[Closed] thatcher

TJ

You are welcome to your opinions but at the end of the day everyone else was behind her...

at the end of the day everyone else was behind her...

Poor Denis. I feel for the man.

(ok, bedtime.)

everyone else? I knew a lot who weren't

.........and I knew a lot who were, so what's your point caller?

You said everyone was behind her. They weren't. A lot of folk were horrified . You are wrong. Again 🙂

Just being as pedantic with you as you are with me. 🙂

[img] [/img]

A great leader (unlike the policy-lite drongos we have to put up with these days). More integrity in her little finger that the rest of parliament put together these days (and a mean downhiller in her prime I'm told)

Hope she gets the state funeral she deserves.

as my grandad (RiP) used to say...

"thatcher,thatcher, quick as a fox,if you can catch her,put her in a box"

i often wondered what this rhyme meant.

at the end of the day everyone else was behind her...

Were they? I know shit loads of people that weren't.

as a fairly dispassionate observer of the Rudeboy vs Hora spat I'd just like to say that Mr Rudeboy comes over as a slighty hysterical SWP magazine waver which tends to colour the appreciation of his sub tabloid type argument. Just an observation of course....

As regards Thatcher - isn't it time that all y'all (as we say here in Texas) got over her - it was some time ago......

Ah, Texas....

[img] [/img]

...that bastion of free-thinking and open mindedness.

As for Hora; well, by his own admission, he was not old enough to really remember much about Thatcher's reign, so I'll let him off. He's also a bit, well, you know...

Forgive him; for he knoweth bugger all about what he spouteth...

Who were behind her? Thw Sun. Mail, Express and all the thickos who voted BNP?
Dont count me in with your "all" thanks

A country divided then guys - unless your all from good 'ol london town - and no thanks to the BNP - Nick Griffin is a neighbour, any closer and I'd petrol bomb the basssstard

In fairness I can understand where you come from but try to understand where I come from

hora - Member
Come on. read abit more into history and not wikipedia.

LOL!

You should have your own stand-up show, Hora!

You are welcome to your opinions but at the end of the day everyone else was behind her...

Y? is that cos they were riding single(party)speeds?

Who were behind her?

Quite a lot of people I guess - that's how you get elected
in a a democracy....

Tankslapper - I have no issue with folk who have opinions I disagree with if they can give a rational argument for them and they base them on facts. Ignorant opinions picked up fro the rightwing media on the other hand drive me crackers.

TJ

What about opinions from a different place where your friends are being bumped of and there seems no end to it until Thatcher stepped in? I agree if I had been an Englishman then I would probably share your hatred of the woman - but when a friend is targeted for assasination for doing a days work and Maggie sent the SAS when no one else would then respect.

Alternative Ulster...Alternative Ulster....

Oy vey... 😯

Ave Margatrita?

Im getting ready to play my wizard of oz song
.
.
Ding Dong the witch is dead. 😈
.
.
I've no respect for her, and those failed policies along with the destruction of our industries,has everyone forgotten just what made in Britain stood for.

Indeed - one man's meat's another man's poison. Not that Maggies meat has er ahem welll grrr......

destruction of our industries

and those she destroyed are?

Dont say coal or automotive (the employees did that job almost singlehandedly)

Who were behind her?

Quite a lot of people I guess - that's how you get elected
in a a democracy....

Thatcher was [b]never[/b] elected on a majority of the vote. In fact she was always elected with a majority voting against her.

Tory % of votes at GE:-

1979 - 43.87%

1983 - 42.44%

1987 - 42.23%

Democracy, my arse.

And of course in scotland she never even got a majority of seats

hora - Member
the employees did that job almost singlehandedly

One hand between so many, poor souls no wonder their industries were doomed!

Your views are so narrow I bet you have a bad squint! Both sides destroyed British industry - power crazy Unions and a Leader who had no compassion nor the slightest idea of compromise.

I think one of the major problems here is the abject failure to understand that often the fruit of political policies takes decades to show through. Both Thatchers and Brown policies have far reaching effects. We have yet to see the real impact of Brown's, and I suspect that in years to come there will be strong arguments over them. Personally I think hes doing the best possible in the circumstances at the expense of his personal career. Whereas there was a subtle differecne with Thatcher. She did the best possible for herself and her cronies at everyone elses expense.

G - not sure I agree, but in the meantime could you lend Hora your special "Brown" rose tinted spectacles so at least he can get a better perspective on things.

Let's not forget that Brown was the Chancellor for 10 years and the architect of the financial system that led to our current predicament - he is now industriously papering over the cracks of his own making.

no post-war UK government has broken 50% of the vote, so 'we' have never had a government elected by the majority of the vote

Labour
1997 43.2%
2001 40.7%
2005 35.3%

rogerthecat, Governments poured countless money into BL/Rover to prop them/it up. The stories of a special team secretly employed to ding panels so that the rememdy work team had some constant work (to stop them being laid off)....the transportation tunnel for minis made too narrow....****. They were a money pit and rank throughout. Why should the taxpayer prop up that foul company? Those workers are probably sat on longterm sick leave now because of course 'there is no work to be had in the Midlands'.. yep the concept of travelling to find work was also beyond most of them I bet.

Hora - of course Leyland had real stupidities going on. However every other major European country still has a large scale motor industry and other heavy industry in a way we no longer do. Are our workers really that bad?

An approach part way between the "support everything" of the Wilson governments and the "scorched earth" of the Thatcher governments would have left us with viable industries.

An approach part way between the "support everything" of the Wilson governments and the "scorched earth" of the Thatcher governments would have left us with viable industries.

The Thatcher government came in to deal with the utter mess left from over the past years...like I said- the next government after Labour is going to be deeply unpopular when viewed in a decades time. Alot of stark decisions and belt-tightening to follow. Mirroring what happened in the 70's.

rogerthecat - Member
G - not sure I agree, but in the meantime could you lend Hora your special "Brown" rose tinted spectacles so at least he can get a better perspective on things.

Let's not forget that Brown was the Chancellor for 10 years and the architect of the financial system that led to our current predicament - he is now industriously papering over the cracks of his own making

Not sure I see it that way to be honest, what I do see however, is an aftermath of 18 years of Tory rule that left state organisations like the NHS horribly starved of investment, Accordingly, huge volumes of cash had to be pumped in just to restore the status quo....(Remember one mans tax cut is anothers hospital building falling apart.... not immdediately obvious, by after a few years they do start to fall down), a situation where the self imposed boom and bust cycle, caused by government ****ing about with interest rates to generate feel good factors immdeiately prior to general elections has been stopped, (NB: Again not an arguable point, but the last recession at the end of the 80's was directly and without fear of contradiction down to the Chancellor creating a pre election boom). Conversely, the current excess credit crunch,which has been fuelled by the policies implemented by Thatcher and Regan, [u]not Brown[/u], are being managed in what I perceive to be a sensible and sound fashion. If anyone remembers the end of the 80's or the 70's, they will know that this situation is not even close to how bad things got then!!! And before anyone starts wattering on about hes been in for x number of years and should have sorted it out, how exactly would you propose that he takes back the borrowings allowed by Thatchers lot, all the unaffordable mortgages and then persuade the banks to voluntarily go into liquidation because of their toxic debt loading, all of which comes directly in a straight line from demutualisation of the finacial institutions, associated policies, like housing for example and the removal of banking controls under Thatcher???

He is having to carry the can, its arguable even that he could perhaps have managed it better, but is not a situation of his making whatever colour of political persuasion you come from. Even DC and the rat Osborne don't argue that, as they know full well thats it is not a place that they want to go politically, as there collective arses would be i nthe air if they did.

yeah.

Sorry Hora, you are very blinkered and you present an over simplistic argument much vaunted since the 80's.

British industry was abandoned to its fate, aided by stupid acts from workers and Unions alike. And we have not learned, a case in point - the insane decision not to support LDV (a typical Thatcherite response - not profitable so leave it to its fate).

So LDV closes for the want of £45M, a decision supported by the economist on Question Time on Thursday evening based upon its inability to return to profit within the year and so it may require additional support in the following years.
All LDV personnel are now or will be on unemployment benefit with skills that are not required elsewhere. Suppliers are folding and will continue to do so - more unemployment and strain on the system. Knock on effects - local retail and consumer services businesses either reduce or fail - more unemployment. And so the cycle progresses. No income, no spending, no tax revenues from PAYE, VAT, etc just cost.

Intervention is not a dirty word in mainland Europe, just here after years of Thatcherite propaganda from both her regime, that of Major and of the Blair/Brown years. Even that greta bastion of capitalism and the free market, the US, is intervening to save large manufacturing.

In Italy they regularly prop up industries by large scale government intervention. This keeps the main manufacturing industries running, their suppliers and all of the dependent businesses. This reduces the state burden, allows a much smaller state machine to manage the bureaucracy and maintains social cohesion. This can be done because Italy never went through the "Me first and the devil take the hindmost" era of Thatcher and her policies. Italy is a country where the real values of life - family, friends, quality time and a zest for life still exist. The continued employment also allows people to spend their wages, pay taxes directly and on good sold and therefore returns funds to government coffers. It works in many European countries and could have worked here if, at the time, we had leaders on either side such as Joe Gormley leading the NUM instead of Scargill and a Conservative Whet rather than Thatcher. I am from Rotherham, I go back infrequently and my memories of a vibrant town with fantastic people do not match the reality of today. The shops are closed or charity shops, the people look defeated - many of my peers left and would not consider going back.

One of our customers asked me to accompany them on a 10 day trip to China. They were going to switch their manufacturing rather than manufacture or source in the UK. I went to look at how we could manage the messages to staff and suppliers in the UK. I was appalled at the working conditions, wages, etc. Men lifting white hot castings and forgings with tongs, wearing nothing but all I can describe as pyjamas and flip flops. They earn less than £5 per day, the reason my client was switching to China. (we resigned the account when they decided to switch).

The MD of the Chinese company and I had a frank chat one evening and he was very candid - the most telling comment was: "Why do you come here to buy my products? You can make them in England so why buy from me, I know I am cheap for you at the moment but if you keep buying from me your own factories will close and you will lose all of the skills you have."
I explained that this was the price of global business.
His reply: "But when my country begins to develop towards a western economy, I will not be able to supply the demand in my own local market I certainly will not want to ship products around the world unless I can command a very high price. When this happens you will have to pay the high price because you will have no one left to make it in England or you will have to use something else."

We are in sad state in the UK, we are a shining example of a society that know the price of everything and the value of nothing. I have no solutions to offer, just that I am convinced none of the liars, cheats and charlatans currently in Westminster are any more inspired than I.

I agree somewhat with Hora (swoons).

UK mortgage debt has spiraled twice now. Deregulated banks, many of them de-mutualised friendlies, lent too much because:

1) de-reg meant there was excess unregulated credit available to sell-on
2) In the UK, an in-balance between housing supply and demand leading to escalating prices

To prevent this in future requires:

a) greater control of credit requiring better banking regulation
b) building enough new property to balance supply and demand, and achieve price stability e.g. property value increasing with "normal" inflation

roger the cat,

All you say is trueish, and in essence is why personally I am a fervant supporter of the EU. What actually happens in a global economy is there is an adjustment and an equalising over a period of time. I've been working in and around China for 30 years now, and the reality is that people there are better off now than at any time in the last 5000 years. Luxuries, like health and safety, and good working conditions are a function of being able to afford them, both on a macro and micro economic level. The first priorities are in fact food in belly, roof over head, basic security, and then you move on. That is all happening, and don't make the mistake of seeing the workers as downtrodden. you would do well to remember that it is still a communist state, and individuals, contrary to popular misconception here do have say and do have rights.

In europe, we have historically had huge inequalities, not long ago Spain, Portugal and Italy were virtually third world and definately cheap manufacturing bases. They aren't now, that is becuase of trade. the same is true of China, don't ever forget that 90% of the population there are to this day existing through subsistance farming. My view is that by working with them over an extended period of time their overall standard of living will rise, and that can only be good.

To turn our own manufacturing around, we need to jettison much of the old ways of doing things, political processes and probably revisit poverty before we wake up sufficiently to get the hell on with it. It is the staid dyed in the wool governments and thought processes that are killing it off. I perosnally had great hopes that current scandal in Parliament would bring change about, but the problem is so many folk are brainwashed in this country they cannot see it for what it is. We need to off the aristocracy, revamp our system of government and most of all use the space between our ears to become competitive again.

Comrade G'ski'o'vitch

Is/was LDV a viable business? Remember one buyer pulled out and why werent there others? Why did it need saving before? How healthy was its order books?

It wasnt for 'want' of a mere £45m. It comes down to viability especially in a crowded and competitive commercial vehicle market?

Theres alot of question marks above- partly as I dont know the full details myself either. Just educated guessing.

just one snippet:
"Now at least the Government's £5m bridging loan will allow its potential Malaysian saviour Weststar to take a close look at the books before making a final decision about their joint future.

There are a number of issues...."

If I never have to drive an LDV van again, I'll be happy. Awful vehicles.

Thatcher's more popular than Bliar you know - and many more:

http://www.politics.co.uk/news/party-politics/brown-less-popular-than-blair-and-thatcher--$1217563.htm

Thatcher's more popular than Bliar you know - and many more

McDonalds is more popular than any other food retail chain...

Thatcher - the Citroen 2cv of British politics...

(tonight Matthew, I will be drinking Carlsberg Export £2 for four at Morrissons)

McDonalds is more popular than any other food retail chain...

Hora - stop being a plonker - we do not and have never voted for our prime minister. we vote for Mps who then elect a prime minister.

No-one is elected to Prime Minister, you twonk. You vote for your local Member of Parliament. The Prime Minister is the leader of the party with the majority of MPs elected to the House of Commons.

And you talk about reading, rather than gaining info from Wiki?? You don't even know how Parliamentary elections work! S'not the USA, you know! We don't have a President (yet).

And I have no idea to whom you are referring as my 'Dear Leader'.

its a lot to wade through sorry if i missed any points.
im a schemie from an old labour/CPGB background, i grew up in its an all "maggies fault" environment.

doin recent research for my own interest found out that scargill called an illegal strike, the miners where not given the chance to vote for/against the strike in any way at all. pretty easy to check this for yourself.
the conservative government had actually approved a pay and conditions improvment that had never been seen before or since in any industry or union. although the new deal would have resulted in lost jobs in the name of "cost cutting". maggie responded with a total "F you then" when the strike was called resulting in great hardship for many more thousands of families than if the deal had went through.

her and the rest of the country would not feel much effect from the scargill led crises but the miners would. the power stations had enough stockpiles/alternatives/scabs to get around the strike.

now poll tax thats a different matter 🙄

ps without her we might never have had mr whippy ice cream.

she was not the antichrist but she wasnt that nice when she went about her business either, im pretty sure most of the country cheered when we sunk the belgrano(sp) or shot up the people in the iranian embassy.

im pretty sure most of the country cheered when we sunk the belgrano(sp) or shot up the people in the iranian embassy.

Yeah, we love a bit of death, us. 🙄

am interested to learn what the connection is between Mr Whippy Ice Cream & Thatcher is...

had to edit the post cos i spelt thatcher wrong!!! (legacy of a 1980s education?)

tangent - Member

am interested to learn what the connection is between Mr Whippy Ice Cream & Thatcher is...

#
ernie_lynch - Member

Come on Fred, what about the Mr Whippy!

I bet you will normally have paid someone, before uttering those words Labrat.

Although I find your repeated reference to Thatcher's involvement with research into ice cream production interesting.

Because as we all know, Thatcher's research involved finding ways of inflating ice cream with air so that it would appear that there was more, than there actually was.

So long before she became 'the milk snatcher', Thatcher was earning an honest living trying to figure out new ways of ripping off children of their pocket money.

How extraordinary fitting.

Posted 4 weeks ago #

I was never a fan of that fluffy airy stuff anyway. Always prefered something denser. Lasted longer, you got yer money's worth. And Mr Whippy would melt in 5 seconds, on a hot day.

I knew something weren't right about it, even then.

Doh, unfortunately for the country Arthur Scargill was right. He predicted that it would not be some job losses but wholesale destruction of the mining industry with or without a strike. We now have 10 or less deep mines left in the country and precious little chance of resurrecting the old mines as the pumps were turned off. At some point in the near future we will regret this short-sighted approach.

"Hora - stop being a plonker - we do not and have never voted for our prime minister. we vote for Mps who then elect a prime minister."

MP's elect a leader to head their campaign and then the voters chose between the respective leaders/personalities/qualities etc.

Ergo, we did not vote Brown into power. A **** up who wasnt chosen by the people.

Seems Healey and Thatcher get on well now - if he can forgive can you?!

[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8098797.stm ]Healey hugged Thatcher[/url]

An interesting question sprung to mind - vaguely related to this thread so I thought I'd pop it in here (might distract you from all the silly arguments).

Who was the last British Prime Minister to become PM by winning a general election, and stop being PM because of losing a general election?

is she still not dead yet???

A racer - Heath? Callaghan?

Working backwards -
Brown - appointed after election
Blair elected but resigned
Major appointed then lost election
Thatcher elected then resigned
Forgot the order

Callaghan? Was there a gap between two shots? He was appointed then lost election???
Wilson - won election then resigned?

Heath??

Not altogether sure - its a while ago

Right Idea breaking something, just the wrong neck IMO.

Major appointed then lost election

Major (somehow)won an election in 92 didn't he ?

>Major (somehow)won an election in 92 didn't he ?

Yup.

Elected '90, won GE in '92, lost GE in '97.

Margaret is truly the greatest PM w've ever had, smashed the Unions/Scargill etc..Right to buy, finished of the 3 day week.

Boris and Dave have the right idea in crushing the RMT/Bob Crow

Trailmonkey - I think the idea was a PM who was elected when first to no10 and left after loosing - so tho Major won an election he arrived at no 10 appointed

Having had a think about who I thought the answer was I realised the question is slightly ambiguous (should have known, given the important point which changes the answer is actually one I've brought up on here before). So I'll try again - if I phrase it properly, this is a far more interesting question!

Who was the last British Prime Minister to take up office for the first time on winning a general election and to leave office for the final time immediately after losing a general election.

There are clues (to who it's not) in the question.

Heath

Wrong

Hmmm

Got me puzzled then. Callaghan was appointed IIRC and Wilson resigned.

Must be before that then which is before my time

Churchill?

Getting very close. Before my time too - I had to research it (your previous answer is what I thought the answer was when I posted the first question).

I'd be guessing and I can't be bothered researching.

Good question tho.

There will be no winner of this argument and Rudeboy's cheap and nasty icecream (the stuff of old - which he looks back on so positively) will have melted and made a right mess everywhere. The sort of icecream that was the best available in the old days when we had a labour government and everything was perfect (according to Rudeboy). Oh sorry, we still have a Labour government don't we? I blame Margaret Thatcher!

Without web forums, we'd all be down the pub arguing whilst under the influence - much more fun!

It rained last night at our barbeque. That was Margaret Thatcher's fault too!

Lanesra - Member
Margaret is truly the greatest PM w've ever had, smashed the Unions/Scargill etc..Right to buy, finished of the 3 day week.

Check your facts, as stated previously on this thread, the three day week came under Heath, Callaghans government therefore, by your logic should be credited, not Thatchers.

Some years ago, I had some pretty major staffing problems at a company I managed. The Chairman, who was a bit of a facist frankly, was threatening to wind the business up if the workforce bacame unionised. I called in ACAS in an effort to arbitrate and resolve. The truist line I ever heard on the subject came out of the ACAS's guys lips when talking to the Chairman. These were, "you'll get a union if you deserve one".

Think about that in the context of the miners strike and the Tory generated 3 day week, then come back and have another look with your muddled thinking. . . . . esra!

People having ****ed up memories. All they can remember is 'Yuppies' and the angst from previous years (the 70's) is lumped on Thatchers shoulders.

Dont forget the dark years of recession and oil crisis etc were pre 1979 when Thatcher took over. She had to deal with all the crap when she won power. Then when Britain was still on its knees a couple of years later Argentina made its move. A lesser person would have concentrated on problems at home at the expense of everything. Thatcher was brave. We didnt have to go into Iraq. We had to go into the Falklands.

[b][u]The STWers who are older and post on here- why do you blame the 70's years on Thatcher? I dont get that.[/b][/u]

Hora, you might read a bit of history, too.
IIRC, I was there in the 70s and the 3-day week & recession was cleared up well before Thatcher took over.

She took the decision to downgrade the UK presence in the S.Atlantic, and removed the support vessels which gave Argentina the signal that we weren't interested in the Falklands. She neglected the diplomacy and ignored the build-up of Argentinian forces. It was a war that she allowed to happen, and that gave her an election victory that she'd otherwise have lost.

Falklands : Thatcher was negotiating with the Argentinians to hand the Falklands back to them. She ordered the withdrawal of the "gunship" that had been on station there forever. At the same time she was busily reducing our armed forces ability to operate at a distance. (Hermes and Invincible, one was on the way to the scrap yard, and the other had been sold to the Australian Navy at the time!!!!) These actions were taken as a diplomatic signal by the Argentinians that we would not respond if they made a move. The nett result being that Thatcher went from the least popular mid term government in history to the most popular. It is only possible to speculate on the logic behind her actions. It most certainly wasn't her finest hour by any stretch of the imagination, unless of course what then followed over the next 18 years leaves you moist!!

In military terms we got away with it by the skin of our teeth against a tin pot South American dictatorship. The loss of the Atlantic Conveyor took out the majority of our Chinook helicopters, thus the ensuing much vaunted yomp across the islands. If anyone sees that as a fanatastic outcome on her part, just remember that a) the war happened because of her in the first instance, b) it succeeded due to some major bottle and unnecessarily high casualties on the part of the military mainly forced upon them by cut backs.

Check your facts!

Check your facts, as stated previously on this thread, the three day week came under Heath, Callaghans government therefore, by your logic should be credited, not Thatchers.

BTW You should check your facts - Callaghan wasn't PM in 1974.

Another point I don't think anybody's brought up in this thread - you do realise that Thatcher becoming PM in the first place was all the unions' fault?

All this "removing the gunship (HMS Endurance) gave the green light to Argentina" is absolute cods and I'm afraid is the kind of talk that marks anyone out that uses it as a stark-raving, tin-foil hat wearing nut case.

The Falklands War happened because a sovereign nation decided to attack the territory of another sovereign nation. All this speak of 'sending messages' etc merely clouds over the fact that the Argentine government attacked sovereign territory of the United Kingdom, put poorly trained and equipped conscripts into a position where they would face some of the best trained and motivated military forces in the world and attempted to rely on a non-legally binding (in the eyes of the United Nations) 'exclusion zone', in the mistaken belief that it would protect their naval forces whilst they maneuvered them in a manner that [i]according to the British naval commander on the scene[/i] made them a threat to the safety of his taskforce.

If the case against Thatcher is so weak that the tin-foil hat wearers have to invent some conspiracy around the Falklands War to hang around her neck then perhaps she didn't do that bad a job after all.

Of course false 45 minute warnings, mysteriously suicidal weapons inspectors and complete lack of WMDs aren't just idle talk and conjecture, they are actual fact and proof of lies, lies which have cost the lives of many people both civilian and military over something which in all honesty has very little to do with us as a nation.

acracer,

I never said Callaghan was pm in 74, not sure where you got that from. lanesra, had stated that Thatcher was responsible for smashing the 3 day week, I was pointing out that the 3 day week came in Heaths government, and by the logic he was using that the next government was responsible for sorting the mess out, that would be Callaghans government not Thatchers. But hey why bother to read anything, or include facts when you can make up your own to suit yourself?

Regarding the 3 day week, again as stated before, I think you'll find that it came from the mishandling of relationships with the Unions over a fairly lengthy period of time. Much of which would have been to do with old school tie cronyism on both sides of the house.

Incidentally, could I just add that politically I am neither a lefty, nor a Tory, more of a very pissed off Social Democrat.

I do not believe Thatcher deliberately gave the green light for the Argentinians to invade the Falklands - but there is no doubt that a series of mistakes gave the Argentines the impression that the islands would not be defended - removing garrisons and retiring the gunboat - incompetence rather than conspiracy.

Certainly once the opportunity for armed conflict was there she made sure it happened. - rejecting various peace initiatives.

Sooty - of course he would say that - many neutrals the world over would not agree.

Ye hypocrites
Are these your pranks
To murder men
And Gie god thanks

All this "removing the gunship (HMS Endurance) gave the green light to Argentina" is absolute cods and I'm afraid is the kind of talk that marks anyone out that uses it as a stark-raving, tin-foil hat wearing nut case.

Presumably you are including Nick Barker, Captain of the Endurance in that description then?

sootyandjim - Member
All this "removing the gunship (HMS Endurance) gave the green light to Argentina" is absolute cods and I'm afraid is the kind of talk that marks anyone out that uses it as a stark-raving, tin-foil hat wearing nut case.

OK sooty, so which precisely of the stated facts below are incorrect then? (I think you will find that the tin foil nutcase thing refers to conspiracy theorists, and crop circle wallers, not those with historical fact and perspective on their side.)

Falklands : Thatcher was negotiating with the Argentinians to hand the Falklands back to them. She ordered the withdrawal of the "gunship" that had been on station there forever. At the same time she was busily reducing our armed forces ability to operate at a distance. (Hermes and Invincible, one was on the way to the scrap yard, and the other had been sold to the Australian Navy at the time!!!!) These actions were taken as a diplomatic signal by the Argentinians that we would not respond if they made a move. The nett result being that Thatcher went from the least popular mid term government in history to the most popular.

As I clearly stated,

It is only possible to speculate on the logic behind her actions.

At no point whatsoever have I sought to defend the Iraq war in this thread. So whats your point?