|
Replies:
|
|
krugerman
|
Oct 8 2014, 08:51 PM
Post #41
|
- Posts:
- 1,152
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #11
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Tytoalba
- Oct 8 2014, 10:55 AM
- krugerman
- Oct 7 2014, 08:15 PM
There was no single reason for the success of Margaret Thatcher as Conservative leader and PM, it was a multitude of reasons which all fell into place.
The fact that Labour had become unelectable, too outdated, too socialist and stuck in the past
The fact that millions of people felt that the unions were repeatedly wrecking the economy, had too much say, had too much power, and the feeling that they (the unions) were holding the country to ransom.
The winter of discontent
The character of a strong headed woman who seemed to offer a fresh start with fresh ideas
It was Margaret Thatcher who brought to an end the Tory tradition of encompassing all of society and been inclusive, the days of compassionate Conservatism came to an end with Margaret Thatcher, even the grand old statesman of Harold Macmillan became critical, he knew that she was reactionary, her simple answer to the unions was - smash them.
The fact is that politics is never simple, the left in this country became out of control in the 1970s, the unions made unreasonable demands, but Thatcher took over the reigns and created the complete opposite of her famous "Francis of Assisi speech", where she promised harmony, she created discord, where she promised hope, she brought despair.
I would naturally criticise Margaret Thatcher because I am a Liberal at heart, and since 2010 am a Labour supporter, I hated the way she divided society, and the way in which she showed not an ounce of compassion for the many communities she destroyed, but as much as I hate to admit it, there were some aspects of her premiership I supported and approved of.
Thank you for that Krugerman, for I do like to read a ballanced and heartfewlt post. , and not one driven by personal dogma. Sometimes in life we have to make hard decisions to solve major problems,both in government and in our private lives, and somtimes people get hurt as a result, for we cannot be all things to all people. all of the time. It does not men that we cannot feel for the persons effected or sympathise with their difficulties, caused through our actions. When the choices to be made are all bad ones, then we have to chose the best of the bad options,which is the task of all good goverments. There is little doubt in my mind a personal opinion born out of consequences, that we as a Nation are much better off today as a consequence of her actions. As a seperate issue,I have difficulty in understanding what is meant by the word fair. as used in politicsand by all political parties and some posters, for what is seen as 'fair' by one party or poster is certainly not fair to those who have to pay the price for that perceived fairness. I thought the poll tsax was fair, and I see the current bedroom tax as fair , even though they both caused hardship to some families, but benefited more than it caused difficulties to. Life itself is not 'fair' if we look closely at what is around us all the time. I hope you dont mind me using your post as a hook to hang my own feelings on, but I need to let it out. I have never been blinded by dogma, I prefer to see things from a common sense point of view, and to me common sense means considering the human dimension of decision making.
The way I see it, the Conservatives ARE the ones driven by dogma, for example, at a time when Chief Constables are warning about the future functioning of police forces due to cuts, and more cuts to come, why oh why is George Osborne and David Cameron talking about tax cuts. ?
My vote once went to the Lib Dems, but not any more ( at least for the time been ), but Vince Cable was absolutely correct in saying that cuts cannot be the only method of reducing the deficit, tax rises should be the other tool to be used in conjunction with reduced spending; Tax rises will mean that cuts to budgets would not be so deep, it would take the pressure of front line and essential services.
Tax rises is something that is utterly unthinkable in Tory minds, no matter what the circumstances, because its dogma, but its not common sense and it has no human dimension, and after all, tax rises can be temporary, but once public services have gone, they never come back, particularly under a Tory government.
As for the bedroom tax, I agree with it in principle, but the way in which it was implemented cannot be defended because many areas simply do not have smaller properties, people have been penalized and have nowhere to turn, no options, the bedroom tax is proof if ever proof was needed that the Tories hit the least well off in society - where is the human dimension to it. ?
Poll Tax - I was chairman of our local anti Poll Tax campaign, I was part of the millions who brought Thatcher down, and I am very proud of the fact, how could it be right, or fair, for a pensioner living in a council flat to pay the same as a local titled aristocrat living in a castle ?, where is the human dimension. ?
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Oct 8 2014, 09:22 PM
Post #42
|
- Posts:
- 17,674
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- Tytoalba
- Oct 8 2014, 05:38 PM
- C-too
- Oct 8 2014, 03:37 PM
- Tytoalba
- Oct 8 2014, 02:11 PM
- C-too
- Oct 8 2014, 12:33 PM
Quoting limited to 4 levels deepScargill was a product of the confrontational attitude of both business and government.
It is typical of the right to create a monster (read Welfare dependency here), and then blame that monster for all the ills they face.
All he had to do was to call a vote on striking and that he did not do. All the miners had to do was to obey the law and act in a peaceful manner, which they did not do. That lost them both the support of the public at large and their jobs. I have a friend who comes from a mining area in Durham, where he has friends who were in the mining industry. Some of his friends say it was the best thing that could have happened to them and their families, for who in their right minds today would want to work, or their sons to work at a coql face, in dirt and dust, with a constant danger of collapse or explosion, and at a risk to their lungs and general health. sometimes a mile or more under the ocean? The mines started from nothing, and all would eventually need to close down as they became unproductive to work, just like our potteried or cotton industry The attacks on Thatcher are more political ones than ones of reality of the times. The police who also come under political attack were upholding the law according to law Where here was violence they met it head on. What more could you expect,, or would you prefer that the legitimate forces of law and order were overwhelmed and defeated? There are people out there who have a politicl interest in dividing the police from the people for their own political gains. They want to win their idealogical war at any price., and no matter who suffers in achieving their ends.
I don't think many people missed the fact that Scargill showed that he was a few pence short of a shilling. The miners did behave in a reasonable manner until they were provoked. Yes in health terms it was a reasonable point, but a similar point could be made for many other industries at that time. Even so, if a change was to be made (for economic reasons) with knock-on effects for the health of the miners, a phasing out programme with a retraining programme (similar to the German sustem) was the civilised way to go. Germany more civilised than the UK, Oh! the shame of it. Mind you right-wingers are unlikely to recognise the problem. The attacks on Thatcher are based upon her callous political policies and her less than honest speaches. AS for the police being forced to take action, THE REALITY !!! AS ADMITTED BY THE BBC. (But not to my knowledge given any serious publicity which is probably why you have not heard of it ?) A cutting error during the editing of the tapes --- "mistakenly"(?) --- showed the miners throwing stones at the police followed by a police charge. The REALITY was a police charge was followed by the miners throwing stones. That I believe shows just how sick some of the police, the BBC and the government were at that time.
Of course it had to be a conspiracy, for otherwise having to accept the truth and reality would hurt our own perseptions of what really took place and counter our own personal bias. Had the strikers. led by the unions, acted in a lawful and peaceful manner there would not have been any violence. You talk about provocation , but using force, obstructing those wanting to work and throwing missiles at police really is provocation, and they did just that. Ask yourself do you want the law upheld or not for that is the bottom line. What "conspiracy" ?? ??
The BBC admitted they got the details of the recording WRONG. No argument no debate. The police charged the miners who were standing some distance away, and were dressed in 'T' shirts and trainers. There was no need for them to charge and it was after the charge that the miners began to throw stones. That is exctly what happened, as recorded by the BBC, and as admitted by the BBC.
The police created unnecessary violence by THEIR actions so please stop making unjustifiable arguments in their defence. It was the closest thing I have seen to Fascism in this country.
|
|
|
| |
|
Tytoalba
|
Oct 8 2014, 10:36 PM
Post #43
|
- Posts:
- 7,583
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #36
- Joined:
- Jun 29, 2014
|
- jeevesnwooster
- Oct 8 2014, 05:43 PM
- Tytoalba
- Oct 8 2014, 05:38 PM
Ask yourself do you want the law upheld or not for that is the bottom line.
If the law is unjust and being applied with prejudice as was the case, then no, if the state is acting as an enemy combatant then definitely not. The miners did break the law and they were 100% in the right to, as Ctoo said ask yourself who provoked them? Thats an oxymoron, for they cannot break the law and be in the right at the same time. If individual groups decide the law as it stands is not for them and will not obey it then we have anarchy and that serves no one any good. We change laws through our elected Parliament and do so by the democratic process.
|
|
|
| |
|
Tytoalba
|
Oct 8 2014, 10:50 PM
Post #44
|
- Posts:
- 7,583
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #36
- Joined:
- Jun 29, 2014
|
- krugerman
- Oct 8 2014, 08:51 PM
- Tytoalba
- Oct 8 2014, 10:55 AM
- krugerman
- Oct 7 2014, 08:15 PM
There was no single reason for the success of Margaret Thatcher as Conservative leader and PM, it was a multitude of reasons which all fell into place.
The fact that Labour had become unelectable, too outdated, too socialist and stuck in the past
The fact that millions of people felt that the unions were repeatedly wrecking the economy, had too much say, had too much power, and the feeling that they (the unions) were holding the country to ransom.
The winter of discontent
The character of a strong headed woman who seemed to offer a fresh start with fresh ideas
It was Margaret Thatcher who brought to an end the Tory tradition of encompassing all of society and been inclusive, the days of compassionate Conservatism came to an end with Margaret Thatcher, even the grand old statesman of Harold Macmillan became critical, he knew that she was reactionary, her simple answer to the unions was - smash them.
The fact is that politics is never simple, the left in this country became out of control in the 1970s, the unions made unreasonable demands, but Thatcher took over the reigns and created the complete opposite of her famous "Francis of Assisi speech", where she promised harmony, she created discord, where she promised hope, she brought despair.
I would naturally criticise Margaret Thatcher because I am a Liberal at heart, and since 2010 am a Labour supporter, I hated the way she divided society, and the way in which she showed not an ounce of compassion for the many communities she destroyed, but as much as I hate to admit it, there were some aspects of her premiership I supported and approved of.
Thank you for that Krugerman, for I do like to read a ballanced and heartfewlt post. , and not one driven by personal dogma. Sometimes in life we have to make hard decisions to solve major problems,both in government and in our private lives, and somtimes people get hurt as a result, for we cannot be all things to all people. all of the time. It does not men that we cannot feel for the persons effected or sympathise with their difficulties, caused through our actions. When the choices to be made are all bad ones, then we have to chose the best of the bad options,which is the task of all good goverments. There is little doubt in my mind a personal opinion born out of consequences, that we as a Nation are much better off today as a consequence of her actions. As a seperate issue,I have difficulty in understanding what is meant by the word fair. as used in politicsand by all political parties and some posters, for what is seen as 'fair' by one party or poster is certainly not fair to those who have to pay the price for that perceived fairness. I thought the poll tsax was fair, and I see the current bedroom tax as fair , even though they both caused hardship to some families, but benefited more than it caused difficulties to. Life itself is not 'fair' if we look closely at what is around us all the time. I hope you dont mind me using your post as a hook to hang my own feelings on, but I need to let it out.
I have never been blinded by dogma, I prefer to see things from a common sense point of view, and to me common sense means considering the human dimension of decision making. The way I see it, the Conservatives ARE the ones driven by dogma, for example, at a time when Chief Constables are warning about the future functioning of police forces due to cuts, and more cuts to come, why oh why is George Osborne and David Cameron talking about tax cuts. ? My vote once went to the Lib Dems, but not any more ( at least for the time been ), but Vince Cable was absolutely correct in saying that cuts cannot be the only method of reducing the deficit, tax rises should be the other tool to be used in conjunction with reduced spending; Tax rises will mean that cuts to budgets would not be so deep, it would take the pressure of front line and essential services. Tax rises is something that is utterly unthinkable in Tory minds, no matter what the circumstances, because its dogma, but its not common sense and it has no human dimension, and after all, tax rises can be temporary, but once public services have gone, they never come back, particularly under a Tory government. As for the bedroom tax, I agree with it in principle, but the way in which it was implemented cannot be defended because many areas simply do not have smaller properties, people have been penalized and have nowhere to turn, no options, the bedroom tax is proof if ever proof was needed that the Tories hit the least well off in society - where is the human dimension to it. ? Poll Tax - I was chairman of our local anti Poll Tax campaign, I was part of the millions who brought Thatcher down, and I am very proud of the fact, how could it be right, or fair, for a pensioner living in a council flat to pay the same as a local titled aristocrat living in a castle ?, where is the human dimension. ? Council tax is for council services that we all use or can use,and we should all pay equally for themi f we have the means to do so. How can it be right for an elderly couple living in a bigger home but on a modest fixed income using the same or less services than a family of workers in a smaller property having to pay more? There are a great deal more of them than the odd aristocrat living in the rare castle , few of which are in towns and cities. Your very reference to them shows a biased mindset Remember that all livng in the castle as their residence if they are on the voters register, will be liable for their own poll tax. and they, in total would be more than if the Castle was rated in the top tax band. I wrote to my Labour MP about the matter and he agreed that the current system is unfair , but it did have the advantage of being easier to collect.
|
|
|
| |
|
Rich
|
Oct 8 2014, 11:19 PM
Post #45
|
- Posts:
- 14,460
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #30
- Joined:
- Jun 28, 2014
|
- Tytoalba
- Oct 8 2014, 10:50 PM
- krugerman
- Oct 8 2014, 08:51 PM
- Tytoalba
- Oct 8 2014, 10:55 AM
- krugerman
- Oct 7 2014, 08:15 PM
There was no single reason for the success of Margaret Thatcher as Conservative leader and PM, it was a multitude of reasons which all fell into place.
The fact that Labour had become unelectable, too outdated, too socialist and stuck in the past
The fact that millions of people felt that the unions were repeatedly wrecking the economy, had too much say, had too much power, and the feeling that they (the unions) were holding the country to ransom.
The winter of discontent
The character of a strong headed woman who seemed to offer a fresh start with fresh ideas
It was Margaret Thatcher who brought to an end the Tory tradition of encompassing all of society and been inclusive, the days of compassionate Conservatism came to an end with Margaret Thatcher, even the grand old statesman of Harold Macmillan became critical, he knew that she was reactionary, her simple answer to the unions was - smash them.
The fact is that politics is never simple, the left in this country became out of control in the 1970s, the unions made unreasonable demands, but Thatcher took over the reigns and created the complete opposite of her famous "Francis of Assisi speech", where she promised harmony, she created discord, where she promised hope, she brought despair.
I would naturally criticise Margaret Thatcher because I am a Liberal at heart, and since 2010 am a Labour supporter, I hated the way she divided society, and the way in which she showed not an ounce of compassion for the many communities she destroyed, but as much as I hate to admit it, there were some aspects of her premiership I supported and approved of.
Thank you for that Krugerman, for I do like to read a ballanced and heartfewlt post. , and not one driven by personal dogma. Sometimes in life we have to make hard decisions to solve major problems,both in government and in our private lives, and somtimes people get hurt as a result, for we cannot be all things to all people. all of the time. It does not men that we cannot feel for the persons effected or sympathise with their difficulties, caused through our actions. When the choices to be made are all bad ones, then we have to chose the best of the bad options,which is the task of all good goverments. There is little doubt in my mind a personal opinion born out of consequences, that we as a Nation are much better off today as a consequence of her actions. As a seperate issue,I have difficulty in understanding what is meant by the word fair. as used in politicsand by all political parties and some posters, for what is seen as 'fair' by one party or poster is certainly not fair to those who have to pay the price for that perceived fairness. I thought the poll tsax was fair, and I see the current bedroom tax as fair , even though they both caused hardship to some families, but benefited more than it caused difficulties to. Life itself is not 'fair' if we look closely at what is around us all the time. I hope you dont mind me using your post as a hook to hang my own feelings on, but I need to let it out.
I have never been blinded by dogma, I prefer to see things from a common sense point of view, and to me common sense means considering the human dimension of decision making. The way I see it, the Conservatives ARE the ones driven by dogma, for example, at a time when Chief Constables are warning about the future functioning of police forces due to cuts, and more cuts to come, why oh why is George Osborne and David Cameron talking about tax cuts. ? My vote once went to the Lib Dems, but not any more ( at least for the time been ), but Vince Cable was absolutely correct in saying that cuts cannot be the only method of reducing the deficit, tax rises should be the other tool to be used in conjunction with reduced spending; Tax rises will mean that cuts to budgets would not be so deep, it would take the pressure of front line and essential services. Tax rises is something that is utterly unthinkable in Tory minds, no matter what the circumstances, because its dogma, but its not common sense and it has no human dimension, and after all, tax rises can be temporary, but once public services have gone, they never come back, particularly under a Tory government. As for the bedroom tax, I agree with it in principle, but the way in which it was implemented cannot be defended because many areas simply do not have smaller properties, people have been penalized and have nowhere to turn, no options, the bedroom tax is proof if ever proof was needed that the Tories hit the least well off in society - where is the human dimension to it. ? Poll Tax - I was chairman of our local anti Poll Tax campaign, I was part of the millions who brought Thatcher down, and I am very proud of the fact, how could it be right, or fair, for a pensioner living in a council flat to pay the same as a local titled aristocrat living in a castle ?, where is the human dimension. ?
Council tax is for council services that we all use or can use,and we should all pay equally for themi f we have the means to do so. How can it be right for an elderly couple living in a bigger home but on a modest fixed income using the same or less services than a family of workers in a smaller property having to pay more? There are a great deal more of them than the odd aristocrat living in the rare castle , few of which are in towns and cities. Your very reference to them shows a biased mindset Remember that all livng in the castle as their residence if they are on the voters register, will be liable for their own poll tax. and they, in total would be more than if the Castle was rated in the top tax band. I wrote to my Labour MP about the matter and he agreed that the current system is unfair , but it did have the advantage of being easier to collect. The following is relevant to your comment, Tyto.
http://www.adjacentgovernment.co.uk/local-council-news/council-tax-collection-needs-improving/
|
|
|
| |
|
jeevesnwooster
|
Oct 8 2014, 11:25 PM
Post #46
|
- Posts:
- 791
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #84
- Joined:
- Sep 6, 2014
|
- Tytoalba
- Oct 8 2014, 10:36 PM
Thats an oxymoron, for they cannot break the law and be in the right at the same time. If individual groups decide the law as it stands is not for them and will not obey it then we have anarchy and that serves no one any good. We change laws through our elected Parliament and do so by the democratic process. Twaddle, if a corrupt government is abusing the law for its own purposes, then, as happened, the miners or any other group of people have good cause to circumvent it.
They did the right thing.
Parliament would never have listened to the miners, you had an incompetent bunch sitting opposite the Tories and the Tories themselves, ideology driven extremists with far too much power.
|
|
|
| |
|
disgruntled porker
|
Oct 9 2014, 07:48 AM
Post #47
|
Older than most people think I am.
- Posts:
- 1,945
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #31
- Joined:
- Jun 28, 2014
|
We can argue all day about the strike being illegal because of the ballot (or lack of it). Thatcher and her supporters would have reacted in the same way had the ballot been "by the book".
We can argue all day about the use of violence (by both sides). Thatcher and her supporters would have reacted in the same way had there been none.
If the miners did everything by the book, Thatcher and her supporters would have reacted in the same way regardless. Public dislike of the unions at the time was encouraged and exploited to the max.
Those who castigate the miners now, would still have done so at the time of the strike had it all been "by the book", because that is their ingrained mindset. They would have probably been more in favour of crushing the miners, and the union movement in general, at the time, than they are proud of it now.
These are all opinions and a great deal of "ifs and buts", But there are some inescapable truths, proven by history. 1. Everything Scargill claimed about closures and hit lists was true. 2. All the denials by the government were bare faced lies to the people who elected them. A complete abuse of trust. 3. The confrontation with the miners had been planned for a very long time by the government, proven by the way they stockpiled coal in anticipation of the planned confrontation.
|
|
|
| |
|
Tytoalba
|
Oct 9 2014, 10:08 AM
Post #48
|
- Posts:
- 7,583
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #36
- Joined:
- Jun 29, 2014
|
- jeevesnwooster
- Oct 8 2014, 11:25 PM
- Tytoalba
- Oct 8 2014, 10:36 PM
Thats an oxymoron, for they cannot break the law and be in the right at the same time. If individual groups decide the law as it stands is not for them and will not obey it then we have anarchy and that serves no one any good. We change laws through our elected Parliament and do so by the democratic process.
Twaddle, if a corrupt government is abusing the law for its own purposes, then, as happened, the miners or any other group of people have good cause to circumvent it. They did the right thing. Parliament would never have listened to the miners, you had an incompetent bunch sitting opposite the Tories and the Tories themselves, ideology driven extremists with far too much power. But its OK for the strikers to break the law for their own purpose?The miners , if I remeber took the matter of police actions to the high court, and lost. Our sytym of law is basic. The fgovernment makes the laws with the support and debating by all parties, Lawyers draw them up, and th queen signs them The police uphold and maintain the law, and the courts, High court and others decide on the evidence if the law has ben broken or if the laws need amending. A civilized, law abiding, democratic society abides by the process and objecrtors to the law follow the process to make their opposition known. Violence and law breaking is unacceptable , and remember that all conflicts end in discussions, so let the discussions come first. I think that those that support law breaking, and fail to support those tasked with maintaining the law according to law to gain their own ends. have the problem that needs to be addressed. Had the miners not broken the law the protest would have been peacful and I think we must allconclude that their intention was to break the law. and that they did to their own final discomfort.
The government had prepared their ground by stocking coal to be able to maintain the power industry, and they imported cheaper coal from abroad.in case the miners went on strike to force the government to give way to them and to over throw the elected government of the day. They miners had tried before and overestimated their ability to bring the country to ransome. The country and its economy as well as all the other citizens were protected with foresight. The outcome has been to the countries benefit IMO
|
|
|
| |
|
Tytoalba
|
Oct 9 2014, 10:18 AM
Post #49
|
- Posts:
- 7,583
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #36
- Joined:
- Jun 29, 2014
|
- disgruntled porker
- Oct 9 2014, 07:48 AM
We can argue all day about the strike being illegal because of the ballot (or lack of it). Thatcher and her supporters would have reacted in the same way had the ballot been "by the book".
We can argue all day about the use of violence (by both sides). Thatcher and her supporters would have reacted in the same way had there been none.
If the miners did everything by the book, Thatcher and her supporters would have reacted in the same way regardless. Public dislike of the unions at the time was encouraged and exploited to the max.
Those who castigate the miners now, would still have done so at the time of the strike had it all been "by the book", because that is their ingrained mindset. They would have probably been more in favour of crushing the miners, and the union movement in general, at the time, than they are proud of it now.
These are all opinions and a great deal of "ifs and buts", But there are some inescapable truths, proven by history. 1. Everything Scargill claimed about closures and hit lists was true. 2. All the denials by the government were bare faced lies to the people who elected them. A complete abuse of trust. 3. The confrontation with the miners had been planned for a very long time by the government, proven by the way they stockpiled coal in anticipation of the planned confrontation. If coal mining had become uneconomic. and the coal needed to fuel industry could be bought cheaper from abroad, and the miners demands had become excessive and too expenceive to be supported, should the government have given way to them? The steel industry had the same problems for steel became cheaper to inport thn to produce in the UK partly because of th ehigh cost of coal.It was costing the country a million pounds a day in subsidies from the taxpayers. Economic reality and the governing of the contry by parliament, not the unions, became an essential prority for our longer term welfare. We were the sick man of Europe, and now we are seen as the strong one of the EU. Something must be going right,
|
|
|
| |
|
Affa
|
Oct 9 2014, 11:19 AM
Post #50
|
- Posts:
- 11,999
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #58
- Joined:
- Jul 26, 2014
|
- Tytoalba
- Oct 9 2014, 10:18 AM
the coal needed to fuel industry could be bought cheaper from abroad,
This is the only thing you got right!
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Oct 9 2014, 03:16 PM
Post #51
|
- Posts:
- 17,674
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- Tytoalba
- Oct 9 2014, 10:18 AM
- disgruntled porker
- Oct 9 2014, 07:48 AM
We can argue all day about the strike being illegal because of the ballot (or lack of it). Thatcher and her supporters would have reacted in the same way had the ballot been "by the book".
We can argue all day about the use of violence (by both sides). Thatcher and her supporters would have reacted in the same way had there been none.
If the miners did everything by the book, Thatcher and her supporters would have reacted in the same way regardless. Public dislike of the unions at the time was encouraged and exploited to the max.
Those who castigate the miners now, would still have done so at the time of the strike had it all been "by the book", because that is their ingrained mindset. They would have probably been more in favour of crushing the miners, and the union movement in general, at the time, than they are proud of it now.
These are all opinions and a great deal of "ifs and buts", But there are some inescapable truths, proven by history. 1. Everything Scargill claimed about closures and hit lists was true. 2. All the denials by the government were bare faced lies to the people who elected them. A complete abuse of trust. 3. The confrontation with the miners had been planned for a very long time by the government, proven by the way they stockpiled coal in anticipation of the planned confrontation.
If coal mining had become uneconomic. and the coal needed to fuel industry could be bought cheaper from abroad, and the miners demands had become excessive and too expenceive to be supported, should the government have given way to them? The steel industry had the same problems for steel became cheaper to inport thn to produce in the UK partly because of th ehigh cost of coal.It was costing the country a million pounds a day in subsidies from the taxpayers. Economic reality and the governing of the contry by parliament, not the unions, became an essential prority for our longer term welfare. We were the sick man of Europe, and now we are seen as the strong one of the EU. Something must be going right, Most of the uneconomic pits had been closed by Labour before Thatcher came to office. IIRC some 90% of the pits were economical. Production had massivley improved and those mines paid for themselves. Thatcher was able to get people to overlook that fact, by using propaganda over the fact that cheeper coal could be bought from open cast mines in other countries.
The fact that most mines were economical meant that there was no need for them to be closed in the way they were, it could have been done IF it needed to be done, over a much longer period giving people time to adjust.
|
|
|
| |
|
jeevesnwooster
|
Oct 9 2014, 04:23 PM
Post #52
|
- Posts:
- 791
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #84
- Joined:
- Sep 6, 2014
|
- Tytoalba
- Oct 9 2014, 10:08 AM
But its OK for the strikers to break the law for their own purpose?The miners , if I remeber took the matter of police actions to the high court, and lost. Our sytym of law is basic. The fgovernment makes the laws with the support and debating by all parties, Lawyers draw them up, and th queen signs them The police uphold and maintain the law, and the courts, High court and others decide on the evidence if the law has ben broken or if the laws need amending. A civilized, law abiding, democratic society abides by the process and objecrtors to the law follow the process to make their opposition known. Violence and law breaking is unacceptable , and remember that all conflicts end in discussions, so let the discussions come first. I think that those that support law breaking, and fail to support those tasked with maintaining the law according to law to gain their own ends. have the problem that needs to be addressed. Had the miners not broken the law the protest would have been peacful and I think we must allconclude that their intention was to break the law. and that they did to their own final discomfort.
The government had prepared their ground by stocking coal to be able to maintain the power industry, and they imported cheaper coal from abroad.in case the miners went on strike to force the government to give way to them and to over throw the elected government of the day. They miners had tried before and overestimated their ability to bring the country to ransome. The country and its economy as well as all the other citizens were protected with foresight. The outcome has been to the countries benefit IMO More meaningless blather, an ideologically driven administration of extremists manipulated the law for their own purposes and would, as disgruntled porker says, never have let things run any other course. They even stockpiled coal, as has been pointed out.
The government would have done anything necessary to destroy the organised labour movement in the UK and they did so successfully.
If the outcome has been to the country's benefit, tell me why so many are unemployed up north with little hope of getting a well-paid job?
Why has our standard of living decreased and why have real wages (accounting for inflation) not risen since the late-1970's.
It's yet more meaningless blather.
|
|
|
| |
|
Affa
|
Oct 9 2014, 05:11 PM
Post #53
|
- Posts:
- 11,999
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #58
- Joined:
- Jul 26, 2014
|
- C-too
- Oct 9 2014, 03:16 PM
- Tytoalba
- Oct 9 2014, 10:18 AM
- disgruntled porker
- Oct 9 2014, 07:48 AM
Economic reality and the governing of the contry by parliament, not the unions, became an essential prority for our longer term welfare. We were the sick man of Europe, and now we are seen as the strong one of the EU. Something must be going right,
Most of the uneconomic pits had been closed by Labour before Thatcher came to office. IIRC some 90% of the pits were economical. Production had massivley improved and those mines paid for themselves.
Quoting here is all awry ..... apologise to all. The beginning of the TU v Edward Heath government began with - The Industrial Relations Act 1971 Heath attempted to curb Union powers through the courts, introducing the concept of 'legality' of Worker reps, and the possibility of 'no-strike' clauses being imposed through the courts. The Act was later repealed. Arthur Scargill stated that the cheap imports were subsidised, and that NCB coal was the cheapest "at the pit head". Tons per man hours the most efficient in the world - also the most technologically advanced and the best safety record. It was said that the Miners were "always on strike - holding government to ransom" - the fact is that in its entire existence the NUM only called the miners out on strike once, Jan 1972. One other dispute '74 was a work to rule (no overtime) again when Heath was PM. The miners were offered a below inflation pay award 7%, inflation was over 10%. Was Heath deliberately angering the miners for his earlier loss? The seventies were a period of high inflation and fluctuating oil prices - Edward Heath brought in 'austerity' measures, capping public sector wages (below inflation), and even the Three-day Work Order was observed to be a back door attempt to curb wage demands = i.e. using a crisis under cover of which to reduce worker expectations and to have lower wage demands. (just as now) It is no coincidence that it was at this time that the Wages to Profits gap began to widen, and continued to widen.  Wages = Left scale ......... Profits = Right side. The overriding cause of unrest, of business struggles, of conflict (until the bankers broke the mould), has been INFLATION.
Edited by Affa, Oct 9 2014, 08:18 PM.
|
|
|
| |
|
Marconi
|
Oct 9 2014, 05:33 PM
Post #54
|
- Posts:
- 775
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #37
- Joined:
- Jun 29, 2014
|
Look at what happened during the Wapping dispute. Murdoch had the UK government, the police and lawyers fully on his side.
He could not have acted as he did without the benefit of Margaret Thatcher's legislation to curb the power of the unions, nor the police's zeal to enforce it with batons and shields and horseback charges.
And there's now the famous letter from the company's lawyers, advising News International on how to provoke a dispute, and then how to fire more than 5,000 people without risk of legal repercussion. An early instance of the kind of unholy alliance between lawyers, police, government and News International that exemplifies the "malign and corrosive" influence of Rupert Murdoch on the British establishment.
|
|
|
| |
|
disgruntled porker
|
Oct 9 2014, 05:47 PM
Post #55
|
Older than most people think I am.
- Posts:
- 1,945
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #31
- Joined:
- Jun 28, 2014
|
I'd just like to point out that the quote attributed to me in post #53 is not anything I have ever written.
|
|
|
| |
|
Stan Still
|
Oct 9 2014, 06:01 PM
Post #56
|
- Posts:
- 1,705
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #23
- Joined:
- Jun 28, 2014
|
- Heinrich
- Oct 3 2014, 09:55 AM
The late "Baroness" did not need to make that speech. Actions speak louder than words and everyone knew the Thatcherites then, like the Tories today, despised the English working class. She never made that speech it was kicked into the long grass and did not see the light of day until now, Thatcher came from a humble background, her Dad was a grocer and they lived in a small flat above his shop she was a working class girl that did well.
|
|
|
| |
|
disgruntled porker
|
Oct 9 2014, 06:16 PM
Post #57
|
Older than most people think I am.
- Posts:
- 1,945
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #31
- Joined:
- Jun 28, 2014
|
Her parents may have been working class, she never thought she was. In fact, didn't she think she was the queen in later years? !dvl! Sorry, shouldn't mock the afflicted.
|
|
|
| |
|
disgruntled porker
|
Oct 9 2014, 06:38 PM
Post #58
|
Older than most people think I am.
- Posts:
- 1,945
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #31
- Joined:
- Jun 28, 2014
|
- Tytoalba
- Oct 9 2014, 10:18 AM
- disgruntled porker
- Oct 9 2014, 07:48 AM
We can argue all day about the strike being illegal because of the ballot (or lack of it). Thatcher and her supporters would have reacted in the same way had the ballot been "by the book".
We can argue all day about the use of violence (by both sides). Thatcher and her supporters would have reacted in the same way had there been none.
If the miners did everything by the book, Thatcher and her supporters would have reacted in the same way regardless. Public dislike of the unions at the time was encouraged and exploited to the max.
Those who castigate the miners now, would still have done so at the time of the strike had it all been "by the book", because that is their ingrained mindset. They would have probably been more in favour of crushing the miners, and the union movement in general, at the time, than they are proud of it now.
These are all opinions and a great deal of "ifs and buts", But there are some inescapable truths, proven by history. 1. Everything Scargill claimed about closures and hit lists was true. 2. All the denials by the government were bare faced lies to the people who elected them. A complete abuse of trust. 3. The confrontation with the miners had been planned for a very long time by the government, proven by the way they stockpiled coal in anticipation of the planned confrontation.
If coal mining had become uneconomic. and the coal needed to fuel industry could be bought cheaper from abroad, and the miners demands had become excessive and too expenceive to be supported, should the government have given way to them? The steel industry had the same problems for steel became cheaper to inport thn to produce in the UK partly because of th ehigh cost of coal.It was costing the country a million pounds a day in subsidies from the taxpayers. Economic reality and the governing of the contry by parliament, not the unions, became an essential prority for our longer term welfare. We were the sick man of Europe, and now we are seen as the strong one of the EU. Something must be going right, Just a couple of problems with that logic.
Impoted coal was cheaper (and inferior). Ok, but add to the cost of that coal, the cost of paying miners redundancy money and benefits. Add onto that the cost of lost taxes and national insurance. Add onto that companies who supplied the mining industry which went under; more people on benefits and no longer contibuting to the country as a whole. Add onto that businesses which had to close in those communities because people no longer had money to spend in them. Thats just from a simple monetary point. Do you think, as a whole, that the imported coal was still cheaper. Also lets not forget the social cost and not just to this country. What about the counties we imported coal from? The coal was cheap because the workers had to perform for peanuts in shite and unsafe conditions. But it was ok for us to exploit these miners because it wasn't really our concern was it? Typical I'm alright Jack mentality. Law of the jungle. If someone is weak enough to be exploited, then it's fine to do so?
Rant over.
|
|
|
| |
|
Stan Still
|
Oct 9 2014, 06:44 PM
Post #59
|
- Posts:
- 1,705
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #23
- Joined:
- Jun 28, 2014
|
- disgruntled porker
- Oct 9 2014, 06:16 PM
Her parents may have been working class, she never thought she was. In fact, didn't she think she was the queen in later years? !dvl! Sorry, shouldn't mock the afflicted. Her parents managed to get her into a good school, she was not popular because she was from the wrong side of the tracks and her accent was not a BBC one but that did not stop her becoming PM by popular demand.
|
|
|
| |
|
Tytoalba
|
Oct 9 2014, 06:55 PM
Post #60
|
- Posts:
- 7,583
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #36
- Joined:
- Jun 29, 2014
|
- jeevesnwooster
- Oct 9 2014, 04:23 PM
- Tytoalba
- Oct 9 2014, 10:08 AM
But its OK for the strikers to break the law for their own purpose?The miners , if I remeber took the matter of police actions to the high court, and lost. Our sytym of law is basic. The fgovernment makes the laws with the support and debating by all parties, Lawyers draw them up, and th queen signs them The police uphold and maintain the law, and the courts, High court and others decide on the evidence if the law has ben broken or if the laws need amending. A civilized, law abiding, democratic society abides by the process and objecrtors to the law follow the process to make their opposition known. Violence and law breaking is unacceptable , and remember that all conflicts end in discussions, so let the discussions come first. I think that those that support law breaking, and fail to support those tasked with maintaining the law according to law to gain their own ends. have the problem that needs to be addressed. Had the miners not broken the law the protest would have been peacful and I think we must allconclude that their intention was to break the law. and that they did to their own final discomfort.
The government had prepared their ground by stocking coal to be able to maintain the power industry, and they imported cheaper coal from abroad.in case the miners went on strike to force the government to give way to them and to over throw the elected government of the day. They miners had tried before and overestimated their ability to bring the country to ransome. The country and its economy as well as all the other citizens were protected with foresight. The outcome has been to the countries benefit IMO
More meaningless blather, an ideologically driven administration of extremists manipulated the law for their own purposes and would, as disgruntled porker says, never have let things run any other course. They even stockpiled coal, as has been pointed out. The government would have done anything necessary to destroy the organised labour movement in the UK and they did so successfully. If the outcome has been to the country's benefit, tell me why so many are unemployed up north with little hope of getting a well-paid job? Why has our standard of living decreased and why have real wages (accounting for inflation) not risen since the late-1970's. It's yet more meaningless blather. The unions are still in existance , have not been prevented from looking after their members best intersts, They can still wit hold their labour if they vote in numbers to do so.
|
|
|
| |
|
Tytoalba
|
Oct 9 2014, 06:58 PM
Post #61
|
- Posts:
- 7,583
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #36
- Joined:
- Jun 29, 2014
|
- Affa
- Oct 9 2014, 11:19 AM
- Tytoalba
- Oct 9 2014, 10:18 AM
the coal needed to fuel industry could be bought cheaper from abroad,
This is the only thing you got right! Don't try to put me down, tell me what was not right As far as I am aware everything I said is factually correct.
|
|
|
| |
|
Tytoalba
|
Oct 9 2014, 07:05 PM
Post #62
|
- Posts:
- 7,583
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #36
- Joined:
- Jun 29, 2014
|
- disgruntled porker
- Oct 9 2014, 06:38 PM
- Tytoalba
- Oct 9 2014, 10:18 AM
- disgruntled porker
- Oct 9 2014, 07:48 AM
We can argue all day about the strike being illegal because of the ballot (or lack of it). Thatcher and her supporters would have reacted in the same way had the ballot been "by the book".
We can argue all day about the use of violence (by both sides). Thatcher and her supporters would have reacted in the same way had there been none.
If the miners did everything by the book, Thatcher and her supporters would have reacted in the same way regardless. Public dislike of the unions at the time was encouraged and exploited to the max.
Those who castigate the miners now, would still have done so at the time of the strike had it all been "by the book", because that is their ingrained mindset. They would have probably been more in favour of crushing the miners, and the union movement in general, at the time, than they are proud of it now.
These are all opinions and a great deal of "ifs and buts", But there are some inescapable truths, proven by history. 1. Everything Scargill claimed about closures and hit lists was true. 2. All the denials by the government were bare faced lies to the people who elected them. A complete abuse of trust. 3. The confrontation with the miners had been planned for a very long time by the government, proven by the way they stockpiled coal in anticipation of the planned confrontation.
If coal mining had become uneconomic. and the coal needed to fuel industry could be bought cheaper from abroad, and the miners demands had become excessive and too expenceive to be supported, should the government have given way to them? The steel industry had the same problems for steel became cheaper to inport thn to produce in the UK partly because of th ehigh cost of coal.It was costing the country a million pounds a day in subsidies from the taxpayers. Economic reality and the governing of the contry by parliament, not the unions, became an essential prority for our longer term welfare. We were the sick man of Europe, and now we are seen as the strong one of the EU. Something must be going right,
Just a couple of problems with that logic. Impoted coal was cheaper (and inferior). Ok, but add to the cost of that coal, the cost of paying miners redundancy money and benefits. Add onto that the cost of lost taxes and national insurance. Add onto that companies who supplied the mining industry which went under; more people on benefits and no longer contibuting to the country as a whole. Add onto that businesses which had to close in those communities because people no longer had money to spend in them. Thats just from a simple monetary point. Do you think, as a whole, that the imported coal was still cheaper. Also lets not forget the social cost and not just to this country. What about the counties we imported coal from? The coal was cheap because the workers had to perform for peanuts in shite and unsafe conditions. But it was ok for us to exploit these miners because it wasn't really our concern was it? Typical I'm alright Jack mentality. Law of the jungle. If someone is weak enough to be exploited, then it's fine to do so? Rant over. Your sentimentality does not address the matter of world economics, or our ability to compete in the world where labour costs are lower. If your happy for our prices to rise to a point where we cannot sell the goods, but others can and will , go ahead and impose the changes here that you wish , but you on the left of politics do seem to have an economic death wish, and a desire to make us a third world country
|
|
|
| |
|
Tigger
|
Oct 9 2014, 07:24 PM
Post #63
|
- Posts:
- 20,087
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #18
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Major Sinic
- Oct 8 2014, 02:52 PM
- papasmurf
- Oct 7 2014, 12:55 PM
- Major Sinic
- Oct 7 2014, 12:49 PM
Over a third of the British electorate are Tory voters;
Which quite frankly is a worry. If they were being told the truth of what is happening by the so called "free press," and the media in general, I suspect Tory support would wither away.
A large proportion of the electorate are equally as concerned at the number of gullible and misguided voters who are likely to vote Labour, although with Miliband at the helm and Labour's anti-aspiration, anti-business, anti-middle class rhetoric coupled with their cynical policy of putting party political interests ahead of English democracy, it is increasingly likely that they won't form part of the next government. Are there enough disabled, low paid, unemployed, single parent voters to vote for them because they are alienating every other voter category which they need to if they are to even be the largest party let alone get a majority. Not a particularly accurate picture and heavily sprinkled with right wing buzz words and stereotypical tag lines. You should check out what Lord Ashcroft has to say on the Tories chances of getting re elected, his research indicates that the Tories are behind in just about all the crucial marginal seats that will decide the general election.
An economic recovery is not a recovery if the only people benefiting from it are those who effed it up in the first place, this is why they will not be in power this time next year, they could have done things very differently but they blew it and reverted to type.
|
|
|
| |
|
Tigger
|
Oct 9 2014, 07:34 PM
Post #64
|
- Posts:
- 20,087
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #18
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Tytoalba
- Oct 9 2014, 07:05 PM
- disgruntled porker
- Oct 9 2014, 06:38 PM
- Tytoalba
- Oct 9 2014, 10:18 AM
- disgruntled porker
- Oct 9 2014, 07:48 AM
We can argue all day about the strike being illegal because of the ballot (or lack of it). Thatcher and her supporters would have reacted in the same way had the ballot been "by the book".
We can argue all day about the use of violence (by both sides). Thatcher and her supporters would have reacted in the same way had there been none.
If the miners did everything by the book, Thatcher and her supporters would have reacted in the same way regardless. Public dislike of the unions at the time was encouraged and exploited to the max.
Those who castigate the miners now, would still have done so at the time of the strike had it all been "by the book", because that is their ingrained mindset. They would have probably been more in favour of crushing the miners, and the union movement in general, at the time, than they are proud of it now.
These are all opinions and a great deal of "ifs and buts", But there are some inescapable truths, proven by history. 1. Everything Scargill claimed about closures and hit lists was true. 2. All the denials by the government were bare faced lies to the people who elected them. A complete abuse of trust. 3. The confrontation with the miners had been planned for a very long time by the government, proven by the way they stockpiled coal in anticipation of the planned confrontation.
If coal mining had become uneconomic. and the coal needed to fuel industry could be bought cheaper from abroad, and the miners demands had become excessive and too expenceive to be supported, should the government have given way to them? The steel industry had the same problems for steel became cheaper to inport thn to produce in the UK partly because of th ehigh cost of coal.It was costing the country a million pounds a day in subsidies from the taxpayers. Economic reality and the governing of the contry by parliament, not the unions, became an essential prority for our longer term welfare. We were the sick man of Europe, and now we are seen as the strong one of the EU. Something must be going right,
Just a couple of problems with that logic. Impoted coal was cheaper (and inferior). Ok, but add to the cost of that coal, the cost of paying miners redundancy money and benefits. Add onto that the cost of lost taxes and national insurance. Add onto that companies who supplied the mining industry which went under; more people on benefits and no longer contibuting to the country as a whole. Add onto that businesses which had to close in those communities because people no longer had money to spend in them. Thats just from a simple monetary point. Do you think, as a whole, that the imported coal was still cheaper. Also lets not forget the social cost and not just to this country. What about the counties we imported coal from? The coal was cheap because the workers had to perform for peanuts in shite and unsafe conditions. But it was ok for us to exploit these miners because it wasn't really our concern was it? Typical I'm alright Jack mentality. Law of the jungle. If someone is weak enough to be exploited, then it's fine to do so? Rant over.
Your sentimentality does not address the matter of world economics, or our ability to compete in the world where labour costs are lower. If your happy for our prices to rise to a point where we cannot sell the goods, but others can and will , go ahead and impose the changes here that you wish , but you on the left of politics do seem to have an economic death wish, and a desire to make us a third world country We are already on the way to third World status thanks to right wing economic "success," much of our infrustructure is already in foreign hands thanks to the parasites in the City, we spend less on education than most of our direct competitors and the only way to get the economy moving is to inflate the housing market and weigh down the plebs with debt which seems to please the "markets" for some strange reason, productivity continues to fall and with this goes the chances of servicing those ever increasing levels of debt with increases in pay.
Such a shame so many people are so thick as to think all of this is just normal economic activity.
Eventually we'll be renting our own country off of wealthy Arabs and Chinese..........
|
|
|
| |
|
jeevesnwooster
|
Oct 9 2014, 07:36 PM
Post #65
|
- Posts:
- 791
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #84
- Joined:
- Sep 6, 2014
|
- Tytoalba
- Oct 9 2014, 06:55 PM
The unions are still in existance , have not been prevented from looking after their members best intersts, They can still wit hold their labour if they vote in numbers to do so. And they have little to no power to abuse, because of extremists that took their power away. ;) Not to mention union members are demonised by the press everytime they so much as open their mouths, they practically aren't allowed to exist. The union bureaucracy profits from the uselessness of their unions not to mention practically stealing members money, and many union members are automatiacally signed up to donate to the labour party that has further eroded worker's rights.
In all of this, it is the working man that suffers and the people with and in power that benefit, both in unions and in government.
|
|
|
| |
|
Affa
|
Oct 9 2014, 09:06 PM
Post #66
|
- Posts:
- 11,999
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #58
- Joined:
- Jul 26, 2014
|
- Tytoalba
- Oct 9 2014, 06:58 PM
- Affa
- Oct 9 2014, 11:19 AM
- Tytoalba
- Oct 9 2014, 10:18 AM
the coal needed to fuel industry could be bought cheaper from abroad,
This is the only thing you got right!
Don't try to put me down, tell me what was not right As far as I am aware everything I said is factually correct.
You had written
- Quote:
-
If coal mining had become uneconomic. and the coal needed to fuel industry could be bought cheaper from abroad, and the miners demands had become excessive and too expenceive to be supported, should the government have given way to them?
The strike had nothing to do with the miners making "demands", not for money, not for anything - it was ALL about preventing closure of workable mines where the coal reserves were still extensive.
- Quote:
-
The steel industry had the same problems for steel became cheaper to inport thn to produce in the UK partly because of th ehigh cost of coal.It was costing the country a million pounds a day in subsidies from the taxpayers.
The steel industry does not (did not) require a lot of coal - the main use of coal being 'coke' - there are various qualities of coal, coking coal being a specific quality of coal and not common place. The price of coal had nothing (much) to do with BSC inefficiencies.
- Quote:
-
Economic reality and the governing of the contry by parliament, not the unions, became an essential prority for our longer term welfare.
It was Government rhetoric, press rallying support, the use of propaganda - there never was a challenge from the Unions to be running the country.
- Quote:
-
We were the sick man of Europe, and now we are seen as the strong one of the EU. Something must be going right,
Not entirely correct, the 'Sick Man' tag applies to the country at a time when the EU were contributing money to re-development areas, the time when the PM went to Brussels and got a rebate based on the argument that "the UK is not as wealthy as it was" - the contributions (based on National wealth) was punitive under those present conditions - the UK had dropped behind Italy on the wealth scale - this was not in the seventies. It was in the eighties when the UK was exporting oil. Mrs Thatcher went to the EU claiming the UK was the sick man! Then you say 'we are now strong' - should we give credit to Blair for that? It was certainly when Blair was PM when it could be argued that the UK was a strong economy - not before. Alas that stability has disappeared, stagnation has replaced it. Until the banks return to contributing to GDP something in line to where they had there will be no celebrating.
I had hesitated to respond as I have because I know nothing will convince you of your errors. However, respect is due ...... it was not a put down.
|
|
|
| |
|
krugerman
|
Oct 9 2014, 09:19 PM
Post #67
|
- Posts:
- 1,152
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #11
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
Is it not a lasting testimony to Margaret Thatcher that the Poll Tax riots and miners strike was the closest this country has come to a breakdown in law and order, and to nationwide civil unrest.
There were more riots, more division in society than at any other time since the depression of the 1930s, no matter what your opinions are of the Poll Tax and the secret closures list, for thats exactly what it was, we were a very divided nation during Thatchers reign.
Its not really anything to be proud of
|
|
|
| |
|
Affa
|
Oct 9 2014, 09:38 PM
Post #68
|
- Posts:
- 11,999
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #58
- Joined:
- Jul 26, 2014
|
- krugerman
- Oct 9 2014, 09:19 PM
Is it not a lasting testimony to Margaret Thatcher that the Poll Tax riots and miners strike was the closest this country has come to a breakdown in law and order, and to nationwide civil unrest.
There were more riots, more division in society than at any other time since the depression of the 1930s, no matter what your opinions are of the Poll Tax and the secret closures list, for thats exactly what it was, we were a very divided nation during Thatchers reign.
Its not really anything to be proud of
I am one of those that did see Mrs Thatcher as a champion. Her attack on the Unions completely just and deserved. The Unions were wrecking the country, their use of power utterly despicable. In that she did exceedingly well. Not that business and Government's were blameless, they were not, but sensible Unionism has followed on from what she did, and that is to be applauded - what is not are the consequences of it. Zero hour contracts and a lot more can be directly connected to the neutering of the Unions.
http://www.tuc.org.uk/sites/default/files/TUC%20final%20response%20to%20BIS%20consultation%20on%20zero-hours%20contracts.pdf
|
|
|
| |
|
Tytoalba
|
Oct 9 2014, 11:17 PM
Post #69
|
- Posts:
- 7,583
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #36
- Joined:
- Jun 29, 2014
|
- Tigger
- Oct 9 2014, 07:34 PM
- Tytoalba
- Oct 9 2014, 07:05 PM
- disgruntled porker
- Oct 9 2014, 06:38 PM
- Tytoalba
- Oct 9 2014, 10:18 AM
Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
Just a couple of problems with that logic. Impoted coal was cheaper (and inferior). Ok, but add to the cost of that coal, the cost of paying miners redundancy money and benefits. Add onto that the cost of lost taxes and national insurance. Add onto that companies who supplied the mining industry which went under; more people on benefits and no longer contibuting to the country as a whole. Add onto that businesses which had to close in those communities because people no longer had money to spend in them. Thats just from a simple monetary point. Do you think, as a whole, that the imported coal was still cheaper. Also lets not forget the social cost and not just to this country. What about the counties we imported coal from? The coal was cheap because the workers had to perform for peanuts in shite and unsafe conditions. But it was ok for us to exploit these miners because it wasn't really our concern was it? Typical I'm alright Jack mentality. Law of the jungle. If someone is weak enough to be exploited, then it's fine to do so? Rant over.
Your sentimentality does not address the matter of world economics, or our ability to compete in the world where labour costs are lower. If your happy for our prices to rise to a point where we cannot sell the goods, but others can and will , go ahead and impose the changes here that you wish , but you on the left of politics do seem to have an economic death wish, and a desire to make us a third world country
We are already on the way to third World status thanks to right wing economic "success," much of our infrustructure is already in foreign hands thanks to the parasites in the City, we spend less on education than most of our direct competitors and the only way to get the economy moving is to inflate the housing market and weigh down the plebs with debt which seems to please the "markets" for some strange reason, productivity continues to fall and with this goes the chances of servicing those ever increasing levels of debt with increases in pay. Such a shame so many people are so thick as to think all of this is just normal economic activity. Eventually we'll be renting our own country off of wealthy Arabs and Chinese.......... Your in the buiding trade Tigger, so do you charge the going rate for the housing, , making a considerable profit in doing so , or are you chariable and sell them at cost, with a small percentage of profit, out of sympathy for the poor?? We know there is a cost to building land, and we know the cost on average of the building per sq metre, and both are a lot less that the asking price. which itself is decided by market forces . I dont know a builder or a working tradesman that doesnt tender for the most he can get, or the builder selling for the most that people will pay? In a harsh winter with many pipe bursts due to frosts its not unknown for some plumbers to double their prices and get what they ask for. In a recesssion when building work is reduced the wages are lowered becaus of competition. The point is that all is driven by market forces.;
|
|
|
| |
|
disgruntled porker
|
Oct 10 2014, 06:58 PM
Post #70
|
Older than most people think I am.
- Posts:
- 1,945
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #31
- Joined:
- Jun 28, 2014
|
- krugerman
- Oct 9 2014, 09:19 PM
Is it not a lasting testimony to Margaret Thatcher that the Poll Tax riots and miners strike was the closest this country has come to a breakdown in law and order, and to nationwide civil unrest.
There were more riots, more division in society than at any other time since the depression of the 1930s, no matter what your opinions are of the Poll Tax and the secret closures list, for thats exactly what it was, we were a very divided nation during Thatchers reign.
Its not really anything to be proud of Some are proud of those times. Proud that they were not particularly affected in any way. Proud that someone was getting kicked in the guts. Proud that it provided good spectator sport. Proud that they were tuppence a week better off. Proud that they considered themselves higher up the social ladder then they really were.
|
|
|
| |
|
jeevesnwooster
|
Oct 10 2014, 08:20 PM
Post #71
|
- Posts:
- 791
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #84
- Joined:
- Sep 6, 2014
|
- disgruntled porker
- Oct 10 2014, 06:58 PM
Proud that they were tuppence a week better off. Proud that they considered themselves higher up the social ladder then they really were.
|
|
|
| |
|
Tigger
|
Oct 10 2014, 08:41 PM
Post #72
|
- Posts:
- 20,087
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #18
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Tytoalba
- Oct 9 2014, 11:17 PM
- Tigger
- Oct 9 2014, 07:34 PM
- Tytoalba
- Oct 9 2014, 07:05 PM
- disgruntled porker
- Oct 9 2014, 06:38 PM
Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
Your sentimentality does not address the matter of world economics, or our ability to compete in the world where labour costs are lower. If your happy for our prices to rise to a point where we cannot sell the goods, but others can and will , go ahead and impose the changes here that you wish , but you on the left of politics do seem to have an economic death wish, and a desire to make us a third world country
We are already on the way to third World status thanks to right wing economic "success," much of our infrustructure is already in foreign hands thanks to the parasites in the City, we spend less on education than most of our direct competitors and the only way to get the economy moving is to inflate the housing market and weigh down the plebs with debt which seems to please the "markets" for some strange reason, productivity continues to fall and with this goes the chances of servicing those ever increasing levels of debt with increases in pay. Such a shame so many people are so thick as to think all of this is just normal economic activity. Eventually we'll be renting our own country off of wealthy Arabs and Chinese..........
Your in the buiding trade Tigger, so do you charge the going rate for the housing, , making a considerable profit in doing so , or are you chariable and sell them at cost, with a small percentage of profit, out of sympathy for the poor?? We know there is a cost to building land, and we know the cost on average of the building per sq metre, and both are a lot less that the asking price. which itself is decided by market forces . I dont know a builder or a working tradesman that doesnt tender for the most he can get, or the builder selling for the most that people will pay? In a harsh winter with many pipe bursts due to frosts its not unknown for some plumbers to double their prices and get what they ask for. In a recesssion when building work is reduced the wages are lowered becaus of competition. The point is that all is driven by market forces.; Mainly nonsense in some areas the cost of the plot exceeds the cost including labour of putting up the building, this is little short of a scam that benefits people who barely have to lift a finger to make money, if you'd said the planning regulations are highly restrictive and good building land is deliberately trickled onto the market to keep prices elevated you might be half right.
And if you are having problems getting reasonably priced plumbers contact the CIPHE for your nearest qualified and insured tradesman, as a fellow of this institution I too could recommend a decent tradesman in your particular area.
|
|
|
| |
|
Tigger
|
Oct 10 2014, 08:44 PM
Post #73
|
- Posts:
- 20,087
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #18
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- disgruntled porker
- Oct 10 2014, 06:58 PM
- krugerman
- Oct 9 2014, 09:19 PM
Is it not a lasting testimony to Margaret Thatcher that the Poll Tax riots and miners strike was the closest this country has come to a breakdown in law and order, and to nationwide civil unrest.
There were more riots, more division in society than at any other time since the depression of the 1930s, no matter what your opinions are of the Poll Tax and the secret closures list, for thats exactly what it was, we were a very divided nation during Thatchers reign.
Its not really anything to be proud of
Some are proud of those times. Proud that they were not particularly affected in any way. Proud that someone was getting kicked in the guts. Proud that it provided good spectator sport. Proud that they were tuppence a week better off. Proud that they considered themselves higher up the social ladder then they really were. Embarrassingly true, the alternative is to admit that you are no different and that it did not effect you this time.
|
|
|
| |
|
Tytoalba
|
Oct 10 2014, 10:42 PM
Post #74
|
- Posts:
- 7,583
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #36
- Joined:
- Jun 29, 2014
|
- disgruntled porker
- Oct 10 2014, 06:58 PM
- krugerman
- Oct 9 2014, 09:19 PM
Is it not a lasting testimony to Margaret Thatcher that the Poll Tax riots and miners strike was the closest this country has come to a breakdown in law and order, and to nationwide civil unrest.
There were more riots, more division in society than at any other time since the depression of the 1930s, no matter what your opinions are of the Poll Tax and the secret closures list, for thats exactly what it was, we were a very divided nation during Thatchers reign.
Its not really anything to be proud of
Some are proud of those times. Proud that they were not particularly affected in any way. Proud that someone was getting kicked in the guts. Proud that it provided good spectator sport. Proud that they were tuppence a week better off. Proud that they considered themselves higher up the social ladder then they really were. Just who are these proud people that were happy to see rioting and disorder other than those with a left wing agenda? I think people were more ashamed of the behaviour than proud of anything.
I went to a meeting called by Labour councillors in Greenwich , a left wing hotbed, on our local council estate, the council that made Greenwich a nuclear free zone and wasted rtatepayers money in plastering the area with notices declaring it as so. They were trying to persuade the people that attended not to pay the tax at all. I asked them if they were asking us to break the law , and if we followed their advice should we also refuse to pay the council tax in protest. That finised that meeting for they were encouraging us to break the law.
They were afraid that as the council had more recipients from the rates than doners to council tax, their supporters would not register to vote and undermine their power. Why people living and working in a council area do not want to pay their fair share of it is beyond me. The poll tax was the fairest way of collecting the council tax from all who used the services.
|
|
|
| |
|
Tytoalba
|
Oct 10 2014, 10:50 PM
Post #75
|
- Posts:
- 7,583
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #36
- Joined:
- Jun 29, 2014
|
- Tigger
- Oct 10 2014, 08:41 PM
- Tytoalba
- Oct 9 2014, 11:17 PM
- Tigger
- Oct 9 2014, 07:34 PM
- Tytoalba
- Oct 9 2014, 07:05 PM
Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
We are already on the way to third World status thanks to right wing economic "success," much of our infrustructure is already in foreign hands thanks to the parasites in the City, we spend less on education than most of our direct competitors and the only way to get the economy moving is to inflate the housing market and weigh down the plebs with debt which seems to please the "markets" for some strange reason, productivity continues to fall and with this goes the chances of servicing those ever increasing levels of debt with increases in pay. Such a shame so many people are so thick as to think all of this is just normal economic activity. Eventually we'll be renting our own country off of wealthy Arabs and Chinese..........
Your in the buiding trade Tigger, so do you charge the going rate for the housing, , making a considerable profit in doing so , or are you chariable and sell them at cost, with a small percentage of profit, out of sympathy for the poor?? We know there is a cost to building land, and we know the cost on average of the building per sq metre, and both are a lot less that the asking price. which itself is decided by market forces . I dont know a builder or a working tradesman that doesnt tender for the most he can get, or the builder selling for the most that people will pay? In a harsh winter with many pipe bursts due to frosts its not unknown for some plumbers to double their prices and get what they ask for. In a recesssion when building work is reduced the wages are lowered becaus of competition. The point is that all is driven by market forces.;
Mainly nonsense in some areas the cost of the plot exceeds the cost including labour of putting up the building, this is little short of a scam that benefits people who barely have to lift a finger to make money, if you'd said the planning regulations are highly restrictive and good building land is deliberately trickled onto the market to keep prices elevated you might be half right. And if you are having problems getting reasonably priced plumbers contact the CIPHE for your nearest qualified and insured tradesman, as a fellow of this institution I too could recommend a decent tradesman in your particular area. I do my own Tigger for the most part, and a friendly and reasonable plumber lives just a few houses away. Thought you might be a plumber
|
|
|
| |
|
jeevesnwooster
|
Oct 11 2014, 04:48 PM
Post #76
|
- Posts:
- 791
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #84
- Joined:
- Sep 6, 2014
|
- Tytoalba
- Oct 10 2014, 10:42 PM
Just who are these proud people that were happy to see rioting and disorder other than those with a left wing agenda? I think people were more ashamed of the behaviour than proud of anything.
I went to a meeting called by Labour councillors in Greenwich , a left wing hotbed, on our local council estate, the council that made Greenwich a nuclear free zone and wasted rtatepayers money in plastering the area with notices declaring it as so. They were trying to persuade the people that attended not to pay the tax at all. I asked them if they were asking us to break the law , and if we followed their advice should we also refuse to pay the council tax in protest. That finised that meeting for they were encouraging us to break the law.
They were afraid that as the council had more recipients from the rates than doners to council tax, their supporters would not register to vote and undermine their power. Why people living and working in a council area do not want to pay their fair share of it is beyond me. The poll tax was the fairest way of collecting the council tax from all who used the services. What an absolute lie on your part, in Hillsborough we saw the police collaborate against completely innocent football fans (gates were opened early to allow too many fans through). Ctoo has repeatedly pointed out the example of police provoking miners to attack them and the BBC editing footage to make it look like the miners attacked first.
They WANTED to see disorder and chaos.
Good you lived in Greenwich then maybe you saw the damage Thatcher did to your constituency (hint: it's not all teh pretty DLR and riverside regeneration ).
"I asked them if they were asking us to break the law , and if we followed their advice should we also refuse to pay the council tax in protest. That finised that meeting for they were encouraging us to break the law.
Why people living and working in a council area do not want to pay their fair share of it is beyond me. The poll tax was the fairest way of collecting the council tax from all who used the services. "
That's just plainly incorrect, poll tax was an unfair system that charged far too much per person and there is no reason why a rich person should have to pay just as much as a poor person.
The council tax system we have now is still very unfair, to a certain extent you've got your wish. People in "rich areas" have to pay up to £2000 a year sometimes with little to no CTax rebate
|
|
|
| |
|
disgruntled porker
|
Oct 11 2014, 10:19 PM
Post #77
|
Older than most people think I am.
- Posts:
- 1,945
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #31
- Joined:
- Jun 28, 2014
|
- Quote:
-
The poll tax was the fairest way of collecting the council tax from all who used the services
What absolute tosh.
|
|
|
| |
|
Tytoalba
|
Oct 12 2014, 04:35 PM
Post #78
|
- Posts:
- 7,583
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #36
- Joined:
- Jun 29, 2014
|
- jeevesnwooster
- Oct 11 2014, 04:48 PM
- Tytoalba
- Oct 10 2014, 10:42 PM
Just who are these proud people that were happy to see rioting and disorder other than those with a left wing agenda? I think people were more ashamed of the behaviour than proud of anything.
I went to a meeting called by Labour councillors in Greenwich , a left wing hotbed, on our local council estate, the council that made Greenwich a nuclear free zone and wasted rtatepayers money in plastering the area with notices declaring it as so. They were trying to persuade the people that attended not to pay the tax at all. I asked them if they were asking us to break the law , and if we followed their advice should we also refuse to pay the council tax in protest. That finised that meeting for they were encouraging us to break the law.
They were afraid that as the council had more recipients from the rates than doners to council tax, their supporters would not register to vote and undermine their power. Why people living and working in a council area do not want to pay their fair share of it is beyond me. The poll tax was the fairest way of collecting the council tax from all who used the services.
What an absolute lie on your part, in Hillsborough we saw the police collaborate against completely innocent football fans (gates were opened early to allow too many fans through). Ctoo has repeatedly pointed out the example of police provoking miners to attack them and the BBC editing footage to make it look like the miners attacked first. They WANTED to see disorder and chaos. Good you lived in Greenwich then maybe you saw the damage Thatcher did to your constituency (hint: it's not all teh pretty DLR and riverside regeneration  ). "I asked them if they were asking us to break the law , and if we followed their advice should we also refuse to pay the council tax in protest. That finised that meeting for they were encouraging us to break the law. Why people living and working in a council area do not want to pay their fair share of it is beyond me. The poll tax was the fairest way of collecting the council tax from all who used the services. " That's just plainly incorrect, poll tax was an unfair system that charged far too much per person and there is no reason why a rich person should have to pay just as much as a poor person. The council tax system we have now is still very unfair, to a certain extent you've got your wish. People in "rich areas" have to pay up to £2000 a year sometimes with little to no CTax rebate The poll tax required everyone to pay the same for the services they received. When it was shared equally between all voters Some saw it as a tax on the property, which it was not . It was a tax on the individual resident. who used and voted for the council services. How can that be unfair? Perhaps it was not properly explained or you didnt want to pay it. One voter in the home and they paid for one person, 8 people in the home and eight paid equally. WShy should they not? If they had one car they taxed insured and ran it , If they had eight cars it cost them eight times as much They dont say but we all live in the one house so should pay less to take our cars out onto the council maintained public roads. As for what I said about the meeting , it was true, so please do not imply I am untruthful. Incidentally i lived in a three bedroom semi detached in an ordinary road adjoining a large council estate.
|
|
|
| |
|
papasmurf
|
Oct 12 2014, 04:40 PM
Post #79
|
- Posts:
- 17,279
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #13
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Tytoalba
- Oct 12 2014, 04:35 PM
The poll tax required everyone to pay the same for the services they received. If that is the case WHY was it some much more than the rates people had been paying previously. In my case £225 in rates, Poll Tax £330 EACH for my wife and I. £660 instead of £225 for the same house. What was "fair" about that?
|
|
|
| |
|
Tytoalba
|
Oct 12 2014, 04:50 PM
Post #80
|
- Posts:
- 7,583
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #36
- Joined:
- Jun 29, 2014
|
- disgruntled porker
- Oct 11 2014, 10:19 PM
- Quote:
-
The poll tax was the fairest way of collecting the council tax from all who used the services
What absolute tosh. Why was it tosh? It was a tax for services paid for by all who used them and were able to do so. There were many exemptions if it caused individual hardship. The size of ones property has no direct relationship to ones income, or ability to pay it or the number of people residing in it using the services provided. Perhaps we should devise a meter system for paying it like we do for electricity, gas, water and sewage,and toll roads , all of which costs more the more people use them
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|