Re: Scargill was right! : Mon Jan 06, 2014 2:21 pm  

rumpelstiltskin wrote: This article should be essential reading for all those whose memories of Scargill are a tad clouded. Looks like your memory is the one that's a tad clouded. There were as many swivelled eyed loons in the tory party back then as there are today and Thatcher was chief amongst them. Did Scargill ask for 20 pits to be closed, or did the nutters running the country at the time decide the enemy within needed eradicating? Scargill may have been wrong in the way he prosecuted the strike but he was certainly right about the hidden agenda and what would be the long term outcome.

rumpelstiltskin wrote: This article should be essential reading for all those whose memories of Scargill are a tad clouded. Looks like your memory is the one that's a tad clouded. There were as many swivelled eyed loons in the tory party back then as there are today and Thatcher was chief amongst them. Did Scargill ask for 20 pits to be closed, or did the nutters running the country at the time decide the enemy within needed eradicating? Scargill may have been wrong in the way he prosecuted the strike but he was certainly right about the hidden agenda and what would be the long term outcome.

Re: Scargill was right! : Mon Jan 06, 2014 4:35 pm  

CORNISH wrote:

what about David Wilkie then?
Is he still remembered by that scum Scargill!!!

What don't you understand about the killing of him was wrong?
They were justifiably given life sentences for their actions.

Re: Scargill was right! : Mon Jan 06, 2014 5:40 pm  

WIZEB wrote:

What don't you understand about the killing of him was wrong?
They were justifiably given life sentences for their actions.

Which were reduced to 8 years when the conviction for murder was replaced with one for manslaughter.

[DaveO]

Re: Scargill was right! : Mon Jan 06, 2014 6:49 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

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.

And?

The strike of 1972 resulted in a state of emergency, the strike of 1974 brought the government down.

No it didn't. The government lost an election. Was industrial unrest and how they failed to deal with it a factor in their defeat? Probably so but had they been seen as in the right they would have won another mandate to govern which they didn't.

The electorate via the democratic process of an election "brought down" that government.

It is no different to Labour having its credibility dented because the 2008 crash happened on their watch and going on to lose the election in 2010. It was a contributory factor in their defeat but only a nutter would suggest they were "brought down" by the bankers.

Governments are judged by the electorate on how they deal with whatever crisis they face and in both 1974 and 2008 the electorate decided they didn't deal with the crisis they faced well enough to win another term.

The phrase "brought down" is pure hyperbole.

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.

I am sure many of the bankers that caused the 2008 crash have political views far to the right of even the last Labour government. Does that make then guilty of acting politically as well as incompetently (and I mean in general not just over the crash)?

Re: Scargill was right! : Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:22 pm  

DaveO wrote:

And?

No it didn't. The government lost an election. Was industrial unrest and how they failed to deal with it a factor in their defeat? Probably so but had they been seen as in the right they would have won another mandate to govern which they didn't.

The electorate via the democratic process of an election "brought down" that government.

It is no different to Labour having its credibility dented because the 2008 crash happened on their watch and going on to lose the election in 2010. It was a contributory factor in their defeat but only a nutter would suggest they were "brought down" by the bankers.

Governments are judged by the electorate on how they deal with whatever crisis they face and in both 1974 and 2008 the electorate decided they didn't deal with the crisis they faced well enough to win another term.

The phrase "brought down" is pure hyperbole.

I am sure many of the bankers that caused the 2008 crash have political views far to the right of even the last Labour government. Does that make then guilty of acting politically as well as incompetently (and I mean in general not just over the crash)?

Scargill was a political activist that is a world away from the actions of the incompetent bankers. His whole career has been about industrial and political agitation both inside the NUM and the wider trades union movement. His tirade against McGregor was but one example. There were no bankers with anything like the same political agenda.

We must agree to differ on what brought the Heath government down - union action destroyed Heath's government as it did Callaghan's 5 years later.

The difference is pretty obvious the TUC wanted a change of government - Jones/Scanlon/Gormley knew if they could get Heath out and Wilson in they could right their own pay check - and so it proved. It was in their interest to prolong the strike for political change. Even you can't compare that to actions of a number of idiot bankers

Re: Scargill was right! : Tue Jan 07, 2014 12:39 am  

Mintball wrote: 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. To suggest a freeze when figures clearly show that some haven't is utter nonsense, no matter how you choose to say it's inline with something else like inflation. I went back to London in 2011 because my mum had a stroke. I though how brilliant it was to see these boards. So I'm guessing taking them down is part of the cost cutting that "allows" the alleged freeze. ie annoying. I noticed there were a load more buses and transport seemed a lot better than it was for 40 years before. Most of that would be thanks to "Red" Ken, not Boris. But on my trip back this Sept/Oct I did see all these bikes called Boris Bikes. They were even on my estate where my mum and dad still live. I couldn't believe it. That's a handy option. I am so impressed by that Oyster Card system and have it here, knowing that when I go back, I just need to add a few quid to it. Sydney is only now trying to catch up with other first world cities.

Mintball wrote: 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. To suggest a freeze when figures clearly show that some haven't is utter nonsense, no matter how you choose to say it's inline with something else like inflation. I went back to London in 2011 because my mum had a stroke. I though how brilliant it was to see these boards. So I'm guessing taking them down is part of the cost cutting that "allows" the alleged freeze. ie annoying. I noticed there were a load more buses and transport seemed a lot better than it was for 40 years before. Most of that would be thanks to "Red" Ken, not Boris. But on my trip back this Sept/Oct I did see all these bikes called Boris Bikes. They were even on my estate where my mum and dad still live. I couldn't believe it. That's a handy option. I am so impressed by that Oyster Card system and have it here, knowing that when I go back, I just need to add a few quid to it. Sydney is only now trying to catch up with other first world cities.

Re: Scargill was right! : Tue Jan 07, 2014 6:31 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Scargill was a political activist that is a world away from the actions of the incompetent bankers. His whole career has been about industrial and political agitation both inside the NUM and the wider trades union movement. His tirade against McGregor was but one example. There were no bankers with anything like the same political agenda.

We must agree to differ on what brought the Heath government down - union action destroyed Heath's government as it did Callaghan's 5 years later.

The difference is pretty obvious the TUC wanted a change of government - Jones/Scanlon/Gormley knew if they could get Heath out and Wilson in they could right their own pay check - and so it proved. It was in their interest to prolong the strike for political change. Even you can't compare that to actions of a number of idiot bankers

The bankers were anything other than "incompetent" or "idiots". They may not have been motivated by politics but they certainly were motivated by greed, devising ever more complicated financial "instruments" that even their peers didn't understand. They engaged on a systematic programme of fraud, whether that be by fixing interest rates or camouflaging toxic "assets" in order to reap a profit. That is what unfettered capitalism encourages and when it all goes wrong, it is the state that has to pick up the pieces. Privatise the profit, socialise the debt - a cycle that will continue unless radical changes are made.

Re: Scargill was right! : Tue Jan 07, 2014 7:21 am  

cod'ead wrote:

The bankers were anything other than "incompetent" or "idiots". They may not have been motivated by politics but they certainly were motivated by greed, devising ever more complicated financial "instruments" that even their peers didn't understand. They engaged on a systematic programme of fraud, whether that be by fixing interest rates or camouflaging toxic "assets" in order to reap a profit. That is what unfettered capitalism encourages and when it all goes wrong, it is the state that has to pick up the pieces. Privatise the profit, socialise the debt - a cycle that will continue unless radical changes are made.

I agree with the first part but the second part I don't - the world has tried socialising the profit and it didn't work. Without the incentive of profit countries struggle to generate wealth. China has only seen an economic boom since it introduced a significant element of capitalism.

The banking crisis was unique - you had a group of people who could act with impunity - they knew whatever happened nobody was going to let them go bust. That is not the case for virtually every other business. In the socialist model if the industry generated deficits who picks up the bill?

Capitalism is not perfect but what is the alternative?

Re: Scargill was right! : Tue Jan 07, 2014 9:45 am  

The three young children killed scavenging for coal to warm their parents freezing homes.

We still remember.

Re: Scargill was right! : Tue Jan 07, 2014 10:10 am  

WIZEB wrote:

The three young children killed scavenging for coal to warm their parents freezing homes.

We still remember.

Did you vent your anger on Scargill?