You don't seem to know the difference between you asking your MP to look into a matter of personal importance and what lobbying by vested interests has become.









Nonsense.



Please explain where you get the notion that Unions believed they could bring down governments. You are implying the Unions would strike or whatever for political ends rather than to protect their members interests.



Scargill might have been very happy had the miners strike resulted in an election being called but the only way that would have happened was if something like the information in those papers had come out i.e. that they really did want to close 75 pits not 20 as Scargill said was the agenda. Now [i that [/iwould have sunk the government, not the union telling everyone what they believed to be the true agenda or going on strike.



Had that happened and had the government been exposed and an election resulted, how would that be anti-democratic? Being forced to the country having been exposed as bare faced liars would have been democracy in action would it not?



Instead they lied. Very democratic!







He said "When governments [ucan be brought to their collective knees[/u by unelected, unaccountable people in global businesses then democracy has been shown up"



Not "brought down". You are misquoting the poster here.



As you well know the global banking industry has brought many governments to their collective knees.

This is the first year since Boris took office that fares have not risen above inflation – he still claims that rises are a 'freeze' though. [url=http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/exclusive-boris-johnson-unveils-london-underground-and-bus-fares-freeze-8979229.htmlStory[/url



And in the last couple of years, the electronic boards at bus stops that used to tell you when the next bus was due have been removed. If you want to know that information now, then you can text a number that's advertised at all stops with a number of the stop itself. In other words, this information now costs you money where it was previously part of the service.



Imagine if that happened at railway stations or airports, and arrival and departure boards were removed and you had to pay extra to find out the information.

A couple of things - Scargill called the strike without the correct mandate to do so. That action suggested either a lack of confidence in the outcome or an agenda beyond the best interests of the members.



The strike of 1972 resulted in a state of emergency, the strike of 1974 brought the government down. Scargill had been a very vocal opponent of the Thatcher government well before the strike of 84-85, especially after McGregor was appointed. It would be naive to think Scargill didn't have any political agenda when he called the strike. His ego/self interest has been exposed since with the issues around the flat in the Barbican.

I cannot see any difference conceptually between me lobbying (on something I have a vested interest in) and some "vested interest" (a meaningless, emotive term in this context). Any issue you may have will arise from low-calibre MPs not lobbyists.



The miners effectively brought Heath's government down. They thought they could do the same with Thatcher. IMO, people like Scargill used the membership for their own ends. He did not bother with a ballot and quite a large part of the workforce did not take much persuading to go back in. All the union leadership did was create great personal hardship for its members. To say the strike was not at all politically motivated is NONESENSE. Scargill was aware of the Coal Board / governments plans just as most people in affected areas were. I was not in a mining community but was aware that local power stations had been stockpiling coal for some time. The strike was entirely political - the government was prepared and Scargill took the bait. He knew exactly what he was doing but due to his arrogance and contempt for his membership he lost as did his membership. They lost their jobs more quickly and more to the point suffered a long, hard strike.



Governments lie on lots of strategic issues. They are elected to make decisions for the benefit of "the country". If they felt annihilitating union extremism / strikes (which most people were sick and tired of) was of benefit (which it clearly was) then I have no problem with them lying. It was a matter of"war" (and certainly Scargill thought it was).



The banking industry is irrelevant to the point in issue / thread title. The fact that banks' management and regulation thereof was incompetent was not in anyway an assualt on governments. If countries like ours are content to host the headquarters of huge global banks that are simply too big for our economy that comes down to political failure.

This [url=http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/24345/thank-scargill-helping-thatcher-break-minersarticle[/url should be essential reading for all those whose memories of Scargill are a tad clouded.

You're just spouting the tory mantra when you say the miners brought Heaths government down. The miners at the time, were poorly paid and struck simply for a wage rise. Most of the country agreed and in the ensuing election voted out the Heath government. Had Ted Heath listened to some of his own supporters, he could have settled fairly with the miners and they would have gone back to work.

Looks like your memory is the one that's a tad clouded. There were as many swivelled eyed loons in the tory party back then as there are today and Thatcher was chief amongst them. Did Scargill ask for 20 pits to be closed, or did the nutters running the country at the time decide the enemy within needed eradicating?



Scargill may have been wrong in the way he prosecuted the strike but he was certainly right about the hidden agenda and what would be the long term outcome.

What don't you understand about the killing of him was wrong?

They were justifiably given life sentences for their actions.

Which were reduced to 8 years when the conviction for murder was replaced with one for manslaughter.

And?







No it didn't. The government lost an election. Was industrial unrest and how they failed to deal with it a factor in their defeat? Probably so but had they been seen as in the right they would have won another mandate to govern which they didn't.



The electorate via the democratic process of an election "brought down" that government.



It is no different to Labour having its credibility dented because the 2008 crash happened on their watch and going on to lose the election in 2010. It was a contributory factor in their defeat but only a nutter would suggest they were "brought down" by the bankers.



Governments are judged by the electorate on how they deal with whatever crisis they face and in both 1974 and 2008 the electorate decided they didn't deal with the crisis they faced well enough to win another term.



The phrase "brought down" is pure hyperbole.







I am sure many of the bankers that caused the 2008 crash have political views far to the right of even the last Labour government. Does that make then guilty of acting politically as well as incompetently (and I mean in general not just over the crash)?

Scargill was a political activist that is a world away from the actions of the incompetent bankers. His whole career has been about industrial and political agitation both inside the NUM and the wider trades union movement. His tirade against McGregor was but one example. There were no bankers with anything like the same political agenda.



We must agree to differ on what brought the Heath government down - union action destroyed Heath's government as it did Callaghan's 5 years later.



The difference is pretty obvious the TUC wanted a change of government - Jones/Scanlon/Gormley knew if they could get Heath out and Wilson in they could right their own pay check - and so it proved. It was in their interest to prolong the strike for political change. Even you can't compare that to actions of a number of idiot bankers

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.