| Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Thatcher was to call Labour and miners ‘enemy within’ in abandoned speech; Former PM planned to say party had been hijacked by ‘enemies of democracy’ but rewrote speech after 1984 Brighton bomb | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Oct 3 2014, 09:11 AM (926 Views) | |
| jeevesnwooster | Oct 3 2014, 09:11 AM Post #1 |
|
҈
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/03/thatcher-labour-miners-enemy-within-brighton-bomb "The 1984 Brighton bomb forced Margaret Thatcher to tear up what would have been the most divisive speech of her premiership, in which she planned to accuse not only militant miners but the entire Labour party of being “the enemy within” and part of an “insurrection” against democracy." She found out that the IRA were the real danger in terms of actual attacks, not the working man nor the spineless jellies in Labour both of whom she shoved over with relative ease Anyone remember the time the IRA nearly assassinated John Major in 1991 with the mortar attack on downing street? The people who threaten the establishment, are those want to be part of the establishment |
![]() |
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| RJD | Oct 13 2014, 08:28 AM Post #81 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Probably true, but unlike the system it attempted to replace it had no facility for wealth redistribution and that is what got up the left's nozzle. The mistake was to ignore the subject of wealth distribution ('re) and welfare support, pariniquitouith housing, in parallel. The current system where a elderly window pays the same as her neighbour with four occupants of working age is unfair. Such taxes should correlate closely with service consumption and not assumed wealth in bricks n mortar. |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Oct 13 2014, 08:34 AM Post #82 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
When did the 25% single occupancy discount get taken away? I must have missed that. |
![]() |
|
| disgruntled porker | Oct 13 2014, 10:19 AM Post #83 |
|
Older than most people think I am.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yes, it was fair in some respects, and grossly unfair in many others. As individuals, we all collectively use some of the same services and as such, should all pay for these services. Lets just consider things like street lighting (just one of many). However other things were grossly wrong. Take refuse collection. A house with three adults in it would be paying three times for the same bin emptying. What if people wanted to itemise the services they were paying for but didn't use. For example, someone who didn't use parks, libraries, sports facilities: should they still be charged for them when they don't use them? Why should a single childless person pay into the education budget? Quite a hefty slice of council tax goes on this. Why pay for something you aren't receiving? That's the route of capitalism and Tory politics isn't it? It's not my idea of doing things. I'm quite willing to chip in for something that I don't personally use, but would greatly benefit others. That's socialism at work. It's the Tory way of doing things where you only pay for what you personally get. But only when it suits eh? To me, it's a bit like using a taxi. You get a taxi just for you, you pay the fare. If four share, you would expect to share the bill wouldn't you? I bet you would kick up a right uproar if the driver tried to charge four times the fare. Edited by disgruntled porker, Oct 13 2014, 10:22 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Tytoalba | Oct 13 2014, 10:45 AM Post #84 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It doesnt have to be one bin for the bigger family, it could easily be two or more for multiple users will produce more waste, just as they do use more water, hot and cold, or eat more food. The poll tax was a great deal fairer than the current or the previos sytem ,for there were built in exemptions for those unable to pay. Part of the problem with discussing the tax, is the emotions and propaganda that has been attached to it. Reasoning and rationality is ignored for poilitical gain or by some because they just dont want to pay at all. To keep wanting to take more from those with bigger homes, no matter how few live in it, or what services they use, and without knowing what their income is or the overall ability to pay it, has to be unfair in itself. I find it strange that a family of three or four or more all working , can afford evenings out, supoport the running of their vehicles, enjoy holidays in foreign parts, smoke or drink, but find it wrong to have to pay a few pounds a week each to enjoy all the services, essential or otherwise, provided by the council services. |
![]() |
|
| Tytoalba | Oct 13 2014, 10:48 AM Post #85 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Cabs do charge extra for extra passengers, In london the black cabs are entitled to charge for extra passengers and extra lugage. The more that use the services the more that pay, just like the poll tax. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Oct 13 2014, 06:30 PM Post #86 |
|
Deleted User
|
Margaret Thatcher continues to have the ability to polarise political discussion more than any other post war leader, and this is illustrated by the issue of the miners' strike more than any other single topic. My own view is that the NUM strike called by Scargill had the single political objective of bringing down the democratically elected government of the day, and had nothing to do with saving miners jobs which they had already largely priced themselves out of anyway. Fortunately for the majority of the nation Thatcher was more determined and more ruthless than Scargill and crushed what amounted to a violent insurrection. I accept there are those who take a diametrically opposite view and to those I would direct two questions! Why did Scargill and the NUM leadership refuse to ballot the NUM members for strike action, even after the Nottinghamshire miners broke away from the NUM and formed the non-militent DUM, thereby ensuring it was an illegal strike? Why did Scargill and the NUM leadership refuse to allow the the NCB to maintain the pits, thus ensuring that irrespective of the outcome of the strike, the pits would never again be operable? If Scargill had the interests of the mineworkers at heart, neither of these two events, along with a number of lesser but inexplicable actions, would have arisen. |
|
|
| Affa | Oct 13 2014, 08:00 PM Post #87 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
How any intelligent person can hold a view like this is beyond explanation. It is the purpose and the duty of TU leaders to fight for their member's welfare, their jobs, their security. That is what they were doing. "Who governs Britain" was of course a publicity soundbite - to get public opinion on the Government's side. It seems to matter not that all Scargill told was planned was true, all Thatcher told was her plan was lies. To believe as you say you are believing a liar. |
![]() |
|
| Cymru | Oct 13 2014, 08:06 PM Post #88 |
|
Alt-Right
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That's the theory though often not the reality. See also politicians, businessmen, etc. |
![]() |
|
| disgruntled porker | Oct 14 2014, 08:22 AM Post #89 |
|
Older than most people think I am.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
They don't where I live. |
![]() |
|
| disgruntled porker | Oct 14 2014, 08:27 AM Post #90 |
|
Older than most people think I am.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think the keyword here is "intelligent". Sometimes intelligence takes over at the expense of common nous, and being able to see the the nose on the end of your face. "Arse from elbow" also springs to mind. Edited by disgruntled porker, Oct 14 2014, 08:28 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| RJD | Oct 14 2014, 08:45 AM Post #91 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Rubbish, you are just dressing up the fact that you want someone else to pay part of your costs. Redistribution of wealth should take place seperately and the number of people living in a dwelling within a region is the simplest way of determining likely consumption. Taking a slice at every opportunity hides the extent of the total level of subsidies. |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Oct 14 2014, 08:51 AM Post #92 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The intelligent thing would have been to ask how such a strike could have taken place without a democratic mandate. If the Union Leaders were only fighting for the interests of their members then why did they not seek permission. Mr Pig it is a mistake, made by many here, that implying that others are stupid in some way implies that the Claimant is more intelligent. The act of doing such implies the opposite. Just check on the number of Usuals who often use this ploy as an opening gambit. |
![]() |
|
| disgruntled porker | Oct 14 2014, 10:39 AM Post #93 |
|
Older than most people think I am.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'm not implying anything. I'm saying that in my opinion many intelligent people, experts in their field, have little, if any common sense when it comes to everyday things and an appreciation of the bleedin' obvious. |
![]() |
|
| Affa | Oct 14 2014, 11:57 AM Post #94 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Mr Pig did not raise the issue of intelligence, I did. I note that in your response there is no attempt at disproving that judgement, formed from astonishment as it was, that to believe one man, a leader, could force (almost) an entire industry's workers to strike for a year with the one intention of bringing down the government. The TUC could have, if that were the TUC's intention. There never was an issue of "who runs the country" ..... it was intelligent of you to avoid mentioning it. There is an issue of "who do the government run the country for"? |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Oct 14 2014, 12:15 PM Post #95 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I do not know whether you experienced the industrial mayhem of early post WW2 UK? I did and far too often the Union Bully Boy Bosses were politically motivated. Just listen to their Trade Union Conferences and you will get the drift. For a very long period the Unions did not equate industrial success with that of a self interest, they saw it as a threat, but these latter-day Marxists were not coy then said so. They said, conference after conference that "if the management supported by Gov. could not make a success at enterprise the Unions were not there to bail them out". How refreshingly different it was in Germany during the same period. As for Scargill his aims were always political and he made no bones about it. Arthur was no closet Communist, he was the real deal. |
![]() |
|
| Affa | Oct 14 2014, 12:54 PM Post #96 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I was a young manager in the seventies, a time when the Unions were a curse on business. I have no reservations in saying this. Idleness was encouraged, greed the norm, putting one over the bosses the overriding objective. I once had a lorry in the bay that required his load securing. It was about an hour before the shifts end, and I went into the rest room (snack room) where four warehouse workers were playing cards. I asked for one to come and secure the load - none moved. I asked again, nicely. No response, until one spoke. He was the Union man. "I've done my shift, I'm done". My reaction was, "You, go secure that load, if you try to tell me you're done I'll clock you out". He did as told ........ but a week later I was summoned to my manger who ticked me off - "don't go upsetting the Union". You mention Germany where management and worker representatives jointly worked together to increase productivity, and to the benefit of shareholders and employees alike. Here in the UK, and still so today, there is no consultation, no co-operation, and business is to blame for that. Confrontation breeds militancy, breeds people like Arthur Scargill, who would never rise to leadership if only business was keen to consult. Instead of negotiations we get confrontation ...... 'Them & Us' no 'We' - business must carry the blame for that. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Oct 14 2014, 02:39 PM Post #97 |
|
Deleted User
|
Fine a couple of left wingers decide to impugn my intelligence simply because they disagree with my view. However not one of the 'usuals' have even attempted to address my two questions. If Scargill and his upper echelon of henchmen were truly representing the interests of the NUM members why did they fail to hold a ballot before calling a national strike? Why did Scargill and his upper echelon of henchmen prevent the NCB from maintaining the pits, when in so doing Scargill ensured his members would never be able to work in those pits again, whatever the outcome of the strike? Surely these aren't the credible actions of a Union Leader whose sole role and purpose is allegedly looking after the interests of his members. I say to Affa and others that if you wish to debate credibly address these two points which were the prime thrust of my post. If you don't wish to debate credibly then continue as you are! |
|
|
| Affa | Oct 14 2014, 08:22 PM Post #98 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It is a lie that the Union prevented the maintenance and viability of closed mines during the Strike. I personally know of one miner, a member of the Miners Search & Rescue team that was performing those necessary maintenance and 'atmosphere' checks on a regular basis (voluntary - unpaid). Here is a BBC link, read the comments of Philio Higgs, an Engineer (not miner) that also maintained the integrity of closed pits - unopposed. http://www.bbc.co.uk/southyorkshire/content/articles/2009/01/28/miners_strike_stories.shtml
He goes on to say that they were waved through the picket lines every day - when strike breakers returned to the pits, and tempers flared they were given police escorts through the picket lines. Edited by Affa, Oct 14 2014, 08:23 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Oct 14 2014, 10:04 PM Post #99 |
|
Deleted User
|
It was established beyond reasonable doubt at the time that NUM pickets prevented the NCB maintaining the pits. It will take considerably more hard evidence than a couple of nonentities allegedly claiming something different, to alter my current and sincere belief that this is the truth. One reason why the more moderate Notts miners broke away from the NUM and formed the Democratic Union of Mineworkers was their refusal not to maintain working coalpits. Please don't now suggest that Scargill and the NUM leadership's failure to hold a legally required ballot was also a 'lie'! I realise that Scargill and his key henchmen were so far to the extreme left that totalitarian was a more apt description than democratic, so perhaps that was the reason. The reality was that many (a majority?) of mineworkers didn't want to strike, and were bullied, coerced and intimidated into joining the strike by NUM militant thugs and flying pickets. |
|
|
| Affa | Oct 14 2014, 10:11 PM Post #100 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Not beyond my doubting, but you are convinced against reason - you do believe that the miners were stupid enough to jeopardise their own colliery's integrity. btw - the Deputies Union did not go strike. These foremen miners retained their employment all through the strike - the pits were not abandoned. What you believe is precisely what you desire to be true ........ you have my pity. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Oct 14 2014, 11:05 PM Post #101 |
|
Deleted User
|
Thankyou! That is something I have never knowingly had before, admittedly because I have never and still don't need it. Nevertheless it is the thought that counts.
|
|
|
| Gnikkk | Oct 17 2014, 06:07 AM Post #102 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Wow, now we are to frown upon aspirations? God help us in the hands of these idiots, one wonders if they played any part in our progression from ape behaviour. |
![]() |
|
| Heinrich | Oct 17 2014, 11:07 AM Post #103 |
|
Regular Guy
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I do not believe class conscious snobs are to homo sapiens as working class people are to the missing link. |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Oct 17 2014, 11:13 AM Post #104 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Quite. |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Oct 17 2014, 11:28 AM Post #105 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
If you ever lived and worked in Germany you would find that these imposed workers councils are not always the boon you imagine. In the 1970s a small company with 20+ employees were forced to accept such. In the 1980s I had to bankrupt a German company in order gain control of the business. I was taken to an Employment Tribunal three times in three different cities. Won each time and those who judged these cases stated openly too me, but in private, that they were sick to death of seeing small companies held to ransom by such "Staff Associations". The truth is that the larger German Trade Unions were not so politically motivated as their brothers in the UK, they did not wish to bring down the State and were focussed on job creation. I once witness a strike at Leyland on a Friday at noon that was for no other reason than to put down a power marker. I was intimately involved as a supplier of automated machinery across UK private and nationalised industries in the 1960s onwards, utilising more and more products from Germany and know from my own considerable experience the disruptive nature of British Trade Unions of those days. I saw them all starting with the ship yard demarcation disputes in the 1950s. Today the left are spreading lies in order that they might cover up the culpability of these Trade Unions in our industrial demise. The truth is that investors decided that investment was more secure elsewhere in a different sector or another country. They had ad enough. |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Oct 17 2014, 11:37 AM Post #106 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
RJD Leyland did not have a Union it had a gangster Red Robbo, in the pay of the management to call strikes when the new car storage yards were full of unsold stock. |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Oct 17 2014, 11:55 AM Post #107 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Call it what you like. I was also supplying variable speed dive systems into Fleet St. and saw all that Union nonsense as well. As a supplier to BSC and other nationalised industries we quickly learned how easy it was to maximise prices with Buyers who did not give a sh1t about costs and just wanted a quiet life. In the automotive sector we supplied automated manufacturing machines and end of line automated inspection systems that had already been proven in Germany. The Luddites resisted and resisted claiming that not one job must be lost on the lines no matter how much the automated machinery increased productivity. There was also indisputable evidence of Operators increasing reject rates on lines in order to undermine investments. For they left to come out now with their white-wash this makes me want to puke over the liars. What happened to the UK post WW2 advantages? We know, the Unions pi55ed it all away. |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Oct 17 2014, 12:02 PM Post #108 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Complacent management preferred low wages to newer more efficient machinery and were luddite themselves when it came to new product designs and innovation. (That still is a problem with a few notable exceptions like JCB and McLaren.) |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Oct 17 2014, 12:09 PM Post #109 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Not in my experience. We had a massive struggle with major Unions to accept the levels of automation already established in Germany. I believe your claims wrt British Management a concoction in order to white-wash over the destructive effect of Trade Unions. In my experience the Brits are as good and as bad as elsewhere. But my experience is as a supplier of multi-million Pound projects to UK industries and with supply lines from Germany (in the main), Italy and Switzerland. Where did you form your opinion? At the Red Nag? |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Oct 17 2014, 12:20 PM Post #110 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It is in my experience. It was and is why so many British manufacturing companies went tits up. Foreign products were just more up to date, better designed and more efficient. My "new" motorcycle is a perfect example of all that was/is wrong with UK manufacturing. It was basically designed more than 100 years ago, and apart from an electric starter and electronic ignition it is the same pile of junk it was 100 years ago, and requires a level of engineering knowledge just to keep it running that the current population just does not have. |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Oct 17 2014, 12:36 PM Post #111 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I am sure there are loads of swallows, but Leyland had a considerable amount of engine technology and renowned and respected product design, however, quality control was always a headache and a battle with the Unions. In the 1950s it was British automotive companies that led the way in design and technology. Today we are no slouch in advanced engineering designs just take a look at some of the aero engine projects. Straying from the mechanical we dominated European electronics innovations in technology and design for much longer. What fundamental piece of electronics technology was not first designed and developed in the UK. Even the microwave oven was developed by accident at Oxford I think in the 1930s. Where do you think the CT and NMR scanner technologies came from? CD/DVD technologies were developed in the UK well before anyone though of putting music on them. Nothing wrong with UK manufacturing today, we have rid ourselves of the Trade Union Millstone and great strides have been made over the last 30 years or so. Just look at the volume of stuff we do make, but understand there is always someone trying to undercut our cost base. Expanding the portion of manufacturing in our GDP is not limited by the availability of good Managers, but by the dearth of technologists. Dumbing down State education and skills was a big mistake and we know who to finger for that. |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Oct 17 2014, 12:46 PM Post #112 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Good grief RJD, would you care to expand on that. I have had the misfortune of having owned a number of Leyland products in the past, but the problems I had with them went far beyond things just fitting where they touched. There were some very bad design flaws as well, and not ones that could be fixed with aftermarket parts. |
![]() |
|
| RJD | Oct 17 2014, 01:00 PM Post #113 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Have you looked closely at the design of the K-series engine in particular the method of assembly? As I said QC was always a problem, but Unions resisted improvements that demanded higher working standards. |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Oct 17 2014, 01:15 PM Post #114 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Oh dear RJD, I was/am aware of the problems with the K series, you obviously aren't:- http://www.aronline.co.uk/blogs/facts-and-figures/history/british-leyland-the-grand-illusion/history-british-leyland-grand-illusion-part-five/ Many owners of the post-1995 Rovers, in effect badge-engineered Austin-Morris motors with some Honda DNA, had the fast but fragile K-Series engine. This engine was prone to head gasket failure, a design flaw that Rover was at first in denial of, then reluctant to rectify. Having clawed itself out of the mire from the depths of the traumas of the 1970s and rebuilt its credibility somewhat, the issue of the fragility of the K-Series engine was seen by many as further evidence that unreliability came as standard with cars built at Longbridge and Cowley. It simply reinforced old views that British cars were unreliable. Have you ever tried telling anybody faced with a repair bill for their K-Series engine that a 1995-2005 Rover is a good car? |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
![]() Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." |
|
| « Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic » |




![]](http://z5.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)




7:34 PM Jul 11