maddog Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 Jesus. Can you hide whole threads? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lags Posted April 12, 2013 Author Share Posted April 12, 2013 For me it's an absolute given that Thatcher from the outset had planned to tackle the unions and went straight for the biggest. Crush the union movement at any cost. She found in Scargill the perfect foil to balance the blame. Fed him enough of her true plans for the mining industry and handed him his rope. Lots of what he said came to pass while the Tory party denied it. Scargills problem was he didn't know how convince enough what the real plan was and carry the support in the newly imposed strike ballot rules. Was the closure's worth it? for me no. Thousands upon thousands of men thrown into unemployment for life, whole communities laid to waste and a up coming generation last to hope. It's not just the pits themselves, it's the engineering works that supplied them too with all the skills that's now lost to this country. Pitching family against family, many of whom the scars remain to this day. This country went down the banking and service sector and ignored engineering and that for me was the biggest single mistake Thatchers Britain made. I don't believe for one minute the miner's dispute was brought about to save money on the production or use of coal, because the cost to win it was absolutely immense. It was to smash the unions and leave the Labour strong holds subservant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lags Posted April 12, 2013 Author Share Posted April 12, 2013 Jesus. Can you hide whole threads? Yes stop reading them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 (edited) Are you serious? There was at least a century's worth of engineering development in those mines, which were the most technologically advanced in the world when Thatcher closed them. You reckon you can just re-establish that in 13 years with a magic wand? Like I said, once it's gone, it's gone, and there's nothing nobody can do about it. The coal is there, but what would you have to pay for someone to come and dig afresh? Impossible. The destruction of the mines made no economic sense at the time, and we're paying the price even now. It made only political sense. The woman who purportedly cared more about money than anything else was prepared to forgo a national asset (which we pine for) for a political victory, with a very high attendant cost in human misery. Not only were our mines the most technologically advanced in the world; they were also the safest. The imported coal came from places such as Russia and Colombia, where miners, including child labourers, died in their thousands. So she's got that blood on her hands too - sponsoring yet more human misery for the sake of defeating the NUM. You've got to draw a line in your political battles. You have to have a point where you say, "This price is too much." Thatcher had no such limits. What was Wilsons reasoning for closing the ones he closed? (Not having a pop, just interested. You seem knowledgable on this) Edited April 12, 2013 by HarryBosch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lags Posted April 12, 2013 Author Share Posted April 12, 2013 What was Wilsons reasoning for closing the ones he closed? (Not having a pop, just interested. You seem knowledgable on this) I'd hazard a guess that the seams had ran dry. Lets make no mistake, Britain had many many years coal under it's ground. The pits cannot be re-openned now purely down to money costs to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 So now you're complaining that Labour isn't Labour. I'll bet any money at all you've complained in the past about trade union funding and patronage of the Labour party. Who funds the trade unions? Labour! Labour funds the trade unions that fund the Labour party. You can't have it both ways, flower. Not complaining as such. Just saying that New Labour wasn't really Labour. If it had been, then maybe some of the renationalisation previously mentioned might have happened (and we'd probably be in an even bigger mess than the one Blair and Brown left us in...). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 Not complaining as such. Just saying that New Labour wasn't really Labour. If it had been, then maybe some of the renationalisation previously mentioned might have happened (and we'd probably be in an even bigger mess than the one Blair and Brown left us in...). Fine. Renationalisation was on exactly whose agenda in 1997? As I recall, it was a Tory tactic (insofar as they had one) to say, "You're going to renationalise this, that and the other," to which the Labour response had to be, "We're planning no such thing," to which the Tories would say things like (this is the clever bit, if you can call it that), "You're not really the Labour party at all. No one knows what you're for and therefore you can't be trusted." What you're really saying is, "Labour isn't Labour without the old clause IV", which was amended in 1995. That's just bollocks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 Renationalisation wasn't on the agenda of any of the main parties in 1997 because none of the main parties were socialist. (You could call that a victory for Thatcherism if you like...) IF Labour had retained their socialist manifesto then I speculate that would have included at least the ambition of (re)nationalisation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scratch2000uk Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 (edited) New Labour carried on where Thatcher left off, (old conservative) If they hadn't changed their ways they wouldn't have got into No 10 when they did. Edited April 12, 2013 by Scratch2000uk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 Renationalisation wasn't on the agenda of any of the main parties in 1997 because none of the main parties were socialist. (You could call that a victory for Thatcherism if you like...) IF Labour had retained their socialist manifesto then I speculate that would have included at least the ambition of (re)nationalisation. Look: clause IV was the blanket commitment to nationalisation of industries. Blair persuaded the Labour party (democratically) to amend it and abandon the commitment. It now states that Labour is a democratic socialist party. It's not necessary to nationalise an industry to be socialist. They do say that Tony Blair is the heir of Thatcher (rather than the abominably elitist Cameron). I reckon that's bollocks too. Where are Tony Blair's strikes and riots? Where's his poverty? Where's his intransigence in Northern Ireland and Europe? And so on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 New Labour carried on where Thatcher left off, (old conservative) If they hadn't changed their ways they wouldn't have got into No 10 when they did. That's possible. Clause IV became the stick of choice of the Conservative party and the right-wing press. Clause IV meant (in the public imagination) the winter of discontent and the union barons and so on. New Labour was new Labour largely because of clause IV. It wasn't old Conservative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 (edited) The thing is, it was easy to support New Labour if you were a hipster beatnik :censored: [sic]. It wasn't quite so easy if you were good old fashioned working class and eventually realised you'd even been abandoned by the party that was supposed to support you. Edited April 12, 2013 by garcon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 Are you serious? There was at least a century's worth of engineering development in those mines, which were the most technologically advanced in the world when Thatcher closed them. You reckon you can just re-establish that in 13 years with a magic wand? You made it sound so good though, it seemed like it might have been worth a try Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scratch2000uk Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 The working classes have no representation in government, they are either thought of as chavs living on council estates or must be affiliated with the right wing, i do think UKIP are the party they are most likely to support though, Labour seem to have moved on to the middle classes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 If Chris Taylor & Wigan weren't reason enough to support Millwall this weekend........ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9990334/Football-fans-vow-to-confront-anti-Thatcher-demonstrators.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magic Mikey Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 If Chris Taylor & Wigan weren't reason enough to support Millwall this weekend........ http://www.telegraph...onstrators.html You approve if some Millwall fans cause violence in central London? Where you happy with their vigilante activities in Oldham a few years ago? Unbelievable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 You approve if some Millwall fans cause violence in central London? Where you happy with their vigilante activities in Oldham a few years ago? Unbelievable. Usually no but, against this lot who've been violent towards normal people trying to go about their daily business in the past, absolutely. (None of this is actually going to happen by the way) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longtimeblue Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 God bless Millwall and their staunch political values. Nothing behind it other than the opportunity for a tear up. Both as bad as each other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonesyOAFC Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 "They fought off West Ham, they survived prison, now the Millwall boys are getting political; Green Street 3:Privatise This" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 An excellent read http://bantiblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/friends-britons-countrymen.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigfatjoe1 Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 The only reason to vote yes to this ridiculous idea would be to use it as a means to show my utter disgust at what this woman did to this country. I would show my arse whilst chanting 'Thatcher milk snatcher' followed by 'Thatcher, Thatcher CIA how many babies have you killed today.' Seriously, giving her a state funeral is an absolute disgrace. No politician (with the exception of Churchill) should be given this honour, least of all someone who waged class war and deeply divided the country. She was also, basically, crap. Most of our problems can be traced directly or indirectly to her policies. She is one of the worst PMs ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 It now states that Labour is a democratic socialist party. It's not necessary to nationalise an industry to be socialist. To be fair, worker or communal ownership of the means of production has generally been thought to be a major part of socialism. Oh hang on. Actually, it's the definition of it. Honestly, rant and rave against something all you like, but have the balls to say if you would actually reverse any of it. Shall we have the Post Office running the phones? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 Thatcher milk snatcher She should be revered for this. I hated being forced to drink a third of a pint of milk at infant school. It was torture. Put me off drinking milk for life! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lags Posted April 12, 2013 Author Share Posted April 12, 2013 To be fair, worker or communal ownership of the means of production has generally been thought to be a major part of socialism. Oh hang on. Actually, it's the definition of it. Honestly, rant and rave against something all you like, but have the balls to say if you would actually reverse any of it. Shall we have the Post Office running the phones? The vast majority of things have improved over time with advancement and technology. Shall we still live in caves? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 The vast majority of things have improved over time with advancement and technology. Shall we still live in caves? This is a true point, but if all of our caves where designed and built by the Ministry of Caves I don't think they would have improved much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.