We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Grangemouth dispute: Ineos says petrochemical plant will close
Comments
-
grizzly1911 wrote: »I have not been an apologist for the communists. I do believe that is was useful to have them as an "enemy" for certain parties.
For the sake of clarity - " The unions played their part "
The majority of the workers, many of whom had served during the war, were far from communists.
I do see the amount of money ploughed into the arms race as a missed investment opportunity. You no doubt see it entirely money well spent spent. No doubt the US defence contractors did.
Antagonism takes two extremes. Many of the latter disputes were deliberately confrontational. UK carper makes the point well, about the miners, in particular.
I never said that jobless could be avoided. I actually said -."doesn't have to result in job reductions".
Engineering and production was often reliant on first world war equipment and machinery. it cried out for the investment that would allow it to compete with quality, tolerances and output achieved by our competitors.
Throwing insults suggests only one thing.
It's funny how people who believe workers have rights and are not just fodder for the uncaring capitalism we seem to be heading towards are classed as communists.0 -
A pit might be unprofitable in thestrict sense I.E it costs more to get coal out than it can be sold for but with a nationalised industry it is not as simple as that and the other costs involved were never taken into consideration. The main aim of Maggie was not to make the mining industry profitable but to destroy the trade union movement which to a great extent she succeeded in. You might think that is a good thing and although sometrade unions were to powerful and that power needed to be curtailed we have now gone to far the other way.
do give us the facts about the decline in the number of miners between 1950 and say 2005 spanning all the relevant governments
do tell us the manner in which Thatcher handled the miners compared to other governments
do tell us whether Scargill held a nationwide vote of the miners before calling the strike
do tell us whether Scargill called himself a communist
do tell us whether Scargill stated aim was to bring down the Tory government by undemocratic means.
Whether or not the power of companies versa labour has gone too far, it is undoubtedly a direct consequence of the repeated politically motivated strikes (and sympathy strikes) over both trivial and not trivial issues that led to general support for tough strike legislation.
Sadly an own goal by working people who allowed themselves to be led by donkeys.0 -
do give us the facts about the decline in the number of miners between 1950 and say 2005 spanning all the relevant governments
do tell us the manner in which Thatcher handled the miners compared to other governments
do tell us whether Scargill held a nationwide vote of the miners before calling the strike
do tell us whether Scargill called himself a communist
do tell us whether Scargill stated aim was to bring down the Tory government by undemocratic means.
Whether or not the power of companies versa labour has gone too far, it is undoubtedly a direct consequence of the repeated politically motivated strikes (and sympathy strikes) over both trivial and not trivial issues that led to general support for tough strike legislation.
Sadly an own goal by working people who allowed themselves to be led by donkeys.
Stock pile coal engineer a dispute and use the full force of the police to destroy the union paying no concern to the effects than closing the pits would have on the communities.
I admit that some of the trade union leaders were bad but the majority of the strikers were just concerned about their future which has turn out to be well founding.
I can see there is good on both sides your views seem very polarised and right wing politicians and managers can do no wrong.0 -
Stock pile coal engineer a dispute and use the full force of the police to destroy the union paying no concern to the effects than closing the pits would have on the communities.
I admit that some of the trade union leaders were bad but the majority of the strikers were just concerned about their future which has turn out to be well founding.
I can see there is good on both sides your views seem very polarised and right wing politicians and managers can do no wrong.
So you totally refuse to look up the actual facts about UK coal production and miner employment over the period 1950 to 2005.
Your choice to remain ignorant.0 -
-
Stock pile coal engineer a dispute and use the full force of the police to destroy the union paying no concern to the effects than closing the pits would have on the communities.
I admit that some of the trade union leaders were bad but the majority of the strikers were just concerned about their future which has turn out to be well founding.
I can see there is good on both sides your views seem very polarised and right wing politicians and managers can do no wrong.
Thatcher thrived on antagonism. She needed enemies to defeat - consensus and compromise where not really in her dictionary.
Unions were her personal enemy.
I read that a party briefing acknowledged that they would have not have won in 1979 had her full intentions towards the unions been public knowledge.
Scargill was a nut job no doubt but there was no intention of finding a sensible way forward either, from Thatcher, particularly after her climb down in the first term.
The majority of miners were strivers. reasonably well paid, many with mortgages and commitments, reasonable redundancy packages were on offer but no alternative prospects were in sight.
With hindsight she, unwittingly, has left a valuable resource to be tapped once more in the future."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
I know the facts about coal production but what has that got to do with the way Thatcher went about closing the pits.
Thatcher did what every government since 1950 had done: closed uneconomic pits and reduced the number of miners. Several attempts to further reduce the number of mines were prevented by strike action or threat of strike action.
You are clearly in favour of reductions in the mining industry but didn't like the way Thatcher addressed the issue.
In the scheme of things that seems a relatively small sin.
One notes, that no major political party or even the Guardian call for re-introduction of secondary picketing or opening uneconomic mines.
Thatcher did lots of things I disapprove of: pumped oil out of the north sea as if there was no tomorrow; dumbed down education with GCSEs, converted polys to Unis, introduced 'Baker' days at schools, failed in invest in infrastructure but changing the laws on secondary picketing and closing uneconomic state industries etc weren't any of them.0 -
Thatcher did what every government since 1950 had done: closed uneconomic pits and reduced the number of miners. Several attempts to further reduce the number of mines were prevented by strike action or threat of strike action.
You are clearly in favour of reductions in the mining industry but didn't like the way Thatcher addressed the issue.
In the scheme of things that seems a relatively small sin.
One notes, that no major political party or even the Guardian call for re-introduction of secondary picketing or opening uneconomic mines.
Thatcher did lots of things I disapprove of: pumped oil out of the north sea as if there was no tomorrow; dumbed down education with GCSEs, converted polys to Unis, introduced 'Baker' days at schools, failed in invest in infrastructure but changing the laws on secondary picketing and closing uneconomic state industries etc weren't any of them.
What about giving some thought and concern to the results of such a abrupt change and putting some things in place to mitigate the effect.0 -
What about giving some thought and concern to the results of such a abrupt change and putting some things in place to mitigate the effect.
Yes indeed that would have been a good idea.
Maybe if huge sums of money weren't being spent policing riots every day then thought could have been expended on other things
Maybe Thatcher should have invited Scargill to tea and biscuits to chat over things and come to an amicable agreement.
Maybe some-one could have encouraged Honda or Toyota to open factories here .. things like that you mean?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards