RayC

Any new trade deal is to be welcomed however, some perspective is needed. The benefits of being a member of CPTTP are tiny in comparison with those of the EU Single Market and Customs Union. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-brexit-deal-pacific-b2664101.html

Thanks for the quick response. I did read the various threads about transferring other types of visa but wondered whether there was anything different about transferring DTVs. My DTV is an e-visa, nothing in my passport. The e-visa does list my current passport number. I presented a hard copy of the e-visa on arrival last month, which was returned to me. (Entry stamp is as normal and gives three pieces of information: DOE (16/11/24); Validity (until 14/5/25) and Visa Class (DTV-180)). If Immigration replies to me, I'll obviously follow their advice. In the absence of any further information, I'll renew my passport in London and then ask the Thai Embassy for advice. If nothing is forthcoming from them, then I guess that I'll just turn up with both passports (new and old) and my e-visa at BKK next November as you suggest and take it from there.

I have a DTV valid until 2029 linked to my current (UK) passport which expires in Oct 25. I am currently in Thailand but will be back in the UK in April 25 when I will renew my passport. We will probably return to Thailand in Nov 25. Realise that it's early days for the DTV, but does anyone know what the process is for transferring my DTV from my old to new passport? I've emailed Thai Immigration re confirmation of the process but haven't heard anything from them. Thanks in advance.

Transam, Looks like others have got their hands on your crystal ball. You had better keep it locked away in future.

Cowardice? Not guilty. Stupidity? Guilty. What possessed me to (continually) talk to a human brick wall and expect a coherent answer?🤦

Your response is risible. Whether Germany is the primary source of Socialist thought is debatable. What is not debatable is that your latest missive is yet another statement which has no bearing on your original proposition i.e. National Socialism evolved from Socialism or your subsequent ridiculous attempt to 'justify' that statement by banding around the word, "volksgemienshaft". No more confirmation is now required. You clearly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about when it comes to the concept of socialism as a political philosophy. To steal @Simple1's comment, "I really cannot be bothered any further. Play your games with someone else". I'll pre-empt your response: I'm not conceding the field to you. It's simply impossible to have a reasoned discussion with someone who is unable to justify their position using a rational argument. Have a nice day.

By no stretch of the imagination could Syria currently be called safe.

I'm comfortable debating the history and philosophy of socialism, so I don't need a primer from you although I appreciate the offer. What I would like is for you to justify your proposition that the concept of 'volksgemienshaft' explains how 'National Socialism' derived from 'Socialism': I have lost count of the number of times I have asked you to elaborate on your premise, but nothing has been forthcoming from you other than tangential rhetoric. You know what? Call me cynical but I'm beginning to think that you don't have an answer to my question. There is, of course, an easy way to dispell my doubts: Answer the question directly No evasion, no equivocation, no new thread, no tangential discussion, etc. Just an answer which directly addresses the question. Btw: It's perfectly ok to change your mind if, with hindsight, you no longer believe in your original proposition. Simply say so and that will be the end of it.

You can "educate" others by answering a direct question directly rather than by evasion. I'll report the question for the ease of reference: "How does the concept of 'Volkesgemeinschaft' explain the relationship between Socialism and National Socialism?'

It would be so much easier if you could post a direct answer to a direct question here in this thread where all can see it without having to search around

Wikipedia gives a useful overview of the term 'Volkesgemeinschaft' - and I can delve deeper if I feel the need - so I'm ok on that score, thanks. You originally stated that, "Germanys Left gave us that wonderful brand of socialism known as National Socialism", implying that 'National Socialism' grew out of Socialism. I and others have explained why we think that it is incorrect to suggest that these two different political ideologies share the same root. You then introduced the term 'Volkesgemeinschaft' into the discussion implying - without any explanation - that this term explains the link between 'Socialism' and 'National Socialism'. My question is simple, 'How does the concept of 'Volkesgemeinschaft' explain the relationship between Socialism and National Socialism?'

That's just a collection of words banded together. They explain nothing. What/ Whose "underlying political philosophy"? Are you suggesting that "volksgemienshaft" is the link between socialism and national socialism? If so, how?

No. When it comes to labelling, we've been here before. It does prove a thing. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is not a democracy.

No the absence of a time limit for granting Royal Assent is not the key. Granting of Royal Assent is a formality. The Monarch acts on the advice of his Ministers. To unduly delay granting Royal Assent, when presented by a bill which had the support of the Government, would be akin to withholding consent. It hasn't happened since the beginning of the 18th century and there is no reason to suppose that it will happen anytime soon. As others have pointed out, withholding Royal Assent would provoke a constitutional crisis and if the King were to unduly delay signing a bill it would have the same effect. These are opinions by individual contributors to the Guardian. There are many such contributions; some supportive of the government, others less so. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/commentisfree Personally, I'd give it a year/ 18 months before starting to form any conclusions. I thought that "people have had enough of experts"? Wasn't that the view of Michael Gove (and his cabinet colleagues)? Still, personally I'm glad that economists are back in favour. I just hope that they are wrong on this occasion.

I obviously agree that Nazism was a terrible period in Germany's history. I also agree that the needs of the collective is stressed over the individual in both National Socialism and Socialism. However, the underlying ideologies - economic and social - of the two are fundamentally different. At its' heart, socialism is based on equality and seeks to gain for workers the full fruits of their labour. On the other hand, National Socialism is centred on inequality. There is a 'natural' order in which some workers (races) are considered inferior and are nothing more than an expendable resource for the 'superior' race to exploit. What is "left" socialism?

For once we agree (at least about the chances of Charles withholding Royal Assent): I wasn't the one who raised this as a possibility.

"You had to wash toilets, you had to flip burgers, you had to handle money". Hopefully, not all at the same time?

To what piece of proposed legislation would Charles refuse to grant Royal Assent?

Doctorow uses an awful lot of words to say nothing of any import. As for the video, it's extremely disturbing. Assuming Ryabkov is speaking with Putin's voice, it shows a hardening of the Russian position. Whether one thinks the Russian position is justified depends upon the individuals' view of the veracity and validity of the underlying assumptions e.g. protection of Russian speakers, de-nazification of Ukraine, threat to Russian security, etc. Diplomatic channels to solve these problems having been exhausted (really?), Russia was therefore left with no choice other than to invade Ukraine. Nothing in the Ryabkov interview makes me question my belief that the underlying assumptions have no validity and that there is no justification for the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Clearly you know nothing about Nazi ideology or how Hitler came to power if you can confuse 'Socialism' and 'Marxism' with 'National Socialism'.

In the same way that Centralists gave us the brand of democracy practised in The People's Democratic Republic of Korea and the German Democratic Republic? What's in a name, eh?

Agreed. At the same time, I would ban MPs from taking second jobs (including paid speaking engagements) and accepting personal donations. I would also like to see Ministers freed from having to act as constituency MPs as both are full-time jobs in their own right. Quite how this could be done under our current electoral system I don't know

What you claimed was a quote from The Guardian: "A Yuman Rites Lawyer meeting the ruler of a Country with an absolutely horrendous record on Yuman Rites issues, begging for cash" What The Guardian actually said: "Keir Starmer will meet Saudi Arabia’s de facto leader, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, as part of a controversial trip to the region this week designed to drum up investment for his pledge to overhaul British infrastructure" Spot the difference? Starmer was a Human Rights lawyer. (Did he represent Yuman?). He is now UK PM. His current role might entail dealing with individuals/ regimes whose principles conflict with his own. He isn't the first - and almost certainly won't be the last - politician to face that conundrum. I'll repeat my previous question: What would you have him do? Place his personal principles above the perceived needs of the country?

Where does that supposed "quote" appear in The Guardian? The nearest your linked article gets to criticism of Starmer is to call his trip to Saudi 'controversial'. You criticise Starmer for betraying his principles in visiting Saudi but you would, no doubt, berate him for putting his principles above the country's economic interests if he were to refuse to deal with the Saudi regime: Heads Starmer loses, tails you win. Is this the article by Kuenssberg in question? If so, nowhere does she suggest that he should consider resigning as you infer. Instead, it is simply a very well written piece of analysis of Starmer's current situation. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm2l781461no The Tory supporting media has not turned; it has been publishing anti-Labour articles from the moment that the election date was announced and has upped the output since this government took office: The Labour supporting media has not turned against Starmer (yet). Like many of us, they are disappointed with what we have seen from the Labour government to date. However - unlike those critical of this government from Day 1 - there is a realisation that 5 months is far too short a period over which to pass final judgement. If things remain as they are this time next year, then it will be reasonable to question whether Starmer and this government is really up to the mark.

Let's assume the effects of the budget are negative and that becomes increasingly apparent over time. What does that change? A vote of no confidence will still be doomed to failure. Do you really think that 18 months into this parliamentary session, the PLP will dump the leader who got them their seat? Maybe there might be the first mutterings of discontent, but - personal scandals aside - Starmer will not be gone this time next year. The Guardian and Mirror turning against Starmer: Maybe they will voice their discontent more loudly but they will not call for him to go that early in the parliamentary session. The King could dissolve Parliament. For what reason? Incompetence? In that case it begs the question why his mother didn't dissolve Parliament on more than one occasion over the past 14 years. Trump could deal with Farage and/or Truss instead of Starmer. To state the blindingly obvious, Farage and Truss are not in government. Truss is not even a MP! Neither has any power when it comes to passing legislation. Notwithstanding that, why would Trump not deal with Starmer? The UK may have lost what little influence it had with the US following the bone-headed decision to leave the EU, but why would Trump decide to undermine the government of an ally? Over a few 'hurty' words from Lammy? I know that Trump is thin-skinned but that's going to extremes. Anyway, you crack on with your fantasies to your heart's content. The rest of us will continue to live in the real world.