jackytoo

Yes that was on the history channel too. They claimed it was because he and a few of his cabinet were close to Russia and under suspicion.

bil

and of course nothing to do with the fact that the rich and powerful were so afraid of a left wing ELECTED government that they were prepared to overthrow it to further their own ends.

Dick Dasterdly

Well you got the first part right,..finally,... though your post as with stevies smacks of desperation tactics and conveniently avoids my points.

No doubt it's taking quite a while to compile that list of your darlin 'arolds achievements or explain how it would even have been remotely possible for him to lead us into Vietnam when both ppl. and parliament were against it.

As to my tribalism or political alligiances, I thought I'd made clear I have none, having only ever voted once and on some occasions had more sympathy with Labour than the Tories.
Lord knows I've criticised the policies of both all parties on plenty of occasions, however I'm of the opinion that the Labour cock-ups outnumber those of their rivals by quite a margin.

Also I prefer to deal in known facts and thats why I've never mentioned the alleged Wilson, Marcia, Ruskie connection or likewise the opposing claims of a right wing plot.

bil

No probs, I quite understand, just give us a list of approved PMs, then we'll know which are to be safely criticised for fear of us ending up in the gulags, eh?

Dick Dasterdly

As you well know I have no such list, I'd likely have more chance of finding a virgin in a brothel.

It's simply the case that some are worse than others, whilst some like Brown and Wilson are very,very,very much worse.

bil

Absolutely. Not belongum to tribe. Bad man.

Dick Dasterdly

Right there man. Real bad man. Tribes und gangs do nufink fer me.

Free spirit, free agent, loose cannon,.... take yer pick.

Just plum Evil.

bil

Look, I won't stand there and say Labour are good, tories are bad. It's silly, and tribal.

All Pms have good things and bad things on their watch. Most, good and bad alike disappear without trace, but occasionally, some leaves a mark, whether for good or for bad. The OU was a pretty good thing to be remembered for. Neither you or I know who had the original idea. We don't know if the idea was HW's, or he heard it and pushed it, or what. All I know is that it happened on his watch, and he gets credit for it.

If I say GB supervised a period of steady growth, I'm told 'That would have happened anyway.' When I say the crisis was caused by the Yanks, I'm told 'It happened on his watch, he was responsible.'

I just can't understand the tribalism that requires you to want it both ways like that.

Dick Dasterdly

As I said I'm not tribal in any way and normally wouldn't consider either main party worthy of my walking down to the polling station.
I don't see capitalism on its own as any greater success than socialism on its own.
I expect and see both main parties make their fair share off cock-ups and generally I don't lose too much sleep about it,......except on the occasions when it costs the country and its ppl. very dear, as was the case with Wilson and later Blair and Brown.
Because something goes wrong on somebodies watch doesn't necessarily make them responsible in my book.
Brown wasn't responsible for the worldwide recession, however he was responsible for letting the country drift into an almost unrecoverable situation, whereas most other W EU countries retained a sound enough footing to ride it out.

bil

As I say, the man at the top is responsible for what happens on his watch, good and bad. Brown allowed us to be in a bad position when the American shitstorm struck, like a captain that fails to turn his ship into the wave, but instead positions it side on.

By all means blame Wilson for cockups, but then at least credit the guy for the good that happens on his watch too.

Otherwise it just isn't fair.

HBG

Having voted for all three parties in my time (not at the same time), I'm probably a man without political principles. When Blair was voted in, I had voted for the party that came third, but was almost convinced that Blair would have enough sense to take us into Europe, properly.

He took us into Iraq instead and I hated him for it.

Europe is making a major decision today and we're not even involved. Yet it will affect us just as much as anyone else in Europe, perhaps even more so.

It's all the fault of history. The Tories still believe England won the war, Harold Wilson objected to it and the Liberals . . . . I can't remember what they did.

Our future is no longer decided on the playing fields of Eaton, but rather in Brussels and Berlin, and we only have a 'proxy' vote, or did I spell that right?

bil

I can never understand why people whinge about things being decided in Brussels rather than the UK.

What precisely is the difference between rules being made by faceless bureaucrats in Brussels, or faceless beaurocrats in the UK?

Domino

they are British

steviedeluxe

They used to say an Australian resident in the US would decide how we thought and who we voted for.
This may change in the light of recent events...

bil

Said person was only able to do that because enough pond life could read his rags.