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

[papasmurf]

I wonder what happened to him in the end?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQldUeevrQQ

[Thomas]

Poor old Winnie. He just couldn't do anything right could he?

I wonder what happened to him in the end?

drank himself to death and the new londoners graffitied a statue of him  i think.

[Thomas]

Doesn't matter whether you buy it or not,that's historical facts and the first link fits in because it illustrates hitlers mind set and looking east.

no , its not historical fact. you dont know , neither do i , hitlers mind and why he didnt invade when he had the british on their knees.

History is written by the victors no the purveyors of truth.

Im not asking for a regurgitation of two world wars and one world cup. Im asking if  you have any links to those thinking outside the box and any new revelations.

Nevermind.

[Borchester]

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

Poor old Winnie. He just couldn't do anything right could he?

I wonder what happened to him in the end?

[johnofgwent]

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.

The phraseology you use seems to set the cart before the horse.

Back in 1973/4 the 17 year old me took up Ian Grist's offer to travel at his expense (the Tory party's more like) to london to tour the house of commons.

As part of that I was handed a document printed by the house library which I was told listed the duties responsibilities etc etc of an elected MP. Little did I or they realise then that 38 years later I'd be handed the updated version as a consequence of being nominated to stand as a candidate.

The 1974 document is the one I can cite from memory. It referred directly to The Representation Of The People Act but failed (this was, after all the work of politicians) to cite exact instruments.

The situation is not so much a law as a code of conduct. It states as I cite that the elected member has historically been tasked to go to Westminster and there choose to govern as part of her brittanic majesty's government, or LOYALLY oppose as part of her brittanic majesty's loyal opposition (a phrase that these days seems to be changed to the official opposition). The crucial point is the successful candidate is required under their responsibilities to use their best judgement to act in either capacity as they see fit subject only to their conscience in that they are required to serve their constituents b St interests.

The point I've tried to make is you don't vote for the party you vote for the person, and that person needs to go through a special set of hoops to be recognised as the party's man (or woman) but they can change that in the blink of an eye.

However the state of the assembly in Wales is radically different. As I am sure you know, voters are told they have different votes, one for a constituency candidate and one separate entirely for a party whose candidates are names on a party list.

The party list is under the utter control of the national nominating officer. The rules state that where a party succeeds in attaining a party list deat, the national nominating officer chooses who from his list  gets it. The person chosen need not be the first on the list.

These rules are handed to all Welsh assembly candidates and having stood as a candidate for Cardiff I know these rules because I was given a set.

The rules given to candidates are deliberately incomplete. I did not know when I stood, but I bloody well do now. 

In short, the rules state if the party won the seat, a national nominating officer chose who gets to put their bum on it. 

If they resign, or die, the national nominating officer is asked to specify who from the original list should replace them.

But the rules as handed out did not state what was to happen if a list seat member found it impossible to carry on as a candidate for the party in question. All the hype spouted by the scum made it look that the party list was controlled by the party. Mohammed the lying shitbag and corrupt bribetaker Asghar proved this was a falsehood. Dafydd Elis Thomas was forced to rule that the full rule set for conduct of assembly business allowed a party list man who resigned the whip and exhibited such callous contempt for democracy as to refuse to stand aside and let another of the party continue where his conscience dictates he cannot, remain in the post occupying a seat originally the property of another. 

But the man was a thieving ethnic who multiple times tried to profit from others misfortune and indeed death. What else can I expect from such skulduggers

[cromwell]

Cromwell  , im not sure how your first link fits in with the discussion , and we are all well aware of the second link regarding the battle of britian. Its nothing new.

Conventional wisdom alleges hitler didint invade as he couldnt gain air and sea superiority. We all know that , we ourselves have discussed it with deppity and many others time and again , its no new revelation

I dont buy it.

Much of what hitler did contravened the military tactical wisdom of the time and he took massive gamble after massive gamble . His alleged use of amphetamines to make the german troops act "like surperhuman" , the overrunning of the maginot line with his blitzkreig , opening a second front to the east with the russians.

I would argue opening a second front against the russians was more of a gamble than invading the uk after june 1940 , when the british were on thier knees.

As i said we will never know now. Battles  or wars rarely go to any long term plan.

Doesn't matter whether you buy it or not,that's historical facts and the first link fits in because it illustrates hitlers mind set and looking east.

[Thomas]

One quotes mein kampf and lebensraum he was never really invested in or planning a war in the west

the second specifies actual events and reiterates no long term plans had ever been made.

Cromwell  , im not sure how your first link fits in with the discussion , and we are all well aware of the second link regarding the battle of britian. Its nothing new.

Conventional wisdom alleges hitler didint invade as he couldnt gain air and sea superiority. We all know that , we ourselves have discussed it with deppity and many others time and again , its no new revelation

I dont buy it.

Much of what hitler did contravened the military tactical wisdom of the time and he took massive gamble after massive gamble . His alleged use of amphetamines to make the german troops act "like surperhuman" , the overrunning of the maginot line with his blitzkreig , opening a second front to the east with the russians.

I would argue opening a second front against the russians was more of a gamble than invading the uk after june 1940 , when the british were on thier knees.

As i said we will never know now. Battles  or wars rarely go to any long term plan.

[cromwell]

Dont understand the content of your link  , which is about the nazi ideology , in relation to the military tactical failure to invade the uk when he had the british on their knees?

One quotes mein kampf and lebensraum he was never really invested in or planning a war in the west

the second specifies actual events and reiterates no long term plans had ever been made.

[Thomas]

https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-Britain-European-history-1940

Dont understand the content of your link  , which is about the nazi ideology , in relation to the military tactical failure to invade the uk when he had the british on their knees?

[cromwell]

The luftwaffe was arguably the best air force at the start of the second world war , and as for superiority of the sea , britian had long been acknowledged the power of the seven seas.

He would have lost many troops invading the uk....thats a given , it stil doesnt explain his unwillingness to take a chance.
some links please?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Jump to navigation Jump to search


The Greater Germanic Reich, to be realised with the policies of Lebensraum, had boundaries derived from the plans of the Generalplan Ost, the state administration, and the Schutzstaffel (SS).^[1]

Part of a series on

[th]Nazism[/th]

Organizations

History

Ideology

Racial ideology

Final Solution

People

Nazism outside of Germany

Lists

Related topics

Category Germany portal

v t e

The German concept of Lebensraum (German pronunciation: [ˈleːbənsˌʁaʊm] (listen), 'living space') comprises policies and practices of settler colonialism which proliferated in Germany from the 1890s to the 1940s. First popularized around 1901,^[2] Lebensraum became a geopolitical goal of Imperial Germany in World War I (1914–1918) originally, as the core element of the Septemberprogramm of territorial expansion.^[3] The most extreme form of this ideology was supported by the Nazi Party (NSDAP) and Nazi Germany until the end of World War II.^[4]
Following Adolf Hitler's rise to power, Lebensraum became an ideological principle of Nazism and provided justification for the German territorial expansion into Central and Eastern Europe.^[5] The Nazi Generalplan Ost policy ('Master Plan for the East') was based on its tenets. It stipulated that Germany required a Lebensraum necessary for its survival and that most of the indigenous populations of Central and Eastern Europe would have to be removed permanently (either through mass deportation to Siberia, extermination, or enslavement) including Polish, Ukrainian, Russian, Czech and other Slavic nations considered non-Aryan. The Nazi government aimed at repopulating these lands with Germanic colonists in the name of Lebensraum during World War II and thereafter.^[6][7][8][9] Entire indigenous populations were decimated by starvation, allowing for their own agricultural surplus to feed Germany.^[6]
Hitler's strategic program for world domination was based on the belief in the power of Lebensraum, especially when pursued by a racially superior society.^[7] People deemed to be part of non-Aryan races, within the territory of Lebensraum expansion, were subjected to expulsion or destruction.^[7] The eugenics of Lebensraum assumed the right of the German Aryan master race (Herrenvolk) to remove indigenous people in the name of their own living space.

https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-Britain-European-history-1940

[Thomas]

i normally find , as a history buff , the second( maybe the first a bit less so) world war completely boring listening to all the empty platitudes and mythology of how a certain nation won the war , but as i said earlier in the thread , tim bouveries excellent book a few years back  , probably one of the more honest and brutally down to earth renditions of the clear anti semtisim of the uk elite , the willingness to turn a blind eye to what was going on in nazi germany , the english publics hatred of the french rather than their germanic cousins , and of course the realistic picture of churchill rather than the demi god status so worshipped by those who came later a compelling read that has rekindled my interest in this period of history.

[Thomas]

Yeah you are .

prove it?

[Thomas]

No it wasn't a mystery at all,they lacked air superiority and power of the sea and based on that his commanders told him it was too risky.

He had already decided on going east leaving us to stew as he decided we were already beaten and could be starved and bombed in to submission.

It's all clear in mein kampf and contemporary records.

The luftwaffe was arguably the best air force at the start of the second world war , and as for superiority of the sea , britian had long been acknowledged the power of the seven seas.

He would have lost many troops invading the uk....thats a given , it stil doesnt explain his unwillingness to take a chance.

It's all clear in mein kampf and contemporary records.

some links please?

[cromwell]

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 can't , and always will be

Yeah you are and one of the ones complaining quite rightly about rewriting history and judging people by todays standards.

What Cromwell did was not unusual by any of the contemporary countries standards.

I would say read your history but I know you already have and are being selective on who is a villain and who isn't.

,and im showing my support and agreement for my countryman morayloon when he calls out churchill on this thread.

Yeah and I'm doing the same for mine.

[cromwell]

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 .

No it wasn't a mystery at all,they lacked air superiority and power of the sea and based on that his commanders told him it was too risky.

He had already decided on going east leaving us to stew as he decided we were already beaten and could be starved and bombed in to submission.

It's all clear in mein kampf and contemporary records.