LEWIS: "HERO" KEN MUST "APOLOGISE"

Former London Mayor Ken Livingstone needs to make a "full and frank" apology for his previous remarks about Hitler - according to a Shadow Cabinet  Secretary.

Shadow Business Secretary Clive Lewis told a national Union of Jewish Students (UJS) Conference in London on Sunday his comments were "quite frankly, outrageous and wrong."

Lewis addresses UJS Conference

Mr Lewis claimed Ken Livingstone was a “hero” who spent his life “at the front of liberation politics” before causing outrage by openly stating “Hitler supported Zionism … [before going] mad and killing six million Jews.”

“But I look at Livingstone’s political career in its entirety, as someone on the Left, as someone who for many years saw him as a hero.”

Formerly Shadow Defence Secretary himself, Mr Lewis -  who claimed to have been victim to “racism" - admitted the previous mayor's refusal to apologise so far “does call into question” why his membership hasn’t been stripped.

Issuing a plea to Mr Livingstone, he stated: “It is incumbent upon him to apologise and disown the comments that he made.”

Mr Lewis also expressed his sadness that “many” Jewish Labour members feel politically “homeless”.

“People with my opinions in the Labour Party are the majority, the vast majority,” he said. It is a “small minority” who hold “anti-Semitic views” that are being “pushed out”, he explained.

Mr Lewis later promised to ask Labour Party Leader Jeremy Corbyn to respond more quickly and properly to intimidation and Anti-Semitic sentiments in Oxford University Union. The student who made the request was unavailable at the time of publication.

Conference Delegates, from University Jewish Societies across the UK, then passed a motion to increase education on "tackling Anti-Semitism in Labour Clubs."

"Hero" Ken Must "Apologise", Says Shadow Secretary

Ken Livingstone was a “hero” who spent his life “at the front of liberation politics” before his remarks about Hitler, Clive Lewis said in London last night.

The Shadow Business Secretary told a national Union of Jewish Students (UJS) Conference the disgraced former London Mayor “really does need” to offer a “full and frank” apology for them.

Lewis speaks to UJS Conference

The former Mayor caused outrage when openly stating “Hitler “supported Zionism” … [before going] “mad and killing six million Jews.” Challenged by a student, Mr Lewis branded the comments "quite frankly, outrageous and wrong." 

“But I look at Livingstone’s political career in its entirety as someone on the Left, as someone who for many years saw him as a hero.”

The former Shadow Defence Secretary – who claimed to have himself been the victim of “racism” - admitted, however, the notoriously-known "Red Ken" having not already said sorry “does call into question” why his membership hasn’t been stripped.  

Issuing a plea to Mr Livingstone, he stated: “It is incumbent upon him to apologise and disown the comments that he made.”

Mr Lewis, who proposed to his girlfriend after giving a guest address to the annual student meeting, also expressed his sadness that “many” Jewish Labour members feel politically “homeless”.

“People with my opinions in the Labour Party are the majority, the vast majority,” he said. It is a “small minority” who hold “anti-Semitic views” that are being “pushed out”, he explained.

After the talk, Mr Lewis promised to ask Labour Party Leader Jeremy Corbyn to respond more quickly and properly to intimidation and Anti-Semitic sentiments in Oxford University Union. The student who asked him to do so was unavailable at the time of publication.

Rees-Mogg: Civil Servants "talking down the nation"

A leading Tory MP has criticised civil servants for "talking down the nation", claiming it will cause public resentment.

Jacob Rees-Mogg, the arch-Eurosceptic, said that a considerable number of establishment figures won't let go of their "emotional attachments" to the EU in the wake of the Brexit vote.

The MP for North East Somerset argues that "many members of the establishment" are being guided by their heads over theirs hearts - because "the UK population largely ignored them."

He said: "Some of them are talking down the nation because of this, and that is unhelpful; although, in the long run, it will marginalise those who cannot accept the will of the people."

Meanwhile, Eurosceptic ally Andrew Bridgen MP recently said he was "not interested in 'Brexit Lite'", amid rumours of a Parliamentary rebellion. Reports surfaced that MPs could rebel if a mere immigration break or a continued links to the single market were proposed.

But Mr. Rees-Mogg said he "[does] not think it will arise" because the "government is committed to a proper Brexit."

He claimed that "Mrs. May understands better than almost anyone the problems that membership of the EU in relation to immigration."

"Everything that Mrs. May has said to date indicates that she wants to deliver proper Brexit."

-------------------------------------------------------------------

THE above article was published in the Sunday Express and on the Express' news website. For those, the wording was sub-edited to fit their house style and space available.

IT'S OFFICIAL: 376 SOCIAL CARE WORKERS WEREN’T PAID NATIONAL MINIMUM WAGE

At least 21 social care homes failed to pay employees the National Minimum Wage since the scheme's introduction in October 2013.

A government announcement shows that over £200,000 was reportedly owed to workers in the social care sector.

The largest ever “naming and shaming” list of official National Minimum Wage offenders, published on Thursday, includes twenty one support companies - all of which have all been “cracked down on” and forced to pay workers.

Business Minister Margot James claimed: “It is not acceptable that some employers fail to pay at least the minimum wage their workers are entitled to.”

The shocking statistics reveal scandalous levels of underpayment: a total of three hundred and seventy six carers were owed £23,153 overall. Within this amount, each company owed employees - ranging from one to one hundred and one staffers - an average of £1,102.53.

And the neglected National Minimum Wage payments left workers on average £61. 58 out of pocket.

One social carer was left without nearly £3,000 to which he or she was entitled.

Royal Manor Nursing Home in Derby, operated by Pine View Care Homes Ltd, had already been reported as “requiring improvement” by Quality Care Commission in April 2015. And the new list shows Royal Manor also failed to pay an unnamed staffer £2,590.99.

Mr Dinesh Raja, its Registered Manager, was unavailable to comment at the time of publication. But an anonymous staff member, who said she had not heard about the underpayment, responded: “Oh my god.” She did not want to comment further.

Another social care provider, Azafran Ltd, trading as Bluebird Care, owed £3,708 to sixty seven workers.  Director Sue McLaughlin apologised for  “shortfall[s] in pay that any member of my team had” in an interview with Belfast Telegraph. Though the company was investigated by HM Revenue and Customs in 2014, its presence on the list will be seen as a success.

The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy’ (BEIS) plan to name employers who break minimum wage law was established in January 2011. Under the scheme, companies who pay workers less than the minimum wage have to pay back arrears of wages at current minimum wage rates, and may face further financial penalties of up to £20,000 per worker.

Thursday’s list names companies so far forced to comply.  But an HM Treasury spokesman confirmed that “more than one hundred investigations into social care” have been launched across government.

The underpayment epidemic has already caused concern regarding private care. As reported by Low Pay Commission, approximately eleven per-cent of care workers (over 200,000 people) aren't paid the National Minimum Wage.

The news editor for carehome.co.uk, which lists care homes and reviews - including some mentioned on the list - was unable to comment. But Care Home Forum’s executive director, Des Kelly, wrote in May: “There can be no justification for care providers paying below the rate of the NLW.”

“We support HMRC taking a zero tolerance approach and using their powers to prosecute any such care providers.”

BOOKS: Review - ‘The Devil’s Work' - Mark Edwards

Many women expect, or look forward, to restarting their career a few years after giving birth. But the dream job that Sophie Greenwood lands in psychological thriller The Devil’s Work might be as much of a burden as it is a blessing. Her family is under threat… In his latest novel, Mark Edwards (The Magpies, 2013) writes about what he knew: his last job before becoming an author was in marketing – and it is marketing work for fictional Jackdaw Books that menaces the Greenwoods.

Author Mark Edwards (amazon.co.uk)

**** (4 ½ Stars)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTE TO READERS: The following review was written to the house style of OK! Magazine, and to a word limit. It did not require a full reading of the book; instead, it allowed me to write a more PR-esque report for the Reviews section.

BOOKS: Review - ‘Holding’ - Graham Norton

“There are wheels within wheels… fires within fires,” fears Ann Putnam in Arthur Miller’s The Crucible. The same could be said by any number of characters in chat-show host Graham Norton’s debut novel. For repressed and untold truths live below the surface in quiet Duneen: each of three spinsters is “Holding” onto something… But for how long? Sergeant PJ Collins, who has tried to ‘hold back’ from getting too close to anyone, must make the connections. The town gossip thinks she knows the news; but Norton’s black humour dominates a novel venture into the literary industry.

The book's front cover (amazon.co.uk)

**** (4 Stars)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTE TO READERS: The following review was written to the house style of OK! Magazine, and to a word limit. It did not require a full reading of the book; instead, it allowed me to write a more PR-esque report for the Reviews section. 

MUSIC: Review - 'Suicide Squad' - Atlantic Records

Having hit UK cinemas two Wednesdays ago to mixed reviews, Suicide Squad comes with an epic soundtrack of the same name. Eminem raps, “Shadie’s back” in ‘Without Me’ – while the crew also includes Grace (‘You Don’t Own Me’, feat. G-Eazy) and Kehlani, whose new tune ‘Gangsta’ makes for perfect morning music. Lil Wayne, Wiz Khalifa & Imagine Dragons with Logi’s ‘Sucker For Pain’ is our favourite; Panic! At the Disco’s Bohemian Rhapsody is OK! indeed. So it’s no surprise that Atlantic Records’ newest production was leaked online.

**** (4 ½ Stars)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTE TO READERS: The following review was written to the House Style of OK! Mag, and to a word limit.

MUSIC: Review - 'Bad Blood' - Nao

Tonight is different.  

NOTE TO READER: DO NOT READ the next few paragraphs if you are disinterested by my reasons for writing a music review, or by the future of this blog. PLEASE SKIP them to read the blog alone... [No, please don't!] 

Why is this night different from any other night? Unlike my usual posts, this evening and tomorrow I will be publishing "cultural" reviews - all of which I have written or updated since I 'took my place' on the Young Journalists' Academy (YJA) Summer School one week ago. 

And tonight is also different because I am making a pledge - to you, my readers. Simply put, I promise to write more 'cultural' reports, reviews, and interviews. This will, I hope, fulfil a potential which I have yet realised. As I look forward to 'university life', I will write all the cultural journalism I told myself I would but haven't over the past couple of years.

Before I do so, let me say - or write, or type - some thank-you's. Firstly to Jonny Ensall: yesterday I wrote my first  - and perhaps my last - music review in an interactive masterclass by the culture critic, whose cool and calm serenity allowed me to engage with my 'cultural element lost.' Whether I continue to write music reviews or not, Jonny's authenticity ("I couldn't fake my middle-class, white man profile", he told me) has inspired me to equally use my own voice. 

Secondly, I want to say thank you to my YJA group and YJA friends. I entered the group - most of whose members are from different but similar backgrounds than my own - with a judgement; and I will leave it with that judgement proven wrong.

Thirdly - but most importantly - I express my appreciation to Viv Regan. Whacky, crazy and one of the kindest and sharing people I've met - Viv accepted my application to the programme, gave me advice, let me be me. As she tells us all, Saturday will be the "End...or just the beginning."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nao - 'Bad Blood - THE REVIEW

This reviewer feels no bad blood listening to the upcoming artist's latest release. For this is the new song for the summer; recline over the ocean, dip into the pool, and sip that 'glass of ocean'. A swift change from Taylor the Polemicist, the expert graduate of Guildhall School of Music and Drama tingles with the emotions, evokes the muse within, gives oxygen to the soul. For all we know, you could be in Cyprus listening Nao.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, as this evening spreads itself against the sky, sit back and etherise your soul against your bed -

and let us go then, you and I...

THE SOCIO-POLITICAL EARTHQUAKE

"And perhaps this is that doom which Adam fell into of knowing good and evill, that is to say of knowing good by evill."  - John Milton, Areopagitica

Today, remembering the EU referendum campaign, it is difficult to 'know' whether your vote was that of a good or evil person; whether the campaigns and actions of those campaigning were good or evil. It is certainly true, though, that there is a binary opposition by which we can measure the goodness or evilness of those actions. This means that "the good, bad and ugly" were inevitable pre-requisites of a decision of truly momentous ramifications. 

Momentum was 'had' by both sides of the debate. It changed when the emotions changed, or when the perceived "Reason" changed. But what startles nearly everyone - not least the proud [and therefore sometimes overconfident] Remainians" - is how divisive the campaign was; just how out-of-hand it became. Most incredibly,  this ended up being used to create momentum for the Leavers. Had Cameron lesson-learnt Milton, especially Book Nine of Paradise Lost and Areopegitica, he would have known his own Fall was inevitable when UKIP arose.  

For Cameron was a coward for caving in to Farage; and he would've been awfully hubristic to strike him down at once. Cameron should've known this much: that reacting to the whim of Farage by offering a referendum would prove him weak (and that this would be used by Farage), while standing up to him would have been hubristic.

 The Seeds of Destruction were sewn not only in the Conservative Party of Government. In Milton's battle of liberty, Eve was seduced by Satan because she had already refuted Adam's belief that Eden was "luxurious by restraint": and ever since Thatcher and Major, Britain was seduced by Farage (as well as by BoGove) because it had hated the prosperous restraint which it enjoyed in the EU. It is perhaps ironic, then, that Cameron's campaign ended up being perceived as being hubristic even when he did cave into Farage's Carriage.

Cameron held power for many years, until his emotional but self-inflicted resignation. How do we reflect upon his campaign? And what of his heir-apparent, the usually politic George Osborne? Surprisingly, he became "nakedly political," as Christian May pointed out in City AM.  Sir Anthony Seldon and Peter Snowdon already argued that theirs was a dual-premiership; and together they forewarned a "DIY recession." They tried to bully voters together, too; Cameron later warned state pensions would be hit, while Mr Osborne earlier earmarked a loss of £4,300 per household in the event of Brexit. As May (no, not Mother Theresa) also pointed out, "some of the economic forecasting... has been part of a concerted effort to stoke fear." This was a great disservice to Great Britain and to themselves. 

And their reign - from the beginning of the Coalition, through their "strong economy" campaign in 2015, to the doom-mongering just past - was built upon failure and restraint. Indeed they saw the thorns among the roses in The Rose Garden. 

The most apparently powerful figures have been swept away by those without power. In Webster's White Devil - a play which presaged the British  Civil War -  Lodovico is "banishèd." But the difference between Lodovico and disenfranchised Brits is that the latter have successfully made "Italian cut-works" of Cam-Borne. They may too have cut their own wealth in pieces by Leaving their own paradigm: The EU. And another character, Flamineo, is asked by his mother "What - because we are poor shall we be vicious" - so the question of our own real-politic Play is: did DIY Dave and George have the means with which to " [save themselves] from the galleys or the gallows?" 

The disenfranchised working class and oldies, who were promised a vision of "change" and "control," are posed a further question. It is this: did you fight for control and individual sovereignty only to hand the keys to to another group or elite? There will be an unelected Conservative Prime Minister, though the MPs who "represent them" are still popularly elected; and yet Labour has been branded "out of touch" by a former rank-and-file Secretary  (Kate Hoey), who offered such a vision. So both major parties - the Government and Opposition - have been torn apart. A foreboding sense of heartbreak and existential questioning can already be felt. 

Do not doubt that leading members of either side fought in the gutters. As I reported on my FreudWord Blog, Gove said at one point of the referendum that "I am not going to change my hairdresser, I am not going to change David Cameron" - but came out with his gun at the ready. He and Boris offered a so-called 'alternative government', which would've bruised Cameron's ego. Farage, we know, was dogmatic behind his laughing exterior. Sadly Dan Hodges was right: 'Gove and Boris have gone rogue, so... You've got to shoot to kill, Dave,' he warned in the Daily Mail. 

Milton himself believed that human reason and liberty had to be tested. It seems our own collective mind has been; but he thought there was "No more talk" because Britain had traded a baby-Parliament under Cromwell's Republican Experiment for no Parliament and an authoritative monarchy. British people voted for control, but what individual powers have they been granted?  And, even if this is to come, how representative is the sovereign democracy for which they voted? 

It is well known that Cameron felt one of (if not the) greatest "disobedience" came from his friend and former adviser, Steve Hilton. Apparently - and who would doubt it? - he and Cameron were told that the Party couldn't possibly cut immigration as the latter promised; and Hilton indeed saw the restraint rather than the luxury of Free Movement. How poetic is it that Mr Hilton is the man who argued for a radical restructuring of Whitehall and national governance but wasn't able to then, and who is arguing for a "More Human" world now? 

Hilton was not alone in his principled campaign. A senior party adviser and old friend of Cameron explained privately that the PM is a decent man with decent views; though political ambition overruled his campaign, I think the comment is true. Chris Grayling was perhaps the most notable of all: a staunch Eurosceptic, he is a cabinet minister who dealt diplomatically and politely with each and every opponent. 

And the murder of Jo Cox highlighted just how evil some actions are. Her death, at the hands of a Far-Right loner who had seen an expert the evening before, was contrasted by her husband's memory of how Jo "met the world with love." Such an emotional and humane interview underlined an event that resonated in the heart of any decent person. We certainly knew good by evil then.

Not too many months ago, Jeremy Corbyn stood up at the Labour Party Conference to call for "kinder politics" - a "political earthquake" in which people "don't take what you're given." How naive and hypocritical? White Devil indeed! The chief executive of Suffolk Chambers of Commerce more recently quipped, "We live in an era of important D-words: deficit, debt and now devolution" and added that "devolution should all be about another D-word: delivery." I'd suggest that, for all the postmodern attempts to include and cohere, Britain has shown itself to be bewildered by individual disenfranchisement. We have now met evil again, but from what source do we think the franchise derives? And is that necessarily from a good place? 

GLIB? Yes, Prime Minister (POLITICAL SKETCH)

Taking to Faisal Islam, DIY-Dave was almost the perfect politician. Politic, diplomatic and "straightforward" - what more could the audience ask for? But did he speak "glib"? Surely not; that was reserved for his interviewer, at least according to the PM.

Cameron Clashes With Islam (Credits: Sky News)

Earlier John Ryley, Head of Sky News, had issued a rally cry to Sky employees to feel proud of this momentous first occasion. And they should - all of the camera crew, the researchers, the producers, the audience (including some don't-bullshit-me members), steady Anchor Kay... And the interviewer perhaps most of all. The show - it was spectacular - had all the right movements and devices.

The only part missing, perhaps, was enough truth. The Prime Monster (that was auto-check) was polite (greeting members of the audience with a 'good evening' or 'hello' [insert name]); Kay looked glamorous and trusty as ever; and the interviewer bandied his "15 Years" of work experience in "economics". But HE was accused of being "glib." Six times. Now, Cameron has been accused of telling porkies - but wasn't it he who said, "It doesn't need to be Christmas to know you're sitting next to a turkey?" 

The PM may not have 'got away with it' this time. One audience member, who asked a perfectly direct (though perhaps longggg)  question, didn't like the indirect answer she was given. "I'm an English student, I know waffling when I see it," said she...  Proudly?  And Faisal identified "Classic Cameron" campaigning - "scaremongering," as has been the accusation many times previously. 

"I know waffling when I see it" (Creds: Sky News)

Derived from Old English, the noun 'scaremonger' has "roots in the Latin mongo (a dealer or trader), and has cousins in Old Saxon, Old Icelandic, and other Germanic sources." But its derogatory insinuation came from about the 16th Century: "a person engaged in a petty or disreputable trade or traffic.” To me, contested Mr Cameron," this is not about scaremongering: I am genuinely worried." I don't think that was supposed to be open to interpretation, but I don't think it's the Waffle Wot Won It.

If there's anything DIY-Dave can do, it's build an argument. His former PPE professor has said it; his friends would say it; and, alluring to his time as a SPAD in his maiden speech many years ago, HE said it. The problem currently is that some people think he has NOT "fixed" the economy, he HAS "fixed" the ref-result... But a "DIY-Recession" (of which he and Chancellor Osborne warned, if we Vote "Leave") would be OUR fault.

This is the "special" man who won "special status" for the UK. But he's been accused, rightly or wrongly, by some Big Blue Beasts, of "corroding public trust". So when DIY-Dave said "I don't get to choose the next Prime Minister," it may have seemed judicious and politic In Name Only.

In the 1990s, Conservative Americans used "RINO" to describe Republicans In Name Only. Cameron is in his own time feared to be a Eurosceptic In Name only (expediency points for anyone who can make an acronym) and other things. "Are there frustrations?" he asked. I don't get to choose who the next Prime Minister is either: but I think it was impolitic and wrong of THIS Prime Minister to accusse his accuser of being "glib."

A laughing matter? (Credits: Sky News)

Gove: I'm NOT changing Cameron

Gove pleads with voters to separate referendum from the General Election, and brands EU "a runaway bus"

Leading Brexiteer Michael Gove last night said, "I'm not going to change David Cameron." The comments come amid claims that Gove, fellow "Brexit" campaigner Boris Johnson, or Chancellor George Osborne could succeed the Prime Minister as Conservative Party Leader either after the referendum or later. 

Speaking to a EU referendum debate audience, held at a North London Synagogue, the Justice Secretary said there are "people on the remain side who I have a little less time for - Ken Livingston, Gerry Adams." But he claimed that "there are people who will put their case for "Remain", and I admire their contribution: David Cameron is one, [as is] Nick Clegg."

Gove was debating against Lord Falconer, former [and current Shadow] Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, and pleaded that: "One of the good things is that we can separate from the General Election. At the General Election people made a choice, and made the right one."

"The referendum is different: it's a way of saying to the Prime Minister, 'I'd like to be out of the EU, please negotiate' or 'I'd like to stay in the EU, carry on', he said. He told the secret that "the man who cuts my hair" was in the audience. Responding to a question about sovereignty and who should negotiate after the referendum, Gove claimed the ability to fire a professional was the same as firing a politician. "I'm not going to change my hairdresser; I'm not going to change David Cameron. But I would like to change the instructions I'd like to give from time to time," he promised.  

Continuing to praise Cameron, Gove remarked that, "the prime minister managed to secure certain things for Britain, which I applaud." But he repeated that "what he wasn't able to do was to persuade the other countries in the EU to change their direction."

He surprised the audience by saying "In a sense we are...  a bit like a car tied to a runaway bus, and wherever that bus goes, we are destined to follow." Arguing that "the thing to do is to snip that cord", the Brexiteer forecast a "Golden Future for talented young people" if Britain votes to "Leave" on June 23rd. "Outside the Union we'd still have free trade but we'd also have the opportunity to renovate relationships with countries across the world that are growing faster and creating opportunities for younger people."

He also took aim at business groups such as the CBI, saying there are "hundreds of of people who don't sit in organisations with posh brass name plates; people who are grafting every day and creating jobs.... People who are entrepreneurs."

"If the choice is between an academic and a businessman, then I'd prefer to put my money with the businessman; and I would always say to the academic, "If you're so clever, then why aren't you rich?"

But Lord Falconer questioned "if we have said to Europe that we don't want to be a part of the same economic entity... How do you deal with problems of immigration?" 

In a rallying cry for those who are apathetic or bored, Lord Falconer said "it is a very energising debate that's going on...  a consequence of having a debate that people are really engaged in and think sill really affect then is that passions rise high..."

"The spinological way of politics, which really turns people off, rather gets thrown to the wind. So although it is difficult to see from time to time one member of a party attack another, it allows us to see what politicians are like," he argued

He claimed that "that very nice Mr Duncan Smith's" has said "hostile and extreme things about government" but "Presumably [he'd said them] because he feels so strongly about what should happen in the EU debate."

"I'm obviously from a different side of the fence. But it's good for our politics, and it's good for people to see politicians giving from their heart irrespective of their political allegiance," he mused.

He conceded "it is impossible to be part of a free market without agreeing to give that body some power." But he said that " I don't think it's anti-democratic - we give some power to other organisations." He added, "Can we avoid being part of a United States of Europe? Of course: that's not what the country wants, it's not what the country will ever want, and any further power given to the EU has to be agreed in a referendum." 

Boris Didn't 'Play The Hitler Card' In Vain. And, As Jews, We Should Not Monopolise History

I was annoyed when a friend used Godwin's Law to criticise Boris Johnson's comments. Godwin's assertion that, "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches," is often synonymous with Strauss' Reductio ad Hitlerum ('reduction to Hitler') - which can be very dangerous. One  has just to hear the insult "TwitterNazi" to be infuriated. However, as I pointed out,  this criticism misuses Godwin's Law: just as the Honourable MP John Mann did not accuse former Mayor Livingstone of being a "Nazi Apologist" in vain,  Boris' slight comparison should not be interpreted as an ad hominem argument without substance. Boris was not using the Hitler analogy as an easy joke (he finds the EU Project neither funny, nor does the criticism he faces make such a remark "easy") or as an extreme example just because of the length of the EU debate. The original criticism of his comments is insubstantial in spite of its argument. 

And "The danger, as time goes by," wrote Howard Jacobson, "is that we will tire of hearing about the Holocaust." He was not writing about Boris Johnson's comparison of the EU Project to Hitler and his Nazis, but rather an introduction to Primo Levi's "If this Is A Man". He was pondering how the memory of the Holocaust is (sometimes unwillingly) preserved and obliged to each individual; how certain individuals may find it difficult to "[take] the medicine, especially when we don’t accept that we are sick." There are those who tire of hearing about the Holocaust (too often, they believe): equally there are those who do not want it's memory to be used in vain. Vanity is not the cause of Boris' argument.

Firstly consider the argument that drawing upon the memory of the Holocaust or its architects is morally compromising in the context. There are those who would say that this is "hysterical", and those who would argue that it is not relevant. Indeed, there are those who would argue that the atrocities and human killing ("the demolition of men" with which Levi was himself preoccupied) which the Holocaust caused are not comparable to the building - or remaining part - of an economic union and peaceful union which has not seen a war since World War Two (which was a part of the Holocaust). Both will be shown to be wrong in turn. Argument one assumes that a psychological or emotional factor negatively and unnecessarily influences the use of history in such a debate; but such an argument itself includes an equally influential emotional factor of which it accuses the other side - there is an emotional or psychological fault which, wrongly and unjustly, believes it should have control over this history. Argument two suggests that a comparison can't be made because people aren't being killed for the latter; however, the Union which some seek to protect and remain in is very explicitly suggesting proposals to build a European Border Dorce to secure itself against war, immigration and terror (the latter of which includes Isis, who similarly wants to affect genocide).

"Out" campaigner Jacob Rees-Mogg recently said as much. Offering analysis of how the EU Project was a "deliberate, malevolent attempt to force people to do what the British electorate didn't want", he asked attendees of his speech to the Adam Smith Institute, "is your country Europe, or is your country the United Kingdom? Is it a bureaucratic, Napoleonic-code state - or is it a free state where everything that isn't specifically prohibited is allowed?" He added that "We have abrogated our democracy to a state - but that state is a failed state."

Realising the current "state" of things (pun intended) is indeed important. In his 2013 Introduction, Jacobson further argued that "Recollection has not been worn away by years and controversy nor subsumed under the necessity to take a long view of historical events . In much of this book, immediacy does the work of theorising and education." In the current context, taking a long term view (of the past) is NOT betrayed by a view of the present; nor does it blind how we see the future. Immediacy is doing the work because laws are being passed by the EU, members of the public and powerful groups are mentioning the past (from Johnson to Obama and Cameron), and plans for a European Border Force are being proposed or planned. Therefore, to identify today that EU Bureaucrats are using state power (and trying to manipulate consensus in favour of "ever closer union") is as current a view as could be. It also means that remembering how the Nazi's tried to orchestrate society and power through government apparatus is morally required.

BoJo is not sick. Actually, he is trying very morally to offer a sustainable solution - a cure, not a medicine - to a European Project which is trying to affect what Lord Lamont branded "not naturally one entity." His, and fellow campaigners', comments are rather edifying. We should applaud him, not demoralise him, for using "historical fact" as IDS decisively defended. And we should, most importantly, not assume control over the past; we risk alienating other people of their equal obligation to "Never Forget" otherwise. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTE TO EDITORS: I will upload photos soon. Please feel free to republish this, or quote it freely. I'd appreciate recognition that it came from me - and if you could tell me post-publication, please. IT IS EXPRESSLY AN OPINION PIECE.