[cite]RedZed333[/cite]...No, that would be the 3,000,000 that were left in the shite by a hopeless Labour government that led us into a worldwide recession...
Steady on "blue" eyes.
When Thatcher took over unemployment was 700,000.
3,000,000 was the price we had to pay for her "remedy".
2,300,000 don't suddenly become scroungers and the best her minions could offer was "get on your bike".
By the en of her reign she had become such a meglomaniac she did't even bother with cabinet but was guided by her inner circle of advisers; hence she was "stabbed" i nthe back by her own party.
Yes, you could argue she restored Britain's standing, but at the expense of real people.
When Thatcher took to power the world recession was still steam rollering on, unemployment was bound to increase, just like it will do now...
That's okay then is it?
As long as it doesn't impact on you too much?
Where's the humanity?
[cite]RedZed333[/cite]...No, that would be the 3,000,000 that were left in the shite by a hopeless Labour government that led us into a worldwide recession...
Steady on "blue" eyes.
When Thatcher took over unemployment was 700,000.
3,000,000 was the price we had to pay for her "remedy".
2,300,000 don't suddenly become scroungers and the best her minions could offer was "get on your bike".
By the en of her reign she had become such a meglomaniac she did't even bother with cabinet but was guided by her inner circle of advisers; hence she was "stabbed" i nthe back by her own party.
Yes, you could argue she restored Britain's standing, but at the expense of real people.
When Thatcher took to power the world recession was still steam rollering on, unemployment was bound to increase, just like it will do now...
As a matter of interest RedZed333, how old are you?
12...
Nice one.
I ask the question in order to discern if you were actually a cogniscent adult during the Thathcher years or whether you had just read about it.
[cite]RedZed333[/cite]...No, that would be the 3,000,000 that were left in the shite by a hopeless Labour government that led us into a worldwide recession...
Steady on "blue" eyes.
When Thatcher took over unemployment was 700,000.
3,000,000 was the price we had to pay for her "remedy".
2,300,000 don't suddenly become scroungers and the best her minions could offer was "get on your bike".
By the en of her reign she had become such a meglomaniac she did't even bother with cabinet but was guided by her inner circle of advisers; hence she was "stabbed" i nthe back by her own party.
Yes, you could argue she restored Britain's standing, but at the expense of real people.
When Thatcher took to power the world recession was still steam rollering on, unemployment was bound to increase, just like it will do now...
That's okay then is it?
As long as it doesn't impact on you too much?
Where's the humanity?
No such thing as humanity, it's a imaginery concept, a nirvana that can never be attained...
Some of us can attempt to achieve high standards of humanity but its like the law of cause and effect, what's good for you is usually at the expense of someone else....
How would you define humanity and what would be the lowest level of attainment before you could say it had been achieved..?
[cite]RedZed333[/cite]...No, that would be the 3,000,000 that were left in the shite by a hopeless Labour government that led us into a worldwide recession...
Steady on "blue" eyes.
When Thatcher took over unemployment was 700,000.
3,000,000 was the price we had to pay for her "remedy".
2,300,000 don't suddenly become scroungers and the best her minions could offer was "get on your bike".
By the en of her reign she had become such a meglomaniac she did't even bother with cabinet but was guided by her inner circle of advisers; hence she was "stabbed" i nthe back by her own party.
Yes, you could argue she restored Britain's standing, but at the expense of real people.
When Thatcher took to power the world recession was still steam rollering on, unemployment was bound to increase, just like it will do now...
As a matter of interest RedZed333, how old are you?
12...
Nice one.
I ask the question in order to discern if you were actually a cogniscent adult during the Thathcher years or whether you had just read about it.
Which is it?
I take it you mean cognisant, and yes I was...
I'm actually 55, lived 21 years in Woolwich, moved to Sunderland in 1976...
Sunderland was then part of the 'Industrial heartland' of Britain with its shipbuilding, steel foundries, coal mines and countless other industries...
Listening to blokes the same age as me today they still blame Thatcher for all their ills but in reality they had failed to come to terms with the industrial revolutions going on around the world...
It was cheaper to but coal from Australia than dig it up here, the Koreans could build container ships at a third of the price, steel could be produced and shipped all the way from India at a third of the cost...
Northern Industry was sounding its own death knell and they were to blind to see it or do anything about it....
Thatcher could see this and that's why she flogged off all the assets before they descended into worthless rust buckets....
[cite]Posted By: RedZed333
No such thing as humanity, it's a imaginery concept, a nirvana that can never be attained...
Some of us can attempt to achieve high standards of humanity but its like the law of cause and effect, what's good for you is usually at the expense of someone else....
How would you define humanity and what would be the lowest level of attainment before you could say it had been achieved..?
Perhaps, as Jiminy Cricket said, you should let your conscience be your guide.
Judging by the blase bullshit in your last answer and your the casual attitude with which you dismiss unemploment and such, I suspect you haven't really 'lived' yet
[cite]Posted By: RedZed333
No such thing as humanity, it's a imaginery concept, a nirvana that can never be attained...
Some of us can attempt to achieve high standards of humanity but its like the law of cause and effect, what's good for you is usually at the expense of someone else....
How would you define humanity and what would be the lowest level of attainment before you could say it had been achieved..?[/cite]
[cite]
Perhaps, as Jiminy Cricket said, you should let your conscience be your guide.
Judging by the blase bullshit in your last answer and your the casual attitude with which you dismiss unemploment and such, I suspect you haven't really 'lived' yet[/cite]
Why is unemployment such an important issue to you...?
[cite]RedZed333[/cite]...No, that would be the 3,000,000 that were left in the shite by a hopeless Labour government that led us into a worldwide recession...
Steady on "blue" eyes.
When Thatcher took over unemployment was 700,000.
3,000,000 was the price we had to pay for her "remedy".
2,300,000 don't suddenly become scroungers and the best her minions could offer was "get on your bike".
By the en of her reign she had become such a meglomaniac she did't even bother with cabinet but was guided by her inner circle of advisers; hence she was "stabbed" i nthe back by her own party.
Yes, you could argue she restored Britain's standing, but at the expense of real people.
When Thatcher took to power the world recession was still steam rollering on, unemployment was bound to increase, just like it will do now...
As a matter of interest RedZed333, how old are you?
12...
Nice one.
I ask the question in order to discern if you were actually a cogniscent adult during the Thathcher years or whether you had just read about it.
Which is it?
I take it you mean cognisant, and yes I was...
I'm actually 55, lived 21 years in Woolwich, moved to Sunderland in 1976...
Sunderland was then part of the 'Industrial heartland' of Britain with its shipbuilding, steel foundries, coal mines and countless other industries...
Listening to blokes the same age as me today they still blame Thatcher for all their ills but in reality they had failed to come to terms with the industrial revolutions going on around the world...
It was cheaper to but coal from Australia than dig it up here, the Koreans could build container ships at a third of the price, steel could be produced and shipped all the way from India at a third of the cost...
Northern Industry was sounding its own death knell and they were to blind to see it or do anything about it....
Thatcher could see this and that's why she flogged off all the assets before they descended into worthless rust buckets....
You are, of course, fully entitled to your adoration of Thatcher, that's entirely up to you.
I just would not be repeating them in public in Sunderland and the other former "industrial heartlands", if I were you.
That's what nobody has answered still....these industries were not getting any more efficient or productive and were far less competitive with those elsewhere in the world.
How could shaft mining compete with open caste? How could factory plants compete with the lesser wages and more hours of the far east?
Where was the manufacturing industry heading to from the late 1970's? Are people arguing that we could've gone on to compete with China, Japan etc? That even today we could be thriving? Or not? Did the changes have to be made, but people are annoyed with the way it happened?
[cite]Posted By: Sparrows Lane Lion[/cite]That's what nobody has answered still....these industries were not getting any more efficient or productive and were far less competitive with those elsewhere in the world.
How could shaft mining compete with open caste? How could factory plants compete with the lesser wages and more hours of the far east?
Where was the manufacturing industry heading to from the late 1970's? Are people arguing that we could've gone on to compete with China, Japan etc? That even today we could be thriving? Or not? Did the changes have to be made, but people are annoyed with the way it happened?
Exactly Mr Lion...
And the same thing is happening today....
The big city bankers have swallowed up our money and invested it in the far east market and now the clever little buggers are out-competing and out-manufacturing us at a fraction of the cost....
Its a bit like us teaching the world to play football or cricket, once they get the hang of it they thrash the fcuk out of us....
[cite]Posted By: Sparrows Lane Lion[/cite]That's what nobody has answered still....these industries were not getting any more efficient or productive and were far less competitive with those elsewhere in the world.
How could shaft mining compete with open caste? How could factory plants compete with the lesser wages and more hours of the far east?
Where was the manufacturing industry heading to from the late 1970's? Are people arguing that we could've gone on to compete with China, Japan etc? That even today we could be thriving? Or not? Did the changes have to be made, but people are annoyed with the way it happened?
Not just the fact that things were closed down but the way it was done with absolutely no regard for the wastelands that were left behind - this is the biggest criticism levelled at Thatcher from her own colleagues like Heseltine who tried (and largely failed) to convince her to re-invest in new industries (high-tech manufacturing) to replace the old.
True, the Japanese and Koreans could do mass manufacturing (cars, electronics) cheaper than the UK but Heseltine wanted the UK to become more like Germany and have a significant skilled manufacturing base.
As things have turned out the UK has become hugely reliant on "financial services" to bring in foreign income - and we all know how that turned out.
The closure of the mines is particularly controversial because - having been told that coal was a declining industry and that the future was nuclear - here we are 25 years on from the miners strike and the UK now imports its coal (still the biggest energy source) from France, Russia etc.
Here in Australia, there is still a very powerful and very much thriving coal mining industry (open and shaft mining) and sales are going through the roof to help power China and India - so why did the UK mining industry have to die when there was still a market for coal both domestically and internationally.
Please don't just blame the unions because the mining industry here is 100% unionised and works just fine.
I'm not blaming anyone, was merely asking whether what Thatcher did was going to happen one day or not.
You've answered my question. She did what had to be done, but did it in the completely wrong way. Funnily enough Simon Hughes mentioned earlier on the BBC about Heseltine and his attempts at creating more jobs in urban areas and a skilled manufacturing base.
Could we compete with minimum wages, the cost of shaft mining, etc against the price of coal from other countries with open mining?
[cite]Posted By: Sparrows Lane Lion[/cite]That's what nobody has answered still....these industries were not getting any more efficient or productive and were far less competitive with those elsewhere in the world.
How could shaft mining compete with open caste? How could factory plants compete with the lesser wages and more hours of the far east?
Where was the manufacturing industry heading to from the late 1970's? Are people arguing that we could've gone on to compete with China, Japan etc? That even today we could be thriving? Or not? Did the changes have to be made, but people are annoyed with the way it happened?
Not just the fact that things were closed down but the way it was done with absolutely no regard for the wastelands that were left behind - this is the biggest criticism levelled at Thatcher from her own colleagues like Heseltine who tried (and largely failed) to convince her to re-invest in new industries (high-tech manufacturing) to replace the old.
True, the Japanese and Koreans could do mass manufacturing (cars, electronics) cheaper than the UK but Heseltine wanted the UK to become more like Germany and have a significant skilled manufacturing base.
As things have turned out the UK has become hugely reliant on "financial services" to bring in foreign income - and we all know how that turned out.
The closure of the mines is particularly controversial because - having been told that coal was a declining industry and that the future was nuclear - here we are 25 years on from the miners strike and the UK now imports its coal (still the biggest energy source) from France, Russia etc.
Here in Australia, there is still a very powerful and very much thriving coal mining industry (open and shaft mining) and sales are going through the roof to help power China and India - so why did the UK mining industry have to die when there was still a market for coal both domestically and internationally.
Please don't just blame the unions because the mining industry here is 100% unionised and works just fine.
Thatcher did invest in high tech industries, notably in Silicon Glen in Scotland, but in those days computer chips etc was in its infancy and slow to develop, nevertheless it was at the forefront of computing in Europe...
Heavy industry in Britain had failed to develop new innovations whereas the Germans were exactly the opposite. The reason for Germany's success is partly due to the war, almost their entire manufacturing base was eliminated so they had to start from scratch and were able to employ the latest technology and techniques, plus they were so keen to get back onto the economic world market they often deliberately undersold their products at the expense of others...
As for the coal mines, like I said earlier, the success of the Australian coal industry has largely been at the expense of the British coal industry, how many Ozzies would drop their standard of living to allow the British mines to reopen and compete with them...?
None I would suspect, and I wouldn't blame them one bit, we live in a world of 'fcuk you Jack, I'm alright', always have done and always will...
[cite]Posted By: Sparrows Lane Lion[/cite]I'm not blaming anyone, was merely asking whether what Thatcher did was going to happen one day or not.
You've answered my question. She did what had to be done, but did it in the completely wrong way. Funnily enough Simon Hughes mentioned earlier on the BBC about Heseltine and his attempts at creating more jobs in urban areas and a skilled manufacturing base.
Could we compete with minimum wages, the cost of shaft mining, etc against the price of coal from other countries with open mining?
Apologies, I was not directing the "blame the unions" bit on your good self, its just that that is the usual line that some people trot out ad nauseum.
The cost factor is complex because you also have to factor in the cost of paying benefits to a huge portion of the UK mining industry that you shut down as well as the cost of shipping coal from overseas to the UK.
Of course, the real reason the mines were closed was so that the miners could not do to Thatcher what they had done to Heath.
[cite]Posted By: Sparrows Lane Lion[/cite]That's what nobody has answered still....these industries were not getting any more efficient or productive and were far less competitive with those elsewhere in the world.
How could shaft mining compete with open caste? How could factory plants compete with the lesser wages and more hours of the far east?
Where was the manufacturing industry heading to from the late 1970's? Are people arguing that we could've gone on to compete with China, Japan etc? That even today we could be thriving? Or not? Did the changes have to be made, but people are annoyed with the way it happened?
Not just the fact that things were closed down but the way it was done with absolutely no regard for the wastelands that were left behind - this is the biggest criticism levelled at Thatcher from her own colleagues like Heseltine who tried (and largely failed) to convince her to re-invest in new industries (high-tech manufacturing) to replace the old.
True, the Japanese and Koreans could do mass manufacturing (cars, electronics) cheaper than the UK but Heseltine wanted the UK to become more like Germany and have a significant skilled manufacturing base.
As things have turned out the UK has become hugely reliant on "financial services" to bring in foreign income - and we all know how that turned out.
The closure of the mines is particularly controversial because - having been told that coal was a declining industry and that the future was nuclear - here we are 25 years on from the miners strike and the UK now imports its coal (still the biggest energy source) from France, Russia etc.
Here in Australia, there is still a very powerful and very much thriving coal mining industry (open and shaft mining) and sales are going through the roof to help power China and India - so why did the UK mining industry have to die when there was still a market for coal both domestically and internationally.
Please don't just blame the unions because the mining industry here is 100% unionised and works just fine.
industry,
Thatcher did invest in high tech industries, notably in Silicon Glen in Scotland, but in those days computer chips etc was in its infancy and slow to develop, nevertheless it was at the forefront of computing...
Heavy industry in Britain had failed to develop new innovations whereas the Germans were exactly the opposite. The reason for Germany's success is partly due to the war, almost their entire manufacturing base was eliminated so they had to start from scratch and were able to employ the latest technology and techniques, plus they were so keen to get back onto the economic world market they often deliberately undersold their products at the expense of others...
As for the coal mines, like I said earlier, the success of the Australian coal industry has largely been at the expense of the British coal industry, how many Ozzies would drop their standard of living to allow the British mines to reopen and compete with them...?
None I would suspect, and I wouldn't blame them one bit, we live in a world of 'fcuk you Jack, I'm alright', always have done and always will...
Not correct at all, I am afraid.
The Australian coal industry is not really a competitor to the UK industry, most of the exports here go to Asia whereas the UK was never a huge exporter of coal but used coal for its own internal power consumption needs.
The cost of transporting coal from Australia to Europe is ridiculous so the exports go mainly to Asia, the same would apply to the UK where any coal exports would have gone mainly to Europe.
If you are ever here in Oz, take a trip to Newcastle in NSW or Gladstone in QLD and watch the huge tankers transporting Aussie coal to China, it puts the whole thing into sharp perspective.
[cite]Posted By: Sparrows Lane Lion[/cite]I'm not blaming anyone, was merely asking whether what Thatcher did was going to happen one day or not.
You've answered my question. She did what had to be done, but did it in the completely wrong way. Funnily enough Simon Hughes mentioned earlier on the BBC about Heseltine and his attempts at creating more jobs in urban areas and a skilled manufacturing base.
Could we compete with minimum wages, the cost of shaft mining, etc against the price of coal from other countries with open mining?
Apologies, I was not directing the "blame the unions" bit on your good self, its just that that is the usual line that some people trot out ad nauseum.
The cost factor is complex because you also have to factor in the cost of paying benefits to a huge portion of the UK mining industry that you shut down as well as the cost of shipping coal from overseas to the UK.
Of course, the real reason the mines were closed was so that the miners could not do to Thatcher what they had done to Heath.
If the Indians and the Chinese could buy their coal from elsewhere at a cheaper price do you think they would..?
Of course they would, and do you think your coal industry would last very long afterwards...?
And do you think your 100% union membership could do anything about it...?
To say Thatcher closed the mines to save her job is somewhat naive, the coal industry refused to modernise, became a major financial drain and so they had to go. The unions in the British coal industry were nothing but a nuisance to Thatcher, once she decreed the closures that was it, it'll happen to the Ozzies one day too...
The Australian coal industry is not really a competitor to the UK industry, most of the exports here go to Asia whereas the UK was never a huge exporter of coal but used coal for its own internal power consumption needs.
The cost of transporting coal from Australia to Europe is ridiculous so the exports go mainly to Asia, the same would apply to the UK where any coal exports would have gone mainly to Europe.
If you are ever here in Oz, take a trip to Newcastle in NSW or Gladstone in QLD and watch the huge tankers transporting Aussie coal to China, it puts the whole thing into sharp perspective.
I'm not talking about Britain competing on the export market with Australia...
At the time of the rundown of the coal industry here Australian coke was actually cheaper to dig up and ship 12,000 miles than we could do it in our own country...
There's some good stuff on here - on both 'sides' of the debate, as well as some of the usual old guff and rhetoric - again on both 'sides'.
One point I'm not letting go, however, is Thatcher's decimation of the industrial heartlands with zero investment in the areas afterward to rebuild them - leaving them as wastelands which have still never recovered. Ormiston touched on it earlier, but failed to mention the massive con-job Thatcher pulled on the people in those areas who DIDN'T oppose her plans to de-industrialise the economy in those areas and move them toward a service-based workforce. None of that ever materialised - so not only did she disenfranchise an entire local way of life by decimating the coal, steel, shipbuilding and similar industries - but also lied through her f***ing teeth to the younger generations/families who perhaps saw which way the wind was blowing and were willing to believe that diverging away from an industrialised economy was the way for them to go.
In addition to selling off the nation's assets to make rich c***s even richer, f***ing over the whole existence of people who just wanted to work, raise a family and enjoy their life without being forced into climbing the career ladder, introducing the unfairest method imaginable of replacing the old rates system, running the rail system into the ground then privatising it, raising child poverty to frankly disgraceful levels, almost destroying the NHS, courting of genocidal fascist dictators... and stealing our milk.
In short - yes, Britain needed to change during the eighties. The increasing globalisation of free trade (spurred on, not coincidentally, by Chicago School economists in Sotuh America and Asia - but that's for another discussion) made it impossible for Britain's heavy, cumbersome industrial machinery to adapt - condemning it to death. It's not so much that which makes her thoroughly deserve her reputation as an evil, heartless cow - rather than her utter disregard for the people her shift in economic, demographic and fiscal policy left behind.
Come to Sunderland and tell me it never recovered...
Thatcher did the dirty deed alright and a lot of people suffered instantly but they recovered, slowly at first but they did recover because that's what humans do....
One thing you have that Thatcher didn't have is twenty years of hindsight, using Sunderland as an example tell me what you would have replaced the lost industries with, where would you have got the investment from, how would you have trained/retrained the workforce...?
[cite]Posted By: Leroy Ambrose[/cite]There's some good stuff on here - on both 'sides' of the debate, as well as some of the usual old guff and rhetoric - again on both 'sides'.
One point I'm not letting go, however, is Thatcher's decimation of the industrial heartlands with zero investment in the areas afterward to rebuild them - leaving them as wastelands which have still never recovered. Ormiston touched on it earlier, but failed to mention the massive con-job Thatcher pulled on the people in those areas who DIDN'T oppose her plans to de-industrialise the economy in those areas and move them toward a service-based workforce. None of that ever materialised - so not only did she disenfranchise an entire local way of life by decimating the coal, steel, shipbuilding and similar industries - but also lied through her f***ing teeth to the younger generations/families who perhaps saw which way the wind was blowing and were willing to believe that diverging away from an industrialised economy was the way for them to go.
In addition to selling off the nation's assets to make rich c***s even richer, f***ing over the whole existence of people who just wanted to work, raise a family and enjoy their life without being forced into climbing the career ladder, introducing the unfairest method imaginable of replacing the old rates system, running the rail system into the ground then privatising it, raising child poverty to frankly disgraceful levels, almost destroying the NHS, courting of genocidal fascist dictators... and stealing our milk.
In short - yes, Britain needed to change during the eighties. The increasing globalisation of free trade (spurred on, not coincidentally, by Chicago School economists in Sotuh America and Asia - but that's for another discussion) made it impossible for Britain's heavy, cumbersome industrial machinery to adapt - condemning it to death. It's not so much that which makes her thoroughly deserve her reputation as an evil, heartless cow - rather than her utter disregard for the people her shift in economic, demographic and fiscal policy left behind.
Spot on. She then went on to place all the people she had made unemployed in the industrial heartlands go on long term sick benefits (fact), thus making it look like we only had 3.5 million unemployed.
I grew up on the south coast and can remember nothing but despair amongst the working class kids in my town, we honestly thought we would never ever have a proper job.
[cite]Posted By: Sparrows Lane Lion[/cite]I'm not blaming anyone, was merely asking whether what Thatcher did was going to happen one day or not.
You've answered my question. She did what had to be done, but did it in the completely wrong way. Funnily enough Simon Hughes mentioned earlier on the BBC about Heseltine and his attempts at creating more jobs in urban areas and a skilled manufacturing base.
Could we compete with minimum wages, the cost of shaft mining, etc against the price of coal from other countries with open mining?
Apologies, I was not directing the "blame the unions" bit on your good self, its just that that is the usual line that some people trot out ad nauseum.
The cost factor is complex because you also have to factor in the cost of paying benefits to a huge portion of the UK mining industry that you shut down as well as the cost of shipping coal from overseas to the UK.
Of course, the real reason the mines were closed was so that the miners could not do to Thatcher what they had done to Heath.
If the Indians and the Chinese could buy their coal from elsewhere at a cheaper price do you think they would..?
Of course they would, and do you think your coal industry would last very long afterwards...?
And do you think your 100% union membership could do anything about it...?
To say Thatcher closed the mines to save her job is somewhat naive, the coal industry refused to modernise, became a major financial drain and so they had to go. The unions in the British coal industry were nothing but a nuisance to Thatcher, once she decreed the closures that was it, it'll happen to the Ozzies one day too...
Please be serious, the Tories HATED the power that the miners had over the country and went out of their way to smash them forever - and they succeeded.
There is no way on earth that Thatcher was going to let the miners dictate terms to her in the way that they had done to Wilson and Heath and she set out her plans for a fight (stockpiling coal, new anti-picket legislation).
That Miners Strike in 1984 was the last roar of defiance from working class industrial Britain and Thatcher faced them down and smashed them - but at a terrible price for the communities involved and for the Tories electorally in those areas.
Your knowledge of Australian politics is obviously scant if you think that the Labor/Union/Corporate axis here will ever be broken!!! They operate a nice little stitch-up between themselves.
Labor politicians here are broadly anti-Green precisely because of the huge mining unions! That's why the Aussie PM spends all his time talking bullshit about "clean coal" while sending millions of tonnes of dirty coal to China and India and accelerating global warming.
The Labor Party, the mining unions and the big mining firms here have got it made, Australia simply has so much coal and minerals under the ground that they will be huge players in the market for years to come.
[cite]Posted By: Cordoban Addick[/cite]Spot on. She then went on to place all the people she had made unemployed in the industrial heartlands go on long term sick benefits (fact), thus making it look like we only had 3.5 million unemployed.
I grew up on the south coast and can remember nothing but despair amongst the working class kids in my town, we honestly thought we would never ever have a proper job.
Baseless rhetoric...
Thatcher tore into the benefit 'scroungers' with a vengeance...
She completely ripped apart the Welfare Benefits system particularly those in receipt of Invalidity Benefit, the recipients were hounded and hassled day and night by the fraud officers of the 'SS' (Social Security)...
I was a Welfare Benefits Right Worker in them days, I know exactly what went on...
[cite]Posted By: Ormiston Addick[/cite]
Please be serious, the Tories HATED the power that the miners had over the country and went out of their way to smash them forever - and they succeeded.
There is no way on earth that Thatcher was going to let the miners dictate terms to her in the way that they had done to Wilson and Heath and she set out her plans for a fight (stockpiling coal, new anti-picket legislation).
That Miners Strike in 1984 was the last roar of defiance from working class industrial Britain and Thatcher faced them down and smashed them - but at a terrible price for the communities involved and for the Tories electorally in those areas.
Your knowledge of Australian politics is obviously scant if you think that the Labor/Union/Corporate axis here will ever be broken!!! They operate a nice little stitch-up between themselves.
Labor politicians here are broadly anti-Green precisely because of the huge mining unions! That's why the Aussie PM spends all his time talking bullshit about "clean coal" while sending millions of tonnes of dirty coal to China and India and accelerating global warming.
The Labor Party, the mining unions and the big mining firms here have got it made, Australia simply has so much coal and minerals under the ground that they will be huge players in the market for years to come.
Yes, of course the Tories hated the miners unions, Labour hated them just as much but they were too spineless to do anything about it....
And you're right that Thatcher was never going to let them get one over on her and it was only a matter of time before she and Scargill were going to get it on, and she completely twatted him and the unions in just over a year...
But it wasn't a fight to save Thatcher and the government, she had an agenda to close the pits, that's been proven, it was a straightforward fight between a greengrocer's daughter and the biggest industrial muscle Britain's ever seen and she won quite easily...
And your comments about the labor/union/corporate axis won't ever be broken, that's exactly what the British miners were saying only some 25 years ago, we've got over 400 million tons of coal reserves, don't mean jack shit...
[cite]Posted By: RedZed333[/cite]Thatcher tore into the benefit 'scroungers' with a vengeance...
She completely ripped apart the Welfare Benefits system particularly those in receipt of Invalidity Benefit, the recipients were hounded and hassled day and night by the fraud officers of the 'SS' (Social Security)...
...while simultaneously ensuring that the richest people in the country, whose interests she so slavishly represented, were able to rape the country's public sector dry, siphon off vast amounts of cash in privatisations and pay pretty much zero tax through offshoring in the process. Sounds fair.
Since the very first day of the industrialisation nothing's ever been fair...
The workers have their labour to sell, the employers hire it when needed, when it's not needed the workers are discarded, and that's it...
Like Marx said, and I'm not a Marxist, the workers create a base where their lot is to perform for the superstructure (bosses and owners), the only role the base really have is to create wealth for the superstructure and it is they that decide what to do with it...
Not very nice I know but it's the way of things and unless you can come up with a fairer deal then I'm afraid we're all stuck with it...
I've really enjoyed reading this, probably more educational than any book I could have got. I didn't live through the Thatcher years but I know my Dad will be throwing a party when she dies. He hates her, with a passion. In fact most of the people I know will be dancing in the street from what I gather.
Comments
That's okay then is it?
As long as it doesn't impact on you too much?
Where's the humanity?
Nice one.
I ask the question in order to discern if you were actually a cogniscent adult during the Thathcher years or whether you had just read about it.
Which is it?
Some of us can attempt to achieve high standards of humanity but its like the law of cause and effect, what's good for you is usually at the expense of someone else....
How would you define humanity and what would be the lowest level of attainment before you could say it had been achieved..?
I'm actually 55, lived 21 years in Woolwich, moved to Sunderland in 1976...
Sunderland was then part of the 'Industrial heartland' of Britain with its shipbuilding, steel foundries, coal mines and countless other industries...
Listening to blokes the same age as me today they still blame Thatcher for all their ills but in reality they had failed to come to terms with the industrial revolutions going on around the world...
It was cheaper to but coal from Australia than dig it up here, the Koreans could build container ships at a third of the price, steel could be produced and shipped all the way from India at a third of the cost...
Northern Industry was sounding its own death knell and they were to blind to see it or do anything about it....
Thatcher could see this and that's why she flogged off all the assets before they descended into worthless rust buckets....
Perhaps, as Jiminy Cricket said, you should let your conscience be your guide.
Judging by the blase bullshit in your last answer and your the casual attitude with which you dismiss unemploment and such, I suspect you haven't really 'lived' yet
You are, of course, fully entitled to your adoration of Thatcher, that's entirely up to you.
I just would not be repeating them in public in Sunderland and the other former "industrial heartlands", if I were you.
How could shaft mining compete with open caste? How could factory plants compete with the lesser wages and more hours of the far east?
Where was the manufacturing industry heading to from the late 1970's? Are people arguing that we could've gone on to compete with China, Japan etc? That even today we could be thriving? Or not? Did the changes have to be made, but people are annoyed with the way it happened?
And the same thing is happening today....
The big city bankers have swallowed up our money and invested it in the far east market and now the clever little buggers are out-competing and out-manufacturing us at a fraction of the cost....
Its a bit like us teaching the world to play football or cricket, once they get the hang of it they thrash the fcuk out of us....
Not just the fact that things were closed down but the way it was done with absolutely no regard for the wastelands that were left behind - this is the biggest criticism levelled at Thatcher from her own colleagues like Heseltine who tried (and largely failed) to convince her to re-invest in new industries (high-tech manufacturing) to replace the old.
True, the Japanese and Koreans could do mass manufacturing (cars, electronics) cheaper than the UK but Heseltine wanted the UK to become more like Germany and have a significant skilled manufacturing base.
As things have turned out the UK has become hugely reliant on "financial services" to bring in foreign income - and we all know how that turned out.
The closure of the mines is particularly controversial because - having been told that coal was a declining industry and that the future was nuclear - here we are 25 years on from the miners strike and the UK now imports its coal (still the biggest energy source) from France, Russia etc.
Here in Australia, there is still a very powerful and very much thriving coal mining industry (open and shaft mining) and sales are going through the roof to help power China and India - so why did the UK mining industry have to die when there was still a market for coal both domestically and internationally.
Please don't just blame the unions because the mining industry here is 100% unionised and works just fine.
You've answered my question. She did what had to be done, but did it in the completely wrong way. Funnily enough Simon Hughes mentioned earlier on the BBC about Heseltine and his attempts at creating more jobs in urban areas and a skilled manufacturing base.
Could we compete with minimum wages, the cost of shaft mining, etc against the price of coal from other countries with open mining?
Heavy industry in Britain had failed to develop new innovations whereas the Germans were exactly the opposite. The reason for Germany's success is partly due to the war, almost their entire manufacturing base was eliminated so they had to start from scratch and were able to employ the latest technology and techniques, plus they were so keen to get back onto the economic world market they often deliberately undersold their products at the expense of others...
As for the coal mines, like I said earlier, the success of the Australian coal industry has largely been at the expense of the British coal industry, how many Ozzies would drop their standard of living to allow the British mines to reopen and compete with them...?
None I would suspect, and I wouldn't blame them one bit, we live in a world of 'fcuk you Jack, I'm alright', always have done and always will...
Apologies, I was not directing the "blame the unions" bit on your good self, its just that that is the usual line that some people trot out ad nauseum.
The cost factor is complex because you also have to factor in the cost of paying benefits to a huge portion of the UK mining industry that you shut down as well as the cost of shipping coal from overseas to the UK.
Of course, the real reason the mines were closed was so that the miners could not do to Thatcher what they had done to Heath.
Not correct at all, I am afraid.
The Australian coal industry is not really a competitor to the UK industry, most of the exports here go to Asia whereas the UK was never a huge exporter of coal but used coal for its own internal power consumption needs.
The cost of transporting coal from Australia to Europe is ridiculous so the exports go mainly to Asia, the same would apply to the UK where any coal exports would have gone mainly to Europe.
If you are ever here in Oz, take a trip to Newcastle in NSW or Gladstone in QLD and watch the huge tankers transporting Aussie coal to China, it puts the whole thing into sharp perspective.
Of course they would, and do you think your coal industry would last very long afterwards...?
And do you think your 100% union membership could do anything about it...?
To say Thatcher closed the mines to save her job is somewhat naive, the coal industry refused to modernise, became a major financial drain and so they had to go. The unions in the British coal industry were nothing but a nuisance to Thatcher, once she decreed the closures that was it, it'll happen to the Ozzies one day too...
At the time of the rundown of the coal industry here Australian coke was actually cheaper to dig up and ship 12,000 miles than we could do it in our own country...
How do you compete with that...?
One point I'm not letting go, however, is Thatcher's decimation of the industrial heartlands with zero investment in the areas afterward to rebuild them - leaving them as wastelands which have still never recovered. Ormiston touched on it earlier, but failed to mention the massive con-job Thatcher pulled on the people in those areas who DIDN'T oppose her plans to de-industrialise the economy in those areas and move them toward a service-based workforce. None of that ever materialised - so not only did she disenfranchise an entire local way of life by decimating the coal, steel, shipbuilding and similar industries - but also lied through her f***ing teeth to the younger generations/families who perhaps saw which way the wind was blowing and were willing to believe that diverging away from an industrialised economy was the way for them to go.
In addition to selling off the nation's assets to make rich c***s even richer, f***ing over the whole existence of people who just wanted to work, raise a family and enjoy their life without being forced into climbing the career ladder, introducing the unfairest method imaginable of replacing the old rates system, running the rail system into the ground then privatising it, raising child poverty to frankly disgraceful levels, almost destroying the NHS, courting of genocidal fascist dictators... and stealing our milk.
In short - yes, Britain needed to change during the eighties. The increasing globalisation of free trade (spurred on, not coincidentally, by Chicago School economists in Sotuh America and Asia - but that's for another discussion) made it impossible for Britain's heavy, cumbersome industrial machinery to adapt - condemning it to death. It's not so much that which makes her thoroughly deserve her reputation as an evil, heartless cow - rather than her utter disregard for the people her shift in economic, demographic and fiscal policy left behind.
Thatcher did the dirty deed alright and a lot of people suffered instantly but they recovered, slowly at first but they did recover because that's what humans do....
One thing you have that Thatcher didn't have is twenty years of hindsight, using Sunderland as an example tell me what you would have replaced the lost industries with, where would you have got the investment from, how would you have trained/retrained the workforce...?
Spot on. She then went on to place all the people she had made unemployed in the industrial heartlands go on long term sick benefits (fact), thus making it look like we only had 3.5 million unemployed.
I grew up on the south coast and can remember nothing but despair amongst the working class kids in my town, we honestly thought we would never ever have a proper job.
Please be serious, the Tories HATED the power that the miners had over the country and went out of their way to smash them forever - and they succeeded.
There is no way on earth that Thatcher was going to let the miners dictate terms to her in the way that they had done to Wilson and Heath and she set out her plans for a fight (stockpiling coal, new anti-picket legislation).
That Miners Strike in 1984 was the last roar of defiance from working class industrial Britain and Thatcher faced them down and smashed them - but at a terrible price for the communities involved and for the Tories electorally in those areas.
Your knowledge of Australian politics is obviously scant if you think that the Labor/Union/Corporate axis here will ever be broken!!! They operate a nice little stitch-up between themselves.
Labor politicians here are broadly anti-Green precisely because of the huge mining unions! That's why the Aussie PM spends all his time talking bullshit about "clean coal" while sending millions of tonnes of dirty coal to China and India and accelerating global warming.
The Labor Party, the mining unions and the big mining firms here have got it made, Australia simply has so much coal and minerals under the ground that they will be huge players in the market for years to come.
Thatcher tore into the benefit 'scroungers' with a vengeance...
She completely ripped apart the Welfare Benefits system particularly those in receipt of Invalidity Benefit, the recipients were hounded and hassled day and night by the fraud officers of the 'SS' (Social Security)...
I was a Welfare Benefits Right Worker in them days, I know exactly what went on...
And you're right that Thatcher was never going to let them get one over on her and it was only a matter of time before she and Scargill were going to get it on, and she completely twatted him and the unions in just over a year...
But it wasn't a fight to save Thatcher and the government, she had an agenda to close the pits, that's been proven, it was a straightforward fight between a greengrocer's daughter and the biggest industrial muscle Britain's ever seen and she won quite easily...
And your comments about the labor/union/corporate axis won't ever be broken, that's exactly what the British miners were saying only some 25 years ago, we've got over 400 million tons of coal reserves, don't mean jack shit...
;)
Since the very first day of the industrialisation nothing's ever been fair...
The workers have their labour to sell, the employers hire it when needed, when it's not needed the workers are discarded, and that's it...
Like Marx said, and I'm not a Marxist, the workers create a base where their lot is to perform for the superstructure (bosses and owners), the only role the base really have is to create wealth for the superstructure and it is they that decide what to do with it...
Not very nice I know but it's the way of things and unless you can come up with a fairer deal then I'm afraid we're all stuck with it...