The decency and continued hard work of John Major puts William Hague to shame
in his attempt to wipe out Major's place from history.
Jul.
> Congratulations Mr Major :)
I suppose the electorate/panel who decided this award consisted of
just one member, i.e. you... :-)
> The decency and continued hard work of John Major puts William Hague to shame
> in his attempt to wipe out Major's place from history.
What about Major's support for Archer as London Mayor then?
James
--
James Hammerton, Department of Computer Science, University College Dublin
WWW Pages: http://www.cs.ucd.ie/staff/jhammerton/
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~james
Of course nice John wouldn't do such a thing, he only wiped out 250,000
people's place in the present.
Watch the news young man. :)
Jul.
> The decency and continued hard work of John Major puts William
> Hague to shame in his attempt to wipe out Major's place from history.
Please explain?
For us that only watch BBC News 24 and the Parliament Channel,
unless Star Trek is on?
Explain to me how JM had no part in the 'Highway of Death' massacre. It
slipped his mind when he was writing his confessions.
Don't talk crap.
Right, I've finished now.
Julian.
a) what contribution did he make, *this year*? Oh yes, he didn't kill
anyone, and his son married a nice-looking bird in the chapel.
b) before trotting out the tired Hague-knocking bit next time, reflect on
whose mess it is that Hague is trying to clear up.
This was a mistake made in the middle of a war caused by unprovoked aggression.
There is no case for either John Major or myself to answer.
Julian.
John Major has made some superb deliveries from the floor of the house, being
one of the few former Prime Ministers to take an active interest in the
chamber. He was debating the irish situation only yesterday.
>b) before trotting out the tired Hague-knocking bit next time, reflect on
>whose mess it is that Hague is trying to clear up.
Major left a golden economic legacy, falling crime, increasing exports,
increasing growth, low unemployment, low inflation, low interest rates, and a
country far more at ease with itself.
He always remained far more popular than his Party.
Through weakness and a general series of misjudgements, Hague is throwing the
General Election away, against what is becoming a very mediocre Government.
Julian.
It was not in the middle, it was at the end, as the Iraqi troops, having
withdrawn into Iraq, were travelling north through Iraq.
It was not a mistake, it was quite deliberate. Iraq withdrew its forces and
stated that it was so doing. In breach of international law, Bush decided to
kill them anyway. Allied planes first bombed the head of the column,
preventing them from escaping. They then proceeded systematically to murder
them; estimates around 200,000 - 250,000 dead.
My query, which JM and you both fail to answer, is what role Major played in
this. He must bear some responsibility, but did he play an active part in
the decision making (as did Blair with the TV station) or not (Blair and
Chinese embassy)?
I have no idea, but I would find it very unlike a man such as Major to have
made a conscious decision to act in the way you suggest he may have done. Major
was not a man to glorify in war.
Julian.
In his memoirs he sheds crocodile tears for the 9(?) servicemen killed by
friendly fire, and for the forty-odd total allied dead, but not a peep about
200,000 dead Iraqis. And lots of stuff about his friend Bush, not the
criticism that would have been appropriate if Major had been out of the loop
and disapproving.
> Major left a golden economic legacy, falling crime, increasing exports,
> increasing growth, low unemployment, low inflation, low interest rates, and a
> country far more at ease with itself.
Hence astronomical stress-levels throughout the population?
> He always remained far more popular than his Party.
True, though perhaps not too difficult.
> Through weakness and a general series of misjudgements, Hague is throwing the
> General Election away, against what is becoming a very mediocre Government.
Make that political incompetence, individual horribleness, big corporate
sycophancy, and self-exposure of his ambition to be even further
ultra-far-extreme-right than even the Great Leader (if such is possible).
> >Explain to me how JM had no part in the 'Highway of Death' massacre. It
> >slipped his mind when he was writing his confessions.
>
> This was a mistake made in the middle of a war caused by unprovoked
aggression.
as Adolf might say: "Yids? Oh bugger, knew I'd forgot summat."
At the Tory Conference this summer, Hague and others made several
glowing references to Maggie's legacy, and appeared to be doing the best
they could to hide the major years under the carpet and pretend they
never happened. This was of course entirely innocent, and the glorious
Picard wannabe would never attempt to write out of history the only Tory
leader of recent years to win an election despite a very strong
opposition.
Can anyone really say that Maggie could have been beaten by "The longest
suicide note in history" in '83, or by the nacent Alliance, which
incidentally nearly beat Labour into second place
Could Kinnock have won in '87, considering his internal reforms were
nowhere near complete?
Major won in '92 despite All the pundits, including many in his own
party, writing him off as a lame duck who didn't have a chance. I am
not, and have never/will never be a Tory supporter, but I have to admit
for sneaking admiration of the man who mangaged to keep the Tories
together and get them back into office despite the massive internal
divisions that were apparent. He accepted that his party needed to be a
broad church, and tried to keep as many on board as he could; the "back
me or Sack me" resignation was a very brave, and very effective move.
If he was such a bad leader, why didn't the Vulcan win, why didn't
Portillo stand?
Hague has abandoned a significant branch of the party in his stance on
Europe and his insistence that all Shadow Cabinet members agree to
follow his line slavishly; Major appointed Heseltine his deputy because
he recognised his significant support within the party, Where's Ken
Clarke? on the Backbenches.
I admire Hague's ability, but he'll never be as good a leader as Major
"Only the insane have strength enough to prosper,
only those that prosper can truly judge what's sane.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
> he recognised his significant support within the party, Where's Ken
> Clarke? on the Backbenches.
He made clear he didn't want a shadow cabinet post.
> he recognised his significant support within the party, Where's Ken
> Clarke? on the Backbenches.
>
> I admire Hague's ability, but he'll never be as good a leader as Major
I agree with almost everything there, except, Hague is yet to
show he is as good a leader as Major was, is more charitable.
Um, who are you?
You have a fine political brain, keep posting.
Jul.
>>Explain to me how JM had no part in the 'Highway of Death' massacre. It
>>slipped his mind when he was writing his confessions.
>
>This was a mistake made in the middle of a war caused by unprovoked aggression.
why was it a 'mistake'?
regards.
I see no evidence that a conscious retrospective view of the event would have
led to them repeating it.
But it was a war situation, and I see no evidence of ill intent on Major's
behalf, on what was a superbly run war from Britain's point of view.
Julian.
How?
What about 'collateral damage' from yankee 'friendly fire'?
What about those British personnel who seem to have suffered long-term
damage, and probably not through 'enemy' action?
What about the restoration of fatcat despocracy in Kuwait -- was that a
"superb" outcome?
What about the (ongoing) destruction of Iraq and its people, is that a
result indicative of a superbly run war?
What about the precedent that war set, which made it easier for Blair and
his gang to murder Serbians?
"Superbly run"... if you overlook the inconvenient.
This was a war.
>What about those British personnel who seem to have suffered long-term
>damage, and probably not through 'enemy' action?
That is hardly Major's fault.
>What about the restoration of fatcat despocracy in Kuwait -- was that a
>"superb" outcome?
The country was restored as an independent nation, as was the intention.
Jul.
Tiny said
> I agree with almost everything there, except, Hague is yet to
> show he is as good a leader as Major was, is more charitable.
I reply
fair comment, I actually feel that Hague is in reality a very clever
politician, and is in an even more unfortunate position than Major was.
He has great potential, but is in a no win situation. He'll be very
lucky to hold the party together and stay on as party leader after the
next election, unless something very strange happens between now and
then.
He is a great Parliamentarian, and will probably be in line for the
award (if he's eligible, I don't read the Spectator so I don't know the
rules) next year if he keeps going the way he is. He's running rings
around Tony.
For the record, I am a mature student at Exeter University; I just
started a Politics degree; I'll keep posting whenever I've got the time
and am at college; I don't have a PC at home
Apart from the issue of responsibility for what happened (whose fault is
it?), why did his government spend the next 7 years denying the truth and
refusing to help the servicemen?
>
> >What about the restoration of fatcat despocracy in Kuwait -- was that a
> >"superb" outcome?
>
> The country was restored as an independent nation, as was the intention.
When are they going to do something about the invasion and partial
occupation of Yugoslavia?
I think you mis-spelt "Western puppet state".
Mark
> I actually feel that Hague [snip]
> has great potential, >
but what as?
> He's running rings
> around Tony.
..... tighter 'n tighter till vanishing up his arse?
> In article <81mc48$hq3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Mat Bowles
> <matb...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > I actually feel that Hague [snip]
> > has great potential, >
>
> but what as?
A foetus of course!
> > He's running rings
> > around Tony.
>
> ..... tighter 'n tighter till vanishing up his arse?
Whose arse? Tony's or Hague's?
James
--
James Hammerton, Department of Computer Science, University College Dublin
WWW Pages: http://www.cs.ucd.ie/staff/jhammerton/
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~james
> cli...@post.almac.co.uk (Cliff Morrison) writes:
>
> > In article <81mc48$hq3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Mat Bowles
> > <matb...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I actually feel that Hague [snip]
> > > has great potential, >
> >
> > but what as?
>
> A foetus of course!
>
> > > He's running rings
> > > around Tony.
> >
> > ..... tighter 'n tighter till vanishing up his arse?
>
> Whose arse? Tony's or Hague's?
Well, resisting a temptation to cite Cheri's,
in response to the question one must consider parallel universes.
Fear 'tis one for Dr.Who, that is.