Re: Biased news reporting : Sat Dec 29, 2012 2:14 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

I don't see your relevance, WTF has it got to do with Tony Blair, the PM was Margaret Thatcher, the Government was a Conservative one, it was the decision of the MP's in the Commons at that moment in time as was the decision to invade Iraq at the time of Blairs government - you can't defend decisions in hindsight by attributing them to people who weren't even part of the decision making process.


And when I say "the decision of MP's in the Commons" I include MP's of all party's.

Just not the ones who weren't actually MP's at the time.

What proof of this is there?

"at any other time we would have left a tiny spec on the map to its fate and negotiated a hand over"

Re: Biased news reporting : Sat Dec 29, 2012 2:33 pm  

sally cinnamon wrote:

This thing about Thatcher winning in 1983 because of the Falklands is a bit of a myth. There was no reason to believe at the time that a war would help reelection anyway - you would have thought that Churchill would have benefited from a khaki election, after winning WW2, but he got voted out in a landslide defeat by Attlee in 1945.

But also from a tactical point of view, fighting the Falklands war was a massive political risk for Thatcher. If we had lost she would almost certainly have had to resign and a lot of the advice she was receiving was that this was going to be a very difficult fight to win. The safe political option would have been to go for some 'diplomatic settlement' that accepted the Argentinan invasion, and Thatcher (rightly) was not prepared to accept that.

I am not a Thatcher lover by any means but you have to get the facts straight over why she won in 1983. It was basically the same reason she won a majority of over 100 in 1987, when there was no Falklands and no 'longest suicide note in history' Labour manifesto and no Michael Foot. It was because the opposition was split. The SDP-Liberal Alliance hoovered up close to a quarter of the electorates votes in those elections, because of first past the post they didn't get that many seats of course, but it meant they ate away the left/centre left vote. Meanwhile on the opposite side, Thatcher getting 42% or so was able to win landslides.

The Falklands campaign and victory was a helpful contributory factor to her election success as were several of the other points you have duly noted.
The 'Gang of Four' turncoats, Doctor Death, Woy Jenkins, Williams and Rodgers, most definitely did immense damage.

Re: Biased news reporting : Sat Dec 29, 2012 2:39 pm  

Ajw71 wrote:

What proof of this is there?

"at any other time we would have left a tiny spec on the map to its fate and negotiated a hand over"

Proof ?

Its his opinion you idiot.

Re: Biased news reporting : Sat Dec 29, 2012 2:42 pm  

Big Graeme wrote: Complete horseshit, at any other time we would have left a tiny spec on the map to its fate and negotiated a hand over, being well behind in the polls and looking like being ousted at the impending election was very much on her mind. More myths: the earliest poll taken (7 April 1982) after the Falklands invasion (2 April) had the polls at: CON 31.5%, LAB 29.0%, SDP/LIB 37.0%. So given that the Tories had a small lead over Labour at the time and were only behind the Alliance in the polls, why take such a political risk in fighting a war you have a high chance of losing? It wasn't in early 1982 that Thatcher was well behind in the polls, it was in 1980. In December 1980 it was CON 32.0%, LAB 56.0%, LIB 11.0%. The big turning point in the polls, which shredded Labour, was the formation of the Alliance in early 1981. Labour dropped to the mid 30s after that. During the next term, Thatcher was in more trouble in the polls in 1986 than she was in 1982, she was ten points down on Kinnock's Labour a year away from the 1987 election but still won 100 seat majority, there was no 'Falklands factor' then. Remember as well that at this time the Labour party was scoring own goals over Militant and infighting between Bennites and those on the centre of the party which also played in Thatcher's favour. Historic opinion poll data can be downloaded here: http://www.markpack.org.uk/opinion-polls/

Big Graeme wrote: Complete horseshit, at any other time we would have left a tiny spec on the map to its fate and negotiated a hand over, being well behind in the polls and looking like being ousted at the impending election was very much on her mind. More myths: the earliest poll taken (7 April 1982) after the Falklands invasion (2 April) had the polls at: CON 31.5%, LAB 29.0%, SDP/LIB 37.0%. So given that the Tories had a small lead over Labour at the time and were only behind the Alliance in the polls, why take such a political risk in fighting a war you have a high chance of losing? It wasn't in early 1982 that Thatcher was well behind in the polls, it was in 1980. In December 1980 it was CON 32.0%, LAB 56.0%, LIB 11.0%. The big turning point in the polls, which shredded Labour, was the formation of the Alliance in early 1981. Labour dropped to the mid 30s after that. During the next term, Thatcher was in more trouble in the polls in 1986 than she was in 1982, she was ten points down on Kinnock's Labour a year away from the 1987 election but still won 100 seat majority, there was no 'Falklands factor' then. Remember as well that at this time the Labour party was scoring own goals over Militant and infighting between Bennites and those on the centre of the party which also played in Thatcher's favour. Historic opinion poll data can be downloaded here: http://www.markpack.org.uk/opinion-polls/

Re: Biased news reporting : Sat Dec 29, 2012 2:46 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

Proof ?

Its his opinion you idiot.

The way he said 'complete horseshit' I thought he might have some hard evidence to back up his wild assertions.

Not a very good opinion is it, as Tony Blair said he would have done the same, but as this is obviously far too difficult for your brain to comprehend maybe we should leave it there.

Re: Biased news reporting : Sat Dec 29, 2012 2:52 pm  

WIZEB wrote:

The Falklands campaign and victory was a helpful contributory factor to her election success as were several of the other points you have duly noted.
The 'Gang of Four' turncoats, Doctor Death, Woy Jenkins, Williams and Rodgers, most definitely did immense damage.

Yes, after the war went well, it looked retrospectively like a good decision to go in and it portrayed Thatcher as a strong leader. Up till 1982 she didn't really have the "Iron Lady" image. After that she was a lot more confident and decisive and shaped her own Cabinet in her way with her own picks as well, whereas before the 83 election it was still Thatcher a bit isolated amongst Heathites.

Undoubtedly the swift outcome of the conflict helped Thatcher's image, but the key point is that before the conflict took place the advice she got was that it was going to be very difficult and there was a high chance of humiliation and failure to retake the islands. So to say Thatcher calculated on going to war for political reasons to help her win an election just doesn't wash because the chances of success were so ropey - a shrewd political calculator would have avoided the conflict. I am not a Thatcher lover by any means but you have to give her a fair trial and attack her for the right reasons.

Wars are very risky affairs for Prime Ministers. Tony Blair's reputation came out enhanced after Kosovo and Sierra Leone, because they were fairly swift affairs that achieved a desired outcome. But the Afghanistan and Iraq wars were disastrous for Blair politically because they dragged on, no WMDs were found in Iraq and Blair was exposed for not having an exit strategy. Blair should really have romped to another landslide in 2005 but his majority was cut substantially because trust had already been eroded over the Iraq affair.

Another point on wars, in 1991 just after John Major had taken over as PM Britain was at war with Iraq, Major was ahead in the polls just after that but it's difficult to see if it was a 'war bounce' because Major had not long since taken over from Thatcher and the Tories jumped ahead in the polls as soon as she left anyway! Nevertheless by June that year Labour were ten points up. So Major definitely did not benefit from a war effect in the 92 election, he was forced to call it whilst still about five points down, but Kinnock and Labour blew that one big time.

Re: Biased news reporting : Sat Dec 29, 2012 2:59 pm  

Ajw71 wrote:

The way he said 'complete horseshit' I thought he might have some hard evidence to back up his wild assertions.

Not a very good opinion is it, as Tony Blair said he would have done the same, but as this is obviously far too difficult for your brain to comprehend maybe we should leave it there.

The opinion of one poster here is as valid as Tony Blairs opinion on something that he had no part of, I know that you were probably just very, very small, if born at all in 1982 but 15 seconds on Wiki is all the evidence that you'd need to gather before judging how the facts may dilute your comment somewhat.

If you had mentioned that the then labour leader Michael Foot, a life long pacifist and CND supporter had declared his support for Thatchers call to arms on the Falklands then you would have made a very strong point and valid counter argument, but as I say, you weren't born at that point so your innocence is forgiven.

Re: Biased news reporting : Sat Dec 29, 2012 3:09 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

The opinion of one poster here is as valid as Tony Blairs opinion on something that he had no part of

No because the poster specifically said 'at any other time we would have left a spec.....'

Well no, because Tony Blair has stated he would have done the same as Thatcher if he was in her shoes. So according to him (not me), if the Falklands had been invaded in say 2000, he would have done the same as Thatcher (ie, send a task force).

So it's likely not true to say 'at any other time we would have not fought the war'.

Re: Biased news reporting : Sat Dec 29, 2012 3:09 pm  

Has a conscripted army ever beat a professional one in modern warfare?

Re: Biased news reporting : Sat Dec 29, 2012 3:23 pm  

Ajw71 wrote:

No because the poster specifically said 'at any other time we would have left a spec.....'

Well no, because Tony Blair has stated he would have done the same as Thatcher if he was in her shoes. So according to him (not me), if the Falklands had been invaded in say 2000, he would have done the same as Thatcher (ie, send a task force).

So it's likely not true to say 'at any other time we would have not fought the war'.

You really can't handle Blair being the son of Thatcher politics wise can you.
Of course he would have done the same thing (and I took that to mean if he were PM at the time), they had the same core ideology.