O/T. The Government's handling of Covid

[ramAnag]

Jesus Christ, did I really just read that?

That has to be the most astonishing thing I have ever heard, regarding the sending of British troops onto battle.

Not sure what’s so ‘astonishing’, Tricky.
Between 2003-09 179 UK personnel died in Operation Telic in Iraq.
During just 74 days of the Falklands War 255 UK personnel died.
Not suggesting that tells the whole story, it doesn’t, but your inclination to praise Thatcher over the Falklands while demonising Blair over Iraq isn’t exactly consistent...and no, I’m not defending Blair’s actions at all.

Either way...the rights and wrongs of Blair’s tenure are hardly relevant to Starmer’s performance and potential.

[Geoff Parkstone]

R rate at its lowest for 9 months.
Really good news and with the jabs in full swing, maybe we can have a summer holiday?

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/coronaviru...211016197.html

I have to say I hope not, unless you are planning to holiday in Skegness or Blackpool

[Trickytreesreds]

Not sure what’s so ‘astonishing’, Tricky.
Between 2003-09 179 UK personnel died in Operation Telic in Iraq.
During just 74 days of the Falklands War 255 UK personnel died.
Not suggesting that tells the whole story, it doesn’t, but your inclination to praise Thatcher over the Falklands while demonising Blair over Iraq isn’t exactly consistent...and no, I’m not defending Blair’s actions at all.

Either way...the rights and wrongs of Blair’s tenure are hardly relevant to Starmer’s performance and potential.

RA wothout being pedantic.
How the be joisus, you could compare Blairs war organised on lies/ deceit/ immoral actions. With Thatchers response to British sovereign territory being invaded/ its citizens being held captive/ and the offending country breaking every international law in the book, astounds me.
I despsed Thatcher myself, yet she did exactly what every sovereign leader should have done in response to an aggressor, against our country.

Perhaps your anti Tory blindness has re written history in your head?

[Geoff Parkstone]

I will be interested to see a rebuttal of the above, Tricky. I'm no Thatcher apologist either but the differences between the conflicts are legion, not least that Blair was simply a lickspittle to the Americans.

[ramAnag]

Ah, Tricky...I see you’ve changed your tune regarding my knowledge of history and ‘the sending of British troops into battle’ when confronted with the facts.

As regards the respective motivations of Thatcher and Blair...imo there is a clear parallel.

The War with Argentina over the Falklands was, imo, one of the first examples of political populism in action. At the time Thatcher was deeply unpopular. She needed something to deflect from domestic issues and, unfortunately, a significant section of the electorate welcomed the idea of sailing off to war against mighty Argentina to ‘prove’ how ‘Britain ruled the waves’. Two and a half months later the ‘War’ was over...255 British personnel were dead, along with a great many more Argentinians, many more on both sides had suffered life changing injuries...but Thatcher was popular once more.

As regards Iraq...again it was a case of political expediency, although certainly not populism, this time on the part of Blair, who was trying to cement an unlikely alliance between a UK Labour Government and Bush’s Republican leadership of the U.S.

Strangely, Thatcher thrived as a result of her actions, while Blair never recovered. In my opinion the actions of both led to entirely unnecessary losses, it’s just that, as I said, those British losses were greater in the South Atlantic than in Iraq.

P.S. GP...which bit of ‘I’m not suggesting this tells the whole story...it doesn’t...’ did you miss?

[Trickytreesreds]

Ah...I see you’ve changed your tune regarding my knowledge of history and ‘the sending of British troops into battle’ when confronted with the facts.

As regards the respective motivations of Thatcher and Blair...imo there is a clear parallel.

The War with Argentina over the Falklands was, imo, one of the first examples of political populism in action. At the time Thatcher was deeply unpopular. She needed something to deflect from domestic issues and, unfortunately, a significant section of the electorate welcomed the idea of sailing off to war against mighty Argentina to ‘prove’ how ‘Britain ruled the waves’. Two and a half months later the ‘War’ was over...255 British personnel were dead, along with a great many more Argentinians, many more on both sides had suffered life changing injuries...but Thatcher was popular once more.

As regards Iraq...again it was a case of political expediency, although certainly not populism, this time on the part of Blair, who was trying to cement an unlikely alliance between a UK Labour Government and Bush’s Republican leadership of the U.S.

Strangely, Thatcher thrived as a result of her actions, while Blair never recovered. In my opinion the actions of both led to entirely unnecessary losses, it’s just that, as I said, those British losses were greater in the South Atlantic than in Iraq.

P.S. GP...which bit of ‘I’m not suggesting this tells the whole story...it doesn’t...’ did you miss?

So you're saying that Thatcher was complicit in the Falklands invasion?
She organised the assault?

I really am astounded at your response to this. Yes she gained politcal credence from that war. But exactly what was she supposed to do? WE WERE INVADED!!!
No matter how many lives were lost, action was required and it was delivered.

Blair on the other hand, connived a war for his own political version of that euphoria bsed on deceit.
The two are poles apart in comparison and if you had half an ounce of neutral political bias, you would see that.

Even Michael Foot, at the the time. Who wasn't known for anything other but being a bumbling pacifist. Demanded a strong and immediate response to this. He stood and accused the Tories of being militarily weak due to cuts on their watch.

Words fail me really and that's my polite response.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Ah, Tricky...I see you’ve changed your tune regarding my knowledge of history and ‘the sending of British troops into battle’ when confronted with the facts.

As regards the respective motivations of Thatcher and Blair...imo there is a clear parallel.

The War with Argentina over the Falklands was, imo, one of the first examples of political populism in action. At the time Thatcher was deeply unpopular. She needed something to deflect from domestic issues and, unfortunately, a significant section of the electorate welcomed the idea of sailing off to war against mighty Argentina to ‘prove’ how ‘Britain ruled the waves’. Two and a half months later the ‘War’ was over...255 British personnel were dead, along with a great many more Argentinians, many more on both sides had suffered life changing injuries...but Thatcher was popular once more.

As regards Iraq...again it was a case of political expediency, although certainly not populism, this time on the part of Blair, who was trying to cement an unlikely alliance between a UK Labour Government and Bush’s Republican leadership of the U.S.

Strangely, Thatcher thrived as a result of her actions, while Blair never recovered. In my opinion the actions of both led to entirely unnecessary losses, it’s just that, as I said, those British losses were greater in the South Atlantic than in Iraq.

P.S. GP...which bit of ‘I’m not suggesting this tells the whole story...it doesn’t...’ did you miss?

Ah yes, now I see you logic! When you took up a job in teaching, the profession of spin doctoring lost a potential future superstar.

[ramAnag]

So you're saying that Thatcher was complicit in the Falklands invasion?
She organised the assault?

I really am astounded at your response to this. Yes she gained politcal credence from that war. But exactly what was she supposed to do? WE WERE INVADED!!!
No matter how many lives were lost, action was required and it was delivered.

Blair on the other hand, connived a war for his own political version of that euphoria bsed on deceit.
The two are poles apart in comparison and if you had half an ounce of neutral political bias, you would see that.

Even Michael Foot, at the the time. Who wasn't known for anything other but being a bumbling pacifist. Demanded a strong and immediate response to this. He stood and accused the Tories of being militarily weak due to cuts on their watch.

Words fail me really and that's my polite response.

I’m obviously not saying anything of the sort, Tricky and I’m not entirely surprised that ‘words fail you’...they regularly do.
History is always open to interpretation and you and I will invariably interpret things differently.
The only facts I’ve presented...i.e. the relative lengths of the two ‘campaigns’ and the number of British dead, are inescapably true.

I’m mystified by what this has, yet again, got to do with me having worked in ‘teaching’, GP...but seeing as my concluding comment was that ‘the actions of both (Thatcher and Blair) led to totally unnecessary losses’, I’m not at all sure how a career in ‘spin doctoring’ might have beckoned.

[Geoff Parkstone]

It has nothing to do with the career you adopted, just a comment on an opportunity lost. Over the last 12 months or more you have demonstrated an exceptional skill at spin doctoring - take it as a compliment, it's meant that way. You can twist and turn any debate to your own perspective with adroit skills, focusing on the one aspect of a multi faceted debate that supports your contention whilst ignoring the other aspects / bigger picture.

It's a great skill, be proud, not defensive.

[Andy_Faber]

We appear to have gonealittle off topic chaps