Maggie

[Baleforce]

The Olympics brought in tourist revenue and investment. I somehow cannot picture thousands of Japanese tourists queueing eagerly to get a picture of Thatcher's varnished coffin being hauled unceremoniously into Westminster Cathedral while 'Ding Dong the Witch is Dead' plays in the distance on someone's radio.

you missed my point, I meant that to compare this to the Olympics is ridiculous, £10m may sound like a lot of money to us, but it's a couple of coppers down the back of the sofa from the uk economy

 

[DubaiSpur]

you missed my point, I meant that to compare this to the Olympics is ridiculous, £10m may sound like a lot of money to us, but it's a couple of coppers down the back of the sofa from the uk economy

I actually did. This thread fills me with a sort of red mist that leaves me deliberately argumentative for reasons I can't fully fathom. Pardon.

 

[thfcsteff]

Just saw that Mark Thatcher is a knight! How did this gobbrick, tinkle ant receive a knighthood? The man should have been locked up, the corrupt piece of brick!

Unbelievable. Just shows you what that 'honour' is actually worth these days...

 

[thfcsteff]

Because she did what had to be done, and for a decade nobody else who tried could do it.

As I have said previously, I think history will be very kind to Thatcher.

There is, sadly, a reason for that. And frankly, that reason appalls me. Whilst I understand that history is always being re-written and re-shaped, it makes seeing it happen again no less egregious.

 

[thfcsteff]

And Churchill was a wartime PM - you just need to win to be remembered as great.

I don't love everything about Churchill by any stretch, but he led at a time when there was a genuine war to fight. Thatcher had to create one 8000 miles away on a tiny island a stone's throw from Argentina to whip up the goon squad and get re-elected!

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

I don't love everything about Churchill by any stretch, but he led at a time when there was a genuine war to fight. Thatcher had to create one 8000 miles away on a tiny island a stone's throw from Argentina to whip up the goon squad and get re-elected!

People also forget what a close run thing the Falklands was. Britain was very nearly beaten by a banana republic. So it was no great victory, hardly another Agincourt

 

[parklane1]

I don't love everything about Churchill by any stretch, but he led at a time when there was a genuine war to fight. Thatcher had to create one 8000 miles away on a tiny island a stone's throw from Argentina to whip up the goon squad and get re-elected!

This is a point which is usually ignored, before the created war and in to the lead up to the next election her popularity had slumped to just 23% the lowest of any sitting PM. Along came the created war and low and behold she won it.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

The way some of the posters on this thread have talked about the falklands is borderline offensive. Firsty anything that went on before the falklands really has to come down to the military chiefs and their advice on how much personal should be left on the island to defend it.

Also suggesting that maggie wanted the war to get a bounce to win an election just shows a blind hatred that gets in the way of facts. The is no way a Prime minister could not have gone to war there to win back land that was ours legally and in which British people were prisoners, even a labour one would have done the same thing. It was not maggies war, it was Britains war.

Wont be able to agree with some of the lefties on the coal mines and the decline of the north but that is a difference of opinon but to say the war in the falklands is her fault and she only did it to win an election is pretty desperate stuff, you would be better off sticking to the industrial decline stuff because your position on the falklands just undermines your argument.

Also suggesting we nearly lost the war to the argies would have been her fault as well. I do not think winning or losing a war can ever be down to a prime minister or president but surely the head of the armed forces, it is not like thatcher would have been telling them when to attack and what positions to attack.

 

[Gordinho]

The way some of the posters on this thread have talked about the falklands is borderline offensive. Firsty anything that went on before the falklands really has to come down to the military chiefs and their advice on how much personal should be left on the island to defend it.

Also suggesting that maggie wanted the war to get a bounce to win an election just shows a blind hatred that gets in the way of facts. The is no way a Prime minister could not have gone to war there to win back land that was ours legally and in which British people were prisoners, even a labour one would have done the same thing. It was not maggies war, it was Britains war.

Wont be able to agree with some of the lefties on the coal mines and the decline of the north but that is a difference of opinon but to say the war in the falklands is her fault and she only did it to win an election is pretty desperate stuff, you would be better off sticking to the industrial decline stuff because your position on the falklands just undermines your argument.

Also suggesting we nearly lost the war to the argies would have been her fault as well. I do not think winning or losing a war can ever be down to a prime minister or president but surely the head of the armed forces, it is not like thatcher would have been telling them when to attack and what positions to attack.

This post is pure Chich and that's why I have a man crush on him and won't comment any further.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

The way some of the posters on this thread have talked about the falklands is borderline offensive. Firsty anything that went on before the falklands really has to come down to the military chiefs and their advice on how much personal should be left on the island to defend it.

Also suggesting that maggie wanted the war to get a bounce to win an election just shows a blind hatred that gets in the way of facts. The is no way a Prime minister could not have gone to war there to win back land that was ours legally and in which British people were prisoners, even a labour one would have done the same thing. It was not maggies war, it was Britains war.




Wont be able to agree with some of the lefties on the coal mines and the decline of the north but that is a difference of opinon but to say the war in the falklands is her fault and she only did it to win an election is pretty desperate stuff, you would be better off sticking to the industrial decline stuff because your position on the falklands just undermines your argument.

Also suggesting we nearly lost the war to the argies would have been her fault as well. I do not think winning or losing a war can ever be down to a prime minister or president but surely the head of the armed forces, it is not like thatcher would have been telling them when to attack and what positions to attack.

Yeah, "rejoice, rejoice." She gave the final go ahead to sink the General Belgrano outside the British established exclusion zone. FACT!

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

Yeah, "rejoice, rejoice." She gave the final go ahead to sink the General Belgrano outside the British established exclusion zone. FACT!

kind of like bombing of dresden at the end of the second world war,i do not care that she gave the order to sink the Belgrano, they started the war, it was an act of war these things happen in war. But you cant say she started an illegal war because a part of britain was invaded, she and any other prime minister would have to had gone to war and people did not vote for her because of the falklands war but because people did not like the alternative. Just because the was a massive change in the opinon polls does not mean people voted for her because of the war.

Cameron was way out infront at the last election 6 months from polling day but as time got closer to the election he could not convince the public he was the right choice. Thatcher made mistakes, i do not believe she was super human but to say people only voted for her because of the war is wrong and put out there by the left to detract from the fact that although she was a decesive politican she still beat the left.

Intersting reading this week about how blair thinks millband might be taking labour to far to the left, i think labour will cake walk the next election but blair despite the fact i do not agree with a lot of what he says he knows more about politics then me. It is what happened with the labour party in the 80's maybe they elected the wrong millband as leader.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

This post is pure Chich and that's why I have a man crush on him and won't comment any further.

you wont comment any further on your man crush?

i understand how some feel about the north, it is not an easy subject and the is no right or wrong answer. I cant comment on her foreign policies with south africa and the bloke from chilie because to be honest i have what some call the little englander in me and dont really care for foreign policy.

Maybe why im attracted to UKIP, i want to see us trade with the world but when it comes to wars or governing other countries im not interested, what we did in Ireland and India was wrong but in the new world the one we live in now, lets live it to the Russians, Chinese and Americans to sort out, far cheaper and less hassle.

I honestly believe the right and the left are not really aware of our true standing in the new world order, but maybe that is for another day and another thread.

 

[DubaiSpur]

Yeah, "rejoice, rejoice." She gave the final go ahead to sink the General Belgrano outside the British established exclusion zone. FACT!

I think she gave the order 12 hours before having to meet the president of Peru, who'd hammered out a comprehensive peace plan that was backed by the United States and that involved a referendum on the sovereignty of the Falklands, conducted on the islanders themselves. Such conditions would have meant the UK would have gained the Falklands anyway, as the islanders were unlikely to vote Argentinian after just a month or so of occupation.

The Labour MP Tam Dalyell always alleged afterward that Maggie knew about the plan, and ordered the sinking to prevent a diplomatic end to the conflict. Given such doubt exists as to the reasons behind the sinking of an ageing vessel sailing away from the exclusion zone, how can it be offensive to discuss this possibility that Thatcher's only interest in the Falklands was the possibility of military conflict against Argentina, giving her a much needed election boost after a disastrous couple of years?

A leader's priority must always be the safety and security of the nation's citizens. They are trusted by the public to do so. Throwing away lives to achieve a meaningless military victory in order to boost domestic popularity is a breach of that trust. Hence the questions.

As for the second bit, it wasn't our tactical plan that was lacking during the war. Our officers and strategic commanders did a good job, all things considered. The reason we nearly lost is because ready-made supplies were running low, our supply lines were becoming overstretched and Argentina had the advantage of mainland bases from which to launch attack aircraft, which we couldn't do anything about unless we expanded the war to include an invasion of Argentina itself, something that would mean stretching our meager war budget out to a level that would annihilate our finances.

The fact that the poorly-motivated Argentinians surrendered when they did (due in part to the unpopularity of their leader) came as a blessed relief to a military struggling with deep cuts over the previous twenty years, going back to the abolition of national service. It was our budget cuts (some them Thatcher's) that nearly lost us the war.

Just putting a couple of things out there.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

kind of like bombing of dresden at the end of the second world war,i do not care that she gave the order to sink the Belgrano, they started the war, it was an act of war these things happen in war. But you cant say she started an illegal war because a part of britain was invaded, she and any other prime minister would have to had gone to war and people did not vote for her because of the falklands war but because people did not like the alternative. Just because the was a massive change in the opinon polls does not mean people voted for her because of the war.

Cameron was way out infront at the last election 6 months from polling day but as time got closer to the election he could not convince the public he was the right choice. Thatcher made mistakes, i do not believe she was super human but to say people only voted for her because of the war is wrong and put out there by the left to detract from the fact that although she was a decesive politican she still beat the left.

Intersting reading this week about how blair thinks millband might be taking labour to far to the left, i think labour will cake walk the next election but blair despite the fact i do not agree with a lot of what he says he knows more about politics then me. It is what happened with the labour party in the 80's maybe they elected the wrong millband as leader.

Historically, people rarely vote out governments at the outbreak of war, a fact that would not have been lost on Thatcher methinks. Look at Churchill, as soon as the war was won, he was tossed out in one of the greatest landslides in 20th century history. However, during the war, that simply would not have happened. I find it interesting that many of the right wingers on here described Blair as a a war criminal during the Iraq war, but their silence has been deafening, regarding Thatcher's conduct regarding the General Belgrano and her protection of Pinochet.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

Just to add, the Foreign office were already in negotiations to hand the Falklands over, prior to the outbreak of hostilities.

 

[spursman17]

There is a lot of truth in that.

Some truth but not a lot. I've know some of the nicest couples who have had kids who'd grown up to be the complete opposite of them. Rude, offensive and criminals. Environment has a lot to play.

 

[Richie]

The idea that Thatcher, or any PM for that matter, would be willing to sacrifice the lives of British servicemen for political gain is ridiculous IMO.

 

[thfcsteff]

The way some of the posters on this thread have talked about the falklands is borderline offensive. Firsty anything that went on before the falklands really has to come down to the military chiefs and their advice on how much personal should be left on the island to defend it.

Also suggesting that maggie wanted the war to get a bounce to win an election just shows a blind hatred that gets in the way of facts. The is no way a Prime minister could not have gone to war there to win back land that was ours legally and in which British people were prisoners, even a labour one would have done the same thing. It was not maggies war, it was Britains war.

Wont be able to agree with some of the lefties on the coal mines and the decline of the north but that is a difference of opinon but to say the war in the falklands is her fault and she only did it to win an election is pretty desperate stuff, you would be better off sticking to the industrial decline stuff because your position on the falklands just undermines your argument.

Also suggesting we nearly lost the war to the argies would have been her fault as well. I do not think winning or losing a war can ever be down to a prime minister or president but surely the head of the armed forces, it is not like thatcher would have been telling them when to attack and what positions to attack.

Here are some FACTS. She was advised, by her foreign secretary at the time Lord Carrington, that the Argies wanted to discuss the Malvinas and see if diplomatic ground could be broken. This was many MONTHS before the invasion. She was told that non-dialogue/no talking, would be taken as an act of aggression and 'could' suggest we were about to go military. She stayed silent. She did NOT try to cut it off early-doors with diplomacy. She 'retired' Carrington, a brilliant foreign policy mind and the last non-extreme Conservative in her cabinet at that time. As has been pointed out by another postee, the irony of her refusal to discuss is that she had OFFERED such discussion early in her tenure!

YOU tell me where that's 'blind hatred'...seriously, explain it to me. Better still, go and read up on it, and not just the Daily Mail mate, read a bunch of things.
I find it 'borderline offensive' to repeatedly see her history re-written with the ugly bits getting slowly edited out.

 

[thfcsteff]

Just to add, the Foreign office were already in negotiations to hand the Falklands over, prior to the outbreak of hostilities.

To add, she ceased diplomatic relations which she was advised would be seen as a potential act of aggression. She could've dealt with the Falklands in a very different way. She chose a path.

 

[spursman17]

I live in Mississauga. A city in Canada, part of the Greater Toronto Area. I lived in Dubai as a child, having been brought there by my parents. I had no say in the matter. I grew up, saw it for what it was, and left. Moved to the UK first and then to Canada, to pursue an education and a job that I felt I couldn't get in the UK.

My moniker remains one from my Dubai days, which I have not bothered to change because it remains a part of my online identity. But make no mistake; Dubai now is what Maggie's ideal society would have looked like. No taxes, little government intervention, a privileged life for the stratified super-classes and misery and labour for everyone else. A better life for everyone did not mean destroying the unions so comprehensively that most young people today don't know what one looks like. It did not mean decimating entire communities in the North, it did not mean alienating Scotland so compulsively that they're now on the verge of declaring independence, it did not mean abandoning vast swathes of the country to 'managed decline' while cheerily waving to more socially-oriented countries like Germany and France as they passed us by and we sunk deeper into this self-inflicted morass.

Germany had to deal with the re-unification, an event at least as difficult as figuring out what to do with the North's working population. France has such a powerful public sector and striking privileges that the sight of burning trucks on the Route Nationale is a common one whenever their people disagree with something the government does. Yet they are both doing better than we are, while providing socially-oriented policies that are rapidly looking far better than anything the Conservatives aim to provide for the UK.

The mark of a truly great leader is exercising restraint. Like I said, Maggie came to power in hard times. Inflation was running at twenty percent, and the all-powerful unions were strangling productivity. Yet she proceeded to utterly destroy the unions, British industries in the north, our steel and coal production, millions of working-class families across the country and the entire concept of 'society' being one in which we all pulled the same way together. She turned us into a de-regulated yuppy semi-paradise, and the effects of that we are still seeing today, with the financial crisis and bankers' bonuses proving amply the end results of Maggie's dream.

Today, the parties in the North are entirely justified. Over the long run, she will be judged by a far more powerful force than you or me; she will be judged by history, and we'll see what it has to say.

Again, wrong. How can you say Dubai is now in a state that maggie desired for this country? Absolute rubbish.

She wanted a country that could compete with the rest of the world and to achieve that she had to cut waste and inefficiently and stimulate profitable and potential areas of the economy.

Coal minors wanted pay rises around 30% above inflation and she put them in their place. They had the choice to maintain their community but got greedy and wouldn't back down. That is the result of overusing union powers.

As for what maggie wanted. Norway is a good example. Good lifestyle, strong economy, money in the bank and excellent public services. Possible with no class divide.