People complaining about Churchill being put in a box have obviously never seen What the Butler Saw.
If you had cowered under a steel table with your Father, Mother and Sister in Manchester as a V bomb stopped over your house, and shivered in terror as it fell killing six neighbour's you may understand why Churchill is an inspiration to so very many
My grandfather did all of that in London during the Blitz - yet always maintained Churchill was a bit of an arse (though not an opinion I personally share incidentally).
People complaining about Churchill being put in a box have obviously never seen What the Butler Saw.
If you had cowered under a steel table with your Father, Mother and Sister in Manchester as a V bomb stopped over your house, and shivered in terror as it fell killing six neighbour's you may understand why Churchill is an inspiration to so very many
My grandfather did all of that in London during the Blitz - yet always maintained Churchill was a bit of an arse (though not an opinion I personally share incidentally).
People complaining about Churchill being put in a box have obviously never seen What the Butler Saw.
If you had cowered under a steel table with your Father, Mother and Sister in Manchester as a V bomb stopped over your house, and shivered in terror as it fell killing six neighbour's you may understand why Churchill is an inspiration to so very many
My grandfather did all of that in London during the Blitz - yet always maintained Churchill was a bit of an arse (though not an opinion I personally share incidentally).
So the UK economy is contracting at an annualized rate of 240%.
That's why annualized figures are silly.
I don't disagree with your general proposition. But it's contracting at 93% annualised.
You saying I can't multiply 20 by 12?
No. Otherwise you end up with negative GDP. It's like compound interest, you raise it to the twelfth power. So 0.796^12 which is around 0.065.
But that is not how the US does it. They call a 3% change in a quarter a 12% change on an annualized basis.
When the number is sufficiently small, the annualisation approximates to x4 when the number is quarterly. For instance, 1% annualised to 4% because 1.01^4 is 1.04.
She gets vile abuse for defending the hard-won rights of women to be women, as far as I can see. Though (as I say) I do not understand the minutiae. Once you dive in, the argument gets incredibly complex and murky
The spectacle of Dan Radcliffe and Emma Watson turning on her is unsavoury, given that their careers entirely depend on her genius, even if it is amusing to see the Woke descend into civil war
Ms Rowling should be allowed to have her say, like anyone else, but the issues are very complex. For example, define a "woman" in a legal sense that will hold up in court. It is actually very, very difficult to do that without excluding significant numbers of people.
Lots of women never give birth. Lots of women do not menstruate. Lots of women grow significant facial hair Some women have XY chromosomes Some men have XX chromosomes Some women have no uterus.
and those are the ones I can remember.
There was a case study in a medical journal recently of an individual who had XY chromosomes. They not only outwardly presented as female but had given birth to multiple children! The genetics we were taught in school is not the whole story.
As Beibheirli(?) says, once you start trying to define terms like "woman" in a strict legal sense, you open up a minefield: Whatever definition you pick will inevitably exclude a bunch of people who have seen themselves as women from birth.
That is the whole nub of the problem.
There is also the converse problem. Women who look too masculine get abused as transitioners or even as "pervy men"
"A Detroit woman has filed a lawsuit against restaurant chain Fishbone's after a frightening incident in which she was mistaken for a man and tossed out of a women's bathroom, reports TV station WXYZ."
Sure, but it is numerically an absolutely tiny problem.
I have a friend who has been helicoptered to hospital because she buttered her gluten free toast with butter microcontaminated by a knife which had been used by a conventional toast eater. I have encountered a thousand wankers who have felt so much better since giving up wheat products that they just know they have a gluten intolerance, including one woman who, when I said she obviously wouldn't be eating the pasta, said pasta was fine, it was only *wheat* based food that was a problem. I find about the same ratio to obtain among the gender ambivalent.
I have been wondering if intentionally or unintentionally the authorities have actually played a blinder over these protests.
If they had cracked down straight away on the protesters it could easily have fed into the narrative of police brutality and given the protests more oxygen.
Instead by letting the Colston statue be thrown in the harbour, a counter narrative has arisen of the police being too soft and the protesters have lost public support. Now with the predicted clashes between the far left and far right, the police can actually crackdown with public support.
It also feels that the protesters have squandered their political capital by making it all about the statues.
Prediction: the slavers will go as they have no-one to speak for them and most are quite obscure but national figures like Churchill, Drake, and Baden-Powell will be just fine, although perhaps with new plaques being added in some cases.
Also the one they really want Cecil Rhodes won't fall as he is worth too much money to Oxford (living rich foreign 'philanthropists' might ask for their money back)
So the UK economy is contracting at an annualized rate of 240%.
That's why annualized figures are silly.
I don't disagree with your general proposition. But it's contracting at 93% annualised.
You saying I can't multiply 20 by 12?
No. Otherwise you end up with negative GDP. It's like compound interest, you raise it to the twelfth power. So 0.796^12 which is around 0.065.
But that is not how the US does it. They call a 3% change in a quarter a 12% change on an annualized basis.
When the number is sufficiently small, the annualisation approximates to x4 when the number is quarterly. For instance, 1% annualised to 4% because 1.01^4 is 1.04.
Let's forget the economics and just agree that Deltics are immense.
People complaining about Churchill being put in a box have obviously never seen What the Butler Saw.
If you had cowered under a steel table with your Father, Mother and Sister in Manchester as a V bomb stopped over your house, and shivered in terror as it fell killing six neighbour's you may understand why Churchill is an inspiration to so very many
My grandfather did all of that in London during the Blitz - yet always maintained Churchill was a bit of an arse (though not an opinion I personally share incidentally).
The arse that saved Britain.
His view was that Britain was saved by the collective endeavors of the common man. Churchill just turned up to be photographed doing some V-signs.
People complaining about Churchill being put in a box have obviously never seen What the Butler Saw.
If you had cowered under a steel table with your Father, Mother and Sister in Manchester as a V bomb stopped over your house, and shivered in terror as it fell killing six neighbour's you may understand why Churchill is an inspiration to so very many
I understand that Churchill is respected by many people. I also understand why other people find aspects of his biography troubling. Personally, I am fine having statues of Churchill because of his role as wartime leader and his consistent opposition to the Nazis before the war in defiance of most of the Tory party, even if he was also a massive racist and imperialist who gassed the Kurds and hated the labour movement. I would not condone removing his statue or damaging it. I do like What the Butler Saw, though. Have you seen it? I think you'd like it.
People complaining about Churchill being put in a box have obviously never seen What the Butler Saw.
If you had cowered under a steel table with your Father, Mother and Sister in Manchester as a V bomb stopped over your house, and shivered in terror as it fell killing six neighbour's you may understand why Churchill is an inspiration to so very many
My grandfather did all of that in London during the Blitz - yet always maintained Churchill was a bit of an arse (though not an opinion I personally share incidentally).
People complaining about Churchill being put in a box have obviously never seen What the Butler Saw.
If you had cowered under a steel table with your Father, Mother and Sister in Manchester as a V bomb stopped over your house, and shivered in terror as it fell killing six neighbour's you may understand why Churchill is an inspiration to so very many
My grandfather did all of that in London during the Blitz - yet always maintained Churchill was a bit of an arse (though not an opinion I personally share incidentally).
As did my grandfather, but he never forgave Churchill for losing my great grandfather in the ill planned Dardenelles campaign.
Surely 85 years after the end of the war we can dump the hagiography, and have a more rounded view of the figures of the time?
Compare and contrast with Douglas Haig, once celebrated as a war winner too.
People complaining about Churchill being put in a box have obviously never seen What the Butler Saw.
If you had cowered under a steel table with your Father, Mother and Sister in Manchester as a V bomb stopped over your house, and shivered in terror as it fell killing six neighbour's you may understand why Churchill is an inspiration to so very many
My grandfather did all of that in London during the Blitz - yet always maintained Churchill was a bit of an arse (though not an opinion I personally share incidentally).
People complaining about Churchill being put in a box have obviously never seen What the Butler Saw.
If you had cowered under a steel table with your Father, Mother and Sister in Manchester as a V bomb stopped over your house, and shivered in terror as it fell killing six neighbour's you may understand why Churchill is an inspiration to so very many
My grandfather did all of that in London during the Blitz - yet always maintained Churchill was a bit of an arse (though not an opinion I personally share incidentally).
He would be in small minority
On the contrary, the landslide for Attlee in 1945 says the opposite.
People complaining about Churchill being put in a box have obviously never seen What the Butler Saw.
If you had cowered under a steel table with your Father, Mother and Sister in Manchester as a V bomb stopped over your house, and shivered in terror as it fell killing six neighbour's you may understand why Churchill is an inspiration to so very many
My grandfather did all of that in London during the Blitz - yet always maintained Churchill was a bit of an arse (though not an opinion I personally share incidentally).
People complaining about Churchill being put in a box have obviously never seen What the Butler Saw.
If you had cowered under a steel table with your Father, Mother and Sister in Manchester as a V bomb stopped over your house, and shivered in terror as it fell killing six neighbour's you may understand why Churchill is an inspiration to so very many
My grandfather did all of that in London during the Blitz - yet always maintained Churchill was a bit of an arse (though not an opinion I personally share incidentally).
He would be in small minority
On the contrary, the landslide for Attlee in 1945 says the opposite.
I hadn't realised that was a vote on Churchill himself.
People complaining about Churchill being put in a box have obviously never seen What the Butler Saw.
If you had cowered under a steel table with your Father, Mother and Sister in Manchester as a V bomb stopped over your house, and shivered in terror as it fell killing six neighbour's you may understand why Churchill is an inspiration to so very many
I understand that Churchill is respected by many people. I also understand why other people find aspects of his biography troubling. Personally, I am fine having statues of Churchill because of his role as wartime leader and his consistent opposition to the Nazis before the war in defiance of most of the Tory party, even if he was also a massive racist and imperialist who gassed the Kurds and hated the labour movement. I would not condone removing his statue or damaging it. I do like What the Butler Saw, though. Have you seen it? I think you'd like it.
I thought the allegation was that Churchill *wanted* to gas the Kurds, but it didn't happen because at the time it wasn't technologically feasible.
People complaining about Churchill being put in a box have obviously never seen What the Butler Saw.
If you had cowered under a steel table with your Father, Mother and Sister in Manchester as a V bomb stopped over your house, and shivered in terror as it fell killing six neighbour's you may understand why Churchill is an inspiration to so very many
My grandfather did all of that in London during the Blitz - yet always maintained Churchill was a bit of an arse (though not an opinion I personally share incidentally).
He would be in small minority
On the contrary, the landslide for Attlee in 1945 says the opposite.
I hadn't realised that was a vote on Churchill himself.
Deciding who is PM is rather the point of a GE, and undeniably in 1945 the British electorate, much of it still in uniform said no to Churchill.
Today is history. Today will be remembered. Years from now the young will ask with wonder about this day. Today is history and you are part of it. By this evening those statues will be a rumour. They never happened. Today is history.
People complaining about Churchill being put in a box have obviously never seen What the Butler Saw.
If you had cowered under a steel table with your Father, Mother and Sister in Manchester as a V bomb stopped over your house, and shivered in terror as it fell killing six neighbour's you may understand why Churchill is an inspiration to so very many
My grandfather did all of that in London during the Blitz - yet always maintained Churchill was a bit of an arse (though not an opinion I personally share incidentally).
He would be in small minority
On the contrary, the landslide for Attlee in 1945 says the opposite.
I hadn't realised that was a vote on Churchill himself.
Deciding who is PM is rather the point of a GE, and undeniably in 1945 the British electorate, much of it still in uniform said no to Churchill.
Was it as presidential back then, too? I rather think the policies were wot won it, not the leaders.
People complaining about Churchill being put in a box have obviously never seen What the Butler Saw.
If you had cowered under a steel table with your Father, Mother and Sister in Manchester as a V bomb stopped over your house, and shivered in terror as it fell killing six neighbour's you may understand why Churchill is an inspiration to so very many
I understand that Churchill is respected by many people. I also understand why other people find aspects of his biography troubling. Personally, I am fine having statues of Churchill because of his role as wartime leader and his consistent opposition to the Nazis before the war in defiance of most of the Tory party, even if he was also a massive racist and imperialist who gassed the Kurds and hated the labour movement. I would not condone removing his statue or damaging it. I do like What the Butler Saw, though. Have you seen it? I think you'd like it.
I thought the allegation was that Churchill *wanted* to gas the Kurds, but it didn't happen because at the time it wasn't technologically feasible.
Andrew Roberts says that the gas he was referring to was 'tear gas' - for crowd control not extermination.
People complaining about Churchill being put in a box have obviously never seen What the Butler Saw.
If you had cowered under a steel table with your Father, Mother and Sister in Manchester as a V bomb stopped over your house, and shivered in terror as it fell killing six neighbour's you may understand why Churchill is an inspiration to so very many
I understand that Churchill is respected by many people. I also understand why other people find aspects of his biography troubling. Personally, I am fine having statues of Churchill because of his role as wartime leader and his consistent opposition to the Nazis before the war in defiance of most of the Tory party, even if he was also a massive racist and imperialist who gassed the Kurds and hated the labour movement. I would not condone removing his statue or damaging it. I do like What the Butler Saw, though. Have you seen it? I think you'd like it.
I thought the allegation was that Churchill *wanted* to gas the Kurds, but it didn't happen because at the time it wasn't technologically feasible.
More to the point, he only wanted to tear gas them.
People complaining about Churchill being put in a box have obviously never seen What the Butler Saw.
If you had cowered under a steel table with your Father, Mother and Sister in Manchester as a V bomb stopped over your house, and shivered in terror as it fell killing six neighbour's you may understand why Churchill is an inspiration to so very many
My grandfather did all of that in London during the Blitz - yet always maintained Churchill was a bit of an arse (though not an opinion I personally share incidentally).
He would be in small minority
On the contrary, the landslide for Attlee in 1945 says the opposite.
I hadn't realised that was a vote on Churchill himself.
People complaining about Churchill being put in a box have obviously never seen What the Butler Saw.
If you had cowered under a steel table with your Father, Mother and Sister in Manchester as a V bomb stopped over your house, and shivered in terror as it fell killing six neighbour's you may understand why Churchill is an inspiration to so very many
My grandfather did all of that in London during the Blitz - yet always maintained Churchill was a bit of an arse (though not an opinion I personally share incidentally).
He would be in small minority
On the contrary, the landslide for Attlee in 1945 says the opposite.
I hadn't realised that was a vote on Churchill himself.
It wasn't. But one of the worst campaigns ever didn't help. And many, many people, especially those in uniform, did not trust Churchill to build the peace.
People complaining about Churchill being put in a box have obviously never seen What the Butler Saw.
If you had cowered under a steel table with your Father, Mother and Sister in Manchester as a V bomb stopped over your house, and shivered in terror as it fell killing six neighbour's you may understand why Churchill is an inspiration to so very many
My grandfather did all of that in London during the Blitz - yet always maintained Churchill was a bit of an arse (though not an opinion I personally share incidentally).
He would be in small minority
On the contrary, the landslide for Attlee in 1945 says the opposite.
I hadn't realised that was a vote on Churchill himself.
Deciding who is PM is rather the point of a GE, and undeniably in 1945 the British electorate, much of it still in uniform said no to Churchill.
Was it as presidential back then, too? I rather think the policies were wot won it, not the leaders.
Churchill was a rather high-profile leader, wasn't he?
People complaining about Churchill being put in a box have obviously never seen What the Butler Saw.
If you had cowered under a steel table with your Father, Mother and Sister in Manchester as a V bomb stopped over your house, and shivered in terror as it fell killing six neighbour's you may understand why Churchill is an inspiration to so very many
My grandfather did all of that in London during the Blitz - yet always maintained Churchill was a bit of an arse (though not an opinion I personally share incidentally).
He would be in small minority
On the contrary, the landslide for Attlee in 1945 says the opposite.
I hadn't realised that was a vote on Churchill himself.
People complaining about Churchill being put in a box have obviously never seen What the Butler Saw.
If you had cowered under a steel table with your Father, Mother and Sister in Manchester as a V bomb stopped over your house, and shivered in terror as it fell killing six neighbour's you may understand why Churchill is an inspiration to so very many
I understand that Churchill is respected by many people. I also understand why other people find aspects of his biography troubling. Personally, I am fine having statues of Churchill because of his role as wartime leader and his consistent opposition to the Nazis before the war in defiance of most of the Tory party, even if he was also a massive racist and imperialist who gassed the Kurds and hated the labour movement. I would not condone removing his statue or damaging it. I do like What the Butler Saw, though. Have you seen it? I think you'd like it.
I thought the allegation was that Churchill *wanted* to gas the Kurds, but it didn't happen because at the time it wasn't technologically feasible.
Andrew Roberts says that the gas he was referring to was 'tear gas' - for crowd control not extermination.
“I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas.
“I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected.” - Winston S. Churchill: departmental minute (Churchill papers: 16/16), 12 May 1919. War Office
People complaining about Churchill being put in a box have obviously never seen What the Butler Saw.
If you had cowered under a steel table with your Father, Mother and Sister in Manchester as a V bomb stopped over your house, and shivered in terror as it fell killing six neighbour's you may understand why Churchill is an inspiration to so very many
My grandfather did all of that in London during the Blitz - yet always maintained Churchill was a bit of an arse (though not an opinion I personally share incidentally).
He would be in small minority
On the contrary, the landslide for Attlee in 1945 says the opposite.
I hadn't realised that was a vote on Churchill himself.
Well, it seems it was...
How does that logic even work?
Just accept that Churchill lost the election heavily, FFS!
People complaining about Churchill being put in a box have obviously never seen What the Butler Saw.
If you had cowered under a steel table with your Father, Mother and Sister in Manchester as a V bomb stopped over your house, and shivered in terror as it fell killing six neighbour's you may understand why Churchill is an inspiration to so very many
My grandfather did all of that in London during the Blitz - yet always maintained Churchill was a bit of an arse (though not an opinion I personally share incidentally).
He would be in small minority
On the contrary, the landslide for Attlee in 1945 says the opposite.
I hadn't realised that was a vote on Churchill himself.
Well, it seems it was...
How does that logic even work?
Just accept that Churchill lost the election heavily, FFS!
I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing the claim it was a personality contest.
It really is incredible that Angela Eagle would tweet 'Its just a statue' when The Express complain about Churchill's statue being covered up in the sand week she has twice tweeted joyously about other statues being torn down. Aren't MPs supposed to be thoughtful and clever?
I checked her tweets pretty confident that she couldn't have celebrated other statues' removal, how foolish of me.
If it had remained unshrouded it will doubtless be damaged by idiots this weekend. And I would be very surprised if Starmer had plans to pull it from its plinth.
People don’t get it. The Churchill statue does not simply represent the man, it represents victory over fascism. Churchill was a racist, but it does not matter. He is a symbol of unity and strength, not an example of race relations.
People complaining about Churchill being put in a box have obviously never seen What the Butler Saw.
If you had cowered under a steel table with your Father, Mother and Sister in Manchester as a V bomb stopped over your house, and shivered in terror as it fell killing six neighbour's you may understand why Churchill is an inspiration to so very many
My grandfather did all of that in London during the Blitz - yet always maintained Churchill was a bit of an arse (though not an opinion I personally share incidentally).
He would be in small minority
On the contrary, the landslide for Attlee in 1945 says the opposite.
I hadn't realised that was a vote on Churchill himself.
Well, it seems it was...
How does that logic even work?
Just accept that Churchill lost the election heavily, FFS!
I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing the claim it was a personality contest.
We've had a recurring proposition on here that it's all about personality. Maybe things were different in them olden days.
People complaining about Churchill being put in a box have obviously never seen What the Butler Saw.
If you had cowered under a steel table with your Father, Mother and Sister in Manchester as a V bomb stopped over your house, and shivered in terror as it fell killing six neighbour's you may understand why Churchill is an inspiration to so very many
My grandfather did all of that in London during the Blitz - yet always maintained Churchill was a bit of an arse (though not an opinion I personally share incidentally).
He would be in small minority
On the contrary, the landslide for Attlee in 1945 says the opposite.
I hadn't realised that was a vote on Churchill himself.
Well, it seems it was...
How does that logic even work?
Just accept that Churchill lost the election heavily, FFS!
I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing the claim it was a personality contest.
We've had a recurring proposition on here that it's all about personality. Maybe things were different in them olden days.
It really is incredible that Angela Eagle would tweet 'Its just a statue' when The Express complain about Churchill's statue being covered up in the sand week she has twice tweeted joyously about other statues being torn down. Aren't MPs supposed to be thoughtful and clever?
I checked her tweets pretty confident that she couldn't have celebrated other statues' removal, how foolish of me.
Perhaps she just hates statues - is happy when they get torn down and can't see why anyone would bust a gut to protect them.
It is. He's been clever so far but the idea of Churchill being put in a box (and Gandhi, and Mandela, for that matter) because London is scared of a mob is deeply dangerous for the Left. Not least because: this is happening precisely because the city is run by a cowardly twat of a Labour mayor, who encouraged the mob early on.
This must never be allowed to happen again. Churchill is a hill many many Britons will die on. If we cannot defend his memory, then we are fucked, our history and identity is trashed, and most Brits get it.
Does Starmer sense this?
The young left, who think themselves highly savvy manipulators of social media, have absolutely no idea how the media works or how most people think.
People complaining about Churchill being put in a box have obviously never seen What the Butler Saw.
If you had cowered under a steel table with your Father, Mother and Sister in Manchester as a V bomb stopped over your house, and shivered in terror as it fell killing six neighbour's you may understand why Churchill is an inspiration to so very many
My grandfather did all of that in London during the Blitz - yet always maintained Churchill was a bit of an arse (though not an opinion I personally share incidentally).
As did my grandfather, but he never forgave Churchill for losing my great grandfather in the ill planned Dardenelles campaign.
Surely 85 years after the end of the war we can dump the hagiography, and have a more rounded view of the figures of the time?
Compare and contrast with Douglas Haig, once celebrated as a war winner too.
Churchill was a c***. But if you want to win a war, you need to have a c*** in charge. Nice people don't win wars.
It is. He's been clever so far but the idea of Churchill being put in a box (and Gandhi, and Mandela, for that matter) because London is scared of a mob is deeply dangerous for the Left. Not least because: this is happening precisely because the city is run by a cowardly twat of a Labour mayor, who encouraged the mob early on.
This must never be allowed to happen again. Churchill is a hill many many Britons will die on. If we cannot defend his memory, then we are fucked, our history and identity is trashed, and most Brits get it.
Does Starmer sense this?
The young left, who think themselves highly savvy manipulators of social media, have absolutely no idea how the media works or how most people think.
Hasn't actually realised Labour won 47.7% of the vote in 1945. Nor that it was the first time they won the most votes. Clearly more than one factor was at play!
People complaining about Churchill being put in a box have obviously never seen What the Butler Saw.
If you had cowered under a steel table with your Father, Mother and Sister in Manchester as a V bomb stopped over your house, and shivered in terror as it fell killing six neighbour's you may understand why Churchill is an inspiration to so very many
My grandfather did all of that in London during the Blitz - yet always maintained Churchill was a bit of an arse (though not an opinion I personally share incidentally).
He would be in small minority
On the contrary, the landslide for Attlee in 1945 says the opposite.
I hadn't realised that was a vote on Churchill himself.
Well, it seems it was...
How does that logic even work?
Just accept that Churchill lost the election heavily, FFS!
I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing the claim it was a personality contest.
We've had a recurring proposition on here that it's all about personality. Maybe things were different in them olden days.
People don’t get it. The Churchill statue does not simply represent the man, it represents victory over fascism. Churchill was a racist, but it does not matter. He is a symbol of unity and strength, not an example of race relations.
By today's standards, virtually everybody born before about 1910 in this country who thought about race at all was a racist.
People complaining about Churchill being put in a box have obviously never seen What the Butler Saw.
If you had cowered under a steel table with your Father, Mother and Sister in Manchester as a V bomb stopped over your house, and shivered in terror as it fell killing six neighbour's you may understand why Churchill is an inspiration to so very many
My grandfather did all of that in London during the Blitz - yet always maintained Churchill was a bit of an arse (though not an opinion I personally share incidentally).
He would be in small minority
On the contrary, the landslide for Attlee in 1945 says the opposite.
I hadn't realised that was a vote on Churchill himself.
Well, it seems it was...
How does that logic even work?
Just accept that Churchill lost the election heavily, FFS!
I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing the claim it was a personality contest.
In addition to the poor Conservative general election strategy, Churchill went so far as to accuse Attlee of seeking to behave as a dictator, in spite of Attlee's service as part of Churchill's war cabinet. In the most famous incident of the campaign, Churchill's first election broadcast on 4 June backfired dramatically and memorably. Denouncing his former coalition partners, he declared that Labour "would have to fall back on some form of a Gestapo" to impose socialism on Britain.[16] Attlee responded the next night by ironically thanking the Prime Minister for demonstrating to people the difference between Churchill the great wartime leader and Churchill the peacetime politician, and argued the case for public control of industry.
People complaining about Churchill being put in a box have obviously never seen What the Butler Saw.
If you had cowered under a steel table with your Father, Mother and Sister in Manchester as a V bomb stopped over your house, and shivered in terror as it fell killing six neighbour's you may understand why Churchill is an inspiration to so very many
My grandfather did all of that in London during the Blitz - yet always maintained Churchill was a bit of an arse (though not an opinion I personally share incidentally).
He would be in small minority
On the contrary, the landslide for Attlee in 1945 says the opposite.
I hadn't realised that was a vote on Churchill himself.
Well, it seems it was...
How does that logic even work?
Just accept that Churchill lost the election heavily, FFS!
I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing the claim it was a personality contest.
In addition to the poor Conservative general election strategy, Churchill went so far as to accuse Attlee of seeking to behave as a dictator, in spite of Attlee's service as part of Churchill's war cabinet. In the most famous incident of the campaign, Churchill's first election broadcast on 4 June backfired dramatically and memorably. Denouncing his former coalition partners, he declared that Labour "would have to fall back on some form of a Gestapo" to impose socialism on Britain.[16] Attlee responded the next night by ironically thanking the Prime Minister for demonstrating to people the difference between Churchill the great wartime leader and Churchill the peacetime politician, and argued the case for public control of industry.
People complaining about Churchill being put in a box have obviously never seen What the Butler Saw.
If you had cowered under a steel table with your Father, Mother and Sister in Manchester as a V bomb stopped over your house, and shivered in terror as it fell killing six neighbour's you may understand why Churchill is an inspiration to so very many
My grandfather did all of that in London during the Blitz - yet always maintained Churchill was a bit of an arse (though not an opinion I personally share incidentally).
He would be in small minority
On the contrary, the landslide for Attlee in 1945 says the opposite.
I hadn't realised that was a vote on Churchill himself.
Well, it seems it was...
How does that logic even work?
Just accept that Churchill lost the election heavily, FFS!
I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing the claim it was a personality contest.
In addition to the poor Conservative general election strategy, Churchill went so far as to accuse Attlee of seeking to behave as a dictator, in spite of Attlee's service as part of Churchill's war cabinet. In the most famous incident of the campaign, Churchill's first election broadcast on 4 June backfired dramatically and memorably. Denouncing his former coalition partners, he declared that Labour "would have to fall back on some form of a Gestapo" to impose socialism on Britain.[16] Attlee responded the next night by ironically thanking the Prime Minister for demonstrating to people the difference between Churchill the great wartime leader and Churchill the peacetime politician, and argued the case for public control of industry.
People complaining about Churchill being put in a box have obviously never seen What the Butler Saw.
If you had cowered under a steel table with your Father, Mother and Sister in Manchester as a V bomb stopped over your house, and shivered in terror as it fell killing six neighbour's you may understand why Churchill is an inspiration to so very many
My grandfather did all of that in London during the Blitz - yet always maintained Churchill was a bit of an arse (though not an opinion I personally share incidentally).
He would be in small minority
On the contrary, the landslide for Attlee in 1945 says the opposite.
I hadn't realised that was a vote on Churchill himself.
Well, it seems it was...
How does that logic even work?
Just accept that Churchill lost the election heavily, FFS!
I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing the claim it was a personality contest.
In addition to the poor Conservative general election strategy, Churchill went so far as to accuse Attlee of seeking to behave as a dictator, in spite of Attlee's service as part of Churchill's war cabinet. In the most famous incident of the campaign, Churchill's first election broadcast on 4 June backfired dramatically and memorably. Denouncing his former coalition partners, he declared that Labour "would have to fall back on some form of a Gestapo" to impose socialism on Britain.[16] Attlee responded the next night by ironically thanking the Prime Minister for demonstrating to people the difference between Churchill the great wartime leader and Churchill the peacetime politician, and argued the case for public control of industry.
People complaining about Churchill being put in a box have obviously never seen What the Butler Saw.
If you had cowered under a steel table with your Father, Mother and Sister in Manchester as a V bomb stopped over your house, and shivered in terror as it fell killing six neighbour's you may understand why Churchill is an inspiration to so very many
My grandfather did all of that in London during the Blitz - yet always maintained Churchill was a bit of an arse (though not an opinion I personally share incidentally).
He would be in small minority
On the contrary, the landslide for Attlee in 1945 says the opposite.
I hadn't realised that was a vote on Churchill himself.
Deciding who is PM is rather the point of a GE, and undeniably in 1945 the British electorate, much of it still in uniform said no to Churchill.
Churchill was back again when he won the 1951 general election, had there been a general election in 1940 he would have won by a landslide
People complaining about Churchill being put in a box have obviously never seen What the Butler Saw.
If you had cowered under a steel table with your Father, Mother and Sister in Manchester as a V bomb stopped over your house, and shivered in terror as it fell killing six neighbour's you may understand why Churchill is an inspiration to so very many
My grandfather did all of that in London during the Blitz - yet always maintained Churchill was a bit of an arse (though not an opinion I personally share incidentally).
He would be in small minority
On the contrary, the landslide for Attlee in 1945 says the opposite.
I hadn't realised that was a vote on Churchill himself.
Well, it seems it was...
How does that logic even work?
Just accept that Churchill lost the election heavily, FFS!
I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing the claim it was a personality contest.
In addition to the poor Conservative general election strategy, Churchill went so far as to accuse Attlee of seeking to behave as a dictator, in spite of Attlee's service as part of Churchill's war cabinet. In the most famous incident of the campaign, Churchill's first election broadcast on 4 June backfired dramatically and memorably. Denouncing his former coalition partners, he declared that Labour "would have to fall back on some form of a Gestapo" to impose socialism on Britain.[16] Attlee responded the next night by ironically thanking the Prime Minister for demonstrating to people the difference between Churchill the great wartime leader and Churchill the peacetime politician, and argued the case for public control of industry.
People complaining about Churchill being put in a box have obviously never seen What the Butler Saw.
If you had cowered under a steel table with your Father, Mother and Sister in Manchester as a V bomb stopped over your house, and shivered in terror as it fell killing six neighbour's you may understand why Churchill is an inspiration to so very many
My grandfather did all of that in London during the Blitz - yet always maintained Churchill was a bit of an arse (though not an opinion I personally share incidentally).
He would be in small minority
On the contrary, the landslide for Attlee in 1945 says the opposite.
I hadn't realised that was a vote on Churchill himself.
Well, it seems it was...
How does that logic even work?
Just accept that Churchill lost the election heavily, FFS!
I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing the claim it was a personality contest.
In addition to the poor Conservative general election strategy, Churchill went so far as to accuse Attlee of seeking to behave as a dictator, in spite of Attlee's service as part of Churchill's war cabinet. In the most famous incident of the campaign, Churchill's first election broadcast on 4 June backfired dramatically and memorably. Denouncing his former coalition partners, he declared that Labour "would have to fall back on some form of a Gestapo" to impose socialism on Britain.[16] Attlee responded the next night by ironically thanking the Prime Minister for demonstrating to people the difference between Churchill the great wartime leader and Churchill the peacetime politician, and argued the case for public control of industry.
Yes, I'm sure that was the only reason for the result.
On the available evidence Churchill was pretty poor at winning elections, in the only one he did win he was still 200k votes behind Labour. In 1955 he thought 'Keep Britain white' was a good slogan for the Tories, if they'd listened to him he might have fucked that one up for them as well.
People complaining about Churchill being put in a box have obviously never seen What the Butler Saw.
If you had cowered under a steel table with your Father, Mother and Sister in Manchester as a V bomb stopped over your house, and shivered in terror as it fell killing six neighbour's you may understand why Churchill is an inspiration to so very many
My grandfather did all of that in London during the Blitz - yet always maintained Churchill was a bit of an arse (though not an opinion I personally share incidentally).
He would be in small minority
On the contrary, the landslide for Attlee in 1945 says the opposite.
I hadn't realised that was a vote on Churchill himself.
Well, it seems it was...
How does that logic even work?
Just accept that Churchill lost the election heavily, FFS!
I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing the claim it was a personality contest.
In addition to the poor Conservative general election strategy, Churchill went so far as to accuse Attlee of seeking to behave as a dictator, in spite of Attlee's service as part of Churchill's war cabinet. In the most famous incident of the campaign, Churchill's first election broadcast on 4 June backfired dramatically and memorably. Denouncing his former coalition partners, he declared that Labour "would have to fall back on some form of a Gestapo" to impose socialism on Britain.[16] Attlee responded the next night by ironically thanking the Prime Minister for demonstrating to people the difference between Churchill the great wartime leader and Churchill the peacetime politician, and argued the case for public control of industry.
"Liberalism is not just a set of rules. There’s a spirit to it. A spirit that believes that there are whole spheres of human life that lie beyond ideology — friendship, art, love, sex, scholarship, family. A spirit that seeks not to impose orthodoxy but to open up the possibilities of the human mind and soul. A spirit that seeks moral clarity but understands that this is very hard, that life and history are complex, and it is this complexity that a truly liberal society seeks to understand if it wants to advance. It is a spirit that deals with an argument — and not a person — and that counters that argument with logic, not abuse. It’s a spirit that allows for various ideas to clash and evolve, and treats citizens as equal, regardless of their race, rather than insisting on equity for designated racial groups. It’s a spirit that delights sometimes in being wrong because it offers an opportunity to figure out what’s right. And it’s generous, humorous, and graceful in its love of argument and debate. It gives you space to think and reflect and deliberate. Twitter, of course, is the antithesis of all this — and its mercy-free, moblike qualities when combined with a moral panic are, quite frankly, terrifying."
"Liberalism is not just a set of rules. There’s a spirit to it. A spirit that believes that there are whole spheres of human life that lie beyond ideology — friendship, art, love, sex, scholarship, family. A spirit that seeks not to impose orthodoxy but to open up the possibilities of the human mind and soul. A spirit that seeks moral clarity but understands that this is very hard, that life and history are complex, and it is this complexity that a truly liberal society seeks to understand if it wants to advance. It is a spirit that deals with an argument — and not a person — and that counters that argument with logic, not abuse. It’s a spirit that allows for various ideas to clash and evolve, and treats citizens as equal, regardless of their race, rather than insisting on equity for designated racial groups. It’s a spirit that delights sometimes in being wrong because it offers an opportunity to figure out what’s right. And it’s generous, humorous, and graceful in its love of argument and debate. It gives you space to think and reflect and deliberate. Twitter, of course, is the antithesis of all this — and its mercy-free, moblike qualities when combined with a moral panic are, quite frankly, terrifying."
That's an excellent article.
Edit to add: Mr Sullivan has a slight tendency to use more words than he needs to. He's a less elegant writer than he was in his younger days.
People complaining about Churchill being put in a box have obviously never seen What the Butler Saw.
If you had cowered under a steel table with your Father, Mother and Sister in Manchester as a V bomb stopped over your house, and shivered in terror as it fell killing six neighbour's you may understand why Churchill is an inspiration to so very many
My grandfather did all of that in London during the Blitz - yet always maintained Churchill was a bit of an arse (though not an opinion I personally share incidentally).
He would be in small minority
On the contrary, the landslide for Attlee in 1945 says the opposite.
I hadn't realised that was a vote on Churchill himself.
Well, it seems it was...
How does that logic even work?
Just accept that Churchill lost the election heavily, FFS!
I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing the claim it was a personality contest.
In addition to the poor Conservative general election strategy, Churchill went so far as to accuse Attlee of seeking to behave as a dictator, in spite of Attlee's service as part of Churchill's war cabinet. In the most famous incident of the campaign, Churchill's first election broadcast on 4 June backfired dramatically and memorably. Denouncing his former coalition partners, he declared that Labour "would have to fall back on some form of a Gestapo" to impose socialism on Britain.[16] Attlee responded the next night by ironically thanking the Prime Minister for demonstrating to people the difference between Churchill the great wartime leader and Churchill the peacetime politician, and argued the case for public control of industry.
Yes, I'm sure that was the only reason for the result.
On the available evidence Churchill was pretty poor at winning elections, in the only one he did win he was still 200k votes behind Labour. In 1955 he thought 'Keep Britain white' was a good slogan for the Tories, if they'd listened to him he might have fucked that one up for them as well.
However he was still the greatest leader in British history, defending Britain from Nazi invasion when it stood alone in 1940, election winner or not and he did win in 1951.
Wellington was even worse at winning elections as 1832 showed but one of the greatest generals in British history
I can helpfully narrow down my prediction for the US election to anything between a Biden landslide and a Trump landslide. I don't have a clue what's going to happen and I don't think anyone else does either.
I can helpfully narrow down my prediction for the US election to anything between a Biden landslide and a Trump landslide. I don't have a clue what's going to happen and I don't think anyone else does either.
Quite right.
It's also entirely possible that Trump wins the popular vote, but loses the electoral college.
All that being said... I think the "value" is in tail outcomes, i.e. either a Biden blowout or a Trump one.
For the record I think the author is entirely correct that Ms Abrams is unlikely to be the candidate. Her record is simply too thin.
"Calling an audible" means executing a surprise move at the last minute.
It's what a quarterback in grid iron football does, when he is announcing a variation or change of the erstwhile play call to his team mates, immediately before his center snaps the ball to him, usually after observing an unexpected defensive formation and concluding that a different tactical approach is more promising against that.
I can helpfully narrow down my prediction for the US election to anything between a Biden landslide and a Trump landslide. I don't have a clue what's going to happen and I don't think anyone else does either.
Comments
I'm happy to stick to real changes that have actually occurred.
Good night folks
If they had cracked down straight away on the protesters it could easily have fed into the narrative of police brutality and given the protests more oxygen.
Instead by letting the Colston statue be thrown in the harbour, a counter narrative has arisen of the police being too soft and the protesters have lost public support. Now with the predicted clashes between the far left and far right, the police can actually crackdown with public support.
It also feels that the protesters have squandered their political capital by making it all about the statues.
Prediction: the slavers will go as they have no-one to speak for them and most are quite obscure but national figures like Churchill, Drake, and Baden-Powell will be just fine, although perhaps with new plaques being added in some cases.
Also the one they really want Cecil Rhodes won't fall as he is worth too much money to Oxford (living rich foreign 'philanthropists' might ask for their money back)
Night all
I do like What the Butler Saw, though. Have you seen it? I think you'd like it.
Surely 85 years after the end of the war we can dump the hagiography, and have a more rounded view of the figures of the time?
Compare and contrast with Douglas Haig, once celebrated as a war winner too.
https://twitter.com/BenJolly9/status/1271527492608765954
And many, many people, especially those in uniform, did not trust Churchill to build the peace.
“I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected.”
- Winston S. Churchill: departmental minute (Churchill papers: 16/16), 12 May 1919.
War Office
I checked her tweets pretty confident that she couldn't have celebrated other statues' removal, how foolish of me.
If it had remained unshrouded it will doubtless be damaged by idiots this weekend. And I would be very surprised if Starmer had plans to pull it from its plinth.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000jx5h
Nor that it was the first time they won the most votes.
Clearly more than one factor was at play!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945_United_Kingdom_general_election
https://twitter.com/DarrenEuronews/status/1271562775068905472?s=20
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/amp/2020/06/andrew-sullivan-is-there-still-room-for-debate.html
Extract:
"Liberalism is not just a set of rules. There’s a spirit to it. A spirit that believes that there are whole spheres of human life that lie beyond ideology — friendship, art, love, sex, scholarship, family. A spirit that seeks not to impose orthodoxy but to open up the possibilities of the human mind and soul. A spirit that seeks moral clarity but understands that this is very hard, that life and history are complex, and it is this complexity that a truly liberal society seeks to understand if it wants to advance. It is a spirit that deals with an argument — and not a person — and that counters that argument with logic, not abuse. It’s a spirit that allows for various ideas to clash and evolve, and treats citizens as equal, regardless of their race, rather than insisting on equity for designated racial groups. It’s a spirit that delights sometimes in being wrong because it offers an opportunity to figure out what’s right. And it’s generous, humorous, and graceful in its love of argument and debate. It gives you space to think and reflect and deliberate. Twitter, of course, is the antithesis of all this — and its mercy-free, moblike qualities when combined with a moral panic are, quite frankly, terrifying."
Edit to add: Mr Sullivan has a slight tendency to use more words than he needs to. He's a less elegant writer than he was in his younger days.
https://richardlangworth.com/europe-federal-england-white.
However he was still the greatest leader in British history, defending Britain from Nazi invasion when it stood alone in 1940, election winner or not and he did win in 1951.
Wellington was even worse at winning elections as 1832 showed but one of the greatest generals in British history
https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/2020/06/11/the-media-might-want-to-hold-off-on-that-stacey-abrams-coronation-if-this-is-true/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_term=the-media-might-want-to-hold-off-on-that-stacey-abrams-coronation-if-this-is-true&utm_content=4&utm_campaign=PostPromoterPro
For the record I think the author is entirely correct that Ms Abrams is unlikely to be the candidate. Her record is simply too thin.
It's also entirely possible that Trump wins the popular vote, but loses the electoral college.
All that being said... I think the "value" is in tail outcomes, i.e. either a Biden blowout or a Trump one.
It's what a quarterback in grid iron football does, when he is announcing a variation or change of the erstwhile play call to his team mates, immediately before his center snaps the ball to him, usually after observing an unexpected defensive formation and concluding that a different tactical approach is more promising against that.
And you can definitely drop that Trump landslide.