Re: Winston Churchill and crossing the house degenerating to crossing your legs

[Thomas]

Good for him and you,and others could research those same documents and come to a different conclusion.

which is what morays initial point was , we dont  all share the same opinion of that cant churchill and many of us never have.

[cromwell]

well i can , and so can people like tim bouverie for example who researched for years contemporary evidence and war office and uk government documents.

Good for him and you,and others could research those same documents and come to a different conclusion.

As I was pointing out to Moray and you only have to look at wee krankies utterings on Salmond.

[Thomas]

Had Germany decided to follow up their bombing raids with an invasion, who knows what the outcome would have been. Hitler seemingly had plans to invade but instead turned his eyes East and rounded on the Soviets.

One of the great mysteries of history , how when the brit empire was on its knees and ripe for the taking , hitler bottled it and didnt invade.

I have read many theories of the barrier of twenty miles of channel water , the british fleet off scapa flow waiting , the battle of britian and none convince why hitler stopped when he had the british army on the run and floundering.

One of thes little ironies and mysteries of history that we will never know  , and where luck seemed to play a very large slice of what went on .

[Thomas]

Yeah like I said if you want to look for the negatives little or large you can come to the conclusion you want to,can't you?

well i can , and so can people like tim bouverie for example who researched for years contemporary evidence and war office and uk government documents.

[Thomas]

Yes we spoke about this years ago when I told you I adopted the moniker cromwell based on him telling parliament they were a useless bunch of ***** (nothing changes much) the rest I already know but you're judging him on todays standards something you've said elsewhere is false.

im neither judging cromwell or churchil on todays standards. im judging both of them by the standards of the day , and how they both treated my country , especially oliver cromwell. Both of them to me are cants , and always will be  ,and im showing my support and agreement for my countryman morayloon when he calls out churchill on this thread.

[morayloon]

He was respected for how he represented the nation at one particular period when we faced one of the greatest threats ever.

Other than that he was like the rest of us a flawed human being

His 'revenge' decisions marked him out as a war criminal. One who, like Tony Blair, managed to evade justice.

Yeah you're forgetting the period when this country stood alone against Hitlers Germany,other than that nobody with a modicum of historical knowledge of that time would discount Americas contribution and certainly not the soviet people who lost around twenty million people and it's estimated around half of that number were lost to the excesses of Stalin who was little better than Hitler but just ended up on the winning side

Had Germany decided to follow up their bombing raids with an invasion, who knows what the outcome would have been. Hitler seemingly had plans to invade but instead turned his eyes East and rounded on the Soviets.

Regarding the fire bombing of German cities the Nazis waged total war,in that sort of war shit happens so it leaves no sour taste for me people judge all that on now,peacetime and after the event

Any moral high ground that the Brits had was lost with the Dresden bombings. Yes the Germans carried out all sorts of nasty stuff but, with the decision that led to 25,000 civilian deaths, that escapade shows the Brits were just as capable of unforgivable actions

So he lost some elections,so what that's life

That part of my post was in response to a post claiming that Churchill invariably won elections

[cromwell]

Im entitled to my opinon as are you and anyone else.

Yeah that's what I posted

You choose to name yourself on this forum after one of the biggest historical despots in the history of these islands , a man posthumously exhumed and his corpse subsequently executed , who sold thousands of scots and tens of thousands of irish into slavery in the caribbean etc etc. History and their figures rightly or wrongly are in the eye of the beholder like much else.

Yes we spoke about this years ago when I told you I adopted the moniker cromwell based on him telling parliament they were a useless bunch of ***** (nothing changes much) the rest I already know but you're judging him on todays standards something you've said elsewhere is false.

You label tim bouverie as "whatshisface" ? The man has probably forgotten more about churchill than you will ever know , and i mention him only as he was the last historical author i have read who penned an opinion on churchill and the events of the day.

...and the opinion based on contemporary records isnt flattering.

Still we mustnt let these little "negatives" get in the way of a good myth.

Yeah like I said if you want to look for the negatives little or large you can come to the conclusion you want to,can't you?

[Thomas]

Yes as you Tim whatisface and others have an opinion,others recognise like us all he had human failings but pluses too.

You only want to see the negatives,that's fine but as said it's just an opinion.

Im entitled to my opinon as are you and anyone else.

You choose to name yourself on this forum after one of the biggest historical despots in the history of these islands , a man posthumously exhumed and his corpse subsequently executed , who sold thousands of scots and tens of thousands of irish into slavery in the caribbean etc etc. History and their figures rightly or wrongly are in the eye of the beholder like much else.

You label tim bouverie as "whatshisface" ? The man has probably forgotten more about churchill than you will ever know , and i mention him only as he was the last historical author i have read who penned an opinion on churchill and the events of the day.

...and the opinion based on contemporary records isnt flattering.

Still we mustnt let these little "negatives" get in the way of a good myth.

[cromwell]

I dont miss any point. He wasnt "a man of the time".

As tim bouverie and many other people who have investigated churchill and the events of the (early )second world war have found , churchill was regarded a a bumbling drunken fool with a nasty streak who was badly tarnished over the dardanelles offensive among many other issues "at the time".

His status today is vastly different among certain sections of yookay society to contemporary records and opinions.

Yes as you Tim whatisface and others have an opinion,others recognise like us all he had human failings but pluses too.

You only want to see the negatives,that's fine but as said it's just an opinion.

[Thomas]

And you miss the point I was making to Moray that he wasn't a demi god (like Salmond) but a man of a certain time.

I dont miss any point. He wasnt "a man of the time".

As tim bouverie and many other people who have investigated churchill and the events of the (early )second world war have found , churchill was regarded a a bumbling drunken fool with a nasty streak who was badly tarnished over the dardanelles offensive among many other issues "at the time".

His status today is vastly different among certain sections of yookay society to contemporary records and opinions.

[cromwell]

You miss the point of morays post. He was calling out the fact churchill wasnt universally respected , only respected by certain segments of the uk population. I thought the man was a can't.

So did many at the time as tim bouverie says in his bestselling book appeasing hitler.

Similarly you miss the point when you say "so what he lost elections." Moray is pointing out he wasnt that great a politician by mentioning his fallabilities of the time rather than the demi god status he later has mythically come to assume.

And you miss the point I was making to Moray that he wasn't a demi god (like Salmond) but a man of a certain time.

[Thomas]

He was respected for how he represented the nation at one particular period when we faced one of the greatest threats ever.

Other than that he was like the rest of us a flawed human being.

Yeah you're forgetting the period when this country stood alone against Hitlers Germany,other than that nobody with a modicum of historical knowledge of that time would discount Americas contribution and certainly not the soviet people who lost around twenty million people and it's estimated around half of that number were lost to the excesses of Stalin who was little better than Hitler but just ended up on the winning side.

Regarding the fire bombing of German cities the Nazis waged total war,in that sort of war shit happens so it leaves no sour taste for me people judge all that on now,peacetime and after the event.

So he lost some elections,so what that's life.

Regarding respect and being objective there are people who could level the same against you and your support for Alex Salmond,shit sticks unfortunately.

You miss the point of morays post. He was calling out the fact churchill wasnt universally respected , only respected by certain segments of the uk population. I thought the man was a cant.

So did many at the time as tim bouverie says in his bestselling book appeasing hitler.

Similarly you miss the point when you say "so what he lost elections." Moray is pointing out he wasnt that great a politician by mentioning his fallabilities of the time rather than the demi god status he later has mythically come to assume.

[cromwell]

I think the view of Churchill as a 'great' and 'most respected' politician is way over the top. His early political career was littered with anti-democratic actions e.g. sending in the troops to strike break; sending in the troops and tanks to 'quell' the so called Red Clydeside 'threat' to the realm; sending the troops into Ireland, causing mayhem there.

He was respected for how he represented the nation at one particular period when we faced one of the greatest threats ever.

Other than that he was like the rest of us a flawed human being.

Later in his career he was the leader who 'won the war', never mind the USA's help and the amazing part played by the Soviet forces and the Soviet people. His decision to sanction the fire bombing of German cities was unforgivable and leaves a very sour taste in the mouth.

Yeah you're forgetting the period when this country stood alone against Hitlers Germany,other than that nobody with a modicum of historical knowledge of that time would discount Americas contribution and certainly not the soviet people who lost around twenty million people and it's estimated around half of that number were lost to the excesses of Stalin who was little better than Hitler but just ended up on the winning side.

Regarding the fire bombing of German cities the Nazis waged total war,in that sort of war shit happens so it leaves no sour taste for me people judge all that on now,peacetime and after the event.

Churchill lost various elections - in Oldham, Manchester and, perhaps most famously, at the 1922 GE, in Dundee when he was beaten by a Prohibitionist!
He changed party sometime between the 1900 and 1906 Elections. In 1900 he was a Tory; in 1906 he was a Liberal. Perhaps he changed because he foresaw the Liberal landslide. He was in Asquith's cabinet but lost a by-election in 1908. He managed to keep his post by winning a by-election in Dundee where he remained until 1922 when he embarrassingly lost to Edwin Scrymgeour.
The man is only 'respected', and seen as 'one of our greatest' politicians, by a certain section of the population.
I had thought that you would be more objective when describing him

So he lost some elections,so what that's life.

Regarding respect and being objective there are people who could level the same against you and your support for Alex Salmond,shit sticks unfortunately.

[morayloon]

My post did not make it....

Barry, while you probably express the opinion of many voters, in law you are wrong. A Westminster MP goes to parliament as the man (or woman) not the party.

When you elect an MP, you elect a person and charge them to go to Westminster and there govern or LOYALLY oppose according to their best judgement and conscience exercising both in a way they consider in their electors best interests.

As long as this renegade turncoat can sleep at night after stating his remaining as their MP is in their best interests, he is fully entitled to stay put.

Alan Howarth was our MP for Newport East, he got the seat at as a reward from Blair for crossing the floor in Stratford. Labour sheep voted to keep him three times. He only went when Blair demanded a woman have the seat.

We do not even vote for the party when we vote on a party list. Mohammed The Bribe Taker Asghar demanded a bung to stay a Plaid AM and when plaids leader said no he took the Tory whip. As he was an am on a regional.list party ticket there was uproar but the Tw** who wrote the Constitution himself a rabid cottage burner was brought to the chamber to admit a list success who changed whip could not be sacked for it.

Can you point out the law which says that an MP is elected to represent his/her constituents rather than the Party. Putting it like that is too simplistic. MPs get elected because of the backing of the party and the many people who campaign on her/his behalf to try and persuade the electorate that their candidate is the candidate to vote for. Without this backing a person is very unlikely to get elected. How many 'Independents' have won a seat at a General Election?
As for the Regional list vote, a person can only become e.g. an MSP if he is on a party list. Independents have been elected to Hoyrood e.g. Margo Macdonald but in the main it is party adherents who win the day.
Why should a list MSP not change parties mid stream. If their conscience cannot allow them to stay under that party's whip then it is only right that they leave. John Finnie & Jean Urquhart did just that in response to the SNPs change of policy on NATO. Both remained as Independents until Urquhart, in 2012, then Finnie, in 2014, joined the Greens. 
Of course an MP represents the constituents as best as he/she can but in the end it is party loyalty that wins out. 

[morayloon]

Having had several years of experience on the inside of a local Labour party, I can tell you that local party members tend to hate having people chosen by others imposed upon them. Especially ones who have recently voted for things like the cuts to universal credit, as he has.

Under the current circumstances though, this guy was already an elected MP. He is not going to step down. Since were he not sitting as a Labour MP, he'd be a Tory or an independent or something, but crucially would still be there as the local MP, quite a few of the local party members there will still see this as a positive development. Better to have him inside the tent on their side pissing out than outside the tent pissing in. But come the next election the local party will want to choose their own candidate.

But power is being removed from local Labour parties and being replaced by diktats from the top. So the local party might end up being stuck with him, and it will be for the local electorate to decide whether he stays or goes.

I will point out though that one of our greatest and most respected politicians - Winston Churchill - crossed the floor not once but twice. He still always seemed to manage to get elected.

I think the view of Churchill as a 'great' and 'most respected' politician is way over the top. His early political career was littered with anti-democratic actions e.g. sending in the troops to strike break; sending in the troops and tanks to 'quell' the so called Red Clydeside 'threat' to the realm; sending the troops into Ireland, causing mayhem there. Later in his career he was the leader who 'won the war', never mind the USA's help and the amazing part played by the Soviet forces and the Soviet people. His decision to sanction the fire bombing of German cities was unforgivable and leaves a very sour taste in the mouth.
Churchill lost various elections - in Oldham, Manchester and, perhaps most famously, at the 1922 GE, in Dundee when he was beaten by a Prohibitionist!
He changed party sometime between the 1900 and 1906 Elections. In 1900 he was a Tory; in 1906 he was a Liberal. Perhaps he changed because he foresaw the Liberal landslide. He was in Asquith's cabinet but lost a by-election in 1908. He managed to keep his post by winning a by-election in Dundee where he remained until 1922 when he embarrassingly lost to Edwin Scrymgeour.
The man is only 'respected', and seen as 'one of our greatest' politicians, by a certain section of the population.
I had thought that you would be more objective when describing him