Oh dear, is that the best you can come up with? OK, take the next general election. Having experienced a term under the handbag rule, more people voted against her than for her. Take the next after that, after people had experienced two terms, more people voted against her thand for her. .
But this is the same for every PM post 1945, isn't it?
But this is the same for every PM post 1945, isn't it?
Whether or not that is the case does not change the fact that you were factually incorrect and El Barbudo was factually correct.
The fact is that the majority of those who cast a vote in the elections in 1983 and 1987 did not cast a vote for the Conservative Party/Margaret Thatcher.
Advice is what we seek when we already know the answer - but wish we didn't
I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full-frontal lobotomy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ kirkstaller wrote: "All DNA shows is that we have a common creator."
cod'ead wrote: "I have just snotted weissbier all over my keyboard & screen"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin." - Aneurin Bevan
But this is the same for every PM post 1945, isn't it?
Yes, of course. That's the whole point. Regardless of which PM you nominate as "the best" since, say 1945, the majority voted against them. Hence, you cannot "prove" which one was best.
Whether or not that is the case does not change the fact that you were factually incorrect and El Barbudo was factually correct.
The fact is that the majority of those who cast a vote in the elections in 1983 and 1987 did not cast a vote for the Conservative Party/Margaret Thatcher.
No, because we are debating whether the majority now rank Thatcher as one of the best PM's we've had.
As a result, election results from the time cannot be used to determine whether the majority now consider her to be one of the best.
Yes, of course. That's the whole point. Regardless of which PM you nominate as "the best" since, say 1945, the majority voted against them. Hence, you cannot "prove" which one was best.
This is true. But you can offer an opinion, and mine is that she was one of the best and the polls do agree with me.
Last edited by Ajw71 on Tue Jul 31, 2012 5:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
No, because we are debating whether the majority now rank Thatcher as one of the best PM's we've had.
As a result, election results from the time cannot be used to determine whether the majority now consider her to be one of the best.
Heavenfuckinghelp.
Barbudo has been patiently explaining to you that, in terms of votes cast, she never won a majority at an election - certainly not after having served a term.
This is the best 'poll' you can get.
Now which part of this incredibly complex point do you have difficulty understanding?
Barbudo has been patiently explaining to you that, in terms of votes cast, she never won a majority at an election - certainly not after having served a term.
This is the best 'poll' you can get.
Erm, no it's not. The debate is how the majority now, not when she was elected consider Thatchers time as prime minister. Geddit?
Election votes at the time cannot determine how great a PM is viewed now. Funny though, as if she was as bad as you make out, strange how she was elected three times.
Destoryed infrastructure, sold off the family silver, etc, etc, etc, but elected three times, consistently voted in the top 5 greatest PM's of all time and is going to have a state funeral.
Terrible wasn't she.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 126 guests
REPLY
Please note using apple style emoji's can result in posting failures.
Use the FULL EDITOR to better format content or upload images, be notified of replies etc...