I think they wanted a fairer society - Churchill was always seen as a hero and loved. It is wrong to say what you have about people after the war. They didn't want help in the way you imply they wanted a fair society. If you study the war, Churchill was a national hero, but Attlee was Deputy Prime minister and both parties worked together like they never did and never will again. He was a hero too. But the biggest heroes were the British people. Those that gave their lives and those that sacrificed all for victory. Churchill would not have disagreed with that and it is wrong to suggest they wanted help from the government after the war. Fairness isn't help.
No - I am saying that after all the sacrifices made the British people DESERVED as much help as they could get to get everyone back on their feet. People made the ultimate sacrifice and families lost fathers and husbands who were bread winners pre war.
As a Tory voter who would never normally place any kind of emphasis on traditional left wing policies such as social housing, welfare boosts etc. That was fairness after the war. People needed help. Coming out of a recession is nothing compared to that.
I think they wanted a fairer society - Churchill was always seen as a hero and loved. It is wrong to say what you have about people after the war. They didn't want help in the way you imply they wanted a fair society. If you study the war, Churchill was a national hero, but Attlee was Deputy Prime minister and both parties worked together like they never did and never will again. He was a hero too. But the biggest heroes were the British people. Those that gave their lives and those that sacrificed all for victory. Churchill would not have disagreed with that and it is wrong to suggest they wanted help from the government after the war. Fairness isn't help.
Very well said.
They all fought for freedom (our freedom) and in return all they wanted was a just and fair society in which to exercise that freedom. Heroes one and all - and I would also add not just the British people but all the people, especially the military, of every allied country.
I also share your views on the potential that Ed has - I just hope he has the chance to realise that potential.
Agreed - you cant compare the situations of then and now. But it wasn't help, it was a rebalance. What I think you can draw, is some comparison between Miliband and Attlee. This will mean nothing to the vast majority of people, but interests me greatly. I was sceptical of him at first, but when you look of the substance of what he says and does, I think he is potentially the greatest Labour leader in my lifetime. That is why the attacks on him from the off have been so ridiculous. Th eproblem is people's exposure to him is largely through the express/sun etc... But of course his exposure increases during an election and I said at the start of it, his reputation will increase as it goes on.
I used the word potentially, Miliband hasn't led the country yet so only characteristics can be compared- not achievements. The similarities is not something only I have identified. A lot of Labour historians see this and have been quoted as saying this.
The other point to remember is that even in his defeat in 1951 Attlee got more votes than Churchill. Indeed apart from Major's Tory Party in 1992, it was the highest vote ever received by a political party.
I have read some crazy stuff on here but Milliband being compared like that is not just crazy it's as if a whole lorry of magic mushrooms got taken to the labour hq and they just wrote what came into the head
And they gave some to some prominent Tories too who have made the same comparisons. William Rees Mogg who wrote a piece titled Don't Underestimate Miliband, He's like Attlee (see link above) opens the piece by saying he has known all the Labour leaders going back to 1935.
they might help - on both sides. I do urge the undecided to listen to Miliband and make up their own minds. Dont listen to the press -they have their own agenda. Even the mirror that prints anti conservative propoganda in the same way. I wish people's intelligence could be respected by all of them.
I think respecting Miliband is actually the best way for the Conservatives to do well. They have fought this election in the wrong areas so far.
Ed is a political intellectual. Politics are what he lives for. It's also what makes him kinda geeky. Agree or disagree with his politics but don't underestimate the passion and belief underpinning those views. Ed has risen to the leadership of The Labour Party because those that know him recognise these qualities and see past the awkwardness of the man. Cameron is the lightweight politico of the two and has his position as Tory leader and subsequently as PM because he was a young face to front the conservatives in an attempt to combat the new trend in British politics of having a young fresh face epitomised with Tony Blair.
Cameron has avoided any contact with Milliband where any form of debate could break out and away from pmq's where rehearsed and researched answers are available.
Cameron also appeals to those on the left of the conservative party, with his views on the NHS and gay marriage for instance. The issue is, he is hated by those on the right of his party. What the right don't undertsand is that a leader from their side would be unelectable. I respect a lot of Tories. If you asked me who was the more right wing out of Kenneth Clark or Peter Mandelson, i'd go with the latter!
Every now and then a conviction politician comes to prominence. Whether you agree with Thatcher or not she believed in what she did. Miliband is acknowledged to be a conviction politician. He hates it, but has been compared to her in that respect. I think evan Davies did it last week.
Yesterday, we had one party discussing Britain's role in the world and how, where and whether we should partner with allies to ensure the world is a better, safer place. And we had one party concentrating on how and whether we should dig our heels in and prevent MPs from some parts of the UK voting on issues effecting other parts.
In a snapshot, this is why Miliband is winning the campaign against Cameron.
Yesterday, we had one party discussing Britain's role in the world and how, where and whether we should partner with allies to ensure the world is a better, safer place. And we had one party concentrating on how and whether we should dig our heels in and prevent MPs from some parts of the UK voting on issues effecting other parts.
In a snapshot, this is why Miliband is winning the campaign against Cameron.
Bbc poll of polls has the Tories one percent up on Labour. Add in their standard polling day pick up and it is a bit premature to say he is winning.
Yesterday, we had one party discussing Britain's role in the world and how, where and whether we should partner with allies to ensure the world is a better, safer place. And we had one party concentrating on how and whether we should dig our heels in and prevent MPs from some parts of the UK voting on issues effecting other parts.
In a snapshot, this is why Miliband is winning the campaign against Cameron.
Bbc poll of polls has the Tories one percent up on Labour. Add in their standard polling day pick up and it is a bit premature to say he is winning.
If you base it on swing then he is winning, Tories very nearly got the majority five years ago and were massively ahead of labour, now they are near enough even which means massive swing in labours favour.
Yesterday, we had one party discussing Britain's role in the world and how, where and whether we should partner with allies to ensure the world is a better, safer place. And we had one party concentrating on how and whether we should dig our heels in and prevent MPs from some parts of the UK voting on issues effecting other parts.
In a snapshot, this is why Miliband is winning the campaign against Cameron.
Bbc poll of polls has the Tories one percent up on Labour. Add in their standard polling day pick up and it is a bit premature to say he is winning.
pretty sure we'll have a tory-lib dem government again. Things won't change too much until the election and the incumbent always gets first crack at forming a government anyway.
I do find all the Miliband man-love a bit strange. But surely the real triumph of Labour's campaign has been keeping the man who they'd have as Chancellor of the Exchequer hidden under a blanket.
Who is going to say that Balls is statesmanlike or has the economic credentials to run the country? I'm not defending Osborne but blooming heck, surely Balls is a worse option? He comes across as a gurning buffoon. And its quite an important job.
Yesterday, we had one party discussing Britain's role in the world and how, where and whether we should partner with allies to ensure the world is a better, safer place. And we had one party concentrating on how and whether we should dig our heels in and prevent MPs from some parts of the UK voting on issues effecting other parts.
In a snapshot, this is why Miliband is winning the campaign against Cameron.
Bbc poll of polls has the Tories one percent up on Labour. Add in their standard polling day pick up and it is a bit premature to say he is winning.
Unfortunately due to how skewed the boundaries are, the Tories needs a much bigger lead than 1pt to win more seats than Labour, let alone a majority (which, let's face it, won't happen).
We are on the precipice of a constitutional travesty where, thanks to the botching of the devolution between the other 3 nations, England is looking at a very unhappy 5 years. As the arithmetic currently stands, we are looking at the dangerously high possibility of a Labour minority government ruling with the SNP backing them on a vote by vote basis. Sturgeon - who will not even be sitting in Westminster - has already stated that their support for a Labour government is conditional on taking money from England (specifically London and the South) and ploughing it into Scotland. Salmond - who could be in Westminster in 2015 - was recorded stating that he would be writing a Labour government's budget. Major and necessary infrastructure plans due to commence this year in the South are currently on hold as there is a very real possibility that the money will be pulled very soon after May and diverted to bribing loyal Labour and SNP constituents in other parts of the country. This is what is known - so I dread to consider what plans they have which haven't been leaked or made public. The fact is Labour have absolutely zero interest in introducing safeguards for English MPs to have the final say on England-only matters. The currently formula more than suits them fine.
Here is in fact how it will work - the Scottish Parliament will vote for an increase in spending in Holyrood, whilst Scottish Labour and SNP MPs will vote to increase the Scottish Parliament's allocation of the country's resources whilst England's share will be cut. This has been the SNP's goal the entire time - to be the tail wagging the dog and unless this constitutional cock-up is sorted, English voters are at the mercy of the Scots. Given the rise of anti-English sentiment over the course of the referendum campaign, voters in England, especially those on the breadline or reliant on public money for either employment or welfare or care-giving, would do well to know this as they go out to vote in May. Turkeys voting for Christmas could not be more appropriate.
Only the Tories are looking to introduce these safeguards that would prevent the English budget being voted on by Scottish MPs. Even if you do not believe that the Tories will protect essential public-spending, the fact is without these safeguards, none of the national parties will be able to protect public spending, that is the reality.
Comments
As a Tory voter who would never normally place any kind of emphasis on traditional left wing policies such as social housing, welfare boosts etc. That was fairness after the war. People needed help. Coming out of a recession is nothing compared to that.
They all fought for freedom (our freedom) and in return all they wanted was a just and fair society in which to exercise that freedom. Heroes one and all - and I would also add not just the British people but all the people, especially the military, of every allied country.
I also share your views on the potential that Ed has - I just hope he has the chance to realise that potential.
Comparing Milliband to Attlee is like comparing Simon Church to Lionel Messi.... (maybe a bit harsh but you get my point).
This from a Tory:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/williamreesmogg/article3609020.ece
Maybe best to argue the point with him rather than me.
I think respecting Miliband is actually the best way for the Conservatives to do well. They have fought this election in the wrong areas so far.
Cameron has avoided any contact with Milliband where any form of debate could break out and away from pmq's where rehearsed and researched answers are available.
In a snapshot, this is why Miliband is winning the campaign against Cameron.
People can not be being serious when they say this
The only true comparison can be made after office is served, hence the word 'potential' being used.
...... you are starting to sound like me.
car crash interview if i've ever seen one!
Who is going to say that Balls is statesmanlike or has the economic credentials to run the country? I'm not defending Osborne but blooming heck, surely Balls is a worse option? He comes across as a gurning buffoon. And its quite an important job.
We are on the precipice of a constitutional travesty where, thanks to the botching of the devolution between the other 3 nations, England is looking at a very unhappy 5 years. As the arithmetic currently stands, we are looking at the dangerously high possibility of a Labour minority government ruling with the SNP backing them on a vote by vote basis. Sturgeon - who will not even be sitting in Westminster - has already stated that their support for a Labour government is conditional on taking money from England (specifically London and the South) and ploughing it into Scotland. Salmond - who could be in Westminster in 2015 - was recorded stating that he would be writing a Labour government's budget. Major and necessary infrastructure plans due to commence this year in the South are currently on hold as there is a very real possibility that the money will be pulled very soon after May and diverted to bribing loyal Labour and SNP constituents in other parts of the country. This is what is known - so I dread to consider what plans they have which haven't been leaked or made public. The fact is Labour have absolutely zero interest in introducing safeguards for English MPs to have the final say on England-only matters. The currently formula more than suits them fine.
Here is in fact how it will work - the Scottish Parliament will vote for an increase in spending in Holyrood, whilst Scottish Labour and SNP MPs will vote to increase the Scottish Parliament's allocation of the country's resources whilst England's share will be cut. This has been the SNP's goal the entire time - to be the tail wagging the dog and unless this constitutional cock-up is sorted, English voters are at the mercy of the Scots. Given the rise of anti-English sentiment over the course of the referendum campaign, voters in England, especially those on the breadline or reliant on public money for either employment or welfare or care-giving, would do well to know this as they go out to vote in May. Turkeys voting for Christmas could not be more appropriate.
Only the Tories are looking to introduce these safeguards that would prevent the English budget being voted on by Scottish MPs. Even if you do not believe that the Tories will protect essential public-spending, the fact is without these safeguards, none of the national parties will be able to protect public spending, that is the reality.