English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I've noticed that each of them do it. It seems they think the public haven't noticed that it's usually just before an election or to take our minds off of some kinda sleaze.

2006-08-11 00:57:35 · 14 answers · asked by Curious39 6 in Politics & Government Government

Adnan K - thank you, I haven't asked my question correctly - you have defined it for me

2006-08-11 01:20:26 · update #1

14 answers

How about James Callaghan?
Late '70s Labour PM.

2006-08-11 01:00:11 · answer #1 · answered by Thomas V 4 · 1 0

Most haven't taken Britain into war; I'm not sure how you're defining skirmishes. If the British army had to put down an insurrection in a British colony, would that count? Anyway Alec Douglas-Home, Andrew Bonar Law and James Callaghan (none of whom lasted very long) did not; nor, I think, did Macmillan. Baldwin and MacDonald did not, either. Lloyd George was a wartime prime minister but Britain was already in war when he took over. And Wilson was the only prime minister to spend more on education than defence.

2006-08-11 08:13:38 · answer #2 · answered by Dunrobin 6 · 0 0

It appears a war occurs approximately every 40years at the outside but Neville Chamberlain didn't he went to germany and came back with a piece of paper that said peace in our time but it was only a German delaying tactic they still continued and England became involved and Mr Churchill became leader. There is another point to note here it takes two to have a war, you can't have a war on your own and even those who are against the present situation can't think that the so called terrorists suddenly came up with all these bombs. ammunitions etc, I think they were beaten to the punch, the actions taken by them and their equipment indicate long term planning and no amount of negotiations will stop them as its a religeous war and if the uk was ever isolated with no back up the country would be taken over by a coalition of terrorists and insurgents from inside and outside of the country.

2006-08-11 08:33:05 · answer #3 · answered by sharky 4 · 0 0

In the 20th Century, I'd say Bonar Law, Campbell-Bannerman, Baldwin, McDonald.

After 1939 my memory of when there are spats all over the globe just becomes too hazy.

In the 19th Century, Peel does sound a likely candidate, Gladstone is disqualified due to the Alabama incident, Disraeli due to the Crimean war.

2006-08-11 11:31:03 · answer #4 · answered by MontyBob 2 · 0 0

Neville Chamberlain is the most recent to take us to 'war'. All of the British Isles and the Commonwealth Countries were concerned in that Sharky, not just England!!
Thatcher only took us in to the Falkland Conflict and B/Liar takes us into everything Bush wants help with.

2006-08-11 20:15:11 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Harold Wilson 1964 - 1970 & 1974 - 1976

2006-08-11 08:12:15 · answer #6 · answered by ? 5 · 0 0

Prime Minister Harper !

2006-08-11 08:01:25 · answer #7 · answered by Splishy 7 · 0 0

Clinton

2006-08-11 08:23:18 · answer #8 · answered by ahmad 1 · 0 0

None,British forces have been in action continuosly somewhere on the globe since Victoria came to the throne

2006-08-11 08:07:13 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

counter question, which previous prime inister has taken us into unjust conflicts that havent concerned us directly.,answers on a post card, nahonly joking, u guessed it TB.

2006-08-11 08:12:25 · answer #10 · answered by adnan k 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers