By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Commemorative T-shirts rejoicing in the moment when Baroness Thatcher dies are being sold at the annual trades union gathering in Brighton.
Yes, she was a three times Prime Minister who made decisions which affected many people in many ways, but attacking an 86 year old with serious health issues seems a bit low to me. She is still a human being, and this kind of political message is in my opinion poor. Deeply offensive.
(stands back, lights fuse and waits for bang.)
It's not what you've got; it's where you stick it.
I didn't mean to imply you were stupid, I meant to imply you seem, in my opinion, perfectly willing to ignore anything that doesn't match your political viewpoint.
0
TUC - Out of Touch? on 12:58 - Sep 12 with 1270 views
Well, here in the Valleys people used to go out at night battering sheep to death and hauling them to the community centres where they were butchered and distributed to striking families, so no we didn't starve but would have been damn hungry without resorting to that.
I guess the effects didn't reach Surrey or wherever Clive sat out the 1980s.
0
TUC - Out of Touch? on 13:19 - Sep 12 with 1243 views
I had to search to see if you made any other points, and I found the bit about the violence used by the miners. It goes without saying that whilst I can understand their desperation I, and I suspect the majority of the actual miners, don't agree with their actions. However there was violence and intimidation on both sides. The image I always call to mind when thinking of the strikes is the police baton charges.
Oh, and my I also say that I hope that your dad's mate has never managed to find another job after losing his when they shut his pit.
0
TUC - Out of Touch? on 13:20 - Sep 12 with 1240 views
Well, here in the Valleys people used to go out at night battering sheep to death and hauling them to the community centres where they were butchered and distributed to striking families, so no we didn't starve but would have been damn hungry without resorting to that.
I guess the effects didn't reach Surrey or wherever Clive sat out the 1980s.
Since you mention it, here is something strange that happened to me during the Miners' Strike.
At the beginning of the strike I was living in Swansea, so of course everyone was continually talking about the strike. During the strike I moved to a part of Sussex which at the time had the highest Tory majority in the country. Suddenly nobody was talking about the strike. That is not to say that the people in Sussex were uncaring people, or ardent Thatcherites, or even that much different to the people in Swansea. They simply had no appreciation of the significance of the strike, or any sense of the strike having relevance to their own situation. At the time it was one of the greatest shocks of my life - I had literally passed from one universe to another. In retrospect it's not that surprising when you consider that if Scargill couldn't find a way to win over a significant portion of the miners, he was hardly likely to find a way to win wider support across the country.
Air hostess clique
0
TUC - Out of Touch? on 13:36 - Sep 12 with 1197 views
I found this on a website called the Welsh Mines Forum:
"During the sixties there was virtually full employment and wages outside the mining industry were much higher therefore there was very little opposition nationally to these closures,although there were some notable local exceptions such as Cambrian , Werntarw , glyncastle in South Wales To highlight the position in the South Wales coalfield, in the Rhondda area in the earl 60s even after pits had been closed to man the so called long life pits the area was still short of over seven hundred men , miners were leaving knowing that the future was not looking so bright, but as i stated there was plenty of work in other industries for them, and in easier occupations and earning more money.. Where as in the eighties unemployment was very high and there was very little hope of getting a job if the local pit closed down, the mining industry was a last bastion in many areas whereby men could still earn a decent living , that is why there was such a great opposition to pit closures in the eighties , unlike the sixties."
You also asked "Do you think the strikes help them secure their familes future?"
Obviously no, they lost, but that didn't mean they didn't go on strike to try.
0
TUC - Out of Touch? on 14:09 - Sep 12 with 1162 views
I think restaurants who expect their waitresses and waiters to survive with the aid of tips are out of touch.It's a shame there's not much union presence in restaurants.
Kelvin will never apologise:
Wrong yet again,18stone.He's apologised today even if he's still scum.
[Post edited 1 Jan 1970 1:00]
'I'm 18 with a bullet.Got my finger on the trigger,I'm gonna pull it.."
Love,Peace and Fook Chelski!
More like 20StoneOfHoop now.
Let's face it I'm not getting any thinner.
Pass the cake and pies please.
0
TUC - Out of Touch? on 18:28 - Sep 12 with 1110 views
TUC - Out of Touch? on 14:09 - Sep 12 by 18StoneOfHoop
I think restaurants who expect their waitresses and waiters to survive with the aid of tips are out of touch.It's a shame there's not much union presence in restaurants.
Kelvin will never apologise:
Wrong yet again,18stone.He's apologised today even if he's still scum.
[Post edited 1 Jan 1970 1:00]
"It was all about picking a fight with Thatcher rather than trying to secure their families future. The offer was pretty decent from Thatcher which is why the majority voted to accept it."
It was a fight that that Thatcher and the Conservative party not only wanted but needed and they made sure it happened, The tories were much smarter than the Miners unions the TUC and the labour party. The fact that some people still believe that it was the miners that picked that fight is testimony to this
0
TUC - Out of Touch? on 19:02 - Sep 12 with 1088 views
"It was all about picking a fight with Thatcher rather than trying to secure their families future. The offer was pretty decent from Thatcher which is why the majority voted to accept it."
It was a fight that that Thatcher and the Conservative party not only wanted but needed and they made sure it happened, The tories were much smarter than the Miners unions the TUC and the labour party. The fact that some people still believe that it was the miners that picked that fight is testimony to this
Always wondered why at the time Lefties like Mao, Lenin, Castro were always lionised/feted/posters on student walls etc and yet Franco, South American and all Right-wing dictators were always considered unacceptable — when both lots were execrable b******s, blots on humanity who destroyed their people.
Thatcher will always divide people. But to win 3 successive elections is some going.
Very much like Blair. He may not be proper 'Labour', but he certainly equalled Maggie's achievements.
0
TUC - Out of Touch? on 19:03 - Sep 12 with 1088 views
"It was all about picking a fight with Thatcher rather than trying to secure their families future. The offer was pretty decent from Thatcher which is why the majority voted to accept it."
It was a fight that that Thatcher and the Conservative party not only wanted but needed and they made sure it happened, The tories were much smarter than the Miners unions the TUC and the labour party. The fact that some people still believe that it was the miners that picked that fight is testimony to this
I am not sure if it's a question of the Tories being smarter. If there is any conflict between the state and another force (be it a group of workers, the Argentinians or the IRA), then the Labour Party and the TUC will always support the state. After all, they hope to run the state when the Tories are out of office. This is more obvious today than ever before. In the 1970s TUC officials were regulars at Downing Street to mediate disputes ( "beer and sandwiches at Number Ten" in Harold Wilson's phrase). One of the reasons that the TUC was dispensed with by the British establishment was because by the end of the 1970s it could no longer control unofficial disputes.
While Thatcher fought class warfare against 'The Enemy Within', the TUC spent the entire Miners' Strike pretending it was an ordinary industrial dispute, and complaining that Thatcher wasn't following the normal rules.
Air hostess clique
0
TUC - Out of Touch? on 19:17 - Sep 12 with 1073 views
"It was all about picking a fight with Thatcher rather than trying to secure their families future. The offer was pretty decent from Thatcher which is why the majority voted to accept it."
It was a fight that that Thatcher and the Conservative party not only wanted but needed and they made sure it happened, The tories were much smarter than the Miners unions the TUC and the labour party. The fact that some people still believe that it was the miners that picked that fight is testimony to this
I agree.
The union was hell bent on a strike and the Govt was quite relaxed on the whole affair- after all -only a bloody minded, pig headed Union leader would start a COAL strike when winter had passed.
And the great Arfer Aircut ScarefaceGill - what is he doing NOW . . . Milking the union funds for as much as he can and living of the poor miners money.
PS - I remember in those days labour sang the 'Red Flag' . . . the same song Chelscum have.
I rest my shovel.
0
TUC - Out of Touch? on 19:42 - Sep 12 with 1151 views
TUC - Out of Touch? on 21:37 - Sep 11 by TearsOfaClown
What did the TUC ever do for us?
This, I think, is what's called a softball questions. The type that is REALLY easy to answer and so on.
What did the TUC ever do for us? Well, where should I start: 1. Outlawing child labour? 2. Limiting the length of the working week? 3. Guarenteeing overtime pay for hours worked over the regular schedule? 4. Worker safety rules? 5. Securing workers from unfair dismissals? 6. Whistleblower rules? 7. Sexual harrassment rules? 8. Minimum wages? 9. Free speech protections? 10. Protection to freely organize in a democratic society?
Those are the top ten that I can think of the top of my head. However, if you want to assign this question to your closest college student, I am sure they could come up with a 20 page essay that would articulate the benefits of the union movement to the regular person.
I'm not denying that the union movement seems to have become distant and out-of-touch at times, but there is not doubt that the lives of most people would be miles worse if it wasn't for the union movement.
TUC - Out of Touch? on 19:02 - Sep 12 by HammersmithR
Always wondered why at the time Lefties like Mao, Lenin, Castro were always lionised/feted/posters on student walls etc and yet Franco, South American and all Right-wing dictators were always considered unacceptable — when both lots were execrable b******s, blots on humanity who destroyed their people.
Thatcher will always divide people. But to win 3 successive elections is some going.
Very much like Blair. He may not be proper 'Labour', but he certainly equalled Maggie's achievements.
The 'Lefties', lacking their own vision of human liberation, have tended to turn abroad for inspiration (and in some sordid cases, payment).
One strange thing about Mao was that he exerted an attraction on a broad range of figures right across the political spectrum, from Nixon to Pierre Trudeau, the Prime of Canada.
But since our subject is Thatcher, I will only say that she had no such qualms about backing right-wing South American dictators.
Air hostess clique
0
TUC - Out of Touch? on 20:06 - Sep 12 with 1134 views
TUC - Out of Touch? on 19:02 - Sep 12 by HammersmithR
Always wondered why at the time Lefties like Mao, Lenin, Castro were always lionised/feted/posters on student walls etc and yet Franco, South American and all Right-wing dictators were always considered unacceptable — when both lots were execrable b******s, blots on humanity who destroyed their people.
Thatcher will always divide people. But to win 3 successive elections is some going.
Very much like Blair. He may not be proper 'Labour', but he certainly equalled Maggie's achievements.
Lumping Mao, Lenin and Castro into the same class is madness. Although all three espoused leftist ideologym, there is a vast difference between the three of them.
Moa was a manaical mass murdered, responsible for the deaths of more than 20 million people (more than the poulation of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Repoublic of Ireland together) in the name of his ideology. It was not only that he repressed a nation that made up approx one quarter of the world's population, but also that he was willing to sacrifice all in the face of his dogma, without any consideration for the impacts or any attempt to reconcile reality and ideology. Moa is clearly one of the most evil leaders in modern history, almost unparralleled (except for Stalin and Hitler) in the modern era.
Castro was/is a leftist dictator who repressed his nation (Cuba) but was never accused of mass murder. Castro was/is very practically minded and showed himself very willing to compromise ideology in the face of reality. While there is no doubt that, as a totalitarian dictator, Cator represents evil, he doesn't even approach the same class as Moa, Stalin, or Hitler.
Lenin was an theoretical ideologue who inspired a revolution but only actually led his nation for a very short period (two years, I think). While he led a pretty repressive government, there was World War I going on and a revolution, so it isn't clear what he would have been like as a leader in more normal times (both Moa and Castro led in times of "peace" as well as times of revolution). Also, he was never accused of mass murder of repression.
Just because all three represent a similiar type of ideology, doesn't mean they can be considered equivalent.
This, I think, is what's called a softball questions. The type that is REALLY easy to answer and so on.
What did the TUC ever do for us? Well, where should I start: 1. Outlawing child labour? 2. Limiting the length of the working week? 3. Guarenteeing overtime pay for hours worked over the regular schedule? 4. Worker safety rules? 5. Securing workers from unfair dismissals? 6. Whistleblower rules? 7. Sexual harrassment rules? 8. Minimum wages? 9. Free speech protections? 10. Protection to freely organize in a democratic society?
Those are the top ten that I can think of the top of my head. However, if you want to assign this question to your closest college student, I am sure they could come up with a 20 page essay that would articulate the benefits of the union movement to the regular person.
I'm not denying that the union movement seems to have become distant and out-of-touch at times, but there is not doubt that the lives of most people would be miles worse if it wasn't for the union movement.
[Post edited 1 Jan 1970 1:00]
We plow the fields, and scatter the good seed on the land; But it is fed and watered by the TUC's almighty hand: It sends the snow in winter, the warmth to swell the grain, The breezes and the sunshine, and soft refreshing rain.
Air hostess clique
0
TUC - Out of Touch? on 01:24 - Sep 13 with 1072 views
Perhaps it's worth clarifying exactly what unions are.
At a party George Bernard Shaw once asked a woman: 'Would you sleep with me for a million pounds?' and when she replied 'Yes', he then asked her if she would sleep with him for a pound. She replied 'No, what do you think I am?' He replied 'We know what you are Madam, we are merely quibbling over the price'.
The unions merely quibble over the price of exploitation. They do not try to challenge exploitation itself.
Air hostess clique
0
TUC - Out of Touch? on 08:35 - Sep 17 with 936 views
TUC - Out of Touch? on 18:52 - Sep 16 by TacticalR
Perhaps it's worth clarifying exactly what unions are.
At a party George Bernard Shaw once asked a woman: 'Would you sleep with me for a million pounds?' and when she replied 'Yes', he then asked her if she would sleep with him for a pound. She replied 'No, what do you think I am?' He replied 'We know what you are Madam, we are merely quibbling over the price'.
The unions merely quibble over the price of exploitation. They do not try to challenge exploitation itself.
That is an amusing story but completely irrelevant.
Unions were at the forefront every stage of the development of democracy. Without the unions only rich men would be able to vote. Without unions, there would be no representative democracy and workers would still work at the whim of unscrupulous robber barons.
There may be an argument to be made that they are no longer relevant given that many worker rights and democratic values are now part of the legal code. I don't buy it myself, but I accept that their importance is less now than it was in previous generations. But having said that, there is no question whatsoever of the importance of the unions in improving the lives of the overwhelming portion of the population.
Even private sector unions demand more money, that's what staff side representation should do to keep up with inflation. I'm not at all sure what you mean by "bound by law to pay them"? private companies are just as bound by law to pay their workers what their contract says they should be paid.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
