Labour leader contest comes to Hampshire (From Daily Echo)

all are right wing contenders. not one of them can be trusted

southy wrote:
all are right wing contenders. not one of them can be trusted

One of the few wise comments from Southy, and even better with no mention of Thatcher ad the 80's.
Keep it up. (-:

The only one remotely capable of taking on Cameron is David Milliband. Balls has too much baggage from the last government, the other Ed is non-descript and I'll always remember Andy Burnham for being boo'd off at Anfield during the Hillsborough memorial. Diane Abbott is the Tony Benn of this generation, like Benn she doesn't practice what she preaches. Good sound bites with Michael Portillo but an ineffective politician. All in all a good bunch who'll keep the Tories in power for at least another 10 years.

Condor Man wrote:
The only one remotely capable of taking on Cameron is David Milliband. Balls has too much baggage from the last government, the other Ed is non-descript and I'll always remember Andy Burnham for being boo'd off at Anfield during the Hillsborough memorial. Diane Abbott is the Tony Benn of this generation, like Benn she doesn't practice what she preaches. Good sound bites with Michael Portillo but an ineffective politician. All in all a good bunch who'll keep the Tories in power for at least another 10 years.

condor you would favour milliband both brothers are just torys, wolfs in sheep clothing. abbot is nothing like benn, even lo benn is a reasonable wealthy man he gave up his peerage that been in the family for century's. abbott would not she would jump at the chance of a peerage, she is another wolf in sheep clothing. she was only thrown in the contest to stop the only left candidate and to stop him from qualifying by splitting the vote of mps and was talk into it by milliband, balls is the one that is closes to being a left wing but he still is right wing.
the labour party voting system that was enforce on them by a tory government of the 80's, do not have the union vote at this stage whitch is wrong the union should be counted in on it right from the start like it use to.
this system that was enforce on them should apply to the tory party but it dont the cbi who many are tory party members still get to vote on the tory leadership right from the start. it was a case of one rule for the tory party and another for the labour party.

hulla baloo wrote:

southy wrote:
all are right wing contenders. not one of them can be trusted

One of the few wise comments from Southy, and even better with no mention of Thatcher ad the 80's.
Keep it up. (-:

yea well it was the torys that cause it in the first place, one thing i have learned over the 50 plus years of walking on this earth is that right wing means corruption big time.

The Devere Grand Harbour is definitely the venue of choice for the Labour Party. The most expensive venue in town(other peoples money)
Not a place where you run of the mill Labour supporter would attend(keep the riff-raff from asking awkward questions)
No change in party policy from the last disastrous 13 years then!

southy wrote:

Condor Man wrote: The only one remotely capable of taking on Cameron is David Milliband. Balls has too much baggage from the last government, the other Ed is non-descript and I'll always remember Andy Burnham for being boo'd off at Anfield during the Hillsborough memorial. Diane Abbott is the Tony Benn of this generation, like Benn she doesn't practice what she preaches. Good sound bites with Michael Portillo but an ineffective politician. All in all a good bunch who'll keep the Tories in power for at least another 10 years.

condor you would favour milliband both brothers are just torys, wolfs in sheep clothing. abbot is nothing like benn, even lo benn is a reasonable wealthy man he gave up his peerage that been in the family for century's. abbott would not she would jump at the chance of a peerage, she is another wolf in sheep clothing. she was only thrown in the contest to stop the only left candidate and to stop him from qualifying by splitting the vote of mps and was talk into it by milliband, balls is the one that is closes to being a left wing but he still is right wing. the labour party voting system that was enforce on them by a tory government of the 80's, do not have the union vote at this stage whitch is wrong the union should be counted in on it right from the start like it use to. this system that was enforce on them should apply to the tory party but it dont the cbi who many are tory party members still get to vote on the tory leadership right from the start. it was a case of one rule for the tory party and another for the labour party.

so who is the best person for the job? In my lifetime the only Labour leader anyway near capable of running a government was Tony Blair and his weakness was his fear of Gordon Brown which lead to GB destroying the of this country- just like that Skate Callaghan

Condor Man wrote:

southy wrote:

Condor Man wrote: The only one remotely capable of taking on Cameron is David Milliband. Balls has too much baggage from the last government, the other Ed is non-descript and I'll always remember Andy Burnham for being boo'd off at Anfield during the Hillsborough memorial. Diane Abbott is the Tony Benn of this generation, like Benn she doesn't practice what she preaches. Good sound bites with Michael Portillo but an ineffective politician. All in all a good bunch who'll keep the Tories in power for at least another 10 years.

condor you would favour milliband both brothers are just torys, wolfs in sheep clothing. abbot is nothing like benn, even lo benn is a reasonable wealthy man he gave up his peerage that been in the family for century's. abbott would not she would jump at the chance of a peerage, she is another wolf in sheep clothing. she was only thrown in the contest to stop the only left candidate and to stop him from qualifying by splitting the vote of mps and was talk into it by milliband, balls is the one that is closes to being a left wing but he still is right wing. the labour party voting system that was enforce on them by a tory government of the 80's, do not have the union vote at this stage whitch is wrong the union should be counted in on it right from the start like it use to. this system that was enforce on them should apply to the tory party but it dont the cbi who many are tory party members still get to vote on the tory leadership right from the start. it was a case of one rule for the tory party and another for the labour party.

so who is the best person for the job? In my lifetime the only Labour leader anyway near capable of running a government was Tony Blair and his weakness was his fear of Gordon Brown which lead to GB destroying the of this country- just like that Skate Callaghan

callaghan never destroy this country that was your beloved maggie, she was the start of the decline of the uk because of her own personal greed and her corruptness.
best man for the job he no longer an labour mp or a member of the labour party, he now a councilor for conventry and sp member, the labour party only has 4 left wing mps in government all back benchers.
blair was and still is another thatcherite maybe thats why you like him so much. brown is just a plain right winger.
foot was the last left wing leader of the labour party, all others after him where and are right wing.

Tories. If she was looking for somebody to adopt, I think, Thatcher will be happy to adopt all of them from NuLabour orphanage, which has become breeding ground of fascism.
Only a complete fool or committed Conservative like Condor will put Empress of Opportunism Abbott in same category as Tony Benn, who basically is a nice minded and well versed person, but is he really a true socialist? I will believe that when Benn will openly criticise his own off spring who are fans of Tory Blair and Brown.

Admittedly there are some decent people still left in the NuLabour, but their membership of the right of Ted Heath Brigade, commonly known as NuLabour, only proves they are million miles away from socialism.

Geoff51 raised a very interesting point.

Back in 1947

Atpost wrote:
Geoff51 raised a very interesting point. Back in 1947

If you have nothing constructive to post apart from insults, keep quiet!
Iwas not born that long ago, unlike you who seems to be suffering from dementia due to extreme old age

geoff51 wrote:

Atpost wrote: Geoff51 raised a very interesting point. Back in 1947

If you have nothing constructive to post apart from insults, keep quiet! Iwas not born that long ago, unlike you who seems to be suffering from dementia due to extreme old age

Just checking your reaction times.

I do apologise, but you are such an easy target.
LET'S TALK BUSINESS

How do you proposw to measure the success of the new govt.?
Pick 3 KPI's and we will monitor them for 18 months.
If the measures are relevant, and the new govt improve them, I will respect you forever.

Atpost wrote:

geoff51 wrote:

Atpost wrote: Geoff51 raised a very interesting point. Back in 1947

If you have nothing constructive to post apart from insults, keep quiet! Iwas not born that long ago, unlike you who seems to be suffering from dementia due to extreme old age

Just checking your reaction times. I do apologise, but you are such an easy target. LET'S TALK BUSINESS How do you proposw to measure the success of the new govt.? Pick 3 KPI's and we will monitor them for 18 months. If the measures are relevant, and the new govt improve them, I will respect you forever.

I am not an easy target just someone who has lived long enough to see the disasterous way that your Labour mates have run the country every time the have had aperiod in power and how the Tories have had to repair the damage every time they have suceeded them.
By the way if you are a committed Socialist how come you live in one of the most expensive villages in the Forest? You did not manage that by being a good socialist rather a good capitalist methinks

geoff51 wrote:

Atpost wrote:
Geoff51 raised a very interesting point. Back in 1947

If you have nothing constructive to post apart from insults, keep quiet!
Iwas not born that long ago, unlike you who seems to be suffering from dementia due to extreme old age

Oh so your posts are consructive are they....my @rse......you obviously dont like it when someone has a little dig......but like one ot two others from the same Tory camp you like dishing it out.
.
If you cant take........well you know the rest

Lone Ranger wrote:

geoff51 wrote:

Atpost wrote: Geoff51 raised a very interesting point. Back in 1947

If you have nothing constructive to post apart from insults, keep quiet! Iwas not born that long ago, unlike you who seems to be suffering from dementia due to extreme old age

Oh so your posts are consructive are they....my @rse......you obviously dont like it when someone has a little dig......but like one ot two others from the same Tory camp you like dishing it out. . If you cant take........well you know the rest

Your arse is constructive, probably because you spend most of your time talking out of it, like all good socialists.
My posts are fair and constructive and not blinded by socialist dogma and I only resort to insults when I receive them instead of a proper answer

geoff51 wrote:

Atpost wrote:

geoff51 wrote:

Atpost wrote: Geoff51 raised a very interesting point. Back in 1947

If you have nothing constructive to post apart from insults, keep quiet! Iwas not born that long ago, unlike you who seems to be suffering from dementia due to extreme old age

Just checking your reaction times. I do apologise, but you are such an easy target. LET'S TALK BUSINESS How do you proposw to measure the success of the new govt.? Pick 3 KPI's and we will monitor them for 18 months. If the measures are relevant, and the new govt improve them, I will respect you forever.

I am not an easy target just someone who has lived long enough to see the disasterous way that your Labour mates have run the country every time the have had aperiod in power and how the Tories have had to repair the damage every time they have suceeded them. By the way if you are a committed Socialist how come you live in one of the most expensive villages in the Forest? You did not manage that by being a good socialist rather a good capitalist methinks

Geoff
Seriously.
I live in a pretty good house now, because I have been a slave to the oil industry since 1978. I have worked in many god-forsaken places for long periods, making pretty good money, but more importantly, unable to spend it for years.
Now I am 52, and I only work on the choice ones.
I have a capitalist outlook on financial life, but a socialist outlook to the caring of my fellow humans.
I see many Labour and Tory stage shows, professing to have one financial policy or another. Truth is that none of them has a definite policy that they will proclaim up-front, and stick to for 5 years.
Reasons:-
1. They are reeds in the wind, only interested in pleasing tomorrows newspapers
2. A tiny country like ours is completely at the mercy of world economics, and can never hope to have control over our destiny.

Here is a more honest political campaign message either side could use:-
VOTE FOR US - AND WE WILL TAKE THE CREDIT FOR GOOD FORTUNE, AND BLAME THE LAST LOT FOR BAD LUCK.

geoff51 wrote:
The Devere Grand Harbour is definitely the venue of choice for the Labour Party. The most expensive venue in town(other peoples money) Not a place where you run of the mill Labour supporter would attend(keep the riff-raff from asking awkward questions) No change in party policy from the last disastrous 13 years then!

Thanks to the work done by the Unions and the Labour Party to better the lot of the working class, places like the De Vere Hotel is no longer a place that is denied to them.
We no longer 'doff our caps' to the Lord of the Manor, or think that the Tories are an elite that are 'born to rule.
You are correct in one respect in that it is not a place that the 'run of the mill Labour supporter would attend' because they have had to work hard for their money and when they spend it, they want value for it.
'No change in party policy from the last disasterous 13 years then!'
If you are referring to the disaterous last 13 years of Tory rule, then I fear you are right.
Watch the unemployment figures rise.
Watch the interest rates rise.
Watch the home repossessions rise.
Pinky and Perky are heading in that direction, just like Maggie!

Atpost wrote:

geoff51 wrote:

Atpost wrote:

geoff51 wrote:

Atpost wrote: Geoff51 raised a very interesting point. Back in 1947

If you have nothing constructive to post apart from insults, keep quiet! Iwas not born that long ago, unlike you who seems to be suffering from dementia due to extreme old age

Just checking your reaction times. I do apologise, but you are such an easy target. LET'S TALK BUSINESS How do you proposw to measure the success of the new govt.? Pick 3 KPI's and we will monitor them for 18 months. If the measures are relevant, and the new govt improve them, I will respect you forever.

I am not an easy target just someone who has lived long enough to see the disasterous way that your Labour mates have run the country every time the have had aperiod in power and how the Tories have had to repair the damage every time they have suceeded them. By the way if you are a committed Socialist how come you live in one of the most expensive villages in the Forest? You did not manage that by being a good socialist rather a good capitalist methinks

Geoff Seriously. I live in a pretty good house now, because I have been a slave to the oil industry since 1978. I have worked in many god-forsaken places for long periods, making pretty good money, but more importantly, unable to spend it for years. Now I am 52, and I only work on the choice ones. I have a capitalist outlook on financial life, but a socialist outlook to the caring of my fellow humans. I see many Labour and Tory stage shows, professing to have one financial policy or another. Truth is that none of them has a definite policy that they will proclaim up-front, and stick to for 5 years. Reasons:- 1. They are reeds in the wind, only interested in pleasing tomorrows newspapers 2. A tiny country like ours is completely at the mercy of world economics, and can never hope to have control over our destiny. Here is a more honest political campaign message either side could use:- VOTE FOR US - AND WE WILL TAKE THE CREDIT FOR GOOD FORTUNE, AND BLAME THE LAST LOT FOR BAD LUCK.

At least you can admit to being a closet Tory and I applaud you for your honesty.
Unlike some socialist posters who can only trot out the party line and are unable to deal with those who disagree without resorting to insults

Linesman wrote:

geoff51 wrote: The Devere Grand Harbour is definitely the venue of choice for the Labour Party. The most expensive venue in town(other peoples money) Not a place where you run of the mill Labour supporter would attend(keep the riff-raff from asking awkward questions) No change in party policy from the last disastrous 13 years then!

Thanks to the work done by the Unions and the Labour Party to better the lot of the working class, places like the De Vere Hotel is no longer a place that is denied to them. We no longer 'doff our caps' to the Lord of the Manor, or think that the Tories are an elite that are 'born to rule. You are correct in one respect in that it is not a place that the 'run of the mill Labour supporter would attend' because they have had to work hard for their money and when they spend it, they want value for it. 'No change in party policy from the last disasterous 13 years then!' If you are referring to the disaterous last 13 years of Tory rule, then I fear you are right. Watch the unemployment figures rise. Watch the interest rates rise. Watch the home repossessions rise. Pinky and Perky are heading in that direction, just like Maggie!

I was actually refering to the 13 years of Blair and Brown, not so much Pinky and Perky more dumb and dumber or even Noddy and Big ears.
In my opinion Maggie did the greatest job by stopping the unions from holding the country to ransom.

geoff51 wrote:

Linesman wrote:

geoff51 wrote: The Devere Grand Harbour is definitely the venue of choice for the Labour Party. The most expensive venue in town(other peoples money) Not a place where you run of the mill Labour supporter would attend(keep the riff-raff from asking awkward questions) No change in party policy from the last disastrous 13 years then!

Thanks to the work done by the Unions and the Labour Party to better the lot of the working class, places like the De Vere Hotel is no longer a place that is denied to them. We no longer 'doff our caps' to the Lord of the Manor, or think that the Tories are an elite that are 'born to rule. You are correct in one respect in that it is not a place that the 'run of the mill Labour supporter would attend' because they have had to work hard for their money and when they spend it, they want value for it. 'No change in party policy from the last disasterous 13 years then!' If you are referring to the disaterous last 13 years of Tory rule, then I fear you are right. Watch the unemployment figures rise. Watch the interest rates rise. Watch the home repossessions rise. Pinky and Perky are heading in that direction, just like Maggie!

I was actually refering to the 13 years of Blair and Brown, not so much Pinky and Perky more dumb and dumber or even Noddy and Big ears. In my opinion Maggie did the greatest job by stopping the unions from holding the country to ransom.

Setting Yorkshire miner against Nottingham miner.
Classic Tory policy of 'divide and rule'!
That was as near as ever I want to see this country coming to a Police State.

Linesman wrote:

geoff51 wrote:

Linesman wrote:

geoff51 wrote: The Devere Grand Harbour is definitely the venue of choice for the Labour Party. The most expensive venue in town(other peoples money) Not a place where you run of the mill Labour supporter would attend(keep the riff-raff from asking awkward questions) No change in party policy from the last disastrous 13 years then!

Thanks to the work done by the Unions and the Labour Party to better the lot of the working class, places like the De Vere Hotel is no longer a place that is denied to them. We no longer 'doff our caps' to the Lord of the Manor, or think that the Tories are an elite that are 'born to rule. You are correct in one respect in that it is not a place that the 'run of the mill Labour supporter would attend' because they have had to work hard for their money and when they spend it, they want value for it. 'No change in party policy from the last disasterous 13 years then!' If you are referring to the disaterous last 13 years of Tory rule, then I fear you are right. Watch the unemployment figures rise. Watch the interest rates rise. Watch the home repossessions rise. Pinky and Perky are heading in that direction, just like Maggie!

I was actually refering to the 13 years of Blair and Brown, not so much Pinky and Perky more dumb and dumber or even Noddy and Big ears. In my opinion Maggie did the greatest job by stopping the unions from holding the country to ransom.

Setting Yorkshire miner against Nottingham miner. Classic Tory policy of 'divide and rule'! That was as near as ever I want to see this country coming to a Police State.

Had Scargill not held and illegal vote on the miners strike it would never have ended as it did. He was to blame for what happened to the miners and trade unionism in general in the 80's. He played a dangerous game against a much powerful opponent who knew she held all the cards and would win. As for the Labour leadership they are all rubbish so I'd be happy with all of them in charge.

Condor Man wrote:

Linesman wrote:

geoff51 wrote:

Linesman wrote:

geoff51 wrote: The Devere Grand Harbour is definitely the venue of choice for the Labour Party. The most expensive venue in town(other peoples money) Not a place where you run of the mill Labour supporter would attend(keep the riff-raff from asking awkward questions) No change in party policy from the last disastrous 13 years then!

Thanks to the work done by the Unions and the Labour Party to better the lot of the working class, places like the De Vere Hotel is no longer a place that is denied to them. We no longer 'doff our caps' to the Lord of the Manor, or think that the Tories are an elite that are 'born to rule. You are correct in one respect in that it is not a place that the 'run of the mill Labour supporter would attend' because they have had to work hard for their money and when they spend it, they want value for it. 'No change in party policy from the last disasterous 13 years then!' If you are referring to the disaterous last 13 years of Tory rule, then I fear you are right. Watch the unemployment figures rise. Watch the interest rates rise. Watch the home repossessions rise. Pinky and Perky are heading in that direction, just like Maggie!

I was actually refering to the 13 years of Blair and Brown, not so much Pinky and Perky more dumb and dumber or even Noddy and Big ears. In my opinion Maggie did the greatest job by stopping the unions from holding the country to ransom.

Setting Yorkshire miner against Nottingham miner. Classic Tory policy of 'divide and rule'! That was as near as ever I want to see this country coming to a Police State.

Had Scargill not held and illegal vote on the miners strike it would never have ended as it did. He was to blame for what happened to the miners and trade unionism in general in the 80's. He played a dangerous game against a much powerful opponent who knew she held all the cards and would win. As for the Labour leadership they are all rubbish so I'd be happy with all of them in charge.

I had quite thought that you had meant the last 13 years of Tory rule which included the Maestrect fiasco and Black Wednesday (16 September 1992) when the Tory financial wizards saw the withdrawal from the Exchange Rate Mechanism which cost £3.3bn as revealed in 2005 under the Freedom of Information Act.
This was at a time when the City saw trading losses in August and September at an estimated £800m with the Treasury spending £27bn of reserves in propping up the pound.

The big difference between that financial crisis and the current one is that where the current one had its beginnings in the USA and spread world-wide, Black Wednesday had its roots in the UK. A disaster of the Tories' own making.

I heard the various "options" talking at the start of the campaign. It was almost entirely content free New Labour style management speak.
There was nothing new on offer, certainly nothing remotely left wing - just the promotion of the 'government knows best' controlling approach to running the country, and the message of "we need to get back to power".

None of the candidates have any authority - the Labour party needs to find a completely new message and approach before they can even catch my attention and overcome the 10 or so years of disappointment at the end of their last reign of power.

10 Minute Man wrote:
I heard the various "options" talking at the start of the campaign. It was almost entirely content free New Labour style management speak.
There was nothing new on offer, certainly nothing remotely left wing - just the promotion of the 'government knows best' controlling approach to running the country, and the message of "we need to get back to power".

None of the candidates have any authority - the Labour party needs to find a completely new message and approach before they can even catch my attention and overcome the 10 or so years of disappointment at the end of their last reign of power.

for the last 30 years we been under capitalist rule, between the the main 3 political partys there is very little difference, just that the torys boarder on the extreme right any more right and they would be in fascism, labour is right wing to but just not has far right has the torys.
even union leadership is rightwing just look who going to be at the TUC conference this year david cameron yes mr pinky himself an invite to come and speak to the TUC by the union leadership. and only 2 unions spoke out against it.

southy wrote:

10 Minute Man wrote: I heard the various "options" talking at the start of the campaign. It was almost entirely content free New Labour style management speak. There was nothing new on offer, certainly nothing remotely left wing - just the promotion of the 'government knows best' controlling approach to running the country, and the message of "we need to get back to power". None of the candidates have any authority - the Labour party needs to find a completely new message and approach before they can even catch my attention and overcome the 10 or so years of disappointment at the end of their last reign of power.

for the last 30 years we been under capitalist rule, between the the main 3 political partys there is very little difference, just that the torys boarder on the extreme right any more right and they would be in fascism, labour is right wing to but just not has far right has the torys. even union leadership is rightwing just look who going to be at the TUC conference this year david cameron yes mr pinky himself an invite to come and speak to the TUC by the union leadership. and only 2 unions spoke out against it.

Southy, I beg to disagree with your view that NuLabour is not as right wing as the Tories, and regarding closeness to fascism.
Having spent many years in old Labour till I left it to stay a socialist, with inside experience I can only say that it is one of the most dishonest, opportunist, racist and anti working class set up around.
Considering even way back in around 1984, members of National Front were shifting straight into Labour, and nobody did anything about it, only proves the common ground between these pseudo socialists and the fascists.
Then consider the recent rise of BNP, and observe who is voting for them and in what kind of areas they have picked the votes.
While there are few good people in the NuLabour, overall it is full of evil characters who rather than joining the society, believe in dividing it for ‘divide and rule’ purpose.
While its good at paying lip service to fight against racism and sexism they have openly supported and funded many black racist set ups, you only have to remember their own minister Flint when she left the Brown led government she’d openly stated that they are using women for window dressing.
NuLabour is even unfaithful to the very people who created it and are still contributing to coffers out of which money is blown by holding meetings in five star hotels as exposed in this article i.e. the unions. During 13 years in power they could not even abolish anti union laws of Thatcher’s mob, which its leadership supported against the miners in 1980s.
I can’t remember any other party having given 75p per week pension rise to our OAPs and which may have shamelessly boasted after creating the biggest gap between have and have nots in our recent history, which is the kind of environment suitable for the rise of fascism.
Finally I have no time for Tories but at least I know what they really are, they do not make any secret about being the ‘Nasty Party’. When will Labour be that honest?

Labour have always a lacked a leader with the gravitas of a Churchill or Thatcher. Wilson was a liar, as was Blair. Callaghan was out of his depth, as was Brown. So basically history tells us that the next Labour leader will either be a bare-faced liar or totally out of their depth.

Churchill was an excellent wartime leader, but was not entrusted by the electorate to rebuild after the war, and when he did return at PM he was nowhere near the man that he once was. Elected on an sympathy vote.

Thatcher had an extended run because of the Falklands. The fact that she ignored intelligence, and did not take immediate action gave the Argentinians the notion that we did not give a toss about the islands. If she had taken action, many lives, on both sides, would not have been lost, and the murder of those aboard the Belgrano would not have been a stain on this country's conscience.
How strange that the log book of the submarine that sank it, was lost!
We can see the log book of HMS Victory, but not that one.
Perhaps she could not take quicker action because she was sacking dockyard workers in Portsmouth at the same time that she wanted ships prepared for sea.

Condor Man wrote:
Labour have always a lacked a leader with the gravitas of a Churchill or Thatcher. Wilson was a liar, as was Blair. Callaghan was out of his depth, as was Brown. So basically history tells us that the next Labour leader will either be a bare-faced liar or totally out of their depth.

churchill was really a very poor leader but he had one thing going for him, he knew how to boost morel in the people. getting them to what was needed to do. has a leader in chief he made errors so much so he was removed from being the first sea lord. the man had no battle skills whats so ever.
thatcher is a dictator. the only person she was interested in was her self in power and money. and one of the best things done was her own party removing her. then she lost the vote in a safe tory seat at the next general election a nice double blow. put her in the woodwork where she belong.

Linesman wrote:
Churchill was an excellent wartime leader, but was not entrusted by the electorate to rebuild after the war, and when he did return at PM he was nowhere near the man that he once was. Elected on an sympathy vote.

Thatcher had an extended run because of the Falklands. The fact that she ignored intelligence, and did not take immediate action gave the Argentinians the notion that we did not give a toss about the islands. If she had taken action, many lives, on both sides, would not have been lost, and the murder of those aboard the Belgrano would not have been a stain on this country's conscience.
How strange that the log book of the submarine that sank it, was lost!
We can see the log book of HMS Victory, but not that one.
Perhaps she could not take quicker action because she was sacking dockyard workers in Portsmouth at the same time that she wanted ships prepared for sea.

i have seen hms conquer log book, its at the admiralty in london. and i can tell you this the order to sink belgrano came from thatcher and not from the admiralty, admiralty orders was to follow and only to sink it if they came with in radar distance of the fleet whitch was very unlikely because it had all ready pass the fleet with out being pick up on radar, the fleet was 100 miles south of hms conquer.
thatcher egg the argies to attack she knew they would because the argie government was in political trouble so what did maggie do with draw 1/2 the marines back to england making the falkands to weak to defend it self. the moment there was a problem on south georga she should of treble up on marines. but she did nothing. she nearly got caught out by the argies they attack a lot sooner than she thought she was hoping for another year before the argies will do any thing. that way she could run a near full term in office before calling an election, but where the attack came early she had to call a general election also using the eufora and hipe to ride her back in office.