Discussion
Norfolkit said:
I'll just pass you over into the paradise that is the Republic of Great Britain and it's glorious leader President Blair/Brown/Cameron/Milliband (delete as appropriate).
Never a truer word than "the power of the Monarchy is not what it has but in the power it denies others"
That's brilliant, like it.Never a truer word than "the power of the Monarchy is not what it has but in the power it denies others"
DJRC said:
Lost_BMW said:
DJRC said:
And we have had roughly 3 folks worthy of standing equal with Olly since then.
I'm guessing that you're thinking of Blair, Brown and Cameron, no?Claire Short, Yvette Coope and Anne Widdecomb?
Milliband, Balls and Prescott
'only ones I can think on the same level, oh and Beelzebub.
DJRC said:
The greatest Parliamentarian of them all realised that in order to make Parliament work effectively he had to be a dictator because it was only by having a non-political figurehead overall that the system could work.
I'm not sure that your view of Cromwell sits well with the experiences of many of the citizens of the day. Not to mention current historians.Cromwell might well have been a great commander of an army, perhaps as great as Wellington. Like the Iron Duke his talents did not transfer well to governing a country. Cromwell is unlikely to be anywhere near as bad as his distractors claim. Certainly his attack on Drogheda was in line with the standard of the times, but he could not run a country. He had no idea of parliament. He became a king, an emporor, in all but name.
His problem was that he was a religious nut and like so many of his kind regarded his views as those of the god he invented.
His legacy was short lived htankfully. He left the country in a dreadful state, one that wasn't resolved until William was recruited. He proved what so many other would be kings/dictators have before and after him, that absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Derek Smith said:
DJRC said:
The greatest Parliamentarian of them all realised that in order to make Parliament work effectively he had to be a dictator because it was only by having a non-political figurehead overall that the system could work.
I'm not sure that your view of Cromwell sits well with the experiences of many of the citizens of the day. Not to mention current historians.Cromwell might well have been a great commander of an army, perhaps as great as Wellington. Like the Iron Duke his talents did not transfer well to governing a country. Cromwell is unlikely to be anywhere near as bad as his distractors claim. Certainly his attack on Drogheda was in line with the standard of the times, but he could not run a country. He had no idea of parliament. He became a king, an emporor, in all but name.
His problem was that he was a religious nut and like so many of his kind regarded his views as those of the god he invented.
His legacy was short lived htankfully. He left the country in a dreadful state, one that wasn't resolved until William was recruited. He proved what so many other would be kings/dictators have before and after him, that absolute power corrupts absolutely.
For a start anybody who says Olly was in the same league as Wellington as a General should be laughed out of the room.
Olly in Ireland is irrelevent, he treated Ireland the same as the rest of the Normam/English did.
Of course Olly became basically a dictator, because that is what the job was defined as. To rule over the riven, ruined, corrupt and and unworkable Parliament of the time basically took a King/Dictator. That was the point and his realisation that the job could not be done how in theory they wanted it and nor could he then entrust all that power to another, so with him the experiment died.
He left the country in a position to reinvent itself. And it did. Parliament and the Monarchy and their relationship to each was reinvented. The govt workings and relationship between Crown and Parliament was very different when Olly died and CII came back than it was when CI and Parliament split. An unworkable, unworking and downright right rotten system was wiped away in the civil war and with Olly.
The biggest difference between Olly and the rest though was his realisation that total power corrupts totally and that it must die with him.
Hold no illusion that I think of Olly Cromwell as some sort of hero, he wasnt. He was quite probably the most miserable, iron fisted, cold hearted f
ker that ever ran the country. He did however have a clearer insight into the political dynamic of how to balance a country than any man before or since him. I say man of course because Liz the first was even better.SmoothCriminal said:
You can have a shiny new oylmpic park with brand new stadiums but the downfall of this games will be the transport system.
travelling around London has been a nightmare for years. Two weeks of sport during the school holidays isn't really going to make that much differenceDJRC said:
Stop right there Derek and dump the revisionist historical crap right now.
No matter how you cut it, all history is revisionist. Further, all history is crap.When he first introduced himself to the class our history teacher told us that most of what he was going to teach us was wrong. He knew this as most of what he was taught was wrong.
Cromwell didn't 'achieve' much apart from on the battle fields and that was only generally positive. Politically he had no real objectives. He had the opportunity to create something from the rubble of the British Civil Wars but he didn't. The Rump epitomises his failures. Apres him, we got Charles MkII in more ways than one. Everything was back to where it was before the wars and the massacres.
All you can suggest is that those who wanted change post the British Civil Wars had a blueprint of how not to go about it.
There is little lasting that Cromwell gave the country apart from myth and the occasional statue.
As for QEI, the most overrated of all monarchs. The most positive thing she did was nothing: take religion, she did nothing about the threat of catholicism or militant protestantism, just putting it off for James.
Derek Smith said:
As for QEI, the most overrated of all monarchs. The most positive thing she did was nothing: take religion, she did nothing about the threat of catholicism or militant protestantism, just putting it off for James.
Christ, you'll be writing that Margaret Thatcher was no good next!rover 623gsi said:
Amateurish said:
No 12bn is the cost to the taxpayer. The lottery will be refunded from land sales.
either way - I think it's money well spentWhat is the lowest figure that would have had you saying "blimey, that's a bit steep"?
Just to the nearest billion will do, and extra points for showing your working.
wormburner said:
So how much money would have been too much, in your judgment?
What is the lowest figure that would have had you saying "blimey, that's a bit steep"?
Just to the nearest billion will do, and extra points for showing your working.
£20bn - over seven years, so that would be under £3bn per year since the bid was won in 2005. During that same time we have spent more than £150bn in housing benefit, much of which has gone into the pockets of private landlords. What is the lowest figure that would have had you saying "blimey, that's a bit steep"?
Just to the nearest billion will do, and extra points for showing your working.
What is the highest figure that would have you saying "blimey, that's good value"?
rover 623gsi said:
£20bn - over seven years, so that would be under £3bn per year since the bid was won in 2005. During that same time we have spent more than £150bn in housing benefit, much of which has gone into the pockets of private landlords.
What is the highest figure that would have you saying "blimey, that's good value"?
So, if the French had won the Olympics for 2012, we could have cut the cost of housing our homeless by 12.5%. Blimey, that good value.. What is the highest figure that would have you saying "blimey, that's good value"?
rover 623gsi said:
wormburner said:
So how much money would have been too much, in your judgment?
What is the lowest figure that would have had you saying "blimey, that's a bit steep"?
Just to the nearest billion will do, and extra points for showing your working.
£20bn - over seven years, so that would be under £3bn per year since the bid was won in 2005. During that same time we have spent more than £150bn in housing benefit, much of which has gone into the pockets of private landlords. What is the lowest figure that would have had you saying "blimey, that's a bit steep"?
Just to the nearest billion will do, and extra points for showing your working.
What is the highest figure that would have you saying "blimey, that's good value"?
You've weighed it all up and come to the conclusion that £12bn is good value but £20bn is not. Based on what?
I'm not sure any public money (including lottery money diverted from better causes) should have been spent on it. If it was wanted enough, the people who wanted it would have paid for it, be they spectators, sponsors or whoever. We certainly don't need any more stadia.
you asked me to come up with a figure, so I obliged
the only reason I mentioned the £3bn a year figure is that, imho, the cost of staging the Games should be considered over the lifetime of the planning, organsising and hosting of it. The money spent on the Games should be compared to all govt expenditure since 2005, not just expenditure going on at the moment.
I don't have a problem, in principle, with the idea that some public money should be spent on 'the nice things in life'. Personnally, I'd be quite happy to see a reduction in the amount of money spent on the NHS.
the only reason I mentioned the £3bn a year figure is that, imho, the cost of staging the Games should be considered over the lifetime of the planning, organsising and hosting of it. The money spent on the Games should be compared to all govt expenditure since 2005, not just expenditure going on at the moment.
I don't have a problem, in principle, with the idea that some public money should be spent on 'the nice things in life'. Personnally, I'd be quite happy to see a reduction in the amount of money spent on the NHS.
SmoothCriminal said:
You can have a shiny new oylmpic park with brand new stadiums but the downfall of this games will be the transport system.
Sydney during the 2000 games remains the only time I have enjoyed driving around town. The place was a ghost town due to everyone thinking that billions of rental cars would clog up the place. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff