Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Cameron launches "Big Society"

Edie said:
Well either they were or they weren't. Surely there's some kind of independent economic analysis that could answer that.
Click to expand...

They were and there is. Try google, I can't be arsed for you.

Edie said:
And why the fuck would the tories close down a profitable industry? What's the explanation for that? :confused:
Click to expand...

ideology. the miner's needed to be smashed so that the neo-liberal economy could be developed - one where profits could be increased without a corresponding demand from those producing wealth/increasing their productivity for a fairer cut. the miner's union represented the strongest section of the organised working class so the tories stockpiled coal, massively increased coppers wages (to buy them off completely) and organised to smash that union. the last 20 odd years has shown that even with this 'victory' over the organised working class and resulting drive to maximise profits the rate of overall profit has still remained low - the idealogues were wrong in thinking they had an easy solution (even with the fantasy 'wealth' gained from gambling on the stock market). meanwhile those communities still suffer the very real consequences of idiotic decisions made - a generation of people without the skills, training or jobs to go to. all those people get is demonisation from idiots like you.
 
Streathamite said:
no I'm not, actually, and neither is my dad, and nor were my grandad and great-uncles ('umble proles one an' all).
You, on the other hand, and on the evidence of this thread, certainly are, regardless of class.
And who on earth brought class into it?
Click to expand...

Class is about everything.
 
Edie said:
Fuck off dennis, you don't know shit about me. Most people can do most things, don't believe the left wing hype about how you have to have a degree to do loads of jobs.
Click to expand...

And if there's only one job vacancy per five people on the unemployment register?
 
frogwoman said:
So if you're unemployed you should just get a job? Just like that eh? Wow! Why didnt anyone tell me?
Click to expand...

what you clearly need is 'a bit of training'

edie's organising this after the 'bring and buy' if you are interested... she's an expert in such matter you know?
 
dennisr said:
what you clearly need is 'a bit of training'

edie's organising this after the 'bring and buy' if you are interested... she's an expert in such matter you know?
Click to expand...
I'll bring and buy your arse mate. You make me laugh though dennis, I like you.
 
Edie said:
Well either they were or they weren't. Surely there's some kind of independent economic analysis that could answer that.

And why the fuck would the tories close down a profitable industry? What's the explanation for that? :confused:
Click to expand...

Two-fold.
1) Thatcher (via her advisers such as Airey Neave, Sir Keith Joseph, Nicholas Ridley and other hard-righters) sought to change the basis of the British economy by rolling back industrial production and making the economy "service-based". This was ideological: A conversion from production of goods to services meant being able to re-write the rules of "industrial relations".
2) Breaking the NUM, even at the cost of a profitable industry, was a fantasy of the Tory right from the early 70s onwards, when they were shown to be a weak and incompetent government by the NUM. The NUM being the most powerful trade union in the UK meant that once broken, the Tories could pick off the other unions one by one, as they did.
 
ViolentPanda said:
Two-fold.
1) Thatcher (via her advisers such as Airey Neave, Sir Keith Joseph, Nicholas Ridley and other hard-righters) sought to change the basis of the British economy by rolling back industrial production and making the economy "service-based". This was ideological: A conversion from production of goods to services meant being able to re-write the rules of "industrial relations".
2) Breaking the NUM, even at the cost of a profitable industry, was a fantasy of the Tory right from the early 70s onwards, when they were shown to be a weak and incompetent government by the NUM. The NUM being the most powerful trade union in the UK meant that once broken, the Tories could pick off the other unions one by one, as they did.
Click to expand...
So basically they were prepared to sacrifice all that profit cos they felt so threatened by the unions? What did they think the unions would do? Fund labour into power indefinetely? But that wasn't happening- the tories had just won. What were they scared of to loose all that (potential) money? At that stage did the unions look they might be seriously going to start a revolution or major unrest?
 
Edie said:
Get to fuck, economic situation.
Click to expand...

Haha!

If only it would though.
I am not sure why you are so adamant DotC must be able to find work, whereas you say you're happy to pay for money towards people 'unable' to. Are all the unemployed stupid or lazy? There aren't more people chasing jobs than jobs available, do you actually realise that is the case?
Oh and I never said burden, ViolentPanda used to term to describe how the older generation see claiming benefits they feel they can do without. Anyone that needs help, go ahead and claim cos that's what it's there for. But don't claim cos you think you've paid into some saving account that means the money is rightfully yours. I hope never to claim, and the money I pay in goes to someone who is more unlucky (ill or just can't find work). But if I do get poorly, like if my husband's arthritis gets so bad he can't work and for whatever reason I can't either, then I'd claim.
Click to expand...

But you applauded them not 'wanting to be a burden'.
By the time we're old, I doubt we'll be able to claim for anything because it won't exist by then - mainly down to people like your's attitude.
 
dennisr said:
what you clearly need is 'a bit of training'
Click to expand...

:)

I have "training", skills and qualifications coming out of my ears, as do a significant minority 9at the very least) of those currently listed as unemployed). Unfortunately, in my case, employers don't want to employ someone who has to regularly take morphine for pain control, and who can only manage to be fully compos mentis for about a third of the day, a couple of hours here, a couple of hours there. :)
 
Post ww1 and post ww2

General Strikes, which means every fucker downing tools in every industry. And these weren't soft handed office workers but men trained and tried in the hell of war- promised homes for heroes that they then had to fight thier own government to get. Trade unionism is a compromise against revolution. And the ruling classes hate it, cos there is more of us than there are of them.
 
Edie said:
So basically they were prepared to sacrifice all that profit cos they felt so threatened by the unions?
Click to expand...
Yes.
And by what the unions represented. Not just as membership organisations, but as expressions of class solidarity.
What did they think the unions would do? Fund labour into power indefinetely? But that wasn't happening- the tories had just won.
Click to expand...
You need to look at the political context of the times. The 1970s saw a succession of governments buffeted by global economic shocks (the US ending dollar to gold convertibility, the two OPEC oil-shocks for example). We also had a hard-right who were happily plotting a right-wing military coup if governance went too far left.
What were they scared of to loose all that (potential) money?
Click to expand...
They were scared of a strong and organised labour force that wouldn't tolerate being blamed for the mistakes of politicians.
At that stage did the unions look they might be seriously going to start a revolution or major unrest?
Click to expand...
Not at all. There was never a threat beyond unions sticking up for the rights of workers.
 
Edie said:
Class is about everything.
Click to expand...
oh gawd...:facepalm:
<deep, weary, sigh>
yes, edie, everything is about class - to descramble your English yet again - but only when used in its' proper context, as a tool for analysing British society, in the round, past and present, for looking at the complex weave of causal factors, and social and economic relationships, and the consequences springing from that - in other words, to help explain where we are today, as a whole society.
as a cheap, meaningless get-out clause for when I've pulled you up for speaking yet more utter bollocks, then no, class isn't that relevant.
Unless you think you're thick because you're working class.
Which you aren't.
You're just thick, full stop.
 
DotCommunist said:
Post ww1 and post ww2

General Strikes, which means every fucker downing tools in every industry. And these weren't soft handed office workers but men trained and tried in the hell of war- promised homes for heroes that they then had to fight thier own government to get.
Click to expand...
In fact "the establishment" were so worried about general strikes that they had an alternative infrastructure set up from about 1919 in case of one, as well as creating alternative management structures.
Trade unionism is a compromise against revolution. And the ruling classes hate it, cos there is more of us than there are of them.
Click to expand...
And they live in fear of the day that a critical mass of people realise that they parasitise us, not us them.
 
Hi VP. Just reading your comments on the miners etc.. All stuff I sort of know already but interesting to hear your POV.
 
Jobs are hard to come by and hard to keep.

If I ever am made redundant again, I may try my hand again at being self employed, but I need to be quite successful, more than I was last time.
 
ViolentPanda said:
:)

I have "training", skills and qualifications coming out of my ears, as do a significant minority 9at the very least) of those currently listed as unemployed). Unfortunately, in my case, employers don't want to employ someone who has to regularly take morphine for pain control, and who can only manage to be fully compos mentis for about a third of the day, a couple of hours here, a couple of hours there. :)
Click to expand...

As I have noticed in my similar situation, it's amazing how few potential employers are interested in somebody who can work for around 16 hours a week, but can't tell until the last moment which 16 hours they will be.
 
DotCommunist said:
the destruction of mining was 100% ideological and anyone who claims otherwise is a fool or a liar.
Click to expand...

Not so. At least IMO.

There was rather a large slice of direct personal financial motivation too. Dennis Thatcher was from the oil industry, a lot of Tory high ups had a financial involvement in the oil industry, and also the US coal industry. Any profit made by British mines didn't go to them, it went to benefit the rest of us.

Never assume that what politicians claim they are doing is what they are actually trying to do, especially where money is concerned. Always follow the trail of the filthy lucre before ascribing motives to them. It's more often about what they can stuff in their pockets, or what they can deliver to their party's backers, than it is about ideology.
 
Edie said:
Well either they were or they weren't. Surely there's some kind of independent economic analysis that could answer that.
Click to expand...

It isn't that simple. They were a nationalised industry. They weren't set up to maximise profit for the NCB, they were set up to provide British industry with cheap and reliable sources of coal and coke. So you have to estimate things like productivity of pits per pound spent and compare that with other coal industries. Even then you end up with different results depending on which approach to estimating profitability you use. It will always be open to argument.

However it's pretty clear that on an open market many of the pits that were closed would have been profitable. It's also clear that many others were useful in that by running at a small loss they were able to ensure other manufacturing industry could make larger profits.

Edie said:
And why the fuck would the tories close down a profitable industry? What's the explanation for that? :confused:
Click to expand...

Because they didn't get the profits and nor did their main financial backers. On a purely personal basis Thatcher's government had far more financial interest in the oil industry being profitable, and the US coal inductry, than in the NCB being successful.
 
ericjarvis said:
Not so. At least IMO.

There was rather a large slice of direct personal financial motivation too. Dennis Thatcher was from the oil industry, a lot of Tory high ups had a financial involvement in the oil industry, and also the US coal industry. Any profit made by British mines didn't go to them, it went to benefit the rest of us.
Click to expand...
A certain now-dead Tory chain-smoker was rumoured to have most of his moulah invested in oil in the 70s, but to have switched to Chilean and Australian coal around '82-83.
Never assume that what politicians claim they are doing is what they are actually trying to do, especially where money is concerned. Always follow the trail of the filthy lucre before ascribing motives to them. It's more often about what they can stuff in their pockets, or what they can deliver to their party's backers, than it is about ideology.
Click to expand...
Many of them are ideologues, but they're ideologues who'd sell their infant children to paedophiles if the price was right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Humberto
David Cameron is a walking disaster. And war criminal.
Replies
12
Views
686
Mation
Mation
R
Postal vote issues look like being a big deal
Replies
21
Views
802
rasputin
R
Pickman's model
david cameron's time is up again
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
190
Views
9K
brogdale
brogdale
A380
Superman launches ‘Anti Feminist’ Children and Family Party.
2
Replies
55
Views
2K
Dogsauce
Dogsauce
platinumsage
Big UK infrastructure project completion bingo
Replies
21
Views
949
platinumsage
platinumsage
Back
Top Bottom