In the news

I think historical context has a huge impact, but it will deminsh with time.

Inevitably. It has been doing that for decades, of course.

You have to remember that just after the war there was serious debate in Germany about whether there should be any re-armament at all. Adenauer then brought that about (Wiederaufrüstung).

One partial reason for Hitler was the weakness of the Weimarean Republic's army (the Reichswehr), which had been limited by the Versailles Treaty to 100,000 for fear of future repeated aggression. That not only meant the local army forces were often unable to stand up to the bullying by Hitler's SA (and, indeed, to its Communist equivalents), it also meant that the Reichswehr was not fully committed to the state.

The Federal Republic of Germany under Adenauer then set up a fairly large Bundeswehr which was only reduced in size when Germany was groaning under the cost of the annexation of East Germany and the wilful destruction of its economy. Conscription in Germany was cut back and the time that recruits had to serve went down. (This also affected us who had elected to do civilian service instead of army duty, as our time was cut short in a similar way.)

Throughout all this, the doctrine encapsulated in a beautiful sentence by Willy Brandt ...

Von deutschem Boden darf nie wieder Krieg ausgehen

'Never more may war proceed from German soil.'

... and stated, in a different form, in the Grundgesetz

(1) Handlungen, die geeignet sind und in der Absicht vorgenommen werden, das friedliche Zusammenleben der Völker zu stören, insbesondere die Führung eines Angriffskrieges vorzubereiten, sind verfassungswidrig. Sie sind unter Strafe zu stellen.

'Actions suitable or intended to disturb the peaceful co-existence of the world's peoples, especially for the purpose of preparing a war of aggression, are unconstitutional. They are to be subject to punishment.'

This remains an immovable pillar of German law.

In 1995, Joschka Fischer, a leading Green politician, took a delegation of Green colleagues to Bosnia to show them what was going on, saying that Germany could not remain uninvolved. When he became foreign secretary under Gerhard Schröder as part of his Red-Green coalition in 1998, he advocated participation in the war in Kosovo and German warplanes flew missions there. This remains extremely controversial.

We can only hope that Germany's relatively small participation in wars becomes the default mode for all other countries, but it's obviously unlikely.

'Never more may war proceed from German soil.'

quite right, as long as they replenish their munitions in Cyprus, eh..

Except of course that the majority of people didn't vote for this shower of cunts.

Only ~42% of the electorate voted for something other than the Tories.

(Stats abuse with low turnout elections can be fun, and statistics based on the entire electorate can be used both ways when voting is not mandatory.)

Read the letter, then comment;

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/british-air-strikes-in-syria-jeremy-corbyns-full-letter-to-labour-mps-on-why-he-cannot-support-plans-a6750476.html

Well, I like Chuka Umuna, he's thoughtful, doesn't ramble, and is razor sharp in a debate. He's a great antidote to the moralistic, morose, repetitive and over earnest chuntering of Andy Burnham, who at one time I supported as the next leader. For me, Umuna is definitely likeable. Perhaps it's because I like an underdog, and Umuna has a fight on his hands to get back to a meaningful position of influence in the party.

Anything about his policies you like?

Except of course that the majority of people didn't vote for this shower of cunts.
Only ~42% of the electorate voted for something other than the Tories.

(Stats abuse with low turnout elections can be fun, and statistics based on the entire electorate can be used both ways when voting is not mandatory.)

True. But the majority of people eligible to vote did not vote Tory, and that's fact not stats abuse. It's far from democratic, and it pisses me off that the wishes of a minority are foisted on everybody else.

S'fair enough fam. I'm sure he's not a cunt, I suppose I'd just like to see what he'd be like without the media training.

True. But the majority of people eligible to vote did not vote Tory, and that's fact not stats abuse. It's far from democratic, and it pisses me off that the wishes of a minority are foisted on everybody else.

How would you solve that then? Endless hung/NOC Parliaments or huge coalitions that argue amongst themselves and self destruct in short time? AV/AV+/STV or a hybrid such as MMP/AMS?

Personally I'd like to see the UK aim to move towards some form of PR and compulsory voting, but I can't say that I'm not worried about what the majority of the population might end up electing if compulsory voting was enforced under FPTP.

Only ~42% of the electorate voted for something other than the Tories.

(Stats abuse with low turnout elections can be fun, and statistics based on the entire electorate can be used both ways when voting is not mandatory.)

This is the second time I've seen you make this point on here, I think. It threw me off the first time because it's just a strange point to make. I'm still at a loss - what's the actual point? Because no matter how you construe it you can't disprove the point @dave4 made (i.e., it's not a claim that requires one pointing to the entire electorate).

There's probably no perfect solution, but some form of PR, probably STV, would be my preference. It's more democratic than FPTP, and it is also unlikely that extreme parties would get many 2nd pref votes. Can't say I don't like the idea of everybody voting, but not sure I could stretch to making it compulsory! I still get a slight thrill from voting (although usually followed by bitter disappointment).

Quelle surprise. This is the shit that the Labour Party need to get stuck into. Being an actual opposition rather than tearing strips off of each other.

^^^^ @

I'm not trying to disprove what @dave4 said, what he said was perfectly true. The majority of people did not vote for the current shower of cunts.

But that's true of every (I think, feel free to point me at a year where it wasn't) previously elected Government of this country.

So it makes that particular point pointless because it will probably always be true of any Government whilst this country fails to engage people enough to get turnout up significantly.

Also, the problem with the phrasing of "the majority of people did not vote for the current shower of cunts" is that it leads people to think that the pseudo-converse statement "the majority of people voted for anyone other than the current shower of cunts" would be true, which it isn't as backed up by the stat I posted.

^^^That table from here: http://www.coppolacomment.com/2015/11/those-elusive-welfare-spending-cuts.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FxgewA+%28Coppola+Comment%29

True, but context important... I was replying to a post which suggested that the majority had voted for the govt.

Anything about his policies you like?

First thing that springs to mind is his support for small businesses who are getting swamped by rising rents and business rates. He also campaigned vociferously and eloquently against tuition fees.

Fair enough, I'd read the "majority" in Dammit's post to refer to the majority of elected representatives (i.e. the Tories being wrong) not the voters (that elected the representatives of all parties).

I have read the letter, but it doesn't line up with his statement in the Commons. Which doesn't line up with what Labour MPs are stating he has told them behind closed doors. If they weren't being told to vote a certain way, then why would they be openly stating they are going to rebel? That's a genuine question, I'm not being snarky! Just feel like I'm missing something.

Right, so it's ok to want physical harm to come to someone for exercising their democratic right to vote. What about freedom of speech? That ok too as long as people say exactly what you want them to? For a supposed left-winger you have some very odd viewpoints.

TBF I don't believe that Greenhell is even his real name.

Did I spot you roaming the streets of Peckham earlier this evening?
#blanked

Yes, I was accompanying Me Julie who had need of an eye test. Where and when did I blank you?

Ha! Just before the train station. Mrs hell and I were looking for an offie. There's a criminal lack of them in that part of the world. Had to go an ASDA! For shame.

I hope she passed her test.

For a supposed left-winger you have some very odd viewpoints.

You can be left wing and totally undemocratic and authoritarian.