"Quite Roger. Especially as the the south African prime minister was warned repeatedly during the thatcher era that government along racial lines was unacceptable and Nelson Mandela should be freed."
As Suzanne Moore said ....beware Tory revisionist historians.........
I imagine you either weren't born yet or you slept right through the 80's. Lucky you.
That's interesting, Roger.
I was there, I didn't sleep through it. I remember many discussions about the best way of helping to end apartheid, but I can't remember a single example of any Tory politician (or indeed any other mainstream UK politician) supporting it. Care to provide an example?
Suzanne Moore is of course quite absurd in her equating of the position of being against blowing people up, or against sanctions which would hurt the black majority, as being pro-apartheid. You wouldn't make that despicable equivalence, would you?
"When you come onto my site you accept the house rules."
I'm afraid I don't, Mike. As I've made abundantly clear, I'm prepared to follow sensible rules like not posting about matters that could get you into legal difficulty. I've always attempted to follow those rulings to the letter. But I'm not going to even attempt to follow daft rules, and I've made that abundantly clear to you again, and again, and again.
"If you don't want to then you must accept the consequences."
Nope. If you ban me or delete my posts for no good reason, that is a decision you've made, not me. That is your responsibility, and something that you have to justify (you can). It's not something that I "must accept", and I have no intention of doing so.
Looks pretty clear to me. Maybe Cammie didn't mean it?
Or perhaps Cammie has been thoroughly indoctrinated by twenty years of anti-Thatcher propaganda from the tory media complex. Facts are irrelevant , he believes the myth. Frankly, he's a fanatic.
"Thatcher did more to release Nelson Mandela out of prison than any of the other hundreds of anti-apartheid committees in Europe," Pik Botha, the last foreign minister of the apartheid regime, said on Tuesday on Talk Radio 702 in Johannesburg.
FW de Klerk, the last apartheid-era president of South Africa, said in a statement that Thatcher, who he called a friend, was "a steadfast critic of apartheid". He said she had a better grasp of the complexities and realities of South Africa than many of her contemporaries.
"She exerted more influence in what happened in South Africa than any other political leader," De Klerk said. He said Thatcher "correctly believed" that more could be achieved through constructive engagement with his government than international sanctions and isolation of the South African government."
I imagine you either weren't born yet or you slept right through the 80's. Lucky you.
Mrs Thatcher warned the South African government repeatedly in the 1980s that rule by race was unacceptable and Mandela should be released.
Your visceral hatred of Thatcher and all things tory is making you unable to come to any balanced assessment (as ever).
Kelly has been thoroughly indoctrinated by twenty years of anti-Thatcher propaganda from the SNP/SLab complex. Facts are irrelevant , he believes the myth. Frankly , he's a fanatic.
"When you come onto my site you accept the house rules."
I'm afraid I don't, Mike. As I've made abundantly clear, I'm prepared to follow sensible rules like not posting about matters that could get you into legal difficulty. I've always attempted to follow those rulings to the letter. But I'm not going to even attempt to follow daft rules, and I've made that abundantly clear to you again, and again, and again.
I imagine you either weren't born yet or you slept right through the 80's. Lucky you.
Mrs Thatcher warned the South African government repeatedly in the 1980s that rule by race was unacceptable and Mandela should be released.
Your visceral hatred of Thatcher and all things tory is making you unable to come to any balanced assessment (as ever).
Kelly has been thoroughly indoctrinated by twenty years of anti-Thatcher propaganda from the SNP/SLab complex. Facts are irrelevant , he believes the myth. Frankly , he's a fanatic.
Question, though - is Carlotta more or less "Scottish" than JackW? Or Douglas Hurd?
Or you? I do love it when the Nats get into 'more Scottish than thou....'
Bit rich considering you were the one who wheeled it out to have a pop at Malcolm
Hardly - Malcolm had called me a Scotland hater who loathed all things Scottish....and all because I'm not a fan of the SNP......
I may not have exact recall of the kerfuffle but I'm pretty damn sure you didn't just say "I'm not a fan of the SNP" and then Malcolm jumped in. Perhaps there was a bit more to it than that?
It was a post about the name of the new Forth Crossing - the 'Queensferry Crossing' where I remarked that out of mischievousness it was a slight pity that the 3rd option 'St Margaret's Crossing' had not been picked as we could have many jolly japes deliberately misunderstanding which 'Margaret' it referred to - this set off Malcolm's tirade about me loathing all things Scotland & Scottish....which struck me somewhat of an over-reaction....
Sadly as everyone on PB knows by now one persons mischief and jolly japes is another persons smears and tension fillled trolling. Or something.
I trust Malcolm did not storm off in the huff vowing never to return? There's been a bit too much of that of late from some of our right wing friends sadly.
ah yes Tories like Old Nat, Stuart Dickson, JJPG2 famously huffed and vowed never to return. Good to see them still posting.
OldNat left of his own accord without making a complete twat of himself like some I could mention and the site is poorer without him. You might want to rethink the definition of leaving willingly for Stuart Dickson. Don't know if you're telling the truth about JJPG2, sorry. Before my time.
No Mick SD started being a tit and got yellow carded. This was followed by a string of nats orchestrated by JK saying they weren't going to post on a censored site ON left on that basis. Then oddly started posting on a site with more rules than here and which he seems to hav e left in a huff as of March ( not sure why ). To your credit you weren't one of those playing the crying game.
Credit enough to go around since you self-evidently posted so freely on this subject.
if I understood what that meant I might even agree with it.
Your understanding is not required. Your post and it's content speaks for itself.
That's three different right wing posters now. How many more before the day is out?
Anthony Wells moving average of last 5 polls very clearly shows that in fact Con has gained more than Lab as UKIP has slipped back over the last few weeks.
""She exerted more influence in what happened in South Africa than any other political leader," De Klerk said. He said Thatcher "correctly believed" that more could be achieved through constructive engagement with his government than international sanctions and isolation of the South African government.""
I'm sorry Carlotta but that's just nonsense. I went for the first time within a year or so of Mandela being released and EVERYONE (whites obviously) said that sanctions were the reason for the end of apartheid and Thatcher almost uniquely in the world was against them. The ANC were 100% for them and their opinion is rather more valid than De Klerk's was the apartheid Prime Minister.
Just think about De Klerk's motivation. Thatcher was almost the only world leader who was on De Klerk's side. Of course he agreed with her. They were about the only world leaders who believed in apartheid
Looks like Calamity Clegg has a bit of a problem on his hands.
A coup against Clegg?
Meanwhile, writing on his blog on Sunday, David Boyle detected signs in the latest issue of Liberator magazine of a change of mood in favour of Clegg, which seems a charitable interpretation. If anything, the mood towards Clegg is continuing to deteriorate. Indeed, the articles in the latest Liberator by Tony Greaves and Chris White indicate increasing exasperation with a leader who is effectively hollowing out his party.
In Saturday’s speech, Clegg warned that, unless members follow his “very real fork in the road”, “we condemn our party to the worst possible fate: Irrelevance; impotence; slow decline”. In reality, it is Clegg’s disregard for the long-term health of the party as a thriving campaigning organisation that is condemning the party to slow decline.
Clegg likes to lecture members about the ‘realities’ but the problem is that his narrative is remarkably unreal:
Until Clegg became leader, the Liberal Democrats were merely a party of protest.
Until Clegg became leader, the party had no experience of power and no interest in winning it.
The power the party has won is entirely due to a transformation brought about by Clegg.
The gains have been made despite the party rather than because of it.
There is only one viable way forward, which is Clegg’s. Anyone who disagrees is backward looking and would rather be in permanent opposition.
This narrative is not just an insult to the party; it is bogus in every respect. Anyone who seriously believes in it is deluded. Anyone who promotes it while knowing it to be false is a liar. Either way, when a leader is promoting such an obviously dishonest prospectus, how can he expect his members to respect him or work for him?
Clegg is not the first leader to try and define his leadership qualities in terms of opposition to his own party. The tactic of making yourself look tough by attacking your own members is straight out of the David Steel playbook. With Steel, it reached the point where his closest allies (led by Richard Holme) worked for merger with the SDP as much as anything to achieve ‘Year Zero’ – to erase the Liberal Party and all those pesky radical activists and start with a clean sheet of paper, so that a centralised party could be run with no interference from the members.
Clegg seems to have reached a similar stage in his leadership, where he can no longer disguise his contempt for his own party. The problem is more acute with Clegg than his predecessors because he’s never assimilated. He joined the party only in 1997, became an MEP in 1999, an MP in 2005 and leader in 2007 – little wonder he’s never really understood the party’s culture. This problem is evident not only in the repeated slurs against activists but also the crass insensitivity on issues such as secret courts and immigration.
So will there be a coup? It is less a question of whether the party wants to get rid of Clegg than whether Clegg wants to get rid of his party.
Are you really incapable of understanding that believing (arguably wrongly, but let's leave that aside) that sanctions were not the best way of getting rid of apartheid doesn't mean that Maggie believed in or supported apartheid?
You don't seem to be completely dumb, so it can only be prejudice blinding you to the obvious non-sequitur.
I believe the next lot of sleazebags they're going after are middle aged Englishmen who get their pleasures in Bangkok by paying girls young enough to be their daughters money to have sex with them. Call me old fashioned but I can't see much difference between them and the guys in Oxford. Maybe the Bangkok sleazeballs don't ply their girls with alcohol?
The unbearable poignancy of a very fat man drinking a Diet Coke.
It's a pretty sedentary job though, all the ministers have a bit more gravitas since 2010
For sure. In fact, top politico must be one of the unhealthiest jobs in the world. Lots of sitting down but also lots of stress, huge amount of rich food on obligatory social occasions interspersed with snatched fast food - as you work all hours. Bad sleep. No exercise. Booze.
No wonder they age so quickly. Clegg has aged ten-fifteen years in just five.
I'm suspect that's part of why politicians are getting younger. You need to be younger to stick the pace or if your older and wiser you need to find a way to step off the hamster wheel and do it your own way.
So we have FW De Klerk, the Prime minister at the time, and a visiting commercials director both giving their opinions about Maggies involvement in ending apartheid...now who shall we believe
So the attacks by the Cameroons and their cheerleaders on UKIP only succeeded in reminding UKIP's new ex-Labour supporters how much they hate the Conservatives.
So we have FW De Klerk, the Prime minister at the time, and a visiting commercials director both giving their opinions about Maggies involvement in ending apartheid...now who shall we believe
How about the guy whose prejudices we already agree with?
Psychologists tell us that's the way these things normally work.
The unbearable poignancy of a very fat man drinking a Diet Coke.
It's a pretty sedentary job though, all the ministers have a bit more gravitas since 2010
I seem to Recall that Robin Cook put a stone on in weight when Foreign Secretary because of all the official dinners he had to attend. Now we might say that's simply an excuse for salad-dodging but given that taking up the office was the only serious difference between opposition and government, I'd be inclined to believe him. Eric 'Sticky Bun' Pickles, on the other hand ...
Sporting and cultural sanctions had a major effect on the Afrikaaner will to maintain Apartheid, and did not "hurt the majority of blacks"
That may be so. That discussion was very much what I remember (although I was referring to economic sanctions, which were proposed by some, not just cultural/sporting ones), but that isn't the point. The point is that disagreements about the best way to end an evil don't imply supporting the evil.
The unbearable poignancy of a very fat man drinking a Diet Coke.
It's a pretty sedentary job though, all the ministers have a bit more gravitas since 2010
I seem to Recall that Robin Cook put a stone on in weight when Foreign Secretary because of all the official dinners he had to attend. Now we might say that's simply an excuse for salad-dodging but given that taking up the office was the only serious difference between opposition and government, I'd be inclined to believe him. Eric 'Sticky Bun' Pickles, on the other hand ...
I don't doubt it. I piled on weight in MD\CEO jobs and still find it hard to shift. Add in the 24/7 mobile comms element and that's why I don't envy anyone the so called "glamour".
Once again Roger, a retired tampon ad executive, reassures us he knows more about the end of apartheid than... F W De Klerk, the man who ended apartheid.
It's comedy genius likes this which keeps pb going.
I'm sure we'll soon have tim here sneering at Roger's ridiculous anecdote.
For some reason I suspect that the only black people Roger encountered in South Africa were those who polished his shoes and served his drinks.
"Who shall we believe"..Based on the amount of information De Klerk and the commercials director would have about the inner workings then I guess I would have to believe De Klerk. The change doesn't seem to have removed the dreadful townships. The inhabitants just seem to have changed one set of dreadful rulers for another one... but let's not talk about that.
"......and Thatcher brought about the end of white minority rule in Zimbabwe.....odd that...."
Thatcher had nothing to do with ending white majority rule in Zimbabwe!! She wasn't even PM yet-or if she was only by a week or so-and long after the Zimbabwe elections. Is this what they teach in the CCO revisionist politics department?
So not only was there a double dip recession but the great recession was not only deeper but longer - 6 quarters.
Therefore plenty for everything to berate their political opponents with.
the recession difference is currently £26m in q1 2012, a couple more updates and that will be a plus.
Possibly but its also possible they might adjust things downward as they have done again with 2008-2009.
can't see it myself AR. Like you I'm not a GO fan but I suspect it will get revised to a small plus. The significance of it is political only since any reasonable look at the figures say we're in economic stagnation despite throwing money at the problem for 3 years.
"......and Thatcher brought about the end of white minority rule in Zimbabwe.....odd that...."
Thatcher had nothing to do with ending white majority rule in Zimbabwe!! She wasn't even PM yet-or if she was only by a week or so-and long after the Zimbabwe elections. Is this what they teach in the CCO revisionist politics department?
She was PM for almost a year before Zimbabwe was granted independence. The Act granting independence was passed on her watch:
Thatcher had nothing to do with ending white majority rule in Zimbabwe!! She wasn't even PM yet
Wrong:
"Following the Meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Government held in Lusaka from 1–7 August 1979, the British government invited Muzorewa and the leaders of the Patriotic Front to participate in a Constitutional Conference at Lancaster House. The purpose of the Conference was to discuss and reach agreement on the terms of an Independence Constitution, to agree on the holding of elections under British authority, and to enable Zimbabwe Rhodesia to proceed to lawful and internationally-recognized independence, with the parties settling their differences by political means. Lord Carrington, Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary of the United Kingdom, chaired the Conference. The conference took place from 10 September-15 December 1979 with 47 plenary sessions.
Interesting - and bit alarming reading up on the proposed loan book sale. One reason I took my student loan out was the whole BoE+1% or RPI (Whichever is lower)... Seems that may be changed if its sold off to a cap of 3.6% (RPI ?). That would mean it'd be worth my while to whack huge lump sums into it come next year which I can't say I'd be thrilled about, but the maths would work out. I'm not against the book being privatised, but I signed up to lower of BoE+1%/RPI and would not be best pleased if that was disregarded.
So not only was there a double dip recession but the great recession was not only deeper but longer - 6 quarters.
Therefore plenty for everything to berate their political opponents with.
the recession difference is currently £26m in q1 2012, a couple more updates and that will be a plus.
Possibly but its also possible they might adjust things downward as they have done again with 2008-2009.
can't see it myself AR. Like you I'm not a GO fan but I suspect it will get revised to a small plus. The significance of it is political only since any reasonable look at the figures say we're in economic stagnation despite throwing money at the problem for 3 years.
That the 2008-2009 recession was even deeper and longer than previously thought is also a condemnation of Osborne.
Buying into Brown's 'economic miracle', basing Conservative strategy upon the economy being sound and being totally unprepared for what happened shows that he is the wrong man to have in an economics position.
Though we shouldn't mock Roger - and I always feel guilty after having done so.
With the exception of SeanT** how many of the rest of us would ever have encountered a real life champagne socialist otherwise.
PB benefits from the variety of us here and Roger fulfills a role as valuable as any of us.
** I wonder if SeanT's irritaion with Roger is caused by his regular interaction with similar people?
I'm not irritated by Roger at all. He is a friendly old slapstick clown, clumping around and falling over himself. His constant ability to get things magnificently wrong (remember the Northern Rock thing which would "all be over by Friday"?) is a genuine source of amusement.
And the way he instantly and reliably reverts to ad hom attacks, when gently poked with a stick, provides similar pleasure.
Long may he continue to post his fatuities.
I'm currently reading Crumley's "The Last Good Kiss". I'm not really one for Private Eye novels, but it's a stunningly good example of its genre.
Anyway, there's a section near the end where a film director is mentioned, and as I read it I rather thought of our Roger.
So, under Brown-Darling, the economy collapsed by more than 7% in a year and more than a million people were thrown out of work (though few in the public sector, so who cares?) But, instead of discussing this shameful performance, we are arguing about whether a decline of £25m over three months in a multi-trillion pound economy constitutes a recession or not.
Oh, and whether a Chancellor is taking the pxxx by treating himself to a 'luxury' £9 burger in the process of an all-nighter.
Is this what passes for political discussion in the UKIP-age?
So not only was there a double dip recession but the great recession was not only deeper but longer - 6 quarters.
Therefore plenty for everything to berate their political opponents with.
the recession difference is currently £26m in q1 2012, a couple more updates and that will be a plus.
Possibly but its also possible they might adjust things downward as they have done again with 2008-2009.
can't see it myself AR. Like you I'm not a GO fan but I suspect it will get revised to a small plus. The significance of it is political only since any reasonable look at the figures say we're in economic stagnation despite throwing money at the problem for 3 years.
That the 2008-2009 recession was even deeper and longer than previously thought is also a condemnation of Osborne.
Buying into Brown's 'economic miracle', basing Conservative strategy upon the economy being sound and being totally unprepared for what happened shows that he is the wrong man to have in an economics position.
As I've said before the blues have chosen an ordinary chancellor for extraordinary times. I found Avery's post the other night surprising - he argued that although they'd sent a boy to do a man's job, the boy was growing up fast. It sort of begs the question why the best available person for the job wasn't in it from day one.
""She exerted more influence in what happened in South Africa than any other political leader," De Klerk said. He said Thatcher "correctly believed" that more could be achieved through constructive engagement with his government than international sanctions and isolation of the South African government.""
I'm sorry Carlotta but that's just nonsense. I went for the first time within a year or so of Mandela being released and EVERYONE (whites obviously) said that sanctions were the reason for the end of apartheid and Thatcher almost uniquely in the world was against them. The ANC were 100% for them and their opinion is rather more valid than De Klerk's was the apartheid Prime Minister.
Just think about De Klerk's motivation. Thatcher was almost the only world leader who was on De Klerk's side. Of course he agreed with her. They were about the only world leaders who believed in apartheid
Just google "Mandela necklace", Roger, and tell us who is the more repulsive human being, Maggie or Winnie?
So not only was there a double dip recession but the great recession was not only deeper but longer - 6 quarters.
Therefore plenty for everything to berate their political opponents with.
the recession difference is currently £26m in q1 2012, a couple more updates and that will be a plus.
Possibly but its also possible they might adjust things downward as they have done again with 2008-2009.
can't see it myself AR. Like you I'm not a GO fan but I suspect it will get revised to a small plus. The significance of it is political only since any reasonable look at the figures say we're in economic stagnation despite throwing money at the problem for 3 years.
That the 2008-2009 recession was even deeper and longer than previously thought is also a condemnation of Osborne.
Buying into Brown's 'economic miracle', basing Conservative strategy upon the economy being sound and being totally unprepared for what happened shows that he is the wrong man to have in an economics position.
As I've said before the blues have chosen an ordinary chancellor for extraordinary times. I found Avery's post the other night surptising - he argued that although they'd sent a boy to do a man's job, the boy was growing up fast. It sort of begs the question why the best available person for the job wasn't in it from day one.
We all know the answer to that, Cameron cares more about Osborne than he does about winning elections or economic success.
Chum before country, chum before party.
The very fact that the hapless Osborne was broadcasting his "late night in the office" is a direct recognition that as Dave's privileged mate he'd chosen to flounce around in the US before the Omnishambles budget - a victim of his own self image, the Master Strategist.
I have to say the Master Strategist line just doesn't work, it just looks like Labour sour grapes from the ineritance tax mess and Mandelson on a boat. Outside political anoraks it means nothing.
There should be some kind of award for journalism of this calibre of ridiculous, puking, mealy-mouthed lefty evasiveness.
Whether right or wrong, there is a narrative out there in the country that some are more equal than others in the application of the laws, and it is not going away.
Just today, The commentator attacked May for not being even-handed in keeping 'hate preachers' from our shores after banning Geller et al.
When the Mail reported on the Worcester Mosque graffiti, the most liked comments (in the thousands) were about how the police had brought no-one to book for the cenotaph defacing, and the legitimacy of the mosque itself.
The perception of double standards (whether true or not) is what keeps the EDL and NF going. I'm sure tommy and co. will tell you that.
UK politics has definitely reached yet another low when the Chancellor of the Exchequer tweets his dinner. It's just embarrassing and appeals to no-one.
Begs the question who on Earth is advising these guys?
Comments
Alan has his 'own' truth. Bless.
If you don't want to then you must accept the consequences.
Mrs Thatcher warned the South African government repeatedly in the 1980s that rule by race was unacceptable and Mandela should be released.
Your visceral hatred of Thatcher and all things tory is making you unable to come to any balanced assessment (as ever).
I was there, I didn't sleep through it. I remember many discussions about the best way of helping to end apartheid, but I can't remember a single example of any Tory politician (or indeed any other mainstream UK politician) supporting it. Care to provide an example?
Suzanne Moore is of course quite absurd in her equating of the position of being against blowing people up, or against sanctions which would hurt the black majority, as being pro-apartheid. You wouldn't make that despicable equivalence, would you?
I'm afraid I don't, Mike. As I've made abundantly clear, I'm prepared to follow sensible rules like not posting about matters that could get you into legal difficulty. I've always attempted to follow those rulings to the letter. But I'm not going to even attempt to follow daft rules, and I've made that abundantly clear to you again, and again, and again.
"If you don't want to then you must accept the consequences."
Nope. If you ban me or delete my posts for no good reason, that is a decision you've made, not me. That is your responsibility, and something that you have to justify (you can). It's not something that I "must accept", and I have no intention of doing so.
Or perhaps Cammie has been thoroughly indoctrinated by twenty years of anti-Thatcher propaganda from the tory media complex. Facts are irrelevant , he believes the myth.
Frankly, he's a fanatic.
FW de Klerk, the last apartheid-era president of South Africa, said in a statement that Thatcher, who he called a friend, was "a steadfast critic of apartheid". He said she had a better grasp of the complexities and realities of South Africa than many of her contemporaries.
"She exerted more influence in what happened in South Africa than any other political leader," De Klerk said. He said Thatcher "correctly believed" that more could be achieved through constructive engagement with his government than international sanctions and isolation of the South African government."
http://mg.co.za/article/2013-04-10-did-margaret-thatcher-help-prolong-apartheid
But what would they know....
So Zimbabwe & South Africa both on Thatcher's watch - and yet she's the supporter of white minority rule?
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/steerpike/2013/06/finding-farage/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=finding-farage
Goodbye
Its times like this when I really miss the 'like' button.
That's three different right wing posters now. How many more before the day is out?
See link:
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2
""She exerted more influence in what happened in South Africa than any other political leader," De Klerk said. He said Thatcher "correctly believed" that more could be achieved through constructive engagement with his government than international sanctions and isolation of the South African government.""
I'm sorry Carlotta but that's just nonsense. I went for the first time within a year or so of Mandela being released and EVERYONE (whites obviously) said that sanctions were the reason for the end of apartheid and Thatcher almost uniquely in the world was against them. The ANC were 100% for them and their opinion is rather more valid than De Klerk's was the apartheid Prime Minister.
Just think about De Klerk's motivation. Thatcher was almost the only world leader who was on De Klerk's side. Of course he agreed with her. They were about the only world leaders who believed in apartheid
Are you really incapable of understanding that believing (arguably wrongly, but let's leave that aside) that sanctions were not the best way of getting rid of apartheid doesn't mean that Maggie believed in or supported apartheid?
You don't seem to be completely dumb, so it can only be prejudice blinding you to the obvious non-sequitur.
But they probably do.
More strategic genius.
And as predicted by some of us here.
Psychologists tell us that's the way these things normally work.
Unless you go beyond one decimal place:
The actual GDP changes are by my calculation:
2008q1 +0.148%
2008q2 -0.903%
2008q3 -1.442%
2008q4 -2.147%
2009q1 -2.468%
2009q2 -0.424%
2009q3 -0.004%
2009q4 +0.425%
2010q1 +0.526%
2010q2 +1.018%
2010q3 +0.402%
2010q4 -0.200%
2011q1 +0.466%
2011q2 +0.097%
2011q3 +0.596%
2011q4 -0.106%
2012q1 -0.007%
2012q2 -0.501%
2012q3 +0.742%
2012q4 -0.230%
2013q1 +0.267%
So not only was there a double dip recession but the great recession was not only deeper but longer - 6 quarters.
Therefore plenty for everything to berate their political opponents with.
For some reason I suspect that the only black people Roger encountered in South Africa were those who polished his shoes and served his drinks.
No double dip.
No need to say anything more.
https://twitter.com/EricPickles/status/350262397321244672/photo/1
I expect it will be all over the front page of the Sun tomorrow.....
The change doesn't seem to have removed the dreadful townships. The inhabitants just seem to have changed one set of dreadful rulers for another one... but let's not talk about that.
With the exception of SeanT** how many of the rest of us would ever have encountered a real life champagne socialist otherwise.
PB benefits from the variety of us here and Roger fulfills a role as valuable as any of us.
** I wonder if SeanT's irritaion with Roger is caused by his regular interaction with similar people?
"......and Thatcher brought about the end of white minority rule in Zimbabwe.....odd that...."
Thatcher had nothing to do with ending white majority rule in Zimbabwe!! She wasn't even PM yet-or if she was only by a week or so-and long after the Zimbabwe elections. Is this what they teach in the CCO revisionist politics department?
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/60
Still, your comment was beautifully punctuated.
"Following the Meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Government held in Lusaka from 1–7 August 1979, the British government invited Muzorewa and the leaders of the Patriotic Front to participate in a Constitutional Conference at Lancaster House. The purpose of the Conference was to discuss and reach agreement on the terms of an Independence Constitution, to agree on the holding of elections under British authority, and to enable Zimbabwe Rhodesia to proceed to lawful and internationally-recognized independence, with the parties settling their differences by political means.
Lord Carrington, Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary of the United Kingdom, chaired the Conference. The conference took place from 10 September-15 December 1979 with 47 plenary sessions.
Mugabe was elected PM on the 4th of March 1980...
You're the revisionist Roger!
I'm not against the book being privatised, but I signed up to lower of BoE+1%/RPI and would not be best pleased if that was disregarded.
No, I think we all get that.....
Buying into Brown's 'economic miracle', basing Conservative strategy upon the economy being sound and being totally unprepared for what happened shows that he is the wrong man to have in an economics position.
Anyway, there's a section near the end where a film director is mentioned, and as I read it I rather thought of our Roger.
I wonder if they're related :: SmileyFace
I think both you and @Roger need to look up what revisionism, in the context of historiography, actually means.
Oh, and whether a Chancellor is taking the pxxx by treating himself to a 'luxury' £9 burger in the process of an all-nighter.
Is this what passes for political discussion in the UKIP-age?
Look, it was a nice hit by the Sun. But if we're about to have a national debate about a £10 burger we're a nation of imbeciles.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10146081/Twitchers-flocking-to-see-rare-bird-saw-it-killed-by-wind-turbine.html
Suddenly the high rollers get attracted by the Scottish #IndyRef betting
The NO price tightens sharply http://bit.ly/13aqjap
Eck's humiliation next year will be a nice foretaste for Ed of what happens when your pitch to the voters is a blank piece of paper.
Whether right or wrong, there is a narrative out there in the country that some are more equal than others in the application of the laws, and it is not going away.
Just today, The commentator attacked May for not being even-handed in keeping 'hate preachers' from our shores after banning Geller et al.
When the Mail reported on the Worcester Mosque graffiti, the most liked comments (in the thousands) were about how the police had brought no-one to book for the cenotaph defacing, and the legitimacy of the mosque itself.
The perception of double standards (whether true or not) is what keeps the EDL and NF going. I'm sure tommy and co. will tell you that.
Begs the question who on Earth is advising these guys?