BRITAIN'S GREATEST PRIME-MINISTER?

The troops did as troops always do, they did the bidding of the government of the day, after all that's what they are there for.

It just seems very unfortunate that Maggie's popularity was heightened at the expense of those who died at a time when the public were waking up to the fact that she was playing Robin Hood in reverse.

There was I suppose, one real benefit and it was not the doing of Maggie, and that was that the war bought the fact home that Britain was woefully ill prepared for any conflict outside of the UK, this was all that saved what was left of the RN.

Whilst she was doing nothing herself to save the RN she was however trying to create panic in other countries regarding the Cold war. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3257297.ece

Not really very bright. Turning up the heat on the cold war, whilst at the same time overseeing the dismantling of the British Forces.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3257297.ece
 
How can you compare the two arguments ?

There is no credibility for yours compared with that, you must agree.

I was really pointing out the political leaning of the two newspapers, even the Telegraph will only print supposedly 'unbiased' reports that happen to conform to its particular view. However all the same, I have no doubt that the Guardian's view does represent a significant proportion of the left.

No offence by the way!
 
No offence taken whatsoever Perseus. You views always welcome. I did understand your position, I just wanted you to know the stance of your contributor. I am not trying to win chalks with this, but funnily enough, BritinAfrica earlier quoted The Telegraph in support of his anti-Maggie argument. Funny old world ain't it?

Your own arguments are invariably well measured in my opinion, so I am pleased when I can offer anything in the way of a decent rebuttal!:-D

Please bear in mind that I was trying to establish the regular the known poll results of the British electorate earlier. Having made that plain, IMHO, we are talking of our own choices for the title, I think. A slightly different proposition.
As I said in my last post, I am now leaving the field myself, open to all opinion re. Britain's greatest PM. The original post referred to post-war only, outside of that Brit's first poll choice is always Winston followed by Maggie, and then also- rans . But of course, Attlee deserves coming into the reckoning, and I think it would be good to open it up best ever, starting with a look at MontyB's choice, Walpole.

I am sure you could suggest worthy candidates.
 
Last edited:
The troops did as troops always do, they did the bidding of the government of the day, after all that's what they are there for.



It just seems very unfortunate that Maggie's popularity was heightened at the expense of those who died at a time when the public were waking up to the fact that she was playing Robin Hood in reverse.

I remember the hysteria, the flag waving, how little did the public realise what went on. Although I have no liking for the man, Gordon Brown is considering releasing papers for public consumption relating to “The Thatcher years in office,” including the Falklands. I'd be very interested what really happened on the run up to the Argentine invasion, did British military intelligence warn Thatcher about an invasion and were told to keep quiet? If the papers are released then we shall find out, one way or another. I do have however, my suspicions.

There was I suppose, one real benefit and it was not the doing of Maggie, and that was that the war bought the fact home that Britain was woefully ill prepared for any conflict outside of the UK, this was all that saved what was left of the RN.
It amazes me how any British government can assess a situation where a carrier fleet is surplus to requirements. So yes, the Falklands did prove the need for aircraft carriers, another good thing that came out of it, was decent boots for the army that didn't bloody leak!

Whilst she was doing nothing herself to save the RN she was however trying to create panic in other countries regarding the Cold war. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3257297.ece
Not really very bright. Turning up the heat on the cold war, whilst at the same time overseeing the dismantling of the British Forces.
Quite frankly the article in the link you posted didn't surprise me one bit, she was full of skulduggery and dirty tricks. I just cannot understand how British government see the sense in the reduction of the military and issuing substandard equipment. A price the British forces are paying for today, with their lives.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20081101/tuk-dead-soldier-s-mother-backs-protest-6323e80.html

I will admit, the one operation I will give her full credit for, is authorising the SAS to end the Iranian Embassy beige. An operation that sent a clear message to the terrorists around the world.
 
Last edited:
MARGARET THATCHER 'WOULD WIN ELECTION TODAY.'


By Philip Johnston, Home Affairs Editor
Last Updated: 2:34PM BST 28 Apr 2008

Telegraph YouGov poll.




Margaret Thatcher at her peak would sweep to power in a general election held today, according to an opinion poll for The Daily Telegraph.
The YouGov survey emphatically confirms the enduring political appeal of the country's first woman prime minister, who left office undefeated 18 years ago.
Baroness Thatcher comfortably surpassed Tony Blair when people were asked who they would pick to lead the country at the height of their powers if they had the choice. .

Lady Thatcher, 82, is also considered, again by a long distance, to be the country's greatest post-war prime minister, well ahead even of Winston Churchill during his second term in office in the 1950s. . From 1979 to 1990, Lady Thatcher's three administrations transformed post-war Britain. Her leadership during the conflict with Argentina over the Falklands in 1982, her stand against the Soviet Union alongside Ronald Reagan that helped win the Cold War and her programme of privatising previously state-owned industries are also seen as high on her list of successes.

But most people consider her greatest attainment was being the first - and, to date, only - woman to become prime minister.
.
But the poll demonstrates that long after she has left office, the Thatcherite legacy continues to shape Britain. It shifted the political axis from state-centred collectivism to private enterprise and the free market, forcing Labour to abandon old-style socialism.
For someone who was such a divisive figure, Lady Thatcher's position at the top of the pantheon of 20th-century leaders is in itself extraordinary. Her appeal as a conviction politician is especially strong .
It also extended far beyond this country.


(**Just a little reminder of real opinion from the real British electorate. 2008.)
 
Last edited:
. It was fortunate that this came along when the people so badly needed something to divert their attention from the fact that they were all facing a very grim future. Anything (even a war) was better than what they could see laying ahead of them.

I have to ask if this is a figment of your imagination or whether you have a ref?

Had this war have never occurred, I think Maggie would have been out on her duff much sooner, as her policies would have effectively turned Britain into another third world country .

And this?

Better leaders, better thinkers, better orators, better liked. In those four classifications above Maggie was at best dismal.

Dismal ? Refer to posts 1 and 9!
 
Last edited:
If it hadn't been for the Falklands war, she would have been tossed out on her backside long before she was. The insidious fact remains, she used mens lives (Both British and Argentine) to further her political career by calling an early election. She used the public hysteria and flag waving of the Falklands victory to her full advantage, she didn't give a toss about the men who were killed or maimed.

I went for a pint after the surrender of the Argentines. I couldnt beleive what I was hearing. One idiot was boasting "We beating the Argies." I asked, "Who's WE? Were you there getting shot at, shelled and under air attack?"

He replied "Well ok, but Maggie beat the Argies." At this I nearly had a heart attack, I exploded, "She didnt win the bloody war, British troops won the war with their blood." I had to walk out I was so furious.

Totaly agree, glad there are some on this forum who are not swayed by Jingoism. Interestingly Jim Callaghan, in 1977 I think, had the same problem arise. He had the sense to send a nuclear sub. and the right political signals to he Argentines to avoid a war. See where his good sense got him!
 
I can't possibly see how she had any appeal to the public, other than in the case of the Falklands war, and it was only happenstance that the Argies tried it on, in her time in office. The war raised her profile enormously, but when you think of it , she only had two choices, either to let the Argies have the Falklands, or to do as she did, her decision was hardly mind blowing stuff. It was fortunate that this came along when the people so badly needed something to divert their attention from the fact that they were all facing a very grim future. Anything (even a war) was better than what they could see laying ahead of them.

Had this war have never occurred, I think Maggie would have been out on her duff much sooner, as her policies would have effectively turned Britain into another third world country with masses of working poor struggling to support a country run by, and for the benefit of the wealthy.
.

There is an artcle that totally supports your statement:-

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1879.html


Conservative politics

An advocate of privatization of state-owned industry and utilities, strict trade union restrictions, and reduced social expenditures across the board, Thatcher's initial impact on Britain was economic. While the economy grew, many felt it was at an excessive cost: Between 1979 and 1981, economic output declined by 15 percent, and unemployment rose to the three million mark.

Prevailing political opinion avers that without the 1982 Falkland Islands War and a disorganized opposition party, Thatcher never would have won a second term in 1983 — which she managed in a landslide.

So yes, you are absolutely correct.



The following totally supports perseus view regarding Jim Callaghan in 1977, he didnt abuse and waste mens lives like Thatcher.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4597581.stm


Secret Falklands fleet revealed


A Royal Navy task force was sent to the Falkland Islands to defend them from Argentine attack five years before the war there, archive papers have shown.


The flotilla led by nuclear-powered submarine HMS Dreadnaught was thought to have deterred a 1977 invasion.
James Callaghan's government secretly ordered Operation Journeyman after 50 Argentine "scientists" landed on South Thule, prompting fears of an attack.
The details have been disclosed for the first time by the National Archives.
The Argentines eventually invaded the Falklands five years later in 1982.
Intense secrecy

Lord Owen, who was foreign secretary in 1977, said that if Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government had taken similar action to that of five years earlier, the war would not have happened.

The papers show Lord Owen insisted the 1977 mission was conducted in intense secrecy. Even the crews did not know where they were going.


"There is no need for anyone to know the destination of the frigates. They should be sent on exercise in the Atlantic," he said.
"Only at sea need they know they are going south, even then I cannot see why anyone, other than the captain, should be told their purpose."


The Argentine government was privately warned by the UK that a nuclear submarine was in the area, but other countries were said to be unaware.


The archive papers show there was much nervousness in Whitehall, especially over the operation's legality.


Risk to life'
Ministers wanted to create an "exclusion zone" around the islands - as happened in 1982 - but notes warned that could be "politically escalatory, probably illegal and could set an unwelcome precedent".


The issue was fudged as Attorney General Sam Silkin was only asked for his advice on the legal situation after the fleet left.
Concerns were so high, HMS Dreadnaught was told if it was attacked by Argentine anti-submarine weapons it must "surface or withdraw at high speed submerged, whichever will be of least risk to life".



Which again brings me back to my question- “Did Thatcher know about the forthcoming invasion by the Argentines?


How is it, that James Callaghan knew about the Argentines intentions in 1977, yet, how come Thatcher was taken completely by surprise in 1982?
 
Last edited:
The following totally supports perseus view regarding Jim Callaghan in 1977, he didnt abuse and waste mens lives like Thatcher.
I'm sorry that I'm too busy to answer in any depth, I have visitors and I am not allowed to spend long on the 'puta.

But in answer to the one statement above, I feel that our dear Maggie was determined to make a name for herself,... not caring that it was to cost the lives of many ordinary people and many millions of pounds that could have been better spent on the problems at home bought about by the rising unemployment numbers.

This, coupled with her attempted escalation of the Cold War as shown in my previous post shows a callous disregard for the lives of others, all just for her own personal gratification.

I must admit I never liked her right fom day one, there was always something decidedly phoney about her manner and way of talking.

It's funny how after some time the truth gradually emerges. Unfortunately it is too late for those who earned her ill gotten accolades for her.
 
Absolutely, her record and her policies clearly shows this. She has always looked down on the working man.



She had to be the most arrogant, obnoxious and uncaring PM in British history. “Profit before people”


Not according to the British electorate, who are somewhat more well-versed than you, I suggest. Please refer to posts 1 and 9 for education on this subject.


I agree with Spike totally, If it hadn't been for the Falklands war, she would have been tossed out on her backside long before she was. The insidious fact remains, she used mens lives (Both British and Argentine) to further her political career by calling an early election. She used the public hysteria and flag waving of the Falklands victory to her full advantage, she didn't give a toss about the men who were killed or maimed.

I went for a pint after the surrender of the Argentines. I couldnt beleive what I was hearing. One idiot was boasting "We beating the Argies." I asked, "Who's WE? Were you there getting shot at, shelled and under air attack?"

He replied "Well ok, but Maggie beat the Argies." At this I nearly had a heart attack, I exploded, "She didnt win the bloody war, British troops won the war with their blood." I had to walk out I was so furious.


You obviously were as much out of touch then as you are now, as far as the Brits are concerned.

'I had to walk out' - I bet you did ; got the bum's rush I reckon. Please refer to posts 1 and 9.
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry that I'm too busy to answer in any depth, I have visitors and I am not allowed to spend long on the 'puta.

But in answer to the one statement above, I feel that our dear Maggie was determined to make a name for herself,... not caring that it was to cost the lives of many ordinary people and many millions of pounds that could have been better spent on the problems at home bought about by the rising unemployment numbers.

This, coupled with her attempted escalation of the Cold War as shown in my previous post shows a callous disregard for the lives of others, all just for her own personal gratification.

I must admit I never liked her right fom day one, there was always something decidedly phoney about her manner and way of talking.

It's funny how after some time the truth gradually emerges. Unfortunately it is too late for those who earned her ill gotten accolades for her.

I hope that Gordon Brown does make the "Thatcher years" papers public, and that she will be exposed for what and who she was.

Why didnt she do as James Callaghan did in 1977 by sending a task force to the Falklands in secret? The answer is simple:-

Thatcher was at an all time low in the polls, and badly needed a popularity boost. I wouldnt be in the least surprised that she knew about the Argentine invasion plans. If she had done as James Callaghan had done in 1977 she wouldn't have gained any support in the polls. By allowing the Argentines to invade and then forcibly removing them, gained her massive support in the eyes of the British public, just what she was praying for. Hundreds of servicemen died needlessly when the war could have been avoided.

She played the British public like a violin.


Without a doubt, she was dangerous, not only to the British people but the world as a whole.
 
Last edited:
Whilst she was doing nothing herself to save the RN she was however trying to create panic in other countries regarding the Cold war. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3257297.ece

Not really very bright. Turning up the heat on the cold war, whilst at the same time overseeing the dismantling of the British Forces.


Now I just cannot understand why you would try to use this link in support of your case. I have to put it down to desperation.

Firstly, it cannot have been a negative to pressurise The Soviet Union in that area.

Secondly, your article itself discredits the book it quotes with its last -line summary!!

Article ends:-

“A senior Swedish source said the submarine incidents had been fully investigated and that Tunander’s claims were “completely untrue”.

And Comment follows :-
;-
"The Times should consider their journalistic standards in this article lacking. The title of the article makes the assertion that Tunander's claims are true. In the middle of the article it is again asserted that Tunander's claims about the HMS Orpheus being used are true. Considering the scope of operations claimed to be undertaken (a meaningful proportion of 4,000), that Tunander's sources are anonymous, and the ideological credentials of the Peace and Research Institute, more skepticism from the Times should be warranted."
Southampton, England

It just does not hold water, it could be said!
 
Last edited:
I hope that Gordon Brown does make the "Thatcher years" papers public, and that she will be exposed for what and who she was.
I feel the public are already aware of her immense ego and self centred ambition, all this would do is confirm it. No doubt there would be a few revelations, but in all honesty, I think that the general public is just so glad to be rid of her that they couldn't care. It's all too late now.

She played the British public like a violin.
I don't really think she had anything to do with it. Prior to the Falklands war, she was immensely unpopular and well on the way to having the skids under her with her disastrous unemployment record. The war was just a fortunate "occurrence" for her which she took advantage of to drag back some popularity. As I said previously, how low must people's morale be, to have it "improved" by the senseless slaughter of hundreds of their own servicemen, and huge expenditure that could have been much better spent alleviating some of the misery she had caused at home.

Without a doubt, she was dangerous, not only to the British people but the world as a whole.
I think the world as a whole was well aware that she was a danger, but in countries other than Britain people never quite knew whether to laugh or cry at her antics. (The reason behind my first comment about Idi Amin, in a nasty floral dress) That pseudo "posh' voice was probably the most mimicked voice of the time, and made her an even greater figure of derision. I went back and had a look at a clip of her on Youtube when this debate started just to reassure myself that she actually sounded that ridiculous.

The more one looks, the worse she was, unless of course one was one of the few who would float to the top with the scum who gained as a result of the misery she imposed on the general populace.
 
Last edited:
There is an artcle that totally supports your statement


Your link is very respectful of Margaret Thatcher in the main:-

Presidential Medal of Freedom Recipient The Right Honorable Margaret Thatcher:-
...
“ Margaret Thatcher led her country with fearlessness, determination, integrity, and a true vision for Britain. In over a decade of achievement, she extended ……...”

“In her retirement, Thatcher has continued to be an outstanding influence in British politics.”


“Margaret was educated at the local grammar school, Kesteven and Grantham Girls' School, and Somerville College, Oxford, where she studied chemistry. She also became president of the university Conservative association. Her father, a shopkeeper and the mayor of Grantham, was a major formative influence. Following graduation, Margaret became a research chemist, yet politics was her first love. In 1950, she ran for Parliament unsuccessfully, then took a job testing cake fillings and ice creams for a London company while she read for the Bar. She worked at night to become a barrister (attorney) before being elected in 1959 as the Conservative Member of Parliament (MP) for Finchley.

Her marriage in 1951 to Denis Thatcher freed her to devote herself to politics. Denis Thatcher, as the first male PM spouse in history, was likely to be the center of media attention. When Margaret met him, she remarked, "It was clear to me at once that Denis was an exceptional man — he had a certain style and dash." Described as a man of integrity, humor and common sense, he fought with the Royal Artillery during World War II and had a strong business background. It was said that Denis was in "the Thatcher party, not the Tory party." He once famously remarked, "It's better to keep my mouth shut and be thought a fool rather than open it and remove all doubt." When Denis died in 2003, his wife paid tribute: "Being PM is a lonely job. In a sense, it ought to be — you cannot lead from a crowd. But with Denis there I was never alone. What a man. What a husband. What a friend."

“Along with her ally and friend, President Ronald Reagan, Thatcher forged the 1980s into a decade of conservatism and anti-communist sentiment in the midst of the Cold War. “

“Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was a woman of formidable will in the face of doubt. Her political philosophy took the moniker "Thatcherism." Her impact on Britain was sweeping and lasting, leaving a market economy and a more right-wing Conservative party. In 1990 she was awarded the Order of Merit and in 1994 she was made a baroness.”



Prevailing political opinion avers that without the 1982 Falkland Islands War and a disorganized opposition party, Thatcher never would have won a second term in 1983 — which she managed in a landslide.

Of course this is a complete non-statement. What is 'prevailing political opinion'? What is 'political opinion'? Whose 'political opinion'? Who measured it and what did they measure? Prevailing where, and among who?

This claim is absolutely hypothetical. No-one can tell how the 1983 election would pan out. All we know is that it was landslide; that should speak for itself.



BritinAfrica;464711 said:
The following totally supports perseus view regarding Jim Callaghan in 1977, he didnt abuse and waste mens lives like Thatcher.
A Royal Navy task force was sent to the Falkland Islands to defend them from Argentine attack five years before the war there, archive papers have shown.

Unfortunately this planted the seed that Britain found so difficult and costly to have to deal with in 1982. Unfinished business. Within 5 years the Argentine junta was back for more, for a bigger and better go, more ready and organised than ever.


Lord Owen, who was foreign secretary in 1977, said that if Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government had taken similar action to that of five years earlier, the war would not have happened.

Complete supposition from a man who defected from the Labour party to help create the Social Democrats.

By 1982, the Junta had been taken over by the ambitious Galtieri, his Argentine economy was in absolute tatters, and he needed to make the Argentine people look elsewhere. The Falkland Islands was the victim.
If Labour had been in power in 1982, the Falklands would have been occupied by Argentina since then.

Here's an example why : 1977 under Jim Callaghan :- Defence of Falklands:-
"HMS Dreadnaught was told if it was attacked by Argentine anti-submarine weapons it must "surface or withdraw at high speed submerged, whichever will be of least risk to life".


BritinAfrica;464711 said:
Which again brings me back to my question- “Did Thatcher know about the forthcoming invasion by the Argentines?
How is it, that James Callaghan knew about the Argentines intentions in 1977, yet, how come Thatcher was taken completely by surprise in 1982?

It is so simple. In 1977, Callaghan was alerted by the arrival on the island of some 50 or so Argentinian scientists .

In 1982, Thatcher was alerted by the arrival on the island of some 50 or so Argentinian scrap- metal dealers.

The Argentinians then invaded the island . Thatcher was advised by her military advisers that action was required and that it was imperative that it was fast.

Thatcher did the necessary, Argentinians were removed.

N.B. They did not come back for more this time.


Your conspiracy theories are nothing but that, IMHO, supposition and wish-list.
 
Last edited:
Errol, I have been noting your candidates, not ignoring you. I will respond as soon as I get the chance; looking good.
 
I feel the public are already aware of her immense ego and self centred ambition, all this would do is confirm it. No doubt there would be a few revelations, but in all honesty, I think that the general public is just so glad to be rid of her that they couldn't care. It's all too late now.

I clearly remember when Thatcher was kicked out on her backside, I was at the time working for the Royal British Legion (ex serviceman organisation) the general opinion among the ex WW2 vets was “Thank goodness she's gone, she was a bloody embarrassment.”

I don't really think she had anything to do with it. Prior to the Falklands war, she was immensely unpopular and well on the way to having the skids under her with her disastrous unemployment record. The war was just a fortunate "occurrence" for her which she took advantage of to drag back some popularity. As I said previously, how low must people's morale be, to have it "improved" by the senseless slaughter of hundreds of their own servicemen, and huge expenditure that could have been much better spent alleviating some of the misery she had caused at home. .

Casualties aside, I dread to think what the cost of the operation was, the loss of ships, aircraft and equipment, as you rightly said, could have been put to better use. And yes, moral among the public was at an all time low, those who were lucky to be employed were unsure about job security, those unemployed couldn't see a light at the end of the tunnel. I remember a chap whom I knew quite well and was self employed, the worry got to him so much he took his own life. His wife never forgave Thatcher or her policies.

I think the world as a whole was well aware that she was a danger, but in countries other than Britain people never quite knew whether to laugh or cry at her antics. (The reason behind my first comment about Idi Amin, in a nasty floral dress) That pseudo "posh' voice was probably the most mimicked voice of the time, and made her an even greater figure of derision. I went back and had a look at a clip of her on You tube when this debate started just to reassure myself that she actually sounded that ridiculous. .

You are a braver man then I Spike, I couldn't bear to listen to her when she appeared on TV. She always reminded me of the old adage, “Mutton done up as lamb.” On the whole Idi Amin had more of a personality then Thatcher

The more one looks, the worse she was, unless of course one was one of the few who would float to the top with the scum who gained as a result of the misery she imposed on the general populace.

She did no favours for the ordinary man in the street, she was totally callous regarding the high unemployment figures.

As one chap said to me once:-
“Whats the difference between Thatcher and a dog getting run over by a truck?”

“There were skid marks leading up to the dog.”
 
I clearly remember when Thatcher was kicked out on her backside, I was at the time working for the Royal British Legion (ex serviceman organisation) the general opinion among the ex WW2 vets was “Thank goodness she's gone, she was a bloody embarrassment.”

Maggie Thatcher was never kicked out on her backside; you memory fails you I'm afraid. The British electorate never,ever rejected her. She was always a big winner with them. She resigned and walked away with dignity , remember now?

May I ask where you worked for the British Legion, I 'm interested to know?

Regarding your :-
'The general opinion among the ex WW11 vets was "Thank Goodness she's gone, she was a bloody embarrassment". - please present your reference or link for this statement.

I recommend posts 1 and 9 to you, for a proper appraisal of this lady.


Casualties aside, I dread to think what the cost of the operation was, the loss of ships, aircraft and equipment, as you rightly said, could have been put to better use. And yes, moral among the public was at an all time low, those who were lucky to be employed were unsure about job security, those unemployed couldn't see a light at the end of the tunnel. I remember a chap whom I knew quite well and was self employed, the worry got to him so much he took his own life. His wife never forgave Thatcher or her policies.

This is balderdash, I'm afraid. Firstly, is the cost an unknown? To say it could have been put to better use is no more that your supposition. Without the operation, The Falklands would be in the hands of Argentina, and the people of the islands would be under occupation and no longer free.

"Morale at an all time low" - Please supply reference for this statement.

From 1979-82 we were still suffering from the effects of the depths of the previous administration, any way. After that the rebuilding climb was on.

Self employed? You'll be telling me next that they hated Maggie too. Ha! I can assure you that I was self-employed throughout the 1980s, and very good it was too. I happen to be a founder member of The National Federation of the Self Employed, the NFSE, now The Federation of Small Businesses, the FSB. Also I was then a member of The National Union of Small Shopkeepers.


You are a braver man then I Spike, I couldn't bear to listen to her when she appeared on TV. She always reminded me of the old adage, “Mutton done up as lamb.” On the whole Idi Amin had more of a personality then Thatcher

She did no favours for the ordinary man in the street, she was totally callous regarding the high unemployment figures.

As one chap said to me once:-
“Whats the difference between Thatcher and a dog getting run over by a truck?”

“There were skid marks leading up to the dog.”


Well there we have it, that says it all. The pathetic denigration from an empty vessel, devoid of decent argument and worthy only of contempt. Nice one, I think you should exit stage left on that note.:smil:
 
Last edited:
I clearly remember when Thatcher was kicked out on her backside, I was at the time working for the Royal British Legion (ex serviceman organisation) the general opinion among the ex WW2 vets was “Thank goodness she's gone, she was a bloody embarrassment.”

You are a braver man then I Spike, I couldn't bear to listen to her when she appeared on TV. She always reminded me of the old adage, “Mutton done up as lamb.” On the whole Idi Amin had more of a personality then Thatcher
Oh, she had personality, and no one will ever forget it. It was another case of emulating Idi Amin Dada, the similarities in their characters were astounding, both being pathological egotists who thought the world waited with baited breath for their next utterance. Meanwhile the truth being that people were merely waiting in dread, to see what disaster they would visit on us next.

There have possibly been more incompetent PMs, but I doubt that there has ever been one who was hated by a larger percentage of the population. The word being "hated" as opposed to disliked. In most cases there is a spread of emotion from adoration to extreme hatred, but Maggot polarised the population to a degree that this normal "spread" was reduced almost completely to both ends of the spectrum, with the greedy and wealthy just rubbing their hands together, and the poor and disadvantaged left to suffer.

Perhaps in this respect the Falklands conflict also helped remove her, as it gave her party reason to look at what they were doing, realising that it might not be such a good idea to disenfranchise such a large portion of the public, especially seeing that they are the section that has traditionally provided Britains fighting men.

I find it unfortunate that Maggot has more recently merely become a comic figure to the people of the world, much the same as her role model, people have short memories and are forgetting the absolute misery that she visited upon a large part of the population and the contempt with which she treated the working classes.
 
Back
Top