London - the beating heart of our great nation

chris_m

Generali wrote: »

Many Aussies hate Mr Churchill. He sent a lot of ANZACs to their deaths.

The French navy weren't too keen on him either, nor a lot of people in Coventry.

Generali

StevieJ wrote: »

Unfortunately he was not exactly a military genius as illustrated when he telegraphed the Gallipoli landings by ordering the shelling of the Dardenelles coast :eek:

chris_m wrote: »

The French navy weren't too keen on him either, nor a lot of people in Coventry.

I'm sure.

Churchill was both a flawed man and a great man. He failed and brought himself back to prominence. I think that something that is missing from people today is a willingness to fail. If you don't push yourself to your limits then you will never fail.

GeorgeHowell

While the lefties try to pick at his bones, let's remember that he almost single handedly took on the appeasers in the 1930s, and narrowly won the argument by being appointed PM in 1940, over the appeaser Lord Halifax who would have made us a puppet state of the Nazis. He then managed to wind up, motivate, cajole, and big-up a grossly under- prepared nation into a supercharged war machine. He managed to get the USA into WWII against all their reluctance -- admittedly helped by Japanese idiocy. No matter how bad things got he kept UK morale up sufficiently, and continually fended off and sidelined the defeatists, the p u s s yfooters, and the feint-hearted. But for him, the Nazis would have won the war in Europe -- or maybe even not needed to fight it -- no question.

But some will try to play down and denigrate his achievements, because he was a "toff" who hated lefties.

Generali

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

While the lefties try to pick at his bones, let's remember that he almost single handedly took on the appeasers in the 1930s, and narrowly won the argument by being appointed PM in 1940, over the appeaser Lord Halifax who would have made us a puppet state of the Nazis. He then managed to wind up, motivate, cajole, and big-up a grossly under- prepared nation into a supercharged war machine. He managed to get the USA into WWII against all their reluctance -- admittedly helped by Japanese idiocy. No matter how bad things got he kept UK morale up sufficiently, and continually fended off and sidelined the defeatists, the p u s s yfooters, and the feint-hearted. But for him, the Nazis would have won the war in Europe -- or maybe even not needed to fight it -- no question.

But some will try to play down and denigrate his achievements, because he was a "toff" who hated lefties.

Oh he most certainly hated Lefties and he partly inspired me to hate Leftism.

Let's be honest, who is actually stupid enough to hate someone because of their Dad or where they were sent to school? Surely nobody in the C21st.

A._Badger

Generali wrote: »

Oh he most certainly hated Lefties and he partly inspired me to hate Leftism.

Let's be honest, who is actually stupid enough to hate someone because of their Dad or where they were sent to school? Surely nobody in the C21st.

Beside a fair few contributors to this forum, you mean? Oh, and those members of the Labour party who have conveniently forgotten the backgrounds of so many of their leaders?

GeorgeHowell

A._Badger wrote: »

Beside a fair few contributors to this forum, you mean? Oh, and those members of the Labour party who have conveniently forgotten the backgrounds of so many of their leaders?

You mean like the one who went to Fettes ? They forgave him that because he won three elections for them. Until he invaded Iraq that was, then they had to let him go after some agonising. They replaced him with a real winner from a humbler background, and the rest is history ......

A._Badger

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

You mean like the one who went to Fettes ? They forgave him that because he won three elections for them. Until he invaded Iraq that was, then they had to let him go after some agonising. They replaced him with a real winner from a humbler background, and the rest is history ......

Blair was just one. Who would describe the sons of the Hamsptead Marxist professor as being from a humble background? Or Oppenheimer with her millions... or so many of the other jokers who like to pretend they are plebbier than thou?

Here's an appropriate word for the time of year - humbug!

GeorgeHowell

A._Badger wrote: »

Blair was just one. Who would describe the sons of the Hamsptead Marxist professor as being from a humble background? Or Oppenheimer with her millions... or so many of the other jokers who like to pretend they are plebbier than thou?

Here's an appropriate word for the time of year - humbug!

The majority of lefties either have so relatively little that they feel they can't afford not to be one, or they have so much that they feel they can afford to be one. I know which group I despise more.

zagubov

Oh dear, such squabbling. I've a soft spot for Winnie as he was a local MP long before I moved into his constiuency as a student.

He also foresaw the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe with an accuracy of +/- 5 years .;)

Mind you , even Vince Cable was a labour councillor in my home city when I lved there - probably round about the time that John Pierpoint was there.:D
A cracking great political training ground is Scotland.:beer:
Unless you're a Tory. UKIP or BNP member!

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

Obviously there was an element of tongue in cheek in my previous posting, but in London for example life was getting "impossible" for bus passenger and car driver alike.
Now that taxes, legal and physical restrictions, have forced many of those cars out of central London, public transport and (rich) motorists alike seem to be getting around much more reliably.
Cities in Holland and Switzerland seem to function much more in the interests of their residents than the sprawl that is Los Angeles. (where General Motors cynically bought up and closed down the bus & trolley bus (silent and non polluting) service, realising that would sell a lot more cars). There are places in USA where it is almost impossible to walk because there are no joined up sidewalks across the suburbs.

I am old enough to remember a London with trams and trolley buses plus double decker buses on which most citizens managed to get about satisfactorily 20 hours day on reasonably car free roads.

My feelings exactly. Absolutely tons of cities in Europe have good transport systems. Even in North America, Toronto has a cracking system. Actually San francisco (my fave US city) has a good system and even New Orleans (my second fave ) had a streetcar system.

That BBC series "Why did we do that" covered this disgraceful act of urban vandalism we carried out in the UK. It'll cost us a fortune to put it right.

Ruled by donkeys. :mad: To put it politely.:(

ruggedtoast

Generali wrote: »

I don't believe in corporate welfare either. It was a cornerstone of Nazism and remains as wrong in 2012 as it was in the 1930s.

What do you mean by Neoliberalism? For a lot of people it seems to be used as a term of abuse covering everything from Libertarianism to Corporatism. I've never seen a proper definition so would be interested to know what it means to you. I've been described as a neo-liberal many times so would like to know what I'm being accused of!

Yes, you're right that for something which is described as an ideology there is no one definition or specific set of tenets.

My understanding of neoliberalism is that it traces its roots back to the Bretton Woods agreement which established American / Western economic primacy, which quickly led to a hegemonic global order supported by institutions like the IMF and the World Bank.

Critics of neoliberalism point to these entities as being fulcral to a system that creates an economic environment most countries, and by extension most people, will never succeed in, and then forcing more of the measures they already failed at on them in the guise of restoration, thereby enslaving them in debt and financial dependence.

Neoliberalism is undemocratic and contrary to the ideals of a truly free market, as it involves the manipulation of the rule of law and financial regulation, to favour the wealthiest and most successful corporations and individuals. This is where it becomes intertwined with capitalism, though capitalism is not an ideology of course, merely an economic system which appears to be easily exploited by neoliberals.

There are numerous examples of neoliberalism in action and for many it boils down to a sense of injustice, of one rule for us and another for 'them'.

Bankers who refused any state regulation before the credit crunch, and then demanded, and received, unlimited financial guarantees from politicians after their banks went bust are an example of neoliberalism in action. Its not clear to many people how bailing out the banks, saved the economy, but it certainly saved the people who run the economy.

How about Kraft, a 'too big to fail' zombie corporation that should have had trouble getting a bar tab suddenly receiving billions of dollars from RBS, a notionally state owned British bank, so that it could buy out Cadbury, put hundreds of people out of work and offshore production to Poland; more neoliberalism?

Even the supposed bastion of social democracy the EU appears to be predicated on an assumption of market and political manipulation to further neoliberal ideals. Private bankers lend billions to Greece, Portugal et al, countries which if they were people would have failed the credit check for a mobile phone. When they inevitably can't pay who suffers? Not the bankers thats for sure, anyone who's a European taxpayer loses out though, as the people who wrote the loans knew they would.

Meanwhile closer to home corporate entities like Starbucks and Amazon quite legally avoid paying tax while the mom and pop startup next door struggles to compete. Politicians bluster and rage for the benefit of the newspapers but were fully aware all along of who the cards are stacked against.

So no, I don't think you're a neoliberal.