RayC

A better analogy would be to compare Churchill, Hitler and Stalin outside of the theatre of war: Hitler and Stalin were murderers, Churchill was not.

Unproven premise: Why should allowing Ukraine more scope to defend itself result in 'forever war'? 'Both Ukraine and Russia are corrupt': Completely irrelevant. 'There are no winners in war': If the result of this war is that Russia is able to redraw its' borders with Ukraine and/or is given any concessions, it will have won. Ukraine has internationally agreed borders. Russia has violated them. Your approach is simple appeasement and results in the aggressor effectively being rewarded. If your goal is to reward those who initiate war then your approach cannot be faulted.

None of them made it onto Spanish soil in this instance.

Following this he was made Transport Minister!

How about Putin withdraws Russian troops from Ukrainian territory? That would de-escalate things. Discussions could then start about the amount and types of reparation which Moscow should make.

Always wondered where that scene was filmed. Must confess that Queens was low down on my list of possible sites😉

Bit late, I'm afraid. Needed something to deaden the pain but thanks for caring 😉

I wouldn't say ALL matters.

It is, of course, ridiculous to expect Labour to affect meaningful change within two months of taking office, and it is laughable that some of those now rushing to criticise the government are the very same individuals who urge patience when it comes to reaping the promised rewards of Brexit. However, that is not say that critics of this government do not make some valid points. Personally, I find the continual 'things are worse than we thought' and 'its going to be very difficult' rhetoric, tedious and disingenuous. It does smell of getting your excuses in first if things don't go to plan. In opposition Labour often, quite rightly, accused the Tory government of refusing to accept responsibility and accountability when the latter cited COVID or Ukraine as mitigating factors. By the same token, Labour should not use the legacy which it inherited from the Tories as an excuse to shun accountability and responsibility. It is what it is. Get on with it. Wrt the NHS specifically: My understanding is that a programme of work is being developed, and that the details will be published in the spring. Therefore imo currently no meaningful comment can be offered, and until then we'll have to make do with more 'sticking plaster' solutions such as advertising campaigns.

No matter how hard you try, you won't be able to pin the use of 'sunny uplands' on me within the context of Brexit. I'm not sure who got there first, but any one of Leadsom, Gove or Rees-Moog are among the front runners. Your second paragraph certainly has more than a ring of truth about it, but imo the divisions were neither as visible nor as manifest pre-2016 as they are now. I did not blame Brexit for these divisions. What I said was that the referendum brought them to the fore. Pre 2016, I would contend that following a general election, irrespective of who won, there was a general acceptable by all of 1) the result and 2) nothing much will change. That wasn't the case following the referendum. Some remainers refused to accept the result, and that many Brexiters expected radical change. Neither party got what they wanted and imo, as a result, the divisions within UK society have became more stark and visible. In short, we are more polarised than ever. I agree that openness and honesty are normally good things but, occasionally, things are better off being unsaid and untested.

Perhaps, but that then begs the question, given Churchill's refusal to negotiate, why did Hitler open the Russian front anyway? For once, I find myself siding with Cameroni; Hitler's decision was probably based on faulty information. While I find discussion about counterfactuals interesting, after all is said and done it is mere conjecture. What we do know for a fact is that Churchill helped defeat an evil regime. Now another opinion: It is inconceivable to me that Western Europe would have been a better place under Nazi rule. For that reason alone, criticism of Churchill for his failure to negotiate with Hitler is inherently flawed.

I have no influence when it comes to UK trade policy. However, I was assured by Boris Johnson and his Brexit buddies that the world (outside of the EU) would be bending over backwards to sign trade deals and commit to deeper, lasting relationships with the UK. Unfortunately, to quote Diana Ross, "I'm still waiting,".

"... the prime minister will outline three "big shifts" in the government’s approach: (1) implementing more technology to create a "digital NHS," (2) moving care from hospitals into community settings (3) and shifting focus from treatment to prevention. However, Sir Keir will caution that what he calls "the biggest reimagining of our NHS since its birth" will be neither quick nor easy. He will urge for "major surgery, not sticking plaster solutions" Why cannot some of these problems be solved quickly and (relatively? easily? If I recall correctly, the updating of the NHS IT systems has been ongoing since Blair was in government! IT projects vary in complexity - and without knowing too many details - imo it really shouldn't take 20+ years to implement a system that is 'fit for purpose'. (2) Moving care into the community: Again, why is this so difficult to achieve? I am, of course, over-simplifying matters but isn't this effectively a case of moving resources from one place to another? (3) Shifting the focus from treatment to prevention: This is becoming repetitive. Is it really that difficult to achieve some quick and cheap wins? The NHS currently offers a routine - imo superficial - check up every five years. Why not make this yearly and extend its' scope to include basic blood tests? I lived in Brussels until a few years ago. Unless the Belgium system has deteriorated out of all recognition since then, based on my experience there is no comparison in the quality of service offered. Both countries spend +/-11% of their GDP on health provision, so throwing (even more) money at the NHS isn't necessarily the answer.

A nice feel good story. Bon Jovi deserves all the plaudits that he gets for his action.

I agree that the timing of Germany's attack on Russia was the single biggest blunder of WW2. Germany lost +/-1,500 aircraft during the Battle of Britain, which is not an insignificant number. In addition, German armaments were superior in quality to Russia's. According to both Stalin and Khrushchev, Land-Lease provisions were crucial to the Russian cause. The idea that Russia would inevitably triumph over Nazi Germany is imo far from certain.

Very few people would disagree with your first sentence. Unfortunately, I can't find Cooper's interview anywhere, so if you have a link could you please post it. (Thanks). However, from the OP Cooper's main contention are that " (1) Churchill was responsible for spreading the war beyond Poland in 1939 (2) refusing to negotiate with Hitler in 1940 (was a mistake?) and (3) ordering the bombing of German cities (was unnecessary?) (1) Imo absolute nonsense. Hitler broke the Munich Agreement. What choices were left to the UK and France other than to declare war? (2) If the UK had negotiated peace, Europe would have been led by a Nazi dictatorship, the implications of which don't bear thinking abou. Personally, I don't think that any further discussion and/or elaboration is necessary (3) More contentious and there is a strong moral argument to support this view.

Imo complete and utter tosh. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain https://www.rferl.org/a/did-us-lend-lease-aid-tip-the-balance-in-soviet-fight-against-nazi-germany/30599486.html

Personally, I'd had kept quiet about that but, beauty in the eye of the beholder, etc😉

You need to check your timeline and facts. If you do so, you might avoid looking like a complete fool in the future. Between June 1940 - when France fell - and June 1941 -when Hitler broke the German/Russia pact - the UK (and the Commonwealth) was alone in opposing Germany. No German forces were directed towards Russia, and the US had not yet entered the war. If the UK had succumbed during this period, the world would be a much different place today. The world - or at the very least, Europe - will be forever in the UK's debt for its' fortitude during this period. Churchill had many faults and failures, but his views about Nazi Germany and his role in its' defeat were not among them.

Your link provides an interesting and balanced article. Germany certainly appears to have its fair share of problems and a weak Germany cannot be good for the EU. However, does this foretell the break-up of the EU? Imo no. Firstly, while it is undeniable that right-wing, anti-EU parties are gaining ground, their polling numbers are still relatively small (<40%). Secondly, a number of the more prominent right-wing parties e.g. 'Friends of Italy' and 'National Rally' in France no longer call for their respective countries to leave the EU. Brexit did damage, both to the UK and the EU, but will it be seen as the catalyst for the latter's eventual demise? Time will tell but imo no, as I hope and believe that the EU can survive.

You are confusing me with someone else. I certainly don't see many sunny uplands, either in my dreams or in reality. Has the EU under Von der Leyen failed to lead? Many commentators argue the opposite i.e. that she has been too assertive and headstrong. She does - or should - take her direction from the Council (Heads of State). No nation is free of problems and the UK is no different. From diplomatic, economic and political standpoints, I strongly believe that the UK was better off as an EU member. However, imo the biggest downside of Brexit - or more exactly the referendum - was that it brought the divisions in the country into the open. Some might argue that is no bad thing: best to be open and honest, etc. Imo the empirical evidence suggests otherwise.

I'm a Brit, Are you suggesting that I should give a <deleted>?

@Cameroni: Are you a diplomat? If not, I think that you should consider a change of career. I can't think of any other thread where so many individuals with so many disparate political opinions have been so united in their view. Congratulations. Take a bow, sir. It's down to you and your posts👏

You raise a valid concern, however, your suggested solution is a No-Go. The UK, especially England, is a densely populated nation and unused land is at a premium. Irrespective of any other considerations, we simply lack the space to build US style prison camps away from populated areas.

You've become a EUrophile. I'm delighted.