The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

Who will you be voting for?

  • Tory

    Votes: 38 9.9%
  • Diet Tory (Labour)

    Votes: 132 34.3%
  • Tory Zero (Greens)

    Votes: 44 11.4%
  • Extra Tory with lemon (UKIP)

    Votes: 40 10.4%
  • Lib Dems

    Votes: 9 2.3%
  • Other

    Votes: 31 8.1%
  • Cheese on toast

    Votes: 91 23.6%

  • Total voters
    385
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Not sure why it isnt immediately obvious, but here goes:

Iraq, cash for honours, the degrading of top of the civil service and replacement with special advisors, the treatment of Elizabeth Filkin (which led directly to the MPs expenses scandal), his antics since leaving office (especially as the Quartet envoy), the treatment of David Kelly, the failure to implement even the Labour-lite 1997 manifesto despite having a mandate, tuition fees etc etc.

Tony Blair was the worst PM we have had since Chamberlain. In fact, he might even have been worse, given that Chamberlain was up against Hitler and Stalin.

Explain that! chamberlain was not a bad PM, in fact a quite clever one.
 
Given that today is the 25th anniversary of the Czech Republic finally riding itself of oppressive rule, I'd rather dispute that statement.

Ok, History lesson boys and girls.

Chamberlain did not stop Germany from taking the Checzs and decided to wave the white paper of peace instead. He then went to war a year later when Germany invaded Poland.

In that year though our armed forces quadrupled from a dads army force into an actual army. We developed war machines, we built planes and we built Radar (which later became famous in the Battle of Britain). In fact the difference in 12 months or there abouts was that we went from a country sat on its hands to one that became ready to go to war with a known enemy.

So yeah, how was he a poor prime minister?
 
Furthermore Chamberlain never said "peace in our time" he said "peace for our time" which has an entirely different meaning.

As @Ashtonian says, he bought time for the British to prepare for war.

In January 1938 he said the following "In the absence of any powerful ally, and until our armaments are completed, we must adjust our foreign policy to our circumstances, and even bear with patience and good humour actions which we should like to treat in a very different fashion."
 
Explain that! chamberlain was not a bad PM, in fact a quite clever one.

He wasnt. To cite rearmament after Munich as an achievement of his shows how few achievements he actually had as PM - rearmament at that point was the least that could be expected given the blatant nature of German re-arming itself, as well as the nature of the Nazi regime. It also tends to ignore what Chamberlain did to the Tory rebels - Boothby, Churchill, Eden, Macmillan, Amery et al - who were demanding rearmament long before Munich, as well as the disgrace of Munich itself.

Then you have his conduct during the war, which was universally rubbish. The Army sat on the French border and did nothing. The RAF dropped a million bits of paper on Germany, and - at appalling cost - tried to bomb German naval shipping. Only the RN actually did anything, probably because Churchill was in charge. Even when Norway happened, it was implemented appallingly and cost thousands of lives.
 
lol From a local Cllr
And he'd be right, no? We need semi/fully-skilled jobs in this country, jobs that utilise the degrees with which graduates are pouring out from uni with each year, only to be faced with a life of scrabbling around trying to get a job in Starbucks or Footlocker.

We don't want more retail. We want more construction, more engineering, more IT, more arts/culture/media.
 
And he'd be right, no? We need semi/fully-skilled jobs in this country, jobs that utilise the degrees with which graduates are pouring out from uni with each year, only to be faced with a life of scrabbling around trying to get a job in Starbucks or Footlocker.

We don't want more retail. We want more construction, more engineering, more IT, more arts/culture/media.

We want a mix....

I'm also not sure we're going to get people into arts and culture when budgets are being relentlessly and mindlessly cut. Sadly, as it would suit me down to the ground.
 
Last edited:
He wasnt. To cite rearmament after Munich as an achievement of his shows how few achievements he actually had as PM - rearmament at that point was the least that could be expected given the blatant nature of German re-arming itself, as well as the nature of the Nazi regime. It also tends to ignore what Chamberlain did to the Tory rebels - Boothby, Churchill, Eden, Macmillan, Amery et al - who were demanding rearmament long before Munich, as well as the disgrace of Munich itself.

Then you have his conduct during the war, which was universally rubbish. The Army sat on the French border and did nothing. The RAF dropped a million bits of paper on Germany, and - at appalling cost - tried to bomb German naval shipping. Only the RN actually did anything, probably because Churchill was in charge. Even when Norway happened, it was implemented appallingly and cost thousands of lives.

Bias view on history there sir.

Until Germany invaded the checzs there was no reason for us to re arm as there was no threat of war at that point. Germany had been reclaiming their land and a lot of people in europe agreed with that. the called it lebanstraum (living space) when they took the Rhineland amongst other places. This all stems from the Treaty of versaille and the questionable harsh treatment of the germans in taking the blame (which is a whole other story).

But as for the 30's. Germany prospered and nobody thought any wrong of them. they grew in size, power and in culture and the hosting of the Olympics goes to show how much europe thought of Germany as a threat. The reason why Germany rearmed is to increase its economy. Whilst they flaunted the treaty laws, they built tanks, planes, built armies and everything else to do with it. As a result they had to go to war or at least have military action to stop the economy collapsing in on itself. This connects to the lebanstraum actions. If Hitler had stepped down in 36 he would be seen as one of the most modern influential leaders in history to oversee such a great change in positioning (theres the irony).

So no, there was no need for us to re arm before we did as until Germany used their strength they were not seen as a threat and therefore any building of arms would be a strain on the economy still recovering from the WSC of 1929. By the time Germany became a threat it caught everyone off guard, including France and Belgium who couldn't stop them marching through their land. Chamberlain buying time probably saved our country as in the battle of britain, the newly built radar helped us detect them coming (pilots eat carrots to see in the dark), the extra troops allowed us to get a foothold when possible in France and the air force stopped germany marching into Britain.

So Chamberlain's actions in 1938 were just and fair. The chezks were not slaughtered either despite popular opinion. The tragic part of it was they were ready to fight and they were told to lay down arms as nobody could help them.


You cannot beat me in a discussion on this time period, i am very educated on the subject lol

P.S Chamberlain was prime minister not Army General. He did not command the troops nor plan the attacks. So to hold him responsable for any failure in war is silly at the very least.

We did do badly at the start of the war, in fact we did badly for all of the war! But that is no different to our cavelry charging across no mans land in 1914 until we learned that was not a good idea.
 
We want a mix....

I'm also not sure we're going to get people into arts and culture when budgets are being relentlessly and mindlessly cut. Sadly, as due to being a volunteer at a local museum it would suit me down to the ground.
ok sure, we want a mix, but I'd argue that a greater increase in high-skill jobs would see qualified grads removed from the low-paid, low-skill jobs and take up the roles they studied for, leaving the retail jobs open for the less skilled.

Retail outlets and jobs should only increase if the UK has the disposable income to spend, or they will just fail within a year leaving folk unemployed. Right now we need to looking at wealth creation through intangible value add, ie construction, engineering, IT.
 
Bias view on history there sir.

Until Germany invaded the checzs there was no reason for us to re arm as there was no threat of war at that point. Germany had been reclaiming their land and a lot of people in europe agreed with that. the called it lebanstraum (living space) when they took the Rhineland amongst other places. This all stems from the Treaty of versaille and the questionable harsh treatment of the germans in taking the blame (which is a whole other story).

But as for the 30's. Germany prospered and nobody thought any wrong of them. they grew in size, power and in culture and the hosting of the Olympics goes to show how much europe thought of Germany as a threat. The reason why Germany rearmed is to increase its economy. Whilst they flaunted the treaty laws, they built tanks, planes, built armies and everything else to do with it. As a result they had to go to war or at least have military action to stop the economy collapsing in on itself. This connects to the lebanstraum actions. If Hitler had stepped down in 36 he would be seen as one of the most modern influential leaders in history to oversee such a great change in positioning (theres the irony).

So no, there was no need for us to re arm before we did as until Germany used their strength they were not seen as a threat and therefore any building of arms would be a strain on the economy still recovering from the WSC of 1929. By the time Germany became a threat it caught everyone off guard, including France and Belgium who couldn't stop them marching through their land. Chamberlain buying time probably saved our country as in the battle of britain, the newly built radar helped us detect them coming (pilots eat carrots to see in the dark), the extra troops allowed us to get a foothold when possible in France and the air force stopped germany marching into Britain.

So Chamberlain's actions in 1938 were just and fair. The chezks were not slaughtered either despite popular opinion. The tragic part of it was they were ready to fight and they were told to lay down arms as nobody could help them.


You cannot beat me in a discussion on this time period, i am very educated on the subject lol

P.S Chamberlain was prime minister not Army General. He did not command the troops nor plan the attacks. So to hold him responsable for any failure in war is silly at the very least.

We did do badly at the start of the war, in fact we did badly for all of the war! But that is no different to our cavelry charging across no mans land in 1914 until we learned that was not a good idea.

I now want to play Civilisation...
 
I completely agree. We don't vote for the leader, we vote for the party. If people cannot separate the two then more fool them.


It should almost be mandatory to spend a good 30 mins on that site before you vote. I know there can be differences on a local front, but i doubt people spend too much time looking at local policies either.

You dont even need to be well versed in politics, you just need to vote for what you believe in. Not vote for the party your family has voted for, not vote to keep a party out, not because you 'quite like' someone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top