No lover of Thatcher but

Let them be, if it makes them feel better to blame someone else for their own failings, so be it.

It wasn't so much the fact that they voted for her in the first place. Even they may concede that this was almost inevitable following the winter of discontent coming so soon after running to the IMF to bail us out. What really seems to irk them is the fact that the people subsequently kept voting for her despite those policies they despised.

When I voted for THATCHER in 1979, I was prepared to give a woman a chance to run the country, fairly and honestly, within the space of 2 years my hopes were dashed, she was the worst PRIME MINISTER ever in the history of British politics.
Since then her potty ideas have emerged and her defence of the most evil people around are
her real legacy, PINOCHET, running to praise a RUSSIAN COMMUNIST whom the right wing media had decried for most of the last century, praising POL POT in tandem with REAGAN, was she really a defender of Britain, was she effing hell, her evil pervades us to this very day,
she would claim to be a devout christian, blithely overlooking the fact that she killed many thousands in her belief of thou shalt NOT kill.

Baz have you been on acidagain?

Even by your standards rambelling on about Pinochet, "a Russian" and Pol Pot is a pretty obscure reference to Thatcher.
Hardly her "real legacy".

It is a shame Thatcher did not do mere to stop benefits for those few lazy fraudsters who were happy to lie & claim they were looking for work for 14 years.

Indeed. You'd think he'd be more grateful.

She was the 'necessary' Prime Minister in 1979. The 'lucky' Prime Minister in 1983,and after 1987 'the glad to see the back of you' PM

mickstick

Only the first is correct with perhaps the third being true for the majority after 1990. Don't forget that more people voted for her in 87 than they did in either of her two previous victories.

She wasn't 'lucky' the Falklands happened when it did ? Without the conflict Mrs Thatcher could not have won a GE in 1983 according to the polls and political historians.
1987 saw us at the beginning of a boom,swiftly followed in 1989 (after 87 so 'glad to see the back of you') by the inevitable bust.

mick - excuse the pun...

Are you really trying to claim that CND member was a shoe in to be the Prime Minister?

The general election did not have to be held until 1984 - only a fool would claim "Without the conflict Mrs Thatcher could not have won a GE in 1983"

mickstick

I think that the impact of The Falklands War is overplayed by some people with a political agenda. Victory in war didn't prevent a much more popular leader in Churchill being turfed out. What won the election for her in 83 is that Thatcher had been proven right economically, the left were in disarray having lurched leftwards and the rise of the third party taking more votes away from Foot than it did Thatcher.

She may have been "lucky" the Falklands War occurred but it was her attitude towards it that cemented her appeal.

GOTCHA

And before the namby pambies start wringing their hands it was a war, get it? A war.

Foreigners invaded our territory and we sailed down there and kicked the phuck out of them.

Yep. War is a nasty business. They kick the shiit out of you or you kick the shiit out of them. Those are the rules. Some on the left remain distraught all these years later that it wasn't the fascist Argies who prevailed over the wishes of the islanders. Funny old world.

MEXICO when will you learn to spell?
The word is RAMBLING, not rambELling, you do it again in a later post, a SHOE in,
it's not a SHOE, it is SHOO which farming people used to encourage geese to the barn.
You think you are so clever, yet you are ignorant EXACTLY LIKE THATCHER.

Even leftie Mick claim that opinion polls show that Foot would win looks incorrect.

Old Mori polls indicate was neck & neck in the few months beforeApril 1982. For a mid term government with high unemployment, that could be turned around in 2 years.



http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemId=2449#1981

Bizarre is a one. Stream of unconscious, indecipherable and impenetrable rubbish is all he posts and then he has the temerity to pick someone else up on their spelling. You couldn't make it up.

Bazzar - do you believe you should be in jail for fraud?

14 years stealing from the taxpayer.

Baz - do you understand the concept of poetic licence? You may be away the losing Labour leader was called Michael Foot.

I ASSUME you meant AWARE.

Baz - do you believe that you are a thief? Do you believe you lied and stole from the British taxpayer?

Mexico

I'm not familiar with bizarre's shady past. I'm intrigued. Is he Ronnie Biggs? What's the story here?

EO - he blames Thatcher for not having a job.

Turns out he was signing on for 14 years while Major & Blair were PM.
Clearly he was not looking for work but lied so he could take money off the tax payer.

Don't like to disagree Mexico.

The Falklands war of April-June 1982 was the turning point in Mrs Thatcher's premiership, indeed in her political career. The previous October, the Tory party conference had been alive with dissent. The so-called "wets" were openly conspiring against her. Bets were being taken against her surviving into the new year. Well behind in the polls and with the new Social Democratic party challenging both Labour and Conservatives, few believed Thatcher would ever lead her party to another election win.

In my opinion the Falklands was a David and Goliath situation in which Goliath won.A professional task force of All armed services,albeit a long way from home defeated a conscripted ragtail and bobtail of an army,led by generals even more incompetent than the troops.

First battle of Ypres day one, 20,000 lost their lives. That's a war. We had riots in the UK where more lives were lost than in the Falklands.

Mick - I've posted the Mori polls.
Explain how she was "Well behind in the polls". The war was also 2 years befor she needed to call an election.



Where did you get your quote from?

The Labour opposition, who changed leader from James Callaghan to Michael Foot, was in no position to exploit the situation. The change of leader saw the party shift dramatically to the left, and in 1981 a host of disenchanted Labour MP's formed the breakaway Social Democratic Party. The new party swiftly formed an alliance with the Liberals with a view to forming a coalition government at the next election. For a while, opinion polls suggested that this could happen, with support for the Alliance peaking at 50% in late 1981.
However, when the Falkland Islands (a British colony in the South Atlantic) were seized by Argentine forces in March 1982, Thatcher was swift to declare war on Argentina which was won on 14 June when the Argentines surrendered. The success of this campaign saw a swift turnaround in support for the Tory government, who by the summer of 1982 were firmly in the lead in all of the major opinion polls.

Mick your post looks to be incorrect.

I've posted a link to the Mori polls.

Alliance peaking at 50% in late 1981.

It would seem that maximum support was 40%.

Where did you get your quotes - they seem to be incorrect.

mickstick

You are drawing from sources who are expressing an opinion. Opinions can be wrong or right. You've had the polling evidence which shows the reality. The major reality is that for the first time in decades the British people began to feel more optimistic about the future. That wasn't due to The Falklands although that didn't harm her but due to Thatcher saying her medicine would work and it beginning to do so. This was despite what most of the commentators said including many leading economists who famously wrote to The Times. By 1983 we had come out of the economic doldrums which a few years earlier seemed set to drag us down to irrelevance. As Clinton famously said, it's always about the economy.

Could Mrs Thatcher won an election with a 30% vote? Your link to Mori (not the only pollsters in 1981)shows support for the Tories falling from 35% in Jan 91 to 29% Jan 92. Is that in your opinion enough to win an election?
The last quote is from Wiki.The first is from Sir Simon Jenkins.

Should read Jan 81- Jan82

BTW, Tory support shot up to 51% after the Argentines surrended. But some think the Falklands had little impact.

One of the points I was making was without the industrial troubles of the 70s, and her stance against the unions, why else would anyone have voted for her.

So in their effort to turn Britain into a communist state the hard left brought Thatcher on themselves

There is some argument that the Tories only had Thatcher so they could LOSE an election and sort their own power struggles out.

mickstick

Nobody is saying that politicians don't get short term polling boosts if something works out in their favour. The Falklands War was a major gamble and one which resulted in a feel good factor so it was natural for the Tories to get an electoral boost. Don't forget though that you are quoting the period during 1981 when things economically looked at their darkest. By mid 1982 things were looking up and by 1983 we were on the mend. Had we gone back into recession following The Falklands it would have been much harder for Thatcher although the issue of the split in the vote of the left would have still been an issue.

Morons are still hanging Union Jacks and St Georges flags from their bedroom windows as a result of the jingoism that resulted from the Falklands.

Mick are you sticking to your claim/ guess "Without the conflict Mrs Thatcher could not have won a GE in 1983"?

There were lots of factors apart from the Falklands to take into account.

Polls were close leading up to April 1982.
Election could have been called as late as may 1984.
CND supporter Michael Foot was Labour leader.
Economy was improving.
SDP/Libs around to take advantage of voters thinking Labour are too left wing.
1983 election was not even close - Thatcher could have got less votes & still won.

Are you sticking to your claim /guess that she would have won with a declining poll rating of 29%?

Do you disagree with Simon Jenkins who said it was most likely Mrs Thatcher would not have even been Tory leader in 83 if it wasn't for the Falklands.

Mick declining ????
The last 4 figures before April 1982 were 27,29,30,34


Clearly only a fool would claim that with those ratings it would be impossible to win an election in 1983/1984.
likewise that same fool may say "Without the conflict Mrs Thatcher could not have won a GE in 1983"

There was a lot going on, governments tend not to be very popular mid term. To be level in March 1982 does not suggest a certain election defeat especially as the government had the advantage of being able to choose when the election would be held.

Mick - are you talking about the personal opinion of Guardian journalist Simon Jenkins?

Even he does not claim she would have been thrown out without the Falklands.....

What saved Thatcher's bacon, and revolutionised her leadership, was Labour's unelectable Michael Foot – and the Falklands war.

The polls in early 1982 did not show that Labour were certain to win the next election.

Mick - are you talking about the personal opinion of Guardian journalist Simon Jenkins?
As opposed to yours. I personally think he has more credibility than you.
Even he does not claim she would have been thrown out without the Falklands...
I think that is what he is inferrring.Don't you?

The Falklands war of April-June 1982 was the turning point in Mrs Thatcher's premiership, indeed in her political career. The previous October, the Tory party conference had been alive with dissent. The so-called "wets" were openly conspiring against her. Bets were being taken against her surviving into the new year. Well behind in the polls and with the new Social Democratic party challenging both Labour and Conservatives, few believed Thatcher would ever lead her party to another election win.
I never said Labour would win an election in 1983,did I? Or have you just made that up?What I said was, in agreement with Jenkins among a miriad of others Mrs Thatcher could not have won one without the Falklands.If you disagree that is your opinion.

I never said Labour would win an election in 1983,did I?

well yes you pretty much have said that.

Mick you are claiming that without the Falklands war Thatcher would have lost in 1983 (or 1984)? So how could Thatcher lose the election without Labour winning the election?

well yes you pretty much have said that.

If you cannot point that out what is the point of discussing anything with you.
A coalition SDP/Lib had a rating approaching 50%.That is where my money would have gone.The breakaway group had some very popular politicians, and like Nu Labour the electorate would have approved of a softer left wing.

And yet come the election and despite Labour having Foot as leader the alliance still polled less than the rabble which Labour was.

Mick -
A coalition SDP/Lib had a rating approaching 50%


No it didn't.

And she thanked the Falklands daily.

The SDP formed the SDP-Liberal Alliance with the Liberal Party late in 1981, under the joint leadership of Roy Jenkins (SDP) and Liberal leader David Steel. The Liberal Party, and in particular its leader, David Steel, had applauded the formation of the SDP from the sidelines from the very start. Senior Liberal MP for Rochdale Cyril Smith caused some embarrassment, however, by publicly stating that the SDP "should be strangled at birth".[9] During an era of public disillusionment with the two main parties – Labour and the Conservatives – and widescale unemployment, the Alliance achieved considerable success in parliamentary by-elections. At one point in late 1981, the party had an opinion poll rating of over 50%.[10]

Yes it did.

Mick - I've provided you a link to the historic MORI polls.

When did they have 50%? The max they had in their polls was 40%.
It seems unlikely a different poll had them a full 10% higher than the maximum Mori had.

This from the BBC

This electoral alliance was headed jointly by Liberal leader David Steel and SDP leader Roy Jenkins.

By the middle of 1982 the Alliance could boast 30 MPs - nearly all defectors from the Labour benches. Only a single Conservative crossed over although the party did win a handful of by-elections.

Early opinion polls suggested that the British electorate supported this bid to "break the mould". At one point, the Alliance had in the region of 50% support in the polls.

I do not know how much more evidence you need officer.

Mick
A coalition SDP/Lib had a rating approaching 50%.That is where my money would have gone

I think "GONE" is the most important work in leftie mick's post.

As they say with betfair - Smart Minds. That's Mick for you. Lump on SDP, fill your boots , free money.

Mick you have provided a Wiki page which got the strange/incorrect polling figure from a BBC story. You then post that BBC story & claim that is stacks of evidence.

Meanwhile you ignore the monthly polling figures form the company who actually did the polling.

So you post some bollox,I disagree so you start to be offensive.Is that It? Idiot.Bye then.

It was easy to verify.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-1979-1983

                             Survey End Date    CON (%)    LAB (%)    LIB/SDP (%)    Con Lead

Scroll down to Gallup/Telegraph    1981-12-14    23    23.5    50.5            -27.5

Hope this helps.

Mick so are you saying that without the Falklands the David Steel or Roy Jenkins (rather than Foot) would have been Prime Minister.
I've never heard anybody claim that before.


They managed 23 seats so only 303 seats short of a majority.
Unlucky - I can see why the smart money was on them.

Would have been Jenkins, he was ' Prime Minister Designate'. Could have happened, they were very close to breaking the mould

of two party politics - didn't happen, all water under the bridge now.

Mick you are presuming that poll ratings 2 - 3 years from an election would lead to votes on election day.

It isn't unsual mid term for opposition parties to poll well but fail to convert them into votes.

In the 83 election the alliance party got 25.4% of votes but only 23 votes

Labour got 27.6% of votes and 203 seats.

It seriously doubt the alliance would have ever got into power. Bit like last time when clegg had a huge poll surge after the debates but actually ended up losing seats on polling day.

Take out the ' Falklands factor ' MW and a hung parliament was not out of the question - that would have been the end of Thatcher.

My point Captain.But there is no arguing with someone who refuses to believe that the Alliance polled 50% even when proofed the evidence.
There is some evidence that Mrs Thatcher's Falklands policy and defence spending led to the 'invasion' by Argentina.One thing is for sure,she swiftly called for a Task Force when her own advisers were telling her that diplomacy was still an option.Seems like an 'all or nothing policy' to me.But good luck to her,she got it right.

we will never know wurzel.

What we do know is opposition parties regularly poll well mid term but fail to convert the poll ratings into votes.

The reality of that election was the Alliance polled almost the same percentage vote as labour but 186 seats less.

Not at all Mick, it seems that at their peak  libs/ sdp hat 50% in one poll.

I have never heard anybody claim Roy Jenkins would have been PM  without the Falklands. The normal leftie argument is that Labour would have beat Thatcher, after all SDp/Libs were a distant 3rd in terms of actual seats.

So to confirm Mick, you believe the war prevented Jenkins from being Prime Minister?

Mick -
A coalition SDP/Lib had a rating approaching 50%


No it didn't.

Not at all Mick, it seems that at their peak  libs/ sdp hat 50% in one poll.



There are some snakey coonts on here. Make your mind up