I’m a bit ambivalent about Mrs Thatcher, at the time she was elected the country was in a terrible mess. Exactly as Cameron did, she took over from a Labour administration which had been spending money it didn’t have for years and was effectively bankrupt. She did turn that around.
However, in doing this she laid waste to the British manufacturing industry. In the long term that has proved to be disastrous although few politicians can see beyond the next election day. She fought to liberate eastern Europe, not because of any concern for their citizen’s freedoms but because the recognised them as what they would one day become, a huge pool of cheap labour.
Again, selling off the nation’s stock of council housing at 70% subsidy may have been financially advantageous to the tenant but in the longer term that, and the disastrous Building Societies Act 1986 led to the problem of house prices becoming so hyper-inflated that it crashed the economy. We will not get out of recession until house prices and wages return to their long-term ratio of 3.5 and interest rates are normalised, we are still years away from that.
The Falkland War need never have happened but at the time she was the most unpopular Prime Minister we had ever had but she turned that around in months by satisfying the jingoism and bloodlust of the mouth-breathers and knuckle-draggers who make up a large part of the electorate.
I can remember Britain before, during and after Mrs Thatcher and I think it’s fair to say it was a greedier and more self-centred place after her tenure.
The Belgrano was bought second hand from the U.S.navy.She was one of the very few ships to survive Pearl Harbour.In the late seventies pensioners etc, who were on fixed incomes were having to buy less each week the inflation rate was about 18% at that time.I was working in a bakery at that time where my dough mixer had been built in 1921.This lack of investment and progress was the norm in so many work places we were not able to compete with modern factories This is about the time that containers were comming to the fore.
yes i do know about the laconia incident,and hartstein was a good man.(a young mother was separated from her infant child-hartstein checked every lifeboat trying to locate her but sadly she drowned) shame about the typical gung ho yanks trying to bomb them…
but you cant deny that the u boat crews were encouraged to eliminate all survivors and some did it with relish.
You’ll get no arguments from me concerning the fact that many/most Germans during ww2 were evil murdering zb’s.But.In this case we’re talking about a British sub,not one under Hitler’s orders,in the 1980’s involved in,at that time,a low key skirmish,with a tin pot country not ■■■■ Germany,over a few small Islands.If it had been me commanding that boat I’d have asked for orders to surface and assist survivors and then done it anyway if those orders were refused.As I’ve said it says everything anyone needs to know about Maggie that she didn’t pre empt that by ordering the sub to do so regardless of what it’s commander chose to do.
I think if it wasn’t for her, Cowley wouldn’t have the Mini plant. British Leyland was a joke who couldn’t make a decent car (except Jag and Land Rover) because the workforce always had one hand in the air. Maggie did us a favour by stopping taxpayers money being wasted by a company who built such junk as the Ital and the Triumph Acclaim. As for miners, how many of those who supported them and still say they were screwed actually had open fires? The mines were screwed once British Rail abandoned steam locomotives and North Sea gas was discovered. My area lost most of it’s blanket making industry during her time in office, not her fault, nobody bought blankets anymore and the factory owners refused to make modern stuff. She did preside over the closure of Swindon Railway works but it was well known Swindon always did what suited and not what the other works were doing.
As for the Belgrano, sod it, it was flying an enemy flag and if I’d had the say so I’dve fired the torpedo myself.
Muckaway:
I think if it wasn’t for her, Cowley wouldn’t have the Mini plant. British Leyland was a joke who couldn’t make a decent car (except Jag and Land Rover) because the workforce always had one hand in the air. Maggie did us a favour by stopping taxpayers money being wasted by a company who built such junk as the Ital and the Triumph Acclaim. As for miners, how many of those who supported them and still say they were screwed actually had open fires? The mines were screwed once British Rail abandoned steam locomotives and North Sea gas was discovered. My area lost most of it’s blanket making industry during her time in office, not her fault, nobody bought blankets anymore and the factory owners refused to make modern stuff. She did preside over the closure of Swindon Railway works but it was well known Swindon always did what suited and not what the other works were doing.
As for the Belgrano, sod it, it was flying an enemy flag and if I’d had the say so I’dve fired the torpedo myself.
In which case every thing is running fine and the economy is in great shape since the unions were beaten into submission and those wateful useless factories were closed down and we’re now reliant of imported goods,coal and gas.But yes the house where I was living had coal fired central heating at the time and the idea of North Sea Gas provision was based on a lie concerning it’s future availability and reserves.If only this house had a chimney suitable for conversion of it’s now imported gas provision to a cheaper to run coal fired system.
While it’s obvious that it’s better to use domestically produced coal than subsidised imports.Bearing in mind the true costs of such imports including loss of jobs and income tax revenues in the domestic economy and the balance of payments deficit.Which is probably one of the reasons why the country was a lot better off up to the early-mid 1970’s than ever since that time.
Muckaway:
I think if it wasn’t for her, Cowley wouldn’t have the Mini plant. British Leyland was a joke who couldn’t make a decent car (except Jag and Land Rover) because the workforce always had one hand in the air. Maggie did us a favour by stopping taxpayers money being wasted by a company who built such junk as the Ital and the Triumph Acclaim. As for miners, how many of those who supported them and still say they were screwed actually had open fires? The mines were screwed once British Rail abandoned steam locomotives and North Sea gas was discovered. My area lost most of it’s blanket making industry during her time in office, not her fault, nobody bought blankets anymore and the factory owners refused to make modern stuff. She did preside over the closure of Swindon Railway works but it was well known Swindon always did what suited and not what the other works were doing.
As for the Belgrano, sod it, it was flying an enemy flag and if I’d had the say so I’dve fired the torpedo myself.
I think Doctor Beeching had a big say in the demise of the steam train Nathan.Also diesel was a natural progression to coal for locomotives.
yes i do know about the laconia incident,and hartstein was a good man.(a young mother was separated from her infant child-hartstein checked every lifeboat trying to locate her but sadly she drowned) shame about the typical gung ho yanks trying to bomb them…
but you cant deny that the u boat crews were encouraged to eliminate all survivors and some did it with relish.
You’ll get no arguments from me concerning the fact that many/most Germans during ww2 were evil murdering zb’s.But.In this case we’re talking about a British sub,not one under Hitler’s orders,in the 1980’s involved in,at that time,a low key skirmish,with a tin pot country not ■■■■ Germany,over a few small Islands.If it had been me commanding that boat I’d have asked for orders to surface and assist survivors and then done it anyway if those orders were refused.As I’ve said it says everything anyone needs to know about Maggie that she didn’t pre empt that by ordering the sub to do so regardless of what it’s commander chose to do.
you brought german U boats into the discussion!
wouldnt conqueror have made a lovely target for the argie air force sitting stationary on the surface…
and quite where was the captain supposed to cram 300+ survivors?
yes i do know about the laconia incident,and hartstein was a good man.(a young mother was separated from her infant child-hartstein checked every lifeboat trying to locate her but sadly she drowned) shame about the typical gung ho yanks trying to bomb them…
but you cant deny that the u boat crews were encouraged to eliminate all survivors and some did it with relish.
You’ll get no arguments from me concerning the fact that many/most Germans during ww2 were evil murdering zb’s.But.In this case we’re talking about a British sub,not one under Hitler’s orders,in the 1980’s involved in,at that time,a low key skirmish,with a tin pot country not ■■■■ Germany,over a few small Islands.If it had been me commanding that boat I’d have asked for orders to surface and assist survivors and then done it anyway if those orders were refused.As I’ve said it says everything anyone needs to know about Maggie that she didn’t pre empt that by ordering the sub to do so regardless of what it’s commander chose to do.
you brought german U boats into the discussion!
wouldnt conqueror have made a lovely target for the argie air force sitting stationary on the surface…
and quite where was the captain supposed to cram 300+ survivors?
I had an old Charge Chief who got a MiD on Conx because he had to do a repair to the fin (what civvies might call the conning tower) while they were on the way ‘Down South’. If any enemy aircraft showed up the boat would of had to submerge leaving my old Chief up on the casing dealing with the South Atlantic on his own, brave man.
Conqueror had already revealed it’s position by firing it’s torpedoes so it had to manoeuvre to evade any further detection. There is no way the Skipper could surface and try to rescue survivors without putting his own crew and Submarine in danger. Either from the sinking Belgrano or any other Enemy Warships or Aircraft that might of been in the area.
Sinking the Belgrano crippled the Argentine Navy forcing the remainder of their Fleet to stay in Port and resort solely to aircraft to hinder the eventual landings at San Carlos. God knows, they did enough damage then. Could you imagine what a coordinated Argentine Naval counter attack would of done?
As for Lady Thatcher, I agree with RobK (you don’t see that phrase very often).
I have avoided joining this debate, because nothing I type will convince Carryfast he’s wrong and nothing he has typed has convinced me he’s right. Enjoyed reading it all though and yes I also agree with Rob K. Actually it’s not the first time.
I think at the next Trucknet party the attendees should play my new patented ‘Carryfast Drinking Game’. Pick one of Carryfasts stock words or phrases and take a shot every time he uses it, some to get us going-
switchlogic:
I think at the next Trucknet party the attendees should play my new patented ‘Carryfast Drinking Game’. Pick one of Carryfasts stock words or phrases and take a shot every time he uses it, some to get us going-
yes i do know about the laconia incident,and hartstein was a good man.(a young mother was separated from her infant child-hartstein checked every lifeboat trying to locate her but sadly she drowned) shame about the typical gung ho yanks trying to bomb them…
but you cant deny that the u boat crews were encouraged to eliminate all survivors and some did it with relish.
You’ll get no arguments from me concerning the fact that many/most Germans during ww2 were evil murdering zb’s.But.In this case we’re talking about a British sub,not one under Hitler’s orders,in the 1980’s involved in,at that time,a low key skirmish,with a tin pot country not ■■■■ Germany,over a few small Islands.If it had been me commanding that boat I’d have asked for orders to surface and assist survivors and then done it anyway if those orders were refused.As I’ve said it says everything anyone needs to know about Maggie that she didn’t pre empt that by ordering the sub to do so regardless of what it’s commander chose to do.
you brought german U boats into the discussion!
wouldnt conqueror have made a lovely target for the argie air force sitting stationary on the surface…
and quite where was the captain supposed to cram 300+ survivors?
I had an old Charge Chief who got a MiD on Conx because he had to do a repair to the fin (what civvies might call the conning tower) while they were on the way ‘Down South’. If any enemy aircraft showed up the boat would of had to submerge leaving my old Chief up on the casing dealing with the South Atlantic on his own, brave man.
Conqueror had already revealed it’s position by firing it’s torpedoes so it had to manoeuvre to evade any further detection. There is no way the Skipper could surface and try to rescue survivors without putting his own crew and Submarine in danger. Either from the sinking Belgrano or any other Enemy Warships or Aircraft that might of been in the area.
Sinking the Belgrano crippled the Argentine Navy forcing the remainder of their Fleet to stay in Port and resort solely to aircraft to hinder the eventual landings at San Carlos. God knows, they did enough damage then. Could you imagine what a coordinated Argentine Naval counter attack would of done?
As for Lady Thatcher, I agree with RobK (you don’t see that phrase very often).
W
Firstly the reason why such a tin pot country managed to do so much damage with it’s aircraft was because of successive defence cuts which meant that we’d traded catapult equipped aircraft carriers like the Eagle that were capable of launching Phantoms to ones just capable of just the use of Harriers.Yes a Harrier can make an aircraft overshoot it in a dogfight by stopping in mid air but that’s not much use when it comes to catching and shooting down a Super Etandard before it sends an excocet out or a lame old Skyhawk before it gets there to drop some bombs.
As for surfacing a sub to ( try to ) co ordinate a rescue attempt and help survivors in life rafts before they drift out to sea that seems like basic civilised behaviour to me.As for being attacked in the course of that,that issue probably would have been solved by use of radio and telephone conversations between the Sub and the two nations governments and forces considering that most civilsed war provisions allow for the rescue of opposing forces at sea.
Thatcher’s ideas concerning basic humanity were obvious in all her dealings wether ordering the attacking of her own people on the picket line amongst others by coppers or leaving survivors of a submarine attack to be lost at sea.Obviously unlike at least some of Hitler’s forces.
So the sub is being attacked while rescuing people and in your scenario they just calmly get on the blower and have a chat with two governments. ‘Putting you on hold…’. You live in such a funny fairy land Carryfast its really quite comical.
switchlogic:
I think at the next Trucknet party the attendees should play my new patented ‘Carryfast Drinking Game’. Pick one of Carryfasts stock words or phrases and take a shot every time he uses it, some to get us going-
Wheel Nut:
Andrew S made a good point about where to stow 300 survivors.
Having been on two Submarines there isn’t room to swing a cat and the need for hot bunks is the only way the crew can rest when the watch is over.
But don’t let facts get in the way of a good story
I didn’t say anything about ‘stowing’ 300 survivors in a sub.Suggest you read how Hartenstein dealt with the situation and also the problem of the possibility being attacked.Firstly by trying to communicate his attentions to the Allied forces who said they missed the message.
Wheel Nut:
Andrew S made a good point about where to stow 300 survivors.
Having been on two Submarines there isn’t room to swing a cat and the need for hot bunks is the only way the crew can rest when the watch is over.
But don’t let facts get in the way of a good story
I didn’t say anything about ‘stowing’ 300 survivors in a sub.Suggest you read how Hartenstein dealt with the situation and also the problem of the possibility being attacked.Firstly by trying to communicate his attentions to the Allied forces who said they missed the message.
Not me. I am in the Kenny Everett school of warmongering.
switchlogic:
So the sub is being attacked while rescuing people and in your scenario they just calmly get on the blower and have a chat with two governments. ‘Putting you on hold…’. You live in such a funny fairy land Carryfast its really quite comical.
No you inform the ‘great leader’ or her command to get on the ‘hotline’ to the Argie leadership/command to tell them your intentions ‘before’ you get attacked.While it wasn’t a case of actually ‘rescuing’ anyone from the water.It was more a case of stopping life rafts drifting away to sea in this case.
Wheel Nut:
Andrew S made a good point about where to stow 300 survivors.
Having been on two Submarines there isn’t room to swing a cat and the need for hot bunks is the only way the crew can rest when the watch is over.
But don’t let facts get in the way of a good story
I didn’t say anything about ‘stowing’ 300 survivors in a sub.Suggest you read how Hartenstein dealt with the situation and also the problem of the possibility being attacked.Firstly by trying to communicate his attentions to the Allied forces who said they missed the message.
“Let us put them in a field and bomb the ZB’s”
Yeah right even if it was her own people in the case of ‘the enemy within’ or a few stupid Spanish conscripts who didn’t know what they were gettting themselves into.Strange how the Thatcherite rhetoric seems very quiet from Cameron in the case of having a go at North Korea and China’s military build up and possible intentions though.
switchlogic:
So the sub is being attacked while rescuing people and in your scenario they just calmly get on the blower and have a chat with two governments. ‘Putting you on hold…’. You live in such a funny fairy land Carryfast its really quite comical.
No you inform the ‘great leader’ or her command to get on the ‘hotline’ to the Argie leadership/command to tell them your intentions ‘before’ you get attacked.While it wasn’t a case of actually ‘rescuing’ anyone from the water.It was more a case of stopping life rafts drifting away to sea in this case.
Ah ok I’ll bow down to your clearly superior knowledge since you clearly must be a military man through and through to have such a comprehensive knowledge of combat. Thank you for serving our country…wait…you did serve didn’t you?
