming of the destroying menace of communism in Germany. We of this Government feel responsible for the restoration of orderly life in the nation and for the final elimination of class madness and class struggle.
We recognize no classes, we see only the German people, millions of peasants, bourgeois, and workers who will either overcome together the difficulties of these times or be overcome by them."
"If today I stand here as a revolutionary, it is as a revolutionary against the Revolution." -Hitler
The political right does not only consist of free market libertarians
"If, however, Germany is to experience this political and economic revival and conscientiously fulfill her duties toward the other nations, one decisive step is absolutely necessary first: the overcoming of the destroying menace of communism in Germany. We of this Government feel responsible for the restoration of orderly life in the nation and for the final elimination of class madness and class struggle.
We recognize no classes, we see only the German people, millions of peasants, bourgeois, and workers who will either overcome together the difficulties of these times or be overcome by them."
"If today I stand here as a revolutionary, it is as a revolutionary against the Revolution." -Hitler
By the way, Kaminiski, the new Ca-Moron leader in the EU ,said meeting the fascist Pinochet was 'the most important meeting of my whole life'. Very nice.
In my mind they have these things in common:
* Belief that the government of the time knows best for the country.
* Defence of the government from all dissent and opposition due to above.
* Interference in peoples' lives to achieve government's goals
* Oppression of minorites who differ from the "standardised" ideals possesed by the government
* Frequently nationalist rhetoric, c.f. Hitler, Stalin, Chavez, etc...
I'm not doing a disservice to anybody. I can assure you that plenty of wishy-washy socialists like you Tom Miller were put down at the hands of the Soviets you secretly admire.
Still it's easier, and less intellectually challenging, to just parrot what you were indoctrinated with at school eh?
Probably why you'll always be muttering your opinions on blogs and not in Parliament, thank the heavens.
He did this because he was a fascist authoritarian, not because he was left- or right- wing.
Left- and right-wing apply to economic matters. Naturally, due to their ideology, left-wingers are more suited to authoritarianism and fascism as they like to continually interfere in the lives of their people to achieve their socialist goals. Right-wingers on the other hand, are more likely prefer the hands-off libertarianism that suits free trade and free markets.
Basically, all you guys are saying is that you're too busy ranting and giving the Tories a free pass to develop and impact and Labour sympathetic audience. You don't know what you're talking about and can't develop rapport. Your own incapability is getting in the way.
I've taken a leading position that tests Labour to the hilt, and that's where both popular opinion and the more savvy contributors are. You don't have to believe me but look at the performance and polling of your own party. Tearing yourself apart or mouthing the Tory line won't change that.
I can certainly develop my position, recommend books, and give examples from around the world to make my case but if Labour don't want to listen and the Tories crowd everything else out there's not much I can do apart from watch you bunch implode again and Cameron roll in on a wave of manufactured applause.
I'm right and admitting that after the election is too late.
Guess which?
If communism was the same as fascism, then their would have been no need for the two words. Your abandonment of history does a minor disservice to those who died, particularly those who were democratic socialists.
No it is you who lives in a parallel universe for assuming they're right wing.
Fascism does not indicate whether someone is left or right wing.
As you have pointed out, Franco and Pinochet are examples of right-wing fascism. Hitler and Stalin are examples of left-wing fascism.
I'm just correcting your terminology. Fascism does not equal right wing.
Quoting some odd bits of rhetoric is neither here nor there (just like Cameron's twaddle about being 'progressive').
Frankly, you're living on a parallel universe if you thinks fascist are lefties.
You have no cohesive strategy other than to namecall the Conservatives, which is proven to be a non-winner with the electorate and as far as I can see you don't address any issue in a serious manner. Rather you chose to spend your time with fables, proverbs and the occassional reference to a line in a film.
All this 'kill kill' and 'get the boot in' or whatever other drivel you can think of isn't helping Labour and it really isn't motivating anyone. It just makes you look delusional and occassionally when people have stopped laughing at your comedy they may throw you a bone to chew on.
Like it or loathe it, if your contributions to the LL do anything, they make a Labour 4th term all the more impossible. If you hadn't had a hissy fit a couple of months back you may well have witnessed the beginnings of a strategy, but as per usual it gets lost in a mountain of puerile nonsense involving grasshoppers, one liners from old films and the constant droning that isn't challenged, but it possibly amuses some.
Incidently what makes the LL a different type of political blog is there are articles that challenge what is going on rather than just agreeing with HQ all the time. It makes for interesting reading to see the would-be Labour supporters who are tired of the old (and new) spin and genuinely want to see a reborn Labour Party that rids politics of the class wars, the wealth arguments and some of the downright stupid policy ideas that are coming from the current lot in Downing Street. If Alex was to follow your suggestions and constantly attack the Conservatives without looking inwards occassionally, the LL would die a quick death as it would just be another spin site mouthing the Labour line.
"…that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens… the abolition of all incomes unearned by work… the ruthless confiscation of all war profits… the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations… profit-sharing in large enterprises… extensive development of insurance for old-age… land reform suitable to our national requirements…"
"Hitler said in 1927, “We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance"
Evidently, Henry, you should do. Here are some pointers as to why "right-wing" is not applicable to Hitler:
Nazi publications and speeches included anti-capitalist (especially anti-finance capitalist) rhetoric.[15] Hitler attacked what he called “pluto-democracy,” which he claimed to be a Jewish conspiracy to favor democratic parties in order to keep capitalism intact.[67] The “corporation” was attacked by orthodox Nazis as being the leading instrument of finance capitalism, with the role of Jews emphasized.[68] The National Socialist party described itself as socialist, and, at the time, conservative opponents such as the Industrial Employers Association described it as “totalitarian, terrorist, conspiratorial, and socialist.”[69]
Just change the word "Labour" to"Tory" on this thread . and vice versa.
Then re-read it and see what you think.
If you did, you would say something to the effect of:
"These Tories are such wimps and so demoralised that they don't engage with their opponents on-line but either runaway and don't post or whinge about the large number of Labour posters"
No doubt when the Conservatives or rather IF the Conservatives win the next GE, they will become unpopular and supporters will cease posting. It's the natural cycle of politics.
That's where a strong leader asserts him/her self and rallies the troops..
You can't do that. It would be tantamount to censorship.
And, apart from that, it would mean that Paul Richards, James Pur-nell and Frankie Field, if he ever fancies it, couldn't publish their funny little essays here, because - let's face it, they ARE Tories albeit wearing a red rossette. At least Guy M, Tory Troll et al don't hide behind PRETENDING to be Labour supporters.
Some right wingers espouse free trade & liberty, others are deeply authoritarian mass murderers (Hitler, Franco, Pinochet etc). But maybe in this mad Tory world Franco is a communist & Pinochet is ... oh, a friend of Mrs Thatcher.
Why do you focus on the Fatherland and Freedom party?
Aren't Labour in a coalition with some of the other Latvian parties who attend this parade?
I couldn't care less about your "Kick ass and chew bubblegum" strategy, and I doubt anyone else here does either.
Why don't you start your own blog where you can post your egomaniacal, pointless drivel to anybody who might care to read it?
Then we can discuss the real world here, pro-Labour and not pro-Labour alike, without endless Taoist twaddle and "if you'd listened to Charles, everything would be great" rantings.
Thanks, run along now.
You only have to look at his economic policies to see that.
There is no surprises here, the resurgent BNP vote is essentially ex-Labour voters.
The right wing espouses free trade and liberty - neither of these is socialism. Both the BNP and Labour traditionally value protectionism and national socialism.
Moving from one socialist party to another.
Rubbish. Labour List just needed more punchy and accessible articles and putting a cap in the ass of Tories who tried to spoil everything. That's killer content and a place where Labour people can feel secure. Notice: the only people who challenge my "Kick ass and chew bubblegum" strategy are the hairshirt left nobody votes for and Tories who want to keep their monopoly on the internet. If Labour want to win and Labour List want to be the number one political blog "Kick ass and chew bubblegum" is the only show in town.
The Latvian people were oppressed, deported, and systematically executed by the Soviet Union.
Are they not allowed to celebrate those who they view as their liberators from this tyranny? Those who fought alongside them, for whatever reasons, to prevent this happening to their families and friends?
Or is it only Jews that are allowed to remember being deported and executed in concentration camps?
Utter hypocrisy and double standards; disgusting reverse anti-Semitism.
Diagnosis: Mike thinks that discourse is only possible or worthwhile if it is conducted with individuals who already share his "staring point" (let's call it his "framework").
Symptoms: Mild symptoms include an unwillingness to listen to other points of view and a sense of despair when one's own views are not strongly represented among others. Since the condition can lead sufferers to regard dialogue as pointless, severe symptoms include attempts to shut out or deny voices to others and even resorts to violence.
Cure: Read Karl Popper's The Myth of the Framework and The Open Society and its Enemies.
Labour failed because of weak leadership and hanging their friends out to dry. They just collapsed on themselves and handed their asses to the Tories. There's been some better leadership and punchier articles but Labour have to keep stepping up a gear. That means a much bolder leadership position and culling the Tory mouths around here.
I've led from the front on this from the start and been proven right. The "Kick ass and chew bubblegum" strategy is working so Labour should keep piling it on. The Tories are grabbing the headlines and going mental in here trying to squeeze everyone else out. By calling their bluff and cutting them down Labour can capitalise on its success over the past few weeks.
A bit of knockabout can be fun but only short term.
I have said the same ever since this site open, and I have written to its owners with suggestions and not even received the courtesy of a reply - so, just to repeat, I think that ConservativeHome has worked well, partially because the Tories are in opposition and its easier to protest from the outside. But also because the site has always been well moderated and the vast bulk of posts are from those who identify as Conservative, with the odd non-Tory.
That's the way this should be - moderated to ensure that the dominant voice here is that of the Labour supporter and those essentially sympathetic to Labour and left of centre views - and I think if that was the case, then there would be many more posts from those of a left-of-centre view.
Fine discussions then..
Mike, this is quite correct. Now Labour List has published a few punchy and accessible articles they need to cull the bottom 10% of ranting Tories. This raises their came and makes Tories feel the pain of trying it on. It also fits behind the antional strategy of hitting Cameron where it hurts and making individual Tories pay for their selfish attitudes. If this is done it will demonstrate the Labour party has effective leadership and media campaign, and show it's a force to be reckoned with that can do real damage to Tories. That has got to hurt.
"Kick ass and chew bubblegum".
Oh yes is it diddly-well was:
Massive public works, central planning of agriculture, private property rights conditional on furthering goals of the State, increased State control, regulation, widespread inference in economic affairs, monopoly rights granted by the State to marketing boards to control production and prices through a quota system, quotas set for industrial goods including pig iron, steel, aluminium, magnesium, gunpowder, explosives, synthetic rubber, all kinds of fuel, and electricity; investment guided through regulation to accord to the needs of the State.
Looks fairly socialist to me. The clue's in the name.
And I repeat: it wasn't the conservatives the Nazis were locking up & killing(hey, they were in Hitler's cabinet): it was the social democrats, communists etc.
You'll be telling me General Franco was a communist before you're done.
Either:
they are few
they don't like the site
they can't use a PC
they have no PC access
they don't care
or
they might just have a life outside politics..
As regards "gerrymandering", if I recall correctly, it was a certain "Yo Blair" who sucked up to "Dubbya" with the consequences that are plain for all to see?
Oh, and by the way, I suspect the suit came from Debenhams, not "Debanhams", but that's where 40 years of socialist education get you.
Unfortunately, some will never learn that is the result of no regulation - chaos and dissatisfaction!
This is the problem with PR in the European Parliament. It means no-one - not even laughably self-righteous labour - can escape associations with the dubious fringe.
So I ask you Rachel, under your own terms of reference: how can Brown be fit to be PM with such dubious allies in Europe?
Exactly.
They're just a narrow minded and abusive minority. People who don't listen and have no social skills.
Just reading today's press about Cameron he's starting to sound like an unreformed alcoholic lying to his wife.
The only change and wealth creation I see from Tories is smoother lies and more stealthy embezzlement.
I can smell the BS and fear from here.
Look up any political analysis of National Socialist German Workers Party.
Psst.. the clue is in the second word of the title of the political party.
Of their 25 points in their plan; they were heavily pro-nationalisation, pro-state and redistributionist.
I am no Tory, have no wish to listen to speeches and am not In Manchester, nor on a laptop ..
But I am hostile to the Labour Party as are about 70 to 74% of all voters - from the last Opinion Poll I saw.
One out of five I think is your score :-)
As I have said before: without people like me this site would be full of tumbleweed: see LabourHome.
So the good news is LL represents the electorate's feelings then?
Stalin who had starved millions to death in collectivisation of farms. Stalin's Russia that the Fabians were so keen to praise in the 1930s. Bernard Shaw himself declaring it to be the ideal Socialist state. Lloyd George keen to see the results, a willing patsy of Soviet propaganda.
What Stalin did, Hitler did. Little did the Eastern Europe know what Hitler had in mind for them.
The lasting impression of Beevor's excellent book which I understand is rightly an A-Level history text is that at that time; hell was visited upon earth. It was the most brutal, visercal and bloody of fighting; where the NKVD killed almost as many Soviets as the Nazis. The kind of Armaggeddon of mass rape, murder, reprisal attacks, where soldiers went mad through the cold because it froze off their eyelids. Where to survive, corpses were eaten.
To use this evil madness to score political points is sickening.
I wrestle with my conscience that victor's justice applies to the Soviets, WW2 would never have been won without them, yet they were utterly remorseless in their treatment of East Europe.
German Fascism v Communism was a battle of two ideologies of the political left; it killed tens and tens of millions and was of such barbarity and viciousness I sincerely hope we never see such dark, dark days ever again.
Pssssst. Sterling-Euro rate around 1.40 last year, now around 1.07, dollar rate was nearly 2 to the £, and now its around 1.60. There's lovely for you.
It's all happened on Gordon's watch.
This suggests to me that the Tories, in their preference to ally themselves with a ragbag of fringe right-wingers than Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy and those with real influence at a time of centre-right resurgence in Europe, may be rather less pragmatic than Cameron tries to make out.
Of course, the reality is that a sizeable number of Tories would love to leave the EU. They know it isn't feasible, and that the business community would abandon them if that became their policy. So they make angry noises and gesture politics such as leaving the EPP, but they know that we are in the EU to stay - and the only question with the Euro is when we negotiate entry before the pound collapses altogether
Onwards and upwards, eh?
In fact, Latvia holds an annual ceremony to honour all those who died fighting the Soviet Union. Some of the soldiers had indeed been conscripted - often against their will - into the German army, perhaps a few volunteered, granted. But the ceremony is for all who took up arms, and is attended by representatives of every party in Latvia except those that speak for the Russian minority. Let me repeat that: it is attended by every party in Latvia, from the Greens to the Christian Democrats. But, obviously, it would never do to criticise these other parties, since they are on the left.
To get a sense of how tendentious their coverage has been, imagine it the other way around. Suppose a Latvian newspaper set out to defame the British Tories. Suppose, further, that it did so by running stories about how about how the anti-Catholic Conservative Party, which had long opposed giving Roman Catholics the right to vote, supported annual demonstrations of sectarianism in which effigies of Catholics - sometimes of the Pope himself - were burned on bonfires while cheering mobs let off fireworks every 5th of November. We would see straight through it as a gross misrepresentation and smear.
You should be ashamed of yourself. The right and the Conservatives have always been staunchly against National Socialism.
Firstly, Blake's words would be true aimed at Milliband for Zimbabwe and Darfur for which he has done precisely nothing.
Secondly, Milliband when made these accusations they insulted the Latvians so much they had to publish a full rebuttal on the government's website. Here
Lastly, regarding Kaminski's past, the Editor in Chief of the Jewish Chronicle calls Milliband's smears 'contemptible'.
What I find just as contemptible is the emotive language used to score political points which is a disgusting modus operandi of a desperate political party clinging to power by any means possible.
After all it's not Tory voters switching their votes to the BNP is it?
Lastly, Labour sits with the EPP who on bloc with their former Soviet comrades in the EPP voted down including Soviet atrocities to be included in a European Day of Remembrance for all those that suffered in Europe's past conflicts.
Funny how we don't hear about that isn't it?
The facts of the matter are that the Tories have allied themselves with a bizarre bunch of racists, sexists, homophobes, anti-semites & climate-change deniers. This is well documented in the most recent edition of the radical Liberal publication Liberator(sadly not available online)in an article wriiten by a former Tory official.
It's quite astonishing that the Tories fallen out with people like Sarkozy, Merkel &, God help us, the Italians.
http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2009/08/macshane-mcmillan-scott-are-wrong-about.html
So, now we've put that behind us, can we talk about what Labour are going to do for the electorate and just for conversation, here is the 2005 Labour manifesto (link at bottom of post). I've highlighted about half of them that I feel deserve particular inspection.
A modern welfare state
Strong and safe communities
Low debt and high employment
Good discipline (for school children)
A neighbourhood policing team for every community
Empowering communities against anti-social behaviour
Reducing the use of guns and knives
Punishing criminals, reducing offending
Backing the victim
Migration: The facts (followed by spin on how it is reducing)
Strong and secure borders
We will put it to the British people in a referendum
and campaign whole-heartedly for a ‘Yes’ vote to keep Britain
a leading nation in Europe.
Supporting our armed forces
Council tax under control
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Politics/documents/2005/04/13/labourmanifesto.pdf
A quick read of the article in the Guardian shows that the parade had some sort of official imprimatur initially (there was an official national holiday) and then had "at best a semi-official imprimatur".
The point that is made by the Tories is that the "For Fatherland and Freedom" party is or was not the only party to attend these parades. This sounds right to me because I learn from Wikipedia that:
"Tēvzemei un Brīvībai was a part of coalition governments from December 1995 to February 2004. From 1997 to 1998, its representative, Guntars Krasts, was the prime minister. From February 2004 until November 2006, the party was in the opposition. Though it only gained 8 seats in the 2006 elections, the party was invited to become part of the ruling coalition, and it agreed to join."
So it does not seem to have been a wild, fringe party. On his blog on the Telegraph Daniel Hannan claims that all parties attedned the commemorations save for those which represent the Russian minority. That includes Greens and Christian Democrats: see http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100005218/accusing-euro-sceptics-of-anti-semitism-is-the-most-shameful-tactic-yet/
Do you know better? I do not.
As for Mr Kaminski, we have been there before and at length. You might care to see what the editor of the Jewish Chronicle thinks about him: http://www.thejc.com/blogpost/david-milibands-insult-michal-kaminski-contemptible
Then again, you might not.
Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland and the Ukraine all suffered from both Hitler and from Stalin. They were "liberated" by the Red Army but not set free. With Hitler's agreement Stalin invaded all save the Ukraine (which he had subjected to a deliberate famine instead) and imposed his version of communism by force. It is not so simple if you are stuck in a small country bewteen two mass-murderers with large armies and no morals.
No of course not.
Rachel if numpty were a nice sort of word I'd call you a numpty, because your desparate attempt to link Cameron and what you allege are 'Nazis' could most happily be applied to Blair and Bush as war criminals.
Now they're fanatics.
P.S. Milliband only parrotted “All you need for evil to triumph is for good men to remain silent” he didn't actually turn that particular phrase himself.
Next you'll be telling me he talks to terrorists and openly meets with people:
- responsible arming and financing people who kill British citizens,
- people who actually kill British citizens,
- people who have no regrets about what they have done and openly glory in it on TV.
And what is more, he welcomes their release from jail.
Absolutely disgusting . David Cameron is not fit to be PM.
Oops sorry. I got the above wrong. it was Gordon Brown who did all these things.
That's all right then. He's a moral Labour man..
But David Cameron talks to fascists: yes that disbars him from being PM.
Cant, humbug and hypocrisy.
Labour has worked with "communists" in the EU. To my mind communism (and the millions who have died under it would probably agree) is as repugnant as facism.
The party of Disraeli doesn't need any advice over freedom and decency from the party of 42 Days detention, ID cards and CCTV.
It also doesnt need any crank analysis on what "conservatism" does or doesn't mean. Best get your own house in order as it stinks to high heaven at the moment.
So when can we see a press release from Labour slating communist and hard left MEPs?
As for leaving the EPP, do we have less in common? It's irrelevant. The Tories disagree with a federal Europe, the EPP doesn't.
I do wonder when some of you on the left will get this basic fact into your addled brains.
WE DO NOT WANT A FEDERAL EUROPE
WE ARE OPPOSSED TO FEDERALISM
WE DESPISE FEDERALISM
WE WANT TO FIGHT FEDERALISM AS ONE OF THE MOST ANTI DEMOCRATIC THREATS THE UK FACES.
Now crawl back to the weasel words on how Lisbon isn't a constitution and continue the betrayal of the UK public.