I’ll break my purdah briefly to reflect on something unconnected to Brexit, Kiwi’s cut and paste diarrhoea and Donald Trump’s personal courage quotient. The Daily Mail has run pages of stories this week on Max Mosley and his publication of a racist election leaflet in 1961, when he was involved in his father’s crypto fascist Union Movement (aged 20). He severed his ties with the movement in 1963. The rest of the press and the broadcast media has run with this story big time, including the fact that Mosley has donated £500k to Tom Watson MP, deputy leader of the Labour Party. Mosley might have perjured himself in a court case a few years ago, wittingly or unwittingly. Now, a bit of personal opinion: The leaflet was odious, but no worse than the infamous Tory party ‘if you want a ****** for a neighbour vote Liberal or Labour’ leaflet of a few years later. Also relevant to recall the Mail’s enthusiastic support of Oswald Mosley in the thirties. Max Mosley is a creep of the highest order, no sympathy for him from me Tom Watson is a useless bag of blubber and spectacularly stupid in accepting so much cash from the creep What is interesting about this is the timing. Mosley is the highest profile campaigner and funder of efforts to limit press intrusion into private lives, emanating from the hacking scandals of a few years ago. Watson is this campaign’s chief mouthpiece in Parliament. Of course, many of the victims of this intrusion are celebrities for whom we have limited sympathy, but not all are (plenty of families of homicide victims and those caught up in terrorist attacks as well) and the principle of drawing lines around privacy seems to me sound - expose crimes and hypocrisy fine, individuals’ personal fallibility is just salacious gossip, no matter how large the pathetic public appetite for it is. Of course the government was deciding this week on whether to proceed with part two of the Leveson enquiry, which had been promised to the victims of press abuse. Perfect timing to try and discredit two of the highest profile figures challenging the press. The government dumped the next phase of Leveson, breaking its promise. The press wins, and sitting on a story which is of more interest to them than the general public and then releasing it as ‘news’ at a time when it could help their self interest might have played a part. Now, as anyone who has read much of this thread will get I am an enthusiastic supporter of freedom of speech. I am also a big fan of common decency. Neither is being well served by our media or government. PS couldn’t resist it - have read May’s 5 Tests she will explain in her ‘detailed’ speech later today. The bland leading the bland. There will be no detail.
The Mail weren't enthusiastic about Sir Oswald Mosley for long. Bear in mind, Mosley and his wife had both been Labour MP's under Ramsay MacDonald's government. Mosley was a Labour minister. When he started The British Union of Fascists around 1932, it was a patriotic party with no hint of anti-semitism (that came later when Mosley pandered to the Nazi's in the hope of funds). The watershed was the BUF rally at Olympia in 1934, after which Rothermere cut ties with Mosley as a result of the violence. If Labour keep the cash from Max Mosley, at one time a declared anti-semite, it won't help their much questioned narrative that the party are in fact pro-Jewish
Well said. Thankfully the press is becoming less and less relevant (there was poll out this week that found that the Corbyn spy fabrications had no impact at all on public opinion), but this government's pathetic cave-in is disgraceful nonetheless.
I will bow to your knowledge of the BUF. Although I feel the clue to it’s nature is the word ‘fascist’. Mussolini wasn’t explicitly racist initially either. As we all know the far right has far more in common with the far left than either wing like to acknowledge. Also you missed the point of my post by about 180 degrees. Labour are of course in a complete quagmire about anti semitism, quite rightly given their ambivalence on the issue.
"Fascist" didn't have the meaning it does now, back in 1932, when Mussolini was taking plaudits for building roads and draining marshes, and Hitler had yet to reach ultimate power. I don't feel particularly exercised about abandoning Leveson 2. The proposal that the Press should pay all costs of libel win or lose, is surely wrong. I cannot see the Press making the same mistakes now that the NOTW did with Milly Dowler's parents, or phone hacking generally. Celebrities, particularly those of the "do as I say, not do as I do" variety can expect press scrutiny. Fair enough.
This is the basic philosophy of Italian fascism: Rule by an elite promoting the state as the ultimate end, opposition to democracy, protecting the class system and promoting class collaboration, rejection of egalitarianism, promoting the militarization of a nation by creating a class of warriors, demanding that citizens perform civic duties in the interest of the state, and utilizing state intervention in education to promote the development of warriors and future rulers of the state. Mussolini also advocated Spazio Vitale ( the Italian equivalent of Lebensraum) from the early 1920s. He believed some races/nationalities had more inherent value than others: “When dealing with such a race as Slavic – inferior and barbarian – we must not pursue the carrot, but the stick policy ... We should not be afraid of new victims ... The Italian border should run across the Brenner Pass, Monte Nevoso and the Dinaric Alps ... I would say we can easily sacrifice 500,000 barbaric Slavs for 50,000 Italians ...” — Benito Mussolini, speech held in Pula, 20 September 1920 In a 1921 speech in Bologna, Mussolini stated that "Fascism was born... out of a profound, perennial need of this our Aryan and Mediterranean race" If Petrograd (Pietrograd) does not yet fall, if [General] Denikin is not moving forward, then this is what the great Jewish bankers of London and New York have decreed. These bankers are bound by ties of blood to those Jews who in Moscow as in Budapest are taking their revenge on the Aryan race that has condemned them to dispersion for so many centuries. In Russia, 80 percent of the managers of the Soviets are Jews, in Budapest 17 out of 22 people's commissars are Jews. Might it not be that bolshevism is the vendetta of Judaism against Christianity?? It is certainly worth pondering. It is entirely possible that bolshevism will drown in the blood of a pogrom of catastrophic proportions. World finance is in the hands of the Jews. Whoever owns the strongboxes of the peoples is in control of their political systems. Behind the puppets (making peace) in Paris, there are the Rothschilds, the Warburgs, the Schiffs, the Guggenheims who are of the same blood who are conquering Petrograd and Budapest. Race does not betray race....Bolshevism is a defense of the international plutocracy. This is the basic truth of the matter. The international plutocracy dominated and controlled by Jews has a supreme interest in all of Russian life accelerating its process of disintegration to the point of paroxysm. A Russia that is paralyzed, disorganized, starved, will be a place where tomorrow the bourgeoisie, yes the bourgeoisie, not proletarians will celebrate its spectacular feast of plenty. — Benito Mussolini, Il Popolo d'Italia, June 1919[95] There is loads more like this, from the years before he took power. Italian fascism has a dense, pseudo intellectual philosophy. After Mussolini came to power, still in the 1920s all political opposition and free speech was prohibited. Thousands of political opponents were imprisoned, tortured or exiled to the islands. Dozens were executed. Mussolini was Hitler’s Inspiration, and modern fascists have done an excellent job in air brushing the past and telling us all about the trains and the swamps. When I lived in Milan occasionally I would wander up to Piazza Loreto where his body was hung from a lamp post after he had been killed. Nothing marks the spot.
You're looking back in hindsight, Stan, rather than looking at the context of 1932. Of course nothing marks the spot of Mussolini's death or where his body was displayed, because of what happened subsequently. The big threat to Western Countries in the 1920's was seen to be communism. Russia had just fallen to it and many thousands had died. Fascism was seen as the antidote, and there was a quiet acceptance, even in the UK, that countries had to do whatever they could to stop the divisive spread. Churchill positively supported Mussolini in the 1920's. This is why Rothermere approved of Mosley at this time, but withdrew support quickly when Mosley started to track the Nazis that had come to outright power in 1933, and adopt antisemitic policies. Mosley was bland on antisemitism in 1932, and his wife, Cimmie, was still a Labour MP. Sure, Mussolini was racist. Most of Western Europe was racist then, by today's standards. Most of the European population was still racist by the 1960's. https://gwydionwilliams.com/44-fascism-and-world-war-2/why-churchill-admired-mussolini/
So you have back tracked on fascism not being really horrible until Hitler seized power? I don’t have much option but to use hindsight, given that I am living now and have a wealth of information at my disposal. I’m not engaging in moral relativism though, there were plenty of people at the time who saw fascism for what it was, and many who suffered for that insight. The Spectator, then as now a conservative magazine, commented on the Mail’s support for Mosley in 1934 in highly uncomplimentary terms, so it wasn’t just the left who saw the BUF and fascism for what it was. As for Churchill, not a surprise at all if you are familiar with his career. His glorious few years leading the country in wartime, and his stoic anti Nazi position in the late 30s when he realised the military threat that they posed do not cover up the rest of his career which was a rather nasty failure. I did rather enjoy investigating your source for that article though. Think I’ll gracefully retire again for a bit now, we’ve had enough apology for fascism in my opinion.
That's an ignorant post, Stan, the worst I've ever seen from you, particularly the bit about apologising for fascism. No one is apologising for fascism, and I haven't backtracked on anything. You apparently have a complete inability to see things in the context of 1932 and thus you attribute to those living at that time, the hindsight of which you have the advantage. Blinkered.
Thanks Theresa, that's made everything perfectly clear. You want to make everybody happy, but you're not going to be able to. You know what you want out of EU negotiations, but you're not going to tell us - or them. And you have know clue how to resolve the Irish border issue.
I don't think that is right. I think a few more smears like this will in fact catapult Corbyn into no.10 as only the very blinkered and naïve still believe the trash that is served up by the Mail - most get enraged by it
Funnily enough that was my take on it listening to it in the car - it was a change of tone but utterly devoid of any content - the consensus however was that it would at least stop the different wings of the Conservatives from killing each other for at least another week. Now much as Barnier is seen as the antichrist by Brexiteers the truth is he knows his brief inside out and has therefore been able to run rings round Davies. My son, who has lived in Germany for the past 3 years, and seems rather well-informed considering he was known as Tory boy while at school, (he aint now) correctly analysed 21 months ago when Barnier was first appointed to negotiate on behalf of the EU that he would eat any UK negotiator alive. Within days when TM's speech has been dissected and analysed in the minutest detail, the knives will be out for her again because we still don't know anything about how she will implement her proposals whatever they are in practice to make everyone happy. Davies still doesn't know after today what he has been instructed to achieve and what he can give away. All he knows is that it will be good for Britain, good for our European neighbours but not what either side want. And that both are going to have to compromise. Not exactly a miraculous breakthrough. 21 months and counting to reach that point. Heaven help us all.
So is this fake news. It came from Jacob Rees mogg who congratulated the sun Can't believe a politician would lie Surely not
Who is making the Irish border a problem exactly Is it the Irish Is it the British Or is it the Europeans
Whatever Goldie, Just responding to what I read, and what I read into what I read. It pains me to say this, but slightly unfair. I certainly saw more on the aspirations than previously. Ireland not addressed and agree that we have a tragically weak negotiating team. But what of this have you seen before: ■ Banks located in the City of London will lose the right to trade across EU without country-by-country approval, so-called passporting. A new system will be brought in to allow "the same regulatory outcomes over time" ■ Associate membership of EU medicines, chemical and aviation agencies, accepting their rules and making "appropriate" financial contributions ■ Parliament would reserve the right to pass its own regulations in these areas but in the knowledge it could threaten co-operation with those bodies ■ Continued participation in EU science, education and cultural programmes, close relationship with Euratom ■ UK to explore continued participation in EU's internal energy market while protecting single energy market on the island of Ireland ■ Independent arbitration mechanism for trade disputes to replace role currently played the European Court of Justice ■ Fairer deal for UK fishermen based on reciprocal access to waters and shared stocks management ■ Mutual recognition of broadcasting rules to allow UK channels to continue to be seen in Europe ■ Ensure continuity of rail, maritime and aviation services and of hauliers' access to European markets ■ Keeping UK regulatory standards "as high as the EU's" to ensure smooth trade and while UK law may not be "identical" to EU law "it should achieve the same outcomes" That’s what she wants, in the context of a free trade agreement rather than Customs Union. Of course loads of detail missing, especially which sectors she wants deals in (fishing in but no mention of agriculture) but this is a lot more than I was expecting. She also conceded that EU law and ECJ rulings would still have relevance to the U.K. Now the EU have to respond along with various bits of the Tory party and the DUP. As Barnier and Tusk have repeatedly said, some kind of Canada plus outcome most likely. Very complicated to negotiate, which is where our dodgy competence is an issue.
Fair enough, but much of this seems more like acceptance than aspiration. The Irish question will be make or break.
Apparently she also said that the U.K. would follow EU state aid to industry rules, which are essentially pro privatisation, level playing field stuff. Corbyn has criticised this stance, but without saying how he would get round them to achieve his nationalisation programme.
