Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ken Livingstone, the ex-mayor who keeps talking about Hitler,

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited May 2018 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ken Livingstone, the ex-mayor who keeps talking about Hitler, quits the Labour party

Ken Livingstone has announced that he is resigning from the Labour Party saying the issues around his suspension for alleged anti-Semitism had become a "distraction"

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,695
    First - Not like Red Ken.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,273
    I'll second that!
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,052
    Second, like Hitler in the Great Patriotic War
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,733
    Those who came first, raise your right hands...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,733
    edited May 2018
    Foxy said:

    Second, like Hitler in the Great Patriotic War

    In many ways, that's a very apt metaphor for Germany's performance in that war!
  • surbysurby Posts: 1,227
    Foxy said:

    Second, like Hitler in the Great Patriotic War

    Factually you are correct.
  • surbysurby Posts: 1,227
    Ken Livingstone brought us Fares Fair. Called unlawful by that pompous git Denning, Livingstone came back with the Travelcard. Much derided by the Tory press then, it is part of life today.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,733
    surby said:

    Ken Livingstone brought us Fares Fair. Called unlawful by that pompous git Denning, Livingstone came back with the Travelcard. Much derided by the Tory press then, it is part of life today.

    In that time, to Londoners the world was his Oyster...
  • HHemmeligHHemmelig Posts: 617
    edited May 2018
    surby said:

    Ken Livingstone brought us Fares Fair. Called unlawful by that pompous git Denning, Livingstone came back with the Travelcard. Much derided by the Tory press then, it is part of life today.

    Not true actually, Livingstone introduced "Capitalcard", it was significantly expanded and improved in the late 80s by Maggie Thatcher's government after they'd assumed control from the GLC and they renamed it Travelcard to reflect the fact they'd extended the zones miles out from the capital. So if what you say is correct the Tories sure had a funny way of showing that they derided the concept of Travelcard.
  • NeilVWNeilVW Posts: 703
    FPT
    Barnesian said:

    Very little has changed since the last General Election. The Tories are still about 2-2.5% ahead of Labour. There have been several political "events" but none of them game changing.

    According to YouGov, Brexit is the most important issue to all parties and to both remainers and leavers. This is where the only major change has occurred.

    Brexit has got softer for both the Tories and Labour but with the same small difference between them, and causing some frustrated Tory leavers to support UKIP (up 1.5% on the GE).

    If neither main party changes their Brexit policy I suspect an early GE will have a similar result to last time with maybe the LibDems gaining 3 or 4 seats from the Tories.

    I dispute that UKIP are up 1.5 points since the GE. While they have averaged 3.4% so far in the month of May*, that cannot be directly compared with the 1.9% UKIP scored across GB in June 2017.

    UKIP only put up candidates in 60% of GB seats. Scaling up, and allowing for UKIP tending not to stand in their weaker areas (sitting out in 49 Scottish seats, for instance) and they would probably have been just shy of 3% had they stood everywhere.

    * Using the five polls by unique pollsters conducted wholly during May 2018.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited May 2018
    Having won two London Mayoral elections (albeit with some defeats too), Ken Livingstone whatever his controversial views can claim he is the most electorally successful Labour politician alive after Tony Blair.

    The interesting question is whether Blair, like Livingstone now, is no longer a Labour Party member?
  • Bill_QuangoBill_Quango Posts: 12
    Ken couldn't fund his card either. Which is why it was ruled illegal. London boroughs with no tube network were paying taxes to use a service they could not directly access.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    FPT
    Mike Smithson seems to have the impression that the next election campaign will be significantly shorter than in 2017, but I fail to understand the reasoning behind that. Given the terms of the FTPA and the need to tidy up Parliamentary business prior to Dissolution the campaign period will be at least 6 weeks. If Corbyn refused to play ball at all, that could easily be stretched to 7 weeks.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited May 2018
    Fans seeking tickets for Liverpool's Champions League final against Real Madrid in Ukraine are being asked to pay "ridiculous" prices online.

    Some are on sale for more than 20 times face value, with one ticket on a resale website priced at more than £14,000.

    Make me eat a Hawaiian pizza any day rather than have to pay that much ich...
  • HHemmeligHHemmelig Posts: 617

    Ken couldn't fund his card either. Which is why it was ruled illegal. London boroughs with no tube network were paying taxes to use a service they could not directly access.

    Correct. Fares Fair covered the tube only. Bromley and other areas with no tube have no objection to Travelcard as it also covers bus and rail journeys.
  • Bill_QuangoBill_Quango Posts: 12
    Why is Ken such a mental head on this one?
    He;s read one dodgy book on the appropriation of the Jews assets and treats it as the True Word.
    A GCSE student could point out why Hitler was not a Zionist.
    In the same way a hostage is not a terrorist.

    He is a real ass on this issue and refuses to learn.

    A true Corbynista. Once mind is made up, it can never be unmade. And damn the evidence that says it should!
  • surbysurby Posts: 1,227
    HHemmelig said:

    surby said:

    Ken Livingstone brought us Fares Fair. Called unlawful by that pompous git Denning, Livingstone came back with the Travelcard. Much derided by the Tory press then, it is part of life today.

    Not true actually, Livingstone introduced "Capitalcard", it was significantly expanded and improved in the late 80s by Maggie Thatcher's government after they'd assumed control from the GLC and they renamed it Travelcard to reflect the fact they'd extended the zones miles out from the capital. So if what you say is correct the Tories sure had a funny way of showing that they derided the concept of Travelcard.
    Next thing you will say the Tories brought it in the 1981 GLC Elections. Oops, they lost the election.
  • HHemmeligHHemmelig Posts: 617
    HYUFD said:

    Having won two London Mayoral elections (albeit with some defeats too), Ken Livingstone whatever his controversial views can claim he is the most electorally successful politician for Labour alive after Tony Blair.

    The interesting question is whether Blair, like Livingstone now, is no longer a Labour Party member?

    And like him or loathe him (a bit of both for me), he's almost certainly been the most influential London civic leader since Herbert Morrison before the war.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited May 2018
    HHemmelig said:

    HYUFD said:

    Having won two London Mayoral elections (albeit with some defeats too), Ken Livingstone whatever his controversial views can claim he is the most electorally successful politician for Labour alive after Tony Blair.

    The interesting question is whether Blair, like Livingstone now, is no longer a Labour Party member?

    And like him or loathe him (a bit of both for me), he's almost certainly been the most influential London civic leader since Herbert Morrison before the war.
    From the GLC on yes, Livingstone also helped revive local government and showed other big hitting politicians like Johnson, Burnham and Khan that Mayoralties of the big cities offered a way to have significant power and influence beyond the confines of Westminster
  • HHemmeligHHemmelig Posts: 617
    surby said:

    HHemmelig said:

    surby said:

    Ken Livingstone brought us Fares Fair. Called unlawful by that pompous git Denning, Livingstone came back with the Travelcard. Much derided by the Tory press then, it is part of life today.

    Not true actually, Livingstone introduced "Capitalcard", it was significantly expanded and improved in the late 80s by Maggie Thatcher's government after they'd assumed control from the GLC and they renamed it Travelcard to reflect the fact they'd extended the zones miles out from the capital. So if what you say is correct the Tories sure had a funny way of showing that they derided the concept of Travelcard.
    Next thing you will say the Tories brought it in the 1981 GLC Elections. Oops, they lost the election.
    I voted for Mayor Livingstone as it happens. Doesn't mean I can't call out partisan crap masquerading as fact.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,910
    edited May 2018
    It's important that Ken takes things one goose-step at a time.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,273

    Why is Ken such a mental head on this one?
    He;s read one dodgy book on the appropriation of the Jews assets and treats it as the True Word.
    A GCSE student could point out why Hitler was not a Zionist.
    In the same way a hostage is not a terrorist.

    He is a real ass on this issue and refuses to learn.

    A true Corbynista. Once mind is made up, it can never be unmade. And damn the evidence that says it should!

    It's amazing how, as people age, many become increasingly stubborn, sticking to their misguided views even in the face of all evidence and logic to the contrary.

    Btw, did anyone ever look into whether there was any age bias in the Leave vote? :wink:
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,910
    HHemmelig said:

    surby said:

    Ken Livingstone brought us Fares Fair. Called unlawful by that pompous git Denning, Livingstone came back with the Travelcard. Much derided by the Tory press then, it is part of life today.

    Not true actually, Livingstone introduced "Capitalcard", it was significantly expanded and improved in the late 80s by Maggie Thatcher's government after they'd assumed control from the GLC and they renamed it Travelcard to reflect the fact they'd extended the zones miles out from the capital. So if what you say is correct the Tories sure had a funny way of showing that they derided the concept of Travelcard.
    The Capitalcard was only valid on Tubes and Buses (and DLR when that came into fruition).
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,008
    HHemmelig said:

    HYUFD said:

    Having won two London Mayoral elections (albeit with some defeats too), Ken Livingstone whatever his controversial views can claim he is the most electorally successful politician for Labour alive after Tony Blair.

    The interesting question is whether Blair, like Livingstone now, is no longer a Labour Party member?

    And like him or loathe him (a bit of both for me), he's almost certainly been the most influential London civic leader since Herbert Morrison before the war.
    And Hitler during the war?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,910
    HYUFD said:

    Having won two London Mayoral elections (albeit with some defeats too), Ken Livingstone whatever his controversial views can claim he is the most electorally successful Labour politician alive after Tony Blair.

    Pah, even Boris won two London Mayoral elections.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    Why is Ken such a mental head on this one?
    He;s read one dodgy book on the appropriation of the Jews assets and treats it as the True Word.
    A GCSE student could point out why Hitler was not a Zionist.
    In the same way a hostage is not a terrorist.

    He is a real ass on this issue and refuses to learn.

    A true Corbynista. Once mind is made up, it can never be unmade. And damn the evidence that says it should!

    What is also ahistorical is him claiming that the decision to eliminate Jews was because Hitler went mad. In fact, hatred of Jews and what he saw as their malign influence in life was central to Hitler’s world view from the very start. Livingstone’s claims do not withstand even the most cursory scrutiny by anyone with any knowledge of the period.

    One can only speculate as to why he wants to diminish this very essential part of Nazi ideology and claim that Zionists were in league with Hitler.
  • HHemmeligHHemmelig Posts: 617

    HHemmelig said:

    surby said:

    Ken Livingstone brought us Fares Fair. Called unlawful by that pompous git Denning, Livingstone came back with the Travelcard. Much derided by the Tory press then, it is part of life today.

    Not true actually, Livingstone introduced "Capitalcard", it was significantly expanded and improved in the late 80s by Maggie Thatcher's government after they'd assumed control from the GLC and they renamed it Travelcard to reflect the fact they'd extended the zones miles out from the capital. So if what you say is correct the Tories sure had a funny way of showing that they derided the concept of Travelcard.
    The Capitalcard was only valid on Tubes and Buses (and DLR when that came into fruition).
    Exactly. Much as Surby doesn't want to hear it, Maggie Thatcher introduced the Travelcard.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    HYUFD said:

    Having won two London Mayoral elections (albeit with some defeats too), Ken Livingstone whatever his controversial views can claim he is the most electorally successful Labour politician alive after Tony Blair.

    The interesting question is whether Blair, like Livingstone now, is no longer a Labour Party member?

    Not correct. He only won the Mayoralty once as Labour candidate. In 2000 he stood as an independent
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    Why not tke a leaf out of Meghan's favourite author Noam Chomsky instead of joining the parade of pitchfork carriers. If Ken wants to comment on Hitler why shouldn't he?

    I notice that one of his anti semitic crimes was supporting a Labour MP who tweeted that Israel could have been positioned in Texas. That was a joke first told by a Jewish Polish comedian. He said that as Israelis couldn't co exist with the Palestinians but the Americans loved them so why not set it down in Texas and then everyone's happy!
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,910
    HHemmelig said:



    The Capitalcard was only valid on Tubes and Buses (and DLR when that came into fruition).

    Exactly. Much as Surby doesn't want to hear it, Maggie Thatcher introduced the Travelcard.
    Oops looks like I was wrong:


    Before the introduction of the Travelcard, tickets for the London Underground were purchased on a 'point-to-point' basis between two stations, either as a single, return or season ticket; and were priced according to distance travelled.[4] Tickets for travel on London Buses and British Rail were purchased separately.[4] The Travelcard was introduced as the third in a series of major fare revisions that had started in 1981.[2] The introduction of the Travelcard was intended to increase patronage on London Underground and London Buses, particularly during less busy times and to speed up the boarding of bus services.[4]

    On 4 October 1981, following the Greater London Council election, the incoming Labour administration simplified fares in Greater London by introducing four new bus fare zones and two central London Underground zones, named City and West End, where flat fares applied for the first time.[4] This was accompanied by a cut in prices of about a third and was marketed as the Fares Fair campaign.[2] Following successful legal action against it, on 21 March 1982[5] London Bus fares were doubled and London Underground fares increased by 91%.[2] The two central area zones were retained and the fares to all other stations were restructured to be graduated at three mile intervals; and thus grouping those stations within three miles of the central zones in an 'inner zone'.[4]

    In 1983, a third revision of fares was undertaken, and a new inter-modal Travelcard season ticket was launched covering five new numbered zones; representing an overall cut in prices of around 25%.[2] The One Day Travelcard was launched in 1984 and on weekdays was only sold for travel after 09.30.[4] In January 1985 the Capitalcard season ticket was launched, offering validity on British Rail services as well as London Underground and London Buses. It was priced around 10-15% higher than the Travelcard.[4] The card was marketed under the brand "The London Connection", illustrated with an image of an electric plug bringing together the corporate identities of British Rail and London Transport. In June 1986 the One Day Capitalcard was launched.[4] The Capitalcard brand ended in January 1989 when the Travelcard gained validity on British Rail and DLR services. In January 1991 Zone 5 was split to create a new Zone 6.[4]



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travelcard
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,841

    Fans seeking tickets for Liverpool's Champions League final against Real Madrid in Ukraine are being asked to pay "ridiculous" prices online.

    Some are on sale for more than 20 times face value, with one ticket on a resale website priced at more than £14,000.

    Make me eat a Hawaiian pizza any day rather than have to pay that much ich...

    Well they don't have to buy a ticket.... BUT on a broader point the whole Ticketmaster - > getmein racket needs cracking down on
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,052

    HHemmelig said:

    HYUFD said:

    Having won two London Mayoral elections (albeit with some defeats too), Ken Livingstone whatever his controversial views can claim he is the most electorally successful politician for Labour alive after Tony Blair.

    The interesting question is whether Blair, like Livingstone now, is no longer a Labour Party member?

    And like him or loathe him (a bit of both for me), he's almost certainly been the most influential London civic leader since Herbert Morrison before the war.
    And Hitler during the war?
    As I recall, Adolf lost the contest to become London's civic leader...
  • flubadubflubadub Posts: 20
    Friend of Jeremy in vile anti-semitism shock.
  • HHemmeligHHemmelig Posts: 617
    edited May 2018

    HYUFD said:

    Having won two London Mayoral elections (albeit with some defeats too), Ken Livingstone whatever his controversial views can claim he is the most electorally successful Labour politician alive after Tony Blair.

    The interesting question is whether Blair, like Livingstone now, is no longer a Labour Party member?

    Not correct. He only won the Mayoralty once as Labour candidate. In 2000 he stood as an independent
    Semantics. He would have won by a landslide in 2000 had he been Labour candidate. Whatever you think of Ken, his resigning from Labour and winning as an independent with all party machines ranged against him was one of the most remarkable electoral triumphs of recent decades. I won't forget campaigning in that election. Piles of True Blue Tories out in the leafy burbs voted for him.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,008
    Foxy said:

    HHemmelig said:

    HYUFD said:

    Having won two London Mayoral elections (albeit with some defeats too), Ken Livingstone whatever his controversial views can claim he is the most electorally successful politician for Labour alive after Tony Blair.

    The interesting question is whether Blair, like Livingstone now, is no longer a Labour Party member?

    And like him or loathe him (a bit of both for me), he's almost certainly been the most influential London civic leader since Herbert Morrison before the war.
    And Hitler during the war?
    As I recall, Adolf lost the contest to become London's civic leader...
    I think it’s fair to say he had a civic impact on London.
  • HHemmeligHHemmelig Posts: 617



    Oops looks like I was wrong:


    Before the introduction of the Travelcard, tickets for the London Underground were purchased on a 'point-to-point' basis between two stations, either as a single, return or season ticket; and were priced according to distance travelled.[4] Tickets for travel on London Buses and British Rail were purchased separately.[4] The Travelcard was introduced as the third in a series of major fare revisions that had started in 1981.[2] The introduction of the Travelcard was intended to increase patronage on London Underground and London Buses, particularly during less busy times and to speed up the boarding of bus services.[4]

    On 4 October 1981, following the Greater London Council election, the incoming Labour administration simplified fares in Greater London by introducing four new bus fare zones and two central London Underground zones, named City and West End, where flat fares applied for the first time.[4] This was accompanied by a cut in prices of about a third and was marketed as the Fares Fair campaign.[2] Following successful legal action against it, on 21 March 1982[5] London Bus fares were doubled and London Underground fares increased by 91%.[2] The two central area zones were retained and the fares to all other stations were restructured to be graduated at three mile intervals; and thus grouping those stations within three miles of the central zones in an 'inner zone'.[4]

    In 1983, a third revision of fares was undertaken, and a new inter-modal Travelcard season ticket was launched covering five new numbered zones; representing an overall cut in prices of around 25%.[2] The One Day Travelcard was launched in 1984 and on weekdays was only sold for travel after 09.30.[4] In January 1985 the Capitalcard season ticket was launched, offering validity on British Rail services as well as London Underground and London Buses. It was priced around 10-15% higher than the Travelcard.[4] The card was marketed under the brand "The London Connection", illustrated with an image of an electric plug bringing together the corporate identities of British Rail and London Transport. In June 1986 the One Day Capitalcard was launched.[4] The Capitalcard brand ended in January 1989 when the Travelcard gained validity on British Rail and DLR services. In January 1991 Zone 5 was split to create a new Zone 6.[4]



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travelcard

    People moaning about how much simpler train fares were back in the day take note!

    Fact remains though that Travelcard as we know it today dates from 1989 when it replaced Capitalcard and was accepted on the rail system for the first time.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,052
    Brilliant graphic here of the London Underground btw:

    https://twitter.com/simongerman600/status/997835289400938496?s=19
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    edited May 2018
    Roger said:

    Why not tke a leaf out of Meghan's favourite author Noam Chomsky instead of joining the parade of pitchfork carriers. If Ken wants to comment on Hitler why shouldn't he?

    Surely no one has said he cannot comment on Hitler - he is merely whining incessantly when people criticise his comments on Hitler, with many commenting in turn that perhaps he shouldn't comment on Hitler. So in fact he wants to comment on Hitler without consequence, not an issue of people restricting his speech as you rather lamely imply there.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,910

    Foxy said:

    HHemmelig said:

    HYUFD said:

    Having won two London Mayoral elections (albeit with some defeats too), Ken Livingstone whatever his controversial views can claim he is the most electorally successful politician for Labour alive after Tony Blair.

    The interesting question is whether Blair, like Livingstone now, is no longer a Labour Party member?

    And like him or loathe him (a bit of both for me), he's almost certainly been the most influential London civic leader since Herbert Morrison before the war.
    And Hitler during the war?
    As I recall, Adolf lost the contest to become London's civic leader...
    I think it’s fair to say he had a civic impact on London.
    "That's how Berlin's going to look!" - a Soviet officer shouting to some Germans captured at Stalingrad in early 1943, pointing at the destruction of that city, as mentioned by Anthony Beevor.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    Ken talking about Hitler is surpassed only in frequency by the PB Tories talking about Ken talking about Hitler.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    Anazina said:

    Ken talking about Hitler is surpassed only in frequency by the PB Tories talking about Ken talking about Hitler.

    Well he's only one man, even one man can only talk about Hitler so much.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Anazina said:

    Ken talking about Hitler is surpassed only in frequency by the PB Tories talking about Ken talking about Hitler.

    Well there are more PB Tories than there are Ken Livingstones.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited May 2018

    HYUFD said:

    Having won two London Mayoral elections (albeit with some defeats too), Ken Livingstone whatever his controversial views can claim he is the most electorally successful Labour politician alive after Tony Blair.

    The interesting question is whether Blair, like Livingstone now, is no longer a Labour Party member?

    Not correct. He only won the Mayoralty once as Labour candidate. In 2000 he stood as an independent
    He effectively won as the Labour candidate against Tory Steve Norris in 2000, 'official' Labour candidate Frank Dobson went nowhere.

    Livingstone anyway had decisively won the Labour membership and union section of the electoral college to pick Labour's candidate, winning 60% of London Labour members votes and 72% of union votes, Dobson just scraped home through the votes of Labour elected officials and GLA candidates
  • flubadubflubadub Posts: 20
    "Having won two London Mayoral elections (albeit with some defeats too), Ken Livingstone whatever his controversial views can claim he is the most electorally successful Labour politician alive after Tony Blair. "

    He lost the 2008 election as an incumbent, and 2012 again in a year when Labour won the Assembly by 10%.

    And speaking of anti-semitism & sometime Labour party politicians, let's not forget Gorgeous George, who won Glasgow Hillhead (from Roy Jenkins), then Bethnal Green (from Oona King), finally Bradford West (on an absolute landslide historical blowout)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited May 2018
    flubadub said:

    "Having won two London Mayoral elections (albeit with some defeats too), Ken Livingstone whatever his controversial views can claim he is the most electorally successful Labour politician alive after Tony Blair. "

    He lost the 2008 election as an incumbent, and 2012 again in a year when Labour won the Assembly by 10%.

    And speaking of anti-semitism & sometime Labour party politicians, let's not forget Gorgeous George, who won Glasgow Hillhead (from Roy Jenkins), then Bethnal Green (from Oona King), finally Bradford West (on an absolute landslide historical blowout)

    So what, his two London mayoral victories were still a big achievement. Glasgow Hillhead, Bethnal Green and Bradford West were all safe Labour seats, Galloway just won more Labour voters than his fellow leftwinger.

    Livingstone in 2000 won normally Tory areas like Hillingdon, Barnet and Havering and in 2004 Richmond and Kingston Upon Thames where Labour is traditionally weak.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    HYUFD said:

    Having won two London Mayoral elections (albeit with some defeats too), Ken Livingstone whatever his controversial views can claim he is the most electorally successful Labour politician alive after Tony Blair.

    Pah, even Boris won two London Mayoral elections.
    Boris of course being the most electorally successful Tory politician alive after David Cameron, indeed given Cameron failed to win a majority in 2010 unlike 2015 arguably even more so
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    edited May 2018
    Cyclefree said:

    Why is Ken such a mental head on this one?
    He;s read one dodgy book on the appropriation of the Jews assets and treats it as the True Word.
    A GCSE student could point out why Hitler was not a Zionist.
    In the same way a hostage is not a terrorist.

    He is a real ass on this issue and refuses to learn.

    A true Corbynista. Once mind is made up, it can never be unmade. And damn the evidence that says it should!

    What is also ahistorical is him claiming that the decision to eliminate Jews was because Hitler went mad. In fact, hatred of Jews and what he saw as their malign influence in life was central to Hitler’s world view from the very start. Livingstone’s claims do not withstand even the most cursory scrutiny by anyone with any knowledge of the period.

    One can only speculate as to why he wants to diminish this very essential part of Nazi ideology and claim that Zionists were in league with Hitler.
    If you really want to get to the source of Ken's ideas I believe it was in the 80's when a play called 'Perdition' written by Jim Allen was about to be performed. It centred around a libel trial in Israel where someone had suggested collaboration between the Hungarian Jews and the Nazis and they were sued and won (I think).

    From memory Ken Loach was going to direct but several Jewish groups protested and the play had to be abandoned. There was a lot of acrimony in Jewish circles around pro and anti censorship and the left generally took the view that free speech was paramount.

    I haven't heard this used as an explanation for Ken's obsession but being such a high profile event and in London I wouldn't be at all surprised. It sucked in a lot of people my aunt being one of them.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,052
    HYUFD said:

    flubadub said:

    "Having won two London Mayoral elections (albeit with some defeats too), Ken Livingstone whatever his controversial views can claim he is the most electorally successful Labour politician alive after Tony Blair. "

    He lost the 2008 election as an incumbent, and 2012 again in a year when Labour won the Assembly by 10%.

    And speaking of anti-semitism & sometime Labour party politicians, let's not forget Gorgeous George, who won Glasgow Hillhead (from Roy Jenkins), then Bethnal Green (from Oona King), finally Bradford West (on an absolute landslide historical blowout)

    So what, his two London mayoral victories were still a big achievement. Glasgow Hillhead, Bethnal Green and Bradford West were all safe Labour seats, Galloway just won more Labour voters than his fellow leftwinger.

    Livingstone in 2000 won normally Tory areas like Hillingdon, Barnet and Havering and in 2004 Richmond and Kingston Upon Thames where Labour is traditionally weak.
    Ken was perhaps the John the Baptist to the Jezziah, winning the London Mayoralty against the express wishes of the New Labour heirarchy, and with much the same sort of anti-establishment coalition.
  • flubadubflubadub Posts: 20
    " Glasgow Hillhead, Bethnal Green and Bradford West were all safe Labour seats"

    Glasgow Hillhead had NEVER had a Labour MP.

    "Livingstone in 2000 won normally Tory areas like Hillingdon, Barnet and Havering and in 2004 Richmond and Kingston Upon Thames where Labour is traditionally weak."

    Weren't these areas grouped, as in 'South West'?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,008
    Anazina said:

    Ken talking about Hitler is surpassed only in frequency by the PB Tories talking about Ken talking about Hitler.

    “I’ll tell you who really likes talking about Ken talking about Hitler..”
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    flubadub said:

    "Having won two London Mayoral elections (albeit with some defeats too), Ken Livingstone whatever his controversial views can claim he is the most electorally successful Labour politician alive after Tony Blair. "

    He lost the 2008 election as an incumbent, and 2012 again in a year when Labour won the Assembly by 10%.

    And speaking of anti-semitism & sometime Labour party politicians, let's not forget Gorgeous George, who won Glasgow Hillhead (from Roy Jenkins), then Bethnal Green (from Oona King), finally Bradford West (on an absolute landslide historical blowout)

    So what, his two London mayoral victories were still a big achievement. Glasgow Hillhead, Bethnal Green and Bradford West were all safe Labour seats, Galloway just won more Labour voters than his fellow leftwinger.

    Livingstone in 2000 won normally Tory areas like Hillingdon, Barnet and Havering and in 2004 Richmond and Kingston Upon Thames where Labour is traditionally weak.
    Ken was perhaps the John the Baptist to the Jezziah, winning the London Mayoralty against the express wishes of the New Labour heirarchy, and with much the same sort of anti-establishment coalition.
    Ken Livingstone arguably fermented the new leftwing Labour coalition focused on inner city London that would emerge in the party most Blair, just as Boris Johnson arguably fermented the new populist right coalition in the London suburbs with Lynton Crosby that would culminate in Brexit and lead to the end of the Cameroons
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,688
    flubadub said:

    " Glasgow Hillhead, Bethnal Green and Bradford West were all safe Labour seats"

    Glasgow Hillhead had NEVER had a Labour MP.

    "Livingstone in 2000 won normally Tory areas like Hillingdon, Barnet and Havering and in 2004 Richmond and Kingston Upon Thames where Labour is traditionally weak."

    Weren't these areas grouped, as in 'South West'?

    Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but many of the above are far from SW London.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    flubadub said:

    " Glasgow Hillhead, Bethnal Green and Bradford West were all safe Labour seats"

    Glasgow Hillhead had NEVER had a Labour MP.

    "Livingstone in 2000 won normally Tory areas like Hillingdon, Barnet and Havering and in 2004 Richmond and Kingston Upon Thames where Labour is traditionally weak."

    Weren't these areas grouped, as in 'South West'?

    Roy Jenkins was SDP, still left of centre and a former Labour politician before he defected.

    Whether grouped or not Livingstone still won them
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,052
    Roger said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Why is Ken such a mental head on this one?
    He;s read one dodgy book on the appropriation of the Jews assets and treats it as the True Word.
    A GCSE student could point out why Hitler was not a Zionist.
    In the same way a hostage is not a terrorist.

    He is a real ass on this issue and refuses to learn.

    A true Corbynista. Once mind is made up, it can never be unmade. And damn the evidence that says it should!

    What is also ahistorical is him claiming that the decision to eliminate Jews was because Hitler went mad. In fact, hatred of Jews and what he saw as their malign influence in life was central to Hitler’s world view from the very start. Livingstone’s claims do not withstand even the most cursory scrutiny by anyone with any knowledge of the period.

    One can only speculate as to why he wants to diminish this very essential part of Nazi ideology and claim that Zionists were in league with Hitler.
    If you really want to get to the source of Ken's ideas I believe it was in the 80's when a play called 'Perdition' written by Jim Allen was about to be performed. It centred around a libel trial in Israel where someone had suggested collaboration between the Hungarian Jews and the Nazis and they were sued and won (I think).

    From memory Ken Loach was going to direct but several Jewish groups protested and the play had to be abandoned. There was a lot of acrimony in Jewish circles around pro and anti censorship and the left generally took the view that free speech was paramount.

    I haven't heard this used as an explanation for Ken's obsession but being such a high profile event and in London I wouldn't be at all surprised. It sucked in a lot of people my aunt being one of them.
    That may be a reference to the episode of the Kastner Train in 1944:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kastner_train
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    Amazingly I've just found this. I repeat I have no knowledge of whether Ken Livingstone even took a view on it but it was very big at the time and it could explain why someone who clearly isn't a racist might have taken sides at that time and latched onto an idea which is still clouding his judgement.

    https://www.newstatesman.com/node/149377
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    I always thought the speech Ken Livingstone made after 7/7 was very good.

    https://www.ft.com/content/dcdfe116-ef08-11d9-8b10-00000e2511c8
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,764
    Roger said:

    Why not tke a leaf out of Meghan's favourite author Noam Chomsky instead of joining the parade of pitchfork carriers. If Ken wants to comment on Hitler why shouldn't he?

    y!

    Why go down that rabbit hole?

    Lots of people think Hitler was a great guy, but it will finish your political career to say so.

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786

    Anazina said:

    Ken talking about Hitler is surpassed only in frequency by the PB Tories talking about Ken talking about Hitler.

    “I’ll tell you who really likes talking about Ken talking about Hitler..”
    “I’ll tell you whose downfall is unspoofable...”
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,910
    Roger said:


    If you really want to get to the source of Ken's ideas I believe it was in the 80's when a play called 'Perdition' written by Jim Allen was about to be performed. It centred around a libel trial in Israel where someone had suggested collaboration between the Hungarian Jews and the Nazis and they were sued and won (I think).

    It is estimated that from an original population of 861,000 people considered Jewish inside [Hungarian] borders of 1941–1944, about 255,000 survived. This gives a 29.6% survival rate overall [...] According to another calculation, Hungary's pre-war Jewish population was 800,000, of which 80,000 survived.[83]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Hungary#The_Holocaust
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,910
    Foxy said:

    Roger said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Why is Ken such a mental head on this one?
    He;s read one dodgy book on the appropriation of the Jews assets and treats it as the True Word.
    A GCSE student could point out why Hitler was not a Zionist.
    In the same way a hostage is not a terrorist.

    He is a real ass on this issue and refuses to learn.

    A true Corbynista. Once mind is made up, it can never be unmade. And damn the evidence that says it should!

    What is also ahistorical is him claiming that the decision to eliminate Jews was because Hitler went mad. In fact, hatred of Jews and what he saw as their malign influence in life was central to Hitler’s world view from the very start. Livingstone’s claims do not withstand even the most cursory scrutiny by anyone with any knowledge of the period.

    One can only speculate as to why he wants to diminish this very essential part of Nazi ideology and claim that Zionists were in league with Hitler.
    If you really want to get to the source of Ken's ideas I believe it was in the 80's when a play called 'Perdition' written by Jim Allen was about to be performed. It centred around a libel trial in Israel where someone had suggested collaboration between the Hungarian Jews and the Nazis and they were sued and won (I think).

    From memory Ken Loach was going to direct but several Jewish groups protested and the play had to be abandoned. There was a lot of acrimony in Jewish circles around pro and anti censorship and the left generally took the view that free speech was paramount.

    I haven't heard this used as an explanation for Ken's obsession but being such a high profile event and in London I wouldn't be at all surprised. It sucked in a lot of people my aunt being one of them.
    That may be a reference to the episode of the Kastner Train in 1944:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kastner_train
    Kastner negotiated with Adolf Eichmann and Kurt Becher, both senior SS officers, to allow 1,685 of them to leave instead for Switzerland on what became known as the Kastner train, in exchange for money, gold, and diamonds.[81]

    Hungary's Schindler?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perdition_(play)
    Foxy said:

    Roger said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Why is Ken such a mental head on this one?
    He;s read one dodgy book on the appropriation of the Jews assets and treats it as the True Word.
    A GCSE student could point out why Hitler was not a Zionist.
    In the same way a hostage is not a terrorist.

    He is a real ass on this issue and refuses to learn.

    A true Corbynista. Once mind is made up, it can never be unmade. And damn the evidence that says it should!

    What is also ahistorical is him claiming that the decision to eliminate Jews was because Hitler went mad. In fact, hatred of Jews and what he saw as their malign influence in life was central to Hitler’s world view from the very start. Livingstone’s claims do not withstand even the most cursory scrutiny by anyone with any knowledge of the period.

    One can only speculate as to why he wants to diminish this very essential part of Nazi ideology and claim that Zionists were in league with Hitler.
    If you really want to get to the source of Ken's ideas I believe it was in the 80's when a play called 'Perdition' written by Jim Allen was about to be performed. It centred around a libel trial in Israel where someone had suggested collaboration between the Hungarian Jews and the Nazis and they were sued and won (I think).

    From memory Ken Loach was going to direct but several Jewish groups protested and the play had to be abandoned. There was a lot of acrimony in Jewish circles around pro and anti censorship and the left generally took the view that free speech was paramount.

    I haven't heard this used as an explanation for Ken's obsession but being such a high profile event and in London I wouldn't be at all surprised. It sucked in a lot of people my aunt being one of them.
    That may be a reference to the episode of the Kastner Train in 1944:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kastner_train
    Yes that's what it seems to be. I never read Allen's play but I'm now going to see if I can find it or at least the libel trial. The play won't be easy to track down.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perdition_(play)
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    In one of his many interviews there was a book which Livingstone referenced as his source for his claims about Hitler and Zionism. Unfortunately for him reputable historians demolished the claims made in the book and also pointed out that the author was a holocaust denier and had taken statements from other dubious sources to come up with his theory which Ken then used as the basis for his claim that what he said was “historical fact”.

    The play was never mentioned. In short Ken’s historical source came from someone who both got his facts wrong and had a sinister agenda.

    I will see if I can find the article where this is set out.

    But really this ought to be unnecessary. Ken has acted like a sort of left-wing version of David Irving or a member of the National Front. The mystery is why so many people have rushed to defend him rather than recoiling from someone passing off the lies and untruths of Holocaust deniers as fact.

  • prh47bridgeprh47bridge Posts: 441
    HHemmelig said:

    Ken couldn't fund his card either. Which is why it was ruled illegal. London boroughs with no tube network were paying taxes to use a service they could not directly access.

    Correct. Fares Fair covered the tube only. Bromley and other areas with no tube have no objection to Travelcard as it also covers bus and rail journeys.
    That's wrong. Fares Fair coverd the tube and buses. It was originally intended to cover British Rail services in London as well but the government blocked that.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,910

    HHemmelig said:

    Ken couldn't fund his card either. Which is why it was ruled illegal. London boroughs with no tube network were paying taxes to use a service they could not directly access.

    Correct. Fares Fair covered the tube only. Bromley and other areas with no tube have no objection to Travelcard as it also covers bus and rail journeys.
    That's wrong. Fares Fair coverd the tube and buses. It was originally intended to cover British Rail services in London as well but the government blocked that.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travelcard
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,910
    Cyclefree said:

    In one of his many interviews there was a book which Livingstone referenced as his source for his claims about Hitler and Zionism. Unfortunately for him reputable historians demolished the claims made in the book and also pointed out that the author was a holocaust denier and had taken statements from other dubious sources to come up with his theory which Ken then used as the basis for his claim that what he said was “historical fact”.

    The play was never mentioned. In short Ken’s historical source came from someone who both got his facts wrong and had a sinister agenda.

    I will see if I can find the article where this is set out.

    But really this ought to be unnecessary. Ken has acted like a sort of left-wing version of David Irving or a member of the National Front. The mystery is why so many people have rushed to defend him rather than recoiling from someone passing off the lies and untruths of Holocaust deniers as fact.

    Does Left-wing antisemitism have a prototype?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_Soviet_Union
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,841
    I've checked Ken's claims re: Netanyahu..

    On the one verifiable via a quick youtube assertion Ken makes about Netanyahu agreeing with his position on Hitler, Ken states that *1 Hitler wanted to expel the Jews in collaboration with zionists.

    Netanyahu states that Hitler wanted to expel the Jews and Amin Al Husseini instead persuaded Hitler to 'burn them' *2

    Historian David Mikics notes that Rubin and Schwanitz (Para 3, ref *3) advance Amin Al Hussein as the man behind the holocaust, in para 3* they note this is 'astonishing'

    In para 4* he gives what he believes is a religious-political motive for the claim of Rubin/Schwanitz
    'The claim that al-Husaini was the hidden hand behind Adolf Hitler is implausible, even silly. Rubin and Schwanitz are historians with a political agenda: They want to show that eliminationist anti-Semitism animates the Islamic Middle East, and so they paint al-Husaini as so devilishly anti-Semitic that he can contend with Hitler himself.'

    Mikics notes in para 9* the explanation for the holocaust is more plausibly all Hitler..

    As Christopher Browning has argued, Hitler’s opting for genocide can much more plausibly be traced to his exultation over what looked like a blitzschnell conquest of Russia in midsummer 1941. The fuehrer dropped his earlier vague notion of getting rid of millions of Jews by shipping them “beyond the Urals”; in the joy of what he thought was victory, he set about to make his new Eastern empire Judenfrei in the most direct and terrible way imaginable.


    *1 https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/ken-livingstone-sparks-outrage-after-repeatedly-bringing-up-hitler-in-yet-another-live-tv-interview-a3831266.html 1:06

    *2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=8&v=XnXS146cxLE&ytbChannel=null 2:40 -> 3:20

    *3 http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/254781/industrial-removal-office

    So in summary, no Netanyahu does not agree with Ken.

    Netanyahu's point made in the Youtube video is regarded as contentious at the least, and the same point made by Rubin & Schwanitz could be regarded as having a political agenda itself.
    Mikics does however come to the conclusion that if Rubin & Schwanitz hypothesis is true (He thinks it is bunkum) then the logical conclusion is that zionism did cause the holocaust.

    I am sure Netanyahu would not agree with this, as it is supposition from a position Mikics believes not to be true - and it fundamentally disagrees with Livingstone's interpretation.

    Quite why Ken has been pointing out such a contentious line that has very questionable evidence (Netanyahu said half the story is not good enough) I'm really not sure.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    Yorkcity said:

    I always thought the speech Ken Livingstone made after 7/7 was very good.

    https://www.ft.com/content/dcdfe116-ef08-11d9-8b10-00000e2511c8

    Hmmm .....

    What about this sentence?

    “It was aimed at ordinary, working-class Londoners, black and white, Muslim and Christian, Hindu and Jew, young and old.”

    Why the reference to “working-class Londoners”? If the attack had been aimed at “middle class” Londoners or even “upper class Londoners” would that have been OK? It was an odd phrase to use and it struck me so at the time.

    Maybe he meant “working” Londoners? But what about the retired or visitors or the unemployed or mothers out with children? It was not an off the cuff speech and while the rest was fine that was a very wrong note in it.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,223
    Cyclefree said:

    Yorkcity said:

    I always thought the speech Ken Livingstone made after 7/7 was very good.

    https://www.ft.com/content/dcdfe116-ef08-11d9-8b10-00000e2511c8

    Hmmm .....

    What about this sentence?

    “It was aimed at ordinary, working-class Londoners, black and white, Muslim and Christian, Hindu and Jew, young and old.”

    Why the reference to “working-class Londoners”? If the attack had been aimed at “middle class” Londoners or even “upper class Londoners” would that have been OK? It was an odd phrase to use and it struck me so at the time.

    Maybe he meant “working” Londoners? But what about the retired or visitors or the unemployed or mothers out with children? It was not an off the cuff speech and while the rest was fine that was a very wrong note in it.
    Ken Livingstone is a venomous man who had some good ideas for London government. I’m sure the Labour Party and London will do fine without him.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited May 2018
    Yorkcity said:

    I always thought the speech Ken Livingstone made after 7/7 was very good.

    https://www.ft.com/content/dcdfe116-ef08-11d9-8b10-00000e2511c8

    Ken was undoubtedly a pretty good politician between about 1997 and 2010, even if one disagreed with his policies.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Cyclefree said:

    Yorkcity said:

    I always thought the speech Ken Livingstone made after 7/7 was very good.

    https://www.ft.com/content/dcdfe116-ef08-11d9-8b10-00000e2511c8

    Hmmm .....

    What about this sentence?

    “It was aimed at ordinary, working-class Londoners, black and white, Muslim and Christian, Hindu and Jew, young and old.”

    Why the reference to “working-class Londoners”? If the attack had been aimed at “middle class” Londoners or even “upper class Londoners” would that have been OK? It was an odd phrase to use and it struck me so at the time.

    Maybe he meant “working” Londoners? But what about the retired or visitors or the unemployed or mothers out with children? It was not an off the cuff speech and while the rest was fine that was a very wrong note in it.
    Surely Ken's previous and next sentences answer your objection.

    This was not a terrorist attack against the mighty and the powerful. It was not aimed at Presidents or Prime Ministers. It was aimed at ordinary, working-class Londoners, black and white, Muslim and Christian, Hindu and Jew, young and old. It was an indiscriminate attempt to slaughter, irrespective of any considerations for age, for class, for religion, or whatever.


  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,910
    AndyJS said:

    Yorkcity said:

    I always thought the speech Ken Livingstone made after 7/7 was very good.

    https://www.ft.com/content/dcdfe116-ef08-11d9-8b10-00000e2511c8

    Ken was undoubtedly a pretty good politician between about 1997 and 2010, even if one disagreed with his policies.
    I voted for Ken in 2000, but not in 2004 when he rejoined Labour.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    The book which Livingstone told the Guardian he would use to defend himself in relation to his Hitler remarks was "Zionism in the Age of the Dictators" by American Marxist Lenni Brenner.

    The attached sets out why Brenner’s understanding of history was flawed - http://fathomjournal.org/an-antisemitic-hoax-lenni-brenner-on-zionist-collaboration-with-the-nazis/.
  • blueblueblueblue Posts: 875
    I certainly did Nazi this coming ;)
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    Cyclefree said:

    Yorkcity said:

    I always thought the speech Ken Livingstone made after 7/7 was very good.

    https://www.ft.com/content/dcdfe116-ef08-11d9-8b10-00000e2511c8

    Hmmm .....

    What about this sentence?

    “It was aimed at ordinary, working-class Londoners, black and white, Muslim and Christian, Hindu and Jew, young and old.”

    Why the reference to “working-class Londoners”? If the attack had been aimed at “middle class” Londoners or even “upper class Londoners” would that have been OK? It was an odd phrase to use and it struck me so at the time.

    Maybe he meant “working” Londoners? But what about the retired or visitors or the unemployed or mothers out with children? It was not an off the cuff speech and while the rest was fine that was a very wrong note in it.
    Never really dissected it that way.Just thought the speech spoke for London at that desperate time.

    As it seemed so sad , just the day after , I heard London had won the Olympics as I was driving to work.

    I took it that the bombs going off just before 9am was aimed at mainly working people , in the rush hour , for major impact.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,052
    Roger said:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perdition_(play)

    Foxy said:

    Roger said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Why is Ken such a mental head on this one?
    He;s read one dodgy book on the appropriation of the Jews assets and treats it as the True Word.
    A GCSE student could point out why Hitler was not a Zionist.
    In the same way a hostage is not a terrorist.

    He is a real ass on this issue and refuses to learn.

    A true Corbynista. Once mind is made up, it can never be unmade. And damn the evidence that says it should!

    What is also ahistorical is him claiming that the decision to eliminate Jews was because Hitler went mad. In fact, hatred of Jews and what he saw as their malign influence in life was central to Hitler’s world view from the very start. Livingstone’s claims do not withstand even the most cursory scrutiny by anyone with any knowledge of the period.

    One can only speculate as to why he wants to diminish this very essential part of Nazi ideology and claim that Zionists were in league with Hitler.
    If you really want to get to the source of Ken's ideas I believe it was in the 80's when a play called 'Perdition' written by Jim Allen was about to be performed. It centred around a libel trial in Israel where someone had suggested collaboration between the Hungarian Jews and the Nazis and they were sued and won (I think).

    From memory Ken Loach was going to direct but several Jewish groups protested and the play had to be abandoned. There was a lot of acrimony in Jewish circles around pro and anti censorship and the left generally took the view that free speech was paramount.

    I haven't heard this used as an explanation for Ken's obsession but being such a high profile event and in London I wouldn't be at all surprised. It sucked in a lot of people my aunt being one of them.
    That may be a reference to the episode of the Kastner Train in 1944:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kastner_train
    Yes that's what it seems to be. I never read Allen's play but I'm now going to see if I can find it or at least the libel trial. The play won't be easy to track down.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perdition_(play)
    Primo Levi's book "The Drowned and the Saved" deals very thoughtfully with the dilemmas of survival (often at the expense of others) in Auschwitz. It is a very disturbing exploration of darkness and guilt. Those collaborations were forced though, not voluntary in the service of Zionism.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    Cyclefree said:

    Yorkcity said:

    I always thought the speech Ken Livingstone made after 7/7 was very good.

    https://www.ft.com/content/dcdfe116-ef08-11d9-8b10-00000e2511c8

    Hmmm .....

    What about this sentence?

    “It was aimed at ordinary, working-class Londoners, black and white, Muslim and Christian, Hindu and Jew, young and old.”

    Why the reference to “working-class Londoners”? If the attack had been aimed at “middle class” Londoners or even “upper class Londoners” would that have been OK? It was an odd phrase to use and it struck me so at the time.

    Maybe he meant “working” Londoners? But what about the retired or visitors or the unemployed or mothers out with children? It was not an off the cuff speech and while the rest was fine that was a very wrong note in it.
    Surely Ken's previous and next sentences answer your objection.

    This was not a terrorist attack against the mighty and the powerful. It was not aimed at Presidents or Prime Ministers. It was aimed at ordinary, working-class Londoners, black and white, Muslim and Christian, Hindu and Jew, young and old. It was an indiscriminate attempt to slaughter, irrespective of any considerations for age, for class, for religion, or whatever.


    Why reference a terrorist attack against the mighty and powerful at all? A terrorist attack on the mighty is just as bad. Why reference the class of Londoners at all? Or indeed any other characteristic?

    It was a bum note in an otherwise good speech.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786
    Lewisham East CLP chair suspended over tweets about Emily Thornberry. Labour are all over the place.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    Pulpstar said:

    I've checked Ken's claims re: Netanyahu..

    On the one verifiable via a quick youtube assertion Ken makes about Netanyahu agreeing with his position on Hitler, Ken states that *1 Hitler wanted to expel the Jews in collaboration with zionists.

    Netanyahu states that Hitler wanted to expel the Jews and Amin Al Husseini instead persuaded Hitler to 'burn them' *2

    Historian David Mikics notes that Rubin and Schwanitz (Para 3, ref *3) advance Amin Al Hussein as the man behind the holocaust, in para 3* they note this is 'astonishing'

    In para 4* he gives what he believes is a religious-political motive for the claim of Rubin/Schwanitz
    'The claim that al-Husaini was the hidden hand behind Adolf Hitler is implausible, even silly. Rubin and Schwanitz are historians with a political agenda: They want to show that eliminationist anti-Semitism animates the Islamic Middle East, and so they paint al-Husaini as so devilishly anti-Semitic that he can contend with Hitler himself.'

    Mikics notes in para 9* the explanation for the holocaust is more plausibly all Hitler..

    As Christopher Browning has argued, Hitler’s opting for genocide can much more plausibly be traced to his exultation over what looked like a blitzschnell conquest of Russia in midsummer 1941. The fuehrer dropped his earlier vague notion of getting rid of millions of Jews by shipping them “beyond the Urals”; in the joy of what he thought was victory, he set about to make his new Eastern empire Judenfrei in the most direct and terrible way imaginable.


    *1 https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/ken-livingstone-sparks-outrage-after-repeatedly-bringing-up-hitler-in-yet-another-live-tv-interview-a3831266.html 1:06

    *2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=8&v=XnXS146cxLE&ytbChannel=null 2:40 -> 3:20

    *3 http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/254781/industrial-removal-office

    So in summary, no Netanyahu does not agree with Ken.

    Netanyahu's point made in the Youtube video is regarded as contentious at the least, and the same point made by Rubin & Schwanitz could be regarded as having a political agenda itself.
    Mikics does however come to the conclusion that if Rubin & Schwanitz hypothesis is true (He thinks it is bunkum) then the logical conclusion is that zionism did cause the holocaust.

    I am sure Netanyahu would not agree with this, as it is supposition from a position Mikics believes not to be true - and it fundamentally disagrees with Livingstone's interpretation.

    Quite why Ken has been pointing out such a contentious line that has very questionable evidence (Netanyahu said half the story is not good enough) I'm really not sure.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BzupERMP3w


    Very interesting. Everyone has an agenda. As for Netanyahu's judgement watch the first minute of this(though all five minutes are worth watching) An Israeli comic
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    Yorkcity said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Yorkcity said:

    I always thought the speech Ken Livingstone made after 7/7 was very good.

    https://www.ft.com/content/dcdfe116-ef08-11d9-8b10-00000e2511c8

    Hmmm .....

    What about this sentence?

    “It was aimed at ordinary, working-class Londoners, black and white, Muslim and Christian, Hindu and Jew, young and old.”

    Why the reference to “working-class Londoners”? If the attack had been aimed at “middle class” Londoners or even “upper class Londoners” would that have been OK? It was an odd phrase to use and it struck me so at the time.

    Maybe he meant “working” Londoners? But what about the retired or visitors or the unemployed or mothers out with children? It was not an off the cuff speech and while the rest was fine that was a very wrong note in it.
    Never really dissected it that way.Just thought the speech spoke for London at that desperate time.

    As it seemed so sad , just the day after , I heard London had won the Olympics as I was driving to work.

    I took it that the bombs going off just before 9am was aimed at mainly working people , in the rush hour , for major impact.
    I was one of those working people who had to get off the train at Oxford Street and try to walk to the office until we realised what had happened. My husband had gone in early and his office was near King’s Cross. I was not able to contact him until very much later that day. I remember that day well. We were both working Londoners. I watched that speech and that phrase struck me at the time. Overall it was good but even in such a moment Ken could not help but bring class into it or imply that a terrorist act aimed at prime ministers would have been less blameworthy.

    And I’m sorry I don’t accept that: an evil act is not made less evil because of who it is notionally aimed at. When the IRA launched a mortar bomb at Downing Street they were just as evil as those who blew themselves up on a tube or who attack a soldier in the street.
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307
    Shit always catches up with you. Livingstone may have views but no grounding in reality doesn't do you any good.



  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    Cyclefree said:

    Yorkcity said:

    I always thought the speech Ken Livingstone made after 7/7 was very good.

    https://www.ft.com/content/dcdfe116-ef08-11d9-8b10-00000e2511c8

    Hmmm .....

    What about this sentence?

    “It was aimed at ordinary, working-class Londoners, black and white, Muslim and Christian, Hindu and Jew, young and old.”

    Why the reference to “working-class Londoners”? If the attack had been aimed at “middle class” Londoners or even “upper class Londoners” would that have been OK? It was an odd phrase to use and it struck me so at the time.

    Maybe he meant “working” Londoners? But what about the retired or visitors or the unemployed or mothers out with children? It was not an off the cuff speech and while the rest was fine that was a very wrong note in it.
    Not odd at all,Livingstone comes from a line of politician's that class war was a real thing and he knew what he meant when saying it.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited May 2018

    Lewisham East CLP chair suspended over tweets about Emily Thornberry. Labour are all over the place.

    Bloody hell. They really are doing everything they possibly can to turn a very safe seat into a maybe not so safe seat. Mind-boggling stuff.
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307

    Cyclefree said:

    Yorkcity said:

    I always thought the speech Ken Livingstone made after 7/7 was very good.

    https://www.ft.com/content/dcdfe116-ef08-11d9-8b10-00000e2511c8

    Hmmm .....

    What about this sentence?

    “It was aimed at ordinary, working-class Londoners, black and white, Muslim and Christian, Hindu and Jew, young and old.”

    Why the reference to “working-class Londoners”? If the attack had been aimed at “middle class” Londoners or even “upper class Londoners” would that have been OK? It was an odd phrase to use and it struck me so at the time.

    Maybe he meant “working” Londoners? But what about the retired or visitors or the unemployed or mothers out with children? It was not an off the cuff speech and while the rest was fine that was a very wrong note in it.
    Surely Ken's previous and next sentences answer your objection.

    This was not a terrorist attack against the mighty and the powerful. It was not aimed at Presidents or Prime Ministers. It was aimed at ordinary, working-class Londoners, black and white, Muslim and Christian, Hindu and Jew, young and old. It was an indiscriminate attempt to slaughter, irrespective of any considerations for age, for class, for religion, or whatever.


    Didn't seem to have so much of a problem when ordinary working people were being blown to bits in my part of the World. That didn't fit the World view and no doubt when there is another Islamic inspired mass casualty attack in the UK this summer he'll talk out of one side of his mouth again.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395

    AndyJS said:

    Yorkcity said:

    I always thought the speech Ken Livingstone made after 7/7 was very good.

    https://www.ft.com/content/dcdfe116-ef08-11d9-8b10-00000e2511c8

    Ken was undoubtedly a pretty good politician between about 1997 and 2010, even if one disagreed with his policies.
    I voted for Ken in 2000, but not in 2004 when he rejoined Labour.
    Who was your second preference at those elections?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,910
    AndyJS said:

    AndyJS said:

    Yorkcity said:

    I always thought the speech Ken Livingstone made after 7/7 was very good.

    https://www.ft.com/content/dcdfe116-ef08-11d9-8b10-00000e2511c8

    Ken was undoubtedly a pretty good politician between about 1997 and 2010, even if one disagreed with his policies.
    I voted for Ken in 2000, but not in 2004 when he rejoined Labour.
    Who was your second preference at those elections?
    I can'r really remember, but probably Green in 2000 (IIRC) and LibDem in 2004 (IIRC)
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395

    AndyJS said:

    AndyJS said:

    Yorkcity said:

    I always thought the speech Ken Livingstone made after 7/7 was very good.

    https://www.ft.com/content/dcdfe116-ef08-11d9-8b10-00000e2511c8

    Ken was undoubtedly a pretty good politician between about 1997 and 2010, even if one disagreed with his policies.
    I voted for Ken in 2000, but not in 2004 when he rejoined Labour.
    Who was your second preference at those elections?
    I can'r really remember, but probably Green in 2000 (IIRC) and LibDem in 2004 (IIRC)
    Interesting. Steve Norris was the Tory candidate in both 2000 and 2004 but he wasn't really the best of fits for London at the time.
  • nunuonenunuone Posts: 1,138

    Lewisham East CLP chair suspended over tweets about Emily Thornberry. Labour are all over the place.

    What did she tweet?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited May 2018
    AndyJS said:

    AndyJS said:

    AndyJS said:

    Yorkcity said:

    I always thought the speech Ken Livingstone made after 7/7 was very good.

    https://www.ft.com/content/dcdfe116-ef08-11d9-8b10-00000e2511c8

    Ken was undoubtedly a pretty good politician between about 1997 and 2010, even if one disagreed with his policies.
    I voted for Ken in 2000, but not in 2004 when he rejoined Labour.
    Who was your second preference at those elections?
    I can'r really remember, but probably Green in 2000 (IIRC) and LibDem in 2004 (IIRC)
    Interesting. Steve Norris was the Tory candidate in both 2000 and 2004 but he wasn't really the best of fits for London at the time.
    Jeffery Archer originally beat Steve Norris for the 2000 Tory nomination but had to step down after being accused of committing perjury in his 1987 libel case and Norris then beat Andrew Boff in the rerun
  • William_HWilliam_H Posts: 346
    nunuone said:

    Lewisham East CLP chair suspended over tweets about Emily Thornberry. Labour are all over the place.

    What did she tweet?
    Ian Mckenzie, the CLP chair in question, tweeted in 2016.

    "Emily Thornberry is too old for ISIS. They won't make a sex slave out of her. They'll behead her and dump her in a mass grave"

    As well as another tweet on that theme
  • NeilVWNeilVW Posts: 703
    Why have these tweets only now come to light?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited May 2018
    NeilVW said:

    Why have these tweets only now come to light?

    It takes a long time to trawl through thousands of tweets from a number of years ago I suppose.
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307
    William_H said:

    nunuone said:

    Lewisham East CLP chair suspended over tweets about Emily Thornberry. Labour are all over the place.

    What did she tweet?
    Ian Mckenzie, the CLP chair in question, tweeted in 2016.

    "Emily Thornberry is too old for ISIS. They won't make a sex slave out of her. They'll behead her and dump her in a mass grave"

    As well as another tweet on that theme
    Man, that guy is some kind of arse.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    Y0kel said:

    William_H said:

    nunuone said:

    Lewisham East CLP chair suspended over tweets about Emily Thornberry. Labour are all over the place.

    What did she tweet?
    Ian Mckenzie, the CLP chair in question, tweeted in 2016.

    "Emily Thornberry is too old for ISIS. They won't make a sex slave out of her. They'll behead her and dump her in a mass grave"

    As well as another tweet on that theme
    Man, that guy is some kind of arse.
    I cant find it now - but that was one tweet in a thread which puts a different context on the whole thing. But then again a Labour election agent should know about having his words "twisted by knaves to make traps for fools"....
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540

    Lewisham East CLP chair suspended over tweets about Emily Thornberry. Labour are all over the place.

    Three times GE winner for Labour - and one up for Jones and his bully boys (who were thrashed in the selection battle). What’s not to like? As a Tory. As a democrat this is not so good news. In fairness to Corbyn (not something I write often) he does appear to be of the “let the local party decide” school when it comes to selections - it’s the Momentum / Unite factions which seem to be the ones causing problems.
  • nunuonenunuone Posts: 1,138
    William_H said:

    nunuone said:

    Lewisham East CLP chair suspended over tweets about Emily Thornberry. Labour are all over the place.

    What did she tweet?
    Ian Mckenzie, the CLP chair in question, tweeted in 2016.

    "Emily Thornberry is too old for ISIS. They won't make a sex slave out of her. They'll behead her and dump her in a mass grave"

    As well as another tweet on that theme
    bloody hell.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540

    Y0kel said:

    William_H said:

    nunuone said:

    Lewisham East CLP chair suspended over tweets about Emily Thornberry. Labour are all over the place.

    What did she tweet?
    Ian Mckenzie, the CLP chair in question, tweeted in 2016.

    "Emily Thornberry is too old for ISIS. They won't make a sex slave out of her. They'll behead her and dump her in a mass grave"

    As well as another tweet on that theme
    Man, that guy is some kind of arse.
    I cant find it now - but that was one tweet in a thread which puts a different context on the whole thing. But then again a Labour election agent should know about having his words "twisted by knaves to make traps for fools"....
    Looks like SO saw it too:

    https://twitter.com/spajw/status/998327364517007360?s=21
This discussion has been closed.