Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[05omegav6]

I have very little time for unions. Yes they have their place, but my experience of the TGWU/Unite(google oxymoron) wasn't good.

Used to work for a firm that through union bullying went bust. I joined said union in order to have my say during a pay blackmailing sessiondispute. They took my subscriptions gratefully enough, but when it came to the ballot, my and several of my colleagues who saw that the company could illafford either the demanded payrise or the proposed strike voted against both. These votes were struck from record and ignored.

Before things went much further, the shop steward was found somewhere he shouldn't have been, with someone he shouldn't have been, wearing less than they might have been whilst on company time. He got the sack. Myself and the other 'No' voters all got a whole load of crap for voting against the proposals in what was a 'secret' ballot, and I eventually left. Company folded nine months later. That was six years ago, and many are still out of work. Being in the union helped no-one then, and it helps them even less now. Some firm pretend to work with the unions, but whilst they give the unions the time of day, the companies tell them what they are doing rather than ask permission.

Why any one would pay someone a percentage of their hard earned cash to be treated like a mindless mushroom beats me. I naively made that mistake once, never again

[Gaffers]

What gets me is that no one really understands that when some one in the media says 'Due to the recent events Mr/Mrs X is going to have to do this....'  really means 'We media people that that Mr/Mrs X need to do this to stop the negative things we are saying about them.'  It takes balls to carry on and do what is right in the face of such pressure.

It stinks and it is something I cannot stand.  You have to give Maggie her credit that she stuck to her principles (most of the time) and did not waver and cause more damage to the course of action she was on.  She may not have got everything right but she did what was needed to keep the UK a place where companies would invest.  If she had not done what she did then we may be in a similar situation to any one of the PIGS right now and that fact is difficult to dispute.

And anyone who is celebrating her death really needs to look at themselves in the mirror.  I wonder if they celebrated the same when any mass-murderer died or was killed?  Some of the scenes I am seeing in the media make me ashamed to be British.

[cem_devecioglu]

I think you have to respect Thatcher for being a leader who had her principles, and the determination to stick to them, come riots, criticism, bad headlines and, eventually, of course, the contrary opinion of the majority of her own party, which is what did for her. She certainly cared more for what she considered right for the country, than her own popularity. The opposite is true of most politicians now.

Such a leader is going to make enemies. I remember not being overly impressed when, as a student, I received the kick in the nads that was the poll tax bill. Others were hit much harder, although in the case of the miners it was worshipping that idiot Scargill, and allowing him to make political pawns out of them, that was their undoing. I notice no party has since contemplated reversing the changes she made to kerb the power of the unions back then.

But.. Look at the leaders we've had since, and find one example who hasn't blundered through office ducking and diving from one day's headlines to the next and tell me that a dose of her leadership qualities and backbone (not necessarily policies) aren't what we need to turn the current mess round. We have since had a string of spineless PR men, in the game only to feather their own beds.

 
Kevin, if your system couldnt bring a leader who had more balls than her, first you must question how the system works.. besides dont expect me to believe there arent any clever leader candidates who wont be able to do anything.. but simply they are never elected nor will be.. for obvious reasons..

[Lizzie_Zoom]

I think you have to respect Thatcher for being a leader who had her principles, and the determination to stick to them, come riots, criticism, bad headlines and, eventually, of course, the contrary opinion of the majority of her own party, which is what did for her. She certainly cared more for what she considered right for the country, than her own popularity. The opposite is true of most politicians now.

Such a leader is going to make enemies. I remember not being overly impressed when, as a student, I received the kick in the nads that was the poll tax bill. Others were hit much harder, although in the case of the miners it was worshipping that idiot Scargill, and allowing him to make political pawns out of them, that was their undoing. I notice no party has since contemplated reversing the changes she made to kerb the power of the unions back then.

But.. Look at the leaders we've had since, and find one example who hasn't blundered through office ducking and diving from one day's headlines to the next and tell me that a dose of her leadership qualities and backbone (not necessarily policies) aren't what we need to turn the current mess round. We have since had a string of spineless PR men, in the game only to feather their own beds.

 
Kevin, if your system couldnt bring a leader who had more balls than her, first you must question how the system works.. besides dont expect me to believe there arent any clever leader candidates who wont be able to do anything.. but simply they are never elected nor will be.. for obvious reasons..

Great leaders come every so often, usually at times of crisis in Great Britain.  Mediocre ones can be found anywhere, but do not change history like Churchill or Maggie did.

Like in the legend of King Arthur, with Britain now going through a difficult time, someone will rise up and save the country. But perhaps the crisis is not quite bad enough yet and it must be threatened as in the legend!!

[cem_devecioglu]

I think you have to respect Thatcher for being a leader who had her principles, and the determination to stick to them, come riots, criticism, bad headlines and, eventually, of course, the contrary opinion of the majority of her own party, which is what did for her. She certainly cared more for what she considered right for the country, than her own popularity. The opposite is true of most politicians now.

Such a leader is going to make enemies. I remember not being overly impressed when, as a student, I received the kick in the nads that was the poll tax bill. Others were hit much harder, although in the case of the miners it was worshipping that idiot Scargill, and allowing him to make political pawns out of them, that was their undoing. I notice no party has since contemplated reversing the changes she made to kerb the power of the unions back then.

But.. Look at the leaders we've had since, and find one example who hasn't blundered through office ducking and diving from one day's headlines to the next and tell me that a dose of her leadership qualities and backbone (not necessarily policies) aren't what we need to turn the current mess round. We have since had a string of spineless PR men, in the game only to feather their own beds.

 
Kevin, if your system couldnt bring a leader who had more balls than her, first you must question how the system works.. besides dont expect me to believe there arent any clever leader candidates who wont be able to do anything.. but simply they are never elected nor will be.. for obvious reasons..

Great leaders come every so often, usually at times of crisis in Great Britain.  Mediocre ones can be found anywhere, but do not change history like Churchill or Maggie did.

Like in the legend of King Arthur, with Britain now going through a difficult time, someone will rise up and save the country. But perhaps the crisis is not quite bad enough yet and it must be threatened as in the legend!!

Lizzie   dont compare Churchill with Maggie.. please..

[Terbs]

We have got one, cem, waiting in the wings, complete with balls, but the system and the gullible won't see him as leader.
Obviously I refer to Mr Farage

[cem_devecioglu]

We have got one, cem, waiting in the wings, complete with balls, but the system and the gullible won't see him as leader.
Obviously I refer to Mr Farage

ı'm afraid he will never be permitted..

[Entwood]

We have got one, cem, waiting in the wings, complete with balls, but the system and the gullible won't see him as leader.
Obviously I refer to Mr Farage

yup .. takes a huge amount of balls to take your MEP salary of £83,000 a year plus extortionate expenses, rather than stand as an MP and face election in the country you supposedly wish to lead.

A hypocrite .. no more and no less

[Lizzie_Zoom]

I think you have to respect Thatcher for being a leader who had her principles, and the determination to stick to them, come riots, criticism, bad headlines and, eventually, of course, the contrary opinion of the majority of her own party, which is what did for her. She certainly cared more for what she considered right for the country, than her own popularity. The opposite is true of most politicians now.

Such a leader is going to make enemies. I remember not being overly impressed when, as a student, I received the kick in the nads that was the poll tax bill. Others were hit much harder, although in the case of the miners it was worshipping that idiot Scargill, and allowing him to make political pawns out of them, that was their undoing. I notice no party has since contemplated reversing the changes she made to kerb the power of the unions back then.

But.. Look at the leaders we've had since, and find one example who hasn't blundered through office ducking and diving from one day's headlines to the next and tell me that a dose of her leadership qualities and backbone (not necessarily policies) aren't what we need to turn the current mess round. We have since had a string of spineless PR men, in the game only to feather their own beds.

 
Kevin, if your system couldnt bring a leader who had more balls than her, first you must question how the system works.. besides dont expect me to believe there arent any clever leader candidates who wont be able to do anything.. but simply they are never elected nor will be.. for obvious reasons..

Great leaders come every so often, usually at times of crisis in Great Britain.  Mediocre ones can be found anywhere, but do not change history like Churchill or Maggie did.

Like in the legend of King Arthur, with Britain now going through a difficult time, someone will rise up and save the country. But perhaps the crisis is not quite bad enough yet and it must be threatened as in the legend!!

Lizzie   dont compare Churchill with Maggie.. please..

Why not Cem?  They both led the country, maybe under very different conditions, but with iron leadership, resolve and utter commitment to a new beginning. They were true British stalwarts who influenced our history like no other, and in a way that cannot be compared.

[dbdb]

I think this basically explains the picture (although there are a lot more than that)
 
   "The Miner's Strike of 1984 / '85 was caused by the massive pit closure programme introduced by Margaret Thatcher and her Tory government. They wanted to replace Britain's use of coal-fired power stations and industries with power derived from gas or nuclear sources. Also, Thatcher knew that the mining communities and the NUM were a very large left wing power-block who opposed her, and felt that if she could decimate them as an effective force, she would succesfully remove a potential threat to her continued leadership of the country. Thatcher brought in a Canadian buisnessman, Ian MacGregor, as her so-called 'economic advisor'. He was not a British citizen, had no understanding whatsoever of British economic history, and was certainly not impartial. Nonetheless, he oversaw a shoddy and biased 'survey' of the future economic viability of British mining, which predictably painted a bleak picture of it's ability to survive- one which was very far from the actual truth. This gave Thatcher the excuse that she needed to announce the programme of pit closures early in 1984. The sheer injustice of the situation prompted a furious response from the mining communities, and resulted in the NUM leader, Arthur Scargill, calling a nationwide miner's strike before the union membership had been balloted for strike action. This enabled the strike's critics to label it as technically illegal, although if a ballot HAD been run, the overwhelming vote would have been to strike anyway. There was particular hatred for Ian MacGregor, who had no buisness in being invited to a foreign country and serving as advisor to the Prime Minister when he wasn't even an elected British politician, and not accountable to the electorate."

Cem I think that's remarkably accurate. Sometmes you have to step outside a country to be objective, eg my view from living through it all is that she was worse that that.   How anyone who lived through it can think the economy was in a mess and she sorted it out needs treatment, actually it was the opposite, negligable unemployment until she got in.  Ask almost any respected economist (but not the loony ones she used).

As for Scargill he was massively supported by his union's members, unlike his predecessor who was an MI5 informant http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/true_spies/2351547.stm
"Former NUM chief was police informer".

[cem_devecioglu]

I think this basically explains the picture (although there are a lot more than that)
 
   "The Miner's Strike of 1984 / '85 was caused by the massive pit closure programme introduced by Margaret Thatcher and her Tory government. They wanted to replace Britain's use of coal-fired power stations and industries with power derived from gas or nuclear sources. Also, Thatcher knew that the mining communities and the NUM were a very large left wing power-block who opposed her, and felt that if she could decimate them as an effective force, she would succesfully remove a potential threat to her continued leadership of the country. Thatcher brought in a Canadian buisnessman, Ian MacGregor, as her so-called 'economic advisor'. He was not a British citizen, had no understanding whatsoever of British economic history, and was certainly not impartial. Nonetheless, he oversaw a shoddy and biased 'survey' of the future economic viability of British mining, which predictably painted a bleak picture of it's ability to survive- one which was very far from the actual truth. This gave Thatcher the excuse that she needed to announce the programme of pit closures early in 1984. The sheer injustice of the situation prompted a furious response from the mining communities, and resulted in the NUM leader, Arthur Scargill, calling a nationwide miner's strike before the union membership had been balloted for strike action. This enabled the strike's critics to label it as technically illegal, although if a ballot HAD been run, the overwhelming vote would have been to strike anyway. There was particular hatred for Ian MacGregor, who had no buisness in being invited to a foreign country and serving as advisor to the Prime Minister when he wasn't even an elected British politician, and not accountable to the electorate."

Cem I think that's remarkably accurate. Sometmes you have to step outside a country to be objective, eg my view from living through it all is that she was worse that that.   How anyone who lived through it can think the economy was in a mess and she sorted it out needs treatment, actually it was the opposite, negligable unemployment until she got in.  Ask almost any respected economist (but not the loony ones she used).

As for Scargill he was massively supported by his union's members, unlike his predecessor who was an MI5 informant http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/true_spies/2351547.stm
"Former NUM chief was police informer".

 

[Nickbat]

We have got one, cem, waiting in the wings, complete with balls, but the system and the gullible won't see him as leader.
Obviously I refer to Mr Farage

yup .. takes a huge amount of balls to take your MEP salary of £83,000 a year plus extortionate expenses, rather than stand as an MP and face election in the country you supposedly wish to lead.

A hypocrite .. no more and no less

He did stand for election. In 2010 he campaigned for the Buckingham seat of the Speaker, John Bercow.

Still never let facts get in the way of a good slur.     

[Nickbat]

How anyone who lived through it can think the economy was in a mess and she sorted it out needs treatment, actually it was the opposite, negligable unemployment until she got in.

I did and I don't.

[TheBoy]

But most strikes were over trivial nonsense, and in the case of nationalised industries, cost the country billions of pounds in lost production, helping to make the likes of British Leyland a laughing stock. By the time she came to power Maggie had little choice but to crush the unions and privatise everything, just to protect the British Economy. That those companies failed simply demonstrates how damaging the unions had been 

Mrs TB is an Oxfordian, thus comes from a family where generations worked at Morris and BL (and subsequently AR, Rover and MINI).

The shop steward would send them all out on strike, almost monthly, for things like the company had bought a cheaper brand of tea bag. Ridiculous state of affairs. Poisonous.  Rover nearly got over it when they partnered with Honda, but the BMW buyout obviously put paid to that.

[cleggy]

I think this basically explains the picture (although there are a lot more than that)
 
   "The Miner's Strike of 1984 / '85 was caused by the massive pit closure programme introduced by Margaret Thatcher and her Tory government. They wanted to replace Britain's use of coal-fired power stations and industries with power derived from gas or nuclear sources. Also, Thatcher knew that the mining communities and the NUM were a very large left wing power-block who opposed her, and felt that if she could decimate them as an effective force, she would succesfully remove a potential threat to her continued leadership of the country. Thatcher brought in a Canadian buisnessman, Ian MacGregor, as her so-called 'economic advisor'. He was not a British citizen, had no understanding whatsoever of British economic history, and was certainly not impartial. Nonetheless, he oversaw a shoddy and biased 'survey' of the future economic viability of British mining, which predictably painted a bleak picture of it's ability to survive- one which was very far from the actual truth. This gave Thatcher the excuse that she needed to announce the programme of pit closures early in 1984. The sheer injustice of the situation prompted a furious response from the mining communities, and resulted in the NUM leader, Arthur Scargill, calling a nationwide miner's strike before the union membership had been balloted for strike action. This enabled the strike's critics to label it as technically illegal, although if a ballot HAD been run, the overwhelming vote would have been to strike anyway. There was particular hatred for Ian MacGregor, who had no buisness in being invited to a foreign country and serving as advisor to the Prime Minister when he wasn't even an elected British politician, and not accountable to the electorate."

Cem I think that's remarkably accurate. Sometmes you have to step outside a country to be objective, eg my view from living through it all is that she was worse that that.   How anyone who lived through it can think the economy was in a mess and she sorted it out needs treatment, actually it was the opposite, negligable unemployment until she got in.  Ask almost any respected economist (but not the loony ones she used).

As for Scargill he was massively supported by his union's members, unlike his predecessor who was an MI5 informant http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/true_spies/2351547.stm
"Former NUM chief was police informer".

Both of you are crossing a Bulldog with a Shitzu, and are full of it.