Re: Selling the Family Silver? Or Prudent Move?
Originally Posted by
Aerolor
->
No I don't think a strong leader need to be like she was. Strength of vision and purpose is a good thing, but you can have a sense of purpose and a vision without becoming an abrasive pain in the a.... A political leader should have more diplomacy than she had. A good part of the role is dilomatic persuasion and she was about as persuasive as a rhino on the rampage. She just put her head down, stamped her foot and went for it regardless. I think Tony Blair was far more diplomatic - not necessarily right, but definitely more diplomatic. I became ashamed that she was the first female Prime Minister in this country. She became petty and mean minded, intolerant of anyone who went against her - in that respect I think she betrayed her gender. She was even mean spirited and disparaging of John Major when he took over leadership.
PS Tony Blair was not doing a favour for a mate - we have to have a firm alliance with the USA.
Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree on this one Aerolor. Yes she had an abrasive manner, but love her or hate her she was the right person, in the right place at the right time, and had the courage and conviction to do what needed to be done to rescue the country from the ever downward spiral into financial chaos, which is always the case when Labour have been in power.
And yes, we did go to war as a favour to Bush. We are a sovereign country and should make decisions based on what is best for us, bearing in mind our allies where we can. Although we are a major ally of the US we do not need to follow with blind acceptance. Never has a country been taken to war on such flimsy evidence. Blair is no better than a snake oil salesman and how he continues, even today, to be seen as a world statesman is beyond me. He should be in front of the War Crimes Tribunal at the Hague, hand in hand with his best mate George W Bush.