Marchessini Blog & Forum


One of the well known names of the 1990s has come to the fore again, with the news that has been put on the market by its present owner, the American company Sabre Holdings.

Sabre has clearly done one of the best business deals of the century. never made any money in any financial period of its existence, and lost £250 million. Nevertheless, Sabre bought it in 2005 for £577 million. That is a lot of money to pay for a company that has never made a profit. Now, after nine years of losses, they are trying to unload the company, and they have admitted that they are unlikely to obtain £577 million, or anything like it. What a good business deal. Who is Sabre?


Men Should Take Back

I was interested and surprised to see Mr Jan Ball’s article in the Summer issue of the Salisbury Review, entitled “Women Take All”, not only because I find the subject very important, but because this is the first time I had seen anybody mention it. The fact is that something quite extraordinary has taken place in the world over the last 50 years. Over this relatively short period of time, the power in the Western world has moved from men to women. Even more extraordinary, this has happened not because women took power by force, but because men allowed them to take power, without any serious resistance. There was an interesting photograph recently of the Defence Ministers of Sweden, Denmark, Holland and Germany, all sitting together on a bench. All of them were women, three with short skirts. What do four middle-aged women know about Defence? Yet everyone pretends that they do.

How did women accomplish this? Mr Ball suggests that they created circles of power – a “consensus” – and anyone who tries to step outside of the “consensus” is liable to be punished. But, for this to work, men have to accept the “consensus”, and go along with it. Why do they? The basis of this “consensus” is that men and women are “equal”. Everyone knows that this is nonsense, yet the “consensus” accepts it. Instead of accepting the “consensus”, just look at the facts.

Men are much stronger than women, and can throw women around. Women have the curse, men do not, and men find it disgusting. Women have babies, men do not have babies, nor do they wish to have babies. There is no physical activity in which women can compete with men. Moving to intelligence, countless IQ tests have proved that the average IQ of men and women is exactly the same, but there are big differences in distribution, and in particular abilities. For example, men have a much wider distribution of IQ than women. In other words, geniuses and idiots are usually men. Women’s IQs tend to be closer to the mean. It also means that at the higher levels there are fewer and fewer women. With regards to specific abilities, women are very good at any tests involving words – better than men. Also, their minds are quicker than men’s (but not necessarily more accurate). On the other hand, women are not good at tests involving spatial relationships. That is why there are very few women engineers – it is not that they have not been allowed to be engineers; it is that they are no good at it. Another interesting comparison is Bridge. Many more women than men play Bridge, but at the top tournaments women have to play in a separate section, because they are not good enough to play with the men. Or take chess. Women have played chess for hundreds of years, yet of the one hundred best chess players in the world, only one is a woman. Some people try to pretend that women are cleverer because they do better at school, but that is nonsense. They do better at school because they are more conscientious and they work harder than men, but at the top of the intellectual tree, you will find very few women.

Then there is the question of emotions. Women are much more emotional than men. Everybody knows that, and yet people try to ignore it. There was an interesting incident a few years ago, when Japan appointed a woman to the position of Foreign Minister. This was hailed as a great step forward, and the lady chosen was not just any woman. She was the daughter of a previous Prime Minister, and she had spent her life in politics. Yet a fortnight after she had been appointed, when one of her civil servants was rude to her, she burst into tears. Within a few days she was quietly replaced. A more significant, but less known example, took place in the voting when Mrs Thatcher was dropped as Prime Minister. Although Mrs Thatcher won the majority of the votes, it was considered not enough of a majority for her to stay. Now, the interesting thing was that the majority of Conservative male MPs voted for Mrs Thatcher. At that time, there were 25 Conservative women MPs, all of whom had been helped by Mrs Thatcher to find seats, and all of whom had been helped by her once they came into the Commons. Yet, they voted 25-0 against Mrs Thatcher. This lost the election for her. If even half of them had voted for her, she would have succeeded, and if all of them had voted for her, it would have been a landslide. As a majority of male MPs had voted for her, it is impossible to believe that the women’s vote of 25-0 against was based either on politics or on commonsense. Clearly it was based on emotion – and emotion of the worse kind. And yet, this vote changed the direction not only of the Conservative Party, which went well to the Left, but of the whole country. Everyone knew that Mrs Thatcher was never going to sign Maastricht. If she had stayed, we would not be in the EU. Those 25 ladies put us into the EU. Should 25 ladies be taking decisions that are going to affect 65 million people? Another more recent example was the vote on same-sex marriage. A majority of male MPs voted against same-sex marriage. But the women’s vote pushed it through. Should women be deciding matters like homosexuality?

And there is the question of sex. It is often argued as to whether it is men or women who have greater sexuality. Yet anyone who has considerable sexual experience knows that it is women who have the greater sexuality. A man – even a young man – can only have two or three orgasms. But a woman – with a good lover – can have countless orgasms. Obviously, the biggest difference between the sexes is the fact that nature has given men cocks. As a result, men bonk women. But women do not bonk anyone. They just get bonked. In short, the sexual act is an act of domination by a man, and submission by a woman.

The only way that women can pretend that they are discriminated against is by hypocrisy. For example, women complain that there are not enough female MPs. They suggest that as half of the world is female, they should comprise half of the MPs. Before testing the logic of that assertion, it is important to understand that the fact on which it is based is fallacious. The total number of men and women in the world may be roughly the same, but the number who wish to become MPs is very different. In the Conservative Party several years ago, the ratio was 7 men to 1 woman who wanted to become a MP. It does not require much mathematical ability to see that in order to have people of similar ability, there would have to be 7 times as many men as women. Yet even with equal numbers, it would still be bad logic to pretend that the number of women MPs should be the same as the men. Our Foreign Secretary, Mr Hammond, had the nerve to make recently the idiotic statement that “the last time he looked”, half of the world was female. Clearly, Mr Hammond is not familiar with logic, or he would realise that if half of the MPs should be women, or half of board members should be women, then half of plumbers should be women, half of lorry drivers should be women, half of street sweepers should be women. Is this what women want?

The hypocrisy in the women’s movement is very deep. They pretend to be “equal”, but at the same time, they want to be given whatever advantages they need. A good example is “childcare”. No one is obliged to have children, and no one is obliged to work, but if a woman does decide to work, it must be a financial decision – she must receive more money by working than the extra family costs that her job creates. But women insist that they should receive “affordable childcare”. They do not understand that the government has no money. All it has is the right to tax its citizens. So “affordable childcare” would have to be paid by the rest of the country. In other words, women who work want women who do not work to pay for their children. This is outrageous. Finally, we come to the famous “sexual harassment”. This too makes no sense. If women and men are “equal”, men should be able to treat women exactly the way they treat other men. And yet women object to being treated like men, while at the same time they insist they are equal.

What is Mr Ball’s comment to this problem? He says that men are “too stupid”. I do not agree. What men are is cowardly. They may be brave in battle, but against women, they are cowards. Indeed, Mr Ball says that he winces at the idea of attacking women. Why? Women do not wince at attacking men, and the world is rapidly becoming, as Mr Ball insists, a gynocracy. There is only one action that can turn it back. Men must recognise and address the situation, instead of pretending that nothing has changed. Then they must attack the hypocrisy and the absurd desires of Feminism. Why would men be reluctant to do this? I would ask those who are reluctant, “Would Alexander the Great have accepted Feminism? Would Charlemagne? Would Bismarck? Would Napoleon? Would Richard the Lion Heart?” Would they be washing up, or pushing the pram?

Women have been given the power that they have today because of the cowardice of men.


Persecution of Christians

I was interested by the article of Christie Davies in the Summer issue of the Salisbury Review, about homosexuals “persecuting” Christians, and I would suggest that the reason that this is taking place is quite clear. The problem is that our country has not grasped the difference between “illegal” and “immoral”.

When it was suggested in 1965 that homosexuality should no longer be illegal, many people in this country, including myself, felt that people should not go to jail for their sexual habits. After all, if Michelangelo and Leonardo had spent their lives in jail, the world would be a much poorer place. However, nobody said that homosexuality had become moral. The government decides the law, but morality is decided by God and the Church. In the famous example of Prohibition in the U.S., drinking was made illegal, but it was never immoral. For people who are religious, and who believe in their religion, homosexuality has always been immoral, but there are many immoral things that one does not go to jail for. What happened, however, was that homosexuals immediately wanted to pretend that homosexuality was now “moral”, and the religious world did not resist them sufficiently strongly. Homosexuality has long been a major sin in the main Christian religions – the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches – and even in a recent article, the Archbishop of Canterbury admitted that homosexuality was also a sin in the Anglican Church. So how can it be considered “moral”?

This pretence is strengthened by all the euphemisms that are used regarding homosexuality – “gay”, “partners”, “same-sex marriage”, etc. The most interesting thing is that none of the homosexuals, who have publicly “outed themselves”, have indicated whether they are a “bugger” or a “buggee”. Since Ancient times, there has always been an enormous difference between the two, and there still is today.


“Disproportionate” Tunnels

Peter Oborne wrote in a recent article in the Daily Telegraph that the Israelis are using “disproportionate force” in Gaza. How exactly would Mr Oborne be able to decide such a matter? Has he seen the tunnels in Gaza? Has he inspected the defences of both sides? What indeed does he know about it?

​He also speaks as if this matter came up just a few months ago, instead of 70 years ago. In 1947, the U.N. proposed a treaty which would allow both the Jews and the Arabs to live together in Palestine. If both sides had accepted, none of the fighting of the last 70 years would have taken place. The Jews did accept, but the Arabs rejected it out of hand. It was because of that, that the Jews declared independence for Israel in 1948. What was the Arab reaction? A declaration of war by four Arab states. The Jews did not ask the Arabs to leave Israel, and many of them are still there. However, the Arabs ejected almost 1 million Jews from the Arab countries. It was the Arabs who asked their own people to leave Israel, so as not to get in the way of the fighting. But the Arabs were defeated. Despite that, they declared war against Israel three further times, and were defeated each time. One must understand, if Israel had lost any of those wars, it would no longer exist. It is unheard of for countries to declare war four times, despite being defeated each time, and it was only possible because of Saudi money.

​Anglo-Saxons are somewhat naïve about the Arabs, and are under the impression that the Arabs have good intentions, when the Arabs have made it clear that what they really want is to push Israel into the sea. Mr Arafat was identified by top KGB agents as a KGB operative, who had been instructed to do as much damage in the Middle East as he could; to keep talking about peace, but to never accept it. When Mr Clinton brought the Jews and Arabs to Camp David, and managed to get terms from Arafat that Arafat said he would accept, which terms Clinton then forced the Israelis to accept, Clinton was jubilant. He thought that he had solved the problems of the Middle East. But he soon learned his lesson. When he went back to see Arafat, he found that Arafat had left the U.S., and was back in the Middle East, and had started fighting again.

The latest hostilities in Gaza are extremely dangerous for the Israelis. One cannot have a country with borders like Swiss cheese, with people going in and out of it whenever they like. The tunnels have to be blocked, as Mr Netanyahu has made clear, otherwise Israel will be in danger of going under. The number of people who have died on each side is irrelevant, compared to the existence of Israel, at least, as far as the Jews are concerned. Those who support the Arabs or “condemn the Jews” do not realise what that will mean.


Supreme Logic

An article in the International New York Times on Justice Ruth Ginsburg makes clear what is wrong with the law in the United States today. When our class graduated from Harvard Law School in 1957 (hers and mine), we were all under the impression that the purpose of the Supreme Court was to interpret the Constitution, and to decide what the Founding Fathers wanted and meant – not to make new law of its own. Unfortunately, this understanding, which had existed for generations, has deteriorated over the last fifty years, as politics has come more and more into the law in this country.

The article quoted Justice Ginsburg as saying “the Court has never fully embraced the ability of women to decide for themselves what their destiny will be”. There are two things wrong with this statement. The first is that it is nonsense. No one in the world can decide for themselves what their destiny will be. But secondly, it has never been the purpose of the Supreme Court to “embrace” what women, or indeed what men want. Its purpose is only to interpret the Constitution.

The destruction of this traditional understanding has seeped into the Supreme Court where, despite Judge Ginsburg’s complaints, politics have been, and are continuing to be injected into the law. It was pointed out in the article that the three women Justices often voted together. For this to be based only on legal views would be extremely unlikely. If they vote together, it is because they have the same politics, and want to make them law.

There is a good example in the article, where Justice Ginsburg claims that the Supreme Court made a grave error in the Hobby Lobby decision, which allowed employers to refuse to pay for insurance coverage for contraception, because of religious objections. As “reasoning” for her view, she asks “What of the employer whose religious faith teaches that it is sinful to employ single women without their fathers’ consent, or married women without their husbands’ consent?” This is very bad logic on Justice Ginsburg’s part, for several reasons. First of all, there is no such religion in the United States today. And it is extremely unlikely that such a crazy religion would suddenly appear. The second reason is that Justice Ginsburg clearly does not understand religion. Religions only forbid things to those who believe in that religion. They cannot forbid things to those of other religions, or of no religion at all. So, even if a crazy Hottentot appeared, who did not allow his own daughter to work, it would not prevent him, as an employer, accepting all the other women in the world as employees. Both the examples that Judge Ginsburg gives have to do with family rules, and would usually have to be solved within the family. Judge Ginsburg assumes that contraception is a basic requirement for every woman – that is nonsense. Women use various means of contraception, and many do not use contraception at all. The idea that employers should pay for this is absurd.

In short, nothing that Justice Ginsburg is saying is logical. It seems that we have Supreme Court Justices who do not understand logic. That is our problem.


An Idiot’s Guide To Inequality

One of the hot topics at the moment is “inequality”. The columnist Nicholas Kristof had an article in the Herald Tribune last week on this subject that was full of inaccuracies.

As regards Mr Piketty, his book has been discredited, not only because his logic is faulty, but also because the figures he has used were found to be false. Nevertheless, it is still very popular with Left Wing economists, who use it to back up their figures.

As regards the five points Mr Kristof brings up, in the first he says that economic inequality has worsened significantly. That, of course, depends on where one begins. For example, in the 1870s, when the average wage was $3 a week, Cornelius Vanderbilt was receiving dividends of $21 million a year, from the New York Central, which was only one of the companies with which he was involved. How equal was that? When Andrew Carnegie sold his steel company (later to become US Steel) to a consortium, led by J P Morgan, for $500 million (worth about $50 billion today), his company comprised 12% of U.S. GDP. How equal was that? After the First War, there was inflation, and incomes went up, but after the 1929 Crash, the U.S. economy was in the Depression until the Second World War. The average wage had returned to about $3 a week. This did not prevent Harrison Williams becoming the first billionaire in the U.S. Today, the average wage is $25,000 a year, but to that must be added the value of the Welfare State (Piketty ignored the Welfare State in his book).

Mr Kristof’s third point is a good one. The manipulation of markets by the government and the Federal Reserve (especially during the last 20 years), by the creation of money on the one hand, and artificially keeping interest rates down on the other hand, has certainly created disparity. The fact that one can borrow $1 million with low interest is not appropriate to ordinary people, but it appeals to people with money. Mr Kristoff goes on to suggest that “financiers” are wealthy, because they are educated and hardworking, but he does not mention intelligence. He does not mention the fact that some people have an IQ of 200, and others have an IQ of 20.

Finally, in his fifth point, he says that equal opportunity is now all a mirage in the U.S. Why should it be? Equal opportunity is what free countries are all about. Mr Kristof says that the United States spends less educating a poor child than a rich one. That is nonsense. All children are in school together, and in class together. They receive the same education. There is not the slightest reason why the state should spend more money on one pupil than another. Those who are clever will get more out of it than those who are less clever. That is nature. It cannot be helped, and it does not change the fact that there is equal opportunity. If the American education system is broken, it is because of the continual “dumbing down”.


Ukrainian Hypocrisy

The most important fact about the shooting down of the Malaysian airliner is never mentioned. Does anyone really think that the Russians had anything to gain from shooting down an unarmed passenger plane? Obviously not, so clearly they did not do it. Did the Ukraine separatists have anything to gain by shooting down the airliner? Of course not. They had a lot to lose. Clearly, they did not shoot down the passenger plane deliberately. They would have been idiots to do so, therefore, the plane was shot down by accident.

The columnist Christopher Booker points out that Obama was better placed than anyone to prevent the disaster from taking place. Days earlier, he had already learned from his many intelligence sources that the 55 international airlines travelling every day along that flight path, over Eastern Ukraine, faced the threat of precisely such a disaster. Why did he not halt such flights? Yet, the Americans blamed Putin.

The 30 year old SA-11, or BUK M1 missile launcher, apparently responsible for the downing, had not been recently smuggled in over the Russian border, as they alleged. It has been in the Ukraine all along, as part of the equipment of the Ukraine official armed forces. On 29th June, several launchers were captured in a non-operational state by the pro-Russian rebels. By 13th July, one was again fully functional, and used to down a Ukraine transport aircraft. All this, including the exact position from where the fatal missile was launched, would have been detected by the plethora of US satellites monitoring that area. It is inconceivable that this did not ring alarm bells with anyone, including the authorities in Kiev, who had the prime responsibility for immediately closing their airspace. But, as the Ukraine receives a sizeable income from airlines making 350 flights a day across the country as a whole, they did nothing, nor did Washington.

It was three days after the downing of the Antonov transport aircraft that the rebels shot down the airliner, certainly unaware that it was an airliner. The immediate question is why did Washington not take steps to stop civilian flights?

A more interesting question is, what caused the Ukrainian situation in the first place? The West, of course, blames everything on Putin. They conveniently forget that it was the West that destabilised the Ukraine. In the elections of 2010, Viktor Yanukovych, after elections whose validity was never questioned, became president. For several years thereafter, the Ukraine was stable and quiet. Then, in November 2013, President Yanukovych refused to sign the Ukraine-EU Association Agreement, and decided instead to pursue closer ties with Russia. He was perfectly entitled to take that decision. Nevertheless, there were protests in Kiev, and in December and January “protesters” started taking over government buildings, both in Kiev and in Western Ukraine. Such violent “protests” cannot be spontaneous. They must be organised and supported. The famous Paris demonstrations of 1968 were later found to have been organised by Cuba, and paid for by the Russians. So, who was supporting these protests? Clearly, it was the West, led by the US. Eventually, they succeeded in deposing the elected government, and replacing it with an unelected government. Is this what the West stands for? Unelected governments? In short, they were trying to pull the Ukraine out of the Russian orbit, and into the EU by force. With what right? Indeed, would it be to the EU’s benefit? The Ukraine is bankrupt, and needs an enormous amount of money to survive, and the EU countries are bankrupt. Who is going to pay?

Since the fall of the Yanukovych government last year, the Ukraine has been in an unstable state. Whose fault is that? Did the West really think that Putin would do nothing, while they pulled the Ukraine away from Russia? And, of course, once in the EU, what about NATO? The West continues to follow a policy of naivety, combined with hypocrisy, and it is they who destabilised the Ukraine. They failed to see that Putin had to react. Now they blame Putin for the consequences.
The West ignores the fact that the Ukrainians and the Russians are the same race. They both come from the race called “Rus”, (the basis for the word ‘Russian’), and for many years their languages were identical. The Ukraine has not been independent since 1240, when Kiev was destroyed by the Mongols. Since then, it has fallen into various hands, but for the last 300 years, it has been Russian. Russian blood has been spilled in the Ukraine, and in the Crimea. Why should the Ukraine be in the EU? Of course, the reason that many Ukrainians wish to join, is because they think they will get a lot of money from the EU.

The future looks murky.


Where Is Tolerance?

Philip Collins writes today in The Times (Put an end to this unspeakable organisation), on expelling countries from the Commonwealth where homosexuality is not legal. I would like to ask two questions.
Without discussing the merits, or demerits of homosexuality, what gives us the right to impose our views on other countries in a free world? My question is, of course, not restricted to homosexuality, but to any kind of difference of opinion. As regards homosexuality, it was illegal in this country until 1965. Did morality suddenly change in 1965, not only for us, but for the whole world? Of course, I am sure that Philip Collins, as an educated person, is aware that legality and morality are two different things.
My second question is, why is it necessary for homosexuals to “come out of the closet”, and flaunt their homosexuality? I do not flaunt my love life, and I am sure Philip Collins does not flaunt his. Why should they not only be allowed to, but be expected to do so? Of course, this “flaunting” is hypocritical, because they never tell the whole truth. The crucial point in homosexual relationships is who the bugger is, and who is the buggee. In ancient Athens, there was no punishment for buggering, but anyone who lay down and allowed themselves to be buggered, not only lost his Athenian citizenship, but also was considered a woman, and was addressed as a woman from then on.
There are a dozen words in the English language, some correct English, and some slang, that mean homosexual, yet in the last thirty years, we are all obliged to use the word “gay”, which never existed before. If homosexuality is perfectly alright, why does it need a euphemism?


Where Is The German Gold?

One of the most extraordinary recent events in the financial world is the recent request by the Germans to repatriate their gold from the U.S., to which the Americans replied that they could only repatriate small amounts of it, over seven years. For one Central Bank to say that to another Central Bank is extraordinary. Even more extraordinary is that, after one year, during which very little gold had been repatriated to Germany, the Germans suddenly stated they did not want their gold back. This is clearly not normal behaviour.

The fact is that for many years, Central Banks sold their gold to other banks, with an option to buy back at a certain price. Because of this option, they called it “leasing”, not selling, and for the same reason they continue to include their gold in their accounts, although they had already sold it. This has been going on for some time. Although the Federal Reserve has never allowed an audit of its own gold, it is pretty certain that it is not all there, because much of it has been “leased”. But the behaviour of the Federal Reserve to the Germans’ demand for the gold which has been stored in America since the War, suggests that the Federal Reserve has been “leasing” not only its own gold, but also the Germans’ gold, and perhaps other countries’ gold as well.

If this is true, this is theft. Any private person who tried that would go straight to jail. And yet, nothing is done about it, and there is neither real criticism from German politicians, nor any visible effort to return the German gold, because if the gold is there, then it can be taken back. Hans Henkel, a German member of the European Parliament said “Why we have not been allowed to inspect the gold escapes me”. (German representatives in New York were not allowed to see the gold.) “The Bundesbank should be able to audit the gold once a year, as it does with its own resources in Frankfurt.” Peter Voehringer, head of the “Repatriation of Gold Campaign”, recently said “We are still missing published bar number lists, even though the U.S. Federal Reserve publishes this list for its own gold.

It looks like the Federal Reserve is trying to hide behind its finger – yet no one calls their bluff.


Letter To Sandra Howard

Darling Sandra,

I saw in the papers that you announced that you are not a “blue Tory”, but a bit of a “Pinko”. I imagine that you thought this would cause a bit of a stir, but it does not surprise me in the slightest. The fact is very few women are “blue Tory”. Most women are what you call “Pinkos, and what Conservatives usually call “Wets”. That is partly because women by nature are more emotional than men. This is good in life, but not good in politics. One is free to be soppy in one’s own life, but one is not allowed to be soppy, when one is meant to be safeguarding the lives and fortunes of other people. The other reason is that women do not understand logic. This does not matter too much in their daily lives, but is extremely important in politics. I have spent my life with women and have met many intelligent and educated women, but I have never met a woman who understands logic, not even Mrs Thatcher. I recently had a discussion with a group of four feminist journalists, all of whom had strong views, but all of whom cheerfully admitted that they didn’t understand logic, and were not interested in it.

One of the main feminist arguments today is that because half of the world is female, half of the MP’s should be female. This is, of course, very bad logic. If it were true that half of the MP’s should be women, then half of plumbers should be women, half of the coal miners, and half of the street sweepers should be women. But, of course, that is not what women want. They want to have their cake and eat it too – to be equal and independent when it suits them, and fragile little flowers when it doesn’t. The recent vote on single-sex marriage was interesting. The majority of men voted against it, but the women all voted for it and thus pushed it through. Should women be deciding matters like homosexuality?

A lady journalist who writes in the Telegraph, and is also deputy editor of the Spectator (Isabel Hardman), tells us that the “only obstacle to women’s march forward”, is the cost of child care, which is holding back “true gender equality”. But the only way to have affordable child care is for other people to pay for it. I am not sure whether all women understand it, but the government has no money – it has no rich uncle or fat trust fund. All it has is the right to tax its citizens. So if a woman says “I want the government to pay for my child care”, what she is really saying is “I want other people to pay for my child care”. In particular, families where the mother doesn’t work, will be paying for child care for women who do work. Is that equality? Is that fair? Is that logic?

A very significant event occurred in 1992, of which most people are unaware; when the Conservatives voted as to whether Mrs Thatcher should remain as leader. Mrs Thatcher won the vote, but it was not by enough, and she had to go. Now there were twenty five Conservative lady MP’s at that time. Most of them had been helped by Mrs Thatcher to find a seat, and also helped by her when they came into the Commons. How did they vote? 25-0 against Mrs Thatcher. Do you think that all 25 were swayed only by political considerations, without any personal feelings? The majority of men had voted for Mrs Thatcher, and even if half of the ladies had voted for her as well, she would have won. If all the ladies had all voted for Mrs Thatcher, it would have been a landslide. In other words, because of their jealousy, 25 women decided the direction of English politics for the next 20 years i.e. a move to the Left. Most importantly, they also put us into the EU, because everyone knew that Mrs Thatcher was not going to sign Maastricht. But Major did, and that is why we are in the EU today.

Is that the way important matters should be decided?


1 2 3 48 Page 1 of 48

If any issues on this site affect you, please leave a comment.

All comments will be responded to appropriately.