This is the first year since Boris took office that fares have not risen above inflation – he still claims that rises are a 'freeze' though. [url=http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/exclusive-boris-johnson-unveils-london-underground-and-bus-fares-freeze-8979229.htmlStory[/url

And in the last couple of years, the electronic boards at bus stops that used to tell you when the next bus was due have been removed. If you want to know that information now, then you can text a number that's advertised at all stops with a number of the stop itself. In other words, this information now costs you money where it was previously part of the service.

Imagine if that happened at railway stations or airports, and arrival and departure boards were removed and you had to pay extra to find out the information.

A couple of things - Scargill called the strike without the correct mandate to do so. That action suggested either a lack of confidence in the outcome or an agenda beyond the best interests of the members.

The strike of 1972 resulted in a state of emergency, the strike of 1974 brought the government down. Scargill had been a very vocal opponent of the Thatcher government well before the strike of 84-85, especially after McGregor was appointed. It would be naive to think Scargill didn't have any political agenda when he called the strike. His ego/self interest has been exposed since with the issues around the flat in the Barbican.

I cannot see any difference conceptually between me lobbying (on something I have a vested interest in) and some "vested interest" (a meaningless, emotive term in this context). Any issue you may have will arise from low-calibre MPs not lobbyists.

The miners effectively brought Heath's government down. They thought they could do the same with Thatcher. IMO, people like Scargill used the membership for their own ends. He did not bother with a ballot and quite a large part of the workforce did not take much persuading to go back in. All the union leadership did was create great personal hardship for its members. To say the strike was not at all politically motivated is NONESENSE. Scargill was aware of the Coal Board / governments plans just as most people in affected areas were. I was not in a mining community but was aware that local power stations had been stockpiling coal for some time. The strike was entirely political - the government was prepared and Scargill took the bait. He knew exactly what he was doing but due to his arrogance and contempt for his membership he lost as did his membership. They lost their jobs more quickly and more to the point suffered a long, hard strike.

Governments lie on lots of strategic issues. They are elected to make decisions for the benefit of "the country". If they felt annihilitating union extremism / strikes (which most people were sick and tired of) was of benefit (which it clearly was) then I have no problem with them lying. It was a matter of"war" (and certainly Scargill thought it was).

The banking industry is irrelevant to the point in issue / thread title. The fact that banks' management and regulation thereof was incompetent was not in anyway an assualt on governments. If countries like ours are content to host the headquarters of huge global banks that are simply too big for our economy that comes down to political failure.

This [url=http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/24345/thank-scargill-helping-thatcher-break-minersarticle[/url should be essential reading for all those whose memories of Scargill are a tad clouded.

You're just spouting the tory mantra when you say the miners brought Heaths government down. The miners at the time, were poorly paid and struck simply for a wage rise. Most of the country agreed and in the ensuing election voted out the Heath government. Had Ted Heath listened to some of his own supporters, he could have settled fairly with the miners and they would have gone back to work.

Looks like your memory is the one that's a tad clouded. There were as many swivelled eyed loons in the tory party back then as there are today and Thatcher was chief amongst them. Did Scargill ask for 20 pits to be closed, or did the nutters running the country at the time decide the enemy within needed eradicating?

Scargill may have been wrong in the way he prosecuted the strike but he was certainly right about the hidden agenda and what would be the long term outcome.

What don't you understand about the killing of him was wrong?
They were justifiably given life sentences for their actions.

Which were reduced to 8 years when the conviction for murder was replaced with one for manslaughter.

And?



No it didn't. The government lost an election. Was industrial unrest and how they failed to deal with it a factor in their defeat? Probably so but had they been seen as in the right they would have won another mandate to govern which they didn't.

The electorate via the democratic process of an election "brought down" that government.

It is no different to Labour having its credibility dented because the 2008 crash happened on their watch and going on to lose the election in 2010. It was a contributory factor in their defeat but only a nutter would suggest they were "brought down" by the bankers.

Governments are judged by the electorate on how they deal with whatever crisis they face and in both 1974 and 2008 the electorate decided they didn't deal with the crisis they faced well enough to win another term.

The phrase "brought down" is pure hyperbole.



I am sure many of the bankers that caused the 2008 crash have political views far to the right of even the last Labour government. Does that make then guilty of acting politically as well as incompetently (and I mean in general not just over the crash)?

Scargill was a political activist that is a world away from the actions of the incompetent bankers. His whole career has been about industrial and political agitation both inside the NUM and the wider trades union movement. His tirade against McGregor was but one example. There were no bankers with anything like the same political agenda.

We must agree to differ on what brought the Heath government down - union action destroyed Heath's government as it did Callaghan's 5 years later.

The difference is pretty obvious the TUC wanted a change of government - Jones/Scanlon/Gormley knew if they could get Heath out and Wilson in they could right their own pay check - and so it proved. It was in their interest to prolong the strike for political change. Even you can't compare that to actions of a number of idiot bankers

To suggest a freeze when figures clearly show that some haven't is utter nonsense, no matter how you choose to say it's inline with something else like inflation.

I went back to London in 2011 because my mum had a stroke. I though how brilliant it was to see these boards. So I'm guessing taking them down is part of the cost cutting that "allows" the alleged freeze. ie annoying. I noticed there were a load more buses and transport seemed a lot better than it was for 40 years before. Most of that would be thanks to "Red" Ken, not Boris. But on my trip back this Sept/Oct I did see all these bikes called Boris Bikes. They were even on my estate where my mum and dad still live. I couldn't believe it. That's a handy option.

I am so impressed by that Oyster Card system and have it here, knowing that when I go back, I just need to add a few quid to it. Sydney is only now trying to catch up with other first world cities.

The bankers were anything other than "incompetent" or "idiots". They may not have been motivated by politics but they certainly were motivated by greed, devising ever more complicated financial "instruments" that even their peers didn't understand. They engaged on a systematic programme of fraud, whether that be by fixing interest rates or camouflaging toxic "assets" in order to reap a profit. That is what unfettered capitalism encourages and when it all goes wrong, it is the state that has to pick up the pieces. Privatise the profit, socialise the debt - a cycle that will continue unless radical changes are made.

I agree with the first part but the second part I don't - the world has tried socialising the profit and it didn't work. Without the incentive of profit countries struggle to generate wealth. China has only seen an economic boom since it introduced a significant element of capitalism.

The banking crisis was unique - you had a group of people who could act with impunity - they knew whatever happened nobody was going to let them go bust. That is not the case for virtually every other business. In the socialist model if the industry generated deficits who picks up the bill?

Capitalism is not perfect but what is the alternative?

The three young children killed scavenging for coal to warm their parents freezing homes.

We still remember.

Did you vent your anger on Scargill?

Spare us the crocodile tears.

It is a fact that striking miners continued to receive their full allocation of free coal/anthracite beans throughout the strike. All of which was delivered in bulk through picket lines with the full co-operation of the area headquarters at Barnsley, before being delivered locally by the usual contracted coalmen!

And in my local pub, several times Union Reps came in and tried in vain to get striking miners to join in the picketing. Their lack of response was down to most of them signing up with agencies and taking whatever part/full time work there was going. In fact, more than a few never went back underground at all.

Solidarity my Comrade!

No.
Why should I do that when he was telling the truth?

Quote ="WIZEB"No. Why should I do that when he was telling the truth?'" ,Cos he called a strike without a ballot and caused the hardship endured by strikers families. Many were always going to lose their jobs so it would have been better for families to have had time to plan for a new future whilst working than to endure hardship. If you thought the NUM of Scargill amd Mad Mick was the way to go, under free movement you could go to France: www.cityam.com/article/138905909 ... g-tragedy# Au revoir.

Quote ="WIZEB"No. Why should I do that when he was telling the truth?'" ,Cos he called a strike without a ballot and caused the hardship endured by strikers families. Many were always going to lose their jobs so it would have been better for families to have had time to plan for a new future whilst working than to endure hardship. If you thought the NUM of Scargill amd Mad Mick was the way to go, under free movement you could go to France: www.cityam.com/article/138905909 ... g-tragedy# Au revoir.

Quote ="Dally",Cos he called a strike without a ballot and caused the hardship endured by strikers families. Many were always going to lose their jobs so it would have been better for families to have had time to plan for a new future whilst working than to endure hardship. If you thought the NUM of Scargill amd Mad Mick was the way to go, under free movement you could go to France: www.cityam.com/article/138905909 ... g-tragedy# Au revoir.'" Fook a ballot! He was the only figure from the left of British politics who had the balls to stand up and be counted whilst w@nkers like Kinnock stood back ineffectivrly tossing it off. For that, and being minorly involved in the process, I will always be eternally grateful. The victory is the struggle. =#FF0040Edited

Quote ="Dally",Cos he called a strike without a ballot and caused the hardship endured by strikers families. Many were always going to lose their jobs so it would have been better for families to have had time to plan for a new future whilst working than to endure hardship. If you thought the NUM of Scargill amd Mad Mick was the way to go, under free movement you could go to France: www.cityam.com/article/138905909 ... g-tragedy# Au revoir.'" Fook a ballot! He was the only figure from the left of British politics who had the balls to stand up and be counted whilst w@nkers like Kinnock stood back ineffectivrly tossing it off. For that, and being minorly involved in the process, I will always be eternally grateful. The victory is the struggle. =#FF0040Edited

Really? They may not shout it from the rooftops but they have their vested interests as much at their side as Scargill did.

In any case the point is whatever the unions did its how government reacted to it that determined their fate.



Many miners lost their jobs under Wilson. 43% of them in fact (of a much larger industry). That is writing your own pay check is it?

They key difference between the two eras is back in Wilson's time the miners accepted pits could close and that they could either move elsewhere in the industry or if not that the economy supported other suitable jobs for them to go to.

In Thatchers time neither of those points applied. Scargill believed Thatcher wanted to destroy the industry not just close 20 pits so there was no alternative employment going to exist within coal mining. And the economy was nothing like as strong as under Wilson and there just weren't the jobs outside the industry to go to.

For these reasons I don't blame Scargill for fighting tooth and nail against what he has been proven right was the plan all along. I thought at the time he was an idiot calling a strike when coal stocks were high and at the wrong time of year but his failings as a leader don't alter that now the truth is out he knew what was coming.

The alternative is responsible capitalism.

Where companies and individuals don't engage in shady deals, or move money glabally to avoid paying their share of tax. Especially when those same companies are benefitting from the products of other taxpayers' largesse. Look at the companies that make $bns from internet services (Google being just one example), how much did Google invest in starting up the world wide web?

The state (in a global rather than domestic sense) is usually the major investor in proposed new technologies. Pioneering medical treatments, communications, alternative fuel technologies, even now-mundane things like colour LCDs (Hull University) were generally pioneered and developed by the state, most of them via the military. The funding for that came from taxation and we are now in the situation where private and publicly quoted companies feel it is somehow right to avoid putting anything back into the system.

Have a look at some of the works of [url=http://www.marianamazzucato.com/Mariana Mazzucato[/url especially [url=http://www.demos.co.uk/files/Entrepreneurial_State_-_web.pdfThe Entrepreneurial State[/url

I accept that the so-called socialist states that we've seen so far have not been raging successes but unregulated capitalism can hardly be called anything like a success either. One thing is certain, rolling back the state will lead to a reduction in responsibility, we're already seeing that in the NHS, where the Secretary of State for Health (Hunt) is seeking to absolve himself of any responsibility for what happens in the NHS. That must not be allowed to continue.

Back on the original topic, it's also interesting to read about [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_CollieryTower Colliery[/url, a mine deemed uneconomic and earmarked for closure, yet the miners bought it and worked it for another 14 years.

:1h8wx5zw

This.

To add: why would anyone assume that the current model of capitalism that we're seeing is the only one?

We only need look at the UK to see that other models are more than possible: if you cannot have responsible capitalism, then businesses such as John Lewis or Richer Sounds should not be successful.

On the Mazzucato book, it's worth quoting the review from the [i:1h8wx5zwFT[/i:1h8wx5zw This book has a controversial thesis. But it is basically right. The failure to recognise the role of the government in driving innovation may well be the greatest threat to rising prosperity."

In 1974 when Wilson got to power - the miners agreed a 30% wage increase with the NCB - I would say that was writing your own pay check would you not agree?

The introduction of more modern machinery would see a decline in numbers - that is just process improvement nothing to do with Wilson - its just evolution.

I agree with your sentiment re Scargill - my point is how much of what he did was about self-interest i.e. war against the capitalist rulers and all the lefty codswallop. The question for me did he actually shorten the life of the mining industry and cause he members unnecessary hardship just for his own political ambitions. Another point is why did Thatcher pick specifically on the NUM for the fight?

In 1974 when Wilson got to power - the miners agreed a 30% wage increase with the NCB - I would say that was writing your own pay check would you not agree?

The introduction of more modern machinery would see a decline in numbers - that is just process improvement nothing to do with Wilson - its just evolution.

I agree with your sentiment re Scargill - my point is how much of what he did was about self-interest i.e. war against the capitalist rulers and all the lefty codswallop. The question for me did he actually shorten the life of the mining industry and cause he members unnecessary hardship just for his own political ambitions. Another point is why did Thatcher pick specifically on the NUM for the fight?

Its not really news is it. We all knew of her lies. They say history is the only judge. Well the votes have been counted and the polls are in. When she died they had street parties, they danced on her grave. When the man she dismissed as a terrorist died the world mourned. History has judged, her reign was weighed, measured and found massively wanting. She will, forever be remembered for the damage she caused. Its over.

She is irrelevant. Her Children on their ideological crusade are the worry now. They are what needs to be stopped so they don’t leave the legacy she did. Fighting ghosts isn’t going to help.