Whether you agreed with her or disagreed, liked her policies (I generally didn't) or went along with her decisions, this is one hell of a lady, strong, decisive, charismatic and brimming with leadership.

But most of all you can tell - she truly believed in what she was doing (as opposed to 99% of politicians who allow their actions to be dictated by the media).

I recall her press secretary Bernard Ingham was often told by her to shut up when he advised against her doing something in front of the media (I think one of them was for things like wearing wellies with a dress on a visit to a factory).

Nowadays so much time and money is wasted by MP's and their legions of PR consultants and spin-doctors having to justify to the media mundane day to day actions like being seen wearing a red tie when they are Conservative, or observed not wearing a seat belt when arriving in a car at number 10 or a helmet when riding a bike. It's pathetic.

"Whether you agreed with her or disagreed, liked her policies (I generally didn't) or went along with her decisions, this is one hell of a lady, strong, decisive, charismatic and brimming with leadership."

yeh well Mussolini was charismatic and brimming with leadership as well.


she was from trade..always a mistake.

JK2006 wrote:
Whether you agreed with her or disagreed, liked her policies (I generally didn't) or went along with her decisions, this is one hell of a lady, strong, decisive, charismatic and brimming with leadership.

But most of all you can tell - she truly believed in what she was doing (as opposed to 99% of politicians who allow their actions to be dictated by the media).

What lazy reasoning. You might as well say, 'While I didn't agree with Hitler, you have to admit he believed in what he was doing!' You can't separate content from attitude like taking a stone out of an avocado!

Oh yes you can unless, of course, you mean that you can't judge one aspect by two different yardsticks. By which obvious criteria, that is indeed obvious.

hedda wrote:
she was from trade..

... so at least had worked for a living and did not live in cloud cuckoo land !

In The Know wrote:
hedda wrote:
she was from trade..

... so at least had worked for a living and did not live in cloud cuckoo land !

Worked very hard I believe.

If someone with a tin ear keeps 'decisively' signing crap acts, you wouldn't applaud them, because you'd rightly identify them as a liability with wildly misplaced faith in their own ability. Thatcher got it wrong time and again, cause immeasurable harm and she did it with frightening conviction - that's not admirable, it's appalling. Politics isn't a game.

From 'trade'...thats always a mistake ?

What kind of cockamamee halfwitted speak before you think statement is that? From trade as opposed to the ruling elite grammer / private educated stock of the gentry ?

....for somebody who claims to make valid political commentary about the ills of the UK and how to fix it, making an odd contradictory statement about tradespeople and the implicated lower / working class background just completely blows a hole in any further discussion or comments you make that take pots shots at the rich and support the prolateriat..........

Surely nobody can take you seriously again ?

I think Maggie got some things right; her Government was strong on the economy, weak on social issues. Mixed on foreign affairs but she'd have never invaded Iraq or killed thousands of innocent Libyans. But that wasn't the point I was making; I'm not commenting on her Prime Ministerial abilities (though I felt safer with her than with most of her successors). Simply on her personal integrity.

Mr Reason wrote:
From 'trade'...thats always a mistake ?

What kind of cockamamee halfwitted speak before you think statement is that? From trade as opposed to the ruling elite grammer / private educated stock of the gentry ?

....for somebody who claims to make valid political commentary about the ills of the UK and how to fix it, making an odd contradictory statement about tradespeople and the implicated lower / working class background just completely blows a hole in any further discussion or comments you make that take pots shots at the rich and support the prolateriat..........

Surely nobody can take you seriously again ?

So far today in this forum we have bashed Londoners, Northerners and toffs.All in jest and I am sure the "trade" comment was a joke too.

Mr Reason wrote:
From 'trade'...thats always a mistake ?

What kind of cockamamee halfwitted speak before you think statement is that? From trade as opposed to the ruling elite grammer / private educated stock of the gentry ?

....for somebody who claims to make valid political commentary about the ills of the UK and how to fix it, making an odd contradictory statement about tradespeople and the implicated lower / working class background just completely blows a hole in any further discussion or comments you make that take pots shots at the rich and support the prolateriat..........

Surely nobody can take you seriously again ?

Did anyone ever take him seriously in the first place?
Secondly could anybody mistake Mr reason for ITK?

True wrote:
Mr Reason wrote:
From 'trade'...thats always a mistake ?

What kind of cockamamee halfwitted speak before you think statement is that? From trade as opposed to the ruling elite grammer / private educated stock of the gentry ?

....for somebody who claims to make valid political commentary about the ills of the UK and how to fix it, making an odd contradictory statement about tradespeople and the implicated lower / working class background just completely blows a hole in any further discussion or comments you make that take pots shots at the rich and support the prolateriat..........

Surely nobody can take you seriously again ?

Did anyone ever take him seriously in the first place?
Secondly could anybody mistake Mr reason for ITK?

I'm sure ITK has split into 2 personalities and Mr Reason is the angry one.

Our glorious family of which the latest member Uncle Dickie was recently found in a car park went downhill rapidly when it married into trade and thus began a line of small town Tories...the most fearsome and incompetent creatures to stalk the land.
Maggie is an example...supping whiskey into the early hours (insomina mistaken for 'hard work')planning new ways to decimate the working classes.

Well Hedda - I think Maggie genuinely believed she was doing the best she could for all classes. She may have got some things wrong (I remember the 80s as a very prosperous decade but fortunately I wasn't penniless) but I think her intentions were totally honourable. As opposed to other Prime Ministers who cared far more about their own careers and the opinions of the tabloids.

JK2006 wrote:
Well Hedda - I think Maggie genuinely believed she was doing the best she could for all classes. She may have got some things wrong (I remember the 80s as a very prosperous decade but fortunately I wasn't penniless) but I think her intentions were totally honourable. As opposed to other Prime Ministers who cared far more about their own careers and the opinions of the tabloids.

can't disagree with that. And she had lovely skin.

JK2006 wrote:
she'd have never invaded Iraq

... but she did invade the Falklands - causing considerable loss of life, didnt she? (Belgrano? Hundreds killed moving AWAY from the area? A war crime?)

... and for what? We'll give it back to Argentina in the near future.

Ah; a huge difference to me; the Falklands are British; she didn't invade, she repelled invaders. If someone attempted to capture London, I trust our Prime Minister would kick them out pretty fast. It almost happened with the riots recently.

JK2006 wrote:
I trust our Prime Minister would kick them out pretty fast. It almost happened with the riots recently.

and our PM DID deal with that pretty fast, didn't he (but dont I recall you complaining about that at the time?)

As for the Falklands ... once you get into "patriotism" and other such jingoism all common sense seems to go out the window and you are only a couple of steps away from being totally nationalistic - like the Yankers or the Nazis.

In The Know wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
I trust our Prime Minister would kick them out pretty fast. It almost happened with the riots recently.

and our PM DID deal with that pretty fast, didn't he (but dont I recall you complaining about that at the time?)

As for the Falklands ... once you get into "patriotism" and other such jingoism all common sense seems to go out the window and you are only a couple of steps away from being totally nationalistic - like the Yankers or the Nazis.

JK2006 wrote:
Ah; a huge difference to me; the Falklands are British; she didn't invade, she repelled invaders. If someone attempted to capture London, I trust our Prime Minister would kick them out pretty fast. It almost happened with the riots recently.

at a certain cost ( British deaths and hundreds of young Argentinian sailors under dubious circumstances) and the usual PTSD problems for servicemen/women but hey....she secured an election on the back of a barren sheep shaggers island that is of no consequence.

some victory.

### you are ignoring the fact the Argentinians wanted to peacefully settle the dispute. Just as Saddam Hussein did but when a politician has a coming election...watch out !!
Let's hope that if someone invades London they don't get to blow it up first.