Huge Defence Cuts

[Edric O]

Those are your views, swayed by black glasses of marxistic propaganda.

Riiiiight... The evil marxist propaganda makes us believe that it's actually bad when people suffer and die. If only we took off our "black glasses", we would see that smog-choked, disease-infested slums where people break their backs working 12 hours a day for barely enough money to stay alive are a good thing, aren't they? ::)

Sarcasm aside, Caid, we marxists have a simple standard for judging historical periods: Life and happiness are good, death and suffering are bad. And since the victorian age was full of poverty, disease, misery and death, it was a bad period - the worst in modern British history, as a matter of fact. I'd say this is common sense, but you seem to disagree. So why don't you lecture us on the virtues of causing pain and suffering? I'm sure that will explain your support for capitalism...

Victorian age (in fact it's nearly a century, so we can't talk about it as some short period) brought cultural and political advance, which Britain had not witnessed since Cromwell's revolution.

Cultural, yes. Although many great victorian authors took up writing precisely in order to raise the alarm about the horrible misery in which the majority of the people lived, or to criticize the parasitic lifestyle of the aristocracy.

But if you're trying to say that it's good to make people suffer in order to inspire artists, then you're completely insane.

As for political advances, I'm surprised you bring them up - since the victorian age saw the rise of a political movement you hate so much: Socialism. It appeared because the workers grew fed up with being treated like animals and demanded their rights. Socialism (and marxism, for that matter) developed as a natural reaction to the rabid capitalism practiced during the victorian age.

You say that victorian age was a dark time of poverty - I would say that it was time, when people started to understand it and do something for it!

Well, yes. As I said, it saw the birth of the socialist movement. But that doesn't change the fact that it was a time of enourmous poverty and suffering. Socialism appeared precisely in order to fight these things.

But if you think that british middle class enjoyed better standards ie during Plantagenets...

There was no British middle class under the Plantagenets, and there was no British middle class in the victorian age. People were either very poor or very rich.

Our view on development level is very different. You're a materialist, having one exact criterium of large and wealthy middle class, with equal chance to "have fun"...

As a "materialist", I care about how many people have food on the table, how many have warm clothes in winter and a roof over their heads, how many have adequate healthcare and education, and yes, how many have spare time to enjoy their lives - or to "have fun", as you put it.

[Dunenewt]

Actually Edric, we do look at the Victorian and Edwardian times as a 'Golden Age' as this was when Britain was the most powerful country in the world.  There was a middle class in Victorian times.  to use your example of Charles Dickens, try the Bumbler or Funeral Director from Oliver Twist.  Our Empire is not something we should be ashamed of.  Perhaps during 17th and early 18 centuries when we acted like pirates but not in the 19th century where we looked after the natives well.  We provided them with an infrastructure for their countries and supported them.

Also, Maggie Thatcher was the greatest Prime Minister since Churchill and most Britons would agree.  She's officially the 13th Greatest Briton, ever.

Barbarossa: We would probably politely refuse any military help as we did before as we prefer to deal with our problems by ourself if possible.  We borrowed Ascencion Island as base of you I think though.

And yes I do believe this belongs in General, perhaps we could have a Military child board for PRP.

[Caid Ivik]

Riiiiight... The evil marxist propaganda makes us believe that it's actually bad when people suffer and die. If only we took off our "black glasses", we would see that smog-choked, disease-infested slums where people break their backs working 12 hours a day for barely enough money to stay alive are a good thing, aren't they? ::)

Sarcasm aside, Caid, we marxists have a simple standard for judging historical periods: Life and happiness are good, death and suffering are bad. And since the victorian age was full of poverty, disease, misery and death, it was a bad period - the worst in modern British history, as a matter of fact. I'd say this is common sense, but you seem to disagree. So why don't you lecture us on the virtues of causing pain and suffering? I'm sure that will explain your support for capitalism...

Cultural, yes. Although many great victorian authors took up writing precisely in order to raise the alarm about the horrible misery in which the majority of the people lived, or to criticize the parasitic lifestyle of the aristocracy.

But if you're trying to say that it's good to make people suffer in order to inspire artists, then you're completely insane.

As for political advances, I'm surprised you bring them up - since the victorian age saw the rise of a political movement you hate so much: Socialism. It appeared because the workers grew fed up with being treated like animals and demanded their rights. Socialism (and marxism, for that matter) developed as a natural reaction to the rabid capitalism practiced during the victorian age.

Well, yes. As I said, it saw the birth of the socialist movement. But that doesn't change the fact that it was a time of enourmous poverty and suffering. Socialism appeared precisely in order to fight these things.

There was no British middle class under the Plantagenets, and there was no British middle class in the victorian age. People were either very poor or very rich.

As a "materialist", I care about how many people have food on the table, how many have warm clothes in winter and a roof over their heads, how many have adequate healthcare and education, and yes, how many have spare time to enjoy their lives - or to "have fun", as you put it.

You measure world by your ideal. If something is not perfect, you condemn it. Whole history is full of poverty, death, diseases and hard work. Modern history of Britain starts with queen Victoria, so it is rather weird to say it was the time of largest poverty. In fact you can be sure it was worse during the world wars. While socialists and other movements, which helped to pluralize political scene, could nearly freely grow during the 19th century (and Britain was one of not many countries allowing it), during the wars were fascists strongly oppressed, same with communists after WW2. Simply it was time when they felt invincible, so they could turn to improve themselves - in all directions you have counted. Luxury, which they couldn't afford in 17th or 18th century, when the living standards were far worse.