Factions. In The GE2019 What have the Trots ever done for us?#TwoFingers2Brino @wiki_ballot #4Pamphleteers @GrubStreetJorno @Survation @wiki_ballot @financialeyes #WIKIBALLOTPICK #IABATO #SAM #GE2019 Roger Lewis ( Porthos) @JoeBlob20

Brexit Revolution Betrayed1.jpg

them niggers, Jews and Sigma Nus All they ever do is breed And wops ‘n micks ‘n slopes ‘n spics ‘n spooks Are on my list And there’s one little heeb from the heart of Texas Is there anyone I missed?”

“Rhinos Twats Cunts and Trots and Ruskies and the reds But St Theresa yall should know is an effin Stay- lin- ist.”

Mrs May Stalinist Lord Protector, Netenyahu Zionism Thought Police @GnasherJew #LabourAntisemitism RINOS #ToryWetsAgainstTheresa #Stalinistsas and #ConservativesUnder NarrowTerms


I’m George Osborne coming out with
things which I used to say when I was
trot well I think the difference is that
I knew when I said they were trotsky’s
things to say they have no idea they are
left-wing but they don’t know their
left-wing did you think just even more
alarming in some ways at least Jeremy
Corbyn knows he’s left


The Benefits of a Conservative Mindset. Intellectual Journalism #DumberandDouma

09 April 2018 10:26 AM

Rushing to Judgement Over Syria – some previous experiences

On 3rd November last year I published the post I reproduce below. It is, as far as I know, the most thorough and careful analysis of what we actually know about the last alleged use of poison gas by the Syrian state, in Khan Sheikhoun . I shall have more to say about the more recent accusations later, but – given that all reports of these allegations assume that the Khan Sheikhoun episode is proven beyond reasonable doubt, I thought it important to point out that this is not in fact so.
Please read with care: Link follows one in Article on DailyMail does not work for me here in Sweden.


In The English Civil War


The term “English Civil War” appears most often in the singular, although historians often divide the conflict into two or three separate wars. These were not restricted to England, as Wales was part of the Kingdom of England and affected accordingly. The conflicts also involved wars with Scotland and Ireland, and civil wars within them.

The wars spanning all three countries are known as the Wars of the Three Kingdoms. In the early 19th century, Sir Walter Scott referred to it as “the Great Civil War”.[3]

Unlike other civil wars in England, which focused on who should rule, these conflicts were more concerned with the manner in which the three kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland were governed. The 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica called the series of conflicts the “Great Rebellion”,[4] while some historians – notably Marxists such as Christopher Hill (1912–2003) – long favoured the term “English Revolution“.[5]

In the French Revolution


  • Girondins (named after the Gironde department, where many of its prominent members came from; initially they were also called Brissotins after their leader Jacques Pierre Brissot): faction of liberal republicans who were primarily supported by the wealthy bourgeoisie from Southern and Western France. They consisted of the right-wing of the Jacobins and were staunch defenders of the rights of man and popular sovereignty against a centralised state governed from Paris. The Girondins desired to export the Revolution to the rest of Europe and therefore urged on war with Austria and Prussia (20 April 1792). They played a central role in the fall of the monarchy (21 September 1792) and the execution of the deposed kingLouis XVI (21 January 1793). Faced by the rise of The Mountain, the Girondins showed increasingly royalist tendencies in the spring of 1793. They were overthrown by the Montagnard insurrection of 31 May – 2 June 1793 and their leaders were guillotined.[7]
  • The Plain (La Plaine), also pejoratively known as The Marsh (Le Marais) or Maraisards (Marsh-dwellers), was a container term for a large group of parliamentarians who held middle-ground views and inside the National Convention were seated on the lowest benches. Ideologically, they were most closely affiliated with the Girondins, but they barely dared to speak out against the radical Montagnards.[5]
  • The Mountain (La Montagne, also called the Montagnards, literally Mountain-dwellers, because they were seated on the highest benches in Parliament): grouping of radical and leftist politicians in the Legislative Assembly and National Convention (1792–1795).[8] Their members came from the clubs of the Cordeliers and the left-wing of the Jacobins[5] and sought to establish a radical-democratic republic centrally governed from Paris. From June 1793 until July 1794, the Montagnards dominated French politics and the Reign of Terror was conducted under the leadership of Robespierre.[9] Notably after their takeover in June 1793, The Mountain can be thought of as consisting of three rival factions that vied for control, namely the Hébertists (radical leftist Cordeliers), the Dantonists (moderate and more right-wing Cordeliers) and in between them

In The US Revolution

Ideology and factions

The population of the Thirteen States was not homogeneous in political views and attitudes. Loyalties and allegiances varied widely within regions and communities and even within families, and sometimes shifted during the course of the Revolution.

Ideology behind the Revolution

The American Enlightenment was a critical precursor of the American Revolution. Chief among the ideas of the American Enlightenment were the concepts of Natural Law, Natural Rights, Consent of the Governed, Individualism, Property Rights, Self-Ownership, Self-Determination, liberalism, republicanism, and defense against corruption. A growing number of American colonists embraced these views and fostered an intellectual environment which led to a new sense of political and social identity.[104]

In the US Civil War

Causes of secession

The causes of secession were complex and have been controversial since the war began, but most academic scholars identify slavery as a central cause of the war. James C. Bradford wrote that the issue has been further complicated by historical revisionists, who have tried to offer a variety of reasons for the war.[23] Slavery was the central source of escalating political tension in the 1850s. The Republican Party was determined to prevent any spread of slavery, and many Southern leaders had threatened secession if the Republican candidate, Lincoln, won the 1860 election. After Lincoln won, many Southern leaders felt that disunion was their only option, fearing that the loss of representation would hamper their ability to promote pro-slavery acts and policies.[24][25]

In The Russian Revolutions

The Russian Revolution was a period of political and social revolution across the territory of the Russian Empire which started with the abolishment of monarchy in 1917 and concluded in 1923 after the Bolshevik establishment of the Soviet Union, including national states of Ukraine, Azebaijan and others, and end of the civil war.

It began during the Great War, with the February Revolution that was focused in and around Petrograd (now Saint Petersburg), the capital of Russia at that time. The revolution erupted in the context of Russia’s major military losses during the First World War, which resulted in much of the Russian Army being ready to mutiny. In the chaos, members of the Duma, Russia’s parliament, assumed control of the country, forming the Russian Provisional Government. It was dominated by the interests of large capitalists and the noble aristocracy. The army leadership felt they did not have the means to suppress the revolution, and Emperor Nicholas II abdicated his throne. Grassroots community assemblies called ‘Soviets‘, which were dominated by soldiers and the urban industrial working class, initially permitted the Provisional Government to rule, but insisted on a prerogative to influence the government and control various militias.

A period of dual power ensued, during which the Provisional Government held state power while the national network of Soviets, led by socialists, had the allegiance of the lower classes and, increasingly, the left-leaning urban middle class. During this chaotic period, there were frequent mutinies, protests and strikes. Many socialist political organizations were engaged in daily struggle and vied for influence within the Duma and the Soviets, central among which were the Bolsheviks (“Ones of the Majority”) led by Vladimir Lenin. He campaigned for an immediate end of Russia’s participation in the Great War (World War I), granting land to the peasants, and providing bread to the urban workers. When the Provisional Government chose to continue fighting the war with Germany, the Bolsheviks and other socialist factions exploited the virtually universal disdain towards the war effort as justification to advance the revolution further. The Bolsheviks turned workers’ militias under their control into the Red Guards (later the Red Army), over which they exerted substantial control.[1]

The situation climaxed with the October Revolution in 1917, a Bolshevik-led armed insurrection by workers and soldiers in Petrograd that successfully overthrew the Provisional Government, transferring all its authority to the Soviets. They soon relocated the national capital to Moscow. The Bolsheviks had secured a strong base of support within the Soviets and, as the supreme governing party, established a federal government dedicated to reorganizing the former empire into the world’s first socialist state, to practice Soviet democracy on a national and international scale. Their promise to end Russia’s participation in the First World War was fulfilled when the Bolshevik leaders signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with Germany in March 1918. To further secure the new state, the Bolsheviks established the Cheka, a secret police that functioned as a revolutionary security service to weed out, execute, or punish those considered to be “enemies of the people” in campaigns consciously modeled on those

of the French Revolution.

Soon after, civil war erupted among the “Reds” (Bolsheviks), the “Whites” (counter-revolutionaries), the independence movements, and other socialist factions opposed to the Bolsheviks. It continued for several years, during which the Bolsheviks defeated both the Whites and all rival socialists. Victorious, they reconstituted themselves as the Communist Party. They also established Soviet power in the newly independent republics of ArmeniaAzerbaijanBelarusGeorgia and Ukraine. They brought these jurisdictions into unification under the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) in 1922. While many notable historical events occurred in Moscow and Petrograd, there were also major changes in cities throughout the state, and among national minorities throughout the empire and in the rural areas, where peasants took over and redistributed land.


As the Civil War progressed and dissatisfaction increased within Russian mines, factories and workplaces, there was also disagreement within the Bolshevik party itself. In 1920 a faction emerged within the party, calling itself the Workers’ Opposition. Headed by Alexander Shlyapnikov, a noted trade unionist, this group also enjoyed the support of noted female Bolshevik Alexandra Kollontai. The Workers’ Opposition was not the first group or organisation to show dissent to Bolshevik rule, however their existence prompted a split within the party itself. The emergence of the Workers’ Opposition clearly shows that the Bolshevik policies of 1918-20 were failing to meet the needs of Russian workers.

The Workers’ Opposition consisted mainly of unionists and their chief grievance was that the Soviet economy was becoming over-bureaucratised. The party elites and government departments were dominating decision-making and imposing economic control from above. Policies affecting workers, such as setting difficult production targets and imposing factory discipline, were being made by the government rather than by the workers themselves. Members of the Workers’ Opposition, many of who were syndicalists, considered that the workers, through their trade unions, should have a say in the formulation of economic policy. They also objected to party interference and manipulation of the unions, which they argued should be left to operate freely so that they could protect the interests of workers. Another grievance was the placement of party commissars in factories as ‘spies’, to monitor and report on production.

The 10th Party Congress criticised the Workers’ Opposition for factionalism and a lack of revolutionary discipline. The group’s efforts did have an impact, however, with the party agreeing to concessions and improvements, particularly to the living and working conditions of industrial labourers.

In theSpanish Civil War


The war was cast by Republican sympathisers as a struggle between tyranny and freedom, and by Nationalist supporters as communist and anarchist “red hordes” versus “Christian civilisation”.[108] Nationalists also claimed they were bringing security and direction to an ungoverned and lawless country.[108] Spanish politics, especially on the left, was quite fragmented, since socialists and communists supported the republic. During the republic, anarchists had mixed opinions, but both major groups opposed the Nationalists during the Civil War. The Nationalists, in contrast, were united by their fervent opposition to the Republican government and presented a more unified front.[109]

Republican and Nationalist conscription age limits

The coup divided the armed forces fairly evenly. One historical estimate suggests that there were some 87,000 troops loyal to the government and some 77,000 joining the insurgency,[110] though some historians suggest that the Nationalist figure should be revised upwards and that it probably amounted to some 95,000.[111]

During the first few months both armies were joined in high numbers by volunteers, Nationalists by some 100,000 men and Republicans by some 120,000.[112] From August both sides launched their own, similarly scaled conscription schemes, resulting in further massive growth of their armies. Finally, the final months of 1936 saw the arrival of foreign troops, International Brigades joining the Republicans and Italian CTV, German Legion Condor and Portuguese Viriatos joining the Nationalists. The result was that in April 1937 there were some 360,000 soldiers in the Republican ranks and some 290,000 in the Nationalist ones.[113]

Republican forces during the battle of Irún in 1936

The armies kept growing. The principal source of manpower was conscription; both sides continued and expanded their schemes, the Nationalists drafting somewhat more aggressively, and there was little room left for volunteering. Foreigners contributed little to further growth; on the Nationalist side the Italians scaled down their engagement, while on the Republican side the influx of new interbrigadistas did not cover losses suffered by these units on the front. At the turn of 1937/1938 both armies achieved numerical parity and equalled about 700,000 each.[114]

Throughout 1938 the principal if not exclusive source of new men was a draft; at this stage it was the Republicans who conscripted more aggressively. In the middle of the year, just prior to the Battle of Ebro, the Republicans achieved their all-time high, commanding an army of slightly above 800,000; this was already no match for the Nationalists, who numbered 880,000.[115] The Battle of Ebro, fall of Catalonia and collapsing discipline produced a massive shrinking of the Republican troops. In late February 1939 their army was 400,000[116] compared to more than double that number of Nationalists. In the moment of their final victory, the latter commanded over 900,000 troops.[117]

The total number of Spaniards serving in the Republican forces was officially stated as 917,000; later scholarly work estimated the number as “well over 1 million men”,[118] though earlier studies claimed a Republican total of 1.75 million (including non-Spaniards).[119] The total number of Spaniards serving in the Nationalist units is estimated at “nearly 1 million men”,[118] though earlier works claimed a total of 1.26 million Nationalists (including non-Spaniards).[120]

In The US Oligarchy


Factional Infighting amongst the Washington Consensus and other Political Elites is a very important insight, John.
Domhoff’s work is probably the most long-term empirical study of the phenomenon in the US.

ISGP and its Four Pillars of the Establishment Model is also quite a thorough source.

regarding State Crimes against democracy, I think Lance Dehavens work and that of Peter Dale Scott is very important. There are Hidden Political Agendas who can seriously dispute that Ted Heath had a hidden agenda in taking the UK into the EU? or that the Eu itself was and has been and continues to be a long-term plan to federalise the European Continent.

Echo Chambers

Blogging global opinion, clearly

Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy

An old man in a suit looks up from his newspaper and brandy.Image copyrightTHINKSTOCK
Image captionThis man does not like to be disturbed while he’s running the US

A review of the best commentary on and around the world…

Today’s must-read

The US is dominated by a rich and powerful elite.

So concludes a recent study by Princeton University Prof Martin Gilens and Northwestern University Prof Benjamin I Page.

This is not news, you say.

Perhaps, but the two professors have conducted exhaustive research to try to present data-driven support for this conclusion. Here’s how they explain it:

Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.

In English: the wealthy few move policy, while the average American has little power.

The two professors came to this conclusion after reviewing answers to 1,779 survey questions asked between 1981 and 2002 on public policy issues. They broke the responses down by income level, and then determined how often certain income levels and organised interest groups saw their policy preferences enacted.

“A proposed policy change with low support among economically elite Americans (one-out-of-five in favour) is adopted only about 18% of the time,” they write, “while a proposed change with high support (four-out-of-five in favour) is adopted about 45% of the time.”

On the other hand:

When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organised interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favour policy change, they generally do not get it.

They conclude:

Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organisations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.

Eric Zuess, writing in Counterpunch, isn’t surprised by the survey’s results.

“American democracy is a sham, no matter how much it’s pumped by the oligarchs who run the country (and who control the nation’s “news” media),” he writes. “The US, in other words, is basically similar to Russia or most other dubious ‘electoral’ ‘democratic’ countries. We weren’t formerly, but we clearly are now.”

This is the “Duh Report”, says Death and Taxes magazine’s Robyn Pennacchia. Maybe, she writes, Americans should just accept their fate.

“Perhaps we ought to suck it up, admit we have a classist society and do like England where we have a House of Lords and a House of Commoners,” she writes, “instead of pretending as though we all have some kind of equal opportunity here.”

In The European Oligarchy


Europe’s Transition From Social Democracy to Oligarchy

As first published in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung

The easiest way to understand Europe’s financial crisis is to look at the solutions being proposed to resolve it. They are a banker’s dream, a grab bag of giveaways that few voters would be likely to approve in a democratic referendum. Bank strategists learned not to risk submitting their plans to democratic vote after Icelanders twice refused in 2010-11 to approve their government’s capitulation to pay Britain and the Netherlands for losses run up by badly regulated Icelandic banks operating abroad. Lacking such a referendum, mass demonstrations were the only way for Greek voters to register their opposition to the €50 billion in privatization sell-offs demanded by the European Central Bank (ECB) in autumn 2011.

In the Russian Federation Oligarchy

In the MENA Islamist Sphere

in Syria. proxy war from colour revolution.


There are numerous factions, both foreign and domestic, involved in the Syrian Civil War. These can be divided in four main groups. First, the Syrian Armed Forces and its allies. Second, the opposition composed from the Turkish-backed Free Syrian Army,[145], the Free Syrian Army and the jihadi Hayat Tahrir al-Sham.[146] Third, the Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces,[147] Fourth, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.[148] Both the Syrian government and the opposition have received support, militarily and diplomatically, from foreign countries leading the conflict to often be described as a proxy war.[149]

Foreign involvement

Map of countries surrounding Syria (red) with military involvement

  Countries that support the Syrian government
  Countries that support the Syrian rebels
  Countries that are divided in their support

The major parties supporting the Syrian Government are Iran,[150] Russia[151] and the Lebanese Hezbollah. Syrian rebel groups received political, logistic and military support from the United States,[152][153] Turkey,[154] Saudi Arabia,[155] Qatar,[156] Britain, France,[157] Israel and the Netherlands.[158][159] Under the aegis of operation Timber Sycamore and other clandestine activities, CIA operatives and U.S. special operations troops have trained and armed nearly 10,000 rebel fighters at a cost of $1 billion a year since 2012.[160][161]


In June 2014, members of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) crossed the border from Syria into northern Iraq, and took control of large swaths of Iraqi territory as the Iraqi Army abandoned its positions. Fighting between rebels and government forces also spilled over into Lebanon on several occasions. There were repeated incidents of sectarian violence in the North Governorate of Lebanon between supporters and opponents of the Syrian government, as well as armed clashes between Sunnis and Alawites in Tripoli.[162]

Starting on 5 June 2014, ISIL seized swathes of territory in Iraq. As of 2014, the Syrian Arab Air Force used airstrikes targeted against ISIL in Raqqa and al-Hasakah in coordination with the Iraqi government.[163]


In China


In Japan

In Australasia

The Scheme for Full Employment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

The Scheme for Full Employment

First edition
Author Magnus Mills
Country United Kingdom
Language English
Publisher Flamingo
Publication date
03 Mar 2003
Media type Print & eBook
Pages 272
ISBN 0-00-715131-4

The Scheme for Full Employment is a novel by the English author Magnus Mills, published in 2003 by Flamingo.

Plot introduction[edit]

The scheme referred to in the title involves the driving of “UniVans” from depot to depot picking up and unloading cargo – the cargo being replacement parts for UniVans. “Gloriously self-perpetuating, the scheme was designed to give an honest day’s wage for an honest day’s labour”,[1] “the envy of the world: the greatest undertaking ever conceived by man”. The novel is a satire of labour relations and describes how the scheme is brought to the brink of disaster.


According to aggregated reviews at Complete Review, the novel received mixed reviews with no consensus; the website concluded it was a “decent trifle”.[2]


External links[edit]

  • Entry on the novel at Complete Review, with links to and quotes from numerous reviews.

What was the Cold War, Really?

Globalist Liberalisation, Confessions of an Economic Hitman.

The NGO’s How to Invade Poland.




Useful Idiot for Broxtowe.


This is a real problem in this country. In order to repair, which is necessary for both sides ie the victims and the perpetrators, we know that taking full responsibility is absolutely necessary. Without acknowledging the Empire’s terrible deeds, apologising and then making a real effort to “pay back”, nobody can move truly on.

Roger Lewis This debate is pretty intractable as with Holocaust denial what one really needs to do is to make the History accountable. Take the Amritsar massacre for instance portrayed in the Film Gandhi, it happened, and the film is a British Cinema classic. There is a responsibility to acknowledge facts but the responsibility where the power to affect events has passed does not extend to generational Guilt. History should teach us but to be punished for it or guilt-tripped for it is absurd. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=345aojByoGk

General Dyer and the British Forces attempt to suppress the Indian rebellion

Roger Lewis Its interesting to see how it is portrayed Bollyoood https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXneJhU7XwE

Leo Garib Thank you for your excellent comment and post, Kat Boettge.
As you correctly point out, acknowledging the atrocities of the British empire isn’t just about purging the past because millions are still living with the empire – including ourselves in Brexit Britian.
Hannah Arendt, the great post-war philosopher, argued cogently in Responsibility and Judgement against future German generations feeling guilt when they were innocent of the actions:
“Morally speaking, it is as wrong to feel guilty without having done anything specific as it is to feel free of all guilt if one actually is guilty of something. I have always regarded it as the quintessence of moral confusion that during the postwar period in Germany those who personally were completely innocent assured each other and the world at large how guilty they felt, while very few of the criminals were prepared to admit even the slightest remorse.”
But the British empire is still part of our lives, still shapes our culture and determines our policies.
Britain continues to be a major imperialist country, intervening indirectly through corruption and directly through war. Brexit was based on the national chauvinism which empire and its cultural corollary supremacism has engendered. The very first act of Theresa May’s government was to reaffirm its alignment with the US and Trump in particular, while other EU countries stood back aghast. Now we heat that Whitehall wits have dubbed the government’s post-Brexit trade plans in Africa as ‘Empire 2.0’. I think it was irony.

Roger Lewis To somehow equate Brexit voting as racist or neo-colonialist/imperialist is absurd. The EU is itself imperialist, and elitist it is nonsense to foist a political ideology held by a government in power to the motives of an electorate, it simply does not stand up to logical examination. It also presupposes that Governments pay any attention to electorates in general. It is the Elites of any society that manipulates the population, populations are victims of states as much as the unfortunate countries subjected to mercantilist imperial exploitation.

Roger Lewis Politicised Scientific Narratives abound David, they are damaging and have damaged science.https://wikispooks.com/…/Document:Some_Big_Lies_of… I have this past week or two been working my way through the work of Prof Bruce Charlton http://www.sciencemag.org/…/elsevier-editor-change… This book is very interesting http://geniusfamine.blogspot.se/ . The monetisation of everything is certainly devaluing both Life and Mind I think.

By Peter Hitchens Logic and I agree with Him, Theresa May is Stalinist, where that leaves Corbyn I really do not know.
I had a crack at figuring it out in this video.
Stalin´s Idea of Subsidiarity and Proportionality according to krushev.
When Stalin Died Krushev denounced him, Brexit is an analogue for the denunciation of the EU (Stalin) yet the EU is still alive or though diminished. I quote the passage in Krushevs´ Speech as it deals with Stalins´ treatment of the Yugoslav crisis.
One can draw one´s own conclusions, but I draw parallels to Putin, To Syria to the Ukraine and of course the Slovenian debt crisis of a few years back. ´´Once as Tragedy and then as Farce´´ Indeed. The parallels to the Errancy of the UK, by some measures and rhetoric, are startling.
Speech Delivered: February 24-25 1956;
At the Twentieth Congress of the CPSU February 24-25 1956, Khrushchev delivered a report in which he denounced Stalin’s crimes and the ‘cult of personality’ surrounding Stalin. This speech would ultimately trigger a world-wide split:
It is clear that the creation within the Politbiuro of this type of commissions – “quintets,” “sextets,” “septets” and “nonets” – was against the principle of collective leadership. The result of this was that some members of the Politbiuro were in this way kept away from participation in reaching the most important state matters.
One of the oldest members of our Party, Klimenty Yefremovich Voroshilov, found himself in an almost impossible situation. For several years he was actually deprived of the right of participation in Politbiuro sessions. Stalin forbade him to attend Politbiuro sessions and to receive documents. When the Politbiuro was in session and comrade Voroshilov heard about it, he telephoned each time and asked whether he would be allowed to attend. Sometimes Stalin permitted it, but always showed his dissatisfaction.
Because of his extreme suspicion, Stalin toyed also with the absurd and ridiculous suspicion that Voroshilov was an English agent.
(Laughter in the hall.)
It’s true – an English agent. A special tap was installed in his home to listen to what was said there.
(Indignation in the hall.)
By unilateral decision, Stalin had also separated one other man from the work of the Politbiuro – Andrey Andreyevich Andreyev. This was one of the most unbridled acts of willfulness.
Looking at the experiences of different countries under the European Union Enlargement since Maastricht and the Political tourniquets applied ever tighter since Lisbon and one sees all of the Failings of Stalinist Five-year plans and a sort of Lysenkoism regarding their efficacy
A doubling down on the insistence upon an elite narrative of Ideal reality which simply could never become the Picture of any objective observer.
Meanwhile, Brexit is headed into the Long Grass where the determined punt from the Stalinist tory C U N T S always intended it to go.
Meanwhile, The Anti Semite Netanyahu Zionist thought police paid me a visit recently.
@Gnasherjew #LabourAntiSemitism.
Gnasher and I attended the madrassa of hard left Anarchism, I await reprisals.

General election 2019: Chief Rabbi attacks Labour anti-Semitism record

Chief rabbi Ephraim MirvisImage copyrightPA MEDIA
Image captionChief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis has pastoral oversight of half the UK Jewish community

The Chief Rabbi has strongly criticised Labour, claiming the party is not doing enough to root out anti-Jewish racism – and asked people to “vote with their conscience” in the general election.

In the Times, Ephraim Mirvis said “a new poison – sanctioned from the very top – has taken root” in the party.

Labour’s claim it had investigated all cases of anti-Semitism in its ranks was a “mendacious fiction”, he added.

Jeremy Corbyn says Labour is tackling anti-Semitism by expelling members.

It comes as Labour launches a “race and faith manifesto”, which aims to improve protections for all faiths and tackle prejudice.

‘Gripped by anxiety’

General election 2019 is weirdest in my lifetime, says Blair

Media captionTony Blair: ‘This election is the weirdest in my lifetime’.

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair has said the UK is a “mess”, with politics “utterly dysfunctional” ahead of the general election.

The ex-Labour leader said a majority government for either his party or the Conservatives would “pose a risk”.

Both main parties, led by Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn, were “peddling two sets of fantasies”, he said.

The election was the “weirdest in my lifetime”, Mr Blair added, but he said he would vote Labour on 12 December.

In their manifesto, the Conservatives say that, if they win a parliamentary majority they will get Brexit” done and then “focus our hearts and minds on the priorities of the British people”.

General election 2019: What is Labour offering to Waspi women?

A supporter of WaspiImage copyrightGETTY IMAGES

Labour has announced a policy to compensate some of the women who lost out as a result of changes to the pension age.

The campaign for compensation has been led by the group Women Against State Pension Inequality (Waspi).

Under a Labour government, women born between 6 April 1950 and 5 April 1955 would be paid £100 for each week of entitlement lost.

Those born between 6 April 1955 and 6 April 1960 would receive smaller amounts.

Labour’s Angela Rayner told BBC News: “The government failed the women who were born in the 1950s. They stole their pension.”

The maximum compensation would be £31,300, with an average payment of £15,380.

There are two parts of the proposed compensation: one for the changes made in 1995, when it was decided that the state pension age for women should increase from 60 to 65, and one for the changes in 2011 when the increase to 65 was accelerated and an increase to 66 was scheduled.

The chart below shows how the 1995 and 2011 compensation combines to give a total up to the maximum £31,300.

Chart showing compensation offered to Waspi women

Consider, for example:

Late-night round-up

What’s happened today?

We’re wrapping things up for the night, so here’s a quick look back at some of the main events today:

  • In a BBC interview, Nicola Sturgeon insisted that Scotland could rejoin the EU “relatively quickly” if Brexit happens and there is another independence referendum
  • Plaid Cymru’s Adam Price struck a similar note in his BBC interview, saying he wants Wales to rejoin the EU as an independent country if the UK leaves
  • Boris Johnson tried his hand at shearing a sheep as he launched the Conservatives’ Welsh manifesto – promising additional investment for the nation
  • The Liberal Democrats unveiled their foreign policy plans, criticising Boris Johnson for aligning with “right-wing, authoritarian nationalists” on the world stage
  • Labour promised to bring in rent controls and “put bad landlords out of business” if it wins power
  • Former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair said politics is “utterly dysfunctional” with parties “peddling two sets of fantasies” but added he will still vote Labour
  • Channel 4 said its hour-long climate debate on Thursday will go ahead “with or without” Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage, who have not yet responded to the invitation
  • And nearly three million people have applied to register to vote in the past month, according to Government figures



Author: rogerglewis

https://about.me/rogerlewis Looking for a Job either in Sweden or UK. Freelance, startups, will turń my hand to anything.

7 thoughts on “Factions. In The GE2019 What have the Trots ever done for us?#TwoFingers2Brino @wiki_ballot #4Pamphleteers @GrubStreetJorno @Survation @wiki_ballot @financialeyes #WIKIBALLOTPICK #IABATO #SAM #GE2019 Roger Lewis ( Porthos) @JoeBlob20

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: