[News] Nigel Farage and Reform

[The Clamp]

Goring at the Nuremberg trials admitted he was a socialist and that the Nazi party was too. Hitler, who knows as he was dead.

Goring at the Nuremberg trials admitted he was a socialist and that the Nazi party was too. Hitler, who knows as he was dead.

I’m not sure you should take what Goering said at face value. Well, you plain shouldn’t.

It’s received wisdom and all the evidence backs it up, that the Nazi party had abandoned any socialist notions they may have had by the mid 1930’s.

They were not socialists beyond their name.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

In a strange way I'm starting to think it would be a good thing if Farage was elected MP for Clacton.

He would have to show up for all the boring stuff,he would be confronted by the slow moving process of government and find out there are not many quick fixes even, if you have a healthy majority in the Commons.

He would either be a solo MP or leader of a very small group of Reform MPs which will need to be kept together on policy and not blather out something racist or utterly stupid.

Let's just have him die on his arse on the back benches and call his bluff

He is only doing it for the MP's salary and pension, and for an opportunity to find additional forms of spin-off income that the cachet of being an MP brings so, no f*** him. He can f*** off.

 

[cirC]

I’m not sure you should take what Goering said at face value. Well, you plain shouldn’t.

It’s received wisdom and all the evidence backs it up, that the Nazi party had abandoned any socialist notions they may have had by the mid 1930’s.

They were not socialists beyond their name.

You cannot re-right history. Hitler( Nazi) had a pact with socialist Russia then realised that he wanted to be top dog. The rest is history.

 

[The Clamp]

You cannot re-right history. Hitler( Nazi) had a pact with socialist Russia then realised that he wanted to be top dog. The rest is history.

We’ll have to agree to disagree

This is interesting though;

The right needs to stop falsely claiming that the Nazis were socialists​

The Nazis hated socialists. It was the governments that rebuilt Europe that embraced social welfare programs.

Perspective by Ronald J. GranieriRonald J. Granieri is a Templeton Education Fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute and history professor at the U.S. Army War College.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/02/05/right-needs-stop-falsely-claiming-that-nazis-were-socialists/

NB- I didn’t mean for the egg-head to be in my post.

 

[A1X]

The Nazi party was socialist.

Hi, I have a Masters in 20th Century history which included specialising in the Nazis. I've studied their policies, words and actions from 1919 to 1945. I've read Mein Kampf as part of my research.

The Nazis were not socialists. In any way, shape or form.

Happy to help.

 

[Mellotron]

Hi, I have a Masters in 20th Century history which included specialising in the Nazis. I've studied their policies, words and actions from 1919 to 1945. I've read Mein Kampf as part of my research.

The Nazis were not socialists. In any way, shape or form.

Happy to help.

Yeah but....they said they were?!

Are you calling the Nazis LIARS?

 

[A1X]

Yeah but....they said they were?!

Are you calling the Nazis LIARS?

I know, you're right.

TBH I'm also having some doubt as to just how democratic the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is if I'm honest...

 

[The Clamp]

I know, you're right.

TBH I'm also having some doubt as to just how democratic the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is if I'm honest...

But but.. the name?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Goring at the Nuremberg trials admitted he was a socialist and that the Nazi party was too. Hitler, who knows as he was dead.

They called themselves by two names which merged. The National Socialist German Workers Party, to appeal to the common man.

Their policies were nothing like socialism, purging their own moderates, and banning other political parties, making Germany a dictatorship.

If you’re going to quote history, then quote it all, or else it appears you have an agenda.

 

[Stato]

So the Institute for Fiscal Studies has got hold of Reform's plans: https://www.theguardian.com/politic...farage-conservatives-uk-general-election-live

Reading between the lines, what they amount to is the same kind of magical thinking that Truss used to tank our economy. Every time he appears at a debate, his opponents should just hammer this again and again: "You're Truss. Just like her, you claim to be a rebel, when in fact, you are just financially illiterate. It's been tried and it failed in record time. You're not an alternative to the Conservatives, you're an alternative to reality."

IFS says: "Reform UK proposes tax cuts that it estimates would cost nearly £90bn per year, and spending increases of £50bn per year. It claims that it would pay for these through £150bn per year of reductions in other spending, covering public services, debt interest and working-age benefits.

This would represent a big cut to the size of the state. Regardless of the pros and cons of shrinking the state, or of any of their specific measures, the package as a whole is problematic. Spending reductions would save less than stated, and the tax cuts would cost more than stated, by a margin of tens of billions of pounds per year. Meanwhile the spending increases would cost more than stated if they are to achieve their objectives …

Even with the extremely optimistic assumptions about how much economic growth would increase, the sums in this manifesto do not add up. Whilst Reform’s manifesto gives a clear sense of priority, a government could only implement parts of this package, or would need to find other ways to help pay for it, which would mean losers not specified."

 

[Machiavelli]

So the Institute for Fiscal Studies has got hold of Reform's plans: https://www.theguardian.com/politic...farage-conservatives-uk-general-election-live

Reading between the lines, what they amount to is the same kind of magical thinking that Truss used to tank our economy. Every time he appears at a debate, his opponents should just hammer this again and again: "You're Truss. Just like her, you claim to be a rebel, when in fact, you are just financially illeterate. It's been tried and it failed in record time. You're not an alternative to the Conservatives, you're an altenrative to reality."

IFS says: "Reform UK proposes tax cuts that it estimates would cost nearly £90bn per year, and spending increases of £50bn per year. It claims that it would pay for these through £150bn per year of reductions in other spending, covering public services, debt interest and working-age benefits.

This would represent a big cut to the size of the state. Regardless of the pros and cons of shrinking the state, or of any of their specific measures, the package as a whole is problematic. Spending reductions would save less than stated, and the tax cuts would cost more than stated, by a margin of tens of billions of pounds per year. Meanwhile the spending increases would cost more than stated if they are to achieve their objectives …

Even with the extremely optimistic assumptions about how much economic growth would increase, the sums in this manifesto do not add up. Whilst Reform’s manifesto gives a clear sense of priority, a government could only implement parts of this package, or would need to find other ways to help pay for it, which would mean losers not specified."

Being an alternative to reality isn't the worse thing when reality isn't up to much.

 

[The Clamp]

Being an alternative to reality isn't the worse thing when reality isn't up to much.

Unfortunately the alternative to reality, becomes reality all too often.

 

[Guinness Boy]

So the Institute for Fiscal Studies has got hold of Reform's plans: https://www.theguardian.com/politic...farage-conservatives-uk-general-election-live

Reading between the lines, what they amount to is the same kind of magical thinking that Truss used to tank our economy. Every time he appears at a debate, his opponents should just hammer this again and again: "You're Truss. Just like her, you claim to be a rebel, when in fact, you are just financially illeterate. It's been tried and it failed in record time. You're not an alternative to the Conservatives, you're an altenrative to reality."

IFS says: "Reform UK proposes tax cuts that it estimates would cost nearly £90bn per year, and spending increases of £50bn per year. It claims that it would pay for these through £150bn per year of reductions in other spending, covering public services, debt interest and working-age benefits.

This would represent a big cut to the size of the state. Regardless of the pros and cons of shrinking the state, or of any of their specific measures, the package as a whole is problematic. Spending reductions would save less than stated, and the tax cuts would cost more than stated, by a margin of tens of billions of pounds per year. Meanwhile the spending increases would cost more than stated if they are to achieve their objectives …

Even with the extremely optimistic assumptions about how much economic growth would increase, the sums in this manifesto do not add up. Whilst Reform’s manifesto gives a clear sense of priority, a government could only implement parts of this package, or would need to find other ways to help pay for it, which would mean losers not specified."

Yes, but who wants to listen to liberal elite experts, when you could have an MP who had a lightbulb moment about immigration in a long queue at passport control full of British people?

 

[cirC]

Being an alternative to reality isn't the worse thing when reality isn't up to much.

Having watched the Nuremberg trial as part of the BBC D-day broadcasts it reflects what was said at the trials. As they say the rest is history.

 

[The Clamp]

Some of the many reasons I never want to see Faragzi in any kind of government role;;

 

[The Clamp]

Having watched the Nuremberg trial as part of the BBC D-day broadcasts it reflects what was said at the trials. As they say the rest is history.

I’m not sure why you are persisting with this when every piece of credible evidence agrees that the Nazis were not socialists. And they weren’t.

Nevertheless, what actions of theirs lead you to believe they were socialists? Apart from Goering saying so when his life depended on him coming across as a nice fella.

genuine question , what can you point to that supports the idea of them being socialists?

 

[Machiavelli]

Having watched the Nuremberg trial as part of the BBC D-day broadcasts it reflects what was said at the trials. As they say the rest is history.

What on earth are you on about? I think you're actually making a point in relation to a post that I directly responded to you, whereas you've actually replied to an entirely different post. Congrats on both of these posts being made by me.

 

[Is it PotG?]

I realise that this forum is a small representation, but it seems lessons have not been learned.
This constant lecturing about how bad a person or a party is and constant beratting to the extent of telling folk they're stupid to vote a certain way, ring any bells?
Might I innocently and gently suggest that people (of all rosettes) be allowed to make their own minds up, minus the 'you must be thick' approach.
The cognoscenti preaching and belittling the opinion of others all comes across as a bit desperate.
Highlighting the good and bad of all the parties makes perfect sense, but criticism of age groups etc seems a little silly.
What could.possdibly go wrong?

 

[The Clamp]

I realise that this forum is a small representation, but it seems lessons have not been learned.
This constant lecturing about how bad a person or a party is and constant beratting to the extent of telling folk they're stupid to vote a certain way, ring any bells?
Might I innocently and gently suggest that people (of all rosettes) be allowed to make their own minds up, minus the 'you must be thick' approach.
The cognoscenti preaching and belittling the opinion of others all comes across as a bit desperate.
Highlighting the good and bad of all the parties makes perfect sense, but criticism of age groups etc seems a little silly.
What could.possdibly go wrong?

Age groups and demographics play a huge part in voting trends.

If that’s my post you’re referring to? Maybe not?

It’s a fact that older people have more people in their cohort who vote Tory and who voted for Brexit. I think that’s fairly well acknowledged?

But yes, these days I woundn’t call someone stupid for their voting choice. They’re too thick to understand so what would be the f***ing point?







I jest

 

[bluenitsuj]

Vote Reform