Off Topic The Politics Thread

[sb_73]

If you ignore her clearly displayed character over her time in No 10, then I suppose so.

Be serious here. She was a formidable leader - real leader - who got stuff done her way. Tony Blair was a lying brown-noser who kowtowed to the US throughout his time in office. There's simply no comparison between the two, and there's no way on earth that she would have been steamrollered into a war she did not want to enter, simply because a particularly weak US president said so.

Your basic assumption is that she would not have wanted to support the US, and there is nothing in the public history to suggest that she would have done anything other than just that. Your perception of the 'balance of power' (a phrase usually associated with enemies rather than allies) between the US and the U.K. is very naive, it is overwhelmingly weighted in the Americans' favour and has been since Lend Lease.

Here is what Thatcher said about Saddam to the Wall Street Journal in 2002

"Saddam must go... It is clear to anyone willing to face reality that the only reason Saddam took the risk of refusing to submit his activities to U.N. inspectors was that he is exerting every muscle to build WMD."

Granted she had changed her mind with the benefit of hindsight by 2005.

I think it can be convincingly argued that Blair was Thatcher's true heir. He certainly sought advice from her, did not overturn any of her fundamental domestic policies and even credited her with inventing New Labour. Bravo Maggie.

 

[Chaz]

Your basic assumption is that she would not have wanted to support the US, and there is nothing in the public history to suggest that she would have done anything other than just that. Your perception of the 'balance of power' (a phrase usually associated with enemies rather than allies) between the US and the U.K. is overwhelmingly weighted in the Americans' favour and has been since Lend Lease.

Here is what Thatcher said about Saddam to the Wall Street Journal in 2002

"Saddam must go... It is clear to anyone willing to face reality that the only reason Saddam took the risk of refusing to submit his activities to U.N. inspectors was that he is exerting every muscle to build WMD."

Granted she had changed her mind with the benefit of hindsight by 2005.

I think it can be convincingly argued that Blair was Thatcher's true heir. He certainly sought advice from her, did not overturn any of her fundamental domestic policies and even credited her with inventing New Labour. Bravo Maggie.

No, my basic assumption is that Thatcher would not be pushed around by George W Bush the way Blair was. She would not have lied about the threat the way Blair did. She would not have deliberately misled parliament so that his over-eager promise of unconditional support to the US president didn't need to be retracted.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Even WITH hindsight, Blair still insists he was right, when he clearly wasn't. And he has not apologised for lying to Parliament in order to gain the number of votes he needed.

As for her domestic policies, the reason Blair kept them was because they worked, and he wanted to cling to the power he had gained. It was a farcical attempt at wooing the middle ground, and he did that by attracting a large number of nominal Tory voters by presenting a policy document stuffed with their ideals. Sadly for the country, it worked for thirteen years...

 

[Stroller]

Theresa May had her first PMQ's and completely wiped the floor of Comrade Corbyn. I would say it was boys against men but that would disrespect her performance.
Sadly Corbyn means well in places but he is no leader. He is so weak at the despatch box. He asks some good questions but you fall asleep when he talks.
We really do need a strong opposition but Labour at the moment has no one who will convince voters.

PMQs is a pantomime but Corbyn makes it so easy for his opposite number by asking six unrelated individual questions. May, as with Cameron before her, had her responses (not answers) scripted beforehand and she consequently appeared to have won the day by humiliating Corbyn. I thought May's forced stridency was a little embarrassing yesterday, and was betrayed by the wobble in her voice. It's unimportant in the scheme of things, but if Corbyn was stronger at PMQs he might have a little more support from his MPs.

 

[sb_73]

No, my basic assumption is that Thatcher would not be pushed around by George W Bush the way Blair was. She would not have lied about the threat the way Blair did. She would not have deliberately misled parliament so that his over-eager promise of unconditional support to the US president didn't need to be retracted.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Even WITH hindsight, Blair still insists he was right, when he clearly wasn't. And he has not apologised for lying to Parliament in order to gain the number of votes he needed.

As for her domestic policies, the reason Blair kept them was because they worked, and he wanted to cling to the power he had gained. It was a farcical attempt at wooing the middle ground, and he did that by attracting a large number of nominal Tory voters by presenting a policy document stuffed with their ideals. Sadly for the country, it worked for thirteen years...

Well, she lied to Parliament about Westland according to her official biographer, so she could have lied about all sorts of things. Did she apologise about this, or was she just happy to see a rival suffer for it?

 

[Chaz]

Well, she lied to Parliament about Westland according to her official biographer, so she could have lied about all sorts of things. Did she apologise about this, or was she just happy to see a rival suffer for it?

Lots of tories (and many Labour MPs) lie for corporate or financial gain - that's basically how Blair got in in the first place.

Blair is the only one I know of who has undeniably lied to parliament to get us into a war, which has caused countless deaths so far...

Neither behaviour is right, but I would challenge you to deny that Blair's motivation and actions aren't in a league of their own.

 

[durbar2003]

God, I wish the season would start...........................

 

[sb_73]

Lots of tories (and many Labour MPs) lie for corporate or financial gain - that's basically how Blair got in in the first place.

Blair is the only one I know of who has undeniably lied to parliament to get us into a war, which has caused countless deaths so far...

Neither behaviour is right, but I would challenge you to deny that Blair's motivation and actions aren't in a league of their own.

Well, she was corrupt alright Willy, using her influence with the Omanis to get a building contract awarded to a company that her son, the uber corrupt Mark, was a consultant for.

Unlike you I don't have a hotline into the psyche of former Prime Ministers, living or dead, so I can't comment on his motivation, or whether he knew he was lying. He made a massive error, he's in good company there. And many prime ministers have taken us into wars without a vote in Parliament at all. Including Thatcher. Afghanistan, Kosovo, Gulf War, Falklands, Suez, no formal votes on First and Second World Wars. It's a very recent thing.

 

[QPR Oslo]

North Korea poses a threat to its own people and its neighbour, South Korea. Why aren't you pushing for military action?

Saudi Arabia, China, Pakistan, Russia and a myriad South American countries pose a threat to their own people, and possibly their neighbours in some cases. Why aren't you pushing for military action?

Why so selective?

Raking over old coals, but weren't you one of those opposed to the action the UK government took to recover the Falklands and liberate the British subjects there?

Think you have got confused somewhere Uber. I have very rarely agreed with military action the UK has been involved in,or supported since WW2, not in Iraq, Kuwait, Falklands or anywhere else, even in your list of "dream" places.

That I see these type of military inteventions as being costly in life and otherwise short-term, and often counter productive in the long run, don't mean that arguments for military action aren't more persuasive in some instances, as they were for many years faced with the brutal aggession of Saddam.

 

[QPR Oslo]

Slightly incoherent answer, but.....really?

Added a couple of comma's for you Uber, and trying to read a lot of good English books to improve said language skills in the future.

 

[TootingExcess]

I recall Robert Fisk in the independent saying Bush didn't know the difference between an Arab Nationalist like saddam and an Islamic Fundimentalist like Bin Laden.

We should have just offered to build Saddam a new palace and told him to keep the oil flowing, and he'll get a new one every other year.

 

[durbar2003]

I used to like History at school, looking back at the olden days.

 

[QPR Oslo]

The MPs believed his lies, yes. Had he told the truth, I'm sure the support would have been severely diluted.

This was before his "lies" or non-conclusive evidence of WMD , which was needed for UN backing for the military action that the US and the UK were going ahead with regardless, and that with the full backing of the Tories and many other MP''s.

 

[Uber_Hoop]

Think you have got confused somewhere Uber. I have very rarely agreed with military action the UK has been involved in,or supported since WW2, not in Iraq, Kuwait, Falklands or anywhere else, even in your list of "dream" places.

That I see these type of military inteventions as being costly in life and otherwise short-term, and often counter productive in the long run, don't mean that arguments for military action aren't more persuasive in some instances, as they were for many years faced with the brutal aggession of Saddam.

No confusion, my friend. I believe that I made a perfectly sensible point, possibly not specifically aimed at you, but definitely at those that might justify their support of British military intervention in places such as Iraq because it overthrew a tyrant that was beastly to his own people and threatened aggression to his neighbours.

If one believes the loss of other people's lives - in this case British and overseas military personnel, plus innocent Iraqi civilians both during the military action and since Saddam's removal - to have been a price worth paying to rid the world of a wicked despot, then how does one pick and choose which despots to overthrow and which to leave in situ?

I'm not clear what you mean by "my list of dream places". As far as I'm aware those countries that I mentioned specifically are very much real and each (with the possible exception of Pakistan) arguably led by despotic, or at least threatening, regimes accused of human rights abuses and other things the West tut about. I admit I over-exaggerated on the myriad South American countries, though.

We help overthrow Saddam or Gaddhafi, but hold state visits for Saudi royalty and Chinese premiers. Doesn't that strike you as odd?

I'm just asking why it is that some people are willing to risk the lives of somebody else's son or daughter to overthrow Despot A, but not Despot B, C or D.

 

[QPR Oslo]

Be great to know what William Hague thinks of the decision of Blair's to go to war. I suspect he's grateful he lost the 2001 election, and don't doubt he'd have also sent us into Iraq. This doesn't excuse Blair of course.

Stan, Thatcher actually "fell out" with Reagan over Grenada, and he didn't tell her until the night before if I recall correctly. His regime change of a state whose head was nominally the Queen, upset Thatcher's sensibilities.

I'd love to know what she'd have done in 2003.

As Blair mate.

 

[rangercol]

So, after all the predictions by some on here that we were going to hell in a hand cart if we voted brexit and that we should all listen to "experts" like the IMF who were predicting a probable recession among other terrible things.
It now turns out that the IMF have predicted a higher growth forecast for the UK than both France and Germany next year. They now say a recession is very unlikely.
Also, FTSE closed above 6700 for the first time in 11 months and the pound rose against the dollar.
Listen to experts like the IMF?
You'd be better off asking MFI!!!!

 

[durbar2003]

If Corbyn carry s out his threat to deselect some of the rebel MPs, it's still possible for them to run as Independents, and win. Is Corbyn an Idiot!

 

[QPR Oslo]

No confusion, my friend. I believe that I made a perfectly sensible point, possibly not specifically aimed at you, but definitely at those that might justify their support of British military intervention in places such as Iraq because it overthrew a tyrant that was beastly to his own people and threatened aggression to his neighbours.

If one believes the loss of other people's lives - in this case British and overseas military personnel, plus innocent Iraqi civilians both during the military action and since Saddam's removal - to have been a price worth paying to rid the world of a wicked despot, then how does one pick and choose which despots to overthrow and which to leave in situ?

I'm not clear what you mean by "my list of dream places". As far as I'm aware those countries that I mentioned specifically are very much real and each (with the possible exception of Pakistan) arguably led by despotic, or at least threatening, regimes accused of human rights abuses and other things the West tut about. I admit I over-exaggerated on the myriad South American countries, though.

We help overthrow Saddam or Gaddhafi, but hold state visits for Saudi royalty and Chinese premiers. Doesn't that strike you as odd?

I'm just asking why it is that some people are willing to risk the lives of somebody else's son or daughter to overthrow Despot A, but not Despot B, C or D.

I wrote "dream" because as far as I remember the UK hasn't taken or backed military action in those place, Yet! The answers to your question's are summed up something like money, oil and the power/ influence those places have, compared to Iraq and Argentina for example.

 

[Chaz]

Well, she was corrupt alright Willy, using her influence with the Omanis to get a building contract awarded to a company that her son, the uber corrupt Mark, was a consultant for.

Unlike you I don't have a hotline into the psyche of former Prime Ministers, living or dead, so I can't comment on his motivation, or whether he knew he was lying. He made a massive error, he's in good company there. And many prime ministers have taken us into wars without a vote in Parliament at all. Including Thatcher. Afghanistan, Kosovo, Gulf War, Falklands, Suez, no formal votes on First and Second World Wars. It's a very recent thing.

I'm looking at the character she showed as PM, and the 'character' showed by Blair. She certainly had more balls than he did, she was more statesmanship, and she didn't spend her entire time in office writing love letters to Reagan. I hate to think how much more pathetic Blair would have appeared had he needed to deal with Ronnie instead of George.

But which one has the Willy you refer to?

 

[sb_73]

I'm looking at the character she showed as PM, and the 'character' showed by Blair. She certainly had more balls than he did, she was more statesmanship, and she didn't spend her entire time in office writing love letters to Reagan. I hate to think how much more pathetic Blair would have appeared had he needed to deal with Ronnie instead of George.

But which one has the Willy you refer to?

Well I think if Thatcher delivered the sort of stuff you wanted she was visionary, decisive, full of character. If she did the reverse she was divisive, vindictive and nasty. Not much middle ground. No, make that no middle ground.

The 'Willy' was a brain slip sorry. There was a bloke on here called West London Willy who's opinions and style were identical to yours. He disappeared before you started posting, after a fight with my mate the almost as divisive as Thatcher Swords. Or perhaps the fight was with me, I don't remember. Got you mixed up for a second.

 

[Uber_Hoop]

I wrote "dream" because as far as I remember the UK hasn't taken or backed military action in those place, Yet! The answers to your question's are summed up something like money, oil and the power/ influence those places have, compared to Iraq and Argentina for example.

I'm not sure whether the problem lies in translation, comprehension or evasion, Ossie.

Of course the UK hasn't backed military action in those places, i.e. Russia, Saudi, China etc. and, of course, this is because they're bigger than us, or have powerful allies, or they're important to trade and investment, or they have a valuable commodity that we can get our hands on anyway, or some such reason. We all know that.

So, is it our duty to do what we can in the world by picking on the despots that we can overthrow without starting WWIII whilst we schmooze with those we can't?

Funny old world, innit?