Mrs Thatcher - rather different from todays politicians

[Derek Smith]

Sticks. said:

Derek Smith said:

Up until Scargill they had lots of support from the public but he squandered it, and in short shrift.

What makes you say that? My memory is quite the contrary, in fact.

The previous strikes were whole different ball games, especially those of the 70s. The 3-day week hurt the miners a bit but at the start of the 84 one the level of public support was quite high. I remember reading a book on the strike which reckoned the public support was just a bit less than half - around 45% if memory serves. Later though it dropped more than 10% but towards the end it went up a bit, but only when defeat was plain, so perhaps more of a sympathy vote.

Orgreave seemed to polarise opinion, reinforcing whatever prejudice one had. However, the killing of Wilkie was a massive blow to the union. There were attempts to blame the government. Not a lot of support for that one.

In the police opinion was anti miners by around 90%. At the end those who had gone on the strike were more variable in their outlook. Don't forget that in many areas the police got on well with the miners. Football was not unheard of. The state of the families was another, if not major, concern for the police.

Whilst one or two forces gained a reputation amongst the miners, for many country lads there was a conflict of interest. More than one officer cried off towards the end, unhappy in the role of the police.

I came to it late and by then most police wanted an end to it all, so just like most of the miners.

There were vast areas of the country where there was little/no support and the converse was true as well.

There was a considerably lower level of support for Scargill.

[mondeoman]

Justin Cyder said:

Churchill's principal contribution was in standing up to a tyrant when no one else could or would & forcing a nation to believe in itself when it seemed all hope was gone.

Says it all for me - where are the politicians like that now??

[drivin_me_nuts]

mondeoman said:

Justin Cyder said:

Churchill's principal contribution was in standing up to a tyrant when no one else could or would & forcing a nation to believe in itself when it seemed all hope was gone.

Says it all for me - where are the politicians like that now??

I would have thought the metal of the current lot would also show if required, but we don't have the likes of Adolf at our doorstep with such extreme plans afoot. Before you also ask our politicians to step up to the mark, also ask of its people the same question. Would we stand up in the same way as our last two or three generations? Our politicians are also a product of our times and environment and in part they mirror both the best and worst of us.

[crankedup]

JensenA said:

crankedup said:

From a purely simplistic bottom line approach you are no doubt correct. However, as we have found to our cost, the need to import fuels from private enterprise has seen the mine closures and privatisation of our water and electricity suppliers to be a economic and Social failure.

Why has it?

From the way I see it within thirty short years since the utilities have been in privatisation and coal mines closed we now have a heavy dependency on foreign Companies for the supply of gas,coal and oil, the three drivers of industry. We are, to put it bluntly we lost our fuel independence to overseas and now pay a very heavy price. Whilst I pay for my electricity use at premium rates my friends in France enjoy massively cheap electric from the same Company. They enjoy this benefit on the understanding that on rare occasions they may have to bear a power cut whilst the Company fulfil their contractual obligations to the U.K. I have a strong dislike to being shafted on pricing but can do no more about it than actions I take each year.
Our coal mines could now be supplying our own coal fired power stations under clean coal energy. But we all but ceased development of coal energy when we lost our pits.
I have said several times before that IMO the Governments of the period of mine closures should have been pro-actively seeking resolutions rather than confrontations with the industry. The Unions were as much to blame though for the demise of the industry.
Subsidising coal extraction had to stop, why? We throw away billions of pounds on overseas aid instead.
The Social cost was born by those that lost their jobs both within the coal mines industry directly and those connected indirectly.

[speedyman]

And back to the OP's question on Lady Thatcher, How about backhanders for her son for a start.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/mark-thatcher-ac...

[mondeoman]

drivin_me_nuts said:

mondeoman said:

Justin Cyder said:

Churchill's principal contribution was in standing up to a tyrant when no one else could or would & forcing a nation to believe in itself when it seemed all hope was gone.

Says it all for me - where are the politicians like that now??

I would have thought the metal of the current lot would also show if required, but we don't have the likes of Adolf at our doorstep with such extreme plans afoot. Before you also ask our politicians to step up to the mark, also ask of its people the same question. Would we stand up in the same way as our last two or three generations? Our politicians are also a product of our times and environment and in part they mirror both the best and worst of us.

You've taken me out of context in part, but I'll bite: the quote included the phrase "forcing a nation to believe in itself" and indicated a powerful, persuasive personality who was doing his best for the country, knowing and doing the "right thing".

Pray show me where CMD, Blair, Broon et all have even come close to uniting the nation in moving forward through this current financial quagmire or any of the other situations of the last 15 or so years? The answer is they haven't / won't, as they are "politicians" in the worst possible sense - doing the job for what it can give them, rather than for what they can give the country. They've presided over illegal wars, financial meltdown, expenses scandals and all the rest and not once have any of them shown themselves to be of strong principles / morals. The country certainly has the politicians it deserves, and they are a shadow of some of our previous statesmen and women.

[drivin_me_nuts]

mondeoman said:

You've taken me out of context in part, but I'll bite: the quote included the phrase "forcing a nation to believe in itself" and indicated a powerful, persuasive personality who was doing his best for the country, knowing and doing the "right thing".

Pray show me where CMD, Blair, Broon et all have even come close to uniting the nation in moving forward through this current financial quagmire or any of the other situations of the last 15 or so years? The answer is they haven't / won't, as they are "politicians" in the worst possible sense - doing the job for what it can give them, rather than for what they can give the country. They've presided over illegal wars, financial meltdown, expenses scandals and all the rest and not once have any of them shown themselves to be of strong principles / morals. The country certainly has the politicians it deserves, and they are a shadow of some of our previous statesmen and women.

Apologies if I took what you wrote out of context.

In the larger part, I agree with what you wrote. It does come to my mind though that perhaps the politicians of our times are more mindful of just how quickly we, the general public can and do react to political actions. I can't help but wonder if days when politicians thought of the 'greater good' are gone and they are more likely to have one eye on Twitter and the like than both eyes of the bigger picture.

I do believe very strongly that when Blair went to war, he did so with his own part in history very much at the fore front of his mind. As bland as CMD and little Cleggy are, neither of them strike me as having the self serving nature about them of Blair. Brown was a man out of depth and IMO quite shafted by Blair, but Blair.. well to me he seems more interested in self than nation.

[Derek Smith]

Justin Cyder said:

Churchill's principal contribution was in standing up to a tyrant when no one else could or would & forcing a nation to believe in itself when it seemed all hope was gone.

I'm not sure that it was only Churchill, if Churchill had much influence that way anyway.

He wasn't prime minister until 1940 so the war had started without him.

That said, his speeches were very clever and examples of ways to inspire but 'standing up to a tyrant' is rather stretching things a bit.

He was a great writer, of speeches anyway. But from my reading of the war, and what I was told by my relatives who lived through it, I think there was no one-man army. My father volunteered in 1939 before his speeches.

The negatives side, those who wanted to capitulate and form some kind of alliance with the Germans, were mainly on the right wing and left wing politically. Mosley's influence with the working class (or rather those who wanted to be workers) was much greater than appears nowadays.

Chruchill didn't change in telephone kiosks. He was never faster than a speeding bullet. He, together with others, warned of the German build-up but for a country that was poorly run financially and in debt with no plan to get out, rearmament on the scale he suggested was not a possibility.

He ran a coalition. It was divided into three parts and Churchill ran the war effort, with Atlee as 2 i/c. He made some dreadful decisions as well as good ones. One cannot criticise him for that but we cannot eulogise him for it either. He was excellent at chatting up the Americans, not the easiest of tasks for someone expecting an intelligent discussion. Keynes messed it up after the war.

So Churchill was not some form of super hero. He led a team which was successful. it was, however, a close run thing and if the Japanese had not attacked America there seems little doubt that we would have lost.

[Murph7355]

crankedup said:

...Whilst I pay for my electricity use at premium rates my friends in France enjoy massively cheap electric from the same Company. They enjoy this benefit on the understanding that on rare occasions they may have to bear a power cut whilst the Company fulfil their contractual obligations to the U.K. ...

So we pay a premium for a "guaranteed" supply that the French don't get? Seems fair dos to me. If I were offered x% off my bill but a lesser service, I doubt very much I'd take it. Maybe that's the answer to fuel bill costs though...give people the option of a supply that can be turned off whenever it suits the utility firm at a lower price

Also...are the costs of French utilities not in part driven by the technologies they use to produce the power? Isn't nigh on 80% of their power generated by nuclear?

I suspect your comparison is too simplistic...

The miners were idiots. As were British car workers in the 70s - possibly this group that prompted the govt to act as they did against the miners...

[otolith]

Interesting spin chosen - that it was to avoid a negative public reaction rather than that she thought it was the right thing to do.

[Disco_Dale]

Ok, false alarm.
Saw a thread about her and thought she'd pegged it.

It's a f***er to light fireworks in this weather anyway.

[ArmaghMan]

TheHeretic said:

ArmaghMan said:

Pity she didn't show as much compassion for 10 sons of Ireland as she did for her own son

: And pray tell what special treatment should terrorists receive?

Well using the Brits as a guide, many were recruited and used to kill prominent solicitors ( but that was ok because they were loyalist terrorist)

[ArmaghMan]

Caulkhead said:

TheHeretic said:

ArmaghMan said:

Pity she didn't show as much compassion for 10 sons of Ireland as she did for her own son

: And pray tell what special treatment should terrorists receive?

Double tap and an unmarked grave.

Sorry I thought that was how the British army dealt with innocent civilians....my mistake.

[TheHeretic]

Oh yay, a chip on shoulder Irish chappy! Aren't we lucky! The RUC are not the British Army;

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1...

As for 'killing Innocent civilians' are you referring to Bloody Sunday? I realise that is some mythical event for you where plucky irish dancers and guiness swiggers were shot, but for many others it was simply a reaction to events on the day.

But go ahead and have your little tirade.

PS, if the Army, SAS had the chance to shoot some terrorist fker then go ahead. If they want to be treated as pOW's, then treat it as a war, and not what it actually was, terrorism.

[LostBMW]

ArmaghMan said:

Pity she didn't show as much compassion for 10 sons of Ireland as she did for her own son

You are Gerry Adams aicmp.

[TheHeretic]

LostBMW said:

You are Gerry Adams aicmp.

Those poor terrorists had to wear some prison clothes. Poor fellows.

[crankedup]

Murph7355 said:

crankedup said:

...Whilst I pay for my electricity use at premium rates my friends in France enjoy massively cheap electric from the same Company. They enjoy this benefit on the understanding that on rare occasions they may have to bear a power cut whilst the Company fulfil their contractual obligations to the U.K. ...

So we pay a premium for a "guaranteed" supply that the French don't get? Seems fair dos to me. If I were offered x% off my bill but a lesser service, I doubt very much I'd take it. Maybe that's the answer to fuel bill costs though...give people the option of a supply that can be turned off whenever it suits the utility firm at a lower price

Also...are the costs of French utilities not in part driven by the technologies they use to produce the power? Isn't nigh on 80% of their power generated by nuclear?

I suspect your comparison is too simplistic...

The miners were idiots. As were British car workers in the 70s - possibly this group that prompted the govt to act as they did against the miners...

The major problem is not the fact that energy companies guarantee our supply though, its more to do with the over-pricing and 'circle of love' surrounding the big suppliers. The small matter of competitive prices being a pipe-dream to U.K. customers. Privatisation has failed through a lack of genuine competition, our increasing reliance on foreign companies to supply with their apparent charge at will whatever they feel is as much as the market can bear. This in turn has forced our Government into the winter fuel allowance payouts, at our cost.
I agree to a point, in hindsight the miners were foolish, they, for the most part, took strike action in belief that was all they could do in an attempt in securing their jobs. How many wanted to strike and how many were afraid not to strike is another matter. Same can be said of the car workers, although they were always doomed with the emergence of overseas development, much as the motorcycle industry in the U.K. was wiped out, not by strikes but poor management.
We will never agree regarding the malaise of U.K. industry during the period we are debating, I maintain that successive Governments were also negligent toward our industries adopting the 'close it down' mentality as the easiest route to political superiority.
Simplistic POV maybe, the fact is that U.K. PLC must now re-build its industries and get exporting again, the belief that we could survive as a services led Country has proved to be entirely incorrect at great cost to the Nation.

[Derek Smith]

crankedup said:

The major problem is not the fact that energy companies guarantee our supply though, its more to do with the over-pricing and 'circle of love' surrounding the big suppliers. The small matter of competitive prices being a pipe-dream to U.K. customers. Privatisation has failed through a lack of genuine competition, our increasing reliance on foreign companies to supply with their apparent charge at will whatever they feel is as much as the market can bear. This in turn has forced our Government into the winter fuel allowance payouts, at our cost.
I agree to a point, in hindsight the miners were foolish, they, for the most part, took strike action in belief that was all they could do in an attempt in securing their jobs. How many wanted to strike and how many were afraid not to strike is another matter. Same can be said of the car workers, although they were always doomed with the emergence of overseas development, much as the motorcycle industry in the U.K. was wiped out, not by strikes but poor management.
We will never agree regarding the malaise of U.K. industry during the period we are debating, I maintain that successive Governments were also negligent toward our industries adopting the 'close it down' mentality as the easiest route to political superiority.
Simplistic POV maybe, the fact is that U.K. PLC must now re-build its industries and get exporting again, the belief that we could survive as a services led Country has proved to be entirely incorrect at great cost to the Nation.

There used to be a toast that miners would make: To the last miner coming out of the last pit for the last time.

I heard it on a TV programme about national mining disasters in the 60s. It was after Abderfan. Yet Scargill went on about keeping mining jobs for the children of miners. Odd, therefore, that his actions fulfilled the toast.

[crankedup]

Derek Smith said:

crankedup said:

The major problem is not the fact that energy companies guarantee our supply though, its more to do with the over-pricing and 'circle of love' surrounding the big suppliers. The small matter of competitive prices being a pipe-dream to U.K. customers. Privatisation has failed through a lack of genuine competition, our increasing reliance on foreign companies to supply with their apparent charge at will whatever they feel is as much as the market can bear. This in turn has forced our Government into the winter fuel allowance payouts, at our cost.
I agree to a point, in hindsight the miners were foolish, they, for the most part, took strike action in belief that was all they could do in an attempt in securing their jobs. How many wanted to strike and how many were afraid not to strike is another matter. Same can be said of the car workers, although they were always doomed with the emergence of overseas development, much as the motorcycle industry in the U.K. was wiped out, not by strikes but poor management.
We will never agree regarding the malaise of U.K. industry during the period we are debating, I maintain that successive Governments were also negligent toward our industries adopting the 'close it down' mentality as the easiest route to political superiority.
Simplistic POV maybe, the fact is that U.K. PLC must now re-build its industries and get exporting again, the belief that we could survive as a services led Country has proved to be entirely incorrect at great cost to the Nation.

There used to be a toast that miners would make: To the last miner coming out of the last pit for the last time.

I heard it on a TV programme about national mining disasters in the 60s. It was after Abderfan. Yet Scargill went on about keeping mining jobs for the children of miners. Odd, therefore, that his actions fulfilled the toast.

Aberfan, etched onto the memories of everyone who witnessed that news breaking, tragic. We would hope that nothing similar could ever happen again. H&R drives me around the bend but if such a thing had existed back then its doubtful those slag heaps would have been any where near the village. At the same time production processes and mine safety has improved beyond recognition, still dangerous though as we are reminded occasionally.
(Coal not Dole)

[LostBMW]

guards red said:

Caulkhead said:

guards red said:

Worst PM this country ever had.

Care to back that up?

Grew up up North during her time. Had a whole period of my life under her stewardship, couldn't begin to put it into more words than I already have. Despise would have to do.

The politics of chip on shoulder. A bit like the politics of envy and just as ill thought out and unfounded, generally.