Posted on 08/30/2024 4:14:23 PM PDT by hardspunned
Resolving historical issues is primarily in Ukraine's interest, as it will not become a member of the European Union without Poland's consent, according to the Prime Minister of Poland Donald Tusk.
As reported, on Wednesday, August 28, during a meeting between Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski and his Ukrainian counterpart Dmytro Kuleba, Kuleba was asked about the historical issues that "divide our countries."
In response, Kuleba stated that if we start digging into history, Ukrainians and Poles could blame each other for various negative events. Therefore, it would be better for both countries to build the future together and leave history to historians.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsukraine.rbc.ua ...
His party lost it. PM is elected by the majority of Parliament, not directly by voters... but that's a technical issue, I agree that he basically lost it.
Churchill's Conservative party lost 189 seats of a previous majority 386 seats in 1945, and with it the office of Prime Minister. I've never understood the British people turning away from the government that got them through the war. People had very short memories back then, as they do now.
Somehow I believe that Zelensky is afraid of being tossed from his expired term of office if he brought back elections in Ukraine.
Churchill’s Conservative party lost 189 seats of a previous majority 386 seats in 1945, and with it the office of Prime Minister. I’ve never understood the British people turning away from the government that got them through the war. People had very short memories back then, as they do now.
Churchill’s Cabinet included members of the three largest political parties, so you really couldn’t say that the wartime government was “Conservative”. And basically all the Tories had at the time was Churchill, while Labour actually did come up with a post-war plan that at the time people supported.
Now the Plan obviously didn’t work out, since Churchill was back as PM by 1950.
“Must be the reason why 90% of your posts refer to our dirty European ethnic and religious disputes.”
That’s right. That’s what it’s really all about, Not defending democracy and not defending Europe. You can all cut each other’s throats as far as I’m concerned.
I never chose to claim it was Conservative or otherwise. That's another argument all together, and not the topic here. I called it the Conservative Party, because that was the name of the party he belonged to in 1945, and ran in. I'm not going to do historical revisionism and call it something it wasn't called in 1945.
“ I have no idea.”
Clearly. But nevertheless you wrote dozens of posts about that and will keep doing so.
********************************************************
Dozens? Well, my Polish prince, you have a way of conflating posts from multiple FReepers. Carry on with you Polish/Ukrainian advocacy.
Here in Britain the office of Prime Minister is not directly elected. The only electorate Churchill faced was that of his constituency, Woodford. In 1945 he was reelected with a majority of 17,200. In 1950 his majority was 18,449, in 1951 18,579, in 1955 15,808 and in 1959 it was 14,797.
Throughout the years of the Attlee government nothing but universal respect was shown to Churchill by the government, Parliament, the press or the public at large. The idea that Churchill personally was rejected is a myth.
On his death the nation came to a halt. As a young man I was among the hundreds of thousands who waited at vantage points on the railway between London and Banbury to see his coffin pass on a single open rail wagon on the way to his final destination, the family plot at Blenheim. That was not the tribute of a nation which had 'rejected' the man.
Sorry to bother again, but Mr. Dfwgator is right in his assessment that the Labour Party indeed had viable plans to manage the most pressing issues which followed the cessation of hostilities: feeding the nation, providing clothing, basic medical services and a roof over the heads of those who had lost theirs.
Churchill was a magnificent war leader, no doubt, but in peacetime, with many other pressing problems at hand, he was not seen as the right man at the helm.
A few Britons also (secretly) thought that he had assumed too much of the airs of an autocrat, this grinded the gears of a good few voters, who thought that it couldn’t harm him to be taken down a peg. The British are, for the most part, too democratic- minded to tolerate too much haughtiness in the people whom they elect…
Furthermore, the British voting system, with its „first past the post“ principle, disadvantaged the Conservative Party in the 1945 general election. Still, its strong point is to nearly always provide a stable majority in the House of Commons.
Still, Churchill returned to the helm in 1951 😀
Sorry to bother again, but Mr. Dfwgator is right in his assessment that the Labour Party indeed had viable plans to manage the most pressing issues which followed the cessation of hostilities: feeding the nation, providing clothing, basic medical services and a roof over the heads of those who had lost theirs.
One of those things was also allowing mass immigration from the colonies, especially Jamaica. Would that have happened under the Tories?
To be honest, I am not really sure. The British Nationality Act of 1948, which enabled this migration, was drafted at the pinnacle of enthusiasm for the new concept of the British Commonwealth.
This was supposed to supplant the British Empire, which by now was on its last legs, and (unfortunately, as we now know, but hindsight is always 20/20🙁) the British government wanted to save what was salvageable, so to say.
After WW2, Britain‘s colonies and dominions had decided to introduce citizenships of their own, abandoning the old common citizenship status of „British subject“, which was considered obsolete by then.
And, iirc, the new act had support from both Labour and the Conservatives, because at that time hardly anyone believed in mass migration to the British Isles.
Wikipedia does have an article on the subject which is quite good: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Nationality_Act_1948
Still, I am sure that it would not have passed if its consequences could have been foreseen 🙁
Also the war left Britain bereft of manpower for their factories, so at the time importing workers from the Empire made some sense. But it certainly had long-term ramifications.
Yes, it did. But a British historian once told me that the loss of British lives in World War 2 was not the only factor: the other was that several hundred thousand British soldiers were not demobilized until 1950.
These men were, of course, missing from the factories, the workbenches, the farms and the mines.
And in 1962, immigration to Britain from the Commonwealth was finally restricted: from now on, you needed a work voucher- or you had to be the spouse or minor child of someone with a work voucher.
Immigration from the Caribbean didn't get going on any scale until the late 1950s ('the Windrush generation') when the Tories were long back in power. Far from being discouraged, the Tory Government actively welcomed it to meet persistent postwar labour shortages in various sectors. One of the main stimuli was a Caribbean recruitment drive by the then Health Secretary for workers in the new NHS. His name? Enoch Powell.
Subsequently the first restrictions were imposed in the 1968 Commonwealth Immigrants Act - introduced by a Labour government....
Lots of shades of grey on this issue. As always in British politics, parties and their policies resist neat pigeonholing...
The drawback of immigration wasn’t from the people who came over, it came from when they started to have offspring, who had no appreciation of the new country.
You are both right, Gentlemen. Lots of grey on this issue - and immigrants‘ children, many of whom were unappreciative of Britain and all which she has to offer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.