[Closed] thatcher

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?

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

Yes. He was the Captain of a ship, not a member of the government nor an expert on international relations.

Of course he is entitled to his opinion and I dare say that his is perhaps a more learned one than that of you and I but it is an opinion nonetheless.

Removing a ship from the seas surrounding a sovereign territory is not, as far as I'm aware, the green light for other countries to take possession of that territory under international law and I don't believe its been an acceptable practice since the 18th century. Its the sort of behaviour a less than civilised country might use and luckily the UN agreed.

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

Rubbish. The Argentine air force and elements of the Argentine ground forces were extremely skilled and brave and distinguished themselves in battle. You discredit both them and our own forces by claiming otherwise.

Trailmonkey - Some of the Argentine forces were very well trained but they were very much in the minority.

The ARA General Belgrano, the constantly dragged out 'illegally sunk warship' was itself crewed with many hundreds of conscripts, boys with little experience put up against a professional volunteer navy.

Aside from the Argentine Marines and specialist elements of their air force and army the majority of the 10,000 troops deployed by Argentine to the Falklands [i]were[/i] conscripts. Boys sent to fight men.

Yep and they bloody nigh beat us too.

Sooty, stop wriggling.
Which of G's posted FACTS are you disputing?
And why discredit the Endurance's captain?

Well actually I was responding initially to what you posted before 'G', so fight your own battles.

Oh and I didn't discredit the HMS Endurance's captain, as I said he is entitled to his opinion but is purely that.

Well actually I was responding initially to what you posted before 'G', so fight your own battles

Same points worded differently, so again I'll ask which of those facts are you disputing?

PS: Moses didn't mention Iraq either.

At the end of the Falklands we had on average 7 rounds of 7.62mm ammo per weapon left. Thats not a lot, the reserve stores having gone down with the choppers and tents on the Atlantic Conveyor. G is right was a damn close run thing but then they usually are. Argentina a nation of racing drivers and polo players, no surprise they had/have a ****ing excellent airforce.

Basically we winged it and got away with it. Doesnt matter what negotiations were going on in back rooms, who said what to whome. British territory had been invaded by a foreign dictatorship, there was no option but to take it back.

As for Thatch just to say all this screaming about here being the most evil unspeakable creature is a bit silly. Some people (like me) honestly think it better for everyone that we have small govnt, low taxes and a generally liberal attitude towards individual conduct and responsibility. The 80s was a pretty ugly decade but I'm just about old enough to remember the state of this country in the 1970s. Things aint perfect now but we're doing OK and a lot of that is down to old Maggie. Miners? Who the hell would want to be a bloody coal miner anyway?

Haven't read the whole thread, but has anyone mentioned Pinochet yet? 😛

Aside from the Argentine Marines and specialist elements of their air force and army the majority of the 10,000 troops deployed by Argentine to the Falklands were conscripts. Boys sent to fight men.

The notion that the Argentine fighting forces consisted of poorly trained conscripts is a myth. The regiments deployed in the strategicly vital parts of the islands, in other words the regiments that did the fighting, were highly trained. The 7th IR that fought on Mount Longdon had recieved 1 year of specialist training before hand and 1 in 5 had recieved commando training. The 4th IR that fought on Mount Harriet were not only highly trained, high class troops but were also better equipped than the British. On Tumbledown the Argentines deployed their Marines.
I won't dispute that many of the total Argentine force were lower grade troops but many were in Stanley and the elements that our forces came in to contact with were well trained and highly motivated. Our losses in the entire battle reflect a conflict with an enemy that new what it was doing, not some rag tag assortment of conscripts that the popular press of the time were all too eager to portray. I think our veterans deserve that people know that they faced a dangerous, motivated enemy and still prevailed.

FWIW, I don't think that our troops should have been put in that position in the first place and Thatcher should have resigned in disgrace for her incompitence in allowing the invasion to happen.

Haven't read the whole thread, but has anyone mentioned Pinochet yet?

Yep

Things aint perfect now but we're doing OK and a lot of that is down to old Maggie. Miners? Who the hell would want to be a bloody coal miner anyway?

Could you eloborate on which bit exactly of the current situation you are outting down to Maggie, I'm a bit confused by what you mean.#

Re miners : In answer to your question, probably those people whose lives and communities were devastated, and all to frequently still are by Thatchers actions.

Thatcher had more balls than every PM we've had since put together.

For that alone I tip my cap to the old girl

Well the talks with Argentine, started by Callaghan, were stalled at the time the Argentinians completely unprovoked decided to attack the Falklands. The reason for them having stalled are many and various but a significant one being the fact the people who actually lived on the islands that were be discussed were not included in the initial talks when they were set-up by Callaghan and understandably they were unhappy with this. Inclusion of the Falkland Islanders in future talks was being blocked by the Argentine government and hence it was one (though probably the most significant for those that lived on the islands) of a few impasses that had caused the talks to stall.

I added the Iraq bit as a bit of proved and factual counter to the made-up bollo*ks spouted by those who hate Thatcher and have constantly (and seemingly in a more veracious manner of late) tried to turn the rightful defence of part of the United Kingdom into her version of the Labour governments recent 'lie, lie and lie again just so long as war for oil results' forays in the middle east.

I have no love for Thatcher, generations of carpentry in my family will die with my father as her policies and those of Thatcherites that followed killed the industry in which my father worked his life and hence he told me to look elsewhere for work. What I detest though is those that hate Thatcher attempting cheapen the efforts of so many brave me by trying to turn the rightful defence of our lands against an unprovoked aggressor nation into Dr David Kelly, 45 minute warnings and a war for oil.

G - I lost my job, was unemployed for a year, finally got one in January. People get laid off fast in a downturn in the UK but the flipside is firms do hire when things look like they are picking up again. I do give Mrs T the credit for having left us a flexible workforce.

That bit about the miners sounded heartless. Those communities were devastated but they were still led right up the garden path by Scargill and co, even Kinnock knew that and said so at the time. But I stand by my point, lets not shed a tear for the mining industry per se.

Oh goody, we're doing the Falklands [b]again[/b]

I never said Callaghan was pm in 74, not sure where you got that from.

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

S & J + mcboo

I'm neither an apologist for Brown or Thatcher. What really boils my piss is that people are very quick to forget what actually happened, and frequently as in this thread twist it to suit theor own arguments.

Not one word of what I said regarding the Falklands is untrue, not even slightly, neither did I raise the issue, all I said was that these things happened, and therefore it wasn't her finest hour, however, much people like to paint it so.

Regarding mcboo's flexible work force, you're not wrong there fella, she took us from a situation where people tended to have a job for life, to one where the average person might expect to have to change direction on numerous occasions in their lives. Whether that is good or bad is debateable, and very much depends on your point of view. All I will say is that its no real surprise that people wanted to fight it, and I'm willing to bet money I could have handled it better, in fact I reckon my old mum bless her, could have done too while she was alive. Thatcher on the other hand was deliberately provocative and absolutely would not allow the thing to be done peaceably.

My view is that the Government should be the servant of the people, and therefore if by their actions they are doing things which are not in the best interests of the majority of the people, then that is wrong. Neither of the main parties appear able to grasp that simple concept.

It's pretty good reading this lot, makes you wonder how people read recent history. When we are close to it there is our own political in our interpretation of what we read but when it's some distance of we don't have the same interest in making the facts fit our views, though this does happen. I don't want to get into the arguement but I should point out that for some years other nations have seen the reduction of the British Navy in a given area as one of the signs that they maybe able to invade a country. A good example would be Japans invation of Manchuria in the 1930's, this due to the reduction of the Navy presence in the far east. The list is endless really and is not just applied to sea power. It's what you get for being at the very tail end of being a world power (pax Britannica and all that). Once a former regional power (country/empire/tribe whatever) shows weakness then another always takes up the void left behind, this not always done by war but often is. It's a human nature thing I supose but I'm sure there a people on here who could expand on our human frailties. Hope this has not been boring but the toing and froing of this thread got me thinking (dangerous for work levels).

Sooty - the forces did their job well - no doubt. What the issue is is that fighting might have been avoided but Thatcher made sure any peace efforts were in vain. Its all surmise and conjecture now but my view is that she didn't give any peace efforts any chance

As a slight aside - do you remember the "victory parade" where the wounded maimed and disfigured british servicemen where not allowed to march - shameful episode that was.

aracer - Member

Given the 3 day week ended in '74. You do know who was PM after Heath?

Yep certainly do, lived through it a complete and utter **** up it was too, what with Lib/Lab pacts and all that tooing and froing over who was actually in control. Hows this then,

Choice 1 : "Sorting the mess out was done by Wilson in his second term"

Or

Choice 2 : One of a number of messes sorted out by the Callaghan government after the relatively short and ineffective Wilson government.

So apologies, you are of course factually correct, but I think you will find that my original statement was in fact the correct interpretation of events.

What did Wilson or Callaghan actually do to sort out the mess of the 3 day week then? Whatever it was they obviously acted quickly, as it ended 4 days after Wilson moved into no 10.

I really don't want a job for life. Especially not as a coal miner.

Was a school leaver (therefore looking for a job) during Thatch's reign. Also got family members who have never spoken to each other since and because of the miners strike and a school friend killed in the Falklands. I too have a bottle on ice ready for when she does go, also think her grave will have to be a full size dance floor to fill the demand when the time comes. We have alot to blame her (policies) for. Not least her clone Blair, who history will, rightly, judge even more harshly IMO.

Wouldn't wish dimentea on anyone though and if it wasn't for her we possibly wouldn't have the excellent trails on the former mines at Glyncorrwg so every cloud etc...

aracer - Member
What did Wilson or Callaghan actually do to sort out the mess of the 3 day week then? Whatever it was they obviously acted quickly, as it ended 4 days after Wilson moved into no 10.

with respect, I never said they did, what I said in response to the resolution being attributed to Thatcher was that by that logic, it should be attributed to Wilson/Callaghan who actually were the government in after Heaths tory government, which in fact presided over the 3 day week.

Not the same thing, however, if pushed I would say that the Unions had a right old pop at Heath, but it wasn't then relevant to continue with that strategy with a Labour government in power. The Wilson Government, if you can call it that in fact had very little power and didn't achieve much, as some very minor parties held the balance of power. Accordingly not much happened until Callaghan come to power.

mcboo - Member
I really don't want a job for life. Especially not as a coal miner.

I wouldn't be a hundred miles behind you in that, but then I'm not facing the prospect of the pit or benefits being the only choice in town, and I suspect neither are you.

That's true for 45yr old miners circa 1985 but not for their kids who were free to, and many did, stick in at school and go do something else with their lives.

I used to go out with a girl from a pit town near Wakefield on the 90s. she was pretty, the town was not. Her and her pals all left for Leeds or London and nothing wrong with that.

Like it or not, we are all Thatcher's children.
Most here seem to have forgotten just how bad the UK was in the 1970's, she started the changes that have given us all considerable prosperity today.
Change can be difficult deal with, but it has to happen.

Most here seem to have forgotten just how bad the UK was in the 1970's, she started the changes that have given us all considerable prosperity today.

I'm actually missing this whole prosperity thing...... do you mean debt/living beyond our means, in which case you have my whole hearted agreement.

 

What did Wilson or Callaghan actually do to sort out the mess of the 3 day week then? Whatever it was they obviously acted quickly, as it ended 4 days after Wilson moved into no 10.

The Winter of discontent was strangely the winter just before Maggie won power?

The Winter of discontent was strangely the winter just before Maggie won power?

The Poll tax
The criminal justice bill
The miners strike (and the way it was policed at her orders)
The early '90s recession
The selling off of public housing
The Falklands war
The Libyan air strike (launched from UK)
The privatisation of national industries
Etc, etc...
Strangely all while she was [i]in[/i] power

The selling off of public housing- Giving people the chance to own their own house rather than living off the tax payer for cheap?

The privatisation of national industries
- Seen Labour go into hyper-driver over this? They'd love to privatise royal mail if it wasnt for Labour rebels etc?

Think this has already been done. Most of the ex council houses (certainly in my area) are owned by private landlords often with more than one property who rent them to tenants who's rent [i]usually[/i] through no fault of their own is paid for by the local council. (i.e the taxpayer)

Agree, in part, with the Royal Mail though but then [i]new[/i] labour are just Thatcherites anyway so your argument is self defeating.