The Political Compass

[MatBin]

Don't know where to start with this but here goes.

You think that the miners were "bullies" - unbelievable considering the sacrifices and hard work they did for this country.

In my view they tried to bully for extra wages at the expense of other workers, there's a certain income a country can pay to it's workers, be they nationalised or private companies, so if one section gets 20% extra another section cannot, unless productivity goes up to match the extra costs. If it's a nationalised industry tax has to pay for it, if it's private it's the price you pay for the goods or services. So yes I think they were bullies. I also said they were bullied but you seem to have ignored that. In the battles of Miners vs Government I don't believe there have been any "winners". Good people thrown on the unemployed scrap heap and political leaders show up as uncaring. The union leaders didn't come out of it too good either, calling illegal strikes, living in union paid for palaces with massive pensions etc.

Anyone, for any reason using poisonous gas is a war criminal.
I never said I condoned his actions, I said he would be viewed differently if he hadnt steered us to victory in WW2.

So, you think it is OK to steal another country's natural resources, ensuring that the people of that country live in poverty? The reason you think it is OK, is because it makes our own lives more comfortable - gotcha, think I know where you are coming from there, and it isn't a healthy place.
I didnt say it was OK, I said it happened, you think our wealth today hasnt been on the backs of stealing off others resources or wealth, the Victorians, our being Great Britain with an empire on which the sun never set, all the locals gave us this because they liked us and wanted to share their wealth, WE have a guilty history?

The 1972 miner's strike lasted just over one month, and they took action because their wages had dropped well behind those in manufacturing industry, which is pretty diabolical considering what miners had to put up with.
And it wasnt timed to do the utmost maximum damage to the Country? Hardly the actions of loyal people, no it was timed to inflict as much political damage as possible to a Conservative Govt. A party they hated. Their wages dropped under the previous Labour Govt but they didnt strike then. (I'm not taking sides here as my politics apparently is left of Ghandi )
Sometimes you work in a job and the salaries drop for a variety of reasons, you dont have a continued right to parity just because.......... you always have or your job is more dangerous or whatever. As an aside my industry has collapsed in the last 2 years, my salary in another is 50% what I used to get, should I bleat, should I and the guys that worked in my industry march to Downing St demanding work isnt offshored , would it be ok if we held the country to ransom by blockading gas and oil imports?

The miner's strikes in 1984/85 happened because it was a protest against the pits being closed by Thatcher, and the subsequent thousands of job losses, totally changing many areas in industrial England and Wales.
Again you are putting words in my mouth, personally I think it far better to pay a UK worker a fair wage to do something rather than put him/her out of work and import whatever it was he/she (better be PC here) produced even if the imported stuff was "cheaper", I take the total cost into consideration, cost of imported product and cost of dole etc, and that's without even considering the impact it has on the local economy. I said other workers were fed-up with 3 day weeks, bins not being collected etc and that's what helped Thatcher get in, the miners and the striking unions paved the way for her to crush the unions and we are all paying for it to this day. A lot of hard working people lost their jobs and I'm truly sorry for that. I've been out of work a few times and it's awful so I'm quite Liberal in my view of what we do to keep people in paid work. Unfortunately industries die, new ones take their places and there are casualties, how you handle those casualties is what defines you as a caring society and tbh I dont think any Govt has come out of it well.

 

[cambsno]

Don't know where to start with this but here goes.
You think that the miners were "bullies" - unbelievable considering the sacrifices and hard work they did for this country.
Anyone, for any reason using poisonous gas is a war criminal.
So, you think it is OK to steal another country's natural resources, ensuring that the people of that country live in poverty? The reason you think it is OK, is because it makes our own lives more comfortable - gotcha, think I know where you are coming from there, and it isn't a healthy place.
The 1972 miner's strike lasted just over one month, and they took action because their wages had dropped well behind those in manufacturing industry, which is pretty diabolical considering what miners had to put up with.
The miner's strikes in 1984/85 happened because it was a protest against the pits being closed by Thatcher, and the subsequent thousands of job losses, totally changing many areas in industrial England and Wales.

These days the use of gas is, but in WW1 it was the norm, it was the way warfare was conducted, and was outlawed in 1925 so use of it before that does not make someone a war criminal. People have to stop judging people in this way over the course of history.

Also, wasn't the miners strike also political in terms of trying to bring down the government, it was not all about pits and jobs.

A little bit tongue in cheek but... So, you think it is OK to steal another country's natural resources, ensuring that the people of that country live in poverty? The reason you think it is OK, is because it makes our own lives more comfortable - a reference to Brexit and why we should keep our NHS going at the expense of other countries by taking their nurses?

 

[Phil V]

Don't know where to start with this but here goes.

You think that the miners were "bullies" - unbelievable considering the sacrifices and hard work they did for this country.

In my view they tried to bully for extra wages at the expense of other workers, there's a certain income a country can pay to it's workers, be they nationalised or private companies, so if one section gets 20% extra another section cannot, unless productivity goes up to match the extra costs. If it's a nationalised industry tax has to pay for it, if it's private it's the price you pay for the goods or services. So yes I think they were bullies. I also said they were bullied but you seem to have ignored that. In the battles of Miners vs Government I don't believe there have been any "winners".

.

Brilliant side step .... Not!

The events we’re discussing are pre First World War, where miners were pretty much being treated as wage slaves by pit owners. The local landowners owned the mines and the housing, and workers were paid subsistence wages which barely left them anything to live on. Round here there were often rent strikes, elsewhere there were strikes. The bottom line is that Churchill sent in troops to calm down civilian unrest.

Whatever you think of miners in the 70’s and 80’s hardly has any bearing on this particular matter.

 

[Phil V]

Good observation, especially as the media will also then criticise our utilities being owned by French, Russians or whoever...

Maybe it was the times (the 70s being a pretty rubbish decade for work and efficiency) and strikes being the overriding factor but were the trains better back then? The jokes about trains being late have been going on for a lifetime. There were issues with public ownership (i.e. British Leyland) and the efficiency (or lack of) from the public companies but having the utilities owned by the state but managed with a private sector style with targets on being efficient way would be the ideal compromise.

Is it realistic though? What would the costs be to re-nationalise Gas, Water etc... not just in terms of the shares but also in terms of job losses?

Well the media has left us with really vivid memories of how the unions were totally responsible for the woes of the 70’s.

Let’s have a look, despite rising inflation, economic growth continued from the 50’s right through to the 70’s, and whilst it slowed it didn’t end until the 80’s when someone decided to do something about the slowdown and completely crashed the economy.

Unions exist to protect workers, things come to a head when management and the unions have no common ground, it’s not the total fault of one side.

Let’s look at BL (as you brought it up), in the 70’s the products were awful, and the unions were unhappy because there was no money.

Meanwhile in France, at Renault the products were awful, and the unions were unhappy because there was no money.

What we did was blame the unions and sell the family silver to get rid of the problem, we now have no British owned car mfr.

What the French did was invest, and make better products, leaving the French taxpayer with money in the bank.

Whether a business is publicly or privately owned, it needs good management and smart investment. You can’t choose crap management and no investment and then blame ‘the workers’, it’s utter nonsense.

 

[MatBin]

Brilliant side step .... Not!

The events we’re discussing are pre First World War, where miners were pretty much being treated as wage slaves by pit owners. The local landowners owned the mines and the housing, and workers were paid subsistence wages which barely left them anything to live on. Round here there were often rent strikes, elsewhere there were strikes. The bottom line is that Churchill sent in troops to calm down civilian unrest.

Whatever you think of miners in the 70’s and 80’s hardly has any bearing on this particular matter.

Sorry Phil we will have to disagree about a side step, my original comments re bullying were to do with post ww2 union activity. I profes to know nothing of pre WW1 mine activity so do not feel qualified to discuss BUT I was very much around in the 70's and beyond.
As far as Churchill's activities towards working class people are concerned I can only re-iterate he put forward some very left wing policies.
I read Thatcher's biography and she too was vilified for some of her actions, stealing the kids milk being one, she was very much against that policy but as a member of the Govt she was obliged to tow the party line and I suspect many ministers are against their respective party policies at some point but are required to tow the line, perhaps Churchill was too in some instances and some could suggest that civil unrest should be controlled, not quashed, for the greater good and stability of the country as a whole.

 

[MatBin]

Well the media has left us with really vivid memories of how the unions were totally responsible for the woes of the 70’s.

Let’s have a look, despite rising inflation, economic growth continued from the 50’s right through to the 70’s, and whilst it slowed it didn’t end until the 80’s when someone decided to do something about the slowdown and completely crashed the economy.

Unions exist to protect workers, things come to a head when management and the unions have no common ground, it’s not the total fault of one side.

Let’s look at BL (as you brought it up), in the 70’s the products were awful, and the unions were unhappy because there was no money.

Meanwhile in France, at Renault the products were awful, and the unions were unhappy because there was no money.

What we did was blame the unions and sell the family silver to get rid of the problem, we now have no British owned car mfr.

What the French did was invest, and make better products, leaving the French taxpayer with money in the bank.

Whether a business is publicly or privately owned, it needs good management and smart investment. You can’t choose crap management and no investment and then blame ‘the workers’, it’s utter nonsense.

Our manufacturing industry is littered with instances of poor management, lack of investment and blaming the workers. I certainly agree with you there and that the Union exists to protect the interests of the worker, sadly the excesses of the unions in the 70's and beyond alienated them from millions of ordinary workers and made it easy for Thatcher to crush them. As I said previously we all are poorer for that.

 

[Phil V]

Sorry Phil we will have to disagree about a side step, my original comments re bullying were to do with post ww2 union activity. I profes to know nothing of pre WW1 mine activity so do not feel qualified to discuss BUT I was very much around in the 70's and beyond.
As far as Churchill's activities towards working class people are concerned I can only re-iterate he put forward some very left wing policies.
I read Thatcher's biography and she too was vilified for some of her actions, stealing the kids milk being one, she was very much against that policy but as a member of the Govt she was obliged to tow the party line and I suspect many ministers are against their respective party policies at some point but are required to tow the line, perhaps Churchill was too in some instances and some could suggest that civil unrest should be controlled, no quashed, for the greater good and stability of the country as a whole.

But the miners were brought up purely because of Churchill. You can’t justify Churchill’s treatment of them based on something they did 70 years later.

 

[MatBin]

But the miners were brought up purely because of Churchill. You can’t justify Churchill’s treatment of them based on something they did 70 years later.

I'm not trying to. One member of the TUC should not gain a massive advantage in circumstances at the expense of another member or members. The rampant inflation and poor productivity could not have been sustained which is why we crashed in the 80's. Something has to be done about it and as I recall the unions weren't demanding investment they were demanding wage rises in the nationalised industries at the expense of those not in unions or in low powered unions.

 

[Phil V]

I'm not trying to. One member of the TUC should not gain a massive advantage in circumstances at the expense of another member or members. The rampant inflation and poor productivity could not have been sustained which is why we crashed in the 80's. Something has to be done about it and as I recall the unions weren't demanding investment they were demanding wage rises in the nationalised industries at the expense of those not in unions or in low powered unions.

But we were discussing Churchill, WTF have the 80’s got to do with it?

 

[MatBin]

Post #35 and then #40 where we moved into bullied and bullying miners unions.

 

[Phil V]

Post #35 and then #40 where we moved into bullied and bullying miners unions.

Just because someone decided to try to ‘justify’ Churchill’s dealings with the miners by attacking them based on what happened 70 years later doesn’t make it a valid argument.

So to clarify, Churchill sent in troops to attack workers who were being abused by pit owners, which is why he’s not held in high esteem in those communities. That can only be seen in its historical context, you can’t justify it by discussing the 80’s, particularly when you have no idea what really happened then either

 

[andya700]

These days the use of gas is, but in WW1 it was the norm, it was the way warfare was conducted, and was outlawed in 1925 so use of it before that does not make someone a war criminal. People have to stop judging people in this way over the course of history.

Also, wasn't the miners strike also political in terms of trying to bring down the government, it was not all about pits and jobs.

A little bit tongue in cheek but... So, you think it is OK to steal another country's natural resources, ensuring that the people of that country live in poverty? The reason you think it is OK, is because it makes our own lives more comfortable - a reference to Brexit and why we should keep our NHS going at the expense of other countries by taking their nurses?

The attacks I am talking about, all happened after WW1, in the 1920's, and Churchill demanded that the attacks were kept secret because he knew that the general public would be outraged. He used them against the Russian Bolsheviks in 1919/20

https://www.theguardian.com/world/s...nston-churchill-shocking-use-chemical-weapons

This probably sheds more light on Churchill than most "popular" sources.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29701767

http://www.rudaw.net/english/opinion/02112014

 

[andya700]

What we did was blame the unions and sell the family silver to get rid of the problem, we now have no British owned car mfr.

What the French did was invest, and make better products, leaving the French taxpayer with money in the bank.

Whether a business is publicly or privately owned, it needs good management and smart investment. You can’t choose crap management and no investment and then blame ‘the workers’, it’s utter nonsense.

I think this is what has killed off much of our manufacturing industry in the UK, the wrong attitude and approach to support, planning and investment.
We used to produce (and still can and do) quality products in many areas.
It sickened me that when Tata steel was going belly up, Cameron was trying to block EU plans to impose tougher tarrifs on Chinese steel.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...s-by-blocking-eu-plans-to-allow-a6962446.html

 

[cambsno]

Well the media has left us with really vivid memories of how the unions were totally responsible for the woes of the 70’s.

Let’s have a look, despite rising inflation, economic growth continued from the 50’s right through to the 70’s, and whilst it slowed it didn’t end until the 80’s when someone decided to do something about the slowdown and completely crashed the economy.

Unions exist to protect workers, things come to a head when management and the unions have no common ground, it’s not the total fault of one side.

Let’s look at BL (as you brought it up), in the 70’s the products were awful, and the unions were unhappy because there was no money.

Meanwhile in France, at Renault the products were awful, and the unions were unhappy because there was no money.

What we did was blame the unions and sell the family silver to get rid of the problem, we now have no British owned car mfr.

What the French did was invest, and make better products, leaving the French taxpayer with money in the bank.

Whether a business is publicly or privately owned, it needs good management and smart investment. You can’t choose crap management and no investment and then blame ‘the workers’, it’s utter nonsense.

I didn't say they were totally responsible, but they had a huge influence, sometimes good management is about making people more productive or reducing jobs in certain areas which the unions always fight. Often with investment, like more machines/automation, which again often result in job cuts. Often the management do need to take workers into account more, but sometimes unions need to take a more business like approach too.

I am really fortunate to work for a great company, where if everyone was like this unions would not be needed. 10% of profit shared between staff equally each year, you are expected to work a 40 hour week but can turn up and go home when you want as long as you work the core hours which is 11-3. All staff are treated as adults and guess what, the company benefit from that as everyone is so engaged. Obviously you couldn't have all companies working like that (i.e. trains) but more and more companies (in the tech area) are great to work for.

 

[cambsno]

Sorry Phil we will have to disagree about a side step, my original comments re bullying were to do with post ww2 union activity. I profes to know nothing of pre WW1 mine activity so do not feel qualified to discuss BUT I was very much around in the 70's and beyond.
As far as Churchill's activities towards working class people are concerned I can only re-iterate he put forward some very left wing policies.
I read Thatcher's biography and she too was vilified for some of her actions, stealing the kids milk being one, she was very much against that policy but as a member of the Govt she was obliged to tow the party line and I suspect many ministers are against their respective party policies at some point but are required to tow the line, perhaps Churchill was too in some instances and some could suggest that civil unrest should be controlled, not quashed, for the greater good and stability of the country as a whole.

Had Churchill got his way in the mid 30s and we had seen Hitler as a threat, a good many working class people would not have died in the resulting war.

 

[woof woof]

I haven't read every post as to be honest I'm tired of some of the views and argument expressed here...

But I just wanted to say that I found the questionnaire poorly done with quite a few questions which I wanted another option for (such as an I can see where you're going but you've made a hash of this and I therefore can't answer box) to the point that I almost gave up and only persisted to see what the end result would be.

Anyway, bottom left corner for me which is probably mostly right despite my frustration with what is IMO a deeply flawed questionnaire.

 

[woof woof]

No.
The ‘centre’ has shifted right, as a country we believe in social care and don’t have an issue with state owned .... but do have an issue with a totally free market, but modern politics has moved into a bubble where those perfectly reasonable things are seen as ‘loony left’.

I wonder where in the world a totally free market exists?

We in the UK probably have one of the freest but even so it's not completely free and there are limits and occasional government involvement.

What I'd like to see in the UK is a much more interventionist approach in the interests of not only the greater good but also for the good of us. One phrase which used to be use is "a level playing field" but there rarely is one as usually our side operates in a relatively free market whilst the competition receives much more help and support from a friendly home government. We see this even when we're in competition with our friends in Europe where there's supposed to be a free market.

 

[onomatopoeia]

Economic Left/Right: -2.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.41

Much as I expected really and little different to previous attempts at this. I'd still rather gouge out my own eyes with a rusty fork than vote Labour though.

Edit : Ghandi was far to authoritarian for my tastes, ditto Corbyn. Even the Greens are.