Margaret Thatcher is dead.

[Alexander's Horse]

Except that once the troops were ashore the Argentinians would have lost, almost irrespective of how many frigates were sunk.

well no because they would have been unable to supply the force, a sort of mini-Stalingrad in the south Atlantic would have ensued

[The Mad Monk]

I'm loving this debate. "Sir, it was foreordained that you would kick our asses" "Oh nonono! It was sheer luck that you didn't kick our asses!"

[kentonio]

Mrs T had a large number of advisers trying to talk her own of military action because of the believe that it was not going to be successful. In no way was victory certain.

[regexcellent]

Across the pond we're still waiting for Britain to finally get its **** together so that it actually has the military capability to do this sort of thing again, that is, operate independently of its allies in-theater.

[kentonio]

We have the fourth largest military budget in the world. We are more than capable of operating independently when the need arises.

[molly bloom]

...and not some ghetto prince.

Obama ? Your insults grow even more outlandish and detached from reality.

[molly bloom]

It's probably the reason that today you have the Conservative Party in favor of marriage equality (well, at least the majority of the Conservative Party).

#


Actually a lot of the closet cases were regularly against reform- they were o.k. either through social standing or wealth and had the usual beards. Christopher Hitchens mentions in passing in his memoir 2 sexual encounters with 2 of Thatcher's future cabinet during his time at university (both males, in case you wondered)- the same lot that brought in Clause 28.

Reminds me of segregationist Strom Thurmond and his mixed race daughter...

[molly bloom]

Molly, I actually would prefer PR of some sort, FWIW. But you claimed that Thatcher had no mandate to do any of her reforms, but if that is true then everything Blair did was without a mandate, and I don't see you complaining of the changes he wrought in the UK.

Which ones did you have in mind ? I was never a Blair supporter- and find him even less palatable now. The reason I brought up the three immediate post-WWII elections is because the first is always talked about as the epoch making landslide- and it did almost get 50% of the votes cast.

In 1951, with 1% more votes than the Tories, they lost by almost 30 seats to them. However you square it, that's just daft. The same language of mandate or landslide is used of Reagan's success in his first Presidential election- and yet with even the humiliation of the Iran hostages crisis, the annoying quality of Carter's personality, the human microphone could still manage to get just over 50% of the votes cast, on a three way split.

Whenever any politician, spin doctor or media personality says 'the people have spoken' or some such trite cliche, I always look at the results in terms of how many of the electorate voted and how many didn't- and I've usually found that when they say the people have spoken, it usually indicates that the majority of even those who could be bothered to vote, didn't vote for the winners (at least in the U.K.).

So you want to change the entire electoral system because we had one extremely popular Prime Minister you disagreed with?

No, I want it changed because it's defective.

You'd be happy to undo everything Labour has achieved over the last century too?

A trifle difficult for me to undo anything Attlee did. But I suspect some of the reforms of post-1945 would have been supported by the Liberals...

[molly bloom]

Molly, just going off dictionary.com:

.

The key word for me is 'electorate'- that's potential as well as actual voters.

What's your definition?

Anyone claiming a mandate in the U.K. ideally should have at least 50.1% of those who actually voted, to back up their claim (assuming a relatively good turnout- in the high 70s or low 80s). Anything else is smoke and mirrors- 'the people have spoken!'- and yes, the majority voted for something or someone else.

Tribal political loyalty counts for a lot in the U.K. with tactical voting not coming that easy for people even when they know it makes more sense.

[kentonio]

In 1951, with 1% more votes than the Tories, they lost by almost 30 seats to them. However you square it, that's just daft.

It's only daft when you view the system as a nationwide contest between two party structures, which is not how it is intended to be at it's core. We are a representative democracy, not a direct democracy, and we don't elect Prime Ministers.

Whenever any politician, spin doctor or media personality says 'the people have spoken' or some such trite cliche, I always look at the results in terms of how many of the electorate voted and how many didn't- and I've usually found that when they say the people have spoken, it usually indicates that the majority of even those who could be bothered to vote, didn't vote for the winners (at least in the U.K.).

But what difference does it make when it's the same for all parties? It just means you don't like the system we have (which is fair enough) but you can't really criticize them for talking about a mandate, when what they have genuinely is a mandate under our system.

No, I want it changed because it's defective.

Personally I thing FFTP is a considerably better way to run the country than PR would be. I'm yet to hear a PR system that solves the inherent problems with regional representation and so forth.

[molly bloom]

the argie airforce scored a number of hits on ships in the taskforce with 500lb bombs but they set their fuses wrong and the bombs didn't go off

If they had the landing would have been a disaster, probably defeated in fact. Thatcher would not have survived.

If you haven't read it, I definitely recommend Hugo Bicheno's 'Razor's Edge' :

The working title was ‘Guilt, Complicity and Shame’, which ended up being early chapter titles. I was an intelligence officer posted at the Buenos Aires embassy during the 1970s and knew very well that the war came about because of the cowardly bad faith of the policy pursued by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) under successive British governments, from Harold Wilson to Margaret Thatcher inclusive. Anticipating that the announced ‘Official History’ would continue the process of whitewashing begun by the shameless Franks Report of 1983, I decided to tell it like it was. Although the old lie about an ‘intelligence failure’ still circulates, it has been a source of pride to me to note that since Razor’s Edge was published the politicians who for twenty-five years sheltered behind the falsehood began to admit that they were better informed than they thought it convenient to mention when events were still fresh in the public mind.

It was also an outstanding epic of arms and I was surprised to discover that nobody had thought to marry the many published accounts by British and Argentine participants. In Buenos Aires I had shared an office with an FCO colleague, Howard Pearce, probably the most honest man I have ever known. Fortuitously his last posting was as Governor of the Falkland Islands, which gave me another good reason to visit the islands. The happy occasion of his marriage later in 2003 led to a return visit, and as a result I was able to explore the battlefields in great detail and to assemble the mosaic of participants’ recollections on the framework of the eloquent terrain.

http://www.hughbicheno.co.uk/razors.html

Many of the British books were very skimpy on the Argentinian domestic front and this covers that and the international scene. The crack about Argentina's helicopters and 'flying nuns' was very savage humour (how the junta used to execute those it disliked- a last trip over the South Atlantic, and bon voyage without a parachute).

[molly bloom]

It's only daft when you view the system as a nationwide contest between two party structures, which is not how it is intended to be at it's core. We are a representative democracy, not a direct democracy, and we don't elect Prime Ministers.

I'm not viewing it as a contest between only 2 parties- which is why I mentioned previously the Liberals and the Nationalists. And you haven't addressed the non-representation of Tories in Scotland or Wales- they were still there, still voting, but may have wondered under our system why they bothered....

when what they have genuinely is a mandate under our system.

Only because you and they interpret it to mean that. Since the two parties with the largest support are both happy (or certainly have been) to carry on acting in that fashion and mouthing the same cliches, it has come to be accepted that a large minority of those who cast ballots now means a mandate because of how the distortions work out in the number of seats in Parliament.

You can't claim a seachange in social thinking or a political earthquake when all you really have is the equivalent of a small amount of settlement due to subsidence...

I do recommend 'British Social Trends Since 1900'- we are getting more permissive apparently. I blame Roy Jenkins and his mid-60s changes for all that....

[kentonio]

I'm not viewing it as a contest between only 2 parties- which is why I mentioned previously the Liberals and the Nationalists. And you haven't addressed the non-representation of Tories in Scotland or Wales- they were still there, still voting, but may have wondered under our system why they bothered....

But what is the solution there other than complete centralization? Do we really want a country where you are 'represented' by a mass of MP's who are not directly responsible for a particular constituency? Sure it sucks when your vote counts for nothing (I grew up in a Northern mining village, how much do you think my Conservative vote was worth? ), but when that is the case you have to be willing to try and make the argument for why your party can serve that area of the country. If your party fails to do that, then maybe they shouldn't be getting elected there.

Only because you and they interpret it to mean that. Since the two parties with the largest support are both happy (or certainly have been) to carry on acting in that fashion and mouthing the same cliches, it has come to be accepted that a large minority of those who cast ballots now means a mandate because of how the distortions work out in the number of seats in Parliament.

That's the system.

You can't claim a seachange in social thinking or a political earthquake when all you really have is the equivalent of a small amount of settlement due to subsidence...

When the system generally produces small bumps one way or another, then a large bump constitutes a landslide. Our country has been pretty well balanced between the parties for a long time after all. Or at least the parties have moved in such a way as to maintain that illusion anyway.

[kentonio]

DP

[molly bloom]

But what is the solution there other than complete centralization?

I seem to recall Mrs. T. centralizing in the kind of fashion that would have made Henry VIII proud.... I must be orf- 8 cats to feed.

Bye bye