Protectionism - Let the currency war begin

[Zoiderman]

Sorry Dodgy, you're talking bollocks. During a true global conflict elections would be suspended.

The first General Election in the United Kingdom after 1935 wasn't held until 10 years later, in 1945!

Makes Churchill losing in '45 seem odd too. Apparently the most popular PM they'd been, according to ratings after the war; 83% popularity rating.

[Arturo Bassick]

Sorry Dodgy, you're talking bollocks. During a true global conflict elections would be suspended.

The first General Election in the United Kingdom after 1935 wasn't held until 10 years later, in 1945!

It does normally take cross party support to go to war in the first place though.
That is a lot harder to achieve than in a dictatorship.

[Churchill]

Makes Churchill losing in '45 seem odd too. Apparently the most popular PM they'd been, according to ratings after the war; 83% popularity rating.

The man himself was popular. The sweeping reforms promised by the Labour Party ensured their victory.

[DodgyAgent]

Sorry Dodgy, you're talking bollocks. During a true global conflict elections would be suspended.

The first General Election in the United Kingdom after 1935 wasn't held until 10 years later, in 1945!

My point is that no single group or individual within a democratic country can unilaterally go to war without the approval of the majority of the population. yes subsequent elections may be suspended.

[Zoiderman]

The man himself was popular. The sweeping reforms promised by the Labour Party ensured their victory.

Tried suggesting the Conservatives were all Brown shirts too. Dirty Labour...

[Churchill]

It does normally take cross party support to go to war in the first place though.
That is a lot harder to achieve than in a dictatorship.

There is nothing new in a government lying to their people to start a war. Indeed because most people prefer living in peace to bloody and horrific death in war, any government that desires to initiate a war usually lies to their people to create the illusion that support for the war is the only possible choice they can make.

The above says what I meant to convey in a far more eloquent manner.

[Zoiderman]

My point is that no single group or individual within a democratic country can unilaterally go to war without the approval of the majority of the population. yes subsequent elections may be suspended.

Didn't we go to war with Iran/Argentina, without giving the incumbents our approval? Or have I missed a point?

[TimberWolf]

It does normally take cross party support to go to war in the first place though.
That is a lot harder to achieve than in a dictatorship.

They don't go off to fight though.

[Arturo Bassick]

There is nothing new in a government lying to their people to start a war. Indeed because most people prefer living in peace to bloody and horrific death in war, any government that desires to initiate a war usually lies to their people to create the illusion that support for the war is the only possible choice they can make.

Yes, but they still have to make the case and the opposition has to support the deception (or be deceived itself) like Bliar did.
A lot easier for the like of Saddam who just says "right lads off you pop".

I get what you are saying, I do honestly. Bliar went to war against public opinion. Even after convincing the Tories to support him with the doctored document I think the Country was against him and we still went in.

[Churchill]

My point is that no single group or individual within a democratic country can unilaterally go to war without the approval of the majority of the population. yes subsequent elections may be suspended.

Ah but that's not what you actually said...

If a government from a democratic country embarks on a war it has to be approved by the population or they get voted out at the next election. Saddam Hussain was able to go to war without any mandate from anyone.