Liverpool FC Forum

I'm glad .

RED BEERGOGGLES » Mon Apr 15, 2013 7:36 pm wrote:I'm glad .

Did you not fancy addressing my points then RBG about "thriving industry"

.   It must be a veritable walk in the park being a neutralist ,but just for the sake of the self effacing stance you seem to revel in       

Well, I don't apologise for not being part of the militant bitter brigade, not at all. Morphing into the monster you despise won't make the world a better place (even showing your spite and envy towards two Geordie working class lads, who have made something of themselves), and showing as much class as a Chelsea fan i would have thought wouldn't have been high on your list to emulate either. It's surprising to see what all this bitterness, envy and spite can turn one into - everything he apparently despises.

Its sad to see how so many years later people find it easier to promote hatred than move on. Those who suffered in wars or lost family in Northern Ireland for example have reason to bear grudges for many years, the rest of us have no reason to deny the facts of the period. Get a life lads.

I wonder to what extent these mental blocks are also holding the team back from regaining the success of former years. Same thing isn't it, the city lives in the past and so does the club?

Reg » Tue Apr 16, 2013 12:47 am wrote:Its sad to see how so many years later people find it easier to promote hatred than move on. Those who suffered in wars or lost family in Northern Ireland for example have reason to bear grudges for many years, the rest of us have no reason to deny the facts of the period. Get a life lads.

I wonder to what extent these mental blocks are also holding the team back from regaining the success of former years. Same thing isn't it, the city lives in the past and so does the club?

If the 96 families held that attitude, then times would move on without anyone holding any opinion of their own.

But times are already like this. A selective attitude. Take the Olympics, every londener loved them, it gave them pride. The Queens Jubilee, how wonderful, the Royal wedding, ahh happy times.

The failed world cup bid? ahhh, lets not mention that.

ALL this money, from a country who is doling out the punishment to the unemployed, who is trying to make it all back by making the poor pay for it, wait... that sounds familiar...

Thatchers funeral, said to be in the region of £10, million pounds...

But hey, lets all just hush up and let it be...

I think you're getting a bit mixed up. The injustice of H96 was a criminal act that led to unlawful deaths that spiralled out of control into distorting evidence and perjury. Those culpable will have to face the consequences.

Changes in economic competitiveness is not a criminal act however the actions of some strikers during that period were. My girlfriend at that time's brother was a copper who got a brick in the face and lost half his teeth when one demo got out of hand - criminal act.

Of course you may want to view the destruction of the car industry with thanks to Red Robbo's thugs causing job loses throughout the supporting industries as well, but that depends on whether you want to simply blame government or see the complete misery the unions caused. Same with steel and coal who preferred to run their industries into the ground rather than 'submit' to productivity deals that linked output and pay.

I read a good book many years ago that explained the the strategy behind both the government and the strikers across cars, steel and coal - absolutely poles apart. The unions wanted to maintain indirect 'control' of their sectors, all responsibility without accountability, whereas the government realised the management had lost control and therefore were prepared to accept extremely damaging strikes in return for the final outcome of restructuring labour law. Ian Macgregor, a Canadian ran British Steel and managed the strike from the 'owners' point of view whereas I'm sure you recall, MT repeatedly said the coal strike was a matter between the management and unions and not a political issue. Government authorised the police to try keep the strikers from murdering those who wished to work. They didn't protect management but those who disagreed with the strike. The coal strike remains the last call for post war Britain who unlike the rest of europe who pulled together to build a new future, the unions demanded work and conditions on their terms that led to the closure of a massive part of our manufacturing industry and the export of many jobs - mine included. I guess labour government pushing income tax up as high as 80% in the 60's contributed also.

'Doling out punishment to the unemployed'. That's an interesting statement. Unemployment is a scourge common across all cultures and all decades and there has never been a straight forward solution. Some countries have no support whatsoever. The UK gives a wage that allows folks to get by whilst maintaining health care and education for free. Bet the yanks would love that. And the Russians, Chinese and no doubt all over Africa, Asia, the sub-continent and most of Europe. I doubt the Spanish are having much fun at the moment with 25% unemployment. Are they being punished as well, or just our unemployed? North Koreans starve to death every day - that's punishment.

Thatcher's funeral at 10 million. Compared to the waste in the NHS, Social Services, corruption of local government and nuclear submarines running into countless billions, WTF is 10 million to show respect to the greatest peace time leader of the last 100 years? That you don't accept she is, is allowed - without you being thrown into jail and tortured as would be the case sadly in many countries worldwide, but if you look at this from a political perspective in terms of achievement/situation today v's anticipated situation if she hadn't been so 'radical' in ideas and forthright in her execution you realise that 10 million is no more than the cost of a postage stamp.

I do not agree with all her policies - Northern Ireland and mental health were disasters however in comparison Tony Blair bankrupted the country so that kinda helps put things into perspective.

It's easy to slag off MT and sadly wednesday's funeral will be beset by yobbo behaviour by people who weren't even born when she was in power, but I prefer to think that those who take the time to study what she was about will doff their caps and admit she was the right person at the right time.

The rest about the Olympics and World Cup doesn't need an answer, you need to knock those chips off your shoulders and evolve with the times rather than sulking in the past.

An excellent and informative post that Reginald. I didn't know you had it in you.     

I would have to disagree with you about Britain's best post war PM. I'd say the The Earl Attlee has to get that title. He implemented the creation of the NHS you spoke of, the welfare state - National Insurance, family allowances for women and children, workers rights, nationalisation and free education for secondary school children.

On the contrary, I'm not against certain aspects of nationalisation or other socialist ideals as mentioned because I've grown up with many of them and they are the norm.
The problem with socialism and it's FUNDAMENTAL flaw is that it has no incentive and unfortunately the extrinsic motivation for humans to often be productive is to 'dangle the carrot', this IMO is where capitalism complements it and the two need to go hand in hand - this is where a traditional Labour party and a traditional Conservative party would ideally keep each other in check (IMHO).

The problem today with Attlee's excellent intentions is that much of his altruistic ideals have been totally and utterly abused by the likes of Unions, people & government. Today, in Britain you now have the generation and 'culture of entitlement', unfortunately Attlee's well intentioned system is set up to be exploited by the crooked. And isn't that just typical of humans, who bites the hand that feeds them.

I'd also disagree with you about the 10 million pounds of largely tax-payers money funding Thatcher's funeral, on principle alone - it should be Cameron and his wealthy banker mates in the City who should be propping up the cost of this funeral, not the mere mortals of society who are actually at the blunt end of his half @rsed austerity measures.

Reg » Tue Apr 16, 2013 4:26 am wrote:I think you're getting a bit mixed up. The injustice of H96 was a criminal act that led to unlawful deaths that spiralled out of control into distorting evidence and perjury. Those culpable will have to face the consequences.

Changes in economic competitiveness is not a criminal act however the actions of some strikers during that period were. My girlfriend at that time's brother was a copper who got a brick in the face and lost half his teeth when one demo got out of hand - criminal act.

Of course you may want to view the destruction of the car industry with thanks to Red Robbo's thugs causing job loses throughout the supporting industries as well, but that depends on whether you want to simply blame government or see the complete misery the unions caused. Same with steel and coal who preferred to run their industries into the ground rather than 'submit' to productivity deals that linked output and pay.

I read a good book many years ago that explained the the strategy behind both the government and the strikers across cars, steel and coal - absolutely poles apart. The unions wanted to maintain indirect 'control' of their sectors, all responsibility without accountability, whereas the government realised the management had lost control and therefore were prepared to accept extremely damaging strikes in return for the final outcome of restructuring labour law. Ian Macgregor, a Canadian ran British Steel and managed the strike from the 'owners' point of view whereas I'm sure you recall, MT repeatedly said the coal strike was a matter between the management and unions and not a political issue. Government authorised the police to try keep the strikers from murdering those who wished to work. They didn't protect management but those who disagreed with the strike. The coal strike remains the last call for post war Britain who unlike the rest of europe who pulled together to build a new future, the unions demanded work and conditions on their terms that led to the closure of a massive part of our manufacturing industry and the export of many jobs - mine included. I guess labour government pushing income tax up as high as 80% in the 60's contributed also.

'Doling out punishment to the unemployed'. That's an interesting statement. Unemployment is a scourge common across all cultures and all decades and there has never been a straight forward solution. Some countries have no support whatsoever. The UK gives a wage that allows folks to get by whilst maintaining health care and education for free. Bet the yanks would love that. And the Russians, Chinese and no doubt all over Africa, Asia, the sub-continent and most of Europe. I doubt the Spanish are having much fun at the moment with 25% unemployment. Are they being punished as well, or just our unemployed? North Koreans starve to death every day - that's punishment.

Thatcher's funeral at 10 million. Compared to the waste in the NHS, Social Services, corruption of local government and nuclear submarines running into countless billions, WTF is 10 million to show respect to the greatest peace time leader of the last 100 years? That you don't accept she is, is allowed - without you being thrown into jail and tortured as would be the case sadly in many countries worldwide, but if you look at this from a political perspective in terms of achievement/situation today v's anticipated situation if she hadn't been so 'radical' in ideas and forthright in her execution you realise that 10 million is no more than the cost of a postage stamp.

I do not agree with all her policies - Northern Ireland and mental health were disasters however in comparison Tony Blair bankrupted the country so that kinda helps put things into perspective.

It's easy to slag off MT and sadly wednesday's funeral will be beset by yobbo behaviour by people who weren't even born when she was in power, but I prefer to think that those who take the time to study what she was about will doff their caps and admit she was the right person at the right time.

The rest about the Olympics and World Cup doesn't need an answer, you need to knock those chips off your shoulders and evolve with the times rather than sulking in the past.

what a load of rubbish! the miners strike wasnt political? is that why nicholas ridley was designated by the tory party to draw up a plan of action to defeat the miners in 1974, right after the miners brought down the tory government? the plan was leaked to the economist newspaper in 1978 and included tactics like building up stockpiles of coal, bringing in coal from non-union foreign ports, drag the unions through the courts to sequestrate their assets and cut off their money supply, get friendly haulage companies to hire non union labour etc etc all of which happened.
the miners knew it was coming, they just didnt know when, but as soon as they noticed the thatcher government was building up their coal reserves in 82 the NUM brought in a overtime ban to slow down the stockpiling.
it was a game of cat and mouse for years.
even mcgregor was brought in because he had a reputation as a notorious union busting hard liner when he was in the states.
thatcher ruined british industry because of ideological, not economic reasons, before she got into office the financial sector made up 3% of our gdp, when she left it was 40%.
that financial sector nearly brought down western civilisation and if it wasnt for `socialism` bailing the banks out it would have.

ycsatbjywtbiastkamb you old luddite, you do realise that Blair sold out on clause IV and Brown as treasurer further deregulated banks don't you, which took away power from the BoE to control the activities of UK banks?

ycsatbjywtbiastkamb » Tue Apr 16, 2013 2:18 pm wrote:

Reg » Tue Apr 16, 2013 4:26 am wrote:I think you're getting a bit mixed up. The injustice of H96 was a criminal act that led to unlawful deaths that spiralled out of control into distorting evidence and perjury. Those culpable will have to face the consequences.

Changes in economic competitiveness is not a criminal act however the actions of some strikers during that period were. My girlfriend at that time's brother was a copper who got a brick in the face and lost half his teeth when one demo got out of hand - criminal act.

Of course you may want to view the destruction of the car industry with thanks to Red Robbo's thugs causing job loses throughout the supporting industries as well, but that depends on whether you want to simply blame government or see the complete misery the unions caused. Same with steel and coal who preferred to run their industries into the ground rather than 'submit' to productivity deals that linked output and pay.

I read a good book many years ago that explained the the strategy behind both the government and the strikers across cars, steel and coal - absolutely poles apart. The unions wanted to maintain indirect 'control' of their sectors, all responsibility without accountability, whereas the government realised the management had lost control and therefore were prepared to accept extremely damaging strikes in return for the final outcome of restructuring labour law. Ian Macgregor, a Canadian ran British Steel and managed the strike from the 'owners' point of view whereas I'm sure you recall, MT repeatedly said the coal strike was a matter between the management and unions and not a political issue. Government authorised the police to try keep the strikers from murdering those who wished to work. They didn't protect management but those who disagreed with the strike. The coal strike remains the last call for post war Britain who unlike the rest of europe who pulled together to build a new future, the unions demanded work and conditions on their terms that led to the closure of a massive part of our manufacturing industry and the export of many jobs - mine included. I guess labour government pushing income tax up as high as 80% in the 60's contributed also.

'Doling out punishment to the unemployed'. That's an interesting statement. Unemployment is a scourge common across all cultures and all decades and there has never been a straight forward solution. Some countries have no support whatsoever. The UK gives a wage that allows folks to get by whilst maintaining health care and education for free. Bet the yanks would love that. And the Russians, Chinese and no doubt all over Africa, Asia, the sub-continent and most of Europe. I doubt the Spanish are having much fun at the moment with 25% unemployment. Are they being punished as well, or just our unemployed? North Koreans starve to death every day - that's punishment.

Thatcher's funeral at 10 million. Compared to the waste in the NHS, Social Services, corruption of local government and nuclear submarines running into countless billions, WTF is 10 million to show respect to the greatest peace time leader of the last 100 years? That you don't accept she is, is allowed - without you being thrown into jail and tortured as would be the case sadly in many countries worldwide, but if you look at this from a political perspective in terms of achievement/situation today v's anticipated situation if she hadn't been so 'radical' in ideas and forthright in her execution you realise that 10 million is no more than the cost of a postage stamp.

I do not agree with all her policies - Northern Ireland and mental health were disasters however in comparison Tony Blair bankrupted the country so that kinda helps put things into perspective.

It's easy to slag off MT and sadly wednesday's funeral will be beset by yobbo behaviour by people who weren't even born when she was in power, but I prefer to think that those who take the time to study what she was about will doff their caps and admit she was the right person at the right time.

The rest about the Olympics and World Cup doesn't need an answer, you need to knock those chips off your shoulders and evolve with the times rather than sulking in the past.

what a load of rubbish! the miners strike wasnt political? is that why nicholas ridley was designated by the tory party to draw up a plan of action to defeat the miners in 1974, right after the miners brought down the tory government? the plan was leaked to the economist newspaper in 1978 and included tactics like building up stockpiles of coal, bringing in coal from non-union foreign ports, drag the unions through the courts to sequestrate their assets and cut off their money supply, get friendly haulage companies to hire non union labour etc etc all of which happened.
the miners knew it was coming, they just didnt know when, but as soon as they noticed the thatcher government was building up their coal reserves in 82 the NUM brought in a overtime ban to slow down the stockpiling.
it was a game of cat and mouse for years.
even mcgregor was brought in because he had a reputation as a notorious union busting hard liner when he was in the states.
thatcher ruined british industry because of ideological, not economic reasons, before she got into office the financial sector made up 3% of our gdp, when she left it was 40%.
that financial sector nearly brought down western civilisation and if it wasnt for `socialism` bailing the banks out it would have.

The Ridley Plan (also known as the Ridley Report) was a 1974 report on the nationalised industries in the UK. The report was produced in the aftermath of the Heath government being brought down by the 1974 coal strike.

It was drawn up by the right-wing Conservative MP Nicholas Ridley, a founding member of the Selsdon Group of free market Conservatives. In the report he proposed how the next Conservative government could fight, and defeat, a major strike in a nationalised industry.

Ridley suggested contingency planning to defeat any challenge from trade unions:

The government should if possible choose the field of battle.
Industries were grouped by the likelihood of winning a strike; the coal industry was in the 'middle' of three groups of industries mentioned.
Coal stocks should be built up at power stations.
Plans should be made to import coal from non-union foreign ports.
Non-union lorry drivers to be recruited by haulage companies.
Dual coal-oil firing generators to be installed, at extra cost;
'Cut off the money supply to the strikers and make the union finance them'. GOOD CALL!
Train and equip a large, mobile squad of police, ready to employ riot tactics in order to uphold the law against violent picketing.
These recommendations were leaked to The Economist and published on 27 May 1978.

These tactics were successfully employed during the miners' strike of 1984-85, when the National Union of Mineworkers was defeated by the Conservative government of Margaret Thatcher. Thatcher was strongly influenced by other Selsdon Group members besides Ridley, such as Norman Tebbit and Alan Walters. The report had been leaked six years before by The Economist, the unions, especially the NUM, showed no interest in adapting or altering their own tactics in response.
In Ridley's view, trade union power in the UK was interfering with market forces, causing inflation, and therefore had to be checked to restore the "profitability" of the UK. He and others also saw it necessary to check union power in the aftermath of the fall of the Heath government in the face of the 1974 strikes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ridley_Plan

Considering what went on before throughout the entire decade of the '70's is it really surprising to see the government come up with a contingency plan to prevent Unions (who thought they could hold the country to ransom - and run it, and "work to rule" with their democratic deficit) striking effectively and plundering the country into absolute chaos?

It's true isn't it, socialists aren't happy unless they're spending up other peoples' money.

Kenny Kan » Tue Apr 16, 2013 5:55 pm wrote:An excellent and informative post that Reginald. I didn't know you had it in you.     

I would have to disagree with you about Britain's best post war PM. I'd say the The Earl Attlee has to get that title. He implemented the creation of the NHS you spoke of, the welfare state - National Insurance, family allowances for women and children, workers rights, nationalisation and free education for secondary school children.

On the contrary, I'm not against certain aspects of nationalisation or other socialist ideals as mentioned because I've grown up with many of them and they are the norm.
The problem with socialism and it's FUNDAMENTAL flaw is that it has no incentive and unfortunately the extrinsic motivation for humans to often be productive is to 'dangle the carrot', this IMO is where capitalism complements it and the two need to go hand in hand - this is where a traditional Labour party and a traditional Conservative party would ideally keep each other in check (IMHO).

The problem today with Attlee's excellent intentions is that much of his altruistic ideals have been totally and utterly abused by the likes of Unions, people & government. Today, in Britain you now have the generation and 'culture of entitlement', unfortunately Attlee's well intentioned system is set up to be exploited by the crooked. And isn't that just typical of humans, who bites the hand that feeds them.

I'd also disagree with you about the 10 million pounds of largely tax-payers money funding Thatcher's funeral, on principle alone - it should be Cameron and his wealthy banker mates in the City who should be propping up the cost of this funeral, not the mere mortals of society who are actually at the blunt end of his half @rsed austerity measures.

Kenneth, I purposely avoided using big words with you in mind, so good to see I pitched it right.

The problem for all leaders is their term ends, and their creations become distorted if not properly managed, hence the abuses in the NHS, decling education standards and the government's inability to provide state pensions for future generations. I need to buy a book on Atlee as I don't know sufficient to comment with any accuracy.

It would also be interesting to read the original purpose of 'nationalisation'. Surely governments didn't take over companies or industries to run them at losses? The only effective justification for nationalisation would be to protect jobs and skills whilst resturcturing, then returning to the private sector once sustainable again. If you recall Lord Hanson in the 80's seemed to whizz round the country buying failing companies and doing just that, restructuring then either keeping within his empire or selling off - pure Thatcherism.

The culture of entitlement is another way of saying laziness, the european malaise. Sitting in asia it's clear the asians who have never had our standard of living are willing to break their backs to attain it whereas successive generations of europeans want to maintain the quality of life they grew up in and 'expect it' whilst not putting in the hours. Ambition v's Entitlement. Guess who wins?

Ref the 10 million.... the State is showing its' respect, not a private club. The minority will do their damnest to spoil it, that is the nature of the manipulated beast.

I agree socialism plays a very important part in the well being of society but it is not THE system, just like capitalism cannot work in it's purest form. Society needs capitalism to pay for socialism - NHS, schools, pensions and benefits, however to think that socialism can pay for itself without the incentive and motivation of capitalist ideals is a fallacy. If you ask my politics, I would say half of the policies of both major parties for exactly the above reason.

ycsatbjywtbiastkamb » Tue Apr 16, 2013 10:18 pm wrote:

Reg » Tue Apr 16, 2013 4:26 am wrote:I think you're getting a bit mixed up. The injustice of H96 was a criminal act that led to unlawful deaths that spiralled out of control into distorting evidence and perjury. Those culpable will have to face the consequences.

Changes in economic competitiveness is not a criminal act however the actions of some strikers during that period were. My girlfriend at that time's brother was a copper who got a brick in the face and lost half his teeth when one demo got out of hand - criminal act.

Of course you may want to view the destruction of the car industry with thanks to Red Robbo's thugs causing job loses throughout the supporting industries as well, but that depends on whether you want to simply blame government or see the complete misery the unions caused. Same with steel and coal who preferred to run their industries into the ground rather than 'submit' to productivity deals that linked output and pay.

I read a good book many years ago that explained the the strategy behind both the government and the strikers across cars, steel and coal - absolutely poles apart. The unions wanted to maintain indirect 'control' of their sectors, all responsibility without accountability, whereas the government realised the management had lost control and therefore were prepared to accept extremely damaging strikes in return for the final outcome of restructuring labour law. Ian Macgregor, a Canadian ran British Steel and managed the strike from the 'owners' point of view whereas I'm sure you recall, MT repeatedly said the coal strike was a matter between the management and unions and not a political issue. Government authorised the police to try keep the strikers from murdering those who wished to work. They didn't protect management but those who disagreed with the strike. The coal strike remains the last call for post war Britain who unlike the rest of europe who pulled together to build a new future, the unions demanded work and conditions on their terms that led to the closure of a massive part of our manufacturing industry and the export of many jobs - mine included. I guess labour government pushing income tax up as high as 80% in the 60's contributed also.

'Doling out punishment to the unemployed'. That's an interesting statement. Unemployment is a scourge common across all cultures and all decades and there has never been a straight forward solution. Some countries have no support whatsoever. The UK gives a wage that allows folks to get by whilst maintaining health care and education for free. Bet the yanks would love that. And the Russians, Chinese and no doubt all over Africa, Asia, the sub-continent and most of Europe. I doubt the Spanish are having much fun at the moment with 25% unemployment. Are they being punished as well, or just our unemployed? North Koreans starve to death every day - that's punishment.

Thatcher's funeral at 10 million. Compared to the waste in the NHS, Social Services, corruption of local government and nuclear submarines running into countless billions, WTF is 10 million to show respect to the greatest peace time leader of the last 100 years? That you don't accept she is, is allowed - without you being thrown into jail and tortured as would be the case sadly in many countries worldwide, but if you look at this from a political perspective in terms of achievement/situation today v's anticipated situation if she hadn't been so 'radical' in ideas and forthright in her execution you realise that 10 million is no more than the cost of a postage stamp.

I do not agree with all her policies - Northern Ireland and mental health were disasters however in comparison Tony Blair bankrupted the country so that kinda helps put things into perspective.

It's easy to slag off MT and sadly wednesday's funeral will be beset by yobbo behaviour by people who weren't even born when she was in power, but I prefer to think that those who take the time to study what she was about will doff their caps and admit she was the right person at the right time.

The rest about the Olympics and World Cup doesn't need an answer, you need to knock those chips off your shoulders and evolve with the times rather than sulking in the past.

what a load of rubbish! the miners strike wasnt political? is that why nicholas ridley was designated by the tory party to draw up a plan of action to defeat the miners in 1974, right after the miners brought down the tory government? the plan was leaked to the economist newspaper in 1978 and included tactics like building up stockpiles of coal, bringing in coal from non-union foreign ports, drag the unions through the courts to sequestrate their assets and cut off their money supply, get friendly haulage companies to hire non union labour etc etc all of which happened.
the miners knew it was coming, they just didnt know when, but as soon as they noticed the thatcher government was building up their coal reserves in 82 the NUM brought in a overtime ban to slow down the stockpiling.
it was a game of cat and mouse for years.
even mcgregor was brought in because he had a reputation as a notorious union busting hard liner when he was in the states.
thatcher ruined british industry because of ideological, not economic reasons, before she got into office the financial sector made up 3% of our gdp, when she left it was 40%.
that financial sector nearly brought down western civilisation and if it wasnt for `socialism` bailing the banks out it would have.

Yakka, a couple of points:

1. In essence it was a commercial dispute in as much as the management wanted to link pay to productivity. Of course... Scargill was trying to break both the management and bring down the government to increase his influence and power. In that respect of course it was political and like any counter strategy had to be properly planned to ensure success. The following is based from memory, not recent reports so might not be 100% accurate: Thatcher took on the the coalworkers the year before but seeing their instant determination for a fight backed down as they realised coal stocks weren't big enough to avoid blackouts. On the back of their 'victory' miners worked massive extra time building up the reserves that would be their downfall. Thatcher pushed management to restate their commitment to pay/productivity and the strike kicked off. Scargill maintained thuggish tactics in the face of a determined defence both in the use of police counter measures and protecting the rights of workers to deny strike action, and imports of cheap coal through Immingham also strengthened the government's hand. Scargill preferred to run his union and industry into the ground than back down to the government and effectively condemned thousands of workers to poverty and personal bankruptcy. The coal workers' loss guaranteed the future of British industry - within a very short period Honda built their first car factory and Nissan and others quickly followed.

Macgregor was brought in to get the job done, which he did.

The financial sector didn't do anything wrong - the people who ran it did. The Labour government of smiling Tony and the idiot in-bred Gordon Brown's financial giveaway nearly bankrupted the country - endless credit for all.... witness property prices, expensive cars, boats and expensive holidays... spend spend spend (without having won the lottery first). And Tony couldn't increase interest rates to slow it down or he'd lose votes and Tony was as greedy as the next man and wasn't going to lose power because he took away the peoples' drug - free money. So he stepped down and handed over the poisoned chalice to Brown who was too feckin' stupid to realise (despite being chancellor of the exchequer and having all the data to hand) that he was inheriting a time bomb that royally blew up in his face. No, but you're right mate, that was Maggie's fault wasn't it?

2. My question: If Scargill had won the coal strike, where would the country be today? No manufacturing, no financial industry (no big bang deregulation etc..), Michael Foot in power then Neil Kinnock (what a wet rag...), no innovation, no vision, no idea how to create wealth. Without Maggie, there would have been no Tony - the b.astard child of Maggie, who became Maggie. Paint that picture for me, where would we be?

Surely governments didn't take over companies or industries to run them at losses? 

I don't know tbh. It seems social benefits are more important than social costs to most socialists - they're just happy to see the government foot the bill.

Both capitalism and socialism have flaws, if either was perfect we'd be without the other and this debate would never exist.

I agree socialism plays a very important part in the well being of society but it is not THE system, just like capitalism cannot work in it's purest form. Society needs capitalism to pay for socialism - NHS, schools, pensions and benefits, however to think that socialism can pay for itself without the incentive and motivation of capitalist ideals is a fallacy. If you ask my politics, I would say half of the policies of both major parties for exactly the above reason.
 

Well said. People forget or choose to ignore. Agreed with every word there.

Ref the 10 million.... the State is showing its' respect, not a private club. The minority will do their damnest to spoil it, that is the nature of the manipulated beast. 

Not sure about that Reg, they're hardly a minority, Thatcher when all is said and done did ruin many people's lives, the Poll tax was seen as another attack on the poor.  (I believe her and the Unions are equally culpable if not the Unions more so, who started their power struggle with the government 9 years prior to her entering office) She, like the Unions IMHO used the people as collateral damage and while she may state 'TINA' in this, it was still callous economics. What gets me though is the left never can hold their hands up and admit that it takes two to tango and many of them go very quite when criticism is shown towards the Unions.

Yakka, read this (note its written in 2004, not recent). http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3067563.stm

Ken, I'd say the MASSIVE number of tributes and the massive media coverage kinda hints at how the majority feel and rated her achievements so by definition, the balance objectors are a minority.

The nature of communism, the unions etc.. is to never admit weakness or fault (sounds like my wife) hence the concept of Us v's Them will live forever. The little man despite being a bully will always blame the other.

So he stepped down and handed over the poisoned chalice to Brown who was too feckin' stupid to realise (despite being chancellor of the exchequer and having all the data to hand) that he was inheriting a time bomb that royally blew up in his face. No, but you're right mate, that was Maggie's fault wasn't it? 

And Brown was literally that feckin' stupid, he auctioned off almost 400 tonnes (half of Britain's reserves) of gold for US$3.5 billion by the end of 2002, they'd have been worth US$20 billion!!! in 2011. He sold the gold for knock down prices the feckin' tw@t! costing the taxpayer roughly 7 billion in the process. Even the Queen had a dig at him 

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... -gold-sale