RayC

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.

A VONC has no chance of success and, given that Badenoch can use PMQs to land her blows, it would be nothing other than a waste of parliamentary time. As Labour has a majority of 174 in the Commons, the only way that they will not complete a full term is if 1) they decide to call an early election or 2) there is a coup. Whether Starmer leads Labour into the next election is debatable but, unless there is some scandal which involves him personally, the chances of him being gone by this time next year are very slim.

Clive Myrie is a well known figure in the UK. Why is it so surprising that he could command £10k for personal appearances? What would the Isle of Man Energy and Sustainability Centre and ING bank hope to gain by bribing Clive Myrie?

😂 I wondered why I immediately thought of Sellafield/ Windscale when I saw the Ready Brek ad? Maybe this NTNON sketch was in my subconscious?🤔

I don't understand what half of that means. You stated that there are not many reports of Zelensky's fading popularity. I posted a link proving that statement is incorrect.

Touch wood. All good. I have two yearly check-ups.

That particular procedure wasn't available to me at the time. Hopefully, I won't need a second operation but If it does prove necessary I'd investigate this procedure as an option. "How would one determine a 'good surgeon'"? By research. As I said in a previous post, circumstances meant that the decision when to have an op was rather forced upon me; however, it was almost inevitable that I would need an op at some point and I researched online for reviews of my urologist. There were no accounts of blotched operations - unfortunately, the same couldn't be said for all urologists - and reviews were almost entirely positive. I also surreptitiously asked around the urology department about the various consultants and the feedback about my urologist (maybe unsurprisingly) was positive. I accept that this is hardly a statistically sound approach but imo it's better than nothing

The fact that your urologist hasn't pushed TURP on you is imo a good sign. I actually saw two urologists; the first - who was immediately available - did push TURP on me with very little discussion about the options and I quickly looked elsewhere. The second - recommended by a friend - was much more open. He would say things like, 'Here are your options'; 'Here are the pros and cons of the various options'; 'If you have questions, ask me. I will try to answer, although I don't know everything'; 'You have to decide what course of action to take yourself. I will furnish you with the facts'. (All this happened in Belgium where we were living at the time).