Political heads on rem day.

[markinbelfast]

I often wonder why the heads of the parties lay the wreaths on remembrance day...surely they can find members of their party that actual put their money where there mouth is as so to speak...and give them the honour of laying on behalf of the party.

Blair (Lab) Kennedy (lib) Paisley (DUP) and the other one..I'm not sure if they ever donned a uniform in conflict..

I know the ex-leader of the Ulster Unionist party was one of the first into Belsen and one of their top men won an MC in WW2....more right in my eyes than Trimble (the present top amn in the job) to lay the wreath.

(on a side note I'll find it a bit hard for a political head to lay a wreath to remember the dead while sending men into a conflict zone sharing flak jackets!)

There you go, I don't think I've singled one party more than another for criticism!...it's just a thought!

[Desmond7]

IT is the one occasion where the politicians should stand to one side.

My opinion , the military or those who were part of it, did the fighting and dying. Therefore, it should be the military and reps. of vets. organisations who are at the wreath laying.

If 'war is too important to be left up to soldiers' then 'let remebrance be left up to those who served/fought)?

Just my thought.

[Stephen Nulty]

I suppose we should always remember that it's the politicos who send our men to war.

Perhaps taking part in the Rememberance Ceremony will make them think a little more before committing our troops to battle in the first place.

Wasn't it a quote about the French generals in the First War which said "Brows unfurrowed by the effort of thought...".

SN

[John_Hartley]

Sorry, guys, but I disagree with you (even though I understand where you're coming from).

Firstly, it for exactly the reason that Mark mentions. Politicians are the ones who send the soldiers to fight and die. It seems right to me that they should publically account for that. It would seem very strange to me if these people were excluded and the remembrance left to those who fought - it would be as though the military were, in some odd way, separate from the rest of society.

Secondly, most recent (ish) conflicts fought by British troops have been fought "in the name of democracy and freedom", or some similar phrase. One might not always agree with definitions or the apparent goals of a war. But if they have been fought for democracy "in our name", then surely, our democratic representatives MUST participate. Their presence is symbolic of OUR remembrance.

By the way, the previous leader of the Lib Dems, Paddy Ashdown, was ex-SBS and used to always wear his medals at the Cenotaph.

John

[NIGEL]

I understand exactly what you mean John and agree with you in principle, but for one thing you mention democracy. Forgive me if i am wrong but does it count in this case when the present goverment of the UK only managed to aquire 25% of the possible percentage of availiable votes. I would not call a minority elected goverment democratic.

But on the same theme why shouldnt the normal people have a day to theirselves to remember those who fell, and not let some people there who may only want to steal the limelight. Would one day hurt ?????????

[DirtyDick]

Iain Duncan Smith (WHO?) was in the Scots Guards in the 1970s and could be seen wearing his Northern Ireland and Rodesia Monitoring Force medal. Paddy Ashdowne also landed a crippling blow to a man attempting to attack himself or some colleague whilst canvassing a few years back.

Who was the last WW2 UK & Commonwealth PM: was it Callaghan '76-79, whom I believe served in the Navy? I know Ian Smith, erstwhile PM of Rhodesia, had been an RAF spitfire pilot in the War.

As for democracy, to grossly paraphrase Churchill it might not be a perfect system but it's better than any other system yet devised.

Ricardo

[John_Hartley]

Forgive me if i am wrong but does it count in this case when the present goverment of the UK only managed to aquire 25% of the possible percentage of availiable votes. I would not call a minority elected goverment democratic.

Nigel

Much as I would like to debate this with you, I susepct we'd inevitably cross the "no current politics rule".

Let me just say that I'm envious of those Pals who live in countries where some form of proportional representation exists and the government MUST then represent a majority (and I know every system has its faults!!)

John

[NIGEL]

I know John, but maybe that day should just be for the military and only those political people who have served in the military, its the only day they have really and its all about those who fell, and served and nothing else and thats how it should be

[John_Hartley]

Nigel

If you're trying to "get me at it" again, then it's worked.

I now definately don't agree with you.

The whole point of remembrance day (in the UK) is that it's an act of public remembrance. It isnt just about those who fell - it's very much about the public appreciating and remembering the sacrifice they made.

At local level, we have small ceremonies at all four of the war memroials I have an interest in. Local organisations and local "worthies" take part as well as the general public. If these were restricted to only those who have served, then it would have no future,. Nor would it have a purpose. For example, I am always touched by the participation of the local youth groups - whether these are the uniformed groups - like the scouts - or, simply, children from the local church congregration. It is ensuring we remember into the next generation.

I see nothing different, in principle, about the "national event" at the Cenotaph. It is the same act of remembance but on a larger scale and with "bigger worthies" - such as politicians, royal family, High Commissioners of Commonwealth countries (and, as such, it gets on TV).

John

[DirtyDick]

If it were that commemorative services were deemed suitable only for service personnel and direct family only, the following would have to be considered:

Could only those who have been in conflicts attend? (I know of many service personnel who see out their careers in various fixed establishments, predominantly in urban areas, doing little more than a 9-to-5 job whilst in uniform.)

Could only those who have been among the 'teeth' end of such operations, where they have engaged the enemy and/or taken casualties, attend? (Given the nature of modern operations, a very great percentage of committed service personnel - often not even in the area of operations during the course of a conflict and arguably at less risk of attack even than their civilian counterparts at home of injury or attack - would hardly need to remember, if being a serviceman was the sole proviso.) What would qualify as a conflict? Would they have to be There are some where there are no friendly fatalities.

Just a few considerations; just being a serviceman does not necessarily make one more suited to attend such events.

I agree with John (I do) that the presence of royals, politicians and regional dignitaries bolster the prestige of such events and as representatives of the nation or community it is expected that they should attend on behalf of the majority.

The problem arises when (as in my opinion occurred on occasion during the recent D-Day celebrations in France) the security arrangements and/or desires of politicians to make long-winded (and politicised) speeches of remembrance, oozing compassion and understanding, makes life tedious or difficult for the veterans or else is seen as any other platform.

Ricardo

[Guest robin miller]

Politic is a dirty word in my vocablary.

The Rememberance is a National Event and we have to allow these head of political partys in.

Correct me if im wrong but wasnt there a row over one a head member of a party a tiny party who was being refused the right to attend.

but after throwing his rattle out of his pram they gave in??

This is a National Event for the PEOPLE To REMEMBER the dead rejoice in our FREEDOM.

[Terry]

It has been no better in Canada where PM's such as Chretien, Mulroney, and Trudeau have layed wreaths. At least the Governor General is there (yes I know it is something of an anachronism from colonial days but at least she adda a little tone to the ceremony).

I think the last Canadian PM to see service was Lester Pearson in the 1960"s. He was in the CAMC in Salonika, where he worked in the unit QM. He later transferred to the RFC. During officer training in the UK his platoon officer was the writer/poet Robert Graves. His flying career never really got off the ground as he walked in front of a London bus.

[NIGEL]

John, i wasnt trying to wind you up honest, the reason i said they should keep the polititions out of it was mainly because i think its going to look really great this year, if a certain man turns up wearing his poppy after Britain may have lost yet another soldier in a conflict which is stirring everybodies emotions, but by the time november 11th comes, unfortunatly we may have lost another soldier in a part of a country where nobody can understand why a few have been deployed, i obviously cant say anymore on this. But i agree it is for EVERYBODY to remember those who served and died. But if the worst ever happens i dont think his presence may be welcome

[larneman]

if they have been fought for democracy "in our name", then surely, our democratic representatives MUST participate. Their presence is symbolic of OUR remembrance.

"The best argument against democracy is a 5-minute conversation with the average voter"- Winston Churchill

Liam

[Mark Hone]

Hovering on the edge of the 'No Politics' abyss, I know, but the fairest proportional representation system in use in the world at that time, in Weimar Germany, ended up putting one A. Hitler in power. He promptly abolished democracy in Germany completely.

[john w.]

May I suggest you all have a look if you havent seen it.. A day to remember which was on Channel 4 some time ago and worth the watch.

It covers the aspects in this thread and I was astounded when I saw it.

John

[John_Hartley]

Hovering on the edge of the 'No Politics' abyss, I know, but the fairest proportional representation system in use in the world at that time, in Weimar Germany, ended up putting one A. Hitler in power. He promptly abolished democracy in Germany completely.

And, of course, once he had been defeated, the occupying powers promptly re-introduced a system of PR which has given Germany peace and prosperity for many years (at least the "original" West Germany).

[Guest DNH]

Interesting thread this one, only just seen it.

The other thing we need to bear in mind is that when Armistice Day was first commemorated in the early years after the war (and before WW2 happened and the focus switched to the nearest Sunday, called Remembrance Day) there wasn't the obvious divide between those who decide to go to war and those who participate in war or are directly bereaved by it. For example, PM Asquith, whose government and cabinet made the fateful decision to mobilise the BEF and raise a volunteer army etc, lost a son killed in action. Rudyard Kipling who came up with the words for the stone of remembrance, their name liveth for evermore, in CWGC cemeteries (if memory serves me right here, please correct me if not) lost a son. So people of the 'establishment', very broadly defined, who not only bore the heavy responsibility of either leading us into war or defining the institutions that we sought to defend in war, were also personally very involved in the war's loss. They really felt the loss, and would need to grieve every bit as much as anyone else who lost loved ones, either in public remembrance services or in private.

The situation now is very different as thankfully we have not needed to go beyond the capabilities of the small, professional regualr armed services and raise a 'citizen army', and many of those involved in the decision making will not become personally so involved. Hence a slightly less 'them and us' situation existed in previous years.

Just a thought. Anyway, broadly, am in agreement with John Hartley, that i) war is decided by governments so they should certainly remember the heavy weight of the responsibility of high political office and ii) that remembrance can and does change its meaning as time moves on and cannot be restricted to any group of people however defined - let's all take our own meaning from it.

Cheers

[Tim Birch]

Don't forget that we are remembering the all victims of war. With the East Coast shellings, and Zeplin raids of the Great War civilians entered the front line. WW2 in particular was total war and there can't be many alive today whose ancestors were not involved. I think that 9/11, Bali and Madrid to name a few has demonstrated that war is no longer the domain of just the military. Whether we like it or not, we are all now all involved in the War on Terrorism. The numbers of civilian casualties and deaths now regularly exceed those of the military.

We should also remember that the majority of those who died in the World Wars of the last century were in fact civilians in uniform, not professional soldiers.

Is it therefore not fitting that political leaders represent the people at remembrance ceremonies along with the Service Chiefs? The Centotaph ceremony is symbolic to the Commonwealth where the Monarch represents the all its members, and humbly bows to the memory of the dead.

Whether or not a particular leader has seen active service is surely irrelevant, as they are just performing a symbolic act? Hopefully one day there will be no one alive who has seen active service, and when that day arrives mankind may finally have found peace.

Tim

[john w.]

Nice thought Tim...

John

[Hedley Malloch]

Totally agree with Tim. Wars in the 20th century were mainly fought by citizens' armies and the public memorials are to all killed and not just to the armed forces. Politicians may be highly imperfect creatures but at least they are elected. A poll of 25% may not be much, but how many votes did Haig get?

[NIGEL]

Totally agree with Tim. Wars in the 20th century were mainly fought by citizens' armies and the public memorials are to all killed and not just to the armed forces. Politicians may be highly imperfect creatures but at least they are elected. A poll of 25% may not be much, but how many votes did Haig get?

TOO MANY OBVIOUSLEY