Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums
Sign in to follow this  
gsxrrr

Churchill would turn in his grave

Recommended Posts

A couple of nights ago we had the first ever televised debate with the prospective candidates for the job of Prime minister of this fair land. I know that you guys in the States have been doing this sort of thing for decades but it's new to us, and after watching for 90 minutes I know why. What would you think we were presented with, three of the strongest, most charismatic, intelligent leaders of men that you would ever be likely to meet. People who could lead this once great country forward into prosperity, people like Churchill who held the nations hopes and dreams close to his heart.

No, what we have been given is a 'choice' between three of the most lacklustre, self effacing, weedy individuals that you could imagine. Each seemed to be almost begging for our approval, desperate to get on the gravy train, careful not to say anything that could offend. These guys' are pathetic and England deserves and needs better if it's to rise from these current difficulties and regain it's place in the world. But sadly this is it, one of these jokers will be our glorious leader for the next five years.

Last one out turn the lights off!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No offense to Churchill or any of the past US Presidents, but it's an entirely different world we live in today, and their impact today if in power wouldn't be the same in their era of power.

 

Quite simply put, the world is what you make of it, and there are many ways to improve yourself and your families life without having to worry about any world leaders impact on you individually..... Especially in countries like England and the USA, where there are so many opportunities, even in these more difficult economic times.:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you expect? In both countries these days you need to be enormously wealthy to run for office - you dont get on top of the pile just because of your prowess and statesmanship.

 

Until we find ways to reduce the influence of money on you beng able to actually run for office, then forget it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What do you expect? In both countries these days you need to be enormously wealthy to run for office - you dont get on top of the pile just because of your prowess and statesmanship.

 

Until we find ways to reduce the influence of money on you being able to actually run for office' date=' then forget it.[/quote']

 

Churchill was born into wealth, as were the Kennedy's[biggrin]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I take on board that we live in different times, and the fact that we enjoy luxury items like Gibson guitars, cars, bikes etc shows that by and large we get by OK. My problem is really more about the way that these civil servants seem to believe that once in power they have to do very little for the good of the country and instead simply look after their cronies, for them it appears that getting into office is the end of the job not the beginning. As for charisma, I think this is important, especially on the world stage if we are to make any impact at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What do you expect? In both countries these days you need to be enormously wealthy to run for office - you dont get on top of the pile just because of your prowess and statesmanship.

 

Until we find ways to reduce the influence of money on you beng able to actually run for office' date=' then forget it.[/quote']

 

Until they come up with another barrier for entry any hopeful candidate will have to embrace the current system. I don't presume to know of other routes to go with in the current political system, I'll leave that to my father's side of the family. Barriers do have to be in place though, if we allowed free public advertisements on television with no rules set in place we wouldn't have any normal programs (not that they're currently very good) because there would be a million wankers on T.V. performing self gratification. Another problem with how our current civilization selects leaders (since the introduction of TV) is a lot of people choose candidates based on looks - and not on competency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
. My problem is really more about the way that these civil servants seem to believe that once in power they have to do very little for the good of the country and instead simply look after their cronies' date=' for them it appears that getting into office is the end of the job not the beginning. .[/quote']

 

Civil servants will always look after their cronies and the party/districts that helped get them elected or into the running for election. Otherwise the candidate wouldn't have a chance for re-election with the current costs or have his party/subordinates mutiny. Either way it would be political suicide. I would love an elected official who was truly selfless and only had the interest of the people at heart but I haven't met a politician yet who aspired to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an apt pupil in the school of politics for the last 30+ years, I'm telling you Duane is right and wrong.

 

Times are different, but....

 

Winning the rat race is a lot tougher when the rats that won't move are given prizes.

The rats that would traditionally excel in any race are now being further handicapped with each election.

 

Americans wanting us to co-exist as "One World" still can't get over the guilt of our success.

They feel a need to give it all away to make us "equal"......

 

 

You want equality?

Get off your *** and keep up with the rest of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure it's a good idea, given the way the UK's variation of parliamentary republican democracy works, to have PM "candidates" out in front the way it's done in the US.

 

It's a different "take" on the same concept, but still a different take.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm, if anything, very much prejudiced in ways toward the Anglophone world for a number of its aspects from basic political concepts to the way "popular' music developed and spread even before the radio.

 

But the PM is not a "president."

 

I'll happily argue either side whether a directly-elected chief executive, as in the U.S., or a PM from among the winning parliamentary party as in the U.K., is better.

 

With the latter, I think a debate of "PM candidates" is perhaps a bit silly. Arguing for their party, yes; but if it's really an apparent "elect me PM" sorta thing... Naaah.

 

Duane kinda hit it, though, that the Anglophone nations have enjoyed some very real advantages.

 

The interesting thing to me is how the U.K. has been more influenced by circumstances on the continent and therefore in ways seems to have changed more rapidly than former colonies - the U.S. least of all, but certainly there as well. And we "colonials" from Oz to Ontario, have in turn influenced those isles near Europe.

 

Churchill wrote his "History of the English Speaking Peoples," I think, with much of this same concept of a cultural commonality that is so much a part of us all that it's hard to comprehend the degree of cultural similarity because it's as much a part of us as our thumbs.

 

In fact, when I took English history in high school, I remember well thinking, "gee, they were a lot like us even waaaaaay back then - perhaps even more so than today..."

 

And yeah, there's cronyism in Anglophone nations. But... I think a lot less than in some national cultures.

 

Again, yeah, I think the post-Internet age will be interesting in terms of far more voices calling out political comment. All Anglophone nations have somewhat similar concerns and certainly the same political background, so we tend to read more broadly - and perhaps too broadly - about common problems from similar political perspectives.

 

OTOH, although I have great respect for Churchill the man and the leader, I doubt he would make it today as a politician any more than he did between the "world" wars. Too few of us choose to admit we have some political enemies in the world that are taking new angles unimagined prior to the year 2001. Not only the obvious attacks in New York, but less obvious ones in economics. I should hope that were Churchill reincarnated he wouldn't suggest some sort of Gallipoli campaign... either in economics or military expedition.

 

m

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I started studying Churchill, I was struck by one thing;

He could have been a stand-up comedian on par with any of the 20th century legends of the time.

 

Smart - yes.

Wise - definitely.

Funnier 'n hell with typical Brit understatement - damn right!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I often watch meetings of Parliament on the BBC channel broadcast in the US, and even though I consider myself an anglophile, I gotta say that those meetings raise comedy in politics to a new level. Nothing in the US congress could touch the British Parliament in the comical way they conduct business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of the three come anywhere near Churchill in terms of leadership or charisma, that's for sure. Gordon Brown, as much as I disagree with his policies, is no idiot though. Very smart man it seems to me. I could be wrong...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to our world Brits.

 

That's why we have term limits, so we don't have to live withit so long.

 

Many years ago, when I was too young to vote, on the day after Election Day, my dad went up to the local feed store to discuss what 'happened' the night before.

 

First words out of the proprietory's mouth were, "I ain't gonna ask how you voted, but I'd like to know; Did you vote FOR someone? or agin someone?"

 

"Agin," said my dad. As the proprietor made a mark on a tick sheet, he said, "So far, this morning, it's been a clean sweep. Nobody voted FOR anybody."

 

That was the election that put Richard Nixon in office. Only once in my voting life have I ever voted FOR someone. Well maybe twice, but for the same man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"I ain't gonna ask how you voted' date=' but I'd like to know; Did you vote FOR someone? or agin someone?" [/quote']

Bingo.

My count would be something pretty close to that as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I often watch meetings of Parliament on the BBC channel broadcast in the US' date=' and even though I consider myself an anglophile, I gotta say that those meetings raise comedy in politics to a new level. Nothing in the US congress could touch the British Parliament in the comical way they conduct business.[/quote']

 

Nancy Pelosi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All kidding aside, I've gotta agree with Ziggie...

 

Commons gets a lot more noise than usual in the U.S. Congress.

 

I think a lotta the "noise" in US politics tends more to be behind the scenes.

 

After the early 1990s "Republican Revolution," when Dems were voted out of office for the first time in decades, I think both sides demonstrated a lack of professionalism and let hurt feelings over prime office locations take over courtesy. That's still, as far as I can see, a pattern in DC.

 

It's something almost never discussed or written about; it's not conducive to good government, IMHO.

 

m

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...