[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-BZIWSI5UQ[/video]

slainte ➡ rob

I have to agree. All those whining about how knackered their village or town is, now the pit closed… 25 odd years ago.

MOVE !.

It seems someone has failed to notice that social mobility has stalled somewhat.

think Bob Crow and the hassle he causes – then multiple it several times and give him more power (and hair) : and then you get close to Arthur Scargill…

Amazing. Think of all the policies started under the thatcher Government and continued to this day, particularly financial de-regulation. This has brought the country to it’s knees far more effectively than any arthur Scargill could have done.

Did the unions design the Morris Marina or Austin Allegro??
British industry as a whole – unions, management, particularly the antiquated infrastructure, was in a huge post-war rut.

The whole thing needed a huge kick up the ass, and vitally investment in new modern plant and equipment.

It was far easier for a Government to close it down or privatise the “profitable” parts than re-investment.

Life for every person on earth will never be fair or equal.

Oh well, let’s shrug our shoulders and carry on. If life was fair and equal, capitalism would be up sh*t creek.

I for one won’t be celebrating when she dies because her legacy continues. It is this and it’s supporters that have to be destroyed.

Arthur Scargill was absolutely, unequivocally correct in everything he said and did during the strike, apart from the most important thing of all, the ballot.

As for that woman, I’m afraid I do hate her.

She is responsible for many of the current social problems we still have in this country and brought more hardship and misery to more British people than any other polititian I can think of.

Shee started the destruction of the socially democratic post war society that so many people fought so hard for, legitimised greed and the acquisition of wealth above all other considerations and attempted to remove any political power from the working class.

Shee started the destruction of the socially democratic post war society that so many people fought so hard for,

This.

When we examine our country today there are clear links back to her policies and her influence that cannot be defended. I won’t dance for joy when she dies, I’ll get no pleasure from her death because what she began is still with us. It pervades our country like a cancer. When it is finally rooted out and purged, then I’ll dance.

On the subject of people getting on with things under their own steam, and ‘getting on their bike to look for work’ etc. I will add this thought from a man far greater than any of us posting here today…

“It is a cruel jest to say to a bootless man that he should lift himself by his own bootstraps. It is even worse to tell a man to lift himself by his own bootstraps when someone is standing on the boot.”

Martin Luther King.

things wouldn’t be better if maggie fell down dead now. she’s just an old fart waiting for the inevitable. Goodnight vienna.

responsible for many of the current social problems we still have in this country and brought more hardship and misery to more British people than any other polititian I can think of.

that’ll be Guillaume le Bâtard then. Most of this is all his fault well before maggie

Tazzy, he certainly scoured the North, I’ll give you that, but given the population size then, I reckon I’m still right.

Tazzy, he certainly scoured the North

and made a more robust class system, and gave more power to the church, and reduced freemen to serfdom…

AND HE WAS FRENCH!!

nah fatcher werent that evil 😀

Mining – dangerous, dirty work, with a legacy of industrial accidents and chronic ill-health. But mining was a well paid, skilled job for very many people.

I wonder whether, even then, it was a lot safer than unemployment (depression, substance abuse, physical inactivity).

Shee started the destruction of the socially democratic post war society that so many people fought so hard for

It was on the ropes – you don’t know if it would have recovered or not without her. Don’t be myopic.

I’ve not red all this, but has anyone posted a picture of Zelda from the Terrahawks yet?

you don’t know if it would have recovered or not without her

I think it is self apparent to anyone around in the late 70s / early 80s, that the UK wasn’t going to miraculously recovery without dramatic reforms.

Would the socially democratic order have returned sans Maggie – who knows…

… one thing is for sure, she killed off any lingering pulse that might have remained.

Yes reforms were definately required – and not just to unions / working practices. However, many people at the time believed that the reforms were pursued way beyond what was necessary to get the country back on its feet, and the reason was ideological rather than economic

The reality is far more extensive and costly than the sinking of one obsolete WW2 cruiser

Indeed. It’s more about the 300-odd lives which were lost rather than the bit of metal itself.

Shee started the destruction of the socially democratic post war society that so many people fought so hard for,

…and you can bet that those same people were really proud of 1970s Britain. Prosperity and social cohesion for all????

Indeed. It’s more about the 300-odd lives which were lost rather than the bit of metal itself.

You dont want your ships sunk and your men drowned, dont be an anti-semitic, fascistic dictatorship and go invading folks then. I’ve known a lot of servicemen who went down there in 1982, I dont why anyone feels the need to apologise for sinking the Belgrano.

I dont why anyone feels the need to apologise for sinking the Belgrano.[sic]
And unfortunately it’s not just you.

Wasn’t it compulsory for everything to be brown and orange in the 70’s?

Perhaps, as blue was her favourite colour, she really wanted to eradicate it all. Starting with this

and this

The reality is far more extensive and costly than the sinking of one obsolete WW2 cruiser

Indeed. It’s more about the 300-odd lives which were lost rather than the bit of metal itself.

907 lives according to wiki

You’ve totally missed my point – Thatcher caused the Falklands war. 🙄

All this talk of more balls than anyone else, not turning back etc, etc, it’s all utter BS & spin.

Going to war in the S Atlantic was the biggest U-Turn that Thatcher made – a hugely embarrasing cock-up, jingoistically dressed up in a union flag by the media and the Govt and presented to the public as a Great resolute British success – “Just rejoice at that news”

molgrips – Member

It was on the ropes – you don’t know if it would have recovered or not without her. Don’t be myopic.

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.

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…. However, it becomes clear that the level of change was meagre compared to Thatcher’s own ambitions. Marsh and Rhodes conclude, “The Thatcherite revolution is more a product of rhetoric than of the reality of policy impact”.

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 linky

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 – c’mon play a fair game if you want to bring the Falklands War into things. You highlight one (may I stress one) 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 hidden away by the nasty Tory machine and its narrative. Opps, its at…

http://www.margaretthatcher.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. 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. ….

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 “the risk of such action would not be as high as hitherto”.

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, “we must make contingency plans”.

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: Britain’s room for policy manoeuvre was limited.

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. 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.

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 didn’t 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. But that is a mile away from the conclusion thrown about earlier that Thatcher (this mystical individual) caused the War. 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….!