|
Blair
Jan 2, 2022 10:38:58 GMT
Post by tory on Jan 2, 2022 10:38:58 GMT
25 years ago Blair was elected. The piece below, by Ed West, articulates the notion that the world of 1997 was the moment the UK changed. Peter Hitchens has talked about this before, in that the death of Diana was so very different from Churchill's funeral in 1965. In 1997 the "old morality" about homosexuality et al was still very much in evidence, whereas today bigotry about sexual preferences has virtually disappeared. edwest.substack.com/p/1997-the-year-that-changed-britain
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Blair
Jan 2, 2022 10:50:10 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2022 10:50:10 GMT
I don't buy the idea that countries suddenly "change". It's far too neat. Attitudes towards homosexuality have generally got more liberal with each passing decade.
|
|
rayge
Administrator
Invisible
Posts: 8,790
|
Blair
Jan 2, 2022 10:59:29 GMT
Post by rayge on Jan 2, 2022 10:59:29 GMT
I don't buy the idea that any one person's selection of events constitutes any kind of 'truth' - a wretched chimera at the best of times (whenever they are).
|
|
|
Blair
Jan 2, 2022 11:43:38 GMT
Post by oh oooh on Jan 2, 2022 11:43:38 GMT
Well this is absolute cobblers for a kick-off
I mean if you're going to keep reading after THAT then you're putting faith in a fool, right?
|
|
|
Blair
Jan 2, 2022 11:53:55 GMT
via mobile
Post by tory on Jan 2, 2022 11:53:55 GMT
Well, you are a confirmed miserablist so I'm not surprised you'd think that.
|
|
|
Blair
Jan 2, 2022 11:56:26 GMT
Post by Reactionary Rage on Jan 2, 2022 11:56:26 GMT
Well this is absolute cobblers for a kick-off I mean if you're going to keep reading after THAT then you're putting faith in a fool, right? I think that might be ironic. The Diana thing was fucking weird at the time. Looking back now it does seem indicative of some kind of cultural change from the stoicism and restraint of previous decades to the over-emotional reactions and hysteria of today. Embarrassing stuff. I really cannot stand Blair these days and think he's typical of a certain kind of smug, elitist arsehole who is convinced his vision is the superior one and who is incapable of self-reflection and admitting any flaws in his vision.
|
|
|
Blair
Jan 2, 2022 12:05:17 GMT
via mobile
Post by tory on Jan 2, 2022 12:05:17 GMT
He was a great PM in the context of keeping a tight ship, his political nous and, of course, winning three elections. For that alone he has to be admired.
There are many unsung things like NHS performance, which under his leadership, improved a huge amount. Mass immigration and Lisbon, which was signed under Brown, though may have been the death knell for Britain's involvement in Europe.
|
|
|
Blair
Jan 2, 2022 12:24:26 GMT
Post by Reactionary Rage on Jan 2, 2022 12:24:26 GMT
Oh yeah, he was a serious politician. A real player. I can respect him as a politician with obvious caveats.
Mass immigration backfired on them eventually with Brexit I guess but then they imposed that vision on Britain with no real consent either.
|
|
wobblie
god
Just a prick out to make a name for himself.
Posts: 1,230
|
Blair
Jan 2, 2022 12:48:31 GMT
Post by wobblie on Jan 2, 2022 12:48:31 GMT
Sir, Bush Lickspittle
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Blair
Jan 2, 2022 13:32:08 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2022 13:32:08 GMT
Well this is absolute cobblers for a kick-off I mean if you're going to keep reading after THAT then you're putting faith in a fool, right? I think that might be ironic. The Diana thing was fucking weird at the time. Looking back now it does seem indicative of some kind of cultural change from the stoicism and restraint of previous decades to the over-emotional reactions and hysteria of today. Embarrassing stuff. Well we have nothing to really compare it to. We can probably say that the reaction would have been different in the 1950s, but can we really say the reaction would have been that different in the 80s or early 90s, given it was largely media driven.
|
|
|
Blair
Jan 2, 2022 13:42:35 GMT
Post by oh oooh on Jan 2, 2022 13:42:35 GMT
It might be a boring 'apolitical' response but it WAS a shock, remember. I mean, she died as a result of a car crash in a tunnel in Paris after being chased by paparazzi - she was only 36. 'People's Princess' or not, if we'd experienced this happening to Bowie or someone then there'd be all sorts of OTT shite, just the same.
Pretty soon after the incident you started to get this line about the grief being 'media fabricated' and how the public's reaction was 'hysterical' and that's what we've heard ever since. If not, then you're a Daily Mail reader or some such bullshit. Your reaction is your reaction.
The suicide rate went up by quite a bit in the UK as a direct result. It was a terrible thing.
|
|
|
Blair
Jan 2, 2022 13:43:57 GMT
Post by oh oooh on Jan 2, 2022 13:43:57 GMT
Some criticised the reaction to Diana's death at the time as being "hysterical" and "irrational". As early as 1998, philosopher Anthony O'Hear identified the mourning as a defining point in the "sentimentalisation of Britain", a media-fuelled phenomenon where image and reality become blurred.[115] Oasis bandleader Noel Gallagher responded to the reaction with, "The woman's dead. Shut up. Get over it".[116] These criticisms were repeated on the tenth anniversary of the crash, when journalist Jonathan Freedland of The Guardian expressed the opinion that, "It has become an embarrassing memory, like a mawkish, self-pitying teenage entry in a diary ... we cringe to think about it." In 2010, Theodore Dalrymple suggested "sentimentality, both spontaneous and generated by the exaggerated attention of the media, that was necessary to turn the death of the princess into an event of such magnitude thus served a political purpose, one that was inherently dishonest in a way that parallels the dishonesty that lies behind much sentimentality itself".[117]
The reactions following Diana's death were subject to criticism by Christopher Hitchens. His 1998 documentary Princess Diana: The Mourning After accused the British media of playing an essential role in creating a national, unchallengeable, and at times hysterical cult of personality surrounding Diana, whereas previously they had been extremely critical of her and the monarchy after she had separated and divorced from Charles, and was having an affair with Dodi Fayed. Hitchens claimed the public were behaving irrationally and that many appeared to not even know why they were mourning. He also scrutinised the level of censorship against criticism of Diana and the monarchy but was accused, in a review by The Independent, of exaggerating on this point.[118] Private Eye's sales dropped by one third after it ran a cover titled "Media to Blame", which attempted to criticise the instant switch in the media and the public's opinion of Diana after her death from critical to complimentary.[119]
Hitchens's views were later supported by Jonathan Freedland of The Guardian, who also questioned the reason behind the "outburst of mass hysteria" following Diana's death and described it as "an episode when the British public lost its characteristic cool and engaged in seven days of bogus sentimentality, whipped up by the media, and whose flimsiness was demonstrated when it vanished as quickly as it had appeared".[120] Comparing Diana's funeral to that of Winston Churchill, Peter Hitchens observed the "difference in the self-discipline of the people and their attitudes" at the two historical events, with them being more restrained at Churchill's funeral but "un-English" at Diana's.[121]
Some cultural analysts disagreed. Sociologist Deborah Steinberg pointed out that many Britons associated Diana not with the Royal Family but with social change and a more liberal society: "I don't think it was hysteria, the loss of a public figure can be a touchstone for other issues."[122] Carol Wallace of People magazine said that the fascination with Diana's death had to do with "the fairy tale failing to end happily – twice, first when she got divorced and now that she died."[123]
Reflecting back on the event in a 2021 docuseries, Diana's son Prince Harry said that he was surprised by the extent to which the public reacted to his mother's death. Referencing the day of her funeral, he said "I'm just walking along and doing what was expected of me, showing the one-tenth of the emotion that everybody else was showing. This was my mum, you never even met her."[124]en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Diana,_Princess_of_Wales#Reception
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Blair
Jan 2, 2022 13:45:30 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2022 13:45:30 GMT
His legacy is complex I think. He tends to be most popular with Tories. He certainly had a rare political gift for getting the public to believe in him. He was a fantastic salesman. Brown was always the deeper thinker and had more substance overall. The first two administrations were a mix of the good and not so good, but certainly one of the better post war governments.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Blair
Jan 2, 2022 13:48:09 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2022 13:48:09 GMT
It might be a boring 'apolitical' response but it WAS a shock, remember. I mean, she died as a result of a car crash in a tunnel in Paris after being chased by paparazzi - she was only 36. 'People's Princess' or not, if we'd experienced this happening to Bowie or someone then there'd be all sorts of OTT shite, just the same. Pretty soon after the incident you started to get this line about the grief being 'media fabricated' and how the public's reaction was 'hysterical' and that's what we've heard ever since. If not, then you're a Daily Mail reader or some such bullshit. Your reaction is your reaction. The suicide rate went up by quite a bit in the UK as a direct result. It was a terrible thing. You can't dismiss the 'hysteria' claims and then add that last sentence. If that's not a hysterical reaction, then what is?
|
|
|
Blair
Jan 2, 2022 13:51:53 GMT
Post by oh oooh on Jan 2, 2022 13:51:53 GMT
It might be a boring 'apolitical' response but it WAS a shock, remember. I mean, she died as a result of a car crash in a tunnel in Paris after being chased by paparazzi - she was only 36. 'People's Princess' or not, if we'd experienced this happening to Bowie or someone then there'd be all sorts of OTT shite, just the same. Pretty soon after the incident you started to get this line about the grief being 'media fabricated' and how the public's reaction was 'hysterical' and that's what we've heard ever since. If not, then you're a Daily Mail reader or some such bullshit. Your reaction is your reaction. The suicide rate went up by quite a bit in the UK as a direct result. It was a terrible thing. You can't dismiss the 'hysteria' claims and then add that last sentence. If that's not a hysterical reaction, then what is? I don't know what you mean. I'm saying people's reaction to events like this tends to be a natural thing. If you see it as an over-reaction then that implies you're suspicious that it's genuine. I'm doubtful that happens. The media played its part, for sure, but people were shocked and upset and that isn't at all surprising.
|
|