Oh Maggie how I loathed thee.....

Asterixcp · June 2007

It was an excellent program, well-balanced and for those who are willing to suspend bias and prejudice, showed the era for what it was.

One thing is quite certain and that is that although Britain was an economic basket-case, the causes were far more deep-rooted than mere union power. As Andrew Marr demonstrated, the country moved from being on one economic level - mining and manufacturing (in the infrastrucure tended to be 3 or 4 decades behind our neighbours) to finance and services. Had the old industries been bought up to date instead of being bulldozed we could have had the best of both worlds. Instead we have an even more divided society than we did before.

Also, although Mrs Thatcher appeared to have a special, special relationship with the USA, I believe we were no less patronised and condescended to by the U.S. then than we are now.

So, a determined, but unfortunately not a great PM, in my opinion.

Pour vivre heureux, vivons le v‚lo..

Medals · June 2007

"A piece of dirt in the south Atlantic populated almost entirely by sheep was worthy of a bloody conflict costing thousands of lives? i see little morality there ankev"

Er, I think 3000 or so British subjects living on that "piece of dirt" might disagree with you there redcogs.

redcogs · June 2007

In financial terms alone it would have cost a mere fraction of the actual cost of the military conflict to encourage some type of attractive settlement for the resident population. This was never pursued, Thatcher's personal interests always prevailed.

It was war war all the way, never jaw jaw. Thousands of unnecessary deaths.

please look up to the stars.. ***

papercorn2000 · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Asterix

It was an excellent program, well-balanced and for those who are willing to suspend bias and prejudice, showed the era for what it was.

One thing is quite certain and that is that although Britain was an economic basket-case, the causes were far more deep-rooted than mere union power. As Andrew Marr demonstrated, the country moved from being on one economic level - mining and manufacturing (in the infrastrucure tended to be 3 or 4 decades behind our neighbours) to finance and services. Had the old industries been bought up to date instead of being bulldozed we could have had the best of both worlds. Instead we have an even more divided society than we did before.

Also, although Mrs Thatcher appeared to have a special, special relationship with the USA, I believe we were no less patronised and condescended to by the U.S. then than we are now.

So, a determined, but unfortunately not a great PM, in my opinion.

Pour vivre heureux, vivons le v‚lo..
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

A good post (well, one I agree with - aren't the two the same thing!)
I certainly found that the programme challenged several of my beliefs about the Evil Thatch. However, the one that remains unchanged is that she did not care one jot about those who opposed her or those who didn't fit in with her plans.

God told me to skin you alive.
http://www.ekroadclub.co.uk/

spire · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Gary Askwith

Experiment:

Mix ingredients, bring to boil and simmer for 25 years

[Hypothesis Disproved[/b]

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I think not.

Recipe has been polluted by 10 years of Blair & Brown!

Unkraut · June 2007

Why should the resident population of the Falklands have been moved somewhere else, so a military junta could take over the islands and divert attention away from their oppressive regime at home?
If Britain had caved in, or lost that war, there would have been a host of border conflicts throughout Latin America as states copied the Agentinian example by grabbing what they considered theirs by force.

spire · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

In financial terms alone it would have cost a mere fraction of the actual cost of the military conflict to encourage some type of attractive settlement for the resident population. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Very surprised to learn you support ethnic cleansing.

mjones · June 2007

I seem to recall that a lot of the countries that called themselves socialist went in for forcible repatriation of populations they considered to be in the wrong place...

ankev1 · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

In financial terms alone it would have cost a mere fraction of the actual cost of the military conflict to encourage some type of attractive settlement for the resident population. This was never pursued, Thatcher's personal interests always prevailed.

It was war war all the way, never jaw jaw. Thousands of unnecessary deaths.

please look up to the stars.. ***
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Your arguments are usually driven by principles to which, to your credit, you cling - usually. I reckon that if a left wing government had taken on the junta you would have been full of praise for it. It is to your discredit that you cannot summon up praise for the conduct of this war, simply because you misreprent it as Margaret Thatcher exploiting it for her own ends. She, in this case, was also clinging to a noble principle, which is that you don't reward or give in to unprovoked aggression. Jaw, jaw would have not resulted in the only morally acceptable solution: the ejection of the Argentinians from the islands. If jaw, jaw is your principle in this matter, then I look forward to you condemning our silliness in getting involved in WW2 (maybe that was done just for Churchill's personal aggrandisement?). And if jaw, jaw is better, how can you support the IRA when they had every means at their disposal to pursue their aims politically?

stevechambers34 · June 2007

it will be no loss to me when she kicks her clogs none at all, as a 16 year old school leaver at the time of the miners strike she cost me a job in the pit:- also a good redundo package, she hammered the unions so now they are basically powerless, she was involved in credit card deregulation which has given us one of the highest rate of personal debt in the world, she was involved in selling off council houses so now there are very few left which fuelled the housing boom which has left many many young people without the wherewithall to buy a first property,she destroyed communities ,mining,shipbuilding,engineering etc etc, losing industry meant losing apprenticeships which was one way of showing young lads how to grow up, behave and have a worthwhile job/life instead of hanging around on street corners.......die bitch die!!! soon as.

being a reformed stuntdrinker allows pontification

Oldknees · June 2007

Mrs T started off by stopping my school milk. She continued by doing away with industry and finished by importing an ideology that was corrupt and full of flaws.

If I remember correctly didn't she also help stop an African country from banning cigerette adverts. She did take our men out of the mines, a good thing for the health of the miners: but was this her intention?

We don't have any manufacturing left in any depth any more.

I really have to fight the need to let her know that as she strugles for her last breath I shall be cheering as she goes. There has to be forgiveness otherwise she will further infect my life. BUG is right; let her go. The past is the past. We inhabit the present. Let those without guilt cast the first stone. We move on.

slow is good too

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

In financial terms alone it would have cost a mere fraction of the actual cost of the military conflict to encourage some type of attractive settlement for the resident population. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

They neither wanted to live under a right wing military dictatorship nor did they want to lose their homes.

redcogs · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ankev1

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

In financial terms alone it would have cost a mere fraction of the actual cost of the military conflict to encourage some type of attractive settlement for the resident population. This was never pursued, Thatcher's personal interests always prevailed.

It was war war all the way, never jaw jaw. Thousands of unnecessary deaths.

please look up to the stars.. ***
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Your arguments are usually driven by principles to which, to your credit, you cling - usually. I reckon that if a left wing government had taken on the junta you would have been full of praise for it. It is to your discredit that you cannot summon up praise for the conduct of this war, simply because you misreprent it as Margaret Thatcher exploiting it for her own ends. She, in this case, was also clinging to a noble principle, which is that you don't reward or give in to unprovoked aggression. Jaw, jaw would have not resulted in the only morally acceptable solution: the ejection of the Argentinians from the islands. If jaw, jaw is your principle in this matter, then I look forward to you condemning our silliness in getting involved in WW2 (maybe that was done just for Churchill's personal aggrandisement?). And if jaw, jaw is better, how can you support the IRA when they had every means at their disposal to pursue their aims politically?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Supporting republican objectives does not translate to supporting the particular tactics of any particular republican organisation ankev', i thought you knew that.

You make no mention of the historical claim to the Malvinas that the Argentinian's had, or the Thatcher imposed defence expenditiure cuts that encouraged the invasion.. Can't imagine why.

please look up to the stars.. ***

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

You make no mention of the historical claim to the Malvinas that the Argentinian's had,
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Probably because Argentina's historical claim to the Falklands is weaker than that of the USA which also claimed it at one time! Argentina's main claim is that the Falklands are relatively close to them. This is much the same as Hitler finding that Poland was close to Germany.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones

Sorry redcogs, but you haven't dealt with the minor matter of the inhabitants at all. Does it not matter to you that they had been forcibly occupied by a repressive regime in an entirely unprovoked attack? What was there to 'jaw jaw' about?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Many seem to have forgotten that Thatcher's defence cuts, which included the proposed withdrawal of HMS Endurance from service, made the Argentinian military junta think that Britain wouldn't intervene should they invade the islands.

Added later: Although redcogs hasn't forgotten - see the post two above. [:I]

What is the quote again about history being written by the victors?

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Patrick Stevens

Originally posted by redcogs

You make no mention of the historical claim to the Malvinas that the Argentinian's had,
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Probably because Argentina's historical claim to the Falklands is pretty well non existent. Spain claimed the Falklands and when Argentina declared independence from Spain it "awarded itself" Spain's claims. If this is correct then Argentina should also be claiming Gibraltar. Furthermore, Argentina should be handed back to Spain.

mjones · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by andyp

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones

Sorry redcogs, but you haven't dealt with the minor matter of the inhabitants at all. Does it not matter to you that they had been forcibly occupied by a repressive regime in an entirely unprovoked attack? What was there to 'jaw jaw' about?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Many seem to have forgotten that Thatcher's defence cuts, which included the proposed withdrawal of HMS Endurance from service, made the Argentinian military junta think that Britain wouldn't intervene should they invade the islands.

Added later: Although redcogs hasn't forgotten - see the post two above. [:I]

What is the quote again about history being written by the victors?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Irrelevant- since when did defence cuts justify invasion? Or territorial 'claims' for that matter?

As for the last comment- er, which bits of history do you think have been re-written?

I have to say I am rather shocked by the disregard so many of you seem to have for the rights of the Falkland Islanders or the rule of international law.

Unkraut · June 2007

Law courses debate whether or not Britain legitimately came into possession of the islands in the first place, and whether Argentina had any realistic claim as the successor state to Spain. What is not questioned is that Argentina had no right to take the islands by force, and that Britain was justified in using armed force to evict them. The UN was hardly likely to do much to rectify the situation.
Mrs Thatcher had a difficult decision to make in risking confict, but came out of it better than the plonkers in Brussels who wanted peace at any price (plonkers isn't quite the word she used of them, but it almost rhymes with what she did say!!). I wonder if she was strengthened in her anti-Europeanism by the conflict, as some EEC states gave less than any real support to Britain - in fact were sympathetic to Argentina.

papercorn2000 · June 2007

And she became such good friends with that nice General Pinochet...

God told me to skin you alive.
http://www.ekroadclub.co.uk/

ankev1 · June 2007

Redders and Andyp,

you boys really are scraping the bottom of the barrel by trying to blame the Falklands war on the decommissioning of HMS Endurance. It's like saying someone deserved to get mugged because he stopped carrying a knife. So now we've got lefties bemoaning the decommissioning a naval ship (cutting of the defence budget being normally very close to their hearts) as well as attacking a political leader who chose to fight an extreme right wing Junta - among the crimes of which was doing away with a lot of your fellow lefties. They're still discovering the bodies you know, but that doesn't count does it because at least Galtieri took on a monstrous bitch whose main crime was to get enough people who didn't agree with your views to vote for her! Pretty obvious that she was morally in the wrong in going to war.

(FWIW I also thought the navy cuts were wrong but then again I wanted to see a punitive bombing raid on Buenos Aires, so what do I know?)

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones

I have to say I am rather shocked by the disregard so many of you seem to have for the rights of the Falkland Islanders or the rule of international law.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Those on the left seem to have only seen two options -both highly despicable.

The first was that the Falkland Islanders become the subjects of a particularly nasty military dictatorship.

The second (as argued by Guardian columnist and KGB stooge, Richard Gott) was that the Falkland Islanders be removed, whether they consented or not.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ankev1

Redders and Andyp,

you boys really are scraping the bottom of the barrel by trying to blame the Falklands war on the decommissioning of HMS Endurance. It's like saying someone deserved to get mugged because he stopped carrying a knife. So now we've got lefties bemoaning the decommissioning a naval ship (cutting of the defence budget being normally very close to their hearts) as well as attacking a political leader who chose to fight an extreme right wing Junta - among the crimes of which was doing away with a lot of your fellow lefties. They're still discovering the bodies you know, but that doesn't count does it because at least Galtieri took on a monstrous bitch whose main crime was to get enough people who didn't agree with your views to vote for her! Pretty obvious that she was morally in the wrong in going to war.

(FWIW I also thought the navy cuts were wrong but then again I wanted to see a punitive bombing raid on Buenos Aires, so what do I know?)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">For a start I'm not a "leftie". Nor was I blaming the Falklands War on the decommissioning of the Endurance. However that decision combined with the Foreign Office making positive noises to the Argentinians on discussing sovereignty were two key factors in the junta thinking they could get away with it. They were, as you point out, monstrous dictators so cared little for the rights of anyone, especially a couple of thousand sheep farmers in the South Atlantic.

I'm still not sure if I think the Falklands War was a 'just' war but I still think it could have been avoided by diplomatic means.

Noodley · June 2007

let's not drag this towards trying to justify the Falklands conflict (which seems to be a favoured tactic of the Right as the can see some implicit justification of continued imperialist ideals) and away from all the other evils of Thatcher - albeit entering into unneccesary bloody conflict is evil in itself. As has already been stated there were far better options available when she came to power, she choose destruction of communities, of hope and of trust. She should be judged on that.

ankev1 · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by andyp

[
I'm still not sure if I think the Falklands War was a 'just' war but I still think it could have been avoided by diplomatic means.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Fair enough. But I think you're being hopelessly naive in your expectations of diplomacy. The only morally right solution was for the Argentinians to get off the islands. I don't for one second believe that diplomacy would have achieved that. At best some sort of compromise would have been reached i.e. the Argentinians would have received reward for their actions and that would have been immoral.

ankev1 · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Noodley

let's not drag this towards trying to justify the Falklands conflict (which seems to be a favoured tactic of the Right as the can see some implicit justification of continued imperialist ideals) and away from all the other evils of Thatcher - albeit entering into unneccesary bloody conflict is evil in itself. As has already been stated there were far better options available when she came to power, she choose destruction of communities, of hope and of trust. She should be judged on that.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

No let's not get distracted into an area which shows up the moral bankruptcy of the left. Go and tell a Falklander that it was an "unnecessary bloody conflict". I'm glad my well being doesn't depend on the likes of you.

peterbr · June 2007

Well, I'd love the leftie geniuses here to explain to me how exactly we were going to keep all these manufacturing jobs other than sign up for more of the same medicines we had in the 1970s.

The car industry collapsed because no one wanted the crap cars we were making. In the 1960s it made money not only in the UK but Europe too. The 1100 was the small family car everyone wanted. Who wanted an Allegro or Maestro? We don't make ships because you can buy them from South Korea at 2/3rds the price and have them delivered in half the time. People CHOSE other options.

The only way out of this is massive subsidy to make goods cheaper or more competitive - apart from the small detail that under international trade rules this is completely illegal.

I'd also like to know by what god given right do those jobs belong to the West Midlands or the North East? I find the leftie position somewhat racist. Why shouldn't someone in Asia make a living? I'm in IT, jobs disappear all the time abroad and you have to keep moving on. I see few tears being wept over this. Not Northern enough? No romantic images of the dignity of manual graft? Perhaps our resident class warrior can explain their position more clearly?

<hr noshade size="1">
Elephants and Ivory go together in perfect harmony. Oh Lord, why can't we?

Noodley · June 2007

Thanks, I am sorry to inform you that if you lived in this country your well-being may very well depend on the "likes of me". Stop trying to justify her war - she was agressive at a time which suited her, there were other options available. She divided people, she caused distrust, she encouraged resentment. She is the source of the moral malaise currently prevalent in Britain. She ruined lives, she is resposible for the hatred which prevails within society, the ditrust of each other, of ethnic minorities, of "incomers", and "difference" - she moulded a society which served her end.

mjones · June 2007

What 'other options' noodley?

'her war' indeed- the Argentines started it ffs!

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ankev1

as well as attacking a political leader who chose to fight an extreme right wing Junta - among the crimes of which was doing away with a lot of your fellow lefties. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

So Galtieri wasn't all bad. [;)]

It's certainly amusing seeing the left wanting to jump into bed with someone who would want to have them shot.

speshcp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Patrick Stevens

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ankev1

as well as attacking a political leader who chose to fight an extreme right wing Junta - among the crimes of which was doing away with a lot of your fellow lefties. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

So Galtieri wasn't all bad. [;)]

It's certainly amusing seeing the left wanting to jump into bed with someone who would want to have them shot.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">I believe the policy is best summarised as "My enemy's enemy is my friend." [}:)]

An approach that has led to some rather surprising political marriages of convenience over the years...

<hr noshade size="1">"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." (Albert Einstein)

Oh Maggie how I loathed thee.....

Comments

Categories