I always detested Thatcher

[T00ts]

I meant no hate speech (for thats what misogyny is), and I apologise if my comments upset you. However, I stand by them - I acknowledged that Thatcher was a strong leader and that she advanced this country in many ways, but I also acknowledged she had many faults and shortcomings. You didn't acknowledge her faults you simply defended her because of the difficulties she faced as a (first) woman leader - and then you blamed men for her downfall when it was her policies they were against, not her. But difficulties are something all leaders face - its overcoming them that makes them great leaders

And this exchange illustrates the point I was making. Margaret Thatcher was our first female PM and had to face many challenges as a result. Its also true that she escaped much harsher treatment than a man with the same faults or pursing the same damaging policies would have, simply BECAUSE she was a woman. But because she was a woman, it doesn't mean we must treat her differently or be less critical of her faults than we would of a man. That's not equality, that is special treatment

That is what I was saying. Modern feminism wants it both ways

I wasn't upset. I don't agree at all. The country was in a real mess when she won the election and simply because she was a woman and more than that a grocer's daughter she met opposition both inside and outside of Westminster. It was no easy ride and I felt sure then and now that she was made to play hard ball much more than she might have done. There were many out there who thought that she would give in hence her punch line of not being for turning.
As far as feminism wanting it both ways that is typical of men who feel that they have lost out on their superiority. Feminism is about no-one being superior, we are equal and complementary. The fact that some women have now taken it to the extreme is sadly inevitable but the worst thing is when men are unable to take any teasing on the subject and lose a sense of humour. They forget that it isn't that long since women were considered men's property and worse than that, that they didn't even have a soul.

[Nick]

You defended her because she was a woman rather than on whether she was a good or bad PM, then made sure to blame the men around her for any failings. Its not unusual for leaders to lose support, as Boris is finding out, but that is generally a result of policy disagreements, not the leaders gender

Meanwhile, it was largely women who put "Bambi" in no 10

Women's support gave Blair the edge | Politics | The Guardian

I've put my thoughts on Thatcher out numerous times, and like Cromwell says, she caused enormous hurt and damage to many communities that has still not fully healed. That isn't to deny that she was a great leader, only to say that no one is wholly good or all bad. Thatcher had great leadership qualities, she pulled this country out of the 19th century, but she also had great personality flaws too. She was vindictive and let her personal feelings drive policy, and as a result caused a lot of harm along the way.

Yours is a typical modern woman's comment that obfuscates equality. There's nothing equal about expecting sympathetic treatment for a woman when a man wouldn't get any. In reality you only want equality when it suits you.

Scargill caused the hurt I think you'll find, Thatcher just made sure that yet another government wasn't held hostage by the NUM. 

[DeppityDawg]

We are back to Mars and Venus. In just the same way that DD and perhaps others read my post as a taste of Women's lib, I read his as a touch misogynist.  Hey ho that's life. The written word can get misleading!

I meant no hate speech (for thats what misogyny is), and I apologise if my comments upset you. However, I stand by them - I acknowledged that Thatcher was a strong leader and that she advanced this country in many ways, but I also acknowledged she had many faults and shortcomings. You didn't acknowledge her faults you simply defended her because of the difficulties she faced as a (first) woman leader - and then you blamed men for her downfall when it was her policies they were against, not her. But difficulties are something all leaders face - its overcoming them that makes them great leaders

And this exchange illustrates the point I was making. Margaret Thatcher was our first female PM and had to face many challenges as a result. Its also true that she escaped much harsher treatment than a man with the same faults or pursing the same damaging policies would have, simply BECAUSE she was a woman. But because she was a woman, it doesn't mean we must treat her differently or be less critical of her faults than we would of a man. That's not equality, that is special treatment

That is what I was saying. Modern feminism wants it both ways

[Sheepy]

There appears to be a concentrated effort by the establishment and their pet media to get keir starmer into government in two years time. Very similar to the constant demonisation of trump in america , rightly or wrongly , till they ended up with the limp wristed biden and harris. Has the democrats made life better for the average yank?

Probably not, but then Trump was rocketed to power by using populism with his own twist and that was their chance to put the populists back in our box, although we said all along, he wasn't one of ours, it mattered not, because the US right had decided they had taken onboard populism added their own spin and I still hear it all over the place, when you ask them what exactly is their contribution all hell breaks loose. Because they don't have one but the same polarisation as always. Which is never what it was about. Now half the loons on the planet think they are being populists when really, they are just being part of the same thing populists tried to avoid. Hey ho such is life. So, like it or not division is still ruling which the globalists are taking full advantage of. You don't win them all as they say.

[johnofgwent]

About six posts back, Thomas mentioned Blair's biggest legacy. Political disconnection. Whether through hatred or despair, numbers bothering to vote fell like a stone. Never more so than at the European elections. 

I went to observe the European election count in 2009 and was aghast at what I witnessed.

Polling boxes were brought in from polling stations at the end of election night, the Thursday. They were then unsealed, opened and the contents given to tellers who counted the number of votes "face down" to "verify" the number of votes were those declared by the officials present at each polling station.

These ballot papers, rolled up into bundles of 1000 with rubber bands wee then placed in clear plastic boxes which were fitted with lids that had no seal whatsoever, which were bundled off to sit "somewhere" for the whole of Friday, Saturday and Sunday, before being brought out on Sunday to be counted "in unison with the union's others" at 10pm local time Sunday night.

The opportunity for election fraud the unsealed boxes provides seemed obvious and blatant.

I went back on the Sunday. 

The boxes were already in the hall when I arrived at 9:30. The ballots were out on tables in front of the counters. 

The result (on a 17% ? 19%? turn out) was known by 10:35.

I was in the pub by 10:58 in time to have a pint before they called time.

It was these levels of turnout that Labour depended upon. 

The Welsh assembly referendum was a good example. After the BREXIT vote May addressed the assembly and was booed. But that turned to rank hatred when she reacted by pointing out the truth, which was that while Wee Jimmie Crankies twin north of the border demanded the referendum be blocked because more Scots voted to remain than leave, the Welsh Labour and Cottage Burner English Haters demanded it be ignored IN SPITE Of a majority to leave, AND the margin by which the assembly itself existed was not 52 to 48 on 80% of turnout, but 50.2 to 49.8 on 30% of turnout.

But labour never was one for democracy, and those who cheer while cottages are burned and reservoirs bombed for their cause should have been hung, not elected, in the first place

[Thomas]

Who knows Thomas,I have seen a report the red wall is returning to Starmer,an illusion I think people won't always be falling for their empty rhetoric.

There appears to be a concentrated effort by the establishment and their pet media to get keir starmer into government in two years time. Very similar to the constant demonisation of trump in america , rightly or wrongly , till they ended up with the limp wristed biden and harris. Has the democrats made life better for the average yank?

Starmer will be the same here. I think the rehashed new labour under stamrer is the establishments final punt to take the uk back into the EU and stave off scot indy.

Boris johnson is a clown , and so are his government , but he did one thing and that was back the people over brexit in 2019. If starmer gets in to power , we all know whats going to happen.

More of the same of what we have had these last forty years , with a few tiny tweaks excepting EU membership , which will be a large constitutional change . It will be justifed by them telling us we voted in the pro european starmer  , and thats democracy.

We cant say we werent warned , and we cant say the labour parties contempt for the average voter isnt justified if that happens.

[T00ts]

It's true T00ts that not what DD actually said.

Anyway for what has been described as a backwater of the interwebby some very insightful posts.

People are pissed off,we have had a succession of leaders who have promised much and done little but cause disaster.

Very disappointed but not surprised to hear Lindsay Hoyle today declaring all past pm's should be knighted.....why? Is it to be some sort of ritual to reward mediocrity or failure.

They still don't get the message that people don't want to be told forever what  they think is good for them.

To be regarded as the stupid masses to be manipulated by Westminster,surely they play along with the game but they want their vote to matter,to be listened to and not patronised.

They won't put up with it forever.

We are back to Mars and Venus. In just the same way that DD and perhaps others read my post as a taste of Women's lib, I read his as a touch misogynist.  Hey ho that's life. The written word can get misleading! 

[T00ts]

No i dont think thats what deppity is saying toots. He was calling out your post earlier as sexist and feminist , where you appear to defend her because of her sex rather than her ability.

It wasnt men ( suits) around her who brought her inglorious reign to an end because they didnt like a woman in charge. It  was her massive political miscalculation over the poll tax.

Her gender was relatively nothing to do with it , and as i recall , her being female was portrayed as a positive among conservative ranks and political commentators at the time as they pointed out how difficult it was opposition leaders facing a woman in the commons. Her gender was portrayed as a virtue.

It's a shame that it was seen that way as it was definitely not intended. At the time she was elected, Thatcher seemed the only one to make sense to me (I was married with kids and a mortgage at the time) and even her poll tax I agreed with as it taxed people not buildings. I believe she had lots of ability and could see that it would take a bit of a revolution to pull the country forward from where it had slunk. She was ruthless because that's what it took. Was she completely right? Of course not, who ever is? But I do wonder where this country would be if she hadn't taken the bull by the horns. History seems to suggest that she was already suffering from a loss mentally before she was pushed out but she had the courage to take the country on.

[Thomas]

Anyway for what has been described as a backwater of the interwebby some very insightful posts.

I often say it cromwell , but its merely just a bit of self deprecating piss taking.

Your comments about people being pissed off with both parties i totally agree with. I keep saying the same thing to our friend and forum member "same old" , yet he keeps saying tory bad labour will fix it.



In that picture , i think the fact that the "hated thatcher" built more council houses from memory than blairs government did in thirteen years speaks volumes.

Labour are a large part of the problem we face today , not the solution.

[cromwell]

Do you think cromwell , that blair is getting himself positioned to be a government minister in the chance that starmers new labour getinto power in two years time?

Heard a few suggesting this.

Who knows Thomas,I have seen a report the red wall is returning to Starmer,an illusion I think people won't always be falling for their empty rhetoric.

[cromwell]

It's true T00ts that not what DD actually said.

Anyway for what has been described as a backwater of the interwebby some very insightful posts.

People are pissed off,we have had a succession of leaders who have promised much and done little but cause disaster.

Very disappointed but not surprised to hear Lindsay Hoyle today declaring all past pm's should be knighted.....why? Is it to be some sort of ritual to reward mediocrity or failure.

They still don't get the message that people don't want to be told forever what  they think is good for them.

To be regarded as the stupid masses to be manipulated by Westminster,surely they play along with the game but they want their vote to matter,to be listened to and not patronised.

They won't put up with it forever.

[Thomas]

Another fairly good article on tony blair and alec salmonds speech in the commons regarding the iraq war...

The Prime Minister ( blair) believes that the way to accommodate the situation is to accept that the United States will be predominant and that the rest must fall into line. They can try to restrain it, but they will have to fall into line with the views of the United States Administration. That is a wrong-headed policy, and it is taking people into ridiculous positions.

(1) The UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan said that if the US and GB went ahead with an invasion of Iraq it would be in breach of the United Nations charter.

Dr. el-Baradei and his teams of inspectors reported to the UN that Iraq did not possess nuclear weapons and its biological and chemical weapons stocks and productivity was severely diminished.

As i keep saying , tony blair realy is the gift that keeps giving. Judging from the uproar about his knighthood the man really does turn the stomachs of the vast majority.


March 2003 The Iraq debate Alex Salmond's finest hour at Westminster exposed the sanctimonious arguments of Blair who ignored three million marchers and went ahead with the Invasion anyway

https://caltonjock.com/2022/01/01/march-2003-the-iraq-debate-alex-salmonds-finest-hour-at-westminster-exposed-the-sanctimonious-arguments-of-blair-who-ignored-three-million-marchers-and-went-ahead-with-the-invasion-anyway/

[Thomas]

they were both honoured but who damaged this country more?

Do you think cromwell , that blair is getting himself positioned to be a government minister in the chance that starmers new labour getinto power in two years time?

Heard a few suggesting this.

[Thomas]

So we have your take on it - it's all the fault of women.

No i dont think thats what deppity is saying toots. He was calling out your post earlier as sexist and feminist , where you appear to defend her because of her sex rather than her ability.

It wasnt men ( suits) around her who brought her inglorious reign to an end because they didnt like a woman in charge. It  was her massive political miscalculation over the poll tax.

Her gender was relatively nothing to do with it , and as i recall , her being female was portrayed as a positive among conservative ranks and political commentators at the time as they pointed out how difficult it was opposition leaders facing a woman in the commons. Her gender was portrayed as a virtue.

[T00ts]

You defended her because she was a woman rather than on whether she was a good or bad PM, then made sure to blame the men around her for any failings. Its not unusual for leaders to lose support, as Boris is finding out, but that is generally a result of policy disagreements, not the leaders gender

Meanwhile, it was largely women who put "Bambi" in no 10

Women's support gave Blair the edge | Politics | The Guardian

I've put my thoughts on Thatcher out numerous times, and like Cromwell says, she caused enormous hurt and damage to many communities that has still not fully healed. That isn't to deny that she was a great leader, only to say that no one is wholly good or all bad. Thatcher had great leadership qualities, she pulled this country out of the 19th century, but she also had great personality flaws too. She was vindictive and let her personal feelings drive policy, and as a result caused a lot of harm along the way.

Yours is a typical modern woman's comment that obfuscates equality. There's nothing equal about expecting sympathetic treatment for a woman when a man wouldn't get any. In reality you only want equality when it suits you.

So we have your take on it - it's all the fault of women.