O/T. The Government's handling of Covid

[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.

[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]

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.

[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

[ramAnag]

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.

Bit of a false compliment, imo, GP...and it was you, and TTR, who mentioned teaching...yet again.


Perhaps you need to look back a little. I’ll take responsibility for introducing the comparison with Thatcher, but it wasn’t me who introduced Blair and his involvement in Iraq into a debate about comparing Starmer and Johnson. You need to look at post #1274 and 1275 from Tricky and Andy respectively for that. No ‘spin’...just fact.

[Geoff Parkstone]

I reiterate, I only mentioned teaching as it was your chosen job, factual. I make no judgement here on the job as a teacher. Thus teachings gain is spindoctorings loss. If you'd become a barber, then the tonnsorial arts would have gained.....

[Trickytreesreds]

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.

No, sorry RA, but facts are facts. You have quoted statistics, not facts about that conflict.
Its like quoting the number of downed planes in the Battle of Britian. Ignore why those planes were shot down and concentrate on the lives lost.

All casualties are a great sorrow.
But the facts are-
British sovereign territory was invaded by a foreign aggressive power.
British Military personnel were captured
British civillians were taken hostage.

So, please tell me Neville, how would you have responded to that?

I personnally would have expected the Green party to have responded in exactly the same way.

[ramAnag]

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.

No, sorry RA, but facts are facts. You have quoted statistics, not facts about that conflict.
Its like quoting the number of downed planes in the Battle of Britian. Ignore why those planes were shot down and concentrate on the lives lost.

All casualties are a great sorrow.
But the facts are-
British sovereign territory was invaded by a foreign aggressive power.
British Military personnel were captured
British civillians were taken hostage.

So, please tell me Neville, how would you have responded to that?

I personnally would have expected the Green party to have responded in exactly the same way.

Sorry Tricky, that’s just one of your classic responses. ‘I hope you’re not a history teacher blah...astonishing blah...Neville blah...Green Party blah...’ and then, best of all, ‘you have quoted statistics...not facts about that conflict’.

We’ll invariably interpret history and even current events differently Tricky. We have an entirely different outlook and perspective. However, just because the facts I’ve quoted don’t suit your ‘agenda’ it doesn’t mean they’re not facts and I have better things to do than argue with someone who fails to understand the concept of ‘fact’.

Perhaps you could point out the factual inaccuracies I have made about a) the length of both ‘campaigns’ and b) the number of deaths amongst British personnel. Until then...