Richard Seymour - vile human being. - Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Richard Seymour - vile human being.

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 8 of 10 < 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >

leggedstruggle Croydon 07 Sep 15 9.24am
Quote legaleagle at 06 Sep 2015 10.23pm Quote leggedstruggle at 06 Sep 2015 9.19pm It is of course nonsense to say that Thatcher won the 1983 General Election primarily because of the Falklands victory. People don't vote for a government to reward the leader of a recent war, witness Churchill after World War II. They voted Tory because they did not want a Michael Foot led Labour government. It would have been like voting for a softly spoken Arthur Scargill. The electorate will take the same view of another softly spoken Scargill - Jeremy Corbyn - if he leads the Labour party. In your desire to have a another pot shot at "the left",you do down Maggie.I think its hard for anyone to argue cogently that the Falklands wasn't the single greatest factor ensuring her election victory in 1983.She had not been that popular before it but the month after the Falklands her popularity rating had shot up too 59% and certainly the Tories campaigned on the back of the Falklands (remember the Tory 1992 party conference set,like a warship?) Was Foot (and the highly effective and successful demonisation of him in the media) something to do with it? Yes.Was the formation of the SDP something to do with it? Yes.Was the Saatchi Bros' dominance of how to run a successful campaign something to do with it? Yes. But all somewhat lesser factors than the Falklands.If the Falklands had "gone wrong",she'd have likely been out the door. People reward successful war leaders in elections generally.Churchill was the exception not the rule,and that because of people's memories of the 30's and the high profile role of some Labour members of the wartime coalition government.Not to mention Churchill's inane suggestion during the election campaign that electing Labour would be akin to having the Gestapo. It is worth looking at what Churchill said: "How is an ordinary citizen or subject of the King to stand up against this formidable machine, which, once it is in power, will prescribe for every one of them where they are to work; what they are to work at; where they may go and what they may say; what views they are to hold and within what limits they may express them; where their wives are to go to queue-up for the State ration; and what education their children are to receive to mould their views of human liberty and conduct in the future? ... no Socialist system can be established without a political police. Many of those who are advocating Socialism or voting Socialist to-day will be horrified at this idea. That is because they are short-sighted, that is because they do not see where their theories are leading them. No Socialist Government conducting the entire life and industry of the country could afford to allow free, sharp, or violently-worded expressions of public discontent. They would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo, no doubt very humanely directed in the first instance. And this would nip opinion in the bud; it would stop criticism as it reared its head, and it would gather all the power to the supreme party and the party leaders, rising like stately pinnacles above their vast bureaucracies of Civil servants, no longer servants and no longer civil. And where would the ordinary simple folk – the common people, as they like to call them in America – where would they be, once this mighty organism had got them in its grip?" Unfortunate use of the word 'Gestapo' of course, but he did say 'some form of'. However, the gist is correct concerning the state controlling everything, the state knows best, the state knows better than you what is good for you and your family. mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle

Croydon 07 Sep 15 9.24am

Quote legaleagle at 06 Sep 2015 10.23pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 06 Sep 2015 9.19pm

It is of course nonsense to say that Thatcher won the 1983 General Election primarily because of the Falklands victory. People don't vote for a government to reward the leader of a recent war, witness Churchill after World War II. They voted Tory because they did not want a Michael Foot led Labour government. It would have been like voting for a softly spoken Arthur Scargill. The electorate will take the same view of another softly spoken Scargill - Jeremy Corbyn - if he leads the Labour party.

In your desire to have a another pot shot at "the left",you do down Maggie.I think its hard for anyone to argue cogently that the Falklands wasn't the single greatest factor ensuring her election victory in 1983.She had not been that popular before it but the month after the Falklands her popularity rating had shot up too 59% and certainly the Tories campaigned on the back of the Falklands (remember the Tory 1992 party conference set,like a warship?)

Was Foot (and the highly effective and successful demonisation of him in the media) something to do with it? Yes.Was the formation of the SDP something to do with it? Yes.Was the Saatchi Bros' dominance of how to run a successful campaign something to do with it? Yes. But all somewhat lesser factors than the Falklands.If the Falklands had "gone wrong",she'd have likely been out the door.

People reward successful war leaders in elections generally.Churchill was the exception not the rule,and that because of people's memories of the 30's and the high profile role of some Labour members of the wartime coalition government.Not to mention Churchill's inane suggestion during the election campaign that electing Labour would be akin to having the Gestapo.

It is worth looking at what Churchill said:
"How is an ordinary citizen or subject of the King to stand up against this formidable machine, which, once it is in power, will prescribe for every one of them where they are to work; what they are to work at; where they may go and what they may say; what views they are to hold and within what limits they may express them; where their wives are to go to queue-up for the State ration; and what education their children are to receive to mould their views of human liberty and conduct in the future? ... no Socialist system can be established without a political police. Many of those who are advocating Socialism or voting Socialist to-day will be horrified at this idea. That is because they are short-sighted, that is because they do not see where their theories are leading them. No Socialist Government conducting the entire life and industry of the country could afford to allow free, sharp, or violently-worded expressions of public discontent. They would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo, no doubt very humanely directed in the first instance. And this would nip opinion in the bud; it would stop criticism as it reared its head, and it would gather all the power to the supreme party and the party leaders, rising like stately pinnacles above their vast bureaucracies of Civil servants, no longer servants and no longer civil. And where would the ordinary simple folk – the common people, as they like to call them in America – where would they be, once this mighty organism had got them in its grip?"

Unfortunate use of the word 'Gestapo' of course, but he did say 'some form of'. However, the gist is correct concerning the state controlling everything, the state knows best, the state knows better than you what is good for you and your family.

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 07 Sep 15 9.46am
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 06 Sep 2015 9.17pm Quote Kermit8 at 06 Sep 2015 8.28pm There was no big anti-Falklands War sentiment in 1982 from any significant political group or leaning. It was generally felt to be a just war at the time. It was the sinking of the Belgrano that cast a shadow. Sinking the Belgrano saved British lives and potentially turned the odds in our favour. Sadly,ethics aren't worth a damn in the heat of war when it is us against them. Doesn't stop it being a 'war crime' though. Remains a contestable issue, probably in the best interests of the UK forces, but questionable whether it was within the rules of the conflict (remember it wasn't a declaration of war, so anything outside the exclusion zone was an unlawful engagement - I think it was the right decision militarily, but it may well have been a war crime objectively speaking). "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 07 Sep 15 9.46am

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 06 Sep 2015 9.17pm

Quote Kermit8 at 06 Sep 2015 8.28pm

There was no big anti-Falklands War sentiment in 1982 from any significant political group or leaning.

It was generally felt to be a just war at the time.

It was the sinking of the Belgrano that cast a shadow.

Sinking the Belgrano saved British lives and potentially turned the odds in our favour.
Sadly,ethics aren't worth a damn in the heat of war when it is us against them.

Doesn't stop it being a 'war crime' though. Remains a contestable issue, probably in the best interests of the UK forces, but questionable whether it was within the rules of the conflict (remember it wasn't a declaration of war, so anything outside the exclusion zone was an unlawful engagement - I think it was the right decision militarily, but it may well have been a war crime objectively speaking).

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 07 Sep 15 9.50am
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 06 Sep 2015 10.30pm Quote legaleagle at 06 Sep 2015 10.23pm Quote leggedstruggle at 06 Sep 2015 9.19pm It is of course nonsense to say that Thatcher won the 1983 General Election primarily because of the Falklands victory. People don't vote for a government to reward the leader of a recent war, witness Churchill after World War II. They voted Tory because they did not want a Michael Foot led Labour government. It would have been like voting for a softly spoken Arthur Scargill. The electorate will take the same view of another softly spoken Scargill - Jeremy Corbyn - if he leads the Labour party. In your desire to have a another pot shot at "the left",you do down Maggie.I think its hard for anyone to argue cogently that the Falklands wasn't the single greatest factor ensuring her election victory in 1983.She had not been that popular before it but the month after the Falklands her popularity rating had shot up too 59% and certainly the Tories campaigned on the back of the Falklands (remember the Tory 1992 party conference set,like a warship?) Was Foot (and the highly effective and successful demonisation of him in the media) something to do with it? Yes.Was the formation of the SDP something to do with it? Yes.Was the Saatchi Bros' dominance of how to run a successful campaign something to do with it? Yes. But all somewhat lesser factors than the Falklands.If the Falklands had "gone wrong",she'd have likely been out the door. People reward successful war leaders in elections generally.Churchill was the exception not the rule,and that because of people's memories of the 30's and the high profile role of some Labour members of the wartime coalition government.Not to mention Churchill's inane suggestion during the election campaign that electing Labour would be akin to having the Gestapo. This is all very subjective. I would say that Labour would have lost the election anyway. Foot, much like Kinnock and Milliband was too easy to mock and far too weak in personality to become PM. The trend was against them in any case. 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. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 07 Sep 15 9.50am

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 06 Sep 2015 10.30pm

Quote legaleagle at 06 Sep 2015 10.23pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 06 Sep 2015 9.19pm

People reward successful war leaders in elections generally.Churchill was the exception not the rule,and that because of people's memories of the 30's and the high profile role of some Labour members of the wartime coalition government.Not to mention Churchill's inane suggestion during the election campaign that electing Labour would be akin to having the Gestapo.

This is all very subjective.

I would say that Labour would have lost the election anyway. Foot, much like Kinnock and Milliband was too easy to mock and far too weak in personality to become PM. The trend was against them in any case.

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.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 07 Sep 15 9.51am
Quote leggedstruggle at 07 Sep 2015 9.24am They would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo, no doubt very humanely directed in the first instance. ................................................... Yes inane,particularly given that the Attlee government which was elected was a great one devoid of Churchill's scaremongering nonsense ,and that at the time people had just gone through a near six year war in which Labour members of the coalition government (and the central planning policies introduced) had been pivotal to its success (if somewhat less pivotal than Churchill)and Churchill was insinuating an equivalence between supporting Labour and the emergence of a domestic Gestapo. Churchill the war leader was a great.Churchill the peacetime politician was never much cop. Edited by legaleagle (07 Sep 2015 9.51am)
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

07 Sep 15 9.51am

Quote leggedstruggle at 07 Sep 2015 9.24am

They would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo, no doubt very humanely directed in the first instance.
...................................................

Yes inane,particularly given that the Attlee government which was elected was a great one devoid of Churchill's scaremongering nonsense ,and that at the time people had just gone through a near six year war in which Labour members of the coalition government (and the central planning policies introduced) had been pivotal to its success (if somewhat less pivotal than Churchill)and Churchill was insinuating an equivalence between supporting Labour and the emergence of a domestic Gestapo.

Churchill the war leader was a great.Churchill the peacetime politician was never much cop.

Edited by legaleagle (07 Sep 2015 9.51am)

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 07 Sep 15 9.54am
Quote leggedstruggle at 07 Sep 2015 9.24am Quote legaleagle at 06 Sep 2015 10.23pm Quote leggedstruggle at 06 Sep 2015 9.19pm It is of course nonsense to say that Thatcher won the 1983 General Election primarily because of the Falklands victory. People don't vote for a government to reward the leader of a recent war, witness Churchill after World War II. They voted Tory because they did not want a Michael Foot led Labour government. It would have been like voting for a softly spoken Arthur Scargill. The electorate will take the same view of another softly spoken Scargill - Jeremy Corbyn - if he leads the Labour party. In your desire to have a another pot shot at "the left",you do down Maggie.I think its hard for anyone to argue cogently that the Falklands wasn't the single greatest factor ensuring her election victory in 1983.She had not been that popular before it but the month after the Falklands her popularity rating had shot up too 59% and certainly the Tories campaigned on the back of the Falklands (remember the Tory 1992 party conference set,like a warship?) Was Foot (and the highly effective and successful demonisation of him in the media) something to do with it? Yes.Was the formation of the SDP something to do with it? Yes.Was the Saatchi Bros' dominance of how to run a successful campaign something to do with it? Yes. But all somewhat lesser factors than the Falklands.If the Falklands had "gone wrong",she'd have likely been out the door. People reward successful war leaders in elections generally.Churchill was the exception not the rule,and that because of people's memories of the 30's and the high profile role of some Labour members of the wartime coalition government.Not to mention Churchill's inane suggestion during the election campaign that electing Labour would be akin to having the Gestapo. It is worth looking at what Churchill said: "How is an ordinary citizen or subject of the King to stand up against this formidable machine, which, once it is in power, will prescribe for every one of them where they are to work; what they are to work at; where they may go and what they may say; what views they are to hold and within what limits they may express them; where their wives are to go to queue-up for the State ration; and what education their children are to receive to mould their views of human liberty and conduct in the future? ... no Socialist system can be established without a political police. Many of those who are advocating Socialism or voting Socialist to-day will be horrified at this idea. That is because they are short-sighted, that is because they do not see where their theories are leading them. No Socialist Government conducting the entire life and industry of the country could afford to allow free, sharp, or violently-worded expressions of public discontent. They would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo, no doubt very humanely directed in the first instance. And this would nip opinion in the bud; it would stop criticism as it reared its head, and it would gather all the power to the supreme party and the party leaders, rising like stately pinnacles above their vast bureaucracies of Civil servants, no longer servants and no longer civil. And where would the ordinary simple folk – the common people, as they like to call them in America – where would they be, once this mighty organism had got them in its grip?" Unfortunate use of the word 'Gestapo' of course, but he did say 'some form of'. However, the gist is correct concerning the state controlling everything, the state knows best, the state knows better than you what is good for you and your family. Ironically, that could be the battle cry of the Conservatives post war as well as Labour. Its also not been above the political parties of the UK to use the police and military as a means of enforcing control of its objectives, notably in response to strikes, protests etc. Even going so far as to use anti-terror legislation and national security, as a means of shielding itself from Transparancy and legal oversite. Ironically the UK government, has been complicit in acting as a Gestapo, notably in the acceptance of torture and rendition for torture of suspects without trial. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 07 Sep 15 9.54am

Quote leggedstruggle at 07 Sep 2015 9.24am

Quote legaleagle at 06 Sep 2015 10.23pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 06 Sep 2015 9.19pm

Unfortunate use of the word 'Gestapo' of course, but he did say 'some form of'. However, the gist is correct concerning the state controlling everything, the state knows best, the state knows better than you what is good for you and your family.

Ironically, that could be the battle cry of the Conservatives post war as well as Labour. Its also not been above the political parties of the UK to use the police and military as a means of enforcing control of its objectives, notably in response to strikes, protests etc. Even going so far as to use anti-terror legislation and national security, as a means of shielding itself from Transparancy and legal oversite.

Ironically the UK government, has been complicit in acting as a Gestapo, notably in the acceptance of torture and rendition for torture of suspects without trial.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle Croydon 07 Sep 15 10.03am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 07 Sep 2015 9.54am Quote leggedstruggle at 07 Sep 2015 9.24am Quote legaleagle at 06 Sep 2015 10.23pm Quote leggedstruggle at 06 Sep 2015 9.19pm It is of course nonsense to say that Thatcher won the 1983 General Election primarily because of the Falklands victory. People don't vote for a government to reward the leader of a recent war, witness Churchill after World War II. They voted Tory because they did not want a Michael Foot led Labour government. It would have been like voting for a softly spoken Arthur Scargill. The electorate will take the same view of another softly spoken Scargill - Jeremy Corbyn - if he leads the Labour party. In your desire to have a another pot shot at "the left",you do down Maggie.I think its hard for anyone to argue cogently that the Falklands wasn't the single greatest factor ensuring her election victory in 1983.She had not been that popular before it but the month after the Falklands her popularity rating had shot up too 59% and certainly the Tories campaigned on the back of the Falklands (remember the Tory 1992 party conference set,like a warship?) Was Foot (and the highly effective and successful demonisation of him in the media) something to do with it? Yes.Was the formation of the SDP something to do with it? Yes.Was the Saatchi Bros' dominance of how to run a successful campaign something to do with it? Yes. But all somewhat lesser factors than the Falklands.If the Falklands had "gone wrong",she'd have likely been out the door. People reward successful war leaders in elections generally.Churchill was the exception not the rule,and that because of people's memories of the 30's and the high profile role of some Labour members of the wartime coalition government.Not to mention Churchill's inane suggestion during the election campaign that electing Labour would be akin to having the Gestapo. It is worth looking at what Churchill said: "How is an ordinary citizen or subject of the King to stand up against this formidable machine, which, once it is in power, will prescribe for every one of them where they are to work; what they are to work at; where they may go and what they may say; what views they are to hold and within what limits they may express them; where their wives are to go to queue-up for the State ration; and what education their children are to receive to mould their views of human liberty and conduct in the future? ... no Socialist system can be established without a political police. Many of those who are advocating Socialism or voting Socialist to-day will be horrified at this idea. That is because they are short-sighted, that is because they do not see where their theories are leading them. No Socialist Government conducting the entire life and industry of the country could afford to allow free, sharp, or violently-worded expressions of public discontent. They would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo, no doubt very humanely directed in the first instance. And this would nip opinion in the bud; it would stop criticism as it reared its head, and it would gather all the power to the supreme party and the party leaders, rising like stately pinnacles above their vast bureaucracies of Civil servants, no longer servants and no longer civil. And where would the ordinary simple folk – the common people, as they like to call them in America – where would they be, once this mighty organism had got them in its grip?" Unfortunate use of the word 'Gestapo' of course, but he did say 'some form of'. However, the gist is correct concerning the state controlling everything, the state knows best, the state knows better than you what is good for you and your family. Ironically, that could be the battle cry of the Conservatives post war as well as Labour. Its also not been above the political parties of the UK to use the police and military as a means of enforcing control of its objectives, notably in response to strikes, protests etc. Even going so far as to use anti-terror legislation and national security, as a means of shielding itself from Transparancy and legal oversite. Ironically the UK government, has been complicit in acting as a Gestapo, notably in the acceptance of torture and rendition for torture of suspects without trial. Thanks for supporting my argument - that we need less government from all parties, less state control, as little as practical. mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle

Croydon 07 Sep 15 10.03am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 07 Sep 2015 9.54am

Quote leggedstruggle at 07 Sep 2015 9.24am

Quote legaleagle at 06 Sep 2015 10.23pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 06 Sep 2015 9.19pm

Ironically the UK government, has been complicit in acting as a Gestapo, notably in the acceptance of torture and rendition for torture of suspects without trial.

Thanks for supporting my argument - that we need less government from all parties, less state control, as little as practical.

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle Croydon 07 Sep 15 10.06am
Quote legaleagle at 07 Sep 2015 9.51am Quote leggedstruggle at 07 Sep 2015 9.24am They would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo, no doubt very humanely directed in the first instance. ................................................... Yes inane,particularly given that the Attlee government which was elected was a great one devoid of Churchill's scaremongering nonsense ,and that at the time people had just gone through a near six year war in which Labour members of the coalition government (and the central planning policies introduced) had been pivotal to its success (if somewhat less pivotal than Churchill)and Churchill was insinuating an equivalence between supporting Labour and the emergence of a domestic Gestapo. Churchill the war leader was a great.Churchill the peacetime politician was never much cop. Edited by legaleagle (07 Sep 2015 9.51am) Yet you maintain that the electorate in 1983 was champing at the bit to return a Labour government but reluctantly voted for Thatcher as she was a war leader? mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle

Croydon 07 Sep 15 10.06am

Quote legaleagle at 07 Sep 2015 9.51am

Quote leggedstruggle at 07 Sep 2015 9.24am

They would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo, no doubt very humanely directed in the first instance.
...................................................

Churchill the war leader was a great.Churchill the peacetime politician was never much cop.

Edited by legaleagle (07 Sep 2015 9.51am)

Yet you maintain that the electorate in 1983 was champing at the bit to return a Labour government but reluctantly voted for Thatcher as she was a war leader?

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle Croydon 07 Sep 15 10.09am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 07 Sep 2015 9.50am Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 06 Sep 2015 10.30pm Quote legaleagle at 06 Sep 2015 10.23pm Quote leggedstruggle at 06 Sep 2015 9.19pm It is of course nonsense to say that Thatcher won the 1983 General Election primarily because of the Falklands victory. People don't vote for a government to reward the leader of a recent war, witness Churchill after World War II. They voted Tory because they did not want a Michael Foot led Labour government. It would have been like voting for a softly spoken Arthur Scargill. The electorate will take the same view of another softly spoken Scargill - Jeremy Corbyn - if he leads the Labour party. In your desire to have a another pot shot at "the left",you do down Maggie.I think its hard for anyone to argue cogently that the Falklands wasn't the single greatest factor ensuring her election victory in 1983.She had not been that popular before it but the month after the Falklands her popularity rating had shot up too 59% and certainly the Tories campaigned on the back of the Falklands (remember the Tory 1992 party conference set,like a warship?) Was Foot (and the highly effective and successful demonisation of him in the media) something to do with it? Yes.Was the formation of the SDP something to do with it? Yes.Was the Saatchi Bros' dominance of how to run a successful campaign something to do with it? Yes. But all somewhat lesser factors than the Falklands.If the Falklands had "gone wrong",she'd have likely been out the door. People reward successful war leaders in elections generally.Churchill was the exception not the rule,and that because of people's memories of the 30's and the high profile role of some Labour members of the wartime coalition government.Not to mention Churchill's inane suggestion during the election campaign that electing Labour would be akin to having the Gestapo. This is all very subjective. I would say that Labour would have lost the election anyway. Foot, much like Kinnock and Milliband was too easy to mock and far too weak in personality to become PM. The trend was against them in any case. 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 voted in the 1983 General Election and my recollection is that hardly anyone (Basil Fawlty style) mentioned the war. The main thing was that most people regarded Michael Foot as a silly old fool who they definitely did not want as prime minister. mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle

Croydon 07 Sep 15 10.09am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 07 Sep 2015 9.50am

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 06 Sep 2015 10.30pm

Quote legaleagle at 06 Sep 2015 10.23pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 06 Sep 2015 9.19pm

People reward successful war leaders in elections generally.Churchill was the exception not the rule,and that because of people's memories of the 30's and the high profile role of some Labour members of the wartime coalition government.Not to mention Churchill's inane suggestion during the election campaign that electing Labour would be akin to having the Gestapo.

This is all very subjective.

I'm old enough to have voted in the 1983 General Election and my recollection is that hardly anyone (Basil Fawlty style) mentioned the war. The main thing was that most people regarded Michael Foot as a silly old fool who they definitely did not want as prime minister.

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 07 Sep 15 10.14am
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)
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

07 Sep 15 10.14am

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)

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 07 Sep 15 10.20am
Quote leggedstruggle at 07 Sep 2015 10.03am Quote jamiemartin721 at 07 Sep 2015 9.54am Quote leggedstruggle at 07 Sep 2015 9.24am Quote legaleagle at 06 Sep 2015 10.23pm Quote leggedstruggle at 06 Sep 2015 9.19pm It is of course nonsense to say that Thatcher won the 1983 General Election primarily because of the Falklands victory. People don't vote for a government to reward the leader of a recent war, witness Churchill after World War II. They voted Tory because they did not want a Michael Foot led Labour government. It would have been like voting for a softly spoken Arthur Scargill. The electorate will take the same view of another softly spoken Scargill - Jeremy Corbyn - if he leads the Labour party. In your desire to have a another pot shot at "the left",you do down Maggie.I think its hard for anyone to argue cogently that the Falklands wasn't the single greatest factor ensuring her election victory in 1983.She had not been that popular before it but the month after the Falklands her popularity rating had shot up too 59% and certainly the Tories campaigned on the back of the Falklands (remember the Tory 1992 party conference set,like a warship?) Was Foot (and the highly effective and successful demonisation of him in the media) something to do with it? Yes.Was the formation of the SDP something to do with it? Yes.Was the Saatchi Bros' dominance of how to run a successful campaign something to do with it? Yes. But all somewhat lesser factors than the Falklands.If the Falklands had "gone wrong",she'd have likely been out the door. People reward successful war leaders in elections generally.Churchill was the exception not the rule,and that because of people's memories of the 30's and the high profile role of some Labour members of the wartime coalition government.Not to mention Churchill's inane suggestion during the election campaign that electing Labour would be akin to having the Gestapo. It is worth looking at what Churchill said: "How is an ordinary citizen or subject of the King to stand up against this formidable machine, which, once it is in power, will prescribe for every one of them where they are to work; what they are to work at; where they may go and what they may say; what views they are to hold and within what limits they may express them; where their wives are to go to queue-up for the State ration; and what education their children are to receive to mould their views of human liberty and conduct in the future? ... no Socialist system can be established without a political police. Many of those who are advocating Socialism or voting Socialist to-day will be horrified at this idea. That is because they are short-sighted, that is because they do not see where their theories are leading them. No Socialist Government conducting the entire life and industry of the country could afford to allow free, sharp, or violently-worded expressions of public discontent. They would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo, no doubt very humanely directed in the first instance. And this would nip opinion in the bud; it would stop criticism as it reared its head, and it would gather all the power to the supreme party and the party leaders, rising like stately pinnacles above their vast bureaucracies of Civil servants, no longer servants and no longer civil. And where would the ordinary simple folk – the common people, as they like to call them in America – where would they be, once this mighty organism had got them in its grip?" Unfortunate use of the word 'Gestapo' of course, but he did say 'some form of'. However, the gist is correct concerning the state controlling everything, the state knows best, the state knows better than you what is good for you and your family. Ironically, that could be the battle cry of the Conservatives post war as well as Labour. Its also not been above the political parties of the UK to use the police and military as a means of enforcing control of its objectives, notably in response to strikes, protests etc. Even going so far as to use anti-terror legislation and national security, as a means of shielding itself from Transparancy and legal oversite. Ironically the UK government, has been complicit in acting as a Gestapo, notably in the acceptance of torture and rendition for torture of suspects without trial. Thanks for supporting my argument - that we need less government from all parties, less state control, as little as practical. I'd pretty much agree with that, but from a more left of center perspective. The role of state is the state, not individuals. Its only role with individuals is protecting the rights and freedoms of other individuals from a majority, or where a clear consensus exists (such as in law enforcement). The failure of successive systems of government has been in attempting to legislate how people should be and behave and to attempt to enforce morality laws popular with a majority, but in no way aligned to a strong consensus or rational basis. Edited by jamiemartin721 (07 Sep 2015 10.22am) "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 07 Sep 15 10.20am

Quote leggedstruggle at 07 Sep 2015 10.03am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 07 Sep 2015 9.54am

Quote leggedstruggle at 07 Sep 2015 9.24am

Quote legaleagle at 06 Sep 2015 10.23pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 06 Sep 2015 9.19pm

Ironically the UK government, has been complicit in acting as a Gestapo, notably in the acceptance of torture and rendition for torture of suspects without trial.

Thanks for supporting my argument - that we need less government from all parties, less state control, as little as practical.

I'd pretty much agree with that, but from a more left of center perspective. The role of state is the state, not individuals. Its only role with individuals is protecting the rights and freedoms of other individuals from a majority, or where a clear consensus exists (such as in law enforcement).

The failure of successive systems of government has been in attempting to legislate how people should be and behave and to attempt to enforce morality laws popular with a majority, but in no way aligned to a strong consensus or rational basis.

Edited by jamiemartin721 (07 Sep 2015 10.22am)

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 07 Sep 15 10.22am
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. "It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"
Alert a moderator to this post

dannyh

wherever I lay my hat....... 07 Sep 15 10.22am

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.

"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 07 Sep 15 10.30am
Given the government was negotiating pre-1982 to do a lease-back deal on the Falklands and had announced the withdrawal of the one regular navy vessel in the area (Lord Carrington,then Foreign Secretary, later said that "there was nobody in the cabinet … who was prepared to support me,"in opposing that,ie including Maggie) shows what a thin line there can be between a prime minister being perceived as strong and "no bulls***" and one who is seen as weak or as a failure.Take Eden over Suez. The extent to which the Falklands campaign is (rightly) glowingly viewed as a success might have been somewhat different if the US hadn't plumped for supporting the Uk over Latin America and giving it the benefit of its satellite spy technology,and if a few more of the Argentine bombs that landed on ships had gone off rather than not exploding. Edited by legaleagle (07 Sep 2015 10.34am)
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

07 Sep 15 10.30am

Given the government was negotiating pre-1982 to do a lease-back deal on the Falklands and had announced the withdrawal of the one regular navy vessel in the area (Lord Carrington,then Foreign Secretary, later said that "there was nobody in the cabinet … who was prepared to support me,"in opposing that,ie including Maggie) shows what a thin line there can be between a prime minister being perceived as strong and "no bulls***" and one who is seen as weak or as a failure.Take Eden over Suez.

The extent to which the Falklands campaign is (rightly) glowingly viewed as a success might have been somewhat different if the US hadn't plumped for supporting the Uk over Latin America and giving it the benefit of its satellite spy technology,and if a few more of the Argentine bombs that landed on ships had gone off rather than not exploding.

Edited by legaleagle (07 Sep 2015 10.34am)

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 8 of 10 < 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Richard Seymour - vile human being.

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors