Why do so many people take ANY excuse to have a go at railway staff and Bob?

[CosherB]

Of course, if Maggie had put funding into manufacturing, then the Implementation of new CNC machining techniques, and increased automation could have equaled out chinese labor costs.

As I said in an earlier post, it is not government's job to run industries - they are rubbish at it. If you are just talking about the government putting taxpayers' money into industries, the only reason to do that is if that cash injection will enable the company to go on to greater things and pay back that public investment and more! An example is the state's rescuing of Rolls Royce aero engines after they went bankrupt over developing the RB211 engine. That company has been a fantasic success ever since so that public money was well spent.

Putting public money into hopeless cases is just a wste of that money. An example was when Tony Benn sunk a load of our money into Upper Clyde Shipbuilders. UCS were an uncompetitive company that was going nowhere aginst more efficient foriegn competition and predictably they went under despite the cash injection taking that wodge of taxpayers' money with them. Benn had followed political dogma instead of good business sense, and we the taxpayer paid the price.

A car manufacturer or engineering business should be investing in its own CNC machines. If it isn't, that's an example of poor management in not ploughing money back into the business to keep it healthy. Government stepping in and buying those machines is not the answer.

 

[exile]

It is actually impossible for manufacturing companies to find enough resources for investment themselves. They have to borrow money from banks or other financial institutions. Whether banks are any better at this sort of thing than governments is a moot point.

 

[ainsworth74]

OK - not much consolation to the other 99,000.

No I agree it isn't but my point was that simply suggesting that manufacturing is dead or dying is wrong it simply just isn't an industry that employs thousands of people anymore.

However try suggesting here that railways could be run with less staff and watch the reaction - oddly enough, most of us prefer to hang on to our jobs even if that means our industry isn't as efficient as it could be.

I'm sure you do want to keep your jobs (who wouldn't?) but at the same time you may eventually not have a choice. TOCs given the choice between paying 30k-50k for a driver may well try and find a way of doing things cheaper, namely by introducing ATO where possible. Or by getting rid of guards in favour of barriers and less well paid RPIs.

I think that the point being made is that whilst Unions are doing well by there members in the short term, long term the massive manpower costs that the railway now have will lead to TOCs/DfT trying to find ways of reducing those costs and seeing as pay cuts don't seem to be on the horizon...

 

[CosherB]

It is actually impossible for manufacturing companies to find enough resources for investment themselves. They have to borrow money from banks or other financial institutions. Whether banks are any better at this sort of thing than governments is a moot point.

Yes of course, that what banks are for - to oil the wheels of business. It's not government's job and should not usually involve public money.

 

[Railsigns]

I can find you a dozen Labour MPs who now say that both Brown and Bliar were bad leaders, some of these quotes come from senior members of the their former Cabinets. Your comment proved nothing of substance becasue the facts belie what you are trying to prove.

I didn't say anything about being bad leaders; I said "hostile to the railways". Name me one MP, of any party, who has stood up in Parliament and said that a Labour Prime Minister was hostile to the railways.

Incidentally I have read all the autobiographies of all the key players in the 70s and 80s including both Conservative and Labour Ministers as a background to assembling these facts. I doubt you have done similar.

You're damn right I haven't. I have a life to live.

Unlike you I was working during Labour's previous times in the 70s and I can speak from experience of trying to manage the railway whereas you can simply quote from some source or other or from your own interpretation of what went on.

Know that for a fact, do you? What you don't know, you just make up to suit yourself.

Your quote - and by the way I would like the attribution please -

I'm not going to insult your intelligence. I'm sure you're capable of finding the Hansard archives on-line and using the search facility. You don't need me to spoon-feed you.

So much so that only recently you had to spend time going througfh various Railway Group and Network Rail Compoany Standards to find something with which you could contradict what I had said in a reply to someone else.

Actually I didn't, but so what if I had?

I try as far as possible to ignore yours I suggest you do the same.

Some essential punctuation missing there, I think.

 

[Caped Crusader]

Politics aside, after many years in the a specialist service industry I had enough and kind of fell into a job on the railway.

I can categorically state that in all my years of customer facing experience I have never been treated so badly by the general public. Whilst I sympathise to a certain extent, the vitriol and downright hatred that I encounter on a daily basis is uncalled for and unwarrented.

It isn't all massive pay packets and cushy shifts, in fact for most of us it is mundane, repetative, unsocial hours and a below average wage. I didn't realise that there were two 3 o'clocks in one day until I started on this job.

This isn't a 'I hate my job and no-one understands' post. I have to think myself kinda lucky to be employed in these times. However this is reality. If anyone would like to join me on my night shift on New Years Eve then your more than welcome, 20K a year and the threat of being replaced by a machine that no-one can work.

Still blame Bob, it's better than blaming me.

 

[Maxfly]

Not got great knowledge in the world of politics to be fair but my view is each politician is more or less the same as the next (away from extreme views). On unions, I am in the RMT and while my personal opinion of bob Crowe is that the man is a tool, a tool that can help me get no too bad pay rises in this economic climate though. Yes I think the 'something has happened let's strike and shout about it' is a bit basic and while it gets results, I would like to think they could manage to find a better tactic. I for one know if you keep shouting at me, I will soon ignore or in desperate times belt you lol

Paywise there is a big difference between high paying jobs and others on the railway but as a signaller I can say this, if a siggie complains he is low paid you have found a liar.

 

[Old Timer]

..I'm not going to insult your intelligence. I'm sure you're capable of finding the Hansard archives on-line and using the search facility. You don't need me to spoon-feed you..

So in effect you cannot attribute the source. It is not for ME to verify YOUR statements, it is for you to validate your sources, as I have done mine.

It's undeniable that under all recent governments the decline in UK manufacturing has been steeper than in comparable countries such as Germany. The assumption has been that we can become a powerhouse in the finance industry instead - that worked well didn't it?

That comment fails to recognise that London is STILL the major centre for financial services.

It is only for the year 2010 that London has not been the No. 1 centre, in 2010 it is joint with New York.

The result of being the leading centre is the amount of money that this attracts into the Country and is one of the reasons why it is so difficult to penalise Bankers.

The fault lies primarily not with the banking institutions but with the removal/relaxation of effective Bank of England oversight and independent regulation of what was going on by the Labour Government.

It was in Brown's interest to let the financial institutions run riot (indeed he encouraged it) in his absurd belief that everything would come right because of his obsession that he alone had eliminated "boom/bust".

The move of the various financila institutions from their previous partnership arrangements to listed Companies meant that none of the key players had any personal liability effectively they were on the payroll, rather than owning the Company. Whereas previously the senior partners would have stopped anything high risk there were now no partners only shareholders, and as is always the case in the UK shareholders who want to see continual year on year growth.

Other Countries take a different view of investment, indeed the Germans do not expect any return for at least 10 to 15 years on a long term investment, whereas long term in the UK means 5 years maximum.

Money attracted to this Country generates revenue for the Treasury and anything that is done to reduce that will inevitably result in either cuts or increased taxation.

It is an unforunate fact that a number of people within the financial sector will in effect walk away without penalty however the blame for this must inevitably rest with a Chancellor who set the environment and removed the controls which allowed this to happen.

 

[The Informer]

ALL modes of transport from an essential part of the way we now live our lives. I'd have a 3 mile walk to my nearest train station and that only sees one train in each direction not even everyday (Blaydon). It's at least 4 miles to the nearest station of any use (MetroCentre) and 9 miles to my nearest mainline station (Newcastle Central) How do I get to any of these? By bus. If I was a car driver, I may even drive. Indeed, I have to rely on my car driving Dad to get me back from Morecambe after Christmas due to the lack of any trains (how great is that for a supposed public service?).

Lest we forget, coal WAS essential til the 60s to enable trains to actually move (have you forgotten those things known as locomotives?)! Britain's wealth relied on its coal industry, both for powering its shipping (another thing you claim has never been essential which is utterly laughable for anyone who has an even basic understanding of the history of our nation!), running its power stations and heating its homes. Coal is STILL an essential resource in terms of creating electricity, the only difference is we now import it (at great social cost to whole swathes of communities in Wales, Yorkshire and the North East). No one knows what would have happened to the coal industry had things panned out differently. However, most commentators agree that Arthur Scargill almost single-handedly destroyed the industry he purported to be trying to protect. For him, it wasn't about saving the jobs of miners but in completely overthrowing the democratically elected government. Margaret Thatcher, for all her flaws (and my word there are many!), had her hand dealt for her in many ways. Scargill's actions caused the downfall of an entire industry.

I'm no car lover, but they are essential for many people to enable them to go about their daily lives. I choose to restrict myself to buses, but that does restrict where I can live and equally where I can work. Since deregulation, only the profitable routes survive which leaves many estates, villages and rural areas totally without public transport provision. For those people the car IS essential and by extension, the car building industry IS essential. To claim the railways are somehow more important than anything else is at best the misguided rose tinted view of an enthusiast and at worst completely false.

To get back on topic, I don't believe the vast majority of rail users do take any excuse to have a go at railway staff. I would say that I personally believe that they are extremely lucky to get the kind of renumeration they do and I find it very irksome when you see some of the initial demands of rail unions whenever pay negotiations take place, even if they are simple bargaining tools. As for Bob, he's just an objectional person. He represents his members well internally, but externally he is the reason so many people dislike the RMT and, sadly, sometimes that means by extension its members. I'll always remember him for his foul mouthed tirade at Morecambe Football Club's manager during at match at Dagenham at couple of years ago which showed him in his true colours. Incidentally, he may talk the talk as some kind of true left-wing warrior, but anyone with his salary could never be anything more than a champagne socialist!

Finally, the actions of unions in the late 70s and early 80s caused the stripping away of the so-called power of said unions. The actions of unions in 2011 may well be the catalyst for further union reform, most specifically a changing in rules so that at least 50% of union members would have to vote in a ballot before results become valid. Unions play a very dangerous game of cat and mouse. All of them, including the RMT, need to tread very carefully over the next 2 years.

Spot on!

 

[CosherB]

Just heard on a prog on R4 by Stephen Fry about the growth of mobile phones - prior to Maggie (so that'd be under old Labour, then) there was no hope of developing mobiles in UK as the Home Office would not release the required radio frequencies and the then still publicly owned BT weren't interested in getting off their fat behinds.

Maggie changed that. She decided UK would be a leader in mobile technology (which we still are - better than coalmining eh?). She kicked the Home Office and told them to release the frequencies, she licenced Vodaphone as the private sector operator, and told BT to get off their fat behinds and compete with Vodaphone with the Cellnet network (she'd have liked to have it all private sector driven, but wanted BT in there because even then she had an eye to privatising them).

Without that happening, UK would have have lagged way behind in mobile comms, a vibrant and profitable industry, and instead we'd be paying a foreign supplier to set up and run our network, years behind everyone else.

She made things happen! it was a tonic for those of use at the time who had watched helplessly as Callghan famously turned a blind eye to the collapsing UK economy where nothing worked.. ("crisis? What crisis?") to see her kicking backsides and handbagging the lazy and generally getting UK plc turned around, back on its feet, being competitive on world markets once again... and going from a bunch of no-hopers to a leading power in Europe.

If she's a witch, I'm gonna start buying shares in broomsticks!

 

[DarloRich]

and in doing so destroyed entire industries and entire towns in the north east ( and elsewhere) So good for the economy that many people in these areas have not worked since. But hey, I'm all right Jack

Those in the south might have forgotton what her and her ilk are like - we in the north, who took the brunt of her "reforms", havent and wont

 

[Schnellzug]

She made things happen! it was a tonic for those of use at the time who had watched helplessly as Callghan famously turned a blind eye to the collapsing UK economy where nothing worked.. ("crisis? What crisis?")

Oho! if anyone wants to complain about people misattributing famous comments attributed to Prime Ministers, there's one that they might like to pick over ....

"'Crisis? What crisis?'

On 10 January, James Callaghan arrived back from a summit in Guadeloupe in the middle of the lorry drivers' strike. Having been tipped off that the press were present, his press secretary Tom McCaffrey advised him to say nothing and return immediately to work, but his political adviser Tom McNally thought that the image of Callaghan returning and declaring his intent to take control of the situation would be reassuring. Callaghan therefore decided to give a press conference at Heathrow airport. To McNally's dismay Callaghan was jocular and referred to having had a swim in the Caribbean during the summit. He was then asked (by a reporter from the Evening Standard) "What is your general approach, in view of the mounting chaos in the country at the moment?" and replied:
"Well, that's a judgment that you are making. I promise you that if you look at it from outside, and perhaps you're taking rather a parochial view at the moment, I don't think that other people in the world would share the view that there is mounting chaos."
The next day's edition of The Sun featured the famous headline "Crisis? What crisis?" with a subheading "Rail, lorry, jobs chaos—and Jim blames Press", condemning Callaghan as being "out of touch" with British society.[6]"
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Just heard on a prog on R4 by Stephen Fry about the growth of mobile phones - prior to Maggie (so that'd be under old Labour, then) there was no hope of developing mobiles in UK as the Home Office would not release the required radio frequencies and the then still publicly owned BT weren't interested in getting off their fat behinds.

Maggie changed that. She decided UK would be a leader in mobile technology (which we still are - better than coalmining eh?). She kicked the Home Office and told them to release the frequencies, she licenced Vodaphone as the private sector operator, and told BT to get off their fat behinds and compete with Vodaphone with the Cellnet network (she'd have liked to have it all private sector driven, but wanted BT in there because even then she had an eye to privatising them).

Without that happening, UK would have have lagged way behind in mobile comms, a vibrant and profitable industry, and instead we'd be paying a foreign supplier to set up and run our network, years behind everyone else.

She made things happen! it was a tonic for those of use at the time who had watched helplessly as Callghan famously turned a blind eye to the collapsing UK economy where nothing worked.. ("crisis? What crisis?") to see her kicking backsides and handbagging the lazy and generally getting UK plc turned around, back on its feet, being competitive on world markets once again... and going from a bunch of no-hopers to a leading power in Europe.

If she's a witch, I'm gonna start buying shares in broomsticks!

Additionally, (as I've asked before) what is this "UK PLC"? Seeing as the Uk doesn't actually make anything anymore, what does this UK PLc actually do? The Advertising Industry? Public Relations? The Media? All the "Creatives" with their beards and their chianti? Surely no one's going to try to cite the Financial Industry as an example of how successful UK PLC's been, are they?

 

[CosherB]

Where has this idea come from that UK doesn't make anything anymore? Tell that to the workers at Rolls Royce in Derby who make world-beating high tech aero engines. Or thier hundreds of suppilers all over UK. Did you see the program on the McClaren car company on TV on Sunday night? Ditto related suppliers. These are just examples. There are hi tech companies (many quite small) all over UK. What about all those mobile phone companies and the hundreds of suppliers, mast errecters cablers, radio and IT designers, suppliers, installers, maintainers, and thousands more who wouldn't have those jobs if Thatch hadn't kicked off the industry as Stephen Fry described on R4 and made us a leader in mobile comms, not a buyer of the stuff from elsewhere? And that's just one industry!

UK has moved up from the bottom feeders in heavy industry (foundrys, digging coal out of holes in the ground by hand, welding ships together, doing mindless repetitive factory jobs etc) to more specialised areas. Our manufacturing is a few levels up, and we do a great deal of specifying and designing stuff that the new bottom feeders in Taiwan make far cheaper than we can. The mis-match I see is that our education system hasn't kept up, and we are still turning out people from schools and colleges who not well fitted to the jobs that have replaced those old ones. And any way there are fewer new jobs than those that went east. But there's nothing the gov can do about that except declare war on taiwan (only joking).

And I say AGAIN! Thatcher DID NOT close down those bottom feeding industries. They were already dead on their feet and would have gone anyway. Where to? Taiwan, mostly! Nothing to do with Thatch, everything to do with globalisation and cheap imported open-cast coal. Do you honestly think that if Thatch hadn't come along that all those coal mines would still be sending men into the bowls of the earth when you can get the stuff cheaper elsewhere? That we'd still be building ships on Tyneside if others do it cheaper?

But hey. It's easier to select a hate figure to dump on than to face the complex facts in a changing world.

 

[table38]

What you are forgetting (and has been mentioned already in this thread) was that shipbuilding, coalmining and steelworks were already in long-term decline well before Thatcher became Prime Minister. The situation was not helped by the Global Recession in the early 1980s (and look how keen the last government are to blame our current problems on a "Global Recession")

Foreign imports were undercutting shipbuilding, coalmining and steelmaking, but perhaps most tellingly "The refusal to prop up lame ducks with public money was one of the most aggressively stated of Tory policies" (Journalist and Biographer Hugo Young)

Whilst the left try to portray Thatcher as "the most hated Prime Minister", she became the first British Prime Minister to win three consecutive general elections since 1827. The actual facts from her three election victories suggest she must have been doing something right.

Year	Majority	Con	Lab	Lib/Alliance
1979	43		43.9%	36.9%	13.8%
1983	144		42.4%	27.6%	25.4%
1987	101		42.3%	30.8%	22.5%

Where has this idea come from that UK doesn't make anything anymore?

I often wonder that myself. Whenever anyone suggests we leave the EU, we are told that we do the vast majority of our trade eithin the EU... which wouldn't be easy if "Thatcher had destroyed all of UK Industry".

Similaly we are always told that "Margaret Thatcher (Milk Snatcher) took the milk away from schoolkids" yet here's an article in the Daily Mirror (in case anyone accuses me of bias) which makes me wonder how David Willets could be taking away school milk that had already gone.

(The facts are of course that the Education Act 1944 provided free milk in schools to all children in the United Kingdom under the age of 18 until 1968 when Harold Wilson’s Labour Government withdrew free milk from secondary schools. This policy was extended in 1971 when Margaret Thatcher (then secretary of state for education) withdrew free school milk from children over seven)

 

[SteveP29]

The mis-match I see is that our education system hasn't kept up, and we are still turning out people from schools and colleges who not well fitted to the jobs that have replaced those old ones.

But whether you intended to insult them or not, there is still a massive range of intelligence and intellect in this country. You cannot completely 'replace' a whole range of jobs. Automation and cost cutting seems to have done in a lot of menial positions (eg bus conductors), so how do you propose to help those less academically advantaged into having a career that gives them prospects? Or do you propose to throw them to the mercy of the benefits system like successive governments have seen fit to do?
Without being insulting to those of a lower intelligence or ability, there is still a need for low skilled work in this country, why do you think that there is a man in every men's toilet in almost every city centre pub selling aftershave, mints and contraceptives? Again, without being prejudiced, if they could do a better job in another industry, they'd be there, believe me.

Even if the education system was state of the art and had the best facilities in the world available to it, there'd STILL be a number who would fall below the standards required for the higher skilled jobs market you talk about, so, again, do we sweep them under the carpet and forget about them, like they used to do with the mentally disabled?

 

[CosherB]

Even if the education system was state of the art and had the best facilities in the world available to it, there'd STILL be a number who would fall below the standards required for the higher skilled jobs market you talk about, so, again, do we sweep them under the carpet and forget about them, like they used to do with the mentally disabled?

Let me turn that around. What would you do about that?

 

[DarloRich]

But hey. It's easier to select a hate figure to dump on than to face the complex facts in a changing world.

I can’t do selective quotes! (does anyone want to tell me?)

No it isn’t - it is easier just to write off millions of people, treat them like scum and dismiss them. But hey, I’m all right jack.

This is the typical conservative approach - no understanding or empathy about what their policies do to people (who luckily are NOT like them!) No attempt to help those affected by "change" through the transitional period, no attempt to, really, attract replacement jobs to the affected areas , little or no help with retraining or re education. Instead they just create wastelands both physically and financially , but hey I’m all right jack!

No one with any experience of these "bottom feeding" industries (which lets not forget helped keep YOUR lights on and YOUR house warm) thinks they could continue as they were. There had been decades of under investment, a lack of modern equipment, over manning, bad practices etc. Things had to be changed. Please not change NOT obliteration. There were and are massive reserves of coal waiting to be extracted, many pits were not in a mess and were not making losses - yet they were still closed. One wonders why?

The main point for me is that the Conservative government refused even to pay for the pumping out if mines that were still viable, mines that could even today be providing coal to keep our lights on, and helping to pay off our southern banking ( tally ho chaps – I’m all right jack) inspired deficit, which means that it will be almost impossible to reopen these mines. One wonders why.

Scargill was an idiot - but he was right - Thatcher and her lot DID want to destroy an entire industry, if not an entire way of life. Why? You have to wonder.......................................

 

[Schnellzug]

Where has this idea come from that UK doesn't make anything anymore? Tell that to the workers at Rolls Royce in Derby who make world-beating high tech aero engines. Or thier hundreds of suppilers all over UK. Did you see the program on the McClaren car company on TV on Sunday night? Ditto related suppliers. These are just examples. There are hi tech companies (many quite small) all over UK. What about all those mobile phone companies and the hundreds of suppliers, mast errecters cablers, radio and IT designers, suppliers, installers, maintainers, and thousands more who wouldn't have those jobs if Thatch hadn't kicked off the industry as Stephen Fry described on R4 and made us a leader in mobile comms, not a buyer of the stuff from elsewhere? And that's just one industry!

UK has moved up from the bottom feeders in heavy industry (foundrys, digging coal out of holes in the ground by hand, welding ships together, doing mindless repetitive factory jobs etc) to more specialised areas. Our manufacturing is a few levels up, and we do a great deal of specifying and designing stuff that the new bottom feeders in Taiwan make far cheaper than we can. The mis-match I see is that our education system hasn't kept up, and we are still turning out people from schools and colleges who not well fitted to the jobs that have replaced those old ones. And any way there are fewer new jobs than those that went east. But there's nothing the gov can do about that except declare war on taiwan (only joking).

And I say AGAIN! Thatcher DID NOT close down those bottom feeding industries. They were already dead on their feet and would have gone anyway. Where to? Taiwan, mostly! Nothing to do with Thatch, everything to do with globalisation and cheap imported open-cast coal. Do you honestly think that if Thatch hadn't come along that all those coal mines would still be sending men into the bowls of the earth when you can get the stuff cheaper elsewhere? That we'd still be building ships on Tyneside if others do it cheaper?

But hey. It's easier to select a hate figure to dump on than to face the complex facts in a changing world.

yay, britain is a leader in 250 mph supercarrs. Well, frankly, I say big deal. So anything that makes or produces anything essential, like energy or fuel or the ships on which our trade depends, they're all "bottom feeding" then, are they? The lowest of the low. They're just not glamorous enough. They'd never get Clarkson excited. And that's what's important, I suppose; Glamour, never mind if we have to import all the coal and have everything built for us in Korea and China, they're not glamorous enough, so they're not important. :roll:

 

[ANorthernGuard]

What you are forgetting (and has been mentioned already in this thread) was that shipbuilding, coalmining and steelworks were already in long-term decline well before Thatcher became Prime Minister. The situation was not helped by the Global Recession in the early 1980s (and look how keen the last government are to blame our current problems on a "Global Recession")

Foreign imports were undercutting shipbuilding, coalmining and steelmaking, but perhaps most tellingly "The refusal to prop up lame ducks with public money was one of the most aggressively stated of Tory policies" (Journalist and Biographer Hugo Young)

Whilst the left try to portray Thatcher as "the most hated Prime Minister", she became the first British Prime Minister to win three consecutive general elections since 1827. The actual facts from her three election victories suggest she must have been doing something right.

Year	Majority	Con	Lab	Lib/Alliance
1979	43		43.9%	36.9%	13.8%
1983	144		42.4%	27.6%	25.4%
1987	101		42.3%	30.8%	22.5%

I often wonder that myself. Whenever anyone suggests we leave the EU, we are told that we do the vast majority of our trade eithin the EU... which wouldn't be easy if "Thatcher had destroyed all of UK Industry".

Similaly we are always told that "Margaret Thatcher (Milk Snatcher) took the milk away from schoolkids" yet here's an article in the Daily Mirror (in case anyone accuses me of bias) which makes me wonder how David Willets could be taking away school milk that had already gone.

(The facts are of course that the Education Act 1944 provided free milk in schools to all children in the United Kingdom under the age of 18 until 1968 when Harold Wilson’s Labour Government withdrew free milk from secondary schools. This policy was extended in 1971 when Margaret Thatcher (then secretary of state for education) withdrew free school milk from children over seven)

Admittedly a lot of British Industry was in decline. HOWEVER that ghastly woman and her party destroyed whole communities and lives with there policies, Now I am not saying Labour are perfect but they have always been more for the people and the Tories always come across as more for themselves, The Unions went too far in the 70s/80s along with that plank Scargill (who almost did as much damage to the coal industry as Thatcher and The Tories. But as already mentioned we have some of the most restrictive Union laws in the EU and it would be so hypocritical of any government to bring in the 50% rule, Whether the Tories like it or not, they are Vilified by a hell of a lot of people, Cameron was so confident he would win the Election with a CLEAR Majority, that didn't happen by a country mile, people were fed up with Labour but so many people would never Trust the Tories and the ConDem Coalition is destroying any Credibility the Lib Dems have had.

 

[CosherB]

DarloRich, you are presenting yourself as a victim. Stuff happens to you and it seems there's nothing you can do about it - not your fault. The world changes, you don't, you just whinge that 'things are not what they were'. Of course they are not! The only certainty is change - nothing stays the same for long.

There's a letter in today's Guardian you should read objecting to a whingy piece in the paper decrying the decline of heavy industry in the North East. This letter points to such industrial success stories as Nissan at Washington where more than £400,000,000 is being invested in the new electric Nissan Leaf and its battery plant. He also mentions Zytronic, Glaxo-SmithKline, Caterpillar, Union Electric Steel, P&G, Millar UK, Hart Biologicals, JDR Cables, and more. He even mentions two sucessful builders of specialist ships; A&P at Hebburn, and Alnmaritec at Blyth. All these are world-leading companies in the North East.

Now, tell me we don't make anything anymore! And don't be a victim! You have power over your destiny (you're a human being fer chrissake!) and should not rely on others to put it all on a plate in front of you!

 

[table38]

Scargill was an idiot - but he was right - Thatcher and her lot DID want to destroy an entire industry, if not an entire way of life. Why? You have to wonder.......................................

Where Scargill went wrong was saying he "was going to bring the country to it's knees", something for which he had no support amongst the general population.

Thatcher took him on, and won, and went on to get re-elected in 1987.

Someone (I can't remember who) said it's just as well Thatcher took on the unions otherwise we'd all be driving around in Austin Allegros

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Where Scargill went wrong was saying he "was going to bring the country to it's knees", something for which he had no support amongst the general population.

Thatcher took him on, and won, and went on to get re-elected in 1987.

Someone (I can't remember who) said it's just as well Thatcher took on the unions otherwise we'd all be driving around in Austin Allegros

I work all day on British Leyland 142's thats even worse lol

 

[Schnellzug]

There's a letter in today's Guardian you should read objecting to a whingy piece in the paper decrying the decline of heavy industry in the North East. This letter points to such industrial success stories as Nissan at Washington where more than £400,000,000 is being invested in the new electric Nissan Leaf and its battery plant. He also mentions Zytronic, Glaxo-SmithKline, Caterpillar, Union Electric Steel, P&G, Millar UK, Hart Biologicals, JDR Cables, and more. He even mentions two sucessful builders of specialist ships; A&P at Hebburn, and Alnmaritec at Blyth. All these are world-leading companies in the North East.!

A common characteristic of many of which is that they're foreign-owned, so therefore all the profits go to the owners in America, Germany, Korea or wherever. Even the manufacturing plants that we do have are just satellites of global multinationals, so we're effectively just generating profits for Foreign companies. It always makes me laugh when I see Bombardier referred to as a 'British' company.
And there may be successful builders of specialist ships, but how many merchant ships - cargo or passenger- have been built in UK yards for British owners in the last decade? And would you try to tell me that they're not necessary for the Economy? Even CalMac and Wightlink have to order them from Croatia or Poland, when ten years ago they wouldn't imagine having anything not British built.

 

[table38]

I work all day on British Leyland 142's thats even worse lol

At the risk of sounding even more like Jeremy Clarkson, I therefore conclude that anyone who hates 142s also hates British Industry and therefore is a closet fan of Margaret Thatcher

 

[ANorthernGuard]

At the risk of sounding even more like Jeremy Clarkson, I therefore conclude that anyone who hates 142s also hates British Industry and therefore is a closet fan of Margaret Thatcher

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo



Evil Evil Neighbour lol

 

[DarloRich]

DarloRich, you are presenting yourself as a victim. Stuff happens to you and it seems there's nothing you can do about it - not your fault. The world changes, you don't, you just whinge that 'things are not what they were'. Of course they are not! The only certainty is change - nothing stays the same for long.

There's a letter in today's Guardian you should read objecting to a whingy piece in the paper decrying the decline of heavy industry in the North East. This letter points to such industrial success stories as Nissan at Washington where more than £400,000,000 is being invested in the new electric Nissan Leaf and its battery plant. He also mentions Zytronic, Glaxo-SmithKline, Caterpillar, Union Electric Steel, P&G, Millar UK, Hart Biologicals, JDR Cables, and more. He even mentions two sucessful builders of specialist ships; A&P at Hebburn, and Alnmaritec at Blyth. All these are world-leading companies in the North East.

Now, tell me we don't make anything anymore! And don't be a victim! You have power over your destiny (you're a human being fer chrissake!) and should not rely on others to put it all on a plate in front of you!

I never for one minute suggested we don’t make anything anymore - point out where i said that. My post was relating to the mining industry.

Personally, I am far from being a victim, I have a good life, a good education, a good job and I feel I have been lucky. Lots of people are not that lucky. Lots of people in the north east and others areas ARE victims of Conservative policy (but hey I'm all right jack!) Yes people have to seek opportunities for work, of course they do, but those opportunities actually have to exist. In many areas they do not. is that right?

I notice that you didn’t answer any of the points I made I about conservative policy. Did it have to be extinction? Even for the profitable pits? Did an entire industry have to be destroyed? Did entire towns have to be decimated? Did millions of people have to be written off? Why were the profitable pits not enhanced? Why were the pits that could have been profitable not brought up to standard with new equipment and investment? WHAT did our conservative friends do to help these people once they decided to destroy the entire industry?

I also can’t recall saying that there were no jobs in the north east. Please show me where I did. As I said my post was directed at the destruction of the mining industry. Those employers your correspondent referred to are shining lights for the north east. I just wish there were more. (BTW technically A&P are no longer ship builders but now ship fabricators - they take ships built elsewhere and fit them out, convert them etc) Oh and your correspondent missed another good news story for the north east - SSI are to reopen the blast furnace and works at Lackenby. These jobs, however, will be but a drop in the ocean when the CONDEM public sector cuts kick in.

However there are still to many people in the north east, and elsewhere, for whom there are no opportunities, who have been let down by successive governments and who no one seems to care about. But hey I'm all right jack!

 

[SS4]

But as already mentioned we have some of the most restrictive Union laws in the EU and it would be so hypocritical of any government to bring in the 50% rule, Whether the Tories like it or not, they are Vilified by a hell of a lot of people, Cameron was so confident he would win the Election with a CLEAR Majority, that didn't happen by a country mile, people were fed up with Labour but so many people would never Trust the Tories and the ConDem Coalition is destroying any Credibility the Lib Dems have had.

The level of hypocrisy showed in the 50% rule is sickening. Unions might need 50% but 30-40% is good enough for the Tories to get into government (albeit a bit more after their gerrymandering) and I specify the Tories because it's their policy to strangle the poor with utility hikes and job destruction while prevent young people getting on the housing ladder. These policies have long been known in the West Midlands and other urban areas
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Maggie changed that. She decided UK would be a leader in mobile technology (which we still are - better than coalmining eh?). She kicked the Home Office and told them to release the frequencies, she licenced Vodaphone as the private sector operator, and told BT to get off their fat behinds and compete with Vodaphone with the Cellnet network (she'd have liked to have it all private sector driven, but wanted BT in there because even then she had an eye to privatising them).

One private sector company is not what privatisation is about.

Without that happening, UK would have have lagged way behind in mobile comms, a vibrant and profitable industry, and instead we'd be paying a foreign supplier to set up and run our network, years behind everyone else.

A world leader in mobile technology? Don't make me laugh! Compare London to Seoul and I'll listen.

 

[table38]

I specify the Tories because it's their policy to strangle the poor with utility hikes

I think that's an outcome rather than a policy, otherwise that's a bit like saying that it was Labour's policy to increase the gap between the rich and the poor, or to cause the death of over 100,000 civilians in Iraq.

"Interestingly" I had to go back to 1935 to find the last time a party won a general election with an outright majority of the votes. Turns out it was Stanley Baldwin (Conservative) with 55%

 

[SS4]

I think that's an outcome rather than a policy, otherwise that's a bit like saying that it was Labour's policy to increase the gap between the rich and the poor, or to cause the death of over 100,000 civilians in Iraq.

Perhaps but I'm yet to see a Tory policy that will help the poor

"Interestingly" I had to go back to 1935 to find the last time a party won a general election with an outright majority of the votes. Turns out it was Stanley Baldwin (Conservative) with 55%

Which suggests the voting system is flawed. Nonetheless, what's good enough for the government is good enough for unions

 

[Old Timer]

A common characteristic of many of which is that they're foreign-owned, so therefore all the profits go to the owners in America, Germany, Korea or wherever. Even the manufacturing plants that we do have are just satellites of global multinationals, so we're effectively just generating profits for Foreign companies. It always makes me laugh when I see Bombardier referred to as a 'British' company.
And there may be successful builders of specialist ships, but how many merchant ships - cargo or passenger- have been built in UK yards for British owners in the last decade? And would you try to tell me that they're not necessary for the Economy? Even CalMac and Wightlink have to order them from Croatia or Poland, when ten years ago they wouldn't imagine having anything not British built.

Corporation Tax, NI Contributions and VAT are all paid in the UK. It is irrelevant to the UK whether or not profit after taxation goes abroad or not. This is simple basic common sense, and demonstrates a lack of understanding of economics, thus completely undermining your "point".