Thursday, 30 September 2010

WILL HISTORY GIVE BLAIR THE SAME STATURE AS THATCHER?
















Will history treat Blair as kindly as Maggie Thatcher?  There are similarities.   They both took us into two wars,  For Thatchers part it was the Falklands and the first Gulf War.  Blair, Iraq and Afghanistan.  Although in Thatcher's case it was to engage aggression, Blair's were purely for oil.  Both fought terrorists.  Thatcher, the IRA, Blair, Al Qeada.  Both had scandals involving bent politicians, I.E. them all.  


There are differences too.  Blair resigned although he was nudged gently out.  Thatcher was axed by the men who she trusted.  Blair has used all his time since his retiral to enrich himself and his family.  Thatcher retired to private life having given her best to the country.  Blair's Government left us in financial disarray ultimately through loose regulation of the Banks.  Thatcher's Government understood the economy and left us with an economy in excellent shape.  Blair is hated by the right, Thatcher by the left.


But the main difference IMHO is, that Thatcher was a Stateswoman and Blair was a criminal.

14 comments:

banned said...

Blair is hated by both left and right whereas we can revel in and enjoy the lefts continued "fight to smash Thatcherism" bollox twenty five years after the old dear left the scene.

Conan the Librarian™ said...

I, for one, will NEVER forgive the bitch for what she and her vegetables did to Scotland.

INCOMING!!!!!!! said...

DL that is a bit like presenting a starving man with a horse and asking do you want to travel or eat. Same result, dead man. Bring all the dead back and ask the newly undead what is what instead of the foundation paid bitchboys who write predictively programmed history.

Bitchboys and boybitches will never be anything other than empty vessels who will die comfortably in their warm, clean beds.

Go ask the undead.

Dioclese said...

Spot on.
Although another similarity/difference is that Thatcher's husband was already a Sir and had pots of money in his own right.
Blair's wife also had pots of money (odd as her father was a red) - so why does he need to go chasing after even more?? Could greed be the answer?

Dark Lochnagar said...

Banned, yes I love all this 'Thatcherism' shite. The country was on it's knees and would have been bankrupt if Labour had been in power any longer with that Callaghan fuckwit.

Dark Lochnagar said...

Conan, I've got to disagree. Apart from shutting down Ravescraig which was on it's last legs anyway and introducing the poll tax a year early in Scotland, what did she do to Scotland? Now the poll tax was being cried out for in Scotland at least amongst Tory voters, which there were plenty in those days. I had a house which was half the size of a friend of mine in England which was a listed 15th century, thatched 'cottage' and I was paying twice what he was! Without going into the merits of the poll tax, my next door neighbour has 5 of a family staying with him, who are all working and putting out rubbish etc, the things you pay rates for and he is paying the same as me. How is that fair? If you were around then and aren't living on the rumours that your relatives told you, you will know that the country was fucked, much as it is now, because Labour always leave a wrecked economy.

Dark Lochnagar said...

INCOMING!!!!!!That I a very strange analogy. What about Labour being the night of the living dead and the Tories being the dead living? Or what about the horse dying before it gets to water being Labour and it gets a drink from the Tories although it is Port and it gets pished.

Dark Lochnagar said...

Greekers, that is the basic difference between Labour and the Tories. The Tories are usually rich anyway so they can concentrate on good governance because the money is not important to them and they can do to the economy what is required without worrying what it's doing to their bank balance. Labour on the other hand are usually only moderately rich and are rubbing shoulders with billionaires who are trying to get influence with them, so they become thieving bastards like Blair.

General Dogsbody said...

Thatcher sent the troops to protect our territory in the Falklands and stop the killing of British citizens. Bit different from attacking someone who wasn't attacking us. But was it not John Major who was in charge in Gulf War 1 ?

Dark Lochnagar said...

Dogger, exactly the point I was making, there is a big difference protecting our territories and doing it for American oil interests. Without checking, I think the first Gulf War was under Thatcher, because I remember that shot of her sticking up out of a tank with her scarf flapping in the breeze and her big bristols jingling up and down!

dogger said...

DL. Just checked wiki. She was PM when Saddam invaded Kuwait and she authorised the troop deployments to the middle east. She was ousted in 1990 and Major was PM when the actual war started in Jan 91. So we're both partly right.

Dark Lochnagar said...

Dogger, thanks for that. I knew she was about the troops somewhere.

Anonymous said...

I would like to exchange links with your site darklochnagar.blogspot.com
Is this possible?

Dark Lochnagar said...

No.