GWB: "I wish I was a better speaker. This guy can really . . . he can talk."

[Stoned_Rider]

and come on... no tribute thread to Blair? :nono:

Bush's tribute to Blair (http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2007290450,00.html?BAC-Y5A002905903)



President Bush told The Sun in a world exclusive interview: "Tony's had a great run and history will judge him kindly. He's a very talented man, for whom I've got a great deal of respect.

...

Mr Bush said Mr Blair is blessed with a world-class ability to communicate. He went on: "Tony's great skill, and I wish I had it, is that he's very articulate.

"I wish I was a better speaker. This guy can really . . . he can talk.

"He's given some really good speeches here on US soil. He's a very good writer, obviously, and a very good speaker too.

"We have different speaking styles, of course.

"He's much more kind of lofty and eloquent than I am. I tend to be just pretty matter of fact."


ooh and this is a classic...


Former aide ANTHONY GIDDENS told of a party in Holland at which Mr Blair was approached by a smart, middle-aged woman who introduced herself as Beatrice. Lord Giddens recalled: "Tony said, 'Hi, Beatrice. What do you do?' The woman replied, 'I'm the Queen'."

[sorabji_66]

[QUOTE=Stoned_Rider;651562]and come on... no tribute thread to Blair? :nono:


3rd best PM over the past century, behind Churchill and Thatcher.

not bad for Labour.

[aventine]

GWB is right, he's not a very good speaker at all and I think he comes across as less intelligent than he actually is.

That seems to work in his favour to some extent. Because he seems more "average" than other presidential candidates and hence the average person may feel they're able to relate to him more...

You have to win the median voters after all.

[airjaw]

ol Dubya's speeches consist of : 9/11 9/11 Al Qaeda Al Qaeda 9/11 9/11 Al Qaeda Al Qaeda 9/11 9/11 Al Qaeda Al Qaeda 9/11 9/11 Al Qaeda Al Qaeda 9/11 9/11 Al Qaeda Al Qaeda 9/11 9/11 Al Qaeda Al Qaeda 9/11 9/11 Al Qaeda Al Qaeda 9/11 9/11 Al Qaeda Al Qaeda 9/11 9/11 Al Qaeda Al Qaeda

and amazingly, it works. He's an incredible speaker. anyone that can use Al Qaeda and 9/11 more than ten times in all his speeches and still garner the support of the American public truly knows what he's doing.

[omnirook]

GWB is right, he's not a very good speaker at all and I think he comes across as less intelligent than he actually is.

That seems to work in his favour to some extent. Because he seems more "average" than other presidential candidates and hence the average person may feel they're able to relate to him more...

You have to win the median voters after all.

Apparently you are unaware that, for decades, teams of scholars and psychologists and psychiatrists have gotten together to analyze the speech and writing of each president to estimate his IQ. This analysis is taken very seriously by historians; it is not a game. Of all the presidents in US history, Dubya has the lowest IQ, coming in at a mere 95, which is average - which means way too stupid to be in the White House. In descending order, the 5 highest IQ's are: Clinton, Carter, Nixon, Kennedy, Franklin Roosevelt. Previously, the official "stupidest president" was: Dubya's hero', Reagan! (98) Estimating Clinton and Carter's IQ's was made easy by the fact that both men have been formally tested. According to the APA, an IQ of above 140 is genius range. Clinton, Carter, Nixon, and FDR all fit very comfortably w/in that range. Mr Clinton's officially confirmed IQ is 177; Mr Carter's is 173. Mr Clinton having won a Rhodes' scholarship is no mystery - and neither is Dubya's having gotten into ivy league schools: nepotism.

Prior to holding elected office, this imbecile ran 3 corporations into the ground. Then he ran Texas into the ground. Now he has run the US into the ground. Dubya is a serial bankrupter! Every organization which he has ever touched has wound up bankrupt.

[Lateralus]

And there's talk about him becoming the next commissioner of baseball after he leaves office...:wtf: Selig isn't great, but Bush would be a disaster.

[Ferrus]

Clinton, Carter, Nixon
Their careers do suggest that you can be too intelligent to hold public office however - mainly because the higher the IQ the less likely you are to genuinely agree with the moral consensus of the time.

[omnirook]

Their careers do suggest that you can be too intelligent to hold public office however - mainly because the higher the IQ the less likely you are to genuinely agree with the moral consensus of the time.

That is true. However, it was Clinton's astounding intelligence that allowed him to be an effective president, no matter how the establishment tried to derail him. Had Dubya been up against what Clinton fought off successfully, no doubt Cheney would be in the Oval Office. But Dubya has had an easy ride, very easy, in perfect accord w/his youth, when Daddy Bush cushioned him all along the way.

Baseball Commissioner? Maybe softball - that's all that Dubya has ever played! The hardball that Clinton played would have killed him.

[sorabji_66]

Their careers do suggest that you can be too intelligent to hold public office however - mainly because the higher the IQ the less likely you are to genuinely agree with the moral consensus of the time.


Carter, high IQ?

sorry...

made worse by his extremely vindictive bitterness.

[omnirook]

It should be noted that an average chimpanzee has an IQ that is above that of many retarded human beings. An IQ below 60 qualifies as severely retarded, w/diapering and spoon feeding coming into the picture at an IQ of about 55. The average human being, w/an IQ of between 93 and 103, is not particularly intelligent. It must be remembered that the IQ rating is on a curve, w/points having more signifigance as one goes further in either direction. A person w/an IQ of 120 is virtually geometrically more intelligent than a person who has an IQ of 110. The highest IQ ever measured - and confirmed! - was that of an 8 year-old Japanese boy whose IQ was estimated to be 208. You see, after 200, there is no meaningful measure because there simply are not enough people at that level to help prepare the tests.

[demagogic_schizoid]

Apparently you are unaware that, for decades, teams of scholars and psychologists and psychiatrists have gotten together to analyze the speech and writing of each president to estimate his IQ. This analysis is taken very seriously by historians; it is not a game. Of all the presidents in US history, Dubya has the lowest IQ, coming in at a mere 95, which is average - which means way too stupid to be in the White House. In descending order, the 5 highest IQ's are: Clinton, Carter, Nixon, Kennedy, Franklin Roosevelt. Previously, the official "stupidest president" was: Dubya's hero', Reagan! (98) Estimating Clinton and Carter's IQ's was made easy by the fact that both men have been formally tested. According to the APA, an IQ of above 140 is genius range. Clinton, Carter, Nixon, and FDR all fit very comfortably w/in that range. Mr Clinton's officially confirmed IQ is 177; Mr Carter's is 173.

where do you get this shit from? there's no evidence that Clinton's IQ is 177, and no evidence that Bush's IQ is 95. Trawl the net. These are just rumours, nobody has ever backed them up.

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=292960


http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:X2PqNWiwSw0J:hem.bredband.net/b153434/Q%26A/Q%26A_2.htm+clinton+IQ&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=uk

[omnirook]

where do you get this shit from? there's no evidence that Clinton's IQ is 177, and no evidence that Bush's IQ is 95. Trawl the net. These are just rumours, nobody has ever backed them up.

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=292960


http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:X2PqNWiwSw0J:hem.bredband.net/b153434/Q%26A/Q%26A_2.htm+clinton+IQ&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=uk

You're referring to the Lowenstein hoax, I know. Alas, that was not the only estimate of presidential iq's ever done. Carter and Clinton were both formally tested; that is a matter of record, though I got their numbers wrong: Carter's was 176 and Clinton's was 182. Gore has a tested iq of 133. Clinton's SAT score was 1355 out of a possible 1400. That is also a matter of public record. Other presidential iq's have been estimated. To be fair, though I despise him, a conservative report estimated George Walker Bush's iq at 119. Also, he scored 1205 on his SAT's (which do not measure intelligence but retention of lessons). So, Dubya's memory ranks in the top 16% of the American public.

[demagogic_schizoid]

You're referring to the Lowenstein hoax, I know. Alas, that was not the only estimate of presidential iq's ever done. Carter and Clinton were both formally tested; that is a matter of record, though I got their numbers wrong: Carter's was 176 and Clinton's was 182. Gore has a tested iq of 133. Clinton's SAT score was 1355 out of a possible 1400. That is also a matter of public record. Other presidential iq's have been estimated. To be fair, though I despise him, a conservative report estimated George Walker Bush's iq at 119. Also, he scored 1205 on his SAT's (which do not measure intelligence but retention of lessons). So, Dubya's memory ranks in the top 16% of the American public.


Have you seen an IQ bell-curve? If IQ actually has any validity, then those scores would make Clinton and Carter practically super-human; those scores are not even on the graph, they would be in the top 0.0000001% or something. I'd imagine being that "clever" would make normal human interaction impossible wouldn't it, and surely such people would be working on extremely complicated scientific creations or something; assuming they not simply autistic or savants.

I just read that modern day analysts put Einstein's IQ at about 160. Are you asking me to believe that Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton had higher IQ's than Einstein?

[PiccoloNamek]

Mr Clinton's officially confirmed IQ is 177


though I got their numbers wrong... and Clinton's was 182

I have nothing against Mr. Clinton whatsoever, but somehow, I just can't believe that. That would put him among the absolute smartest people on the entire planet, up there with the ranks of people like Stephen Hawking (etc), and one of the smartest people who has ever lived, period. An IQ that high is nothing less than freakishly abnormal and an incredibly rare occurrence.

As DS said, it is literally off the scale.

Besides, there is nothing in his behavior or accomplishments that would ever lead me to believe he has an IQ approaching 200.

[Zephyrus055]

I have to think that Teddy Roosevelt was the smartest president ever. He literally crushed a powerful plutocracy and consolidated power to him, and maneuvered the US in to becoming a world power.

[aventine]

Analysing Bush's speeches to say his IQ is 95? I of course do not know what method they use, but what I said before was that his speeches make him come across as dumber than he really is, because he's not very good at giving speeches. My guess is that he would score a bit higher than 95 if he sat down and did an IQ test.

Regardless of whether his IQ is really 95 or higher, my point was that you don't need an IQ of 177 to win a popularity contest. You want to win the median voters, and his IQ of 95+ benefits him to some extent, perhaps because more average Joes can relate to him.

[omnirook]

Have you seen an IQ bell-curve? If IQ actually has any validity, then those scores would make Clinton and Carter practically super-human; those scores are not even on the graph, they would be in the top 0.0000001% or something. I'd imagine being that "clever" would make normal human interaction impossible wouldn't it, and surely such people would be working on extremely complicated scientific creations or something; assuming they not simply autistic or savants.

I just read that modern day analysts put Einstein's IQ at about 160. Are you asking me to believe that Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton had higher IQ's than Einstein?

Do you mean to tell me that you are unaware that there are a variety of IQ tests avaiable? The one that Kennedy took was later deemed to be inaccurate, so that his given IQ of 119 should have been 132 ... I'm not an expert on the IQ tests. I don't claim to be - nor did I claim to be. However, I do know what I have read. There have been a variety of articles and essays and even lists of the IQ's or estimated IQ's of famous people, including US Presidents. In the "Book of Lists" by the Wallace Family, for instance, many of the famous people on the list of "Famous People's IQ's" have IQ's above 130. Obviously, the standards used in that book differ from the standards that you are pointing out. "The Book of Lists" was published in 2 volumes, sometime in the early 1980's. It was authored by Mike Wallace and members of his family. Mike Wallace was, I believe, fairly highly regarded as a journalist, was deemed a man w/some degree of integrity, so I doubt that he made up the data for the various lists in the books. In "The Book of Lists," Wallace asserted that the highest IQ ever estimated (it could not be measured) was 205 and belonged to a 9 year-old Japanese boy, who was already fluent in 14 modern languages. Maybe Wallace made that up - but if he did, I don't think that he would have stayed a news anchor for very long, at least not back in the 80's when there was still a drop or two of integrity in the media. As for Carter's IQ, it was tested when he was in the navy, and the results given were ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY SIX, and they are a matter of PUBLIC RECORD. Do I know how the US Navy's IQ test compares to your favorite test? No. My own score was 141; my sister's was 139 - but who the fuck knows what that really means? All I know is that Mr Waldman (my middle school vice-principal) told my mother, "This is a very, very intelligent boy. He does not like math - but he can do it. His score says that he can do it." I don't know what test the New York City Board of Education favored in 1977 - whatever it was, that was the test that I was given, and 141 was "very, very intelligent."

[omnirook]

I have nothing against Mr. Clinton whatsoever, but somehow, I just can't believe that. That would put him among the absolute smartest people on the entire planet, up there with the ranks of people like Stephen Hawking (etc), and one of the smartest people who has ever lived, period. An IQ that high is nothing less than freakishly abnormal and an incredibly rare occurrence.

As DS said, it is literally off the scale.

Besides, there is nothing in his behavior or accomplishments that would ever lead me to believe he has an IQ approaching 200.

I don't know. I've not met him. However, Ted Sorenson has. Mr Sorenson is famous as John Kennedy's speechwriter and "special counsel." Mr Sorenson commented on Mr Clinton's intelligence in an interview that I heard recently. Mr Sorenson said that Mr Clinton's easy charm and affability allowed most people to underestimate his intelligence but that, once one speaks to him one-to-one, one is quickly awed by the man's "astounding intelligence." Mr Sorenson commented that it was impossible to speak to Bill Clinton for longer than a few minutes w/o realizing that one is in the presence of a man whose intelligence is well beyond what one might find even among intelligent people. The problem that Mr Sorenson noted, however, was that Clinton's intelligence was so great that one simply could not get past it to find the man underneath - that Bill Clinton was virtually a device w/an ability to find out one's own most personal secrets w/o ever revealing anything about himself. In the end, Mr Sorenson said, the main problem w/Bill Clinton is that he is so much smarter than other people that he cannot relate to them in a meaningful way, so that he, instead, tries to please everybody because he wants to be liked and loved. Mr Sorenson also discussed Misters Nixon and Carter and put them in Clinton's category for brilliance - and cited that all 3 suffered for having been so intelligent, that their administrations were not helped but hurt by their intelligence. In Mr Kennedy's case, Mr Sorenson made it clear that Kennedy was brilliant but more of a feeler than a thinker. He said that Kennedy always, always cared to the breaking point and beyond.

[Dom]

and come on... no tribute thread to Blair? :nono:


3rd best PM over the past century, behind Churchill and Thatcher.

not bad for Labour.

Both those others were crap, Churchill especially, he had the foresight of a blind mole, read 'churchill; the end of glory' or 'churchill's grand alliance' for a properly research opinion on him...

Of course loads of others, including himself, thought he was great, but have a look if you can get your hands on one of those books.



In the beginning was the wrod, and the word was /churchill's and he pronounced it good.

[omnirook]

Both those others were crap, Churchill especially, he had the foresight of a blind mole, read 'churchill; the end of glory' or 'churchill's grand alliance' for a properly research opinion on him...

Of course loads of others, including himself, thought he was great, but have a look if you can get your hands on one of those books.

Churchill had moments of insight, surely ... I have read Churchill's 5 volume "History of the English Speaking Peoples." I quite enjoyed it, though, as he himself admitted, it was obvious that he was an amateur historian w/more love for his subject than discretion.

Sir Winston Churchill was a brilliant man - in his own way. His sheer stubborness was of a calibre that has rarely been matched. I am certain that he was the sort of man to whom it was extremely difficult if not impossible to say "No." Churchill got things done: give him that much; that much is certainly his due ... Churchill's greatest fault was his failure to realize and accept that the British Empire had come to an end as a polity. George VI and Elizabeth II showed far more understanding in this case. Their Majesties gently nudged Churchill in the direction of the Commonwealth. Lord Mountbatten was able, w/the help of the king, to convince Churchill that it was time to let India go. Queen Elizabeth was able to convince Churchill that it was time to retire (or at least leave office: her desire to elevate him to the peerage w/the title, The Duke of London, was turned down because Churchill could not give up hopes of at least taking a seat in the Commons, even if he could not get a portfolio in the government). (I suspect that this is behind John Major's refusal to accept a peerage. Also, I doubt that Tony Blair will accept a peerage - though I believe that both should. After all, the height of grace is knowing when it is time to GET LOST!)

The delicious "problem" w/rating UK prime ministers is that they are forever barred from shinning too brightly. This is one of the things that I most admire about the Westminster System of government. The prime minister is simply not the head of state! - though I frequently found myself annoyed w/Tony Blair's attempts to act like one. Even so, despite Lords Reform, which I still adamantly oppose - the UK will regret having done it! - and, especially, despite Iraq and despite playing "poodle" to the Pig, I do feel that Tony Blair did a decent job.

Gordon Brown is to Tony Blair what John Major was to Margaret Thatcher ...

[Ferrus]

no doubt Cheney would be in the Oval Office.
Some articles I have read suggest that in effect, he already is after a fashion.


The delicious "problem" w/rating UK prime ministers is that they are forever barred from shinning too brightly. This is one of the things that I most admire about the Westminster System of government. The prime minister is simply not the head of state! - though I frequently found myself annoyed w/Tony Blair's attempts to act like one. Even so, despite Lords Reform, which I still adamantly oppose - the UK will regret having done it! - and, especially, despite Iraq and despite playing "poodle" to the Pig, I do feel that Tony Blair did a decent job.
There was some very intellectual Prime Ministers in the 19th century, Gladstone worte lengthy academic treatises on Homer, Rosebury and Balfour had both published philosophy and Lord Derby could speak Latin fluently. But the 20th century has largely seen those of better than average intelligence. Lloyd George was quite a similar personality to Clinton, but was not academic by any means, and Churchill did terribly at school. Atlee... close to an intellectual but too practical a minded man. Thatcher and Blair were intelligent people but not extraordinarily so. Interestingly I read an article about whether Brown is an intellectual - Brown is probably the most bookish PM since Balfour. He was in a fast track system for gifted young children, going to university two years earlier than most, he has had an academic book published, has a PhD, worked as a university lecturer and self-taught himself economics to the extent he can keep up with detailed techically debates on the issues. He is said to obsessively read books on history and social sciences and ignore novels, and is said to view with disdain those who have ideas but don't put them into practice, which sounds as if he is an ISTP, but I'm convinced he must have an IQ of at least 150-160. He is said to lock himself in rooms and spend hours obsessively on reports and documents, and is clearly nervous with the public spotlight and find relating with others difficult - hence when he first entered 10 Downing Street he found it hard to oblige the paparrazi's request to wave.

Does anyone have any idea what Woodrow Wilson's IQ is? I only ask because he was one of the few Presidents whose ideas genuinely changed a field of study - his doctrine of 'liberal idealism' in Internation Relations.

[Dom]

Churchill had moments of insight, surely ... I have read Churchill's 5 volume "History of the English Speaking Peoples." I quite enjoyed it, though, as he himself admitted, it was obvious that he was an amateur historian w/more love for his subject than discretion.

Sir Winston Churchill was a brilliant man - in his own way. His sheer stubborness was of a calibre that has rarely been matched. I am certain that he was the sort of man to whom it was extremely difficult if not impossible to say "No." Churchill got things done: give him that much; that much is certainly his due ... Churchill's greatest fault was his failure to realize and accept that the British Empire had come to an end as a polity. George VI and Elizabeth II showed far more understanding in this case. Their Majesties gently nudged Churchill in the direction of the Commonwealth. Lord Mountbatten was able, w/the help of the king, to convince Churchill that it was time to let India go. Queen Elizabeth was able to convince Churchill that it was time to retire (or at least leave office: her desire to elevate him to the peerage w/the title, The Duke of London, was turned down because Churchill could not give up hopes of at least taking a seat in the Commons, even if he could not get a portfolio in the government). (I suspect that this is behind John Major's refusal to accept a peerage. Also, I doubt that Tony Blair will accept a peerage - though I believe that both should. After all, the height of grace is knowing when it is time to GET LOST!)

The delicious "problem" w/rating UK prime ministers is that they are forever barred from shinning too brightly. This is one of the things that I most admire about the Westminster System of government. The prime minister is simply not the head of state! - though I frequently found myself annoyed w/Tony Blair's attempts to act like one. Even so, despite Lords Reform, which I still adamantly oppose - the UK will regret having done it! - and, especially, despite Iraq and despite playing "poodle" to the Pig, I do feel that Tony Blair did a decent job.

Gordon Brown is to Tony Blair what John Major was to Margaret Thatcher ...


To be honest Churchills biggest mistake was selling the empire in return for lend-lease in the atlantic charter, his empire stance was always on a back foot after that. he gets even more interesting whne you start reading the diaries of the chiefs of staff like Allenbrooke, arguing with him about strategy and ideas, for crying out loud he wanted to make aircraft carriers out of iceburgs!!

His main contribution was to moral in the early years, though it is falsely attributed to him that he won the battel of Britian. That honour actually goes to Chamberline, who focused prewar rearmament efforts on fighters while Churchil was arguing in the house for bombers.... I think we would have bene rather stuck if we had even one squardron of few fighters in 1940.

His calls for another grand alliance, again during Chamberlines days, seemd to take no notice of the fact there was no one to ally with, Russia was massively distrusted due to beign soviet, and also signed that pact anyway, ther was France but their miltray and economy were of no use either, in the prewar years French Defence spending, as a percentage of GDP, dropped as well as the GDP dropped. THe Americans were in their most isolationist mood, Italy was Facist before Germany was... Who exactly was there to ally with?

After the battle of Britian his military messings about became a hinderance, Allenbrooke talks about hours of arguing in 43 about operations roundup and sciily all at the same time... His grasp of opperational matters was slim at best.

However, his speical relationship with the much more competent FDR is his biggest mistake, His ideas of Anglo-saxonism the idea that BRitian could be the greeks in teh new roman (US) empire were so naive it was unbelivable. Only his outbursts at Yalta saved bits of the empire, but still we were then tied forever to the US's coat tails, all for a bunch of out of date machines delivered in lend-lease, that the British would have to pay for, that according to my grandfather didn't work anyway.

Even after lend-lease 80% of imported resources for fighting the war came from the British Empire. If Britian had remained more independent there is no reason that she couldn't have maintained better relationship with Stalin in teh post war era. Britan was ready to pay Stalins territorial price, but FDR was no, an dso Britian remained quiet and so Stalin took everything instead of being contained, As if having won the war he was ever going to settle back to 1939 borders?

Eden had much more foresight, and if Chruchil had not stopped him, he would have paid more attention to post war planing in Foregin office terms, than britian ended up doing, Chruchill's insistence on "First you catch your hare" left britian unpreapred and unable to defend herself from the US, which FDR had assutely been preparing to take over, having realised that she would be the only creditor nation.

Churchill effectively sold rbitish indepence in return for Lend-Lease which actually had very little opperational value when compared to the contribution made by the Empire and Dominions.

[Dom]

The delicious "problem" w/rating UK prime ministers is that they are forever barred from shinning too brightly. This is one of the things that I most admire about the Westminster System of government. The prime minister is simply not the head of state! - though I frequently found myself annoyed w/Tony Blair's attempts to act like one. Even so, despite Lords Reform, which I still adamantly oppose - the UK will regret having done it! - and, especially, despite Iraq and despite playing "poodle" to the Pig, I do feel that Tony Blair did a decent job.


What worries e more than Lords reform is Gordon's desire to revist the bill of irghts, and the British Consitution... if that man is silly enough to try to write it down I swear I'll be marching....

[Ferrus]

To be honest Churchills biggest mistake was selling the empire in return for lend-lease in the atlantic charter
Frankly he had no choice but to do that, Britain after the Battle of France needed all the resources available. And the empire was going to collapse soon anyway - the winds of change as Macmillan said - were blowing hard. Unlike the late 19th century there were strong nationalist movements, European sumpremacy had been decisively dashed by the Japanese in WW2 and even without the land-lease programme, the empire was losing money on the colonies for no real purpose.

[omnirook]

Some articles I have read suggest that in effect, he already is after a fashion.


There was some very intellectual Prime Ministers in the 19th century, Gladstone worte lengthy academic treatises on Homer, Rosebury and Balfour had both published philosophy and Lord Derby could speak Latin fluently. But the 20th century has largely seen those of better than average intelligence. Lloyd George was quite a similar personality to Clinton, but was not academic by any means, and Churchill did terribly at school. Atlee... close to an intellectual but too practical a minded man. Thatcher and Blair were intelligent people but not extraordinarily so. Interestingly I read an article about whether Brown is an intellectual - Brown is probably the most bookish PM since Balfour. He was in a fast track system for gifted young children, going to university two years earlier than most, he has had an academic book published, has a PhD, worked as a university lecturer and self-taught himself economics to the extent he can keep up with detailed techically debates on the issues. He is said to obsessively read books on history and social sciences and ignore novels, and is said to view with disdain those who have ideas but don't put them into practice, which sounds as if he is an ISTP, but I'm convinced he must have an IQ of at least 150-160. He is said to lock himself in rooms and spend hours obsessively on reports and documents, and is clearly nervous with the public spotlight and find relating with others difficult - hence when he first entered 10 Downing Street he found it hard to oblige the paparrazi's request to wave.

Does anyone have any idea what Woodrow Wilson's IQ is? I only ask because he was one of the few Presidents whose ideas genuinely changed a field of study - his doctrine of 'liberal idealism' in Internation Relations.

I don't know about Wilson. I don't doubt that he was an intelligent man. The problem w/Wilson was that he lacked skill in public relations. I doubt that he could be elected nowadays.

If one looks at British history, one sees distinct phases wherein the quality of the leadership was improved generation after generation up until modern times. Yes, this is in retrospect - certainly each generation had its share of malcontents who railed against the then current leaders. Point is, the press got lost along the way. In the past, newspapers would doggedly function on shoe-string budgets because their publishers were ideologically committed. There was a newspaper in print for every stripe of sentiment, and publishing was not about profit. Then non-media corporations interested themselves in the press. Their first concern is always profit - but they also realized that controlling the media means controlling the public. The wiping out of nearly all the independent publishers and the consolidation of the media into a few corporate hands was DELIBERATE and has had a devastating effect on politics. Now those who seek office must appeal to the public - and serve their corporate masters. Most of the leaders prior to Thatcher and Reagan would never get into office if they were running today - even in the UK, which has always boasted a host of dedicated politicians who truly believed in their platforms. But that's changing. If the trend continues, a man like Churchill would not get elected simply because he is not cute enough. Churchill was fat and bald - marks that would be held against him, no matter his politics or capacity for doing his job. Lincoln, who was ugly w/a high-pitched, shrill voice, would never get elected in today's America ... I believe that humanity has really lost its way. In the past, blunders were on a monumental scale; that is true - but at least successes could also be on a monumental scale. Now that the "bottom line" has won out to the extent that all that matters is profit, nobody will be allowed even the chance to make such mistakes - or achieve such wonders. Profits are maximized in an environment in which stable mediocrity prevails! A brutal sameness, a heartless, spineless, mindless, dribbling, drooling, bovine stupidity will cover the earth and impose upon humanity a corporate-controlled existence that will not brook anything beyond the smiley face that docily does as it is told to do.

[Ferrus]

I agree - and you are right about politicians before Thatcher too. Some of the greatest politicians of the post-war era - Aneurin Bevan, founder of the NHS, the reclusive, laconic Atlee who masterminded the welfare system, Harold Wilson, even Edward Heath, all of whom were very intelligent men probably would not make it now. The fate of John Major says a lot about what happens to you if you don't fulfill the media image. He was the 'grey prime minister', the man who ran away from the circus (his family were circus owners) to become an accountant as Private Eye famously lampooned. Actually it is something I have noticed, though satire is rather good here there has been, and always is (one need only look back to Punch) a deep-rooted philistinism in British culture that disdains new ideas and thinking for yourself. Which I suppose brings Brown in - I fear the same may happen to Gordon Brown as John Major, who is undoubtedly intelligent, but who has a personality - typical of strict Presbytarian Scottish families, which is dour, hardworking and has no time for 'glitz'.

One of the turning points in British political history - for all the wrong reason's was the Profumo affair. A British minister caught with his pants down in the prescence of a high profile courtesan who was also sleeping with a top Soviet attache... in the 20's or 30's and before the press would have conveniently disregarded it. Many high profile figures had sordid sex lives - Lloyd George was infamous, and Asquith was little better. There was even a case in the 20's where a minister was caught by the police in the possession of child pornography. He committed suicide - the press merely reported the suicide. But the frothing, frivolously moralistic, prurient press had to make a massive issue of the Profumo affair and so set the pattern for press reporting since.

I should imagine the same is very much true in the USA - though I suppose there was not such a watershed moment in political reporting. There was Watergate, and though the press's method of reporting was a trifle dubious it was ultimately a right cause. Clinton and Blair are very similar political figures - both are the 'soft-left' ready to sell a bit of their principles for time in office. Blair and Brown were once fervid supporters of Michael Foot, one of the most leftist leaders any political party in the UK has had. And they abandoned their principles for Thatcherite economics, for a slice of power. I daresay if a Democrat wins in 2008 it will be through the same method. People dislike overly right-wing people, after they have been in office, even if they feel 'safe' with their policies. What these soft-leftists give is a cuddly figure who says nice things but implements right wing policies nonetheless and by promising to do so appeases big business who would otherwise pillory them in the doltish tabloids. Indeed, look at Hilary Clinton (if ever their was a vaulting ambition) has she not decisively swung to the right for the sake of political power?

[apple]

I agree - and you are right about politicians before Thatcher too. Some of the greatest politicians of the post-war era - Aneurin Bevan, founder of the NHS, the reclusive, laconic Atlee who masterminded the welfare system, Harold Wilson, even Edward Heath, all of whom were very intelligent men probably would not make it now. The fate of John Major says a lot about what happens to you if you don't fulfill the media image. He was the 'grey prime minister', the man who ran away from the circus (his family were circus owners) to become an accountant as Private Eye famously lampooned. Actually it is something I have noticed, though satire is rather good here there has been, and always is (one need only look back to Punch) a deep-rooted philistinism in British culture that disdains new ideas and thinking for yourself. Which I suppose brings Brown in - I fear the same may happen to Gordon Brown as John Major, who is undoubtedly intelligent, but who has a personality - typical of strict Presbytarian Scottish families, which is dour, hardworking and has no time for 'glitz'.

One of the turning points in British political history - for all the wrong reason's was the Profumo affair. A British minister caught with his pants down in the prescence of a high profile courtesan who was also sleeping with a top Soviet attache... in the 20's or 30's and before the press would have conveniently disregarded it. Many high profile figures had sordid sex lives - Lloyd George was infamous, and Asquith was little better. There was even a case in the 20's where a minister was caught by the police in the possession of child pornography. He committed suicide - the press merely reported the suicide. But the frothing, frivolously moralistic, prurient press had to make a massive issue of the Profumo affair and so set the pattern for press reporting since.

I should imagine the same is very much true in the USA - though I suppose there was not such a watershed moment in political reporting. There was Watergate, and though the press's method of reporting was a trifle dubious it was ultimately a right cause. Clinton and Blair are very similar political figures - both are the 'soft-left' ready to sell a bit of their principles for time in office. Blair and Brown were once fervid supporters of Michael Foot, one of the most leftist leaders any political party in the UK has had. And they abandoned their principles for Thatcherite economics, for a slice of power. I daresay if a Democrat wins in 2008 it will be through the same method. People dislike overly right-wing people, after they have been in office, even if they feel 'safe' with their policies. What these soft-leftists give is a cuddly figure who says nice things but implements right wing policies nonetheless and by promising to do so appeases big business who would otherwise pillory them in the doltish tabloids. Indeed, look at Hilary Clinton (if ever their was a vaulting ambition) has she not decisively swung to the right for the sake of political power?

I find there is little difference between extreme leftists and the conservative right. "Soft-lefties" as you say represent the common ground, and are most able to implement their strategies by both working towards people's interests at large and through corporate support. I think it would be terribly na?ve to say that a political power can be had by someone who is entirely grass roots in campaign. We are living in a time of multi-national corporations in an era of globalization and a politician without that backing will never be heard of in the press nor ever be able to accomplish any of her goals.

As far as Thatcherite economics, I think it was her way of embracing what the British had formerly considered vulgar: "new money" by partnering with America, which the UK had once cast aside with careful disdain, was her way of marrying off a proud, but declining country to bring it back to her old glory. If that isn't ambition, then I can't say what is.

[Dom]

Frankly he had no choice but to do that, Britain after the Battle of France needed all the resources available. And the empire was going to collapse soon anyway - the winds of change as Macmillan said - were blowing hard. Unlike the late 19th century there were strong nationalist movements, European sumpremacy had been decisively dashed by the Japanese in WW2 and even without the land-lease programme, the empire was losing money on the colonies for no real purpose.

You are looking at history through hindsight. I think it is reasonable to challenge that the end of empire was not a forgone conclusion. WW2 started the end of it, without WW" it would certainly have lasted a lot longer. Besides which it is very unfashionable to try to sing the prasies of Empire, which I'm not imperialism is morally dubious, but in 1940 Britian DID NOT have to sell her empire for lend-lease, and in 1939 the only serious threat to the empire was India's independence movement, a process which I'd argue happend slightly too fast anyway, or does everyone think the partition into India and Pakistan has worked out well?

The vast majority of material resources used by Britian in WW" came form the empire, and the national movement syou tlaked abotu grew form that contribution, Britian started to develop many of her territories ecconomies during the war for the first time, and this spraked nationalism. Also Britians approach to Empire was to rasie colonies, develop them up to Dominon status, and had been since the 1840's rather htan integration into a wider homogenised power (which was the French approach).

In Southeast Asia there were several mistakes made, and the japanesse easily demonstrated that the europeans didnt' ahve what was required to defend their territories, mind you those powers were somewhat busy being occupied in most cases.

Churchil left dealing with the post war world till the war was over, he was blind to anything other than the war, obssessed by it, by the end of the battle of BRitian there was no real threat to Britan, without air supperiority there could never have been an opperation sealion. form that point he should have been concerned about Britians role as a power after the war, his solution was to put all his eggs in with the Americans, when you read some of his Anglo-Saxonism magazine stuff you can see why, He made the mistake of thinking what would be in Americas interest would also be in Britians, he misjudge how the Americans viewed us and so we got a harder deal than he thought he struck. He didnt' even think we'd have to repay lend-lease, he never even discussed it with FDR.

[Ferrus]

I find there is little difference between extreme leftists and the conservative right. "Soft-lefties" as you say represent the common ground, and are most able to implement their strategies by both working towards people's interests at large and through corporate support. I think it would be terribly na?ve to say that a political power can be had by someone who is entirely grass roots in campaign. We are living in a time of multi-national corporations in an era of globalization and a politician without that backing will never be heard of in the press nor ever be able to accomplish any of her goals.
This is true - but the very fact that these multi-national corporations have the clout to bully national governments is, I think, partially due to the failure of national governments to co-operate as a whole - except (note the IMF, WB and WTO) to support the goals of these organisations, and partially because many of the.

As far as Thatcherite economics, I think it was her way of embracing what the British had formerly considered vulgar: "new money" by partnering with America, which the UK had once cast aside with careful disdain, was her way of marrying off a proud, but declining country to bring it back to her old glory. If that isn't ambition, then I can't say what is.
It is something of a myth to assume that the aristocracy rejected the noveaux riche in the UK. The aristocrats - and I mean the big ones - speculated in industry from almost the outset. It is why they survived and the Tory squires - the lower aristocracy that ran local government, who didn't have the capital to be involved in industry - died as a class by the start of the 20th century. Publically aristocrats would despise talk of money, but privately they would prudentially invest. And many of the new money were made, by the government, into aristocrats in time, take Disraeli for example.

Had the UK ever cast America aside with careful disdain? Maybe in the 19th century when relations were poor - but Britain stuck doggedly, because of prevailing ideological assumptions, to free trade even though the newly emerging industries of the US and Germany were increasingly protectionist. The British countryside, including the aforementioned squires, were devastated when it was possible to freeze goods and transport them by sea, for US and Canadian farmers, who had much wider spaces, produced goods at a far lower price. Britain stuck to free trade - despite Joseph Chamerlain's attempts at imperial preference - till the Ottowa agreement late in the 30's. After the second world war the UK government was effectively tethered to the US, so I cannot see how it 'cast them aside', except perhaps refusing to participate in the Vietnam war. The reason for that was simply that the leftists in parliament under the Labour party simply wouldn't abide it.

Actually Thatcher kept the Pound high - as a measure to ensure in her opinion that British companies remained internationally competitive and didn't rest their laurels with a weak pound. As she saw it the way the Italian government protected companies by devaluing the Lira regularly was a trip to inflation.

I think it is reasonable to challenge that the end of empire was not a forgone conclusion. WW2 started the end of it, without WW" it would certainly have lasted a lot longer.
Certainly it expedited its fall, but remember Portugal lost her empire too and was not a participant in WW2. The global economic and ideological conditions after the Second World War were inimical to imperialism and would have resulted in its discerping by at least the 1970's - only 10 years or so later. Imperialism remember was a fairly short experiment - in reality the British empire proper had only been properly constituted from the 1870's onwards. Even in the Boer war there were signs of stress in it, which suggested it simply was not a viable long term prospect.

Besides which it is very unfashionable to try to sing the prasies of Empire, which I'm not imperialism is morally dubious, but in 1940 Britian DID NOT have to sell her empire for lend-lease
Er... without the food and material that was bought from the land-lease the Battle of Britain could not have been won, nor the Battle of the Atlantic.

or does everyone think the partition into India and Pakistan has worked out well?
Note however that this very partition was a half-baked plan by . And do you think hatreds between Muslims and Hindus would be abated in India if the Raj still existed? Only temporarily, and against the British prescene. It is folly and arrogance to assume the British rule could engender enlightened 'multiculturalism' in India, no matter how long it survived.

The vast majority of material resources used by Britian in WW" came form the empire[/quote]
Trade with Australia and South Africa were severely curtailed, though they did aid Britain militarily.

and the national movement syou tlaked abotu grew form that contribution, Britian started to develop many of her territories ecconomies during the war for the first time, and this spraked nationalism.
Really? I doubt it. It may have aided the movement but the general normsof international relations and zeitgeist of the era determined these nationalist movements. Nationalist ideas grew from the 20's and 30's till they reached a pitch after the Second World War. Or are you utterly unaware of what happened in Kenya? This is not because of some fashionable anti-imperialism, it is a simple fact that both of the super-powers, the US and the USSR, who became dominant after WW2 were opposed to imperialism (for differing reasons) and set about such policies that ulimately undermined it. And the empire had always been based on naval dominance - in fact after the 1860's Britain had very little leverage in Europe because it no longer had a decent army to assert its wishes there, or all the eggs had been put in the naval basket. The navy was gone, and the British people were - in the long term - simply unwilling to kill large numbers of natives just to rule patches of land that were in any case economically dubious. Imperialism was a project doomed from its inception simply because it used faulty machinery and ideological underpinnings that could not resist the batterings of time. Ultimately the essential reason for imperialism - the extraction of resources - was maintained by the post-war settlement, and that is what really mattered. The standard of living today in Britain, and other first world countries reflects that.

the end of the battle of BRitian there was no real threat to Britan, without air supperiority there could never have been an opperation sealion.
Er... there wasn't but France was still occupied and could be used as a base for further operations. Germany was still a dire threat even after that if only because of its military juggernaut and its effect on the world situation. Be serious - with the world as it was in 1941 there was absolutely no way the British government could disengage from the conflagation that had engulfed the globe.

He made the mistake of thinking what would be in Americas interest would also be in Britians, he misjudge how the Americans viewed us and so we got a harder deal than he thought he struck. He didnt' even think we'd have to repay lend-lease, he never even discussed it with FDR.
The very fact that it was called a lease suggests it would have to be re-paid. The exact manner how it was to be re-paid was never discussed, no, which was a mistake. But in the national crisis of the 40's it had to be done.

P.S. I notice in the original post Bush forgets to use the subjunctive (were). Titter.

[omnirook]

When I first joined this Forum, I remember I did some posts about the British and how I was amazed to find that there were so many modern Britons who seemed ashamed of their nation's historical performance. Well, what nation has ever done better? In terms of world cultural signifigance, I placed Britain second after Rome, explaining that British culture had its Roman underpinnings. Yes, wrong things were done - but the right and the good that was done far outnumbered and outweighed the wrong and the bad. There has always been an essential decency about the British people that may at times have been confounded, but it never failed eventually to reassert itself.

Britain is unique in the world because it is the only nation that ever lost an empire w/o also being dragged into the mud. British prestige remains high the world round, even in places where Britain is hated. Britain is still one of the world's powers, is important enough not to be ignored, can still assert itself if its leaders have the will.

Of all the shameful episodes in my own country's history, the most shameful was forcing the UK to repay the loans from World War II. I never recall that fact w/o getting angry. This country has forgiven the debts of every scumbag leader on the planet, but we did not forgive the debt of the British when they were financially troubled. Just be proud that the UK paid back every penny w/the interest due!

[Dom]

Long post

I'm not oging to get into this in a point by point case, I do not have a copy of Larry Butlers books and only a couple of Charmley's, both considered experts on the end of empire and Churchill, both proffessors at my university.

I'm sorry but lend-lease didn't start untill March 1941 and British historians consider the battle of BRitian was over in OCt 1940. She had fought the battle for her survival and won long before any serious amount of aid reached us from the US.

The battle of the atlantic was doomed to failure as the german economy could not support the production of both the massive numbers of uboats required to close the atlantic and the planes and ammunition required for Barobossa.

Also listenig nto my grandparents and their friends talk about what Lend-Lease provided is rather eye opening, they basically agree that apart from Spam it was all useless junk.

[Dom]

When I first joined this Forum, I remember I did some posts about the British and how I was amazed to find that there were so many modern Britons who seemed ashamed of their nation's historical performance. Well, what nation has ever done better? In terms of world cultural signifigance, I placed Britain second after Rome, explaining that British culture had its Roman underpinnings. Yes, wrong things were done - but the right and the good that was done far outnumbered and outweighed the wrong and the bad. There has always been an essential decency about the British people that may at times have been confounded, but it never failed eventually to reassert itself.

Britain is unique in the world because it is the only nation that ever lost an empire w/o also being dragged into the mud. British prestige remains high the world round, even in places where Britain is hated. Britain is still one of the world's powers, is important enough not to be ignored, can still assert itself if its leaders have the will.

Of all the shameful episodes in my own country's history, the most shameful was forcing the UK to repay the loans from World War II. I never recall that fact w/o getting angry. This country has forgiven the debts of every scumbag leader on the planet, but we did not forgive the debt of the British when they were financially troubled. Just be proud that the UK paid back every penny w/the interest due!

Word.

[Dom]

From wiki so not very reliable but...



Franklin D. Roosevelt, eager to ensure public consent for this controversial plan, explained to the public and the press that his plan was comparable to one neighbor's lending another a garden hose to put out a fire in his home. "What do I do in such a crisis?" the president asked at a press conference. "I don't say... 'Neighbor, my garden hose cost me $15; you have to pay me $15 for it' ?I don't want $15 ? I want my garden hose back after the fire is over." The German Embassy responded by saying that "If your neighbour's house is on fire, you don't just lend him a hose, you help him put out the fire."

doesn't suggest that 2% for 50 years would be charged does it? lol

[Ferrus]

I'm not oging to get into this in a point by point case, I do not have a copy of Larry Butlers books and only a couple of Charmley's, both considered experts on the end of empire and Churchill, both proffessors at my university.
I'm willing to accept land-lease may not have been the most prudent policy (though would D-Day have been possible without it?), but suggesting that the empire would have survived and had many glorious years without it is fantasy. As I said - it wasn't just the British Empire that was fading, and yet those other European colonies had not had similar deals in WW2.

[omnirook]

Lend-lease served several purposes, the most important of them all for America's sake. This country NEVER "gives" w/o taking back more than it "gave." America was able to begin pulling out of the Depression by selling all sorts of crap to the British (who could not afford to buy it, but Britain's credit has always been astoundingly high: witness Disraeli's purchase of Suez on his word alone and the continued granite strength of the pound sterling). That was the most important goal for Roosevelt. Also, he desperately wanted into the war because - until the serial bankrupter Dubya proved the exception - there has historically been nothing like war for making money and turning around foundering economies. Lend-lease was not just tweaking der Feuhrer's nose - it was punching it! So, Britain primed the pump for America's postwar boom. One of the few things that I have taken comfort from of late has been that the UK has gotten control over US banking and much of the US oil business. If anyone can make some ade from the lemons that the Pig has raised, it's the British. The US will have no choice but to listen closely to Britain's advice now. Maybe the war w/China will work out better than the war w/Russia. Maybe the Chinese won't do to us what we did to the Russians. Maybe.

[Ferrus]

It is, to be honest, amazing that the wartime alliance held together at all. Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin and De Gaulle were all very prideful, cyclopean characters.

[Dom]

It is, to be honest, amazing that the wartime alliance held together at all. Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin and De Gaulle were all very prideful, cyclopean characters.

It had no choice, the moment these people were no longer mutally dependent on each other, it fell apart...

Stalin, never really forgave hte allies for the lack of apromised second front in '43

[apple]

This is true - but the very fact that these multi-national corporations have the clout to bully national governments is, I think, partially due to the failure of national governments to co-operate as a whole - except (note the IMF, WB and WTO) to support the goals of these organisations, and partially because many of the.

I suppose since after WWII, the UK was tethered to the US, as you say, it would have to begrudgingly abide by the US' economic and foreign policies, since literally we're holding you in ransom. Do you see America's government then incapable of cooperating as a whole and diffused by the interests of multi-national corporations which section it off to Europe and Asia?


It is something of a myth to assume that the aristocracy rejected the noveaux riche in the UK. The aristocrats - and I mean the big ones - speculated in industry from almost the outset. It is why they survived and the Tory squires - the lower aristocracy that ran local government, who didn't have the capital to be involved in industry - died as a class by the start of the 20th century. Publically aristocrats would despise talk of money, but privately they would prudentially invest. And many of the new money were made, by the government, into aristocrats in time, take Disraeli for example.

The fact that the upper class has invested in industry seems to follow without argument, however, when I think of 'impoverished artistocrats', or what you call 'lower aristocrats' (or what people in the US refer to as simply 'intellectuals'), I think their lack of capital was the inevitable result of their lack of ties to industries that didn't involve building ships, weapons, oil, windows, household furnishings, kitchen appliances and semi-conductors.


Had the UK ever cast America aside with careful disdain? Maybe in the 19th century when relations were poor - but Britain stuck doggedly, because of prevailing ideological assumptions, to free trade even though the newly emerging industries of the US and Germany were increasingly protectionist. The British countryside, including the aforementioned squires, were devastated when it was possible to freeze goods and transport them by sea, for US and Canadian farmers, who had much wider spaces, produced goods at a far lower price. Britain stuck to free trade - despite Joseph Chamerlain's attempts at imperial preference - till the Ottowa agreement late in the 30's. After the second world war the UK government was effectively tethered to the US, so I cannot see how it 'cast them aside', except perhaps refusing to participate in the Vietnam war. The reason for that was simply that the leftists in parliament under the Labour party simply wouldn't abide it.

You mean 'soft lefties'. They usually have common sense. The Vietnam War put the national treasury in deficit, and no one had the sense to end the war in Congress. The way the War ended was because G.I.s just refused to fight anymore. I suspect this is how the Iraq War will end as well.


Actually Thatcher kept the Pound high - as a measure to ensure in her opinion that British companies remained internationally competitive and didn't rest their laurels with a weak pound. As she saw it the way the Italian government protected companies by devaluing the Lira regularly was a trip to inflation.

A rhetorical question- but I say this with a weary smile- Is this why the U.K. is the only member of the E.U. not to accept the Euro?


P.S. I notice in the original post Bush forgets to use the subjunctive (were). Titter.

I think it's characteristic of the U.K. press not to edit out one's idiosyncrasies in speech when translated in written form. Must be due to to influence from the British modernists. They loved to vivisection language into incomplete phrases, run-on sentences and a satire of grammatical errors.

[Ferrus]

I suppose since after WWII, the UK was tethered to the US, as you say, it would have to begrudgingly abide by the US' economic and foreign policies, since literally we're holding you in ransom. Do you see America's government then incapable of cooperating as a whole and diffused by the interests of multi-national corporations which section it off to Europe and Asia?
No, it does act as a whole, primarily for the benefit of these multi-national corporations who are a significant part of the US and World economy. This is not necessarily conspiritorial, though one has to question whether the IMF economic policies are really tailored for the interests of the countries upon which they are foisted or the US government and its business. Indeed, not just the US, there are many European and Japanese businesses pushing for easy markets in the 3rd world too. It is rank hypocrisy that these countries have to open their markets to free trade - when all the countries in the world that are rich got that way through protecting their early, fragile markets (but leaving exports open to buy industrial inputs). Equally the matter is made worse by the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy and the US government's farm bill which blocks African and South American farmers competing freely, whilst the very farmers in these countries are left wide open to the surpluses created in the West which are dumped on them. destroying the local economy.


The fact that the upper class has invested in industry seems to follow without argument, however, when I think of 'impoverished artistocrats', or what you call 'lower aristocrats' (or what people in the US refer to as simply 'intellectuals'), I think their lack of capital was the inevitable result of their lack of ties to industries that didn't involve building ships, weapons, oil, windows, household furnishings, kitchen appliances and semi-conductors.
To an extent. These were not intellectuals in Britain (or indeed France, where the squirearchy was demomlished in the Revolution) but vain, venal and petty local land owners who simply didn't have the capital to compete with the big aristocrats and so moved largely into the professional bourgeoisie.

You mean 'soft lefties'. They usually have common sense. The Vietnam War put the national treasury in deficit, and no one had the sense to end the war in Congress. The way the War ended was because G.I.s just refused to fight anymore. I suspect this is how the Iraq War will end as well.
This is true, and ironically the very reasoning behind the war (the domino theory) was demolished by its failure.

A rhetorical question- but I say this with a weary smile- Is this why the U.K. is the only member of the E.U. not to accept the Euro?
It's not - Sweeden and Denmark aren't in the Eurozone either.
[quote]I think it's characteristic of the U.K. press not to edit out one's idiosyncrasies in speech when translated in written form. Must be due to to influence from the British modernists. They loved to vivisection language into incomplete phrases, run-on sentences and a satire of grammatical errors.
True, I don't think it is 'modernists' - more appealing to people with little education.

[omnirook]

I think that it's rather silly to suggest even the possibility that the IMF and the World Bank are out to serve anyone but the interests of the First World countries that are the largest depositors and who benefit most from IMF and World Bank policies. Doing so would be accusing even the least nimble-brained of being blind on top of being stupid.

Again - and it gets me ignored again and again - my assertion: wealth is NOT absolute; it is relative. If nobody is poor, then nobody is rich. Inequality is the most essential ingredient in the capitalist system - but it's such an ugly fact that reality-defying leaps are made all over the place to maintain the fantasy that we can manufacture and shop our ways to paradise. For the capitalist system to work, not only must there be great inequalities in wealth, there must be widespread debt-servitude. And it's no longer about countries! It's about turning the mass of humanity into debt-ridden automatons who will fling themselves ever deeper into debt, so that the entire world becomes a vast workhouse where the bankrupt will slave away to produce the luxuries that the tiny elite demand.

No - there is no one cabal of rich people, sitting about, stirring a cauldron and sacrificing to Satan. It is in the interests of the rich for the poor to be in debt, and the reason that the rich are the rich is because, of all people, they are, generation after generation, the ones who are most capable of taking advantage of the prevailing circumstances. That's all that is required. No vast world conspiracy is needed.

[Ferrus]

I think that it's rather silly to suggest even the possibility that the IMF and the World Bank are out to serve anyone but the interests of the First World countries that are the largest depositors and who benefit most from IMF and World Bank policies.
Indeed, though there are (albeit extremely rare) moments when the interests of some first world countries conincide with some third world countries against other first world countries - the 'banana war' between the EU and USA springs to mind.

Again - and it gets me ignored again and again - my assertion: wealth is NOT absolute; it is relative. If nobody is poor, then nobody is rich. Inequality is the most essential ingredient in the capitalist system - but it's such an ugly fact that reality-defying leaps are made all over the place to maintain the fantasy that we can manufacture and shop our ways to paradise. For the capitalist system to work, not only must there be great inequalities in wealth, there must be widespread debt-servitude. And it's no longer about countries! It's about turning the mass of humanity into debt-ridden automatons who will fling themselves ever deeper into debt, so that the entire world becomes a vast workhouse where the bankrupt will slave away to produce the luxuries that the tiny elite demand.

No - there is no one cabal of rich people, sitting about, stirring a cauldron and sacrificing to Satan. It is in the interests of the rich for the poor to be in debt, and the reason that the rich are the rich is because, of all people, they are, generation after generation, the ones who are most capable of taking advantage of the prevailing circumstances. That's all that is required. No vast world conspiracy is needed.
Actually I think you have a very good point here. A lot of these processes have happened almost unconsciously, but once certain people (the rich) catch on they vehemently defend the status quo. Having said that there was once a time when few were in debt - 150 years ago. OK, people did have debt but never at the scale it was today. People would save money up and then buy things. A part of me thinks the reason capitalism has survived is because there has been a shift, a shift that considers debt fine (and even good) and therefore makes it easier to keep the hoi polloi connected to the commodity drip, the fetishism that Marx talked of, just at a hyper-energetic pace.