[Politics] On this day 58 years ago.

[Mo Gosfield]

It was only 20 years ago in a nationwide tv poll asking who the greatest Briton of all time was, Churchill who was championed by Mo Mowlem came out on top with nearly half the vote. Summarising her argument, Mo said: "If Britain - its eccentricity, its big heartedness, its strength of character - has to be summed up in one person, it has to be Winston Churchill."

I thought there was a more recent tv debate and Alan Turing came out on top.
We needed the leadership and resolution of Churchill. Desperate times call for desperate measures and some decisions cost lives. That is war. It cannot be replicated. You have to keep looking at the bigger picture. You will be unpopular. Churchill suffered at the ballot box immediately post was as returning servicemen blamed him for sacrificing lives. He was a leader and a character. He was pugnacious, high profile and in many peoples eyes, a hero. He led the country through our darkest hour.
Turing was the opposite. Quiet, unobtrusive, unseen and unheard. Totally under the radar. A genius who was there when we needed him. He shortened the war, saved 00,000's nay millions of lives and gave our leaders such vital information that it turned the course of the war. His brilliance endures today and can be felt in all our lives. Like Churchill, he was much maligned. Turing was ostracised by society.
Genius comes in many forms and is often found in those that appear different, have learning/communication issues and are side-lined and mocked by certain people. Churchill had some of those issues, which he managed to disguise. Turing couldn't disguise them. Coupled with his homosexuality, he faced hate and persecution.
I hugely respect both men. Without either of them we would all be in a different world today. Churchill's leadership and Turing's genius.

 

[Lenny Rider]

Whatever you think of him, they don’t make politicians like him any more. Apparently he feared war and worked to avoid both the world wars.

Struggling to think of any recent politician who could inspire like him after his worst fears were realised.


"We must not regard war with the modern power as a kind of game in which we may take a hand, and with good luck, and good management, play adroitly for an evening and come home safe. A European war can not be anything but a cruel, heartrending struggle, which if we ever are to enjoy the bitter fruits of victory, must demand perhaps for several years, the whole manhood of the nation, the entire suspension of peaceful industries, and the concentrating to one end of every vital energy in the country."

“I have frequently been astonished since I have been in this House to hear with what composure and how glibly Members, and even Ministers, talk of a European war. I will not expatiate on the horrors of war, but there has been a great change which the House should not omit to notice. In former days, when wars arose from individual causes, from the policy of a Minister or the passion of a King, when they were fought by small regular armies of professional soldiers, and when their course was retarded by the difficulties of communication and supply, and often suspended by the winter season, it was possible to limit the liabilities of the combatants. But now, when mighty populations are impelled on each other, each individual severally embittered and inflamed—when the resources of science and civilization sweep away everything that might mitigate their fury—a European war can only end in the ruin of the vanquished and the scarcely less fatal commercial dislocation and exhaustion of the conquerors.

It would be nice to have a politician in the UK prepared to stand up in Parliament and state “I will end child poverty in this country”, never going to happen, for all his faults, and clearly he was flawed at times, as you say they don’t make them like Winnie anymore.

 

[Mo Gosfield]

Whatever you think of him, they don’t make politicians like him any more. Apparently he feared war and worked to avoid both the world wars.

Struggling to think of any recent politician who could inspire like him after his worst fears were realised.


"We must not regard war with the modern power as a kind of game in which we may take a hand, and with good luck, and good management, play adroitly for an evening and come home safe. A European war can not be anything but a cruel, heartrending struggle, which if we ever are to enjoy the bitter fruits of victory, must demand perhaps for several years, the whole manhood of the nation, the entire suspension of peaceful industries, and the concentrating to one end of every vital energy in the country."

“I have frequently been astonished since I have been in this House to hear with what composure and how glibly Members, and even Ministers, talk of a European war. I will not expatiate on the horrors of war, but there has been a great change which the House should not omit to notice. In former days, when wars arose from individual causes, from the policy of a Minister or the passion of a King, when they were fought by small regular armies of professional soldiers, and when their course was retarded by the difficulties of communication and supply, and often suspended by the winter season, it was possible to limit the liabilities of the combatants. But now, when mighty populations are impelled on each other, each individual severally embittered and inflamed—when the resources of science and civilization sweep away everything that might mitigate their fury—a European war can only end in the ruin of the vanquished and the scarcely less fatal commercial dislocation and exhaustion of the conquerors.

War was the last resort for him but he recognized the terrible danger that most of Europe faced. He fought the appeasers with a passion. He knew that the only way to kill the monster was to cut its head off.

 

[Wardy's twin]

Brunel should clearly have won that.

Less people have heard of him though.

 

[Diallo]

The same youngsters who would be living in a occupied one party state, with no freedom of speech or basic democracy, had it not been for Churchill's stance in WW2.

So how did we end up like now?

Free speech? I thought anyone speaking out against the covid vaccination and the lockdown was cancels and silenced? Same with anyone challenging the BLM movement.

We live in a cancel culture where we all have to agree with the same political ideology of either being left, centre or right. Anything other and you’re called names like conspiracy theorists, anti-vaxer, anti-Semitic etc. There’s no way in hell we are living in a society that values free speech and a basic democracy. We live in a society that worships athletes and singers, ridicules people seeking alternative answers and truths, whilst encouraging isolation a ‘New Normal’.

Whatever it was we were fighting against in WW2, seems to have ended being the victors.