RIP Margaret Thatcher

K-9

Palmach wrote: »

A rather lame effort at sleight of hand. What matters is the percentage of the vote.......

1979 53.4% of the total vote
1983 61.1% of the total vote
1987 57.8% of the total vote

Like I said...thumping.

Where are you getting those figures from?

Interesting read about her performance http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/04/margaret-thatcher-in-six-graphs/

J Cheever Loophole

Palmach wrote: »

It is thanks to Mrs. T we have sane economic polices as opposed to Stalin loving Unions dictating to the government what to do. How does 83% tax sound? Or millions of tax euro funding zombie factories and mines? Medicine not getting through because of strikes? A government considering calling in the army so bad is the situation? All 70s Britain which Mrs. T transformed. And her is the bit I love because I can hear the leftist teeth grinding in fury, she won 3 consecutive elections with thumping victories.

And the irony is that it was by calling in the army (and the air force and the navy) for her spat in the South Atlantic that directly led to a change in her fortunes at the ballot box in 1983.

To infer that this change in fortunes - which brought about her second electoral victory - was down to her economic policies, is to be seriously removed from reality.

Mr.Micro

Palmach wrote: »

It is thanks to Mrs. T we have sane economic polices as opposed to Stalin loving Unions dictating to the government what to do. How does 83% tax sound? Or millions of tax euro funding zombie factories and mines? Medicine not getting through because of strikes? A government considering calling in the army so bad is the situation? All 70s Britain which Mrs. T transformed. And her is the bit I love because I can hear the leftist teeth grinding in fury, she won 3 consecutive elections with thumping victories.

Sane economic policies? Is that why we are in a mess in Ireland and many other countries as well, due to virtual no financial regulation, a Thatcher policy. BSE arose was because of her deregulation.

Greed and excess was her mantra. Is Britain a better place for her policies? No it is not. It struggles like the rest of us but just makes out its superior. It was greed that got her elected 3 times as well, and the fear that the likes of the rotten tabloids instilled in people about Labour, with headlines ie " nightmare on Kinnock Street". The war in the Falklands too gave her another election victory due to patriotic voters.

Any Government would have had to tackle the unions, and maybe had their day anyway. When Labour came into power the Conservatives would have had everyone believe that the Unions would hold sway again, which was not the case. There is little legacy that Thatcher left that is of merit IMO, and most of what she was, was image, a figure created by the PR men such as Saatchi & Saatchi with no substance.

Fratton Fred

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Sane economic policies? Is that why we are in a mess in Ireland and many other countries as well, due to virtual no financial regulation, a Thatcher policy. BSE arose was because of her deregulation.

Greed and excess was her mantra. Is Britain a better place for her policies? No it is not. It struggles like the rest of us but just makes out its superior. It was greed that got her elected 3 times as well, and the fear that the likes of the rotten tabloids instilled in people about Labour, with headlines ie " nightmare on Kinnock Street". The war in the Falklands too gave her another election victory due to patriotic voters.

Any Government would have had to tackle the unions, and maybe had their day anyway. When Labour came into power the Conservatives would have had everyone believe that the Unions would hold sway again, which was not the case. There is little legacy that Thatcher left that is of merit IMO, and most of what she was, was image, a figure created by the PR men such as Saatchi & Saatchi with no substance.

It wasn't greed that got her elected in 79, it was the hope that she would tackle the greed of the unions.

The fact that Thatcher ordered the retaking of the Falklands may have got her re-elected, but that is because she did what people wanted. Not sending the troops would have meant certain defeat.

Palmach

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It wasn't greed that got her elected in 79, it was the hope that she would tackle the greed of the unions.

The fact that Thatcher ordered the retaking of the Falklands may have got her re-elected, but that is because she did what people wanted. Not sending the troops would have meant certain defeat.

Exactly. If a British territory was invaded what does the British government do? Surrender?

Palmach

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Greed and excess was her mantra. .

No self reliance and hard work were her mantras. She believed in hard work and talent getting their reward. For the deluded left such values are anathema. Envy and jealousy are their watch words.

Happyman42

Palmach wrote: »

No self reliance and hard work were her mantras. She believed in hard work and talent getting their reward. For the deluded left such values are anathema. Envy and jealousy are their watch words.

She underwrote her mantras (tax cuts, slashing public spending and deregulation) with money from the oil bonanza. The oil money aided her in making the rich richer and the poor poorer. (they where paying 5% more in income tax after she got the reins.
The money from oil (almost 20% of GDP) kept Maggie in power, without it she'd have been booted out as she never had the popularity Cameron now has wet dreams about her having.

A Dub in Glasgo

Palmach wrote: »

A rather lame effort at sleight of hand. What matters is the percentage of the vote.......

1979 53.4% of the total vote
1983 61.1% of the total vote
1987 57.8% of the total vote

Like I said...thumping.

I suggest you check your terminology, the figures you quote are % of seats the Tories got therefore

1979 - The Tories got 53.4% of the seats with 43.9% of the vote
1983 - The Tories got 61.1% of the seats with 42.4% of the vote
1987 - The Tories got 57.8% of the seats with 42.2% of the vote

The anomoly of course is the FPTP system in use in the UK which is not the most representative for the voters

ednwireland

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It wasn't greed that got her elected in 79, it was the hope that she would tackle the greed of the unions.

The fact that Thatcher ordered the retaking of the Falklands may have got her re-elected, but that is because she did what people wanted. Not sending the troops would have meant certain defeat.

and withdrawing hms endurance didnt give the Argentinians the idea the falklands wouldnt be defended

c_man

Palmach wrote: »

A rather lame effort at sleight of hand. What matters is the percentage of the vote.......

Of course she won, but some people are demented to attempt to show otherwise These same people were decrying similar statements a few weeks ago during the debate over Chavez death.

Busted Flat.

c_man wrote: »

Of course she won, but some people are demented to attempt to show otherwise These same people were decrying similar statements a few weeks ago during the debate over Chavez death.


Oh $hit was Maggie a closet commie. When you think of it Gorbo had an American Express Gold card and so had his wife. Did Maggie give the guarantee to secure this. The can of worms is leaking.

Fratton Fred

ednwireland wrote: »

and withdrawing hms endurance didnt give the Argentinians the idea the falklands wouldnt be defended

HMS endurance was still in service when the Argentinians invaded.

I love the way people try and blame the British for the Falklands conflict.

jmayo

jank wrote: »

Interestingly you don't mention Eastern Europe! Scragil was a fierce opponent of the Polish solidarity movement and had no issue with turning the Uk into another eastern block like economy. Does anybody want a reutrn to that era for Eastern Europe?

Scargil was thatchers best enemy.
He went on strike with a divided union.

ednwireland wrote: »

and withdrawing hms endurance didnt give the Argentinians the idea the falklands wouldnt be defended

Didn't it ?

John Nott's defence review would pull back the surface fleet to home waters. The one naval vessel in its vicinity, HMS Endurance, was to be withdrawn.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

HMS endurance was still in service when the Argentinians invaded.

I love the way people try and blame the British for the Falklands conflict.

Wasn't a secret meeting in Switzerland between her junior foreign minister Ridley and the Argnetinians not disclosed some years ago ?
At that meeting wasn't the sale or leaseback of the islands and a shared administration of the islands discussed ?
Didn't Ridley later visit the islands trying to sell a deal to the islanders ?

Also hasn't it been revealed that in 1980, the Foreign Office drew up a proposal, which was approved by the cabinet's defence committee, through which Britain would hand Argentina some sovereignty over the islands, which would then be leased back by Britain for 99 years ?

At the same time the Endurance was been marked for withdrawal.

thatcher as a true free marketeer probably didn't want money spent on a Navy or expensive outposts in the South Atlantic.
Afteral what had her secretary of defense John Notts being doing with his proposals for the Royal Navy.
His, and probably by extension his boss's, propsosals included

the Royal Navy was to lose one fifth of its 60 Destroyers and Frigates. Aircraft Carriers were to be phased out, with the sale of HMS Hermes and the newly-built ‘through deck cruiser‘ HMS Invincible. Amphibious ships were to be scrapped too, meaning the end of HMS Intrepid and HMS Fearless. Essentially, the Navy was to become an anti-submarine force to operate in the North Sea, North Atlantic and the Greenland-Iceland-UK Gap.

If the Argentinians had not invaded in 1982 but later after some or all of the Nott proposals had been implemented, then Britain may never have been able to launch the taks force to recpature the islands.

So even though she did not give the green light for an invasion and is not ultimately to blame for it, she had been dropping enough behind the scenes hints that she didn't really care about the islands which thus made invasion a valid proposition in the minds of the Argentinian junta.
They actually thought they would get away with a similar invasion as in Goa in early 60s and even labelled the invasion as operation Goa.

Fratton Fred

jmayo wrote: »

Scargil was thatchers best enemy.
He went on strike with a divided union.



Didn't it ?

John Nott's defence review would pull back the surface fleet to home waters. The one naval vessel in its vicinity, HMS Endurance, was to be withdrawn.



Wasn't a secret meeting in Switzerland between her junior foreign minister Ridley and the Argnetinians not disclosed some years ago ?
At that meeting wasn't the sale or leaseback of the islands and a shared administration of the islands discussed ?
Didn't Ridley later visit the islands trying to sell a deal to the islanders ?

Also hasn't it been revealed that in 1980, the Foreign Office drew up a proposal, which was approved by the cabinet's defence committee, through which Britain would hand Argentina some sovereignty over the islands, which would then be leased back by Britain for 99 years ?

At the same time the Endurance was been marked for withdrawal.

thatcher as a true free marketeer probably didn't want money spent on a Navy or expensive outposts in the South Atlantic.
Afteral what had her secretary of defense John Notts being doing with his proposals for the Royal Navy.
His, and probably by extension his boss's, propsosals included



If the Argentinians had not invaded in 1982 but later after some or all of the Nott proposals had been implemented, then Britain may never have been able to launch the taks force to recpature the islands.

So even though she did not give the green light for an invasion and is not ultimately to blame for it, she had been dropping enough behind the scenes hints that she didn't really care about the islands which thus made invasion a valid proposition in the minds of the Argentinian junta.
They actually thought they would get away with a similar invasion as in Goa in early 60s and even labelled the invasion as operation Goa.

And girls that wear short skirts are asking to be raped?

junder

And to celebrate the death of Margaret thatcher in Londonderry, 25 petrol bombs have been launched into the fountain estate

Busted Flat.

Dick Cheney is going to Maggie's funeral, maybe someone could do a Pinoshet on him with an international arrest warrant for war crimes. Just wishful thinking.

Palmach

junder wrote: »

And to celebrate the death of Margaret thatcher in Londonderry, 25 petrol bombs have been launched into the fountain estate

Never heard of it. Where is it?

gallag

Palmach wrote: »

Never heard of it. Where is it?

Grow up, if you want to call it Derry then fire ahead, if he wants to call it Londonderry then so be it but to call someone out on their preference in the manner you did makes you look a fool.

K-9

Mod: That'll be the end of the Derry/Londonderry discussion, thank you.

Madam

gallag wrote: »

Grow up, if you want to call it Derry then fire ahead, if he wants to call it Londonderry then so be it but to call someone out on their preference in the manner you did makes you look a fool.

Or your man's a fool for calling it L'Derry when most folk(no matter their politics)from the city just call in Derry! He's plain and simple making the name a point of his own political leanings(not that I think he's from Derry btw)!

Madam

K-9 wrote: »

Mod: That'll be the end of the Derry/Londonderry discussion, thank you.

Ooops sorry;)

jmayo

Fratton Fred wrote: »

And girls that wear short skirts are asking to be raped?

Ah surely Fred you could have come up with a better reply than that.

BTW the bad reading of a situation can indeed invite trouble.
The trouble may not be in any deserved and the person suffering from it are not asking for it, but they can leave themselves open to it by not taking precautions.

thatcher had given an impression that she didn't really care about the Falklands and the Argentinian junta thought they could get away with grabbing them.
They were wrong.

Do you think the Argentinians would have chanced an invasion if thatcher had told them no way would they ever get their hands on the islands and she had reinforced the garrison on the islands, particularly after the Argentinians snuck onto South Georgia weeks before they offically invaded ?

As it was it was just luck that there were so many marines on the islands as they were changing over the garrison.
Although saying that some of the marines had left to monitor South Georgia.

gallag

jmayo wrote: »

Ah surely Fred you could have come up with a better reply than that.

BTW the bad reading of a situation can indeed invite trouble.
The trouble may not be in any deserved and the person suffering from it are not asking for it, but they can leave themselves open to it by not taking precautions.

thatcher had given an impression that she didn't really care about the Falklands and the Argentinian junta thought they could get away with grabbing them.
They were wrong.

Do you think the Argentinians would have chanced an invasion if thatcher had told them no way would they ever get their hands on the islands and she had reinforced the garrison on the islands, particularly after the Argentinians snuck onto South Georgia weeks before they offically invaded ?

As it was it was just luck that there were so many marines on the islands as they were changing over the garrison.
Although saying that some of the marines had left to monitor South Georgia.

So if a country does not specifically state they dont want their territories illegally invaded or at least dont have it heavily garrisoned they are asking to be invaded?

jmayo

gallag wrote: »

So if a country does not specifically state they dont want their territories illegally invaded or at least dont have it heavily garrisoned they are asking to be invaded?

But if you (country A) have been having talks with the other country (country and are basically telling them that you are planning to hand over soverignity of a piece of your country (A) to them, then there is a bit of an assumption you are not serious about keeping it.

Most sane countries would continue with the talks believing they were getting somewhere, but when a country is being run by a bunch of military dictators who are desperate to clink onto power then all bets are off.

thatcher should not have been holding talks with them in the first place and it just goes to show how she probably saw them in the same light as her friend pinochet.
In fact I can probably safely say thatcher had no problems with them prior to the invasion.
After all they were another right wing entity helping her ally the US in it's fight against left wing communists in places like Nicaragua.

And here is the best laugh Argentina still owes debts to the British UK Export Finance (formerly Export Credits Guarantee Department) for military hardware sold to the junta prior to invasion of Falklands.
The debts are for items such as the sale of two Type 42 destroyers and two Lynx helicopters, which btw were used in the invasion.

It kinds reminds me of US funding saddam to allow him later fight them :rolleyes:

And what makes this all the more remarkable is the outcry in British papers about the fact that Israel was providing arms to the Argentinians.
Hell they were only doing the same as the US, the French, and the British.

Kinski

"The Irish are all liars"...one for her fans this side of the Irish Sea to chew over.

Fratton Fred

jmayo wrote: »

Ah surely Fred you could have come up with a better reply than that.

BTW the bad reading of a situation can indeed invite trouble.
The trouble may not be in any deserved and the person suffering from it are not asking for it, but they can leave themselves open to it by not taking precautions.

thatcher had given an impression that she didn't really care about the Falklands and the Argentinian junta thought they could get away with grabbing them.
They were wrong.

Do you think the Argentinians would have chanced an invasion if thatcher had told them no way would they ever get their hands on the islands and she had reinforced the garrison on the islands, particularly after the Argentinians snuck onto South Georgia weeks before they offically invaded ?

As it was it was just luck that there were so many marines on the islands as they were changing over the garrison.
Although saying that some of the marines had left to monitor South Georgia.

I thought it was quite appropriate!

There was more to it than just HMS Endurance though, there was a feeling that Britain had gone soft and wouldn't have the balls for a conflict.

I remember watching the task force leave Portsmouth and the general feeling was that the Argentinians would negotiate before it had made it over the equator, but I never once heard anyone suggest re-taking it ny force was the wrong thing or that it was a waste. Even from my aunt who had a son and son in law leaving that day and her husband was, well, all we knew was that he was on a submarine somewhere.

Fratton Fred

Kinski wrote: »

"The Irish are all liars"...one for her fans this side of the Irish Sea to chew over.

Why are some Irish people so desperate for her to be anti Irish?

Cody Pomeray

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Why are some Irish people so desperate for her to be anti Irish?

Including Peter Mandelson?

walshb

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Why are some Irish people so desperate for her to be anti Irish?

Nothing desperate at all. She was what she was. I am no expert on Thatcher, but from my experiences growing up in the 80s she came across as just another imperialist/bigot!

Fratton Fred

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Including Peter Mandelson?

Let's face it, she was dealing with the leadership of Sinn Fein, so her opinion may have been tainted.

Cody Pomeray

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Let's face it, she was dealing with the leadership of Sinn Fein, so her opinion may have been tainted.

Thatcher dealt with Haughey, and Garret FitzGerald, and various attachés of the Embassy in London.

She never dealt with Sinn Féin.

Iwasfrozen

Kinski wrote: »

"The Irish are all liars"...one for her fans this side of the Irish Sea to chew over.

Labour will say anything to besmirch the Tories and vice versa, I'd take that with a pinch of salt.

Fratton Fred

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Thatcher dealt with Haughey, and Garret FitzGerald, and various attachés of the Embassy in London.

She never dealt with Sinn Féin.

Not in person, but it is widely accepted that the Sinn Fein leadership lied through their teeth over the hungerstrike.

Cody Pomeray

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Not in person, but it is widely accepted that the Sinn Fein leadership lied through their teeth over the hungerstrike.

Why the hell would you read that into anything?

You claim that some Irish people are desperate to re-interpret her position on Irish people.

And when a direct quote, reliably attributed to her by a man with no political capital to gain from it, is made you desperately try to re-interpret it yourself.


are you for real or what?

Fratton Fred

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Why the hell would you read that into anything?

You claim that some Irish people are desperate to re-interpret her position on Irish people.

And when a direct quote, reliably attributed to her by a man with no political capital to gain from it, is made you desperately try to re-interpret it yourself.


are you for real or what?

Am I wrong then?

Cody Pomeray

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Am I wrong then?

yea theres burden of proof on you to mitigate qualify or explain away the quote directly attributed.

Fratton Fred

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

yea theres burden of proof on you to mitigate qualify or explain away the quote directly attributed.

State papers show Bobby Sands offered to end his hungerstrike, something which Gerry denies. Why then is it recorded in secret papers?

The government conceded to nine of the ten demands after the fourth hungerstriker died. This was denied by the leadership amd the hungerstriker ordered to continue until the election due to Bobby Sands' death had been completed. This resulted in a further six men dieing. Six men dead due to Gerry Adams lies, but their deaths blamed by Sinn Fein on Margaret Thatcher.

There were and still are plenty on very public lies told by the Sinn Fein leadership to gain political capital.

IF Margaret Thatcher called the Irish liars, I would suspect this is where it stems from.

Cody Pomeray

I'm not interested in hunger strikers. You have to establish that that's what was being referred to before the conversation gets to be about hunger strikers.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

IF Margaret Thatcher called the Irish liars, I would suspect this is where it stems from.

Why?

She had well publicised difficulties with the Irish Government and the Irish administration in London, recently highlighted by a former senior embassy official there, but also hardly a well kept secret in its own right.

If you're seeking to qualify or make certain claims about her statement, you'll need something better than "I suspect".

Especially when you're accusing others of revision.

Tony EH

As an independent (Irish) observer (although one with, what some would call, left leaning politics) I see the facts of her tenure speaking for themselves and completely understand why there are people who will not mourn her passing, to say the least. Her admirers constantly say that "she was great for Britain", but when the cold stats are looked at, it's very clear that she wasn't "great" for everyone in Britain. They also say that Britain would have collapsed under a Labour government, but again such sound bites aren't backed up by any facts, because Callaghan lost the 1979 election, so it's impossible to say. However, what IS available to see, is that Callaghan's government had done a lot to turn around the mess that had proceeded him, caused by both Labour and Conservative governments in the early 70's. Heath's time in office is marked by a GDP that was in minus figures, for instance, directly leading to the re-election of Wilson in 1974. Wilson's government wasn't much better, even if they did get GDP figures back into a positive for a short while, but inflation was very high at 26%. Callaghan came to power in 1976 and under him GDP continued to rise steadily, while unemployment figures stayed stable at around 5%. By 1979, Britain's GDP had reached 5% too and was still rising, while unemployment was going down. Inflation dropped to around 8%, but was beginning to rise again, even if it was within acceptable figures. Callaghan's government had made great strides to fix the problems that Britain had endured for most of the 70's. But the only thing Callaghan’s detractors can recall is the "Winter of Discontent", because it's a snappy catchphrase. In addition, the rhetoric would have you believe that Callaghan orchestrated the whole "Winter of Discontent" himself.

All this changed the moment Margaret Thatcher and her conservative government were elected in in May. While inflation eventually dropped under her, back down to around 5% levels, GDP plummeted back into minus figures, making a long, slow rise to just over 5% by 1988. But unemployment rocketed up to over 12.5% and stayed very high for the remainder of her time in office.

Of course, we all know about her rampant privatisation of state owned concerns and the various disasters that followed that (I'm thinking British Rail/Potters Bar), and her deregulation of London's financial sector is directly responsible for the economic mess that Britain finds herself in today, even if it did create the illusion of financial prosperity for certain quarters of British society. Of course, Thatcher said there "...was no such thing as society."

Her tackling of her pet hate, the unions, also took up too much of her time and while their stranglehold over the political mechanisation of Britain needed to be dealt with, she allowed it to absorb her and in the end, all she did was transfer their balance of power to the financial sector, which was arguably worse in the end and her method of tackling the Unions was incredibly brutal to the workers of those industries that the unions were most involved in. Her arbitrary destruction of those industries destroyed whole communities and left its people consigned to an unemployment hell, with absolutely no alternatives.

So, overall, while Thatcher may have been good for some in Britain, she was an unmitigated disaster for the majority. In her first year, she reduced the top rate of tax for the wealthy, while increasing tax for lower and middle income families. She also encouraged foreign investment, while destroying domestic production and wrecking the futures of many, many people on the lower rungs of the ladder. She may have been fine for large private businesses, financial speculators, etc...but she disastrous for British society in general.

In the end it's extremely telling that it was her own party that got rid of her, some of whom are eulogising in the most obnoxious way this week.



...and I didn't even mention the Poll tax.

snaps

And can anyone tell us the difference between the poll tax and our new property tax? Oh yes, our property tax gives us nothing in return. The poll tax or council tax as its known now is exactly what it says it is a tax for councils to run their districts. Goes towards bin collection, street lighting and road maintenance, fire brigade, just for starters.

Madam

The difference was that everyone(who resided in the occupancy) paid the same poll tax no matter where or what kind of house they lived in - rich as well as poor!

R P McMurphy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

State papers show Bobby Sands offered to end his hungerstrike, something which Gerry denies. Why then is it recorded in secret papers?

The government conceded to nine of the ten demands after the fourth hungerstriker died. This was denied by the leadership amd the hungerstriker ordered to continue until the election due to Bobby Sands' death had been completed. This resulted in a further six men dieing. Six men dead due to Gerry Adams lies, but their deaths blamed by Sinn Fein on Margaret Thatcher.

There were and still are plenty on very public lies told by the Sinn Fein leadership to gain political capital.

IF Margaret Thatcher called the Irish liars, I would suspect this is where it stems from.

I see you latching onto this at every opportunity. Why not paint an accurate portrayal and include Thatchers deviousness at the end of the first hunger strike and the way in which this caused the second. Without clear concessions a resolution was impossible. Don't forget that the IRA leadership were against the second hunger strike from the start but don't let any of those facts get in the way of ill informed guff

Fratton Fred

R P McMurphy wrote: »

I see you latching onto this at every opportunity. Why not paint an accurate portrayal and include Thatchers deviousness at the end of the first hunger strike and the way in which this caused the second. Without clear concessions a resolution was impossible. Don't forget that the IRA leadership were against the second hunger strike from the start but don't let any of those facts get in the way of ill informed guff

Are you saying I'm wrong then? If so, how?

Cody Pomeray

Lets not encourage it. There's an important substantiation to be made before this question can be dismissed as relating to Sinn Féin alone.

Fratton Fred

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Lets not encourage it. There's an important substantiation to be made before this question can be dismissed as relating to Sinn Féin alone.

http://www.thejournal.ie/gerry-adams-questions-bobby-sands-hunger-strike-claim-316895-Dec2011/

http://thebrokenelbow.com/2013/04/08/adams-not-thatcher-culpable-for-last-six-hunger-strike-deaths-says-former-ira-prison-leader/

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/news-analysis/adams-rejected-chance-of-early-end-to-hunger-strike-28693554.html

http://sluggerotoole.com/2009/05/25/the-truth-is-a-heartbreaking-thing/

Cody Pomeray

what are you doing?

hold your horses there fred. i can see youre keen to move onto the hunger strike, first of all

where's your substantiation that the quote relates to Sinn Féin?

Fratton Fred

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

what are you doing?

hold your horses there fred. i can see youre keen to move onto the hunger strike, first of all

where's your substantiation that the quote relates to Sinn Féin?

Well seeing as they were using outright blatant lies during one of the defining episodes of her career, I'd say there is a pretty good chance.

Kinski

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Well seeing as they were using outright blatant lies during one of the defining episodes of her career, I'd say there is a pretty good chance.

You've offered nothing to substantiate your claim that Thatcher's comments on the Irish (made in 1999) stemmed from her contacts with Adams et al during the hunger strikes, but nevertheless, taking your argument on its own terms for a moment, you claim that Thatcher's opinion did not betray an anti-Irish mindset, because she could legitimately tar the Irish people as "all liars" because that was her impression of the very small group of Irish people leading the Provisional republican movement in the North in the early 80s.

In other words, she extrapolated an entire national/racial character from her experience of a handful of people - which would still betray narrow-mindness and prejudice on her part. So it seems this feeble "defence" of her you offer doesn't even succeed in being a defence, never mind an effective one.

Cody Pomeray

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Well seeing as they were using outright blatant lies during one of the defining episodes of her career, I'd say there is a pretty good chance.

"I'd say" is not much of an improvement on your previous "I'd suspect".

There's really going to need to be something more substantial than that.

How can someone revise a quote as direct and blatant as "The Irish are liars" without anything of significance? Is it because you just prefer your version? Seems strange not to rely on any evidence to make such a major re-interpretation.

Look up Thatcher's comments on the Germans, on the French too. She was prone to racial and ethnic slurs, you'd have to admit.

Busted Flat.

Kinski wrote: »

You've offered nothing to substantiate your claim that Thatcher's comments on the Irish (made in 1999) stemmed from her contacts with Adams et al during the hunger strikes, but nevertheless, taking your argument on its own terms for a moment, you claim that Thatcher's opinion did not betray an anti-Irish mindset, because she could legitimately tar the Irish people as "all liars" because that was her impression of the very small group of Irish people leading the Provisional republican movement in the North in the early 80s.

In other words, she extrapolated an entire national/racial character from her experience of a handful of people - which would still betray narrow-mindness and prejudice on her part. So it seems this feeble "defence" of her you offer doesn't even succeed in being a defence, never mind an effective one.

IMHO. I think she was talking about Garrett the bumbler, when he held his press conference, and spun his version that went on at the meeting he and his outfit had with hers. Who was telling the truth then.