To develop your analogies then, we had the nodding through of the sewage of the Murdoch empire, allowed to bid freely for the Times Group Newspapers when ordinarily such a move ought to have been referred to the competition authorities. There followed all the Wapping troubles. According to Conservative cabinet minister Norman Fowler, any misgivings from colleagues or supporters would be met with the response: "Why are you so opposed to Rupert? He is going to get us in."
The bodies piled up on the Belgrano didn't they?
And as for the streets, well we also had the riots in1981. And later poll tax riots.
Ordinary life under Thatcher did not feel like a golden age to me, but maybe to those who benefited from privatisation, and the city 'big bang' it was a golden age.
Tony Blair's government was the worst of all time.
Just to counter balance the bollocks. Margaret Thatchers government was the worst of all time.
Yes, things were much better when sewage, refuse and bodies were piling up in the streets and rolling blackouts were just a normal part of everyday life because the UK Government had lost the plot. Jesus wept, the anti-Tory cabal on this forum really do inhabit a different planet.
Weren't the rolling blackouts more the three day week under the previous Conservative party which then put Callaghan into power, albeit with a slight majority?
To develop your analogies then, we had the nodding through of the sewage of the Murdoch empire, allowed to bid freely for the Times Group Newspapers when ordinarily such a move ought to have been referred to the competition authorities. There followed all the Wapping troubles. According to Conservative cabinet minister Norman Fowler, any misgivings from colleagues or supporters would be met with the response: "Why are you so opposed to Rupert? He is going to get us in."
The bodies piled up on the Belgrano didn't they?
And as for the streets, well we also had the riots in1981. And later poll tax riots.
Ordinary life under Thatcher did not feel like a golden age to me, but maybe to those who benefited from privatisation, and the city 'big bang' it was a golden age.
So do you genuinely believe life in Britain was better in 1979 than it was by the time Thatcher left office?
To develop your analogies then, we had the nodding through of the sewage of the Murdoch empire, allowed to bid freely for the Times Group Newspapers when ordinarily such a move ought to have been referred to the competition authorities. There followed all the Wapping troubles. According to Conservative cabinet minister Norman Fowler, any misgivings from colleagues or supporters would be met with the response: "Why are you so opposed to Rupert? He is going to get us in."
The bodies piled up on the Belgrano didn't they?
And as for the streets, well we also had the riots in1981. And later poll tax riots.
Ordinary life under Thatcher did not feel like a golden age to me, but maybe to those who benefited from privatisation, and the city 'big bang' it was a golden age.
The print industry needed massive change. Surprisingly, the controlling Trades Unions at the time were against it - I mean the FOCs would hate to actually have to tell their members to turn up to carry out their shifts.
There was so much change to so many industries at the time. Grunwick , Wapping, the Miers strike. The last great hurrah of the trades unions. Reform was needed and it happened.
For the Belgrano, I'll give you the Sheffield and the Coventry.
And as for the 'riots', well they really caused change didn't they? I mean we don't pay any 'poll tax' anymore do we?
And then the Government got in with an increased majority. Why was that?
To develop your analogies then, we had the nodding through of the sewage of the Murdoch empire, allowed to bid freely for the Times Group Newspapers when ordinarily such a move ought to have been referred to the competition authorities. There followed all the Wapping troubles. According to Conservative cabinet minister Norman Fowler, any misgivings from colleagues or supporters would be met with the response: "Why are you so opposed to Rupert? He is going to get us in."
The bodies piled up on the Belgrano didn't they?
And as for the streets, well we also had the riots in1981. And later poll tax riots.
Ordinary life under Thatcher did not feel like a golden age to me, but maybe to those who benefited from privatisation, and the city 'big bang' it was a golden age.
So do you genuinely believe life in Britain was better in 1979 than it was by the time Thatcher left office?
To develop your analogies then, we had the nodding through of the sewage of the Murdoch empire, allowed to bid freely for the Times Group Newspapers when ordinarily such a move ought to have been referred to the competition authorities. There followed all the Wapping troubles. According to Conservative cabinet minister Norman Fowler, any misgivings from colleagues or supporters would be met with the response: "Why are you so opposed to Rupert? He is going to get us in."
The bodies piled up on the Belgrano didn't they?
And as for the streets, well we also had the riots in1981. And later poll tax riots.
Ordinary life under Thatcher did not feel like a golden age to me, but maybe to those who benefited from privatisation, and the city 'big bang' it was a golden age.
The Belgrano is a peculiar point; that was two nations at war.
A British Territory was invaded by a foreign power, despite the protestations of both the British Government and the residents of the territory. There is no interpretation to this other than it was an act of aggression, and Britain acted to defend itself and it's territory.
As for the sinking of the Belgrano? The British Government declared an exclusion zone, as per UN allowances, stating that any ships entering the said zone would be fired upon. It is true that the Belgrano was 30 miles out of the exclusion zone, however both nations were at war and the authorisation to fire upon the Belgrano came directly as a result of an intelligence intercept detailing the planned attack on the Royal Navy Fleet.
Also, let's not forget the outcome of the Belgrano being sunk; Argentina cancelled the naval attack that was planned and withdrew their own Navy. If the Belgrano wasn't sunk and naval operations had continued we would surely have seen a greater loss of life - on both sides.
You can blame Margaret Thatcher for many things, but blaming her for an act of aggression on British Territory and the subsequent defence of that territory seems a little barmy.
To develop your analogies then, we had the nodding through of the sewage of the Murdoch empire, allowed to bid freely for the Times Group Newspapers when ordinarily such a move ought to have been referred to the competition authorities. There followed all the Wapping troubles. According to Conservative cabinet minister Norman Fowler, any misgivings from colleagues or supporters would be met with the response: "Why are you so opposed to Rupert? He is going to get us in."
The bodies piled up on the Belgrano didn't they?
And as for the streets, well we also had the riots in1981. And later poll tax riots.
Ordinary life under Thatcher did not feel like a golden age to me, but maybe to those who benefited from privatisation, and the city 'big bang' it was a golden age.
The print industry needed massive change. Surprisingly, the controlling Trades Unions at the time were against it - I mean the FOCs would hate to actually have to tell their members to turn up to carry out their shifts.
There was so much change to so many industries at the time. Grunwick , Wapping, the Miers strike. The last great hurrah of the trades unions. Reform was needed and it happened.
For the Belgrano, I'll give you the Sheffield and the Coventry.
And as for the 'riots', well they really caused change didn't they? I mean we don't pay any 'poll tax' anymore do we?
And then the Government got in with an increased majority. Why was that?
I made my points in answer to the thing about sewage, refuse and bodies piling up in the street, and the rolling blackouts. If they can be cited as evidence for bad times, then the Belgrano, the Sun take over of News International and riots in the streets were cited by me as examples where it was also crap under the Thatcher government. The debate about the Falklands war, the emasculation of the Unions and the rights and wrongs of the Poll Tax are worth having, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make.
The troubles you mention were not under Blair but Callaghan I believe.
Yes but the statement was 'worst government of all time', as if to imply that the UK was in a better state before Thatcher than afterwards.
Civil unrest and rioting in major cities due to Poll Tax !!!! Cars full of men illegally stopped from travelling around the country during the miners strike. Police beating their batons against their shields confronting miners and waving their wallets. Sinking of The General Belgrano.
To develop your analogies then, we had the nodding through of the sewage of the Murdoch empire, allowed to bid freely for the Times Group Newspapers when ordinarily such a move ought to have been referred to the competition authorities. There followed all the Wapping troubles. According to Conservative cabinet minister Norman Fowler, any misgivings from colleagues or supporters would be met with the response: "Why are you so opposed to Rupert? He is going to get us in."
The bodies piled up on the Belgrano didn't they?
And as for the streets, well we also had the riots in1981. And later poll tax riots.
Ordinary life under Thatcher did not feel like a golden age to me, but maybe to those who benefited from privatisation, and the city 'big bang' it was a golden age.
The Belgrano is a peculiar point; that was two nations at war.
A British Territory was invaded by a foreign power, despite the protestations of both the British Government and the residents of the territory. There is no interpretation to this other than it was an act of aggression, and Britain acted to defend itself and it's territory.
As for the sinking of the Belgrano? The British Government declared an exclusion zone, as per UN allowances, stating that any ships entering the said zone would be fired upon. It is true that the Belgrano was 30 miles out of the exclusion zone, however both nations were at war and the authorisation to fire upon the Belgrano came directly as a result of an intelligence intercept detailing the planned attack on the Royal Navy Fleet.
Also, let's not forget the outcome of the Belgrano being sunk; Argentina cancelled the naval attack that was planned and withdrew their own Navy. If the Belgrano wasn't sunk and naval operations had continued we would surely have seen a greater loss of life - on both sides.
You can blame Margaret Thatcher for many things, but blaming her for an act of aggression on British Territory and the subsequent defence of that territory seems a little barmy.
The troubles you mention were not under Blair but Callaghan I believe.
Yes but the statement was 'worst government of all time', as if to imply that the UK was in a better state before Thatcher than afterwards.
Civil unrest and rioting in major cities due to Poll Tax !!!! Cars full of men illegally stopped from travelling around the country during the miners strike. Police beating their batons against their shields confronting miners and waving their wallets. Sinking of The General Belgrano.
All proud moments.
Yup right up there with Afghanistan and Iraq. And a million people on the street telling the Blair Government the people they represent don't want to go to war. Let's not forget this was Britains biggest ever demonstration.
To develop your analogies then, we had the nodding through of the sewage of the Murdoch empire, allowed to bid freely for the Times Group Newspapers when ordinarily such a move ought to have been referred to the competition authorities. There followed all the Wapping troubles. According to Conservative cabinet minister Norman Fowler, any misgivings from colleagues or supporters would be met with the response: "Why are you so opposed to Rupert? He is going to get us in."
The bodies piled up on the Belgrano didn't they?
And as for the streets, well we also had the riots in1981. And later poll tax riots.
Ordinary life under Thatcher did not feel like a golden age to me, but maybe to those who benefited from privatisation, and the city 'big bang' it was a golden age.
The Belgrano is a peculiar point; that was two nations at war.
A British Territory was invaded by a foreign power, despite the protestations of both the British Government and the residents of the territory. There is no interpretation to this other than it was an act of aggression, and Britain acted to defend itself and it's territory.
As for the sinking of the Belgrano? The British Government declared an exclusion zone, as per UN allowances, stating that any ships entering the said zone would be fired upon. It is true that the Belgrano was 30 miles out of the exclusion zone, however both nations were at war and the authorisation to fire upon the Belgrano came directly as a result of an intelligence intercept detailing the planned attack on the Royal Navy Fleet.
Also, let's not forget the outcome of the Belgrano being sunk; Argentina cancelled the naval attack that was planned and withdrew their own Navy. If the Belgrano wasn't sunk and naval operations had continued we would surely have seen a greater loss of life - on both sides.
You can blame Margaret Thatcher for many things, but blaming her for an act of aggression on British Territory and the subsequent defence of that territory seems a little barmy.
War !!!!!? Do you mean conflict lol.
Avoid the point and pick on semantics then, not the most convincing or mature of rebuttals.
I was simply expressing genuine confusion over how it's a legitimate point to beat against the Thatcher government.
So do you genuinely believe life in Britain was better in 1979 than it was by the time Thatcher left office?
I suppose it depends on your definition of 'life'. Was I better off financially under Thatcher than under Heath and Callaghan? Yes probably - but I've always been a lucky bastard! But that's if you measure the quality of life in financial terms, which is something Thatcher wanted us to do.
Was my country better when she left compared to when she started? In my opinion most definitely not. You see I have this view on what a society should be - but Thatcher's view was that there was no such thing as society. That what's in it for me, self-obsessed, I'm all right Jack mentality still persists to this day.
So my answer to the question you posed to Seth is a resounding YES.
To develop your analogies then, we had the nodding through of the sewage of the Murdoch empire, allowed to bid freely for the Times Group Newspapers when ordinarily such a move ought to have been referred to the competition authorities. There followed all the Wapping troubles. According to Conservative cabinet minister Norman Fowler, any misgivings from colleagues or supporters would be met with the response: "Why are you so opposed to Rupert? He is going to get us in."
The bodies piled up on the Belgrano didn't they?
And as for the streets, well we also had the riots in1981. And later poll tax riots.
Ordinary life under Thatcher did not feel like a golden age to me, but maybe to those who benefited from privatisation, and the city 'big bang' it was a golden age.
The Belgrano is a peculiar point; that was two nations at war.
A British Territory was invaded by a foreign power, despite the protestations of both the British Government and the residents of the territory. There is no interpretation to this other than it was an act of aggression, and Britain acted to defend itself and it's territory.
As for the sinking of the Belgrano? The British Government declared an exclusion zone, as per UN allowances, stating that any ships entering the said zone would be fired upon. It is true that the Belgrano was 30 miles out of the exclusion zone, however both nations were at war and the authorisation to fire upon the Belgrano came directly as a result of an intelligence intercept detailing the planned attack on the Royal Navy Fleet.
Also, let's not forget the outcome of the Belgrano being sunk; Argentina cancelled the naval attack that was planned and withdrew their own Navy. If the Belgrano wasn't sunk and naval operations had continued we would surely have seen a greater loss of life - on both sides.
You can blame Margaret Thatcher for many things, but blaming her for an act of aggression on British Territory and the subsequent defence of that territory seems a little barmy.
War !!!!!? Do you mean conflict lol.
Avoid the point and pick on semantics then, not the most convincing or mature of rebuttals.
I was simply expressing genuine confusion over how it's a legitimate point to beat against the Thatcher government.
I think I'm right in saying that the then government refused to acknowledge the Falklands as a "war" rather than conflict so that it was cheaper in terms of pensions to those that were killed or suffered injury.
Very noble. Am I right in saying that this was changed some years later ?
To develop your analogies then, we had the nodding through of the sewage of the Murdoch empire, allowed to bid freely for the Times Group Newspapers when ordinarily such a move ought to have been referred to the competition authorities. There followed all the Wapping troubles. According to Conservative cabinet minister Norman Fowler, any misgivings from colleagues or supporters would be met with the response: "Why are you so opposed to Rupert? He is going to get us in."
The bodies piled up on the Belgrano didn't they?
And as for the streets, well we also had the riots in1981. And later poll tax riots.
Ordinary life under Thatcher did not feel like a golden age to me, but maybe to those who benefited from privatisation, and the city 'big bang' it was a golden age.
The Belgrano is a peculiar point; that was two nations at war.
A British Territory was invaded by a foreign power, despite the protestations of both the British Government and the residents of the territory. There is no interpretation to this other than it was an act of aggression, and Britain acted to defend itself and it's territory.
As for the sinking of the Belgrano? The British Government declared an exclusion zone, as per UN allowances, stating that any ships entering the said zone would be fired upon. It is true that the Belgrano was 30 miles out of the exclusion zone, however both nations were at war and the authorisation to fire upon the Belgrano came directly as a result of an intelligence intercept detailing the planned attack on the Royal Navy Fleet.
Also, let's not forget the outcome of the Belgrano being sunk; Argentina cancelled the naval attack that was planned and withdrew their own Navy. If the Belgrano wasn't sunk and naval operations had continued we would surely have seen a greater loss of life - on both sides.
You can blame Margaret Thatcher for many things, but blaming her for an act of aggression on British Territory and the subsequent defence of that territory seems a little barmy.
War !!!!!? Do you mean conflict lol.
Avoid the point and pick on semantics then, not the most convincing or mature of rebuttals.
I was simply expressing genuine confusion over how it's a legitimate point to beat against the Thatcher government.
I think I'm right in saying that the then government refused to acknowledge the Falklands as a "war" rather than conflict so that it was cheaper in terms of pensions to those that were killed or suffered injury.
Very noble. Am I right in saying that this was changed some years later ?
I can't say I've ever heard that claim before, neither can I find any mention of it. I'm happy to be proved wrong though, I wouldn't be too surprised sadly.
Regarding any decisions being changed "some years later" - I would be incredibly surprised if that was the same, because there were discussions about War Pensions for Merchant Navy personnel within the year. (Sadly, these are not digitised either) It's worth pointing out, the National Archives don't seem to have records of any subsequent Falklands/Pensions discussions at all.
I think you'll find a more realistic reason that it was 'The Falklands Conflict', and not 'War', is because technically speaking although both nations accepted a state of war - neither had legally declared war on one another.
I've always liked Hague. He became Tory leader at the wrong time. If nothing else he should be applauded for the work he is doing in attempting to eradicate rape as a legitimate consequence of war. An unlikely alliance but him and Jolie deserve enormous credit.
Stood next to Bercow in the main lobby at Parliament the other week, impish, creepy looking man. Reserve my utter contempt for Dennis Skinner, stood with my father in law in the admissions office collecting tickets, he walks straight over in front of us in the queue, pushes in, collects his tickets & paperwork without a single acknowledgement or "excuse me" etc, rude beyond belief, 100 yards across the road in a shop queue he would have got both barrels, but standing in parliament with gun toting police officers I didn't fancy making newspaper headlines by tearing him off a strip. Wanker.
To develop your analogies then, we had the nodding through of the sewage of the Murdoch empire, allowed to bid freely for the Times Group Newspapers when ordinarily such a move ought to have been referred to the competition authorities. There followed all the Wapping troubles. According to Conservative cabinet minister Norman Fowler, any misgivings from colleagues or supporters would be met with the response: "Why are you so opposed to Rupert? He is going to get us in."
The bodies piled up on the Belgrano didn't they?
And as for the streets, well we also had the riots in1981. And later poll tax riots.
Ordinary life under Thatcher did not feel like a golden age to me, but maybe to those who benefited from privatisation, and the city 'big bang' it was a golden age.
The print industry needed massive change. Surprisingly, the controlling Trades Unions at the time were against it - I mean the FOCs would hate to actually have to tell their members to turn up to carry out their shifts.
There was so much change to so many industries at the time. Grunwick , Wapping, the Miers strike. The last great hurrah of the trades unions. Reform was needed and it happened.
For the Belgrano, I'll give you the Sheffield and the Coventry.
And as for the 'riots', well they really caused change didn't they? I mean we don't pay any 'poll tax' anymore do we?
And then the Government got in with an increased majority. Why was that?
I made my points in answer to the thing about sewage, refuse and bodies piling up in the street, and the rolling blackouts. If they can be cited as evidence for bad times, then the Belgrano, the Sun take over of News International and riots in the streets were cited by me as examples where it was also crap under the Thatcher government. The debate about the Falklands war, the emasculation of the Unions and the rights and wrongs of the Poll Tax are worth having, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make.
I guess it comes down to personal perspective. For me, sinking a boat in a war zone and a newspaper takeover aren't really comparable to having to live in squalor with rats running all over the place because the refuse hasn't been collected in months. I guess I'm not able to appreciate how good life was before Thatcher because I don't agree that a good society is one that lets the rotting bodies of loved ones pile up in morgues for weeks on end. It is an interesting insight into the psychosis of your average Labour supporter that they value meaningless platitudes and political ideals over public health, decency and the national interests.
To develop your analogies then, we had the nodding through of the sewage of the Murdoch empire, allowed to bid freely for the Times Group Newspapers when ordinarily such a move ought to have been referred to the competition authorities. There followed all the Wapping troubles. According to Conservative cabinet minister Norman Fowler, any misgivings from colleagues or supporters would be met with the response: "Why are you so opposed to Rupert? He is going to get us in."
The bodies piled up on the Belgrano didn't they?
And as for the streets, well we also had the riots in1981. And later poll tax riots.
Ordinary life under Thatcher did not feel like a golden age to me, but maybe to those who benefited from privatisation, and the city 'big bang' it was a golden age.
The print industry needed massive change. Surprisingly, the controlling Trades Unions at the time were against it - I mean the FOCs would hate to actually have to tell their members to turn up to carry out their shifts.
There was so much change to so many industries at the time. Grunwick , Wapping, the Miers strike. The last great hurrah of the trades unions. Reform was needed and it happened.
For the Belgrano, I'll give you the Sheffield and the Coventry.
And as for the 'riots', well they really caused change didn't they? I mean we don't pay any 'poll tax' anymore do we?
And then the Government got in with an increased majority. Why was that?
I made my points in answer to the thing about sewage, refuse and bodies piling up in the street, and the rolling blackouts. If they can be cited as evidence for bad times, then the Belgrano, the Sun take over of News International and riots in the streets were cited by me as examples where it was also crap under the Thatcher government. The debate about the Falklands war, the emasculation of the Unions and the rights and wrongs of the Poll Tax are worth having, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make.
I guess it comes down to personal perspective. For me, sinking a boat in a war zone and a newspaper takeover aren't really comparable to having to live in squalor with rats running all over the place because the refuse hasn't been collected in months. I guess I'm not able to appreciate how good life was before Thatcher because I don't agree that a good society is one that lets the rotting bodies of loved ones pile up in morgues for weeks on end. It is an interesting insight into the psychosis of your average Labour supporter that they value meaningless platitudes and political ideals over public health, decency and the national interests.
I have not said I am a Labour voter have I? You're right about personal perspective though, bodies in morgues are kept refrigerated, the News International take over was nodded through without due process because the Sun supported Thatcher, the non collection of rubbish is relatively minor compared with taking hundreds of lives on the Belgrano at the wave of a hand, not in a formally declared 'war' but a conflict tackled by a 'task force'. The values promoted in the Thatcher era were certainly not ones about building a decent society or communities but fracturing, with privatisation, council house sell offs, regional neglect, free range in the financial sector, and a polarised society. You cite meaningless platitudes, and talk of decency and the national interest when the Thatcher government played to the 30 to 40 percent of voters they needed to hang on to power, and their attitude was b* all*cks to the rest because they're not 'one of us'.
So do you genuinely believe life in Britain was better in 1979 than it was by the time Thatcher left office?
I suppose it depends on your definition of 'life'. Was I better off financially under Thatcher than under Heath and Callaghan? Yes probably - but I've always been a lucky bastard! But that's if you measure the quality of life in financial terms, which is something Thatcher wanted us to do.
Was my country better when she left compared to when she started? In my opinion most definitely not. You see I have this view on what a society should be - but Thatcher's view was that there was no such thing as society. That what's in it for me, self-obsessed, I'm all right Jack mentality still persists to this day.
So my answer to the question you posed to Seth is a resounding YES.
That's not really the point though is it? It's comparing one moment in time with another different moment in time which was, well, very different. What is clear is that Britain when Thatcher left office was a very much better place than it would have been if Labour had been in office over the same period.
This is an extract from the 1983 Labour manifesto (famously and correctly described by a Labour MP Gerald Kaufman, as "The longest suicide note in history").
"Exchange controls - maintained by successive British governments since 1939; and so foolishly scrapped by the Tories in 1979 - will be re-introduced. This will help to counter currency speculation and to make available - to industry and government in Britain - the large capital resources that are now flowing overseas."
The documents were printed and ready to roll if Labour had won. It would have been an unmitigated disaster.
So do you genuinely believe life in Britain was better in 1979 than it was by the time Thatcher left office?
I suppose it depends on your definition of 'life'. Was I better off financially under Thatcher than under Heath and Callaghan? Yes probably - but I've always been a lucky bastard! But that's if you measure the quality of life in financial terms, which is something Thatcher wanted us to do.
Was my country better when she left compared to when she started? In my opinion most definitely not. You see I have this view on what a society should be - but Thatcher's view was that there was no such thing as society. That what's in it for me, self-obsessed, I'm all right Jack mentality still persists to this day.
So my answer to the question you posed to Seth is a resounding YES.
That's not really the point though is it? It's comparing one moment in time with another different moment in time which was, well, very different. What is clear is that Britain when Thatcher left office was a very much better place than it would have been if Labour had been in office over the same period.
This is an extract from the 1983 Labour manifesto (famously and correctly described by a Labour MP Gerald Kaufman, as "The longest suicide note in history").
"Exchange controls - maintained by successive British governments since 1939; and so foolishly scrapped by the Tories in 1979 - will be re-introduced. This will help to counter currency speculation and to make available - to industry and government in Britain - the large capital resources that are now flowing overseas."
The documents were printed and ready to roll if Labour had won. It would have been an unmitigated disaster.
So do you genuinely believe life in Britain was better in 1979 than it was by the time Thatcher left office?
I suppose it depends on your definition of 'life'. Was I better off financially under Thatcher than under Heath and Callaghan? Yes probably - but I've always been a lucky bastard! But that's if you measure the quality of life in financial terms, which is something Thatcher wanted us to do.
Was my country better when she left compared to when she started? In my opinion most definitely not. You see I have this view on what a society should be - but Thatcher's view was that there was no such thing as society. That what's in it for me, self-obsessed, I'm all right Jack mentality still persists to this day.
So my answer to the question you posed to Seth is a resounding YES.
That's not really the point though is it? It's comparing one moment in time with another different moment in time which was, well, very different. What is clear is that Britain when Thatcher left office was a very much better place than it would have been if Labour had been in office over the same period.
This is an extract from the 1983 Labour manifesto (famously and correctly described by a Labour MP Gerald Kaufman, as "The longest suicide note in history").
"Exchange controls - maintained by successive British governments since 1939; and so foolishly scrapped by the Tories in 1979 - will be re-introduced. This will help to counter currency speculation and to make available - to industry and government in Britain - the large capital resources that are now flowing overseas."
The documents were printed and ready to roll if Labour had won. It would have been an unmitigated disaster.
It may not be the or your point - but it's my point.
And I concur with Seth - your point (highlighted) is not clear as it is pure conjecture. Fiiish's point that I was responding to was was Britain better before or after Thatcher - nothing about what might have been without Thatcher.
So do you genuinely believe life in Britain was better in 1979 than it was by the time Thatcher left office?
I suppose it depends on your definition of 'life'. Was I better off financially under Thatcher than under Heath and Callaghan? Yes probably - but I've always been a lucky bastard! But that's if you measure the quality of life in financial terms, which is something Thatcher wanted us to do.
Was my country better when she left compared to when she started? In my opinion most definitely not. You see I have this view on what a society should be - but Thatcher's view was that there was no such thing as society. That what's in it for me, self-obsessed, I'm all right Jack mentality still persists to this day.
So my answer to the question you posed to Seth is a resounding YES.
That's not really the point though is it? It's comparing one moment in time with another different moment in time which was, well, very different. What is clear is that Britain when Thatcher left office was a very much better place than it would have been if Labour had been in office over the same period.
This is an extract from the 1983 Labour manifesto (famously and correctly described by a Labour MP Gerald Kaufman, as "The longest suicide note in history").
"Exchange controls - maintained by successive British governments since 1939; and so foolishly scrapped by the Tories in 1979 - will be re-introduced. This will help to counter currency speculation and to make available - to industry and government in Britain - the large capital resources that are now flowing overseas."
The documents were printed and ready to roll if Labour had won. It would have been an unmitigated disaster.
I am sorry but that is not 'clear' at all.
Yes, it is. Maybe not for a person who wanted a socialist dystopia, but the country was undeniably better off, even her critics at the time admitted so. It's just at what cost and her methods that fiercely divide opinion.
So do you genuinely believe life in Britain was better in 1979 than it was by the time Thatcher left office?
I suppose it depends on your definition of 'life'. Was I better off financially under Thatcher than under Heath and Callaghan? Yes probably - but I've always been a lucky bastard! But that's if you measure the quality of life in financial terms, which is something Thatcher wanted us to do.
Was my country better when she left compared to when she started? In my opinion most definitely not. You see I have this view on what a society should be - but Thatcher's view was that there was no such thing as society. That what's in it for me, self-obsessed, I'm all right Jack mentality still persists to this day.
So my answer to the question you posed to Seth is a resounding YES.
That's not really the point though is it? It's comparing one moment in time with another different moment in time which was, well, very different. What is clear is that Britain when Thatcher left office was a very much better place than it would have been if Labour had been in office over the same period.
This is an extract from the 1983 Labour manifesto (famously and correctly described by a Labour MP Gerald Kaufman, as "The longest suicide note in history").
"Exchange controls - maintained by successive British governments since 1939; and so foolishly scrapped by the Tories in 1979 - will be re-introduced. This will help to counter currency speculation and to make available - to industry and government in Britain - the large capital resources that are now flowing overseas."
The documents were printed and ready to roll if Labour had won. It would have been an unmitigated disaster.
I am sorry but that is not 'clear' at all.
Yes, it is. Maybe not for a person who wanted a socialist dystopia, but the country was undeniably better off, even her critics at the time admitted so. It's just at what cost and her methods that fiercely divide opinion.
Isn't that the point though? The methods and the 'cost' is what makes it 'deniable' and a matter simply of opinion. There may be some measures that some people will call 'objective' that back up the conflict of judgement on the Thatcher years, and I don't see it as being about any socialist dystopia. One example is the sale of council houses, possibly objectively 'good' for some, but the diminishing of the social housing stock seems objectively 'bad' for some others. declaring that the Thatcher era was either undeniably, or clearly good for the country is a matter of opinion and debate.
The Falklands "conflict" only came about after a long held tacit agreement between the UK and Argentina was broken. Since the early '60s the Argentinians had adopted the position that so long as we maintained a sizable military force in the Falklands they would not push there claims militarily. Mrs T cut the military against the advice of civil servants, military officers and some of her own party and the result was that the Argentinians invaded.
There has been a belief since that the governments intention atthe time was to hand over the Falklands as they cost a fortune to maintain.
Also with regards to the Thatcher years two things that bankrolled the tax cuts were North Sea oil revenues and selling the family silver through privitisation.
Comments
The bodies piled up on the Belgrano didn't they?
And as for the streets, well we also had the riots in1981. And later poll tax riots.
Ordinary life under Thatcher did not feel like a golden age to me, but maybe to those who benefited from privatisation, and the city 'big bang' it was a golden age.
There was so much change to so many industries at the time. Grunwick , Wapping, the Miers strike. The last great hurrah of the trades unions. Reform was needed and it happened.
For the Belgrano, I'll give you the Sheffield and the Coventry.
And as for the 'riots', well they really caused change didn't they? I mean we don't pay any 'poll tax' anymore do we?
And then the Government got in with an increased majority. Why was that?
A British Territory was invaded by a foreign power, despite the protestations of both the British Government and the residents of the territory. There is no interpretation to this other than it was an act of aggression, and Britain acted to defend itself and it's territory.
As for the sinking of the Belgrano? The British Government declared an exclusion zone, as per UN allowances, stating that any ships entering the said zone would be fired upon. It is true that the Belgrano was 30 miles out of the exclusion zone, however both nations were at war and the authorisation to fire upon the Belgrano came directly as a result of an intelligence intercept detailing the planned attack on the Royal Navy Fleet.
Also, let's not forget the outcome of the Belgrano being sunk; Argentina cancelled the naval attack that was planned and withdrew their own Navy. If the Belgrano wasn't sunk and naval operations had continued we would surely have seen a greater loss of life - on both sides.
You can blame Margaret Thatcher for many things, but blaming her for an act of aggression on British Territory and the subsequent defence of that territory seems a little barmy.
The debate about the Falklands war, the emasculation of the Unions and the rights and wrongs of the Poll Tax are worth having, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make.
All proud moments.
And a million people on the street telling the Blair Government the people they represent don't want to go to war. Let's not forget this was Britains biggest ever demonstration.
I was simply expressing genuine confusion over how it's a legitimate point to beat against the Thatcher government.
Was my country better when she left compared to when she started? In my opinion most definitely not. You see I have this view on what a society should be - but Thatcher's view was that there was no such thing as society. That what's in it for me, self-obsessed, I'm all right Jack mentality still persists to this day.
So my answer to the question you posed to Seth is a resounding YES.
I think I'm right in saying that the then government refused to acknowledge the Falklands as a "war" rather than conflict so that it was cheaper in terms of pensions to those that were killed or suffered injury.
Very noble. Am I right in saying that this was changed some years later ?
Regarding any decisions being changed "some years later" - I would be incredibly surprised if that was the same, because there were discussions about War Pensions for Merchant Navy personnel within the year. (Sadly, these are not digitised either) It's worth pointing out, the National Archives don't seem to have records of any subsequent Falklands/Pensions discussions at all.
I think you'll find a more realistic reason that it was 'The Falklands Conflict', and not 'War', is because technically speaking although both nations accepted a state of war - neither had legally declared war on one another.
With regards Jolie, admire her enormously.
Reserve my utter contempt for Dennis Skinner, stood with my father in law in the admissions office collecting tickets, he walks straight over in front of us in the queue, pushes in, collects his tickets & paperwork without a single acknowledgement or "excuse me" etc, rude beyond belief, 100 yards across the road in a shop queue he would have got both barrels, but standing in parliament with gun toting police officers I didn't fancy making newspaper headlines by tearing him off a strip. Wanker.
You're right about personal perspective though, bodies in morgues are kept refrigerated, the News International take over was nodded through without due process because the Sun supported Thatcher, the non collection of rubbish is relatively minor compared with taking hundreds of lives on the Belgrano at the wave of a hand, not in a formally declared 'war' but a conflict tackled by a 'task force'.
The values promoted in the Thatcher era were certainly not ones about building a decent society or communities but fracturing, with privatisation, council house sell offs, regional neglect, free range in the financial sector, and a polarised society.
You cite meaningless platitudes, and talk of decency and the national interest when the Thatcher government played to the 30 to 40 percent of voters they needed to hang on to power, and their attitude was b* all*cks to the rest because they're not 'one of us'.
This is an extract from the 1983 Labour manifesto (famously and correctly described by a Labour MP Gerald Kaufman, as "The longest suicide note in history").
"Exchange controls - maintained by successive British governments since 1939; and so foolishly scrapped by the Tories in 1979 - will be re-introduced. This will help to counter currency speculation and to make available - to industry and government in Britain - the large capital resources that are now flowing overseas."
The documents were printed and ready to roll if Labour had won. It would have been an unmitigated disaster.
And I concur with Seth - your point (highlighted) is not clear as it is pure conjecture. Fiiish's point that I was responding to was was Britain better before or after Thatcher - nothing about what might have been without Thatcher.
There may be some measures that some people will call 'objective' that back up the conflict of judgement on the Thatcher years, and I don't see it as being about any socialist dystopia.
One example is the sale of council houses, possibly objectively 'good' for some, but the diminishing of the social housing stock seems objectively 'bad' for some others. declaring that the Thatcher era was either undeniably, or clearly good for the country is a matter of opinion and debate.
There has been a belief since that the governments intention atthe time was to hand over the Falklands as they cost a fortune to maintain.
Also with regards to the Thatcher years two things that bankrolled the tax cuts were North Sea oil revenues and selling the family silver through privitisation.