Also 62% believe that her example played an important
part in changing attitudes
Lexi,
that's a clear indication why there is now another conservative Government.

Just a brief addendum to Thatcher's "miracle" transformation of Britain.

As we all know, North Sea Oil was Thatcherism's rabbit-in-the-hat. Far from being an example of prudent economic principle, all was do-able because of that particular bonanza.

Here's little on the subject:

http://openoil.net/2013/04/10/margaret-thatcher-and-the-north-sea-oil-bonanza/

"But two things are clear about the North Sea Oil dividend: the first is that Thatcherism would not have been possible without it; and the second is that the way it was managed is about as far away from fiscal prudence as could be imagined....Famously, Britain didn't save any of the 200 billion pounds it has earned in total from the North Sea, in stark contrast to the Norwegians who now have 100,000 euros for every man, woman and child in the country in a Future Generations Fund....Britain's laissez-faire approach to the North Sea has been, in fact, spendthrift, trustafarian and inept."

csteele,

I think you are over cooking your pursuit in the level of detail to support your conspiracy theory about the role Maggie Thatcher played in offending your concept of war and about the attack on the Belgrano. Whilst I think it’s a diversion and bordering on OT, I did say ask the question and I’ll do my best to answer.

There are two sets of rules of engagement. Theatre Rules are those set by government. In this case when the threat to the British Navy escalated the government changed the Theater ROE to defend their assets and ordered the attack on the Belgrano.

The second set of ROE is essentially operational. These are different for each country and for each type of military and are enforced by the commanding officers.

ROE are built to comply with a wide range of international conventions, for example, Rules for the Use of Force (RUF), NATO ROE Manual MC 362-1, The International Institute of Humanitarian Law and the San Remo Rules of Engagement Handbook (the San Remo Rules are I think, the only ROE manual in the public domain, the rest are all classified documents)

On British Navy vessels these are so voluminous they are kept on microfiche, on-line and volumes of manuals.

In some nations, ROE have the status of guidance to military forces, while in other nations, ROE are lawful commands. Rules of Engagement do not normally dictate how a result is to be achieved but will indicate what measures may be unacceptable.

Rules of Engagement (ROE) define the circumstances, conditions, degree, and manner in which force, or actions which might be construed as provocative, may be applied. They provide authorization for and/or limits on, among other things, the use of force and the employment of certain specific capabilities, choice of weapons.

Cont’d

Cont’d

The CO must take into account such issues as, Economy of Force, Self protect, Proportionality, Threat Level, Enemy Weapons, are they present? What types? A show of force/threat of force that is greater than the force threatened by the opposing force and the use of the minimum force necessary to accomplish the mission.

It is the last two issues to which I draw your attention. Threat of greater force. This was accomplished by threatening the Argentine Navy with the deployment of wire guided remote weapons which were capable of inflicting massive and perhaps unnecessary loss of life.

The second point is the CO’s duty to use only the minimum force necessary to accomplish the mission.

Putting the two together against the assertions you make. The Belgrano and her escorts were threatened with and advised of, the deployment of greater force in the form of advanced torpedo technology. It matters not if you have read somewhere that these were “unreliable”, they were deployed and they were potentially devastating, hence the rapid departure of the escorts.

The next decision for the CO was what was the minimum force required to accomplish the mission, his choice, taking into account the difference in potential loss of life as he is required to do, was just two conventional 21 inch, WWII type torpedoes, fore and aft at the Belgrano and a third at one of the escorts.

It might suit your assertions to believe that any Navy Commander would inflict unnecessary loss of life on opposition forces, but is contrary to all the ROE conventions and the mutual traditions of maritime compassion.

What you really want is for me to provide some sort of link to classified archives in order to substantiate my assertions; you know full well that is not possible of course, there isn’t one. However, I hope this goes some way to clarify your concerns.

You can always do some research yourself or accept my research. If not I guess I’ll just have to take your advice and put a sock in it?

Struth, reading some of the entries here you'd think that everything was honky-dory in Britain in the 1970's and that Thatcher's revolution was unnecessary and out of the blue. All sorts of statistics are dragged out and tortured to reveal a wonderful picture of Britain prior to the assaults of the evil lady.

This couldn't be further from the truth. By the late 70's, inflation was rampant, GDP in free fall, unemployment on the rise, the pound crashing. Things were so bad that the Labour Government was forced to go cap-in-hand to the IMF for a loan to try to stabilise things. (think Cypress on steroids!). To get the loan they needed to put in place spending cuts and reduce inflation via wage restraint. There was war between the government and the unions long before Thatcher got into power. But in fact the war was between the unions and economic reality. And Thatcher was the spokes-woman for economic reality. Unfortunately many on the left and in the unions were unfamiliar with the notion of the real world.

We have people here going on as though everything after her coming to power was her fault. But unemployment was on the rise before she came to power and, apart from her plans, no one had any idea how to stop it. Sure things got worse initially but in the end, by the end of her reign, she had stabilised the UK economy and set it on the path to recovery. This is why, despite the attempts of the irrational ideologues to rewrite history, she was constantly re-elected by a grateful people.

Its easy to whine that things weren't universally great in the 80s. But, unless you are prepared to look at the disaster that was the UK economy in the 70s, you'll completely miss the point and be left scratching your head as to why she was re-elected again and again

I know its a little off-topic but I couldn't let this pass....

Wobbles wrote:"The only real Tory part of her was the belief that the end justifies the means, just as Stalin turned Russia from a backward vulnerable economy into a Superpower within a few decades, but at a considerable social cost."

20 million killed. Millions more enslaved in unspeakable conditions in the Siberian gulags. Entire nations uprooted and relocated. Families ripped apart. Men forced to sign false confessions while they watched their daughters raped. Summary executions on a massive scale. Entire nations conquered and enslaved.
And this was a "considerable social cost"(!!), broadly comparable with what Thatcher did to the UK.

Wow, the ability of those of a particular leaning to downplay the atrocities of its heroes and exaggerate the supposed failings of it enemies is astounding.

Just astounding.