Author Topic: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3  (Read 253671 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Constantinople

  • Guest
Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
« Reply #780 on: August 13, 2010, 03:11:59 PM »
Thatcher was an autocrat and a divisive one.  She started the Falklands War so she didn't lose an electiion and created the Britain that existed up to the Labour party.  She so alienated Britain that Tony Blair won the largest majority in labour history and created a Britain that pretty much evaporated the middle class.

Offline Janet Ashton

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 719
  • www.directarticle.org
    • View Profile
    • Direct Article
Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
« Reply #781 on: August 13, 2010, 03:25:56 PM »
Thatcher was an autocrat and a divisive one.  She started the Falklands War so she didn't lose an electiion and created the Britain that existed up to the Labour party.  

I don't in the least disagree with you! The point I am making is that over-confident, under-talented scions of unearned wealth like Osborne and Cameron, are attempting to finish what she started at double-quick pace without even a mandate. Cameron's ability to speak slick at a dinner party (though personally I am not impressed by his debating style at all) certainly does not mean they should be viewed as safe and consensus option that shouldn't worry the Queen. Harold "One Nation Tory" Macmillan he certainly is not.
There is a wonderful quote I've seen about from the journalist Gary Younge, which runs like this: "As a young man Cameron looked out on the social carnage of pit closures and mass unemployment, looked at Margaret Thatcher's government and thought, these are my people. When all the debating is done, that is really all I need to know."
« Last Edit: August 13, 2010, 03:28:26 PM by Janet Ashton »
Shake your chains to earth like dew
Which in sleep had fallen on you -
Ye are many; they are few.

Constantinople

  • Guest
Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
« Reply #782 on: August 13, 2010, 03:45:13 PM »
Well I am not impressed with Osbourne at all.  The last British politician I liked was Paddy Ashdown and before that David Owen.

Offline Adagietto

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 578
    • View Profile
Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
« Reply #783 on: August 14, 2010, 05:19:43 AM »
This is really no place for one-sided political rants. They are quite bad enough in sites that are actually concerned with party politics. One person's 'wonderful quote' may strike another person as being a fine expression of facile prejudice.

Offline Eric_Lowe

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 16999
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
« Reply #784 on: August 14, 2010, 08:08:23 AM »
Yes. The Queen is above it all.

Offline Janet Ashton

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 719
  • www.directarticle.org
    • View Profile
    • Direct Article
Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
« Reply #785 on: August 14, 2010, 08:27:05 AM »
This is really no place for one-sided political rants. They are quite bad enough in sites that are actually concerned with party politics. One person's 'wonderful quote' may strike another person as being a fine expression of facile prejudice.

I assume that the "one sided political rant" you refer to is mine. For the record, I find this comment extremely offensive, given that I said nothing personally nasty to you.

Whether one agrees with them of not, is a fact that the current Conservative Party is planning cuts to the structure of the British state on a scale that is wholly unprecedented and will take public spending back to the 1930s. Do you dispute this?

Do you dispute that they did not mention this in their manifesto and are saying that they are "forced" to do so by the scale of the deficit? (and yet this sits rather oddly with Francis Maude's statement that they had "hit the ground running" after planning for years in opposition).

Do you dispute that they did not obtain a majority and were obliged to seek a coalition arrangement with the LIberal Democrats?

Do you dispute that everyone I know personally who voted for the Liberal Democrats is horrified by what has happened and the complexion of the government their vote supported?

Are you aware of how deeply insulted anyone who works for or is reliant upon a public service is by the constant implication that they are workshy scroungers who are responsible for the economic crisis?
Do you have any notion how worried people are for the future of their jobs and the whole economy - not as a result of the world situation, but as a direct consequence of the charmingly called "Bloodbath budget"?

Are you aware that Cameron warned his MPs they had better prepare to be very unpopular?

Whether you think them and their policies the best thing since sliced bread or not, it is wholly incorrect to state that the current conservatives are somehow less divisive than Thatcher was.  There is division here for a start.

ERic is right - the Queen's role is to be above it all and accept and work with the government; not to judge whether X is better Y because he or she is deemed "less divisive". And she would be quite sensible to be very concerned in the circumstances of a government with no majority undertaking a very radical program at a very difficult time. My political view are neither here nor there, and nor are yours, so if you don't want to hear mine, please try to be a little less biased in turn.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2010, 08:37:31 AM by Janet Ashton »
Shake your chains to earth like dew
Which in sleep had fallen on you -
Ye are many; they are few.

Offline Adagietto

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 578
    • View Profile
Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
« Reply #786 on: August 14, 2010, 09:29:54 AM »
Oh come, come, as soon as you start using phrases like 'over-confident, under-talented scions of unearned wealth like Osborne and Cameron' you are in full rant territory; and if you go to, say, the Spectator Coffee House, you will find people from the Thatcherite right ranting against them in exactly the same terms ! So some people assert they are following extreme right policies, carrying on from where Mrs Thatcher left off, while the Thatcherites assert on the whole that they are limp-wristed pinkoes who are betraying her heritage! This merely confirms that British politics is moving in a curious direction at the moment, and cannot (in my view) be analysed in terms of the simple oppositions inherited from the 80s. But this is not the proper place for such discussions.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2010, 09:34:56 AM by Adagietto »

Offline ashdean

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1175
  • Formerly Lancashireladandre & Morecambrian
    • View Profile
Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
« Reply #787 on: August 14, 2010, 09:43:43 AM »
Thatcher was an autocrat and a divisive one.  She started the Falklands War so she didn't lose an electiion and created the Britain that existed up to the Labour party.  She so alienated Britain that Tony Blair won the largest majority in labour history and created a Britain that pretty much evaporated the middle class.
Although Mrs Thatcher became rather autocratic to say the least....NO ONE can blame her for starting the Argentinian war....THE OTHER SIDE were the invaders....Are you Argenintian Constantinople?

Offline Adagietto

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 578
    • View Profile
Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
« Reply #788 on: August 14, 2010, 12:24:27 PM »
Canadian I think. But it is certainly the case that she didn't embark on that enterprise out of electoral calculation, it was an exceedingly risky venture which could easily have ended in failure.

Constantinople

  • Guest
Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
« Reply #789 on: August 14, 2010, 01:28:10 PM »
Well she gave the Argentinians discrete signals that nothing would happen if they took over the Falklands and then used it as political ammunition. It was similar to the way Bush senior gave Saddam Hussein subtle hints that invading Kuwait would not have any consequaences.

Constantinople

  • Guest
Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
« Reply #790 on: August 14, 2010, 01:35:01 PM »
Ashdean
        You might be interested in this
President Galtieri, as head of the the military government, aimed to counter public concern over economic and human rights issues by means of a speedy victory over the Falklands which would appeal to popular nationalistic sentiment. Argentine intelligence officers had been working with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to help fund the Contras in Nicaragua, and the Argentine government believed it might be rewarded for this activity by non-interference on the part of the United States if it invaded the Falklands.

Argentina exerted pressure at the United Nations by raising subtle hints of a possible invasion, but the British either missed or ignored this threat and did not react. The Argentines assumed that the British would not use force if the islands were invaded.[3][4]

According to British sources, the Argentines interpreted the failure of the British to react as a lack of interest in the Falklands due to the planned withdrawal (as part of a general reduction in size of the Royal Navy in 1981) of the last of the Antarctic Supply vessels, HMS Endurance, and by the British Nationality Act of 1981, which replaced the full British citizenship of Falkland Islanders with a more limited version.

Furthermore, Britain was given detailed information from the CIA about the Argentinian junta's intention.  My sources told me that Thatcher also knew that the upcoming election would be difficult and was advised that a war with Argentina would not be long or difficult but would focus the electorate away from divisive political factions  (Labour, Conservatives etc,)

And if you dont believe me there are plenty of other sources on this subject.

Offline Adagietto

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 578
    • View Profile
Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
« Reply #791 on: August 14, 2010, 02:07:48 PM »
The Argentinians misread the British signs and the British misread the Argentinian ones. If the Argentinians had been patient, some British government some time would doubtless have sold the Falkland Islanders down the river, or if one one wants to put it another way, have concluded that the financial and political expense of supporting them was too great. After the invasion, Mrs Thatcher had a choice between miltary action and a negotiated surrender; anyone who has any understanding of her character would know that she would never have contemplated the second option for a moment, electoral calculations did not come into the matter. Only a fool or ignoramus would have advised her that a war with Argentina would not be difficult, or would be lacking in danger. That was certainly not the military opinion at the time. More ships could easily have been sunk, and the landing could have gone badly wrong; everyone whom I have spoken to who was actually involved in the war regards it as a close-run thing.  Even as it turned out, without more exocets getting through, the failure of the fuzes on some Argentinian bombs may have made the difference between success and failure. Nor was it clear at the beginning that the Americans would have provided the vital support that they did. I never cared for Mrs Thatcher, but she had guts, and it took real courage to launch that expedition. It could just as easily have broken her career as helped it.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2010, 02:11:07 PM by Adagietto »

Constantinople

  • Guest
Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
« Reply #792 on: August 14, 2010, 02:16:02 PM »
Well i was told by good sources in Britain and the US that the CIA had provided a very clear sitrep about what the Argentinians were planning to do.  I was also informed by some senior Tories that the tone of the cabinet at that time was if the Argies wanted to do some sabre wrattling they would get their nose bloodied and that it wouldnt be at all detrimental politically and that it would be a cake walk.  If you think that is not what was going on in cabinet at the time then that is your choice.  And Thatcher did not have so much guts but the type of ambition that blinds one fropm reality.

Offline Adagietto

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 578
    • View Profile
Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
« Reply #793 on: August 14, 2010, 03:01:17 PM »
There is a difference between sabre-rattling and an invasion; they may have seen some advantage in facing down some sabre-rattling, but they were certainly not expecting an invasion that would leave the Argentinians holding the islands, nor could they possibly have wished for any such thing. If they had had definite information that the Argentinians were planning to invade when they did, they could and would have taken action to deter the invasion. No serious historian thinks anything other than that the invasion took the British government by surprise, and that it was thought at the time, with every justification, that it would be extremely hard to retake the islands. Some members of the cabinet would have much preferred a negotiated surrender. It took courage to take the course that she did, just as it took courage to overturn the post-war consensus in British politics, or to face down the powerful trade union movement; though at a purely verbal level, it is doubtless possible to interpret that courage away, and such a mode of argument may appeal to people who have a taste for sophistry or paradox.

Constantinople

  • Guest
Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part 3
« Reply #794 on: August 14, 2010, 03:34:03 PM »
The cia gave Brit intel everything they needed to know that the Argies were not bluffing and they had inside information from the junta itself.  And what guts does it take to jerimander an election through diplomatic manipulation that leads to a conflict?