[Closed] I wonder if she thinks it was a life well lived.

Couldn't have put it better myself

Agreed

With my natural distrust of (all) politicians, you will have to forgive me for not realising that some are actually omnipotent and all-powerful.

Wow, so one little lady systematically destroyed the the hopes and aspirations of millions of people, businesses and communities. One person did all that and more - no wonder some of the Tory party treat her like deity? Extraordinary.

I prefer this conclusion:

It would be foolish to suggest that the Thatcher governments did not change Britain.... [b]However, it becomes clear that the level of change was meagre compared to Thatcher’s own ambitions. [/b]Marsh and Rhodes conclude, [b]“The Thatcherite revolution is more a product of rhetoric than of the reality of policy impact”. [/b]

Stewart Morris, Christ's College

Me too. I remember those days well. it breaks my heart to think of what those bastards did to our manufacturing industry. Now they've got the bare-faxced cheek to talk about building it up again?

x -post

level of change was meagre compared to Thatcher’s own ambitions

😯

Thatcher caused the Falklands war

did she lead the Argentine force that landed on the island then?

I never saw that reported in the news.

I never saw that reported in the news

Don't be daft - that's the sort of thing that comes out after the fact

did she lead the Argentine force that landed on the island then?

No but is is widely held (and respected) view that both John Nott's 1981 Defence Review and the British Nationally Act 1981 were influential in the Argentinians taking the decision to invade.

Basically the British Government gave every impression that they were not interested in a small outpost in the S Atlantic.

I thought this was well known????

ETA - wiki has more [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_leading_to_the_Falklands_War ]linky[/url]

Interestingly, that wiki article indicates that Callaghan's Govt had previously intervened militarily in 1976

rkk - it is but its "forgotten" in the tory narrative

Thatcher caused the Falklands war

Seriously ? I don't care how much you despise the old bat, you can't just ignore the myriad other factors involved and pin it all on her.

There is even a theory that it was done deliberately to create the opportunity for the war to save her government. Personally I believe simple incompetence not conspiracy

rkko1 - [b]c'mon play a fair game if you want to bring the Falklands War into things[/b]. You highlight one (may I stress [u]one[/u]) of the factors that the Franks Report (sorry, TJ all well documented and open even by the Tory narrative *) noted as leading up to the 1982 Falklands Conflict. But to jump from that point (and still a point of debate) to Thatcher started the FW is a jump of extraordinary proportions. She really was a women of mystical powers if you are to be believed.

Nice irony, that people who like to point this out of course - and it is indeed a perfectly valid point that arguably we sent the Argies the wrong messages) - now seem agitated when we do the opposite. Sabre rattling vs sending the wrong signal. You cant win.

* just to put your argument back in its box, go and try to get access to the actual Franks Report that surely must be [b]hidden away[/b] by the nasty Tory machine and its narrative. Opps, its at...

http://www. [b]margaretthatcher[/b].org/document/109481

...terribly inconvenient when the truth gets in the way of a good yarn 😉

Thatcher caused the Falklands war

Ok, being generous her, so let's re-phrase that

Policy decisions taken by Margaret Thatcher's Government during 1981 have been identified as major influences in the Argentian decision to invade the Falklands Islands

The fact remains - the Falklands had been a long-term are of dispute between UK and Argentina.

See above ^^

1976, Callaghans Labour Government sent a small military force to the South Sandwich Islands after Agentina set up a military base. Agentina withdraws

1977 Joint Intelligence Committee concludes that Argentina unlikely to pursue military action if there is a threat of a British military response

1981 - Defence Review recommneds reduction of RN surface fleet, including withdrawal of HMS Endurance from the S Atlantic

1981 - British Nationalities Act downgrades the status of the Falkland's Islanders

1982 - Argentina invades, based on the impression that UK will not be sufficiently interested, militarily capable, or diplomatically supported to take any action

eta

Personally I believe simple incompetence not conspiracy

Ohh, without a doubt

BTW, it was hora that alluded to the Falklands aspect, back on page 1 😉

My follow ups have been constructed to point out the detail is more complex than the tabloids portrayed. Falklands is cited as one of Maggie's finest moments - that takes away the credit from the military that deserve it. The Govt might have been decisive in conducting the campaign, but that overlooks the sequence of events prior to the argentinian invasion.

1982 - Argentina invades, based on the impression that UK will not be sufficiently interested, militarily capable, or diplomatically supported to take any action

So poor Argentine intelligence was to blame then ?

rkk01 - I hope that you are not relying on TJ's library, sorry Wikipaedia!!

I agree with you that, "the detail is more complex than the tabloids portrayed" absolutely! So lets consider what the official Franks Report says:

70. Without attempting to summarise in any detail the history of the Falkland Islands dispute between 1965 and 1979, we wish to highlight three points:

i. Successive British Governments sought a solution to the Falkland Islands dispute by negotiation; and they recognised that any solution negotiated with Argentina had to be acceptable to the Islanders.
ii. The negotiating options gradually narrowed. [b]The Labour Government made clear in 1977 that sovereignty was an issue for negotiation; but, although transfer of sovereignty combined with leaseback had come to be regarded by the British Government as the most realistic solution, the leaseback proposal was not discussed with Argentina during this period. [/b]....

So dear Old Jim had some impact here - anyone dancing yet?

7. In November 1979 the Joint Intelligence Committee reassessed the Argentine threat to the Falklands....It concluded that, while the Argentine Government would prefer to achieve their sovereignty objectives by peaceful means, if negotiations broke down or if for some other reason the Argentine Government calculated that the British Government were not prepared to negotiate seriously on sovereignty, there would be a high risk of their resorting quickly to more forceful measures against British interests; and that in such circumstances direct military action against British shipping or against the Falkland Islands could not be discounted, although [b]“the risk of such action would not be as high as hitherto”. [/b]

So Mystical Maggie was also influencing intelligence as well!! This pedestal is getting higher and higher!! Nose bleeds anyone?

But no, she actually spotted what was going on and interpreted it differently:

152. On 3 March the British Ambassador in Buenos Aires had reported further comment
in the Argentine press on the unilateral communiqué (see paragraph 139). When the
Prime Minister saw this telegram, she wrote on it, [b]“we must make contingency plans”. [/b]

And finally:

338. The British Government, on the other hand, had to act within the constraints imposed by the wishes of the Falkland Islanders, which had a moral force of their own as well as the political support of an influential body of Parliamentary opinion; and also by strategic and military priorities which reflected national defence and economic policies: [b]Britain's room for policy manoeuvre was limited. [/b]

339. Against this background we have pointed out in this Chapter where different decisions might have been taken, where fuller consideration of alternative courses of action might, in our opinion, have been advantageous, and where the machinery of Government could have been better used. But, if the British Government had acted differently in the ways we have indicated, it is impossible to judge what the impact on the Argentine Government or the implications for the course of events might have been. There is no reasonable basis for any suggestion – which would be purely hypothetical – that the invasion would have been prevented if the Government had acted in the ways indicated in our report. [b]Taking account of these considerations, and of all the evidence we have received, we conclude that we would not be justified in attaching any criticism or blame to the present Government for the Argentine Junta's decision to commit its act of unprovoked aggression in the invasion of the Falkland Islands on 2 April 1982. [/b]

And Franks doesn't even mention Thatcher in that conclusion. How very odd, when it was all her fault?!!?

1976, Callaghans Labour Government sent a small military force to the South Sandwich Islands after Agentina set up a military base. Agentina withdraws

Only problem with that claim, is that they [b]didn't[/b] withdraw - the Argentine force on Southern Thule remained undisturbed throughout until 1982, which convinced the Argentines that the threat of the UK using military force was a bluff.

To be fair, we've done this before with much Pwning of TJ and Ernie

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/anyone-remember-how-the-falklands-began/page/5

Teamhuretmore - you are so funny.

nothing must besmirch the name of your beloved tories must it. No fact can get in the way of your love.

Of course the incompetence of the Thatcher government gave the Argentinians the impression that the islands would not be defended if they invaded.

No TJ - that's where you are wrong as always in your assumptions. But rather than depend on Wiki, I would rather her legacy be attacked/supported on fact rather than conjecture and BS. And I am not even a fan of hers or the Tories or any politician for that matter. Blimey, you are slowing down!

As I can see from the nuclear thread, you will never let fact get in the way of a dogmatic view

Of course the incompetence of the Thatcher government gave the Argentinians the impression that the islands would not be defended if they invaded.

So simple, how can all those clever historians have got it so, so wrong after all this time TJ?!?

They haven't
history agrees.
There may be no culpability attached to her - that is arguable and thats the point made in that report - but the withdrawal of the ship sent the signal the islands would not be defended. No doubt at all. Accepted at the time and now.

Nice couple of snidey attacks on me as well - you just cannot help it can you. Once again shows the paucity of your arguemnets

TJ - as on the nuclear thread, don't start personal attacks if you don't like them back. Simple. And don't misrepresent the truth. It is widely acknowledged that the UK governments (Lab and Tories) gave the impressions that the islands may (not would) not be defended and this is also highlighted in the report. History does agree on that. [b]But that is a mile away from the conclusion thrown about earlier that Thatcher (this mystical individual) caused the War.[/b] At least, we are now reading Thatcher Government, but even that is misleading.

As I said before, you give this woman powers well beyond the reality. Not even Thatcher fawners credit her with the kind of powers that her detractors do. Very strange that....!

Why did Carrington resign and Nott offer to? Because they understood this evident truth

FWIW, I actually , in hindsight, support that womans actions during the Falklands conflict.

Dogma will only get us so far TJ, given the situation at the time, I'd like to think that a Labour administration would have reacted in the same way.

Teamhurtmore - once again you stated with the personal attacks on me.

The ideals of a fairer, more democratic society, with justice, reasonably priced heat, light, power and public transport available to everyone;
The provision of truly democratic health care system, a decent education system for all, not just the privilaged few, greater equality of opportunity and almost full employment.
These ideals were on the ropes were they?

THESE were the things that people fought hard for and these are the things that that woman sought to destroy and undermine.

Don't tell me not to be myopic:
I grew up watching a proud city, the first industrial city in the world, systematically destroyed.
The hopes and aspirations of millions of people, along with the businesses and communities that they created were gone within a generation.

British manufacturing was systematically undermined and sold off because the Tory party decided that they, and not the people who actually ran the best engineering, mining, shipbuilding, chemical and aerospace companies in the world knew best.
They were scared that true democracy might actually take a little of the power and wealth away from the ruling classes and put it in the hands of those who actually produced the end result.

The birthright that should have been passed down to future generations was squandered - all because that woman knew best and knew that appealing to the basist instincts of greed, division and hatred would allow her and her friends to do whatever they wanted.

I'm not sure if I believe in evil, but if it does exist then what she achieved in her time in office is as good an example as I can find.

That's just not true, sadly the industry died because for decades Britain's industrial mangers refused to invest in new machinery and manufacturing technical advances, party as efficiency measures upset the unions and party as new machinery took away from profits. By the 50's Britain's industry was decades out of date, it was Japanese industrial growth that ripped us a new ass hole, and it was all OUR fault,from union members to the top levels of management! There were mills in Manchester in the late 50's using 90 year old equipment, while at the same time Japanese company's were investing in the first computer controlled weaving machines. In the end the unions lost there power due to their members no longer having jobs, and many factory owners lost all their money. So no one really won.

TJ - so now they were three of them involved - Thatcher, Carrington and Nott. The plot thickens. Any more that you would like to add?

We're making progress from it was all Thatchers fault. Keep it up, the truth may arrive at some point.

Ah, the "personal attacks" defence - We've not seen that one for a couple of days TJ - it sort of got buried among the "you haven't answered the question" routine of the nuclear thread, despite people repeatedly answering the questions.

pull the other one, its got bells on 🙄

Teamhurtmore - can yo actually read?

TJ
Of course the [b]incompetence of the Thatcher government[/b] gave the Argentinians the impression that the islands would not be defended if they invaded.

You are so keen to launch personal attacks on people that question your slavish devotion to tory dogma that you fail to even consider the point made or read the posts. 😆

🙄

I'd like to think that a Labour administration would have reacted in the same way.

I don't remember there being a huge anti war feeling from Labour at the time, if I remember only about 30 rebels didn't back the govt ?

They haven't
history agrees.

Blimey, TJ I can't read and you can't reason. Better both exit stage left....

p.s. there's a difference between reading and agreeing.

Any advance on three people involved yet....?

its all TJ's fault, burn him!!!!!!!!!!

TandemJeremy - Member
There is even a theory that it .....(was done deliberately to create the opportunity for the war to save her government. )

Is that the same intro as, "Some of my best friends are/Someone I know...."?

Jumpupanddown, Mancunian aerospace (BAE), computer (Ferranti), chemical (ICI) and many other industries led the way globally in their respective fields.
You are wrong.

BTW, do you realise that your pathetic, schoolboy swearing and insults are doing you no favours at all?

Grow up, please.

Jumpupanddown, Mancunian aerospace (BAE), computer (Ferranti), chemical (ICI) and many other industries led the way globally in their respective fields.
You are wrong.

Yes there were a few British firms that were leaders is some fields, but the bulk of industry was way out of date. It was cotton for example that made Manchester rich, when the cotton went so did the money.

WTF, it's been over 20 years since Thatcher was PM, but you lot talk about the soppy tart as if she's still in the headlines - get over it ffs.

Half of you think she's evil personified, and the other half think she saved Britain. The reality is that despite being the longest serving British Prime Minister of the 20th century, she pretty much failed in all her stated aims. In fact she ended being such a liability for her party that the Tories themselves sacked her, and she had to be dragged out of Downing Street crying.

End of story you would have thought. But no, you lot still want to rake over, on almost a weekly basis, with multi-page threads, what she did or didn't do 30 years ago. Whilst [u]today[/u] we have a Tory/Liberal Democrat government which is far more right-wing than Thatcher ever was, and which is doing stuff that she could only have imagined doing in her wildest dreams.

What is about Thatcher that makes her so different to Cameron and Clegg - apart from the fact that she wasn't quite as right-wing as them ? How come she can be vilified and admired in equal measures and yet no simular sentiments are ever felt for Cameron and Clegg ? Is it because she was a woman ? Is that it ?

It might still have been a minority (who voted for her) but at least she enjoyed more support from the British electorate than either Cameron or Clegg have managed. And unlike those two thoroughly devious and scheming individuals the British electorate had a fair idea what to expect from Thatcher, she did have some sort of a mandate for what she did - Cameron or Clegg have no mandate at all for what they're doing.

Maybe it's just something as shallow as 'presentation' and if Cameron or Clegg spoke and delivered their speeches in much the same way as Thatcher, then they too would be the catalysis for that level of emotions.

Yes, in her time as PM Thatcher caused some fundamental changes in British society (although she didn't do it all by herself - she didn't possess 'mystical powers' nor was she a dictator) And yes, it's important to recognise and remember her legacy, of course it is. But don't go overboard ffs - the present government will also leave a legacy. We can't do anything about what happened 30 years ago but we can do something about what is happening today. Or at least we can try to.

She still gives me the horn

'Tandembullshit'?
Have you met TJ, or even had the balls to engage with him in a reasonable discussion, you pathetic, repulsive little man?

Grow up.

She still gives me the horn

Quite literally, the Domesday post...

😯

Good points E_l, but out of interest if C & C have no official mandate (based on votes?) what should they do now? It's not their fault that they do not have a mandate (well perhaps it is!?) but they still have a job to do and a bloody difficult one at that. Do they sit with neutral policies based on a lack of consensus, do they try to get broad x-party consensus (to the extent that this doesn't exist 😉 ) or do they let events take them over like most politicians and merely react?

Rusty Spanner - Member

...or even had the balls to engage with him in a reasonable discussion

That has to be THE line of the thread so far.

Her and the queen, not sure why but must be a position of authority thing

What a deeply unpleasant thread.

out of interest if C & C have no official mandate (based on votes?)

No, not just based on votes, also based on them not telling people what they were going to do. Did you hear Cameron talk about no more top down reorganisations of the NHS during the general election campaign ? Did you listen to what the LibDems told the British electorate ? As I said, Thatcher did have some sort of mandate - the British electorate had a fair idea what to expect from Thatcher.

Ok I accept those points [and this is not a troll] but what should they do now? Leave aside CMD and the NHS for the moment, but take the Lib Dems. In the context of a coalition and the need to make a whole range of unpalatable policy choices, do they stick categorically to their manefesto? Do they compromise on a "documented" set of policies? Do they compromise only if they get something in return (wealth tax)? Do they simply lay back and enjoy their time in power come what may?

Teamhurtmore, did you possibly miss JUAD's more offensive earlier posts?

Flashy, why is this thread unpleasant?

No one, I hope, wants that woman to suffer.
As a care worker specialising in dementia I sincerely hope her life is as pleasant as possible.