Re: Scargill was right! : Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:33 am  

Wire Yed wrote:

Well if he lived in London and possibly relied on public transport I thought it would be obvious as to why Bob Crowe isn't popular.

So Crow is personally responsible for all the problems on London Underground?

Nothing whatsoever to do with Boris Johnson and his trained chimps at TfL?

Re: Scargill was right! : Mon Jan 06, 2014 9:07 am  

Wire Yed wrote:

Well if he lived in London and possibly relied on public transport I thought it would be obvious as to why Bob Crowe isn't popular.

Hello from the capital, where I use public transport.

Did you want to discuss BoJo hiking bus fares by vast amounts in the last couple of years?

I'm not the biggest fan of Crow – I think he's rather lumpen (and I know people who know him). However, to believe that all those in London who use public transport simply hate Crow is facile, as would be pretending that occasional Tube strikes are the biggest problem facing Londoners on public transport (massively-rising fares would be one of those).

Crow is elected by his members – so presumably they're happy with his performance. He has maintained their pay levels and jobs while pay levels and jobs have been hammered in other industries apart from those at the top – this being something that is now generally seen as problematic for the wider economy.

Whether as a happy side effect or otherwise, the RMT's actions have also reduced the plans for reductions in staffing levels at stations etc – something else that those using the system are concerned about (unstaffed stations, lack of proper ticket offices etc) are not popular ideas.

Re: Scargill was right! : Mon Jan 06, 2014 9:31 am  

I just looked this Crow fella up. He's a Millwall fan. Interesting. I don't care that he earns so much and still lives in a council flat. His place would have been turned over a few times by now. Though it did state he got a 12% pay rise in 2009. As a former union member myself that would have peeved me right off. Mintball tell me about fares in London, because I bought an Oyster Card which was delivered to Oz and found transport in London with it all really cheap. Transport in London got better when Ken got back in I'd heard. Now this link will probably not tell the full story as it's from the company selling something, but how much have things gone up in real terms. Give us your example as everyone's journeys will differ. http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tickets/26385.aspx

I just looked this Crow fella up. He's a Millwall fan. Interesting. I don't care that he earns so much and still lives in a council flat. His place would have been turned over a few times by now. Though it did state he got a 12% pay rise in 2009. As a former union member myself that would have peeved me right off. Mintball tell me about fares in London, because I bought an Oyster Card which was delivered to Oz and found transport in London with it all really cheap. Transport in London got better when Ken got back in I'd heard. Now this link will probably not tell the full story as it's from the company selling something, but how much have things gone up in real terms. Give us your example as everyone's journeys will differ. http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tickets/26385.aspx

Re: Scargill was right! : Mon Jan 06, 2014 10:06 am  

Leaguefan wrote:

But they were not!

Closed shops still exist to this day.
Lobbying and "buying" of politicians is still rife.
Leaders of Unions still have influence on government policy.
Only the people who keep the establishment in power by being the buffer are not legally allowed to strike.

When governments can be brought to their collective knees by unelected, unaccountable people in global businesses then democracy has been shown up

Lobbying is part of the democratic process - I occassionally lobby my MP on matters of personal importance to me, these days often via campaigning websites. Bribery and corruption though must be stamped out.

The issue in the Scargill era was unions believing they could bring down a government they did not like, even if democratically elected. There was a real threat to democracy.

Who were these global businesses that brought down governments? Was there deliberate acts?

[DaveO]

Re: Scargill was right! : Mon Jan 06, 2014 10:53 am  

Dally wrote:

Lobbying is part of the democratic process - I occassionally lobby my MP on matters of personal importance to me, these days often via campaigning websites. Bribery and corruption though must be stamped out.

You don't seem to know the difference between you asking your MP to look into a matter of personal importance and what lobbying by vested interests has become.

Dally wrote:

The issue in the Scargill era was unions believing they could bring down a government they did not like, even if democratically elected. There was a real threat to democracy.

Nonsense.

Please explain where you get the notion that Unions believed they could bring down governments. You are implying the Unions would strike or whatever for political ends rather than to protect their members interests.

Scargill might have been very happy had the miners strike resulted in an election being called but the only way that would have happened was if something like the information in those papers had come out i.e. that they really did want to close 75 pits not 20 as Scargill said was the agenda. Now that would have sunk the government, not the union telling everyone what they believed to be the true agenda or going on strike.

Had that happened and had the government been exposed and an election resulted, how would that be anti-democratic? Being forced to the country having been exposed as bare faced liars would have been democracy in action would it not?

Instead they lied. Very democratic!

Dally wrote:

Who were these global businesses that brought down governments? Was there deliberate acts?

He said "When governments can be brought to their collective knees by unelected, unaccountable people in global businesses then democracy has been shown up"

Not "brought down". You are misquoting the poster here.

As you well know the global banking industry has brought many governments to their collective knees.

Re: Scargill was right! : Mon Jan 06, 2014 12:12 pm  

Rooster Booster wrote: ... Mintball tell me about fares in London, because I bought an Oyster Card which was delivered to Oz and found transport in London with it all really cheap. Transport in London got better when Ken got back in I'd heard... This is the first year since Boris took office that fares have not risen above inflation – he still claims that rises are a 'freeze' though. Story And in the last couple of years, the electronic boards at bus stops that used to tell you when the next bus was due have been removed. If you want to know that information now, then you can text a number that's advertised at all stops with a number of the stop itself. In other words, this information now costs you money where it was previously part of the service. Imagine if that happened at railway stations or airports, and arrival and departure boards were removed and you had to pay extra to find out the information.

Rooster Booster wrote: ... Mintball tell me about fares in London, because I bought an Oyster Card which was delivered to Oz and found transport in London with it all really cheap. Transport in London got better when Ken got back in I'd heard... This is the first year since Boris took office that fares have not risen above inflation – he still claims that rises are a 'freeze' though. Story And in the last couple of years, the electronic boards at bus stops that used to tell you when the next bus was due have been removed. If you want to know that information now, then you can text a number that's advertised at all stops with a number of the stop itself. In other words, this information now costs you money where it was previously part of the service. Imagine if that happened at railway stations or airports, and arrival and departure boards were removed and you had to pay extra to find out the information.

Re: Scargill was right! : Mon Jan 06, 2014 1:01 pm  

DaveO wrote:

You don't seem to know the difference between you asking your MP to look into a matter of personal importance and what lobbying by vested interests has become.


Nonsense.

Please explain where you get the notion that Unions believed they could bring down governments. You are implying the Unions would strike or whatever for political ends rather than to protect their members interests.

Scargill might have been very happy had the miners strike resulted in an election being called but the only way that would have happened was if something like the information in those papers had come out i.e. that they really did want to close 75 pits not 20 as Scargill said was the agenda. Now that would have sunk the government, not the union telling everyone what they believed to be the true agenda or going on strike.

Had that happened and had the government been exposed and an election resulted, how would that be anti-democratic? Being forced to the country having been exposed as bare faced liars would have been democracy in action would it not?

Instead they lied. Very democratic!

He said "When governments can be brought to their collective knees by unelected, unaccountable people in global businesses then democracy has been shown up"

Not "brought down". You are misquoting the poster here.

As you well know the global banking industry has brought many governments to their collective knees.

A couple of things - Scargill called the strike without the correct mandate to do so. That action suggested either a lack of confidence in the outcome or an agenda beyond the best interests of the members.

The strike of 1972 resulted in a state of emergency, the strike of 1974 brought the government down. Scargill had been a very vocal opponent of the Thatcher government well before the strike of 84-85, especially after McGregor was appointed. It would be naive to think Scargill didn't have any political agenda when he called the strike. His ego/self interest has been exposed since with the issues around the flat in the Barbican.

Re: Scargill was right! : Mon Jan 06, 2014 1:30 pm  

DaveO wrote:

You don't seem to know the difference between you asking your MP to look into a matter of personal importance and what lobbying by vested interests has become.


Nonsense.

Please explain where you get the notion that Unions believed they could bring down governments. You are implying the Unions would strike or whatever for political ends rather than to protect their members interests.

Scargill might have been very happy had the miners strike resulted in an election being called but the only way that would have happened was if something like the information in those papers had come out i.e. that they really did want to close 75 pits not 20 as Scargill said was the agenda. Now that would have sunk the government, not the union telling everyone what they believed to be the true agenda or going on strike.

Had that happened and had the government been exposed and an election resulted, how would that be anti-democratic? Being forced to the country having been exposed as bare faced liars would have been democracy in action would it not?

Instead they lied. Very democratic!

He said "When governments can be brought to their collective knees by unelected, unaccountable people in global businesses then democracy has been shown up"

Not "brought down". You are misquoting the poster here.

As you well know the global banking industry has brought many governments to their collective knees.

I cannot see any difference conceptually between me lobbying (on something I have a vested interest in) and some "vested interest" (a meaningless, emotive term in this context). Any issue you may have will arise from low-calibre MPs not lobbyists.

The miners effectively brought Heath's government down. They thought they could do the same with Thatcher. IMO, people like Scargill used the membership for their own ends. He did not bother with a ballot and quite a large part of the workforce did not take much persuading to go back in. All the union leadership did was create great personal hardship for its members. To say the strike was not at all politically motivated is NONESENSE. Scargill was aware of the Coal Board / governments plans just as most people in affected areas were. I was not in a mining community but was aware that local power stations had been stockpiling coal for some time. The strike was entirely political - the government was prepared and Scargill took the bait. He knew exactly what he was doing but due to his arrogance and contempt for his membership he lost as did his membership. They lost their jobs more quickly and more to the point suffered a long, hard strike.

Governments lie on lots of strategic issues. They are elected to make decisions for the benefit of "the country". If they felt annihilitating union extremism / strikes (which most people were sick and tired of) was of benefit (which it clearly was) then I have no problem with them lying. It was a matter of"war" (and certainly Scargill thought it was).

The banking industry is irrelevant to the point in issue / thread title. The fact that banks' management and regulation thereof was incompetent was not in anyway an assualt on governments. If countries like ours are content to host the headquarters of huge global banks that are simply too big for our economy that comes down to political failure.

Re: Scargill was right! : Mon Jan 06, 2014 1:41 pm  

This article should be essential reading for all those whose memories of Scargill are a tad clouded.

This article should be essential reading for all those whose memories of Scargill are a tad clouded.

Re: Scargill was right! : Mon Jan 06, 2014 2:05 pm  

Dally wrote:

I cannot see any difference conceptually between me lobbying (on something I have a vested interest in) and some "vested interest" (a meaningless, emotive term in this context). Any issue you may have will arise from low-calibre MPs not lobbyists.

The miners effectively brought Heath's government down. They thought they could do the same with Thatcher. IMO, people like Scargill used the membership for their own ends. He did not bother with a ballot and quite a large part of the workforce did not take much persuading to go back in. All the union leadership did was create great personal hardship for its members. To say the strike was not at all politically motivated is NONESENSE. Scargill was aware of the Coal Board / governments plans just as most people in affected areas were. I was not in a mining community but was aware that local power stations had been stockpiling coal for some time. The strike was entirely political - the government was prepared and Scargill took the bait. He knew exactly what he was doing but due to his arrogance and contempt for his membership he lost as did his membership. They lost their jobs more quickly and more to the point suffered a long, hard strike.

Governments lie on lots of strategic issues. They are elected to make decisions for the benefit of "the country". If they felt annihilitating union extremism / strikes (which most people were sick and tired of) was of benefit (which it clearly was) then I have no problem with them lying. It was a matter of"war" (and certainly Scargill thought it was).

The banking industry is irrelevant to the point in issue / thread title. The fact that banks' management and regulation thereof was incompetent was not in anyway an assualt on governments. If countries like ours are content to host the headquarters of huge global banks that are simply too big for our economy that comes down to political failure.

You're just spouting the tory mantra when you say the miners brought Heaths government down. The miners at the time, were poorly paid and struck simply for a wage rise. Most of the country agreed and in the ensuing election voted out the Heath government. Had Ted Heath listened to some of his own supporters, he could have settled fairly with the miners and they would have gone back to work.