Scargill, still causing trouble
Discussion
fido said:
crankedup said:
Look at the Conservative Government records and see that every time they are in power the unemployment rate rises dramatically.
True, but it's usually preceded by a Labour government maxing out the credit cards.
...on non-jobs in the public sector that do nothing and need removing to get public spending under control...
crankedup said:
It was a Conservative Government that took us into the E.U.
Look at the Conservative Government records and see that every time they are in power the unemployment rate rises dramatically. Tebbit revealed it all with his 'get on a bike' rubbish and 'unemployment is a price worth paying' which demonstrates where the Conservatives place their values.
1) Point taken about the EU. Heath, alongside Blair/Brown is the biggest traitor this country has been led by. Look at the Conservative Government records and see that every time they are in power the unemployment rate rises dramatically. Tebbit revealed it all with his 'get on a bike' rubbish and 'unemployment is a price worth paying' which demonstrates where the Conservatives place their values.
2) Soviet Russia and North Korea had 'full employment'. They were/are still basket cases where food shortgages were/are common. Borrowing to pay people to do non-jobs like 'race co-ordinator' isnt growth nor desirable.
3)Why is 'get on a bike' rubbish? The Poles managed it, why couldn't the Welsh/Northerners?
Johnnytheboy said:
Derek Smith said:
The members generally wanted closed shops and voted for it, so democracy at work.
That's like saying the Tories wanted to be the only political party.In my union the committee came up with ideas, put them to meetings and a vote was taken. Indeed it was required. Also in the meeting the members could put suggestions forward and we'd vote on them. It seems to me a much better way than having a choice between effectively two parties and then when one government gets in it does exactly what it wants. Democracy of a sorts, but only every four years or so.
Scargill has been criticised for the arrangements with his house but one wonders if he ever claimed for maintenance for his moat.
Derek Smith said:
In my union the committee came up with ideas, put them to meetings and a vote was taken. Indeed it was required. Also in the meeting the members could put suggestions forward and we'd vote on them. It seems to me a much better way than having a choice between effectively two parties and then when one government gets in it does exactly what it wants. Democracy of a sorts, but only every four years or so.
We would certainly see some changes in the country if we used direct democracy on every issue - and it would be perfectly practicable to do so using modern technology. There are some issues upon which the political classes are permanently in disagreement with the mob.It would probably be more efficient, however, to cut out the middle men and simply elect Rupert Murdoch as dictator.
Johnnytheboy said:
In the 70s?
Do you have any idea how many days labour were lost due to industrial action over pay during the Blitz?
That's right, during the f
king Blitz. When people were dying to defend democracy, several coal mines were on strike over pay.
Or if that seems a bit far fetched, in the late 40s the UK tried to invest some of its Marshall Plan funds in modernising the ship building industry to try and stem the flow of work abroad (caused in large part by the increased costs and unreliable lead times due to strike action).
One method of choice was to bring in automated welding machines, like the Germans and Japs were doing. The shipbuilding unions' response? To successfully demand that - even though these machines required about 20% of the manpower to do the same amount of welding - there was no change in the number of welders employed per ship. That's right, shipyards were employing four welders to stand there while one operated the new machines.
Now we have no ship building industry that isn't propped up by autarkic defence projects. Funny that.
Odd, have another go at reading my post that you are responding to. I swear you lot just trot out the same old sDo you have any idea how many days labour were lost due to industrial action over pay during the Blitz?
That's right, during the f
king Blitz. When people were dying to defend democracy, several coal mines were on strike over pay. Or if that seems a bit far fetched, in the late 40s the UK tried to invest some of its Marshall Plan funds in modernising the ship building industry to try and stem the flow of work abroad (caused in large part by the increased costs and unreliable lead times due to strike action).
One method of choice was to bring in automated welding machines, like the Germans and Japs were doing. The shipbuilding unions' response? To successfully demand that - even though these machines required about 20% of the manpower to do the same amount of welding - there was no change in the number of welders employed per ship. That's right, shipyards were employing four welders to stand there while one operated the new machines.
Now we have no ship building industry that isn't propped up by autarkic defence projects. Funny that.
te without reading the post.China took our shipbuilding away with its bowl of rice a day worker rates, don't blame it all on the Unions of the day. We could never have competed against that pay rate then, or now. Bash the Chinese pay rates and business models instead, we cannot compete against them in terms of price, only quality, it was true thirty years ago as much as it is now. I suggest you have a critical look at how the rest of the World 'do business' before constantly blaming Unions for the demise of British Industry. I will concede that Unions were partly responsible alongside inept management and Governments.
otolith said:
If the mines were still open, they would be manned by Poles while the local youths questioned the point of going down the pit when they're better off on benefits.
We will never know, but my guess is that our youths may have been motivated enough to take on 'above ground' jobs in the Industry and/or work in the supporting industries. But its all wishful thinking now.M3333 said:
Very good chap 
.
I am all for a free market and may the best man win. I hazard a guess you have never run a business......
British industry died for a reason, which is a crying shame, the unions played a huge part in its down fall. I guess the unions would stop overseas investment if they could and cause disruption for the sake of it?
I have huge respect for any overseas company that has heavily invested in the UK and its people, sadly i would love to witness UK based companies competing with them but accept the destruction unions and previous governments caused, life goes on and things change.....hardly trolling? Especially when these companies have been excellent for my own business growth. I could not even imagine dealing with the likes of BL etc and trying the same in the 1970's.
I have read your posts, do not agree with you that is all. Did you watch that Video?
1st : yes I'm all for a free market, lets keep it in context of the era, that is 1970 - 1985..I am all for a free market and may the best man win. I hazard a guess you have never run a business......
British industry died for a reason, which is a crying shame, the unions played a huge part in its down fall. I guess the unions would stop overseas investment if they could and cause disruption for the sake of it?
I have huge respect for any overseas company that has heavily invested in the UK and its people, sadly i would love to witness UK based companies competing with them but accept the destruction unions and previous governments caused, life goes on and things change.....hardly trolling? Especially when these companies have been excellent for my own business growth. I could not even imagine dealing with the likes of BL etc and trying the same in the 1970's.
I have read your posts, do not agree with you that is all. Did you watch that Video?
2nd : you hazard a guess that I have never ran a business - 50/50 chance and your wrong.
3rd : British Industry died and its a shame, agreed. Unions played a huge part in that, agreed and I acknowledged that a number of times. But also lousy management, lack of R&D, poor Governments all contributed to the downfall.
4th : agreed, I have some respect for some overseas business, but would much rather they be our U.K. business, but that's life. And no I couldn't have dealt with B.L. either, run by s
te, quality ste, and run by Unions. I cannot see that we are that far apart in so far as this issue is concerned, other than I tend to spread the blame for the demise of our industry wider afield than simply Union power. I have been consistent in that throughout and its what I honestly believe and express.
Lastly - what video? I have no idea what you are referring to.
Derek Smith said:
I'm not sure that the police did want the strike to go on any longer than it did. By November it was getting difficult to find volunteers for mutual aid and there was more than one serial that left short because a number had gone sick at the last moment. Further the pay was quite good by 84. In fact it has been going down in some senses ever since.
The timing of the strike was excusable as Scargill was hoping that the steel workers and the dockers would join the strike. As indeed were many commentators. Some suggest even Thatcher. Various reasons have been put forward as to why not, none of them really convincing. The majority seem to suggest that they were against the Trotsky style of politics that Scargill was promoting. Certainly he was not liked in the union movement. It is possible that they were a little nervouse of Scargill taking over the TUC. Others suggest that they were frightened for their jobs. If Scargill had won then the resulting free-for-all would have been damaging for them.
The TUC in those days was under a fair bit of pressure from the lurch to the left which had hit labour and the local authorities. They were a total rabble then, completely off the wall with corruption in local government that was remarkable even for LA levels.
Had Thatcher lost, and it was a close run thing, certainly in the early days, then we would be in a very different country today.
It took the oil revenues to pay for the battle. Not all of it but a fair bit. The rest, together with that from the sell-offs, was wasted on trying to get a share and property owning electorate and so pull votes for the tories.
A bit of a curate's egg was our Maggie.
The timing of the strike was excusable as Scargill was hoping that the steel workers and the dockers would join the strike. As indeed were many commentators. Some suggest even Thatcher. Various reasons have been put forward as to why not, none of them really convincing. The majority seem to suggest that they were against the Trotsky style of politics that Scargill was promoting. Certainly he was not liked in the union movement. It is possible that they were a little nervouse of Scargill taking over the TUC. Others suggest that they were frightened for their jobs. If Scargill had won then the resulting free-for-all would have been damaging for them.
The TUC in those days was under a fair bit of pressure from the lurch to the left which had hit labour and the local authorities. They were a total rabble then, completely off the wall with corruption in local government that was remarkable even for LA levels.
Had Thatcher lost, and it was a close run thing, certainly in the early days, then we would be in a very different country today.
It took the oil revenues to pay for the battle. Not all of it but a fair bit. The rest, together with that from the sell-offs, was wasted on trying to get a share and property owning electorate and so pull votes for the tories.
A bit of a curate's egg was our Maggie.
eldar said:
The government proposes actions, parliament debates it and votes. Legislation either passes, or not. How can a government elected in free elections not have a mandate?
Exactly who would you have decide how much the NHS spends, and how that money is raised?
Simple - the Political Party seeking Election to Government sets out in broad terms its five year plan, if elected the Government goes about implementing that plan during the course of its five year period.Exactly who would you have decide how much the NHS spends, and how that money is raised?
Now Cameron did not advise the electorate that the Conservatives would be making major structural changes to the NHS, in fact he inferred the opposite. Exactly the same as the Conservative Government under Thatcher, they did not tell the electorate we intend to shut down our coal mining industry, a major part of British Industry. So prospective candidates tell us broadly their plans and if elected go about implementing those plans. It all starts with the great U.K. public deciding if the mandate is broadly acceptable as a principle.
Slaav said:
My guess is that our Politics are not aligned; nor our basic philosophy.
I was going to quote loads of the stuff in this thread and possibly get the Ban hammer.
I have thought better.
If you have more than 4 posts per page, I may just dip out and not even read the remainder.
Sorry - imagine I have just taken a polite but obvious leave from the face to face chat in the pub!
A leaving
You are quite at liberty to disagree with every single word I print up, likewise I can and do the same with your good self. We can all find quotes and stat's to suit our own agenda.
ps - Without spoiling my own dignity (
) do you really believe everything you post?
pps - Mods; is that OK or do I need to edit it?
I was going to quote loads of the stuff in this thread and possibly get the Ban hammer.
I have thought better.
If you have more than 4 posts per page, I may just dip out and not even read the remainder.
Sorry - imagine I have just taken a polite but obvious leave from the face to face chat in the pub!
A leaving
You are quite at liberty to disagree with every single word I print up, likewise I can and do the same with your good self. We can all find quotes and stat's to suit our own agenda.
ps - Without spoiling my own dignity (
) do you really believe everything you post?pps - Mods; is that OK or do I need to edit it?
Andy Zarse said:
It possibly seemed that way to you because you take a left wing stance and are naturally sympathetic to unions. All lefties think they and their so called principals are held in high regard by the general public no matter the suffering their selfishness cause to their fellow man. This is a delusion.
The pit closures came ten years after the strike was over. This was on John Major's watch, and were orchestrated by a Tory Leftie hated by almost everyone; Michael Hesletine. The manner in which it was conducted was appalling and did garner some sympathy. However, I was referring to hatred of the miners in the 70's and 80's. They had very little support beyond Labour party and union activists, and even then...
The pit closures were happening throughout the strike and continued thereafter, there was no ten year gap after the striking miners got back to work. We will have to agree to disagree regards public sympathy throughout the strike period, the miners had massive support from workers throughout the land IIRC. I cannot blame the miner for striking as he would have been under immense pressure from his more militant co workers. The fact is it makes no difference, strike or no strike, the Government had already decided to close the mines. Scargill managed to gain access to the so called 'hit list' and this was used to further inflame the situation, which is what Thatchers Government wanted of course.The pit closures came ten years after the strike was over. This was on John Major's watch, and were orchestrated by a Tory Leftie hated by almost everyone; Michael Hesletine. The manner in which it was conducted was appalling and did garner some sympathy. However, I was referring to hatred of the miners in the 70's and 80's. They had very little support beyond Labour party and union activists, and even then...
Edited by Andy Zarse on Monday 20th February 10:02
There were no plans for workers in the area following closures, they were simply forgotten about and I notice and appreciate that you do acknowledge the terrible way that these people were cast aside. As a Lib-Dem I find that my left Social side still has strong feelings about the whole issue. Its a world away this all occurred and I would like to think that as a Nation we are all wiser. (B.C. aside)
Apache said:
Which bench would that be, there is no distinction IMO as for voting Lib Dem? you need your bumps feeling
Its only us Lib-Dems that are keeping the Conservatives on a less radical approach, and that suits me just fine. I would suggest that the Lib-Dem front bench, for the most part, have at least earn't a living rather than inherited their wealth, which is what the Country needs more of is it not.crankedup said:
Apache said:
Which bench would that be, there is no distinction IMO as for voting Lib Dem? you need your bumps feeling
Its only us Lib-Dems that are keeping the Conservatives on a less radical approach, and that suits me just fine. I would suggest that the Lib-Dem front bench, for the most part, have at least earn't a living rather than inherited their wealth, which is what the Country needs more of is it not.12gauge said:
1) Point taken about the EU. Heath, alongside Blair/Brown is the biggest traitor this country has been led by.
2) Soviet Russia and North Korea had 'full employment'. They were/are still basket cases where food shortgages were/are common. Borrowing to pay people to do non-jobs like 'race co-ordinator' isnt growth nor desirable.
3)Why is 'get on a bike' rubbish? The Poles managed it, why couldn't the Welsh/Northerners?
I disagree on 'if the poles manage it' argument. The immigrants are attracted to the U.K. seeing the over generous benefits and housing offered. They find themselves in the situation of earning a 'fortune' in comparison to their home pay rates. These people can send the money 'home' and set up a lifestyle fit for a king and beyond their dreams by living and working in the U.K. for a limited period. So no comparison to a U.K. worker in Burnley for example moving to the S.E. for work, they simply could not afford to do that. On top of that Tebbit had failed to recognise that perhaps the adult of the family would be unable to move without disruption to his families situations, perhaps they had a job. Add to that the vastly differing housing costs and by that time a shortage of social housing, all these things made Tebbits tone as one of ignorance of family life and emphasized his insulation from real life of these people.2) Soviet Russia and North Korea had 'full employment'. They were/are still basket cases where food shortgages were/are common. Borrowing to pay people to do non-jobs like 'race co-ordinator' isnt growth nor desirable.
3)Why is 'get on a bike' rubbish? The Poles managed it, why couldn't the Welsh/Northerners?
I fully agree with you regarding the rise of 'non jobs' under New Labour, completely cynical politics.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff