Mrs T acted hard during the Hunger Strikes but as soon as Pat Magee stuck a handfull of Samtex in the Grand in Brighton she couldn't sign the Anglo Irish Agreement quick enough. Paisleys Never Never Never included. Hate the bastard though. If we had had a Blair during the Hunger Strikes he would have folded.
To be fair as much as I utterly disagreed with many of her policies, I had to admire her balls (or looking back on my perch as someone who has only really had family members/my childhood self [with no free milk] affected by her policies, as it were). Admittedly she had the overwhelming majority in Parliament needed to enable implementation of such convictions - but still strong government is something I admire in better circumstances, as in I'm pretty sure Obama believed all his pre-election pledges himself and would maybe have been a much more effectual leader if he hadn't had his balls cut off in the mid terms.
Blair? Foolish boy.It would have cost more lives.Look at iraq.Never underestimate the subservience of the unions/labour left to the party itself.TINA is because those bastards wont help to build an alternative to social democracy.
You misunderstand me. I'm an Irish Republican. Everything else is gravy regarding her. I would have liked a soft touch.
My point is blair wouldnt have been a soft touch.Been in labour and been in ardoyne.I know which I prefer bro.
Well I know who was better(easier) for us to deal with. Which would you prefer? You're a wee bit cryptic
I just dont understand why you think blair would have saved any of the boys lives.You know labours track record in the war from mason to mowlam I assume? Wasnt trying to be cryptic in my reply though.In short I stayed in ardoyne on a TOM delegation the year after johnny downes was murdered by the ruc and Ive been in the labour party so know their duplicity.Btw the police smiley is just a laugh Ive got used to on my posts.Im really 100%
The New Labour Blair Government finally went in and tried to deal with all sides as people, who obviously had a lot of issues with each other. For instance there was uproar when Mo Mowlam shook the hand of Martin McGuinness - who was in a top position in a political party which obtained several hundred thousand votes (of a Provence of 1.5m). It started the inevitable move towards dialogue rather rhetoric - pragmatism rather than principles - a far cry from Thatchers inability to deal with anything she had a personal distaste for.
Aye the Smilies might have side tracked me I am not saying that either or would have been better, just that having dealt with Blair he would have called 'deal' a lot sooner that Maggie. Easy. There is no argument there as far as I'm concerned. Maggie was too powerful and anti Irish at the time. It set well with her voters too.
She hated Garrett FitzGerald but didn't mind Charlie Haughey? How the **** did that work? The politics of personality reared its head with that one. She also shat it from Ted Kennedy who forced her hand privately to try and push for resolutions in Ireland when her public persona was very much that the lady is not for turning.
It isn't unreasonable to suggest that Labour would have done a deal. Blair had a far better grasp of PR than Maggie. Poll tax turned into a riot, The anti- Iraq demo saw a million angry people get angry and go home. The Hunger strikers was a PR disaster. The miners strike the same, bashing up new age travellers the same, The Belgrano, Buddying up with Pinochet. Blair had failures but managed them better. Even the monumental ones.
The lady turned when Pat fitted the Grand out with plastic. She liked Charlie 'cos he wasn't a kick in the hole off herself.
don't be so ****ing ridiculous, you daft wee ****. I can almost understand the tarriers, wanting her dead(to be honest it is still pretty shocking), but you, you wee ****er, do you even know what you are talking about?
I can'y beleive, that I am expecting the rebel man to speak some sense! I have a mate here and he says, "Up the Kingdom!"
