Get A Prescription For Clomid Benicar Olmesartan Medoxomil 40 Mg Buy Synthroid 112 Mcg Buy Propecia Finasteride Australia Anxiety Pills For Puppies

David Davis shows why we can’t trust Tories


8:40 pm - October 6th 2009

by Sunny Hundal    


      Share on Tumblr

John Harris reports from the Conservative Party conference:

Richards asked him if there was a specifically Tory story on civil liberties, at which point he went on about poppies, Churchill, and – once again cranking up the testosterone – the supposedly unreliable ways of lefties. “If we had relied on Guardian-reading vegetarians to defend liberty,” he reckoned, “we’d all be speaking German.”

You’ll remember that last year when David Davis decided to resign from his seat to re-fight it under the banner of civil liberties – many of those same “Guardian-reading vegetarians” decided to support him because they also cared for civil liberties (me included).

Many of us on LibCon were split because a sizeable contingent were of the opinion that you can never trust a Tory. I’m afraid they have been proven right.
Also, as someone said in the first comment:

More accurately, if we’d have relied on the Daily Mail’s 1930s editorial stance to defend liberty, we’d all be speaking German

(via Chicken Yoghurt)

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Sunny Hundal is editor of LC. Also: on Twitter, at Pickled Politics and Guardian CIF.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Civil liberties ,Conservative Party ,Westminster

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


Typical.

Nice. Real nice. But who’s surprised?

Well, I am. I thought he had more magnanimity than that but he’s just another frothing Tory. Oh well. That’s me told…

“If we had relied on Guardian-reading vegetarians to defend liberty,” he reckoned, “we’d all be speaking German.”

That’s all true. Mind you the type of people who read the Guardian in the 1930s were not the brain-dead effeminate bourgeois-bohemians who read and right for that paper today.

In a way it’s good that he came out that way – the Tories are simply waiting to be elected, they can now feel the comfort that they will not even need to fight a general election, see Hague bricking it.

The more that people see the Tories for what they are the better.

I still believe there will be a hung parliament – unless people really do want a bit of a change. Elect the LibDems for one term and see if they do bring about real electoral reform.

Well well well…I do remember some real patronising shite from certain liberals when the sane people amongst us dared question supporting DD…

John Harris also wrote in the same article:

“But fair play to him: what with fulsome tributes to Roy Jenkins’s spell as Home Secretary, endless lines about the importance of freedom under the law, and his faultless account of the arguments around the 42 days issue, most of what he said was admirably convincing”

Talk about selective!!

I hope his silly remark doesn’t put you off supporting him the next time he opposes a liberty-infringing piece of Labour legislation.

DD resigned over 42 days and momentarily opened up the debate on civil liberties.

It will be not be remembered as his defining moment.

It will be remembered by libertarians as his only moment……

9. Guy Aitchison

Yea I heard about this. It does sound like a fairly stupid and hypocritical comment to have made even if he was being rhetorical.

But I don’t think it proves that liberals were wrong to make common cause with him and the libertarian wing of the Tories in the fight against 42 days etc – surely for them to be proven wrong and Davis untrustworthy he would have to actually go back on what he’d said about civil liberties – it seems to me that’s what matters rather than name-calling.

Yes – read the whole Harris article first!

Isn’t this an attack on pacifism rather than civil liberties?

Which part of us right-wingers not liking pathetic hand-wringing Lefties don’t you understand?

“Talk about selective!!”

Who cares about selective, did DD say it or not? He said it and it’s an extreme insult to insinuate that liberals would have rolled over and somehow wrung their hands over Germany bloody well invading the west of Europe.

I supported DD, I’ll support him on matters where doing so aides the liberal agenda, but the idea that we ever should have trusted him with a wider portfolio of liberal concerns, not that it was a terribly stable idea, is definitely dead in the water.

In short, what a prick.

Davis has a very good point. The guardian is just a talking shop, and its the conservatives that are out there fighting for liberty. The war hating guardian would have supported further appeasement, not stood up and taken the fight. It is just a cheerleader and an unpopular one at that. Certainly you may mock the John Bull, Magna carta patriotism of the Conservatives, cameron’s ‘your papers please’, but it brings a visceral argument of defending our hard won freedoms. They are not just some meaningless european legislation telling us we have this right and that right, they are the foundation of the English state, won through fire and blood by our ancestors and thats what the Guardian can’t understand.

And what you therefore can’t understand, Danny, is that our “freedom” (as defined as “not speaking German”) is nothing to do with civil liberties, but nationalism. You like aligning yourself with the BNP I see?

Do you not understand that our national culture has been one of freedom. Britain has defined itself as a progressive liberal state. Compared to France until the revolution we were a democracy, british were free, We gave freedom to slaves first and we had pride in our freedom. While we cast nationalism as just a thing of the extreme left and right we forget the reason why we were proud of our nation such as its progressive heart, its free citizens voting in elections, the right to jury trial, all equal under the law. Its in no way perfect, but by constantly stating its imperfectness plays into the hands of the authoritarians who require constant change and innovation, usually for the worse. Maybe for you the european superstate and its concentration of restiction is for you, but for me I perfer the rights enshrined in Magna Carta and British traditions that the rest of the world has benefitted from.

“Its in no way perfect, but by constantly stating its imperfectness plays into the hands of the authoritarians who require constant change and innovation, usually for the worse.”

I’m not talking about perfection or otherwise, but there is one simple fact…Tories wouldn’t have rolled over to let the Germans win if they were “more free” than we were at the time, no-one would. It’s nationalism first, then culture…the idea that the Tories are all about civil liberties because of a few wars is absolutely ridiculous, especially when they try and paint anyone, let alone liberals, as the sort of people that would lie down and let another STATE run rampant over their established culture.

This isn’t a discussion about the EU or otherwise, this is a pathetic person trying to score cheap points to distance himself from the people he aligned himself with, so that he can get a better chance of a cabinet position should his party win.

What makes him untrustworthy? He believes in defending justuice. My enemies, enemy and all that. You have to accept that the Lib dems are not going to form the next government so promote those tories who beliefs on civil liberties are best for the nation rather than slag him off because he distrusts Guardian readers.

“it’s an extreme insult to insinuate that liberals would have rolled over and somehow wrung their hands over Germany bloody well invading the west of Europe.”

But that isn’t what he said. He said that following Guardianista philosophy would have meant losing to Germany – and that’s quite correct.

Both the Labour and Liberal parties voted in 1934 against expanding the RAF by forty-one squadrons or 820 aircraft. Had they succeeded the Battle of Britain could not have been won. “We deny the need for increased air armaments” said Attlee.

The Guardianista that gets me is Vera Brittain (mother of Shirley Williams), whose tragic WW1 experiences led her to extreme pacifism. When Hitler marched into Bohemia in 1939 she was furious – because she had a huge (1 million-plus signatures) Peace Pledge Union petition ready to present to Chamberlain, rally booked in the Queens Hall, and Hitler was going to pinch all the front pages from her.

“All the press tumbling over itself with self-righteousness, as though no power but Germany had ever broken its word before”

This was less than six months before the invasion of Poland.

But at least VB and the PPU didn’t want Germany to win. The trouble with today’s ‘anti-war’ movement is that its leaders are on the other side !

“Guardianista philosophy would have meant losing to Germany – and that’s quite correct.”

Where exactly have the guardian, or it’s readers, suggested pacifism is the only justifiable course in an aggressive military conflict waged against their own nation? I ask this because if anything with recent conflicts the guardian response has generally been one of “it’s surely to be expected that people in another country react violently to us running in with our military power”

“Both the Labour and Liberal parties voted in 1934 against expanding the RAF by forty-one squadrons or 820 aircraft. Had they succeeded the Battle of Britain could not have been won. “We deny the need for increased air armaments” said Attlee.”

Did either Labour or the Liberal parties stand against doing what was needed to win the war when it was actually taking place though, or are we just quoting any old policy decision that may or may not have been mainly influenced by a sense of pacifism rather than a multitude of other factors?

I don’t particularly have a problem with him disavowing the support he received from GRVs (although being a Guardian-Avoiding-Carnivore kinda helps in that regard), the reasons why it was a bad idea to support him are the same now as they were then. The only people who will feel disenfranchised by this remark are people who thought it possible to build an alliance of those from all parties and none on civil liberty grounds, and that it was possible to bypass old left-right divides.

edit – Lee is right to question whether the Guardian/its readership is actually pacifist. Haven’t they supported humanitarian intervention through military means in the past?

Might I suggest that the Labour and Liberal parties voted against expanding the RAF because in our political system (sadly) opposition parties traditionally oppose measures proposed by a governing party, regardless of their merit?

And don’t forget that the ‘guardian types’ in the the coalition war cabinet in 1940 (Atlee and Greenwood) voted with Churchill to continue fighting, whilst the other two Tories (Halifax and Chamberlain) voted to surrender. I know that all this is irrelevant to British politics in 2009, but it rather annoys me when politicians misuse history to make cheap party political points.

Bit ironic considering the Cons new friends in Europe.

Perhaps Davis is arguing that Churchill wouldn’t have used national security as a reason to intern people?

He’s quite special that one. Not many civil libertarians believe that criminals should be killed.

The guardian is just a talking shop, and its the conservatives that are out there fighting for liberty.

ho ho ho! Full of comedians here today.

Guy – I’m afraid I don’t buy it. If someone wants to have a broad coalition of leftwingers and rightwingers fighting for civil liberties – they have to show themselves as a lot more intelligent than David Davis here.

And I thought he was one of the few principled ones… but he’s turned out to be as frothing at the mouth as the rest.

Shame, but that’s me told for next time.

“I know that all this is irrelevant to British politics in 2009, but it rather annoys me when politicians misuse history to make cheap party political points.”

DD makes it relevant when he claims the Tories are the historical party of civil liberties and defending us from “speaking german”

Meanwhile, in a parallel universe somewhere: “If we hadn’t agreed with the Daily Mail and sided with Hitler, we’d all be speaking Russian by now!”

Counter-factuals are great. You can make them do anything.

Millions of socialists, liberals and leftists died fighting the nazi and the fascists during WWII and David Davis’s statement is just plain and crass ignorance and superficiality for the sake of tribal party politics.

It just shows what an arse he is.

On another note, in perfect line with a totally uninspiring Tory conference where Cameron, Osborne &co. have been obsessing over incapacity benefits and public workers as though they were Britain’s two urgent priorities.

29. Ken McKenzie

26.Lee Griffin. Germany had started it’s re-armament from the late 20s. The creation of the Hitler Youth and camps where young men for physical training produced a fit and tough male population ideal for fighting. The German Armed Forces were basically superior to to any other in the World becase they spent 10 years training for war and used the the exceptional skills of their industrial base to manufacture weapons. The British cavalry regiments were only converting from horses to armour in the mid 30s. British tanks were inferior in number and quality to the Germans.

If Mitchell had not designed the Spitfire and Chamberlain decided the duty of the RAF was to defend Britain, the Battle of Britain would have been lost. The Trenchard doctrine basically considered it was impossible to defend a country from bombers and the duty of the RAF was to bomb the enemy not destroy the enemy’s bombers. The gap between Munich in 1938 and summer 1940 meant we had enough time to build 19 squadrons of Spitfires.

There is little evidence that any Labour politician had thought about the forthcoming war with Nazi Germany and ensure we had suitable armed forces. If Labour had fully suppoted re-armament from 1935, Britain and France may have had a capability to hold the German army at the border in 1940. The construction of German pocket battleships, battlships and U – boats meant that Britain was nearly starved into submission which was Churchill’s greates worry. At one point of the Battle of the Atlantic Britain was losing one merchant ship an hour. Did any Labour MP raise the risk of Britain being starved into submission prior to 1940 and ensure we had a capabilty keep the sea lanes open? The U-boats did massive damage to Britain in WW1.

The only Labour supporter whom made any sensible comments was G Orwell on the tactics required for streetfighting.If we look at writers E Waugh, the Tory snob did far more more fighting than most of the Labur ones; Isherwood and Auden spent the war in the USA and Sartre was hardly a resistance fighter.

When it comes to MPs after WW2 it is interesting to see how many actually fought. Gaitskill and Wilson were civil servants; Foot was a writer, Healey and Crossman fought, Heath fought and Carrington, Whitelaw , Pym and Deedes were all awarded the MC. If more Tory MPs won gallantry medals than Labour MPs does that mean the Tory Pary was more determined and effective in fighting the Nazis than the Labour Party?

In fact when it comes to providing effective support to Churchill, before 1939 from Labour politicians it boils down to Attlee and Bevin. Attlee took over leadership of the Labour Party from Lansbury because of the latter’s naive pacifism.

If Britain had had a sufficiently large and modernised armed forces by 1940, perhaps far fewer people would have died. Labour apeared to have made no attempt to encourage Britain to have the armed forces we needed prior to the start of WW2.

30. Which relates to modern guardian readers and their supposed, and as yet unsourced, pacifism to spite everything else, how?

Cheers though for the history lesson, it still proves very little about the “reasons” why such decisions were made back then, and certainly doesn’t provide what I was asking for and that’s proof that Labour and Liberals campaigned to surrender and act in a pacifist manner during WW2. In short, anything other than proof of this means DD is scoring cheap points off of crass and insulting lies about history.

“I would close every recruiting station, disband the Army and disarm the Air Force. I would abolish the whole dreadful equipment of war and say to the world “do your worst”.

Statement by George Lansbury, leader of the Labour Party 1933 and remained in post until 1935.

I asked about Labour or the liberals DURING the war, not what they said, from a position of no power, leading up to it in their belief they could prevent it before it occurred.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/world-war-2/6122386/World-War-2-Labour-backs-Government-stand.html

Hardly an attempt to roll over and allow it to happen, is it?

Davis is being slapdash and gung-ho, but there is clearly an element of historical truth in what he says. The political left in the 1930s were even more opposed to confrontation with Hitler than the right. They were opposed to re-armament in 1938, they were opposed to conscription, some of them were opposed to the British having any form of military defences at all (the most famous example of this view coming from the leader of the Labour Party).

Pacifism during the Second World War was a phenomenon of the left, and not of the right (and note that Davis isn’t talking about the Labour Party specifically, but to elements of the left in general). Read up on the history of the Peace Pledge Union – whose membership list reads like a definition of the soggy liberalism Davis was deriding. They were so extreme in their pacifism that it’s hard not to agree with Orwell that they were objectively pro-fascist: they were even opposed to air raid precaution legislation.

The political left in the 1930s were even more opposed to confrontation with Hitler than the right.

What about the right-wingers enamoured by Hitler? Would anyone from the Tory party care to comment?

Dear me.

You wouldn’t know it to read some of these contributions, but the Tories were in power from 1931 with a majority of over 200, not Labour or the Peace Pledge Union. It wasn’t because of Labour that Britain appeased Hitler and didn’t rearm sooner.

George Lansbury was a pacifist, and that’s why the Labour Party got rid of him as leader in 1935. Attlee, Dalton and Bevin (who went on to become Labour’s Prime Minister, Chancellor and Foreign Secretary after the war – the three most senior Labour politicians) were vocal critics of the Tory National Government’s policy and persuaded Labour to change its policy on rearmament, and Michael Foot wrote a polemic called ‘Guilty Men’ which is the classic denunciation of appeasement.

In 1945, the soldiers who had fought and defeated the Nazis voted overwhelmingly for a Labour government.

Quite what any of this has to do with civil liberties today is a matter for David Davis, but the revisionism involved in trying to blame appeasement on the gutless libruls when it was a Tory policy voted for by Tory MPs in their hundreds and cheered on by the Daily ‘Hurrah for the Blackshirts’ Mail is quite breathtaking.

“What about the right-wingers enamoured by Hitler? Would anyone from the Tory party care to comment?”

Let me guess, before one of them does comment: Something along the lines of ‘oh, they were actually left-wingers’.

What about the right-wingers enamoured by Hitler? Would anyone from the Tory party care to comment?

I thought you were opposed to whataboutery Sunny? I certainly seem to remember some highly entertaining threads to that effect.

Attlee, Dalton and Bevin (who went on to become Labour’s Prime Minister, Chancellor and Foreign Secretary after the war – the three most senior Labour politicians) were vocal critics of the Tory National Government’s policy and persuaded Labour to change its policy on rearmament, and Michael Foot wrote a polemic called ‘Guilty Men’ which is the classic denunciation of appeasement.

Quite. And which of these was a vegetarian Guardian-reading liberal? None of them – they all espoused a muscular imperial British foreign policy. And therefore not what Davis was talking about. Davis’s point, I guess, was that fine words and idealistic opinions are not enough to defend freedom. And he evoked the ghosts of Arthur Henderson and Vera Brittain in that image.

To make what Davis said insulting to the Labour Party, you need to be arguing that ‘vegetarian Guardian readers’ = ‘the wartime Labour Party’. Which is a bit of a stretch really.

And for God’s sake, ‘pacifism is predominantly a philosophy of the left’ does not equal ‘the Tories were right on appeasement’. There are sometimes more than two sides to a debate.

“To make what Davis said insulting to the Labour Party, you need to be arguing that ‘vegetarian Guardian readers’ = ‘the wartime Labour Party’. Which is a bit of a stretch really.”

You may want to turn that statement to David Davis as the logical somersault from WWII to veggie Guardian readers was actually his. And plain bollocks too.

The Daily Mail, read everyday by hundreds of thousands of Tory voters around the country, was actively supporting the Nazis in the 1930s. This isn’t whataboutery. It’s a fact. And the obvious reposte to the utter bollocks spelt out by Testosterone Davis.

You may want to turn that statement to David Davis as the logical somersault from WWII to veggie Guardian readers was actually his. And plain bollocks too.

You misunderstand both me and, I suspect, him. Davis wasn’t talking about the policies of the Labour Party in the 1930s, but about the mindset of the, for want of a better expression, liberal left then. The Fabians, the Bloomsbury set, the Peace Pledge Union – those sort of people. To think that he wasn’t, you have to think that Ernie Bevin was a vegetarian Guardian reader. Which is silly.

The Daily Mail, read everyday by hundreds of thousands of Tory voters around the country, was actively supporting the Nazis in the 1930s. This isn’t whataboutery. It’s a fact.

It certainly is whataboutery, and it isn’t really a fact. It was certainly sympathetic for a time to the BUF (at a time, incidentally, when it was explicitly not a Conservative paper, and had in fact helped to set up a new party in opposition to the Tories), but you can’t reach that across to ‘actively supporting’ the Nazis.

“And which of these was a vegetarian Guardian-reading liberal? None of them – they all espoused a muscular imperial British foreign policy”

As an aside, these were the people who gave India independence and started to dismantle the British empire.

I’ll give you that Ernie Bevin probably didn’t take the Guardian regularly, but Michael Foot is pretty much the archetypal liberal Guardian reader, isn’t he?

*

According to Wikipedia, the Guardian supported the Republicans in the Spanish civil war, wanted Attlee’s government thrown out of office because of Nye Bevan and the ‘hate-gospellers of his entourage’ and backed the Tories over Suez. You learn something new every day.

I’m a Guardian reading vegetarian. I also supported going into Afghanistan. In fact I wrote an article for them recently to that effect and they picked it as their top pick and it was on the front page.

Next straw-man?

Tim J,
It was certainly sympathetic for a time to the BUF

The fact that you’re very soft on the subject gives the game away as regard how partisan you are. Sympathetic for a time? Christ almighty, the Daily Mail, via Lord Rothermere showered Oswald Mosley’s BUF with money -urging the Tories to strike a deal.
He had several meetings with Hitler and this is well documented.

One more thing. Neville Chamberlain and his “policy of appeasement”.
Which Party was Chamberlain from, Labour or Tory? Can you remind me?

41 – I actually used the ‘imperial’ line deliberately. Having always assumed that, in light of the independence of Burma and India, the Atlee Government was broadly anti-imperialist, I was surprised to discover just how much both Atlee and Bevin believed in the importance of the British Empire, and just how much they believed that Britain’s future was tied up with it.

The much deeper engagement with the African colonies in the late 40s, the turning away from early European integration, the furious arguments with Dean Acheson over Britain’s imperial possessions – the Atlee Government was a profoundly imperialist one, despite the independence of India.

42 – indeed. It was a lazy shorthand. I suspect that most people knew what he meant though…

The fact that you’re very soft on the subject gives the game away as regard how partisan you are. Sympathetic for a time? Christ almighty, the Daily Mail, via Lord Rothermere showered Oswald Mosley’s BUF with money -urging the Tories to strike a deal.
He had several meetings with Hitler and this is well documented.

You said that the Daily Mail was an active supporter of the Nazi Party. I said that it supported the BUF for a time, but that this wasn’t the same thing. That’s true. The famous ‘Hurrah for the Blackshirts’ headline was in January 1934. The Mail publicly withdrew its support in the aftermath of the Olympia rally. That was in June 1934. Which bit of this do you dispute?

And you simply can’t say that ‘the Daily Mail, via Lord Rothermere’ did anything. Lord Rothermere was certainly pro-Hitler right up unitl 1939, but his newspapers were forced to abandon their pro-fascist editorial policy in 1934.

One more thing. Neville Chamberlain and his “policy of appeasement”.
Which Party was Chamberlain from, Labour or Tory? Can you remind me?

Do you read what people post?

And for God’s sake, ‘pacifism is predominantly a philosophy of the left’ does not equal ‘the Tories were right on appeasement’. There are sometimes more than two sides to a debate.

Tim J, I have to go to work now but I dispute what you wrote.

In 1937, the Mail’s chief war correspondent, George Ward Price, to whom Mussolini once wrote in support of him and the newspaper, published a book,” I Know These Dictators”, in defence of Hitler and Mussolini. Evelyn Waugh was sent as a reporter for the Mail to cover the anticipated Italian invasion of Ethiopia.

Rothermere and the Mail supported Neville Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement, particularly during the events leading up to the Munich Agreement.

What they did following the Olympia rally was simply to publicly tone it down.They never withdrew their support.

“It was a lazy shorthand.”

Well that’s reassuring from someone who claims to ‘defend civil liberties’, isn’t it? I mean, what could possibly go wrong with lazily (and incorrectly labelling) a whole class of people as ‘enemies of freedom’?

Yes, I’ve read the Wikipedia entry as well. None of it provides any support for the view that the Mail was an active supporter of the Nazi party.

It certainly wasn’t ‘sound’ in its foreign policy, and I’m sure that had Hitler invaded in 1941 that Rothermere would have been an arch collaborator. He was a thoroughly nasty piece of work, and the Mail is not much better. But the fact remains that, following the Olympia Rally the Mail explicitly withdrw support – as did everyone else. Membership of the BUF dropped from 50,000 in 1934 to 5,000 in 1935.

“In the mid-1930s British approval of Nazi Germany was at its height. But this was not confined to fascist and extremist groups: it could be found among people in all walks of life and of almost all political opinions”. (From the back cover of Richard Griffiths book “Fellow travellers of the Right” 1983.) Griffiths’ book is an interesting study of support for Nazi Germany in Britain in the mid-1930s. Griffiths makes it clear that this is different from appeasement, which was a feature of a later period (1937-39) when the danger of Nazi Germany was recognised but the means to deal with it were unavailable. The book is worth reading if you can find a copy as it shows how the 1930s were a very different world and our tendency to refer back to it can lead to simplistic conclusions. The First World War was so horrific that it overhung all discussions. There was a weariness with democracy: dictatorships were seen as getting things done. Many of those who favoured re-armament were also at the same time pro-German, yet supported the War fully when it came. The USSR was seen as a bigger threat. The French were seen as exaggerating the threat of Germany.

Nobody comes out of the 1930s with much credit, but after 1945 there was much rewriting of history: appeasement was always somebody else’s fault and the Second World War became a high point in Britain’s history. A whole series of myths grew up about the 1930s and WWII. These form an important part of British politics (“Churchillism” as it has been named by Anthony Barnett). Everybody was in the resistance and the appeasers were the three men with sandals Orwell saw at bus stop near Letchworth in 1937 or 1938.

This would seem to be the point that John Harris is making. Davis’ narrative about freedom is right in this tradition. It goes back to the 1930s (and not, say, to Chile in the 1970s or the Greek colonels or Franco or Salazar). It centres on Churchill, forgetting that he was an outcast in the Conservative Party in the mid-1930s. A small mythical group of vegetarian Guardian readers is the scapegoat once again.

“Michael Foot wrote a polemic called ‘Guilty Men’ which is the classic denunciation of appeasement”

Trouble is he wrote it after the war started.

It’s interesting in the light of all this Daily Mailery to look at what the Guardian thought of Hitler.

Hitler was “definitely Christian in his ideals” – in those days that was a recommendation, not the insult the Guardian would now consider it to be.

The Guardian thought on September 25 1930 that the exclusion of the Nazi party from Reich government, given its electoral success, was not in the best interests of German democracy and that their involvement would “in the long run … help to perpetuate this democracy”.

They’re so wrong so often it’s a pleasure to read – were it not for the fact that their mistakes helped to almost disarm Britain during those crucial years.

Churchill in 1934 – five years before the war – on the Labour and Liberal opposition to expansion of the RAF.

“The Opposition is very free-spoken, as are most of us in this country, on the conduct of the German Nazi Government. No one has been more severe in their criticism than the Labour Party or that section of the Liberal Party which I see opposite…
But these criticisms are fiercely resented by the powerful men who have Germany in their hands. So we are to disarm our friends, we are to have no allies, we are to affront powerful nations, and we are to neglect our own defences entirely. That is a miserable and perilous situation.”


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    Article:: David Davis shows why we can’t trust Tories http://bit.ly/2FlsVW

  2. Tim Phillips-White

    RT @libcon: Article:: David Davis shows why we can’t trust Tories http://bit.ly/2FlsVW

  3. sunny hundal

    David Davis shows why we can’t trust Tories (by me) http://bit.ly/2FlsVW

  4. Pete Kavanagh

    RT @libcon Liberal Conspiracy » David Davis shows why we can’t trust Tories http://bit.ly/1NWP7O

  5. GuyAitchison

    "you can never trust a Tory" – damn @pickledpolitics you’re so tribal sometimes! http://bit.ly/fqAPy

  6. Liberal Conspiracy

    Article:: David Davis shows why we can’t trust Tories http://bit.ly/2FlsVW

  7. Tim Phillips-White

    RT @libcon: Article:: David Davis shows why we can’t trust Tories http://bit.ly/2FlsVW

  8. sunny hundal

    David Davis shows why we can’t trust Tories (by me) http://bit.ly/2FlsVW

  9. Pete Kavanagh

    RT @libcon Liberal Conspiracy » David Davis shows why we can’t trust Tories http://bit.ly/1NWP7O

  10. GuyAitchison

    "you can never trust a Tory" – damn @pickledpolitics you’re so tribal sometimes! http://bit.ly/fqAPy

  11. Ryan Bestford

    ‘David Davis shows why we can’t trust Tories’ – http://bit.ly/3zuI1 (via @libcon)

  12. Jonathan Bryning

    RT @thedharmablues: ‘David Davis shows why we can’t trust Tories’ – http://bit.ly/3zuI1 (via @libcon) #cpc09

  13. Lee Griffin

    RT @libcon David Davis makes a fool of himself while disowning those that supported his principled stand – http://bit.ly/2FlsVW

  14. Ryan Bestford

    ‘David Davis shows why we can’t trust Tories’ – http://bit.ly/3zuI1 (via @libcon)

  15. Jonathan Bryning

    RT @thedharmablues: ‘David Davis shows why we can’t trust Tories’ – http://bit.ly/3zuI1 (via @libcon) #cpc09

  16. Lee Griffin

    RT @libcon David Davis makes a fool of himself while disowning those that supported his principled stand – http://bit.ly/2FlsVW

  17. StopTheRight

    David Davis shows why we can’t trust Tories http://alturl.com/dq6q #p2

  18. StopTheRight

    David Davis shows why we can’t trust Tories http://alturl.com/dq6q #p2

  19. StopTheRight

    #DontVoteTory David Davis shows why we can’t trust Tories http://alturl.com/dbtg





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.