The blessed Margaret ..
Originally Posted by spooky3
The IMF with all its world experts have warned that our present governments polices arnt working, but hey their just world renowned experts what do they know?
That was our situation in 1976 thanks to "Crisis, what crisis?" Callaghan and his Labour government. It's hardly surprising that Thatcher was swept to power in 1979, especially after the winter of discontent.
The Cabinet Papers 1915-1982: Sterling devalued and the IMF loan
The left wing of the Labour Party defeated the Public Expenditure White Paper in the Commons in March 1976. Subsequently, Harold Wilson resigned and James Callaghan took over as Prime Minister...
...The IMF crisis reinforced a change in policy orientation away from full employment and social welfare towards the control of inflation and expenditure.
...The IMF crisis reinforced a change in policy orientation away from full employment and social welfare towards the control of inflation and expenditure.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Green and pleasant land
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trolls reply to those bits of an argument they think can further wind-up people and conveniently ignore the rest
Spooky is no different...
Trolls are just silly little children, usually (deliberately) blinkered and not worth expending any effort over I'm afraid
CS
And in case you need any further persuading:
Nice one spooky!!!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: oxford
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Lord Palmerston blog says:
It was the ever-erudite @allanholloway who brought to my attention a few weeks back that more coal mines closed under Harold Wilson’s governments than under Margaret Thatcher’s, and I owe him an apology for not having credited him sooner, given the number of retweets I got for passing that on earlier. Based on these figures from the government about 290 mines closed under Wilson in all his time in office, and about 160 under Thatcher. Because the figures are based on year end totals of pits operating, it’s not possible to be precise, but the relative scale of those numbers is clear. So why isn’t Wilson execrated by the Left for his part in the decline of coal mining?
It was the ever-erudite @allanholloway who brought to my attention a few weeks back that more coal mines closed under Harold Wilson’s governments than under Margaret Thatcher’s, and I owe him an apology for not having credited him sooner, given the number of retweets I got for passing that on earlier. Based on these figures from the government about 290 mines closed under Wilson in all his time in office, and about 160 under Thatcher. Because the figures are based on year end totals of pits operating, it’s not possible to be precise, but the relative scale of those numbers is clear. So why isn’t Wilson execrated by the Left for his part in the decline of coal mining?
You are right, a loss making public enterprise could very well be converted to a profitable private company. Just look at the likes of British Gas or British telecom (BT), and especially British Petroleum (BP).
The issue with British Coal mines is that no-one wanted to buy them, why do you think it was the workers themselves who purchased the mines and not an already established mining company?
To look at why no-one wanted to buy them, you will undoubtedly bring about many emotional responses. The mine workers were regarded as over-paid, militant and unproductive workers by comparison to their international colleagues. The mines would have required a huge and costly overhaul, no doubt resulting many job losses (particularly with the pen-pushers) it would have needed spending cuts and possibly even some part-closures. There is no way the NUM would have let that any of that happen, regardless of the necessity for it.
It's not hard to see that no investor would have wanted to spend £millions trying to give the mines a profitable overhaul, only to be forced back into a loss-making position by the NUM.
It's a sad state of affairs to lose an industry so deeply routed in British society but it is very true what they say, Thatcher didn't kill the mines, Arthur Scargill and the National Union of Mineworkers did.
The issue with British Coal mines is that no-one wanted to buy them, why do you think it was the workers themselves who purchased the mines and not an already established mining company?
To look at why no-one wanted to buy them, you will undoubtedly bring about many emotional responses. The mine workers were regarded as over-paid, militant and unproductive workers by comparison to their international colleagues. The mines would have required a huge and costly overhaul, no doubt resulting many job losses (particularly with the pen-pushers) it would have needed spending cuts and possibly even some part-closures. There is no way the NUM would have let that any of that happen, regardless of the necessity for it.
It's not hard to see that no investor would have wanted to spend £millions trying to give the mines a profitable overhaul, only to be forced back into a loss-making position by the NUM.
It's a sad state of affairs to lose an industry so deeply routed in British society but it is very true what they say, Thatcher didn't kill the mines, Arthur Scargill and the National Union of Mineworkers did.
Spooky,
Forgive the question, but.....
On the one hand you say that it's not right for someone to insult you (on the basis of your lack of education) - and I would actually agree with you on that point.
On the other hand, at post 339, you called Margaret Thatcher an "old bitch" - which personally I would consider to be an "insult".
So what gives you the right to insult Margaret Thatcher? The fact that she was a politician? A public figure? Or because she's dead?
Surely you can hardly complain about being insulted on the one hand, while happily insulting someone on the other? That sort of logic is reserved for young children who haven't grown up yet (which I'm not saying you are..... before you feel insulted by my comment!)
Forgive the question, but.....
On the one hand you say that it's not right for someone to insult you (on the basis of your lack of education) - and I would actually agree with you on that point.
On the other hand, at post 339, you called Margaret Thatcher an "old bitch" - which personally I would consider to be an "insult".
So what gives you the right to insult Margaret Thatcher? The fact that she was a politician? A public figure? Or because she's dead?
Surely you can hardly complain about being insulted on the one hand, while happily insulting someone on the other? That sort of logic is reserved for young children who haven't grown up yet (which I'm not saying you are..... before you feel insulted by my comment!)
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Back to the fold in the map
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
Langley's request
OK - my final contribution. Spooky - you throw around figures and half-truths as though they are fact. Here's a fact for you:
"The next day the unions were told that Cortonwood was only the first of a wide-ranging programme of closures that would see 20 pits shut and 20,000 miners lose their jobs.
Scottish miners joined the action and by 12 March, half Britain's 187,000 miners had downed tools".
This means that approximately 10.7% of the miners lost their jobs as a direct result of the 1984 strike. Here's another interesting fact, below are the figures for the number of pits that closed during the Wilson (2 terms) and Callaghan (1 term) Labour governments.
1964 545
1965 .. 504
1966 .. 442
1967 .. 406
1968 .. 330
1969 .. 304
1974 .. 250
1975 .. 241
1976 .. 239
1977 .. 231
1978 .. 223
1979 .. 219
This would indicate that the collective Labour process closed 231 pits; compare this to the 154 closed in the Thatcher years. Now, do we assume that Wilson and Callaghan closed pits because they were economically unviable - one would hope so given that they were in charge of our collective finances. So, can we ascribe the same reasoning to the Thatcher administration - given the capitalist mantra of "profit, profit, profit" I think it's a safe bet to do so. Now, my question to you is this: where were the NUM when the Labour governments were closing pits - with the loss of many more than 20,000 mining jobs? I don't know - so you see it really is a genuine question to you.
Here's another thing - given that the pits were closed in 1984 because they were uneconomical to work i.e. that the coal seams were not large enough and stable enough to be worked with efficient machines, then by his actions in trying to keep them open Mr Scargill was effectively condemning his members to go deep underground into old pits, and use 19th Century methods to extract the coal - dirty, dangerous and often fatal work. Does that strike you as the actions of someone who has him men's best interests at heart? I would say "No" - therefore he must have been driven by another motive. What do you think that may have may have been?
To answer you question at post 380 - I would suggest that the figures you give tell us that there were 2.3 million people in the UK engaged in hugely unprofitable work - subsidised by the State making useless cars, mining expensive coal and building ships using technology that couldn't compare to that used in Japan. What would you read into the figures?
So, you see Spooky, when we elect people to Govern us, we should understand that they have to take difficult decisions "for the greater good". I would not wish to belittle the problems of those who were made redundant as a result of the 1984 closures - but I would absolutely insist that the enstire episode was seen in the wider context and, if that is done, then I think that Mrs Thatcher will be judged by history as an extraordinarily competent leader.
PS all the facts/figures quoted here come from a variety of BBC websites.
"The next day the unions were told that Cortonwood was only the first of a wide-ranging programme of closures that would see 20 pits shut and 20,000 miners lose their jobs.
Scottish miners joined the action and by 12 March, half Britain's 187,000 miners had downed tools".
This means that approximately 10.7% of the miners lost their jobs as a direct result of the 1984 strike. Here's another interesting fact, below are the figures for the number of pits that closed during the Wilson (2 terms) and Callaghan (1 term) Labour governments.
1964 545
1965 .. 504
1966 .. 442
1967 .. 406
1968 .. 330
1969 .. 304
1974 .. 250
1975 .. 241
1976 .. 239
1977 .. 231
1978 .. 223
1979 .. 219
This would indicate that the collective Labour process closed 231 pits; compare this to the 154 closed in the Thatcher years. Now, do we assume that Wilson and Callaghan closed pits because they were economically unviable - one would hope so given that they were in charge of our collective finances. So, can we ascribe the same reasoning to the Thatcher administration - given the capitalist mantra of "profit, profit, profit" I think it's a safe bet to do so. Now, my question to you is this: where were the NUM when the Labour governments were closing pits - with the loss of many more than 20,000 mining jobs? I don't know - so you see it really is a genuine question to you.
Here's another thing - given that the pits were closed in 1984 because they were uneconomical to work i.e. that the coal seams were not large enough and stable enough to be worked with efficient machines, then by his actions in trying to keep them open Mr Scargill was effectively condemning his members to go deep underground into old pits, and use 19th Century methods to extract the coal - dirty, dangerous and often fatal work. Does that strike you as the actions of someone who has him men's best interests at heart? I would say "No" - therefore he must have been driven by another motive. What do you think that may have may have been?
To answer you question at post 380 - I would suggest that the figures you give tell us that there were 2.3 million people in the UK engaged in hugely unprofitable work - subsidised by the State making useless cars, mining expensive coal and building ships using technology that couldn't compare to that used in Japan. What would you read into the figures?
So, you see Spooky, when we elect people to Govern us, we should understand that they have to take difficult decisions "for the greater good". I would not wish to belittle the problems of those who were made redundant as a result of the 1984 closures - but I would absolutely insist that the enstire episode was seen in the wider context and, if that is done, then I think that Mrs Thatcher will be judged by history as an extraordinarily competent leader.
PS all the facts/figures quoted here come from a variety of BBC websites.
Last edited by Canadian Break; 25th Apr 2013 at 17:07.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Green and pleasant land
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spooky
...One of your original posts was a request for help sourcing a Tornado penknife which was gladly given by one of our military community....
I was and am very greatfull for the penknife and gave a donation to the charity of the kind gentleman's choice, i don't see that has anything to do with this thread at all, just because i have different views to you dos'nt make it right for you to insult someone because of there so called lack of education.
...One of your original posts was a request for help sourcing a Tornado penknife which was gladly given by one of our military community....
I was and am very greatfull for the penknife and gave a donation to the charity of the kind gentleman's choice, i don't see that has anything to do with this thread at all, just because i have different views to you dos'nt make it right for you to insult someone because of there so called lack of education.
It's only when someone palpably demonstrates their lack of education, both actual and 'of real world events' that they generally get called on it. As you have been here.
Now, about that bridge you live under .....
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the unions didn't do the miners any good that is a fact but maggie was out for revenge, it wasn't just the mines where i live her gov closed down the ROF factorys they didn't have much time for her ether.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Green and pleasant land
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ideally comparing the number of mines that closed under the Blessed Margaret with the number that closed under the useless Wilson and awful Callaghan...
your ball .....
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: oxford
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dos'nt make it right for you to insult someone
I did not insult you.
Be careful what you put out there on t'internet... It's very easy to track your career profile with your username.
If I might interrupt this private fight and broaden the scope of the thread, I hear on the news that the estimated cost of the funeral, far from being the £10m which was being bandied about, was in the region of £3.5m
Of course if all the police who were lining the streets received the same overtime payments as the servicemen who were doing the same job a few yards away (ie nil), the cost would have been even lower.
Can't see the Police Federation agreeing to that one though!
Of course if all the police who were lining the streets received the same overtime payments as the servicemen who were doing the same job a few yards away (ie nil), the cost would have been even lower.
Can't see the Police Federation agreeing to that one though!
