UK General election

[Kirsty Harris]

Originally Posted by Beny

Churchill... Don't buy the hype mate. The only reason anybody ever remembers him is because of the war. He was useless other than that. Conservative pain in the ****...

There is an element of truth to this, Beny - but I think you take the point and go a bit far with it! Churchill was a great leader FOR HIS TIME. He was the leader we needed during the war to inspire a country to withstand the brutal assault of the Nazi's without bending or breaking. However, after the war, and during his later period in office, his shortcomings, in terms of knowing how to devise a cohesive set of policeys to govern the country with when we were not in a time of crisises became apparent. That doesn't change the fact he remains a great leader and a great man!

[Beny]

Churchill was a great leader FOR HIS TIME

Yes, he was a man who needed violence and conflict in order to be effective. Even after WW2 he wanted to go after Stalin. A man for his time is not nessecerily on the same par as a fantastic leader who just so happened to miss out on great tradgedy, and thus the limelight.

[Kirsty Harris]

Originally Posted by Beny

A man for his time is not nessecerily on the same par as a fantastic leader who just so happened to miss out on great tradgedy, and thus the limelight.

That sort of fits with my own belief that the most influential people in the wold are perhaps people who are less well known - the people behind the scenes who make things happen. Take Neil Armstrong - there were an awful lot of people who could have been trained to do what he did, but a whole lot less who had the know how to get him there, yet remain nameless!

[acker]

Might be handy if Britain can find another "Churchill" some time in the next 80-90 years, if the population growth rates continue like they are Britain will have a nuclear armed nation "France" sitting 24 miles across the English channel.

Makes for an interesting future.

[Occasional Fan]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Whatever happened to politicians proving they could achieve something in the big wide world BEFORE trying for office?

I agree entirely with this. Far from wanting our MPs to spend more time in Parliament, I would prefer them to have a part time job there, for which they would also be paid a part-time salary. Objective would be to make the job one that can only appeal to people with experience of life in the real world (and achievement as well, come to that). The risk is that politics also becomes a calling which only those of independent means can respond to. But it's a risk I'd be prepared to take. Full time Ministers is one thing; full time back-benchers is quite another, and I suspect it has contributed to a general lowering of standards of debate in the House.

One thing which does stick in the throat a bit - and no-one here has said it, so it's not a personal knock of anyone here - is the comment that "I am not voting because they are all the same/none of them is addressing my concerns". People who say that should be standing themselves.

My only political related comment today: please, folks, get out and vote.

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

I agree entirely with this. Far from wanting our MPs to spend more time in Parliament, I would prefer them to have a part time job there, for which they would also be paid a part-time salary.

Good idea. Believe it or not there is a shortage of paper boys/girls they should do that. In fact they should do the crap jobs nobody wants to do to get a taste of the real world. Alot of them do have part time jobs, often on boards on big companies where they turn up for the occaisional meeting and enjoy long lunches. Then theres the option of giving them a 12 month stint in th forces.......

[Occasional Fan]

Originally Posted by Richie Benauds Love Child

Then theres the option of giving them a 12 month stint in the forces.......

Bit risky that one, RBLC. At the moment when the PM declares war on someone there's at least a minimal possibility that the Armed Forces will tell him to sod off. If he's the one carrying the gun as well, well ... Also, as Rachael mentioned earlier, the p***-up in the brewery effect comes to mind when one thinks of our esteemed politicians. Would we really want to trust them with a gun each?

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

Well if we make up a regiment specifically for them, it shouldnt be a problem. What to name this regt ? Cannon fodder.....

[Occasional Fan]

Why not make up two, call them, for example, "Government" and "Opposition" and provide a nice quiet location like - oh, I don't know - Parliament Square? - for them to air their grievances to each other?