51 years

[AndrewJB]

Labour closed more mines than Maggie ever did, but that is never really discussed...

We seem to both agree that Labour under Blair carried on the stitch up of the North yet people seemingly still vote for Labour cos of what Maggie did

As for the North, it became reliant on EU handouts, meaning successive London orientated governments didn't need to bother lifting much of a finger.
The interesting times will start now we are out of the EU and for the first time in decades a London based government will have to look after the whole country.

I’ve already said Blair followed Thatcher’s Neo Liberalism. Coal mines were already privatised before Blair was PM, so I don’t see how he “ closed more than Thatcher”

I’ve said it was a dying industry. My argument is over how that industry should have been managed as it declined. The Tories did nothing.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

I’ve already said Blair followed Thatcher’s Neo Liberalism. Coal mines were already privatised before Blair was PM, so I don’t see how he “ closed more than Thatcher”

I’ve said it was a dying industry. My argument is over how that industry should have been managed as it declined. The Tories did nothing.

Where exactly did I say Blair closed more than Maggie?
I didn't, Labour govs prior to Maggie closed more mines than she did but oddly people seem to ignore that fact and I think it's because they only focus on the battles between police and miners.

Labour didn't do much to manage its decline either, both parties were toss at dealing with it in a reasonable manner.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Militant unions? Why didn’t you reply to my other post that dealt with that subject? The post in which I pointed out that she wrecked the economy and lives of many people and places by killing their jobs and offering them nothing to replace it?

You blame the unions, who were looking out for their members. Yet thatcher planned and fought a war against them.

As for the Falklands War, she wasted lots of money and lives fighting to take them back, when her own cuts lost them. Where is the sense in that?

The unions had been shutting down the country before 1979, why are you ignoring the UK pre-Maggie?

Like I said, take into consideration the damage done to the UK economy by 3 day working weeks, rolling power cuts due to the oil crisis in the early 70's, unions going on strike being supported by other industries etc that had gone on throughout the 70's.

No one really expected the Argies to invade the Falklands, but she couldn't really be expected to let them take it and do nothing to protect the people there.

The Argies keep trotting out the Falklands anytime their ruler needs a distraction but if they tried to take them again in this era I'd expect any UK gov to take them back.

[AndrewJB]

Where exactly did I say Blair closed more than Maggie?
I didn't, Labour govs prior to Maggie closed more mines than she did but oddly people seem to ignore that fact and I think it's because they only focus on the battles between police and miners.

Labour didn't do much to manage its decline either, both parties were toss at dealing with it in a reasonable manner.

Apologies - I misread you. To repeat, it’s how Thatcher dealt with the decline of coal.

[AndrewJB]

The unions had been shutting down the country before 1979, why are you ignoring the UK pre-Maggie?

Like I said, take into consideration the damage done to the UK economy by 3 day working weeks, rolling power cuts due to the oil crisis in the early 70's, unions going on strike being supported by other industries etc that had gone on throughout the 70's.

No one really expected the Argies to invade the Falklands, but she couldn't really be expected to let them take it and do nothing to protect the people there.

The Argies keep trotting out the Falklands anytime their ruler needs a distraction but if they tried to take them again in this era I'd expect any UK gov to take them back.

She crushed the unions. There was no need to do this. As per closing mines, she should have worked with unions.

Read my link and you’ll see the defence of the Falkland Islands was brought up by the head of the navy in a letter to the PM, with him saying the signal we’d send to Argentina is we aren’t interested in defending them. The government knew, and yet made defence cuts anyway. The government failed. The navy saved the day.

[2 Bee Holed]

HELP!!!!

Why is this thread entitled 51 Years?

AC is 56, is it 51 years ago since his first Burnley match?
Why is the length of time since your first Burnley match got anything
to do with him potentially getting a job with a potential take over organisation?

And what has any of this got to do with Thatcher, miners and the Falklands?

[Jakubclaret]

She crushed the unions. There was no need to do this. As per closing mines, she should have worked with unions.

Read my link and you’ll see the defence of the Falkland Islands was brought up by the head of the navy in a letter to the PM, with him saying the signal we’d send to Argentina is we aren’t interested in defending them. The government knew, and yet made defence cuts anyway. The government failed. The navy saved the day.

Please see informative article attached.

https://www.history.co.uk/article/how-t ... -what-cost

[Cornwallclaret]

Keep the politics off this forum ffs.... he’s a Claret.. end of

[Jakubclaret]

Some might be ashamed of the association, whether this needs discussing somewhere else or just pretend it didn't happen, I don't know.

[LordBob]

Pretty sure that no one on here has contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, the displacement of millions and the destabilising of an entire region.

Brilliant and in a nutshell and I think Dr Kelly's family would wholeheartedly agree with you.

[Steve1956]

Is Campbell Pstotto on here? They do seem alike.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

She crushed the unions. There was no need to do this. As per closing mines, she should have worked with unions.

Read my link and you’ll see the defence of the Falkland Islands was brought up by the head of the navy in a letter to the PM, with him saying the signal we’d send to Argentina is we aren’t interested in defending them. The government knew, and yet made defence cuts anyway. The government failed. The navy saved the day.

I read the link cheers.

In regards to the Unions, they weren't interested in any closures or working with the gov, they'd been allowed to hold sway during the 70's and there was no way Maggie would let it carry on.

[TVC15]

Is Campbell Pstotto on here? They do seem alike.

Not so sure about that - they are at different ends of the political spectrum from what I have seen.
If you are referring to something else then it’s probably best to not go there.

[Stayingup]

Standard definition of warmonger..

"" a person who encourages or promotes aggression towards other countries or groups""

You'd seriously contend that neither Trump or Thatcher did this?
If so you're turning into Ringo. Keep it real Rowls.

The question was what wars have they started? Go on mane them.

[Stayingup]

Does Mr Campbell post on here?

[Steve1956]

Not so sure about that - they are at different ends of the political spectrum from what I have seen.
If you are referring to something else then it’s probably best to not go there.

you know what i meant !

[Jel]

Thatcher’s government weakened the Falklands enough to embolden the Argentine government to attack. I don’t think she did this purposely, as taking the islands back was by no means a guarantied thing.


This will be why there were 2 type 42 Destroyers, (which had been built for Argentina), in Portsmouth Harbour with Argentinian sailors. For months they went out to sea, every day with British sailors who were training them up on their shiny new ships.
They were handed the keys and off they popped, just two weeks before Galtieri walked into Port Stanley.
Those of you that think Maggie started this for her own gains need to also should look at the fact Argentina was having its own problems and this invasion was designed to unite the people behind Galtieri.

[TVC15]

you know what i meant !

I did - but tbh don’t think it’s one of those things to make a joke about Steve.
There but for the grace of god springs to mind.

[Steve1956]

I did - but tbh don’t think it’s one of those things to make a joke about Steve.
There but for the grace of god springs to mind.

Campbell is having a very public mental breakdown on Twitter..I sympathise with him but he seems to revel in it turned into a very strange man who you would want nowhere near our club.

[Steve1956]

Does Mr Campbell post on here?

I would be very surprised if he didn't!

[TVC15]

Campbell is having a very public mental breakdown on Twitter..I sympathise with him but he seems to revel in it turned into a very strange man who you would want nowhere near our club.

Aye - you sound full of sympathy for him !
Let’s leave it - we ain’t going to agree on something like this.

[Steve1956]

Aye - you sound full of sympathy for him !
Let’s leave it - we ain’t going to agree on something like this.

Ok.

[Stayingup]

I have heard him a few times on radio and he comes accross very well. He's obviously very articulate.

I wonder what he thinks about modern day politics which has moved in another direction since he's day. Not so much Left - Right now as Culture 'wars' and extreme Political Correctness.

I last saw him sat next to my mate at a Huddersfield Town match. We had great support that day and we won.

[ClaretTony]

Ready for the flak........but why oh why does the club give A Campbell the platform he gets.....

Hopefully if there is a takeover that,ll be the end of him...

I don't know to your question. Very disappointed that he will never get involved in fan issues.

As for 51 years - has anyone not worked it out at the club yet that from 1966/67 to 2018/19 is actually 52 years?

[Cirrus_Minor]

Stayingup wrote: ↑
Mon Oct 12, 2020 11:50 am
Does Mr Campbell post on here?

I would be very surprised if he didn't!

I would be absolutely amazed if he did.

[Steve1956]

I would be absolutely amazed if he did.

Whys that then? he certainly has plenty to say on Twitter!

[Grumps]

I don't know to your question. Very disappointed that he will never get involved in fan issues.

As for 51 years - has anyone not worked it out at the club yet that from 1966/67 to 2018/19 is actually 52 years?

Why would he when he gets preferential treatment, like a personal parking space for his car,when we play at ewood.

[Steve1956]

Why would he when he gets preferential treatment, like a personal parking space for his car,when we play at ewood.

He dosent get bussed in??? Shocking favoratism!!

[Stayingup]

He dosent get bussed in??? Shocking favoratism!!

Jack Straws mate. No all equal are we!!!

[AndrewJB]

I don’t think Thatcher set out to start it. I think the incompetence of her government in denuding the defence of the islands gave the Argentinians the opportunity to capture them. The Falkland Islands were woefully defended, and as a result of government cuts, which went toward tax breaks for the rich. Had it been properly defended, the Argentinians would never have invaded. It’s the typical tory thing of cutting spending and spending a lot more to fix the problem they caused by spending cuts. The cost of the cuts were 255 British dead, as well as 3 locals killed by friendly fire. More serving personnel have committed suicide than the 255 who died during the conflict. Not to mention the dead on the other side. What do the Falklands cost us now, and since then? A lot more than a Tory government tried to save at the time. What a waste, when if they’d not cut spending to such levels (in order to give tax breaks to the rich), the war might never have happened.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War

[Rowls]

I don’t think Thatcher set out to start it. I think the incompetence of her government in denuding the defence of the islands gave the Argentinians the opportunity to capture them. The Falkland Islands were woefully defended, and as a result of government cuts, which went toward tax breaks for the rich. Had it been properly defended, the Argentinians would never have invaded. It’s the typical tory thing of cutting spending and spending a lot more to fix the problem they caused by spending cuts. The cost of the cuts were 255 British dead, as well as 3 locals killed by friendly fire. More serving personnel have committed suicide than the 255 who died during the conflict. Not to mention the dead on the other side. What do the Falklands cost us now, and since then? A lot more than a Tory government tried to save at the time. What a waste, when if they’d not cut spending to such levels (in order to give tax breaks to the rich), the war might never have happened.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War

Nice try AndrewJB.

The article you've linked says nothing that backs up your argument.

Nothing whatsoever.

[AndrewJB]

Nice try AndrewJB.

The article you've linked says nothing that backs up your argument.

Nothing whatsoever.

Okay. I’m open to debate. What do you have to say?

[GodIsADeeJay81]

I don’t think Thatcher set out to start it. I think the incompetence of her government in denuding the defence of the islands gave the Argentinians the opportunity to capture them. The Falkland Islands were woefully defended, and as a result of government cuts, which went toward tax breaks for the rich. Had it been properly defended, the Argentinians would never have invaded. It’s the typical tory thing of cutting spending and spending a lot more to fix the problem they caused by spending cuts. The cost of the cuts were 255 British dead, as well as 3 locals killed by friendly fire. More serving personnel have committed suicide than the 255 who died during the conflict. Not to mention the dead on the other side. What do the Falklands cost us now, and since then? A lot more than a Tory government tried to save at the time. What a waste, when if they’d not cut spending to such levels (in order to give tax breaks to the rich), the war might never have happened.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War

What do the Falklands cost us etc?

Well for starters it's got massive oil fields incase that one had slipped your attention, even the Guardian has reported it though.

[AndrewJB]

What do the Falklands cost us etc?

Well for starters it's got massive oil fields incase that one had slipped your attention, even the Guardian has reported it though.

What did the government save by cutting defences, compared to what the government spent to liberate them and continue to defend than? It was a Thatcher disaster, just like all the money wasted fighting unions, bashing northerners, and ******* away our oil money. Norway have a massive sovereign wealth fund from North Sea oil. We don’t.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

What did the government save by cutting defences, compared to what the government spent to liberate them and continue to defend than? It was a Thatcher disaster, just like all the money wasted fighting unions, bashing northerners, and ******* away our oil money. Norway have a massive sovereign wealth fund from North Sea oil. We don’t.

Probably cost far less than Iraq though......

Norway population is less than 6 million.... Not hard to have a slush fund when you take that into consideration.

So you'd rather Thatcher carry on letting the unions cripple the country like they had in the 70's?
What a stupid mindset to have, honestly that's just bizarre.
The unions wanted to keep open mines that were losing millions...

[AndrewJB]

Probably cost far less than Iraq though......

Norway population is less than 6 million.... Not hard to have a slush fund when you take that into consideration.

So you'd rather Thatcher carry on letting the unions cripple the country like they had in the 70's?
What a stupid mindset to have, honestly that's just bizarre.
The unions wanted to keep open mines that were losing millions...

Leaving the Falklands undefended was a costly and stupid mistake. I was against the Iraq War too.

Having a sovereign wealth fund is a matter of if setting money aside rather than spending it all as Thatcher did.

The unions saw more pits close in the decades before Thatcher than were closed by her. The difference was previous governments put measures in place to help the affected people and communities. Thatcher crushed the unions. The current work climate in this country - zero hours jobs, stagnant and low pay, and unstable employment are all related to this fact.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Leaving the Falklands undefended was a costly and stupid mistake. I was against the Iraq War too.

Having a sovereign wealth fund is a matter of if setting money aside rather than spending it all as Thatcher did.

The unions saw more pits close in the decades before Thatcher than were closed by her. The difference was previous governments put measures in place to help the affected people and communities. Thatcher crushed the unions. The current work climate in this country - zero hours jobs, stagnant and low pay, and unstable employment are all related to this fact.

No gov in the UK has set aside money for a sovereign wealth fund though.

What measures did previous governments put in place to help communities?
The unions weren't interested in negotiating with the gov, Scargill saw to that one, so are you saying you would've preferred the gov to just let the Unions do what they wanted like they did in the 70's?
When Rover finally disappeared it was shown that the plant at Long Bridge was so far out of date compared to the likes of Nissan etc it was just bizarre, but that can be attributed to the Unions behaviour and resistance to change/modernisation.


Zero hours contracts is a Labour legacy.
Unstable employment can be linked to a number of factors, not just zero hour contracts, or Maggie etc.

You honestly sound like you'd be happier in another country, but I'm just not sure where.
Maybe France or the US, their unions still seem to hold a fair amount of sway.

[AndrewJB]

No gov in the UK has set aside money for a sovereign wealth fund though.

What measures did previous governments put in place to help communities?
The unions weren't interested in negotiating with the gov, Scargill saw to that one, so are you saying you would've preferred the gov to just let the Unions do what they wanted like they did in the 70's?
When Rover finally disappeared it was shown that the plant at Long Bridge was so far out of date compared to the likes of Nissan etc it was just bizarre, but that can be attributed to the Unions behaviour and resistance to change/modernisation.


Zero hours contracts is a Labour legacy.
Unstable employment can be linked to a number of factors, not just zero hour contracts, or Maggie etc.

You honestly sound like you'd be happier in another country, but I'm just not sure where.
Maybe France or the US, their unions still seem to hold a fair amount of sway.

Thatcher planned the confrontation with unions. It’s all just a google search away.

In Germany workers are given seats on the board, and unions play a role in how companies progress. If unions are bad things, why is Germany’s industrial policy so successful? Theresa May called for British companies to elevate workers to their boards, and that got scrapped quickly. There’s obviously no appetite among British bosses for such collaboration. In my opinion it should be about consensus. And wage or rights disputes should be settled through binding arbitration. I’m sure that if I looked into the reasons Rover failed, I’d find a lot more than just an unyielding Union.

[bpgburn]

Another thread hijacked and ruined..

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Thatcher planned the confrontation with unions. It’s all just a google search away.

In Germany workers are given seats on the board, and unions play a role in how companies progress. If unions are bad things, why is Germany’s industrial policy so successful? Theresa May called for British companies to elevate workers to their boards, and that got scrapped quickly. There’s obviously no appetite among British bosses for such collaboration. In my opinion it should be about consensus. And wage or rights disputes should be settled through binding arbitration. I’m sure that if I looked into the reasons Rover failed, I’d find a lot more than just an unyielding Union.

Rovers failed through the bosses stealing the money, but they'd had decades where they hadn't modernised the production line, they were doing things in a way that other manufacturers hadn't done for ages.
They were never going to get it profitable, that's why BMW sacked it off and kept Land Rover and mini which is all they wanted.

Wasn't cost efficient etc but Unions don't give a toss about that though.

[Jimmymaccer]

So glad I didn’t get flak for this.....just shows how devisive he is.......

Anyway just realised I can’t watch the soddin thing because it just comes up “server error, your page could not be served”.......

Bloodyhell.........