The Reform Party and the UK’s lurch towards fascism

That's a pretty decent definition of Nazism but who are you counting as a Nazi?

Goebbels/Hitler etc are easy, they directly committed historically awful crimes. They are worthy of hatred.

What about an average citizen who only joined the party in order to keep their job?

It's not a straightforward question without an explicit definition of exactly who we're talking about.

Those who directly committed crimes are the obvious ones to condemn but what of those who in some small way enabled those crimes?

Those who joined communist parties may have had entirely good motives but did they, in some small way, act an enablers for the atrocities committed in the name of communism that continue to this day?

On an entirely different scale, you might not like the policies of the Conservative party but is every voter to be held responsible for every action? Was every Corbyn supporter responsible for the worst examples of antisemitism that occurred under his leadership?

David9694 wrote:

What examples of anti-semitism under Corbyn's leadership actually are there?

Good whataboutery on the Nazi party of Germany. Like Brexit, the party cause is whatever we say it is - there are a few loose MAGA type basic principles, but it seems to me a lot of it about creating this situation/atmosphere where folk with ideas that appeal no matter how bizarre or heinous get an airing and get to put this stuff into practice.

Govenrment is there to protect us from foreign invasion (or untoward influence, rather than troops landing at Hastings), to protect us from the worst effects of big business, while ensuring the country is prosperous, ensure justice and protect people from crime and the mob; I would argue that in modern times there is stuff to do  around health and well-being, safety.  

Can you honestly say the Tories have succeeded at any of that on any level in the past 10 years?   Do you believe they ever will, or have I with my O level, A level*, degree in politics, post grad certificate in policy admimstration and lifetime career in public service got the wrong definition of what the public should expect?

* OK, the A level was a bit shit - blame girls, or rather a girl. 

I believe it was mainly a small minority of Labour supporters making antisemitic posts online.

In July 2019:

Corbyn wrote:

While other political parties and some of the media exaggerate and distort the scale of the problem in our party, we must face up to the unsettling truth that a small number of Labour members hold anti-Semitic views and a larger number don't recognise anti-Semitic stereotypes and conspiracy theories. The evidence is clear enough. The worst cases of anti-Semitism in our party have included Holocaust denial, crude Jewish-banker stereotypes, conspiracy theories blaming Israel for 9/11 or every war on the Rothschild family, and even one member who appeared to believe that Hitler had been misunderstood. I am sorry for the hurt that has been caused to many Jewish people. We have been too slow in processing disciplinary cases of mostly online anti-Semitic abuse by party members. We are acting to speed this process up. People who hold anti-Semitic views have no place in the Labour Party. They may be few – the number of cases over the past three years represents less than 0.1% of Labour's membership of more than half a million – but one is too many.

There's also evidence of political interference with anti-semitic complaints (inappropriate involvement) and generally poor handling of them.

There have been some significant successes over the last 13 years.

Minimum wage reform.
Tax threshold reform.
Pension reform.
Huge expansion of renewable energy generation.
Huge decreases in the UK's carbon footprint.
They've also done a much better job of running health and education than their devolved equivalents in Wales.
There's also the small matter of navigating both a global financial crisis and a global pandemic without any periods of large scale unemployment.

You're really clutching at straws there.

All of those things have happened as a direct result of government policy. CO2 emissions would likely have fallen despite who was in power but the extent of the fall is significantly larger due to government policy.

Healthcare is not in a good place in England but it's far better than in Wales where health is run by the Labour party and has been for 25 years+.

Sewage spills are just as bad in Wales.

Pandemic mortality was worse in Wales.

JSO demonised themselves, I personally think they are more damaging to the climate movement than any politician in this country.

It is actually not well known that Wales has an entirely independent health system.

Hence, foolish comments like yours.

The simple fact is that the global financial crisis and the pandemic have both made providing public services incredibly challenging. The Conservatives have done a better job of it than Labour.

If a Labour leader would have been so much better for the UK why haven't Labour in Wales produced similar results?

Rich_cb wrote:

It is actually not well known that Wales has an entirely independent health system.

You know perfectly well what a disingenuous statement that is: Wales is reliant on the direct grant from the UK government which is worth 15% less in real terms than it was a decade ago. Additionally your beloved Brexit has removed very significant funding from the EU. Fairly standard Tory behaviour, take away the lifebelt and then ask why is that man drowning.

What part is disingenuous?

Wales sets its own health budget and makes its own health policies.

Wales receives (per capita) £1.20 for every £1 spent on devolved public services in England. Wales then chooses how to spend that money.

For every £1 that the Westminster government spend on the English NHS the Welsh government receive the equivalent of £1.20.

However they choose to only spend £1.05 on the Welsh NHS and then blame England for the underperformance. The graph I posted neatly shows the consequences for the Welsh public.

Your last one resulted in huge borrowing - now at 2.5 trillion.
They may have tinkered with tax allowances but that hasn't changed for 5 years now. Remind me what's the NI rate over 50270?

Is it 2%?

I'm not sure the relevance of that?

You claimed tax threshold reform yet those who earn well continued with the 2% rate. So helping the well off again, not the whole scale reform required.

National insurance isn't the only tax applied to income.

Child allowance was removed for those earning above £50k so the effective tax rate for someone with children earning above that threshold went up significantly.

Similar increases occurred at £100k due to the loss of personal allowance and the tax rate is 45% above £125k.

The 45% that was reduced from 50% ?

Yep. They probably should have cut it further. It had only been at 50% for a few years anyway.

A high tax rate does not always produce a high tax take.

Income taxes have been cut much more for low earners than for high earners.

Rich_cb wrote:

There have been some significant successes over the last 13 years. Minimum wage reform. Tax threshold reform. Pension reform. Huge expansion of renewable energy generation. Huge decreases in the UK's carbon footprint. They've also done a much better job of running health and education than their devolved equivalents in Wales. There's also the small matter of navigating both a global financial crisis and a global pandemic without any periods of large scale unemployment.

Don't hit them with facts...they don't like them at all on here

Jeremy Corbyn for PM wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

.

Don't hit them with facts...they don't like them at all on here

Facts... you wouldn't know facts if it stole your school dinner money from you. 

Rich_cb wrote:

That's a pretty decent definition of Nazism but who are you counting as a Nazi? Goebbels/Hitler etc are easy, they directly committed historically awful crimes. They are worthy of hatred. What about an average citizen who only joined the party in order to keep their job? It's not a straightforward question without an explicit definition of exactly who we're talking about. Those who directly committed crimes are the obvious ones to condemn but what of those who in some small way enabled those crimes? Those who joined communist parties may have had entirely good motives but did they, in some small way, act an enablers for the atrocities committed in the name of communism that continue to this day? On an entirely different scale, you might not like the policies of the Conservative party but is every voter to be held responsible for every action? Was every Corbyn supporter responsible for the worst examples of antisemitism that occurred under his leadership?

I'd consider people that agree with Nazi ideology to be Nazis. People who were coerced into going along with the Nazi party share some of the blame if they quietly went along with the policies, although I understand it takes bravery to stand up for what's right.

There's a saying - what do you get if you let two nazis into your house? A house with three nazis in it.

If people agreed with communist ideology, and then unwittingly took part in authoritarian regimes, then they too share some guilt for their part, though the communist ideology isn't the problem, but the nature of the regime.

There's obviously a problem with single party states as they tend towards authoritarianism and corruption and often most people have no say in what's going on (and that's assuming that they even know about it). However, in a system with more than one party, you must take some responsibility for which party you vote for. I can understand someone being hookwinked by others, but at some point it should be obvious that you're propping up the baddies and you must change your allegiance.

I don't believe that Corbyn supporters had much knowledge about Labour's antisemitism, and they deserve some blame if they knowingly supported and encouraged antisemitism. I've long thought that the Labour party isn't fit for purpose (e.g. Blair should be tried for war crimes).

Has there ever been a communist regime that didn't lead to large scale state sanctioned human rights abuses?

I'm not aware of any.

That suggests that the ideology may be part of the problem.

No political party is perfect, any vote for any party is always going to be a compromise. You've got to accept that some policies won't be to your liking and choose the party that's closest to your ideals.

I have no regrets about voting Conservative as I'm sure the alternative, in the shape of Corbyn, would have been far worse.

Corbyn's antisemitism was very well known, I seriously doubt many people who took an interest in politics were unaware of it.

Rich_cb wrote:

Has there ever been a communist regime that didn't lead to large scale state sanctioned human rights abuses? I'm not aware of any. That suggests that the ideology may be part of the problem.

I think the abuses and problems with communist states are well documented.  However aside from complaints about definition ("those were not true communist regimes, they're merely autocracies which have usurped a power vacuum...") they're a fairly new feature e.g. newer than democracies.  Comparing to things in the past is problematic I know but the Greeks did give us the word!

It may be easier for a communist state to "go bad" but unfortunately democracies also do.  They also have not been shown to be much less lethal - even to their own citizens.

I'm reminded of Primo Levi's quote about Nazi and Soviet camps being a "lugubrious comparison between two models of hell".

For most of us in e.g. the UK now we experience historically very mild levels of oppression from the state (e.g. they merely steal a little of our money via taxation and occasionally lock us up).  So it's easy to overlook that our own states continue to do bad things to some (and have done terrible things in recent memory).

If you lived somewhere - for example - the US took a strategic interest in or dislike to (under Republicans or Democrats both) then ... good luck.

I'm not aware of any 20th century democracies that committed Communist level atrocities against their own citizens?

You're right, of course, that democracies have still engaged in awful behaviour oth at home and abroad but that's not a fundamental feature of a democracy, plenty of democracies don't.

All communist states have, AFAIK, engaged in large scale human rights abuses.

Rich_cb wrote:

All communist states have, AFAIK, engaged in large scale human rights abuses.

So have all far right/fascist states, do you have any point apart from whataboutery?

Rendel Harris wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

All communist states have, AFAIK, engaged in large scale human rights abuses.

So have all far right/fascist states, do you have any point apart from whataboutery?

No. 'e don't. Wot a surprise.

How about Cuba, though? A one party state but often found by various independent and disinterested observers to have, for example, the best health service in the world, despite the economic punishments arranged for the Cubans by the USA and other kleptocracies frustrated in their previous efforts to exploit the bejasus out of that nearby isle.

Gaw, even I have been successfully whatabouted!

************

Perhaps Rich is actually rich, perhaps from renting or shareholding?  If so, one can understand his liking for the Toryspiv, who are great supporters of all kinds of exploitation of other humans for vast profits. There are all kinds of satanic mills these days!

But perhaps not. Perhaps Rich is just another bog-standard member of the hoi-polloi like the rest of us. This makes his fannery of Toryspiv less easy to grasp but .... he may suffer from that seemingly installed-at-birth Bwitish meme from our greater memeplex of the Bwitish class system.

Toryspiv - just a better class of people. ( See the pinstripe suit, pearls & twinset and certificate of empathy-removal from one public skool or another). And they are so successful, innit! Lookit their wads of bung, rent & bribe.

That Communism is not a benign ideology.

Rich_cb wrote:

That Communism is not a benign ideology.

What specific part of the ideology do you have issues with?

Whilst modern communism is relatively new (i.e. Marxism), the principles have been put into practise in many religious institutions such as monasteries for a long time. Certainly, prehistoric hunter-gatherer societies were organised around collective ownership and they didn't have parasitic landlords demanding rent for imaginary possessed land.

The issue I have is that, at a state level, it appears impossible to implement the ideology without committing atrocities. Removing large amounts of personal property without resorting to significant violence seems impossible.

The advantage of prehistory is that we don't really have strong evidence of how things were actually organised, so we can project whatever we want onto that era.

Inter tribal warfare is a thread that runs through human history so the idea that it wasn't a feature in pre-history seems a bit far fetched.

Rich_cb wrote:

The issue I have is that, at a state level, it appears impossible to implement the ideology without committing atrocities. Removing large amounts of personal property without resorting to significant violence seems impossible. The advantage of prehistory is that we don't really have strong evidence of how things were actually organised, so we can project whatever we want onto that era. Inter tribal warfare is a thread that runs through human history so the idea that it wasn't a feature in pre-history seems a bit far fetched.

How convenient - just ignore all the atrocities that are committed by far-right states and only see a problem with communism. Honestly, I'm bored with your whataboutism and continual justification and simping for the evil Tories, who delight in ensuring that only their mates benefit.

You do realise that Capitalism is about to render huge swathes of our planet uninhabitable, right? As long as your Tory mates are making money, then I expect you're okay with that, like you're okay with them exploring for more oil to dig out of the ground.

FFS.

It's not a binary choice between far right and communism is it.

We have to compare communism as a system to liberal democracy as a system.

Communism as a system results in atrocities. Anyone who promotes or defends communism as an alternative to democracy must account for that.

I've yet to see you do that.

Communism has a far worse environmental track record than capitalism does. I dread to think what state the environment would be in had communism won the cold war.

I believe that if we have to use fossil fuels we should choose the least harmful versions.

We are nowhere near ready to run our society without fossil fuels so the least bad option is fossil fuels with the lowest carbon footprint.

You want to continue using fossil fuels with carbon footprints 2-3 times higher than available alternatives and then portray my position as environmentally damaging. It's laughable.

Rich_cb wrote:

That Communism is not a benign ideology.

It is not, or has not been from those who have claimed to practice it at least (we can argue until the cows come home as to whether they were actually communists). However nor is fascism. The trouble is that you appear to believe that the atrocities of the very far left in terms of dictatorial communism invalidate any left wing movement, even moderate socialism, whereas apparently the atrocities of the far right in terms of dictatorial fascism don't invalidate the moderate right at all. More than a whiff of hypocrisy about that.