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

Tony Blair, Clem Attlee, Harold Wilson.

2007-02-21 07:29:02 · 26 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Government

DanRSN - Yes. Churchill's post was Government was a disaster.

2007-02-22 07:35:35 · update #1

26 answers

Tony Blair, the man who took us to war on a lie killing 600, 000 people in the process. This is a wind up, Right ??

2007-02-28 04:27:36 · answer #1 · answered by Suresh K 1 · 0 0

The term "Labour party" has no strength for the present government is as Conservative in its values as any Tory party. UK has changed and most people are middle class and believe in owning a house, a car, a telephone and all the little luxuries that use to be the preserves of the ruling classes. The party that gets in are the ones who can show they appreciate these values. The Labour party has been the party adapting to the changes of the people whilst the Conservatives have followed their historical line so hence the leaders of the Labour party have seemed better suited for modern people

2007-02-26 08:58:01 · answer #2 · answered by Professor 7 · 0 0

Tony Blair listened to focus groups and wasted 6 years,then got delusion's of grandeur,and signed up for illegal war. Harold Wilson the pound in your pocket when he devalued the currency also running to the IMF to bail us out. Then resigning and leaving Jim Callahan to pick up the pieces. Attlee maybe because of the welfare state.

2007-02-27 14:46:48 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

As noted, Churchill was unable to defocus and utilize postwar prosparity in ideologically unstable bureaucracy. The successive Labour Party Candidates drew from their predecessors a plethora of poor ways to run an Empire. This factor plus a new enlightened party listening to their constituents, created a stronger focus on Democracy.

2007-02-28 07:13:58 · answer #4 · answered by MAD AS HELL 1 · 1 0

Any list of the best prime ministers is going to be contentious and depend entirely on the author's political leanings. Many would dispute Tony Blair's presence. Some would say Margaret Thatcher deserves a place, while others would say she was one of the worst. I'd guess you think the best were all Labour because you generally agree with left-wing policies.

2007-02-21 07:35:37 · answer #5 · answered by Rafaman 2 · 4 1

Probably because you believe the new labour spin (actually, your old mate Blair thinks Maggie was great. Odd that, don't you think?). Fortunately, history will show very few, if any, labour PMs could be classed as great or, in your terms, the best. But I do like the idea if you wish to be different.

2007-02-27 04:46:54 · answer #6 · answered by michael w 3 · 0 0

What, Tony Blair is better than Winston Churchill (PM 1950-55)?

2007-02-21 23:33:30 · answer #7 · answered by DanRSN 6 · 0 0

Maggie Thatcher dragged Britain kicking and screaming into the 21st century.
She laid the foundations for what could have a been a Great country..
..Then Blair came along and f*cked it all up in the pursuit of power and self image.
Blair has dragged this once Great country into the gutter and made the British the laughing stock of the world.

2007-02-23 21:18:30 · answer #8 · answered by knowitall 4 · 2 1

What Tony Blair best priminister, wot a no good tosser.this country as never been so messed up it will take years to put right when labours gone.

2007-02-28 05:02:26 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

First, Thatcher replaced into no longer the main prevalent postwar PM. She did no longer win 3 landslides. She gained a majority of 40 4 seats in 1979. She gained landslides in 1983 (one hundred forty four seats) and 1987 (102 seats). considerable's majority in 1992 replaced into 21 seats, nonetheless the Tory social gathering registered extra votes at this election than at any previous election thank you in many cases to intense turnout. She replaced into helped in many cases in the early 80s by potential of a mix of an unpopular and divided opposition and a fave conflict. picking Michael Foot as chief replaced right into a huge mistake for Labour. The 1983 manifesto replaced into defined on the time as "the longest suicide word in political history". Foot known like an previous guy at death's door, as certainly he replaced into, and with out the easy air of secrecy Thatcher had. With extra seats a at as quickly as Labour/Tory contest, and Labour being someplace to the left of Marx, there ought to easily be one winner. Electorates generally punish branch, so breakaway Labour MPs forming the SDP did no longer something to help Foot, and each thing to help Thatcher. this does not recommend she replaced into "prevalent" nonetheless. fairly around right here, a city surrounded by potential of coal mines, the final of which fell silent in 1992, She might under no circumstances have been welcome. on the top of her recognition, and Labour's unpopularity, Labour have been polling 70% of the vote right here. As for Churchill in the 50s. 1st earl attlee's Labour gained a 147 majority in the 1st submit conflict election in 1945 and went directly to got here across the NHS. In 1951, Churchill ought to easily cope with a sixteen seat majority, propped up by potential of an excellent return of Tory seats in Scotland. How cases substitute.

2016-10-16 04:43:55 · answer #10 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers