This is from August 1941, so I doubt it is out by a whole year – ‘Early 1939’

http://docs.bell.lib.in.us/Originals/the%20story%20of%20the%20bell%20airacobra.pdf

Strong and stable.

Oh, and nice. Honest. Ignore history.

We love working people. Why, I even smiled at the little chap who does my topiary this morning!

..in a strong and stable way, of course.

Just remember you have more responsibilities than you do rights, prole.

Just frustration – watching vox-pops on telly, where people asked to comment on economic policy or the local situation reply with regurgitated tabloid headlines and tory soundbites about Jeremy Corbyn’s supposed personality.

Very similar to the way history’s nastier regimes have worked, where actually having a thought-through position that takes longer words to discuss makes you both part of a disliked elite standing in the way of progress and personally untrustworthy.

It might be that there are too many junior bean-counters and business studies graduates who think it’s a nice safe ‘business’ to practice on and not enough people who know anything about a) defence or b) anything else

Very similar to the problem with higher ed here.

Indeed – Publicly-owned (East Coast Line) was never the same as Government-run (MoD). To conflate the two is another history-fudging peice of sh.. nonsense.

I would imagine ‘no net expense’ – though the phrasing is the BBC’s, refers to the public gaining an asset to the value of the cost of the shares.

I agree that’s a bit of a stretch of language as when you buy something of equal or greater future value to the current cost it isn’t normally referred to as incurring ‘no net expense’. Then again, that is the principle behind both the property market and the stock market.

You know, Bruce, if the next tory government were to reverse things and sell off our shares again, as long as they gained value in the intervening period and are not undersold this time then in fact we will have gained something.

I would be jnterested to see the original claim, not the BBC version.

A classic Torygraph article. Well written tosh.
‘Unwittingly’? How witless would you have to be to buy land in Northern Cyprus without checking who it really belonged to?

No matter how much that appalling bum-wipe of a paper tries to spin it to be about filthy foreigners, this was a decision on an international issue by an international court, and personally it looks like a good one. Not sure how it’s relevant.

..actually, in his opposition to nuclear proliferation JC is somewhat against fighting the last century’s wars.

So.. anybody pick up on the ‘wealth creation’ bit? And can anyone point to anything in what it actually says that is the ‘terrifying prospect’ the Telegraph was referring to?