The British Politics Discussion Thread

Che Guevara. I can put it another way, though. Communism and Nazism are both forms of socialism, and all socialism is equally bad.

 

You shouldn't read to much into the Che Guevara shirt. No self respecting left wing student in this country can be without a Che Guevara shirt or something similar. It doesn't make them a communist or even mean that they know much about the guy.

Anyway Nazism is Not a form of socialism. Hitler may have been authoritarian but he was broadly in favour of free market economics. Also communism and socialism are distimctly different ideologies.

 

You shouldn't read to much into the Che Guevara shirt. No self respecting left wing student in this country can be without a Che Guevara shirt or something similar. It doesn't make them a communist or even mean that they know much about the guy.

I realize that, but somebody needs to tell them.

Anyway Nazism is Not a form of socialism. Hitler may have been authoritarian but he was broadly in favour of free market economics. Also communism and socialism are distimctly different ideologies.

Without getting into historical argument and citations, when you get to the bottom of any of the aforementioned ideologies, the result is the same. And I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation as to how the National Socialist German Workers Party was not "really" socialist. Having done some research on the issue, the Nazis were indeed quite socialist in their domestic policies. It was a command economy, they employed strict civil planning and environmental regulation, and Hitler himself was a vegetarian. The fact that they may have permitted some private ownership does not immediately make them non-socialists.

 

"Nazism is socialist."

"No it's not."

"Yes, it is."


How many times are you guys going to re-hash this argument?

Here we go.

EDIT:

So Karde, the BNP is the National Front with a new name and "friendly image"?

Deadly.

 

I take offense to the assumptions that i because i wear a Che Guevara shirt i have no idea of what the man said. I've studied many books about him and his own speeches and writings as well as many other socialists and communists. i respect the views of a man who fought for his cause and his belief in a better society (which has alot in common with my ideas). i see wearing a Che Guevara shirt as no different as somebody in America displaying their flag. they believe in nationalism and their republic and i believe in socialism, why should i be ashamed to display that in a way that the majority of people will recognise it?

technically this is talking about British politics because i'm a brit

 

(I wouldn't like to see this thread get bogged down in a discussion about the BNP, who are so far off the political radar no one would even know who they are if it weren't for their racist policies.)

The local elections will ultimately not matter that much - they are sometimes used to give the govt. a bloody nose but, increasingly, local issues are shaping local politics, which is at it should be. The real questions for me are where does Iraq etc. leave Blair? Has he secured his third term? Has he alienated his own party, leading to a possible leadership challenge? Or will he honor his rumoured pact with Brown and step down after the next election, maybe with an eye on the EU presidency (should it happen)?


(Off-topic, but I can't resist ... Hitler himself was a vegetarian So what? So is/was Tony Benn, Alan Clarke, Paul McCartney, Steve Jobs, Ian McKellern, Britney Spears, George Bernard Shaw, General William Booth, Ghandi, Shelley etc. etc. What you eat has nothing to do with political creed. I am a vegetarian but Hitler, as it happens, wasn't - that's just an urban myth.)

 

I really don't think the BNP are a great threat, just from my political point of view (along with the majority of others) it's rather disconcerting that they would get any seats or anywhere near this much recognition nationwide.

I think that Blair will definitely benefit in the short-term because of the war and that may even stretch as far the next general election. now the war is won support has gotten behind a free Iraq and Blair is seen as one of the liberators. if the war goes onto Syria (or elsewhere) he may lose some support. i really can't see the Tories beating Labour unless Blair makes a huge blunder (which i thought he did in the war but that's another matter)

 

I agree that the Tories have little hope of winning the next election. Even if Blair gets a drubbing in the locals that does not mean anything - in fact, it is unprecendented for a British govt to enjoy this level of support mid-term so any apparent chinks in the armour have to be measured against this. I suspect, however, that the war dividend will be short-lived and may still end up costing Blair political capital, especially if WMDs are not found. Probably it's main political advantage is that it has allowed the govt. to quietly drop the whole Euro issue for this parliament.

 

in the General Election more emphasis is placed on the quality of character of the party leaders to win over those who want to vote but don't have a great grasp on what the whole thing is about and i can't see Duncan Smith beating Blair in that aspect

while the war has been good for delaying issues like you said they will have to deal with them sooner or later and by then Blair may have lost his post-war popularity (especially if they don't find WMD) and it could deal a severe blow having to deal with something as controversial as the euro at that time

personally i usually change my mind on the issue but i'm for the euro right now

 

And why would that be Stuey?
(I don't mean this in any sarcastic way BTW)

 

my Euro stance?

because i believe that we should stop isolating ourselves from Europe (using leading us to ally with the US). the standard argument against losing the pound is it's tradition, but i think it's time to move on. trade would be easier with other European nations because we wouldn't have to worry abot 'the strong pound' against the Euro

what's your stance on it?

 

I've changed my mind on the Euro too, but in the opposite direction. I've never sided with those little Englanders who want to hold onto the pound because of a sentimental nostalgia. But at the moment it looks like hitching our economy to Europe's would be economic suicide. I suspect Brown will say as much when his 'tests' are published in June and it will only be in the future, if/when the economy starts to stagnate, that the Euro will look like an attractive proposition.

 

I'd be against it for petty reasons - y'know, having to suddenly remember a whole nu currency, i'm no good with that; But I'll learn, & wot u said is true, it'd make going abroad (to Europe obviously) a helluva lot easier without having to change all your money etc.
Gotta go - need to search for any of Che's involvements for my CMC assignment

 

one of the main reasons i want the euro is because i'm tired of the people who go on about this nostalgia value which you said about. things change and we should get over it. for the reasons you said GPAC i don't think the time is now but it should be soon

 

I'm against getting rid of the pound for a whole heap of reasons.

First of all, economic. We'd stand to lose economically if we gained the euro, and we'd also lose a degree of economic self-government to Europe.

Second, sovereignty. An important part of retaining British sovereignty is having our own currency, not one that is shared by a bunch of other countries.

Third, tradition. However distastefully you talk about it, I see absolutely no reason why we should give up something that is our own and works, for something that is somebody elses and works less well. The pound is British, the euro is European. We are British first, and European second, so we should have our own currency accordingly.

- Scarlet.

 

any economic loss (as most is) would only be temporary but having the backing of other nations' economies must strengthen a euro based economy (to be honest i have a very basic understanding of economic but that's my problem)

I don't really think that sovereignty is that important in modern times. Patriotism is obviously important but living in such a multi-culutural and diverse 'global village' i think that we should do what's economically sensible rather than what's traditional. that's why the time isn't now for Britain to join but it should eventually. I think becoming closer to Europe would help us maintain our cultural identity more than our close ties the the United States who did fight a war to remove us

a bit off topic but Scarlet, i just read your bio and it said you're an ex-communist, how did this happen? it just struck me as quite a change to what i've read of your post recently

 

There are PLENTY of economic reasons why Britain shouldn't join the euro. Not the least is Britain's experience when sterling was a member of the ERM. It shadowed the Deutschmark from March 1987, which kept interest lates too law, which allowed inflation to rise. The ERM wasn't treated as a mechanism, like it should have been, but more of a prelude to an economic union. I mean, when German interest rates went up because of borrowing to cover reunification, the high interest rates were passed on to us, and they deepened and lengthened the recession. We finally left on 16 September 1992, after 11 billlion of reserves had been spent, and interest rates had risen to 12 percent (with 15 percent targetted for the next day). And contrary to Labour's caterwauling that the pound would collapse, the economy actually recovered.

There can never be one single exchange rate, or interest rate, for Europe. All our economies are too different. Britain's especially; our economy is far more in harmony with the United States than with the eurozone. Unlike most of Europe, we're a major oil producer. We'd have nothing to gain in changing to euro for ease of exchange, because such a huge amount of our trade is with non-European countries. The euro is not necessary for Britain to prosper. Indeed, it's detrimental. This is because of London's unmatched business skills and domination of the euro, which is encouraged because of, our business-friendly tax and regulatory regime, which exists in Britain despite, not because of, the EU.

Neither is the euro necessary to attract inward investment to Britain. In 1999, Britain was the most popular destination for foreign investment in the EU, with its share rising from 25 to 27 percent - double that of France's, and nearly three times that of Germany.

Then there are non-economic reasons. For example, the MAJORITY of Britons don't WANT the euro. It would be downright undemocratic for it to be introduced. Neither should the Government be allowed to promote it insidiously, or decide on the wording of any referendum. The only thing the pro-euro side can say is that we have to sacrifice the pound to become closer to Europe, or we'll "miss the Euro train." Well, good. I hope the bloody train derails. The EU needs us more than we need them.

Summarily, the abolotion of the pound is nonsensical. Any economic benefits are non-existent, insignificant or can be more easily achieved by other means. The DISadvantages would be greater for Britain than any other European country, and most importantly, a loss of our pound would constitute a major loss of Britain's power to govern herself.

Personally, I'm sceptical even about EU membership. What was first imagined the EU would be - a collection of sovereign states in which free trade would be promoted, for the good of all of us - has turned into some plan for a superstate. And I want no part of it. The EU should be like NAFTA (North American Free Trade Area, which comprises the US, Canada and Mexico), which works perfectly well for the economic benefit of all partners, without any loss of sovereignty or self-government. The EU experiment is in the process of failing, and can only be rescued by being made into a coalition of SEPERATE countries with SEPERATE aims but free trade, as opposed to a slow plodding march toward a superstate that destroys the sovereignty of each of its members.

Winston Churchill once said of Britain that we were "with Europe, but not of Europe." And that's the attitude we should have concerning Europe, the EU, and the euro.

- Scarlet.

PS: Stuey, I grew up.

 

One of the main problems with the 'traditionalist' argument over the pound is that our currency is only 30-odd years old. My own approach to this is that Euro entry is an economic decision and positions should be taken for economic reasons. The introduction of the Euro in Europe has produced neither a fatal loss of soveriegnty nor an economic miracle.
I have a hard time idetifying with the ideaologues on either side of the argument. The flag-wavers are vacuous but the Europhiles are equally driven by ideas rather than economic judgements. I am not anti-Europe, in fact I think of myself as European and I identify myself with many aspects of European culture. But a common currency is no more needed or welcome than a common language in my view. I can imagine a time when we have the Euro but equally I do not think it will be a disaster if we don't sign up to it.

 

as i said i regularly change my stance on the euro and you both make good cases against it. i think there should be a referendum where we simply vote on whether we want it or not, nothing else in the deal just to find out whether the country supports joining the Euro or not and then do whatever the results dictate. of course it would never happen so simply because it's a good vote winner for the Tories keeping Britain British and Labour doesn't really have the guts to do something like that because it fears it would lose support so rather than consulting the country democratically they'll just edge us closer and closer to it

 

"the standard argument against losing the pound is it's tradition"

Yeah, as TSB pointed out, there are a TON of good reasons to dislike jumping in with the Euro right now.

 

I am a vegetarian but Hitler, as it happens, wasn't - that's just an urban myth.

Nope, Hitler really was a vegetarian. Fact.

I see wearing a Che Guevara shirt as no different as somebody in America displaying their flag.

I see it as no different from wearing a swastika.

 

What is the role of the commonwealth? What holds it all together? The crown? Tradition?


EDIT:

I just read portions of the BNP's platform and stance on issues.

Some of their issues remind me of Pat Buchanan's populist campaigns of the '90's, especially regarding trade, immigration, and cultural issues.

Of course, the circumstances are different but still interesting the simliarities.

 

I've still no idea how Hitler's diet has any bearing on this thread or indeed on anything at all but he wasn't a vegetarian. The 'facts' -- so far as they can be determined -- are that Hitler suffered stomach problems periodically during the 1930s and had to reduce the amount of meat in his diet. He never abstained from eating meat out of principle and apparently never completely stopped eating it. If anyone wants to use Hitler's stomach problems as a basis for arguing that he was a communist then fine, whatever - but let's take it to another thread. I'm only posting this here to clear up a very common misconception, more of which here:

urban legends

EDITS - can't get mark-up codes to work for some reason ...

 

The Commonwealth

 

An "urban legends" website is not quite as authoritative as what I recall reading, which was an interview with Hitler's defense secretary (I think the name is Scheer?), wherein he explained that Hitler was a vegetarian, and used to scold people about the negative aspects of eating meat, although he did not attempt to impose his beliefs on the matter.