have you ever stopped to think that maybe thats what the British people were crying out for, A strong no bullsh1t leader with balls of steel (metaphorically speaking ).

Can you imagine one of the current crop of politcal leaders (bar Farage) calling the SAS in to "end" a hostage situation like she did at the iranian Embassey.

Tough times (N.Ire, Falklands) make tough leaders and she was just what the nation needed at the time, the unions were bringing the country to its knees. So up pops maggie with a no nonsense approach and the mojority loved her for it.

As time changes a differenttype of leader is required, people chill out, the unions dealt with, the falklands won, N.I. heading towards talks not bombs, and the people decided she had served her purpose.

Much the same happened to churchill.

Zeitgiest and all that. I feel that at the time the UK was in a position where it was going one way or the other politically. I don't really think either side was necessarily the only decision. I don't think either Foot or Kinnock would necessarily have been s**t prime ministers, but that the outcome of the country we live in would be very different.

I know you don't believe that.Kinnock was a moron as well you know, and foot was Corbyn light, we would all be in dungarees working down the commune.

With retrospect, we were looking at a transition from Industrial to Post Industrial Britain. Usually its a mistake to assume, that one decision was the only option, when you can only know one outcome. There were consequences for UK as well of Thatcherism.

We would still have Industry in this country if the Unions didnt wet their pants over f*** all, and go on strike every 5 minutes. I can remeber as a kid the lights going out regular, because the minners were on strike.

And she wasn't some universally loved figure, except for a tiny noisy minority, she was a very divisive figure nationally.

I think the decisions the electorate made prove that point to be utterly your opinion and not much else.

As for NI, its worth noting that it was Thatcher's government that initiated communication with the IRA. They just did it in secret.

Also worth noting it was Thatchers initiative to infiltrate and take the IRA down from within by using UKSF. Without which the IRA would not have been forced to the discussion table.

I think its a certainty that if we'd lost the Falklands conflict, then the Conservative's would have lost the election, and that the victory gave them a boost. I don't think you can compare it to Churchill after the war, because Churchill wasn't in power before the war either (and was very much a 'War Prime Minister' not a peacetime candidate).

Thatcher for me, did right by the people of the Falklands, and ironically accidently ended a Far Right Wing Junta in South America, and set in motion a series of events that ultimately led to a greater freedom of the left in South American politics.

I'm old enough to have canvassed in the 1983 election,and plenty of "floating voters" in my recollection were swayed by a perception of Maggie,the tough and victorious war leader.

As for "the longest suicide note in history",its interesting 30 plus years later looking at what some of those policies were,and exactly how outlandish they would seem in today's climate.

[Link]

Edited by legaleagle (07 Sep 2015 10.21am)

That's not the same as saying that they won the election because of the Falklands victory. We will never know what would have happened if things had gone badly.
I'm not sure while you focus on the politics of the Argentinians. We fought against Nazi Germany with a Tory Prime Minister. There is no irony in that. It was about defending borders.

Technically a war crime perhaps. That would have to be judged. No one that mattered was too keen to do so at the time it appears.
A greater crime would have been to risk more British lives and let the Argentinian government prevail.