howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
you got in before me sid, people who have bought in the turkish sector are now being thrown out of their paid for homes.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
barryw,you sound a bit hacked off about the last 13 years,as far as i can see the thatcher years were just as bad.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Far from it Brian, she had to sort the mess from the previous 6 years of incompetent Labour Government first and created a booming economy, messed up a bit by John Major (because he joined the EMU as Chancellor against her better insticts) but then of course Ken Clarke got the economy back on track, for Labour to then really screw up over the last deadful 13 years.... soon back to repairing their mess....
We also did not have the idiotic social policies that undermine British traditions and society the way Labour have.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
barryw, you may be right there. she started a tradition,now let me thing how can put this polightlt,ahh yes poll tax riots,boom and doom and finely flogged of the famly silverware.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
silverware has a value Brian - what Mrs T flogged off were a load of worthless loss making deadwood companies that needed to be turned into taxpaying profitable companies.
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
presume part of your so called DEADWOOD COMPANIES (your words) were the coal mines?
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
sounds about right kieth,it allso put a lot of people out of work.
Coal mining was an industry based on dead wood that eventrually became dead wood. If there was monery to be made and entrepeneur would have been found by now to prove the point. And besides, it was Scargill who did the damage, not Maggie.
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
Sid
I'm sure there are many subjects that we could agree upon.
Im no fan of Arthur Scargill but he was proved right.
At the time of the proposed pit closures/strikes he was condenmed and told he was incorrect in his number of pits closing.
But sadly it was Arthur who was right.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
yes i remember that keith. the leaked government document detailing pit closures.
sadly arthur scargill took the bait and went off the deep end.
it was spring time and coal was stockpiled, if he had been sensible he would have kept quiet until stocks were low.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Scargill killed off the mines and yes they were dead wood after Scargill did his worse. The madman and his thugs.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
barryw,you may be right but maggie was the instegator of scargills and the pits downfall.ask any kent coal miner.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
So what do you think Mrs T did then Brian. Have MI5 kidnap Scargill and hypnotise him and his right hand men to commit economic suicide! Come off it.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
Sid.
I am sorry if implied that the Accommodation Shop rent properties abroad; the point I was making is that while you are renting a property abroad, they could be the agents to rent your's here.
Roger
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
BARRYW
Back in the real world, Yep Arthur got the tactics badly wrong, but Maggie was bruised by arthur previously and she had an agenda to take on the NUM and the wider trade union movement.
So lets have a bit of honesty about it.
I don't know how many miners have got jobs today, but we do have this dilema, maggie believed it was cheaper to put people on the dole, of course this has a big effect not only on the families concerned, but also the local economy.
There was of course a lot of lessons learnt both during the miners year long dispute, and since by other major trade unions.
All became more democratic(something iv always pushed for)
trade unions did re group and the challenges changed, and in recent years a whole new ball game was in place.
Obviously under maggie she wanted working class people to doth there cap and be pleased they were lucky enough to have a job!!!!
of course she went to far.
And more recent years where we see stuff like the bankers giving themselves millions of pounds in bonus's even though they lost money shows the world we live in.
On the one hand we are told public services will be cut back
on the other people like the bankers giving themselves(with our money!!) millions of pounds of bonus's whether they made a profit or not.
summat there is clearly wrong.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
Let's try once again with using facts (The Truth), not personnel feelings, ideas or propaganda.
1 year prior to the strike ALL mining area's held ballots and the unanimous outcome was to take industrial action if the Coal Board tried to shut any colliery other than "for reasons of coal exhaustion or with geological problems".
Millions was spent on Corton Wood Colliery and the workforce was told they were safe for at least another twenty years. Thatcher new about this ballot and when the time was right, for them not for us "in the spring" they shut Corton Wood. Knowing some but not all areas would honour and stand by that Ballot.
Here in Kent, we phoned Scargill and told him we were on strike in support of our comrades at Corton Wood. He did not call us out on strike.
I am sorry if that does not fit in with your little ideologies of your recollections but they are the facts.
So the argument is, if you think the strike was wrong then blame the Kent Miners, not Scargiil.
We went on Strike to save our pits because we knew we were next. We lost the strike and lost our pits and in this corner of Kent we lost thousand of jobs, broken societies and was left with many other problems.
It was never about the coal it was all about smashing the unions. The balance of union power had become unstable and I believe it was a problem that needed to be addressed but Thatcher went far too far in treating the rank and file as Enemies Within. Forcing us into fighting for our future and our children's future was barbaric and unnecessary. The large majority of miners were not union or politically motivated; they were just working lads who wanted to keep their jobs and communities alive.
Beware, because the Russians are buying up coal reserves in America and in this country and we are sat on 200 years of the best coking coal in the country. What she did all them years ago has not finished affecting this area yet and wont ever, but that's only an opinion.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
I'm not sure we should detach this thread/subject from politics. It started by listing the reasons people were leaving and with the exception of the weather, most can be linked to political policy. In addition we are surely talking about society and the direction it takes is informed and informs governance.
My initial reaction to all of this is that of seeing another Daily Mail report about how we are all doomed. If everybody read this paper, nobody would leave their houses through fear of being stabbed by a paedophilic asylum seeking hoody with an ASBO and a love of all things PC. If everybody stayed in then there probably wouldn't be any problems, other than the increased demand for Royal Family commemorative plates (that dominate every other page of the Mail supplements). If you read the Daily Mail, I can understand why you would want to leave, as the paper's founder said he gave his readers their 'daily hate'.
The next thing that struck me was the overwhelming irony of this. I agree with Roger's initial list of why people would want to leave. The funny thing is that the people who are 'jumping ship' clearly hold an equal (if not more) level of contempt for society as those that they are blaming for it's demise.
Society has become more selfish and this is the result of placing emphasis on the individual. We all think about ourselves first (and have to) but when this extends beyond our needs, greed sets in. This is why rich people don't like paying tax, like Lord Rothermere and the Daily Mail Group Trust based in Bermuda...and they have the cheek to 'inform' us about people ripping our system off.
'Too many people have no pride in where they live' I couldn't agree more, so much so they sod off to live in other countries, taking money from the state and then paying into a system elsewhere. Of course I have absolutely no problem with this, because these people have paid into the system in the first place and it is their choice, but then I have no real problem with migrant workers either. Knowing people that are Expats, I don't think they would agree with my view, as they sit beside their 4m pools near Malaga, eating fry-ups. I have one friend who plans to make the move to Spain, because of their 'way of life' and that this country has too many foreigners...I think he is a bit racist.
If it wasn't for migration Spain would certainly not have benefited from Moorish irrigation or us from our great mix of immigrants. I always point out the hyphen in Anglo-Saxon, an indigenous population that acknowledges its impurity...great I say, I'm proud about that!
Things in this country do need to change, but we're not going to achieve that for future generations by moving elsewhere. These people are acting for themselves, let them go, they're clearly not committed to the cause or future of our 'society' anyway. Margaret Thatcher promoted this idea, look after yourself first, don't look to society...there's no such thing. No you can play semantic games with this all you like (and I probably quote it too much) but the intent is very clear as she confirmed on many occasions and by her actions. Why else dilute the power of unions...oh yes because they're potentially more power than 'a group of individuals'. No I believe Mrs Thatcher had to make a lot of tough decisions, as will our next government, however individualism and capitalism were at the heart of those tough decisions and these don't sit well with the greater good of a society.
As for selling off the Silverware, it did have a value, otherwise nobody would have taken it on. I agree with Sid that if the coal mines had any long term value someone would have taken it on...although there is time yet! The public property that was sold off allowed people to buy shares in something they already owned. They may well now be contributing tax...just like Lord Rothermere, but at the expense of providing something that is not consistent with the idea of society.
Look at the railways, although privatised after Mrs Thatcher she would love this awful service, forcing people into their cars of metaphors for individual choice, and also ensuring that no one talked to each other on the way to work. We still subsidise our railways, so much for cutting it from the dead hand of the state. And what do we get? One of the poorest and expensive services in Europe...oh that's right ours is the only one that isn't nationalised.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Gary - the miners strike was only about Scargill and his power hungry Union thugs, it was about intimidation, bullying and industrial suicide. When THEY chose to take on Mrs T it was their mistake. She made sure this country could no longer be held to blackmail by the Unions and her victory in defeating these thugs was a victory for the whole country. We have all benefitted from the defeat of the old class warriors and thankfully we should never see that kind of mad industrial intimidation again. The striking miners got exactly what they deserved.
The Unions wanted a fight and they got it. They needed smashing and they brought it about themselves.
DT1 - You and I have very different views of society, things you se as good I see as bad and visa-versa.
Lets deal with the so-called 'family silver' first. The only way that particular 'family silver' could acquire a value was by wholesale changes; to reduce overmanning, getting rid of restrictive working practises, reducing the power of the Unions and opening the businesses up to free markets. By doing that they did acquire a value, but as overmanned inefficient loss making State industries they were a national liability and blood sucking leeches not a worthwhile assets. That could only be done through privatisation.
I am surprised though at you bringing up that old chesnut to have a go at Mrs T with the usual mis-quote and misrepresentation of her. lets see exactly what she did say in that speech......
"""""""""""I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand "I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!" or "I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!" .............
..........It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation"""""""""""""""......
Note what she was saying.... Yes we must look after ourselves and our own first, it is our duty to do that but then we should also look out for our neighbours and not depend on the 'State' or some nebulous 'society' to look out for them. That is very different from the wildely inaccurate accusations of 'selfishness' that the left like to portray.
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
"....and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing!"
You seem to have missed that bit out Barry. I think the speech is very clear in it's entirety.
Another gem that sums it up:
"because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation"
This idea alone exemplifies the sort of social destruction she was suggesting, or if not (which I don't think is the case) her lack of understanding.
What obligation has a child got to meet to be entitled to education? What obligation has a sick man got to meet before he is treated? What obligation has a homeless person got to meet to be entitled to protection from the law. We place our trust in someone then hope that the good is reciprocated, not make them prove anything first.
This kind of unwritten social contract is what underpins all the things that Daily Mail readers love. Unless of course they would prefer that you only open a door for someone on the condition they say thankyou first!
As for the decline of Christianity in this country, although not being religious, I don't remember anything along the lines of "It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour" in the Bible.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
I think there are bits missing out of DT1 and Barry's postings on "no such thing as society", so I reproduce it in full.
"I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand"I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!" or"I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!" "I am homeless, the Government must house me!" and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and[fo 1] there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation and it is, I think, one of the tragedies in which many of the benefits we give, which were meant to reassure people that if they were sick or ill there was a safety net and there was help, that many of the benefits which were meant to help people who were unfortunate—" It is all right. We joined together and we have these insurance schemes to look after it" . That was the objective, but somehow there are some people who have been manipulating the system and so some of those help and benefits that were meant to say to people:"All right, if you cannot get a job, you shall have a basic standard of living!" but when people come and say:"But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!" You say:"Look" It is not from the dole. It is your neighbour who is supplying it and if you can earn your own living then really you have a duty to do it and you will feel very much better!"
There is also something else I should say to them:"If that does not give you a basic standard, you know, there are ways in which we top up the standard. You can get your housing benefit."
But it went too far. If children have a problem, it is society that is at fault. There is no such thing as society.[fo 2] There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate. And the worst things we have in life, in my view, are where children who are a great privilege and a trust—they are the fundamental great trust, but they do not ask to come into the world, we bring them into the world, they are a miracle, there is nothing like the miracle of life—we have these little innocents and the worst crime in life is when those children, who would naturally have the right to look to their parents for help, for comfort, not only just for the food and shelter but for the time, for the understanding, turn round and not only is that help not forthcoming, but they get either neglect or worse than that, cruelty.
How do you set about teaching a child religion at school, God is like a father, and she thinks"like someone who has been cruel to them?" It is those children you cannot ... you just have to try to say they can only learn from school or we as their neighbour have to try in some way to compensate. This is why my foremost charity has always been the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, because over a century ago when it was started, it was hoped that the need for it would dwindle to nothing and over a hundred years later the need for it is greater, because we now realise that the great problems in life are not those of housing and food and standard of living. When we have[fo 3] got all of those, when we have got reasonable housing when you compare us with other countries, when you have got a reasonable standard of living and you have got no-one who is hungry or need be hungry."
Reading it a couple of times I can't see anything wrong in it - it is saying you and your family are most important, help them first, but then your neighbour/friend etc.
If you can work, then do so, if you genuinely can't, we'll (the State) help you.
Sadly, this ethos, since Maggie went out of office, has gone; now the thought amongst the many, is the State will look after me whatever I do or don't do, so why worry.
That's the reason for our demise in a nut-shell.
Roger