Jump to content

Margaret Thatcher dies of a stroke.


Recommended Posts

To be fair if Britain was under attack like it was during WWII the one PM I would want in charge besides Churchill would be Thatcher.

I honestly doubt how much direct influence a politician has under the circumstance of war. A PM may have a background of law or finance but that doesn't make them a military strategist. I'm not sure how it worked in WWII but in the conflicts that have followed, I picture half a dozen senior military and civil advisors surrounding the PM and saying "Under the current circumstance, we think we should...", followed by any PM pausing for supposed thought and then saying "Yes. That is what we should do". The important part of how the public perceive their leader is performing in a 'crisis' is then sorted by the media.

Having MT as leader during an extended high level conflict would have left the UK with as much to worry about after the conflict as during. That's the last thing you want. The UK's military superiority (not great leadership) during the Falkland Islands conflict, further compounded the domestic destruction being caused in the UK by giving a victorious PM two further terms. I suspect Rubert M. had more influence for the second re-election though.

Edited by brommy
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair if Britain was under attack like it was during WWII the one PM I would want in charge besides Churchill would be Thatcher.

sorry chap I'd want one who is alive

Disgraceful. ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

To be fair if Britain was under attack like it was during WWII the one PM I would want in charge besides Churchill would be Thatcher.

I honestly doubt how much direct influence a politician has under the circumstance of war. A PM may have a background of law or finance but that doesn't make them a military strategist. I'm not sure how it worked in WWII but in the conflicts that have followed, I picture half a dozen senior military and civil advisors surrounding the PM and saying "Under the current circumstance, we think we should...", followed by any PM pausing for supposed thought and then saying "Yes. That is what we should do". The important part of how the public perceive their leader is performing in a 'crisis' is then sorted by the media.

Having MT as leader during an extended high level conflict would have left the UK with as much to worry about after the conflict as during. That's the last thing you want. The UK's military superiority (not great leadership) during the Falkland Islands conflict, further compounded the domestic destruction being caused in the UK by giving a victorious PM two further terms. I suspect Rubert M. had more influence for the second re-election though.

 

I'm not saying she would have been some kind of great military strategist (and from what I've read Churchill wasn't either) but there are certain leaders that are cut out for leading the country during war. Churchill was and I believe Thatcher was too, not that I don't think she was a good domestic leader anyway.

Edited by Mantis
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • VT Supporter

I'd put my money on John Major winning any old scrap when it comes down to it. It's the quiet, scrawny ones you got to look out for. Look away for a moment and blammo, right in the chops, good night sweetheart, Johnnies off to get a milkshake.

 

John Major - The 'Begbie' of Prime Ministers.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • VT Supporter

I'd put my money on John Major winning any old scrap when it comes down to it. It's the quiet, scrawny ones you got to look out for. Look away for a moment and blammo, right in the chops, good night sweetheart, Johnnies off to get a milkshake.

 

He took on bedmonster Edwina Currie, too.  :thumb:

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

To be fair if Britain was under attack like it was during WWII the one PM I would want in charge besides Churchill would be Thatcher.

I honestly doubt how much direct influence a politician has under the circumstance of war. A PM may have a background of law or finance but that doesn't make them a military strategist. I'm not sure how it worked in WWII but in the conflicts that have followed, I picture half a dozen senior military and civil advisors surrounding the PM and saying "Under the current circumstance, we think we should...", followed by any PM pausing for supposed thought and then saying "Yes. That is what we should do". The important part of how the public perceive their leader is performing in a 'crisis' is then sorted by the media.

Having MT as leader during an extended high level conflict would have left the UK with as much to worry about after the conflict as during. That's the last thing you want. The UK's military superiority (not great leadership) during the Falkland Islands conflict, further compounded the domestic destruction being caused in the UK by giving a victorious PM two further terms. I suspect Rubert M. had more influence for the second re-election though.

 

I'm not saying she would have been some kind of great military strategist (and from what I've read Churchill wasn't either) but there are certain leaders that are cut out for leading the country during war. Churchill was and I believe Thatcher was too, not that I don't think she was a good domestic leader anyway.

 

 

What makes a good leader in a time of war?  I suppose it depends.

 

If you have vastly superior forces, or military leaders who can be relied on to carry the campaign while you strut about playing soldiers, I suppose you can be dogmatic, intransigent, hectoring...

 

If the situation calls for a little more finesse, like motivating people, winning and keeping allies, considering alternatives, not remaining wedded to a course of action because you decided it earlier and think it would show weakness to change your mind, then if you're a shallow-minded bigot, this may not be your moment.

 

Sun Tzu or Margaret Thatcher?  Oh my, that's a tough one.  Er, not...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • VT Supporter

She'd probably have sold Fighter Command to the private sector and sold shares in it. Spitfires would have had advertising on the sides. Those pesky National (ugh) Socialists wouldn't have stood a chance in the free market economy version of the Battle of Britain. 

Edited by mjmooney
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

To be fair if Britain was under attack like it was during WWII the one PM I would want in charge besides Churchill would be Thatcher.

I honestly doubt how much direct influence a politician has under the circumstance of war. A PM may have a background of law or finance but that doesn't make them a military strategist. I'm not sure how it worked in WWII but in the conflicts that have followed, I picture half a dozen senior military and civil advisors surrounding the PM and saying "Under the current circumstance, we think we should...", followed by any PM pausing for supposed thought and then saying "Yes. That is what we should do". The important part of how the public perceive their leader is performing in a 'crisis' is then sorted by the media.

Having MT as leader during an extended high level conflict would have left the UK with as much to worry about after the conflict as during. That's the last thing you want. The UK's military superiority (not great leadership) during the Falkland Islands conflict, further compounded the domestic destruction being caused in the UK by giving a victorious PM two further terms. I suspect Rubert M. had more influence for the second re-election though.

 

I'm not saying she would have been some kind of great military strategist (and from what I've read Churchill wasn't either) but there are certain leaders that are cut out for leading the country during war. Churchill was and I believe Thatcher was too, not that I don't think she was a good domestic leader anyway.

 

 

What makes a good leader in a time of war?  I suppose it depends.

 

If you have vastly superior forces, or military leaders who can be relied on to carry the campaign while you strut about playing soldiers, I suppose you can be dogmatic, intransigent, hectoring...

 

If the situation calls for a little more finesse, like motivating people, winning and keeping allies, considering alternatives, not remaining wedded to a course of action because you decided it earlier and think it would show weakness to change your mind, then if you're a shallow-minded bigot, this may not be your moment.

 

Sun Tzu or Margaret Thatcher?  Oh my, that's a tough one.  Er, not...

That great British PM Sun Tzu :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn Busters cancelled, might affect shares in water companies.

 

Ration books for the poor only, if they are going to be poor deliberately they've only got themselves to blame.

 

U Boat if you want to.... 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn Busters cancelled, might affect shares in water companies.

 

Ration books for the poor only, if they are going to be poor deliberately they've only got themselves to blame.

 

U Boat if you want to.... 

:clap: U genius!

Link to post
Share on other sites

She's probably have sold Fighter Command to the private sector and sold shares in it. Spitfires would have had advertising on the sides. Those pesky National (ugh) Socialists wouldn't have stood a chance in the free market economy version of the Battle of Britain. 

 

Bletchley Park would have been closed down - no obvious commercial application.  Not like finding out how to put air bubbles in ice cream to get people to pay the same for half the quantity, puffed up with air.

 

And as for the miners, well, that might have been difficult, winning a war without them.  Still, I expect they could have been replaced with a few more grocers and aldermen, and it would all have worked out.  Chin chin!

 

 

 

 

To be fair if Britain was under attack like it was during WWII the one PM I would want in charge besides Churchill would be Thatcher.

I honestly doubt how much direct influence a politician has under the circumstance of war. A PM may have a background of law or finance but that doesn't make them a military strategist. I'm not sure how it worked in WWII but in the conflicts that have followed, I picture half a dozen senior military and civil advisors surrounding the PM and saying "Under the current circumstance, we think we should...", followed by any PM pausing for supposed thought and then saying "Yes. That is what we should do". The important part of how the public perceive their leader is performing in a 'crisis' is then sorted by the media.

Having MT as leader during an extended high level conflict would have left the UK with as much to worry about after the conflict as during. That's the last thing you want. The UK's military superiority (not great leadership) during the Falkland Islands conflict, further compounded the domestic destruction being caused in the UK by giving a victorious PM two further terms. I suspect Rubert M. had more influence for the second re-election though.

 

 

I'm not saying she would have been some kind of great military strategist (and from what I've read Churchill wasn't either) but there are certain leaders that are cut out for leading the country during war. Churchill was and I believe Thatcher was too, not that I don't think she was a good domestic leader anyway.

 

 

 

What makes a good leader in a time of war?  I suppose it depends.

 

If you have vastly superior forces, or military leaders who can be relied on to carry the campaign while you strut about playing soldiers, I suppose you can be dogmatic, intransigent, hectoring...

 

If the situation calls for a little more finesse, like motivating people, winning and keeping allies, considering alternatives, not remaining wedded to a course of action because you decided it earlier and think it would show weakness to change your mind, then if you're a shallow-minded bigot, this may not be your moment.

 

Sun Tzu or Margaret Thatcher?  Oh my, that's a tough one.  Er, not...

That great British PM Sun Tzu :-)

 

 

Ideas don't respect national boundaries.  The utter bastards.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • VT Supporter

Hm, there was something the Atlee government buggered up that I can't remember now. Was it the public school thing? I think there was a swell of opinion to get rid of them but a few votes in favour meant it never happened.

 

Could be wrong about that.

 

We could do with getting rid of them, though.

 

That is correct. A. N. Wilson's book "Our Times" is quite good on that issue. He's a right-wing historian, but even he thinks they should have scrapped the public (U.S. VTers read: private) schools when they had the chance. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of use Terms of Use, Cookies We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Â