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.

~mod hat on~

Cut out the abuse and the follow-on from that.

Perhaps a more relevant and accurate appraisal of the iron Lady can be found in The Economist;

[iJudged from the grand historical perspective, Mrs Thatcher’s biggest legacy was the spread of freedom—with the defeat of totalitarianism in its most vicious form in the Soviet Union, and with the revival of a liberal economic tradition that had gone into retreat after 1945...[/i


The Baroness does indeed still cast a long shadow, and I suspect there will be some who will be forever in it.

=#FF0000Read the AUP on quoting from newspapers etc. Mintball

Behave.

Thousands of people took to the streets of London to see her off.

A few left wings bigots celebrated.

in other news, the peoples daily is a big fan Xi Jinping.

52605 paid money to celebrate her death. There were bonfires and street parties in Brixton, Glasgow, Leeds, Liverpool, Belfast Cardiff, 3000 in Trafalgar Square. All corners of the uk. They asked to hold a minutes silence at the football games that weekend and were laughed out of the room.

As that well known left wing propaganda piece of the left The Economist said " Perhaps no previous recipient of a state send-off—not even William Gladstone—has inspired such loathing as Lady Thatcher."

To be fair, there was that bloke who had "she never turned" tattoed on his shin

It wasn't 52,605 people though was it? It was a few thousand people that purchased a record over and over again.

3000 people in Trafalgar square? Is that it? There were 2,300 at her funeral....

I think you need a bit more evidence to suggest this "History has judged, her reign was weighed, measured and found massively wanting. She will, forever be remembered for the damage she caused. Its over".

You might think this. The majority don't.

It always makes me smile that when all else fails, you left wing types resort to childish insults, and regurgitate the same old nonsense......and best of all, some of you actually believe it!

We are well aware that The Iron Lady was not without her faults, the Poll Tax her most glaring one, and it was the self same faults that lead to her eventual downfall, but as the first woman Prime Minister of Great Britain I think her accomplishments far outweigh the petty antics of the morons you seem to set great store by.

Anyhow, here's the link to replace the paragraphs La Mint [url=http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21576081-margaret-thatcher-britains-prime-minister-1979-1990-died-april-8th-age?zid=309&ah=80dcf288b8561b012f603b9fd9577f0edeleted[/url.

Feel free to make an educated rebuttal of the analyisis.

Can you provide evidence only a few people purchased the track over and over?

And yes that's 3k in Trafalgar Square, with more throughout the towns and cities of Britain.

They didn't celebrate as much when Shipman died. In fact I struggle to remember anyone since Hitler whose death was greeted with as much celebration in this country.

It is forever now, recorded historical fact that large numbers of people actively celebrated her death, whereas the man she dismissed as a terrorist was almost universally mourned. I can think of no more clear cut decision that history can hand down to a PM than dying an old, irrelevant woman, unable to wipe her own bottom, still hated, still reviled, with people dancing on her grave. I don't believe in an afterlife, so that is just about as close to hell as I can imagine.

the only opinion in there was that they were laughed out of the room when discussing a minutes silence for her. In fact what fans group said was "it would be a disgrace and an insult to all football fans"

Everything else I put is recorded fact