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 By the 50’s Britain’s industry was decades out of date, it was Japanese industrial growth that ripped us a new ass hole, and it was all OUR fault,from union members to the top levels of management!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 incompetence of the Thatcher government 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.

Tandembullshit
So what history qualifications do you have, you seem to know how to examine biased sources so well. Did you get you degree from Mickymouse?

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 today 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.

Rusty Spanner – Member
Teamhurtmore, did you possibly miss JUAD’s more offensive earlier posts?

Rusty, Yes, I did. But still a great line all the same 😉

No one, I hope, wants that woman anyone to suffer.

Sadly, you are not representative of many of the deeply unpleasant “dance on her grave” types. Luckily, you’re a damned fine person doing a damned fine job. Thank you for that, from the bottom of my heart. Having seen a family member go through dementia, it means a lot that there are people like you out there.

Sadly, again, there are people who are not like you.

Has a look and decides to slip away quietly.

I really don’t want to get dragged onto this thread, it’s just another one about entrenched opinions concerning someone who I don’t want to waste too much time thinking about, and who regularly and tediously comes up for “discussion”, ……… nuclear energy, the Falklands, religion, Thatcher, etc, done to the death imo.

Although with reference to

In the context of a coalition

My response would be – why in the context of a coalition ? It’s not the fault of LibDem voters that the Tories didn’t get enough votes. But let’s leave it at that.

why in the context of a coalition ?

Because, by definition (I guess) neither party has a full mandate. They still have to do something though….well actually probably the less the better, if I am going to be consistent!!

the British electorate had a fair idea what to expect from Thatcher.

yeah good point, cos when we saw this

we all knew that her intention was to get people back to work

Pretty daft comment trailmonkey since I very clearly said :

“despite being the longest serving British Prime Minister of the 20th century, she pretty much failed in all her stated aims.”

How she would allegedly achieve her stated aims was fairly clear to the British electorate ……. she would privatise this and privatise that, she would pass this bit of legislation and that bit of legislation, etc. In other words the British electorate had a good idea what her policies were and what they were voting for. That can’t be said of Cameron, and even less so of Clegg.

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.

i hope never to meet him, or you as i expect you smell strongly of wee.

Excellent. Now on a thread which nominally is about politics, punters have started to accuse each other of being smelly.

The irony of the inability of some to engage in even the vaguest form of meaningful political debate, whilst everyone is so keen to castigate politicians, isn’t lost on me.

I blame Thatcher.

Maybe she was sat there thinking ‘I bet this’ll cause a row on stw”?

I think the problem is Thatcher/Blair/etc seem to have this inexaustable well of self-belief and an utter dedication to their own infallibility.

Most of us are capable of thinking “Actually, I made a mistake doign that and I’ll stop trying to justify it”.

It seems that some are either incapable of the introspection needed to arrive at these truths.

They’re not the sort of people you want runnign the country, tbh.

What was the Marxist position at the time Ernie?

been old enough to remember the wilson and callaghan years i think its a more than fair argument that they did more to harm the country than fatch and her pals. the country sank into a deep pit of despair/ strikes with the pipe smokers at the helm from which its removal was inevitably painful. the facts stand alone though.. longest serving pm of the 20th century and re elected 3 times and in a democracy thats called people power or popular.
just because some have an opposing viewpoint to the govt she lead does nt make them right it just means they were in a very limited minority.

Nope – those against thatcher where always a majority. her governments never had a majority of the popular vote.

TJ nice balanced opener this morning. Would you care to enlighten everyone on how many post War UK governments of any party have secured more than 50% of the vote in a general election. Oh and maybe compare thatcher’s share with Wilson, Callaghan and Blair?

Never let the truth get in the way of a good yarn – the Wednesday version!

What relevance does that have? – once again you leap in attacking a statement I had made – as statement that is true and a rebuttal of the previous poster.

Your pathological need to attack everything I post is really laughable.