Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    Surely the loss of manufacturing jobs is not exclusive to the UK? See the US and most developed countries.
    Especially with the improvement in technology and machines replacing humans
    Also the miners would have been unemployed by now anyway- due to global warming being accepted by those in power...

    I agree that if the mines were reopened you'd have people queuing to start digging again! However that would be uneconomic at the moment- unless oil and gas prices rise significantly

    Never mind the money grabbing EU already want to steal fine £300 million for London breaching emission targets
    Yes, it's a problem throughout the developed world, along with the ageing population, the pensions crisis, etc, etc. Not very inspiring, is it?

    Yet the WTO agenda and the mass relocation of productive industries abroad were part of the main result of Reagan/Thatcherism, leading to the current situation internationally, also to the financial collapse and credit crunch, which occurred as funds sought shorter-term profits to try to make the creaking savings, pensions and investments systems work.

    Against these major trends, the EU is largely irrelevant - it's just a victim of the current malaise - the endless harping on about it from the right is a brain-numbing distraction. (Deliberately so - the right constantly seeks fresh distractions from the real illness.)

    Until we return the global economy to placing the needs of all the people and not just the super-rich at the top of the agenda, it will continue to deteriorate.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    The 30% pay demands you mention were against the backdrop of 25% inflation. I agree that was a terrible situation but you are presumably seeking to paint it as an example (as at the time) of irresponsible trade unionism? Wasn't it actually just working people trying to maintain their incomes?

    It's no coincidence that workers have been very quiescent during the last few years when their incomes plunged - it is deeply connected to the collapse in union solidarity. People will gradually rediscover the need for this in the coming years.

    I wasn't advocating keeping uneconomic industries running, I was simply pointing out that chronic underemployment has replaced chronic lack of productivity. That's something that deserves attention and to be fair gets some - there have been many attempts to make people more entrepreneurial and to upskill them. However, I do think it causes many problems in the long run to have an economically inactive or effectively inactive 1/3 of the working population. They will become more and more disenfranchised from society, they cause a big burden of cost in welfare and health and they drag the country.

    Advocating, as the current government are doing, that the answer is to remove their benefits is not likely to be very useful for the rest of us either. Crime will surge, there will be yet more pressure on the NHS, etc.
    Well, you recognise the absolute necessity to bring inflation under control, inflation which was rampant because of the way the country was being run previously.

    UK industry was grossly overmanned (French industry still is) or its workers underemployed - greater automation and robots greatly reduce employment prospects.

    In addition, these days, most jobs require basic literacy and numeracy - skills many of the habitually unemployed don't have and CBA to acquire.

    Similarly, most service jobs require employees who don't steal the takings or assault the customers. Many of the habitually unemployed have ongoing records for dishonesty and / or violence.

    Most jobs need employees who are unimpared - many habitually unemployed have drink and / or drugs problems.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Yes, it's a problem throughout the developed world, along with the ageing population, the pensions crisis, etc, etc. Not very inspiring, is it?
    No, it suggests the whole pension system will need reform or we will be in real trouble in say 30-50 years when life expectancy is significantly higher!

    [QUOTE=Fullofsurprises;42200564]Yet the WTO agenda and the mass relocation of productive industries abroad were part of the main result of Reagan/Thatcherism, leading to the current situation internationally, also to the financial collapse and credit crunch, which occurred as funds sought shorter-term profits to try to make the creaking savings, pensions and investments systems work.

    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Against these major trends, the EU is largely irrelevant - it's just a victim of the current malaise - the endless harping on about it from the right is a brain-numbing distraction. (Deliberately so - the right constantly seeks fresh distractions from the real illness.)
    EU regulations just make life harder for SMEs who struggle to afford the costs. It tends to help big buisnesses

    Hello what about Tony Benn? and wasn't eurosceptism once a preserve of the left? Did the labour party not once having leaving the EEC as it's manifesto?

    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Until we return the global economy to placing the needs of all the people and not just the super-rich at the top of the agenda, it will continue to deteriorate.
    I agree with you about this!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    Wilson closed more mines than Thatcher did!
    I can't say I'm an expert, but I think this is a bit misleading. Mines did close in the 60s and 70s, yes, but wasn't this a result of changing from shallow to deep mines? For example, all of the pits were I was brought up (and still live) closed in the 1950s and 1960s, as we moved to deep mining elsewhere in the county.

    This is very different to Thatcher, who made a concerted and determined effort to undermine not just the trade unions, but also miners themselves, destroyed mining communities, and began to the destruction of the mining industry.

    Ultimately, and without getting into the rights and wrongs of mining closure, even after Wilson there were thriving mining communities. After Thatcher many of the former mining communities were a shadow of their former selves, hotbeds of deprivation and unemployment, and experienced social dislocation.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    Not at all ,mate!
    me neither, clearly.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by River85)
    I can't say I'm an expert, but I think this is a bit misleading. Mines did close in the 60s and 70s, yes, but wasn't this a result of changing from shallow to deep mines? For example, all of the pits were I was brought up (and still live) closed in the 1950s and 1960s, as we moved to deep mining elsewhere in the county.

    This is very different to Thatcher, who made a concerted and determined effort to undermine not just the trade unions, but also miners themselves, destroyed mining communities, and began to the destruction of the mining industry.

    Ultimately, and without getting into the rights and wrongs of mining closure, even after Wilson there were thriving mining communities. After Thatcher many of the former mining communities were a shadow of their former selves, hotbeds of deprivation and unemployment, and experienced social dislocation.
    Hmm but either the way it was ineveitable

    With climate change been accepted by those in power- they would have been made unemployed soon
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Yes, it's a problem throughout the developed world, along with the ageing population, the pensions crisis, etc, etc. Not very inspiring, is it?

    Yet the WTO agenda and the mass relocation of productive industries abroad were part of the main result of Reagan/Thatcherism, leading to the current situation internationally, also to the financial collapse and credit crunch, which occurred as funds sought shorter-term profits to try to make the creaking savings, pensions and investments systems work.

    Against these major trends, the EU is largely irrelevant - it's just a victim of the current malaise - the endless harping on about it from the right is a brain-numbing distraction. (Deliberately so - the right constantly seeks fresh distractions from the real illness.)

    Until we return the global economy to placing the needs of all the people and not just the super-rich at the top of the agenda, it will continue to deteriorate.

    But surely that's what happening. I mean standards of living have improved in places like china and India through this evil policy. In fact this evil policy is whats financing your middle class lifestyle.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Yes, it's a problem throughout the developed world, along with the ageing population, the pensions crisis, etc, etc. Not very inspiring, is it?

    Yet the WTO agenda and the mass relocation of productive industries abroad were part of the main result of Reagan/Thatcherism, leading to the current situation internationally, also to the financial collapse and credit crunch, which occurred as funds sought shorter-term profits to try to make the creaking savings, pensions and investments systems work.

    Against these major trends, the EU is largely irrelevant - it's just a victim of the current malaise - the endless harping on about it from the right is a brain-numbing distraction. (Deliberately so - the right constantly seeks fresh distractions from the real illness.)

    Until we return the global economy to placing the needs of all the people and not just the super-rich at the top of the agenda, it will continue to deteriorate.
    Kind of counters the lefts argument about us being a declining power then. We seem to be able to influence the worlds economy.

    Anyway, some information for the coal mining.

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    From the Guardian,

    "Perceived wisdom is also that manufacturing disappeared under Thatcher. If so, it was something that had already started. In 1970, manufacturing accounted for 20.57% of GDP. By 1979, that was down to 17.62%. By the time she left office, that decline had continued - albeit at a slightly slower pace, down to 15.18%."

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/d...hatcher-charts

    So in other words, 1970-1979 manufacturing fell 2.88%
    1979 until she left office in 1990 manufacturing fell a further 2.44%

    So to sum up: Labour closed more mines than Thatcher, and UK manufacturing declined more under Labour.

    The left blame the shipyards closing on her too. Proposed to be closed in 1971. Kept open by the receiver, sold successfully to a private contractor, closed by Tony Blair. Not much fuss made about Tony closing shipyards...

    And they claim the *Conservatives* are rewriting history...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tory88)
    Under Thatcher, the rich became richer, and the poor became richer. She answers this criticism better than I ever could in her last ever Commons Speech:

    She was a brilliant woman and a brilliant woman
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    And they claim the *Conservatives* are rewriting history...
    There's a rewrite on all sides. The Tories are propagating a myth that before 1979, society was in meltdown, that the UK was collapsing and that ravening hordes of demented socialist zombies were roaming the countryside, then along came the Sainted Margaret on her shining white horse called Friedman and with the aid of the Monday Club (a sort of freemasonry of heroic knights, many of them formerly from South Africa) and Brother Raygun, destroyed the said socialists and Saved the Nation.

    It's all utter tosh, but presumably Michael Gove is even now busy writing it into the New History curriculum.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    From the Guardian,

    "Perceived wisdom is also that manufacturing disappeared under Thatcher. If so, it was something that had already started. In 1970, manufacturing accounted for 20.57% of GDP. By 1979, that was down to 17.62%. By the time she left office, that decline had continued - albeit at a slightly slower pace, down to 15.18%."

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/d...hatcher-charts

    So in other words, 1970-1979 manufacturing fell 2.88%
    1979 until she left office in 1990 manufacturing fell a further 2.44%

    So to sum up: Labour closed more mines than Thatcher, and UK manufacturing declined more under Labour.

    The left blame the shipyards closing on her too. Proposed to be closed in 1971. Kept open by the receiver, sold successfully to a private contractor, closed by Tony Blair. Not much fuss made about Tony closing shipyards...

    And they claim the *Conservatives* are rewriting history...
    Don't forget that New Labour didn't help manufacturing either!

    http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/bla...174519607.html
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    ravening hordes of demented socialist zombies were roaming the countryside,
    Are you aware of these two television series:-

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990

    (Only a single episode of this series has ever been repeated and it has never been released on video. It was once on YouTube but the PCD has obviously got to them!)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quatermass_%28TV_serial%29

    This is on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_JOM-m5iUY
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    There's a rewrite on all sides. The Tories are propagating a myth that before 1979, society was in meltdown, that the UK was collapsing and that ravening hordes of demented socialist zombies were roaming the countryside, then along came the Sainted Margaret on her shining white horse called Friedman and with the aid of the Monday Club (a sort of freemasonry of heroic knights, many of them formerly from South Africa) and Brother Raygun, destroyed the said socialists and Saved the Nation.

    It's all utter tosh, but presumably Michael Gove is even now busy writing it into the New History curriculum.
    You obviously weren't around in the 70's were you?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Are you aware of these two television series:-

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990

    (Only a single episode of this series has ever been repeated and it has never been released on video. It was once on YouTube but the PCD has obviously got to them!)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quatermass_%28TV_serial%29

    This is on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_JOM-m5iUY
    I'd heard of Quatermass, it's quite a famous series, my Dad saw it when he was young. What was 1990 about?

    When I said "ravening hordes of socialist zombies", I of course meant to say "ravening hordes of socialist zombies controlled from the Kremlin". Obvious I know, but in the Reworking Thatcher agenda, that's a key point, the Enemy Within was also the Enemy Without.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    I'd heard of Quatermass, it's quite a famous series, my Dad saw it when he was young. What was 1990 about?
    This isn't really the famous Quatermass series from the 1950s/1960s but a re-imagining albeit by the same author. It is set in a projection of late 1970s Britain where the fabric of society is falling apart and the basic institutions of society cannot be maintained. Hoards of what probably were not then called new age travellers were wandering the country. Although it isn't broadcast until late in 1979 it takes the Britain of the Winter of Discontent and projects it forward.

    The basic premise of 1990 is very similar to 1984, a man rebelling against a futuristic totalitarian regime. The key difference is the nature of the regime. Unlike 1984 where the regime is a combination of Stalin's Russia and Hitler's Germany, the regime is clearly Callaghan's Britain. It plays up and projects all of the illiberal bureaucratic traits of the Labour government. One needs a permit in order to work and an exit visa in order to go abroad. That didn't look too far fetched in a world in which the real government directed in which town a factory could be built http://usj.sagepub.com/content/9/2/229.extract, it which the closed shop was a reality and where the government controlled how much spending money one could take abroad.

    The series was very popular at the time but absolutely hated on the left which is why it has never been repeated. If you want to gain some insight into how Tories see much BBC drama as being pinko, try and have look at this. This series is the BBC with the boot on the other foot doing a real hatchet job on the underlying tenets not of socialism but of a Labour government.


    When I said "ravening hordes of socialist zombies", I of course meant to say "ravening hordes of socialist zombies controlled from the Kremlin". Obvious I know, but in the Reworking Thatcher agenda, that's a key point, the Enemy Within was also the Enemy Without.
    In the real Cold War world this was happening.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8289962.stm
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)

    In the real Cold War world this was happening.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8289962.stm
    You know Gordievsky has been widely attacked, to the point where some consider him to have been a deliberate Soviet disinformation agent? Others subscribe to parts of his revelations but not others. Having recently read a history of MI6 and British counterintelligence, I incline to the view that he was an exaggerator for effect when he felt he needed the PR. However, I don't dismiss all the stories about Kremlin funding for various bodies in the UK - they seem to have been particularly keen on infiltrationist bodies like Militant and on various small factions like the one Ken Livingstone belonged to when he was a young councillor. There is also very strong evidence that they channelled cash into the NUM, but that was kind of considered normal amongst left-wing unions across Europe at the time! To what extent the cash made much real difference is open to debate. I don't believe the story about Jack Jones.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    You know Gordievsky has been widely attacked, to the point where some consider him to have been a deliberate Soviet disinformation agent? Others subscribe to parts of his revelations but not others. Having recently read a history of MI6 and British counterintelligence, I incline to the view that he was an exaggerator for effect when he felt he needed the PR. However, I don't dismiss all the stories about Kremlin funding for various bodies in the UK - they seem to have been particularly keen on infiltrationist bodies like Militant and on various small factions like the one Ken Livingstone belonged to when he was a young councillor. There is also very strong evidence that they channelled cash into the NUM, but that was kind of considered normal amongst left-wing unions across Europe at the time! To what extent the cash made much real difference is open to debate. I don't believe the story about Jack Jones.
    The thing that makes me think the Jack Jones story is correct is that it is in the Official History. The author could easily have been told to take it out. By the time it was written, it didn't seem to serve any current black propaganda purpose and if it was found not to be true it would discredit the Official History.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    The thing that makes me think the Jack Jones story is correct is that it is in the Official History. The author could easily have been told to take it out. By the time it was written, it didn't seem to serve any current black propaganda purpose and if it was found not to be true it would discredit the Official History.
    Equally he could have just chucked some juicy ones in like that for publicity. I remember it being vigorously disputed at the time. Problem with all these spy tales is you never can get proof one way or the other, so the smear sticks. Given that Jones, like Barbara Castle, was constantly pressing for a rational pensions system and this was anathema to the City hawks and Thatcherites and their buddies in Six, it would seem not to implausible that the whole thing is a lot of poo.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Equally he could have just chucked some juicy ones in like that for publicity. I remember it being vigorously disputed at the time. Problem with all these spy tales is you never can get proof one way or the other, so the smear sticks. Given that Jones, like Barbara Castle, was constantly pressing for a rational pensions system and this was anathema to the City hawks and Thatcherites and their buddies in Six, it would seem not to implausible that the whole thing is a lot of poo.
    I guessw we just wait under the files get de classified
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Are unpaid trial work shifts fair?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.