Thatcher has been checked into hospital...

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3349]

Speaking of the falklands, was it prince andrew who was fighting on the front line over there?

 

Didnt get half as much arse licking from the papers for being 'a hero'

Not as front line as Harry. Def didnt kill anyone.

[Sima 0]

Andrew just pissed about in a helicopter, miles away from the front line.

[ewerk 27237]

I couldn't disagree more. I would say what has always been bad for the british economy has been the way it has been run. And Thatcher was one of the worst. Millions of unemployed in Britain speaks volumes for a conservative government. I remember a Chancellor saying that High unemloyment was an acceptable price to pay for low inflation which they didn't always manage anyway.

 

Again, this is the short-termism I was talking about with regards to the unions. Yes Thatcher's monetary policy coupled with the strengthening of the pound was going to cause unemployment, nowhere more so than where I'm from, but the economy was already in a poor state as it was. There was no quick fix to the problems that Thatcher faced but I'm glad she was there to stick to her guns and see it through, she was definetly the right personality at the right time.

[GeordieMessiah 0]

Speaking of the falklands, was it prince andrew who was fighting on the front line over there?

 

Didnt get half as much arse licking from the papers for being 'a hero'

Not as front line as Harry. Def didnt kill anyone.

 

Too busy nailing Koo Stark, probably

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3349]

I couldn't disagree more. I would say what has always been bad for the british economy has been the way it has been run. And Thatcher was one of the worst. Millions of unemployed in Britain speaks volumes for a conservative government. I remember a Chancellor saying that High unemloyment was an acceptable price to pay for low inflation which they didn't always manage anyway.

 

Again, this is the short-termism I was talking about with regards to the unions. Yes Thatcher's monetary policy coupled with the strengthening of the pound was going to cause unemployment, nowhere more so than where I'm from, but the economy was already in a poor state as it was. There was no quick fix to the problems that Thatcher faced but I'm glad she was there to stick to her guns and see it through, she was definetly the right personality at the right time.

 

Talk about short termism she only just managed to claw some form of semblance with the short term objective of getting money by selling the utilities.

[NJS 4044]

I couldn't disagree more. I would say what has always been bad for the british economy has been the way it has been run. And Thatcher was one of the worst. Millions of unemployed in Britain speaks volumes for a conservative government. I remember a Chancellor saying that High unemloyment was an acceptable price to pay for low inflation which they didn't always manage anyway.

 

Again, this is the short-termism I was talking about with regards to the unions. Yes Thatcher's monetary policy coupled with the strengthening of the pound was going to cause unemployment, nowhere more so than where I'm from, but the economy was already in a poor state as it was. There was no quick fix to the problems that Thatcher faced but I'm glad she was there to stick to her guns and see it through, she was definetly the right personality at the right time.

 

I'm not completely naive enough to say that the unions weren't a problem. However destroying their power completely by destroying their industries was not a sensible approach. There are plenty stories about how bad british leyland was in terms of the unions but it was the management that let them get away with it.

 

Other countries, notably Germany, rode out the bad times while keeping core industries because they knew how important they were. Thatcher sold any money making ones to her cronies in the cities and watched the north burn with no regard for its future.

 

Was reducing union power worth the price?

[Howay 12496]

Speaking of the falklands, was it prince andrew who was fighting on the front line over there?

 

Didnt get half as much arse licking from the papers for being 'a hero'

He never left Ascension island, which is hundreds of miles away from the Falklands.

Andrew just pissed about in a helicopter, miles away from the front line.

Missed this reply .

Edited March 8, 2008 by Barton7

[Papa Lazaru 0]

Interesting thread!

 

Whatever the arguments going back and forth here there is one inescapable fact. And that is that she and some of her cronies openly admitted that parts of the north would have to suffer for other parts of the country to grow and it was tough shit. I remember that documentary with Mathew Parris where he came to Newcastle and revisited a documentary he'd done first time round under Thatcher about living off benefits and the like and he actually said these things to people who were arguing she was ruining their lives. The documentary itself was actually quite interesting and he made some decent and fair points worth listenign to, but that was about other issues, the key thing is he said they'd have to suffer for ecomnomic growth down south.

 

So anyone who lives here and comes from families who live here and defends her is strange to me since she was quite happy to shit on you and your family to help people down where she lives do better.

[Sima 0]

I couldn't disagree more. I would say what has always been bad for the british economy has been the way it has been run. And Thatcher was one of the worst. Millions of unemployed in Britain speaks volumes for a conservative government. I remember a Chancellor saying that High unemloyment was an acceptable price to pay for low inflation which they didn't always manage anyway.

 

Again, this is the short-termism I was talking about with regards to the unions. Yes Thatcher's monetary policy coupled with the strengthening of the pound was going to cause unemployment, nowhere more so than where I'm from, but the economy was already in a poor state as it was. There was no quick fix to the problems that Thatcher faced but I'm glad she was there to stick to her guns and see it through, she was definetly the right personality at the right time.

 

I'm not completely naive enough to say that the unions weren't a problem. However destroying their power completely by destroying their industries was not a sensible approach. There are plenty stories about how bad british leyland was in terms of the unions but it was the management that let them get away with it.

 

Other countries, notably Germany, rode out the bad times while keeping core industries because they knew how important they were. Thatcher sold any money making ones to her cronies in the cities and watched the north burn with no regard for its future.

 

Was reducing union power worth the price?

 

In hindsight with the economic state the country is now, of course. She laid the foundations with, some say brutal, immediate measures.

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3349]

I couldn't disagree more. I would say what has always been bad for the british economy has been the way it has been run. And Thatcher was one of the worst. Millions of unemployed in Britain speaks volumes for a conservative government. I remember a Chancellor saying that High unemloyment was an acceptable price to pay for low inflation which they didn't always manage anyway.

 

Again, this is the short-termism I was talking about with regards to the unions. Yes Thatcher's monetary policy coupled with the strengthening of the pound was going to cause unemployment, nowhere more so than where I'm from, but the economy was already in a poor state as it was. There was no quick fix to the problems that Thatcher faced but I'm glad she was there to stick to her guns and see it through, she was definetly the right personality at the right time.

 

I'm not completely naive enough to say that the unions weren't a problem. However destroying their power completely by destroying their industries was not a sensible approach. There are plenty stories about how bad british leyland was in terms of the unions but it was the management that let them get away with it.

 

Other countries, notably Germany, rode out the bad times while keeping core industries because they knew how important they were. Thatcher sold any money making ones to her cronies in the cities and watched the north burn with no regard for its future.

 

Was reducing union power worth the price?

 

In hindsight with the economic state the country is now, of course. She laid the foundations with, some say brutal, immediate measures.

 

We are in the shit. We make nothing we rely on a service industry which is deserting britain for India. We have only held on by selling the countries gold. We are facing a huge recession the foundations of which were lain in the short term financial gain culture of thatcherism.

[NJS 4044]

In hindsight with the economic state the country is now, of course. She laid the foundations with, some say brutal, immediate measures.

 

 

France, Germany, Canada and even Ireland could be argued to be doing just as well - if her methods were the only ones which could work why are union-led places like France just as well off? How can countries like Germany still have a mining industry?

[NJS 4044]

Just read this on the BBC:

 

He added: "I've just spoken to some people close to her and I think what seems to have happened, Lady Thatcher is susceptible to heat and it sometimes gives her - and it does sometimes with old people - a turn."

 

Augurs well for hell then.

[Fop 1]

Good or bad, we could have done with her strong leadership in recent years rather than become the yank/euro puppet we have.

 

There was no bigger yank puppet than thatcher.

 

Thatcher did many things wrong, but if anyone was the poodle in the UK/US relationship with her and Reagan, it was Reagan (she got him to back down over several major things and led him like a bull with a nose ring on several others).

 

Unlike Blair with Bush, who wasn't just his poodle, but was happy enough to slip into a gimp suit for Bush when asked (and is about to start lecturing on "how to be a religious nutter for profit" in the USA soon, Blair that is).

 

Name them? However she was quite happy for him to use our bases for military incursions.

 

Falklands for one where she convinced Reagan to go against every US advisor and US policy maker in the end, but there were several others as well.

 

Where as your example of "allowing" Reagan were likely policies she agreed on in the first place.

 

As I said Blair is a perfect example of a US poodle or gimp (and maybe now with his religious nutterdom coming out into the public domain we maybe see why), but Thatcher whatever else you can accuser her of (and there are many things) was not, she probably exercised more control over US policy that anyone but a serving President ever has.

 

To do what???

 

I suggest you read up on the whole Falklands conflict (it being a pretty integral part of Thatchers time it's pretty much required reading), but basically much US policy, politicians and public opinion were largely against helping the UK in any way (in fact they were broadly pretty much for hindering it).

 

Not to mention that even after UK forces had landed and were clearly winning Reagan tried to get Thatcher allow the Argentinians to withdraw (to save face, fearing the collapse of the Junta and therefore US interest in Argentina) and a 3rd party "peacekeeping" force to be deploy, to which Thatcher gave him a verbal mauling over (the fabled "handbagging" I guess ) and told him no way.

 

As I said if anything Reagan was much more Thatchers poodle than she ever was his, and again as I said she probably exercised more control over US policy than any one person but a serving President ever has.

 

Which books? What help??

 

There's absolutely tons of stuff out there now, even the transcripts of that very conversation in which she gave Reagan a handbagging.

 

I think the only way to possible view Thatcher as Reagan's poodle is that they did agree on an awful lot of stuff, but where they disagreed Thatcher almost always won. Much like in Europe for that matter.

 

 

I dunno a lot of people blindly hate Thatcher, and she did a lot of things to deserve that hate, but in other respects she did things that were good for the UK and was certainly a leader of conviction that often punched well above her weight in world affairs.

 

I suspect a really balanced view will only be seen in years to come. You can lay many things at her door, but kowtowing to the USA al la Blair was certainly NOT one of them.

[Fop 1]

If the Unions ruled Britain why did they have to strike in 79? Surely they would have been able to just ring up Callaghan and demand 20% rises which he would have given them on the spot?

 

If Thatcher had been in power then they would have been refused the pay rise and gone on strike....hmm.

 

A culture of striking had been developing in Britain prior to the winter of discontent, this was allowed to happen because of the powers given to the unions, Thatcher didn't remove the right to strike for many trades but made it a slower and more regulated process. If Thatcher had've been in power I don't think the situation would have got to the point that it did in 1979, whatever way you look at it the unions were bad for the British economy and needed taking down a peg or two.

I couldn't disagree more. I would say what has always been bad for the british economy has been the way it has been run. And Thatcher was one of the worst. Millions of unemployed in Britain speaks volumes for a conservative government. I remember a Chancellor saying that High unemloyment was an acceptable price to pay for low inflation which they didn't always manage anyway. As per normal the right wing revisionists look at the relatively small amount of good done over the misery poured onto Britain during her premiership. Remember she was lower in the polls than a snakes arse in a ditch before she goaded Argentina into invading the Falklands.

 

Again that's not really true. She certainly made political capital out of the aftermath, but it was the Junta themselves that saw the invasion of the Falklands as a popular distraction to avoid their own unpopularity and civil unrest.

[NJS 4044]

and was certainly a leader of conviction that often punched well above her weight in world affairs.

 

The great euro-sceptic who signed Maastricht?

[NJS 4044]

Again that's not really true. She certainly made political capital out of the aftermath, but it was the Junta themselves that saw the invasion of the Falklands as a popular distraction to avoid their own unpopularity and civil unrest.

 

In 1977 the Argentinians made threatening noises - Callaghan sent a nuclear sub as a warning and they completely backed down.

 

Compare that with the withdrawal of the Endurance and "secret" noises that the UK didn't really care which sent a clear "come and have a go" message.

 

The Argentinians were fools but they we played as such.

[Jimbo 133]

Again that's not really true. She certainly made political capital out of the aftermath, but it was the Junta themselves that saw the invasion of the Falklands as a popular distraction to avoid their own unpopularity and civil unrest.

 

In 1977 the Argentinians made threatening noises - Callaghan sent a nuclear sub as a warning and they completely backed down.

 

Compare that with the withdrawal of the Endurance and "secret" noises that the UK didn't really care which sent a clear "come and have a go" message.

 

The Argentinians were fools but they we played as such.

 

That war won her the next election.

[Fop 1]

I couldn't disagree more. I would say what has always been bad for the british economy has been the way it has been run. And Thatcher was one of the worst. Millions of unemployed in Britain speaks volumes for a conservative government. I remember a Chancellor saying that High unemloyment was an acceptable price to pay for low inflation which they didn't always manage anyway.

 

Again, this is the short-termism I was talking about with regards to the unions. Yes Thatcher's monetary policy coupled with the strengthening of the pound was going to cause unemployment, nowhere more so than where I'm from, but the economy was already in a poor state as it was. There was no quick fix to the problems that Thatcher faced but I'm glad she was there to stick to her guns and see it through, she was definetly the right personality at the right time.

 

I'm not completely naive enough to say that the unions weren't a problem. However destroying their power completely by destroying their industries was not a sensible approach. There are plenty stories about how bad british leyland was in terms of the unions but it was the management that let them get away with it.

 

Other countries, notably Germany, rode out the bad times while keeping core industries because they knew how important they were. Thatcher sold any money making ones to her cronies in the cities and watched the north burn with no regard for its future.

 

Was reducing union power worth the price?

 

In hindsight with the economic state the country is now, of course. She laid the foundations with, some say brutal, immediate measures.

 

We are in the shit. We make nothing we rely on a service industry which is deserting britain for India. We have only held on by selling the countries gold. We are facing a huge recession the foundations of which were lain in the short term financial gain culture of thatcherism.

 

Yup I absolutely agree with that, but the thing is Labour have basically been making hay whilst the sun shines and then burning the hay for the last 11 years.

 

Globalisation feeding and supporting a very stable Western economy (with 1 near miss in the USA) has created 1 time only set of conditions and given us "good times" (good times that had next to nothing to do with whomever was in power here).

 

Which we used to basically remove near ALL remaining manufacturing jobs and even more insanely massive amounts of service industry jobs too and create a debt culture so monstrous it is scary when you look at the figures.

 

But now Globalisation has pretty much run its course and is beginning to bite the West back (inflation in China and India is both increasing relative wages very quickly making outsourcing companies have to pay a LOT more and driving up the global price of things like oil, grain, milk and bizarrely hamsters ).

 

 

 

 

The wheels are definitely beginning to fall off the bus, and I suspect there could be some very interesting times ahead in the next 5-15 years (that will probably fill chapters of history books in years to come).

 

But that however is every bit as much Labours fault for the last 11 years as it is Thatchers for laying some of the groundwork before it.

[Fop 1]

Again that's not really true. She certainly made political capital out of the aftermath, but it was the Junta themselves that saw the invasion of the Falklands as a popular distraction to avoid their own unpopularity and civil unrest.

 

In 1977 the Argentinians made threatening noises - Callaghan sent a nuclear sub as a warning and they completely backed down.

 

Compare that with the withdrawal of the Endurance and "secret" noises that the UK didn't really care which sent a clear "come and have a go" message.

The Argentinians were fools but they we played as such.

 

 

Or in fact a wide ranging defence review that reduced much navy "east of Suez" operational ability to try and bolster/retain any North Atlantic blockade fleet whilst reducing the over all budget.

 

Warnings were certainly ignored and overlooked, but that's a long, long, long, long way from anything like goading Argentina into an invasion (and again the Junta was in a much more precarious position domestically, politically and economically, than it had been a few years before).

 

One perfect example of this is that they scrapped the heavy repair ship HMS Triumph just before the Falklands War, which would have been UTTER MADNESS if they expected or wanted an invasion of the Falklands as it's role (heavy repair ship to the east of Suez fleet) would have been VITAL to successfully winning such a campaign.

 

But don't let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy tale.

[NJS 4044]

Again that's not really true. She certainly made political capital out of the aftermath, but it was the Junta themselves that saw the invasion of the Falklands as a popular distraction to avoid their own unpopularity and civil unrest.

 

In 1977 the Argentinians made threatening noises - Callaghan sent a nuclear sub as a warning and they completely backed down.

 

Compare that with the withdrawal of the Endurance and "secret" noises that the UK didn't really care which sent a clear "come and have a go" message.

The Argentinians were fools but they we played as such.

 

 

Or in fact a wide ranging defence review that reduced much navy "east of Suez" operational ability to try and bolster/retain any North Atlantic blockade fleet whilst reducing the over all budget.

 

Warnings were certainly ignored and overlooked, but that's a long, long, long, long way from anything like goading Argentina into an invasion (and again the Junta was in a much more precarious position domestically, politically and economically, than it had been a few years before).

 

One perfect example of this is that they scrapped the heavy repair ship HMS Triumph just before the Falklands War, which would have been UTTER MADNESS if they expected or wanted an invasion of the Falklands as it's role (heavy repair ship to the east of Suez fleet) would have been VITAL to successfully winning such a campaign.

 

But don't let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy tale.

 

 

She was also lucky as her plans for the navy would have left them unable to fight the war a year later.

 

I'm not saying she sat down and planned the whole thing - I just think that very early on she recognised that a situation which normally would have been resolved by diplomacy gave her the chance to turn things around politically. If you want to turn that into making her a good leader then fine - I think it showed her willing to sacrifice lives for power - a charge I would also level at Blair btw.

 

 

 

She also rewarded the shipbuilders who had worked so hard during and after the war with closure.

[Fop 1]

and was certainly a leader of conviction that often punched well above her weight in world affairs.

 

The great euro-sceptic who signed Maastricht?

 

She played the Euro game like the French and Germans did and still do.

[Fop 1]

Again that's not really true. She certainly made political capital out of the aftermath, but it was the Junta themselves that saw the invasion of the Falklands as a popular distraction to avoid their own unpopularity and civil unrest.

 

In 1977 the Argentinians made threatening noises - Callaghan sent a nuclear sub as a warning and they completely backed down.

 

Compare that with the withdrawal of the Endurance and "secret" noises that the UK didn't really care which sent a clear "come and have a go" message.

The Argentinians were fools but they we played as such.

 

 

Or in fact a wide ranging defence review that reduced much navy "east of Suez" operational ability to try and bolster/retain any North Atlantic blockade fleet whilst reducing the over all budget.

 

Warnings were certainly ignored and overlooked, but that's a long, long, long, long way from anything like goading Argentina into an invasion (and again the Junta was in a much more precarious position domestically, politically and economically, than it had been a few years before).

 

One perfect example of this is that they scrapped the heavy repair ship HMS Triumph just before the Falklands War, which would have been UTTER MADNESS if they expected or wanted an invasion of the Falklands as it's role (heavy repair ship to the east of Suez fleet) would have been VITAL to successfully winning such a campaign.

 

But don't let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy tale.

 

 

She was also lucky as her plans for the navy would have left them unable to fight the war a year later.

I'm not saying she sat down and planned the whole thing - I just think that very early on she recognised that a situation which normally would have been resolved by diplomacy gave her the chance to turn things around politically. If you want to turn that into making her a good leader then fine - I think it showed her willing to sacrifice lives for power - a charge I would also level at Blair btw.

 

 

 

She also rewarded the shipbuilders who had worked so hard during and after the war with closure.

 

And much less able than they were just a year before.

 

As I said there was no conspiracy to make the Falklands war happen, there was probably some serious negligence in not realising it probably was going to happen, and some very nice (for her) political capital made on the back of fighting and winning it (but you can't exactly "blame" her for that, its what politicians do), but that is a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG way from what is being suggested above.

 

 

 

However I'm not saying she was a "good leader" (although I suspect her style of leadership was conducive to those circumstances - much like WW2 made Churchill) or nessecarily as "bad leader" either.

I'm just pointing out a lot of what is claimed is a load of .

[NJS 4044]

and was certainly a leader of conviction that often punched well above her weight in world affairs.

 

The great euro-sceptic who signed Maastricht?

 

She played the Euro game like the French and Germans did and still do.

 

Yes but they were honest - they didn't denounce the concepts for the benefit of Mail and Sun readers and then sign the single European act.

 

She is still hailed as a "heroine" for gaining the rebate - why didn't she rather do what Ireland have done so well and make the EU work to transform their country? - which is better "sticking it to the Krauts/Frogs" or working for your people?

[NJS 4044]

I'm just pointing out a lot of what is claimed is a load of .

 

Like deliberately sinking the Belgrano to scupper the US peace deal?

[Fop 1]

I'm just pointing out a lot of what is claimed is a load of .

 

Like deliberately sinking the Belgrano to scupper the US peace deal?

 

War is war, you don't start one then claim foul.

 

 

The captain of the Belgrano admits they were awaiting weather changes to then support further air attacks, and Argentina has admitted it was a perfectly legal act of war (a bit of an oxymoron, but then that is war).

 

So yes, even more it seems.