The Politics Thread

[Hoboh]

Oh dear, "Great Miners" strike? The same people who put me on short time once due to their selfish pursuit of money? They got what they deserved by letting political Morons run the NUM,
No Queen!!!! you mean President Brown?
Never had you down for a Commie William

The miners strike was not about money - it was resistance to closures of pits that were not 'economic'. It was an attempt to defend mining communities.

The strike was badly led from the start by Scargill, who fell into Thatcher's trap. Peter Heathfield was not a 'political moron' - he was a trade unionist of genuine principle. Scargill was politically driven and itching for a fight. In this he was a mirror image of Thatcher, who had prepared the territory very well, with massive coal stocks and the provocation launched in spring. Scargill led the miners out on strike without a strike ballot, and this hung like an albatross round his neck, gave the excuse for the majority of notts miners to scab, and later, with government support to found the UDM as a rival 'union'. It did them little good - the Tories closed down most of the notts coalfield within a decade.

I'm not a 'Commie'. This movement effectively disappeared more than ten years ago. I was a member of the Young Communist League when i was fifteen. I left after a few months because i thought they were too moderate.

The strike against Ted Heaths Government (which incidently set the tone for Maggie's miners bashing) was, the second big strike over the closeure of about a third of the most unecconomical pits that thanks to the actions of the NUM resulted in the loss of the lot.
Look back to union involement in car manufacturing, steel mills etc and whats left now of these industries. When people with motives other than looking after the workers interests took power in top union jobs, they brought down these industries with out too much help from other sources.
There is a place for unions in todays world, just not the kind that hold a gun to peoples heads for unreasonable or outrageous demands as the Greeks are now finding out all that will end in big tears for them and the EU of which some would rather us be more deeply entrenched in. Portugal next apprently.

[Hoboh]

Bish, the Tory idea of "big society" is ....you can do whatever you like as long as you have the WONGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!

And the Labour one is;

We'll have all your wongaaaaaaa and spend it how we please even if you don't like it!!!

[BWFC_Insane]

I remember Yorkshire miners shaking collection buckets in Bolton town centre in 1984. I remember wondering where they were when the cotton industry disappeared, putting half of my aunts and uncles out of work. Or, for that matter, where they were during the earlier demise of the Lancashire coalfield. Judging by my recent work on our family tree that demise accounted for the other half of the Family Zulu's employment prospects!

I reckon both the Lancashire cotton industry and the UK coal industry were, and are, uneconomic - and money talks. Why should mining communities be defended anyway? They are either economically viable or they're not. The same applies to shipbuilding, steelmaking, papermaking (my specialist subject!) and a host of other industries in the UK sadly.

It's not about left-wing or right-wing politics, however much some people on both sides of the political debate would like it to be so.

Fair enough.

I guess then, that you're in favour of mass immigration into the UK to provide the cheapest possible workforce for businesses in this country.

After all "money talks"!!!!!

[Hoboh]

I remember Yorkshire miners shaking collection buckets in Bolton town centre in 1984. I remember wondering where they were when the cotton industry disappeared, putting half of my aunts and uncles out of work. Or, for that matter, where they were during the earlier demise of the Lancashire coalfield. Judging by my recent work on our family tree that demise accounted for the other half of the Family Zulu's employment prospects!

I reckon both the Lancashire cotton industry and the UK coal industry were, and are, uneconomic - and money talks. Why should mining communities be defended anyway? They are either economically viable or they're not. The same applies to shipbuilding, steelmaking, papermaking (my specialist subject!) and a host of other industries in the UK sadly.

It's not about left-wing or right-wing politics, however much some people on both sides of the political debate would like it to be so.

Fair enough.

I guess then, that you're in favour of mass immigration into the UK to provide the cheapest possible workforce for businesses in this country.

After all "money talks"!!!!!

You don't learn do you?

What about this parental leave larky? its costing a fortune to replace people having 4 extra weeks off a year, I know I've got to get cover in!
(Pushed for by unions and Silly Socialists no doubt championed by Harriet!)

[Zulus Thousand of em]

I remember Yorkshire miners shaking collection buckets in Bolton town centre in 1984. I remember wondering where they were when the cotton industry disappeared, putting half of my aunts and uncles out of work. Or, for that matter, where they were during the earlier demise of the Lancashire coalfield. Judging by my recent work on our family tree that demise accounted for the other half of the Family Zulu's employment prospects!

I reckon both the Lancashire cotton industry and the UK coal industry were, and are, uneconomic - and money talks. Why should mining communities be defended anyway? They are either economically viable or they're not. The same applies to shipbuilding, steelmaking, papermaking (my specialist subject!) and a host of other industries in the UK sadly.

It's not about left-wing or right-wing politics, however much some people on both sides of the political debate would like it to be so.

Fair enough.

I guess then, that you're in favour of mass immigration into the UK to provide the cheapest possible workforce for businesses in this country.

After all "money talks"!!!!!

Well, that's a bit of leap from what I said to your "guess". But don't let me stop you.

I'm not in favour of artificially shoring up uneconomical industries though.

[Verbal]

The Ghost of Conservative Future?

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co ... 62318.html

[Worthy4England]

The Ghost of Conservative Future?

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co ... 62318.html

And Conservative past.

We've been there before.

[Little Green Man]

The Ghost of Conservative Future?

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co ... 62318.html

Nice people to do business with.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

By the way - over the last few pages I have asked you several questions - none of which you have offered an answer to..

1. many pages back you asked me what it would take for me to vote Tory - I answered at length and asked you what would it take for you to vote Labour.

2. you seem very keen on Dave's "Big Society" - and I asked you to spell out what (in concrete terms) that actually means...

3. you trumpeted Dave's National Civic Service for teenagers (or something similarn - the title escapes me) - I asked you what that was about...

4. I asked you how in specific and noticeable ways the state would be any smaller under David Cameron (especially given that his "hands off" approach to running schools includes spelling out what reading-scheme is best and his hands-off approach to running local health services includes specifying that budgets will always prioritize the availabilty of all cancer drugs at all times to all-comers.)

Apologies, my use of the site is sporadic and I try not answer questions unless I have time to do so satisfactorily. For example, William has asked me an interesting question on two separate occasions about the role 'selfishness' plays in my outlook on life, and I haven't taken the time to do that question justice.

Anyway...

1. Like you, I am pretty unlikely to change the way I vote. It's not impossible though - had I been the age I am now in 1997, I may well have been seduced by Blair and his revolution. Abandoning Clause 4 and talk of being relaxed about people being rich are things that would have made me think hard, given the state of the Conservatives then. I'm really not a blue-blooded tribalist and if the Labour party in the future convinced me that it would spend within the country's means, be more interested in absolute than relative poverty and would deal with our constitutional traditions more gently and with more consultation than this government has, I would consider it. It would also need not to be a one man show, because I honestly believe that there has been an amazing paucity of talent in Labour's team since 1997. Straw, Hoon, Blears, Darling, Beckett, Harman, Smith, Kelly, Prescott, Faulkner, Jowell, Hewitt, Browne, Byers, Blunkett, Reid... these names of the people who have been running the show are just off the top of my head and I don't rate any of them. Who have I rated over the years? David Miliband, Charles Clarke, Alan Milburn, Andy Burnham... the list is not very long.

2. DC's speeches and essays are out there to be read... I think I would fail, as he has, to condense it into much that is concrete. I tried to direct you to research the Conservative proposal for a National Citizens Service, something that has been talked about since 2007, but instead of looking into it you asked me to describe it to you, as if I'm some kind of party mouthpiece!

On Saturday, I attended a charity ball in St Thomas's church in Balham (South London). One of the main causes being supported was the 'Weir Link' and I was impressed by its value as a community project http://www.theweirlink.org/ . Now, if the Big Society is nothing more than 'encouraging' people to get involved in this sort of organisation, and a recognition that these organisations are often better than the state at dealing with social problems, then it's still worthwhile, in my view.

3. See 2 - you're a very internet savvy person, and the information is out there. If you have 12 minutes, Cameron describes the program and its history here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kI8Rn7fw09c

4. It's important that we get away from the spend spend spend/legislate legislate legislate mentality that has so blighted us in the last 13 years. I believe a government under DC would do that.

[TANGODANCER]

Here is a list of Prime Ministers (and parties) during my lifetime.

Neville Chamberlain (National Government/Conservative)1937-40

Winston Churchill (Wartime Coalition and Conservative)1940-5 and 1951-5

Clement Attlee (Labour)1945-51

Anthony Eden (Conservative)1955-7

Harold Macmillan (Conservative)1957-63

Alec Douglas-Home (Conservative)1963/4

Harold Wilson (Labour)1964-70 and 1974-6

Edward Heath (Conservative)1970-4

James Callaghan (Labour)1976-9

Margaret Thatcher (Conservative)1979-90

John Major (Conservative)1990-7

Tony Blair (Labour)1997-2007

Gordon Brown (Labour)2007-present

You can discount the ones in red as being affected by World War II and its aftermath. Who, since then, has filled us with confidence on the future of our country?

[thebish]

ok - thanks - on 2 and 3 I will look at your links...

as for 1. how long is your list of Dave's teamsters that you "rate"? (and does it include the man who would be chancellor?)

as for 4. despite having been asked many times - except for saving on paperclips (the ubiquitous cutting waste argument) I haven't heard anything at all concrete about what parts of government Cameron will cut if government is to be smaller - have you?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

ok - thanks - on 2 and 3 I will look at your links...

as for 1. how long is your list of Dave's teamsters that you "rate"? (and does it include the man who would be chancellor?)

as for 4. despite having been asked many times - except for saving on paperclips (the ubiquitous cutting waste argument) I haven't heard anything at all concrete about what parts of government Cameron will cut if government is to be smaller - have you?

I actually rate quite a few, seeing as you ask... Hague, Clarke, Herbet, Gove, Grieve, May, Willetts, Maude, Johnson, Redwood and a few more...

Notable absentees from that list include, I'm afraid, Osborne and Grayling.

And no, Cameron like the others, has declined suicidal specificity (apart from small issues like the cost of Westminster itself).

[thebish]

ok - thanks - on 2 and 3 I will look at your links...

as for 1. how long is your list of Dave's teamsters that you "rate"? (and does it include the man who would be chancellor?)

as for 4. despite having been asked many times - except for saving on paperclips (the ubiquitous cutting waste argument) I haven't heard anything at all concrete about what parts of government Cameron will cut if government is to be smaller - have you?

I actually rate quite a few, seeing as you ask... Hague, Clarke, Herbet, Gove, Grieve, May, Willetts, Maude, Johnson, Redwood and a few more...

Notable absentees from that list include, I'm afraid, Osborne and Grayling.

And no, Cameron like the others, has declined suicidal specificity (apart from small issues like the cost of Westminster itself).

So - you don't rate the shadow Home Secretary (which, I guess we could get away with) - and you don't rate the Shadow Chancellor (at a time when every party says the economy is of prime importance)?

(also - did you really include Redwood in that mix - or are my eyes deceiving me?)

whenever I need a chuckle - I turn to John Redwood...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIwBvjoLyZc

[Worthy4England]

4. It's important that we get away from the spend spend spend/legislate legislate legislate mentality that has so blighted us in the last 13 years. I believe a government under DC would do that.

Would you have blighted the banking industry by legislating more?

Until 2009 mid-crash, our budget deficit was lower than it had been between 1991 and 1997...remind me how that fits into spend, spend, spend...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

So - you don't rate the shadow Home Secretary (which, I guess we could get away with) - and you don't rate the Shadow Chancellor (at a time when every party says the economy is of prime importance)?

(also - did you really include Redwood in that mix - or are my eyes deceiving me?)

whenever I need a chuckle - I turn to John Redwood...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIwBvjoLyZc

Well, I think Osborne's Conservative instincts are the right ones. I think the pledge not to raise NICs is the right one. My problem is that he's just very unlikable and doesn't carry people with him even when he's talking sense. However, I do believe he's got the right people around him to make up for his own failings, and I certainly don't see him as being any less desirable than Darling or Cable.

Grayling is a puzzle to me. Just not up to it. (This is even though I happen to agree with him on the vexed question of old couples running B&Bs....)

That was obviously a disastrous moment for Redwood, but I do enjoy his sober right wing commentary. Anyway, at ease Bish... he's nowhere near the shadow cabinet these days.

[thebish]

So - you don't rate the shadow Home Secretary (which, I guess we could get away with) - and you don't rate the Shadow Chancellor (at a time when every party says the economy is of prime importance)?

(also - did you really include Redwood in that mix - or are my eyes deceiving me?)

whenever I need a chuckle - I turn to John Redwood...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIwBvjoLyZc

Well, I think Osborne's Conservative instincts are the right ones. I think the pledge not to raise NICs is the right one. My problem is that he's just very unlikable and doesn't carry people with him even when he's talking sense. However, I do believe he's got the right people around him to make up for his own failings, and I certainly don't see him as being any less desirable than Darling or Cable.

Grayling is a puzzle to me. Just not up to it. (This is even though I happen to agree with him on the vexed question of old couples running B&Bs....)

That was obviously a disastrous moment for Redwood, but I do enjoy his sober right wing commentary. Anyway, at ease Bish... he's nowhere near the shadow cabinet these days.

hmmm - but you un-nerve me by including him in a list of Dave's teamsters that you admire! It made me wonder if a comeback was being planned...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

4. It's important that we get away from the spend spend spend/legislate legislate legislate mentality that has so blighted us in the last 13 years. I believe a government under DC would do that.

Would you have blighted the banking industry by legislating more?

Until 2009 mid-crash, our budget deficit was lower than it had been between 1991 and 1997...remind me how that fits into spend, spend, spend...

I was talking more about criminal justice legislation.

It's clear that more banking regulation would have been desirable - I think everyone has learnt the lesson there. And even then it is questionable how much good we'd have done if we'd regulated and the rest of the world hadn't.

1997-2009 were supposed to be the boom years, unlike 1991-1997. Surely there's something wrong if you have such strong, sustained growth and yet you're still addicted to overspending?

It's also a question of attitude - all of this government's boasts have been in terms of £s spent.

[thebish]

4. It's important that we get away from the spend spend spend/legislate legislate legislate mentality that has so blighted us in the last 13 years. I believe a government under DC would do that.

Would you have blighted the banking industry by legislating more?

Until 2009 mid-crash, our budget deficit was lower than it had been between 1991 and 1997...remind me how that fits into spend, spend, spend...

I was talking more about criminal justice legislation.

It's clear that more banking regulation would have been desirable - I think everyone has learnt the lesson there. And even then it is questionable how much good we'd have done if we'd regulated and the rest of the world hadn't.

1997-2009 were supposed to be the boom years, unlike 1991-1997. Surely there's something wrong if you have such strong, sustained growth and yet you're still addicted to overspending?

It's also a question of attitude - all of this government's boasts have been in terms of £s spent.

not so... that's a preposterous claim...

The Good Friday Agreement
Devolution in scotland and wales (and now NI)
International leadership on solutions to the world credit crisis
International leadership with europe on Climate Change
Restoring city-wide government to London
the equality and human rights commission
scrapping section 28
introducing civil partnerships
the giving of authority to the BofE for seting interest rates (summat the tories explicitly denounced time and time again)


none of these things are boasted about primarily because of money spent.

but there is much to be proud of in terms of choices made with money too...

the national minimum wage (the tories fought tooth and nail against this and said it would destroy the economy - will they now scrap it?)
over 2000 surestart centres (again - consistently opposed by the tories - will they now close them?)
overseas aid budget more than doubled
Written off up to 100 per cent of debt owed by poorest countries.
nursery education now at 3yrs

(just to scratch the surface)

[Worthy4England]

4. It's important that we get away from the spend spend spend/legislate legislate legislate mentality that has so blighted us in the last 13 years. I believe a government under DC would do that.

Would you have blighted the banking industry by legislating more?

Until 2009 mid-crash, our budget deficit was lower than it had been between 1991 and 1997...remind me how that fits into spend, spend, spend...

I was talking more about criminal justice legislation.

It's clear that more banking regulation would have been desirable - I think everyone has learnt the lesson there. And even then it is questionable how much good we'd have done if we'd regulated and the rest of the world hadn't.

1997-2009 were supposed to be the boom years, unlike 1991-1997. Surely there's something wrong if you have such strong, sustained growth and yet you're still addicted to overspending?

It's also a question of attitude - all of this government's boasts have been in terms of £s spent.

I'd have thought as a long term employment option, plenty of criminal justice legislation would have been good for business for you?

Why were 1991-1997 not "boom" years? Let me help a little - the giveaway budget to win the 1992 general election had to be recouped in 1992/1993 which is one of the things that caused us to move away from boom - that changed our borrowing position from -17Bn to -50Bn by 1993. The level of boom was unsustainable anyhow. The insistence to enter the ERM withe interest rates parked at 12-15% and inflation @ 3 times Germany's was always going to be a problem (even that man in a grey suit Alan Walters said so - although even had interest rates been at 2% and inflation at 1/2 of Germany's he'd have probably still said it was half baked). All of these activities, none of which the Government had to do, were directly related to the problem.

You keep bandying about this "overspending" mantra, without giving us any clue as to what you mean by it? What indicators are you using to show that spending hasn't generally been in line with growth, other than we had to prop us the nation's banking infrastructure - the Sun's "Cor look 'Ow much the Civil Service spends on paper clips" headline? Surely in periods of growth, you spend more - doing those things you couldn't when times were tight - and save more to feather the nest for when times aren't so good?

[CAPSLOCK]

The Good Friday Agreement
Devolution in scotland and wales (and now NI)
International leadership on solutions to the world credit crisis
International leadership with europe on Climate Change
Restoring city-wide government to London
the equality and human rights commission
scrapping section 28
introducing civil partnerships
the giving of authority to the BofE for seting interest rates (summat the tories explicitly denounced time and time again)

Cheers for reminding me why not to vote Labour