Margaret Thatcher was she really that bad?

forfuxsake

NinjaK wrote: »

What a strange thread title in an Irish forum, imagine 'Albert Reynolds was he really that bad?' in an English forum?

Yes, because he too was a global leader of historic importance who befriended dictators, became embroiled in a controversial war, stood against sanctions in South Africa, branded the ANC a terrorist organisation,invited the South African president to Ireland, backed and trained the Khmer Rouge.

If you are going to draw comparisons then think before you write.

Good comparisons for an English forum

Was Bush really that bad?
Was Stalin really that bad?
Was Gaddafi really that bad?

Bad comparisons for an English forum?

Was Kaczynski really that bad?
Was Mitterrand really that bad?
Was Helmut Kohl really that bad?

Before people have a discussion on whether somebody was really that bad, two conditions have to be satisfied.

1. The person must have a reputation for being bad.
2. The people discussing whether or not that said person was bad should have heard of the person.

If you think English people would have heard of Albert Reynolds then you are a silly billy.

conorhal

Zaph wrote: »

I think you'll find the miners would disagree with you. And the steelworkers. And those who worked in what was left of the British motor industry. Not to mention those who were caught up in the riots in Brixton. Or Toxteth. She was probably the most divisive political leader Britain ever had, and possibly ever will have, and only managed to stay in power as long as she did because some Argentinians decided to set up camp on a rock in the South Atlantic.

The blackouts, the brown outs, the rubbish strewn streets, the political paralysis (we're seeing a lot of that these days ourselves), the union stranglehold on any kind of change or reform (we're seeing a lot of that too)....

And Newton's third law of physics: Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

I've no love for Thatcher, but all the above that you mention created her. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction and the unions, the Labor party and the despair of a system slowly grinding to a halt were the crucible that created a monster just as surely as hyper inflation, depression and humiliation in post war Germany created Hitler.
FG and Labor, who are so intent on protecting special interests and screwing the voters to the wall as they pick their pockets should take note, so too should the ECB with it's punative insistance in 'reparations' for German bondholders.
Who knows what kind of monster the Irish will raise up, reach out to in their desperation, who knows what will rise from the ashes of our ruined economy?

Biggins

conorhal wrote: »

The blackouts, the brown outs, the rubbish strewn streets, the political paralysis (we're seeing a lot of that these days ourselves), the union stranglehold on any kind of change or reform (we're seeing a lot of that too)....

...Who knows what kind of monster the Irish will raise up, reach out to in their desperation, who knows what will rise from the ashes of our ruined economy?

Jedward!

Shelga

Nodin wrote: »

There were far more constructive ways to deal with the problem.

...Such as?

conorhal

Biggins wrote: »

Jedward!

*Shudder* So we're finally going to see Labor's 'rotating Taoiseach' idea come to it's awful fruition?

Biggins

conorhal wrote: »

*Shudder* So we're finally going to see Labor's 'rotating Taoiseach' idea come to it's awful fruition?

I'll believe it when I see it.

jimthemental

conorhal wrote: »

The blackouts, the brown outs, the rubbish strewn streets, the political paralysis (we're seeing a lot of that these days ourselves), the union stranglehold on any kind of change or reform (we're seeing a lot of that too)....

And Newton's third law of physics: Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

I've no love for Thatcher, but all the above that you mention created her. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction and the unions, the Labor party and the despair of a system slowly grinding to a halt were the crucible that created a monster just as surely as hyper inflation, depression and humiliation in post war Germany created Hitler.
FG and Labor, who are so intent on protecting special interests and screwing the voters to the wall as they pick their pockets should take note, so too should the ECB with it's punative insistance in 'reparations' for German bondholders.
Who knows what kind of monster the Irish will raise up, reach out to in their desperation, who knows what will rise from the ashes of our ruined economy?

Joe Duffy for Taoiseach!!!
:eek:

MadYaker

http://www.isthatcherdeadyet.co.uk/

Dyr

jimthemental wrote: »

Joe Duffy for Taoiseach!!!
:eek:

There's people here who would vote Michael O'Leary in as Taoiseach for life.

"he'd sort us out" "Whip us michael ..oh god yes, we deserve it, whip us hard" etc etc

Gee Bag

NinjaK wrote: »

What a strange thread title in an Irish forum, imagine 'Albert Reynolds was he really that bad?' in an English forum?

Apples and Oranges.

Thatcher was in power for 11 and a half years, Reynolds less than two.

Thatcher's policies re Norn Iron and the EU had a major influence on Ireland.

Reynold's worked with John Major to help get the peace process moving.

BOHtox

K-9 wrote: »

VAT is a disincentive to spending as PAYE is a disincentive to work.

Interesting, VAT is a lesser evil than PAYE.

VAT is not a disencentive to spend. Everybody loves to spend. The more money they have the more they do spend. Even if there is a slight disencentive it's far outweighed by the abolishment of income tax.

CiaranC wrote: »

So socialism for the stuff you want, but not for the things you dont. Brilliant! You better hurry over to Politics and join the other four libertarians in their quest for world domination

That's not socialism. I don't think you understand socialism well actually it's obvious you don't. I don't want the government to be involved in anything that could be done better in the private sector. I don't think a private police force or army would work! Do you?

Fratton Fred

forfuxsake wrote: »

Yes, because he too was a global leader of historic importance who befriended dictators, became embroiled in a controversial war, stood against sanctions in South Africa, branded the ANC a terrorist organisation,invited the South African president to Ireland, backed and trained the Khmer Rouge.

If you are going to draw comparisons then think before you write.

Good comparisons for an English forum

Was Bush really that bad?
Was Stalin really that bad?
Was Gaddafi really that bad?

Bad comparisons for an English forum?

Was Kaczynski really that bad?
Was Mitterrand really that bad?
Was Helmut Kohl really that bad?

Before people have a discussion on whether somebody was really that bad, two conditions have to be satisfied.

1. The person must have a reputation for being bad.
2. The people discussing whether or not that said person was bad should have heard of the person.

If you think English people would have heard of Albert Reynolds then you are a silly billy.

ya gotta love after hours

Nodin

Shelga wrote: »

...Such as?

phased closures over a long period to allow retraining of the work force, bringing in new industries and the like.....

Manic Moran

Yes, that the story thats still coming from the British government now.
IF you can believe them and trust their ONE report!

What does it matter?

There was a war on.
ARA General Belgrano was a warship of one of the combatant sides.
HMS Conqueror was a warship of the other combatant sides.
One warship sinks another warship during a time of war. Even the Argentianian Navy and CPT Bonzo had no moral issues with the sinking.

Whatever Maggie's faults may have been, the Falklands War wasn't one of them. Started by Argentina, finished by the UK. To my knowledge, there was only a single incidence of an unlawful killing by either side in the war (Argentine prisoner shot by Corporal Gary Sturge, who was arrested on the spot), barring a possible case of perfidity by the Argentinians at Goose Green. It was quite possibly the cleanest, most 'civilised' major war (such as a war can be) of the 20th Century.

And frankly, like many, one which could have been avoided had the Junta not decided to distract the population from them by having a short, glorious war.

NTM

girl2

Aye. She was. The fukker.

Biggins

Manic Moran wrote: »

What does it matter?

There was a war on.
ARA General Belgrano was a warship of one of the combatant sides.
HMS Conqueror was a warship of the other combatant sides.
One warship sinks another warship during a time of war. Even the Argentianian Navy and CPT Bonzo had no moral issues with the sinking.

Whatever Maggie's faults may have been, the Falklands War wasn't one of them. Started by Argentina, finished by the UK. To my knowledge, there was only a single incidence of an unlawful killing by either side in the war (Argentine prisoner shot by Corporal Gary Sturge, who was arrested on the spot), barring a possible case of perfidity by the Argentinians at Goose Green. It was quite possibly the cleanest, most 'civilised' major war (such as a war can be) of the 20th Century.

And frankly, like many, one which could have been avoided had the Junta not decided to distract the population from them by having a short, glorious war.

NTM

You make valid points and I can understand where your coming from also giving your background too.
My point was that she could have been a better person and perhaps for the sake of being seen to doing a more decent thing, waited till the ship had re-entered the exclusion zone that by British and some international communities which agreed with England, gave them further justification in sinking it.

Instead, she will be remembered for many bad things - including the sinking of the ship while it supposedly was sailing away, showing its back.
If as B.I (British Intelligence) might claim, the ship was popping in and out of the zone, all they had to do was wait.
Its not as if they hadn't many radar capabilities and overhead tracking satellites to spot this and hopefully lie in wait.

I would never say (nor want to) the Junta were justified in originally doing what they did.
They were wrong plain and simple.
There was at least 300+ lives (many forced conscripts?) though on that boat, that where probably thinking to themselves "Thank heavens, we might be safe now that we are sailing away and are out of the exclusion zone."
Sadly, they were wrong.

If we just say "There was a war on" - well to some, that might read that as "Fair enough, that gives us justification to do just about anything we want."
While technically and perhaps legally correct at times, sometimes its also morally wrong.

Its food for further thought...

Fratton Fred

Biggins wrote: »

You make valid points and I can understand where your coming from also giving your background too.
My point was that she could have been a better person and perhaps for the sake of being seen to doing a more decent thing, waited till the ship had re-entered the exclusion zone that by British and some international communities which agreed with England, gave them further justification in sinking it.

Instead, she will be remembered for many bad things - including the sinking of the ship while it supposedly was sailing away, showing its back.
If as B.I (British Intelligence) might claim, the ship was popping in and out of the zone, all they had to do was wait.
Its not as if they hadn't many radar capabilities and overhead tracking satellites to spot this and hopefully lie in wait.

I would never say (nor want to) the Junta were justified in originally doing what they did.
They were wrong plain and simple.
There was at least 300+ lives (many forced conscripts?) though on that boat, that where probably thinking to themselves "Thank heavens, we might be safe now that we are sailing away and are out of the exclusion zone."
Sadly, they were wrong.

If we just say "There was a war on" - well to some, that might read that as "Fair enough, that gives us justification to do just about anything we want."
While technically and perhaps legally correct at times, sometimes its also morally wrong.

Its food for further thought...

Biggins, the Belgrano was with two other ships and operating as part of a pincer movement. The goal of this was to drive the task force away. That not only made it a Target, it made it a threat.

The war was in 1982 and what satellites there were in those days weren't looking at a bit of barren ocean in the south Atlantic. The only method the Royal Navy had for tracking the Belgrano was by the Conqueror keeping tabs on them, which is risky and unreliable.

I'm not sure if there were conscripts on board or not, but I'd be very surprised if the Argentine navy let their prize capital ship be driven by a bunch of kids. They would have been under no illusion though as to the position they were in. War is not a game of tag, you can't cry tacks and cross your fingers.

Manic Moran

Biggins wrote: »

My point was that she could have been a better person and perhaps for the sake of being seen to doing a more decent thing, waited till the ship had re-entered the exclusion zone that by British and some international communities which agreed with England, gave them further justification in sinking it.

The concept of giving the other guy a chance in a war went away about a century ago. They had all the justification they needed: It was a very dangerous ship, they had a limited opportunity to engage it, for all they knew the next time they saw it might have been when it came over the horizon to the task force, Exocet launchers and 6" guns blazing, which would have been the end of the endeavour. Wars aren't decent to begin with, so why should non-military perceptions of 'decency' come into it?

Instead, she will be remembered for many bad things - including the sinking of the ship while it supposedly was sailing away, showing its back.

It may be what she is remembered for, but that does not mean that the recollection is either accurate or justified. Unless people were worried about the dollar value of a couple of old torpedoes, there was absolutely no rational reason not to sink the ship. Plus, given that the incident pretty much sent the Argentine Navy home for the duration, the action may well have saved substantially more lives than it took.

If as B.I (British Intelligence) might claim, the ship was popping in and out of the zone, all they had to do was wait.

That was part of the problem: The ships were in the vicinity of the Burwood Banks, through which the British submarine could not track them. Hence the rather unorthodox exhange of radio transmissions within the British structure which was a serious "You need to look at this, and quickly" flag to the people in London.

Its not as if they hadn't many radar capabilities and overhead tracking satellites to spot this and hopefully lie in wait.

You would risk a war on 'Hopefully?' (And they did have radar tracking limitations, the Sea King AEW program was set up after the war to redress the fact that they had limited surface search capability with the fleet)

There are two practical problems with your proposal. Firstly, the fact that despite having been tracked earlier by an RN submarine, ARA 25 de Mayo (the aircraft carrier) had been lost by the Task Force. There was no reason to believe that the same could not happen with ARA General Belgrano. The TF couldn't do anything about the North threat now that they had lost contact with it, but they could do something about the threat from the South.

Secondly, only a couple of months before, Woodward had successfully completed a very similar exercise by getting his then-flagship, the destroyer HMS Glamorgan, into striking range of a US Navy aircraft carrier, despite its massively superior air and battlegroup capabilities compared to what the Task Force had to hand. If he was able to achieve it against the Americans despite starting 200 miles from the US carrier, he must assume that the Argentinians would be capable of doing the same thing to him.

The Royal Navy's position on ARA General Belgrano was simple. "If you want us to have the best chance of winning this war, that ship must be sunk while we have the opportunity."

Her way was to just go in as I said "guns blazing" and not even try to hold/seek any serious peaceful resolutions first.
After all, it would have been the sensible thing to do - did she do it or at least try? No.

Didn't really have a choice. With the coming of Winter, there was a very set date by which the landing had to have taken place in order to even leave the military option open. Argentina had a couple of weeks to decide to up and leave, further delay beyond that required for transit and preparatory operations prior to the British landings would have simply resulted in negotiations not having the fallback option of 'if you're going to continue being unreasonable, we'll kick you out'

NTM

Biggins

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Biggins, the Belgrano was with two other ships and operating as part of a pincer movement. The goal of this was to drive the task force away. That not only made it a Target, it made it a threat.

But again, supposedly turning its back away, heading that way from the direction of conflict at the time and definitely outside the exclusion zone where all was told, if they then entered, they would be fired upon.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The war was in 1982 and what satellites there were in those days weren't looking at a bit of barren ocean in the south Atlantic. The only method the Royal Navy had for tracking the Belgrano was by the Conqueror keeping tabs on them, which is risky and unreliable.

You could be right but then again, who is to say what they were looking at at the time or if by some madness, lost their skills in being able to re-position anything that might be looking downwards.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I'm not sure if there were conscripts on board or not, but I'd be very surprised if the Argentine navy let their prize capital ship be driven by a bunch of kids. They would have been under no illusion though as to the position they were in. War is not a game of tag, you can't cry tacks and cross your fingers.

Indeed not (and I never said or alluded that the ships were been driven by kids).
The fact is that on this particular incident, history (for all our debating here) has recorded the matter as yet again, as something that weights heavily against the woman, exposes her character and willingness to get her way at any price and disregard morals and/or decency when it suited her ire and wrath.
Sadly for all those that died on either side of that conflict, the list of dead went up another 300+ for that day, due to her very ire and wrath down (yet again) upon others.

History will continue to be her judge also.

Fratton Fred

The exclusion zone applied to non military ships. Several days beforehand the British had communicated to the Argentines that any ship or aircraft they considered a threat would be attacked. As far as the Argentinians were concerned, there was no exclusion zone.

The only people who hold this against Thatcher do so purely because they are looking for something else to hate her for.

It wasn't her demanding the Belgrano was sunk, it was the RN asking for permission to attack it.

Biggins

Fratton Fred wrote: »

...The only people who hold this against Thatcher do so purely because they are looking for something else to hate her for.

Maybe - maybe hot.
Those of more maybe separate views and/or from other countries might hold similar assessments (or not).

Fratton Fred wrote: »

...It wasn't her demanding the Belgrano was sunk, it was the RN asking for permission to attack it.

Indeed and as the saying goes, whom does with "the buck stops" at the end of the day?
How has the final say and gives permission?

On this matter its clear we have different views with no probable hope of resolvability.
While we continue to agree to disagree, as I said, history will continue to be her judge - for the Belgrano and sadly, much, much more.

CiaranC

BOHtox wrote: »

That's not socialism. I don't think you understand socialism well actually it's obvious you don't. I don't want the government to be involved in anything that could be done better in the private sector. I don't think a private police force or army would work! Do you?

:rolleyes:

Forcibly collecting wealth via taxation and using a bureaucracy to redistribute it to branches of central government like a police departments is not socialist. Right.

BOHtox

CiaranC wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Forcibly collecting wealth via taxation and using a bureaucracy to redistribute it to branches of central government like a police departments is not socialist. Right.

Even the great Adam Smith, Milton Friedman and Ron Paul think/thought there is a need for taxation of some sort.

It may be socialistic but not socialism

St.Spodo

Richard Hillman wrote: »

She stood up to terrorists and the blackmailing unions. The finest leader of my time. I'd kill for us to have a Thatcher.

The poster and everyone who thanked this is on my list of enemies.

CiaranC

BOHtox wrote: »

Even the great Adam Smith, Milton Friedman and Ron Paul think/thought there is a need for taxation of some sort

Thanks for the observation there

It may be socialistic but not socialism

lol

BOHtox

CiaranC wrote: »

Thanks for the observation there

lol

You don't see a difference between full socialism and a small socialistic policy? Tax isn't even socialistic. Capitalism believes in Government. A small one at that, one that is funded by tax.

CiaranC

Tax isnt socialistic. Forcibly collecting wealth and redistributing it via central government to benefit wider society most certainly is. You are not talking about voluntarily funding a local militia, a la Sudan. Or maybe you are.

I support a mixture of capitalist and socialist policies on a best fit basis, funded by government run, publically funded departments. We only differ in the number and scope of those policies.

BOHtox

CiaranC wrote: »

Tax isnt socialistic. Forcibly collecting wealth and redistributing it via central government to benefit wider society most certainly is. You are not talking about voluntarily funding a local militia, a la Sudan. Or maybe you are.

I support a mixture of capitalist and socialist policies on a best fit basis, funded by government run, publically funded departments. We only differ in the number and scope of those policies.

I'm on the fence on a lot of issues. I think there is a need for some form of social welfare for the very poor but I think there should be every incentive for them to try leave the very poor bracket. Lower tax would incentivise this.

A limited time on a lower unemployment benefit, Child benefit to the very poor and there's arguements to be made for one or two others but not to the degree we have today. I mean the communion allowance is a joke for instance!

K-9

BOHtox wrote: »

You don't see a difference between full socialism and a small socialistic policy? Tax isn't even socialistic. Capitalism believes in Government. A small one at that, one that is funded by tax.

I'm just puzzled why you'd favour VAT over a direct payment to Government to fund the police eg.

VAT can be a discretionary payment and suffers in periods of recession etc. What's the problem with a direct tax payment?

true

Morricone wrote: »

Yeah she might have pissed off a few of the working class and the IRA and its followers but she did what she felt was best for Britain and she did lead Britain on a prosperous economic upturn with her policies.

An uncle of mine points out that tens of thousands of Irish people emigrated every year to England in the eighties ....and most were glad to get good paying work there, which they could not get atr home in Ireland. She did win 3elections in a row. She was not beaten by the IRA, she was not beaten by the Russians ( she developed the special relationship with the US and won the cold war. It seems whoever she took on and beat...well, history proves she was right. Look at the regime in Argentina / thousands of disappeared there. She and the US took on (and bombed) Gadaffi in Libya - look at Gadaffis record there. So the millions of Irish living and working in the UK were at least on the winning and morally correct side under her leadership....and thats where they chose to be, rather than at home. If only we had a Thatcher who stood up to the unions and had regulated the banks in this country, we would not be in the mess we are in and getting handouts economically from the UK and overseas, just like in Thatchers day. One of the iconic leaders of the western world, and someone who saved Britain from the slippery slope it was on in the seventies ( IMF, massive union strikes, hugely inefficient manufacturing etc )