howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
amidst all the talk of the thatcher era and the taking of personal reponsibility, the question has to be asked, how could someone thrown on the scrapheap with little or no chance of re-employment take personal responsibilty?
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
BarryW,
I assume then, that you are saying , as an individual, I should not have gone on strike and that I should have quietly walked away and allowed my pit to shut?
Do I not fall into her "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" category?
I was trying to look after myself, my family, our future, and our neighbours. I wanted to work and I did not want to rely on the state.
Roger,
Why is it, when you are talking about the poor, unfortunate or disabled, it is called benefits but with the rich it is called loopholes?
"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
Roger, the reason you can't see anything wrong in it, is exactly the same reason you align yourself with the Conservative party.
The view of the individualist does not allow for empathy or understanding. This "people should be more like me" attitude displays the real arrogance.
Gary, great post. I only wish I could have written something so poignant in one paragraph. I love the last line!
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
DT1 And gary
great postings, we may not fully agree, gary i have been an active trade unionist for 29 years or more(still am)
Yep maggie always made it no secret she wanted to smash the NUM and the trade unions in general.
Certainly ballots in local pits were far from democratic if you believe in democracy, at the end of the day everyone has a right to an opinion, but clearly the view locally was to push this strike through.
it was a tactical mistake, and had wider implications for us in other unions
I visited/donated to many soup kitchens and on the picket lines
but many of us in trade unions watched closely, and supported NUM
and modernised.
At the end of the day, Arthur Scargill should have stuck to what he did brilliantly, acting as a Union rep for his members. He won some superb battles for his members against the NCB, and maybe that gave him a false sense of importance, or just a big ego. But, he didn't have whatever it takes to take on Governments; I think Joe Gormley and Vic Feather were the only two able to manage that feat with any degree of composure and success.
"Why is it, when you are talking about the poor, unfortunate or disabled, it is called benefits but with the rich it is called loopholes?"
For the same reason brawling is High Spirits for the wealthy and Anti-Social Behaviour for the poor................
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
BERN
I know where your coming from
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
I don't agree Bern, brawling/drunken behaviour, is not excusable or acceptable whoever is doing, it is still anti-social behaviour - wealthy or not.
I hate rich kids (in fact, anyone) thinking they can do as they please.
"Why is it, when you are talking about the poor, unfortunate or disabled, it is called benefits but with the rich it is called loopholes?"
The two are not connected: if people are poor, cannot work or are disabled and cannot find work, they should be helped and not left to their own devices; what else would you call it other than benefits ? handouts must be a worse term, isn't it ?
Loop-holes are what dishonest, greedy people look for to get out of paying their just dues and I abhor that; whoever is doing it, whether a Labour or Conservative MP, or supporter, or anyone else for that matter.
The main theme I picked up from Maggie's speech is that people should not rely on the Government for a life-style, but for a safety net; but the last 13 years has created more lifestyles on benefits, than any other period.
We need a better work ethic amongst those who have chosen laziness over work - and I am only referring to skivers, not those suffering genuine reasons for not being able to work.
DT1 I agree that "people should be more like me"does show arrogance, but that also depends on where your coming from doesn't it ?
If someone is on benefits because they want to be and not because they have to be and recommend that course of action to others, that's wrong - isn't it ?
What about the person who says it when they have worked hard and have a reasonable life style and got what they have got through that hard work, why is that wrong to say to lazy buggers, "you should be more like me" - that may be arrogant, but isn't it right ? and society would be so much better for it - wouldn't it ?
Roger
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
ROGER
We probably agree but not in the way you want to achieve, or in fact lay blame.
(blimey and honest)
Benifits or whatever you want to call them has got out of control under this Govt, and the last conservative govt.
Im posted on here before that no govt Tory/Labour/lib dem/ukip etc will take on this vote loser.
We can all pretend, but in reality, NO PARTY has the guts or bottle to take this issue on.
So, ROGER a bit of honesty here may help, realise your a politician, and maybe you dont want to agreee and to you everything the tories is all grand, thats fine, but the system you say is wrong, won't change in the unlikely event of a tory govt.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
I agree keith that the system won't change, whether under a Tory or Labour Government.
The only person to try was Maggie and she had more balls than any PM since. That's why she made that speech, which has been misquoted more than any other - apart perhaps from Enoch's "Rivers of Blood"; but that's another thread.
I don't think the sun shines out of the Conservatives back-side, I am independant of mind enough to know that not everytjhing they want to do will be what I agree with - they probably wouldn't go far enough, as they have come fully into the centre-ground and I have right of centre views.
Roger
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
Kieth,
Yes of course it was a mistake; I'm the first to admit that. As Paul would put it" We were outflanked" Although why that vernacular was used against people who wanted to keep putting bread on their tables, still confuses me.
The timing was precisely planned to put us at a big disadvantage and we should have waited.
Maybe if we waited we might not have had to strike at all that would have been a better outcome.
However, not backing our colleagues at Corton Wood would have been devastating for them and it would have meant we were going against an area ballot that unanimously voted to strike against such action.
She knew we would not let them use the men and their families at Corton Wood and just stand by and do nothing.
Sid,
Spot on with Scargill, he could not handle Thatcher or her media assassination of him. Even armed with the truth he could not get that through to the people of this country and even though history has proved him right, some people are just blind to facts.
He had very little influence over Kent Miners, before, during or after and he disliked us, for that reason. I disliked him for other reasons.
People give him far too much credit but then that's what they were told and that's what they still believe today.
BarryW & Roger,
We all choose our way through life but we do not have to be rigid, we can be flexible.
As I grew up, I was influenced by the people I surrounded myself with and I learnt that, yes, there are a very few, minute number of people(individuals) that only care about themselves and that's their choice and they should be left to get on with what can only be a fairly lonely existence, in my opinion.
The huge majority of people are caring of others, even if they don't share the same attitudes or ways of life. We can be totally different in many ways but still get on with each other and still care about each other. When I bump into the homeless lad outside M&S tipping his hat to the tofts, I cant give him any money because I am on benefits but I do shake his hand and ask him if he is ok and if there is anything else I could do for him. Caring for others brings its own rewards.
"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"
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
Roger.
The truth is, we have two Muppets spiting dummies at each other at the very top and some Politian's and some individuals, all the way down through local Government, town and parish councils, in the media and on forums like this, all doing the same thing, blaming and bashing each other as soon as one or the other says or does something.
Please tell me how this is helping this country, in a time of crisis?
The Tories want to look after their own, so do labour, so do the other parties and that's how it should be.
Surely we can be adults and work together to make this country better place, not for the individual but for all of us?
"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"
I won't bang on about it, but there are clearly different strokes for different folks. Behaviour that lands one guy in clink over night and with a possible criminal record will see another guy sent back home with an escort and an admonishment "not to do it again" with a salute for Daddy and a quiet retreat. I have seen both up close!
Guest 693- Registered: 12 Nov 2009
- Posts: 1,266
I stand by my original words, that Maggie stood up to bullies and restored pride in this country. As many who know me will attest, I am a Tory supporter, probably on the left of the Tory beliefs in so far as I do not believe in pure economics as a base to form any government, there has to be a strong element of social justice as well. Thatcherism was based largely on economic theory, but at the time of her election that was exactly what this country needed after having been held to ransom over the winter of discontent by unions that were not intent on representing their members, but driven by dominating a pathetically weak Labour government and determined to bring down any Tory government as they had done with Ted Heath a decade before.
I lived at the time of the miners' strike in the Barbican YMCA, directly opposite a pub in Fann Street, EC2, called 'The Shakespeare', which happened to be the pub that Arthur Scargill used to drink in; no more than a 5-minute walk from his penthouse Barbican flat, he was nevertheless driven there by his chauffeur in his Jaguar car with two minders in tow who prevented anyone, even his own supporters, from getting anywhere near him. A mate of mine from Liverpool wanted to buy him a pint to show support, and received a punch in the face for his bother; Arthur Scargill was no more a true representative of the working man than is Barry W - and I was sickened by his behaviour and attitude. Shown on the TV news standing on the front line with the striking miners one day, then living the life of luxury the next not speaking to anyone.
The miners were decent people who stood up for what they believed in - I come from a family of working class people in Stoke On Trent, including an uncle who worked as a face worker at Trentham Colliery, but the truth is that the NUM under Arthur Scargill were on a political agenda to bring down the Government. If they had stood up for the rights of their members instead of making the whole issue political, then I firmly believe there would still be a British coal industry today. A smaller, slimmer version of the megalith that dominated great swathes of this country, perhaps - but it would still exist. Margaret Thatcher killed off the coal industry, and that was inevitable once Scargill took her on and lost. In the end, the coal workers lost their livelihoods because Scargill and Thatcher both became entrenched and wouldn't back down. As always, it was those caught in the crossfire who paid the price.
Gary's quite right - if we worked together and tried to find a consensus instead of the ritual boxing contest that party politics is all about, this country might make significant steps forward. Before Tony Blair lost his integrity, he was advocating much the same thing, and if the debt from the recession we seem to be emerging from is ever to be paid off, confrontational party politics has to go.
True friends stab you in the front.
Absolutely agree, no question. Adversarial politics murders progress and partnership. The only ones to benefit are those with vested interests.
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
Andy
There has never been any doubt in my mind of your politics, and of course thats your choice.
What you muddy the waters with is the attack on A Scargill, when you also clearly admit at the time the tory govt had an agenda to destroy the N.U.M.
So there wasn't much of the sitting round the table to find solutions, and whilst Scargill may have been part of the problem Maggie was also part of the problem.
Lots of damage to the likes of the true working person, and a lot to repair,
Maggie wasnt open to keep pits which she clearly showed and more pits than even scargill predicted at the time closed.
And we could also get into the rest of the tory tactics like setting up an alternative supposed union, who then had many tory candidates at next election, plus so much more.
so theres a lot more to this as Gary indicates.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
Good posting Andy - sadly though, I can't see the present system changing - on all fronts.
Gary C. I agree with most of your "social" posting, but not with Scargill, but enough has been said on him.
I actually feel that labour have lost their focus on the social agenda and are not looking after the working man as they have traditionally purported to do.
I also believe that the Conservatives have a better social agenda than labour, but that will be a difficult message to get through to traditional Labour supporters.
I have a strong social conscience, but cannot stand or support skivers.
Roger
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
ROGER
I think we share views on the benefits system, but that is to the point of who do we both think should/shouldnt claim benefits, what individuals should do to claim benefits(not just a hand out)
We could probably agree on lots on this.
Its the bit about skivers, we would need to look deeply into who they may be
how we could change it.
Roger you are incorrect in the labour partys view in supporting working classes or working man/women(woops you forgot the women)
They still do, sadly some tories are going around saying whatever people want to hear, not costings things, and usually probably never able to achieve.
you are correct that both main parties have moved to middle England where the vote is.
As a trade unionist of 29 odd years of course I support(ed)the NUM and worked with many unions including my own, thats why im looking to see the trades council flourish locally.
and those unions that share views of mine to continue to work closely with
Like Gary says, once you have this "I want to helpo others " attitude it doesnt disappear
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
it is good fun watching the parties fighting for the centre ground.
victory for the reds so far, will the blues be as successful this time?
on the one hand they do not want to lose the "hang em and flog em" vote, on the other they want to shake off the "nasty party" tag.
i will watch this one with interest.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
andy and co,maggie may have stood up to the bullies,but look at her now a broken woman.