Labour leadership

[Playa Amodores]

36 minutes ago, Jacko51 said:

Scargill was an idiot.  He must have been aware that the government had built up huge coal stocks before the strike was called then he decided to start his strike in the spring as the demand for coal begins to fall.  Gormley had called the 1972 strike in January in the depth of winter - it was over in two months.  Scargill never called a national ballot on the strike so didn't get the support he anticipated from other unions.  He was crazy to do what he did.

Scar gill, was still living it up whilst miners struggled. Miners who crossed the picket lines were treated as scum and one was killed in Wales when a lump of concrete was dropped off a bridge onto a car passing underneath the bridge. Families even today are split because some crossed the line. Wasn’t Scargill photographed with Gadaffi.

Union leaders do alright for themselves, they aren’t that bothered about the workers who pay subscriptions. Look at the unions who represented out pottery workers of the past. 

[Regal Beagle]

Any "fairer" system that you propose will involve penalising others.

 

You will literally make it less fair for people to make it "fairer" in your eyes.

 

That's the issue that the general public have with socialism and leftists in general.

[bobvale]

There is a difference between penalising and insuring that people pay there fair share.

[geosname]

5 hours ago, Nofinikea said:

I am pretty sure I said fairer society, that's different to fair.  Try reading what was written before you launch into your nonsensical argumentative routine.

 

And you didnt say that the dead were equal you said death was fair.  They are not the same thing no matter how tenuously you try to link them.

Just accept you were shitting before your pants were down and move on.

Not an inch of shift but we are both spliting hairs on death and dead. To be dead death has to occur, it's at the point when death occurs you become equal with everyone who is dead.

So what is fairer? And who decides what fairer is?

Someone has to decide the benchmark and what it is.

If £10 per hour is the minimum someone can live on (ie basic living wage) is it fair to pay pensioners less than that? People on benefits?.... if so how much less would be fair? Basic state pension is approximately £3 per hour basic benefit is less than £2 per hour..... calculated over a 40 hour week.

We could argue that those 2 groups don't need it but then we get into selecting someone to decide need and we move away from fair and become selective.

We could move the definition to working wage but if that's the amount people need to live on it becomes unfair to suggest that if you have done your time, paid your dues or are unemployed you need less to live on. Is it fair that a pensioner who saves money over the years to be safe in their retirement should get less than a pensioner who has splashed it on the giant mothballs in the urinals of hostelries.

Is it fair that a couple who decide not to have kids because they can't afford them should pay for a couple who decide to have kids they know they can't afford?

Is it fair to give the waspi women money because the retirement age was increased or to the men who's retirement age was set unequally to women? The inequality was set against the men by making them work 5 extra years so surely in all fairness they should be compensated? Is it fair to compensate the person/group who gained or the one who was disadvantaged?

[Aussie Rules]

7 hours ago, Jacko51 said:

Scargill was an idiot.  He must have been aware that the government had built up huge coal stocks before the strike was called then he decided to start his strike in the spring as the demand for coal begins to fall.  Gormley had called the 1972 strike in January in the depth of winter - it was over in two months.  Scargill never called a national ballot on the strike so didn't get the support he anticipated from other unions.  He was crazy to do what he did.

Whatever Scargill was, or wasn't, he most certainly wasn't an idiot. In the Thatcher years I don't think he gave a second thought to other affiliate Union leaders' opposition to him, nor do I believe he gave a toss for the Miners. He was living 'The life of Riley' whilst Miners were struggling financially - some in ways that staggered the imagination.

He knew what he was doing, and it was nothing to do with fighting for a lost cause. Rather, in my opinion, a mind game battle of wits with The Iron Lady. Nor do I believe he cared one way or the other he would win the day. It was simply personal.

[geosname]

It seems the dogs of war are loose but can't decide who or what to attack

[Bycarsbill]

7 hours ago, Aussie Rules said:

Whatever Scargill was, or wasn't, he most certainly wasn't an idiot. In the Thatcher years I don't think he gave a second thought to other affiliate Union leaders' opposition to him, nor do I believe he gave a toss for the Miners. He was living 'The life of Riley' whilst Miners were struggling financially - some in ways that staggered the imagination.

He knew what he was doing, and it was nothing to do with fighting for a lost cause. Rather, in my opinion, a mind game battle of wits with The Iron Lady. Nor do I believe he cared one way or the other he would win the day. It was simply personal.

That's a very fair assessment.  Historical distance sometimes blurs fact. You're totally correct, it did undoubtedly become a 'battle of wits' between Scargill & Thatcher and there was only ever going to be one winner of that contest!  Ultimately it was Scargill's intransigence that mainly caused the downfall of the miners.  That together with some unanswered questions about Mineworkers Union funds that allegidly got trousered by Scargill and other Mineworkers Union leaders at the time shows just what a selfish, despicable bloke he was.

[Bycarsbill]

Does anyone else find it quite strange that Mr Hobblesworth who was so vociferous in his support and praise of Jeremy Corbyn all through the general election campaign, has now suddenly gone totally silent on the question of the next Labour leader?  Perhaps he's just hoping for a Lazarus-like re-awakening of Jezza and his socialism project?  Whatever his views, it would be interesting to hear them now!

[geosname]

1 hour ago, Nofinikea said:

A fairer society is quite simple.  In fact the Labour manifesto was aimed at providing just that.  Things like free care for the elderly regardless of means is fair for example.

Other areas are employment, businesses such as Costa for example who fill there shops full of 16 and 17 year olds on 4.20 per hour whilst they avoid tax on huge profits is not fair but Labour wanted to sort this out.

It's not about the wealthy being penalised it's about making sure the poor are not exploited, if that brings the top brass down a peg then it's fair.

Opportunity for everyone regardless of background or wealth, access to the best education regardless of wealth, access to the best medical care regardless of wealth.  All these things are fair.

Nationalised utilities, where profits are used to actually improve things, address green issues and reduce the cost of living for all.  That would be fair.  The vulnerable old person not sitting in the cold and dark through fear of a sky high gas or electric bill, that would be fair.

I could go on.

Anybody who thinks any of those things would not only improve the quality of life for the vast majority of people is clearly inhumane.  Not only would it be fairer it would also make us a better nation, a caring nation and better human beings who arent looking the other way whilst people die of loneliness, too self absorbed in our own luxuries to give a <ovf censored>.

Now the media has told everyone that this was a fairytale wish list.  Quite probably, not much was achievable, certainly over the first 5 years.  Had Labour managed to deliver just a fraction of the list it would have been a start on the way to a fairer, more caring country.  However the media conveniently ignored the fact that nobody has ever delivered on its manifesto ever, especially not the Tories, focussed on ridiculing Corbyn and his wish list and everyone bought it.

The question should be asked, why did billionaire owned media owners back Boris Johnson so heavily and attack Labour so venomously?  The question alone should have been enough for the average person to bulk at voting Tory, but a blind eye has been turned to the country's vulnerable, sick and poor because the reality is most of us are doing ok.

The opportunity has now gone.  Never again will the British people get the opportunity to right this countries wrongs at government level.  Instead we must carry on relying on good people who volunteer at food banks, soup kitchens, shelters, charity shops etc...  problems that should be and could have been dealt with at the very top.

This nation has firmly nailed its colours to the mast, shown its face and is pretty ugly.  The election result is nothing to be proud of for anybody with a shred of humanity.  Its human nature to look after yourself.

Whilst some of you celebrate this Christmas, smug and happy about the direction we have chosen, spare a thought for those in desperate need of a helping hand.

Some of the things you say in the post I totally agree with.... some I don't but that's normal.

My point about fair or fairness is that it's almost impossible to advantage one group without it being disadvantageous to another, that isn't fair or fairness although it may be the right thing to do.

A silly example..... free education for all.... great soundbite.....

It's obvious there are not enough places at uni for everyone so if everyone turned up there would have to be a criteria for entry.... let's say 3 GCSE minimum... people with two would be at a disadvantage and could claim they can't get an education because they aren't educated enough... Is that fair?.... it doesn't mean it's wrong.

Labour's campaign was like a fire sale, similar to a bankruptcy sale where everything had to go under the banner of fair. They tried desperately to get the votes and it came across as trying to buy them.... jobs for stoke? After decades of decline suddenly it's on the agenda WOW.... money for waspi women without considering the injustice and discrimination towards the men forced to work 5 years longer again under the banner it was fair, just. Their stance was based on hope over experience on brexit and on and on.... it was a disaster and they want to continue in the same vain.

They ignored the golden rule.... it's easier to change the system from the inside, almost impossible from the outside.... you need to win the election, they didn't even get close to the inside.

If Johnson gets his act together and delivers half of what areas in the red wall have been crying out for it will be 10 years before Labour get another chance, 20 if they don't ditch the far left.

I doubt Johnson will but I doubt Labour will either.

Boris didn't win the election Labour conceded before a vote was cast.

[For Us All]

4 hours ago, Bycarsbill said:

Does anyone else find it quite strange that Mr Hobblesworth who was so vociferous in his support and praise of Jeremy Corbyn all through the general election campaign, has now suddenly gone totally silent on the question of the next Labour leader?  Perhaps he's just hoping for a Lazarus-like re-awakening of Jezza and his socialism project?  Whatever his views, it would be interesting to hear them now!

Tony Blair hit the nail on the head this morning Bill.

[bobvale]

I wish he had hit the nail in to his head instead.

[geosname]

2 hours ago, For Us All said:

Tony Blair hit the nail on the head this morning Bill.

That's probably one of the reasons they will stay on the same path they are on now.

[geosname]

1 hour ago, bobvale said:

I wish he had hit the nail in to his head instead.

It's quite possible jezza will have a few nail holes soon but it won't be a stigmata.... more a crucifixion. 

Can Boris give him a job?..... ambassador to Israel perhaps.... maybe not.

I'll get my coat.

[philpvfc]

1 hour ago, bobvale said:

I wish he had hit the nail in to his head instead.

Agree, why he gets so much TV time is beyond me, also happened when Brexit was going on, he had more TV coverage than Boris or Farage. Guy is evil, and to think I once supported and defended him.

[Joe B]

16 minutes ago, philpvfc said:

Agree, why he gets so much TV time is beyond me, also happened when Brexit was going on, he had more TV coverage than Boris or Farage. Guy is evil, and to think I once supported and defended him.

I mean he isn't evil. This narrative needs quashing.

He made a monumental balls up in being too trusting of flawed intelligence, being too eager to support the US, and not putting a proper plan in place to ensure stability in Iraq post-invasion. It was a rushed, haphazard approach to a very delicate issue, and he was and is widely criticised for such a poor policy decision.

However, he isn't evil. I beg people, please read the Chilcott Report.