Mrs Thatcher Vs The Miners

[Borchester]

I suppose this interpretation of history depends on which englishman you speak to. It was only on this forum the other day that borchester assured me the english.....sorry i mean british , were such generous souls that they volunteered for the good of the world to give up the empire in a decent manner. Like you , i seem to remember reading about vast sums of money being spent on sending armies into countries and colonies in a desperate bid to retain the empire.

It is one of a life's ironies that a long and reasonably harmonious marriage is cheaper than a divorce. However it is cut, the retreat from empire turned out to be startlingly expensive. A lot of the blame can be laid at the door of the Irish, Scots and Welsh who made up the Imperial Civil Services and who were understandably reluctant to have their rice bowls broken even if it did bankrupt the UK. That said, although many tales have been told of freedom fighters flinging themselves on the bayonets of English mercenaries in their bid for independence, most of the empire had gone by the 1960s.

The question then arises in that with the horrors of Imperialism and racism being so burned into the souls of the King Emperor's ex subject, why so many of them have chosen to settle here? 

[Thomas]

It was British trade unionists, who'd developed close ties to Soviet trade unionists, that planned trade union structures for post-war Germany with German trade unionists. One plan that envisaged the involvement of worker representatives on company boards, served as a blueprint for economic reconstruction of German industry, and industrial peace and eventual prosperity. 

Strangely the TUC never showed the same willingness to help the post-war reconstruction of UK industry, and the Soviet influence derailed UK industrial relations for decades after.

Attlee and Churchill never saw industrial modernisation as an imperative. While Germany and other European countries chose to use post war Marshall Aid on reconstructing their industry. Britain — despite getting vastly more Marshall Aid than any other European country — chose to spend the bulk on building up its armed forces in an effort to retain the Empire...

I dont disagree with your post , i was simply pointing out this oft trotted out old tory myth that a strong conservative matriarch like thatcher was needed to smash unions who were dragging the uk down the pan isnt quite the full story , and as germany shows you can have a succesfull economy and highly unionised workforce as the two arent necessarily mutually exclusive.

I suspect the state the uk was in ,in the late seventies economically was the end result of many differing issues , not just out of control unions , and as cromwell has elsehwere stated unions can be both good and bad like any organisation.

While Germany and other European countries chose to use post war Marshall Aid on reconstructing their industry. Britain — despite getting vastly more Marshall Aid than any other European country — chose to spend the bulk on building up its armed forces in an effort to retain the Empire...

Interesting you say that.

I suppose this interpretation of history depends on which englishman you speak to. It was only on this forum the other day that borchester assured me the english.....sorry i mean british , were such generous souls that they volunteered for the good of the world to give up the empire in a decent manner. Like you , i seem to remember reading about vast sums of money being spent on sending armies into countries and colonies in a desperate bid to retain the empire.

I suspect your version of events above in your quote are a bit more truthfull than the musings of the chelsea pensioners.

Another thing the brits helped develop in germany was federalism , something your elite have staunchly fought tooth and nail against in their own backyard for 150 years.

So it seems you brits love putting ideas into action in other countries while constantly shitting on your own doorstep.

Funny old world as del boy often says.

[patman post]

It was British trade unionists, who'd developed close ties to Soviet trade unionists, that planned trade union structures for post-war Germany with German trade unionists. One plan that envisaged the involvement of worker representatives on company boards, served as a blueprint for economic reconstruction of German industry, and industrial peace and eventual prosperity. 

Strangely the TUC never showed the same willingness to help the post-war reconstruction of UK industry, and the Soviet influence derailed UK industrial relations for decades after.

Attlee and Churchill never saw industrial modernisation as an imperative. While Germany and other European countries chose to use post war Marshall Aid on reconstructing their industry, Britain — despite getting vastly more Marshall Aid than any other European country — chose to spend the bulk on building up its armed forces in an effort to retain the Empire...

[Thomas]

I don't have a mod's immunity to the charge of going off topic — but assuming it's now OK to ignore the subject, I'd say that unlike trade unions, employers are not immune from the consequences of breaking and not meeting contracts. Conversely, when Thatcher became PM wildcat strikes were dogging British industry, and the phrase "putting the country on its feet" meant national transport strikes and shutdowns of the motor industry. Typically car workers, miners, and train drivers were earning substantially above the average wage — London tube drivers actually claimed that as they had the same responsibilities as airline pilots, they deserved the same pay.....

Germany has the highest paid , one of the most highly skilled unionised work forces in europe , and it doesnt stop them having the biggest most successfull european economy.

Margaret thatcher was a complete utter cant , and her  sermon on the mound is still one of the most infamous incidents in modern scottish history.

When scotland finally becomes independent , i hope thatcher gets a statue in george square for services to the independence cause.

[patman post]

Pity whilst pontificating on greed you didn't quote he business side of it.

I don't have a mod's immunity to the charge of going off topic — but assuming it's now OK to ignore the subject, I'd say that unlike trade unions, employers are not immune from the consequences of breaking and not meeting contracts. Conversely, when Thatcher became PM wildcat strikes were dogging British industry, and the phrase "putting the country on its feet" meant national transport strikes and shutdowns of the motor industry. Typically car workers, miners, and train drivers were earning substantially above the average wage — London tube drivers actually claimed that as they had the same responsibilities as airline pilots, they deserved the same pay.....

[johnofgwent]

Are you saying that an industry losing money should be left to continue?

I might say that.


It depends on what that industry produces and how easily nations hostile to us could screw us if they are the only other source of that item.


A bit like the US going to war for oil ...

[Borchester]

Another problem with coaling mining is that by the time of the strike it was on the way out anyway.

In 1920 there were five times as many collies as in 1980 while demand had dropped by a half. So by the time of the strike the miners were increasingly efficient at producing something that no one particularly wanted. And the mines were nearly all in Labour strongholds. And none of the other big unions were ready to do anything positive to support the miners.

So coal mining was buggered and would effectively cease to exist as a source of employment in another decade, there were plenty of other sources of energy available, the miners did not have any real allies and Mrs T did not give a toss what anyone thought because the collies were not going to vote for her anyway.

So, one way and another it was probably not a good time to have a strike.

[Nick]

Where did I say that?
Pat pointed out union greed and I replied.....well you know or should my reply,are you saying no businesses are greedy or take advantage of their workforce?

It was the Labour party that nationalised mining and then allowed unions to run it, WTF??
If you nationalise an industry you don't allow a CLUB to run it, you crack the whip and set the rules. People then have the choice to be in or out of that industry.
The NUM created a situation whereby they had pushed the wages that high that workers wouldn't leave. When the closures were announced the miners were told that the NUM held all the cards, Maggie had other plans.

Anyone on here disagree with a business, in this case Her Majesties Government, fending off a hostile assault by a union? One that had seen off previous successive governments. I for one think they were mislead and tricked by the NUM / Scargill and paid the ultimate price. If they had kept their heads down and just ticked along they most likely would have got another decade out of the industry.

[cromwell]

Are you saying that an industry losing money should be left to continue?

Where did I say that?
Pat pointed out union greed and I replied.....well you know or should my reply,are you saying no businesses are greedy or take advantage of their workforce?

[Nick]

Pity whilst pontificating on greed you didn't quote he business side of it.

Are you saying that an industry losing money should be left to continue?

[cromwell]

Margaret Thatcher started to break the trade unions' greed, and Rupert Murdoch saw it off by using one Union's greed to break the restrictive and fraudulent practices of another.
Unfortunately, the other greedy groups with the power to cause havoc — the communications and transport unions — are still a destructive force. The sooner automatic and driver-only trains are brought in the better for the country. Luckily, new Mail and package despatch and delivery models are being trialled...

Pity whilst pontificating on greed you didn't quote he business side of it.

[patman post]

Margaret Thatcher started to break the trade unions' greed, and Rupert Murdoch saw it off by using one Union's greed to break the restrictive and fraudulent practices of another.
Unfortunately, the other greedy groups with the power to cause havoc — the communications and transport unions — are still a destructive force. The sooner automatic and driver-only trains are brought in the better for the country. Luckily, new Mail and package despatch and delivery models are being trialled...

[B-4]

You clearly have issues with successful people otherwise you wouldn't be pointing to Rishi Sunak.

I didn't point to him, Borchester did.  I have merely been pointing out that he makes a poor example of the working class community, considering an expensive private education isn't part of the norm. 

Where as I don't look upon someone else's success with envy cause I have bust my balls to built a successful business and am happy with my lot. You obviously aren't and look to the silver spoon brigade with envy.

I don't see anything in my argument that demonstrates any envy whatsoever.  I haven't made this about me and can't be blamed for my argument being misrepresented.  I was referring to the working class communities and it must be obvious by now that this is something the Tories are still very detached from.

[Nick]

Their lot? Please be specific.

You clearly have issues with successful people otherwise you wouldn't be pointing to Rishi Sunak. Where as I don't look upon someone else's success with envy cause I have bust my balls to built a successful business and am happy with my lot. You obviously aren't and look to the silver spoon brigade with envy.

[B-4]

Their lot? Please be specific.