We want to share an important update with our Betfair Community users.
Over the coming months, the Betfair Community platform will be winding down. The final active day for the platform will be December 21st. From December 22nd, users will no longer be able to access the platform.
Your discussions, insights, engagement, and, most importantly, feedback have helped shape the platform and guided innovation. Your feedback continues to be important to us, and we will continue to listen via our dedicated feedback channels, as well as through product testing and innovations.
To share your feedback and experience, visit: https://support.betfair.com/app/home
|
By:
Absolute facking nutter to be frank!!
|
|
By:
He is a QC.
|
|
By:
Re T Blair:
rob_dylan: People either didn't vote for him, or they did vote for him and feel let down. No. They did vote for him and they didn't feel let down. They voted him back into office again and again. Eeternaloptimist: Popularity isn't any measure of greatness. In a democracy it is. It's the only objective measure of greatness in a democracy. |
|
By:
Horseshiit. At least 60% of the population are blithering idiots. Popularity is usually a sign of mediocrity. One Direction versus Elgar? No contest. One Direction by first round KO according to popularity. I rest my case.
|
|
By:
One Direction and Elgar aren't contesting elections. A Prime minister is.
A potential Prime Minister has just one initial task: to be popular and get elected. After that he has to perform well enough under 5 years of public scrutiny to retain that popularity. If you manage to retain that popularity over two 5-year terms and get re-elected with landslides, then, as a Prime Minister in a democracy, you are one of the all-time greats. |
|
By:
I’ve often said that to make stuff popular it has to be sh1t. One Direction, Take That, McDonalds, Coronation Street, X Factor, Hollywood Action Films, The Daily Mail etc
|
|
By:
I have to respectfully disagree screaming. Winning 3 elections doesn't make him a great PM, it makes him a long running PM. He was an awful PM who didn't have to change the Labour Party to get in as they were bound to get in anyway. "New Labour" was such a farce it was straight out of Animal Farm. And the vast majority of them all went along for the ride? What is the point of fighting for a Labour victory if you are not really Labour?
|
|
By:
Rob, I don't think you were old enough to vote in 1992. If there was ever a time that Labour "were bound to get in anyway", that was the one. And they didn't. And the reason was Kinnock: the man, the policies and that bloody wife of his. Opinion polls showed Kinnock clear right up until balloting took place. I still have a Ladbrokes voucher for my bet of a monkey on Labour to win that one.
It really wasn't as straightforward as it may seem to take a Labour Party to victory at that time. Yet Blair did it by recurring landslides. You and about 99% of the population now reckon you're too clever ever to have voted for him. But that's not the reality. We kept voting for him in our millions because life felt good and safe under him. What else could we demand of a politician? |
|
By:
Not taking us into an illegal war which killed hundreds of thousands? Not claiming to have ended boom and bust while presiding over the biggest boom followed by the biggest bust in nearly a century? Not enacting a Human Rights Act whilst simultaneously and surrepticiously eroding civil liberties for starters.
|
|
By:
What price did you get on Labour to win in 1992?
1992 I would guess Labour were favourites but not nailed on. 1997 they were absolutely nailed on, the tories were in total disarray. I have never known a PM be less popular than Major was in the mid nineties. It was a chance to have a Labour government but instead we got a New labour government. |
|
By:
We could have had a government that wasn't in cahoots with Murdoch too, Blair didn't need to get into bed with Murdoch, he would have got in anyway.
|
|
By:
Evens, rob. But that was months beforehand. I will never forgive Kinnock.
We'll never know for sure whether Blair could have won without Murdoch onside. If he had, I think he'd have been the only one to do so in the last 40 years. But that's a policy matter, and so a matter of personal opinion with the benefit of hindsight. I don't think you can judge a democratic PM's greatness on whether you think his policies look right or wrong decades later. It's a matter of whether he plays the hand he's dealt at the time in a way that satisfies the voters at the time. |