Ok here is a simple question - Did Thatcher divide the nation ?
Only as much as every PM. And even some of those that thought Blair was brilliant at the time of his first election win, hated him with a passion after Iraq.
Ok here is a simple question - Did Thatcher divide the nation ?
Only as much as every PM. And even some of those that thought Blair was brilliant at the time of his first election win, hated him with a passion after Iraq.
Ok here is a simple question - Did Thatcher divide the nation ?
Answer - did Winston Churchill ?
I don't know - what I do know is he United the country at one stage in his reign as PM
But I'll bow out at the stage of you avoiding the direct questions Chris.
Answer - did Winston Churchill ?
So did Maggie - she liberated the Falklands, that got her another term of office! He won the war and didn't get elected!
Do you really think the Falklands United the country behind Thatcher ?!?
Yep I'm out on that note
Yes, she was losing popularity, and so were the Cons, in the run up to the Falklands. And when she went to the polls afterwards she won quite comfortably - suggests she won people over.
But I'll bow out at the stage of you avoiding the direct questions Chris.
Winning people over isn't uniting the country behind her though
Edit : damn it said I was out![]()
It's been mentioned a couple of times in this thread that if Corbyn gets the Labour leadership then Labour would become unelectable and the Tories without a credible opposition could tear themselves apart. Is it not possible that if Corbyn did become Labour leader that the Labour party could end up splitting with Corbyn leading a left wing Labour party and A N Other leading a centre left version of the Labour party/
For clarity I am not suggesting that either party would split as I have no idea but am simply asking the question.
So did Maggie - she liberated the Falklands, that got her another term of office! He won the war and didn't get elected!
I can't be bothered Ethan but I lived through those times and IMO you are just so wrong!
Having said that, if I had absolute proof, you still wouldn't accept it!
Survival of the fittest - it applies not just a biology lesson about evolution, but also people, cities, regimes, businesses, countries etc etc
The manufacturing, mining, textiles etc etc industries and the cities that used to thrive on them were being artificially propped up at the detriment of the economy since the war - something had to change or we would have been left further behind than we are. Does anyone propose that we should still be active in these industries on a global scale?!
Many suffered as a result of Thatcher, many others prospered. I'd argue that the national economy today is in a far better place than had a Labour/Trade Union govt been in power for those terms - and so the short term pain has led to long term gain for millions.
And this 'managed decline' term has been used more in this thread than the 15 years of Thatcher govt where it was used once in a private letter!!
I lived through those times too and can give you reasons why I said what I said, so I will accept your reply as a concession.