herfiehandbag

The habit these days of labelling conservative politicians, polemicists and even journalists and their journals or various medias as "far right" is a complete exaggeration, but one which serves to demonize those you wish to argue against, in much the same way that howling genocide at Israel does

Past regimes of the far right were marked by extreme nationalism, institutionalised racism, the widespread use of extra judicial arrests, indeterminate imprisonment, torture and killings. The Nazis in mid 20th Century Germany, many of the South American military dictatorships of the late 20th Century, and the post colonial tribe dictatorships found in Africa. Perhaps the most egregious example of a far right regime today is the military regime in Myanmar/Burma. Many of the hallmarks of these regimes of course are replicated in those of the "far left", just as it was difficult to find a real difference to life in NAZI Germany or Stalin's Russia, so it is difficult to separate for example the lot of the people's of present day Venezuela and Myanmar.

The generation of Conservative politicians around today in Europe are light years away from that - Wilders and Marine La Pen (whilst I do not like much of their politics) are light years away from that) and are not coming to power through street fighting or violent revolution, but by winning votes from an electorate disenchanted by the course taken by the established parties. Ironically , whilst nationalist in terms of wishing to preserve the traditions culture and way of life in their own countries, they are rapidly becoming something of a pan-national grouping within Europe.

Suella Braverman, Jacob Rees Mogg,  Douglas Murray, Nigel Farage and others on the conservative tendency in British politics are readily labelled "far right" as if they were fellow travellers of Heinrich Himmler or Julius Stretcher. It is ridiculous; they quite simply are not.

To label the Spectator or Daily Telegraph as far right publications is as silly as labelling the New Statesman and the Guardian as far left, - I leave the Economist out of these comments because I can rarely understand it!

Robust disagreement and debate is healthy, and essential to proper democratic politics. This sort of perjorative labelling is not. It weakens debate and falsely labels opponents.

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Are you playing the ‘Gay Card’?

 

I certainly wasn’t.

 

 

Well your particular "trump card" ( oh the irony of that phrase!) which you are never loth to play, is to label anyone who does not espouse your views on these matters as "far right" and Islamophobic.

Murray's writings on Islam and Muslim immigration feature articulate and well constructed arguments.

8 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The Partial Gag Order placed on Defendant Trump has undoubtedly removed the most significant source of Jury influencing and intimidation.

 

Thanks for letting us know you will not accept a guilty verdict if that’s what this jury hands down.
 

Always good to know what kind of blind bias we are in the company of.

 

Oh I don't think that was ever in any doubt, now was It?

They will not stop until the FNT ( fat knacker Trump) is in the Whitehouse, no matter what the courts may decide or the how the people may vote.

If heaven forbid, he does get in, then the Judicial branch will be emasculated, the legislative branch sidelined, and a dynasty rapidly established that will last for the foreseeable future - maybe a "thousand year Reich".

59 minutes ago, Denim said:

Oh dear. This will not do. Rising popularity. 

 

I doubt if Pita or MFP will be allowed to continue for long in politics. Too dangerous to the Dinosaurs.

 

 

1 hour ago, Denim said:

Oh dear. This will not do. Rising popularity. 

 

I doubt if Pita or MFP will be allowed to continue for long in politics. Too dangerous to the Dinosaurs.

 

 

The timing of the inevitable dissolution is critical. Not so close to an election as to be glaringly obvious election interference, not far enough from an election as to allow a successor party to emerge. It also needs to be accompanied by a thorough decapitation of existing and any potential leadership.

10 minutes ago, impulse said:

So what do they call it when tens of thousands of Israeli citizens protest their own gub'ment's actions?  In Israel.

 

Is that anti-Semitism, too?

 

Those protesting in Israel aren't rioting, spraying graffiti on buildings and businesses, "outing" Jews on the internet in an attempt to destroy careers and businesses and damage private lives. Nor are they gathering at their countries most iconic building and chanting "gas the Jewish" - I know the Police claim that is not what they chanted, but they were somewhat selectively hard of hearing, a professional problem not entirely restricted to Australia!

38 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

I don't recall saying I had ideas. Then again, it's not up to me.

 

What I do know is your comments are wide of the mark. Unless you know all nearly 18 year olds that it will affect, how many will choose the 12 month option and how many will then choose to enlist. 

 

How many years did you get involved with training those on national service?

Very obviously I had no involvement with training National Servicemen, to have done so I would now be in my mid to late 80s, and that is 20 odd years short of the mark!

Now I explained some of the nuts and bolts of training recruits, volunteer or conscripts on the scale envisaged. You say I am "wide of the mark", yet cannot suggest how - you just know I am. Presumably you must have some ideas, how else could you, realistically, claim I am wrong?

I know what is involved in training recruit soldiers, the manpower, equipment and other resources are considerable. You would need, apart from manpower, accommodation, range space and time, weapons, training areas and transport - The UK does not have them, and it will cost an awful lot of money to find them. It's not just the one man shouty band imagined by Hollywood!

And then, when they are trained, what will they do with them, where will you barrack them, how will you equip them, how will you move them, how will you even feed them? You are talking about needing to triple the infrastructure, before you even consider simply what to do with them?

So come on, explain where, how, I am wide of the mark?

6 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Interesting. You know so much about how it's all going to work.

 

I'd be in awe if you weren't wide of the mark.

I would hazard a guess that I have a fairly good idea of how it would work.

I did 32 years in the Army. Several of those years were spent in the training system, at several stages (ranks) in my career.

I'd be really interested in your ideas as to how it would work, perhaps even in awe!

20 minutes ago, transam said:

I thought conscripts were kept away from the career soldiers.

It may help with the drug problem too, teach them a bit of respect that they may not be taught at home.

Fewer yobs on the street sounds good to me too.

As for the infrastructure, loads of ex military bases not in use, oh, except for the illegals..😉

If you have the number of Conscripts then you will need all your career soldiers to train 'em. To train a 100 conscripts you would need at least 5 Officers, 1 Warrant Officer, 1 Colour Sergeant, 3 Sergeants and 9 Corporals and a dozen Lance Corporals. Say 30+ training staff. If you are looking at processing say 300,000 conscripts a year, each conscript doing 4 months basic training you are probably looking at 35000 career soldiers as trainers. From a Regular Army of around 80,000 or so? 

I doubt that we have 300,000 rifles going spare. Back in the 1950s all a conscript needed was a set of battledress and a rifle left over from the Second World War. The game has changed now.

Whilst it is true that many bases have closed over the last 30 years, very few are lying empty, most have been sold in a fairly energetic and ruthless drive to raise cash - little if any of which found it's way to the new, smaller but better resourced Army we were regularly promised every couple of years. We used to call the regular defence reviews ( under whatever shade of government) OP Bohica ( bend over, here it comes again)!

Fewer yobs on the streets? No, fitter yobs, probably better organised, and more adept at violence!