We need to disavow ourselves of the notion The National Trust is a friendly and benign custodian of our nation's heritage anymore.
It isn't. It's become an arrogant and highly politicised campaigning organisation that's been successfully captured by the Left, and thinks it's above the law.
It needs to be put back in its box.
I wouldn't advise anyone giving them any money until they reform themselves, or are reigned in and told to do so by government.
Cancel the National Trust? FFS.
Casino's comment sounds encouraging. Perhaps I should join. What other fronts of the culture war am I neglecting?
All the National Trust properties I have visited seem to be run by ladies of a certain age in tweed skirts and sensible shoes. And the cafes are full of comfortable middle class families in Burberry and wellies having tea and scones. It's all quintessentially English.
Of course the people staffing the properties are; but too many of their bosses are typical anti-nationalists. Charles Moore gently thunders on the topic here:
On the contrary, part of what seems to have pricked Moore's thumb in that article is the criticism of Churchill and Curzon's "antinationalism". Particularly amusing the writer wailing about contested terms like "colonialism" (well that's a woke criticism if ever I saw one) whilst slipping into pejorative terms like "hit list" and bemoaning the fact someone had the temerity to comment about the British monarchy's silence about its chequered past.
I am a member of the NT, and this criticism reads more like the hurt feelings of someone who's stumbled upon the idea that some people see a benefit in reassessing our country's past and emphasising that not everything was good. And God knows, someone needs to say it. I think I'll be keeping my NT membership.
But of course you will - they represent your political ideology now, not that of the public at large. That's, er, the whole point of this discussion.
Not really. Firstly, you don't have a clue about my political ideology. Secondly, pointing out that an estate is the product of the slave trade, or a formed owner was enriched in colonial exploitation is a historical fact. It's only political if your politics is to airbrush that sort of thing out of history altogether. And, if that is your politics, your politics is dangerously anti-intellectual.
I don't even get why it causes people pain to see people in the past criticised for their own actions. Why does the truth hurt some people so much? I could understand it to some degree if you were related to the person, but most of you who get so livid about these things are not. You've just hitched your wagon to an absolutist version of a flawed person, and you feel a strange need to leap to their defence when someone points out they were pretty dismal. You come across as fragile and just a little mad.
I don't think anyone objects to letting the facts speak for themselves.
It's when the facts are selective and then partial conclusions drawn and presented to you from them that causes problems.
Sadly, I think some people DO disagree with that. No individual accusation, but you just know that some people cannot bear to see their icon clasmed. Churchill is a classic case here. Some people just cannot tolerate hearing about his crimes because he was instrumental in defeating Nazism. And some who can just about bear it, they can't let any mention of them pass without acclaiming his good works too. Stop and think on that for a moment. How weird is that? We don't have to be so invested in a person being either demon or angel. Churchill had a varied career, so it's ok for his heroics to be mentioned without his shithousery coming up, or vice versa.
The issue I have is that historical figures should be judged by the standards and laws of the times they lived in. Not by modern standards, and certainly not by the most extreme progressivist views, exposed by so many to make themselves feel better.
The standards of this age with respect to slavery are identical to those of any other point in history: most slaves find it objectionable.
So yes, I do judge the slave traders by the standards of the age.
But what do you gain by being shrieky about it? The slave traders in question were abominable, but they are long dead. If their horrible earnings were translated into objects and landscapes of great beauty let's just celebrate that fact and preserve the buildings and landscapes.
I don't think the only two states here are "shrieky" or "celebration". And a more careful reading of what I wrote above (i.e. actually reading it) will show that I'm saying we should tell the truth about history. That is itself an act of preservation. Fetishising the past destroys it.
Yes, but you are overcooking it. For instance: I am no fan of Churchill's at all - I think he was principally a great showman - but you do yourself no favours at all by referring to his "crimes." He didn't commit any. I know what you mean, but talking about him in that way is shriekiness.
Sorry, but no, I'm not accepting that. The magnitude of the horrors that Churchill inflicted upon some people deserve even stronger words than crimes, and, in point of fact, probably were literally crimes in some cases. In the aftermath of the second world war, the Nuremburg Principles make it clear that everyone all the way up to head of government are is liable. Surviving Nazis were rightly tried. Clearly the excesses of the Nazi crimes far exceeded those committed by the democratic Allied powers, but Britain did things during the war that matched some of the actions that were judged German war crimes.
And that doesn't even touch his pre-war crimes.
One can have ones "Churchill was magnificent" narrative if you want; there's truth enough in that. But you can't say he wasn't a shit of the highest order. Because there's truth in that too. I see no reason to minimise the magnitude of those acts. Real human lives were destroyed because of his carelessness and malice, and it dishonours those innocents to quibble, wrongly, that we should mind our use of the word "crime".
'Churchill, despite his brief flirtation with the Liberal Party was basically an old school traditional Tory.
I can understand why the left have little time for him other than his role in WW2 (and the NT entry does not even mention that). However for Tories such as myself Churchill remains an icon along with Thatcher.'
Hardly a brief flirtation!Churchill was a Liberal for 19 years - ie 1904 - 1923. During that period he was often on the more radical wing of the party.
I am surprised to see some of the other European nations with 'political culture' scores as bad as ours, several people have made much of the more cooperative, sensible political discourse and culture in some of them at least.
'Churchill, despite his brief flirtation with the Liberal Party was basically an old school traditional Tory.
I can understand why the left have little time for him other than his role in WW2 (and the NT entry does not even mention that). However for Tories such as myself Churchill remains an icon along with Thatcher.'
'Hardly a brief flirtation!Churchill was a Liberal for 19 years - ie 1904 - 1923. During that period he was often on the more radical wing of the party.'
He implemented some social reforms and was a free trader but the former could equally have applied to Disraeli and the latter to Peel
A bit from the insurance judgment which might raise wry smile from @TSE...
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2020-0177-judgment.pdf 311. In reaching a different conclusion now to that which we both reached over ten years ago we would refer to what Justice Jackson said in McGrath v Kristensen, 340 US 162, 177-8 (1950), concurring in a decision which contradicted an opinion he had given when Attorney General:
“ Precedent, however, is not lacking for ways by which a judge may recede from a prior opinion that has proven untenable and perhaps misled others. See Chief Justice Taney, License Cases, 5 How 504, recanting views he had pressed upon the Court as Attorney General of Maryland in Brown v Maryland, 12 Wheat 419. Baron Bramwell extricated himself from a somewhat similar embarrassment by saying, ‘The matter does not appear to me now as it appears to have appeared to me then.’ Andrew v Styrap, 26 LTR (NS) 704, 706. And Mr Justice Story, accounting for his contradiction of his own former opinion, quite properly put the matter: ‘My own error, however, can furnish no ground for its being adopted by this Court. ...’ United States v Gooding, 12 Wheat 460, 25 US 478. Perhaps Dr Johnson really went to the heart of the matter when he explained a blunder in his dictionary - ‘Ignorance, sir, ignorance.’ But an escape less self-depreciating was taken by Lord Westbury, who, it is said, rebuffed a barrister’s reliance upon an earlier opinion of his Lordship: ‘I can only say that I am amazed that a man of my intelligence should have been guilty of giving such an opinion.’ If there are other ways of gracefully and good naturedly surrendering former views to a better considered position, I invoke them all.”
We need to get this properly under control until any relaxations. Nothing before April. Regional tiers don't work. Reduction in restrictions must be at national level, ideally the regional authorities in line with Westminster.
SW suffering from Fleeing Fulham Fucker's Flu.
Dartmouth currently has more Covid than in the previous 9 months combined.
Absolutely astonishing Isle of Wight went from about 2 cases per 100,000 to over 1,000 in a few weeks. This is why regional tiering doesn't work. Let's go national. And only when we are ready to release restrictions.
Yes, I agree. At one stage you sounded really anti-lockdown (and militantly enthusiastic about Tory policy) - it's so rare that anyone here (including me) acvtually changes their mind about anything, your open mind stands out. When did you reconsider?
FWIW I do think we're shortly going to be over the worst. We just need to keep on being careful for a while and Johnson needs to avoid getting back into "we must be joyous and free" mode for a bit. To be fair he's toned it down lately.
I miss Roy G Biv, it’s all gone downhill without him
Someone earlier suggested he might have been a mutant strain of tim. I'm not so sure.
Many here have seen evidence of Sean T mutations on PB. Fortunately none of the ones so far identified have been as toxic as the original strain. But we don't yet have enough evidence to be sure. A few have thankfully died out. They didn't evolve sufficiently well to establish a viable link with their host - however genial he might be.
I don't agree with the airbrushing of History, however I would be happy for the appropriate Ayrshire council to demand the removal of the name "Trump" from Turnberry Hotel. Any council, that with the will of the voters, wants Adolf Hitler Crescent or Joseph Stalin Avenue replaced with something less controversial is fine by me too.
To be honest I have more pressing issues to consider, one would think so would Robert Jenrick. What a hateful little weasel of a politician he is!
I've never really fully been on board with the criticism that someone cannot do relatively small thing X as they have more important thing Y to be doing. Many things happen at the same time even in the most difficult of emergency situations, and won't necessarily take up very much time at all at least on the side of the decision maker. I doubt it has taken up much of his pressing time.
That wasn't really my point, I suppose priorities are however. We are in the middle of a deadly pandemic and Jenrick is dog whistling for Casino's benefit.
The reason we visit the properties of the National Trust is the same reason we partake of any activity beyond basic survival needs (and even those to some extent) - to feel good. We go there to absorb the beauty and the atmosphere, and take in a little history too.
The problem I see isn't with learning the historical facts - those which are of interest should be presented to enhance the experience, but a sort of puritanical concern that someone might be deriving meaningless or worse still, patriotic, enjoyment from something, and that therefore 'a moral' must be tacked on so that they enjoy it a bit less. It's not enough for these deeply silly people that they find so much wrong and reprehensible about the racists in their midst, they're not happy unless ALL people are finding these other people wrong and reprehensible too. It's old fashioned prurient zealotry. These are the same people who in the Victorian era covered up the piano legs.
We need to disavow ourselves of the notion The National Trust is a friendly and benign custodian of our nation's heritage anymore.
It isn't. It's become an arrogant and highly politicised campaigning organisation that's been successfully captured by the Left, and thinks it's above the law.
It needs to be put back in its box.
I wouldn't advise anyone giving them any money until they reform themselves, or are reigned in and told to do so by government.
Cancel the National Trust? FFS.
Casino's comment sounds encouraging. Perhaps I should join. What other fronts of the culture war am I neglecting?
All the National Trust properties I have visited seem to be run by ladies of a certain age in tweed skirts and sensible shoes. And the cafes are full of comfortable middle class families in Burberry and wellies having tea and scones. It's all quintessentially English.
Of course the people staffing the properties are; but too many of their bosses are typical anti-nationalists. Charles Moore gently thunders on the topic here:
On the contrary, part of what seems to have pricked Moore's thumb in that article is the criticism of Churchill and Curzon's "antinationalism". Particularly amusing the writer wailing about contested terms like "colonialism" (well that's a woke criticism if ever I saw one) whilst slipping into pejorative terms like "hit list" and bemoaning the fact someone had the temerity to comment about the British monarchy's silence about its chequered past.
I am a member of the NT, and this criticism reads more like the hurt feelings of someone who's stumbled upon the idea that some people see a benefit in reassessing our country's past and emphasising that not everything was good. And God knows, someone needs to say it. I think I'll be keeping my NT membership.
But of course you will - they represent your political ideology now, not that of the public at large. That's, er, the whole point of this discussion.
Not really. Firstly, you don't have a clue about my political ideology. Secondly, pointing out that an estate is the product of the slave trade, or a formed owner was enriched in colonial exploitation is a historical fact. It's only political if your politics is to airbrush that sort of thing out of history altogether. And, if that is your politics, your politics is dangerously anti-intellectual.
I don't even get why it causes people pain to see people in the past criticised for their own actions. Why does the truth hurt some people so much? I could understand it to some degree if you were related to the person, but most of you who get so livid about these things are not. You've just hitched your wagon to an absolutist version of a flawed person, and you feel a strange need to leap to their defence when someone points out they were pretty dismal. You come across as fragile and just a little mad.
I don't think anyone objects to letting the facts speak for themselves.
It's when the facts are selective and then partial conclusions drawn and presented to you from them that causes problems.
Sadly, I think some people DO disagree with that. No individual accusation, but you just know that some people cannot bear to see their icon clasmed. Churchill is a classic case here. Some people just cannot tolerate hearing about his crimes because he was instrumental in defeating Nazism. And some who can just about bear it, they can't let any mention of them pass without acclaiming his good works too. Stop and think on that for a moment. How weird is that? We don't have to be so invested in a person being either demon or angel. Churchill had a varied career, so it's ok for his heroics to be mentioned without his shithousery coming up, or vice versa.
The issue I have is that historical figures should be judged by the standards and laws of the times they lived in. Not by modern standards, and certainly not by the most extreme progressivist views, exposed by so many to make themselves feel better.
The standards of this age with respect to slavery are identical to those of any other point in history: most slaves find it objectionable.
So yes, I do judge the slave traders by the standards of the age.
But what do you gain by being shrieky about it? The slave traders in question were abominable, but they are long dead. If their horrible earnings were translated into objects and landscapes of great beauty let's just celebrate that fact and preserve the buildings and landscapes.
I don't think the only two states here are "shrieky" or "celebration". And a more careful reading of what I wrote above (i.e. actually reading it) will show that I'm saying we should tell the truth about history. That is itself an act of preservation. Fetishising the past destroys it.
Yes, but you are overcooking it. For instance: I am no fan of Churchill's at all - I think he was principally a great showman - but you do yourself no favours at all by referring to his "crimes." He didn't commit any. I know what you mean, but talking about him in that way is shriekiness.
Sorry, but no, I'm not accepting that. The magnitude of the horrors that Churchill inflicted upon some people deserve even stronger words than crimes, and, in point of fact, probably were literally crimes in some cases. In the aftermath of the second world war, the Nuremburg Principles make it clear that everyone all the way up to head of government are is liable. Surviving Nazis were rightly tried. Clearly the excesses of the Nazi crimes far exceeded those committed by the democratic Allied powers, but Britain did things during the war that matched some of the actions that were judged German war crimes.
And that doesn't even touch his pre-war crimes.
One can have ones "Churchill was magnificent" narrative if you want; there's truth enough in that. But you can't say he wasn't a shit of the highest order. Because there's truth in that too. I see no reason to minimise the magnitude of those acts. Real human lives were destroyed because of his carelessness and malice, and it dishonours those innocents to quibble, wrongly, that we should mind our use of the word "crime".
I don't agree with the airbrushing of History, however I would be happy for the appropriate Ayrshire council to demand the removal of the name "Trump" from Turnberry Hotel. Any council, that with the will of the voters, wants Adolf Hitler Crescent or Joseph Stalin Avenue replaced with something less controversial is fine by me too.
To be honest I have more pressing issues to consider, one would think so would Robert Jenrick. What a hateful little weasel of a politician he is!
I've never really fully been on board with the criticism that someone cannot do relatively small thing X as they have more important thing Y to be doing. Many things happen at the same time even in the most difficult of emergency situations, and won't necessarily take up very much time at all at least on the side of the decision maker. I doubt it has taken up much of his pressing time.
That wasn't really my point, I suppose priorities are however. We are in the middle of a deadly pandemic and Jenrick is dog whistling for Casino's benefit.
We have a Tory government with a majority of 80. If it cannot deliver for its base now when can it? Protecting statues of key historical figures from being vandalised or removed without due process is something most Tory voters will approve of.
It also has no connection to efforts to tackle the pandemic which are being led by the Health Department not his
We need to disavow ourselves of the notion The National Trust is a friendly and benign custodian of our nation's heritage anymore.
It isn't. It's become an arrogant and highly politicised campaigning organisation that's been successfully captured by the Left, and thinks it's above the law.
It needs to be put back in its box.
I wouldn't advise anyone giving them any money until they reform themselves, or are reigned in and told to do so by government.
Cancel the National Trust? FFS.
Casino's comment sounds encouraging. Perhaps I should join. What other fronts of the culture war am I neglecting?
All the National Trust properties I have visited seem to be run by ladies of a certain age in tweed skirts and sensible shoes. And the cafes are full of comfortable middle class families in Burberry and wellies having tea and scones. It's all quintessentially English.
Of course the people staffing the properties are; but too many of their bosses are typical anti-nationalists. Charles Moore gently thunders on the topic here:
On the contrary, part of what seems to have pricked Moore's thumb in that article is the criticism of Churchill and Curzon's "antinationalism". Particularly amusing the writer wailing about contested terms like "colonialism" (well that's a woke criticism if ever I saw one) whilst slipping into pejorative terms like "hit list" and bemoaning the fact someone had the temerity to comment about the British monarchy's silence about its chequered past.
I am a member of the NT, and this criticism reads more like the hurt feelings of someone who's stumbled upon the idea that some people see a benefit in reassessing our country's past and emphasising that not everything was good. And God knows, someone needs to say it. I think I'll be keeping my NT membership.
But of course you will - they represent your political ideology now, not that of the public at large. That's, er, the whole point of this discussion.
Not really. Firstly, you don't have a clue about my political ideology. Secondly, pointing out that an estate is the product of the slave trade, or a formed owner was enriched in colonial exploitation is a historical fact. It's only political if your politics is to airbrush that sort of thing out of history altogether. And, if that is your politics, your politics is dangerously anti-intellectual.
I don't even get why it causes people pain to see people in the past criticised for their own actions. Why does the truth hurt some people so much? I could understand it to some degree if you were related to the person, but most of you who get so livid about these things are not. You've just hitched your wagon to an absolutist version of a flawed person, and you feel a strange need to leap to their defence when someone points out they were pretty dismal. You come across as fragile and just a little mad.
I don't think anyone objects to letting the facts speak for themselves.
It's when the facts are selective and then partial conclusions drawn and presented to you from them that causes problems.
Sadly, I think some people DO disagree with that. No individual accusation, but you just know that some people cannot bear to see their icon clasmed. Churchill is a classic case here. Some people just cannot tolerate hearing about his crimes because he was instrumental in defeating Nazism. And some who can just about bear it, they can't let any mention of them pass without acclaiming his good works too. Stop and think on that for a moment. How weird is that? We don't have to be so invested in a person being either demon or angel. Churchill had a varied career, so it's ok for his heroics to be mentioned without his shithousery coming up, or vice versa.
The issue I have is that historical figures should be judged by the standards and laws of the times they lived in. Not by modern standards, and certainly not by the most extreme progressivist views, exposed by so many to make themselves feel better.
The standards of this age with respect to slavery are identical to those of any other point in history: most slaves find it objectionable.
So yes, I do judge the slave traders by the standards of the age.
But what do you gain by being shrieky about it? The slave traders in question were abominable, but they are long dead. If their horrible earnings were translated into objects and landscapes of great beauty let's just celebrate that fact and preserve the buildings and landscapes.
I don't think the only two states here are "shrieky" or "celebration". And a more careful reading of what I wrote above (i.e. actually reading it) will show that I'm saying we should tell the truth about history. That is itself an act of preservation. Fetishising the past destroys it.
Yes, but you are overcooking it. For instance: I am no fan of Churchill's at all - I think he was principally a great showman - but you do yourself no favours at all by referring to his "crimes." He didn't commit any. I know what you mean, but talking about him in that way is shriekiness.
Sorry, but no, I'm not accepting that. The magnitude of the horrors that Churchill inflicted upon some people deserve even stronger words than crimes, and, in point of fact, probably were literally crimes in some cases. In the aftermath of the second world war, the Nuremburg Principles make it clear that everyone all the way up to head of government are is liable. Surviving Nazis were rightly tried. Clearly the excesses of the Nazi crimes far exceeded those committed by the democratic Allied powers, but Britain did things during the war that matched some of the actions that were judged German war crimes.
And that doesn't even touch his pre-war crimes.
One can have ones "Churchill was magnificent" narrative if you want; there's truth enough in that. But you can't say he wasn't a shit of the highest order. Because there's truth in that too. I see no reason to minimise the magnitude of those acts. Real human lives were destroyed because of his carelessness and malice, and it dishonours those innocents to quibble, wrongly, that we should mind our use of the word "crime".
Churchill, despite his brief flirtation with the Liberal Party was basically an old school traditional Tory.
I can understand why the left have little time for him other than his role in WW2 (and the NT entry does not even mention that). However for Tories such as myself Churchill remains an icon along with Thatcher.
How can a party that in embracing Thatcherism completely departed from the post-war settlement still claim Churchill as one of theirs?
What is noticeable about Churchill's 1951 to 1955 government is that it did relatively little of substance to challenge the post war settlement put in place by Attlee. (Nor for that matter did Eden, MacMillan, Douglas-Hume or Heath in later years.) In his 1940-1945 government, having seen off Chamberlain, he was also content to bring Attlee and Bevin into government in the national interest. The actions of the Churchill of the 1920s are irrelevant - you judge people by what they evolved into, not how they started out.
I would be very happy if the institutions of this country reverted back to something more akin to where they were in the mid 1950s, as it would be a marked improvement on where we are now. You, on the other hand, would probably see it as bringing in an extreme form of socialism.
I don't agree with the airbrushing of History, however I would be happy for the appropriate Ayrshire council to demand the removal of the name "Trump" from Turnberry Hotel. Any council, that with the will of the voters, wants Adolf Hitler Crescent or Joseph Stalin Avenue replaced with something less controversial is fine by me too.
To be honest I have more pressing issues to consider, one would think so would Robert Jenrick. What a hateful little weasel of a politician he is!
I've never really fully been on board with the criticism that someone cannot do relatively small thing X as they have more important thing Y to be doing. Many things happen at the same time even in the most difficult of emergency situations, and won't necessarily take up very much time at all at least on the side of the decision maker. I doubt it has taken up much of his pressing time.
That wasn't really my point, I suppose priorities are however. We are in the middle of a deadly pandemic and Jenrick is dog whistling for Casino's benefit.
We have a Tory government with a majority of 80. If it cannot deliver for its base now when can it? Protecting statues of key historical figures from being vandalised or removed without due process is something most Tory voters will approve of.
It also has no connection to efforts to tackle the pandemic which are being led by the Health Department not his
I am with you to a degree. We are not the Soviet Union and those who fall foul of the authorities should not be removed from history. However times change and what was once acceptable may not be so these days. I would hate to see Whiteladies Road and Blackboy Hill removed from the A to Z of Bristol. I am more comfortable renaming Colston Hall, but I draw the line at vandalising Edward Colston's statue. That said if the council are elected on a platform to remove that statue carefully and place it in a museum, what has that got to do with Jenrick.
How would you feel if you lived in Jimmy Saville Tower? What right has Robert Jenrick to stop your local authority from changing the name in the light of what we now know, just because Saville was a loyal Tory and friend to Mrs Thatcher?
Anyway, I'll bid you goodnight from Villa Del General Leopoldo Galtieri.
We need to disavow ourselves of the notion The National Trust is a friendly and benign custodian of our nation's heritage anymore.
It isn't. It's become an arrogant and highly politicised campaigning organisation that's been successfully captured by the Left, and thinks it's above the law.
It needs to be put back in its box.
I wouldn't advise anyone giving them any money until they reform themselves, or are reigned in and told to do so by government.
Cancel the National Trust? FFS.
Casino's comment sounds encouraging. Perhaps I should join. What other fronts of the culture war am I neglecting?
All the National Trust properties I have visited seem to be run by ladies of a certain age in tweed skirts and sensible shoes. And the cafes are full of comfortable middle class families in Burberry and wellies having tea and scones. It's all quintessentially English.
Of course the people staffing the properties are; but too many of their bosses are typical anti-nationalists. Charles Moore gently thunders on the topic here:
On the contrary, part of what seems to have pricked Moore's thumb in that article is the criticism of Churchill and Curzon's "antinationalism". Particularly amusing the writer wailing about contested terms like "colonialism" (well that's a woke criticism if ever I saw one) whilst slipping into pejorative terms like "hit list" and bemoaning the fact someone had the temerity to comment about the British monarchy's silence about its chequered past.
I am a member of the NT, and this criticism reads more like the hurt feelings of someone who's stumbled upon the idea that some people see a benefit in reassessing our country's past and emphasising that not everything was good. And God knows, someone needs to say it. I think I'll be keeping my NT membership.
But of course you will - they represent your political ideology now, not that of the public at large. That's, er, the whole point of this discussion.
Not really. Firstly, you don't have a clue about my political ideology. Secondly, pointing out that an estate is the product of the slave trade, or a formed owner was enriched in colonial exploitation is a historical fact. It's only political if your politics is to airbrush that sort of thing out of history altogether. And, if that is your politics, your politics is dangerously anti-intellectual.
I don't even get why it causes people pain to see people in the past criticised for their own actions. Why does the truth hurt some people so much? I could understand it to some degree if you were related to the person, but most of you who get so livid about these things are not. You've just hitched your wagon to an absolutist version of a flawed person, and you feel a strange need to leap to their defence when someone points out they were pretty dismal. You come across as fragile and just a little mad.
I don't think anyone objects to letting the facts speak for themselves.
It's when the facts are selective and then partial conclusions drawn and presented to you from them that causes problems.
Sadly, I think some people DO disagree with that. No individual accusation, but you just know that some people cannot bear to see their icon clasmed. Churchill is a classic case here. Some people just cannot tolerate hearing about his crimes because he was instrumental in defeating Nazism. And some who can just about bear it, they can't let any mention of them pass without acclaiming his good works too. Stop and think on that for a moment. How weird is that? We don't have to be so invested in a person being either demon or angel. Churchill had a varied career, so it's ok for his heroics to be mentioned without his shithousery coming up, or vice versa.
The issue I have is that historical figures should be judged by the standards and laws of the times they lived in. Not by modern standards, and certainly not by the most extreme progressivist views, exposed by so many to make themselves feel better.
The standards of this age with respect to slavery are identical to those of any other point in history: most slaves find it objectionable.
So yes, I do judge the slave traders by the standards of the age.
But what do you gain by being shrieky about it? The slave traders in question were abominable, but they are long dead. If their horrible earnings were translated into objects and landscapes of great beauty let's just celebrate that fact and preserve the buildings and landscapes.
I don't think the only two states here are "shrieky" or "celebration". And a more careful reading of what I wrote above (i.e. actually reading it) will show that I'm saying we should tell the truth about history. That is itself an act of preservation. Fetishising the past destroys it.
Yes, but you are overcooking it. For instance: I am no fan of Churchill's at all - I think he was principally a great showman - but you do yourself no favours at all by referring to his "crimes." He didn't commit any. I know what you mean, but talking about him in that way is shriekiness.
Sorry, but no, I'm not accepting that. The magnitude of the horrors that Churchill inflicted upon some people deserve even stronger words than crimes, and, in point of fact, probably were literally crimes in some cases. In the aftermath of the second world war, the Nuremburg Principles make it clear that everyone all the way up to head of government are is liable. Surviving Nazis were rightly tried. Clearly the excesses of the Nazi crimes far exceeded those committed by the democratic Allied powers, but Britain did things during the war that matched some of the actions that were judged German war crimes.
And that doesn't even touch his pre-war crimes.
One can have ones "Churchill was magnificent" narrative if you want; there's truth enough in that. But you can't say he wasn't a shit of the highest order. Because there's truth in that too. I see no reason to minimise the magnitude of those acts. Real human lives were destroyed because of his carelessness and malice, and it dishonours those innocents to quibble, wrongly, that we should mind our use of the word "crime".
Churchill, despite his brief flirtation with the Liberal Party was basically an old school traditional Tory.
I can understand why the left have little time for him other than his role in WW2 (and the NT entry does not even mention that). However for Tories such as myself Churchill remains an icon along with Thatcher.
How can a party that in embracing Thatcherism completely departed from the post-war settlement still claim Churchill as one of theirs?
What is noticeable about Churchill's 1951 to 1955 government is that it did relatively little of substance to challenge the post war settlement put in place by Attlee. (Nor for that matter did Eden, MacMillan, Douglas-Hume or Heath in later years.) In his 1940-1945 government, having seen off Chamberlain, he was also content to bring Attlee and Bevin into government in the national interest. The actions of the Churchill of the 1920s are irrelevant - you judge people by what they evolved into, not how they started out.
I would be very happy if the institutions of this country reverted back to something more akin to where they were in the mid 1950s, as it would be a marked improvement on where we are now. You, on the other hand, would probably see it as bringing in an extreme form of socialism.
This shows something of a lack of understanding of Churchill's nature and his ability to compromise where necessary.
In 1944 Churchill sent Fitzroy Maclean as his personal envoy to Tito in Yugoslavia. Maclean reported back to Churchill that the Communists under Tito were killing lots of Germans whilst the other resistance groups seemed to be mostly interested in killing each other. He said that if we wanted an effective resistance to the Germans in Yugoslavia we should back Tito but that meant that after the war the country may well be Communist.
Churchill's response was that whatever the country was after the war was up to the Yugoslavs and that if Tito was killing Germans then Britain would back him.
This does not mean for one second that Churchill had changed in his utter hatred of communism, just that he was willing to compromise in has actions if it helped the war effort.
His inclusion of Atlee and Bevin in the War Cabinet should be seen in this light. His view of socialists and socialism hadn't changed one bit. But he knew he needed the Labour Party and its supporters on board and so was willing to do what was necessary to win the war.
We need to disavow ourselves of the notion The National Trust is a friendly and benign custodian of our nation's heritage anymore.
It isn't. It's become an arrogant and highly politicised campaigning organisation that's been successfully captured by the Left, and thinks it's above the law.
It needs to be put back in its box.
I wouldn't advise anyone giving them any money until they reform themselves, or are reigned in and told to do so by government.
Cancel the National Trust? FFS.
Casino's comment sounds encouraging. Perhaps I should join. What other fronts of the culture war am I neglecting?
All the National Trust properties I have visited seem to be run by ladies of a certain age in tweed skirts and sensible shoes. And the cafes are full of comfortable middle class families in Burberry and wellies having tea and scones. It's all quintessentially English.
Of course the people staffing the properties are; but too many of their bosses are typical anti-nationalists. Charles Moore gently thunders on the topic here:
On the contrary, part of what seems to have pricked Moore's thumb in that article is the criticism of Churchill and Curzon's "antinationalism". Particularly amusing the writer wailing about contested terms like "colonialism" (well that's a woke criticism if ever I saw one) whilst slipping into pejorative terms like "hit list" and bemoaning the fact someone had the temerity to comment about the British monarchy's silence about its chequered past.
I am a member of the NT, and this criticism reads more like the hurt feelings of someone who's stumbled upon the idea that some people see a benefit in reassessing our country's past and emphasising that not everything was good. And God knows, someone needs to say it. I think I'll be keeping my NT membership.
But of course you will - they represent your political ideology now, not that of the public at large. That's, er, the whole point of this discussion.
Not really. Firstly, you don't have a clue about my political ideology. Secondly, pointing out that an estate is the product of the slave trade, or a formed owner was enriched in colonial exploitation is a historical fact. It's only political if your politics is to airbrush that sort of thing out of history altogether. And, if that is your politics, your politics is dangerously anti-intellectual.
I don't even get why it causes people pain to see people in the past criticised for their own actions. Why does the truth hurt some people so much? I could understand it to some degree if you were related to the person, but most of you who get so livid about these things are not. You've just hitched your wagon to an absolutist version of a flawed person, and you feel a strange need to leap to their defence when someone points out they were pretty dismal. You come across as fragile and just a little mad.
I don't think anyone objects to letting the facts speak for themselves.
It's when the facts are selective and then partial conclusions drawn and presented to you from them that causes problems.
Sadly, I think some people DO disagree with that. No individual accusation, but you just know that some people cannot bear to see their icon clasmed. Churchill is a classic case here. Some people just cannot tolerate hearing about his crimes because he was instrumental in defeating Nazism. And some who can just about bear it, they can't let any mention of them pass without acclaiming his good works too. Stop and think on that for a moment. How weird is that? We don't have to be so invested in a person being either demon or angel. Churchill had a varied career, so it's ok for his heroics to be mentioned without his shithousery coming up, or vice versa.
The issue I have is that historical figures should be judged by the standards and laws of the times they lived in. Not by modern standards, and certainly not by the most extreme progressivist views, exposed by so many to make themselves feel better.
The standards of this age with respect to slavery are identical to those of any other point in history: most slaves find it objectionable.
So yes, I do judge the slave traders by the standards of the age.
But what do you gain by being shrieky about it? The slave traders in question were abominable, but they are long dead. If their horrible earnings were translated into objects and landscapes of great beauty let's just celebrate that fact and preserve the buildings and landscapes.
I don't think the only two states here are "shrieky" or "celebration". And a more careful reading of what I wrote above (i.e. actually reading it) will show that I'm saying we should tell the truth about history. That is itself an act of preservation. Fetishising the past destroys it.
Yes, but you are overcooking it. For instance: I am no fan of Churchill's at all - I think he was principally a great showman - but you do yourself no favours at all by referring to his "crimes." He didn't commit any. I know what you mean, but talking about him in that way is shriekiness.
Sorry, but no, I'm not accepting that. The magnitude of the horrors that Churchill inflicted upon some people deserve even stronger words than crimes, and, in point of fact, probably were literally crimes in some cases. In the aftermath of the second world war, the Nuremburg Principles make it clear that everyone all the way up to head of government are is liable. Surviving Nazis were rightly tried. Clearly the excesses of the Nazi crimes far exceeded those committed by the democratic Allied powers, but Britain did things during the war that matched some of the actions that were judged German war crimes.
And that doesn't even touch his pre-war crimes.
One can have ones "Churchill was magnificent" narrative if you want; there's truth enough in that. But you can't say he wasn't a shit of the highest order. Because there's truth in that too. I see no reason to minimise the magnitude of those acts. Real human lives were destroyed because of his carelessness and malice, and it dishonours those innocents to quibble, wrongly, that we should mind our use of the word "crime".
Churchill, despite his brief flirtation with the Liberal Party was basically an old school traditional Tory.
I can understand why the left have little time for him other than his role in WW2 (and the NT entry does not even mention that). However for Tories such as myself Churchill remains an icon along with Thatcher.
How can a party that in embracing Thatcherism completely departed from the post-war settlement still claim Churchill as one of theirs?
What is noticeable about Churchill's 1951 to 1955 government is that it did relatively little of substance to challenge the post war settlement put in place by Attlee. (Nor for that matter did Eden, MacMillan, Douglas-Hume or Heath in later years.) In his 1940-1945 government, having seen off Chamberlain, he was also content to bring Attlee and Bevin into government in the national interest. The actions of the Churchill of the 1920s are irrelevant - you judge people by what they evolved into, not how they started out.
I would be very happy if the institutions of this country reverted back to something more akin to where they were in the mid 1950s, as it would be a marked improvement on where we are now. You, on the other hand, would probably see it as bringing in an extreme form of socialism.
Churchill fought the 1945 election mainly to prevent Attlee bringing in the socialism he achieved by winning that election. He only brought Attlee and Bevin into government to defeat Hitler.
Having lost that election by a landslide and the 1950 election he had little choice but to largely accept much of the Attlee settlement.
From 1945 until Thatcher won in 1979 we were effectively heading towards a socialist society and with a top rate of income tax closer to 100% than 0% and largescale nationalised industries and trade unions holding huge power to strike in many respects were already there.
I don't agree with the airbrushing of History, however I would be happy for the appropriate Ayrshire council to demand the removal of the name "Trump" from Turnberry Hotel. Any council, that with the will of the voters, wants Adolf Hitler Crescent or Joseph Stalin Avenue replaced with something less controversial is fine by me too.
To be honest I have more pressing issues to consider, one would think so would Robert Jenrick. What a hateful little weasel of a politician he is!
I can think of a few street names that should endure.
I don't agree with the airbrushing of History, however I would be happy for the appropriate Ayrshire council to demand the removal of the name "Trump" from Turnberry Hotel. Any council, that with the will of the voters, wants Adolf Hitler Crescent or Joseph Stalin Avenue replaced with something less controversial is fine by me too.
To be honest I have more pressing issues to consider, one would think so would Robert Jenrick. What a hateful little weasel of a politician he is!
I can think of a few street names that should endure.
I would be very happy if the institutions of this country reverted back to something more akin to where they were in the mid 1950s, as it would be a marked improvement on where we are now. You, on the other hand, would probably see it as bringing in an extreme form of socialism.
'Churchill fought the 1945 election mainly to prevent Attlee bringing in the socialism he achieved by winning that election. He only brought Attlee and Bevin into government to defeat Hitler.
Having lost that election by a landslide and the 1950 election he had little choice but to largely accept much of the Attlee settlement.
From 1945 until Thatcher won in 1979 we were effectively heading towards a socialist society and with a top rate of income tax closer to 100% than 0% and largescale nationalised industries and trade unions holding huge power to strike in many respects were already there'
But he won an overall majority of 17 in 1951 - which increased to 19 in 1953 after winning Sunderland South from Labour at a by election. He had the option of reversing Attlee's programme - but chose not to do so!
I would be very happy if the institutions of this country reverted back to something more akin to where they were in the mid 1950s, as it would be a marked improvement on where we are now. You, on the other hand, would probably see it as bringing in an extreme form of socialism.
'Churchill fought the 1945 election mainly to prevent Attlee bringing in the socialism he achieved by winning that election. He only brought Attlee and Bevin into government to defeat Hitler.
Having lost that election by a landslide and the 1950 election he had little choice but to largely accept much of the Attlee settlement.
From 1945 until Thatcher won in 1979 we were effectively heading towards a socialist society and with a top rate of income tax closer to 100% than 0% and largescale nationalised industries and trade unions holding huge power to strike in many respects were already there'
But he won an overall majority of 17 in 1951 - which increased to 19 in 1953 after winning Sunderland South from Labour at a by election. He had the option of reversing Attlee's programme - but chose not to do so!
And till thatcher won we were declining in living standards and were the sick man of europe and you want to return to it? All equally poor and miserable in your socialist utopia...
That begs the question being discussed - but are you really suggesting that living standards declined from 1951 to 1979? That was not what Harold Macmillan said - nor is it supported by the substantial economic growth which occurred throughout that period
That begs the question being discussed - but are you really suggesting that living standards declined from 1951 to 1979? That was not what Harold Macmillan said - nor is it supported by the substantial economic growth which occurred throughout that period
Living standards increased until about 1973 when the oil crisis happened. Then there were about 8 or 9 years of sluggish growth.
There is nothing really new in that statement or anything definite. The key sentence being...
We have not determined whether the outbreak began through contact with infected animals or was the result of an accident at a laboratory in Wuhan, China.
And does it really matter much? We know the virus originated in Wuhan and the Chinese attempted to cover it up at the start, though their efforts to control it since put the US and UK to shame.
Well it matters if China had an outbreak in the lab of a known isolated virus and covered it up for months, compared to some novel unknown virus that then they tried to massively downplay while scrambling about trying to work out what it was. One is very very bad, the other is far worse.
But it is clear US intelligence services best attempts at trying to find this out hasn't been able to establish any proof for either scenario.
Yes, indeed.
But it's very difficult to find proof when China won't allow access to WHO investigators to confirm that or make all of its own evidence available for peer review and interrogation.
Maybe they've calculated that the truth if it came out would be so damning that they've prefer to be heavily criticised for obstructionism and just let everyone wonder and theorise instead.
A friend lives in Beijing, teaching Engliah for 20+ years.
The lcoals consider Covid to be a western virus that they have dealt with very well and the west failed totally.
He experiences anti-western racism as a result.
The way the average Chinese person sees the world, the priorities for the Chinese government to keep their population happy, are not remotely aligned to what most in the west think.
I can fully believe that, but Chinese citizens are subjected to tremendous levels of propaganda and actively misinformed by their own government when it suits them.
There is no such thing as a free press there.
He organises a 5-a-side football league for Europeans living over there.
Last summer they were unable to book any 5-a-side pitches in his part of Beijing as no one wanted to deal with Europeans.
It's so alien to how we live or even think that they live and think its very hard to talk about the Chinese way in any sort of informed view as what matters to the public and government are not remotely what we'd imagine.
China is one of the most authoritarian and undemocratic nations on earth now, even Hong Kong is getting more restricted.
Its people get told what to believe and despite economically being more advanced than North Korea, politically it is still not much different. The Communist Party controls all.
Don't remotely disagree.
But I hear that the Beijing population, certainly the ones my friend interacts with in Beijing, are totally content with this approach.
The impression I get are the middle class of Beijing have no interest in our way of operating, their system suits them quite well thank you very much.
To ignore that misses the point entirely.
Further to above.
My friend was in Thailand when Beijing went into lockdown.
On returning to Beijing he had to self isolate in his flat.
He had state police knocking on his front door a few times each day to ensure he was at home, the state left his groceries outside his door each day.
The population expect that level of control and seem to be content with it.
China is currently only 153rd out of 167 nations in the Democracy Index.
Last is North Korea. Looks like not much prospect of any improvement there then.
Hong Kong was 75th and a beacon of freedom as well as prosperity in the region. That now looks under threat.
We need to disavow ourselves of the notion The National Trust is a friendly and benign custodian of our nation's heritage anymore.
It isn't. It's become an arrogant and highly politicised campaigning organisation that's been successfully captured by the Left, and thinks it's above the law.
It needs to be put back in its box.
I wouldn't advise anyone giving them any money until they reform themselves, or are reigned in and told to do so by government.
Cancel the National Trust? FFS.
Casino's comment sounds encouraging. Perhaps I should join. What other fronts of the culture war am I neglecting?
All the National Trust properties I have visited seem to be run by ladies of a certain age in tweed skirts and sensible shoes. And the cafes are full of comfortable middle class families in Burberry and wellies having tea and scones. It's all quintessentially English.
Of course the people staffing the properties are; but too many of their bosses are typical anti-nationalists. Charles Moore gently thunders on the topic here:
On the contrary, part of what seems to have pricked Moore's thumb in that article is the criticism of Churchill and Curzon's "antinationalism". Particularly amusing the writer wailing about contested terms like "colonialism" (well that's a woke criticism if ever I saw one) whilst slipping into pejorative terms like "hit list" and bemoaning the fact someone had the temerity to comment about the British monarchy's silence about its chequered past.
I am a member of the NT, and this criticism reads more like the hurt feelings of someone who's stumbled upon the idea that some people see a benefit in reassessing our country's past and emphasising that not everything was good. And God knows, someone needs to say it. I think I'll be keeping my NT membership.
But of course you will - they represent your political ideology now, not that of the public at large. That's, er, the whole point of this discussion.
Not really. Firstly, you don't have a clue about my political ideology. Secondly, pointing out that an estate is the product of the slave trade, or a formed owner was enriched in colonial exploitation is a historical fact. It's only political if your politics is to airbrush that sort of thing out of history altogether. And, if that is your politics, your politics is dangerously anti-intellectual.
I don't even get why it causes people pain to see people in the past criticised for their own actions. Why does the truth hurt some people so much? I could understand it to some degree if you were related to the person, but most of you who get so livid about these things are not. You've just hitched your wagon to an absolutist version of a flawed person, and you feel a strange need to leap to their defence when someone points out they were pretty dismal. You come across as fragile and just a little mad.
I don't think anyone objects to letting the facts speak for themselves.
It's when the facts are selective and then partial conclusions drawn and presented to you from them that causes problems.
Sadly, I think some people DO disagree with that. No individual accusation, but you just know that some people cannot bear to see their icon clasmed. Churchill is a classic case here. Some people just cannot tolerate hearing about his crimes because he was instrumental in defeating Nazism. And some who can just about bear it, they can't let any mention of them pass without acclaiming his good works too. Stop and think on that for a moment. How weird is that? We don't have to be so invested in a person being either demon or angel. Churchill had a varied career, so it's ok for his heroics to be mentioned without his shithousery coming up, or vice versa.
The issue I have is that historical figures should be judged by the standards and laws of the times they lived in. Not by modern standards, and certainly not by the most extreme progressivist views, exposed by so many to make themselves feel better.
The standards of this age with respect to slavery are identical to those of any other point in history: most slaves find it objectionable.
So yes, I do judge the slave traders by the standards of the age.
But what do you gain by being shrieky about it? The slave traders in question were abominable, but they are long dead. If their horrible earnings were translated into objects and landscapes of great beauty let's just celebrate that fact and preserve the buildings and landscapes.
I don't think the only two states here are "shrieky" or "celebration". And a more careful reading of what I wrote above (i.e. actually reading it) will show that I'm saying we should tell the truth about history. That is itself an act of preservation. Fetishising the past destroys it.
Yes, but you are overcooking it. For instance: I am no fan of Churchill's at all - I think he was principally a great showman - but you do yourself no favours at all by referring to his "crimes." He didn't commit any. I know what you mean, but talking about him in that way is shriekiness.
Sorry, but no, I'm not accepting that. The magnitude of the horrors that Churchill inflicted upon some people deserve even stronger words than crimes, and, in point of fact, probably were literally crimes in some cases. In the aftermath of the second world war, the Nuremburg Principles make it clear that everyone all the way up to head of government are is liable. Surviving Nazis were rightly tried. Clearly the excesses of the Nazi crimes far exceeded those committed by the democratic Allied powers, but Britain did things during the war that matched some of the actions that were judged German war crimes.
And that doesn't even touch his pre-war crimes.
One can have ones "Churchill was magnificent" narrative if you want; there's truth enough in that. But you can't say he wasn't a shit of the highest order. Because there's truth in that too. I see no reason to minimise the magnitude of those acts. Real human lives were destroyed because of his carelessness and malice, and it dishonours those innocents to quibble, wrongly, that we should mind our use of the word "crime".
Do you think Attlee should be condemned too?
I don't have much knowledge of his life, so you tell me.
Comments
'Churchill, despite his brief flirtation with the Liberal Party was basically an old school traditional Tory.
I can understand why the left have little time for him other than his role in WW2 (and the NT entry does not even mention that). However for Tories such as myself Churchill remains an icon along with Thatcher.'
Hardly a brief flirtation!Churchill was a Liberal for 19 years - ie 1904 - 1923. During that period he was often on the more radical wing of the party.
He implemented some social reforms and was a free trader but the former could equally have applied to Disraeli and the latter to Peel
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2020-0177-judgment.pdf
311. In reaching a different conclusion now to that which we both reached over ten years ago we would refer to what Justice Jackson said in McGrath v Kristensen, 340 US 162, 177-8 (1950), concurring in a decision which contradicted an opinion he had given when Attorney General:
“ Precedent, however, is not lacking for ways by which a judge may recede from a prior opinion that has proven untenable and perhaps misled others. See Chief Justice Taney, License Cases, 5 How 504, recanting views he had pressed upon the Court as Attorney General of Maryland in Brown v Maryland, 12 Wheat 419. Baron Bramwell extricated himself from a somewhat similar embarrassment by saying, ‘The matter does not appear to me now as it appears to have appeared to me then.’ Andrew v Styrap, 26 LTR (NS) 704, 706. And Mr Justice Story, accounting for his contradiction of his own former opinion, quite properly put the matter: ‘My own error, however, can furnish no ground for its being adopted by this Court. ...’ United States v Gooding, 12 Wheat 460, 25 US 478. Perhaps Dr Johnson really went to the heart of the matter when he explained a blunder in his dictionary - ‘Ignorance, sir, ignorance.’ But an escape less self-depreciating was taken by Lord Westbury, who, it is said, rebuffed a barrister’s reliance upon an earlier opinion of his Lordship: ‘I can only say that I am amazed that a man of my intelligence should have been guilty of giving such an opinion.’ If there are other ways of gracefully and good naturedly surrendering former views to a better considered position, I invoke them all.”
FWIW I do think we're shortly going to be over the worst. We just need to keep on being careful for a while and Johnson needs to avoid getting back into "we must be joyous and free" mode for a bit. To be fair he's toned it down lately.
Many here have seen evidence of Sean T mutations on PB. Fortunately none of the ones so far identified have been as toxic as the original strain. But we don't yet have enough evidence to be sure. A few have thankfully died out. They didn't evolve sufficiently well to establish a viable link with their host - however genial he might be.
BBC News - Covid: 10 new mass vaccination centres to open in England
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55692321
"It comes as a further 324,233 vaccine doses were administered across the UK, taking the total above 3.5 million."
FFS....no that was England and NI... simple sh#t they can't get right.
The problem I see isn't with learning the historical facts - those which are of interest should be presented to enhance the experience, but a sort of puritanical concern that someone might be deriving meaningless or worse still, patriotic, enjoyment from something, and that therefore 'a moral' must be tacked on so that they enjoy it a bit less. It's not enough for these deeply silly people that they find so much wrong and reprehensible about the racists in their midst, they're not happy unless ALL people are finding these other people wrong and reprehensible too. It's old fashioned prurient zealotry. These are the same people who in the Victorian era covered up the piano legs.
It also has no connection to efforts to tackle the pandemic which are being led by the Health Department not his
1997 since LFC v Man Utd as top two.
The streak continues.
LA Rams 18, Green Bay Packers 32 Final
Municipal socialism at its best!
What is noticeable about Churchill's 1951 to 1955 government is that it did relatively little of substance to challenge the post war settlement put in place by Attlee. (Nor for that matter did Eden, MacMillan, Douglas-Hume or Heath in later years.) In his 1940-1945 government, having seen off Chamberlain, he was also content to bring Attlee and Bevin into government in the national interest. The actions of the Churchill of the 1920s are irrelevant - you judge people by what they evolved into, not how they started out.
I would be very happy if the institutions of this country reverted back to something more akin to where they were in the mid 1950s, as it would be a marked improvement on where we are now. You, on the other hand, would probably see it as bringing in an extreme form of socialism.
How would you feel if you lived in Jimmy Saville Tower? What right has Robert Jenrick to stop your local authority from changing the name in the light of what we now know, just because Saville was a loyal Tory and friend to Mrs Thatcher?
Anyway, I'll bid you goodnight from Villa Del General Leopoldo Galtieri.
In 1944 Churchill sent Fitzroy Maclean as his personal envoy to Tito in Yugoslavia. Maclean reported back to Churchill that the Communists under Tito were killing lots of Germans whilst the other resistance groups seemed to be mostly interested in killing each other. He said that if we wanted an effective resistance to the Germans in Yugoslavia we should back Tito but that meant that after the war the country may well be Communist.
Churchill's response was that whatever the country was after the war was up to the Yugoslavs and that if Tito was killing Germans then Britain would back him.
This does not mean for one second that Churchill had changed in his utter hatred of communism, just that he was willing to compromise in has actions if it helped the war effort.
His inclusion of Atlee and Bevin in the War Cabinet should be seen in this light. His view of socialists and socialism hadn't changed one bit. But he knew he needed the Labour Party and its supporters on board and so was willing to do what was necessary to win the war.
Having lost that election by a landslide and the 1950 election he had little choice but to largely accept much of the Attlee settlement.
From 1945 until Thatcher won in 1979 we were effectively heading towards a socialist society and with a top rate of income tax closer to 100% than 0% and largescale nationalised industries and trade unions holding huge power to strike in many respects were already there.
https://twitter.com/davidbarbican/status/1170710872936865793
Every NT property should be bulldozed. Though I accept that's a minority view.
They're a bit posh nowadays.
'Churchill fought the 1945 election mainly to prevent Attlee bringing in the socialism he achieved by winning that election. He only brought Attlee and Bevin into government to defeat Hitler.
Having lost that election by a landslide and the 1950 election he had little choice but to largely accept much of the Attlee settlement.
From 1945 until Thatcher won in 1979 we were effectively heading towards a socialist society and with a top rate of income tax closer to 100% than 0% and largescale nationalised industries and trade unions holding huge power to strike in many respects were already there'
But he won an overall majority of 17 in 1951 - which increased to 19 in 1953 after winning Sunderland South from Labour at a by election. He had the option of reversing Attlee's programme - but chose not to do so!
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2009/nov/25/gdp-uk-1948-growth-economy