BBC News on the death of former British Prime Minister Edward Heath
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 เม.ย. 2012
- #BBCNews #Heath #obituary BBC News on the death of former British Prime Minister Edward Heath who was Prime Minster from 1970 to 1974 on the 17th July 2005
9:58 tony benn you fucking legend
"to the left of Tony Blair" haha thanks for that Tony Benn
Heath was a decent person despite being a horrible PM. I can't picture Blair, Thatcher, Cameron, or Boris flying to Baathist Iraq to negotiate the release of hostsges.
He was a paedophile
He retired aged 85.
Best described by his old adversary Harold Wilson as 'a shiver looking for s spine to run up!'
I really believe he never understood what he was doing. He was somehow able to railroad the UK into a Common Market that he thought would revive British industry by some sort of osmosis, without the deep changes that were necessary. He barely understood the underlying economics, and avoided democracy whenever he could on this issue. One of those old patricians who felt it was below him to actually have to explain himself to ordinary people. You only have to listen to the guy trying to speak French. He had no idea. He is long gone, though I wish he had lived to see the morning of 24th June 2016.
Given his reaction to the Labour landslide in 1997 (during which he held his seat as an MP), he would have taken the decision to leave the EU with fair mindedness and understanding.
MS19 but no democracy. The 1970 manifesto promised to negotiate, not join. And there was no referendum before joining. Whatever his intentions he followed the road to hell.
@@petercumpson6867 "If we can negotiate the right terms, we believe that it would be in the long-term interest of the British people for Britain to join the European Economic Community, and that it would make a major contribution to both the prosperity and the security of our country. The opportunities are immense. Economic growth and a higher standard of living would result from having a larger market.
But we must also recognise the obstacles. There would be short-term disadvantages in Britain going into the European Economic Community which must be weighed against the long-term benefits. Obviously there is a price we would not be prepared to pay. Only when we negotiate will it be possible to determine whether the balance is a fair one, and in the interests of Britain.
Our sole commitment is to negotiate; no more, no less. As the negotiations proceed we will report regularly through Parliament to the country.
A Conservative Government would not be prepared to recommend to Parliament, nor would Members of Parliament approve, a settlement which was unequal or unfair."
In light of that, one could indeed argue (as you have done) that Heath's government overshot its brief and took things further than they said they would. However, the electorate still got to have a say, albeit on terms renegotiated by Harold Wilson's Labour government and put to referendum in 1975. So, if the vote in 1970 wasn't exactly "join," the vote in 1975 vindicated the action of joining - just as, in 2017 and 2019, the majority of voters underscored their vote of 2016 to leave the EU.
MS19 Indeed. Interestingly in Feb 1975 opinion polls suggested the electorate would vote to leave, but a follow up question was “how would you vote if political leaders from your favoured party recommended staying in the EEC”. Then the pollsters got a yes. And that’s what happened later in the year. By 1981 the polls were again showing a majority (65% vs 25%) to leave. Back in 1975 we showed a deference to our leaders that is now long gone. In no small part to how they behaved on the EU issue and it’s lack of electoral mandate for Maastricht, Lisbon etc I’d suggest.
@@petercumpson6867 Likewise interesting. When focussed on one issue and required to respond to a simple "Yes/No" question on it, voters have a clear choice, but if other elements are introduced, the choice is muddied. One could look at 1997, when Euroscepticism had reached a point that various smaller political parties were pressing for more of a public say on our relationship with the EU (UKIP, the Referendum Party, the BNP, Veritas) and the Conservatives, looking to cling on to power in the face of a likely defeat, stated in one political broadcast that Tony Blair would favour taking further steps into European integration (for example by embracing the proposed single currency) whilst John Major would ensure that we stayed on the fringes. If the electorate harboured any desire to leave the EU, at that stage it was tempered, swayed and counteracted by a broader desire for change, so the Conservatives' warning was disregarded by most and Labour swept into power by a landslide. It was, of course, under that Labour government - or more accurately its successor but one - that we went into Lisbon, though not into the single currency. (Interestingly, on the single currency issue, I believe I read somewhere that Labour had considered putting it to a binding referendum but ultimately didn't do it, presumably because they realised that the vote would be an overwhelming "No" thus it was almost pointless to ask...)
Did I also read correctly that in 1975, Harold Wilson himself took no official position in the referendum, thus distancing the government from any kind of meaningful influence that could sway the result? I believe the Conservatives favoured Yes, whilst the Liberals favoured No, though both parties (and for that matter Labour) had key figures on both sides of the campaigning?
Ted Heath. Cyril Smith. Mountbatten. Kincora House. Make no mistake. And they were the tip of the iceberg.
Heath was in many ways the wrong person at the wrong time. He inherited a bitter industrial dispute and managed to U-Turn as well, which made him vulnerable. If he had stayed as organist, conductor and yachtsman he would have been a real ambassador for us. Unfortunately, cursed by conceit, he had the one job he never should have had.
I liked him I met him a very generous and humorous man I swam from Morning Cloud to Brighton !
His personal talents outside of politics must place him highly in the "well-rounded" / polymath category amongst politicians who attained name recognition thru governance, and not some form of celebrity (e.g. Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Trump, Imran Khan). In terms of accomplishment in classical music, I can only think of Condoleezza Rice who is up there but she never attained the presidency nor majority party leadership in Congress (which would be vaguely akin to the PM in the Westminster system, minus the executive powers)
I think it should be investigated if the state now and then is legislated with the Bible written as a story. The word immunity (Latin immunitas, freedom from obligations to the state) comes from a religious revelation from the middle ages, most likely from a pope to become lawless, and which has since been rewritten into full immunity to the queen, personal and functional immunity (legally, cannot be prosecuted for criminal act) to the prime minister, government, parliament, cabinet, and Supreme Court for law decisions and actions. I also think it should be investigated if millions of fallen soldiers in the world wars were elected by the people or not. The political exploitation of the vital ecosystem has now led to forest death (force majeure) how will it affect people's economy, etc?
I think the Democrat Party can be a consciously misleading party name with all parties belonging to the Conservative Party, as current political democracy and socialism can only be about going more toward the middle, eg. social democrats. The reason may be that the queen (head of state) wants to govern the people with full immunity together with the prime minister, government, parliament, cabinet, and Supreme Court with functional immunity, personal immunity for law decisions and actions, even with the misleading word professional politician.
I think the people should consider voting for a real democratic party with an independent state formation to investigate if the queen, prime minister, government, parliament, cabinet, and Supreme Court overall may be guilty of a violation of democratic rights with misleading elections, economic crimes, violation of human rights with class society for adults and children, serious environmental crime (force majeure).
This man resides in the heart of Bangladeshi nation. We will never forget what he did for our poor people back then.. He contributed in the struggle for emergence of a new nation uopn the face of earth...
He's a murdering pedophile do you're research
this is from a labour fan but heath was a good prime minster (compared to cameron or thatcher) and seemed like a decent man and the claims seem like bullshit.
but the claims are fake
Heath - worst ever PM.
Tedward
Tomothy and Thimas, Bobert
P D F
Deviant
A bacon
Compared to Boris Johnson he was a great prime minister ,
Heath was a paedo
This was very sad. He died too young. I wish he'd lived long enough to see the British people crush his European Dream into dust.
th-cam.com/video/v2oEUQFH8R0/w-d-xo.html
I wouldn't call 89 young
Yes that would have been a joy.
How were these dreadful liberal extremists ever allowed to infiltrate the Tory Party?
Judas