Not The Politics Thread.

[urban.spaceman]

8 hours ago, Nalis said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58107009

 

What an absolute ****.

 

If he's serious he's absolutely deluded to think that was one of the reasons she did that.

 

If he's trying to be funny its a bit sick to joke about the livelihoods lost with zero investment to create new industries in those areas at the time.

He's using the exact same logic as Ken Livingstone's "Hitler was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews” statement.

 

Except he's not hiding in the toilet, he's the ****ing Prime Minister who has a history of hiding in fridges.

 

How the **** has our country's standards fallen so low?

[UpTheLeagueFox]

4 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Trade unions and their members have interests they want advancing and can withdraw their labour to do so. Scargill and Peter Heathfield were elected by NUM members to the NUM leadership to do just that. When you say "they had the country by the balls" what you of course really mean is that their sweat and toil allowed the country to keep the lights on and the kettles boiling which is of course true. If the country would then literally stop functioning if these people didn't go to work then what reasonably follows is that their labour is amongst the most important in society and they should be renumerated for their labour as such. Of course that presumption went too far for Mrs Thatcher who thought that the spivs, hucksters and yuppies who financed her were preferable so she allowed the securtiy services to infiltrate the miners and the police force to batter them on horseback.

You seem to be avoiding the fact that unions wanted ridiculous wage rises. 

Govts caved in to those demands in the 70s but Thatcher wasn't going to be bullied.

They had Govts by the balls, 100%. Give us these massive increases or we'll go on strike. That's having them by the balls.

Thankfully, Thatcher stood up the union bullies, one of her finest moments.

[David Guiza]

1 hour ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

Arthur Scargill always seems to get a bit of a free pass over the mine closures.

The unions thought they could do to Thatcher what they did aggressively in the 70s (have the Govt and the country by the balls) and she stood up against them, quite rightly IMHO. 

Did the unions try and find reasonable solutions? Of course they didn't. They had the power in the 70s, far too much power. That power was unsustainable.

They were bullies and while 70s Govts rolled over for them, Thatcher wasn't having any of that.

 

PS. More mines actually closed under Labour than under Thatcher.

PPS. If mining was that profitable, why didn't subsequent Governments (inc Labour 1997-2010) reopen some or all?

SF has covered this - but I'd also note that Thatcher very much made it political. There were reports a few years ago of the speech she was going to give in Brighton, that was then amended after the bombing, whereby she effectively said that the miners and Labour's support of them was as dangerous to national interest and security as Galtieri was with the Falklands. 

 

With regard to Labour closing more, I believe Labour closed many of the small pits that had effectively reached the end of their cycle which is of course a different prospect. Thatcher closed 70% of the remaining mines and left 80% of the remaining miners without a job, or the prospect of one.

 

Of course it was inevitable that the mines would close eventually, but there was no foresight or care to those involved. At the time it was it still fit for purpose and she destroyed it and the communities who depended on it.

 

Perhaps it's a utopian fantasy, but for me the first priority of any government is the health, welfare, and security of it's people. She offered that to plenty of people with a bright vision of tech modern Britain, but at the expense of thousands of peoples livelihoods. Scargill and go were far from blameless, but neither were they the Prime Minster. If PMs continually crushed the livelihoods of those who challenge them then we'd be rivalling some notable other countries for their totalitarian rule. 

 

56 minutes ago, Dunge said:

They may decide ultimately to vote him out. And I’m not saying the change they want is ideally a Tory, but I do think more and more want something more like what the Tories are saying than what Labour have been saying. If Labour go Corbynite, they put a lot of people off. If they try to revert to “old Labour” of mine working days, they’ll rightly be seen as stuck in the past. I think there are lot of people in northern areas who want tangible new opportunities and ideally want to vote for a Labour Party who can provide them, a party of both compassion and aspiration. But in the absence of that they’ve voted for a party that at least respected their views on Brexit and are aspirational by nature.

 

Regarding the linked article, I don’t think that contradicts what I’m saying. It suggests that many of the communities there haven’t recovered from the loss of the mines, which I don’t doubt is true. For me, the worst thing the Tories did to those communities wasn’t shutting down the mines - that’s dirty, smelly, hard and dangerous work that would have to be shut down now if they weren’t already because of the pressures of climate change. I don’t believe younger people in those communities are wishing they could be going down the mines to work these days. The worst thing was that the Tories didn’t offer anything as a replacement and just let those communities drift to nothingness. But then Labour don’t seem to be able to offer any solutions either, other than a legacy of old MPs whose main policy was to retain bitterness about the situation (see Skinner, for instance). Their support has gone down and down over decades because, I believe, people want to move on. That’s why the “levelling up agenda” sounds right in principle. (In practice is another matter of course, although it’s worth noting the Tory mayor’s electoral success in Teeside as an example of what can be done.)

 

I don’t see Labour winning those areas back until they give the north proper opportunities, probably in the field of green energy production. I think that’s the kind of change people want in these places: New opportunities and the chance to forge community and identity again. But the only flagship policies I’ve seen from Labour recently, particularly in the Corbyn era, have been socially left things designed to attract young elites and promises of handouts. Those things don’t wash in these communities. To me, that’s the single biggest challenge for Starmer and Labour - to be aspirational without getting too Tory. If they can manage it, I do believe the votes are there to be won. After all, there’s no sudden love for the Tories in these places. They’re just the functional choice.

 

And all that is why I think Boris’s latest is deliberate. If Labour sound off, they look stuck in the past. If they don’t, they get their own core supporters on their back - people who would never vote Tory out of principle who the Tories won’t care about upsetting. In fact they’d probably prefer them upset.

I agree and perhaps the biggest indication of that will be not the next general election, but the one after that. The next GE will ultimately continue to be dominated COVID and our response to the same. Brexit will certainly have a say, but I think the knock on effect will perhaps be more apparent beyond 2024 - which is somewhat frighteningly less than 3 years away. Who's to say what will bring the 'red wall' back, if anything. It certainly wasn't ever going to Corbyn, and the soundbite political world we live in makes it difficult for Starmer too. Whilst the black and white continues to be greyed out by populist nonsense the likes of Starmer won't stand a chance. He'll instantly be written off as another liberal elitist, whilst a literal Etonite is favoured. Perhaps, if Labour can't do enough damage themselves, another Brexit Party type will pop up and create some waves, as our political system also makes it particularly difficult to oust the Tories whilst there is no realistic right of centre alternative to split their vote. 

 

I may have misjudged it, but I believe your original point was that people have moved on from the mining crisis and that article very much proves otherwise. I agree that Labour didn't do enough to support them and they undoubtedly rested on their laurels over what they deemed to be safe seats. That's always a problem in politics, and has been seen on a much smaller scale with more middle class voters turning their back on the Tories for being forgotten about etc. There's also seemingly a misunderstanding of how politics works in this country, and that's not a 'people who don't vote Labour are thick' jibe. There are/were countless articles published after the 2019 GE about Skinner and co losing their seats whereby constituents said they wanted change to x, y and z. Now, that's all well and good and good on anyone for enacting change in their area, but the vast majority of matters they felt had been neglected were the fault of the current government who have been in charge for over a decade. My only hope for them is that if things continue to not change, then they will take similar action with the current incarnation. 

 

As for Johnson, he simply says and does what he wants. Some people like that, clearly. 

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

SF has covered this - but I'd also note that Thatcher very much made it political. There were reports a few years ago of the speech she was going to give in Brighton, that was then amended after the bombing, whereby she effectively said that the miners and Labour's support of them was as dangerous to national interest and security as Galtieri was with the Falklands. 

 

With regard to Labour closing more, I believe Labour closed many of the small pits that had effectively reached the end of their cycle which is of course a different prospect. Thatcher closed 70% of the remaining mines and left 80% of the remaining miners without a job, or the prospect of one.

 

Of course it was inevitable that the mines would close eventually, but there was no foresight or care to those involved. At the time it was it still fit for purpose and she destroyed it and the communities who depended on it.

 

Perhaps it's a utopian fantasy, but for me the first priority of any government is the health, welfare, and security of it's people. She offered that to plenty of people with a bright vision of tech modern Britain, but at the expense of thousands of peoples livelihoods. Scargill and go were far from blameless, but neither were they the Prime Minster. If PMs continually crushed the livelihoods of those who challenge them then we'd be rivalling some notable other countries for their totalitarian rule. 

 

To add to this, winning elections is much easier if you have the press leaders in your pocket and they're getting their hand, even if you're not looking to the health, welfare and security of the people. Thatcher and Blair both knew that.

 

I would hope that anyone who knows much about media - then and now - knows how useful a tool for manipulation it can be, the truth be damned.

Edited 6 August 2021 by leicsmac

[Dunge]

8 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

SF has covered this - but I'd also note that Thatcher very much made it political. There were reports a few years ago of the speech she was going to give in Brighton, that was then amended after the bombing, whereby she effectively said that the miners and Labour's support of them was as dangerous to national interest and security as Galtieri was with the Falklands. 

 

With regard to Labour closing more, I believe Labour closed many of the small pits that had effectively reached the end of their cycle which is of course a different prospect. Thatcher closed 70% of the remaining mines and left 80% of the remaining miners without a job, or the prospect of one.

 

Of course it was inevitable that the mines would close eventually, but there was no foresight or care to those involved. At the time it was it still fit for purpose and she destroyed it and the communities who depended on it.

 

Perhaps it's a utopian fantasy, but for me the first priority of any government is the health, welfare, and security of it's people. She offered that to plenty of people with a bright vision of tech modern Britain, but at the expense of thousands of peoples livelihoods. Scargill and go were far from blameless, but neither were they the Prime Minster. If PMs continually crushed the livelihoods of those who challenge them then we'd be rivalling some notable other countries for their totalitarian rule. 

 

I agree and perhaps the biggest indication of that will be not the next general election, but the one after that. The next GE will ultimately continue to be dominated COVID and our response to the same. Brexit will certainly have a say, but I think the knock on effect will perhaps be more apparent beyond 2024 - which is somewhat frighteningly less than 3 years away. Who's to say what will bring the 'red wall' back, if anything. It certainly wasn't ever going to Corbyn, and the soundbite political world we live in makes it difficult for Starmer too. Whilst the black and white continues to be greyed out by populist nonsense the likes of Starmer won't stand a chance. He'll instantly be written off as another liberal elitist, whilst a literal Etonite is favoured. Perhaps, if Labour can't do enough damage themselves, another Brexit Party type will pop up and create some waves, as our political system also makes it particularly difficult to oust the Tories whilst there is no realistic right of centre alternative to split their vote. 

 

I may have misjudged it, but I believe your original point was that people have moved on from the mining crisis and that article very much proves otherwise. I agree that Labour didn't do enough to support them and they undoubtedly rested on their laurels over what they deemed to be safe seats. That's always a problem in politics, and has been seen on a much smaller scale with more middle class voters turning their back on the Tories for being forgotten about etc. There's also seemingly a misunderstanding of how politics works in this country, and that's not a 'people who don't vote Labour are thick' jibe. There are/were countless articles published after the 2019 GE about Skinner and co losing their seats whereby constituents said they wanted change to x, y and z. Now, that's all well and good and good on anyone for enacting change in their area, but the vast majority of matters they felt had been neglected were the fault of the current government who have been in charge for over a decade. My only hope for them is that if things continue to not change, then they will take similar action with the current incarnation. 

 

As for Johnson, he simply says and does what he wants. Some people like that, clearly. 

I quite like Starmer, particularly as a contrast to the lack of integrity shown consistently by the current administration. But I fear you may be right, and that he doesn’t have the vision needed to bring people back onside. This is never more evident to me than when I see Andy Burnham being interviewed. Maybe the future of Labour lies with him.

 

Regarding my original post, I think there’s a split to be made between causes and solutions to the problems in these communities. The cause was undoubtedly the mines going combined with nothing appearing to replace them, leaving them increasingly destitute. But I always feel the Labour response for decades to that has been to go “There, there. Aren’t the Tories evil?” And I just don’t think people want that any more. There’s a whole generation now who have never worked down a mine and surely wouldn’t want to. So although there’s still a case of saying their destruction was a big part of the cause of deprivation that has lingered on to this day, they’re surely more focussed now on “where do we go from here?” I can’t see that the new generation would still hold much of a candle for the mines of their forefathers, and so any old Labourite who couldn’t let them go would just sound hollow.

 

That isn’t to say that deprivation dating back to the mining crisis doesn’t exist. More that I believe younger generations, who have never been in a mine, would likely just see it as part of history and would now be far more focussed on what they could do to improve the lot of themselves and their children instead of continuing to fight their father’s battle. And of course I’m talking generalisations and proportions. No doubt some will have inherited their parents’ political beliefs and would be determined to never, ever trust a Tory. But for increasing amounts of others I think they would be ambivalent to the politics of the 1980s.

[Buce]

30 minutes ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

I've kept my level of debate polite with you but we clearly see that period very differently. Have a nice day.

 

A period where you were - at best - a child; had you actually 'lived' through the Thatcher years you might feel differently.

 

On reflection, probably not.

[SpacedX]

1 hour ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

Arthur Scargill always seems to get a bit of a free pass over the mine closures.

The unions thought they could do to Thatcher what they did aggressively in the 70s (have the Govt and the country by the balls) and she stood up against them, quite rightly IMHO. 

Did the unions try and find reasonable solutions? Of course they didn't. They had the power in the 70s, far too much power. That power was unsustainable.

They were bullies and while 70s Govts rolled over for them, Thatcher wasn't having any of that.

 

PS. More mines actually closed under Labour than under Thatcher.

PPS. If mining was that profitable, why didn't subsequent Governments (inc Labour 1997-2010) reopen some or all?

You are absolutely right. Thatcher also transformed the City - until the late 1970s, the Square Mile was a genteel all-male club dominated by pinstripe suits, public school accents and a culture of long lunches. Money was made at the Stock Exchange with effortless panache, as a coterie of licensed dealers acted on behalf of a virtual cartel of stockbroker firms. The Big Bang blew the ancient regime apart. Within six months of Margaret Thatcher's election, exchange controls were lifted and foreign capital flooded into Britain. The deregulation of the Stock Exchange in 1986 was an invitation to the world's biggest beasts to enter the trading floor. The closure of the pits was part of our transformation into a market economy and the reigning in of the rampant unions prevented our plunge into a second world economy. Mobilising society, by rule of law, against the trade union bosses was undoubtedly an achievement.

 

But these points - some of which have already been made - are not what we are discussing here. Rather, the insensitive and inflammatory remarks of the PM, (whether calculated or not), and the shameful neglect/disdain that Thatcherism showed for the communities that were devastated by these changes. It is not forgotten in the provinces that she branded the NUM as "the enemy within". What happened at the hands of this woman's indifference to sentiment and good sense in the early 1980s brought unnecessary calamity to the lives of several million people who lost their jobs with no offer of support or retraining. It led to riots that nobody needed. More insidiously, it fathered a mood of tolerated harshness. Materialistic individualism was blessed as a virtue, the driver of national success. Everything was justified as long as it made money –and this, too, is still with us. When Thatcher told an interviewer in 1987 that, “There is no such thing as society”, she lit a fire that has blazed through British politics ever since. In a vain attempt at damage limitation, her office issued a clarification of her remarks to the press, but the phrase quickly entered political folklore becoming shorthand for a crassly individualist worldview prizing selfishness, greed and the trashing of social obligations.

[leicsmac]

16 minutes ago, Line-X said:

You are absolutely right. Thatcher also transformed the City - until the late 1970s, the Square Mile was a genteel all-male club dominated by pinstripe suits, public school accents and a culture of long lunches. Money was made at the Stock Exchange with effortless panache, as a coterie of licensed dealers acted on behalf of a virtual cartel of stockbroker firms. The Big Bang blew the ancient regime apart. Within six months of Margaret Thatcher's election, exchange controls were lifted and foreign capital flooded into Britain. The deregulation of the Stock Exchange in 1986 was an invitation to the world's biggest beasts to enter the trading floor. The closure of the pits was part of our transformation into a market economy and the reigning in of the rampant unions prevented our plunge into a second world economy. Mobilising society, by rule of law, against the trade union bosses was undoubtedly an achievement.

 

But these points - some of which have already been made - are not what we are discussing here. Rather, the insensitive and inflammatory remarks of the PM, (whether calculated or not), and the shameful neglect/disdain that Thatcherism showed for the communities that were devastated by these changes. It is not forgotten in the provinces that she branded the NUM as "the enemy within". What happened at the hands of this woman's indifference to sentiment and good sense in the early 1980s brought unnecessary calamity to the lives of several million people who lost their jobs with no offer of support or retraining. It led to riots that nobody needed. More insidiously, it fathered a mood of tolerated harshness. Materialistic individualism was blessed as a virtue, the driver of national success. Everything was justified as long as it made money –and this, too, is still with us. When Thatcher told an interviewer in 1987 that, “There is no such thing as society”, she lit a fire that has blazed through British politics ever since. In a vain attempt at damage limitation, her office issued a clarification of her remarks to the press, but the phrase quickly entered political folklore becoming shorthand for a crassly individualist worldview prizing selfishness, greed and the trashing of social obligations.

Furthermore that sentiment - that society is merely individuals - could be directly responsible for dooming us all, because some problems are simply too big to handle at the individual level.

 

Considering Thatcher was more clued up that most at the time on the consequences of climate change and what might be done about it, it's rather a jarring contrast that she would suggest a sentiment that basically implies we should do nothing about it.

[Guest Kopfkino]

2 hours ago, Line-X said:

When Thatcher told an interviewer in 1987 that, “There is no such thing as society”, she lit a fire that has blazed through British politics ever since. In a vain attempt at damage limitation, her office issued a clarification of her remarks to the press, but the phrase quickly entered political folklore becoming shorthand for a crassly individualist worldview prizing selfishness, greed and the trashing of social obligations.

 

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Furthermore that sentiment - that society is merely individuals - could be directly responsible for dooming us all, because some problems are simply too big to handle at the individual level.

 

Considering Thatcher was more clued up that most at the time on the consequences of climate change and what might be done about it, it's rather a jarring contrast that she would suggest a sentiment that basically implies we should do nothing about it.

But she didn’t say it in the way you take it to mean. If this was nowadays and was about a politician or anyone dear to the hearts of intellectual progressives it would be end of the world disinformation. Her office’s correction, whilst it may have been ill-fated merely pointed out what she actually said which I’m sure as those that have commented on it are absolute truthers  they’ll be more than happy to admit when they read it. https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/106689

 

It was a call against expecting a ‘paternalistic’ other to do things for you. It hasn’t worked hence the government is still the thing people blame first and foremost. Particularly bizarre @Line-X that you’d directly copy/plagiarise something Robert Saunders wrote so as to prove this point without referencing the rest of the article which goes on to say it has been horribly misunderstood and the way it’s been seized upon (Tony Blair was key in that) isn’t as she intended. And that the rest of the article quite admirably lays out the foundations of Thatcher’s worldview, in particular with reference to that quote, and that she wasn’t just an evil rabid Randian individualist as the lazy caricatures of those that didn’t like her portray.

 

The woman had her many faults, her bloody-mindedness, her blindness to structural disadvantage, strange lack of empathy and inability to consider the other side included. She quite clearly got many things wrong as result, in fact she was guilty of believing that people had her level of faith and that would constrain their greed and freedoms, she thought she was creating a world of her father when really she created the world of her son. But it’s a mark of the woman that she was capable of the philosophical discussion unlike those that hate her who seemingly have little interest in any good faith philosophical discussion around society and the individual.

[SpacedX]

1 minute ago, Kopfkino said:

 

But she didn’t say it in the way you take it to mean. If this was nowadays and was about a politician or anyone dear to the hearts of intellectual progressives it would be end of the world disinformation. Her office’s correction, whilst it may have been ill-fated merely pointed out what she actually said which I’m sure as those that have commented on it are absolute truthers  they’ll be more than happy to admit when they read it. https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/106689

 

It was a call against expecting a ‘paternalistic’ other to do things for you. It hasn’t worked hence the government is still the thing people blame first and foremost. Particularly bizarre @Line-X that you’d directly copy/plagiarise something Robert Saunders wrote so as to prove this point without referencing the rest of the article which goes on to say it has been horribly misunderstood and the way it’s been seized upon (Tony Blair was key in that) isn’t as she intended. And that the rest of the article quite admirably lays out the foundations of Thatcher’s worldview, in particular with reference to that quote, and that she wasn’t just an evil rabid Randian individualist as the lazy caricatures of those that didn’t like her portray.

 

The woman had her many faults, her bloody-mindedness, her blindness to structural disadvantage, strange lack of empathy and inability to consider the other side included. She quite clearly got many things wrong as result, in fact she was guilty of believing that people had her level of faith and that would constrain their greed and freedoms, she thought she was creating a world of her father when really she created the world of her son. But it’s a mark of the woman that she was capable of the philosophical discussion unlike those that hate her who seemingly have little interest in any good faith philosophical discussion around society and the individual.

I was reading Saunders again recently which I have revisited many times and I am in agreement of the damage wrought by the comment, which lacked the necessary context -  irrespective of the intention.

 

Although he had urged her to confront the NUM and take on the miners, I am reminded of Ingham's appraisal and suggestion that Thatcher needed “a recognition and understanding of the problems faced by the unfortunate in our society; this is not to say you should appear soft: rather the opposite, you should go out of your way in a deliberate but sympathetic manner to acknowledge their problems.”

 

“You should also have at the back of your mind the guilt complex among the ‘haves’ about the ‘have-nots’. It is vital that you signal your compassion – and don’t deride the word, because that is what many of your supporters think you lack – to the ‘haves’ who populate the south-east and the Conservative party conference.”

 

On the quote itself, echoing you observations, he has this to say:

 

"I was with Margaret Thatcher when she said “There is no such thing as society”. I saw trouble coming – and, indeed, the quote has been abused by many, including even the retiring Archbishop of York, who should have known better. Yet in context the sentence was unexceptionable."

 

 

[What the Fuchs?]

18 hours ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

You seem to be avoiding the fact that unions wanted ridiculous wage rises. 

Govts caved in to those demands in the 70s but Thatcher wasn't going to be bullied.

They had Govts by the balls, 100%. Give us these massive increases or we'll go on strike. That's having them by the balls.

Thankfully, Thatcher stood up the union bullies, one of her finest moments.

I studied this period at university, particularly surrounding the so-called ‘Winter of Discontent. It’s a little known fact that Thatcher was the primary cause for this event, because she prevented the Callaghan administration’s solution to runaway inflation - wage increase caps for public and private sector workers. This solution was accepted and many unions agreed to wage increases below inflation, but Thatcher [in the same style that Nixon sabotaged Lyndon Johnson’s peace overtures in 1968 over the Vietnam War for political gain, and Reagan prevented the early release of American hostages in Iran before his election for the same reason] launched challenges to prevent the government’s ability to prescribe remedial wage increases for private sector workers. As a result companies like Ford etc increased wages by multiple times compared to public sector workers who naturally felt hard done to - and this led to the strikes of the Winter of Discontent. Thatcher had previously constructed a narrative that there was a problem with the unions in this country and she was the only person who could fix it, when she was in fact the primary reason why a solution was not reached. She was Machiavellian, and was the one to ‘bully’ these unions due to her ambitions, rather than support a settlement that left everyone with dignity, not to mention the points others have made about use of police infiltration and violence with the unions, and the fact she created a country with a more volatile economy, incredible levels of debt, no national assets and terrible inequality. For good measure she ignored evidence she was given about Cyril Smith and Jimmy Savile’s private habits to give them honours.

Edited 7 August 2021 by What the Fuchs?

[Claridge]

Anyone defending the unions from the 70s and 80s obviously didn't live through that period. Milked the country and  messed up their own members most of the time. Union leaders did well though.

 

[oxford blue]

6 hours ago, What the Fuchs? said:

I studied this period at university, particularly surrounding the so-called ‘Winter of Discontent. It’s a little known fact that Thatcher was the primary cause for this event, because she prevented the Callaghan administration’s solution to runaway inflation - wage increase caps for public and private sector workers. This solution was accepted and many unions agreed to wage increases below inflation, but Thatcher [in the same style that Nixon sabotaged Lyndon Johnson’s peace overtures in 1968 over the Vietnam War for political gain, and Reagan prevented the early release of American hostages in Iran before his election for the same reason] launched challenges to prevent the government’s ability to prescribe remedial wage increases for private sector workers. As a result companies like Ford etc increased wages by multiple times compared to public sector workers who naturally felt hard done to - and this led to the strikes of the Winter of Discontent. Thatcher had previously constructed a narrative that there was a problem with the unions in this country and she was the only person who could fix it, when she was in fact the primary reason why a solution was not reached. She was Machiavellian, and was the one to ‘bully’ these unions due to her ambitions, rather than support a settlement that left everyone with dignity, not to mention the points others have made about use of police infiltration and violence with the unions, and the fact she created a country with a more volatile economy, incredible levels of debt, no national assets and terrible inequality. For good measure she ignored evidence she was given about Cyril Smith and Jimmy Savile’s private habits to give them honours.

Your 'facts' don't resonate with me; which university was this? Difficult to understand how a leader of the opposition had so much influence on a Labour administration. Why would Ford increase wages above inflation if their workers were on strike; I don' think they are a benevolent company.. The Labour government wanted to impose sanctions on Ford, as wage increase above pay policy. Was it surprising the Conservatives opposed this being  a 'free-market' party? Although Labour won the point, it was eviident there was no legitimacy to their policy, Consequently, many key workers in public sector went on strike for higher wages, the "winter of discontent".

 

Although I think it was only a Sun headline 'Crisis, what crisis?', Callaghan's words on returning to the country suggesting all was alright, after a foreign visit resonated with the the country - this led to him losing a vote of no confidence and then the election..

 

Did Thatcher give Smith/Savile honours; isn't this down to the Honours Committee? She may submit to Queen, but she can't be expected to scrutinise the thousands of various awards that are passed through the relevant committees.

 

 

[UpTheLeagueFox]

9 hours ago, What the Fuchs? said:

I studied this period at university, particularly surrounding the so-called ‘Winter of Discontent. It’s a little known fact that Thatcher was the primary cause for this event

hahahahahaha

Yeah, Thatcher was to blame for all that, worraloadofbollox!!

[What the Fuchs?]

9 hours ago, oxford blue said:

Your 'facts' don't resonate with me; which university was this? Difficult to understand how a leader of the opposition had so much influence on a Labour administration. Why would Ford increase wages above inflation if their workers were on strike; I don' think they are a benevolent company.. The Labour government wanted to impose sanctions on Ford, as wage increase above pay policy. Was it surprising the Conservatives opposed this being  a 'free-market' party? Although Labour won the point, it was eviident there was no legitimacy to their policy, Consequently, many key workers in public sector went on strike for higher wages, the "winter of discontent".

 

Although I think it was only a Sun headline 'Crisis, what crisis?', Callaghan's words on returning to the country suggesting all was alright, after a foreign visit resonated with the the country - this led to him losing a vote of no confidence and then the election..

 

Did Thatcher give Smith/Savile honours; isn't this down to the Honours Committee? She may submit to Queen, but she can't be expected to scrutinise the thousands of various awards that are passed through the relevant committees.

 

 

Nottingham, a few years ago - I remember this one article by Colin Hay that stuck in my mind while researching political history: ‘Narrating Crisis: The Discursive Construction of the `Winter of Discontent’ https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0038038596030002004

The summary of it is there, if you have access to that site or Jstor you can read it all, it’s probably available somewhere for free but it is a very interesting insight into the period of the late 70s and how political narratives are constructed.

 

Ford and other private sector workers weren’t on strike, Callaghan’s actions were designed to deal with the problem of runaway inflation by setting a cap on wage increases. Any specifics are covered in that article. I last read academic works (without choice😅) almost 5 years ago now, and stuff on this topic even longer than that for an essay about the rise of Thatcherism, which I could send you but it’s almost definitely not as good as I thought it was at the time! 😂 I later focused more on the 1950s and the Suez Crisis.

 

Hopefully if you get the chance to read the article you’ll see the irony behind the ‘“Crisis, what crisis?”’ headline (something which was never actually said).

 

As for Thatcher, Savile and Cyril Smith it’s pretty much in the open now that she pushed for them to get knighthoods and stuff despite receiving evidence of the things they were doing in their private lives, Private Eye even exposed Smith but the police and many suspect people much higher up engaged in coverups of his activities and prevented prosecutions. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/thatcher-ignored-smith-abuse-06mfknmb0tj

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23355531.amp

Edited 8 August 2021 by What the Fuchs?

[What the Fuchs?]

7 hours ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

hahahahahaha

Yeah, Thatcher was to blame for all that, worraloadofbollox!!

‘I studied this period at university, particularly surrounding the so-called ‘Winter of Discontent. It’s a little known fact that Thatcher was the primary cause for this event, because she prevented the Callaghan administration’s solution to runaway inflation - wage increase caps for public and private sector workers.’
 

She wasn’t responsible for runaway inflation in the early and mid 70s, but the Tories under Thatcher were directly responsible for initiating the ‘Winter of Discontent’ as it was a consequence of their sabotaging a perfectly feasible and reasonable plan to cap wage increases below inflation. It’s pretty obvious they knew their intervention would harm the country, but would contribute to their narrative to aid themselves politically. Don’t try and quote me out of context.

Edited 8 August 2021 by What the Fuchs?

[HighPeakFox]

On 06/08/2021 at 13:44, UpTheLeagueFox said:

Thatcher won a bigger majority in 83 than 79 (perhaps helped by the Falklands) and of course won again in 87 which suggests the country thought she was doing a lot more right than wrong.

Didn't have you down as a master of ridiculous understatement, DJeff...

[oxford blue]

13 hours ago, What the Fuchs? said:

Hopefully if you get the chance to read the article you’ll see the irony behind the ‘“Crisis, what crisis?”’ headline (something which was never actually said).

Unfortunately, I do not t have the subscription.  And you will notice from my post I agree "crisis, what crisis" was never said, but a Sun headline:

 

https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/politics/2019/01/26/misery-monday-then-was-the-winter-of-our-discontent/

 

If Thatcher did push for knighthoods for Smith/Savile I agree this should never have happened - there was sufficient innuendo not to push for honours for these paedophobes.

 

But to return to the main point:

13 hours ago, What the Fuchs? said:

Callaghan’s actions were designed to deal with the problem of runaway inflation by setting a cap on wage increases.

True. Problem for him is this did not work.. Living through this winter, your conclusions don't resonate with me. Although this source may have an agenda, it does point out Ford workers were unhappy with their offer at the tome of Labour Conference - which would have been Sept 78. The cap on wage increases should have already ended:

 

https://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/28522/16-01-2019/the-1979-winter-of-discontent

 

What is wrong in fact with this article? If a leader of the Opposition tries to make political capital out of events, this is the purpose of opposition. And there was a lot to be unhappy with - inflation had reduced from over 20% to around 8% in 79/79 - is it unsurprising workers wish to improve living standard (after years of pay restraint)?

 

I am happy to be persuaded by your conclusions but I am some way from that.

[Buce]

5 minutes ago, oxford blue said:

Unfortunately, I do not t have the subscription.  And you will notice from my post I agree "crisis, what crisis" was never said, but a Sun headline:

 

https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/politics/2019/01/26/misery-monday-then-was-the-winter-of-our-discontent/

 

If Thatcher did push for knighthoods for Smith/Savile I agree this should never have happened - there was sufficient innuendo not to push for honours for these paedophobes.

 

But to return to the main point:

True. Problem for him is this did not work.. Living through this winter, your conclusions don't resonate with me. Although this source may have an agenda, it does point out Ford workers were unhappy with their offer at the tome of Labour Conference - which would have been Sept 78. The cap on wage increases should have already ended:

 

https://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/28522/16-01-2019/the-1979-winter-of-discontent

 

What is wrong in fact with this article? If a leader of the Opposition tries to make political capital out of events, this is the purpose of opposition. And there was a lot to be unhappy with - inflation had reduced from over 20% to around 8% in 79/79 - is it unsurprising workers wish to improve living standard (after years of pay restraint)?

 

I am happy to be persuaded by your conclusions but I am some way from that.

 

I think you may have chosen the wrong word...

[UpTheLeagueFox]

Kierth making progress. Only single digits gap since mid July.

 

 

[StanSP]

Ironically making the biggest improvement to the NHS in doing so

 

 

 

[l444ry]

 

[UpTheLeagueFox]

On 10/08/2021 at 00:04, UpTheLeagueFox said:

Kierth making progress. Only single digits gap since mid July.

 

 

The polls are flip-flopping again

 

 

[What the Fuchs?]

 

 

I wish more people in the media would confront Johnson’s constant lying like this more often, it’s people like him and Trump that thrive in this post truth era we unfortunately live in.

[UpTheLeagueFox]

Alpaca bounce.