i don't want to pay for thatchers funeral.

much as i'd like to join in the love in guy's.
all i can say with the deepest respect is this.
maybe maggie is the only politician in history who managed to screw us while in life and in death.
win win for the tories.
time to move on i think.
i'm off to play some floyd on my piano.
 
videojetman":2oqkvjet said:
much as i'd like to join in the love in guy's.
all i can say with the deepest respect is this.
maybe maggie is the only politician in history who managed to screw us while in life and in death.
win win for the tories.
time to move on i think.
i'm off to play some floyd on my piano.

Thing is, do you seriously think this is party political?

Do you think that any of the Labour leaders, in recent times, would have done anything hugely different about MT's funeral?

I've always been somewhat divided on her, in terms of her performance as prime minister - but all I would say, is that there's always detractors and supporters, she was in many ways divisive that way. But for all of those decrying what and how she did things (in some cases, with at least some just cause) - you have as much complaint with the other political parties for not being sufficiently competent at the time to provide a worthy and appealling alternative at the ballot box.

Yes, yes, yes, I get, she managed to tap into societal greed and engender an "I'm alright Jack, sod everybody else..." attitude that pervaded, but all the same, it also took there being no other game in town for quite a while, before she went native, and her party largely got complacent.

It took the likes of Blair and Brown, at the right moment in history, to provide an alternative that people would vote for en-masse - and even then, they had to largely abandon some of the traditional and historical aspects of Labour / socialism. Blair was twice the tory that Cameron will never be. Brown's problem was that in reality, he just didn't seem actually any good when he got to lead, had no true mandate, and largely seemed to forget why it was people actually voted for Blair.

I doubt there's many ex prime ministers in recent times, that wouldn't have a lot of haters as well as supporters. But let's not forget - the electorate didn't oust Thatcher - factions in her party did.
 
My better half is amongst the crowd, and my sister in law is on duty. Not as much 'trouble' as I expected. Enjoying it on television here, I am a sucker for a big occasion.
 
We do a good job. Don't like the jackets on the police. What happened to tunics and rubber macs?
 
Neil":3rtbpbzd said:
It took the likes of Blair and Brown, at the right moment in history, to provide an alternative that people would vote for en-masse - and even then, they had to largely abandon some of the traditional and historical aspects of Labour / socialism.
The majority of Britain is quietly (small c) conservative imo. The proportion of which will increase as we grow older.

Neil":3rtbpbzd said:
Blair was twice the tory that Cameron will never be.
Which is why Blair won landslides a la Maggie, and Cameron scraped together a half baked coalition. See point above.

Neil":3rtbpbzd said:
But let's not forget - the electorate didn't oust Thatcher - factions in her party did.
A point often forgotten, she might have won a fourth term. We had three election wins for Thatcher, a subsequent one for Major and three for Blair who had shifted Labour to the right.

Yet students and miners still claim to be the voice of the people.
 
totally of thread

blairs first election win to the theme song things can only get better..one they never did and two..the physicist Brian cox was in the band D-Ream who sang it..proving men of science often talk tosh
 
sylus":337fapoa said:
totally of thread

blairs first election win to the theme song things can only get better..one they never did and two..the physicist Brian cox was in the band D-Ream who sang it..proving men of science often talk tosh

Hang on a minute - if we're to say that Thatcher can't be all bad - or at least can't have been sufficiently hated by all the electorate, because she won 3 general elections, and that Blair won by a landslide in 97, and you, here, are contending that he did nothing good in office since 97, how is it he won another landslide in 2001.

MT won 3 general elections, so did Blair - admittedly, in 2005, he didn't have anything like the majority of 97, or 2001, but all the same, still won the election.

If Blair was as awful as some of his detractors claim - whilst obviously missing the irony, when defending MT - how come he won 3 general elections, with the first 2 being with significant majorities. If he was so bad in office, why did he win so convincingly in 2001, and yet again (albeit without quite the same strong mandate) in 2005?
 
Back
Top