Features

How British universities spread misery around the world

25 July 2015

9:00 AM

25 July 2015

9:00 AM

So farewell, Yanis Varoufakis. You used to be Greece’s finance minister. Then you resigned, or were you sacked? You took control of the Greek economy six months ago when it was growing. Yes, honestly! Growth last year ran at 0.8 per cent, with forecasts of 3 per cent this year. The government had a primary budget surplus. Unemployment was falling. Until you came along.

Varoufakis was a product of British universities. He read economics at Essex and mathematical statistics at Birmingham, returning to Essex to do a PhD in economics. With the benefit of his British university education he returned to Greece and, during his short time in office, obliterated the nascent recovery. The economy is now expected to contract by 4 per cent this year — an amazing transformation. Greece’s debt burden has increased by tens of billions and many people have emigrated.

But Varoufakis is not alone. Plenty of other visitors to our universities have been influenced by the teaching here and returned to their countries to wreak havoc.

Jawaharlal Nehru, the first prime minister of an independent India, is understandably regarded by many as a hero. But unfortunately for that country he attended Trinity College, Cambridge. There he was influenced by British intellectuals such as George Bernard Shaw, a socialist, Bertrand Russell, who once remarked ‘communism is necessary to the world’, and John Maynard Keynes. He returned to India and started to put the ideology into practice with state planning, controls and regulations. This was a calamity. Following his rule, India’s share of world trade fell and a generation failed to emerge from abject poverty. Only when the ideology was abandoned with the free market reforms of the 1980s did India’s growth and amazing poverty-reduction begin.

Perhaps one of the most extraordinary rulers of the 20th century was Julius Nyerere, president of Tanzania, who was famous for living frugally and genuinely not being corrupt. Admirable though he was in this respect, it was his country’s misfortune that he read economics and history at Edinburgh (as did Gordon Brown). Naturally he was surrounded by leftist academics and apparently ‘encountered Fabian thinking’ in particular. The experience made it all but inevitable that Tanzania would endure a bloated bureaucracy, shortages and miserably low growth.


Nyerere had been to the University of Fort Hare as well as Edinburgh. This is a university set up by us British imperialists in South Africa for non-British people from all over Africa. It has bred an extraordinary array of future African leaders who, unfortunately for Africa, mostly developed left-wing ideas there. Among their number was Robert Mugabe, destroyer of the economy of Zimbabwe.

The dishonour of distributing economic failure around the world is spread around British universities but the London School of Economics can rightly claim more than its share, of course. Jomo Kenyatta, first prime minister of Kenya after independence, went there. True, under his leadership, the Kenyan economy was not the worst-performing in Africa — but overblown, corrupt state industries and attempted import substitution took their toll, so that GDP growth per capita was low and, in some years, negative.

Kwame Nkrumah also went to the LSE and then to University College London, although, to be fair, he had probably been radicalised already at Lincoln University, Pennsylvania. After thus overdosing on socialist indoctrination, he returned to Ghana and put through ‘forced industrialisation’, complete with state enterprises and ten-year plans. It was the usual formula with the usual result: decades of low growth, corruption and heavy debt.

In two further cases, Britain can again gratefully offload some of the blame to America. Pierre Trudeau was introduced to Marxism at Harvard and then came to the LSE for his doctorate. He did not finish it but the LSE nonetheless gave him a finishing course in leftist economics. Under his rule, Canada introduced wage and price controls while inflation, unemployment and the national debt all rose.

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, variously president and prime minister of Pakistan, went to the University of California, Berkeley, as well as Christ Church, Oxford. It is unclear which bears more responsibility for teaching him the statist economics of academia. But once he had gained power, declaring ‘socialism is our economy’, he nationalised the steel, chemical, cement and banking industries along with the flour, rice and cotton mills. Economic growth slowed to a crawl at 1.3 per cent.

Most of our British university teachers imbue their overseas students with disastrous ideas and remain comfortably here, uninvolved in the misery they have sown overseas. One heroic-cum-tragic exception was Malcolm Caldwell, a communist lecturer at the School of Oriental and African Studies who was such a fan of Pol Pot and his murderous regime that he went over to see it in person. He had a private interview with Pol Pot himself and was murdered later the same day.

Are there any exceptions to the rule that British universities cause misery abroad? Yes, but only when they revolt against what they were taught. Singapore’s success is due to its first prime minister, Lee Kuan Yew, who went to Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge, and his economics guru Goh Keng Swee, who attended the LSE. They did indeed become imbued with socialist thought, to the extent that Harold Wilson once called Lee ‘one of us’. But after they left the clutches of British academics, Lee and Goh managed to think for themselves and observe how the real world works. They got over much of the socialism Britain had drummed into them and created one of the most successful economies in the world. It’s easy to imagine cardigan-wearing dons in a senior common room somewhere near the Aldwych shaking their heads and regretting that Lee and Goh were ‘the ones that got away’.

Returning to Greece, one might think that now Varoufakis has gone, things might improve. Unfortunately his replacement is Euclid Tsakalotos, who studied at Queen’s College, Oxford. He did his doctoral thesis under the supervision of a professorial fellow who had formerly been a Stalinist apparatchik in Poland. The British contribution to human misery may not be over yet.

James Bartholomew is the author of The Welfare of Nations.

Subscribe to The Spectator Australia today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Subscribe – Try a month free


Show comments
  • Richard

    British academics are notoriously Leftie. I remember one in South Africa saying that whites weren’t “real people” (she was white) and calling the black female lecturers “sister”. They looked at her as if she were mad. She had a child whom she proudly pointed out was of mixed-race. The trouble with Brit academics is they are caricatures of Lefties, desperately needing something into which to pour themselves completely, so that they disappear as individuals and emerge as “Lefties”, with all the social approval that brings in modern Britain.

    • KilowattTyler

      ..and of course, we have recently had a certain issue at University College London…

      • van Lomborg

        Britain has not yet fully grasped by how much the status of their
        universities has dropped in the first world. Fair deuce, you now recruit from China, the former USSR and Arabia to fill your places, “record numbers go to uni” your Prime Minister purports correctly, but the first world no longer cares do they. Be honest, it’s comparable to the workings of Dubya – he also doesn’t get how much damage he has actually done to the reputation and trust in US institutions. Perhaps build another library?

        • flipkipper

          The Tony Blair Commemoration Library for Children Who Can’t Read Good And Wanna Learn To Do Other Stuff Good Too.

          • Wessex Man

            I agree entirely, time to bring back all the Grammer Schools! “one in every town” VOTE UKIP!

          • Alma Mater

            Grammer???

          • Abie Vee

            VOTE?

            It goes like this: first you make one little mark, like this / , then another little mark, like this , on top of the first little mark, like this X

            That’s all there is to it! (print that off and take it with you when the time comes, you might forget).

          • omgamuslim

            What would be the point if you are only going to end up writing ‘grammer’ for grammar?

          • Caractacus

            To stop others making the same mistake perhaps?

          • omgamuslim

            Hope springs eternal.

          • investigator

            Keep reminding.
            It is NOT a trivial point.

          • neilinely

            Well if you went to one it didn’t help you learn how to spell grammar.

          • Gregory Mason

            The irony is painful.

        • Colonel Mustard

          Perhaps fuck off and mind your own business.

          • van Lomborg

            Now now, Mustard – why so agitated. Pegida UK is not totally dead yet.

          • Wessex Man

            Now now Lommie you only look silly trying to converse with the big boys.

          • flipkipper

            Now now – how do you like your cleaner upper job, Homer?

            The Mustard Wessex dream team no longer attracts the customer – perhaps think bigger, boy.

          • Abie Vee

            Now then Colonel.. that’s not the ticket. Stiff upper and all that.

        • Alicethomas
        • vieuxceps2

          Fair deuce? Fair do’s! Purports? Reports! Are you a clone of Abie Vee?

          • Richard

            Catachresis rulez in da new UK! You gotta get with it, liposuction off half your brain, and speak Labour’s new land!

        • amanda.jackson77

          VCBV❤️❤️❤️(( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

          Direct working part time512.69$;;;;;;;day

          sK…..

          http://www.profit cash MoneyJust……

          <

        • Abir Mandal

          You are wrong about Dubya or any purported harm. American universities are still the best in the world and will continue to be so as long as we fight the leftie pinkos tooth and nail.

    • GraveDave

      It’s institutionalized Leftism. Thar’s what it is.
      I’ll give you that though, it’s a good way of putting it.

    • Felixthecat

      I think their self loathing about being British, means that they will support anyone and anything who are Anti-British.

      • hereward

        As Orwell said . the academics would rather be caught stealing from a church poor box than stand up for the National Anthem .

        • Felixthecat

          It’s funny how some many liberals love to peacock their “ethnic” roots, despite being as British as the Ark Royal. Still, there is always “Celtic” I suppose.

          Liberal American’s have a similar complex. There, always prefix-american (normally some downtrodden minority like Irish or Cherokee), it’s nice watching them squirm when you push them on there connection. “so have you actually been to x”?

          • Slater

            An amazing number of white Americans I know claim to have Cherokee ancestors. Why were the Cherokees so busy and prolific?

          • Terry Field

            Their mothers simply became pregnant in the back of Jeep Cherokees. All else is American hyperbole.

          • Vlad Lungu

            ok, that’s correct! 😉

          • Abir Mandal

            I choked on my diet coke.. lol

          • Viking History Buff

            Lots of Fauxahontas’s running around. It is almost always Cherokee too. Cherokee is sexy, precisely because they have the “Trail of Tears”. For instance, almost nobody but a real descendant of say the Pawnee, wants to be a lowly Pawnee. Cherokee is a guild ridden anti-White’s wet dream.

          • omgamuslim

            Things started several centuries ago and continued to fructify and increase in a geometric progression as Malthus would have it. Probably equal no of Cherokees claim to have European ancestors.

          • PaD

            I have it from a friend of a friend who is part Cherokee…theres money in it..some kind of reparation payment.

          • ColoComment

            Interestingly enough, the Cherokee Nation is one of the most successful (and diversified) Native American businesses in the U.S.
            http://cherokeenationbusinesses.com/Pages/home.aspx

            Unfortunately for wannabe Fauxcahontases, CN also has one of the most detailed genealogical records of any N.A. tribe.

          • neilinely

            I suppose trendy Lefty teachers were to blame for your apostrophe abuse, poor spelling and inability to construct sentences properly? Well, the Left are to blame for everything, else, so might as well blame them for that too.

          • Richard

            Actually, the teaching of grammar was frowned upon by Leftie teachers, so you may have a point! It was said to entrench class difference (!) and stifle free expression by making pupils learn the grammatical prejudices of the existing class-based establishment, and thus further exacerbate their oppression. I was a teacher once, in the lunatic asylum of British education. Happily, those days are long, long gone.

          • vieuxceps2

            It’s not likely that trendy lefties were responsible for apostrophe abuse as I doubt whether they’d know their apostrophes from their arseholes.

          • cmflynn

            It’s not necessary to have ever been to Ireland to be Irish!Everyone knows that except perhaps you Felix. As for squirming, I think you must have made that bit up. Didn’t anyone sing, ‘ ……thy children now exiles on many a shore will love and revere thee till time be no more…..’ when you ‘pushed them on the connection’?

    • TonyB58

      Sounds pretty much the kind of person who got on when I was in higher, and the state-sector further, education.One of the most nauseating spectacles I witnessed at the LSE was wealthy and over-privileged American women actively seeking and embracing imagined victimhood even though their postmodernist-PC world view was so mainstream at the academy it was conservative. Pathetic!

      • nwilson101

        Sounds like you haven’t visited any university recenlty then…Yes LSE has a small Gender Studies department full of bigots into victim blaming men, but it is no more overtly sexist than any other university’s Women’s Studies or English or languages dept…

        The students in this dept make up less than 1% of its students and it probably is responsible for most of the LSE’s tiny pool of unemployed graduates.

        In my view, the department should be closed down as it is simply ‘redundant’ today. Indeed widely publicised LSE research has proven that the gender pay gap is entirely related to women choosing to leave their careers. Unfortunately it is politicians, mostly Oxford grads, who can’t analyse and reason, who continue to try to gain votes by parroting on about this myth…

        (That’s why say Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour fails to look at the facts as some people love complaining and earn a nice salary by propagating myths of today. But then the BBC is full of Oxford grads who operate the ‘Oxford mafia’…!)

        However on a freedom view, if rich American females from Harvard and Stanford, who know they will never have to work, want to study a field, who are we to complain as the LSE is the biggest export owner in higher education…? The subject is as useless and irrelevant to modern Britain as the Classics, which churns out maybe 10% of Oxbridge students. Most Oxford grads seem to have been either continually drunk or on serious drugs, like Cameron, Osborne and half the current Cabinet of lazy trustafarians who have never done a day’s work in their tiny pea brained lives

        • TonyB58

          Yes it was thirty years ago but sadly it was not in the pointless “Gender Studies” department but IR.

      • PaD

        aptly named ‘yanks’

    • Davy Goossens

      female hypergamy and pathological altruism is an underrated factor in all of this.

    • Jon

      Spot the contradiction:

      “British academics are notoriously Leftie.”

      “I remember one … … …”

      • prolibertate

        I don’t think you know what a CONTRADICTION is.

        Quoting supporting evidence for a common case is not a contradiction. It’s not proof, but it’s not contradictory.

        To establish contradiction, you’d have to provide numerous counter-examples, showing that a majority do NOT fit the profile.

        • Jon

          A contradiction would be to found a generalisation on evidence provided by 1 case when most of the other cases do not support it. That is what a contradiciton is: a pair of inconsistent statements.

          So, I might say, all swans are black. Because somewhere out there must be a black swan. It would still be an idiotic thing to say.

          • prolibertate

            Utter nonsense!

            You wouldn’t know logic if it hit you with a 40 ton truck.

            And the worst is that you are absolutely sure to be right.

            I won’t repeat my statement from before, because clearly, you were unable to understand it, so no amount of elaboration will help.

    • nwilson101

      That’s one person for heaven’s sake and there are bizarre people with a quirky view in almost every field…

      Your comment sadly suggests a poorly educated mind and you ought to educate yourself rather more…

      One story or one person does not an argument make as you ought to know

  • Sue Smith

    Another problem is that most academics get their PhDs on the wing of a fly and know absolutely nothing of the world outside that wing!!

    • nancoise

      The left wing of a fly.

      • Sue Smith

        Now you’re getting warm!!

  • Moa

    George Soros also went to LSE. He is an evil bustard and quite insane – he has a messianic complex.

    • Tony Dark

      Careful, Moa: a lot of wealthy capitalists went to LSE, but don’t mention it here – you might end up contradicting the ‘Red LSE’ stereotype that the author is trying to perpetuate.

      • Ed_Burroughs

        They’re the ones who ignored their education.

  • taytelbaum

    Evet, evet…

  • arrotoxieta

    I think we probably live in the era with the widest gap ever between intellectuals and the rest of the population. In the Western world at least, it seems to me that intellectuals are trying to impose to everybody extremist, radical views which are impossible to accept. In the UK for instance, intellectual life is so much dominated by radicals that the word “conservative” is now practically an insult, but then Conservatives win the elections, not to mention the almost four million votes to the right of Cameron. This situation entails great dangers.

    • Faulkner Orkney

      If we define ‘intellectual’ as someone who is accurate in their thinking then we can rebalance the discussion and evict all Christians, Muslims, Socialists and football fans from it. Ah, the air now smells so much fresher!

  • Don’t forget Bernard Coard who joined the CPGB while studying at Sussex, then returned to Grenada to participate in a Marxist coup. Serving as deputy PM in the People’s Revolutionary Government, modelled on Fidel, he later led another coup against his own PM and was leader for 3 days until he in turn was overthrown.

  • Aline Dobbie

    Brilliant, lived in newly independent India and saw the erosion of any real sense towards progress…..Nehru’s dynasty then made things worse until wiped out.

    • Bonkim

      Blame the Millennia old lack of social organisation, deep seated class and caste system, and diverse people living in voluntary apartheid for that. Liberal socialism had no place in india where wealth is something that God gives you if you pray hard and give an occasional bribe – even gods take bribes in india. Socialism was for the common man exploited by those in power, educated and wealthy.

      Nehru was also influenced hugely by the Soviet and Chinese models of central planning and his Cambridge days were distant memory – more elitist than socialist..

  • GUBU

    Indeed.

    You fail to capture the full insanity of Malcolm Caldwell, who devoted much energy to denying that the Khmer Rouge were engaged in mass murder, along with another useful idiot who remains at large, Noam Chomsky. The day before he died, Caldwell got the opportunity to fawn over one of his revolutionary heros in person, namely Pol Pot – who promptly had him murdered.

    The irony that the man he so admired had ordered his execution would have been completely lost on Caldwell, who would probably have enthusiastically endorsed his own demise as a necessary part of the revolutionary struggle.

    • A Free Man

      Wasn’t aware of that. You’d have to have heart made out of old copies of the Guardian not to laugh at that!

    • Simon de Lancey

      Caldwell was of the same deplorable breed as all those apologists for Stalinism who visited the Soviet Union in the 1930s and swallowed their propaganda wholesale, at the same time that Stalin was slaughtering millions.

      • GUBU

        Indeed.

        The difference being that, unlike the Webbs, he finally got direct experience of how what he preached actually worked in practice.

        Caldwell was able to fashion an academic career out of agitation and indoctrination – education or erudition had nothing to do with it. If I recall rightly, he was also a former chair of CND and a Labour council candidate.

        No doubt Mr Corbyn would speak fondly of him…

        • Simon de Lancey

          Corbyn has spoken fondly of people who are guilty of far worse than Caldwell’s deluded murderer-worship.

      • omgamuslim

        Are you familiar with the fact of Churchill slaughtering millions in the 1940s Bengal?

        • global city

          that really is the silliest of interventions.

          • omgamuslim

            Factual though. Wouldn’t you say?

          • vieuxceps2

            I understand that Churchill failed to provide shipping to take food to India as we ourselves needed it here.As I was around in those days I’m rather glad about that. You would have been too.

          • Skydog

            Churchill ordered food shipped out of Bengal to Tommies so millions starved to death in 1942. It was called “helping the war effort”.
            Quite well recorded in history. All that Brit propaganda keeping the facts from you, Honeykins?

          • vieuxceps2

            You carefully refer to “Tommies”. In fact these were Indian troops in the British army,facing the Japanese who were preparing to invade India.Not a bad idea to keep them fed.
            Your history knowledge is akin to your courtesy, noticeable by its absence. It is never a good idea to patronise me, mister.

          • prolibertate

            I don’t believe for a second that “millions starved”. That would have required that Churchill had to feed millions. Clearly not the case.

            It’s possible that SOME people starved, in Bangladesh, following food shipments to British soldiers, who were, after all, DEFENDING the entire region against the Japanese invasion!

            The Japanese were real bastards, they were mass-murdering entire populations and raping millions of women everywhere.

            That choice to feed soldiers was a TRADE-OFF. Churchill did not INTEND to starve Bangladeshi, he INTENDED to feed troops.

            If he could have achieved his goal without harming anyone, he would have done so.

            Stalin, on the other hand, INTENTIONALLY and WITHOUT ANY KIND OF JUSTIFICATION, mass-murdered people.

            In Ukraine, he had food SEIZED from the population and BURNED, then ordered his army to stop anyone from leaving the region to find food.

            7 MILLION Ukrainians died!

            The difference between Stalin and Churchill is like the difference between night and day – they could not have been more opposite!

          • omgamuslim

            No, he prevented food being made available by denying the means of transport. Food was readily available from sources who were willing to supply it. But Churchill wanted food from everywhere shipped to feed people in Britain & Europe. Whatever the excuses, we need to decide where the buck stops. That is the bottom line, other than the millions of needless deaths.

          • vieuxceps2

            You write of “needless ” deaths. If there was not food enough for all then some deaths were inevitable.There were no needless deaths, some died, others lived. You would no doubt have ensured that your people were fed.That’s what Churchill did.

          • Infidelissima

            hey mussies, how about the famine cause by your brothers in eastern Africa? You know, killing off all the farmers, displacing of millions of people everywhere, that’s happening today!
            Or are you gonna continue to focus on Churchill, as a pathetic and frankly transparent distraction tool?

          • doctorfloyd

            It’s not that he failed to provide it, more than there simply wasn’t any spare because the Germans were sinking so much of it in the Battle of the Atlantic. There was plenty of food in the remainder of India, but for whatever reason (not much to do with Churchill) it was not transferred to the Bengal reason.

          • Richard

            I doff my cap to you, Aged Sir/Madam. Long may you endure!

          • global city

            but completely unrelated, so if there was any logic or sense in your post it can only have been to attempt to disrupt.

          • Colonel Mustard

            Only in the mind of a smelly Red.

          • doctorfloyd

            No. Less to do with the lack of shipping, than the refusal of other provinces to send food to Bengal, mostly due to a whole load of miscommunication and disinformation.

          • Frank

            Quite right.

          • prolibertate

            Not even remotely! Just pathetic…

        • Simon de Lancey

          I’m not seeing the relevance here. Has Corbyn praised Churchill?

          • omgamuslim

            Everybody praises Churchill. So what’s so wrong about Stalin being praised.

          • Sue Smith

            More murdered Russians than Jews slaughtered in Europe WW2 is the reason why. Again, your username tells it.

          • omgamuslim

            What my username should tell you is that Muslims kept the Jewry alive through the centuries when others were trying to cook their goose.

          • Infidelissima

            Yes, and the destruction of synagogues all over the MENA and the throwing out of 1 Million Jews, who had to leave all their possessions behind, and their psychotic obsession with Jews-this and Zionists-that, and their mouth-faoming rants about zionist sharks, eagles, rocks, trees, earthquakes and Polio vaccines, says it all really

          • vieuxceps2

            In Jerusalem was it? At the Dome of the Rock? In El Andalus where they were charged extra taxes? And everywhere besides. You’re all heart you muslims aren’t you? Don’t forget Medina where old Mo killed all the men Jewry and forcibly married their women.Don’t forget that .you hypocrite.

          • prolibertate

            Wow, we still have to read such braindamaged questions :O

            What’s wrong with people like you? You’re a Muslim?

            Then you probably don’t get that Stalin was PROFOUNDLY EVIL, ordering mass murder on an epic scale, while Churchill never did anything of the kind. He was forced to fight a war.

          • Infidelissima

            Churchill was a great leader. You not wanting to hear that, speaks volumes Abdul.
            You comparing him to Stalin, is another demonstrations of what an inbred brainwashed retard you are. Cheers for that.

          • vieuxceps2

            Stalin murdered millions of people because he thought they weren’t good communists. Not because there wasn’t enough food but because he thought they were not socialist enough for him. We all praised Stalin in the war because he fought against our enemy, Mr Hitler.Do you honestly need this explaining or are you just acting the part of a brainless lefty ars*h*le?

        • Sue Smith

          Your username tells me to be suspicious of your “facts”.

          • omgamuslim

            Easy to check. You are clearly not interested in facts. I don’t blame you. Facts are not always what you would like them to be.

          • GUBU

            Indeed.

            Facts are indeed stubborn things, but in this case what you offered was not a fact but an assertion, which is something altogether different. What is more, that assertion was offered with no evidence to support it.

            Evidence would suggest that the immediate cause of the Bengal famine was the loss of domestic food supplies due to poor weather, and by lack of access to alternative sources of supply outside India, which were under Japanese occupation at that time.

            You can argue that the civil administration in India was slow to recognize and respond to the crisis in Bengal as it developed. You can argue that this was compounded by decisions in London, where there was opposition to diverting resources from the war effort, and a belief that the problem could be sorted out without such intervention.

            It is also fair to say that some in government, including Churchill, did not cover themselves in glory in their initial response to the crisis, but that this response changed as its scale became clear. After the appointment of Field Marshal Wavell as Viceroy, there was a much more effective, co-ordinated response, which involved military resources being diverted to the relief effort.

            None of this evidence lends much substance to your original assertion that Churchill ‘slaughtered’ millions of Bengalis, in the manner of Stalin (which is what your comparison is intended to imply).

            As you said, easy to check.

          • omgamuslim

            It is not unexpected that you may wish to find reasons or extenuating factors to exculpate your side or your heroes. I do not blame you for that. What the immediate cause of the famine was, is not germane to the discussion. The role of the British led government in ameliorating (or failing to ameliorate) its effects and Churchill’s hand in the tragedy that unfolded are. When you have to refer to Churchill in the UK to determine whether or not Indians may have something to eat, there obviously is a problem.

            Madhusree Mukerjee in her book Churchill’s Secret War mentions that some of India’s grain was also exported to Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) to meet needs there, even though the island wasn’t experiencing the same hardship; Australian wheat sailed past Indian cities (where the bodies of those who had died of starvation littered the streets) to depots in the Mediterranean and the Balkans; and offers of American and Canadian food aid were turned down. India was not permitted to use its own sterling reserves, or indeed its own ships, to import food. And because the British government paid inflated unaffordable for ordinary Indians.prices in the open market to ensure supplies, grain became Unaffordable for ordinary Indians.

            You may like to peruse the following excerpts:

            Churchill could easily have prevented the famine. Even a few shipments of food grain would have helped, but the British prime minister adamantly turned down appeals from two successive Viceroys, his own Secretary of State for India and even the President of the US.

            Subhas Chandra Bose, who was then fighting on the side of the Axis forces, offered to send rice from Myanmar, but the British censors did not even allow his offer to be reported.

            Churchill was totally remorseless in diverting food to the British troops and Greek civilians. To him, “the starvation of anyhow underfed Bengalis (was) less serious than sturdy Greeks”, a sentiment with which Secretary of State for India and Burma, Leopold Amery, concurred.

            Amery was an arch-colonialist and yet he denounced Churchill’s “Hitler-like attitude”. Urgently beseeched by Amery and the then Viceroy Archibald Wavell to release food stocks for India, Churchill responded with a telegram asking why Gandhi hadn’t died yet.

            Wavell informed London that the famine “was one of the greatest disasters that has befallen any people under British rule”. He said when Holland needs food, “ships will of course be available, quite a different answer to the one we get whenever we ask for ships to bring food to India”.

            Churchill’s excuse — currently being peddled by his family and supporters — was Britain could not spare the ships to transport emergency supplies, but Mukerjee has unearthed documents that challenge his claim. She cites official records that reveal ships carrying grain from Australia bypassed India on their way to the Mediterranean.

            Churchill’s hostility toward Indians has long been documented. At a War Cabinet meeting, he blamed the Indians themselves for the famine, saying they “breed like rabbits”. His attitude toward Indians may be summed up in his words to Amery: “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.” On another occasion, he insisted they were “the beastliest people in the world next to the Germans”.

            According to Mukerjee, “Churchill’s attitude toward India was quite extreme, and he hated Indians, mainly because he knew India couldn’t be held for very long.” She writes in The Huffington Post, “Churchill regarded wheat as too precious a food to expend on non-whites, let alone on recalcitrant subjects who were demanding independence from the British Empire. He preferred to stockpile the grain to feed Europeans after the war was over.”

            tehelka.com/2014/06/remembering-indias-forgotten-holocaust
            You might also like to try
            ibtimes.com/bengal-famine-1943-man-made-holocaust
            bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/10/how_churchill_starved_india
            bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/stories/82/a1934282
            sites.google.com/site/drgideonpolya/bengali-holocaust

            No, I see Churchill’s fingerprints all over this tragedy and remain convinced of his culpability.
            Facts are indeed stubborn but in expert hands they are easily obscured. Goebbels was not the only magician putting inconvenient rabbits back into his sleeves. Remember how successive British govs kept insisting that Kenyans were not subjected to torture?

          • colchar

            I am not familiar with your particular brand of idiocy but I do admire your complete commitment to it.

          • omgamuslim

            Are you familiar with your particular brand of idiocy? Ostrich, sand come to mind. But without those fine feathers it looks rather sad.

          • Richard

            When a war like the Second World War is being fought, I think the usual course of events is not followed. One should note the proximity of Bengal to erstwhile enemy territory. The issue was complex, as India was already moving towards independence: the central government had far less power than you suggest.

            Churchill made observations, in those non-PC times, that would not have been out of place coming from Gandhi. Gandhi, of course, had lived in South Africa, and said things like,

            “The Boer Government insulted the Indians by classing them with the Kaffirs.”

            “It was a gross injustice to seek to place Indians in the same class as the Kaffirs.”

            “Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilised – the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty and live almost like animals. Each ward contains nearly 50 to 60 of them. They often started rows and fought among themselves. The reader can easily imagine the plight of the poor Indian thrown into such company!”

            “As soon as we rose the following day, I was taken to where the other prisoners were lodged, so that I had no chance to complain to the Governor about what had happened. I have, though, resolved in my mind on an agitation to ensure that Indian prisoners are not lodged with Kaffirs or others.”

            “Some Indians do have contacts with Kaffir women. I think such contacts are fraught with grave danger. Indians would do well to avoid them altogether.”

            And so on. It does no good to use history as polemic.

          • omgamuslim

            Perhaps then we should all just stop talking about ww2, nazis or the Gulags or, as has been brought up, Stalin’s depredations.
            I am not aware that Gandhi wrote to Hitler. But if he were trying to persuade the Brits to think of retracting their imperial claws from India by using Hitler in a my enemy’s enemy kind of way then I think the move is understandable. There would, in any case, have been precious little to choose between “I have not become the King’s First Minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire” Churchill and Hitler. However I should be interested to receive a link. Grateful too.

          • Richard

            You can probably Google it. I lived in South Africa, where Gandhi is seen more for the person he is than the rose-coloured view people have in the UK (the same for Mandela, actually), and there were several books in the library in the city in which we lived (that dates me).

            My point is not that history should not be discussed, merely that it should not be used for polemical reasons. Things must be understood in context, rather than taken out and used as a diatribe. For instance, was sati proof that Indians were evil? Perhaps Churchill thought so, coming from a different culture, but to Indians brought up with it as their custom, it was not. At varying points in history all sorts of things were permissible that today are not, such as slavery (though it still exists in many parts), cannibalism, sex with children, etc. People were conditioned differently to what was “bad” and “good”. That is another reason why moralising about history is a cul de sac.

            Gross events that were not sanctioned even in their time, such as what Pol Pot did, or Stalin, or Hitler, are different. But other events, such as empires, and abusing the poor (such as, for instance, under the Mughals, or in mediaeval Europe) were of their time.

            I hope that didn’t come out too much like pontificating.

          • GUBU

            Belatedly – plenty of effort, but none of this changes the gist of your original comment, which was fairly straightforward – that Churchill ‘slaughtered’ millions of Indians in a manner comparable to Stalin, which by implication made him every bit as bad.

            As far as that comparison you made is concerned, it is instructive to look at the famine in Ukraine a decade before events in Bengal. The first was the direct result of deliberate Soviet policy, namely the forced collectivization of agriculture and its impact on food production and access to food supplies; the latter had its initial origins in the cyclone which devastated crops. Pointing this out is, I would suggest, entirely germane when you, by contrast, wish to present the deaths as entirely the result of the deliberate agency of one individual.

            The crisis in Bengal was undoubtedly compounded by human agency (most famines in modern times have been), but of a more complex nature. Administrations in Bengal and other Indian states were not only unprepared for such contingencies, but were as reluctant to acknowledge and address the developing crisis as the government in London. In addition to incompetence, there was corruption and even allegations during the 1945 Inquiry that sectarian feeling influenced some states’ response to Bengal’s plight. In terms of London, the initial belief that there were adequate food supplies available (an idea promoted by the Bengal government, and still a subject of historical controversy) and the fact that there were competing demands for supply during wartime (when available shipping was under pressure due to the Battle of the Atlantic) may not excuse, but goes some way to also explaining why relief efforts were limited.

            To lay the blame at Churchill’s feet alone, on the basis of his often demonstrated contempt for India, is therefore not only simplistic, but unsustainable. In that respect it is worth noting a further contrast with Stalin. In the case of Ukraine, the Soviet authorities would not even publicly acknowledge that there was a famine (ably assisted by the useful idiots mentioned before your intervention). In the case of Bengal, there is ample documentary evidence to show that there were voices raised, both within and without government, which challenged and changed the official response to the issue – you can deem this response belated, or inadequate, but there was a response. Would such a debate – particularly a public debate – or such a response have been possible in Soviet Russia in that era? Or the official Inquiry that took place in 1945? I very much doubt it.

            Churchill is not one of my ‘heroes’, as it happens, but I can tell the difference between him and Stalin – or Hitler. Perhaps you should peruse some material which will allow you to do the same…

          • omgamuslim

            Let me include a copy of my original post which started these exchanges between us. What I wrote was
            “Are you familiar with the fact of Churchill slaughtering millions in the 1940s Bengal?”

            I drew no comparison and did not require that others do so either, though you might maintain that there is indeed an invitation to do exactly that. The term ‘slaughter’ is perhaps a little hyperbolic but I used it in the context of the post I was responding to and in conformity with its use there. It is stark and startling and my purpose was to startle anyone reading the post into considering it carefully and wondering if one should go about vilifying others on evidence that is routinely ignored in judging persons nearer home. You may not accept the evidence but until you can refute it in a satisfactory manner there really is no room for taking umbrage.
            All deaths diminish us – deaths in Bengal as much as those in Ukraine. No one has yet suggested that the collectivisation policy was designed to cause a famine and thereby bring about those deaths. This was a misguided policy, (adopted ironically with the aim of increasing food supply), the failure of which led to tragedy. Therein lies a difference between Stalin and Churchill. Churchill had a policy – a very effective policy, of denying food to the starving. This coupled with his evident racism makes the picture look bleak indeed.
            Churchill’s colleagues were the ones who compared him to Hitler (you might say that is how colleagues see each other), and his colleagues were the ones who were getting exasperated at his refusal to make it possible for food to reach the stricken. If you do not wish to accept their testimony then you need to explain why. But I must insist that we are here not engaged in a debate about the relative merits of the Soviet and British systems. In the end the British system failed for those people due to Churchill and Churchill alone. I have never had to starve, but I can well imagine starving to death must be slow and painful.
            I propose to stand my ground and hope that this obduracy will not be construed as bloody mindedness.
            By the way, you are correct in assuming that I am much given to sloth. And then what with a weedy garden to tend, a leaky roof to repair … .

          • Costas Drossos

            The list should be augmented with the misery that the neoliberalism+globalisation have left a trail of misery around the world! Then we may have a true understanding of what is going on with world economics! What abut the virtual money out of thin air that the wall street is producing! Does these “weapons of mass destruction” accumulate depth and misery around the world?

          • Sue Smith

            Trouble is, some people’s “facts” are other people’s propaganda. “Slaughtering”? That’s something muslims are doing, so another of your ‘projections’.

          • omgamuslim

            If you understand that, then you should not asking for facts from other people.

          • Infidelissima

            nobody kills as many mussies as other mussies

            to then have the audacity to blame others, only demonstrates what inbred turds you all are

          • omgamuslim

            Do you know who were the ‘willing executioners for Stalin’?

          • vieuxceps2

            No,but I bet you’ll tell us……

          • omgamuslim

            ignorance is not something you flaunt or beat your breast about.

          • vieuxceps2

            Oh ,come on Omga old chap,don’t be a tease,just tell us who Stalin’s willing executioners were and we promise not to flaunt or beat.

          • Infidelissima

            oh well then you should know that mussies have the highest rates of illiteracy on t he planet!
            Due to violent inbreeding, not only do they carry genetic mutations, their collective IQ points also drop every couple of generations.

            not that we’re surprised by this revelation, I mean, you do read from a holy book that tells you to wipe yourselves with your bare hands….

          • Infidelissima

            no, but nobody kills as many mussies as other mussies!

            What Stalin has to do with it, is: nothing.

          • Infidelissima

            did you know that nobody gives a phack and that it’s 2015, you taqiyya pushing, deflecting turd?

          • Infidelissima

            how about facts from 2015, ey mussie?
            Why divert and distract with your taqiyya, you think we’re all easily distracted inbreds?

        • Frank

          Yes indeed, I do recall that Churchill went out to Bengal and set up death camps!!

          • Skydog

            Be that as it may, the Brit Indian Army under General (later Field Marshal) Bill Slim still fought what is supposedly the most important battle in Britain’s history at Kohima. As pivotal for WWII as the Battle of Kursk where Stalin apparently killed a lot of Russians ^ 🙂

          • omgamuslim

            Nothing to do with Indian Army. It was done so that Brits and other people in Europe could be fed. Info quite readily available.

          • Frank

            Total tosh.

          • vieuxceps2

            In 2015 who actually CARES? I didn’tin 1943,when I was hungry ,and I don’t now,when I’m not.

          • omgamuslim

            A clever man. Got the Nobel. Remember? Clever enough to orchestrate it all from his cubicle at the mother of Parliaments. He did not need to go out to Bengal.

          • Frank

            You really should read the wiki entry for the Bengal Famines of 1943. There you would learn that the failure to address the Famine was largely due to local politicians.

          • Infidelissima

            mussies don’t do much fancy book-readin’ outside their pedo-bible or jihadi websites

          • prolibertate

            Bullshit…

          • Frank

            It was sarcasm!

          • prolibertate

            Given the kind of posts here, it wasn’t recognizable as such! You can’t use sarcasm when there are idiots who really talk like that.

        • nwilson101

          I think you are referring to the Bengal famine when the British Imperial govt, due to World War 2 I think, moved ships from India to the UK, thereby restricting the transfer of rice…

          “Sometimes s*** happens”, but if you read the India Office files or indeed the Colonial Office files, they were decidedly not trying to kill anyone and had decidedly altruistic and liberal views when compared to politicians like that constant warmonger, Churchill who was both uneducated and like most Brits of the time racist…

          However the Brits are and always have been far less racist than almost any other country and hence why Britain by trading gained a world empire by hard work and chance, rather than by intention or design…Just go and listen to the Chinses about the Japanese and vice versa, the French the Germans and indeed Indians talking about their caste or Africans talkiing about their tribe…

        • nwilson101

          NB caling a famine slaughter is an abuse of the English language and reflects a poor command of English.

          If you want to know about slaughter the intentional muder of people indiscriminately, perhaps you can explain to use why it is that muslims slaughter each other far far more often than Brits or Americans or Coalition forces do…In Iraq 98% of slaughters are muslims on muslims, in Afghanistan its 97% muslim on muslim and in Syria its 99.9%…

          You need to educate yourself about which religion has caused the most bloodshed the past 50 yrs

        • colchar

          What an idiotic claim.

      • Juliaperez
      • Newton Unthank

        If only it could somehow have been arranged for Sidney and Beatrice Webb and Harold Laski and Eric Hobsbawm and all the rest of the “useful idiots” to spend a couple of weeks working on the White Sea Canal or at Kolyma…

        • nwilson101

          Oh and where was Harold Laski then?

          There were a lot of left wing Communists in the 20s and 30s. Crikey, given the crypto fascists like Churchill who caused the Great Depresssion or greatly exacerbated it, it isn’t surprising that extreme views on the Left or Right were BOTH very popular in the 30s…

          With unemployment of 35% and simple grinding poverty, who wouldn’t perhaps say “something needs to be done.”

          Inded with a poor historian as Chancellor and a crackpot zealot, Osborne is repeating the discredited 1920s ‘housewife economics’ he parrots…

          That’s why the UK’s per capita GDP is the lowest post 2008 in the OECD and 20% below the US and 15% below Germany.

          That’s why The Economist regards Osborne as the worst Chancellor in the past 50 yrs because he continues with his housewife view because he’s never ever done a real job. Ever.

          • Newton Unthank

            Didn’t he once fold some towels or something equally menial?

      • Alexsandr

        probably the same lot who advocate hugging a muzzie today.

    • Maureen Fisher

      That story is worthy of a Swiftian satire!

  • Bonkim

    Spot on!

  • Infidelissima

    Britain also exports some of the worst terrorists known to man, today.
    Why is anybody surprised?
    Import savages + listen to suicidal dhimmis in media and politics = turn country into cesspit

    • stool-pigeon.

      which it fast becomes

    • omgamuslim

      You speaking of the murdering, raping zionists running riot in Palestine post WW1 and continuing to the present day?

      • Torybushhug

        The Bolshevik revolution that lead to the slaughter of 20 million was orchestrated by a group that was comprised of 75% Russian Jews. Made the Nazis look second rate. 60% of post communist oligarchs that stole vast wealth were Russian Jews – even the Guardian did an article on this.

        • Infidelissima

          so?
          Jews are not allowed to make money, or should we give all our money to you ignorant nobodies?

          Jealous, underachieving, illiterate jew hating parasite – just like the mussies.

        • omgamuslim

          Yes indeed. It may also be that without the example of racist supremacy ideas inherent in zionism, nazism would not have seen the light of day.

      • Infidelissima

        Hahaha, I like how the Palestinians keep throwing each other off rooftops, and keep getting killed by Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon – apart from israel.
        In case you inbred Abdul haven’t noticed, but Allah has been on Israel’s side in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, 1982, first intifada, second intifada, Lebanon, 2006, 2012, 2014 and now ISIS is slaughtering them!

        There’s nothing like watching your enemies killing each other.

        And p.s.: cheers Allah, we hate Palis too.

        • omgamuslim

          You are the sort of thing that makes one wonder whether the nazis may not have had some justification.

          • Infidelissima

            Nazis used to gas people, today it’s you mussies who gas people. Hotler was also close to the Grand Mufti (OMGAMUSLIM!) of jerusalem, they hate Jew-hatred and Nazism in common

            nice try, inbred turd

          • omgamuslim

            You do nothing to dissipate the suspicion that nazis are unfairly maligned.

          • Infidelissima

            mussies = Nazis

            everything else is taqiyya by illiterate inbreds

            go gas your people omg, and don’t forget to post it on youtube, so entire world can see who the new nazis are

      • freddiethegreat

        ? Since when is Iran ‘zionist’?

  • The Malcolm Caldwell story made me laugh hard. No, I’m not sorry. He got exactly what he ordered, for once.

  • Teacher

    What is true of economics, society and politics is equally true of education. I did a B.Ed in 1979 and the lefty, child centred tosh that was spouted then had to be heard to be believed. The lecturers were, to a man, grammar school boys and their most ardent aim was to destroy the grammar system which, with obvious drawbacks, did provide a top class, academic education to those fitted for it. The influence of these seventies leftists is to be seen still in the dire performance of state education and its seeming inability to motivate and teach bright but poor children.

    • Marcus

      They were not grammar school boys.
      They were guilt ridden middle class vain idiots of varying educational backgrounds.

      • Teacher

        Well, mine were from grammar schools but I woudn’t argue the toss. You are right about the guilt though.

    • Sue Smith

      Most of them were sucking on the dreaded weed at the time in order to fill the huge void between their empty rhetoric and life’s stark realities. Irony alert. Adventurous they are not; people who live in gilded cages and spout what they think is best for all of us are really very fearful people. And they “project” by telling Conservatives they’re like that.

      Well, LOL

    • Jeffrey Vernon

      Problem: not everyone who went to a grammar school deserved to; and not everyone who deserved to got a place. If comprehensives are bad they’ve been allowed to get that way; I went to rather a good one, on what is still a notorious Essex council estate. It’s not a shadow of its former self these days The decline has come about through the combined efforts of anti-comp ideologues, and ‘progressive’ teachers who believe that intelligence is a middle class attribute, or else a social construct.

  • John Dawson

    Why didn’t they die of shame when the Soviet Union died of their Ideology, why weren’t they booted out when events proved them so disastrously wrong so many times before and since, why have they been left ensconced in their ideological bunkers rationalising their way around their failed rationalisations of rationalisations of deceptions of misconceptions so to turn yet another generation of students into caryers of their toxic brews of reconstituted ideology.

    • freddiethegreat

      Don’t be silly. As the SA communist party (still a feature here) said: It takes time. Communism has only had 70 years and must be given more time to work.

      • John Dawson

        I guess so Fred. Just because it didn’t work too good in the USSR, Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Benin, Bulgaria, Cape Verde, China, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Estonia, Ethiopia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Hungary, Kampuchea, Laos, Latvia, Lithuania, Madagascar, Mozambique, Nicaragua, North Korea, Poland, Romania, Tanzania, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, or the Aborigine Archipelago of outback Australia doesn’t mean it won’t work Tasmania, does it?

  • greggf

    “From Nehru’s India to Varoufakis’s Greece, the trendy doctrines of our universities have much to answer for….”

    I think winning the war with Soviet Russia must have been a root cause of much of it….!

  • Tony Dark

    Trash journalism, with a minimalist approach to research. Take his account of LSE, for instance: yes LSE like all western universities has entertained plenty of left wingers, but apparently the author has never heard of Hayek, Oakeshott and Popper, all of whom were famously anti-collectivist and all of whom spent decades in that academy, not to mention other opponents of centralism such as Robbins, Gellner, Shapiro, Dahrendorf, Bauer and so on.

    Indeed a case can be made that outside of Chicago LSE was the main incubator of
    the ideas and attitudes that were later to be labelled Thatcherism. All this of course does not fit with the appropriate tabloid stereotypes and therefore escapes the
    author’s attention. Poor stuff all round.

    • Damaris Tighe

      Correct. LSE’s Politics & Philosophy departments were dominated by conservatives (small c) & classical liberals while I was there.

  • jim

    Yup. The commies won the cold war. The only reason they let the rusty clapped out Soviet Empire go is because they already had the bright shiny new universitiesBBCEU.

    • stool-pigeon.

      EU? letting our comrades in Greece go through tough times, that’s why Germany (mainly) will go on feeding them, the citizens might get wind of what a giant disaster the EU has been from the start.

      • omgamuslim

        Is it known if any of these people who dreamt up the EU had been anywhere near British unis?

        • Frank

          Jean Monet – had the typical French problem about Britain, to the extent of being prepared to cosy up to Germany.

    • greg

      Do you genuinely believe what you post? If so please seek help.

      It doesn’t really matter you are pretty objectively wrong, I just feel sorry for whoever actually knows you in real life.

    • Striebs

      Why would they do that ?

      The guys running the Soviet Union had worked out decades before the collapse that the Soviet social , economic and political model had to change .

      For sure some of the hardliners found jobs building the EU . Scum floats to the top . That would have been facilitated by American’s rather than former soviets .

      The BBCEUBritish Establishment are much more dangerous than the useful idiots of the British Labour Party .

      I suspect the soviets considered the British Labour Party the polar opposite of useful .

  • Blindsideflanker

    Not so much the British Universities as the lefties who occupy them.

    But you have to admire the cheek of the lefties whose politics and economics have blighted 100’s of millions of Africans to a life of poverty, but managed to blame colonialism for it. The British establishment never one to forgo a bit of self loathing, have been conned into signing up to another bit of left wing rubbish , by showering Africa with Aid, which is just another left wing welfare policy that impoverishes the people it is supposed to help, while enriching the apparatchiks and corrupt political class.

    • stool-pigeon.

      well said ; of course, British colonialism is the anointed beast, isn’t it?

      • freddiethegreat

        Actually, it was Africa’s high point

  • Blindsideflanker

    And one of the biggest jokes played on us, is that the British establishment have put up a blue plaque for Nkrumah praising him as a great Briton, when he wasn’t and his only claim to fame was bankrupting Ghana and busting its constitution with his ‘scientific socialism’

  • Muttley

    Even that French idiot Piketty topped off his qualifications with a PhD in lunacy from the LSE. I don’t know what they’re teaching but it aint economics.

    • Simon de Lancey

      Voodoo economics perhaps… hang on, is that phrase non-PC nowadays?

      • Abie Vee

        “Voodoo economics” refers to the free-market supply-side experiment so beloved by the USA and her British poodles: it is the so-called Chicago School economics theory (read Wall Street) which takes its roots back to Milton Friedman.

        Americans invented it, Americans forced it upon the world, and George Bush senior coined the phrase. Quite what that’s all got to do with our universities isn’t clear to me. Sure they teach it (as does every other university on the planet) but they also teach classic Keynesian theory too. Oh yes, and Marxism (shock-horror).

        • Torybushhug

          You routinely argue for more spending despite us owing £1.6 trillion. As I said the other day, your entitlement greed is insatiable and boundless, the populist economics of the spoilt brat.

          • Abie Vee

            Of course. “Spending” is so vague a concept in popular discourse on the economy as to be almost meaningless! Moreover the argument is only tangential to the charge of fiscal incompetence (which concerns the sustainable flow of state borrowing, not the question of how the money is actually spent).

            A businessman borrows to finance technological improvements and the expansion of his business, expecting increased productivity and profits (growth) to pay for that expansion over time: GOOD you chorus. A government does the same thing,and BOO you all shout.

            Dress it up, cut it up, disguise it as you like; the fact of the mater is that the private sector cannot flourish without a flourishing public sector. Capitalism is synergetic. Indeed, it was state spending that saved capitalism from itself in 2008!

  • Abie Vee

    Such a deluge of fallacious inductive reasoning that it’s almost impossible to know where to begin.

    The main body of this hilarious polemic seeks to imply that, in some mysterious and unspecified way, UK Universities (all of them apparently) teach entirely different syllabi than any other in the world.

    The remainder extemporises along the lines of; Brown was in office when the global banking crisis occurred, therefore it was his fault (and most likely wouldn’t have happened had he not been there). Shall we say, a melange of guilt by association?

    Where’s the evidence Jim?

    • /O43 |_|K19!!

      Brown spent the previous 10 years borrowing mmoney, selling off reserves and tying us up into financial commitments. It made the crisis difficult to weather, because stimulus measures made the debt even worse. We are still massively in debt, running a defecit, and you are still defending the bullshitnomics that got us there.

      • Stadius

        Actually, up to the Great Recession, deficits were significantly lower under Blair/Brown than under Major, and debt to gdp was also lower.

        The stimulus was the cause of the larger deficits to follow, but was also necessary. And it worked … by 2009 the recession had ended and the economy began to grow.

      • Abie Vee

        I’m not interested in a simple, and simplistic, re-regurgitation of stale Tory cud. Thanks all the same. Was does “overspend” actually mean (if anything at all)?

        Possibly it means that Labour spending was responsible for the 2008/09 recession. No sane person belies this nonsense. Even the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury admitted that the disaster was a “banking crisis pure and simple” and “we took our eye off the ball.” By we, he meant governments and regulators around the world. Everyone.

        Possibly, a more subtle version of the above, it means that the country’s economic crisis would have been less severe if Labour had run budget surpluses . Actually, it did: it ran four. Look at the numbers. In 2006/07 the budget deficit was 2.7% (well within the bounds of historic evidence). So sustainable were public finances before the crash that Osborne, in opposition at the time, luckily for him, felt obliged to pledge to keep to Labour’s spending plans.

        Possibly it means that Labour squandered money (an argument tangential to the charge of fiscal incompetence, which concerns the sustainable flow and level of state borrowing, not questions how how that borrowing is spent.)

        Would a budget surplus have cushioned finances? Yes it would It would have meant a smaller peak deficit in the crisis (10% of GDP in 2009/10). Yet this must not be overstated: reckless banks would still have gone bust; consumer confidence would still have collapsed; terrified businesses would still have stopped investing; GDP would still have contracted sharply and the resulting collapse of Tax revenues would still have led to higher government spending; and tax payers would still have been left to pick up the bill.

        Hindsight is a wonderful luxury, but It would have been a strange choice to run a budget surplus in 2006/07 when debt-to-GDP ratio that year was only 37%, lower than the 40% they inherited when they took office a decade earlier, and moderate by historical and international standards.

        As Oxford economist Simon Wren-Lewis concluded:”any claim that the UK economy was dire before the Great Recession is not tenable.”

        As regards gold, as Alan Beattie said in the FT, holding onto gold is a largely pointless activity for governments. If you convert the gold to money you can at least earn interest and that’s what happened to the money which the government made from the sell-off: it was invested in foreign currency interest-bearing assets, 40% in dollars, 40% in euros and 20% in yen.

        Conversely, with gold prices falling through the floor, why aren’t the people screaming at Osborne for not selling half of our gold holdings in 2011 at peak price? Hmm?

        The other reason behind Brown’s move, hailed as “Brilliant” at the time in the financial press, ( which you can easily check for yourself) was to intentionally depress the price of gold still further. Intentionally I say. Brown fully understood that UK Banks were beginning to face liquidity problems, and he gave them the opportunity to recapitalise their reserve requirements. Had he not done so, we might assume that the crash, when it came, would have been that bit worse for all of us.

        When history becomes to be written, Brown will get off lightly… it is Osborne who will turn out to be the true villain.

        • Sue Smith

          “Tory crud”? Is that what the majority voted for? Resoundingly.

          • Abie Vee

            Cud.

          • doctorfloyd

            No, as the majority did not vote for them?

        • Colonel Mustard

          “I’m not interested in a simple, and simplistic, re-regurgitation of stale Tory cud.”

          Of course not. You are only interested in a simple, and simplistic, re-gurgitation of stale Socialist cud to go with your Great Big Head.

        • Mr B J Mann

          Except that one of the first acts Brown carried out on gaining office, copying Clinton, was to deregulate credit controls (NOT the same thing as Thatcher deregulating the upper class old boy Tory toff hereditary old school tie Eton and Guards stockbroking and stockjobbing aristocratic monopolies which priced the poor out of sharing in the spoils of the sweat of their brows) and encouraged a house price inflation based high risk credit fuelled feel good consumer credit boom.

          And even went so far as to not just get unemployed youth off the dole by conning them into getting loans to live off, but borrowing the money to pay for a public higher education sector boom!

          Then there’s the small matter of him skimming private sector pension funds.

          Which meant that the funds had inadequate reserves and were forced to sell off equities to rebalance their portfolios, which pushed the stock market down, which further pushed down the value of their funds, leading to further share sales, and greater price drops, which necessitated more sales………

          As I’m sure you knew all along!

          • Abie Vee

            Tripe from beginning to end.

            Still… it’s never too soon to start re-writing history in your own image, eh?

    • Sue Smith

      I’d go further and suggest most western universities are wedded to Gramscian Marxism, not just those in the UK. Thank the deity of choice these people aren’t running things; the same people wedded to old ideas which are widely regarded as social failures. And they sit in their gilded cages ‘preaching’ the gospel of Marx in all their “humanities” courses and these are lapped up by gullible 18-20y/o and those whose ‘education’ ceases the minute they leave the campus gate after graduation.

      Only got to read “The Guardian” to see all that in action.

      • Abie Vee

        That could be because Marx had a better grasp of the nature of capitalism than almost anyone else. However, my point is that in an economics syllabus is is taught along with Keynes, Friedman , Galbraith and all the rest of ’em.

        Your fantastic nonsense UK Universities are a subversive hot-bed of communist intrigue is pure right-wing, tea-party, fruitcake, gibbering, swinging from the belfry, paranoia.

        Have a nice day . Don’t forget your medication.

        • Frank

          No-one mentioned “intrigue”, they were just pointing out that British universities have a depressing habit of having very large numbers of academics who are socialists. This political perspective is something that they would have grown out of had they emerged from their universities and entered the real world!!
          Anyway, don’t mind me sister, you go and vote for Corbyn.

          • Abie Vee

            So you say.

            But (1) how to you “know”?
            And (2) what is a socialist to you? Anyone to the left of Genghis Khan?
            And (3) your suggestion that “socialists” are simply people with no experience of the real world is absurd and meaningless claptrap is it not?

            Every night before you go to bed, you should fall to your knees and that the good lord for Geogri Zhukov, Konstantin Rokossovsky, Ivan Konev, et al, for their heroic efforts during The Great Patriotic War.

            Socialists are the sole reason you’re free today you post your tripe.

          • Torybushhug

            Socialists are naïve and disconnected by default.
            For example they urge us to further tax corporations and transform them into semi-social enterprises with not a flicker of recognition as to the damage this would do to pension fund returns (even the Saintly COE pension fund is 75% invested in equities).

            I find people to be much more attuned to the toxic reality of endemic welfare culture if they have been directly exposed to it, something few middle class socialists have ever lived through.

          • Abie Vee

            Um. Does it actually matter much what socialist do, or do not, urge? It might if they were ever in power.

            You don’t want to ruffle my feathers about “welfare”, I’ll warn you. You’ll be here all day. Toxic? You ain’t kidding!

          • Colonel Mustard

            Oooooh, how scared we is. Abie Vee with “ruffled feathers” doesn’t bear thinking about.

          • Infidelissima

            LOL

          • Colonel Mustard

            “And (2) what is a socialist to you?”

            You pretty much. Opinionated about everything, dogmatic, sneering, big headed, full of it, certain that only you are right about everything and anyone who disagrees is wrong.

            Curiously there seems to be one or two exactly like you on every right of centre website, peddling your simple, and simplistic, re-gurgitation of stale Socialist cud. So little doubt about what a socialist is.

            Keep posting your cud though, it reminds all conservatives of what utter scumbags most socialists are.

          • Colonel Mustard

            “Every night before you go to bed, you should fall to your knees and that the good lord for Geogri Zhukov, Konstantin Rokossovsky, Ivan Konev, et al, for their heroic efforts during The Great Patriotic War.

            Socialists are the sole reason you’re free today you post your tripe.”

            Codswallop. The fighters in the Warsaw Uprising didn’t have much to thank them for. The Katyn murdered didn’t have much to thank them for either. When the small band of RAF pilots ensured you were free to write your socialist inspired tripe your precious Soviet Union, home of Purge, Gulag, Murdering Secret Police and Deliberate Famine, was a Na zi ally.

            That Ode to Stalin was suspiciously like telemachus, especially the knees bit, so I’ll presume that you are yet another of his “associate” sock puppets from the ‘SWP masquerading as Labour’ worrying this fine website like a rabid dog worrying sheep.

          • Abie Vee

            All told, eight out of every ten German troops killed in World War II perished while fighting the Soviets.

            Poland schmo-land. The Soviets had just pushed the main German battle group, Army Group Centre, back a full 1000 km from Kursk, non-stop, destroying Army Group Centre’s Fourth Army, Third Panzer Army and Ninth Army in the process… the most calamitous defeat experienced by the German armed forces during the Second World, costing Army Group centre at least half a million men, killed or captured. A thousand kms of non-stop fighting against Germany’s excellent battle-hardened main fighting force and you’re surprised the Soviets stopped for a refit? Logistics obviously wasn’t your strong point at Sandhurst was it Col.

            Your Normandy invasion was aside-show… by then the Soviets had the means to finish the Nazi-beast on their own.

          • prolibertate

            Abie, funny how you forget that Stalin was ALLIED with Hitler, called him “my socialist brother” and provided him one train of petrol, iron ore etc. EVERY DAY during the Blitzkrieg!

            There’s absolutely NO MERIT in the fact that he ultimately found himself fighting against Hitler – it wasn’t by choice!

            One of the reasons the Russians suffered 20 million losses of life is because Stalin had massacred 35’000 officers out of fear for his power just shortly before the war.

            The Russians didn’t fight for Stalin – they were ready to dump him. When the Germans arrived, they thought they were being RESCUED from the Bolsheviks. Sadly, the Nazis sent in their Gestapo and randomly arrested and killed people. At that point, the Russian people had to make a choice between 2 evils and they decided to fight for “mother Russia”.

            And no, without the Normandy Invasion, the Russians would NEVER have won the war!

            The Germans didn’t even lose to the Russian military, but to the usual problem with invading Russia – the land mass and the climate.

            Neither of those would have helped the Russians if they had had to attack Germany without the help of the Americans.

            There’s a huge difference between defensive and offensive war. The Germans and Americans were the best on offensive war.

            And considering the massive loss of life, one has to admit that the Soviets totally sucked at both.

          • vieuxceps2

            Just a coincidence that their refit was on the other side of the river from Warsaw then?

          • prolibertate

            Free from the National SOCIALISTS of Germany? What pathetic TRIPE you post, indeed!

            Maybe you forgot that Hitler and Stalin were ALLIES, first and that Stalin called Hitler “My Socialist Brother”!

            When Hitler turned on him – as socialists always do – Stalin quickly invented a new label for the Nazis: “far right”. Utter claptrap, but every lefty on the planet sucked it up like honey.

          • Abie Vee

            Do you even know the difference between communism and socialism and national socialism? It seems not. It isn’t my business to educate you.

          • prolibertate

            Hahaha, you, “educating” anyone? You are totally IGNORANT and CLUELESS!

            I know PRECISELY what I’m talking about!

            The Nazis were MAINSTREAM SOCIALISM in the 1920s and 1930s.

            The Swedish socialist party was highly embarrassed when writings of their party founder turned up which sounded EXACTLY like Hitler!

            Who do you think wrote this?

            “Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew — not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Jewry, would be the self-emancipation of our time…. We recognize in Jewry, therefore, a general present-time-oriented anti-social element, an element which through historical development — to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed — has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily dissolve itself. In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Jewry”.

            If you said “Hitler”, you were WRONG!

            This was by Marx!

            Hitler admitted, in private, that he admired Marx, but that he couldn’t say so, because the Marxists were officially rival party. But there was almost no ideological difference between them, which is why the Nazis allowed all Communists to switch party, no questions asked.

            Here is a fabulously detailed documentation that shows that the Nazis were 100% PURE SOCIALISTS:

            http://jonjayray.tripod.com/hitler.html

            It is high time YOU get an education!

          • Jeffrey Vernon

            You can read Marx on the Jewish question with post-holocaust eyes (in a time when every statement about Jews seems charged to the highest degree). Or you can read it for what it is: a polemic against David Bauer, who viewed Jewish emancipation in purely religious terms. Marx wanted to talk about real Jews – the ones who, even if they were the state Banker to the kaiser, had no political rights at all and were in just as much need of emancipation as a gentile. Bauer claimed that no-one in Germany was free (in 1843). Marx, himself a Jew, replied that Capital, operating in the same way as the Jews did (der Schacher here really means haggling or bargaining, rather than huckstering), had a kind of freedom that the Jews did not; that the gentiles with their haggling were no less ‘Jewish’ than the Jews, and yet more free. He then turns this into a dialectical joke: Jews can be liberated only if the conditions for Capital are abolished – when this happens all will be liberated; Jews along with everyone else will become members of civic society. Until that happens, civic society is not possible for anyone. Now, you don’t have to go along with any or all of this to recognise it as a way of argument among German radicals in 1843. No-one then would have seen polemics about the end of Jewry as a manifesto for genocide.

          • prolibertate

            What a load of hogwash!

            “On the Jewish question” is totally hate-filled garbage. Some say that Marx hated Jews so much, because his mother didn’t give the damn parasite all the money he asked for and as she converted last, in the family, he called her “the Jew”.

            Marx was a pathetic loser who never did anything useful in his life. Got a house employee pregnant, then refused to recognize the child. Engel’s daughter took care of the kid, then placed him in an orphanage. It’s the only child of Marx who did not commit suicide.

            Antisemitism wasn’t the only form of racism inherent in Marx’s and Engel’s writing. Shall we talk about their anti-black racism?

            http://www.henrileriche.com/2013/06/18/marxs-racism-many-support-karl-marx-without-even-knowing-it/

            The left are still in a total state of denial about their origins.

            The Democrats in the US were the party of Slavery and of racism. The party of the KKK, of the Jim Crow laws. And yes, Roosevelt expressed open admiration for Mussolini and was a huge fan of Stalin, whom he called “Uncle Joe”.

            The most ridiculous excuse is that “the parties switched”, which is absurd – same people, same voters. How would the “switch” have happened?

            Denial, denial…

          • Infidelissima

            why are you wasting your time on this ignorant Abdul?
            in case you haven’t noticed, but there’s a reason they war with everybody n the planet, especially their own: they are disturbingly stupid due to violent inbreeding

          • Alexsandr

            no. they want a worldwide caliphate. they will do this with violence, eroding civil liberties by playing the victim and by breeding.

          • Infidelissima

            i know, they are repulsive parasitic entities who contribute nothing, and only destroy

          • Alexsandr

            socialists have hated jews since before Marx. check out Proudhon and Fourier.

          • prolibertate

            The left have been lying to themselves since the end of WWII about the fact that Nazism and Fascism were 100% LEFT-WING IDEOLOGIES!

            That FDR admitted admiration for Mussolini’s “economic system” (essentially ultra-authoritarian Keynesianism) which he tried to reproduce with the New Deal.

            This article talks about a fabulous book on one of the extremely rare Swiss people to ever support Nazism (he was hated and despised, in Switzerland, where Nazism never passed 3% in any election). It demonstrates how Nazis, Communists and Muslims cooperated after the war, went to shared terrorist training camps and got along swimmingly:

            http://datacide.c8.com/francois-genoud/

            Nazis and Communists shared their hatred of Israel with Muslim terrorists, who had been formed and supported by the Nazis in the 1930s-1940s, which is why the Hamas and Hezbollah greeting still look exactly like “Heil Hitler”.

            Joshka Fischer himself participated in such Muslim terrorist training camps.

            The fact that Mitterrand changed so smoothly from being a follower of the Vichy Regime to being a socialist president tells you all you need to know – there is NO distance between socialists and Nazis!

            Then look at how the EU was founded by former Nazis: the first president of the first commission was Walter Hallstein, a man who signed his letters with “Heil Hitler” and who was sent by Hitler himself to negociate a “new Europe” with Mussolini.

            And what about the fact that the former SS Officer Paul Dickopf made such a spectacular career under the German socialists, becoming head of the German Federal Police and then head of Interpol?

            The Nazis are on the left, they hate Capitalism and the free market. Make some progress, ADMIT IT!

          • Abie Vee

            FDR? Indeed. I believe our own dear Royal Family were quite enthused by that nice Mr. Schicklgrubber too.

            Allow me to pop your infantile analysis: Simply put, National-Socialism is anti-democratic, anti trade unionist, ultra nationalistic and racist. In short, everything Socialism is not: Democratic, pro-trade unionism and workers rights, international and multicultural: a brotherhood of man.

            I leave you to your fantasy world.

          • ueberallzuhause

            Let me enlighten you again. I happen to live in the eastern part of Germany. I have relatives and friends who were around during socialism here, and I also have friends from other former socialist countries. Democratic? Nope. No such thing as free elections, not even remotely. You got into deep trouble for simply asking for a pen, or some privacy to vote, because it meant you didn’t want to vote as the SED wanted to And trouble meant unpleasant encounters with the secret police and could ruin your whole live. Unions? Marionettes. Ask the Polish about Solidarnosc. International and multicultural? Interesting. Workers from other countries were strictly separated from the population, it is no coincidence that xenophobic attacks mostly ccured in the eastern parts, and xenophobia is much more common here even today. In fact, there have been surveys that showed that people who vote for the former SED are the most xenophobic here.

          • Abie Vee

            Get it straight : East Germany was Soviet-style communism.

            There are many more types of socialism than that, the British and Scandinavian social-democratic models worked well for years (some still do).

          • vieuxceps2

            “Some sorts of socialism still work”- My Word! What a recommendation.

          • Abie Vee

            My word! What a fact.

          • vieuxceps2

            “Some socialism still works”-Fact, you say. Where? Cuba,Zimbabwe,Russia, China,North Korea, Milliland? Westminster? (Hahahaha as you would say) .Really, Vee,Old Lady you must get a grip on time.
            That nice jewish gentleman Mr.Marx died long ago.His dying words were- “Workers of the World, Forgive me.” It was in the Aberdeen Angus, er Argus. Surprised you missed it.

          • Abie Vee

            My dyslexic friend thought they were ” Workers of the World Untie.”

            Social Democracy is prevalent throughout the world; in Europe. Finland, Denmark, Norway spring easily to mind, perhaps Sweden and, to a currently failing amount, the UK and Ireland. An avowed socialist rules France. The left is on the rise in Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy. Normally the progressive alliance of social democrats and socialists form the second largest bloc in the European Parliament.

            You deliberately misread socialism to portray it as rabidly anti-capitalist. It isn’t. That’s communism you’re thinking off. Socialism and social democracy seek to control the beast: it is an interventionist philosophy, directly opposed to unregulated uncontrolled free-market buccaneering; one which supports social justice and greater equality in the distribution of income and wealth within the framework of a capitalist economy.

          • vieuxceps2

            Perhaps you’d better tell Jeremy Corbyn that.He don’t seem to know. Vote ,Vee,vote for him,same as wot I done.

          • Abie Vee

            As likely as not.

          • vieuxceps2

            Social democracy ,yes.Socialism ,no.

          • Abie Vee

            Social Democracy IS Socialism. Social democracy adopts the goal of state regulation, but not state ownership, of business and industry to further economic growth and equitable income.

          • vieuxceps2

            Rubbish.

          • Abie Vee

            Easy to say. But, as usual for you, your subjective opinions and generalisations lack any factual detail (evidence) to support them, without which your one-word grunt is indeed just as it says: rubbish.

          • vieuxceps2

            Si evidentiam requiris circumspice.

          • Abie Vee

            Don’t kid yourself. I doubt that anyone following your comments regards you as a deep thinker. Your enigmatic knowing smirk conceals the empty head of a bimbo.

          • vieuxceps2

            Abie my Girl, A bawbee for you for the allusion and the meaning . Oh and a groat for why you think “Don’t kid yourself” is a sensible reply. Empty head ,eh? Yes indeed! But whose? (Remember, not “who’s”) Shan’t tell you again.

          • Abie Vee

            Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

          • vieuxceps2

            A fitting tale for you.But no bawbees or groats for idiots I’m afraid, See how it works now, do you,luv?
            .

          • Abie Vee

            Help! I’m being stalked by an answerphone!

          • vieuxceps2

            No,you don’t see how it works, do you ,luv? Try the Dandy or the Beano. Or night -school maybe…..

          • Abie Vee

            I see exactly how it works. Better than you.

            I have you on my hook little worm. That’s how it works. I’ve entered into your consciousness. And now you begin to obsess!

            Marvelous… from a line of text, an anonymous androgynous troll, to a real live human being. Tell me wise one… how many lovers do I have in this make-believe alternative world of yours? Am I black, brown, yellow or white (or a mulatto perhaps)? Am I short or tall, fat or thin, rich or poor, English, Chinese or Welsh (heaven forbid). What car do I drive? I’m dying to know. Let your imagination rip.

          • vieuxceps2

            Yankee? “Marvelous”? Homework-NOW!

          • Abie Vee

            Marvelous : superb; excellent; great.
            Yankee: an inhabitant of New England or one of the northern states.

          • vieuxceps2

            Marvelous- An Amercanism. So ein
            Weissnichts.

          • Abie Vee

            In his desperate search for mummy’s approval, the anally-retentive troll descends to farce: the mere bandying of synonyms as a substitute for debate.

            The pathos… the pathos.

          • vieuxceps2

            Bathos rather, Abigail.

          • vieuxceps2

            Many thanks for that comment, such a refreshing change to read of the reality of socialism rather than the windy ignorant verbiage of the semi-educated who use it to cover their own inadequacies. They think that by passing laws they change reality whereas they simply create schism and division where none existed. Still, the “Stasi” of whatever socialist state there ever was always flourish don’t they? But only until “the wall” comes down,then they scuttle,oh how they scuttle.
            Trouble is,it doesn’t last. despite the death of the soviet socialist empire the marxoids continue to believe their own canting nonsense and revise history to suit their theories.We have such hypocrites in this debate,whose notions of logic and fact are unrecognisable to normal people.
            PS: I see from your name that you are “At home everywhere”. Good.

          • Striebs

            Abie Vee ,

            People who say socialism is democratic are either dishonest or …. living in a fantasy world .

            Have you not heard those socialists who claim themselves to be “totalitarian socialists” ?

            They are the ones who have the decency to be honest about it .

            When Lech Walesa and Solidarity stood up against Poland’s Russian backed Govt , the UK TUC and Labour party admonished them for opposing a “fraternal govt” .

            In truly lefty style this didn’t stop the TUC and Labour party attending the 20 years anniversary in Poland and pretending they had supported it all along . Lech Walesa hadn’t forgotten though , he told them to $uck 0$$ .

            If you really believe what you say and are over 30 years of age then I’m afraid there your case may be incurable .

          • Abie Vee

            What a load of anecdotal tripe. I’ve better things to do that read your fantasising. I’d better stop you now before you get on to stocking-tops.

          • prolibertate

            You are ridiculously ignorant!

            Socialism has ALWAYS been – and still is – ANTISEMTIC and RACIST!!!

            I’ve already posted Marx’s antisemitic rant (yes, he was a capo – a self-hating Jew allying with his own enemies).

            But you seem to be in denial about Marx’s and Engel’s anti-black racism as well:

            http://www.henrileriche.com/2013/06/18/marxs-racism-many-support-karl-marx-without-even-knowing-it/

            Or the homophobic, racist symbol of communism, the Che Guevara, yet another psychopath who enjoyed killing people (as he himself wrote to his father, after his first murder):

            “The black is indolent and a dreamer; spending his meager wage on frivolity or drink; the European has a tradition of work and saving, which has pursued him as far as this corner of America and drives him to advance himself, even independently of his own individual aspirations.”

            The Democrats were the party of racism and slavery, the party of the Jim Crow laws and the KKK.

            You are in total denial about the true nature of the ideology you root for.

          • Abie Vee

            You can shout out all you want to. Indeed, it would be absurd to propose that there are no racists in any political creed or party. Racism, antisemitism, is everywhere, but it has nothing to do with socialism.

            Your logic is childish, absurd and hilarious. Technically, a textbook example of faulty inductive reasoning. Allow me to demonstrate: what you are bellowing is akin to this; An apple is a fruit, therefore, fruits are apples.

            Wasn’t it the Democrats who freed the slaves? Wasn’t it the Labour Party who brought in the Race Relations Act?

            By their “fruits” ye shall know them.

          • Infidelissima

            it’s true, he can shout as loud as he likes, it still won’t make your teeny tiny brain grow to 4 fully formed cells

            another day, another inbred low-IQ ignorant mussie

          • Abie Vee

            Mussie? Unworthy of a reply. l’ll leave the gobbing-off to you.

            By the way, I have no religion (aka Church of England… you know, christenings, weddings, funerals and nothing in between). I count religion but a foolish toy…

          • Infidelissima

            socialism, pedophilia, insane psychotic religious fanaticism – all things you defend and stand up for, strange for a non-religious person

            seems your religion is Islam, or anything equally satanic

          • Abie Vee

            Gosh .. got the old imagination on overdrive this morning, eh? and the spell-checker too.

            ” insane psychotic religious fanaticism” ? hahahaha. What WOULD you do without me?

          • vieuxceps2

            May I suggest once again that all sensible posters ignore this infected little Abie Vee person? It is a troll and a quondam SNP cybernat spawned of marxoids and nationalists It has nothing to tell us and an unfortnate caledonian turn of phrase, particularly as here with its Beano and Dandy ha ha ha etc.. Let’s leave it in its closet,shall we?

          • Infidelissima

            without you, we’d be free of third world parasitic killers and child rapists, and the vermin who defend them

          • prolibertate

            Wow, your ignorance is CATASTROPHIC!

            “Wasn’t it the Democrats who freed the slaves?”

            No, the Democrats fought to MAINTAIN slavery! It was the Republicans who were formed to fight slavery. Lincoln was a Republican.

            So was Martin Luther King.

            It was Lyndon Johnson who said, on promoting the Great Society handouts: “I’ll have the niggers vote Democrat for the next 200 years”.

            To the left, blacks are a demographic to be exploited, but to be kept down!

            And you simply don’t get it – antisemitism has been in the DNA of the left for its entire history, as is racism in general.

            Look at how the left think of blacks when they leave the plantation: any black who DECIDES TO BE conservative or classic liberal instead of supporting the left-wing mafia is treated with unbelievable hatred. You can tell that they want to go straight back to burning crosses and lynching.

            So in other words, blacks are not supposed to be individuals with their own views. They are supposed to follow a collective ideology. And if they don’t, they are not useful for the left and hence can be spat on.

            THAT is the mind-set on the left!

            There is not more racist.

          • Abie Vee

            So, er : These apples are fruit, therefore all fruits are apples. Thus : These racists are socialists; therefore all socialists are racists.

            That’s your logic, isn’t it. And it’s truly laughable. Well it would be if it wasn’t so deranged.

            Yeah you got me on Abe, but you steer away from the rest, obviously: it doesn’t fit your narrative.

            Was it not the Labour racists who brought in the Race Relations Act, the Equal Pay Act, the Sex discrimination Act, the Human Rights Act, The Employment Rights Act? and many other acts concerning discrimination? Wet my change! I believe it was.

            Funny old way of doing things these racists, eh?

          • prolibertate

            “That’s your logic”

            No, it isn’t – but you sure love straw men!

            You are another pathological case of a left-wing person unable to understand logic.

            Which is entirely coherent: if people on the left and statists in general were able to think logically, they wouldn’t be on the left or for any kind of statism.

            Racism is an INHERENT and INSEPARABLE part of Socialism!

            Find me ANY time in history when the left did not either support racist policies, eugenics and mass-murder or fake anti-racism, using various alleged victim groups to promote their evil policies. Or any period of time when they weren’t antisemitic assholes!

            “The ultimate test of racism is when someone holds black people to a different standard than everyone else”
            — Unhyphenated America (a black organization)

            “the Labour racists”

            Correct designation!

            “who brought in the Race Relations Act”

            Exploitation of racism for political gains!

            “the Equal Pay Act”

            Anticapitalist bullshit that caused a massive reduction in salaries and employment! In Switzerland, we do not have such crap and we have the highest salaries in the world, with the lowest unemployment (3%, also for youth unemployment; socialist countries like France and Sweden: 24% youth unemployment).

            That’s because the Swiss labor market is DYNAMIC!

            cf. today’s article from NZZ:

            http://www.nzz.ch/wirtschaft/erstaunliche-effizienz-dank-hoher-mobilitaet-1.18451308?reduced=true

            “the Sex discrimination Act”

            Same thing: Labor pretends to “solve” a problem, but really just CREATE one. The market sorts out stupid idiots who discriminate against good workers in no time.

            “the Human Rights Act”

            Worthless blabla.

            Labor don’t give a flying shit about hundreds of thousands of abuses by Muslims in the UK against white or Muslim girls, because Muslims are an important demographic for Labor voters.

            Funny how women’s rights suddenly don’t matter anymore, when they defend Muslims:

            http://www.denmarknews.net/index.php/sid/235070269

            Or about human rights abuses by Muslim countries and Muslim groups. They will, however, condemn Israel for alleged “human rights violations”, because the government stops subsidizing some left-wing Palestinian propaganda group that spread hatred of Israel.

          • Alexsandr

            um. anti democratic. thats why they try and shut up any dissent from their views with insults like facist or racist. They dont want dialogue they just want their own way. and look at the bleating when they lose an election.
            Racist – the left is racist. but against the indigenous population. And Diane abbott is the worst manifestation of this. Many sexist against men too.

          • Abie Vee

            They? Who are “they”?

            Like the Conservative Party, we’re a broad church; and like the conservative party we have our infiltrators, traitors, third columnists, spies, kiddy-diddlers, scoundrels and charlatans too. Like every other political party you’ve ever heard of.

            We do our best to weed-out the fruitcakes. Unlike you, we are not perfect, but we are the ones who brought you The Race Relations Act (which includes antisemitism provisions). Then Sex-discrimination and equal pay Acts, The Human Rights Act, Unfair dismissal… nearly all of which also contain anti-racial and anti-religious discrimination clauses.

            Not too bad for a bunch of closet racists, eh? I wonder what your lot ever did for the good of mankind?

          • Alexsandr

            my lot? i am not a member of any party.

          • Abie Vee

            Is THAT it? Is that all you can say? What about the proposition?

            “[…]we are the ones who brought you The Race Relations Act (which includes antisemitism provisions). Then Sex-discrimination and equal pay Acts, The Human Rights Act, Unfair dismissal… nearly all of which also contain anti-racial and anti-religious discrimination clauses. Not too bad for a bunch of closet racists, eh?”

            Why would racists and antisemites do such things?

          • vieuxceps2

            Third columnists? Even your lefty history is defective.Are you entirely incompetent?

          • Abie Vee

            Gosh, you’re a pedant, a proof-reader, a grammar-nazi, a sophist, a troll AND a spell-checker! So much talent (so little to say).

          • vieuxceps2

            Oh,we all have much to say but only to those able to understand it. You are worthy only of persiflage and p*ss-taking. (PS It’s fifth columnists. Just for info.)

          • Abie Vee

            You flatter yourself. I suppose somebody has to.

          • vieuxceps2

            You delude yourself.Not hard,even for you.

          • Abie Vee

            So many words, so little content.

          • Abie Vee

            Presumably, you display your mighty intellect elsewhere, known only to you and your legion of adoring acolytes (Mum and Aunty Winnie).

            The only time you appear on here is to take the persiflage.

          • vieuxceps2

            “The only timeyou appear on here is to take the persiflage ” But of course, Abie my Girl.Did you expect to be taken seriously?

          • Abie Vee

            I’m happy to become the focus of your sarcasm. It means I have you.

          • vieuxceps2

            Well,hardly the focus, Abie old Thing. the odd aside perhaps.

          • Mr B J Mann

            How many times has the race relations act been used against places that no-platform J3ws?!?!

            Or the s-x discrimination act been used against places that no-platform men?!?!?!

            Or the uman rites act against people who try to force other people to put them up in a double bed in their own home, or try to force people to publish propaganda slogans supporting illegal acts on political props for activist rallies??!?!?

          • Abie Vee

            “Bleating”? Show me a good loser and I’ll show you a loser.

            You bleat a awful lot, now I think on it. And you’re far happier gobbing-off than having and honest debate.

          • Alexsandr

            Nice . leftie losing argument resorting to insults.

          • Abie Vee

            Not at all… I’m returning the sneering epithet you so ungraciously deployed.

            Can’t take your medicine, eh?

          • Alexsandr

            go and play with tellytubby.

          • Abie Vee

            I’ve a very good idea what you play with…

          • vieuxceps2

            An epithet is an adjective, bleat is a verb. Are we not learning our lessons? Do I labour in vain?

          • Abie Vee

            Epithet: an adjective or phrase expressing a quality or attribute regarded as characteristic of the person or thing mentioned.

            Bleating : A whining feeble complaint; to speak or complain in a weak, querulous, or foolish way: it’s no good just bleating “do I labour in vain” when obviously you do!

          • vieuxceps2

            Yes, quite obviously I do labour in vain.. So do the rest as well. None so blind as they who will not see.

          • Abie Vee

            A verb? as in “you bleat an awful lot”?

          • vieuxceps2

            Yes, Abie,NOW you are learning.Let me know if I can help you further,or you could take a course in elementary grammar at the Workers’ Educational Institute.Or woodwork perhaps…..

          • Abie Vee

            As in the “you bleat an awful lot” of one day ago? I think I knew already.

          • ueberallzuhause

            Well let this german enlighten you. I have a book that was distributed by the nazis in great numbers, even when paper was scarce due to the war. They deemed it important enough to wase a lot of ressources on it. In this book, it is repeated several times how the nazis were the real socialists and the bolsheviks had betrayed the socialist cause. So, the nazi leaders don’t agree with your statement. You are basically saying Golden Delicious, Jonagold and Fuji were different kinds of fruit, when in fact, they are all apples.

          • Abie Vee

            But they would say that wouldn’t they? However, ye shall know them by their fruits.

            Faulty logic. All apples are fruit, but not all fruits are apples.

          • vieuxceps2

            Abie my Girl, you are the expert at faulty logic. It’s actual logic that is foreign to you.

          • Infidelissima

            you’re so ignorant and stupid, it’s delicious.

          • Abie Vee

            Um, Do you even know the difference between communism and socialism and national socialism? Do tell.

          • Alexsandr

            but do you know the similarities. esp between national socialism and socialism. Remember Proudhon and Fourier and marx set socialism on a jew hating path from the beginning.

          • Abie Vee

            Thus: apples are fruit, therefore fruits are apples.

            That’s your logic, right?

          • Infidelissima

            why waste my time on you?
            Laughing at you exposing your shocking ignorance, is enough for me

          • Abie Vee

            We will take that as “haven’t got a clue” then.

          • Infidelissima

            absolutely, take it, and shove it up there, wrapped in sandpaper 😀

          • Mr B J Mann

            According to Marx and Engels, and you’d think they’d know, socialism is a step on the road to communism. And national socialism is non international socialism. Or a step to non internationalist communism. Happy now?!

          • Abie Vee

            And according to Social Democrats, it’s no such thing. Happy now?

          • Mr B J Mann

            What have the followers of socialdemocratism got to do with the price of fish?!

          • Abie Vee

            It’s the social bit that gives it away. But, don’t take my word… look it up for yourself.

          • Mr B J Mann

            In “National Social……”.

            Just like the allusion to “communal” and “community” in Communism.

            Thanks for explaining!

          • Abie Vee

            Indeed. You’re bound to be right sooner or later (if only by accident)!

            It was the communal which came to capitalism’s rescue in 2008/09. Thank god for the state when you need it, eh?

          • Mr B J Mann

            Would this be the Communalist who, as one of his first acts on gaining office, copying Clinton, was to deregulate credit controls (NOT the same thing as Thatcher deregulating the upper class old boy Tory toff hereditary old school tie Eton and Guards stockbroking and stockjobbing aristocratic monopolies which priced the poor out of sharing in the spoils of the sweat of their brows) and encouraged a house price inflation based high risk credit fuelled feel good consumer credit boom.

            And even went so far as to not just get unemployed youth off the dole by conning them into getting loans to live off, but borrowing the money to pay for a public higher education sector boom!

            Then there’s the small matter of him skimming private sector pension funds.

            Which meant that the funds had inadequate reserves and were forced to sell off equities to rebalance their portfolios, which pushed the stock market down, which further pushed down the value of their funds, leading to further share sales, and greater price drops, which necessitated more sales………

            As I’m sure you knew all along!

            As I’ve already told you!!!

          • Abie Vee

            Good grief. Gordon Brown spent his entire time in office trying to tighten controls over the banks. This he did it the teeth of ferocious opposition in the UK from the financial services sector (as ever threatening to leave the country) and the then opposition Tories, whose spokesmen Cameron and Osborne were on record time and again saying what The City needs is less financial regulation not more! Brown was opposed by The USA, by the Eurozone, by Singapore and Hong Kong. Oh yes, things were changed after the event… we were all wise men then.

            The rest of your fantasy is too stupid for words.

          • Mr B J Mann

            I suppose I’ll have to accept your expert opinion as you clearly live in a world of fantasy.

            He might have increased red tape.

            And pretended he increase taxes on them.

            But if you aren’t aware he loosened credit controls and robbed private sector pensions (and of the wider financial consequences of that) and students: there’s no point in wasting my time on you.

          • Abie Vee

            Um… what does red tape actually mean, Mummy? Is it something like a red herring?

            My point, which has sailed right over your head, is that Brown was unable to regulate the banking system on his own. He needed the world’s other major financial centres to act in unison, since to act alone would merely have seen a capital flight out of the UK.

            In short, he needed the USA, the Eurozone, the G7 countries, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and all to be on board. This they failed to do… and the rest was history. All fall down.

            History is going to be a lot kinder to Gordon Brown than British public opinion.

          • Mr B J Mann

            AND WHAT DOES RED HERRING MEAN?!?!?!

            “My point, which has sailed right over your head, is that Brown was” DEREGULATING CREDIT CONTROLS AND ENCOURAGING UNREPAYABLE DEBT!
            AND SO *CAUSED* THE BANKING CRISIS!!!

          • Abie Vee

            Let me give you a tip: words are easy to write, but you have to place them in context so that they have meaning.

            “Deregulating credit controls.” (1) What credit controls would they be? Specifically. (2) When was this done. (3) What “unrepayable debt” ensued? (4) How did this “cause” the banking crash, and (4) And how does it link back to (1)?

            In the 1960s and 70s, strict capital reserve and liquidity ratios were applied to banks, and there was a panoply of sensible rules limiting the taking-on of excessive risks in mortgage lending. The authorities had a whole bag of policy clubs – but the lessons of history were forgotten and the rest of the clubs were thrown away in The Big Bang (Thatcher’s deregulation of The City in 1986).

            The Big Bang lead to a revolution in the types of firms that were permitted to operate in financial markets. For example, combined broking, research and trading operations were permitted. This was deregulation and certainly changed the face of the City. Out went unlimited liability and partnerships, and in came integrated investment banks, like Goldman Sachs, providing the range of services that we see today.

            On the plus side, in following 25 years, the UK’s trade surplus in financial services increased two-and-a-half fold, and there is now no credible rival in Europe for the City’s position.

            It’s true that Brown did little to fetter the masters of the universe. But then again, neither did anyone else, certainly not Thatcher and the City, certainly not the Bank of England, certainly not Wall Street, Frankfurt or the G7. Everyone took their eye off the ball.
            The idea that Brown “caused|” the Global Banking Crisis is the stuff and nonsense of delusional of maniacs. Idiots in short.

          • Mr B J Mann

            So who was responsible for the financial crisis?

            Australia? Sweden? Canada?

            From that well known right wing rag, the Grauniad:

            Gordon Brown has admitted mistakes in regulating the banks, accusing the City of lobbying against greater scrutiny before the financial crisis plunged Britain into recession.
            Brown had previously blamed the scale of the recession mainly on the international financial crisis and the refusal of other countries to agree to tighter international surveillance of the banks.
            In an ITV interview due to be broadcast tonight, Brown admits he had been influenced by bankers’ lobbying.
            “In the 1990s, the banks, they all came to us and said, ‘Look, we don’t want to be regulated, we want to be free of regulation.’ … And all the complaints I was getting from people was, ‘Look you’re regulating them too much.’
            “The truth is that globally and nationally we should have been regulating them more. So I’ve learnt from that.”

            And from that well known right wing website, the BBC:

            “Many would argue that Gordon Brown’s “light-touch regulation” and general deregulation of banking, in the UK and around the world, did more to “unleash” the City than anything Margaret Thatcher did, and more to pave the way to the financial crisis.”

            And again from the Grauniad:

            In the other camp is – predictably – Lord Lawson, who introduced the reforms as Margaret Thatcher’s chancellor. He insists they were as much about strengthening the London Stock Exchange as slashing red tape; as much about regulation as deregulation.
            “It was absolutely essential, because it was a way of bringing the stock market into the 20th century, and in particular making sure it was adequately capitalised,” he says.
            “The Financial Services Act, which did regulation of the stock market, was the first time that it had been put on a statutory basis. It was an act of regulation, not deregulation.”
            Instead, he blames Gordon Brown, more than a decade later, for handing the supervision of individual banks over to the shiny new Financial Services Authority in its Canary Wharf headquarters, while leaving the Bank of England in charge of overseeing the stability of the financial system. “The individual banks are the system,” Lawson says.

            To summarise, from Wikipedia:

            In 1997, The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the deregulation of the banks and other financial institutions. They freed the Bank of England from direct government control and removed the power by the Bank of England (and therefore by the government) from controlling the financial activities of banks in the UK. In 2006, new primary legislation (the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006) was introduced to establish statutory principles and a code of practice and it permits ministers to make Regulatory Reform Orders (RROs) to deal with older laws which they deem to be out of date, obscure or irrelevant. This act has often been criticised and called “The abolition of Parliament Act”.

            You might also want to have a look at this blog:

            http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/04/the-truth-about-labour-and-overspending/

            Or if that’s too trendy-lefty for you, try:

            http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/whos-deceiving-who-on-the-deficit/5465

          • Abie Vee

            Of course there were (and still are) “mistakes”. There was also theft on a global scale. The mistake was we didn’t see it coming. Nobody did. Now everyone is wise after the event.

            Where did it begin? “When” is a better question: Wall Street Finds Religion. the Presidential election of 1980 brought free-market Chicago-school IDEOLOGY to Washington (and London) and with it financial deregulation and a steady trimming-back of centralised government and the destruction of the postwar “old boy” establishment. Voodoo economics as Bush snr called it in disgust.

            As we now know full well, the prolonged financial boom which ensued carried within it the seeds of its own destruction.

            The first signs of the meltdown came in 2007 in the USA when Bear Strearns mortgage hedge funds could not meet margin calls. The first seismic quiver. The funds sold some of its good bonds to raise money, the rest turned out to be unsaleable at any price: worthless. The value of all sub-prime related debt tumbled accordingly. Sub-prime related problems began to pop-up all over the world; London, German and Swiss banks all announced large write-offs. Even China took a hit, and Markets began to panic. In August 2007 the Federal Bank and the European Central Bank flooded their economies with money. It didn’t help. It was a sticking-plaster.

            The birth of “structured finance”; the great expansion of derivatives markets; and the mathemisation of trading all came together to produce The Great Credit Bubble that eventually exploded with such devastating consequences.

            And it was all Brown’s fault. Not the Bank of England (who as I recall, never once met their inflation target); not the Treasury (we took our eye off the ball); not the FSA; not Wall Street and Chicago-school mumbo-jumbo economics; not the banks; not the gullible investors and borrowers and CEOs… just Brown’s.

            The wiki quote is bullshjt from start to finish. I could very easily destroy every line*. I have neither the time or patience (and the mouse is on the blink). It’s too nice a day as well.

            *If you’re interested in how easily, just give me a reminder on a wet day.

          • Mr B J Mann

            I’ve already explained, at length, and repeatedly, the difference between the Big Bang, and the CREDIT control easing of the end of the last millennium.

            And I’ve already explained, at length, and repeatedly, how Brown’s (and Clinton’s) boom creation CAUSED the crash by his actions leading up to it.

            So why are you jumping from the big bang to the crash as though there might be a few useful !diots out there who might be fooled by your foolish Brown-n0sing?!?!?

            There have been plenty of wet days recently.

            Why haven’t you been knocking something out?!

            Or have you, and you just haven’t hit us with it yet!!

          • Abie Vee

            Brown; Bank of England, Thatcher, Reagan, Clinton, The Treasury, The Federal Reserve, The City of London, The banks, bankers, the G7, G8, G20, the IMF, the World Bank, and every regulatory body the world over: “we took our eye of the ball” in the words of Sir Nicholas Macpherson, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury. By “we” he meant everybody!

            And remember: all the time they were in opposition, Osborne and Cameron (and The City) were demanding “What The City needs is LESS regulation, not more”! Go on, you fraud, refute that!

            You’re just pretending to be wise AFTER the event. There’s loads of you people: (Daily) Express-“Experts” I call ’em.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Abie Babie, if players take their eye off the ball, that doesn’t mean that they kicked the ball into the net, just that they let it in.
            And there is a difference between easing financial controls, but drowning organisations in red tape, and having effective but simple controls, without wasteful and inefficient bureaucracy.
            You’re not a civil servant by any chance?

          • Mr B J Mann

            And you won’t forget to include places like Australia, Canada and Sweden when you’re explaining how it had nothing to do with Brown, won’t you!

          • Abie Vee

            Australia is late to the party. As you know Australia has tied her economy to China’s. Things aren’t too good in China now. Go figure.

            For your interest, and much needed education, the degree to which countries were impacted upon by the banking crisis rather depended upon two things: (1) the relative size of their financial services industry as a proportion of GDP, (2) the nature of their banking system.

            Both America and the UK have disproportionally large banking sectors relative to their economies, and therefore ( at the risk of stating the bleedin’ obvious) both countries were more affected than those with relatively smaller sectors. Logical, no? I wonder why I have to explain this to you?

            The banking systems of many other developed countries, Canada, Germany, Denmark for example, are not so concentrated into big four, big-six, high-street monopolies as other countries (like us). Germany for example has perhaps two thousand banks… many of them small family concerns, or co-operatives serving purely local communities, or provincial banks. Most of these banks were not over-exposed to international speculation, indeed many of them don’t even get involved in mortgages. Not every country has the UK’s obsession with buying property, Factor (3)

            You’ll find, if you ever care to look (which you obviously don’t) that the German/Nordic model is followed in many countries, Canada included.

            Brown? If that’s all you’ve really got in your locker, you really are a dumb-cluck aren’t you? Nowt but a shill.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Thanks for your shilly input, Abie baby, except even Brown thinks you’re wrong.

          • Mr B J Mann

            PPS Oh, and don’t forget to “very easily destroy every line” of Brown’s admissions too, will you?!

          • Abie Vee

            So easily done it’s almost not worth the effort.

            Er, not “destroy Brown’s admissions”, get it right: to destroy the false narrative you frauds and balloons draw from them. There’s the “easy” bit.

            I told you. Remind me on a rainy day.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Don’t wanna rain on your parade, Abie Baby, or burst your balloon, so you keep on Brown-nosing.

          • Mr B J Mann

            If you’re struggling with the link, 3) was the unaffordable mortgages and other loans the public were encouraged to take out to create a feelgood consumer credit based boom, leading to toxic loans and collateralised debt obligations and other such carp.

            If you really need me to explain how that linked to the crash and back to the easing of credit control there’s no hope for you.

            Which we knew already.

            And don’t forget the £5 Billion pa robbed from pension funds which meant that they were forced to rebalance their portfolios, which meant that they had to dump masses of shares, which meant that their value dropped, which meant that the value of their portfolios dropped even more which meant that they had to rebalance them again, which meant that they had to offload more shares which meant that values dropped more which meant that…..

            Do you need it explaining how that links back to itself?!

          • Abie Vee

            3). Yes indeed. It went on all around the world. America and the UK in particular. Which is, of course, the point you refuse to admit.

            The Great recession was a global banking crisis. A crisis of confidence. As even the Permanent Secretary to The Treasury, Sir Nicholas Macpherson was forced to admit; ” a banking crisis pure and simple. We took our eyes off the ball.” By “we” he meant everybody!

            Lets get it straight: it was the international banking community who were being reckless. After Thatcher’s de-regulation of the banks in 1986, 100% mortgages became commonplace. Northern Rock, among others, were even offering 110% mortgages. You know, get a new car to park on your new drive.

            Of course, it was the return of inflation which crashed the system first. As it will indeed crash Osborne’s scam of cheap subsidised mortgages to boost the economy. His chickens will come home to roost before 2020. If a buyer cannot afford a decent deposit on a house in the first place, without government assistance, how the h3ll is he going to pay his mortgage when inflation rises. As it will?

            The system isn’t fixed, it’s patched-up. Round Two coming shortly. Watch this space.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Errrrmmmmmmmm, where have I refused to admit what?!?!?!?!

            My point was that Blair and Brown emulated the Clinton administration policy of facilitating and promoting a feel-good consumer boom based on unsustainable, unaffordable and unrepayable mortgages, themselves based on unreasonable, unsustainable, unaffordable house price inflation, ill-advised and un-checked salary multipliers, and unaudited affordability criteria.

            These were only possible due to the easing of credit and financial controls by THEIR “liberal” governments.

            When the loans turned toxic, due to these self same easings of banking controls, they were allowed to be hidden in collateralised debt obligations, junk bonds, and other such supposedly “rocket science” carp.

            Which is what brought so many banks down.

            In the UK we also had the problems of unemployed youngsters not just being conned into taking out loans to live off instead of signing on, but being conned into signing up for worthless “university” “degrees” (despite not even having the academic ability, nor the interest, to study, never mind pass, O Levels!), but of taking out further loans to pay for an expanded “higher” “education” sector!

            Plus the wholesale expansion of unaffordable PFI initiatives.

            A gross expansion of the public sector in general (a million more, was it, public “servants”??! and up from 35% to over 50%, was it?!?!, of gdp?!?!) and off balance sheet borrowing in particular (how many £TRILLIONS do “we” owe?!?!?!).

            Increasing borrowing to unaffordable levels when the sun shines.

            Selling off gold at a market low, and in bulk.

            Destroying private sector pension funds and undermining the stock market (a very vicious circle as I’ve repeatedly pointed out).

            Swamping (no, I’m not saying they are crocodiles!) the country with (!llegal !m)migrants most of whom don’t pay tax, and those that do barely covering the costs of the benefits the rest claim, so not even beginning to cover their own share of the REST of government expenditure, never mind the non taxpaying migrants share of it.

            However, as many, if not most, of the taxpaying !mmigrants were employed in the public sector, they aren’t actually paying ANY tax at all:

            They are simply repaying some of the real taxpayers taxes that pay for their salaries and (not gold-plated, but solid gold and diamond encrusted) pensions back into the tax pot!!!!

            Obviously, as the worlds biggest economy, and it’s fawning world-leading financial sector mate across the water, went down, they took down much of the rest of the worlds banking and financial sectors, but, notably, not those that did the opposite instead of blindly following suit!

            So, yes, Brown wasn’t responsible for the UK banking crash:

            He was responsible for the global financial crisis.

            Except to the Br0wn-n0sers!

            Keep it up.

            But it doesn’t matter how often, or how much, you protest:

            It won’t change the facts!

            If you don’t believe me, just look at what the nay-sayers are saying:

            Abie Vee > Mr B J Mann

            5 hours ago

            3). Yes indeed. It went on all around the world. *America* *and* **the** **UK** *in* **particular**. Which is, of course, the point **Y_O_U** refuse to admit.

            As for Thatcher, you obviously still haven’t taken on board what I’ve said and quoted about the Big Bank (and, no, I’m not a supporter of her, or the conservatives, but neither am I a red-tinted spectacle wearer who welcomes the green and cuddly wool being pulled over my eyes between the blinkers that also seem to be part of the uniform that people like you like to wear).

          • Abie Vee

            Garbage from start to finish. But I’m afraid I can’t make sense of your tirade. It’s like trying to speak a barmy man on the bus. “Thatcher; students; unemployed youngsters; Big Bank; cuddly wool; migrants; immigrants; the weather; gold…. good grief. Call an ambulance.

          • Mr B J Mann

            You clearly need one, secure, and with padding1

          • Abie Vee

            What pension funds did he raid? As far as my (brief) time in the industry went, that would have been illegal to raid a fund!

            Your notion is a simple urban myth. Nothing more than a virulent right-wing lie. People in the business know that. The myth to which you so happily cling is for fools and horses (and voters)

            What Brown actually did was to stop tax relief on dividends received by such funds, and use the money saved to boost the State Pension.
            The dividend tax relief for pension funds and charities was not a good thing for British Industry because it stimulated investors to press companies for ever larger dividends at the expense of investment, encouraging short-termism and discouraging investment in modernisation and expansion. Hence our woeful productivity by international standards.

            Tory Chancellor Lamont made a small “raid” some years earlier and no one, not even the Tories, is pressing for a return of dividend tax credits for the pension industry. No one. It was always a bad counter-productive idea.

            The reason why many company pension schemes were reduced, or folded, is another story. I’ll explain it to you one day. In the meantime, research what I have told you (twice) instead of gobbing-off.

          • Mr B J Mann

            O_*M*_**G**!!!!

            Do you ever read what you write before hitting “Post”?!?!?!

            “What pension funds did he raid…….? Your notion is a simple urban myth….. a virulent right-wing lie….. What Brown actually did was to…..”

            Wot??!?!?

            Pump more money into private sector pensions?

            NO!

            As YOU, *Y_O_U_R_S_E_L_F* say:

            “What Brown actually did was to stop tax relief on dividends received by such funds, and use the money saved to boost[?!?!?!] the State Pension.”

            So does that mean he took money from somewhere else and put it into private sector pensions?

            Does it mean he took money from somewhere else and put it into the state pension?!?!

            Does it mean he left the private sector pension untouched?!?!?!?!?!

            No, it means that the private sector pensions had £5 BILLION A YEAR *L_E_S_S* going into them!!!!

            Not only that, but as I have repeatedly explained, and if you were in the industry you SHOULD be fully aware of this, if the private sector pensions were not just worse off, but losing £% B_I_L_L_I_O_N a *Y_E_A_R* , they would have to drastically rebalance their portfolios, leading to mass dumping of shares regardless of the state of the stock market and the price they could get, which led to massive losses, and an inability to chase growth to recover.

            The *F_A_C_T_S* are simple:

            We had (despite unsustainable and unconscionable levels of charges and fat cat “banker” greed) some of the best private sector pensions in the world (although nowhere near as good as the not gold-plated, but solid-gold and diamond-encrusted public-sector ones!!!).

            But thanks to Brown’s supposed, according to you, “non” raids on the sector our final salary pensions have almost disappeared (except for the fat-cat bankers) and those that had them have found that they are near worthless.

            Thanks to brown, in case you missed it.

            The proof of the pudding is in the eating!

          • Abie Vee

            You’re almost incoherent. It’s difficult to unravel your outpouring of ignorance. I’ll try.

            Let me: what pension funds did he raid? Er, that’s too easy, none. Not one. He took not a penny from any fund. Is THAT clear enough?

            Let me explain it again: he stopped giving them tax credits on dividend interest. That is not “raiding a fund”. The fund remained as it was before. He cancelled a tax credit. (to which I might add they should NEVER have been entitled).

            Oh yes, £5 billion less they might have had. But not £5 million from what they already had.

            I went to some lengths to explain to you where persion shortfalls come from. The simple matter is that the funds were underfunded (A) through contributions “holidays” and falling returns from the stock-exchange and falling interest rates.

            Brown’s tax-credit move was nothing more than a convenient excuse for under performing fund mangers and company theft of pension contributions.

            I don’t know where that other post of mine is. It’s here somewhere. You look for it, and read it properly.

            Your oft repeated line that Brown caused the underfunding does not bear a moment’s scrutiny. It’s simply untrue. The underfunding was already there! In fact, it was built-into the system (contributions “holidays” theft).

          • Mr B J Mann

            ***O***_****M****_*****G*****!?!?!?!?!?!?

            You really don’t have a clue, do you?!?!?!?!

            “Oh yes, £5 billion less they might have had.”

            Whether they had it “before”, or not: he took it away.

            So you would be happy if Osbourne didn’t raid public “servants” not just gold-plated, but solid-gold and diamond encrusted pensions:

            But just refused to let the taxpayer fund the 25% shortfall in employee contributions (35% for police/fire service).

            You’d argue he wasn’t taking anything off public “servants” if he only allowed them to draw what their 5% (or even 0%) contributions actually bought?!?!?

            “I went to some lengths to explain to you where persion shortfalls come from. The simple matter is that the funds were underfunded (A) through contributions “holidays” ”

            You don’t know what a contributions “holiday” actually is, do you?!?!?!?!?!

            The inland revenue limits contributions to pension funds and imposes draconian financial penalties on pension schemes if they are over-funded.

            It doesn’t mean that fat-cats take money out of their workers pension funds to pay for a luxury holiday for themselves.

            It means they stop paying into a fund that has become over-funded from too good growth.

            So much for:

            “and falling returns from the stock-exchange and falling interest rates.”

            The falling returns came when they had to dump shares due to Brown’s raids.

            Didn’t your mother never tell you that when you are in a hole, you should stop digging!

            You are clearly an uneducated and ignorant troll, not worth anyone’s time or effort.

          • Mr B J Mann

            And as for:

            “discouraging investment in modernisation and expansion. Hence our woeful productivity by international standards.”

            Nothing to do with unions insisting on evil capitalists employing people to pour lead into type moulds when newspapers were almost entirely digital, employing a team of specialists to do a simple task anyone could do with a few simple tools in the kitchen draw (remember the time, and palaver, it took to get a nationalised BT – shared line – phone installed, never mind simple maintenance task in a private factory, never mind a public utility).

            And as for miners insisting on riding for hours underground, in “working” hours, to the next village instead of “their” mine being closed when it hit fault zones and being bussed in a few minutes to a coal face being worked from the next mine down the valley?!?!?

            And as for Lamont, I’m not interested in (and don’t support) what the Tories did in the last Millennium,

            I’m interested in the truth, and discussing what Brown caused in THIS century!

            By his actions after he stopped following Conservative policies.

            You clearly aren’t!

          • Abie Vee

            Surprisingly, although the big bad bogeymen Unions are now neutered, UK productivity levels are still the worst among our main competitors. How does that work?

            “The last millennium.”? How convenient for you. But there again, short termist. You neatly illustrate my point. I’m not surprised you don’t care to be reminded of Lamont though… who does.

            Pension funds do not have that luxury; they, unlike you, have to operate over life-spans.

            So you’re not interested in the long-term consequences of the 1980 tax changes that allowed the Tory government to raid pension fund surpluses for the very first time? Or their 1995 Pension Act *when companies were forced to index-link pensions for the first time? Or their MFR legislation (minimum funding requirements)* which added yet more logs to their bonfire?

            No why would you… it doesn’t fit your narrative. It fits your flight from the truth.

            * both of which didn’t come into effect until by happy coincidence they were just about to leave office (in the last millennium [no capitals req’d]) If you’re interested, I’ve posted the whole sad story on here in detail somewhere.

          • Mr B J Mann

            It’s clearly a waste of time responding to you, but here’s a few pointers.
            Different countries are, errm , different.
            For example, the Germans have different streams of schools to produce elite professionals, academics, technologists, technicians, operatives……
            Instead of building on our grammar, secondary modern, and the few technical grammars we had, the left insisted on destroying the bits that worked and turned them all into the worst kind of secondary moderns, but disguised the fact by calling them comprehensives.
            Other countries have a disciplined and educated workforce due to having disciplined schools that provide proper education, where elitism is encouraged, rather than eliminated.
            We dumb everything and everyone down.
            Other countries invest in industry, we “invest” bureaucracy and benefits.
            Other countries have an efficient infrastructure, they don’t use expensive heavy rail to provide a local bus service, and they have vastly more highway and motorway than we do.
            We have different ways of working when we do work. For example, in the US buildings are made on a standard template for every floor, and you can have any change you want, once the building is finished, which tends to mean the architect and the client don’t mess with it too much.
            Here construction is a very inefficient start/stop/wait for changes/order different materials “process”.
            In France if you want a new road or railway, you build it. If someone objects: tough! Here it can take decades just to NOT build it!
            Oh, and there are still a lot of things messed up by what’s left of the unions!!!
            Feel free to reply next time you visit planet earth, but I won’t be responding to our trolling!

          • Mr B J Mann

            Didn’t Marx say that socialism was a stepping stone to communism?!?!?!

            Which would make National Socialism a stepping stone to non internationalist communism!!!!!

            See.

            Easy!

            As for:

            “It isn’t my business to educate you.”

            Surely you should be doing it on a not for profit basis?!?!?

          • Abie Vee

            Good grief. We are indeed in the presence of greatness.

          • Frank

            Umm, without American food aid during the inter-war period, the Soviet state would have expired.
            Without American and British military equipment shipped in to Russia via the northern convoys, Soviet Russia would probably have fallen.
            Given the hardship which the north eastern European states suffered at the hands of Russia from 1945 until the collapse of Soviet Russia, it is regrettable that the allied forces didn’t keep going to liberate them from Soviet Russia in 1945.
            Socialism is a nasty virus that infects the free world, it usually goes with the application of a balanced education but does of course require that the students have a modicum of intelligence.

          • Abie Vee

            In some respects. Khrushchev always said that the best thing the Americans did for the Soviets was Spam.

            All else is if, if, if, if, if.

            The assumption that the Allied forces could have “kept going” and taken on the Russian Steamroller (where the mighty Wehrmacht and SS had failed) is laughable… the stuff of school playgrounds! The German’s were appalled at the ineptitude of the British forces during the Allied offensive in the West, particularly at Arnhem, Saint Malo and around Cherbourg. They were mostly a bloody shambles! Privately, the Americans thought so too.

          • Frank

            Not if if if, the Americans had the atom bomb, and the allies had overwhelming air superiority and endless industrial productive capacity. Rather different to the clapped out German army (and industry) which was always hindered by Hitler’s ineptitude. As for the Germans and your report on their views on the British military incompetence, probably right when compared to the very best German units – they did after all specialise in warfare. As for the Americans, they had just as many duff generals as the Brits from what I can tell, this is however often well disguised by lots of kit and men.

          • Abie Vee

            I think you’ll find they had two bombs operational, only two, and they’d already used both of them. And when a whole continent is occupied, where you gonna drop your iddy-biddy bomb? On top of the heads of the very people you are trying to save in Paris, Rome and Madrid? Yeah right. Solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.

            The Soviets could have swept through Europe like a hot knife through butter. Air superiority alone has little effect. Never has a war been won from the air.

            The fact of the matter was that Stalin was satisfied with the way Europe had been divvied-up. Take a tip from Moltke (the elder) “Russian can never be conquered, in the sense that it cannot be occupied.” It’s simply too big.

          • Frank

            To be honest you would have to be mad to want to occupy Russia.
            Secondly, you have clearly never been in under a mass air bombardment, otherwise you would realise that total air superiority is the key to military victory. Germany failed to build large long range bombers, so Russia never really felt what it was like to be carpet-bombed. Had the allies done this on Moscow, it might well have decapitated Soviet Russia – undoubtedly this would have been a good thing!! Ah well, you can keep alive your little passion for Stalin and his ghastly henchmen.

          • Abie Vee

            Air superiority is a key, not “the” key. Putting it bluntly, the key is to kill or capture enemy combatants and his weapons, not waste valuable resources on killing civilians.

            Of course Germany never built long range heavy bombers, and neither did Russia rely on them. They didn’t fit in with either countries tactics… Blitzkrieg and Deep War. Their air forces were not split into independent commands, such as Bomber Command and Fighter Command and Fleet air-arms, but were allocated in total mix, fighters, fighter-bombers, and etc under the command of Army Groups: that is to say, geographically rather than by function. Their aim was to support armoured spearheads in the manner of airborne artillery, and the disruption of enemy troop movements and supplies to the front. Neither side went in for area bombing of cities (perhaps with the single exception of Stalingrad).

            “Moscow”? Ifs, buts, and maybes, eh? For the sheer ineffectuality of area bombing, and it’s inability to impact measurably upon the ability of a country to wage war, I heartily point you in the direction of Richard Overy’s recently acclaimed history : The Bombing War: Europe 1939‑1945. A masterpiece of research full of informative detail which will swiftly disabuse you of your quaint notions forever. I assure you.

          • Abie Vee

            I don’t buy the theory of Hitler’s ineptitude. Where did that come from, why from the post-war diaries of his captured generals… von Manstein, Guderian, Halder and the rest. “Nothing to do with me guv”! Well they would say that .

            They ALL agreed that Russia could be taken within six months. They ALL entered into Russia as conquerors and enslavers, rather than liberators!

            Guderian fumed when he was ordered away from Smolensk to Kiev “that is to say, away from Moscow and back towards Germany” he sneeringly wrote. But the move was militarily correct (and brilliantly executed). The millions of Soviet troops in the Kiev region were behind Army Group Center’s front, perfectly positioned to attack them in the flank and rear when they moved towards Moscow. They had to be removed from the region. And they were.

            There are many other examples. Hitler was not obsessed by Moscow (indeed Blitzkrieg called for encirclement of cities by pander divisions who would swiftly move on, leaving the entrapped cities to be reduced at leisure). The captive generals, writing their self-serving memoirs, accused him of dividing his forces, but what he was aiming for was a line from Archangel to the Caspian, with the remaining Soviet forces pushed behind the Urals. It just so happened that , geographically, Moscow was 300 miles to the east of that line! And that’s all it was. Hitler had the evidence of Napoleon’s futile entrance into Moscow to back his view that Moscow was unimportant strategically. It was his gung-ho Generals, enthused by their apparent successes, who sought the glory of taking Moscow, not he!

            It goes on. And on. But you get my drift.

          • prolibertate

            Defending Hitler and Stalin … you really love your socialist dictators, don’t you?

            Sorry, but every person who is knowledgeable about history KNOWS that Hitler was a complete nincompoop who had just strangely managed to convince people to support him, although his speeches are totally retarded. People back then must all have fallen on their collective heads to think that such a clown could be a “great leader”.

          • Abie Vee

            Yes indeed. People “know” what they KNOW. But that doesn’t always make them right.

            The story of Hitler’s supposed incompetence does not, in the light of recent research, stand up to a great deal of scrutiny. It’s a convenience which suits everybody, both the winners and the losers.

            And your reply conflates two entirely different issues. I was trying to debunk the myth of his inept military meddling, not making a case for his sanity!

          • prolibertate

            You know NOTHING, but you sure are rooting a lot for COMPLETE PSYCHOPATHS, which leads me to conclude that you yourself must be a psychopath.

            About 1-3% of any population are natural psychopaths – people who are unable of empathy and who think that it is totally ok to mass-murder people to implement their favorite political ideology. You are clearly one of them.

          • Abie Vee

            Instead of covering your screen with spittle, why don’t you read what I’m saying? It would make a pleasant change.

            Perhaps you’d care to tell me just where it was that I said Hitler WASN’T a mass-murderer or a psychopath. I just take it that’s’s a given, and scarce needs repeating by me, or anybody.

            When you’ve failed to do that, perhaps you’d care to address the topic, Hitler’s alleged military incompetence, and discuss that instead.

            If not, there’s nothing more to be said.

          • prolibertate

            “Instead of covering your screen with spittle”

            Is that what you do? Fits with your psychopath profile.

            Here’s a hint: never conclude from yourself how other people act.

            I have no idea why you would imagine that anyone but you has a spittle-on-screen problem.

            Hitler’s strategy was absurd from beginning to end. He had no clue about war. That’s obvious. Every time he interfered with his officers, it turned into a disaster.

            Already the idiotic idea to open a new front in the East…

            And you keep defending Stalin and Communism. Which is practically identical to Nazism.

            Only psychopaths defend Socialism. It’s a profoundly evil ideology, based on nothing but ENVY.

            Case closed.

          • Abie Vee

            “Psychopaths”? Crushingly unoriginal reply…. simple gobbing-off, unworthy of a response.

            Now, to the business in hand: from where do you draw those conclusions of yours? Largely from the memoirs of his captured Generals and popular opinion. The Geenerals had plenty of time under lock and key in Allied hands to get their stories straight for posterity, didn’t they? Plenty of time to rescue their reputations. Plenty of time to divert attention away from their own incompetence and culpability , especially given the shadow of the Nuremberg noose!

            *Absurd from beginning to end? Well that too is a pretty absurd thing to say without going into the details. Isn’t it?

            *”He had no clue about war. That’s obvious.” Easy to say, wallowing in the knowledge of victory and the healing balm of hindsight. I doubt there was man alive saying the same thing after the fall of France, and the utter humiliation of the British Army at Dunkirk. Indeed, the whole world thought that Russia didn’t stand a chance.

            *Every time he interfered with his officers, it turned into a disaster.” Again, very easy to say, yet you quote not a one!

            *The idiotic idea to open a new front in the East”. See above. Only hindsight proves you right. No-one thought so at the time. We can all be smarty-pants after the event. The fact of the matter was, with the evidence of Russia’s woeful performance in Finland before their watching eyes, the German Armed Forces in their entirety supported the invasion!

            I defend no one. I want the truth out in the open. Now, back up your waffle with some evidence and some hard facts… if you can! I’ll wager you can’t.

          • Bob-B

            The Allies were not so inept in the Falaise Pocket:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falaise_pocket

          • Abie Vee

            Indeed.

            But my post was not that the Allies couldn’t have taken on the Germans in France, perhaps even to Berlin, but that they couldn’t have taken on the Soviet forces now deployed across the whole of eastern Europe, from the Baltic to the Black Sea; perhaps as many as 500 divisions… and, at it’s peak, 12.5 million men. To imagine otherwise is fanciful.

          • Abie Vee

            Poppycock. That’s your revisionist narrative, but where’s your evidence? There isn’t any.

            If I were you I’d look at the figures for Soviet armaments production throughout the war. Then compare them with Germany’s. You will see that in each and every year, in each and every category, the Germans were massively outproduced. If you have trouble finding a suitable link, do let me know. Then you might like to consider Germany’s manpower problems (they could neither breed nor train new recruits fast enough to replace the losses of experienced troops on the Eastern Front. In the end they were down to using schoolboys, pensioners, and foreigners for combat duties.

            As regards Paton and Churchill and “keep going” , it extremely lucky that the Allies had a sensible man as Supreme Commander. You could do with a modicum of intelligence yourself.

          • Frank

            Are you Russian? You verge on the absurd. I wasn’t comparing Russia and German armament production, but was comparing Russian versus the Anglo-American armament production (ditto the fairly endless supplies of fresh troops that Britain and America could have fielded if required). It is hardly “revisionist” to say that had the Anglo-American armies kept going and or used the atom bomb, Stalin would have been kicked out in a flash, Poland and the Baltic states liberated, ditto Hungary, etc. When you look at modern Russia it is an immense pity the Anglo-American armies didn’t keep going! I am not anti-Russian, just horrified at what the average Russian has had to go through since 1917.

          • Abie Vee

            Endless supply of troops? The UK was at full stretch with about 500,000 men. The Americans probably had less than 80 divisions in Europe (the Red Army had 500 divisions and 12.5 million men).

            The Allies would have been swept into the sea, right back to square one. You’re dreaming buddy.

            The Americans dropped more ordnance on “raggedy-assed” little Vietnam than they dropped on the whole of Europe in WWII (double the amount in fact).

            They still lost. Dream on.

          • Frank

            You are very tedious, I hope that you are deliriously happy living in Russia, or more likely living in nasty old Britain to avoid the horrors of modern Russia.

          • Abie Vee

            Tedious I might be… because I don’t follow the official narrative? Maybe. The question is though, is anything I have posted actually incorrect? (whereas your notion the Soviets would have starved to death doesn’t bear much scrutiny. In fact Zhukov thought that hunger made his men fight all the harder to over-run German positions and supply-dumps!) You’re all ifs, ums, hypotheticals and probablys.

            Funnily enough Frank I live in London, and I adore it. To me, London’s a country of its own… and little to do with the rest of the dreary dump. I’d happily place watch-towers around the M25.

          • Frank

            You clearly don’t know much about the acute famine that Soviet Russia endured in the 1920s and early 1930s – this is when America delivered large scale food aid to the country – which just seemed to have made the leading politicians of Soviet Russia hate America even more.
            Yes, you are tedious and wanting to put watch-towers around the M25 is depressingly unsurprising for someone with your mind-set. Please feel free to return to your delightful Russia.

          • Abie Vee

            You’re absolutely right, I don’t think much at all about the Communists enforced collectivism which brought starvation upon the peasants. Neither do I think much of the enforced starvation of millions of Irish peasants during the potato famine, throughout which Irish food exports to England continued unabated; nor do I think much of the three million Begalis starved to death on Churchill’s orders in 1943 when India’s bursting granaries were sealed off for English export only.

            No, I don’t think much of it at all.

            Watch towers? A joke, my little sense-of-humuor-bypass Troll. Grow up.

          • ere

            The reason you are able to post your tripe is because the Poles stopped the Soviet push westwards 1919-21.
            You are a disgrace.

          • Abie Vee

            The Treaty of Riga? A brief hiccup in time. Which had no particular relevance to anyone living west of the Vistula.

            You can’t seriously be pretending they were advancing to the Channel? hahahaha… I suppose you could. Anything’s possible.

            In which case you’d have to prove that the Russian “push westwards” was anything other than an attempt of a war weary country* to reclaim its former disputed territories in Ukraine which she had ceded under the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk to the Central Powers.

            * The White Russian forces were not finally beaten until 1923.

          • ere

            A useful idiot indeed – please feel free to move to a socialist paradise of your choice. Your ideology is soon to be of historical interest only, but I think it only right that you should experience the reality whilst it, and you, still exist.

          • Abie Vee

            Well, I don’t know what all that has to do with Treaty of Riga. (the primary cause of the dispute between Russian and the newly created. state of Poland).

            “The Soviet push westward”? Hyperbole, and taken out of context.

          • ere

            A first attempt by the Soviets to expand, which was then made possible by WWII.

            “Every night before you go to bed, you should fall to your knees and that the good lord for Geogri Zhukov, Konstantin Rokossovsky, Ivan Konev, et al, for their heroic efforts during The Great Patriotic War.

            Please join your rotting comrades.

          • Mr B J Mann

            >>”Every night before you go to bed, you should fall to your knees and that the good lord for Geogri Zhukov, Konstantin Rokossovsky, Ivan Konev, et al, for their heroic efforts during The Great Patriotic War.”

            That’s satire. right?!?!

            Whose economies armed, equipped and supplied them?!?!

          • Abie Vee

            Satire? Aka, the truth.

            They very largely armed and equipped themselves. Of course every little helped. But in every single year of the Great Patriotic War they massively outproduced the German war machine in every category. Nobody can refute that. The records are all in the public domain. off you go… educate yourself. be patient, it’ll take years.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Your “replies” in general, and your other three in particular, aren’t really worth bothering with.

            However it’s good to see that you at least recognise the Soviets, with their “Great Patriotic War” were Narz!es too!

          • Abie Vee

            I do not subscribe to that proposition. Fascism mixes philosophies of both the left and the right: it is an avowedly anti-communist philosophy.

            Once again your logic is self-referential, circular and tautological.

            Thus: All Nazzis are fascists, therefore all fascist are Nazzis.

            It shows just what little you really know.

          • Mr B J Mann

            I do not subscribe to THAT proposition. Communism and socialism, not to mention Leninism, Trotskyism, Bolshie and Menshivism, SWPism, WSPism, PofSWism, PoWSism, etc, etc, etc mix philosophies of both the left and the right: they are all avowedly anti-fellow brother comradism philosophies.

            Once again your logic is self-referential, circular and tautological.

            Thus: All Nazzis are fascists, therefore all fascist are Commies.

            It shows just what little you really know.

            Yada, yada, yada……

          • Abie Vee

            Yada yada yada… Yes, that sums you up perfectly. “Fingers in ears I’m not listening.” How old are you, five? Good grief. One expects better on here. You make the Spectator look like the Beano.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Stop projecting.

          • Mr B J Mann

            >>”Every night before you go to bed, you should fall to your knees and that the good lord for Geogri Zhukov, Konstantin Rokossovsky, Ivan Konev, et al, for their heroic efforts during The Great Patriotic War.”

            You mean like the Eastern Europeans did every night?!?!?!

            >>”Socialists are the sole reason you’re free today you post your tripe.”

            Tell that to Eastern Europe!!!!!

          • Abie Vee

            Yes indeed.

            It’s a well known fact that the “Eastern Europeans” much preferred the loving attention of Oskar Dirlewanger and his jolly SS-chums.

        • prolibertate

          It’s pretty obvious WHO need medication – the psychopath babbling about “Marx understanding Capitalism”.

          Marx didn’t have a clue about anything, least of all about economics!

          Which is amply demonstrated every single time one of his followers achieves some level of political power. Without exception, they ALL fuck up completely and destroy the economy they were supposed to manage.

        • ueberallzuhause

          Why is it that Leftists are always so quick to label any dissenting opinion as mentally ill?

          • Abie Vee

            Why is it that you ask so many loaded questions?

  • Dimitris

    Come on I studied at Cardiff….rational expectations with Patrick Minford…..I grew up hating the euro!!!

    • Damaris Tighe

      Minford was one of the few …

  • omgamuslim

    If it can be accepted that R Mugabe destroyed the economy of Zimbawe, we should not forget that te economy benefited only a select few – the whites, by producing and exporting death in the shape of tobacco.

    • /O43 |_|K19!!

      So what?

    • stool-pigeon.

      it also produced more food than it could ever need and helped stop a lot of hunger in Africa.

      • omgamuslim

        zimbabweland. wordpress.com/2013/09/23/zimbabwes-agricultural-sector-goes-from-bread-basket-to-basket-case-or-is-it-again-a-bit-more-complicated

  • omgamuslim

    A bloated bureaucracy in previously British colonial countries is a remnant of the British colonial practice. It helped to create an effective buffer between the colonialists and those who might have wished to get rid of them. It also meant that the colonial administration did not have to adopt policies directed towards creating real jobs.

  • huw

    so many words…..to make a false statement

  • ohforheavensake

    Congratulations! We have a new King of Stupid! Step up, James, and claim your throne!

    • blandings

      What are you on about?

  • 2fishypoliticians

    Trouble is that our universities are effectively ‘finishing schools’ for left wing indoctrination of our young. The propaganda starts much earlier in primary schools and secondary schools. History curricula are too often anti-indigenous population wallowing in post-imperial guilt. Religious curricula are invariably pc lefty gobbledygook where children are taught that being a good person means supporting left wing causes (eg. pro-immigration- especially towards those who are very different from the indigenous population, anti-global warming, community-cohesion-means-supporting-Labour-policies-from-the-90’s)… I could go on….
    Its sickening quite frankly.

  • Jon

    Codswallop. Are we saying UK universities are somehow expected to cure the human condition of people to make mistakes?

    Remind me how many businesses go bankrupt every day- would it be fair to ascribe this failure to capitalist economics? Because this is the kind of territory we are entering if this level of ignorance is encouraged.

    One might even leap to the same defence some on the right use about arguments for higher taxes: green-eyed envy or class warfare. Well, perhaps the academy might suggest the reverse, people are jealous because they couldn’t cut it at the academy and achieve these fancy degrees.

  • The Laughing Cavalier

    And now, adding to the misery are the climate warriors of the University of East Anglia.

    • stool-pigeon.

      yes

    • Sue Smith

      Just at the one university then? Luxury!! I can think of an appropriate Four Yorkshiremen skit here but it wouldn’t be PC!! Instead I’ll invoke Michael Bentein’s “Gerald the Gorilla”…….

      “He spends all his money on carpet cleaner and bananas – and old Johnny Matthis records”!!

  • sidor

    A famous mathematician and theoretical physicist Ulam once asked a famous economist Samuelson if he could suggest a single result of the economical science that would be (a) empirically true and (b) non-trivial. The only thing Samuelson was able to suggest was Smith’s comparative advantage. Not much considering the enormously big and noisy crowd of economists who entertained the public after Smith. And the comparative advantage idea proved to be practically meaningless since all the developed now economies reached this status using strong protectionism.

    Conclusion: the form of social activity called economical science is not a science. Just an introvert babble of a well organised group of charlatans which is of no significance for the real economy.

  • Bonkim

    The error on the part of all these Leaders was not British education but not understanding their own social organisation. Economic theories operate within the historic, social and cultural organisation of particular societies at particular times in history – failed leaders failed because they are unable to link cause and effect within their particular frame of reference. The Greek lot failed to understand that Germany was a different society to theirs and had different levels of discipline and wotk ethic.

  • StrategyKing

    However bad the socialists were, it should be noted that you conservatives were even more toxic. It is good the writer has used the example of Nehru. Yes Nehru failed to lift the people out of abysmal poverty, (but did get some things done, which should be acknowledged). However who was in charge before Nehru, who created that abysmal poverty in the first place? You lot, with your rubbish Empire. You were in charge for 200 years, you created the hell in India. When the British first came they came to Bengal to trade, because Bengal was rich(by then standards), you don’t trade with people who are abysmally poor and have nothing to trade. When the British left Bengal was dirt poor and the poorest parts of India were where they were the longest. If Nehru was a failure then what were you? Try taking some responsibility.

    • LaurenceBoyce

      Conservatives believe in laissez-faire economics, and so conveniently are never actually responsible for anything.

  • Davy Goossens

    same with guys like pol pot who was schooled in paris on communist theory. it’s a religion, the worst of all.

  • Dexter vs Sinister

    Excellent article.

  • Hegelman

    To which universities did rightwing politicians go?
    Just curious.

    • Faulkner Orkney

      University of Life.

      • Hegelman

        Meaning? Are you drunk?

        • Simon de Lancey

          Have you honestly never heard the phrase? It means (and I quote) “the real world as a source of instruction, as opposed to a formal education”.

    • LaurenceBoyce

      The same ones, but evidently they skipped lectures.

  • Hegelman

    I went to a British university. It exposed me to rightwing as well as leftwing ideas. I had to read Carlyle as well as Marx. I had to learn about Hitler as well as Lenin. I had to read Adam Smith and even Milton Friedman.

    It is patronising to assume highly intelligent people like Nehru did not make their own ideological choices but were spoon fed them by university teachers. He was contemptuous of the reactionary garbage he was taught at Cambridge and said his real education began when he educated himself afterwards. Of course you have not read his classic autobiography.

    Nehru, as this historical illiterate would have realised if he knew anything, went to Cambridge when it was so reactionary that women were not allowed to take exams.

    Bugger off, will you?

    • Newton Unthank

      To this day the fields of UK and Western university scholarship on the French and Russian Revolutions are dominated by the reactionary right which refuses to concede any good came of them.

      Serious question – what good came of the Russian Revolution?

      • Hegelman

        It created the conditions for a humanised capitalism by frightening the capitalists into offering a better deal for the workers to prevent communism. The Bolsheviks destroyed reactionary German power in Europe and Western imperialism in Asia and Africa.

        No revolution has done more for mankind.

        • Newton Unthank

          Was that really worth 40 million deaths?

          • Hegelman

            The reckless exaggerations about the scale of human losses under Stalin during the Cold War have been corrected since the Soviet archives became available. The figures are horrific as they stand, but they are not 40 million. The very anti-Soviet US historian Timothy Snyder puts the losses in the concentration camps and from executions at between 2 and 3 million. The biggest human loss of the Stalin era was the famine of the 1930s which cost about 5 million lives. Some historians including Snyder say it was deliberately planned by the Kremlin. Others say it was due to blundering agricultural policies. See Snyder’s article in The New York Review of Books, googling under its title, ”Who was Worse, Hitler or Stalin”.

            For comparison, Churchill was a bigger killer in scale than Stalin: one tenth of all Bengalis perished in a famine in 1943 that Churchill deliberately refused to alleviate.

            40 percent of all Irish are estimated to have died in the wars of the English Revolution. Christianity and Islam were VERY costly too in human lives.

            Nor would life in a world under extreme right wing German rule have been fun.

            So you decide.

          • Hegelman

            Is a humanised capitalism and the abolition of fascism and imperialism not worth it. If so, what is. Nor are the Bolsheviks entirely to blame for all the losses.

          • Newton Unthank

            No, I believe we can safely blame the Soviets for at least 40 million deaths, whether through incompetence or malice.

          • Hegelman

            We can safely blame you for incompetence and malice.

          • Newton Unthank

            Me personally? How’s that, old troll?

          • Bo’sun Higgs

            You should be ashamed of yourself; “Hegelman” clearly has mental issues. Either humour him in his harmless delusions or ignore him. Instead you’re like some 18th century dandy visiting Bedlam, poking the lunatics with sticks then laughing when they flip out.

          • Newton Unthank

            I wish I could poke some of these headcases with sharp sticks.

          • Hegelman

            Alas, whose permission can we ask. History is so merciless. One might well conclude that all the achievements of history are not worth it. But there you are.

      • Terry Field

        None. Just perversions, violence, murder, poverty and bloodbaths. That continue to this day.

  • Hegelman

    Malcolm Caldwell was a spiteful Maoist who seemed to have a perverse hatred for anyone who had a good word to say for the Russian Revolution and for Trotsky. He seemed to be a racist worshipper of China for the hell of it. Was he killed by the Vietnamese?

    But one oddball is hardly the condemnation of UK universities. As far as is known he was a competent enough university teacher and his courage in standing by unpopular opinions needs to be respected.

  • Hegelman

    “But after they left the clutches of British academics, Lee [Kuan Yew] and Goh [Keng Swee] managed to think for themselves…”

    It is a pity they jailed and tortured anyone else in Singapore who tried to do the same, is it not? Did they learn to do that from leftwing lecturers at Cambridge?

  • Hegelman

    Bartholomew instructs:

    “Jawaharlal Nehru, the first prime minister of an independent India, is understandably regarded by many as a hero. But unfortunately for that country he attended Trinity College, Cambridge. There he was influenced by British intellectuals such as George Bernard Shaw, a socialist, Bertrand Russell, who once remarked ‘communism is necessary to the world’, and John Maynard Keynes. He returned to India and started to put the ideology into practice with state planning, controls and regulations.”

    Nehru “went down” from Cambridge (as they say rather poshly) in 1913. This was at a time when women were not allowed to take Cambridge exams. Keynes, who according to the historian-clown called Bartholomew influenced Nehru at Cambridge, was then an unknown Treasury official who would not challenge orthodox economics until more than two decades later. Shaw had written some plays Nehru did read but it would be helpful if Bartholomew could tell us where in them “state planning, controls and regulations” are recommended or even mentioned. As for Bertrand Russell, he was doing mathematics at that time. in which Nehru had no great interest : he was studying geology and botany.

    Now read on. Never let mere facts bother you.

  • hereward

    I feel sorry for Varoufakis , He took over a basketcase Country that was (is) being asphyxiated by vast debts . He and the Greeks wanted to stay in the euro the author of their problems and they hoped that their EU “friends and partners” would bail them out by serious debt reduction . He got that wrong. the fantasy of remaining in the euro has lead Greece into a very pernicious cul de sac .No plan B was ever thought of ! It looks like Germany wants them out . The Greeks prefer to keep banging their head against the wall .

  • Frank

    Good article, but no laughing matter – not that any of our universities will take the slightest notice – far too busy persecuting male professors over speeches, or focussing on feminism during the 13th century.

  • The_Sensible_One

    Did Varoufakis even get an opportunity to actually do anything?
    Because as i recall the Greek government was focused entirely on dealing with its creditors at the time, unable to enact anything without jeapordising any possible deals.

  • Janewearsahat

    Strange article. The IMF’s report to the German parliament (Preliminary Debt Sustainability Analysis for Greece) indicated that the path that Greece has/had been following would be fruitless for achieving any meaningful debt reduction. The IMF did not go to British universities.

    • Terry Field

      The head of it is a Statist French political synchronised swimmer.

  • avi15

    You forgot S.W.R.D.Bandaranaike, who laid the groundwork for the Sri Lanka civil war by refusing to allow the use of English as the official language, unlike in India. He was a product of Balliol. If only he had just drunk tea and eaten iced buns in Oxford instead of actually studying.

    • Hegelman

      “He was a product of Balliol.”

      Balliol instructed him to create the conditions for a civil war in Sri Lanka?

      Are you drunk?

      Everybody has to be educated somewhere. Should all crimes and stupidities be attributed to educational institutions?

      • avi15

        His feverishly over-intellectual approach and crackpot obstinacy in the face of simple, practical solutions was typical of a good number of Balliol academics I have known. That’s why I made the connection. It is quite unmistakeable. To that extent, Balliol College did create the Sri Lankan civil war.

        • Terry Field

          Exactly so

    • Terry Field

      Yes indeed. He buggered up a fine Island.

  • gregjwild

    In my experience, left-wing members of academia are generally outnumbered by centrists. Sure, you get a few self-declared communists, but the majority of lecturers are liberals through and through.

    • Terry Field

      Your idea of the centre is my idea of the left.

      • Hegelman

        Your name is Idi Amin.

      • gregjwild

        True, the left is relative. But honestly, despite going to a university with a strong set of left-wing academics, the majority of the staff in the politics department were very centrist. And tbh, if the center is now the “left”, then that’s a worrying state of affairs.

  • LaurenceBoyce

    An amusing article, if we overlook the dodgy reasoning.

    It does highlight a dreadful human trait – that of recommending for others what we ourselves would never touch with a bargepole.

    So yes, good on Malcolm Caldwell for getting murdered.

    • Hegelman

      Just see how few UK university textbooks speak well of the Russian Revolution and decide if the universities are leftwing.

    • Hegelman

      “It does highlight a dreadful human trait – that of recommending for others what we ourselves would never touch with a bargepole.”

      Like colonialism?

      • LaurenceBoyce

        Yes absolutely that too.

        • Terry Field

          You don’t think Southall and multi-culturalism is a version of colonialism????

          • LaurenceBoyce

            Er . . . no.

          • Terry Field

            Then you must be utterly naive.

    • Terry Field

      We did touch socialism – not just with a bargepole, but we gave it a nasty, impovershing hug.

  • freddiethegreat

    Bear in mind that the dribbling Thabo Mbeki was also an English Uni graduate. Fortunately, perhaps, his successor didn’t go to Uni or even get through primary school. Mbeki was a hardline Stalinist, but the Chocolate Peanut is just a hedonist.

    • Hegelman

      Idi Amin was the product of the King’s African Rifles. Among other skills they taught him to cut off the penises of people he disliked.

      • Terry Field

        A relevant observation?????

  • Angie Svensen
    • Hegelman

      Don’t pick on an illiterate.

  • Jeffreyoore

    <❶❷❸.%@^@^@^!^!^!^!^.. ??????????+blogs+. < Read more info here='' ……..''

  • jeffersonian

    The ‘Right’s indifference to/ignorance of, the influence of academia on the course of a nation is perhaps its greatest weakness. Ideas, and therefore universities, matter. Whether the Blob gets their anointed candidate as professor, or not, actually matters. (Shame Gove is about the only cabinet secretary who gets it) This blindness is a weakness the cultural Marxists have exploited to the full.

    The world is reaping the result.

  • johnb1945

    Yes the author has chosen leftist philosophies developed in our universities but Adam Smith was a professor at Glasgow too.

    • Terry Field

      And he has been made into an irrelevant antique, by those same statists socialist power-brokers.

      • johnb1945

        Maybe but I was trying to post something optimistic.

  • maxime1793

    1. Varoufakis killed the Greek economy because it was growing under 1% when he became Finance minister? Excuse me, you think the moment you become a minister the economy reacts to your actions in real time? Economic reactions usually show a delay of 12-18 months from policy decisions. Then there is the point that Varoufakis had no power – THAT’S WHY HE RESIGNED!!! He wasn’t even their negotiator past February.

    2. Imperialists like to blame African nationalists and socialists for killing their economies with brief experiments in the 1960s. The fact is that these economies are in long-term depression because they are IMF debt slaves with all their best resources and infrastructure foreign-owned.

    3. Most of East/Southeast/South Asia has grown much in the last decades by having a greater degree of independence, protectionism, and dirigisme.

  • Κωνσταντίνος Δούκας

    Oh, please, this is so bullshit… British Universiities have both good and bad alumni, just as Harvard had both JFK and G.W. Bush. The same goes for German, French and Greek universities. It’s not the fault of Essex University if Varoufakis is an arrogant bastard who married into old money…

  • The author has it backwards, the universities were Marxist because the British establishment is Marxist; where do you think Marxist professors come from? One political party in Britain has for 115 years proudly declared its Marxist pedigree simply by its title–Labour Party! How did you miss that obvious clue! The Conservative Party itself was co-opted by Marxists before World War I,* hence the reason why Churchill (1) refused to overthrow the Bolsheviks in Russia immediately after the November 1917 coup; before the November coup Lenin was agitating for Russia’s exit from the war, so when Lenin took power the Bolsheviks would have to go immediately; and (2) sent the Black & Tans into Ireland to terrorize the population, ensuring the loss of an integral member of the Union, a member whose soldiers contributed greatly to the maintenance of the British Empire, bringing peace and trade to an otherwise warring and fractious world.**

    We see then that visitors to British universities (or French, American, Dutch universities) who would later go on to head their post colonial governments, such as Jawaharlal Nehru, Julius Nyerere, and Kwame Nkrumah, were already Marxist and brought to the West by the Marxist Western establishment.

    Now you know how Bolshevik Russia survived in 1917; how the West “lost” China to the Communists in 1949; why the Eisenhower administration turned a deaf ear to the anti-Communist Hungarian uprising in 1956; why the Eisenhower administration in 1959 was indifferent to the Castro brothers’ Communist fidelity, actually used the CIA to overthrow the Batista government; why the Nixon administration abandoned Taiwan for Communist China, and signed treaties/provided economic aid to the USSR; why the Nixon administration refused to tell the American People that over 50% of North Vietnamese NVA regiments were actually Chinese People’s Liberation Army soldiers (attired in NVA uniforms, and proving that the Sino/Soviet Split was a ruse, as KGB defector Major Anatoliy Golitsyn told the West back in 1962), thereby (1) ensuring the Vietnam War would be lost; (2) destroying the prominence of the United States abroad and at home; (3) breeding distrust between the American people and their government; and (4) securing Communist victories in Southeast Asia. Working in the background within the political parties of the United States and Great Britain were Marxist agents doing their best to (1) ensure the survival of Communist nations when they popped up; and (2) sabotage any policies that would bring down a Communist nation. That’s why after the fake collapses of the East Bloc nations and USSR there was no mandatory Western verification process to ensure the Communists weren’t still in control.

    Notice that not one political party in the West requested verification of the collapse of the USSR, and the media failed to alert your attention to this fact, including the “alternative” media. When determining whether the “former” USSR is complying with arms control treaties, what does the United States do to confirm compliance? Right, the United States sends into the “former” USSR investigative teams to VERIFY compliance, yet when it’s the fate of the West that’s at stake should the collapse of the USSR be a ruse, what does the United States do to confirm the collapse? Nothing!

    The fraudulent “collapse” of the USSR (and East Bloc) couldn’t have been pulled off until both political parties in the United States (and political parties elsewhere in the West) were co-opted by Marxists, which explains why verification of the “collapse” was never undertaken by the West, such verification being (1) a natural administrative procedure (since the USSR wasn’t occupied by Western military forces); and (2) necessary for the survival of the West. Recall President Reagan’s favorite phrase, “Trust, but verify”.

    It gets worse–the “freed” Soviets and West also never (1) de-Communized the Soviet Armed Forces of its Communist Party officer corps, which was 90% officered by Communist Party members; and (2) arrested/de-mobilized the 6-million vigilantes that assisted the Soviet Union’s Ministry of the Interior and police control the populations of the larger cities during the period of “Perestroika” (1986-1991)!

    There can be no collapse of the USSR (or East Bloc nations) without…

    Verification, De-Communization and De-mobilization.

    The West never verified the collapse of the USSR because no collapse occurred, since if a real collapse had occurred the West would have verified it, since the survival of the West depends on verification. Conversely, this proves that the political parties of the West were co-opted by Marxists long before the fraudulent collapse of the USSR, since the survival of the West depends on verification.

    The following is a discovery I made in May regarding the fake collapse of the USSR, and what that fraudulent collapse proves about the institutions of the West…

    When Soviet citizens were liberated from up to 74 years of horrific Marxist oppression on December 26, 1991 there were ZERO celebrations throughout the USSR, proving (1) the “collapse” of the USSR was a strategic ruse; and (2) the political parties of the West were already co-opted by Marxists,*** otherwise the USSR (and East Bloc nations) couldn’t have gotten away with the ruse.

    ZERO celebrations, as the The Atlantic article inadvertently informs us…

    http://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2011/12/20-years-since-the-fall-of-the-soviet-union/100214/

    For more on this discovery see my blog…

    https://sites.google.com/site/deanjackson60/

    Conclusion:

    The West will form new political parties where candidates are vetted for Marxist ideology, the use of the polygraph to be an important tool for such vetting. Then the West can finally liberate the globe of vanguard Communism.
    ————————-
    *The failed socialist inspired and controlled pan-European revolutions that swept the continent in 1848(1) thought Marxists and socialists a powerful lesson, that lesson being they couldn’t win overtly,(2) so they adopted the tactic of infiltration of the West’s political parties/institutions. In the case of the United States…(continue reading at DNotice)…

    https://sites.google.com/site/deanjackson60/now-you-see-me-now-you-don-t

    **The 1914 Irish rebellion was a Marxist SIS operation, the same SIS that sent its officers into Lenin’s Russia to create and train the GRU (Soviet military intelligence) and Cheka (Soviet counterintelligence), those officers including Robert Bruce Lockhart, George Hill, and SIS agent Sidney Reilly…

    http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1988/eirv15n23-19880603/eirv15n23-19880603_056-british_and_bolsheviks_the_roman.pdf

  • IvanDmitrich

    It’s a shame that you’ve sliced up Bertrand Russell’s 1920 tract Practice and Theory of Bolshevism in that devious way. Russell was extraordinarily prescient in anticipating the extent of the danger and hollowness of Soviet communism and in that same piece he goes on to call it “rough and dangerous” and “neither stable nor desirable”. At the turn of the twenties, communism was still untested (another thing acknowledged by Russell in the same piece) and did not mean what it means to us today.

    • “At the turn of the twenties, communism was still untested”

      There is no such thing as Communism, and according to Marxist theory Communism evolves from ‘advanced’ Capitalism, though Marx refused to predict when (or if) Communist would indeed develop from ‘advanced’ Capitalism…

      ‘Marx sharply stresses the bad sides of capitalist production, but with equal emphasis clearly proves that this social form was necessary to develop the productive forces of society to a level which will make possible an equal development worthy of human beings for ALL members of society. All earlier forms of society were too poor for this.’ — Friedrich Engels, “Marx’s Capital,” Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Selected Works, Volume I, pp. 468-469.

      https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867/reviews-capital/dwochenblatt.htm

      Lenin & Company, as with all Marxists, are VANGUARD Communists, preparing the way for the development of Communism, but in order to accomplish that mission Marxists must control the world, otherwise the arrival of Communism will be sabotaged.

    • Terry Field

      Yes; his romantic enthusiasm soon disappeared. He was not a fool.

  • Terry Field

    This article is quite ground breaking. It is long overdue that the damage done by British economics departments is elucidated.
    I well recall much of the content being the promotion of essentially statist, and often marxist economics.
    Most were taught such absurdities as interlocking macroeconomic actions appearing to show the universe of a national economy being susceptible to integrated and precise control from the ‘centre’ to ‘optimise’ the ‘outputs’.
    Utter pseudo-science crap; of course laced about with a touch of fancy maths and stats to ensure even greater respectability.
    The routine distortion of the messages of Keynes – as done by Balls of recent memory – were grist to the mill.
    Everywhere the subject was constructed to offer the central idea that ‘government control’ was both desirable, required to be universally applied, and were the ‘corrective’ to the ‘distoprtions’ of the ‘market-place’.
    This has hardly changed at al in most economics departments.
    Now, so few understand that there is – or certainly should be – an entire world of vital, free activity and interchange, whose extension economists may profitably extend – and in the process dissolve many of the control and management functions that make their ‘profession’ a much smaller one. And a more n humble one.
    Look at recent interventions to m’manage’ the 2007 crisis.
    When compared to the US 1929 -34 actions, this recent set of ‘solutions’ has done everything that a statist, communist-inspired set f bureaucrats would prescribe.
    The absurdity of ‘monetising’ debt that fully protects ‘bond-holders’ – and destroying the lives of nearly half of everyone under 35 years old shows precisely where this bankrupt modern dis-economics has led us. Oh, and low growth for many decades to come, in distinct contrast to the experience of or great grand-parents who had the sense to act when uncontaminated by modern statist-pseudo-marxist economics.
    As I ot repeat, economics is now- simply – no longer worth studying.
    Freedom should be the replacement subject.
    Free of ‘maths and stats’ as a means of conveying respectability. Used only when no other devise is appropriate.
    The subject should be the handmaiden of philosophy.
    To understand the dangers of modern statist economics, look no furhter than Aristotle.
    He described the route to penury from statist vote buying.
    And with not an equation in sight.

  • licjjs

    Gordon Brown did his degrees in History – I don’t think he studied (formally ) economics.

    • Terry Field

      Indeed. But he knew how to construct a modern Corporate State.

  • licjjs

    The crop of PPE people in the last government (and this? I haven’t checked) says it all to me.

  • Hegelman

    A whole sheaf of bloody military rulers came from British training. In Pakistan you had Sandhurst trained Ayub Khan who destroyed democracy and gave way to General Yahya Khan, a British-trained military killer who slaughtered over three MILLION Bangladeshis – a crime comparable to the worst of Hitler.
    In Uganda the British trained and promoted Idi Amin who massacred hundreds of thousands, throwing them to be eaten by crocodiles in the Nile or have their brains smashed by clubs. He learned while in the King’s African Rifles to cut off he penises of people who offended the state.
    In Nigeria you had one British-trained military despot after another.
    And so forth. One could go on.

    • Terry Field

      No no. The reason scumbags run these places is simply that the places themselves are dreadful seed-corn for the worst of human drives. These places were nightmarish sh1tholes before the enlightenment of the Empire washed a little of the insanity away, and have returned to it with speed after we left the field. Just listen to the rabble rousing Indian chief chipmunk today.

  • Hugh Jeego

    We’re pretty good at proper subjects though, like the natural sciences. All that PPE-style crap is crap wherever it’s taught.

  • markos

    Varoufakis may have studied in the UK but he did not come straight into Greece to take over the Ministry of Finance. Years ago he was a silent rather inactive ‘advisor” to PM Simitis as well as to PM G. Papandreou until he was fired and moved to the US as a financial analyst at a digital video games group in Texas, plus as an advisor to the Bitcoin handlers in Singapore. Threee years ago on a yet another promotional effort he was on morning tv programmes as a “big shot” with ever changing opinions thus known to the daily housewife who voted for him last January and based on this popularity the new PM (ex flag holder for the Communist Party) Varoufakis was appointed as Minister of Finance. Within days it was obvious he was something different not only in his looks (far worse than anything you might expect) but his overall attitude towards his european executives, acting as if he was Alexander the Great on all issues. He came to be known as the guy who can tell you that the banks will not close and he means exactly the opposite. This prompted the new inexperienced PM to put him on hold in March , until lately when he was sacked or if you wish till he ‘resigned” but he insists on presenting himself in the capacity of Alex the Great with hundreds of inteviews that make no sense.
    Tsakalotos, on the other hand, is serious, presentable, well educated and definitely not a skinhead showman as Varoufakis used to be and still tries to be.

  • novoludo

    Too true! The UK economy was growing in 2010 until Cameron and Osborne got their hands on it and instituted that crazy austerity ideology. Bloody Oxford! Fortunately Osborne saw some sense and largely changed course in 2012. Although it appears he may be going back to the old dogmas again.

  • maria cristina perry

    Has Paul Krugman also studied in England?

  • nwilson101

    Ah yes a pretty pathetic article written by an ex failed “investment” banker who was part of the small cabal of thieves and immoral incompetents who almost destroyed the Western financial system due to arrogance and greed…
    So is Mr Bartholomew going to tell the world who Mrs Thatcher and Sir Keith Joseph got their ideas from in the 1970s which led to a re-appraisal of economic thinking? In fact it was at the LSE and Chicago that led to economic re-appraisal despite all the sneers from the old fuddies at Cambridge and Oxford whose economics is no more than political thinknig and is seldom based upon any evidence beyond the incoherent musings from the bottom of a wine or port glass…
    Since it appears Mr Bartholomew never went to university it might help if he were to do so instead of regurgitating some age old facts from the Telegraph written 30 yrs ago.

    This article has indeed all the worth of the plodder who never went to university who in later life sneers at those who were regarded as more intelligent and worked harder than he did.

    As for the old chestnut that LSE is allegedly left wing, it has never been left wing and indeed its founders instilled into its fabric that students and teachers were to follow the facts where they took them. Indeed the LSE was founded in 1895 to promote the advancement of commerce and industry and the Empire (yes!) which is why it has always offered far more relevant subjects than Oxford or Cambridge. It wasn’t left wing in the 70s 80s and 90s and its students hold a wide range of opinions. Indeed in the 70s its students voted in the first moderate students union in a decade and in the most recent poll of students fro the General Election, LSE and Imperial students were far more right wing than Cambridge and Oxford. LSE students are there to progress their careers principally in the City rather than become windbag politicians and academics, which is sadly all Oxford seems to produce…

    I suggest Mr Bartholomew should get himself a proper education and attempt some proper research, rather than cut out Torygraph press clippings from 30 or 40 yrs ago

    • Terry Field

      Your description of British universities and the LSE is not one that I and many others recognise.

      • nwilson101

        Politics is usually a variety of views but I know to the typical Spectator and Telegraph reader, with the lowest education level of any broadsheet newspaper, they parade one view and expect everyone to accept their view.
        As to your view of the LSE I suspect it is entirely based upon the Telegraph, rather than reality…Perhaps you ought to visit large City firms and see why LSE grads are the highest paid in the country

        More specifically, as I pointed out in my original post, why is it then that the LSE students had along with Imperial College students the greatest propensity to vote Conservative at the last General Election…? You blithely ignore facts for fictitious prejudice

        It is always funny how Telegraph readers always prefer prejudice and gut feel over science and education…But then that’s surely why it appeals to the least educated readers…?

        • Hugh Jeego

          “Politics is usually a variety of views but I know to the typical Spectator and Telegraph reader, with the lowest education level of any broadsheet newspaper,”
          And here you are, reading The Spectator.

        • Terry Field

          I know the LSE much better tan you. Your stupid and patronising observations expose your bigotry.

  • Charlesshuntley

    NNow Get It -ssppeectator

  • mikewaller

    Perhaps this is all part of a brilliant Western plan. After all, in a highly competitive global economy, who but fools would invite all-comers to attended centres of higher education to learn all the clever stuff that has given Westerners the economic edge for several centuries? As we, surely, cannot be fools, this piece is highly suggesive of what is actually going on! [:-)]

  • NicholasWarner

    Actually it was Margaret Thatcher and the US who supported the Khmer Rouge for a time exporting “Western Ideas” not in the least Left-wing but “necessary” in preventing the Vietnamese Army it’s Westward expansion – a shameful episode that had nothing to do with UK based academic lefties just the everyday cynicism of normal rightists like er….say, Cameron and Sarkozy in Libya….or Blair and Bush in Iraq ?

  • Jaay

    Why blame British academia for the mental condition of Varoufakis? The guy clearly suffers from Schizophrenia or similar condition.

  • carlos jones

    Brilliant article, nails it perfectly. Maybe a future book on this subject is in the offing, it’s certainly a story that desperately needs to be told.

  • Gavin Brown

    This is journalism !!!!

  • pithygirl

    rubbish

  • Ignas Bednarczyk

    Then it’s no surprise he followed the example of the British Conservative ethic- go into politics to make a personal fortune/ British Tory politics since the 18th century. However this does not differ from the Greek fascist regime of the 1970’s, which was more neo-Nazi than anything Britain experienced in the 20th century.

  • Tatty_D

    What an absurd article. It would be poor even as a pub conversation. Just airing some bizarre prejudice and using it to account for virtually global history.

  • Misleading title. Nehru studied Botany (because he was thick and Botany was an easy subject for the I.C.S exam), Bhutto and Bandarnaike and Lee Kwan Yu were brilliant law students- which is a good preparation for being a Mafia boss. Only Yu succeeded because he created his own army.
    Kenyatta wrote and ‘Anthropology’ type book, defending female circumcision, but wasn’t particularly ideological. Incidentally, Nixon was greatly taken by his more Socialist rival Tom Mboya (who helped bring Obama’s dad to the U.S)
    Nyerere did not learn Economics at Edinburgh. He learnt hypocrisy. He managed to get help from both a Harvard Leftist and Chairman Mao.
    Varoufakis isn’t really an Economist- he dumbs down Game theory for P.G Economics courses. The odd thing is he’s actually a Hayekian who believes the Greeks are genetically inferior to other Europeans and thus should be given Disability Living Allowance and Housing Benefit and a nice box of crayons to draw nice pictures on the Acropolis. Euclid is a Gordon Brown type and may turn out to be okay.

    Do British Economists really screw up countries? Absolutely, if given the chance! Amartya Sen and Partha Dasgupta are certainly busy enough. However, as with Niki Kaldor advising the Indian Govt., their idiocy seldom rises to the heights of the indigenous product.
    In 1910, Marshall was writing to warn a very brilliant Indian student of his that import substitution would breed dynamic inefficiency. He failed to grasp that it would also breed rents for bureaucrats and politicians.
    Ultimately, as Graciella Chichilnisky has shown, a fiscal or monetary union requires constrained preferences. one way to achieve this is by making everybody poorer. This is called ‘Nation building’.

  • emily dibb

    Just an aside, and speaking as a Varoufakis fan – at which Universities did most of the current crop of British leading politicians study, the Sorbonne and St. Petersburg?

  • George

    I’m pretty sure one could as cleverly select a “representative sample” to show that economies are regularly savaged by economists who share the reprehensible habit of writing primarily with their right hand.

  • Jane Stockdale

    I think the writer needs to re-check his figures in his first paragraph regarding Greece’s growth rate (at the end of 2014), unemployment statistics for Greece to date and the primary budget surplus figures for 2014 and 2015 to date before slagging off Varoufakis.

  • alfredo

    So according this author – who is surely indulging in self-parody at some points – everything in the Greek economy was looking rosier until Varoufakis came along and spoilt it all. Quite an achievement in the space of five months for a man who was at the same time engaged in a full-time battle with the Teutonic blood-suckers. And this optimistic picture of life getting better seems to have been completely lost on the Greek electorate, who, in many cases abandoning the voting habits of a lifetime, at last kicked out the deadbeats who had brought them these many benefits over the previous five years and replaced them with a government which continues to enjoy their overwhelming support.
    I do realise that for many northern Europeans, this sort of thing isn’t supposed to happen, and therefore either (a) isn’t really happening, or (b) must be stopped at once, by force if necessary (depending on how far north you come from).

  • Mark Almond

    Oddly enough, the “Stalinist apparatchik”, Professor Brus, who supervised the current Greek economy minister at Oxford was also the supervisor of the guru of austerity, the Swedish austerity enthusiast, Anders Aslund, who guides the mind of the EU Commissioner, Valdis Dombrovskis. Aslund and Dombrovskis enforced the wage/pension cut, mass emigration model “successfully” on Latvia. Now they promote it as a model for Greece. The Syriza crew’s childish non-alternatives simply spurred up the downturn and mass emigration in Greece too. Brus would not be surprised that his pupils have managed to produce different types of disaster. I remember his glee at being invited to advise China on economic reform in the late 1980s, when he remarked to me with a wink, “I have played a role in wrecking the Polish economy, why shouldn’t I move on to something bigger?”

  • Roy Bhutt

    What is the opinion of British academics about Margret Thatcher in general at the universities, Surely they can not ignore the good work done by her policies

  • Chitra Sharma

    Ah, you forgot to mention Manmohan Singh, the earlier Indian Prime Minister, who sold the country, and is probably more corrupt than all despots supported by british and americans.

  • Fraser Bailey

    A very good article.

  • Colin Hussey

    This explains a lot. Post-colonial academia from Britain and France, primarily, have provided one more thumb in the eyes of the places they colonized with their worse-than-useless pedagogy. Africans and Asians would be better off not sending their children to these mind-poisoning institutions.

  • Patrick Roy

    Where are all the good schools then?

  • Cornelius Bonkers

    Excellent. But you’ve missed out Anthony Giddens from the LSE gallery of infamy. It’s easy to understand why Roger Scruton never made it in academia…I for one am grateful that he didn’t…

  • knocke

    Yes, for sure
    Any thoughts on French economics academia please?

  • Allyup

    It’s wrong to confuse the permanent predilections of the left wing mind with economics.
    Naturally the left mind interprets the world through rose red spectacles.
    The political brain runs heavily on confirmation bias see http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm

    [The investigators hypothesize that emotionally biased reasoning leads to
    the “stamping in” or reinforcement of a defensive belief, associating
    the participant’s “revisionist” account of the data with positive
    emotion or relief and elimination of distress. “The result is that
    partisan beliefs are calcified, and the person can learn very little
    from new data,”]

    Even a massive dose of economics will not affect political belief. Only economics that fit the ideology will be even noticed.

    The left leaning have only the 2 moral triggers -harm/care and fairness http://www.livescience.com/6329-.html

    This reduces their understanding of the forces at play in the world down to the clueless level.

    “Studies have shown that liberals tend to care only about harm and fairness when considering whether something is moral or not, said Peter
    Ditto,..”

    They will never really care about overspending and debt because these feed their harm and fairness habit.

    The vast majority of the public have all five moral triggers. Hence the big gap between the comfort zone of the left thinkers and of the ordinary public

    This explains why Labour has never been a popular party with the public, enjoying only 23 years in office in its first hundred http://www2.labour.org.uk/history_of_the_labour_party.
    It has already enjoyed 10 years in office this century. To balance this out requires Labour now to spend 46 years in the wilderness – enjoy!

  • RobertC

    To say nothing of the PPEs!

  • Andrew Smith

    As a recent LSE economics graduate I can assure you that the core economics curriculum for undergraduates is anything but left wing. It is ruthlesly neo-classical and most of the applied work focuses on the financial markets.

  • MacGuffin

    “…Malcolm Caldwell, a communist lecturer at the School of Oriental and African Studies who was such a fan of Pol Pot and his murderous regime that he went over to see it in person. He had a private interview with Pol Pot himself and was murdered later the same day.”

    Thank you, that story genuinely cheered me up. It is rare to read of such a gloriously apposite comeuppance.

  • Dijon

    Classic cherry picking of data. This only shows that some “lefties” from some UK universities might have had some bad effects on their home countries. You could quite easily wrote the same article saying how the military is terrible and that “righties” from the military destroyed their countries whilst using Pinochet, Franco and Hitler as examples. Obviously the military is necessary and these examples are fatuous. Your argument is no different.

  • volker_lives

    Not to be taken very seriously, one feels. But the point about Trudeau is worth comment. It may be hard to imagine now, but President Nixon introduced a New Economic Policy (shades of Lenin) in 1971 which involved a price and wage freeze, followed by controls implemented by prices and wages boards. And much else besides of a nature J Corbyn can probably only envy. It was the fashion of the time – nothing to do with Trudeau being some sort of crypto-Marxist.

  • Bhaskar

    Loved this article. Unfortunately for Economics, students don’t know where technical economics stops and ideology begins. British academics such as Joan Robinson (who has not been mentioned in the article) were avidly leftist. It brings no surprise that Karl Marx wrote Das Capital sitting in Britain with its rigid class system. And the virus spread not only to other countries, they spread to other universities which followed the teaching of economics in the same manner. Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU, New Delhi) and its economics department is well known for spreading leftist thought, mostly influenced by British Universities. In fact some proudly call it the ‘alternative economics’. Fortunately, institutions like the Delhi School of Economics stood apart. But, the influence of the JNU variety on the Indian ‘planned’ economy was immense and entrenched bureaucrats love it. The fact is that in the early days the leftist and socialist/communist movements developed unparalleled propaganda strategies. They pulled in much more than their weight and numbers. On hindsight, it is surprising that so-called ‘thinking’ academics, couldn’t do some independent thinking — like the leaders of Singapore did.

  • RedQueen

    This has to be one of the stupidest articles I’ve read in the “Spectator”

    • Bob-B

      You present an impressive body of arguments for your conclusion.

      • RedQueen

        the article itself is the body of evidence

        • Bob-B

          You’re not being very persuasive,

        • When challenged, your inability to even attempt persuasion is noted.

    • You are so lazy you don’t even punctuate your sentences. Your thoughts show the same degree of unfinished valor.

      • RedQueen

        ironic upvote

  • JPE

    A well researched yet incredibly lazy article

  • jimbo1981

    Of course David Cameron and George Osborne went to British universities, which would add weight to your argument that graduates from British universities go on to heap misery on others…but you’ve missed them out, along with every other British Prime Minister/Chancellor who has gone to a British university. So unless there is special content reserved for potential foreign leaders, you’d have to have to explain why it is that our own PMs come out of University with different views to the people mentioned.

    Perhaps it is because the people who you have mentioned weren’t in any way radicalised at University, but instead already had their beliefs prior to going to University. University isn’t primary school, people are expected to undertake their own research and there should be a large amount of self-led learning. If these people already held particular views, they probably chose to focus on economic theory that matched what they already believed in, which would have further reinforced their view. If they believed in free-market capitalism, they would have studied that….if socialism, then that. It’s not that Universities converted them, just that University doesn’t rigidly restrict your focus of study. Nor should it – there is no accepted perfect economic model and there never will be.

    • It’s not a matter of perfection, just a matter of “ideas have consequences”. The university does its attendees a huge disservice by telling them that socialism benefits nations. It does not. It benefits a small class of apparatchiks and the supreme leader. Put another way, how beneficial and moral is it to export dictator training worldwide? That is precisely what British, and American universities are doing.

      • jimbo1981

        Which universities are telling their students that socialism benefits nations? Certainly the definition of socialism you seem to be referring to. Teaching about socialism (in the sense you are talking are likely to be taught as a political ideologue module or a History course or something and just because they are taught, it doesn’t mean they are being advocated. It is legitimate for Universities to recognise despotic socialism or communism existed/still exist in a small number of countries, indeed it is important to teach it so that the mistakes of the past are learnt.

        There are social democracies (the often quoted Scandanavian ones for example) that arguably have a higher tax and a higher safety net and pay more maternity/paternity etc as they believe this is important to a functioning society. Those countries can be studied as much as places like Dubai where there are little to no taxes. And students may be asked to consider and debate the pros and cons of each.

        In the vast majority of cases, Universities do not teach ‘the benefits’ of any type of political ideology/economic model. They teach about the political ideologies and economic models and ask the students to research, discuss and consider the impact of each. That is the whole point of University and what separates it from A-Levels. Students undertake self-directed study that interprets, analyses and evaluates.

        Even without that fact, I think you’ll find the textbooks and research on economic models is hugely skewed towards the free market economy if anything. There were lots of calls for consideration of new economic models after the financial crisis, but as far as I am aware, the same stuff is being taught.

        And it still doesn’t explain why David Cameron isn’t a socialist if that’s what our University system is doing. Indeed why, comparably this country isn’t socialist, certainly compared to most of Europe.

  • ohforheavensake

    This is a remarkably stupid article.

  • Jack Copley

    It will always be Britain’s badge of shame that the ascendant economic powerhouse of Greece was plunged into depression by the actions of British-educated Varoufakis. Does the author have a timeline of the Greek crisis? lol. This might come in useful before he decides to put pen to paper again.

  • Pioneer

    Perhaps more of them will follow the example of Malcolm Caldwell.

  • SD

    What a BS misleading lying article , written for people that do not know the tuth .

  • Aris Kosionidis

    I notice that Greece’s previous Finance Ministers, who demolished the economy even more dramatically than Varoufakis did and passed through LSE and Oxford, do not get a mention. One wonders if that is because they demolished it in a way that agrees with the principles of the writer.

Close