Research the 80's before you vote

[GenevaSaint]

Anyone know who's behind the posters with the above text? Can't find anything on the web about it.

[Wes Tender]

Anyone know who's behind the posters with the above text? Can't find anything on the web about it.

 

Was that the one by the M27 roundabout near Hedge End? It seems to have been taken down.

[GenevaSaint]

Was that the one by the M27 roundabout near Hedge End? It seems to have been taken down.

 

Yeh, there are also a couple near the roundabout at the airport as well, on a billboard. Wasn't sure if it was fly posting or a real "message" from a party. I can't find anything on the web about it so I'd suggest fly posting.

[IamLeGod]

Yeh, there are also a couple near the roundabout at the airport as well, on a billboard. Wasn't sure if it was fly posting or a real "message" from a party. I can't find anything on the web about it so I'd suggest fly posting.

 

Haven't personally seen the poster. But would assume this is a pop at the Thatcher govt of the 1980's, most likley to come from Labour/left?

[Colinjb]

Funny, I always considered the 70's to be the worse decade.

[dune]

I would assume the message is a reminder of how good things were under Mrs T and an encouragement to vote Conservative. You only have to look to the fact that the Conservatives were in power for 18 years to see what a good party they were then.

[SuperMikey]

I would assume the message is a reminder of how good things were under Mrs T and an encouragement to vote Conservative. You only have to look to the fact that the Conservatives were in power for 18 years to see what a good party they were then.

 

Yeah, because everyone loved Thatcher. That's also the reason that Labour won by an absolute landslide in '97 is it then?

[dune]

Yeah, because everyone loved Thatcher. That's also the reason that Labour won by an absolute landslide in '97 is it then?

 

And what about 79, 83, 87 and 92? I doubt you are even old enough to remember how good things were in the 80's.

[Thedelldays]

Yeah, because everyone loved Thatcher. That's also the reason that Labour won by an absolute landslide in '97 is it then?

how many elections did she win..?

[solentstars]

Funny, I always considered the 70's to be the worse decade.

no some of the 80,s was bad,we had mass unemployment twice under the tories ,public owned utulities sold for a fraction of what they were worth so the tax payers lost out big time, and the selfish society of me me me which we still have.

taxcuts for the richest in society and underfunding of schools and hospitals.

maggies motto " their is no thing has society"

north sea oil wasted on the mass unemployment created by the torys.and overvalud exchange rate and high interest rates of 15 % and vat went up to 15% from 7 % and the hated polltax.

the only good thing was the unions were tamed.

Edited 4 May, 2010 by solentstars

[dune]

And just to add that the Tories achieved 43% in 79, 42% in 83, 42% in 87, and 42% in 92.

 

The lefties on here might try to paint a picture of how bad things were in the 80's, but the election results tell a different story.

[solentstars]

how many elections did she win..?

 

shw won but it was the falklands war which saved her bacon from a massive defeat at the time.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Yeah, because everyone loved Thatcher. That's also the reason that Labour won by an absolute landslide in '97 is it then?

 

I thought John Major was leader.

 

The Torys turned against Maggie. Hezza, Ken Clarke, Chris Pattern and the other wet's in the Tory Party caused the massive defeat, their obsession with the ERM as a forerunner of the Euro was a diaster.

[Thedelldays]

shw won but it was the falklands war which saved her bacon from a massive defeat at the time.

war bears no meaning on elections, or blair would have been out in 2005

[sperm_john]

what's the 80's got to do with the issues of today? in all seriousness??? other than scare scaremongering people off the torys if that's what your trying to achieve? because people could make a thread saying 'research the last 13 years before you vote' in exactly the same vane...

[solentstars]

I thought John Major was leader.

 

The Torys turned against Maggie. Hezza, Ken Clarke, Chris Pattern and the other wet's in the Tory Party caused the massive defeat, their obsession with the ERM as a forerunner of the Euro was a diaster.

 

i would not say maggie was a wet and ken clarke was a good chancellor laying down the foundations for recovery.

[solentstars]

war bears no meaning on elections, or blair would have been out in 2005

look at her poll rateing then,it was a disaster before the falklands war,i lived threw that period and the nation came together to rid the argies of our falklands.

[Thedelldays]

look at her poll rateing then,it was a disaster before the falklands war,i lived threw that period and the nation came together to rid the argies of our falklands.

and the election after that..?

[solentstars]

and the election after that..?

 

michael foot has labour leader;)

[solentstars]

The Falklands

Main article: Falklands War

 

On 2 April 1982, the ruling military junta in Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands and South Georgia, British overseas territories that Argentina claimed.[81] The following day, Thatcher sent a naval task force to recapture the islands and eject the invaders.[81] The conflict escalated from there, evolving into an amphibious and ground combat operation.[81] Argentina surrendered on 14 June and the operation was hailed a great success, notwithstanding the deaths of 255 British servicemen and three Falkland Islanders. 649 Argentinians also died, half of them after the cruiser ARA General Belgrano was torpedoed by HMS Conqueror.[82] Victory in the South Atlantic brought a wave of patriotic enthusiasm and support for the government.[71] Thatcher's personal approval rating rose from 30% to 59%, as measured by Mori, and from 29% to 52%, according to Gallup. Conservative support climbed from 27% to 44%, while Labour's slipped from 34% to 27%.[83]

[Joensuu]

war bears no meaning on elections, or blair would have been out in 2005

 

Wrong on both counts TDD.

 

Before the Imperial Falklands Adventure, Maggie was very unpopular and lightly to have been ousted by her own party to prevent her stumbling to an election defeat. All the pomp and circumstance of the Falklands fired up the white van drivers and blue blooded Etonians, and caused her popularity to soar.

 

On your second point, 1.2 million voters deserted Labour in 2005 (of these, 1 million swung to the Lib Dems while c. 200k switched to the Tories). Now there are many reasons why over a million people decided to switch, but a I find it hard to accept that Iraq wasn't high on the list.

[trousers]

So, we're all agreed then that 'events' affect the popularity of all Prime Ministers. Glad we've cleared that one up. Next.

[IamLeGod]

no some of the 80,s was bad,we had mass unemployment twice under the tories ,public owned utulities sold for a fraction of what they were worth so the tax payers lost out big time, and the selfish society of me me me which we still have.

taxcuts for the richest in society and underfunding of schools and hospitals.

maggies motto " their is no thing has society"

north sea oil wasted on the mass unemployment created by the torys.and overvalud exchange rate and high interest rates of 15 % and vat went up to 15% from 7 % and the hated polltax.

the only good thing was the unions were tamed.

 

Argggh this economy thing is rubbish.

 

Ive criticised Brown here before for trying to take credit for the economic miracle, whilst then distancing himself from it when things went tits up. Interesting how on Paxman last week he was talking about Globalization and what little affect one govt can have on a global market?

 

Any claim that the govt has had much effect on the boom or bust of an economy is simply propaganda depending on which side it is coming from and in which stage the economy is in.

 

Economics deals in cycles - boom and bust. They come around pretty regularly. Whilst this is far from ideal it is a reality. If one removes any partisan view and looks back, there has been periods of boom and bust under each labour and tory.

 

2000's/10 - Labour

1990's - Tories

1980's - Tories

1970's - Labour

1950&60's - Both parties suffered difficulty trying to control the economy.

 

Yes granted the same Tory goverment experienced two - but that was due to the fact they were in power for 18 years.

 

Labour were lucky to come to period at a time of global economic growth that was largely unprecedented - though in hindsight this 'growth' was based on fake growth and shady dealings.

 

Rant Over.

Edited 4 May, 2010 by IamLeGod

[View From The Top]

how many elections did she win..?

 

The same amount as Blair.

 

They also have the fact that they are c*nts in common.

[View From The Top]

And just to add that the Tories achieved 43% in 79, 42% in 83, 42% in 87, and 42% in 92.

 

Which tells you how much disdain they are held in now as they should be in the 40s as a minimum.

[IamLeGod]

Which tells you how much disdain they are held in now as they should be in the 40s as a minimum.

 

Please tell me what this suggests about Labour if the best they can hope for is a hung Parliament?

[View From The Top]

Please tell me what this suggests about Labour if the best they can hope for is a hung Parliament?

 

Equal disdain.

 

Says an awful lot about how the public view the ruling classes.

[dune]

Which tells you how much disdain they are held in now as they should be in the 40s as a minimum.

 

I expect they will be once the results are in.

[IamLeGod]

Equal disdain.

 

Says an awful lot about how the public view the ruling classes.

 

So in other words. your arguement is that "well nerrrr your lot are as unpopular as our lot".

 

Partisan Politics is an absolute joke and the bane of my being. It serves only to stifle any ambitions that any politicians have to actually make things better.

 

It resembles kid squabling on a playground, only the people involved are taller, use different language and talk about different things.

 

Anyone who doubts this has clearly never watched Prime Minister's Questions

[View From The Top]

So in other words. your arguement is that "well nerrrr your lot are as unpopular as our lot".

 

Not at all. With the state Labour are in I'd fully expected the tories to poll around 42%.

 

As the campaign has progressed it's become clear that the tories aren't trusted which says something about the state of mainstream politics that the main opposition party is struggling to win despite the current governenment being so unpopular.

 

I find it a genuine concern that politics finds itself in this position.

Edited 4 May, 2010 by View From The Top

[View From The Top]

I expect they will be once the results are in.

 

You're always wrong Stanley.

 

I see Ian Wright has come out for the tories. That must really upset you with him being black.

[dune]

You're always wrong Stanley.

 

I see Ian Wright has come out for the tories. That must really upset you with him being black.

 

You said that yesterday.

[View From The Top]

You said that yesterday.

 

I only found out about it today Stanley.

 

Made me think of you. We know how you feel about non-whites & your theories on social-Darwinism.

 

Now, what were they again?

[IamLeGod]

 

Partisan Politics is an absolute joke

 

It resembles kid squabling on a playground, only the people involved are taller, use different language and talk about different things.

 

You're always wrong Stanley.

 

I see Ian Wright has come out for the tories. That must really upset you with him being black.

 

You said that yesterday.

 

I only found out about it today Stanley.

 

Made me think of you. We know how you feel about non-whites & your theories on social-Darwinism.

 

Now, what were they again?

 

I have no idea where I got such ideas from?

[dune]

I only found out about it today Stanley.

 

Made me think of you. We know how you feel about non-whites & your theories on social-Darwinism.

 

Now, what were they again?

 

I have never spoken about Social Darwinism. I have however spoken about Darwinism.

[View From The Top]

I have no idea where I got such ideas from?

 

It's not about politics. It's about Dune, or Stanley as he was, believing that non whites are inferior to the white races and using a warped version of Darwinism to explain it.

 

It also has to do with Stanley attending NF rallies and spouting a white supremacist rhetoric.

 

Did I mention his holocaust denial and his belief that we should have allied ourselves with Nazi Germany as their foreign policy was "misunderstood"?

 

He was banned for doing it so Dune is treading carefully but once a neo-nazi scumbag, always a neo-nazi scumbag.

[View From The Top]

I have never spoken about Social Darwinism. I have however spoken about Darwinism.

 

Care to share your views on how Darwinism have made the white races superior? It used to be one of your favourite subjects Stanley.

[dune]

Care to share your views on how Darwinism have made the white races superior? It used to be one of your favourite subjects Stanley.

 

I have never ever said that one race is superior to another. I have said that man originated in Africa and over thousands of years migrated and evolved in different parts of the world. You can't say that evolution made the people of South America superior to the peoples of Northern Europe or the peoples of Northern Europe superior to the people that stayed in Africa because the word superior implies better in all respects. It's like saying the animals in the Malagasy Republic are superior to the animals on the African content - it's simply wrong. However based on the Olympics you can say that those who evolved in sub saharan africa are the better long distance runners and have more stamina than northern europeans - particularly those who evolved on the Ethiopean plateau at altitude. Equally for whatever reason the people that evolved in Northern Europe win far more swimming medals - i don't know why. My interest in this subject has nothing to do with race - i'm interested in Charles Darwin and his theories because i'm interested in science in the same way that i'm interested in volcanoes and geography and all the other **** you get on the discovery channel.

[Wade Garrett]

I have never ever said that one race is superior to another. I have said that man originated in Africa and over thousands of years migrated and evolved in different parts of the world. You can't say that evolution made the people of South America superior to the peoples of Northern Europe or the peoples of Northern Europe superior to the people that stayed in Africa because the word superior implies better in all respects. It's like saying the animals in the Malagasy Republic are superior to the animals on the African content - it's simply wrong. However based on the Olympics you can say that those who evolved in sub saharan africa are the better long distance runners and have more stamina than northern europeans - particularly those who evolved on the Ethiopean plateau at altitude. Equally for whatever reason the people that evolved in Northern Europe win far more swimming medals - i don't know why. My interest in this subject has nothing to do with race - i'm interested in Charles Darwin and his theories because i'm interested in science in the same way that i'm interested in volcanoes and geography and all the other **** you get on the discovery channel.

 

What about all the nazi stuff, dune?

[dune]

Did I mention his holocaust denial and his belief that we should have allied ourselves with Nazi Germany as their foreign policy was "misunderstood"?

 

This is a lie. The evidence of the holocaust was there for all to see. Also i've never said we should have allied ourselves with NAZI Germany, although had Lord halifax became PM this is exactly what we would have done.

[Thedelldays]

VFTT, who gives a fuk....please for the love of god, grow a pair a drop it

 

 

you like to think you are more right than anyone else...well lets see come friday..

 

you say the tories should be polling 40%...well, they may do...

if the Libdems DONT secure the opposition, what does that say about them also..?

Edited 4 May, 2010 by Thedelldays

[Wes Tender]

what's the 80's got to do with the issues of today? in all seriousness??? other than scare scaremongering people off the torys if that's what your trying to achieve? because people could make a thread saying 'research the last 13 years before you vote' in exactly the same vane...

 

The most sensible thing said on this thread in relation to the original subject.

It is 30 years since MT came to be Prime Minister. She did things that some people admire and others loathe. But what exactly is the relevance now? The current Conservative party now has no more resemblance to Maggie Thatcher's party then, than today's Labour party has any resemblance to the one of that era also. The whole political landscape has changed, partly as a result of what she did and obviously by what followed.

 

If these stupid calls to revise on history 20/30 years ago were applied to other periods in earlier history, then some similar idiot would have reminded us to view the history of the 40's at the time leading up to us signing the Treaty of Rome to join what was then laughably called the Common Market.

[trousers]

 

The most sensible thing said on this thread in relation to the original subject.

It is 30 years since MT came to be Prime Minister. She did things that some people admire and others loathe. But what exactly is the relevance now? The current Conservative party now has no more resemblance to Maggie Thatcher's party then, than today's Labour party has any resemblance to the one of that era also. The whole political landscape has changed, partly as a result of what she did and obviously by what followed.

 

If these stupid calls to revise on history 20/30 years ago were applied to other periods in earlier history, then some similar idiot would have reminded us to view the history of the 40's at the time leading up to us signing the Treaty of Rome to join what was then laughably called the Common Market.

Post of the campaign thus far.

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

And what about 79, 83, 87 and 92? I doubt you are even old enough to remember how good things were in the 80's.

 

Strange, my parents and grandparents often tell me that the 80s was a horrible time to be alive. I was only alive for the final four years of that decade, but even I suffered at the hands of Thatcher through her taking away my free milk. Ask yourself this dune, how much better is your quality of life now than in the 80s? Then again, you will be probably attribute this to the 'foundations' that Thatcher laid?

[dune]

Strange, my parents and grandparents often tell me that the 80s was a horrible time to be alive. I was only alive for the final four years of that decade, but even I suffered at the hands of Thatcher through her taking away my free milk. Ask yourself this dune, how much better is your quality of life now than in the 80s? Then again, you will be probably attribute this to the 'foundations' that Thatcher laid?

 

The 80's was a better time than now without a shadow of a doubt. The private sector was thriving, wages were good, there was little political correctness, Britain wasn't governed by Brussels, and the far right were just a fringe because immigration wasn't that big a deal. Britain today is a nanny state, our economy is in dire straits and we're currently living in a bubble of credit that's about to go pop, we're ruled by Brussels, and comunity tensions are getting worse. What Labour has sown this past decade hasn't yet been reaped and only in the years to come will we realise how bad 13 years of Labour has been. No dount the Tories will get the blame (should they win) for making unpopular decisions, but you're going to have to realise that the future will all be about the hangover from the binge.

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

The 80's was a better time than now without a shadow of a doubt. The private sector was thriving, wages were good, there was little political correctness, Britain wasn't governed by Brussels, and the far right were just a fringe because immigration wasn't that big a deal. Britain today is a nanny state, our economy is in dire straits and we're currently living in a bubble of credit that's about to go pop, we're ruled by Brussels, and comunity tensions are getting worse. What Labour has sown this past decade hasn't yet been reaped and only in the years to come will we realise how bad 13 years of Labour has been. No dount the Tories will get the blame (should they win) for making unpopular decisions, but you're going to have to realise that the future will all be about the hangover from the binge.

 

What about living standards dune, you haven't answered my question?

[dune]

What about living standards dune, you haven't answered my question?

 

Quality of life has fallen. It's not all about material stuff.

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

Quality of life has fallen. It's not all about material stuff.

 

I wasn't merely suggesting material goods dune. More children then could ever have been possible under previous Conservative governments are given a much more secure start in life (thanks to Labour) but the Tories seem determined to undo all this good work...

[dune]

I wasn't merely suggesting material goods dune. More children then could ever have been possible under previous Conservative governments are given a much more secure start in life (thanks to Labour) but the Tories seem determined to undo all this good work...

 

I believe n education, i don't believe in child trust funds etc. It's ridiculous and typicial of Labour. Instead of taxing and then giving it back give the public some ****ing respect and don't tax them in the first place. Labour is a control freak party and has created a nanny state. The governments your mother, your father, your auntie, your uncle and your granny with Labour. some ****ing freedom would be nice.

[Wes Tender]

Strange, my parents and grandparents often tell me that the 80s was a horrible time to be alive. I was only alive for the final four years of that decade, but even I suffered at the hands of Thatcher through her taking away my free milk. Ask yourself this dune, how much better is your quality of life now than in the 80s? Then again, you will be probably attribute this to the 'foundations' that Thatcher laid?

 

Ah, diddums. Margaret Thatcher took away your school milk, an event that apparently ranks in your mind as far more serious than getting back the Falklands, taming the over-powerful unions, getting the economy back to a healthy state, etc.

 

Your parents and grandparents say that it was a horrid time to be alive, but I think the opposite. You see, not everybody thinks the same way. My quality of life was better then than now, without a doubt.